Financial Services and General Government:
FY2013 Appropriations
Garrett Hatch
Specialist in American National Government
September 14, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42730
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Summary
The Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill provides funding for the
Department of the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President (EOP), the judiciary, the
District of Columbia, and more than two dozen independent agencies. Among those independent
agencies are the General Services Administration (GSA), the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM), the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), and the United States Postal Service (USPS). The Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC) is funded in the House through the Agriculture appropriations bill and in the
Senate through the FSGG bill. CFTC funding is included in all FSGG funding tables in this
report.
On February 13, 2012, President Obama submitted his FY2013 budget request. The request
included a total of $44.6 billion for agencies funded through the FSGG appropriations bill,
including $308 million for the CFTC. The President’s request would increase funding $1.5 billion
above FY2012 enacted amounts.
On June 20, 2012, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 6020, the Financial
Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2013. H.R. 6020 would provide $42.4
billion for agencies funded through the House FSGG Appropriations Subcommittee. In addition,
the CFTC would receive $180 million through the FY2013 agriculture appropriations bill. Total
FY2013 funding provided by the House would be $42.5 billion, about $2.1 billion below the
President’s FY2013 request and $560 million less than FY2012 enacted amounts.
On June 14, 2012, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its FY2013 financial services
bill, S. 3301. The Senate committee’s bill would provide $44.3 billion for FSGG agencies,
including $308 million for the CFTC, for FY2013, which would be $337 million below the
President’s FY2013 request and $1.2 billion more than FY2012 enacted amounts.
This report will be updated as needed.
Congressional Research Service
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments ............................................................................................................. 1
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 2
Budget Control Act.............................................................................................................. 3
FY2012 Appropriations by Title...................................................................................................... 3
Title I: The Department of the Treasury .................................................................................... 3
Brief Summary of FY2012 Appropriations for Treasury Offices and Bureaus................... 6
FY2013 Appropriations for Treasury Offices and Bureaus: President’s Budget
Request, Required Assessments, and Congressional Action............................................ 7
President’s Budget Request................................................................................................. 7
Required Assessments of the Administration’s FY2013 Budget Request for the
IRS ................................................................................................................................. 11
Congressional Action ........................................................................................................ 13
Title II: Executive Office of the President............................................................................... 25
President’s Budget Request and Key Issues...................................................................... 26
House Action..................................................................................................................... 28
Senate Action .................................................................................................................... 32
Title III: The Judiciary............................................................................................................. 35
The Judiciary Budget and Key Issues...................................................................................... 36
Judicial Security ................................................................................................................ 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
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.......................................................................... 40
Federal Judicial Center...................................................................................................... 41
United States Sentencing Commission.............................................................................. 41
Judiciary Retirement Funds............................................................................................... 41
Administrative Provisions ................................................................................................. 41
Title IV: District of Columbia.................................................................................................. 43
The District of Columbia Budget and General Provisions ...................................................... 44
The President’s Budget Request........................................................................................ 44
District’s Budget...................................................................................................................... 44
Congressional Action............................................................................................................... 45
Senate Bill, S. 3301........................................................................................................... 45
House Bill H.R. 6020 ........................................................................................................ 46
Title V: Independent Agencies................................................................................................. 47
Civilian Property Realignment Board ............................................................................... 49
Commodity Futures Trading Commission ........................................................................ 49
Consumer Product Safety Commission............................................................................. 50
Election Assistance Commission....................................................................................... 52
Federal Communications Commission ............................................................................. 52
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of the Inspector General......................... 54
Federal Election Commission ........................................................................................... 54
Federal Trade Commission................................................................................................ 55
General Services Administration....................................................................................... 58
Congressional Research Service
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Independent Agencies Related to Personnel Management Appropriations....................... 61
Federal Labor Relations Authority.................................................................................... 63
Merit Systems Protection Board ....................................................................................... 64
Office of Personnel Management...................................................................................... 64
Office of Special Counsel.................................................................................................. 65
National Archives and Records Administration ................................................................ 66
National Credit Union Administration .............................................................................. 68
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board .................................................................... 68
Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board ........................................................... 69
Securities and Exchange Commission .............................................................................. 69
Selective Service System .................................................................................................. 70
Small Business Administration ......................................................................................... 70
United States Postal Service.............................................................................................. 72
United States Tax Court..................................................................................................... 74
General Provisions Government-Wide.................................................................................... 75
Government Procurement........................................................................................................ 76
Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2013 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations............... 1
Table 2. Financial Services and General Government Appropriations, FY2012-FY2013............... 2
Table 3. Department of the Treasury Appropriations, FY2012 and FY2013................................... 3
Table 4. Executive Office of the President, FY2012-FY2013....................................................... 25
Table 5. The Judiciary Appropriations, FY2012-FY2013 ............................................................. 36
Table 6. District of Columbia Special Federal Payments, FY2012-FY2013................................. 43
Table 7. Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY2012-FY2013................................................ 48
Table 8. General Services Administration Appropriations, FY2012-FY2013 ............................... 59
Table 9. Independent Agencies Related to Personnel Management Appropriations,
FY2012-FY2013......................................................................................................................... 62
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 77
Key Policy Staff............................................................................................................................. 77
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 78
Congressional Research Service
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On February 13, 2012, President Obama submitted his FY2013 budget request. The request
included a total of $44.6 billion for agencies funded through the Financial Services and General
Government (FSGG) appropriations bill, including $308 million for the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (CFTC). The President’s request would increase funding $1.5 billion above
FY2012 enacted amounts.
On June 20, 2012, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 6020, the Financial
Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2013. H.R. 6020 would provide $42.4
billion for agencies funded through the House FSGG Appropriations Subcommittee. In addition,
the CFTC would receive $180 million through the FY2013 agriculture appropriations bill. Total
FY2013 funding provided by the House would be $42.5 billion, about $2.1 billion below the
President’s FY2013 request and $560 million less than FY2012 enacted amounts.
On June 14, 2012, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its FY2013 financial services
bill, S. 3301. The Senate committee’s bill would provide $44.3 billion for FSGG agencies,
including $308 million for the CFTC, for FY2013, which would be $337 million below the
President’s FY2013 request and $1.2 billion more than FY2012 enacted amounts. Table 1 reflects
the status of FSGG appropriations legislation at key points in the appropriations process.
Table 1. Status of FY2013 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
06/20/12 06/14/12 H.Rept.
S.Rept.
112-550
112-177
Introduction
The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations reorganized their subcommittee structures
in early 2007. Each chamber created a new FSGG Subcommittee. In the House, the jurisdiction of
the FSGG Subcommittee was formed primarily of agencies that had been under the jurisdiction of
the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary,
the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies, commonly referred to as “TTHUD.”1 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.2
1 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.
2 The agencies are the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
In the Senate, the jurisdiction of the new FSGG Subcommittee was a combination of agencies
from the jurisdiction of three previously existing subcommittees. The District of Columbia, which
had its own subcommittee in the 109th Congress, was placed under the purview of the FSGG
Subcommittee, as were four independent agencies that had been under the jurisdiction of the
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.3 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.4 As a result of this reorganization, the House and Senate FSGG
Subcommittees have nearly identical jurisdictions.5
Overview
The 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 more than two dozen
independent agencies. For each title of the regular FSGG appropriations bill, Table 2 lists the
enacted amounts for FY2012, the President’s FY2013 request, and amounts recommended by the
House and Senate appropriations committees for FY2013.
Table 2. Financial Services and General Government Appropriations,
FY2012-FY2013
(in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House
Senate
FY2013
Title
Enacted
Request
Committee Committee
Enacted
Title I: Department of the
$12,215 $13,244
Treasury
$12,292
$12,904
Title II: Executive Office of the
659 649
President
650
698
Title III: The Judiciary
6,970 7,189 6,979
7,164
Title IV: District of Columbia
665 678 667
676
Title V: Independent Agencies
22,581 22,864 21,955
22,844
Total $43,091
$44,623
$42,531
$44,287
Sources: H.R. 6020; H.Rept. 112-550; S. 3301, S.Rept. 112-177.
Notes: Totals include funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The CFTC is funded in
the House through the Agriculture appropriations bill and in the Senate through the Financial Services and
(...continued)
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Small Business Administration (SBA).
3 The agencies are the FCC, FTC, SEC, and SBA.
4 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.
5 The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is under the jurisdiction of the FSGG Subcommittee in the Senate but
not in the House.
Congressional Research Service
2
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
General Government bill. Figures include rescissions and offsetting collections. Totals may not add due to
rounding.
Budget Control Act
FY2013 discretionary appropriations will be considered in the context of the Budget Control Act
of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25), which established discretionary spending limits for FY2012-
FY2021. The BCA also tasked a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction with developing a
federal deficit reduction plan for Congress and the President to enact by January 15, 2012.
Congress and the President did not enact deficit reduction legislation by that date, triggering an
automatic spending reduction process, consisting of a combination of sequestration and lower
discretionary spending caps, to begin on January 2, 2013. The sequestration process for FY2013
requires across-the-board spending cuts at the account and program level to achieve equal budget
reductions from both defense and nondefense funding at a percentage to be determined by the
Office of Management and Budget. As a result, the FY2013 FSGG appropriations bill may be
considered by Congress with the understanding that enacted funding levels will likely be subject
to significant cuts under the sequestration process unless legislation specifically repealing the
sequestration provisions of the BCA is enacted by Congress before next January.6
FY2012 Appropriations by Title
Title I: The Department of the Treasury7
This section examines FY2013 appropriations for the Treasury Department and its operating
bureaus, including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Table 3 shows the enacted amounts for
FY2012, the President’s FY2013 request, the amounts recommended by the House and Senate
appropriations committees for FY2012, and enacted amounts for FY2013.
Table 3. Department of the Treasury Appropriations, FY2012 and FY2013
(in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House
Senate
FY2013
Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee
Enacted
Departmental Offices
$308
$301
$203
$301
Department-wide Systems and Capital
0 7 0
7
Investments
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
—
—
102 —
Office of Inspector General
30
29
29
30
Treasury Inspector General for Tax
152 154 153
154
Administration
6 For more information on the Budget Control Act of 2011, see CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011,
by Bill Heniff Jr., Elizabeth Rybicki, and Shannon M. Mahan.
7 This section was authored by Gary Guenther (x7-7742).
Congressional Research Service
3
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House
Senate
FY2013
Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee
Enacted
Special Inspector General for TARP
42
40
35
40
Community Development Financial
221 221 221
233
Institutions Fund
Financial Crimes Enforcement
111 102 111
108
Network
Financial Management Service
218
─
208
─
Fiscal Servicea
─
360
─
360
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
100 97 95
100
Bureau
Bureau of the Public Debt
166
─
147
─
Payment for Losses in Shipment
2
2
2
2
Internal Revenue Service (total)
11,817
12,761
11,817
12,519
Taxpayer Services
2,240
2,253
2,240
2,253
Enforcement 5,299
5,425
5,299
5,611
Enhanced Tax Enforcement
0
691
0
0
Operations Support Activities
3,947
4,062
3,947
4,324
Business Systems Modernization
330
330
330
330
Rescissions: Treasury Forfeiture Fund
(-950)
(-830)
(-830)
(-950)
Total $12,215
$13,244
$12,292
$12,904
Sources: Appendix, Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2013, H.Rept. 112-550; and S.Rept. 112-177.
a. The Obama Administration’s budget request for FY2013 calls for consolidating the accounts for the
Financial Management Service and the Bureau of Public Debt. While the Senate Appropriations Committee
endorses the change, the House Appropriations Committee does not.
The Treasury Department performs a variety of critical governmental functions. They include
protecting the nation’s financial system against a host of illicit activities (particularly money
laundering and terrorist financing), collecting tax revenue and 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 undertake specific tasks
assigned to Treasury, mainly through statutory mandates. In the past decade or so, the bureaus
have accounted for more than 95% of the agency’s funding and work force.
With one exception, the bureaus and offices 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 (BPD), Community Development
Financial Institutions Fund (CDFIF), 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
Congressional Research Service
4
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
central to the responsibilities handled by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (ATTB),
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF). With
the advent of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, Treasury’s direct involvement in law
enforcement has shrunk considerably. The exception to this dichotomy is the IRS, whose main
responsibilities encompass both the collection of tax revenue and the enforcement of tax laws and
regulations.
The operating budget for most Treasury bureaus and offices comes largely from annual
appropriations. This is the case for the IRS, FMS, BPD, FinCEN, ATTB, Office of the Inspector
General (OIG), Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), Special Inspector
General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), and CDFIF. By contrast, funding for
the Treasury Franchise Fund, the U.S. Mint, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Office of the
Comptroller of the Treasury, and the Office of Thrift Supervision stems from the fees they receive
for the services and products they provide.
In FY2012, appropriations for the Treasury Department are distributed among 10 accounts, each
of which is described briefly below.
Departmental Offices: covers the salaries and other expenses of offices in the department that
formulate and implement policies in the areas of domestic and international finance, terrorist
financing and other financial crimes, taxation, international trade, and the domestic economy. It
also provides funding for the department’s financial and personnel management, procurement
operations, and information and telecommunications systems.
Office of Inspector General: covers the salaries and other expenses related to the audits and
investigations conducted by OIG staff. These evaluations are intended to promote improved
efficiency and effectiveness and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse among departmental operations
and programs, as well as to inform the Treasury Secretary and Congress about problems or
shortcomings in those activities.
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration: covers salaries and other expenses related
to the audits and investigations conducted by TIGTA staff. These evaluations are intended to
promote greater efficiency and effectiveness in the administration of tax law, deter or prevent
fraud and abuse in IRS programs and operations, and recommend changes in those activities to
solve problems or remedy deficiencies.
Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program: covers salaries and other
expenses related to the audits and investigations into the management and effectiveness of TARP
conducted by SIGTARP staff. The office was established by the same law that created TARP: the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (P.L. 110-343).
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network: covers salaries and other expenses related to the
activities of FinCEN, whose main responsibility is to protect the domestic financial system from
illicit uses, such as money laundering and terrorist financing. The legal basis for this role is the
Bank Secrecy Act (BSA; P.L. 91-508). FinCEN administers the act by developing and
implementing regulations and other guidance and working with private financial institutions and
eight federal agencies to ensure that the financial sector complies with the BSA’s reporting
requirements.
Congressional Research Service
5
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Financial Management Service: covers salaries and other expenses related to the operations of
the FMS, which is responsible for developing and implementing payment policies and procedures
for federal agencies, collecting debts owed to those agencies and state governments, and
providing financial accounting, reporting, and financing services for the federal government and
its agents.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau: covers salaries and other expenses related to the
activities of ATTB, which was established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296).
The bureau is responsible for enforcing certain laws regarding the domestic sale and production
of alcohol and tobacco products and preventing harm to consumers by ensuring that the products
they regulate comply with federal consumer safety laws.
Bureau of the Public Debt: covers salaries and other expenses related to the conduct of public
debt operations and the promotion of U.S. bonds.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund: provides funding for the activities of
the CDFIs, which make investments (in the form of loans, grants, and equity acquisitions) in
community development financial institutions. These institutions include community
development banks, credit unions, and venture capital funds. They in turn provide financing for
affordable housing projects, small businesses, and community development projects in eligible
areas. The CDFIF also administers the Black Enterprise Award program and the New Markets tax
credit.
Internal Revenue Service: covers salaries and other expenses related to the activities of the IRS,
whose main responsibilities are to administer federal tax laws and collect revenue. Two critical
components of IRS operations and programs are the services it offers taxpayers to help them
understand and meet their tax obligations and the enforcement tools it uses to improve voluntary
taxpayer compliance and punish those who violate the law. Some appropriated funds are used to
develop or upgrade business operations and information systems, as part of an ongoing effort to
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of taxpayer services and enforcement.
Brief Summary of FY2012 Appropriations for Treasury Offices and Bureaus
In FY2012, the Treasury Department was appropriated $12.215 billion, or 6.7% less than the
amount enacted for FY2011. As usual, the vast share (96.7%) of the funds were provided to
finance the operations of the IRS, which was provided $11.817 billion for FY2012, or 2.5% less
than the amount enacted for FY2011. The remaining $398 million is to be distributed among the
Treasury Department’s other appropriation accounts in the following amounts: DO (which
includes the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI) and the Office of Foreign Assets
Control), $308 million; OIG, $30 million; TIGTA, $152 million; SIGTARP, $42 million; CDFIF,
$221 million; FinCEN, $111 million; FMS, $218 million; ATTB, $100 million; and the BPD,
$166 million.
Congressional Research Service
6
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
FY2013 Appropriations for Treasury Offices and Bureaus: President’s Budget
Request, Required Assessments, and Congressional Action
President’s Budget Request
The Obama Administration requested $13.244 billion (including the cancellation of $830 million
in unobligated balances from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF)) in appropriations for Treasury
in FY2013, or 8.4% more than the amount enacted for FY2012. Under the budget proposal, the
IRS would receive $12.761 billion, or 96.3% of the total amount. The remaining $483 million
would be split among Treasury’s nine other appropriation accounts in the following amounts: DO,
$301 million; Department-wide Systems and Capital Investments Program (DSCIP), $7 million;
OIG, $29 million; TIGTA, $154 million; SIGTARP, $40 million; CDFIF, $221 million; FinCEN,
$102 million; Fiscal Service Operations (FSO), $360 million (consolidates funding for FMS and
BPD); and ATTB, $97 million. Four of the accounts would be funded at or above the amounts
enacted for FY2012: IRS, DSCIP, TIGTA, FinCEN, and FMS/BPD via the FSO.
Relative to FY2012, funding for the IRS would rise by 8.0%, while combined appropriations for
the remaining Treasury accounts would fall by 2.7%.
Treasury’s FY2013 budget request is intended to promote the following strategic goals:
• repair and reform the U.S. financial system;
• support recovery in the housing market;
• enhance U.S. competitiveness;
• promote international financial stability and balanced global growth;
• protect national security through targeted financial sanctions and enforcement of
laws again money laundering and terrorist financing;
• pursue comprehensive tax and fiscal reform; and
• and improve operational efficiency and efficacy in Treasury’s management of
federal finances.8
An explanation of the budget request for each Treasury appropriations account follows.
The details come from Treasury’s budget documents for FY2013.9
Departmental Offices
The Treasury Department requested $301.2 million in budget authority for DO in FY2013, or
2.3% less than the amount enacted for FY2012. Of that amount, $36.7 million would go to
executive direction, $55.9 million to international affairs and economic policy, $70.5 million to
domestic finance and tax policy, $100 million to TFI, and $38.1 million to Treasury management
and related programs. The proposed operating budget would be $308.4 million, which is $7.2
8 For more details on these goals and the ways in which the budget request would promote them, see
http://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-performance/Documents/
1.%20FY%202013%20Executive%20Summary%20final.pdf.
9 See http://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-performance/Pages/cj-index.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
7
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
million more than the requested appropriation. This difference would be bridged by proposed
program decreases, non-recurring costs from FY2012, and a variety of efficiency savings. TFI’s
resources would be supplemented by $18.9 million in reimbursements from federal and state
government agencies for services rendered.
Department-wide Systems and Capital Investments
Treasury requested $7.1 million in budget authority for DSCIP in FY2013. Congress appropriated
no funds for the account in FY2012. Of that amount, $2.0 million would be used to bolster the
security of Treasury’s information systems, $883 million would fund a program (Enterprise
Content Management) aimed at standardizing the agency’s approach to reducing paper-based
processes and transactions, $3.0 million would go to the Office of Financial Innovation and
Transformation within Treasury for launching four initiatives begun in FY2011, and $1.2 million
would pay for needed repairs to the interior rain leaders of the Main Treasury Building.
Office of Inspector General
Treasury requested $28.6 million in appropriated funds for OIG in FY2013, or 3.5% less than the
amount enacted for FY2012. The funds would be used to conduct both mandated audits and
audits and investigations of Treasury’s more controversial programs and operations, including
material loss reviews, the new regulatory responsibilities taken on by the agency under the Dodd-
Frank Act, Treasury’s funding of low-income housing projects and certain energy properties
under the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and private-sector compliance with
requirements set by the Bank Secrecy Act and the USA Patriot Act. Included in the budget request
are $225,000 to maintain FY2012 operating levels, $60,000 to support the Council of Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency, and decreases of $549,000 for reduced oversight of
mandatory and risky programs and $784,000 for reduced need for material loss reviews.
Office of the Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program
Treasury requested $40.2 million for SIGTARP in FY2013, or 3.8% less than the amount enacted
for FY2012. The funds would be used to support the Office’s main functions of promoting
transparency in Treasury’s management of TARP programs; advising Treasury managers on
matters related to compliance, internal financial controls, and fraud prevention; assessing the
effectiveness of TARP; and preventing, investigating, and referring for prosecution instances of
waste, fraud, and abuse in the program. Included in the budget request are $333,000 for
maintaining FY2012 levels of operation, $84,000 to support the Council of Inspectors General on
Integrity and Efficiency, and a decrease of $2.0 million from a reduction in general operating
costs from FY2012.
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
Treasury requested $153.4 million for TIGTA in FY2013, or 1.4% more than the amount enacted
for FY2012. The funds would be used to finance the audits, investigations, and evaluations of IRS
operations that TIGTA conducts as part of its mission. Among its priorities in FY2013 are
overseeing IRS’s efforts to administer the tax provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Congressional Research Service
8
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Care Act (P.L. 111-148) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-
152),10 and the challenges facing the IRS as it tries to improve voluntary tax compliance. Included
in the budget request are $1.5 million to maintain FY2012 operating levels, efficiency savings of
$3.8 million from program reductions and lower administrative costs, a $56,000 reduction in
TIGTA’s contribution to the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and
$4.5 million to oversee IRS’s implementation of the tax provisions in ACA.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Treasury requested $221.0 million for CDFIF in FY2013, or the same amount that was enacted
for FY2012. The Fund is intended to expand opportunities for economic development and
promote community development investments in economically distressed communities that are
underserved by banks and other financial institutions. Since its creation in 1994, CDFIF has
awarded over $1.4 billion to community development financial institutions, community
development entities (CDEs), and depository institutions insured by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation through the CDFI Program, the Native American CDFI Assistance
Program, and the Bank Enterprise Award Program. In addition, the Fund has allocated $29.5
billion in New Markets Tax Credits to CDEs. Included in the budget request are $269,000 to
maintain FY2012 operating levels, $780,000 in efficiency savings from lower lease and
procurement costs, $300,000 in other savings from non-recurring costs, $22.2 million in program
decreases (including $18.1 million less for the CDFI Program and $3.0 million less for the Bank
Enterprise Award Program) and $23.0 million in program increases ($20.0 million for the Bank
on USA Program and $3 million for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative).
