Office of Management and Budget (OMB):
November 12, 2020
An Overview
Taylor N. Riccard,
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is a component of the Executive Office
Coordinator
of the President (EOP). OMB is tasked with numerous statutory duties relating to the
Analyst in Government
operations of executive branch agencies. As a source of support to the institutional
Organization and
presidency, OMB also acts on the President’s behalf in preparing the President’s annual
Management

budget proposal, overseeing executive branch agencies, and helping steer the President’s
policy actions and agenda. In pursuing these activities, OMB interacts extensively with
Clinton T. Brass
Congress and agencies in ways that are both publicly visible and more hidden from
Specialist in Government
view. An overview of OMB may assist Congress in understanding OMB’s roles and
Organization and
Management
operations and thereby may help to inform Congress’s evaluation of policy options.

OMB was original y established in 1921 as the Bureau of the Budget (BOB) within the
Barbara L. Schwemle
Department of the Treasury. It functioned under the supervision of the President. In
Analyst in American
National Government
1939, the office was transferred to the newly created EOP. BOB was redesignated in

1970 as OMB. Subsequently, Congress also statutorily established four offices within
OMB (statutory offices) to oversee several cross-cutting processes and management

matters.
Several institutional aspects of OMB may be of interest. OMB contains resource management offices that focus
on particular agencies and policy domains, the statutory offices, and OMB-wide support offices, in addition to
OMB’s leadership and their support staff. In recent years, Congress has provided funds to OMB through annual
appropriations in the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) annual appropriations bil . OMB’s
budget includes funds in a “Salaries and Expenses” (S&E) account. It could be argued that OMB’s core budget
also includes at least some funding in the “Information Technology Oversight and Reform” (ITOR) account.
OMB’s workforce may be viewed from at least two perspectives: OMB’s overal staffing composition and senior
OMB positions that are established by statute. Furthermore, OMB’s website al ows Congress and the public to
explore OMB’s functions and policies, while also housing documents and other information, including
characterizations of the agency’s mission.
OMB has significant and varied responsibilities. In pursuing these responsibilities, OMB is required to faithfully
execute its statutory responsibilities as passed by Congress and, in addition, may act as an agent to pursue the
President’s policy preferences. From Congress’s perspective, there may be tensions or contradictions between the
two roles. Nevertheless, most observers identify the following as major functions of OMB:
 budget formulation and execution;
 legislative coordination and clearance;
 executive orders and proclamations;
 information and regulatory affairs; and
 mission-support areas and management initiatives.
Congress often faces trade-offs when considering issues that involve OMB. On one hand, Congress may
statutorily authorize OMB with certain responsibilities in order to pursue Congress’s institutional and policy
objectives. However, this authority may leave room for OMB to be more responsive to the presidency in ways
that are inconsistent with congressional intent. As a result, Congress may confront multifaceted issues when
considering options for legislating on OMB’s activities. Across the breadth of OMB’s responsibilities, potential
issues for Congress include opportunities to conduct oversight of OMB’s activities and options for potential
legislation that would modify OMB’s roles.
Congressional Research Service

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

Introduction
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is a component of the Executive Office of the
President (EOP).1 OMB has a number of statutory duties relating to the operations of executive
branch agencies. As a source of support to the institutional presidency, OMB also acts on the
President’s behalf in preparing the President’s annual budget proposal, overseeing executive
branch agencies, and helping steer the President’s policy actions and agenda. In pursuing these
activities, OMB interacts extensively with Congress and agencies in ways that are both publicly
visible and more hidden from view.
Congress often faces trade-offs when considering issues that involve OMB. On one hand,
Congress may choose to authorize OMB to undertake certain activities in order to help implement
Congress’s institutional and policy objectives. However, granting such authorities may leave
room for OMB to be more responsive to the presidency in ways that are inconsistent with
congressional intent. As a result, Members and committees of Congress may confront
multifaceted issues when considering options for legislating on OMB’s activities.
This report provides an overview of OMB, including selected institutional aspects and several of
its major functions. These perspectives may assist Congress in understanding the roles and
operations of OMB and thereby may help inform related congressional deliberations. The report
concludes by highlighting potential issues for Congress regarding OMB, including opportunities
to conduct oversight of OMB’s activities and options for potential legislation that would modify
OMB’s roles.
In addition to the individuals listed on this report’s cover, multiple CRS analysts authored
portions of the report. They are identified in footnotes to the sections they authored. A full list of
CRS contributors is located in the “Key Policy Staff Table” at the conclusion of the report.
OMB History and Mission
Capsule Statutory History
The Office of Management and Budget traces its origin to 1921, when it was established as the
Bureau of the Budget (BOB) within the Treasury Department by the Budget and Accounting Act,
1921.2 BOB functioned under the supervision of the President.3 Reorganization Plan No. 1 of
1939 transferred the bureau to the newly created Executive Office of the President (EOP).4

1 Other components of the EOP include, for example, the National Security Council, the Council of Economic
Advisers, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Some of these components are linked on the White House
website, at U.S. White House, “T he Administration,” at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-trump-administration/. A full
list may be found in the EOP’s annual budget justification available at U.S. White House, “Disclosures,” at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/disclosures/.
2 P.L. 67-13, Budget and Accounting Act, 1921; June 10, 1921 (42 Stat. 20, at 22); currently codified in part at 31
U.S.C §501. T his law and others cited in this report are summarized in CRS Report RL30795, General Managem ent
Laws: A Com pendium , by Clinton T . Brass et al. (available upon request to congressional clients). T he President
appointed the BOB director and assistant director without Senate confir mation. T he title of assistant director was
changed to “deputy director” by P.L. 83-176, First Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1954; July 31, 1953 (67
Stat. 298, at 299).
3 P.L. 67-13.
4 P.L. 76-19; April 3, 1939 (53 Stat. 1423); located at 5 U.S.C. Appendix. For related discussion, see section titled
“Presidential Reorganization Authority (Inoperative)” in CRS Report R44909, Executive Branch Reorganization, by
Congressional Research Service
1

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

Subsequently, Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1970 re-designated BOB as the Office of
Management and Budget.5 Concern about OMB’s accountability prompted Congress to make the
director and deputy director subject to Senate confirmation in 1974.6 Congress also established
four “statutory offices” within OMB to oversee several cross-cutting processes and management
matters.
 The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act established the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy (OFPP) in 1974.7 OFPP provides guidance regarding the
government-wide acquisition of goods and services necessary for executing the
responsibilities of federal agencies.8
 The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1980 established the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA, pronounced “oh-eye-ruh”).9 The
PRA was rewritten and recodified in 1995, including authorizing language for
OIRA.10 In addition to its regulatory activities, OIRA oversees federal policy
related to information policy, statistical policy, and privacy.11
 The Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990 established the Office of Federal
Financial Management (OFFM).12 In addition to fulfil ing several statutory
responsibilities, OFFM carries out the President’s financial management
improvement priorities and implements executive agencies’ financial
management policies.13
 The E-Government Act of 2002 established the Office of Electronic Government
(E-Gov).14 Among other things, E-Gov “provide[s] overal leadership and
direction” regarding Internet-based technologies to streamline the public’s
interaction with the federal government.15

Henry B. Hogue.
5 Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1970; July 1, 1970 (84 Stat. 2085); located at 5 U.S.C. Appendix.
6 P.L. 93-250; March 2, 1974 (88 Stat. 11); currently codified at 31 U.S.C. §502. For discussion, see CRS Report 78-
158, The Office of Managem ent and Budget: Background, Responsibilities, Recent Issues, by Judith H. Parris, July 27,
1978, pp. 44-49 (available upon request to congressional clients).
7 P.L. 93-400; August 30, 1974 (88 Stat. 796); currently codified at 41 U.S.C. §1101. See also 31 U.S.C. §506.
8 See U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget (hereinafter OMB), “T he Office of
Federal Procurement Policy,” at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/office-federal-procurement-policy/.
9 P.L. 96-511; December 11, 1980 (94 Stat. 2812); subsequently reauthorized and recodified in 1995.
10 P.L. 104-13; May 22, 1995 (109 Stat. 163, at 166); currently codified at 44 U.S.C. §3503.
11 See OMB, “Information and Regulatory Affairs,” at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-regulatory-
affairs/.
12 P.L. 101-576, Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990; November 15, 1990 (104 Stat. 2838); currently codified at 31
U.S.C. §901. See also 31 U.S.C. §502(c). T he CFO Act also created the deputy director for management position.
13 See OMB, “Office Federal Financial Management,” at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/office-federal-
financial-management/.
14 P.L. 107-347, E-Government Act of 2002; December 17, 2002 (116 Stat. 2899); currently codified at 44 U.S.C.
§3602. See also 31 U.S.C. §507. OMB calls this organization the Office of E-Government and Information
T echnology.
15 44 U.S.C. §3602(f)(3). See also OMB, “Office of E-Government and Information Technology,” at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/egov/.
Congressional Research Service
2

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

Characterizations of OMB’s Mission
As a primary support agency for the institutional presidency, OMB has significant and varied
responsibilities. A 1986 study identified 95 statutes, 58 executive orders, five regulations, and 51
circulars that reflected OMB’s operational authorities at the time.16 CRS is not aware of a more
up-to-date, similarly detailed compendium of OMB’s statutory duties. However, some observers
have written overviews of OMB’s organizational components and processes.17 In addition,
observers may also look to how OMB itself characterizes its duties.
Succeeding Administrations have crafted mission statements for OMB that highlight each
Administration’s perspective on OMB’s key responsibilities. Sometimes, the mission statement
of OMB has substantial y changed from one Administration to the next. OMB created its first
website with a mission statement during the Clinton Administration, thus establishing a new
venue for OMB to interact with Congress and the public.18 During the George W. Bush
Administration, OMB featured the following portion of a mission statement on its website, which
echoes some of the structure and substance of the Clinton Administration’s version:
OMB’s predominant mission is to assist the President in overseeing the preparation of the
federal budget and to supervise its administration in Executive Branch agencies. In helping
to formulate the President’s spending plans, OMB evaluates the effectiveness of agency
programs, policies, and procedures, assesses competing funding demands among agencies,
and sets funding priorities. OMB ensures that agency reports, rules, testimony, and
proposed legislation are consistent with the President’s Budget and with Administration
policies.19
During the Obama Administration, OMB featured the following portion of a mission statement on
its website:
The core mission of OMB is to serve the President of the United States in implementing
his vision across the Executive Branch. OMB is the largest component of the Executive
Office of the President. It reports directly to the President and helps a wide range of
executive departments and agencies across the Federal Government to implement the
commitments and priorities of the President.
As the implementation and enforcement arm of Presidential policy government-wide,
OMB carries out its mission through five critical processes that are essential to the
President’s ability to plan and implement his priorities across the Executive Branch.20

16 See Morton Rosenberg and Mark Gurevitz, “Preliminary Catalogue of Office of Management and Budget Authorities
and Directives,” in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Office of Management and Budget:
Evolving Roles and Future Issues, committee print, 99th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1986), pp. 395 -696.
17 For example, see Steve Redburn, Dan Chenok, and Barry Clendenin, eds., The Office of Management and Budget:
An Insider’s Guide, Report 2021-21 (White House T ransition Project and Kinder Institute on Constitutional
Democracy), no date (2020), at https://www.napawash.org/events/office-of-management -budget-an-insiders-guide-
september-30-2020; and Meena Bose and Andrew Rudalevige, eds., Executive Policym aking: The Role of the OMB in
the Presidency (Washington: Brookings, 2020).
18 See OMB, “OMB’s Role,” at https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/OMB/organization/role.html, archived at U.S.
National Archives and Records Administration (hereinafter NARA), “ Archived Presidential White House Websites,” at
https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/archived-websites.
19 See OMB, “OMB’s Mission,” at https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/organization/role.html (archived
by NARA).
20 See OMB, “ T he Mission and Structure of the Office of Management and Budget ,” at
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/organization_mission/ (archived by NARA).
Congressional Research Service
3

link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 10 link to page 10 Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

The Obama Administration website then elaborated on these “five critical processes,” including
(1) budget development and execution, (2) management, (3) coordination and review of
regulations, (4) legislative clearance and coordination, and (5) executive orders and presidential
memoranda.
The Trump Administration’s version of the OMB mission included a similar discussion of these
five critical processes:
OMB carries out its mission through five critical processes that are essential to the
President’s ability to plan and implement his priorities across the Executive Branch: (1)
Budget development and execution. (2) Management, including oversight of agency
performance, human capital, Federal procurement, financial management, and information
technology. (3) Regulatory policy, including coordination and review of all significant
Federal regulations by executive agencies. (4) Legislative clearance and coordination. (5)
Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda.21
The Obama Administration’s characterization of OMB as the “implementation and enforcement
arm of Presidential policy”—compared to the George W. Bush Administration’s emphasis on the
technical functions of OMB—may help to il ustrate an ongoing evolution in perspective
regarding the potential roles of OMB. More recently, during the Trump Administration, OMB’s
mission statement mirrored that of the Obama Administration, specifical y with its discussion of
the “critical processes.”
Institutional Aspects of OMB
Several institutional aspects of OMB may be of interest to Congress, including OMB’s
organizational structure, budget, workforce, and website. The subsections below address these
topics.
Organizational Structure
In addition to OMB’s leadership, which wil be discussed in this report’s section titled “OMB
Senior Officials and Appointments,” OMB has three major types of offices: (1) resource
management offices (RMOs), (2) OMB-wide support offices, and (3) statutory offices.22 The
OMB website currently does not include an organization chart. However, the most recent chart of
OMB’s leadership and organizational structure—taken from the OMB website during the Obama
Administration—is displayed in Figure 1.23
RMOs are tasked with examining agency budget requests and developing funding
recommendations for federal agencies under their purview. The bottom row of Figure 1 shows
OMB’s RMOs. Each RMO focuses on a cluster of related agencies and issues to examine agency
budget requests and make funding recommendations. To develop these recommendations, RMOs
are tasked with integrating management, budget, and policy perspectives in their work. A
political y appointed program associate director (PAD) leads each of the RMOs. Below the level
of PADs and some of their immediate assistants, RMO staff are usual y career civil servants and
are organized into divisions and branches. Each RMO branch covers a cabinet department or
collection of smal er agencies and is led by a career member of the Senior Executive Service

21 OMB, “Office of Management and Budget,” at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/.
22 Description of OMB’s organization draws in part on Shelley Lynne T omkin, Inside OMB: Politics and Process in
the President’s Budget Office (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1998), pp 11-29.
23 OMB, “About OMB,” at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/organization.
Congressional Research Service
4

link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

(SES). OMB’s program examiners staff each RMO branch. As shown from left to right in Figure
1, OMB’s RMOs as of January 2017 included (1) Natural Resource Programs; (2) Education,
Income Maintenance and Labor Programs; (3) Health Programs; (4) General Government
Programs; and (5) National Security Programs.
Above the RMOs, the left side of the organization chart in Figure 1 shows eight OMB-wide
support offices. The offices address a variety of subject areas. For example, the Budget Review
Division (BRD) coordinates the process for preparing the President’s annual budget proposal to
Congress. The Legislative Reference Division (LRD) coordinates review of agencies’ draft bil s,
congressional testimony, and correspondence to ensure compliance with the President’s policy
agenda. OMB’s Economic Policy Office works with the President’s Council of Economic
Advisers and the Treasury Department to develop economic assumptions and more recently has
focused on program evaluation. The other support offices included the General Counsel,
Legislative Affairs, Strategic Planning and Communications, Performance and Personnel
Management, and the Management and Operations Division.
OMB’s statutory offices oversee several cross-cutting processes and management matters.
Analysts in the statutory offices develop policy, coordinate implementation, and work with the
RMOs on agency-specific issues. The right side of the organization chart in Figure 1 shows the
statutory offices. Three of the four statutory offices focus on mission-support functions of
executive agencies: financial management (OFFM), procurement policy (OFPP), and information
technology (E-Gov, shared with OIRA). The fourth office, OIRA, has a broad portfolio of
responsibilities, including regulation, information policy, paperwork reduction, statistical policy,
and privacy.

Congressional Research Service
5

Figure 1. Archived Organization Chart for OMB (Obama Administration, January 2017)

Source: OMB, “About OMB,” at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/organization (archived).