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Treasury requested $102.4 million for FinCEN in FY2013, or 7.6% less than the amount enacted
for FY2012. The funds would be used to support the bureau’s mission, which is to ensure secure,
more transparent financial transactions through administration of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA); to
provide analytical and other support for investigations and prosecutions of money laundering and
other financial crimes; and to serve as the nation’s financial intelligence unit (FIU) by collecting,
analyzing, disseminating, and exchanging information on the nation’s laws and regulations
concerning money laundering and terrorist financing.
Among FinCEN’s priorities in FY2013 are strengthening relationships with state regulatory
agencies to enhance BSA compliance and enforcement, expanding the flow of financial
intelligence to law enforcement officials and individuals in the private sector in areas where there
is a relatively high risk of money laundering and other financial crimes, increasing the number of
analytical projects undertaken with foreign FIUs, and refining and utilizing the new information
technology (IT) capabilities that are becoming available through the BSA IT modernization
project.
Included in the budget request are $930,000 for maintaining current levels of operation, $6.2
million in efficiency savings, $9.9 million in program decreases (including $5.9 million less in
reimbursements to the IRS for BS compliance), and $6.8 million in reinvestments (including $2.7
10 Because the two laws were passed as tandem pieces of legislation to make certain changes in the U.S. health
insurance system, they will henceforth be referred to jointly in this section of the report as ACA.
Congressional Research Service
9
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
million for continuing the transfer of BSA collection and processing activities from the IRS to
FinCEN as a result of the modernization project).
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Treasury requested $96.8 million for ATTB in FY2013, or 3.1% less than the amount enacted for
FY2012. The Bureau has two responsibilities: (1) collecting federal excise taxes on the sale of
alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition; and (2) administering and enforcing the provisions
of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act dealing with permits, labeling, and marketing for
tobacco and alcohol products made and sold domestically. Included in the budget request are
$987,000 to maintain current operating levels, $3.1 million in savings from non-recurring costs
and improved operating efficiencies, and $1.0 million in program decreases from a repeal of the
current bond requirement for alcoholic beverage producers that typically have an annual alcohol
excise tax liability of less than $50,000.
Fiscal Service
Treasury requested that the budgets for FMS and BPD be consolidated into a single appropriation
account called Fiscal Service (FS) beginning in FY2013. Under the proposal, FS would receive
$360.5 million that year, or 7.9% less than the combined amount enacted for FMS and BPD in
FY2012. FS’s main responsibilities would be to improve financial management within the federal
government by offering central payment services to federal agencies, manage the federal
government’s revenue collections and deposits, deliver accounting and financial reporting
services to federal agencies, oversee the collection of delinquent federal government debt, borrow
the money needed to finance government operations, and provide reimbursable services to other
federal agencies.
Its priorities in FY2013 include continuing the consolidation of the two bureaus by exploiting
economies of scale and eliminating overlapping or duplicative operations, supporting Treasury’s
paperless initiative through FS’s Payments Program, and improving the collection of delinquent
federal debt.
Included in the budget request are $3.5 million for maintaining FY2012 operations, $25.7 million
in savings from non-recurring costs and improved operating efficiencies, $10.3 million in
program decreases (including $5.0 million less from eliminating fees paid to agents who redeem
paper savings bonds and $4.0 million less from reductions in administrative services), $1.5
million for a reorganization of FS’s payment management system, and a decrease of $1.0 million
from a decline in Legacy Treasury Direct user fees.
Treasury Forfeiture Fund
Treasury proposed to cancel permanently $830 million in unobligated balances from the TFF in
FY2013. This would come on top of a rescission of $950 million in such balances in FY2012.
The Fund serves as a receipt account for the deposit of non-tax forfeitures made by the bureaus
participating in the TFF. These include the IRS’s Criminal Investigation unit, the U.S. Secret
Service, the Bureau of Customs and Border Patrol, and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement. The Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture (TEOAF) manages the Fund,
whose main purpose is to disrupt and dismantle criminal enterprises operating within the United
States through the sanction of asset seizure. Money in the Fund covers the operating expenses of
Congressional Research Service
10
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
TEOAF and supports the enforcement activities of the participating bureaus related to the
National Money Laundering Strategy, the Southwest Border Strategy, and federal efforts to
counter terrorist financing. TEOAF estimates that $553,000 will be deposited in the Fund from
asset forfeitures in FY2013, leaving $1.6 billion in resources available for use, or 0.3% more than
the amount expected to be available at the end of FY2012. After allowing for $706,762 in
administrative expenses and obligatory costs and the proposed cancellation of $830 million in
unobligated balances, the net result at the end of FY2013 would be $100 million in such balances,
or 3.7% less than the estimated result for FY2012.
Internal Revenue Service
Treasury requested $12.7 billion for the IRS in FY2013, or 8.0% more than the amount enacted
for FY2012. Of this amount, $2.2 billion would be used for taxpayer services, $5.7 billion for
enforcement, $4.5 billion for operations support, and $330 million for the ongoing Business
System Modernization program. Included in the budget request are $108.4 million to maintain
current operations; $70.9 million in savings from increased electronic filing, reduced travel, and
certain program reductions; $200.3 million to restore funding for individual audits and tax
collection that was lost as part of the enacted appropriation for FY2012; and $706.4 million in
increases for a variety of programs, including improving offshore tax compliance, implementing
legislative changes such as the tax provisions in ACA, implementing a strategy to prevent
erroneous refund payments, expanding the Tax Return Preparer Program, expanding the
workforce for Appeals, and building an IT and operational infrastructure to deliver the health
insurance premium assistance credit that is scheduled to become available at the beginning of
2014. The budget request also proposes to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 in order to raise discretionary budget caps and provide the IRS with an
additional $350 million for new tax enforcement initiatives in each fiscal year through 2017; IRS
estimates that the initiatives would generate $44 billion in additional tax revenue through 2021.
Required Assessments of the Administration’s FY2013 Budget Request for the
IRS
IRS Oversight Board
The IRS Oversight Board was established by the IRS Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 to
oversee the IRS’s performance in administering the tax laws, managing its operations, and
accomplishing its strategic goals. Section 7802(d) of the federal tax code requires the Board to
review and approve the annual budget proposal submitted by the IRS to the Treasury Department.
A key element of the Board’s assessment is the extent to which the proposal supports the annual
and long-term strategic objectives of the agency. The same tax provision requires the President to
submit the Board’s budget recommendation to Congress along with his budget request for the
IRS.
For FY2013, the Board recommended that the IRS receive $13.034 billion in appropriated funds,
or 10.3% more than the amount enacted for FY2012 and 2.1% more than the budget request.11 In
11 IRS Oversight Board, FY2013 IRS Budget Recommendation: Special Report (Washington: April 2012), p. 3.
Available at http://www.treasury.gov/irsob/reports/2012/IRSOB%20FY13%20BUDGET%20REPORT.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
11
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
the Board’s view, the recommendation would counter a recent trend of reduced funding for the
IRS, which it deemed “harmful to the long-term national interest.” Of the recommended amount,
$2.355 billion would go to taxpayer services, $5.702 billion to enforcement, $4.647 billion to
operations support, and $330 million to the BSM. These amounts are consistent with the budget
request, for the most part. The main difference between the two proposals is that the Board
favored putting more resources into improving taxpayer service for the purpose of arresting the
recent decline in the level of toll-free telephone assistance, enhancing the physical security of IRS
employees, and upgrading the agency’s workforce development program.
Among its funding recommendations, the Board assigned the top priority to restoring the $200
million for enforcement that was lost in the enacted appropriation for FY2012. Doing so,
according to the Board’s report, would allow the IRS to “increase its field exam and collection
workload to previous levels and .... result in a gain of approximately $1.15 billion in direct
revenue.”12 Results like these, the Board argued, would bolster public confidence in the fairness
of the federal tax system and send a strong message to those who cheat or are tempted to cheat on
their tax returns that non-compliance “is unacceptable” and tax laws will be strictly enforced.
Achieving an 80% level of service for IRS’s toll-free telephone lines during FY2013 was the
Board’s second-highest priority. The level of service (LOS), measures the percentage of taxpayer
calls that go through to an IRS customer service representative out of all incoming calls in a
period. In FY2008, the LOS dropped to 53%, but it has been rising ever since and stood at 70%
according to the IRS, in FY2011. Under the President’s budget proposal for FY2013, the level
would drop to 63%. The Board deemed such a prospect unacceptable. To avoid such a result, the
Board recommended an appropriation of $100 million to raise the level to 80% in FY2013. Tens
of millions of taxpayers depend on the toll-free telephone service to understand their tax
obligations and their eligibility for tax credits and other tax preferences, and to resolve their
account balances. Recent changes to the tax laws have boosted demand for this service, a trend
that is likely to continue in the next few years, as the IRS continues to implement the remaining
tax provisions in the ACA.
The third priority is appropriating $346 million for new enforcement initiatives. In the Board’s
view, they should target offshore tax evasion and international tax compliance, take advantage of
the new tax return preparer program and new information requirements for merchant payment
cards and reporting basis in stock transactions to increase overall compliance, and address the
growing problem of tax refund fraud through identity theft. According to estimates by the IRS,
initiatives such as these could bring in $1.48 billion in additional enforcement revenue.13
A fourth priority cited by the Board in its report involved investing $71 million to lay a technical
foundation for substantial improvements in future taxpayer service capabilities. The objective is
to shift taxpayer requests for assistance from toll-free telephone calls to more cost-effective
electronic media, such as the IRS website.
12 Ibid., p. 6.
13 Ibid., p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
12
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Congressional Action
House
The House Appropriations Committee (hereafter referred to as the Committee) reported a bill
(H.R. 6020) on June 26, 2012 to fund financial services and general government accounts in
FY2013. H.R. 6020 would provide $12.292 billion in appropriations (including $830 million in
rescissions) for the Treasury Department, or $77 million more than the amount enacted for
FY2012 and $952 million less than the budget request. Details on recommended funding for each
account and selected issues the Committee addresses in its report (H.Rept. 112-550) on the bill
follow.14
Departmental Offices
In its report on H.R. 6020, the Committee recommends that DO receive $202.5 million in
appropriated funds in FY2013, or $106 million less than the amount enacted for FY2012 and $99
million less than the budget request.
The Committee notes that it is creating an appropriation account TFI that is separate from the DO
account beginning in FY2013, although the report gives no explanation for the change. The
Committee report also directs Treasury to submit an operating plan for the resources it receives
for FY2013 no later than 30 days after the enactment of the bill. The plan should cover all offices
and bureaus and include details on planned “program changes and major procurements.” The
Committee also directs Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy and the IRS to provide within 30 days of
the bill’s enactment a “detailed analysis” of the question of whether the IRS has the statutory
authority to require individuals filing tax returns under an individual tax identification number
and claiming the Additional Child Tax Credit to provide documentary proof that the child in
question meets the eligibility criteria for the credit.
Another issue addressed in the report is funding in FY2013 for the operations of the Office of
Financial Research (OFR), which was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203, hereafter referred to as the Dodd-Frank Act) to collect
financial data and analyze financial market activities in support of the work of the Financial
Stability Oversight Council, which was also created by the act. While OFR’s start-up costs in
FY2011 and FY2012 were defrayed by transfers of funds from the Federal Reserve, the Office
has the authority to finance its operating expenses through assessments on bank holding
companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more and non-bank financial
companies supervised by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. The Committee
believes OFR should not have unlimited power to charge fees and obligate funds for
administrative costs. Thus, language is included in H.R. 6020 requiring OFR and the Office of
Financial Stability Oversight (OFSO) to submit quarterly reports on their activities; OFSO is also
funded through mandatory sources outside the regular appropriation process.
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
The Committee recommended $102.1 million for TFI in FY2013, or $2.1 million more than the
amount specified for that purpose within the DO account for FY2012.
14 For access to the report, see http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt550/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt550.pdf).
Congressional Research Service
13
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Office of Inspector General
The Committee recommended that the OIG receive $28.5 million in appropriations in FY2013, or
$1.1 million less than the amount enacted for FY2012 and $81,000 less than the budget request.
In its report on H.R. 6020, the Committee commended OIG for the audit it is conducting of
Treasury’s “capital planning and investment control program.” In addition, it urged the Office to
issue a report on the proposed merger of FMS and BPD that addresses how current
responsibilities for the two would be divided or shared, how their customers would be affected,
and how staffing and the management structure for each bureau would change. Within 90 days of
the enactment of the bill, OIG would be required to issue a report on the separation of funds and
activities between “mandatory-funded offices, such as OFR, and discretionary-funded offices that
carry out related or overlapping work, such as the Office of Domestic policy.”
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
The Committee recommended $153.4 million for TIGTA in FY2013, or $1.7 million more than
the amount enacted for FY2012 and $430,000 less than the budget request.
In its report on H.R. 6020, the Committee expressed support for the investigations of the links
between identity theft and tax fraud that TIGTA has undertaken and recommended that it continue
to monitor the issue until the IRS “significantly reduces the incidence of tax fraud through
identity theft and significantly improves the quality of assistance it provide to victims” of such
theft. The Committee also directed TIGTA to submit a report no later than 90 days after the bill’s
enactment examining the extent to which proposed tax enforcement initiatives that end up being
implemented collect the revenue the IRS says they will in budget requests.
Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program
The Committee recommended that SIGTARP receive $35 million funds for FY2013, or $6.8
million less than the amount enacted for FY2012 and $5.2 million less than the budget request. In
its report on H.R. 6020, the Committee noted that initial funding for the program was included in
the legislation creating but the funds were limited and have decreased over time. To sustain
SIGTARP’s required oversight of the remaining TARP amounts, discretionary appropriations
have had increasingly to fill the gap between the mandatory appropriations and the operating
expenses of the program. As TARP winds down in the next few years, the Committee expects that
the requests for discretionary appropriations will also decrease.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
The Committee recommended $110.8 million for FinCEN in FY2013, or the same amount
enacted for FY2012 and $8.4 million more than the budget request. In its report on H.R. 6020, the
Committee wrote that the funding was intended to continue the agency’s multi-year effort to
modernize its information systems; to ensure that FinCEN’s information is readily accessible to
state and local law enforcement personnel, field representatives, and the intelligence community;
and to enable FinCEN to respond to expected increases in requests for assistance from law
enforcement agencies once the BSA Modernization system begins to operate in FY2013. The
Committee rejected a proposal by Treasury to reduce funding by $1.6 million for access to BSA
information by state and local intelligence agencies. It commended FinCEN for the support it has
provided in recent years for efforts by law enforcement agencies at all governmental levels to
Congressional Research Service
14
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
combat human trafficking and urges it, “whenever possible,” to apply its expertise in analyzing
financial crimes to such efforts in the context of “ongoing strategic operations.”
Treasury Forfeiture Fund
The Committee recommended a rescission of $830 million in unobligated balances in the Fund,
or $120 million less than the amount that was rescinded in FY2012 and the same as the budget
request. Of the amount to be rescinded, $38 million would be rescinded permanently.
In its report on H.R. 6020, the Committee pointed out that the TFF is intended to ensure adequate
resources are available to cover the costs of an “effective asset seizure and forfeiture program.”
Those costs include expenses related to seizing, evaluating, maintaining, protecting, advertising,
forfeiting, and disposing of property. The Committee noted that balances in the Fund should not
be used to boost the funds available to participating agencies outside the appropriations process.
Nor should the balances in the Fund be considered a “bounty” for participating agencies that
should be distributed in proportion to an agency’s seizures of assets or forfeitures or some other
formulaic approach. Current law allows surpluses in the TFF to be used to enhance forfeiture
capabilities, to be held in reserve, or to be rescinded temporarily or permanently. Proposed
rescissions and so-called “super surplus” spending requests, says the Committee, should be based
on “programmatic need and funding priorities, not a predetermined formula.” The Committee
directed Treasury to submit each month a table showing earned interest, forfeiture revenue,
unobligated balances, recoveries, expenses to date, and estimated expenses for the remainder of
the fiscal year.
Financial Management Service
The Committee recommended $208.2 million for FMS in FY2013, or $9.6 million less than the
amount enacted for FY2012 and $2.2 million less than the budget request. Of the recommended
amount, $4.2 million would be available until September 30, 2015 for modernizing the agency’s
information systems.
In its report on H.R. 6020, the Committee acknowledged both the cost savings that FMS has
achieved through sharing certain services with BPD and the projected cost savings that could
result from the proposed merger of the two agencies called for in the budget request. But because
sufficient details on the merger have not been released, the Committee cannot endorse it at the
present time. It pledges to continue to monitor the consolidation plan as it emerges and may be
willing to back it if “additional information justifying the change is provided.” As noted earlier,
the Committee has instructed TIGTA to conduct a study in FY2013 of the costs and benefits of
the proposed merger.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
The Committee recommended that ATTB receive $95 million in FY2013, or $4.9 million less
than the amount enacted for FY2012 and $1.8 million less than the budget request. The
Committee report specified that none of the recommended funding may be used to cover the cost
of hiring special law enforcement agents.
Bureau of the Public Debt
The Committee recommended $147.9 million for BPD in FY2013, or $25.7 million less than the
amount enacted for FY2012 and $2.2 million less than the budget request. H.R. 6020 contains
Congressional Research Service
15
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
language that would reduce appropriations by up to $1 million as BDP collects fees for definitive
security issues and Treasury Direct Investor Account Maintenance, resulting in a net
appropriation of $146.9 million.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
The Committee recommended that CDFIF receive $221 million in FY2013, or the same amount
enacted for FY2012 and the same as the budget request. Of that amount, $12 million would be
reserved for grants, loans, technical assistance, and job training for native American, Alaskan, and
Hawaiian communities; another $20.5 million would be set aside for the administrative expenses
for CDFIF programs. No funds were provided for the Bank on USA program, the Health Food
Financing Initiative, and the Bond Guarantee program. In its report on H.R. 6020, the Committee
noted that though the CDFIF is supposed to serve the development needs of territories and rural
communities, the existing process for setting goals for the Fund do not necessarily take those
needs into account. To remedy this shortcoming, the Committee directed the Fund to reserve at
least 20% of the assistance it provides for financial institutions located in counties where 20% or
more of the population lived in poverty during the previous 30 years. It also directed the Fund to
submit a report within 60 days of the bill’s enactment detailing the steps it is taking to clarify the
certification process for financial institutions located in territories and rural communities and to
make existing certified financial institutions aware of the “unmet capital and financial services
needs” of these areas.
Internal Revenue Service
The Committee recommended that the IRS receive $11.817 billion in FY2013, or the same as the
amount enacted for FY2012 and $944.5 million less than the budget request. Funding for the IRS
was spread among four accounts: taxpayer services, enforcement, operations support, and BSM.
The recommended appropriation for each is discussed below.
Taxpayer Services: Of the recommended appropriations for the IRS, $2.240 billion would be used
for taxpayer services, or the same as the amount enacted for FY2012 and $13.4 million less than
the budget request. Several taxpayer service grant programs are funded through this account.
According to the report on H.R. 6020, the recommended funding for the programs in FY2013 was
the same as the amounts enacted for FY2012 and as the budget request: “not less than” $5.6
million for the Tax Counseling for the Elderly program, at least $9.75 million for grants for low-
income taxpayer clinics, and a minimum of $12 million for grants for Volunteer Income Tax
Assistance (VITA). In addition, the Committee recommended that not less than $205 million be
used for the operating costs of the Taxpayer Advocate Service. Funds were also provided to
continue efforts to improve more efficient and effective toll-free telephone service for taxpayers.
The Committee commended the IRS for deciding not to develop a pre-filled or simple tax return
and wrote that the Committee expected the IRS to seek authority and appropriations from
Congress before embarking on the development of a simple tax return pilot program. Another
issue addressed by the Committee in its report on the bill concerned the growing number of cases
of tax fraud stemming from identity theft. It directed the IRS to submit a report by January 31,
2013 on (1) the number of taxpayers whose tax returns have been rejected because someone stole
their Social Security numbers; (2) the average time required to resolve the problem and provide
tax refunds when they were owed, the number of cases that were not resolved within 45 days; (3)
the number of cases involving the theft of individual taxpayer identification numbers of residents
of the territories; and (4) the actions the IRS is planning to take to expedite the resolution of these
Congressional Research Service
16
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
cases and to prevent similar incidents of identity theft in the future. The Committee also directed
the IRS to continue a program to train employees in taxpayer rights, how to deal courteously with
taxpayers, and multicultural relations.
Enforcement: As reported by the Committee, H.R. 6020 would provide an appropriation of $5.299
billion for tax law enforcement in FY2013, or the same amount that was enacted for FY2012 and
$402.3 million less than the budget request. Of that amount, at least $60.3 million would be used
to support IRS’s involvement in the Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement program. The bill
specified that none of the recommended funding could be used to implement tax provisions in the
ACA. In its report on the bill, the Committee urged the IRS to revise regulations that apply to
interest payments made to non-resident aliens after December 31, 2012. The final regulations
include a list of countries with which the United States has a tax treaty or information exchange
agreement. Every country on the list qualifies for automatic information reporting unless the
United States determined that a country should not receive the information because of concerns
that it would be misused. To address this concern, the Committee recommended that the IRS
publish on its public website a list of countries with which it is actively and automatically
exchanging information about interest payments to non-resident aliens living there. In addition,
the Committee noted that the IRS received $20 million in FY2010 from the Department of Health
and Human Services to implement tax provisions in the ACA, another $168 million in FY2011,
and as much as $332 million in FY2012. It recommended that no such transfers be permitted in
FY2013.
Operations Support: The Committee recommended that the IRS receive an appropriation of
$3.947 billion for operations support in FY2013, or the same amount enacted for FY2012 and
$528.8 million less than the budget request. Of that amount, at least $2 million was to cover the
operating expenses of the IRS Oversight Board. None of the funds could be used to implement
tax provisions in the ACA.
BSM: H.R. 6020 would provide $330.2 million for the BSM program in FY2013, or the same
amount that was enacted for FY2012 and the same as the budget request. The Committee
commended the IRS for the progress that has been made in the past few years with the Customer
Account Data Engine 2 (CADE2) program, which was launched in January 2012 and used during
the 2012 filing season. As a result, records for 140 million individual taxpayer accounts are now
stored in a single, modern database; the records can be updated daily, which makes it possible to
issue refunds and communicate with taxpayers about issues with their accounts faster. In its report
on the bill, the Committee pointed out that though not all development work on CADE2 is
completed, it expects BSM funding requests will begin to decline soon as the “IRS realizes
savings from retiring legacy systems.”