CRS-6

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

OMB’s Budget
An overview of OMB’s budget may help il uminate how OMB al ocates resources among its
various activities. In addition, OMB’s budget may be viewed over time to paint a picture of any
changes of the organization’s priorities. Historical information about OMB’s budget may be
found in the Budget Appendix, an annual y issued volume of presidential budget submissions,24
and congressional budget justifications for the EOP, which at times have been posted online at
various locations.25
OMB Budget and Selected History
In recent years, Congress has provided funds to OMB through annual appropriations in the
Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) annual appropriations bil . OMB’s budget
includes funds in a “Salaries and Expenses” (S&E) account. It could be argued that OMB’s core
budget also includes at least some funding in a separate “Information Technology Oversight and
Reform” (ITOR) account.
 The S&E account funds the core operations of OMB.26 The S&E account funds
the RMOs, statutory offices, and OMB-wide support offices. For FY2019, the
account’s actual obligations were $103 mil ion, plus an additional $3 mil ion for
reimbursable activities.27
 The ITOR account is controlled by the OMB director. The account provides
funds “for the furtherance of integrated, efficient, secure, and effective uses of
information technology in the Federal Government.”28 The director of OMB may
transfer ITOR funds to “one or more other agencies to carry out projects to meet
these purposes.” As described by OMB, the ITOR account has funded IT
oversight and analysis by E-Gov, the U.S. Digital Service, and cybersecurity.29 A

24 T he most recent version of the President’s budget submission, including the Budget Appendix, may be found at
OMB, “President’s Budget,” at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/. For electronic versions of historical
presidential budget submissions from the mid-1990s to the present, see U.S. Government Publishing Office, “ Budget of
the United States Government ,” at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/BUDGET /.
25 CRS was able to locate electronic versions of full EOP congressional budget justifications for FY2020 and FY2021
(see U.S. White House, “Disclosures,” at https://www.whitehouse.gov/disclosures/); FY2018 (see U.S. White House,
“Executive Office of the President” (archived), at https://web.archive.org/web/20171119003650/http://
www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop); and FY2011-FY2017 (see U.S. White House, “ Executive Office of the
President” (archived), at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop). A scanned version of OMB’s
portion of the EOP FY2019 justification is available from CRS upon request from congressional clients. At other times,
OMB has posted its portion of the EOP justification on its website, including during the George W. Bush
Administration (FY2008; see OMB, “ About OMB” (archived), at https://web.archive.org/web/20090117014058/
whitehouse.gov/omb/organization/index.html) and Barack Obama Administration (FY2008-FY2017; see OMB,
“About OMB” (archived), at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/organization).
26 OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2021, Appendix, p. 1142, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/appendix/.
See also U.S. Executive Office of the President (hereinafter EOP), Fiscal Year 2021 Congressional Budget Subm ission
(Washington: EOP, 2020), p. OMB-7.
27 OMB obligated the $103 million against the annual appropriation it received in the FSGG act. T he $3 million in
reimbursable obligations corresponded to certain collections of funds from businesslike transactions by OMB. For
discussion of reimbursements (and the broader category of offsetting collections), see U.S. Government Accountability
Office (hereinafter GAO), A Glossary of Term s Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP, p. 29.
28 OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2021, Append ix, p. 1147, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/appendix/.
29 Ibid. For some time, OMB funded some of E-Gov’s operations out of the IT OR account. For FY2021, OMB
proposed to shift this funding from the IT OR appropriation to the S&E appropriation. See EOP, Fiscal Year 2021
Congressional Research Service
7

link to page 33 link to page 33 Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

predecessor to the ITOR account was first enacted as a part of FY2012
appropriations.30 For FY2019, the account’s actual obligations were $24 mil ion,
plus an additional $5 mil ion for reimbursable activities.31
Overal , the funds in OMB’s S&E account are dedicated mainly to personnel costs.
Compensation and benefits were 81% of OMB’s $103 mil ion in total, actual obligations for
FY2019.32 The remainder chiefly covered contractual services (10%). OMB’s S&E account has
ranged in recent years from $93 mil ion in obligations in FY2010 to $103 mil ion in FY2019 (see
Table A-1, in Appendix A).
The S&E account also may be broken down among OMB’s offices. Almost half (about 48%) of
FY2019 funding went to the RMOs. About 35% went to the OMB-wide support offices
(including E-Gov), and about 18% went to the other statutory offices.33
At times, OMB’s S&E budget has fluctuated due to real ocations of funding with other accounts
in the EOP. In one instance, in the early 2000s, Congress shifted funds among budget accounts in
the EOP related to an “enterprise services program.” For FY2003, Congress real ocated $8.3
mil ion from OMB to the EOP’s Office of Administration (OA) for central procurement of goods
and services,34 reducing OMB’s appropriation compared to the prior fiscal year. The President
subsequently requested for both FY2004 and FY2005 that similar funding be shifted back to
OMB, but Congress continued a similar real ocation in both years.35 For FY2006, the President
requested that the real ocation to OA continue, but Congress shifted $7 mil ion, for rent and
health unit costs, from OA back to OMB, and appropriated $76.2 mil ion (after rescission) to
OMB.36
Separate from the S&E and ITOR accounts, OMB may also exercise control over the funding and
operations of several councils of agency officials. These include the President’s Management

Congressional Budget Subm ission (Washington: EOP, 2020), p. IT OR-10. For information about the U.S. Digital
Service, see https://www.usds.gov/mission.
30 Initially, appropriations bill language referred to this account as “ Integrated, Efficient, and Effective Uses of
Information Technology.” See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74, December 23, 2011; 125 Stat. 786,
at 896), at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-112publ74/pdf/PLAW-112publ74.pdf#page=112. It is
conceivable that some of OMB’s activities that have been funded in the S&E account prior to FY2012 subsequently
were funded by the IT OR account. If that is the case, it is not clear to CRS the extent to which that shift occurred.
31 OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2021, Appendix, p. 1147.
32 OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2021, Appendix, p. 1143. See also EOP, Fiscal Year 2021 Congressional
Budget Subm ission (Washington: EOP, 2020), p. OMB-9. Obligations are binding agreements that will result in
immediate or future outlays.
33 OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2020, Appendix, at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET -2020-
APP/pdf/BUDGET -2020-APP.pdf.
34 U.S. Congress, House, Making Further Continuing Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2003, and for Other Purposes,
conference report to accompany H.J.Res. 2, H.Rept. 108-10, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, February 13,
2003), p. 1342.
35 See U.S. Congress, House, Making Appropriations for Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Program s for the Fiscal Year Ending Septem ber 30, 2005, and for Other Purposes, conference report to accompany
H.R. 4818, H.Rept. 108-792, 108th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, November 20, 2004), p. 1449.
36 See OMB, “ MAX Information and Reports (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Users): SF 133 Report on Budget
Execution and Budgetary Resources,” link for “ FY2006,” at https://portal.max.gov/portal/document/SF133/Budget/
FACT S%20II%20-
%20SF%20133%20Report%20on%20Budget%20Execution%20and%20Budgetary%20Resources.html . After clicking
on the “FY2006” link, click on the PDF icon for “Executive Office of the President.” Within the PDF file, information
about OMB’s S&E account can be found at https://portal.max.gov/portal/document/SF133/Budget/attachments/
245170294/255066258.pdf#page=88.
Congressional Research Service
8

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

Council, the Chief Financial Officers Council, the Chief Information Officers Council, the Chief
Human Capital Officers Council, the Chief Acquisition Officers Council, and the Performance
Improvement Council. Specifical y, the OMB director has general y received authority each year
in the FSGG annual appropriations bil to approve transfers and reimbursements to finance the
activities of the councils up to $17 mil ion.37 In addition, the OMB director has received similar
authority to approve how the transferred funds are administered by the head of the General
Services Administration (GSA).38 The same provision provides further that up to $15 mil ion may
be transferred to address coordination, duplication, and activities related to Federal Government
Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act.39
Illustrative Topics from Consideration of OMB Appropriations
A significant part of congressional oversight of OMB occurs during consideration of the annual
FSGG appropriations bil , which includes the agency’s funding. Although topics that arise in the
appropriations process for OMB’s budget may vary from year to year, the reports of the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the FSGG bil typical y include directives for OMB
which relate specifical y to the agency and address government-wide management matters.40
Over the last several years, for example, the appropriations committees have been interested in
OMB’s personnel levels and have continued to direct OMB to provide quarterly reports on
staffing, obligations, and hiring initiatives. Another issue of ongoing interest to the committees
has been online access to federal agency budget documents, including justifications, which
prompted a directive to OMB to issue guidance to the agencies on posting the justification
documents in a searchable format on their public websites.41
Another common topic of these committee directives has been OMB’s roles regarding general
management and human capital management across the federal government. For example, the
House Appropriations Committee report on the FY2021 FSGG bil directs OMB to ensure that
federal agencies are in compliance with Title 31 of the U.S. Code, including requirements for
priority goals and outcomes and that agency budget requests directly link to performance plans.
Appropriators also directed OMB to consult with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
and GSA and then report back to the committee by September 30, 2021, on gaps in federal

37 P.L. 116-93, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020; Division C, T itle VII, Section 721; December 20, 2019 (133
Stat. 2317, at 2488).
38 Ibid. For detailed information about the activities of the councils, see EOP, Fiscal Year 2021 Congressional Budget
Subm ission (Washington: EOP, 2020), pp. CWC-1 – CWC-13.
39 P.L. 116-93, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020; Division C, T itle VII, Section 721; December 20, 2019 (133
Stat. 2317, at 2488).
40 T he committee reports may be found at CRS Appropriations Status T able, at https://www.crs.gov/
AppropriationsStatusTable/Index. T he “ Select Year” drop-down menu allows the user to navigate between different
fiscal years from FY1999 to present.
41 U.S. House Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2020,
Report to Accompany H.R. 3351, H.Rept. 116-122, 116th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, June 19, 2019), pp. 31 -
32, at https://www.congress.gov/116/crpt/hrpt122/CRPT-116hrpt122.pdf. U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2020, Report to Accompany S. 2524, S.Rept. 116-
111, 116th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington, GPO, September 19, 2019), p. 38, at https://www.congress.gov/116/crpt/
srpt111/CRPT -116srpt111.pdf. U.S. House Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Bill, 2021, report to accompany H.R. 7668, H.Rept. 116-456, 116th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington, GPO,
July 17, 2020), pp. 36-37, at https://www.congress.gov/116/crpt/hrpt456/CRPT-116hrpt456.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
9

link to page 33 link to page 33 link to page 33 link to page 35 link to page 11 Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

information technology workforce skil s, disciplines, and experience that are required to enable
citizen-facing digital services.42
OMB’s Workforce
Several perspectives on OMB’s workforce may help il ustrate how OMB’s personnel are
distributed across the agency and funded by OMB’s appropriations. This report focuses on the
OMB workforce in two primary ways: a discussion of OMB’s overal staffing composition and a
more focused look at senior OMB positions that are established by statute.
OMB Staffing Composition and Recent History
It is possible to quantify OMB’s staffing in two ways: full-time equivalent (FTE) positions and
on-board employment. Each involves a different way of counting employees.
 FTEs calculate employee work years. One full-time employee working 40 hours
per week for 52 weeks would constitute one FTE; two part-time employees each
working 20 hours per week for 52 weeks also would constitute one FTE.43
 On-board employment shows an employee headcount at a snapshot in time. On-
board employment is the number of employees in pay status regardless of full-
time or part-time status.44
With respect to OMB’s S&E appropriation, OMB had an actual count of 466 FTEs in FY2019.45
The ITOR account had 84 FTEs, plus an additional 21 FTEs for reimbursable activities for
FY2019.46
In practice, the ITOR account has paid for staff and activities of both the U.S. Digital Service
(USDS) and OMB’s E-Gov.47 CRS is not aware of a breakdown of staffing funded by the ITOR
account that contrasts OMB core operations with activities of USDS. Consequently, for purposes
of oversight of OMB, it may be difficult for observers to determine how much of the funding for
OMB’s staff comes from the ITOR account. Nevertheless, it appears the ITOR account has been
used to fund core activities of OMB that otherwise might have been funded by the S&E account.
Notably, in the FY2021 Congressional Budget Justification for EOP, the President requested a
shifting of funds and 21 FTEs from the ITOR appropriation into the OMB appropriation for
operations of E-Gov.48
Not counting staffing associated with the ITOR account, OMB’s staffing associated with the S&E
account has fluctuated over time, with a somewhat steady decline in recent years. In the OMB
budget justification for FY2021, the justification characterized OMB’s FTE levels as having
“dropped by more than 50 FTE—a reduction of approximately 10 percent—since FY2010.”49
However, because it is unclear how many OMB staff were funded by the ITOR account, it is also
unclear whether the decline in staffing reflected a shift of funding from the S&E account to the

42 H.Rept. 116-456 (116th Cong.), pp. 37-38.
43 For further discussion, see Appendix A, Table A-1, and accompanying text.
44 For further discussion, see Appendix A, Table A-3, and accompanying text.
45 OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2021, Appendix, p. 1148, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/appendix/.
46 OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2021, Appendix, p. 1142, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/appendix/.
47 See related discussion in this report’s section titled ““ OMB Budget and Selected History”.”
48 EOP, Fiscal Year 2021 Congressional Budget Submission (Washington: EOP, 2020), pp. OMB-3 and IT OR-10.
49 EOP, Fiscal Year 2021 Congressional Budget Submission (Washington: EOP, 2020), p. OMB-3.
Congressional Research Service
10

link to page 5 link to page 16 link to page 33 link to page 34 link to page 33 link to page 35 Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

ITOR account as opposed to a reduction in OMB’s core operations. In FY2010, actual FTE for
the S&E account was 527.50 In FY2014, actual FTE employment diminished to 435.51 The FTE
estimate for FY2020 was 477.52
In addition to OMB’s overal FTE figures, the data can be broken down by OMB’s organizational
units.53 OMB’s RMOs account for the largest subset of OMB’s FTEs (219 out of 466 FTEs in
FY2019, or nearly 47%). With respect to three of OMB’s statutory offices, OFFM had 17 FTEs,
OIRA had 49, and OFPP had 15 in FY2019 (81 out of 466 FTEs in FY2019, or about 17%).54
OMB includes E-Gov in its accounting of agency-wide support offices, which had 166 FTEs in
FY2019 (166 out of 466 FTEs in FY2019, or nearly 36%).55
Alternatively, OMB’s workforce can be thought about in terms of on-board employment. Since
2010, OMB’s on-board employment was at its highest level (630) in September 2016, at its
lowest level (452) in September 2013, and at 584 in June 2019 (most current available).56
According to one scholar, 20 to 25 of OMB staff historical y have been political appointees and
the rest have been career civil servants,57 although these figures may be difficult to document
precisely.
OMB Senior Officials and Appointments
Selected OMB Leadership Positions Established by Statute
Congress has created several key, appointed leadership positions in OMB via statute. As
discussed in this report’s “Capsule Statutory History” section, the Budget and Accounting Act
established the OMB director and deputy director positions. As the result of 1974 legislation,
presidential appointments for these positions must be confirmed by the Senate. The Chief
Financial Officers Act of 1990 established the deputy director for management (DDM) position,
which is also subject to Senate confirmation. Congress also created leadership positions to
oversee the four statutory offices.58
Table 1 below, provides more detailed information about statutorily established OMB leadership
positions. The first column (“Statutory Position Title”) displays the position title that was
established by statute. The second column (“Original Enacting Law”) offers citations to the
Statutes at Large where the laws that established the positions are located. The third column
(“U.S. Code Location(s)”) includes citations to the locations of the positions within the United
States Code. The fourth column (“Type of Appointment”) labels each position as either (1) a
presidential appointment with Senate confirmation (PAS) or (2) a presidential appointment (PA).
Final y, the fifth column (“Statutory Pay Level”) notes the corresponding pay level within the

50 See Table A-1.
51 Ibid.
52 Ibid.
53 T his paragraph draws on data from Appendix A. See Table A-2 and the accompanying text.
54 Ibid.
55 See Table A-1.
56 See Table A-3.
57 Shelley Lynne T omkin, Inside OMB: Politics and Process in the President’s Budget Office (Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe, 1998), pp 22-23.
58 Statutory language further provides that OMB “has 3 Assistant Directors” whose responsibilities are delegated to
them by the director. In addition, it provides that OMB “may have not more than 6 additional officers, each of whom is
appointed in the compet itive service by the Director. T he Director shall specify the title of each additional officer.” See
31 U.S.C. §502(d), (e). It is not clear to CRS how these provisions have been implemented in practice.
Congressional Research Service
11

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

executive schedule for each position, excluding the chief statistician whose pay level was not
established in law.
Table 1. Senior OMB Positions Established by Statute
Statutory
Original Enacting
U.S. Code
Type of
Statutory Pay
Position Title
Law
Location(s)
Appointment
Level
Director of OMB
P.L. 67-13 (1921);
31 U.S.C. §502(a)
PAS
EX Level I
42 Stat. 22
Deputy Director of
P.L. 67-13 (1921);
31 U.S.C. §502(b)
PAS
EX Level II
OMB
42 Stat. 22
Deputy Director for P.L. 101-576 (1990); 31 U.S.C. §502(c)
PAS
EX Level II
Management
104 Stat. 2838, at
2839
Administrator,
P.L. 96-511 (1980);
44 U.S.C. §3503
PAS
EX Level III
OIRA
94 Stat. 2814, at
2815
Administrator,
P.L. 93-400 (1974);
41 U.S.C. §1101
PAS
EX Level III
OFPP
88 Stat. 796, at 797
Administrator, E-
P.L. 107-347 (2002); 44 U.S.C. §3602
PA
EX Level III
Gov
116 Stat. 2899, at
2902
Control er, OFFM
P.L. 101-576 (1990); 31 U.S.C. §504
PAS
EX Level III
104 Stat. 2838, at
2841
Chief Statistician
P.L. 99-500
44 U.S.C. §3504(e)(7)
OMB Director
N/A (SES ES00; not
established in law;
(1986); 100 Stat.
see note below)
1783-337
Source: CRS analysis.
Notes: PAS = presidential appointment with Senate confirmation; PA = presidential appointment; EX =
Executive Schedule; SES = Senior Executive Service.
For the codification of pay rates, see 5 U.S.C. §5312 (EX Level I), 5 U.S.C. §5313 (EX Level II), and 5 U.S.C.
§5314 (EX Level III). For EX salaries in 2020, see, U.S. Office of Personnel Management ( hereinafter OPM), Salary
Table No. 2020-EX, Rates of Basic Pay for the Executive Schedule (EX), at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-
oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/EX.pdf.
For the Chief Statistician as an SES position, see USAJOBS, Chief Statistician, Statistical Policy and Science
Branch, Executive Office of the President, OMB, closing date 07/06/2020, at https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/
ViewDetails/569699900. (Copy of the vacancy announcement available from CRS.) For SES salaries in 2020, see,
OPM, Salary Table No. 2020-ES Rates of Basic Pay for Members of the Senior Executive Service (SES), at
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/ES.pdf. The salary
range for the Chief Statistician position for 2020 is $131,239 to $197,300.
OMB Appointments Issues
The OMB director, deputy director, and DDM positions are appointed by the President with
Senate confirmation. Issues that arise relating to OMB’s senior political appointees may vary
from time to time. During the Trump Administration, for example, two developments that have
persisted for these positions include officials serving in (1) acting capacities for extended periods
of time and (2) two roles simultaneously (also sometimes cal ed dual-hatting).
Congressional Research Service
12

link to page 36 link to page 36 Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