Senate
In a bill (S. 3301) it reported on June 14, 2012, the Senate Appropriations Committee (hereafter
referred to as the Committee) recommended a total appropriation of $12.904 billion for the
Treasury Department in FY2013. This amount was $689.0 million more than the amount enacted
for FY2012 but $339.6 million less than the budget request. More than 70% of the difference
between the requested funding and the Committee’s recommendation was due to the Committee
Congressional Research Service
17
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
providing a smaller budget for the IRS. Details on the recommended funding for each Treasury
account follow. They stem mostly from the Committee’s report (H.Rept. 112-177) on S. 3301.15
Departmental Offices
The Committee recommended that DO receive an appropriation of $301.2 million in FY2013, or
$7.1 million less than the amount enacted for FY2012 and the same as the budget request.
The Committee encouraged Treasury’s Office of Financial Education to assess the effectiveness
of current financial literacy programs and develop a set of objectives that the Financial Literacy
and Education Commission can use to better serve the needs of U.S. adults, particularly given the
low rate of financial literacy among this population.
In addition, in its report on S. 3301, the Committee commended Treasury for the improvements it
made to the Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP) and the 1.1 million homeowners who
were able to remain in their homes because of the program, as of April 2012. It directed the
agency to continue its efforts to persuade mortgage servicers and investors (include Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac) to allow principal reductions that could save federal funds, enable more
homeowners to remain in their homes, and lower the number of neighborhoods harmed by vacant
“real-estate owned properties.” As part of those efforts, the Committee wrote that Treasury should
ensure that mortgage servicers comply with their HAMP agreements and inform servicers about
their responsibilities under the program. Also on the topic of housing, the Committee urged
Treasury to maintain the Group Home Mortgage Program, which provides financing for the
creation of affordable small, community-based group homes for individuals unable to live
independently.
At the same time, the Committee directed the agency to fully implement all sanctions and
divestment measures imposed on North Korea, Belarus, Burma, Iran, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, and
to notify it if a lack of resources is impeding this process.
To improve Treasury’s management of its capital investments, the Committee directed it to
prepare an annual Capital Investment Plan to be submitted to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees within 30 days of the release of the President’s annual budget
request. The Plan should include estimates of the funding needed over the lifetime of the current
and planned capital projects and a summary of the projects by type. It would be the responsibility
of Treasury’s Office of the Chief Information Officer to determine if adequate resources are being
channeled into the projects listed in the plan and the maintenance and modernization of existing
systems, and to ensure that all projects are “properly tracked and completely described” in the
plan.
Department-Wide Systems and Capital Investments Programs
The Committee recommended that DSCIP receive and appropriation of $7.1 million in FY2013,
or the same amount as the budget request. There was no funding for the account in FY2012.
15 For access to the report, see http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112srpt177/pdf/CRPT-112srpt177.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
18
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Office of Inspector General
The Committee recommended $29.6 million for OIG in FY2013, or the same amount that was
enacted for FY2012 and $1.0 million more than the budget request. In its report on S. 3301, the
Committee directs the office to undertake, “when practical,” an audit of the Bank Secrecy Act
Information Technology Modernization project being managed by FinCEN. OIG should submit a
written report to the Committee by March 31, 2013, addressing the extent to which contractors
for the project have been adhering to its budget and production schedule. The Committee also
urges the Office to perform audits, as its resources permit, of Treasury’s efforts to combat money
laundering and terrorist financing, its management of capital investments, the investments of the
CDFIF, and “areas identified by the Inspector General as presenting a high risk to taxpayer-
funded spending.”
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
The Committee recommended that TIGTA receive $153.8 million for FY2013, or the $2.1 million
above the amount enacted for FY2012 and the same amount as the budget request. In its report on
S. 3301, it commended the office for its ongoing reviews of IRS’s BSM program and other IT
projects. The Committee also encouraged TIGTA, if resources and time permit, to undertake
evaluations in FY2013 of the newly created Return Preparer Program; the capability of the IRS to
detect fraudulent tax returns, resolve the claims of innocent taxpayers in a timely manner, and
reduce the incidence of erroneous refunds; and the security of IRS employees and its databases
and facilities.
Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program
The Committee commended SIGTARP for the “quality of its audits and investigations” as well as
the written material it has provided to the general public and Congress, and recommended that the
office receive $40.2 million in FY2013, or $1.6 million below the amount enacted for FY2012
but $20 above the budget request. A portion of FY2013 spending would be covered by funds
carried over from the current fiscal year.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
The Committee recommended $108.3 million for FINCen for FY2013, or $2.5 million less than
the amount enacted for FY2012 but $5.9 million above the budget request. In its report on S.
3301, the Committee that the added funds would allow the bureau to continue to offer “full
intelligence support” to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and federal intelligence
agencies involved in combating serious financial crimes, including money laundering, mortgage
fraud, drug trafficking, and terrorist financing.
Section 608 of the bill would require all agencies funded under it to obtain the approval of the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees before using appropriated funds to create or
reorganize offices, programs, or other activities. The Committee reminded Treasury that any
“reimbursable agreements and other similar funding mechanisms” used to reallocate approved
funding are considered a “reprogramming” of funds under the section and thus subject to the
prior-approval rule.
In addition, the Committee expressed support for FinCEN’s ongoing effort to modernize the IT
infrastructure for administering the BSA. The effort entails a re-design of the BSA data
Congressional Research Service
19
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
architecture, an update of the IT needed to acquire and disseminate data, and the addition of
innovative Web services, enhanced electronic filing, and improved analytical tools. Banks,
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, and federal intelligence agencies use the
system to report, gather, and analyze data to identify financial crimes. The Committee directed
FinCEN to take the following steps in FY2013: (1) map BSA data in a way that meshes with the
data system used by the IRS; (2) continue to submit semi-annual reports to the Committee
summarizing the bureau’s progress in implementing the modernization project; and (3) improve
the accuracy, reliability, and timeliness of BSA data in accordance with the recommendations
made by TIGTA and GAO in recent reports.
Treasury Forfeiture Fund
The Committee recommended a rescission of $950 million in unobligated balances in the fund for
FY2013, or the same amount that was rescinded for FY2012 and $120 million more than the
budget request.
Financial Management Service
The Committee endorsed a proposal by Treasury that the appropriations for FMS and BPD be
combined into a single appropriation account entitled “Fiscal Service” (FS). It also recommended
that FS receive $360.5 million in appropriated funds for FY2013, or the same as the budget
request. Compared to the combined appropriations for FMS and BPD in FY2012, the
recommended funding represents a decrease of $30.9 million.
In its report on S. 3301, the Committee commended Treasury for planning to consolidate the
functions of the two bureaus. Both bureaus provide financial management services for federal
agencies, and in recent years they have collaborated on several cost-saving projects, including a
shared data center and shared human resource services. According to an estimate by Treasury, the
proposed merger would result in a savings of $36 million over five years. The Committee
directed FS to keep it informed about developments in the consolidation process.
Section 111 of the bill would authorize Treasury to transfer funds from the salaries and expenses
account for FS to the Debt Collection Fund to cover expenses related to debt collection. Any such
transfer would be reimbursed to account from debt payments deposited in the Fund.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
The Committee recommended that ATTB receive an appropriation of $100.4 million in FY2013,
or $500,000 above the amount enacted for FY2012 and $3.6 million above the budget request.
Contrary to the recommendation of the House Appropriations Committee in its report on H.R.
6020, the recommended funding included $2 million for the cost of hiring special law
enforcement agents to combat tobacco smuggling and other criminal activities within the
jurisdiction of ATTB. In addition, the Committee rejected Treasury’s proposal to transfer the
enforcement of federal excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco products to the IRS on the grounds
that ATTB has sole jurisdiction over the enforcement of laws governing the production and
distribution across state lines of those products.
Bureau of the Public Debt
See the entry below for Financial Management Service.
Congressional Research Service
20
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
The Committee recommended $233.0 million in appropriations for the CDFIF in FY2013, or
$12.0 million more than the amount enacted for FY2012 and the same as the budget request. In
its report on S. 3301, the Committee expressed support for the basic aims of the Fund, especially
its role in both leveraging private investment in community development projects such as
affordable housing, community centers, and retail development and expanding lending to small
firms in areas underserved by banks and other financial institutions.
Of the recommended funding, $20 million would be used for the Bank on USA program, which
promotes improved access to financial services and consumer credit by lower-income
households; this amount is consistent with the budget request. The Committee directed CDFIF to
submit a detailed spending plan for the program within 120 days of enactment of the bill and to
assign a greater priority to distributing funding to underserved rural areas.
Another $25 million would be used to support the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, which is
intended to increase the supply of affordable, wholesome foods in urban and rural communities
that currently have no or limited access to such foods. In the Committee’s view, the recommended
funding should increase the availability of financing for the construction of grocery stores,
supplies and equipment for qualified food production, and improvements to the food distribution
network in affected communities.
In addition, consistent with the budget request, the Committee recommended that $12 million be
set aside for grants, loans, and technical assistance and training programs for native American,
Alaskan, and Hawaiian communities. The funds are intended to increase access to equity capital
and loans for development activities in those communities.
S. 3301 also included a provision allowing the Treasury Secretary to guarantee up to $1 billion in
bonds in FY2013 to support lending and investments by CDFIs in underserved communities. The
bond guarantees, which are authorized under the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-240),
would be intended to open up new sources of long-term capital. Funds raised through the bonds
could be used to back new loans or refinance existing ones.
And the recommended funding for CDFIF included $2 million for the purpose of enhancing the
ability of CDFIs to support the development of “entrepreneurial” businesses.
Internal Revenue Service
The Committee recommended that the IRS receive an appropriation of $12.519 billion in
FY2013, or $702.4 million above the amount enacted for FY2012 and $242.1 million less than
the budget request. In its report on S. 3301, the Committee expressed support for a variety of
approaches to reducing the federal tax gap, including improved information reporting and
taxpayer assistance. It also commended the research on taxpayer compliance that is being done by
the National Taxpayer Advocate and the IRS Office of Research. Furthermore, the Committee
directed the IRS to include details on planned reorganizations, job cuts or increases, and changes
to current service and enforcement activities in the operating plan the agency is required to
submit along with its annual budget request. The submission should include comments on the
plan from the IRS Oversight Board.
Congressional Research Service
21
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Taxpayer Services: The Committee recommended that the IRS receive an appropriation of $2.253
billion in FY2013, or $13.4 million above the amount enacted for FY2012 and the same as the
budget request. Of the recommended funding, “not less than” $5.6 million should be used for the
tax-counseling for the elderly program, $10 million for low-income taxpayer clinic grants, and
$12 million (available for two consecutive fiscal years) for the community volunteer income tax
assistance (VITA) matching grant program. The Committee urged the IRS to “make every effort”
to increase the number and size of VITA grants to local non-profit organizations offering tax
preparation services to disabled individuals. Among the options for doing so cited by the
Committee is to allow national coalitions that coordinate the activities of such organizations to
apply for VITA matching grants. Another $209.5 million of the recommended appropriation
would fund the operations of the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS).
In its report on S. 3301, the Committee commended the IRS for the steady rise in the number of
taxpayers filing their returns electronically with no additional costs. For the 2011 tax years, 67%
of so-called major returns were e-filed, up from 59% for 2010. There are considerable cost
savings from e-filing: according to an IRS estimate, the cost of processing an electronic return is
1/20th the cost for a paper return. At the same time, the Committee “strongly urges” the IRS to
update its measure of refund timeliness using recommendations from the GAO and the IRS
Oversight Board.
The Committee also directed the IRS, IRS Oversight Board, and National Taxpayer Advocate to
continue to submit annual updates to the Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint that was first issued in
FY2006. The updates should identify any changes to the five-year strategic plan for taxpayer
services, discuss the findings of any new research, and point out any “open issues requiring
additional research.”
Section 104 of the bill specified that funding is available in FY2013 for improving the toll-free
telephone assistance the IRS offers to taxpayers. Among the recommended improvements was
speeding up correspondence with “victims of tax crimes.”
Expressing concern about the availability of satisfactory taxpayer service in Alaska and Hawaii,
the Committee directed the IRS to ensure that Taxpayer Advocate Service Centers in those states
are fully staffed (including a collection technical advisor and an examination technical advisor at
each Center) and able to resolve even the most complex of taxpayer problems.
Enforcement: The largest Treasury account, and one of the largest accounts among all the
appropriation accounts for financial services and general government, covers tax enforcement
activities. For FY2013, the Committee recommended the IRS receive $5.611 billion for such
activities, or $312.2 million above the amount enacted for FY2012 but $90.1 million less than the
budget request. Of the recommended funding, “not less than” $60.3 million would be available
for use in the Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement program.
In its report on S. 3301, the Committee noted that the recommended funding for FY2013 was
intended to restore the resources for audits and collection work that were lost in the appropriation
for FY2012. It was also intended to enable the IRS to undertake the new enforcement initiatives it
calls for in the budget request. According to the IRS, every dollar spent on these initiatives in
FY2013 is expected to yield an estimated $4.90 in new revenue by the time those hired to work
on them reach their “full potential” in FY2015.
Congressional Research Service
22
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
In addition, the Committee supported recent measures adopted by the IRS to combat offshore tax
evasion and recommends the IRS undertake more frequent studies of the tax gap, particularly the
portion of the gap that can be attributed to international financial transactions. At the same time,
the Committee would like to see the agency develop new measures of the effectiveness of several
enforcement programs, including tax preparer regulation, information reports for merchant
payment cards and the basis of stock in transactions involving capital gains and losses, and the
Compliance Assurance Process and the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure programs.
Another enforcement issue addressed by the Committee in its report was the misclassification of
workers as independent contractors. Such an error usually leads to the underreporting and
underpayment of employment and payroll taxes by employers and workers. To get a better grasp
of the extent of the problem, the IRS is undertaking a three-year study of worker classification
and other employment tax issues. It has also formed a team to assist taxpayers on tax issues
related to the classification of workers. Underscoring its concern about the revenue losses from
the misclassification of workers, the Committee urged the IRS to maintain adequate staffing in a
program (SS-8) designed to assist employers in determining a worker’s employment tax status.
According to the report on S. 3301, staffing in the program has failed to grow at the same pace as
SS-8 filings in the past three filing seasons. To bolster its influence over IRS’s SS-8 staffing
decisions, the Committee directed the agency to submit a report that examines staffing levels,
employee productivity, and SS-8 receipts and explains the rationale for any proposed staff
changes, before reducing staffing at any SS-8 processing office.
On the matter of collecting overdue individual tax debt, Section 105 of the bill would extend
through FY2013 a ban on using appropriated funds to “enter into, renew, extend, administer,
implement, enforce, provide oversight of, or make any payment related to” a debt collection
program involving the use of private debt collectors. The ban was first imposed on FY2010
appropriations for the IRS; it was intended to reinforce a decision announced by the IRS in March
2009 to terminate a controversial private tax debt collection program that began three years
earlier.
Operations Support: For FY2013, the Committee recommended that the IRS receive an
appropriation of $4.324 billion for operations support, or $376.8 million above the amount
enacted for FY2012 but $152.0 million less than the budget request. Up to $250 million of the
recommended funds would be available for IT support through the end of FY2014; another $1
million would be available for research through the end of FY2015; and at least $2 million would
be used to cover the expenses of the IRS Oversight Board.
In its report on S. 3301, the Committee noted that the recommended funding was intended to
support ongoing, multi-year initiatives to upgrade the IT infrastructure in order to implement
recent changes in tax law, especially the tax provisions in the ACA. It directed the IRS to keep the
Committee informed of any updated cost estimates for the initiatives, and to ensure that the
estimates adhere to the guidelines for best practices in GAO’s Cost Estimating and Assessment
Guide so they can be regarded as “comprehensive, well-documented, accurate, and credible.”16
On a related matter, the Committee directed the IRS to submit within 30 days of the enactment of
the bill a “table and explanatory information” regarding the amounts, uses, and dates of receipt of
funds transferred to the IRS from the Health Insurance Reform Implementation Fund established
16 U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Estimating
and Management Costs, GAO-09-3SP, March 2009, at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d093sp.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
23
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
by the ACA to cover administrative expenses incurred by federal agencies involved in
implementing the act.
Another issue addressed in the report on S. 3301 related to IRS’s management and oversight of its
non-BSM information technology projects. The Committee agreed with the concern expressed in
recent reports by TIGTA and GAO that the IRS lacks the data needed to evaluate the
performance, productivity, and costs of its IT programs. Of particular concern is the lack of a
quantitative measure for determining the functional gains made during each stage of a project’s
development. As a result, the Committee “strongly encourages” the IRS to develop such a
measure and to apply it to all of its major non-BSM information systems so “key stakeholders”
can get a more accurate picture of the extent to which the investments are generating the desired
results. Moreover, the security of IRS’s information systems remains a serious problem,
according to recent reports by TIGTA and GAO. To address the problem, the Committee urged
the IRS to continue its efforts to eliminate vulnerabilities in its security system in accordance with
recommendations made by TIGTA and GAO.
To bolster its oversight of non-BSM information technology improvement projects, the
Committee directed the IRS to include in its budget request for FY2014 a multi-year strategy and
timetable within the Operations Support account for modernizing IRS’s aging “legacy” IT
infrastructure. The agency must also submit to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
and GAO quarterly reports on certain major projects that discuss the costs and schedules for the
previous three months and the anticipated costs and schedules for the next three months. The
projects include IRS.gov, Returns Remittance Processing, EDAS/IPM, and E-services.
Business Systems Modernization
A separate account is maintained for funding BSM. The Committee recommended that the IRS
receive $330.2 million for the program in FY2013, or the same amount enacted for FY2012 and
the same as the budget request. To augment these funds, the Committee encouraged the agency to
draw upon user fees collected by the IRS from services it provides to taxpayers and federal
agencies. Of the recommended funding, $252.3 million was designated for supporting two
important capital investments: (1) the CADE 2 Transition State 2 project, which is focused on
developing a single information system for managing individual taxpayer accounts that has
applications for financial management and the security of IRS’s IT systems; and (2)
improvements to the Modernized e-File platform (MeF) that will allow it to handle the Form 94X
family of tax forms for employment taxes and Form 1041 for estates and trusts, as well as
additional unspecified forms in the future.
The Committee wrote that it expects the IRS to continue to submit quarterly BSM reports during
FY2013; GAO should receive a copy of each. The reports should explain in “plain English” the
costs and schedules for CADE2 and MeF in the previous three months and their anticipated costs
in the next three months.
Congressional Research Service
24
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Title II: Executive Office of the President17
The FSGG appropriations bill provides funding for all but three offices under the EOP.18 The
White House, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of National Drug Control
Policy are among the EOP offices funded through FSGG appropriations. Table 4 lists the enacted
amounts for FY2012, the President’s FY2013 request, and amounts recommended by the House
and Senate appropriations committees for FY2013.
Table 4. Executive Office of the President, FY2012-FY2013
(in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House
Senate
FY2013
Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee
Enacted
The White House (total)
$202
$204
$192
$204
Compensation of the President
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
The White House Office (salaries
60 57 54 57
and expenses)
Executive Residence, White
13 13 13 13
House (operating expenses)
White House Repair and
1 1 1 1
Restoration
Council of Economic Advisers
4
4
4
4
National Security Council and
13 13 13 13
Homeland Security Council
Office of Administration
113
115
107
115
Office of Management and Budget
89
92
81
92
Federal Drug Control Programs
357 342 368 392
(total)
Office of National Drug Control
13 23 23 25
Policy (net of rescissions)
High Intensity Drug Trafficking
239 200 239 239
Areas Program
Other Federal Drug Control
106 119 106 129
Programs
Counterdrug Technology
0 0 0 0
Assessment Center
Unanticipated Needs
1
1
0
1
Partnership Fund for Program
0 1 0 1
Integrity Innovation
17 This section was authored by Barbara Schwemle (x7-8655).
18 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.
Congressional Research Service
25
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House
Senate
FY2013
Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee
Enacted
Integrated, Efficient and Effective
5 5 5 5
Uses of Information Technology
Special Assistance to the President
4 4 4 4
(salaries and expenses)
Official Residence of the Vice
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
President (operating expenses)
Total: EOP and Funds
$659 $649 $650 $698
Appropriated to the President
Sources:. Appendix, Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2013, H.Rept. 112-550; and S.Rept. 112-177.
Note: FY2012 rescission for both the President’s request and House committee approved amounts would apply
to the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
President’s Budget Request and Key Issues
The Administration’s FY2013 budget requested an appropriation (discretionary funds) of $649
million for the EOP and funds appropriated to the President, a decrease of more than $10 million
(-1.5%) from the $659.1 million (discretionary funds) enacted for FY2012. The budget requested
the same appropriation as that enacted for FY2012 for these accounts: White House Office, White
House Repair and Restoration, Council of Economic Advisers, National Security Council and
Homeland Security Council, Special Assistance to the President, Official Residence of the Vice
President, and Integrated, Efficient and Effective uses of Information Technology. For the
Unanticipated Needs account, an appropriation that was $12,000 more than the FY2012 enacted
amount was requested. Increased or decreased appropriations were requested for the following
accounts:
• The Executive Residence (-$225,000 or -1.7%);
• The Office of Administration (+$2 million or +1.8%); and
• The Office of Management and Budget (+$2.1 million or +2.3%).
The justification that accompanied the EOP’s budget submission noted that the increase requested
for the Office of Administration would fund salaries and benefits resulting from “the conversion
of cybersecurity information technology contractors to full-time government staff” and
“improvements to information technology services,” including “Ensuring the full-time Operation
of the Disaster Recovery Data Center and Continuity of Operations Center” and “Improving the
stability and reliability of messaging systems through the proactive management of e-mail
systems, handheld devices, and electronic records archiving systems.”19 According to the
justification, the requested increase for the Office of Management and Budget would fund: the
anticipated January 2013 pay adjustment ($380,000), health benefit costs ($206,000), an increase
of six full-time equivalent employees ($775,000), an increase for rent payments to the General
Services Administration ($202,000), costs of information technology contractors ($343,000), and
19 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Fiscal Year 2013 Congressional Budget Submission (Washington: February
2012), pp. OA-4 - OA-5.
Congressional Research Service
26
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
partial restoration of budget reductions for staff travel ($80,000) and training ($100,000).20 The
reduction in the appropriation requested for the Executive Residence resulted from decreases for
personnel compensation and benefits and supplies and materials.21
The President’s budget request proposed an administrative provision for the EOP and funds
appropriated to the President at Section 201 that would continue to authorize the OMB Director
(or other official designated by the President) to transfer up to 10% of appropriations between the
White House, Executive Residence at the White House, White House Repair and Restoration,
Council of Economic Advisers, National Security Council and Homeland Security Council,
Office of Administration, Special Assistance to the President, and Official Residence of the Vice
President accounts, provided the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations are notified at
least 15 days in advance. An appropriation could not be increased by more than 50% by such
transfers. The Vice President would approve transfers from the Special Assistance to the President
or Official Residence of the Vice President accounts.22
Federal Drug Control Programs
For the accounts under the Federal Drug Control Programs account, the President’s FY2013
budget requested a total appropriation of $342 million, a decrease of more than $15 million or
4.3% below the $357.2 million (after the rescissions of $11.3 million were applied) enacted for
FY2012. Increased or decreased appropriations were requested for each of the following
accounts:
• Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP, +$10.2 million or +77% more
than the FY2012 enacted amount, after the rescissions of $11.3 million were
applied)23;
• High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program (HIDTAP, -$38.5 million or
-16.2%);
• Other Federal Drug Control Programs (OFDCP, +$13 million or +12.4%); and
• Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC, no funding was requested).