With regard to the first issue, the director position was fil ed on an acting basis from mid-
December 2018 (when OMB Director Mick Mulvaney was named acting White House chief of
staff)59 until July 20, 2020 (when acting OMB Director Russel Vought was confirmed as
director).60 Following reports of Margaret Weichert’s resignation from the DDM position in
March 2020,61 the DDM position was fil ed on an acting basis by Michael Rigas.62
As for the dual-hatting issue, Margaret Weichert also served as the acting director of OPM from
early October 2018 until mid-September 2019,63 when Dale Cabaniss was confirmed as OPM
director.64 As of October 2020, the acting DDM at OMB was Michael Rigas, who was the Senate-
confirmed OPM deputy director and also the acting OPM director.65 As a case study from the
Trump Administration, Table B-1 in Appendix B provides more detailed information related to
the nomination and confirmation for each of these OMB positions.
OMB’s Website and Documents66
In the mid-1990s, OMB established its own website providing content about several of its more
significant activities as part of the www.whitehouse.gov domain. Currently, the website al ows
Congress and the public to explore OMB’s functions and policies while also acting as a digital

59 In mid-December 2018, the Senate-confirmed OMB director, Mick Mulvaney, was named acting White House chief
of staff. National Public Radio reported that, “The White House clarified Friday night that Mulvaney will not resign
from OMB. Spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement that Mulvaney ‘will spend all of his time
devoted to his role as the acting chief of staff for the President.’ OMB Deputy Director Russell Vought will ‘handle day
to day operations and run OMB.’” See Jessica T aylor, “President Trump Names Mick Mulvaney as Acting White
House Chief Of Staff,” National Public Radio, December 14, 2018, at https://www.npr.org/2018/12/14/676931195/
president -trump-names-mick-mulvaney-as-acting-white-house-chief-of-staff.
60 T he Senate confirmed Russell Vought as director of OMB on a vote (Record No. 131) of 51 to 45 on July 20, 2020.
61 President Donald T rump was inaugurated on January 20, 2017. OMB did not have a Sen ate-confirmed DDM until
Margaret Weichert was confirmed on February 14, 2018, by voice vote. For discussion of Weichert’s resignation, see
Eric Katz, “T rump’s Federal Personnel Point Person to Step Down,” Government Executive, February 14, 2020, at
https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2020/02/trumps-federal-personnel-point-person-step-down/163145/.
62 See Nicole Ogrysko, “OPM’s Rigas to T ake on Second Position as OMB Acting Deputy,” Federal News Network,
March 25, 2020, at https://federalnewsnetwork.com/people/2020/03/opms-rigas-to-take-on-second-position-as-omb-
acting-deputy/, which observed that “ With his new acting appointment, Rigas will be the second person in three years
to serve as the federal government ’s personnel leader for two separate agencies.”
63 In early October, 2018, Jeff T ien Han Pon resigned as Director of OPM. See Eric Katz, “ White House Replaces
Federal Personnel Director in Surprise Shakeup. Margaret Weichert, the Deputy Director for Management at the Office
of Management and Budget, Will Serve as Acting OPM Director,” Government Executive, October 5, 2018, at
https://www.govexec.com/management/2018/10/white-house-replaces-federal-personnel-director-surprise-shakeup/
151838/.
64 T he Senate confirmed Dale Cabaniss as OPM director on a vote (Record No. 271) of 54 to 38 on September 11,
2019.
65 Adam Mazmanian, “Rigas to T ake on DDM Role,” Federal Computer Week, March 25, 2020, at https://fcw.com/
articles/2020/03/25/rigas-omb-ddm-dualhat.aspx. See also discussion in Nicole Ogrysko, “ OPM’s Rigas to T ake on
Second Position as OMB Acting Deputy,” Federal News Network, March 25, 2020, at https://federalnewsnetwork.com/
people/2020/03/opms-rigas-to-take-on-second-position-as-omb-acting-deputy/, which observed that “ With his new
acting appointment, Rigas will be the second person in three years to serve as the federal government ’s personnel
leader for two separate agencies.”
66 T his section was written by T aylor N. Riccard, Analyst in Government Organization and Management and Meghan
M. Stuessy, Analyst in Government Organization and Management.
Congressional Research Service
13

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

platform for OMB to publish documents.67 Under the Trump Administration, OMB’s website
offers information on a variety of topics,68 including the following:
 President’s Budget, which contains various volumes of the President’s Budget.
 Information and Guidance, which contains guidance and written
communications published by OMB.
 Information and Regulatory Affairs, which contains resources regarding
OIRA.
 U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, which contains
documents relating to intel ectual property policy and strategy.
 Legislative, which contains documents related to the President’s legislative
activities.
 Management, which contains information about the statutory offices and
management-related initiatives.
The homepage also displays OMB’s mission statement and information regarding OMB’s
leadership.69 In addition, it features contact information and recent OMB statements and
releases.70
The website has evolved over time and from Administration to Administration. The National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has responsibilities under the Federal Records Act
and the Presidential Records Act to ensure proper retention and access to records materials,
including materials on the www.whitehouse.gov domain.71 Whereas records created by OMB
general y are considered to be federal records subject to retention requirements established by the
Federal Records Act, other components of the EOP create presidential records that may have
permanent preservation value pursuant to the Presidential Records Act.72 As a result, federal
records created by OMB may be subject to less stringent requirements than presidential records
created by other components of the EOP. In practice, however, NARA treats al records on the
White House website (including those created by OMB) as suitable presidential records content
for preservation.
As part of its preservation efforts, NARA creates “frozen in time” website approximations of the
www.whitehouse.gov domain and associated sites at the conclusion of a presidency but not at
various points during an Administration.73 NARA notes, “These websites are no longer updated
so links to external websites and some internal pages wil not work.”74 Policy decisions such as
when and what to collect may impact the material’s context (i.e., the circumstances that situate

67 See OMB, “Office of Management and Budget,” at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/.
68 Ibid. Under the T rump Administration, OMB’s website contains a number of different pages displayed in a menu
located in the upper-left hand corner of the webpage and titled “ In T his Section.” T his menu lin ks to pages titled
“President’s Budget,” “Information and Guidance,” Information and Regulatory Affairs,” “U.S. Intellectual Property
Enforcement Coordinator,” “Legislative,” and “Management.”
69 Ibid.
70 Ibid.
71 For discussion, see CRS In Focus IF11119, Federal Records: Types and Treatments, by Meghan M. Stuessy.
72 NARA, Guidance on Presidential Records, p. 5, at https://www.archives.gov/files/presidential-records-guidance.pdf.
73 NARA maintains a website that links to these “frozen in time” White House sites from President Clinton to the
present. See NARA, “ Archived Presidential White House Websites,” at https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/
archived-websites.
74 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
14

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

the material and give it meaning), usability, and completeness. Some accompanying digital
information, such as who accessed the information or reviewed the document, may not be
available without holistic preservation. Such decisions may have implications on the type of
information available to future researchers, federal agencies, and Congress.75
Major Functions
As noted earlier in this report, OMB has significant and varied responsibilities.76 In pursuing
these activities, OMB is required to faithfully execute its statutory responsibilities as passed by
Congress and, in addition, may act as an agent to pursue the President’s policy preferences. From
Congress’s perspective, there may be tensions or contradictions between the two roles. When
viewed through either of these lenses, most observers identify the following as major functions of
OMB.
Budget Formulation and Execution
The U.S. Constitution vests Congress with the “power of the purse” but is largely silent regarding
the President’s role in the budget process.77 Accordingly, the current executive budget process is
largely an outgrowth of statutes enacted by Congress.78 OMB plays a significant role in the
executive budget process, and it engages in several budget-related activities to implement the
statutes and to support the institutional presidency.
Under statutory provisions original y associated with the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921,79 the
President is required annual y to submit a consolidated budget proposal for Congress’s
consideration. OMB frequently acts on the President’s behalf in this process. To guide agencies in
formulating proposals, OMB sends budget instructions to agencies via its Circular No. A-11.80
OMB updates this multi-hundred page document each year to reflect new developments and the
President’s budget and management priorities. Agency heads then forward their formal budget
requests to OMB for review, where the RMOs in cooperation with other OMB offices (e.g., E-
Gov for information technology initiatives) assemble options and analysis for decisions by OMB
and the White House. After an opportunity for agency appeals, the Budget Review Division
coordinates production of the President’s budget.81