The FY2013 budget justification stated that the ONDCP funding would enable the agency “to
continue to pursue” the National Drug Control Strategy’s “goals of reducing drug use and its
consequences and ensuring improvements in fostering healthier individuals and safe
communities.” The requested reduction in the HIDTAP appropriation would occur in the grants to
state, local, and tribal agencies, and transfers to federal agencies participating in the 28 HIDTAs.
The OFDCP appropriation would be allocated to the Youth Drug Prevention Media Program ($20
20 Ibid., p. OMB-6.
21 Ibid., p. EXR-5.
22 FY2013 Budget, Appendix, p. 1217.
23 Calculated as $24.5 million (FY2012 enacted) minus $11.3 million (FY2012 rescission) equals $13.2 million
(FY2012 appropriation after rescission); $23.4 million (FY2013 request) minus $13.2 million (FY2012 appropriation
after rescission) equals $10.2 million, divided by $13.2 million (FY2012 appropriation after rescission) equals 77%
difference.
Congressional Research Service
27
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
million), Drug Free Communities Support Program ($88.6 million), Anti-Doping activities ($8.1
million), and World Anti-Doping Agency membership dues ($1.9 million).24
House Action
H.R. 6020, as reported by the House Committee on Appropriations would provide an
appropriation of $650 million for the EOP, which is some $9 million (-1.4%) less than the
FY2012 enacted appropriation and almost $1 million (+0.14%) more than the President’s request.
The House report stated that “all of the salaries and expenses accounts within the Executive
Office of the President” were reduced to pay for the funding priorities of the House committee.25
The appropriations for each of the EOP accounts, as recommended by the House Appropriations
Committee, were as follows:
• The White House Office: $54.1 million; $2.8 million (-5%) less than the FY2012
enacted amount and the President’s request. The House committee report states
that this amount includes “sufficient funds” for the Office of National AIDS
Policy.
• Executive Residence, White House: $12.8 million; $671,000 (-5.0%) less than
the FY2012 enacted amount and $446,000 (-3.4%) less than the President’s
request.
• White House Repair and Restoration: $713,000; $37,000 (-4.9%) less than the
FY2012 enacted amount and the President’s request.
• Council of Economic Advisers: $4.1 million; $42,000 (-1.0%) less than the
FY2012 enacted amount and the President’s request.
• National Security Council and Homeland Security Council: $12.9 million;
$65,000 (-0.5%) less than the FY2012 enacted amount and the President’s
request.
• Office of Administration: $107.3 million; $5.6 million (-5%) less than the
FY2012 enacted amount and $7.6 million (-6.6) less than the President’s request.
Of the total, up to $10.4 million would remain available until expended for
continued modernization of the information technology infrastructure within the
EOP. The office is directed to report annually to the House Committee on
Appropriations, at the same time that the President’s budget is submitted, on
progress on modernization of information technology, including the amounts
obligated and expended and for what purposes, specific milestones achieved, and
requirements and specific plans for further investment.
• Office of Management and Budget: $80.5 million; $8.9 million (-10%) less than
the FY2012 enacted amount and $11 million (-12%) less than the President’s
request. The report stated that the House committee looks forward to the
submission of the examination of Circular A-94 on “government-wide
efficiencies and proper anticipation of the cost of major infrastructure projects.”
24 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Fiscal Year 2013 Congressional Budget Submission Executive Office of the
President Office of National Drug Control Policy (Washington: February 2012), pp. 12, 50, 53, and 27.
25 H.Rept. 112-550, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
28
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
OMB is directed “to continue the effort to improve cost-benefit analyses and
practices government-wide by incorporating life-cycle cost analysis,” and report
to Congress “on the status of further development of tools and materials” for
implementing this cost analysis in federal department and agencies, within 180
days after the act’s enactment. The report directed OMB to report to the
committee on how the agency will ensure that all executive branch agencies are
in compliance with laws and regulations on travel, conferences, and employee
awards.
• Unanticipated Needs: No funding for FY2013, $988,000 (-100%) less than the
FY2012 enacted amount and $1 million (-100%) less than the President’s request.
• Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation: No funding for FY2013, the
same as the FY2012 enacted amount and $1 million less than the President’s
request.
• Integrated, Efficient and Effective Uses of Information Technology: $5.0 million,
the same as the FY2012 enacted amount and the President’s request. The OMB
Director could transfer the funds to one or more agencies to carry out projects
and would submit quarterly reports, not later than 30 days after the end of each
quarter, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations identifying the
savings achieved by the government-wide information technology reform efforts
by fiscal year, agency, and appropriation.
• Special Assistance to the President: $4.1 million; $216,000 (-5%) less than the
FY2012 enacted amount and the President’s request.
• Official Residence of the Vice President: $292,000; $15,000 (-4.9%) less than the
FY2012 enacted amount and the President’s request.
H.R. 6020, as reported, would fund the federal drug control accounts at the following levels:
• ONDCP: $23.3 million; $10.1 million (+76.5%) more than the FY2012 enacted
amount of $13.2 million, after the rescissions of $11.3 million were applied, and
$117,000 (-0.5%) less than the President’s request. The agency is expected “to
focus resources on the counter-drug policy development, coordination and
evaluation functions which are the primary mission of the Office and the original
reason for its existence.”
• HIDTAP: $238.5 million; the same as the FY2012 enacted amount and $38.5
million (+19.3%) more than the President’s request. Not less than 51% of the
funds would be transferred to State and local entities for drug control activities
and would be obligated within 120 days after the act’s enactment. Up to 49% of
the funds could be transferred to federal agencies and departments as determined
by the ONDCP Director, of which up to $2.7 million could be used for auditing
services and associated activities (including up to $500,000 for the continued
operation and maintenance of the Performance Management System). The
ONDCP Director would notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations of the initial allocation of FY2013 funding among HIDTAs
within 45 days after the act’s enactment and of planned uses of discretionary
HIDTA funding, determined in consultation with the HIDTA Directors, within 90
days after the act’s enactment.
Congressional Research Service
29
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
• OFDCP : $105.9 million; $350,000 (+0.3%) more than the FY2012 enacted
amount and $12.7 million (-10.7%) less than the President’s request. The
appropriation would be allocated as follows: $92 million for the Drug-Free
Communities Program, $1.3 million for drug court training and technical
assistance, $9.5 million for anti-doping activities, $1.9 million for the United
States membership dues to the World Anti-Doping Agency, and $1.2 million for
competitive discretionary grants. An appropriation is not provided for the anti-
drug media campaign.
Section 626(a)(1) of H.R. 6020, as reported, would provide the mandatory appropriation for the
compensation of the President ($450,000, including $50,000 for expenses). According to the
House Committee on Appropriations report, this is an account “where authorizing language
requires the payment of funds.”26
The House Appropriations Committee print included the following EOP administrative
provisions:
• Section 201 would continue to authorize the OMB Director (or other official
designated by the President) to transfer up to 10% of appropriations between the
White House, Executive Residence at the White House, White House Repair and
Restoration, Council of Economic Advisers, National Security Council and
Homeland Security Council, Office of Administration, Special Assistance to the
President, and Official Residence of the Vice President accounts, provided the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations are notified at least 15 days in
advance. An appropriation could not be increased by more than 50% by such
transfers. The Vice President would approve transfers from the Special
Assistance to the President or Official Residence of the Vice President accounts.
• Section 202 would require the OMB Director to submit a report by April 1, 2013,
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, on the implementation
of Executive Order 13563 relating to Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review and Executive Order 13610 relating to Identifying and Reducing
Regulatory Burdens. The reports would include information on increasing public
participation in the rulemaking process and reducing uncertainty; improving
coordination across federal agencies to eliminate redundant, inconsistent, and
overlapping regulations; and identifying existing regulations that have been
reviewed and determined to be outmoded, ineffective, or excessively
burdensome.
• Section 203 would require the OMB Director to report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, within 60 days after the act’s enactment, on the
costs of implementing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (P.L. 111-203). The report would include the estimated mandatory
and discretionary obligations of funds through FY2017, by federal agency and by
fiscal year, including (1) the estimated obligations by cost inputs such as rent,
information technology, contracts, and personnel; the methodology and data
sources used to calculate such estimated obligations; and the specific section of
such act that requires the obligation of funds; and (2) the estimated receipts
26 H.Rept. 112-550, p. 83.
Congressional Research Service
30
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
through FY2017 from assessments, user fees, and other fees by the federal
agency making the collections, by fiscal year, including the methodology and
data sources used to calculate such estimated collections; and the specific section
of such act that authorizes the collection of funds.
• Section 204 would prohibit the use of funds to pay the salaries and expenses of
any EOP officer or employee to prepare, sign, or approve statements abrogating
legislation passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate and signed by
the President.
• Section 205 would require the OMB Director to submit a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations and the Budget on a sequestration under
section 251(a) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985. The report would list each account that would be subject to such a
sequestration, each account that would be subject to such a sequestration but
subject to a special rule under section 255 or 256 of such Act (and the citation to
such rule), and each account that would be exempt from such a sequestration.
The report would categorize and group the listed accounts by the appropriations
act covering such accounts. Within the OMB salaries and expenses account, $5.0
million could not be obligated until the OMB Director submits the report which
is due within 60 days after the act’s enactment date.
• Section 206 would require the President to submit a detailed report to Congress
on the sequestration required by section 251A of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 for January 2, 2013. For discretionary
appropriations, the report would include an estimate for each category of the
sequestration percentages and amounts necessary to achieve the required
reduction and an identification of each account to be sequestered. It would also
include estimates of the level of budgetary resources covered by sequestration
and resulting outlays and the amount of budgetary resources to be sequestered
and resulting outlay reductions at the program, project, and activity level.
Enacted levels of appropriations would be used for accounts funded pursuant to
an enacted regular appropriations bill for FY2013, and estimates pursuant to a
current rate continuing resolution would be used for accounts not funded through
an enacted appropriations measure for FY2013. For direct spending, the report
would include an estimate for the defense and nondefense functions based on
current law of the sequestration percentages and amount necessary to achieve the
required reduction; a specific identification of the reductions required for each
nonexempt direct spending account at the program, project, and activity level;
and a specific identification of exempt direct spending accounts at the program,
project, and activity level. It would also include any other data and explanations
that enhance public understanding of the sequester and actions to be taken under
it. The report would be submitted within 30 days after the act’s enactment date.
Section 622 of H.R. 6020, as reported, would continue the provision prohibiting the use of funds
to pay the salaries and expenses for the Director of the White House Office of Health Reform, the
Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, the Senior Advisor to the Secretary of
the Treasury assigned to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and Senior Counselor
for Manufacturing Policy, and the White House Director of Urban Affairs, or any substantially
similar positions.
Congressional Research Service
31
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
The House committee continued the provision at Section 610 that would prohibit the EOP from
using funds to request an FBI official background investigation report on any individual except
with the express written consent of the individual involved, within six months prior to the date of
such request and during the same presidential administration, or when required because of
extraordinary circumstances involving national security.
Senate Action
S. 3301, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, would provide an appropriation
of $698.3 million for the EOP, which is $39.2 million (+5.9%) more than the FY2012 enacted
appropriation and $49.6 million (+7.6%) more than the President’s request.
The appropriations for each of the EOP accounts, as recommended by the Senate Appropriations
Committee, were as follows:
• The White House Office: almost $57.0 million; the same as the FY2012 enacted
amount and the President’s request. The Senate committee report directed the
EOP “to allocate sufficient resources to continue the robust operation of the
Office of National AIDS Policy” and “the administration to continue to
coordinate a Government-wide effort to develop and implement a domestic AIDS
strategy, including the development of targets for improved prevention and
treatment outcomes.”
• Executive Residence, White House: $13.2 million; $225,000 (-1.7%) less than
the FY2012 enacted amount and the same as the President’s request.
• White House Repair and Restoration: $750,000; the same as the FY2012 enacted
amount and the President’s request.
• Council of Economic Advisers: almost $4.2 million; the same as the FY2012
enacted amount and the President’s request.
• National Security Council and Homeland Security Council: $13.0 million; the
same as the FY2012 enacted amount and the President’s request.
• Office of Administration: almost $115.0 million; $2.0 million (+1.8%) more than
the FY2012 enacted amount and the same as the President’s request. Of the total,
$10.4 million would remain available until expended for continued
modernization of the information technology infrastructure within the EOP.
According to the Senate report, the continuation of this initiative will “refresh the
aging information technology infrastructure, strengthen disaster recovery and
information security capabilities, and transition the EOP’s communications
architecture to integrate mobile devices while complying with security and
records management requirements.” The office is directed “to place a top priority
on the implementation of comprehensive policies and procedures for the
preservation of all records, including electronic records such as emails, videos,
and social networking communication, consistent with” laws, including the
Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act. The office is to work
closely with the National Archives and Records Administration, and fully apprise
the committee of funding needed to preserve and retain records.
• Office of Management and Budget: $91.5 million; $2.1 million (+2.3%) more
than the FY2012 enacted amount and the same as the President’s request. The
Congressional Research Service
32
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Senate report directed OMB to continue to enhance the federal government’s
core budgeting system “within current resources and to notify the Committee” of
opportunities that are cost-effective to further improve the system. OMB is
reminded “of its duty to honor the terms and conditions of appropriations acts by
... reviewing reprogramming requests submitted to the” House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations and “reviewing agency activities for compliance
with reprogramming conditions.” OMB and agencies are to consult with the
committees in “determining the applicability of Section 608” of this act which
provides reprogramming authority. A reprogramming of funds under the section
includes “reimbursable agreements and other similar funding mechanisms” used
to reallocate funds.
• Unanticipated Needs: $1.0 million; $12,000 (-1.2%) less than the FY2012
enacted amount and the same as the President’s request.
• Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation: $1.0 million; $1.0 million
(+100%) more than the FY2012 enacted amount and the same as the President’s
request. The Administration is directed to continue to leverage the FY2010
funding to continue the initiative. The Senate report reminded the interagency
council that semiannual reports must be submitted to the Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations, directed that the council “be the exclusive
decisionmaking body” for “designing pilot programs, developing performance
measures, and allocating funds,” and directed the OMB director, as the council
chair, “to seek consensus and input to the maximum extent possible from council
members and participating Federal and State agencies.”
• Integrated, Efficient and Effective Uses of Information Technology: $5.0 million;
the same as the FY2012 enacted amount and the President’s request. The Senate
report reminded the Administration to regularly apprise the committee “of how
Government-wide IT reform efforts affect agency-specific projects and missions
on a case-by-case basis,” and to immediately notify the committee of changes in
agency spending plans for IT projects. The report directed that “IT reform
initiatives shall not be a substitute for the Committee’s routine consideration of
agency needs” under the budget process.
• Special Assistance to the President: more than $4.3 million; the same as the
FY2012 enacted amount and the President’s request.
• Official Residence of the Vice President: $307,000; the same as the FY2012
enacted amount and the President’s request.
S. 3301, as reported, would fund the federal drug control accounts at the following levels:
• ONDCP: $24.5 million; $11.3 million (+86%) more than the FY2012 enacted
amount of $13.2 million, after the rescissions of $11.3 million were applied, and
$1.0 million (+4.6%) more than the President’s request. Policy research was not
funded.
• HIDTAP: $238.5 million; the same as the FY2012 enacted amount and $38.5
million (+19.3%) more than the President’s request. The office was directed to
provide funding for the existing HIDTA’s at not less than the FY2012 level and to
consult with the HIDTA’s prior to allocating funds. Of the total, up to $2.7
million could be used for auditing services and associated activities. HIDTA
Congressional Research Service
33
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
funds are to be expeditiously transferred to the appropriate drug control agencies
and are to be withheld from a State “until such time as a State or locality has met
its financial obligation.”
• OFDCP : $128.6 million; $23.0 million (+21.8%) more than the FY2012 enacted
amount and almost $10.0 million (+8.4%) more than the President’s request. The
appropriation would be allocated as follows: $20 million for the Youth Drug
Prevention Media Program, $95.1 million for the Drug-Free Communities
Support Program (DFCSP), including $2.0 million for National Community Anti-
Drug Coalition training; $9.0 million for anti-doping activities; $1.9 million for
the United States membership dues to the World Anti-Doping Agency; $1.1
million for activities related to model State drug laws; and $1.4 million for drug
court training and technical assistance. Funding is not provided for Performance
Measures Development.
Administrative provisions under the appropriation for the EOP and funds appropriated to the
President, included in the Senate report, were the following:
• Section 201 would continue to authorize the OMB Director (or other official
designated by the President) to transfer up to 10% of appropriations between the
White House, Executive Residence at the White House, White House Repair and
Restoration, Council of Economic Advisers, National Security Council and
Homeland Security Council, Office of Administration, Special Assistance to the
President, and Official Residence of the Vice President accounts, after the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations are notified at least 15 days in
advance. An appropriation could not be increased by more than 50% by such
transfers. The Vice President would approve transfers from the Special
Assistance to the President or Official Residence of the Vice President accounts.
• Section 202 would require the ONDCP Director to submit to the Senate and
House Appropriations Committees, within 60 days after the act’s enactment, and
prior to initially obligating more than 20% of the ONDCP funds, “a detailed
narrative and financial plan on the proposed uses of all funds under the account
by program, project, and activity.” The reports must be updated every six months
and include any changes in the estimates and assumptions of the previous reports.
New projects and changes in the funding for ongoing projects would require
advance approval by the committees.
• Section 203 would provide that up to 2% of ONDCP appropriations could be
transferred between appropriated programs within ONDCP with advance
approval by the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, but such
transfer could not increase or decrease an appropriation by more than 3%.
• Section 204 would provide that up to $1.0 million of ONDCP appropriations
could be reprogrammed within a program, project, or activity with advance
approval by the Senate and House Appropriations committees.
• Section 205 would require the OMB Director to submit a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations and the Budget on a sequestration under
section 251(a) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985. The report would list each account that would be subject to such a
sequestration, each account that would be subject to such a sequestration but
subject to a special rule under section 255 or 256 of such Act (and the citation to
Congressional Research Service
34
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
such rule), and each account that would be exempt from such a sequestration.
The report would categorize and group the listed accounts by the appropriations
act covering such accounts. Within the OMB salaries and expenses account, $5.0
million could not be obligated until the OMB Director submits the report which
is due within 60 days after the act’s enactment date.
• Section 206 would require the President to submit a detailed report to Congress
on the sequestration required by section 251A of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 for January 2, 2013. For discretionary
appropriations, the report would include an estimate for each category of the
sequestration percentages and amounts necessary to achieve the required
reduction and an identification of each account to be sequestered. It would also
include estimates of the level of budgetary resources covered by sequestration
and resulting outlays and the amount of budgetary resources to be sequestered
and resulting outlay reductions at the program, project, and activity level.
Enacted levels of appropriations would be used for accounts funded pursuant to
an enacted regular appropriations bill for FY2013, and estimates pursuant to a
current rate continuing resolution would be used for accounts not funded through
an enacted appropriations measure for FY2013. For direct spending, the report
would include an estimate for the defense and nondefense functions based on
current law of the sequestration percentages and amount necessary to achieve the
required reduction; a specific identification of the reductions required for each
nonexempt direct spending account at the program, project, and activity level;
and a specific identification of exempt direct spending accounts at the program,
project, and activity level. It would also include any other data and explanations
that enhance public understanding of the sequester and actions to be taken under
it. The report would be submitted within 30 days after the act’s enactment date.
The Senate committee continued the provision at Section 610 that would prohibit the EOP from
using funds to request an FBI official background investigation report on any individual except
with the express written consent of the individual involved, within six months prior to the date of
such request and during the same presidential administration, or when required because of
extraordinary circumstances involving national security.
Title III: The Judiciary27
As a co-equal branch of government, the judiciary presents its budget to the President, who
transmits it to Congress unaltered. The President’s FY2013 budget request for $7.29 billion is
$423 million more than appropriated for FY2012 and $387 million above FY2011 enacted
amounts. Table 5 lists the enacted amounts for FY2012, the President’s FY2013 request, and
amounts recommended by the House and Senate appropriations committees for FY2013.
27 This section was authored by Lorraine Tong (x7-5846).
Congressional Research Service
35
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Table 5. The Judiciary Appropriations, FY2012-FY2013
(in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House
Senate
FY2013
Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee
Enacted
Total: Supreme Court (total)
$83
$89
$84
$89
Salaries and Expenses
75
77
75
77
Building and Grounds
8
12
9
12
U.S. Court of Appeals for the
33 34 33 34
Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of International Trade
21
23
21
23
Courts of Appeals, District
6,603 6,787 6,590 6,763
Courts, and Other Judicial
Services (Subtotal)
Salaries and Expenses
5,015
5,149
4,989
5,142
Defender Services
1,031
1,064 1,031 1,049
Fees of Jurors and
52 55 55 55
Commissioners
Court Security
500
515
510
513
Vaccine Injury Trust Fund
5
5
5
5
Administrative Office of the U.S.
83 85 83 85
Courts
Federal Judicial Center
27
28
27
28
United States Sentencing
17 17 16 17
Commission
Judicial Retirement Funds
104
125
125
125
Total: The Judiciary
$6,970
$7,189
$6,979
$7,164
Sources: H.R. 6020; H.Rept. 112-550; S. 3301, S.Rept. 112-177.
The Judiciary Budget and Key Issues
Appropriations for the judiciary comprise approximately (0.2%) of total budget authority.28
Two accounts that fund the Supreme Court (including the salaries and expenses of the Court and
the expenditures for the care of its building and grounds, which are the responsibility of the
Architect of the Capitol) together total approximately 1% of the total judiciary budget. The rest of
the judiciary’s budget provides funding for the “lower” federal courts and related judicial
services.
28 Calculations by CRS with data from Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Historical Tables, Budget of the
United States Government, FY2013, Table 5.2—Budget Authority By Agency: 1976–2017; available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals.
Congressional Research Service
36
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
The largest account, approximately 72% of the total FY2012 budget—the Salaries and Expenses
account for the U.S. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services—covers the
“salaries of circuit and district judges (including judges of the territorial courts of the United
States), justices and judges retired from office or from regular active service, judges of the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and all other officers and
employees of the federal judiciary not otherwise specifically provided for,” and “necessary
expenses of the courts.”
The remaining judiciary budget is divided among the: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit (0.5% in FY2012), U.S. Court of International Trade (0.3%), Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts (1.2%), Federal Judicial Center (0.4%), U.S. Sentencing Commission (0.2%), and
Judicial Retirement Funds (1.5%). The House report (H.Rept. 112-550) requires the Judicial
Conference to report on the steps necessary to merge the appropriations for the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and United States Court of International Trade into the
U.S. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services appropriation.
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), and 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. Some
of these funds may be carried 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).29
At a March 28, 2012, House hearing, Judge Julia S. Gibbons, chair of the Budget Committee of
the Judicial Conference of the United States,30 addressed funding constraints and efforts to cut
costs, and stated that the 3.1% overall increase is the “lowest requested increase on record.”31 She
also discussed the potential impact of a sequester pursuant to the Budget Control Act, workload
projections, and staffing formulas. She stated that “the courts have already downsized by nearly
29 U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, hearings, Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations for 2013, part 2, budget justifications, pp. 302-303.
30 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.
31 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 28, 2012, p. 5.
Congressional Research Service
37
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
1,100 employees since July 2011” and that “without a significant reduction in workload, which is
unlikely, we are facing the possibility of delays in processing cases and a reduction in the
supervision of felons on post-conviction release in the community.”32
Judicial Security33
The safe conduct of court proceedings and security of judges in courtrooms and off-site has been
a concern in recent years. The Chicago murders of family members of a federal judge, and the
Atlanta killings of a state judge, a court reporter, and a sheriff’s deputy at a courthouse in 2005;
the sniper shooting of a state judge in his Reno office in 2006; and the wounding of a deputy U.S.
marshal and killing of a court security officer at the Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse and
Federal Building in Las Vegas in 2010, spurred efforts to improve judicial security.34 A FY2005
supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 109-13) included a provision that provided intrusion
detection systems for judges in their homes, and the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007
(P.L. 110-177) aimed to enhance security for judges and court personnel as well as courtroom
safety for the public.
The judiciary has been working closely with the U.S. Marshals (USMS) to ensure that adequate
protective policies, procedures, and practices are in place. The FY2013 budget request would
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 first authorized in FY2009 as a result of the judiciary’s stated concerns that FPS was not
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 have been evaluating the program and identifying areas for
improvement. The judiciary reimburses USMS for the protective services.
Supreme Court
The total FY2013 request for the Supreme Court, $89.1 million, was contained in two accounts:
(1) Salaries and Expenses: $77.2 million was requested, a $2.3 million (3.1%) increase over
FY2012; and (2) Care of the Building and Grounds: $11.96 million was requested, a $3.8 million
(46.6%) increase. The requested increase for the buildings and grounds would support the
Supreme Court Police radio infrastructure upgrade and the restoration of the Supreme Court
building façade.
The House-reported level of $74.99 million for the Salaries and Expenses account (an increase of
$173,000, or 0.2%), and $9.3 million for the Care of Building and Grounds account (an increase
of $1.1 million, or 13.5%), total $84.3 million (an increase of $1.3 million, or 1.5%). The House
report indicated that funding was provided for the radio upgrade but not the façade restoration.
The Senate-reported level of $77.2 million for the Salaries and Expenses account (an increase of
32 Ibid., pp. 1-2.
33 For an analysis of court security and federal building security in general, see CRS Report R41138, Federal Building,
Courthouse, and Facility Security, by Lorraine H. Tong and Shawn Reese.
34 Steve Friess, “Two Killed in Las Vegas Courthouse,” New York Times, January 4, 2010, available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/us/05vegas.html.
Congressional Research Service
38
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
$2.3, or 3.1%), and $11.96 million for the Care of Building and Grounds account (an increase of
$3.8 million, or 46.6%, the same as the request), total $89.1 million (an increase of $6.2 million,
or 7.4%). The Senate report requires quarterly reports on the Supreme Court modernization
project.
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
FY2013 budget request is $34.3 million, which is $1.8 million (5.6%) more than the FY2012
appropriation of $32.5 million.
The House-reported bill would provide $32.5 million, equivalent to the FY2012 level. The
Senate-reported bill would provide $33.7 million (an increase of $1.2 million, or 3.7%).
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 FY2013 request is $22.9 million, a $1.4 million (6.7%) increase over the FY2012
appropriation of $21.4 million. The House-reported level is $21.4 million, equivalent to the
FY2012 level. The Senate-reported level is $22.9 million, equivalent to the request.
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services
The FY2013 funding request of $6,787.9 million 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 FY2013 request represents a $184.1million (2.8%) increase over the
FY2012 appropriation of $6,602.9 million. The House-reported level is $6,589.9 million (a
decrease of $13.1 million, -0.2%). The Senate-reported level is $6,763.2 million (an increase of
$160.3 million, 2.4%).
The account is divided among salaries and expenses, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust
Fund, court security, defender services, and fees of jurors and commissioners.
Salaries and Expenses
The FY2013 request for this account is $5,148.8 million, an increase of $133.8 million (2.7%)
over the FY2012 appropriation of $5,015.0 million. The House-reported level is $4,989.1 million
(a decrease of $25.9 million, -0.5%). The Senate-reported level is $5,142.0 million (an increase of
$127.0 million, 2.5%).
Congressional Research Service
39
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
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 FY2013 request
was $5.4 million, a $354,000 (7.1%) increase from the FY2012 appropriation of $5.0 million. The
House-reported level is $5.1 million (an increase of $100,000, 2.0%). The Senate-reported level is
$5.4 million, equivalent to the request.
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 FY2013 request was $514.7 million, a $14.7 million (2.9%) increase over the FY2012
appropriation of $500.0 million. The House-reported bill would provide $510.0 million (an
increase of $10.0 million, 2.0%). The Senate-reported bill would provide $512.7 million (an
increase of $12.7 million, 2.5%). The Senate report also contains language encouraging the
judiciary to consider opportunities to expand a pilot perimeter security project following the
completion of a review.
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 cost
for this account is driven by the number and type of prosecutions brought by U.S. Attorneys. The
FY2013 request for these services was $1,063.5 million, a $32.5 million (3.2%) increase over the
FY2012 appropriation of $1,031.0 million. The House-reported bill would continue funding at the
FY2012 level. The Senate-reported bill would provide $1,048.5 million (an increase of $17.5
million, 1.7%). The House report stated that funding was not provided for an increase in the
hourly panel attorney rate, while the Senate, in its report, indicated that its bill contained this
increase. The House report also contains language related to increased cost containment scrutiny
for this account.
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 FY2013 request was $54.6 million, a $2.7 million (5.3%)
increase over the FY2012 appropriation of $51.9 million. The House- and Senate-reported bills
would provide funding at the requested level.
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
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
Congressional Research Service
40
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
conference policies and applicable federal statutes and regulations. The FY2013 request for
AOUSC was $85.1 million, a $2.2 million (2.7%) increase over the FY2012 appropriation of
$82.9 million. The House-reported bill would continue funding at the FY2012 level. The Senate-
reported bill would provide funding at the requested level.
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 FY2013 request was $27.7 million, a $729,000 (2.7%)
increase over the FY2012 appropriation of $27.0 million. The House-reported bill would continue
funding at the FY2012 level. The Senate-reported bill would provide $27.5 million (an increase
of $519,000, 1.9%).
United States Sentencing Commission
The commission promulgates sentencing policies, practices, and guidelines for the federal
criminal justice system. The FY2013 request was $17.1 million, a $561,000 (3.4%) increase over
the FY2012 appropriation of $16.5 million. The House-reported bill would provide $16.0 million
(a decrease of $500,000, -3.0%). The Senate-reported bill would provide the requested level.
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 FY2013 request would provide $125.5 million (an
increase of $21.7 million, 20.9%). Both the House and Senate would provide funding at the
requested level. The House-reported bill provides for these funds in Title VI (General Provisions)
of the FSGG bill, rather than in Title III (the Judiciary). The Senate-reported bill provides these
funds in Title III of the bill.
Administrative Provisions
The House- and Senate-reported FSGG bills each contained new and continuing administrative
provision language.
House Language Continued from FY2012
• Section 301, which would continue language to permit funds for salaries and
expenses to be available for employment of experts and consultant services (as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109). (The judiciary also proposed this section.)
• Section 302, which would continue language to permit up to 5% of any
appropriation made available for FY2013 to be transferred between judiciary
appropriations accounts, provided that no appropriation shall be decreased by
more than 5% or increased by more than 10% by any such transfer except in
certain circumstances. In addition, the language would provide that any such
transfer shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds under Sections 604 and 608
Congressional Research Service
41
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
of the bill and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except in
compliance with the procedures set forth in those sections. (The judiciary also
proposed this section.)
• Section 303, which would continue language authorizing not to exceed $11,000
to be used for official reception and representation expenses incurred by the
Judicial Conference of the United States. (The judiciary also proposed this
section.)
• Section 304, which would continue language to authorize a court security pilot
program. (The judiciary also proposed this section.)
House Proposed New Language
• Section 305, which would extend temporary judgeships. One of these, in Kansas,
was previously extended in the FY2012 act.
• Section 306, which would require a plan for freezing the number of square feet
covered by certain appropriations and reducing the number of square feet
occupied by the Judiciary overall by at least 1 percent in each of the next four
fiscal years. The House report also indicated a continued concern with the cost
and amount of space occupied by the Judicial branch, and it estimated that the
amount of space would increase by 728,000 square feet in FY2013.
• Section 307, which would address boundaries between the eastern district of
Missouri and the northern district of Mississippi.
• Section 308, which would prohibit the use of funds for circuit judicial
conferences in FY2013, and requiring future budget justification to contain an
explanation of the costs of proposed conferences. On July 13, 2012, the Ninth
Circuit Public Information Office announced that it “will reschedule its 2013
Circuit Conference to 2014” due to “current budget constraints facing the federal
judiciary and the federal government in general.”35
Senate Language Continued from FY2012
The Senate committee recommended the language continued from FY2012 listed above.
Senate Proposed New Language
• Senate section 304, which would grant the judicial branch the same tenant
alteration authorities as the executive branch. The Senate included this language
in FY2012.
• Senate section 306 extends temporary judgeships.
Senate section 307 authorizes four additional district judgeships in response to increased
caseloads and converts two temporary judgeships, in California and Arizona, to permanent status.
35 “Ninth Circuit to Reschedule 2013 Circuit Conference,” Ninth Circuit Public Information Office, July 13, 2012,
available at http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/absolutenm/templates/template_ce9.aspx?articleid=487&zoneid=1
Congressional Research Service
42
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Title IV: District of Columbia36
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).37 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.38 The approved budget must then be transmitted to the President, who forwards it to
Congress for its review, modification, and approval.39
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 6 lists the enacted
amounts for FY2012, the President’s FY2013 request, and amounts recommended by the House
and Senate appropriations committees for FY2013.
Table 6. District of Columbia Special Federal Payments, FY2012-FY2013
(in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House
Senate
FY2013
Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee
Enacted
Resident Tuition Support
$30
$35
$30
$35
Emergency Planning and
15 25 25 25
Security
District of Columbia Courts
233
220
232
225
Defender Services
55
50
50
50
Court Services and Offender
213 216 214 215
Supervision Agency
Public Defender Service
37
39
38
39
Criminal Justice Coordinating
2 2 2 2
Council
Judicial Commissions
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
St. Elizabeth Hospital Campus
—
10
10
10
HIV/AIDS Prevention
5
5
5
5
Water and Sewer Authority
15
12
—
15
School Improvement
60
60
60
54
D.C. National Guard
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
36 This section was authored by Eugene Boyd (x7-8689).
37 See Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution and Section 446 of P.L. 93-198, 87 Stat. 801.
38 120 Stat. 2028.
39 87 Stat. 801.
Congressional Research Service
43
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House
Senate
FY2013
Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee
Enacted
Job Training Pilot Program
—
2
—
—
Arts and Humanities
—
3
—
—
Total $665
$678
$667
$676
Sources: : H.R. 6020; H.Rept. 112-550; S. 3301, S.Rept. 112-177.
The District of Columbia Budget and General Provisions
The President’s Budget Request
On February 13, 2012, the Obama Administration released its detailed budget requests for
FY2013. The Administration’s proposed budget includes $677.8 million in special federal
payments to the District of Columbia, which is $2.2 million less than the District’s FY2012
appropriation of $665.6 million. Approximately 78% ($526.7 million) of the President’s proposed
budget request for the District would be targeted to the courts and criminal justice system. This
includes
• $219.6 million in support of court operations;
• $49.9 million for Defender Services;
• $215.5 million for the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for
the District of Columbia, an independent federal agency responsible for the
District’s pretrial services, adult probation, and parole supervision functions;
• $1.8 million for the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council;
• $39.4 million for the public defender’s office; and
• $500,000 to cover costs associated with investigating judicial misconduct
complaints and recommending candidates to the President for vacancies to the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the District of Columbia Superior
Court.40
The President’s budget request also includes $95.6 million in support of education initiatives,
including $60 million to support elementary and secondary education, $500,000 to support D.C.
National Guard college access program, and $35.1 million for college tuition assistance. This
represents 14% of the Administration’s federal payment budget request for the District of
Columbia.
District’s Budget
On March 23, 2012, the mayor of the District of Columbia submitted a proposed budget to the
District of Columbia Council. On May 15, 2012, the council approved a FY2013 budget that
40 This includes $295,000 to the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure and $205,000 to the Judicial
Nomination Commission.
Congressional Research Service
44
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
included $11.4 billion in operating funds and $1.1 billion in capital outlays. The mayor signed the
measure (A19-0381) on June 15, 2012. Of the $11.4 billion budgeted for operating expenses,
$998.2 million is projected to be derived from federal grants and $1.672 billion from Medicaid
payments. Included in the act was a provision that would grant the District some level of budget
autonomy in the expenditure of local funds if Congress failed to pass and the President failed sign
a District of Columbia appropriations act before the beginning of the 2013 fiscal year. The
provision would allow the District to obligate and expend local funds at the rate set forth in the
act during the period in which there is an absence of a federal appropriations act authorizing the
expenditure of local funds. Similar language was included in the Senate bill, S. 3301, reported by
the Senate Appropriations Committee.41 The provision is also supported by the Administration.42
Both the House and Senate bills (H.R. 6020 and S. 3301) include language that references the
District’s FY2013 budget submission.
Congressional Action
Congress not only appropriates federal payments to the District to fund certain activities, but also
reviews, and may modify, the District’s entire budget, including the expenditure of local funds as
outlined in the District’s Home Rule Act.
Senate Bill, S. 3301
On June 14, 2012, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 3301, its version of the
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for FY2013, with an
accompanying report (S.Rept. 112-177). As reported, the bill recommended $676.2 million in
special federal payments to the District. This was $10.6 million more than appropriated for
FY2012, and $1.6 million more than requested by the Administration. The bill includes $5.7
million more in funding for court operations than requested by the Administration, but $7.4
million less than appropriated in FY2012. It would appropriate $6.5 million less for elementary
and secondary education initiatives. These funds would be allocated among three specific
initiatives: public school improvements, support for public charter schools, and funding a private
school voucher program. The Administration’s budget request did not including funding the
school voucher program. As noted above, S. 3301 includes the provision that would allow the
District to obligate and expend locally-raised funds in the absence of congressional approval of a
District of Columbia appropriations act.
General Provisions
The Senate bill’s general provisions mirrors some of the language included in the House bill. Like
the House bill, S. 3301 included provisions governing budgetary and fiscal operations and
controls. It also included provisions restricting or prohibiting the use of federal funds to support
District statehood or congressional voting representation, including provisions that would
continue prohibiting the use of federal funds to:
41 S. 3301, Title VIII, § 815.
42 Executive Office of the President, U.S. President (Obama), “Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 6020 –
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2013;” June 28, 2012), p. 4,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr6020r_20120628.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
45
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
• 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.
The bill also included changes in two provisions that city officials have sought to eliminate or
modify. The bill would:
• lift the prohibition on the use of District funds to provide abortion services, but
would continue the prohibition against the use of federal funds;
• prohibit the use of federal funds to regulate and decriminalize the medical use
of marijuana; and
• maintain the current prohibition on the use of federal funds to support a needle
exchange program.
House Bill H.R. 6020
The House bill included $673.7 million in special federal payments to the District. This is $12.2
million than appropriated for FY2012, $4.1 million less than requested by the Administration, and
$2.5 million less than recommended by the Senate bill. The bill included a substantial increase
($12.5 million) in the amount requested by the Administration for court operations, and a $5.1
million reduction in the amount that would be appropriated for the Resident Tuition Support
(college access) program. The bill also would direct $60 million in funding to support the District
of Columbia Public Schools ($36.6 million) and public charter schools ($23.4 million). Unlike its
Senate counterpart, the bill did not include funding recommendations for private school vouchers.
General Provisions
Like its Senate counterpart, the House bill included several general provisions governing
budgetary and fiscal operations and controls, including prohibiting deficit spending within budget
accounts, establishing restrictions on the reprogramming of funds, and allowing the transfer of
local funds to capital and enterprise fund accounts. In addition, the bill would require the city’s
Chief Financial Officer to submit a revised operating budgets for all District government agencies
and the District public schools within 30 days after the passage of the bill.
The House bill also included several general provisions relating to statehood or congressional
representation for the District, including provisions that would continue prohibiting the use of
federal funds to:
• support or defeat any legislation being considered by Congress or a state
legislature;
Congressional Research Service
46
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
• 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.
Unlike the Senate bill, H.R. 6020 would prohibit the use of both District and federal funds for
abortion service. In addition, the bill would continue to prohibit the use of federal funds to
administer needle exchange or to decriminalize or regulate the medical use of marijuana. Despite
the federal prohibition, on June 12, 2012, the city announced the certification of four medical
marijuana dispensaries.43 The dispensaries are set to open in the fall 2012.
The Obama Administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 6020, on June
28. 2012.44 The Statement urged the House to include language that would allow the District to
expend its own funds should Congress fail to approve the District budget before the beginning of
the fiscal year. The Statement also included language objecting to general provisions that would
prohibit the use of federal funds to support the District’s needle exchange program noting that the
restriction “is contrary to current law and the Administration’s policy to allow funds to be
used in locations where local authorities deem needle exchange programs to be effective and
appropriate.” The Statement also objected to a provision that would prohibit the use of
District funds for abortion services noting that the restriction undermines the principle of
home rule.
Title V: Independent Agencies
Title V provides funding for more than two dozen independent agencies which perform a wide
range of functions, including the management of federal real property (GSA), the regulation of
financial institutions (SEC), and mail delivery (USPS). Table 7 lists the enacted amounts for
FY2012, the President’s FY2013 request, and amounts recommended by the House and Senate
appropriations committees for FY2013.
43 District of Columbia Department of Health, “DC Department of Health Notifies Applicants Eligible to Register for
Medical Marijuana Dispensaries,” press release, June 12, 2012, http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/agency/doh/section/
2/release/23453/year/2012.
44 Executive Office of the President, U.S. President (Obama), “Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 6020 –
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2013”, June 28, 2012), p. 4,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr6020r_20120628.pdf .
Congressional Research Service
47
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Table 7. Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY2012-FY2013
(in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House
Senate
FY2013
Enacted
Request
Committee Committee
Enacted
Administrative Conference of the United
$3 $3 — $3
States
Christopher Columbus Fel owship
0.5 — — 0.5
Foundation
Civilian Property Realignment Board
— 57 — —
Commodity Futures Trading
205 308 180 308
Commissiona
Consumer Product Safety Commission
115
122
115
122
Election Assistance Commission
12
12
6
12
Federal Communications Commissionb (340) (347) (323) (348)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation:
(45) (35) (35) (35)
Office of Inspector General (by
transfer)c
Federal Election Commission
66
66
66
68
Federal Labor Relations Authority
25
25
25
25
Federal Trade Commission
183
170
156
170
General Services Administrationd -971
-799
-1,518
-786
Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation
1
—
1
1
Merit Systems Protection Board
43
41
41
43
Morris K. Udal Foundation
6
6
6
6
National Archives and Records
377 370 369 372
Administration
National Credit Union Administration
1
1
0.5
1
Office of Government Ethics
14
13
14
20
Office of Personnel Management (total) 21,128 20,880 20,878 20,880
Office of Special Counsel
19
19
19
19
Postal Regulatory Commission
14
14
14
14
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
-1 — -1 —
Boarde
Recovery and Accountability
28 32 32 32
Transparency Board
Securities and Exchange Commissionb (1,321) (1,566) (1,371) (1,566)
Selective Service System
24
24
12
24
Smal Business Administration
919
1,115
1,158
1,124
United States Postal Service
320
331
331
331
United States Tax Court
51
53
51
53
Total: Independent Agencies
$22,581
$22,864
$21,955
$22,844
Congressional Research Service
48
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Sources: : H.R. 6020; H.Rept. 112-550; S. 3301, S.Rept. 112-177.
Notes: All figures are rounded, and columns also 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. The FCC, and the SEC received al of their FY2012 funding through the col ection of regulatory fees in
resulting in no direct appropriation. Therefore, the amounts shown for the FCC and SEC represent
budgetary resources made available by Congress but those amounts are not included in the table totals.
c. Budget authority transferred to FDIC is not included in total FSGG appropriations; it is counted as part
of the budget authority in the appropriation account from which it came.
d. GSA’s real property activities are funded through the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF), a multi-billion dol ar
revolving fund into which rental payments from federal agencies that lease GSA space are deposited.
Revenue in the FBF is then made available by Congress each year to pay for GSA’s real property
activities. A negative total for the FBF occurs when the amount of funds made available for expenditure
in a fiscal year is less than the amount of new revenue expected to be deposited.
e. The House recommended no funding for FY2013 and a $1 million rescission of prior year unobligated
balances.
Civilian Property Realignment Board45
The President requested $57.0 million for a new Civilian Property Realignment Board (CPRB),
which would develop recommendations as to which civilian federal properties should be
consolidated, reconfigured, redeveloped, leased, sold, or conveyed. No funding was provided in
FY2012, and neither the House nor the Senate Appropriations Committees recommended funding
for FY2013. There are two bills that have been introduced in the 112th Congress, H.R. 1734 and
S. 2232, which would establish such a board and provide it with funding.46 The bills are not
identical, but they do share the same title—the Civilian Property Realignment Act of 2012—and
each would provide $82.0 million for the CPRB.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission47
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is the independent regulatory agency
charged with oversight of derivatives markets. The CFTC’s functions include oversight of trading
on the futures exchanges, registration and supervision of futures industry personnel, prevention of
fraud and price manipulation, and investor protection. Although most futures trading is now
related to financial variables (interest rates, currency prices, and stock indexes), congressional
oversight remains vested in the agriculture committees because of the market’s historical origins
as an adjunct to agricultural trade. Appropriations for the CFTC are under the jurisdiction of the
Agriculture Subcommittee in the House, and the Financial Services and General Government
Subcommittee in the Senate. The CFTC received $205.0 million for FY2012. The President has
requested, and the Senate Appropriations Committee has recommended, $308.0 million for
FY2013, which is $103.0 million above FY2012 enacted appropriations. The House
45 This section was authored by Garrett Hatch (x7-7822).
46 For more information on federal real property reform legislation in the 112th Congress, including H.R. 1734 and S.
2232, see CRS Report R42646, Disposal of Unneeded Federal Buildings: Legislative Proposals in the 112th Congress,
by Garrett Hatch.