75 Other government agencies, educational institutions, and private organizations have worked to fill such gaps both at
the conclusion of a presidency and throughout a presidency by allowing users to capture the page or subpage as it
appeared on a particular day. Whereas NARA is tasked with collecting and retaining materials that are federal records,
these additional institutions may collect broader information that, while not record information, may provide valuable
context to presidential documents. See End of T erm Web Archive: U.S. Federal Web Domain at Presidential
T ransitions, Project Partners, at http://eotarchive.cdlib.org/partners.html; and Internet Archive, Join us for a White
House Social Media and Gov Data Hackathon!, January 2, 2017, at https://blog.archive.org/2017/01/02/join-us-for-a-
white-house-social-media-and-gov-data-hackathon/.
76 See Morton Rosenberg and Mark Gurevitz, “Preliminary Catalogue of Office of Management and Budget Authorities
and Directives,” in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Office of Management and Budget:
Evolving Roles and Future Issues, committee print, 99th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1986), pp. 395 -696.
77 For discussion, see CRS Report R46240, Introduction to the Federal Budget Process, by James V. Saturno, and CRS
Report R42633, The Executive Budget Process: An Overview, by Michelle D. Christensen.
78 Ibid.
79 31 U.S.C. §1105.
80 OMB, “Circulars,” at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/circulars/.
81 T he most recent presidential budget submission is available at OMB, “President’s Budget,” at
Congressional Research Service
15

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

When Congress passes appropriations bil s and they are signed into law, “budget execution”
begins. A group of statutory provisions that observers refer to collectively as the Antideficiency
Act requires OMB to “apportion” appropriated funds—that is, make appropriations available to
agencies in legal y binding increments (e.g., quarterly). The statute’s express purpose is to
prevent federal officials from obligating or expending funds at a rate that would prematurely
exhaust the funds, such as before the end of a fiscal year.82 In practice, OMB may include within
an apportionment certain “footnotes” that OMB states are legal y binding for apportioned
amounts.83 OMB has indicated that a footnote may be used to make funds available for obligation
only “when specified events occur (such as an agency taking certain action).”84 In this way, OMB
may attempt to influence an agency’s implementation of appropriations and authorizing acts. At
times, observers have expressed concerns about OMB’s use of footnotes.85
OMB also provides budget-related guidance on additional topics, including but not limited to
continuing resolutions,86 government shutdowns,87 agencies’ use of discretion in al ocating funds
to specific locations and recipients,88 and agencies’ use of discretion with mandatory spending
programs.89
Legislative Coordination and Clearance90
OMB plays a key role in coordinating the President’s legislative activities. Under Circular No. A-
19, the Legislative Reference Division (LRD) coordinates executive branch review and clearance
of congressional testimony, congressional correspondence, and agencies’ draft bil s to help ensure
compliance with the President’s policy agenda.91 In these ways, LRD may make known the
Administration’s views on legislation and may al ow affected agencies, either directly or via
RMOs, to provide input during intra-executive branch policy development. Through the
legislative coordination and clearance process, LRD works with the RMOs and political

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/. Previous versions since FY1996 are available at U.S. Government
Publishing Office, “ Budget of the United States Government ,” at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/BUDGET /.
82 31 U.S.C. §§1511-1519.
83 OMB, Circular No. A-11: Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, July 2020, §§120.15 and 120.36.
84 Ibid., §120.12.
85 See OMB, Letter from Mark R. Paoletta, General Counsel, OMB, to T om Armstrong, General Counsel, GAO,
December 11, 2019, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/white-house-budget-office-s-new-legal-memo-on-
military-aid-to-ukraine/c2833adb-ef3a-4446-8a6a-c24bc34ba715/, and https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/
prod/default/documents/5dbd9f69-2537-4272-bd5d-60c94d3843b6/note/112b1caa-763c-4c4c-a5bb-0a04f7962d2c.pdf
(letter from OMB to GAO, characterizing OMB’s past apportionment practices and interpretations of relevant law); and
GAO, Office of Managem ent and Budget—Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance, B-331564, January 16, 2020, at
https://www.gao.gov/products/B-331564 (GAO response with a legal decision regarding the withholding of Ukraine-
related funds). For background discussion, see text box titled “ Ukraine Aid and the U.S. Presidential Impeachment,” in
CRS Report R45008, Ukraine: Background, Conflict with Russia, and U.S. Policy, by Cory Welt .
86 CRS Report RL34700, Interim Continuing Resolutions (CRs): Potential Impacts on Agency Operations, by Clinton
T . Brass.
87 CRS Report RL34680, Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects, coordinated by
Clinton T . Brass.
88 CRS Report RL34648, Bush Administration Policy Regarding Congressionally Originated Earmarks: An Overview,
by Clinton T . Brass, Garrett Hatch, and R. Eric Petersen .
89 CRS Report R41375, OMB Controls on Agency Mandatory Spending Programs: “Administrative PAYGO” and
Related Issues for Congress, by Clinton T . Brass and Jim Monke.
90 T his section was written by Meghan M. Stuessy, Analyst in Governm ent Organization and Management.
91 OMB, Circular A-19: Legislative Coordination and Clearance, September 20, 1979.
Congressional Research Service
16

link to page 7 Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

leadership of OMB to decide which agency views shal be accepted and which shal be discarded
in forming the Administration’s view on the matter at hand. These deliberations typical y are not
visible to Congress.
For non-appropriations legislation, LRD coordinates the preparation of “Statements of
Administration Policy” (SAPs, pronounced “saps”) on some pending legislation. As part of
OMB’s coordination process concerning legislative matters, LRD also authors memoranda to
advise the President on enrolled bil s (e.g., recommending signature or veto, or contents for
signing statements) when legislation is presented to the President.92 BRD performs similar duties
for appropriations legislation. SAPs serve to inform the executive branch, Congress, and the
public of the Administration’s stance early in the legislative process. While SAPs provide
Presidents an opportunity to assert varying levels of support for or opposition to a bil , a SAP also
may signal whether the Administration intends to veto the bil . Members of Congress may pay
particular attention to a SAP when a veto threat is being made.93 At least one congressional leader
characterized SAPs as forerunner indicators of a veto.94
Executive Orders and Proclamations95
OMB considers its role in the development, review, and promulgation of executive orders and
proclamations to be one of its “five critical processes” (see this report’s section titled
“Characterizations of OMB’s Mission”).96 Under Executive Order (E.O.) 11030,97 the OMB
director receives, reviews, and approves or disapproves executive orders and proclamations
proposed by agencies.98 The OMB director also prepares commemorative proclamations and
plays a role in the implementation of some executive orders.99 For example, some executive
orders direct OMB to monitor the implementation of an order.100 To fulfil this duty, OMB may
issue guidance memoranda to the heads of departments and agencies.101 Final y, OMB typical y

92 For more information on SAPs, see CRS Report R44539, Statements of Administration Policy, by Meghan M.
Stuessy. For a visual representation of the process of presenting legislation to the President, see CRS Infographic
IG10007, Presentation of Legislation and the Veto Process, by Meghan M. Stuessy.
93 Some Members of Congress call particular attention to SAPs that contain veto threats in remarks on the floor. For
examples of such references from the 114 th Congress, see Rep. Michael Burgess, Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 161, part 173 (December 1, 2015), pp. H8658 -H8660; Rep. Alcee Hastings, Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 161, part 170 (November 18, 2015), pp. H8295 -H8296; and Rep. Alcee Hastings, Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 161, part 63 (April 29, 2015), pp. H2512-H2513.
94 Hon. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 161, part 63 (April 29, 2015), p. S2492. For more
information about vetoes, see CRS Report RS22188, Regular Vetoes and Pocket Vetoes: In Brief, by Meghan M.
Stuessy. For more information about the different types of veto threats and their use in recent Administrations, see CRS
Report R46338, Veto Threats and Vetoes in the George W. Bush and Obam a Adm inistrations, by Meghan M. Stuessy.
95 T his section was written by Ben Wilhelm, Analyst in Government Organization and Management.
96 See OMB, “Office of Management and Budget,” at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/.
97 Executive Order 11030, “Preparation, Presentation, Filing, and Publication of Executive Orders and Proclamations,”
27 Federal Register 5847, June 19, 1962. T he current iteration of the older version of the order, which has been
amended by several subsequent orders, can be found at 1 C.F.R. §19.
98 1 C.F.R. §19.2. Executive orders approved by the OMB director are also submitted to the Atto rney General and the
director of the Office the Federal Register for review prior to submission to the President.
99 1 C.F.R. §19.4.
100 For a recent example, see Executive Order 13924, “Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery,” 85 Federal
Register 31353, May 19, 2020. Section 8 of the executive order requires the director of OMB to “ monitor compliance
with this order” and authorizes the director to “issue memoranda providing guidance on implementing this order,
including by setting deadlines for the [required] reviews and reports.”
101 See OMB, “Implementation of Executive Order 13924,” M-20-25, June 9, 2020, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/
Congressional Research Service
17