47 This section was written by Garrett Hatch (x7-7822).
Congressional Research Service
49
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Appropriations Committee recommended $180.0 million, which is $128.0 million below the
Administration’s request and $25.0 million less than FY2012 enacted amounts.
Consumer Product Safety Commission48
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is an independent federal regulatory agency
whose mission is to reduce the risk of harm from the use of consumer products. In carrying out its
mission, the Commission creates mandatory safety standards for products to lower the risk of
injury to consumers; works with industries to develop voluntary safety standards; bans products it
deems unsafe when voluntary safety standards are not feasible; monitors recalls of defective
products; informs and educates consumers about product hazards; conducts research on and
develops testing methods for product safety; collects and publishes data on injuries and product
hazards; and promotes uniform product regulations among state and local governments.
For FY2012, the CPSC was provided $114.5 million in appropriated funds, the same amount as
provided in FY2011. CPSC funding has increase significantly since FY2007, when it received
about $62.0 million. From FY2008 through FY2010, Congress approved significant increases in
funding for the agency, largely to support major reforms initiated by Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA, P.L. 110-314). The 110th Congress passed the act partly as a
response to a series of highly publicized recalls of imported products, particularly unsafe toys and
other items manufactured for children. Among other things, the act enhanced the Commission’s
recall authority, simplified the rulemaking process, established a new searchable database for
consumer product complaints, and mandated product certification.
President’s Budget Request
For FY2013, the Obama Administration requested $122.4 million in appropriations for the CPSC.
Of this amount, $116.4 million would be used for its operating expenses and the remaining $6.0
million would be available through the end of FY2014 to finance a relocation of CPSC
headquarters after its current lease expires in August 2013. In its budget request, CPSC allocates
the requested funding among the five strategic goals set forth in its strategic plan for the FY2011-
FY2016: leadership in safety ($13.8 million), commitment to prevention ($23.6 million), rigorous
hazard identification ($28.0 million), decisive response ($42.0 million), and raising public
awareness ($9.0 million).
The budget request is built around several proposed offsets, reallocations, and net additions.
Among other things, $3.7 million would be transferred from the FY2012 budget for IT project
development to operations and maintenance, and $0.7 million in FY2012 funding for salaries and
certain other expenses would be reallocated to FY2013 “priorities.” In addition, $2.6 million in
new funding would be used for the import surveillance plan, $0.5 million for compliance
investigations, $0.35 million to add model numbers to recalled products in CPSC’s database for
those products, $0.4 million to develop an agency-wide continuity-of-operations plan, $0.6
million to support CPSC’s ongoing contracts for IT applications to improve the efficiency of
agency operations, $0.4 million to comply with government-wide standards for electronic
48 This section was written by Gary Guenther (x7-7742).
Congressional Research Service
50
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
document and records management, and $0.8 million to operate and maintain the CPSC’s IT
security and safety systems.49
Action in the House
The House Appropriations Committee recommends an appropriation of $111.5 million for the
CPSC in FY2013, or the same amount that was enacted for FY2012 but $7.9 million less than the
budget request. Of that amount, $500,000 would be designated for a pool and spa safety
education campaign that the CPSC has been conducting under a provision of the Virginia Graeme
Baker Poll and Spa Safety Act (Title XIV of P.L. 110-140); the funds would be available until
September 30, 2014. Under the act, a total of $5 million in appropriations were authorized for the
period from FY2008 to FY2012 to cover the cost of the education campaign.
In its report on H.R. 6020, the Committee points out the advantages of the CPSC establishing
cooperative relationships with the private sector in seeking the recall of products the CPSC deems
hazardous. It also expresses support for the agency’s Import Safety Initiative, which involves
placing CPSC investigators at key ports to prevent hazardous products from entering the United
States. The effort is being done with the participation of the Bureau of Customs and Border
Patrol, resulting in cost savings for both. In addition, the Committee has added a provision to the
bill requiring GAO to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the changes the CPSIA made in the
CPSC’s mission and operations. Though a CPSIA reform bill (H.R. 2715, P.L. 112-28) enacted in
August 2011 addresses some of the Committee’s concerns about lead limits in certain consumer
products and third-party testing requirements, it believes the reforms do not go far enough and
thinks a study of the impact of the CPSIA is needed.
Action in the Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends that the CPSC receive an appropriation of
$122.4 million in FY2013, or $7.9 million more than the amount enacted for FY2012 but the
same as the budget request.
In its report on S. 3301, the Committee expresses satisfaction with the results so far of the
consumer product safety database authorized by the CPSIA. It notes that more than 8,200
searchable reports, many of which include incidents involving injury or death, have been posted
on SaferProducts.gov.
The Committee also expresses concern about the safety hazards posed by button cell batteries and
the cords on window coverings. In the case of the former, it recognizes the efforts underway to
develop a voluntary safety standard and urges the parties involved to expedite the search for an
agreement. In the case of the latter, the Committee adds a provision to the bill (Section 502)
requiring the CPSC to issue a rule that eliminates or greatly reduces the risk of strangulation
posed by the cords.
And reflecting continuing concern about the safety hazards associated with the use of flame-
retardant chemicals on furniture, the Committee directs the Commission to submit a report within
90 days of the enactment of the bill on the status of a proposed rule regarding flammability
49 For more details on the request, see http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/reports/2013plan.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
51
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
standards for household upholstered furniture. Among other things, the report should discuss the
steps needed to complete the rulemaking process.
Election Assistance Commission50
The Election Assistance Commission (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 for election reform programs, provides for testing and certification of
voting machines, studies election issues, and promulgates voluntary guidelines for voting systems
standards and issues voluntary guidance with respect to the act’s requirements. The Commission
was not given new 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; these responsibilities include NVRA rule-making authority.
The Department of Justice is charged with enforcement responsibility for HAVA.
For FY2013, the President’s budget request included $11.5 million for the EAC, of which $2.75
million was to be transferred to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and
$1.3 million was for the Office of the Inspector General. The House Committee on
Appropriations recommended $5.75 million for the EAC, of which $1.38 million is to be
transferred to NIST. That amount is $5.75 million less than both the administration request and
the enacted amount for FY2012. The Committee report notes that all funds appropriated for
grants to the states have been distributed, the agency lacks any Commissioners, as well as an
Executive Director and General Counsel, it is no longer effectively fulfilling its mission, and its
remaining functions could be better accomplished by another agency, such as the Federal Election
Commission. On December 1, 2011, the House passed H.R. 3463 that would eliminate the EAC.
The report notes that H.R. 6020 includes language to transfer unobligated amounts to other
agencies if legislation to eliminate the EAC is enacted. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
approved $11.5 million for the EAC, with $2.75 million to be transferred to NIST. The amount
provided is the same as the budget request and the enacted amount for FY2012.
Federal Communications Commission51
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 funding through the collection of
regulatory fees pursuant to Title I, Section 9, of the Communications Act of 1934; therefore, its
50 This section was written by Kevin Coleman (x7-7878).
51 This section was written by Patricia Moloney Figliola (x7-2580).
Congressional Research Service
52
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
direct appropriation is generally considerably less than its overall budget. Sometimes, as is the
case for FY2012, there is no direct appropriation.
Senate
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $347.8 million for FCC salaries and
expenses for FY2013, of which $347.8 million would be derived from the collection of fees. The
recommendation is $7.9 million above the FY2012 enacted level and $1.0 million above the
budget request. The Office of Inspector General would be provided $1.0 million for the purpose
of developing an independent budget to be submitted to the President in FY2014 and each
subsequent fiscal year.
Further, S. 3301 would require that up to $99.0 million be retained from spectrum auction
activities to fund the administrative expenses of conducting such auctions; included language to
extend FCC’s exemption from the Anti-Deficiency Act [ADA] until December 31, 2014 (section
510); and included a provision that would prohibit the FCC from enacting the recommendation by
the Joint Board of FCC members and State utility commissioners that would have limited
universal support to one line (section 511). The Senate bill also included provisions that would
support the FCC’s efforts to modernize the Universal Service Fund and put America on a path to
universal broadband by the end of the decade, as well as the FCC’s new rules addressing
‘‘cramming’’—the practice of forcing unwanted, unsolicited, or fraudulent charges on consumers’
phone bills.
Language in S.Rept. 112-177 expressed concern with the lack of engineering expertise at the
FCC, particularly given that the agency will continue to face more technically complex issues
under its jurisdiction, and commended the FCC for requiring that broadcasters’ public inspection
files be made available online and in a searchable format. Report language also noted that while
the FCC plays a central role in creating an environment that fosters technological innovation it is
also charged with protecting consumer privacy.
House
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $322.9 million for FCC salaries and
expenses, all of which would be derived from the collection of fees. The recommendation is
$17.0 below the FY2012 enacted level $23.9 less than the President’s FY2013 request.
Further, the House Committee would allows up to $4,000 for official reception and representation
expenses; the collection of $322.9 million in section 9 fees; a prohibition on amounts collected in
excess of $322.9 million from being available for obligation; a prohibition on remaining
offsetting collections from prior years from being available for obligation; and an increase to the
cap on auction administration for the implementation of incentive auctions, as required by the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-96), to $98.7 million.
The Committee also included language that—
• commended the FCC for realizing significant savings by re-competing contracts this
year;
Congressional Research Service
53
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
• expressed concern over the FCC’s new rule requiring broadcasters to post the contents of
their public file online through a FCC-run database and, accordingly, includes language
prohibiting funds from being spent on this rule (section 631);
• expressed its belief that the current structure of the FCC does not reflect the convergence
in today’s telecommunications market and, accordingly, directs the FCC to submit a
review of its current structure and a proposal for improvement that is to be submitted to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 180 days of enactment;
• urged the FCC to fulfill its implementation obligations under the 1992 Cable Act
concerning program carriage decisions by multi-channel video programming distributors
and to establish a process for expedited review of complaints made by independent
channels or others of statutory violations;
• expressed concern about the disparity in access to broadband between the territories and
the 50 states and encouraging the Commission to implement policies that increase
broadband accessibility and adoption in the territories, such as adopting the actions
proposed in the FCC’s Public Notice released on February 15, 2012 in IB Docket No. 11–
109 (DA 12–214); and
• expressed concern about the potential impact on Global Positioning Systems (GPS) of
planned terrestrial broadband operations in the L Band and stating that it will continue to
monitor the FCC’s consideration of future licenses and waivers the may have an impact
on GPS functionality of terrestrial broadband networks in the L Band.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of the Inspector General52
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 FDIC’s OIG received $45.3 million in FY2012. For FY2013, the President requested, and the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended, an appropriation of $34.6 million.
Federal Election Commission53
The FEC is an independent agency that administers, and enforces civil compliance with, the
Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and campaign finance regulations. The agency does so
through educational outreach, rulemaking, and litigation, and by issuing advisory opinions.54 The
FEC also administers the presidential public financing system.55 In recent years, FEC
52 This section was written by Darryl Getter (x7-2834).
53 This section was written by Sam Garrett (x7-6443).
54 FECA is 2 U.S.C. §431 et seq. The FEC can refer criminal cases to the Justice Department.
55 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.
Congressional Research Service
54
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
appropriations have generally been noncontroversial and subject to limited debate in committee
or on the House and Senate floors.56
For FY2013, the President requested $67.0 million for the FEC, the same amount appropriated
for FY2012. Approximately 92% of the FEC budget is expected to be accounted for by three
major expense areas: (1) salaries and benefits; (2) rent; and (3) information technology (IT).57
Although personnel and rent expenditures are fairly fixed, IT expenditures can vary. They have,
however, been consistently prominent in recent years and are expected to again be a major part of
the agency’s budget in 2013.58 Among other points, this includes adapting the FEC’s widely used
filing software, FECFILE, to a web-based platform and other data upgrades to maintain its
campaign finance disclosure responsibilities during the 2012 presidential and congressional
election cycles.59
Separate sections of the FSGG bill also address campaign finance issues. First, Section 738 of the
FY2013 bill reported from the House Appropriations Committee contained a prohibition on
spending funds to require government contractors to provide information about their or their
employees’ federal campaign contributions, electioneering communications, or independent
expenditures as a condition of receiving the contract. Similar language appeared in the FY2012
FSGG bill. As CRS has noted elsewhere, the Obama Administration has reportedly considered
issuing an executive order to require additional disclosure of government contractors’ political
expenditures. Particularly during the FY2012 appropriations cycle, several measures contained
similar language to that appearing in the FY2013 and FY2012 FSGG legislation.60 Second,
Section 631 of the House Appropriations Committee-reported version of the bill would prohibit
funds to be spent on a Federal Communications Commission rule, adopted in April 2012, to
require broadcasters to post information about political advertising purchases on the FCC
website. Additional discussion of the rulemaking appears in another CRS product.61
Federal Trade Commission62
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is an independent agency whose mission is to protect
consumers and maintain or enhance competition in a wide range of industries. It does so mainly
by enforcing laws that prohibit anticompetitive, deceptive, or unfair business practices, and by
educating consumers and business owners to foster informed consumer choices, compliance with
the law, and a better understanding of the competitive process.
56 For additional discussion of current campaign finance issues, see CRS Report R41542, The State of Campaign
Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett.
57 Federal Election Commission, FY2013 Congressional Budget Justification, Washington, DC, February 13, 2012, p.
6, http://www.fec.gov/pages/budget/fy2013/FY_2013_CBJ_Final_2_13.pdf.
58 Federal Election Commission, FY2013 Congressional Budget Justification, Washington, DC, February 13, 2012, pp.
1-2, http://www.fec.gov/pages/budget/fy2013/FY_2013_CBJ_Final_2_13.pdf.
59 Ibid., pp. 1-6.
60 For additional discussion, see the “Potential Policy Considerations for Congress” section of CRS Report R41542,
The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett.
61 See CRS Report R41542, The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress, by
R. Sam Garrett.
62 This section was written by Gary Guenther (x7-7742).
Congressional Research Service
55
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Operating funds for the agency come from three sources, listed here in descending order of
importance: (1) appropriations, (2) pre-merger filing fees under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust
Improvements Act of 1976, and (3) Do-Not-Call Registry fees.
In FY2012, appropriations for the FTC from the general fund total $182.6 million. Pre-merger
filing fees are expected to bring in another $108 million, and fees for the Do-Not-Call Registry
could contribute $21 million, producing an operating budget of $311.6 million.
President’s Budget Request
For FY2013, the Obama Administration is asking for $163.5 million in appropriations from the
general fund for the FTC, or $18.6 million less than the amount enacted for FY2012.63 Pre-
merger filing fees are expected to yield another $117.5 million, and Do-Not-Call fees may add
$19 million, giving the FTC an operating budget of $300.0 million in FY2013. The budget
request is intended to enable the agency to undertake its planned activities in FY2013 and
beyond. These objectives include
• protecting consumers from fraudulent practices in the financial services market;
• protecting consumer privacy in online transactions;
• improving the security of online data; combating identity theft;
• monitoring the advertising of health-care products for false or deceptive claims;
• enforcing compliance with FTC orders;
• promoting competition in health care services and pharmaceuticals;
• challenging anti-competitive mergers;
• increasing its efforts to keep consumers and businesses informed about the
benefits of competition; and
• pursuing administrative and federal litigation.
Included in the budget request are a decrease of $25.5 million from $35.2 million that was
included in the FY2012 appropriation for replacing a building at 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW, in
Washington, D.C.; an increase of $6.9 million for mandatory expenses like an expected pay hike
in 2013 and contracts; an increase of $1.5 million to hire four new employees to work in the area
of consumer protection and six new employees to work on matters related to promoting
competition; and an increase of $5.5 million to upgrade the FTC’s information technology
infrastructure and accommodate consumer use of the Sentinel Network Services, which consist of
the National Do-Not-Call Registry, the Consumer Response Center, and the Consumer Sentinel
Network’s online database for complaints.
Action in the House
In a bill (H.R. 6020) it reported on June 26, 2012, the House Appropriations Committee
recommends that the FTC receive a total of $285.5 million in appropriations in FY2013, or $26.0
63 For more details, see http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/oed/fmo/2013_CBJ.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
56
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
million less than the amount enacted for FY2012 and $14.5 million less than the budget request.
Included in the recommendation are an estimated $115 million in pre-merger filing fees and $15
million in Do-Not-Call fees, leaving $155.5 million to be paid for out of the general fund.
The Committee outlines three priorities for the FTC in its report on H.R. 6020. One is avoid
engaging in “duplicative rulemaking” with the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau. Some areas of consumer protection that the FTC once handled now are being handled by
the Bureau. The Committee expects the two independent agencies to work together to avoid any
duplication in the rules they issue on consumer issues. Another priority is to avoid wasteful
spending. The Committee criticizes the FTC for recently purchasing 6,000 beer “koozies” as part
of an educational campaign intended to counter the impact on teenagers of the advertising of
alcoholic beverages. In its view, the purchase “was a lapse of judgment by the Commission and a
waster of taxpayer dollars” that could have been “better spent on uncovering fraud and other FTC
priorities.” The third priority is for the FTC to continue its efforts to monitor price gouging and
anti-competitive behavior in the oil and natural gas markets, and to keep the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees informed about any findings of illicit activities.
Action in the Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends that the FTC receive $300 million in funding
in FY2013, or $11.6 million below the amount enacted for FY2012 and the same as the budget
request. Of the recommended funding, $115 million comes from expected Hart-Scott-Rodino pre-
merger filing fees and $15 million from Do-Not-Call fees, leaving a direct appropriation of $170
million.
In its report (S.Rept. 112-177) on the bill (S. 3301), the Committee commends the Commission
for its ongoing efforts to protect consumers from fraudulent practices related to mortgage lending,
data security, and health care. The Committee also praised the steps taken by the FTC to combat
identity theft, which include issuing a victim assistance guide for pro-bono attorneys, training
local law-enforcement agencies to detect and prosecute identity theft, and releasing and updating
educational materials on medical and children’s identity theft. In addition, the Committee
expresses appreciation for the FTC’s efforts to preserve competition in the marketplace through
disseminating information on and enforcing federal anti-trust statutes. It notes that those efforts
saved consumers more than $1.7 billion in economic losses the previous three years.
Expressing concern about the potential for price gouging and anti-competitive behavior by oil and
gas companies, the Committee encourages the Commission to continue its investigations of the
price behavior of the oil and gas industry and directs it to keep the Committee informed about any
findings from those investigations and planned investigations of the industry.
The FTC is responsible for enforcing Section 1075 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act as it affects payment card network companies. In essence, its role is to
prevent larger companies in the industry from undermining the small issuer exemption and other
benefits for consumers in that section. Mindful of this responsibility, the Committee reminds the
FTC of its obligation to submit a report detailing the steps it has taken to enforce compliance by
payment card network companies with Section 1075 and related regulations no later than one year
after the enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74). The report should
discuss whether any evidence has been found that those companies have been engaging in
practices that diminish the ability of small banks and credit unions to compete with large financial
Congressional Research Service
57
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
institutions in the debit card market, and if so, whether the payment care network companies have
been doing so in “collusion or coordination with large financial institutions.”
A legislative proposal to transfer control of the FTC’s headquarters building to the National
Gallery of Art (NGA) is also addressed in the report. In its report on S. 3301, the Committee
expresses concern about the cost of such a transfer. That cost can be measured in different ways.
One way is the opportunity cost of such a transaction; basically, it would deprive taxpayers of a
valuable asset without compensation that could amount to $92 million to $95 million, according
to a recent appraisal. Under the proposal, private money would be raised to pay for renovation of
the building, but federal money would be needed to cover the cost of maintenance and repairs on
the building. A similar arrangement governs the maintenance and report of current NGA buildings
which were donated to the NGA. The Committee expressed concern in the report that significant
costs could be incurred in building a new facility, or leasing commercial space, for the FTC staff
that would be displaced, moving the staff to another facility, and the continuing expenses
associated with NGA’s use of the headquarters building. The Committee also expressed concern
about the direct cost to the federal government of the proposal. It would require the government
to buy or lease replacement space for the FTC headquarters; the Congressional Budget Office
estimates that it would cost about $300 million to construct a facility larger enough to
accommodate the entire operations of the Commission. To address these concerns, Section 623 of
the bill prohibits the transfer of ownership of the headquarters building to another entity unless
the federal government receives fair market value for the property. The Committee also directs
the FTC and the General Services Administration to keep it informed of other proposals to change
the status of the headquarters building.
General Services Administration64
The General Services Administration (GSA) 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.
GSA’s real property activities are funded through the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). The FBF is a
revolving fund, into which rental payments from federal agencies that lease GSA space are
deposited. Revenue in the fund is then made available by Congress each year to pay for specific
activities: construction or purchase of new space, repairs and alterations to existing space, rental
payments for space that GSA leases, installment payments, and other building operations
expenses. These amounts are referred to as “limitations” because GSA may not obligate more
funds from the FBF than permitted by Congress, regardless of how much revenue is available for
obligation. Certain debts may also be paid for with FBF funds. A negative total for the FBF
occurs when the amount of funds made available for expenditure in a fiscal year is less than the
amount of new revenue expected to be deposited. A negative total does not mean that no funds are
available from the FBF, only that there is a net gain to the fund under the proposed spending
levels.
GSA’s operating accounts are funded through direct appropriations, separate from the FBF. The
total amount of funding for GSA is calculated by adding the amount of FBF funds made available
to the amount of direct appropriations provided. Table 8 lists the enacted amounts for FY2012,
64 This section was written by Garrett Hatch (x7-7822).
Congressional Research Service
58
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
the President’s FY2013 request, and amounts recommended by the House and Senate
appropriations committees for FY2013.
Table 8. General Services Administration Appropriations, FY2012-FY2013
(in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House
Senate
FY2013
Account
Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee
Enacted
Federal Buildings Fund
-$1,205 -$1,071 -$1,773 -$1,051
Limitations on Availability of
8,018 8,619 7,917 8,639
Revenue
New Construction
50 56 50 56
Repairs and Alterations
280 495 395 515
Installation payments
127 120 120 120
Rental of Space
5,210 5,549 5,210 5,549
Building Operations
2,351 2,400 2,142 2,400
Repayment of Debt
80 88 88 88
Rental Income to Fund
-9,303 -9,778 -9,778 -9,778
Operating Accounts
$234 $272 $257 $266
Government-wide Policy
61 84 61 78
Operating Expenses
70 67 66 67
Office of Inspector General
58 59 68 59
e-Government Fund
12 17 17 17
Presidential Transition
— 9 9
9
Federal Citizens Services
34 32 32 32
Former Presidents
4 4 4 4
Rescission
-5 — — —
Grand Total
-$971 -$799 -$1,518 -$786
Sources: H.R. 6020; H.Rept. 112-550; S. 3301, S.Rept. 112-177.