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

issues a Budgetary Impact Statement after the release of an executive order that provides the
Administration’s analysis of the projected budgetary impact of the executive order.102103
Information and Regulatory Affairs104
As noted earlier, OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) was created by the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which President Jimmy Carter signed into law in 1980.105 The
PRA provided that the OIRA administrator would serve as the “principal advisor to the [OMB]
Director on Federal information policy.”106 The OIRA administrator is appointed by the President
and subject to Senate confirmation.107 Specific areas of responsibility assigned to the OMB
director under the PRA have been delegated to OIRA, including information resources
management, review and approval of federal information collection and reduction of paperwork
burden, agency dissemination of and public access to information, statistical policy and
coordination, records management, privacy, and the acquisition and use of information
technology.108 In addition to the specific statutory responsibilities listed in the PRA, OIRA has
substantial responsibilities and influence over federal agencies’ regulations under a centralized
review process established through executive order.
OIRA Review of Regulations109
OIRA’s most significant function may be its centralized review of federal regulations. Through
this review, OIRA exerts considerable influence over the content of regulations, ensuring that
federal agencies’ actions are consistent with the President’s policy preferences.110
The current process for OIRA review of regulations was established in 1993 by President Clinton
in E.O. 12866, which was largely based upon a process established by President Ronald Reagan
in 1981.111 Under E.O. 12866, which remains in effect, covered agencies submit their

wp-content/uploads/2020/06/M-20-25.pdf.
102 T his is also sometimes referred to as a Budgetary Impact Analysis.
103 For a list of Budget Impact Statements issued during the T rump Administration, see OMB, “Executive Order
Budgetary Impact Statements,” at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/executive-order-
budgetary-impact -statements/.
104 T his introductory section was written by Maeve P. Carey, Specialist in Government Organization and Management.
105 P.L. 96-511; December 11, 1980 (94 Stat. 2812). T he PRA, as amended, is codified at 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. See
CRS Report RL32397, Federal Rulem aking: The Role of the Office of Inform ation and Regulatory Affairs, coordinated
by Maeve P. Carey.
106 44 U.S.C. §3504(a)(1). T he PRA was reauthorized in 1986 (P.L. 99-500; 100 Stat. 1783-335) and 1995 (P.L. 104-
13; 109 Stat. 163), and the list of OIRA’s duties changed somewhat. For example, the 1995 amendments increased the
specificity of the management -related provisions and changed “ information policy” to “information resources
management policy” (44 U.S.C. §3503(b)).
107 T he OIRA administrator was originally appointed by the director of OMB, but in the 1986 reauthorization, Congress
amended the appointment provision to require Senate confirmation for the administrator ( P.L. 99-500; 100 Stat. 1783-
336).
108 44 U.S.C. §3504.
109 T his section was written by Maeve P. Carey, Specialist in Government Organization and Management.
110 Information about regulations that have previously been, and are currently, under review at OIRA can be found on
OIRA’s website at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoPackageMain.
111 Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 Federal Register 51735, October 4, 1993. E.O.
12866 replaced E.O. 12291 (Executive Order 12291, “ Federal Regulation,” 46 Federal Register 13193, February 19,
1981), which was issued by President Reagan soon after OIRA was created. Although E.O. 12866 replaced President
Reagan’s order, it left much of the centralized review process intact.
Congressional Research Service
18

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

“significant” proposed and final rules to OIRA for review prior to publication.112 OIRA reviews
the content of each rule to ensure that it is consistent with the President’s policy preferences. In
addition, agencies must determine whether each rule is “economical y significant” and, if it is,
conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the rule, ensuring the benefits justify the costs of the rule.113
OIRA reviews these cost-benefit analyses to ensure they comply with OMB Circular A-4, which
OMB issued in 2003 to instruct agencies on how to conduct cost-benefit analysis.114 Final y,
OIRA also coordinates an interagency review process, which may include sending a rule to other
parts of OMB, the EOP, or other federal agencies.
Although E.O. 12866 has remained in effect since 1993, and the process for OIRA review of
regulations has remained largely consistent across Administrations, subsequent Presidents have
sometimes added further requirements to the process established in the order. For example,
President Trump issued E.O. 13771 in January 2017, creating a “one-in, two-out” requirement
whereby agencies are told they must offset the costs of new rules by eliminating equivalent costs
associated with at least two previously issued rules.115 When OIRA reviews rules under E.O.
12866, it also checks whether agencies have followed this “one in, two out” policy.116
OIRA Review of Information Collections117
Although OIRA may attempt to wield significant power under the centralized regulatory review
process described above, the primary function of OIRA, as established in the initial version of the
PRA, was to oversee and enforce government-wide efforts to reduce the paperwork burden on the
American public.118 To achieve that goal, the PRA tasked OMB and OIRA with reviewing and
approving federal agencies’ collections of information—e.g., government surveys, tax forms, and

112 “Significant” rules are those defined in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 as the following: “Any regulatory action that is
likely to result in a rule that may (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect
in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, co mpetition, jobs, the environment, public health
or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetar y impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive order.” Rules falling
into category (1) above are considered “economically significant.” OIRA review and E.O. 12866’s requirement for
cost-benefit analysis do not currently apply to the statutorily designated “ independent regulatory agencies,” which a re
listed at 44 U.S.C. §3502(5)). For more information, see CRS Report R42821, Independent Regulatory Agencies, Cost-
Benefit Analysis, and Presidential Review of Regulations, by Maeve P. Carey and Michelle D. Christensen.
113 In conducting these cost -benefit analyses, agencies follow guidance issued by OMB in 2003 (OMB, Circular A-4,
Regulatory Analysis, September 17, 2003). OMB has also issued a number of guidance documents on other aspects of
the federal rulemaking process. T hese documents are available on OMB’s website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
information-regulatory-affairs/regulatory-matters/.
114 OMB, Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis, September 17, 2003. OMB also has issued a number of guidance
documents on other aspects of the federal rulemaking process. T hese documents are available on OMB’s website at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-regulatory-affairs/regulatory-matters/.
115 Executive Order 13771, “ Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” 82 Federal Register 9339,
February 3, 2017.
116 OIRA issued guidance for implementing this E.O. in April 2017. See OMB, “Guidance Implementing Executive
Order 13771, T itled ‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,’” M-17-21, April 5, 2017, at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2017/M-17-21-OMB.pdf.
117 T his section was written by Maeve P. Carey, Specialist in Government Organization and Management.
118 Paperwork burden refers to the time, effort, and financial resources expended to respond to federal information
collections, regardless of whether the collection is mandatory (such as a tax form) or voluntary (such as an application
for benefits).
Congressional Research Service
19

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

regulatory reporting requirements. The PRA applies to almost every executive agency and most
federal information collections.119
The PRA requires agencies to provide a 60-day public comment period and then submit an
information collection request (ICR) for review and approval by OIRA.120 OIRA is then required
to hold an additional 30-day public comment period prior to its review of the ICR.121 In its
review, OIRA is required to consider a number of factors, such as whether the collection is
necessary, minimizes the burden imposed by the collection, and maximizes the practical utility or
public benefit from the information collected.122 Once OIRA grants its approval, a control number
is assigned to the collection and the agency may proceed with collecting the information.123 OIRA
may grant approval for up to three years, after which the agency must undertake another approval
process to renew the collection.124
Statistical Policy125
The PRA also requires OMB to coordinate the largely decentralized federal statistical system.126 It
consists of 13 “principal statistical agencies” and three “recognized statistical units” whose
“principal mission is to produce official Federal statistics.”127 According to OMB, there are also
more than “100 other Federal programs in statistical activities spanning measurement,
information collection, statistical products, data management, and dissemination.”128 Under 44
U.S.C. §3504(e)(7), a chief statistician carries out related coordination activities. This official,
who heads the Office of Statistical and Science Policy in OIRA, is responsible for ensuring that
budget proposals conform to “system-wide priorities; establishing standards and guidance for
data collection and dissemination; assessing agency compliance with those standards;