Note: Figures in columns may not equal totals due to rounding.
The President proposed a limit of $8.619 billion from the FBF’s available revenue for GSA’s real
property activities in FY2013, $601 million more than was provided in FY2012. The President
also requested $272 million for GSA’s operating accounts, an increase of $38 million above
FY2012 enacted levels.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $7.916 billion from the FBF be made
available to GSA for FY2013, $702 million less than the President’s request and $101 million
below the amount provided for FY2012. The House committee also recommended $257 million
for GSA’s operating accounts, $15 million less than the President requested and $23 million more
than FY2012 enacted amounts.
Congressional Research Service
59
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $8.639 billion from the FBF be made
available to GSA for FY2013, $20 million more than the President requested and $621 million
more than was enacted for FY2012. The Senate committee also recommended $266 million for
GSA’s operating accounts, $6 million less than the President requested and $32 million more than
was enacted for FY2012.
Electronic Government Fund65
Originally unveiled in advance of the President’s proposed budget for FY2002, the Electronic
Government Fund (E-Government Fund) and its appropriation have been a somewhat contentious
matter between the President and Congress. The E-Government Fund was created to support
interagency e-government initiatives approved by the Director of OMB.66 The fund and the
projects it sustains historically have been closely scrutinized by congressional appropriators. The
President’s initial $20 million request for FY2002 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. In FY2009, President George W. Bush requested $5 million for
the E-Government Fund. Congress, however, provided no appropriation to the E-Government
Fund in FY2009.67 In FY2010, Congress appropriated $34 million to the fund. In FY2011, the
appropriation dropped to $8 million.
For FY2012, House and Senate appropriators recommended the Electronic Government Fund be
combined with the Federal Citizen Services Fund and renamed the “Information and Engagement
for Citizens” account.68 House appropriators recommended the new joint fund be appropriated
$50 million and Senate appropriators recommended $39.1 million. The FY2012 conference report
contained appropriations for the Electronic Government Fund and the Federal Citizen Service
Fund as separate entities.69 The $12.4 million appropriated to the Electronic Government Fund for
65 This section was written by Wendy Ginsberg (x7-3933).
66 Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. § 3604, the E-Government Fund projects “may include efforts to make Federal Government
information and services more readily available to members of the public (including individuals, businesses, grantees,
and State and local governments); make it easier for the public to apply for benefits, receive services, pursue business
opportunities, submit information, and otherwise conduct transactions with the Federal Government; and enable
Federal agencies to take advantage of information technology in sharing information and conducting transactions with
each other and with State and local governments.” According to the President’s FY2013 budget request, the Electronic
Government Fund “provides for inter-agency electronic government, or E-Gov, initiatives and projects, which use the
Internet or other electronic methods to provide individuals, businesses, and other government agencies with simpler
and more timely access to Federal information, benefits, on-line services, and business opportunities. The appropriation
also furthers the implementation of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998, which calls upon agencies to
provide the public with optional use and acceptance of electronic information, services, and signatures, when
practicable, and fosters increased accountability and transparency of Government.” The Budget for 2013: Appendix, p.
1227.
67 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 appropriation.
68 H.Rept. 112-136, p. 52; and S.Rept. 112-79, p. 86. According to S.Rept. 111-238, the Federal Citizen Services Fund
provides salaries and expenses for the Office of Citizen Services, which “provides citizens, businesses, other
governments, and the media with access points to easily obtain Government information and services,” including
USA.gov. See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Bill, 2011, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., July 29, 2010, S.Rept. 111-238 (Washington: GPO, 2010), p. 98.
69 H.Rept. 112-331, p. 128.
Congressional Research Service
60
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
FY2012 was $4.4 million (55%) more than the $8 million appropriated in FY2011 and $21.6
million (63.5%) less than the $34 million requested by President Obama for FY2012.70
In FY2013, President Obama requested $16.7 million for the Electronic Government Fund, $17.3
million (50.9%) less than his FY2012 request.71 House and Senate appropriators recommended
the same funding level as the President.72 The House included language in its report related to the
operations of USAspending.gov, an online database that seeks to make federal spending more
transparent and accessible to the public. The language stated that “if the responsibility” to
administer USAspending.gov were “changed by statute,” all Electronic Government Funds would
be transferred to the agency assigned the responsibility to administer the website.73 Additionally
as in previous years, the House report would require GSA and OMB to provide Congress “a
detailed expenditure plan” that includes “the budget, timeline, objectives and expected benefits
and savings realized for each project” prior to any funding being allocated to the agencies.74
Independent Agencies Related to Personnel Management Appropriations
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 lists the enacted amounts for FY2012, the President’s FY2013 request, and amounts
recommended by the House and Senate appropriations committees for FY2013, for each of these
agencies.
70 The Federal Citizen Services Fund received an individual appropriation of $34.1 million for FY2012. The combined
appropriation for the Electronic Government Fund and the Federal Citizen Services Fund for FY2012 is $46.5 million,
$3.5 million (7%) less than House appropriators recommended—but $7.4 million (14.8%) more than recommended by
Senate appropriators. At a September 21, 2011, hearing before the House Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology’s Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, David McClure, associate administrator at the General
Services Administration—the federal agency that serves as a steward for many Electronic Government Fund projects,
testified that a reduction in the agency’s appropriation could force the federal government to limit work to “existing
projects rather than fueling new creative ways to save money for the government.” U.S. Congress, House Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, The Next IT Revolution?: Cloud
Computing Opportunities and Challenges, 112th Cong., 1st sess., September 21, 2011. A webcast of the hearing is
available at the House Science, Space, and Technology’s website: http://science.house.gov/hearing/technology-and-
innovation-subcommittee-hearing-cloud-computing. Mr. McClure’s comment was made during the question and
answer period of the hearing, soon after the 1 hour, 8 minute mark.
71 The Budget for 2013: Appendix, p. 1227.
72 H.Rept. 112-550, p. 58; S.Rept. 112-177, p. 87.
73 H.Rept. 112-550, p. 58.
74 H.Rept. 112-331, p. 128.
Congressional Research Service
61
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Table 9. Independent Agencies Related to Personnel Management Appropriations,
FY2012-FY2013
(in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House
Senate
FY2013
Agency
Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee
Enacted
Federal Labor Relations
$24.7 $24.8 $24.5 $25.2
Authority
Merit Systems Protection Board
42.6 41.0 41.0 43.4
(total)
Salaries and Expenses
40.3
38.6
38.6
41.1
Limitation on Administrative
2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
Expenses
Office of Personnel Management
21,127.6 20,879.7 20,877.7 20,879.7
(total)
Salaries and Expenses
97.8
90.5
89.6
90.5
Limitation on Administrative
112.5 114.7
114.0 114.7
Expenses
Office of Inspector General
3.1 4.2
4.0 4.2
(salaries and expenses)
Office of Inspector General
21.2 21.2
21.2 21.2
(limitation on administrative
expenses)
Government Payments for
10,467.0 10,818.0 10,818.0b
10,818.0
Annuitants, Employee Health
Benefitsa
Government Payments for
50.0 51.0
51.0b 51.0
Annuitants, Employee Life
Insurancea
Payment to Civil Service
10,076.0 9,780.0 9,7800b 9,780.0
Retirement and Disability Funda
Office of Special Counsel
$18.5
$18.7
$19.0
$19.0
Sources: Division C of P.L. 111-117, P.L. 112-74, FY2013 Budget, Appendix,, pp. 1345-1346, 1357, 1251-1263,
and 1385, the respective agency FY2013 congressional budget submissions, H.Rept. 112-550, and S.Rept. 112-
177. Amounts are rounded.
Notes: All figures are rounded, and columns also may not equal the total due to rounding.
a. Mandatory appropriations. For FY2012, the 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 FY2012 states the FY2012 amounts for these accounts as $10,817.0
million (health benefits), $47 million (life insurance), and $10,978.0 million (retirement) at pp. 161-163.
The FY2012 Budget Appendix, at pp. 1151-1153, states the same amounts as the budget justification. OPM’s
Congressional Budget Justification for FY2013 states the FY2013 amounts for these accounts as $11,027.0
million (health benefits), $45 million (life insurance), and $9,176.0 million (retirement) at pp. 147-149. The
FY2013 Budget Appendix, at pp. 1253-1254, states the same amounts as the budget justification.
b. For FY2012 and FY2013, the House Appropriations Committee did not include funding for three OPM
accounts—health benefits, life insurance, and retirement—in Title V of the FSGG bill, as it had in previous
years. Instead, funding for these accounts—which are mandatory—was provided in Section 628 of H.R.
2434 (FY2012) and Section 626 of H.R. 6020 (FY2013). In this report, funding for health benefits, life
Congressional Research Service
62
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
insurance, and retirement is included in Title V to be consistent with prior year calculations. According to
the House Committee on Appropriations report, “These are accounts where authorizing language
requires the payment of funds.” The FY2012 report stated that the Congressional Budget Office estimated
the following costs: $10,862.0 million for the Government Payment for Annuitants, Employee Health
Benefits; $52 million for the Government Payment for Annuitants, Employee Life Insurance; and $9,979.0
million for Payment to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. The FY2013 report stated the
following estimated costs: $10,818.0 million for the Government Payment for Annuitants, Employee
Health Benefits; $51 million for the Government Payment for Annuitants, Employee Life Insurance; and
$9,780.0 million for Payment to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.
Federal Labor Relations Authority75
The FLRA is an independent federal agency that administers and enforces Title VII of the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978. Title VII is also called the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute (FSLMRS). The FSLMRS 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 and gives the President the authority to exclude other agencies for
reasons of national security. Agencies that are excluded from the statute include the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Government Accountability
Office (GAO), National Security Agency (NSA), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Federal
Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP), and the Secret
Service.
The FLRA consists of a three-member authority, the Office of General Counsel, and the FSIP.
The three members of the authority and the General Counsel are appointed to five-year terms by
the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
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 FY2013 budget proposed an appropriation of $24.8 million for the FLRA, $0.1
million, or 0.3%, more than the agency’s FY2012 appropriation of $24.7 million.
The House Appropriations Committee bill provides the FLRA with $24.5 million in funding for
FY2013, which is $0.2 million less than the FY2012 appropriation and $0.3 million less than the
amount requested by the President. The Senate Appropriations Committee funded the FLRA at
$25.2 for FY2013, an increase of $0.5 million above the funding level for FY2012, $0.4 million
more than the President’s request, and $0.7 million more than the amount recommended by the
House Appropriations Committee.
75 This section was written by Gerald Mayer (x7-7815) and Barbara L. Schwemle (x7-8655).
Congressional Research Service
63
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Merit Systems Protection Board76
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is an independent, quasi-judicial agency established
to protect the civil service merit system. The MSPB adjudicates appeals primarily involving
personnel actions, certain federal employee complaints, and retirement benefits issues.
The President’s budget requested an FY2013 appropriation of $41 million (including $38.6
million for salaries and expenses) for the MSPB, an amount that was $1.6 million (-3.8%) below
the FY2012 funding of $42.6 million. The agency’s FTE employment level was estimated to be
211 for FY2013, the same as the FY2012 enacted level.
MSPB’s authorization expired on September 30, 2007.77 The 110th Congress considered, but did
not act upon, legislation (S. 2057, H.R. 3551) that would have reauthorized the MSPB for three
years and enhanced the agency’s reporting requirements. Legislation to reauthorize the agency
was not introduced in the 111th Congress and has not been introduced in the 112th Congress.
H.R. 6020, as reported, provided an appropriation of $41 million (including $38.6 million for
salaries and expenses) that was $1.6 million (-3.8%) less than the FY2012 enacted amount and
the same as the President’s request.
S. 3301, as reported, provided an appropriation of $43.4 million (including $41 million for
salaries and expenses) which was the $797,000 (+1.9%) more than the FY2012 enacted amount,
and $2.4 million (+5.9%) more than the President’s request.
Office of Personnel Management78
The President’s budget requested an FY2013 appropriation of $90.5 million for OPM salaries and
expenses, a decrease of $7.2 million (-7.4%) from the FY2012 enacted appropriation of $97.8
million. This amount included funding of $6 million for the Enterprise Human Resources
Integration (HRI) project and $1.4 million for the Human Resources Line of Business (HRLOB)
project. The budget also requested appropriations of $114.7 million for trust fund transfers; $4.2
million for Office of Inspector General (OIG) salaries and expenses; and $21.2 million for OIG
trust fund transfers for FY2013. These amounts are $2.2 million (+1.9%) more, $1 million
(+34.7%) more, and $2,000 less, respectively, than the FY2012 enacted appropriations. The
agency’s FTE employment level was estimated to be 5,261 for FY2013, 411 less than the FY2012
enacted level of 5,672.
The agency’s budget submission stated that the budget “will permit OPM to pursue long-term
human resources strategies that deliver results and enhance the values of the civil service,” and
“permits increased staffing levels ... to maintain timely processing of retirement claims and
provide services to annuitants.”79 In addition, it allowed the Office of Inspector General to
“continue to advance its prescription drug audit program, which includes audits of pharmacy
benefit managers,” and to continue the Federal Employees’ Health Benefits Program (FEHBP)
76 This section was written by Barbara L. Schwemle (x7-8655).
77 5 U.S.C. §5509.
78 This section was written by Barbara L. Schwemle (x7-8655).
79 FY2013 Budget, Appendix, pp. 1251-1252.
Congressional Research Service
64
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
“claims data warehouse initiative” that “streamlines and enhances the various administrative and
analytical procedures involved in the oversight of the FEHBP.”80
H.R. 6020, as reported, provided appropriations of $89.6 million for OPM salaries and expenses,
$114 million for trust fund transfers, $4 million for OIG salaries and expenses, and $21.2 million
for OIG trust fund transfers. These amounts were, respectively, $921,000 (-1%) less, $708,000 (-
0.6%) less, $232,000 (-5.5%) less, and the same, as the President’s request.
Section 626(a)(3)(4)(5) of H.R. 6020 provided the mandatory appropriations for the health
benefits, life insurance, and retirement accounts. According to the House Committee on
Appropriations report, “These are accounts where authorizing language requires the payment of
funds.” The report stated that the budget request assumed the following estimated costs:
$10,818.0 million for the Government Payment for Annuitants, Employee Health Benefits;
$51 million for the Government Payment for Annuitants, Employee Life Insurance; and $9,780.0
million for Payment to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.81
The House committee report directed OPM to adopt a GAO recommendation “to improve
transparency of the costs of background investigations, including” data “the main cost drivers.”
The committee “encourage[d] Federal agencies to increase recruitment efforts within the United
States territories.”
S. 3301, as reported, provided appropriations of $90.5 million for OPM salaries and expenses,
$114.7 million for trust fund transfers, $4.2 million for OIG salaries and expenses, and $21.2
million for OIG trust fund transfers. These amounts were the same as the President’s request.
The Senate report directed OPM “to inform the Committee of developments to improve” the rates
for processing retirement claims and “to continue providing reports and status update briefings, as
developments and milestones occur, and future plans are determined” for modernization of the
retirement records system.
Office of Special Counsel82
The President’s budget requested an FY2013 appropriation of $18.7 million for the Office of
Special Counsel (OSC), an amount that was $280,000 (-1.5%) less than the FY2012 funding of
almost $19 million. The agency’s FTE employment level was estimated to be 107 for FY2013, 3
less than the estimated FTE level of 110 for FY2012. The agency’s budget submission projected
an increase of between six to eight percent in the number of whistleblower disclosure, Hatch Act,
and prohibited personnel practice cases received. In addition, “several hundred additional cases”
are expected to be received under the new Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act (USERRA) demonstration project. According to OSC, the requested funding will
enable the agency “to maintain the staffing level necessary to operate the agency, pursue its
mission, and keep case backlogs low.”
OSC’s authorization expired on September 30, 2007.83 The 110th Congress considered, but did not
act upon legislation (S. 2057, H.R. 3551) that would have reauthorized the agency for three years
80 Ibid, p. 1253.
81 H.Rept. 112-550, p. 83.
82 This section was written by Barbara L. Schwemle (x7-8655).
Congressional Research Service
65
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
and included provisions to enhance OSC’s reporting requirements. Legislation to reauthorize the
agency was not introduced in the 111th Congress and has not been introduced in the 112th
Congress.
H.R. 6020, as reported, and S. 3301, as reported, provided an appropriation of almost $19 million
that was the same as the FY2012 enacted amount and $280,000 (+1.5%) more than the
President’s request. The Senate report included the committee’s acknowledgement that the agency
continues to experience rapid growth in its caseload.
National Archives and Records Administration84
President Obama requested $386.8 million in FY2013 appropriations for the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA), which is almost $5.2 million (13.3%) less than NARA’s
FY2012 appropriation ($392.0 million).85 Operating expenses account for the largest portion of
the appropriation, 96.1% or $371.7 million. Similar to the FY2012 request, President Obama
combined his requests for operating expenses with that for the Electronic Records Archive (ERA)
because development of ERA was largely completed.86 In addition, the administration requested
$17 million from the operating expenses be used to reduce debt accumulated as a result of the
construction of its Archives II facility in College Park, Maryland.87 The President recommended
maintaining the Office of Inspector General’s $4.1 million appropriation, reducing the
appropriation for repairs and restorations by $1.1 million (12.1% decrease, from more than $9.1
million in FY2012 to $8.0 million in FY2013), and reducing by $2 million (40.0%) the
appropriation for the National Historic Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) (from
$5.0 million in FY2012 to $3.0 million for FY2013).
House appropriators recommended NARA receive nearly $385.7 million in FY2013, which is
$2.7 million (< 1%) less than the $388.4 million it received in FY2012.88 The committee
recommended NARA receive nearly $371.1 million in operating expenses, with $17 million of
that appropriation to be used to reduce accumulated debt related to the construction of Archives
II—as requested by the Administration. Operating expenses would include operation of ERA.
(...continued)
83 5 U.S.C. §5509.
84 This section was written by Wendy Ginsberg (x7-3933).
85 The Budget for 2013: Appendix, p. 1359.
86 Appropriation levels for the ERA were reduced in FY2011. In FY2010, the ERA was appropriated $85.5 million. In
FY2011, the appropriation was reduced to $71,856,000. The reduction in ERA appropriation levels for FY2011
followed the release of two Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that raised serious concerns about the
implementation of the ERA. One report said that NARA’s oversight of the acquisition processes related to creating the
Electronic Record Archive had “weaknesses … in most areas.” See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Electronic
Records Archive: National Archives Needs to Strengthen Its Capacity to Use Earned Value Techniques to Manage and
Oversee Development, GAO 11-86, January 2011, Highlights, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1186.pdf; and U.S.
Government Accountability Office, Electronic Government: National Archives and Records Administration’s Fiscal
Year 2011 Expenditure Plan, GAO 11-299, March 4, 2011, Highlights, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11299.pdf.
87 P.L. 100-440; 102 Stat. 1743-44. Enacted in 1988, P.L. 100-440 provided NARA the authority to “contract for
construction and related services” to build a new facility. Pursuant to the law, NARA is to “lease” or make “installment
payments payable out of annual appropriations over a period not to exceed 30 years.” See National Archives and
Records Administration, “2012 Performance Budget—Congressional Justification,” p. III-12, at
http://www.archives.gov/about/plans-reports/performance-budget/2011/2012-performance-budget.pdf.
88 H.Rept. 112-550, pp. 65-66.
Congressional Research Service
66
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
This amount is nearly $2.2 million (< 1%) less than the FY2012 appropriation for repairs and
restorations ($373.3 million), and nearly $600,000 less than from the President’s FY2013 budget
request. House appropriators matched both the President’s request for the Office of Inspector
General and his request for repairs and restoration. No appropriation is recommended for any new
construction projects; all of the appropriation is to maintain existing facilities. House
appropriators recommended the NHPRC be appropriated $2.5 million, which is $0.5 million
(16.7%) less than the President recommended for FY2013, $2.5 million (50%) less than NHPRC
was appropriated in FY2012, but $1.5 million (150%) more than House appropriators
recommended for FY2012. In its report, House appropriators included the following language:
The Committee is concerned about recent reports regarding missing classified material. The
Committee is aware that the Archivist is working to address these concerns and will continue
to monitor NARA’s progress on this matter.89
House appropriators also praised NARA’s efforts to make available records related to the Katyn
Forest during WWII.90
Senate appropriators recommended $388.8 million in FY2013 appropriations for NARA, which is
$2 million (< 1%) more than the President’s budget request and $2.7 million (< 1%) less than the
$391.5 million FY2012 appropriation.91 The Senate committee recommended the same amount as
the President for operating expenses, although they included language requiring NARA to
prioritize ERA. The committee also matched the President’s request for the Office of Inspector
General as well as for repairs and restoration. The $2 million difference between the
Administration’s request and the appropriators’ recommendation is for the NHPRC. Senate
appropriators recommended $5 million for the commission, while the President requested $3
million for FY2013.
Like House appropriators, Senate appropriators stated some concerns about NARA’s security and
inventory controls, and included the following language:
The Committee directs and expects NARA to institute and enforce effective inventory
controls and adequate levels of security within its facilities to reduce the risk of loss,
damage, or destruction of irreplaceable historic documents and artifacts…. [The Committee
recommends NARA] explore bar-coding and other innovative alternatives for cataloging
boxed materials entrusted to NARA’s care, institute enhanced quality controls, regain
accountability for the security of classified records in its custody, and institute more stringent
management controls at the Washington National Records Center and any other facilities in
which NARA is the custodian of Federal records.92
89 Ibid., p. 63. For more information on the security of classified materials at NARA, see the National Archives and
Records Administration Office of the Inspector General, “Audit Report 12-02: Management of Records at the
Washington National Records Center, Report #1,” at http://www.archives.gov/oig/pdf/2012/audit-report-12-02.pdf.
90 Eliminating the backlog on the Katyn Forest records was listed as a priority in NARA’s Open Government Plan. For
more information see, “Open Government Plan, National Archives and Records Administration,” 2012-2014, p. 36, at
http://www.archives.gov/open/open-government-plan-2.0.pdf.
91 S.Rept. 112-177, pp. 92-95.
92 S.Rept. 112-177, p. 93.
Congressional Research Service
67
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
National Credit Union Administration93
The NCUA is an independent federal agency funded largely by the credit unions that the agency
charters, insures, and regulates. The NCUA manages the Community Development Revolving
Loan Fund Program (CDRLF). Established in 1979, the CDRLF assists officially designated
‘‘low-income’’ credit unions in providing basic financial services to low-income communities.
Low-interest loans and deposits are made available to assist these credit unions. Loans or deposits
are normally repaid in five years, although shorter repayment periods may be considered.
Technical assistance grants are also available 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 acts. Grants are available for improving operations as well as
addressing safety and soundness issues.
The NCUA received $1.25 million for grants in FY2012. The President requested, and the House
Committee on Appropriations recommended, $1.19 million for FY2013, a decrease of
approximately $60,000 from FY2012 appropriations. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended $500,000 for FY2013, a decrease of approximately $750,000 from FY2012
enacted amounts.
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board94
Originally established in 2004 by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act as an
agency within the EOP,95 the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (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).96 The board assumed its
new status on January 30, 2008; its FY2009 appropriation was its first funding as an independent
agency.97 Among its responsibilities, the five-member board is to (1) ensure that concerns with
respect to privacy and civil liberties ar 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 is to advise the President and the heads of executive branch
departments and agencies on issues concerning, and findings pertaining to, privacy and civil
liberties. The board is to provide annual reports to Congress detailing its activities during the
year, and board members appear and testify before congressional committees upon request.
On August 2, 2012, four members of the PCLOB were confirmed by the Senate, although the
length of the term varies for each member: Patricia M. Wald’s term ends in January 2013;
93 This section was written by Darryl Getter (x7-2834).
94 This section was written by Garrett Hatch (x7-7822).
95 118 Stat. 3638 at 3684.
96 121 Stat. 266 at 352.
97 See CRS Report RL34385, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board: New Independent Agency Status, by Garrett
Hatch.
Congressional Research Service
68
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Elisabeth C. Cook’s in January 2014; James X. Dempsey’s in January 2016; and Rachel L.
Brand’s in January 2017.98
The PCLOB received $900,000 for FY2012, and had $1 million in unobligated funds from
FY2011 rescinded. The President requested, and the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended, $1 million for the PCLOB in FY2013. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended no new appropriations for FY2013 and a rescission of the $900,000 appropriated
for FY2012.
Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board99
The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board (Recovery Board) was established by the
American Recovery and Accountability Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) to provide oversight and
transparency in the expenditure of Recovery Act funds. The Recovery Board was funded through
the FSGG appropriations bill for the first time in FY2012, receiving $28 million in enacted
appropriations. In previous fiscal years, the board was funded by a Recovery Act appropriation
which is now exhausted. The President requested, and the Senate and House Appropriations
Committees both recommended, $32 million for the Recovery Board for FY2013, which would
be $4 million above FY2012 enacted levels.
Securities and Exchange Commission100
The Securities and Exchange Commission (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 under the Dodd-Frank Act the agency’s
appropriations must be offset by fees it collect from securities exchanges on the sales of stock and
certain other securities transactions on those exchanges. The collections go directly to the
Treasury Department. To achieve the offset, the act requires the agency to adjust the rates its
charges for those fees, making the agency’s budget deficit-neutral.
For FY2013, the Administration requested $1.566 billion. The House Appropriations Committee
has recommended that the agency’s FY2013 budget be $1.371 billion. In S. 3301, the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended that the SEC receive $1.566 billion for FY2013, the
same amount requested by the Administration. For FY2012, the agency’s appropriated budget is
$1.321 billion.
The Dodd-Frank Act also established an SEC Reserve Fund to enable the agency to plan for
certain long-term expenses, potentially freeing up other funds for agency use in areas such as
enforcement and regulation. The reserve fund is funded by the agency’s traditional collections on
registration fees. In any single fiscal year, the SEC may not collect more than $50 million in fees
for the reserve fund, and it cannot exceed more than $100 million. Collections in excess of these
go to the Treasury Department. Arguing that the SEC should request the total amount of annual
98 U.S. Congress, Senator Patrick Leahy, “Confirmation of Nominees to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
Board,” press release, August 2, 2012.
99 This section was written by Garrett Hatch (7x7822).
100 This section was written by Gary Shorter (x7-7772).
Congressional Research Service
69
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
funding that it deems necessary within the context of the Congressional appropriations process,
the House Appropriations Committee also recommended that the SEC be prohibited from using
funds in the Reserve Fund during FY2013.
Selective Service System101
The Selective Service System (SSS) is an independent federal agency operating with permanent
authorization under the Military Selective Service Act.102 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.103 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. Efforts are underway to allow women to
serve in combat units which may lead to the modification of registration to include women.
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.104
Funding of the Selective Service System has remained relatively stable over the years in terms of
absolute dollars, but has decreased in terms of inflation adjusted funding. For FY2011, it received
$24.23 million. For FY2012, Congress appropriated $23.98 million. The House passed version
recommends a substantial reduction for FY2013: $12.2 million appropriation or $12.2 less then
the original budget request.
Small Business Administration105
The Small Business Administration (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) and 504/Certified Development Company general business
loan programs—loans made by banks and other financial institutions to small businesses; 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.
The SBA was provided $918.8 million for FY2012, an increase of $189.1 million (25.9%) over
its FY2011 appropriation of $729.7 million (P.L. 112-10, the Department of Defense and Full-
Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011). The SBA was provided an appropriation of $417.3
million for salaries and expenses. Included in that amount is $172.3 million for the following
programs: Veteran’s Programs, 7(j) Technical Assistance Programs, Small Business Development
101 This section was written by David Burrelli (x7-8033).
102 50 U.S.C. App. §451 et seq.
103 See http://www.sss.gov/.
104 See H.R. 163, October 5, 2004, failed by Yeas and Nays (Roll no. 494).
105 This section was written by Robert Dilger (x7-3110).
Congressional Research Service
70
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
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. The act also appropriates $16.3 million for the SBA Office of Inspector General (not
including $1.0 million to be transferred from the Disaster Loans Program account), $9.1 million
for the SBA Office of Advocacy, $358.7 million for general business loans ($3.7 million for
Microloans, $207.1 million for business loan credit subsidies, and $148.0 million for business
loan administrative costs), and $117.3 million for the SBA’s disaster loan program.
The act also authorized up to $28.0 billion in small business loan guarantees ($17.5 billion for the
7(a) loan guaranty program, $7.5 billion for the 504/Certified Development Company loan
guaranty program, and $3.0 billion for the Small Business Investment Company Program) and up
to $12.0 billion for the secondary market guarantee program.
For FY2013, President Obama requested $1.115 billion for the SBA, an increase of $196.6
million (21.4%) over the FY2012 enacted amount of $918.8 million.106 The Administration
requested $423.6 million for salaries and expenses. Included in that amount was $159.1 million
for non-credit programs. The Administration also requested $19.4 million for the SBA’s Office of
Inspector General (not including $1.0 million to be transferred from the Disaster Loans Program
account), $8.9 million for the SBA Office of Advocacy, $496.5 million for general business loans
($2.8 million for Microloans, $348.6 million for business loan credit subsidies, and $145.1
million for business loan administrative costs), and $167.0 million for the SBA’s disaster loan
program.
The Administration’s proposal would authorize up to $25.0 billion in small business loan
guarantees ($16.0 billion for the 7(a) loan guaranty program, $6.0 billion for the 504/Certified
Development Company loan guaranty program, and $3.0 billion for the Small Business
Investment Company Program) and up to $12.0 billion for the secondary market guarantee
program.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations approved $1.124 billion for the SBA, an increase of
$204.9 million (22.3%) over the FY2012 enacted amount of $918.7 million, and $8.3 million
above the Administration’s request.107 The Senate Committee approved $445.5 million for
salaries and expenses. Included in that amount was $179.7 million for non-credit programs. The
Senate Committee also approved $19.4 million for the SBA’s Office of Inspector General (not
including $1.0 million to be transferred from the Disaster Loans Program account), $9.15 million
for the SBA Office of Advocacy, $482.7 million for general business loans ($4.0 million for
Microloans, $333.6 million for business loan credit subsidies, and $145.1 million for business
loan administrative costs), and $167.0 million for the SBA’s disaster loan program.
The Senate Committee would authorize up to $26.0 billion in small business loan guarantees
($16.0 billion for the 7(a) loan guaranty program, $6.0 billion for the 504/Certified Development
Company loan guaranty program, and $4.0 billion for the Small Business Investment Company
Program) and up to $12.0 billion for the secondary market guarantee program.
106 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, FY2013, Budget of the United States Government, Appendix, Washington,
DC, pp. 1265-1275.
107 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
Bill, 2013, report to accompany S. 3301, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., June 14, 2012, S.Rept. 112-177 (Washington: GPO,
2012), p. 111.
Congressional Research Service
71
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
The Senate bill would also extend for another year the SBA’s authority to refinance loans that do
not involve business expansions under the 504/CDC loan guarantee program. This temporary
authority, provided by P.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, is scheduled to expire
on September 27, 2012.
The House Committee on Appropriations approved $1.158 billion for the SBA, an increase of
$239.7 million (26.1%) over the FY2012 enacted amount of $918.8 million, and $43.1 million
more than the Administration’s request.108 The House Committee approved $415.0 million for
salaries and expenses. Included in that amount was $178.27 million for non-credit programs. The
House Committee also approved $17.3 million for the SBA’s Office of Inspector General (not
including $1.5 million to be transferred from the Disaster Loans Program account), $9.12 million
for the SBA Office of Advocacy, $550.1 million for general business loans ($2.8 million for
Microloans, $402.2 million for business loan credit subsidies, and $145.1 million for business
loan administrative costs), and $167.0 million for the SBA’s disaster loan program.
The House Committee would authorize up to $28.0 billion in small business loan guarantees
($17.5 billion for the 7(a) loan guaranty program, $7.5 billion for the 504/Certified Development
Company loan guaranty program, and $3.0 billion for the Small Business Investment Company
Program) and up to $12.0 billion for the secondary market guarantee program.
The House bill does not address the SBA’s authority to refinance loans that do not involve
business expansions under the 504/CDC loan guarantee program.
United States Postal Service109
The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) generates nearly all of its funding—about $67 billion annually—
by charging users of the mail for the costs of the services it provides.110 However, Congress does
provide an annual appropriation to compensate the USPS for revenue it forgoes in providing free
mailing privileges to the blind111 and overseas voters.112 Congress authorized appropriations for
these purposes in the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of 1993 (RFRA).113 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
108 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
Bill, 2013, report to accompany H.R. 6020, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., June 26, 2012, H.Rept. 112-550 (Washington: GPO,
2012), p. 75.
109 This section was written by Kevin Kosar (x7-3968). Also see CRS Report RS21025, The Postal Revenue Forgone
Appropriation: Overview and Current Issues, by Kevin R. Kosar.
110 U.S. Postal Service, United States Postal Service Annual Report 2011 (Washington: USPS, 2010), p. 3.
111 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.
112 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.
113 P.L. 103-123, Title VII; 107 Stat. 1267, 39 U.S.C. 2401(c)-(d).
Congressional Research Service
72
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
1990s.114 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 FY2009.115 Under the PAEA, both the
U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (USPSOIG) and the Postal Regulatory
Commission (PRC) must submit their budget requests directly to Congress and to the Office of
Management and Budget (120 Stat. 3240-3241). These two agencies must be funded through 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.116
For FY2013, the
• USPS requested $153.6 million,117 and the President has requested $89.1
million.118 The House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Appropriations
Committee have recommended an appropriation of $89.1 million;119
• PRC and the President requested $14.5 million.120 The House Appropriations
Committee recommended a $14.2 million appropriation, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended a $14.5 million appropriation;121 and
• USPSOIG and the President requested $244.4 million.122 The House
Appropriations Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee both have
recommended a $241.5 million appropriation.123
Both of the House and Senate FY2013 FSGG bills and reports contain postal policy provisions.
The House FSGG legislation would require the USPS to continue six-day delivery in FY2013,
although the rule providing for the consideration of this legislation would permit a point of order
to be raised (H.Res. 717, Section 2).124 The Senate legislation also would require the USPS to
114 See CRS Report RS21025, The Postal Revenue Forgone Appropriation: Overview and Current Issues, by Kevin R.
Kosar.
115 P.L. 109-435; 120 Stat. 3198. On PAEA’s major provisions, see CRS Report R40983, The Postal Accountability
and Enhancement Act of 2006, by Kevin R. Kosar.
116 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.
117 U.S. Postal Service, “Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Congressional Submission,” undated, p. I-2.
118 Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2013, Appendix, p. 1388.
119 The USPS received an appropriation of $78.2 million in FY2011, with no $29 million RFRA reimbursement.
120 Postal Regulatory Commission, “Congressional Budget Justification (Performance Budget Plan) Fiscal Year 2013,”
February 2013, p. 3; and Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2013, Appendix, p. 1392.
121 The PRC received an appropriation of $14.5 million in FY2012.
122 U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General, “Congressional Justification Fiscal Year 2013,” p.6; and Budget of
the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2013, Appendix, p. 1392.
123 The USPSOIG received an appropriation of $241.5 million in FY2012.
124 If a point of order is raised and sustained by the presiding officer, the provision would be stricken. CRS Report
R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, by Jessica Tollestrup.
Congressional Research Service
73
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
continue to deliver mail six days per week in FY2013, and forbid it from closing any mail
processing facilities before FY2014 (October 1, 2013).125
President Obama’s FY2013 budget request also proposes changes to postal law, including
• returning the USPS’s Federal Employee Retirement System overpayment in two
installments in FY2012 and FY2013;126
• restructuring the USPS’s Retiree Health Benefits Fund (RHBF) payments
schedule by reducing the FY2012 and FY2013 payments, recalculating the
USPS’s unfunded obligation to reflect the USPS’s smaller workforce; and permit
the USPS to immediately pay its share of current retirees’ healthcare premiums
from the RHBF;127
• ending the six-day delivery mandate on December 31, 2012;128
• allowing the USPS to increase collaboration with state and local governments;
and
• permitting the USPS to “better align the costs of postage with the costs of mail
delivery while still operating within the current price cap” through a 1.8% price
increase.
“All together,” the Budget states, “these reforms would provide USPS with over $25 billion in
cash relief over the next two years and produce savings of $25 billion over 11 years.”129
United States Tax Court130
A court of record under Article I of the Constitution, the United States Tax Court (USTC) 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 USTC received $51 million in FY2012. The President requested $53 million for FY2013, an
increase of $2 million over FY2012 enacted appropriations. The House Committee on
Appropriations recommended $51 million for FY2013, which would be $2 million less than the
President’s request and the same amount as provided for FY2012. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $53 million for the USTC for FY2012, the same as the President
requested and $2 million above FY2012 enacted amounts.
125 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
Bill, FY2013, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., June 14, 2012, S.Rept. 112-177, pp. 117-118.
126 On the USPS FERS overpayment issue, see CRS Report R41024, The U.S. Postal Service’s Financial Condition:
Overview and Issues for Congress, by Kevin R. Kosar.
127 Current law does not permit the USPS to do this until FY2017 (P.L. 109-435, Sec. 803; 120 Stat. 3251-3252; 5
U.S.C 8909(d)(3)(A)). On the RHBF, see CRS Report R41024, The U.S. Postal Service’s Financial Condition:
Overview and Issues for Congress, by Kevin R. Kosar.
128 On six-day mail delivery, see CRS Report R40626, The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for
Congress, by Wendy Ginsberg.
129 Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2013, Appendix, pp. 1388-1394. The Administration’s RHBF
proposal is detailed on pages 1256-1257.
130 This section was written by Garrett Hatch (x7-7822).
Congressional Research Service
74
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
General Provisions Government-Wide131
The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act includes general provisions
which apply government-wide. Most of the provisions continue language that has appeared under
the General Provisions title for several years because Congress has decided to reiterate the
language rather than making the provisions permanent. An Administration’s proposed
government-wide general provisions for a fiscal year are generally included in the Budget
Appendix.132 New provisions proposed in the FY2013 budget follow. These provisions were not
included in H.R. 6020, as reported or S. 3301, as reported, except as otherwise noted.
New Government-wide General Provisions Proposed in the Budget for FY2013
• Section 734 would prohibit a pay raise in calendar year 2013 for the Vice
President; a political appointee serving in an Executive Schedule position, or in a
position for which the rate of pay is fixed by statute at an Executive Schedule
rate; a chief of mission or ambassador at large; a noncareer appointee in the
Senior Executive Service; and a political appointee paid a rate of basic pay
(including locality-based payments) at or above level IV of the Executive
Schedule. Included in S. 3301, as reported, at Section 745.
• Section 735 would prohibit the use of funds appropriated, in this or any other act,
for FY2013, to provide a pay adjustment to federal blue-collar employees that
exceeds: (1) the rate payable for the applicable grade and step of the applicable
wage schedule during the period from the date of expiration of the limitation
imposed by the comparable section for previous fiscal years until the normal
effective date of the applicable wage survey adjustment that is to take effect in
FY2013; and (2) as a result of a wage survey adjustment, the rate payable under
paragraph (1) by more than the sum of (A) the General Schedule pay adjustment
for FY2013 and (B) the difference between the overall average percentage of the
locality-based comparability payments taking effect in FY2013, and the overall
average percentage of such payments which was effective in the previous fiscal
year under such section, during the remainder of FY2013. Included in S. 3301, as
reported, at Section 744.
• Section 736 would provide that funds made available and used for Pay for
Success projects in this or any other act would support performance-based
awards that are designed to promote innovative strategies to reduce the aggregate
level of government investment needed to achieve successful outcomes. The
awards would impose minimal administrative requirements on service providers
to allow for maximum flexibility to improve efficiency and effectiveness. The
OMB Director would issue guidance to federal agencies on carrying out such
projects. (This provision was also proposed by the Administration in the FY2012
budget request, but was not enacted.)
• Section 737 would provide that federal agencies could use federal discretionary
funds, that are made available in this or any other appropriations act for FY2013,
to carry out up to a total of 20 Performance Partnership Pilots involving up to a
131 This section was written by Barbara L. Schwemle (x7-8655).
132 For FY2013, the provisions are listed in the Budget, Appendix at pp. 9-15.
Congressional Research Service
75
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
total of $200 million in aggregate federal discretionary budget authority. The
pilots would consist of up to 13 pilots (involving up to $130 million in aggregate
federal discretionary budget authority) that are designed to improve outcomes for
disconnected youth, and involve Federal programs targeted on disconnected
youth, or designed to prevent youth from disconnecting from school or work, that
provide education, training and employment, and other related social services,
and up to 13 pilots (involving up to $130 million in aggregate federal
discretionary budget authority) that are designed to support the revitalization of
distressed neighborhoods.
• Section 738 would require the OMB Director to report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations on at least a quarterly basis on the status of
unexpired, unobligated balances of budget authority in executive branch
agencies. The reports would, to the extent practicable, separately identify such
budget authority for discretionary appropriations and direct spending. With
regard to such budget authority for discretionary appropriations, the reports
would, to the extent practicable, separately identify those balances that are
available to fund reimbursable obligations and all other balances of discretionary
budget authority. The reports would be submitted not later than 30 days after the
end of a fiscal quarter.
Government Procurement133
The financial services appropriations bill often contains provisions that relate to government
procurement. With regard to FY2013, S. 3301 includes one such provision. Section 733 prohibits
the use of any funds appropriated by this act, or any other appropriations act, to begin or
announce a public-private competition for the same fiscal year (FY2013).134 The prohibition
applies to a “public-private competition regarding the 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.”135 That is, this section
apparently applies only to competitions that involve work being performed by federal employees,
but it does 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. H.R. 6020 does not include a similar provision.
133 This section was authored by Elaine Halchin (x7-0646).
134 Section 733 states: “[n]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this act or any other Act may
be used.... ” (Sec. 733 of S. 3301.) (Italics added for emphasis.) The words in this phrase—“or any other act”—are “not
words of futurity. They merely refer to any other appropriations 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.)
135 Sec. 733 S. 3301.
Congressional Research Service
76
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Author Contact Information
Garrett Hatch, Coordinator
Gerald Mayer
Analyst in American National Government
Analyst in Labor Policy
ghatch@crs.loc.gov, 7-7822
gmayer@crs.loc.gov, 7-7815
Gary Guenther
R. Sam Garrett
Analyst in Public Finance
Specialist in American National Government
gguenther@crs.loc.gov, 7-7742
rgarrett@crs.loc.gov, 7-6443
Barbara L. Schwemle
Gary Shorter
Analyst in American National Government
Specialist in Financial Economics
bschwemle@crs.loc.gov, 7-8655
gshorter@crs.loc.gov, 7-7772
Ida Brudnick
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
Robert Jay Dilger
Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development
Senior Specialist in American National Government
Policy
rdilger@crs.loc.gov, 7-3110
eboyd@crs.loc.gov, 7-8689
Kevin J. Coleman
Kevin R. Kosar
Analyst in Elections
Analyst in American National Government
kcoleman@crs.loc.gov, 7-7878
kkosar@crs.loc.gov, 7-3968
Wendy Ginsberg
L. Elaine Halchin
Analyst in American National Government
Specialist in American National Government
wginsberg@crs.loc.gov, 7-3933
ehalchin@crs.loc.gov, 7-0646
Patricia Moloney Figliola
Mark P. Sullivan
Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications
Specialist in Latin American Affairs
Policy
msullivan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7689
pfigliola@crs.loc.gov, 7-2508
Darryl E. Getter
Specialist in Financial Economics
dgetter@crs.loc.gov, 7-2834
Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
Department of the Treasury
Gary Guenther
7-7742
gguenther@crs.loc.gov
Executive Office of the President
Barbara L. Schwemle
7-8655
bschwemle@crs.loc.gov
Judiciary Ida
Brudnick
7-6460
ibrudnick@crs.loc.gov
District of Columbia
Eugene Boyd
7-8689
eboyd@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
Executive Office of the President
Barbara Schwemle
7-8655
bschwemle@crs.loc.gov
Congressional Research Service
77
Financial Services and General Government: FY2013 Appropriations
Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
Federal Communications Commission
Patty Figliola
7-2508
pfigliola@crs.loc.gov
Federal Deposit Insurance
Darryl Getter
7-2834
dgetter@crs.loc.gov
Corporation: OIG
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
Gary Guenther
7-7742
gguenther@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
Wendy Ginsberg
7-3933
wginsberg@crs.loc.gov
Administration
National Credit Union Administration
Darryl Getter
7-2834
dgetter@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
Securities and Exchange Commission
Gary Shorter
7-7772
gshorter@crs.loc.gov
Selective Service System
David Burrelli
7-8033
dburrelli@crs.loc.gov
Smal Business Administration
Robert Dilger
7-3110
rdilger@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
Author Contact Information
Garrett Hatch
Specialist in American National Government
ghatch@crs.loc.gov, 7-7822
Congressional Research Service
78