119 44 U.S.C. §3502.
120 44 U.S.C. §§3506 and 3507.
121 44 U.S.C. §3507(b).
122 44 U.S.C. §3504.
123 Failure to obtain OIRA approval for an active collection represents a violation of the PRA and triggers the PRA’s
public protection provision (44 U.S.C. §3512). Under the PRA’s public protection provision, an individual or entity
may not be penalized for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the act if the collection does not
display a valid OMB control number.
124 44 U.S.C. §3507(g). For a brief overview of the PRA, see Cass R. Sunstein, Administrator, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies, and independent regulatory
agencies, April 7, 2010, “Information Collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act,” at https://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/assets/inforeg/PRAPrimer_04072010.pdf.
125 T his section was written by Jennifer D. Williams, Specialist in American National Government.
126 44 U.S.C. §3504(e).
127 OMB, “Statistical Programs & Standards,” at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-regulatory-affairs/
statistical-programs-standards/. T he principal agencies, with their executive branch locations, are Bureau of the Census,
Department of Commerce; Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce; Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Department of Justice; Bureau of Labor Stat istics, Department of Labor; Bureau of T ransportation Statistics,
Department of T ransportation; Economic Research Service, Department of Agriculture; Energy Information Agency,
Department of Energy; National Agricultural Statistics Service, Department of Agriculture; National Center for
Education Statistics, Department of Education; National Center for Health Statistics, Department of Health and Human
Services; National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, National Science Foundation; Office of Re search,
Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Administration; and Statistics of Income, Department of the T reasury. See
OMB, Statistical Program s of the United States Governm ent, FY2018, pp. i and 6, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/information-regulatory-affairs/statistical-programs-standards/.
128 OMB, “Statistical Programs & Standards,” at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-regulatory-affairs/
statistical-programs-standards/.
Congressional Research Service
20

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

coordinating interagency and international statistical activities; and reviewing Federal statistical
programs.”129 Other statutory provisions grant significant authority to the OMB director to
influence interagency data sharing and potential warehousing for “statistical purposes.”130
Information Policy131
OIRA has issued guidance that leverages its authorities under 44 U.S.C. §3504 to provide
direction and oversight of the federal government’s records management activities, sharing of
information, and use of electronic information technology. OMB’s Circular A-130 requires
agencies to monitor and manage their information for privacy, confidentiality, and security risks,
but also for opportunities to increase interoperability, openness, and transparency throughout the
information’s life cycle. The circular defines the information life cycle as the stages of creation or
collection, processing, dissemination, use, storage, and disposition, to include destruction and
deletion of the information.132
Building on these authorities, in 2013, President Barack Obama issued E.O. 13642, which
required OMB to create an Open Data Policy to advance the management of government
information as an asset.133 Following the executive order, OMB issued Memorandum M-13-13 to
encourage agencies to manage datasets contained in information systems in a way that improves
the discoverability and usability of those datasets while weighing the value of openness against
the cost of making those data public.134 Across the executive branch, M-13-13 tasks the Federal
Chief Information Officer (i.e., Administrator of E-Gov), the U.S. Chief Technology Officer, and
administrator of OIRA to improve the interoperability and openness of government
information.135 Portions of these administrative directives were enacted into law in 2019, in the
Open, Public, Electronic, and Necessary (OPEN) Government Data Act.136
Mission-Support Areas and Management Initiatives
OMB has responsibility for overseeing multiple aspects of the management of agencies in the
executive branch. Among other things, OMB’s DDM is charged with overal responsibility for
general management policies in the executive branch, including issues within the purview of
OMB’s statutory offices, plus human resources management. The statutory offices also develop

129 Ibid. For the underlying statutory provisions, see 44 U.S.C. §3504(e).
130 T itle III of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-435; 132 Stat. 5529, at 5544),
the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 20 18 (CIPSEA). See T itle 44, U.S. Code,
Chapter 35, Subchapter III, including 44 U.S.C. §§3561 (“Definitions”) and 3562 (“Coordination and oversight of
policies”).
131 T his section was written by Meghan M. Stuessy, Analyst in Government Organization and Management.
132 OMB, Circular No. A-130: Managing Information as a Strategic Resource, July 2016, p. 29, at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A130/a130revised.pdf.
133 Executive Order 13642, “Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information,” 78
Federal Register 28111, May 9, 2013. T he Executive Order prescribes that the Open Data Policy be consistent with
OMB Memorandum M-10-06 (Open Government Directive), OMB and National Archives and Records Administration
Memorandum M-12-18 (Managing Government Records Directive), the Office of Science and T echnology Policy
Memorandum of February 22, 2013 (Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research), and the
CIO’s strategy entitled “Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People.”
134 OMB, “Open Data Policy—Managing Information as an Asset,” M-13-13, May 9, 2013, p. 6, at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-13.pdf.
135 Ibid.
136 T itle II of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-435; 132 Stat. 5529, at 5534).
Congressional Research Service
21

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

policy and coordinate implementation in the mission-support areas of procurement policy
(OFPP), financial management (OFFM), and information policy and technology (OIRA and E-
Gov, respectively). The statutory offices work with OMB’s RMOs, which are tasked with
integrating budget, policy, and management issues for specific agencies in cooperation with the
statutory offices.
Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP)137
Headed by the administrator for federal procurement policy, OFPP is responsible for (1)
providing “overal direction of Government-wide procurement policies, regulations, procedures,
and forms” for executive branch agencies and (2) promoting “economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness” in executive branch procurements.138 Among numerous other functions, OFPP
provides leadership in maintaining the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR),139 the executive
branch-wide procurement regulation, and provides for and directs the Federal Procurement Data
System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG or FPDS), which is maintained by GSA.140 OFPP is also
responsible for directing the Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI) and developing policies for smal -
business contracting. FAI is responsible for developing “a high-performing, qualified civilian
acquisition workforce.”141 In consultation with the head of the Smal Business Administration
(SBA), OFPP develops policies designed to help ensure that smal businesses, general y, and
certain types of smal businesses (e.g., women-owned smal businesses) “are provided with the
maximum practicable opportunities to participate in procurements” that are below the simplified
acquisition threshold.142
Office of Federal Financial Management (OFFM)143
The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act) established OFFM within OMB to centralize
the development and implementation of financial management policies among executive branch
agencies.144 OFFM is headed by a controller, a political appointee who reports directly to the
DDM.145 The CFO Act also established the CFO Council—a consultative body led by the OFFM
controller on behalf of the DDM—which provides the perspectives of agencies to OMB and
assists OFFM with the drafting of some financial management policies.146 OFFM promulgates
final policies via OMB circulars.147

137 T his section was written by L. Elaine Halchin, Specialist in American National Government.
138 41 U.S.C. §1101(b).
139 T he FAR consists of Parts 1-53 of T itle 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
140 FPDS is a federal government database. Executive branch agencies are required to submit data regarding
unclassified contract actions whose value is greater than a certain dollar amount to FPDS (48 CFR §4.606(a)).
141 Federal Acquisition Institute, “Our Mission,” at https://www.fai.gov/about/our-mission.
142 41 U.S.C. §1122(a)(1), (4), (5), and (11).
143 T his section was written by Dominick Fiorentino, Analyst in Government Organization and Management.
144 P.L. 101-576, 104 Stat. 2838. See CRS Insight IN11495, The Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990: 30th
Anniversary and Potential Issues for Congress, by Dominick A. Fiorentino and Clinton T . Brass.
145 31 U.S.C. §504. See CRS In Focus IF11620, The Office of Federal Financial Management: An Overview, by
Dominick A. Fiorentino.
146 31 U.S.C. §901 note.
147 Office of Management and Budget, “Office of Management and Budget Office of Federal Financial Management,”
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/office-federal-financial-management/.
Congressional Research Service
22

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

Additional y, agencies must submit their annual audit reports—typical y included in Performance
and Accountability Reports or Agency Financial Reports—to OFFM.148 OFFM reviews these
reports to verify they contain the required information under Circular A-136 and compiles the
material weaknesses described in the audit reports. A provision original y enacted in the CFO Act
also requires OMB to annual y submit to Congress a revised government-wide five-year plan
describing how the OMB director, the DDM, the OFFM controller, and agency CFOs wil
improve federal financial management.149 Since 2009, OMB has ceased publishing a unified
document covering the statutory requirements, and it is unclear to CRS where the required
components may be found.150
Office of Electronic Government (E-Gov)151
The E-Government Act of 2002 (E-Gov Act) established the Office of Electronic Government.152
OMB refers to it as the Office of E-Government and Information Technology, or E-Gov.153 The
administrator of E-Gov is presidential y appointed and is responsible for, among other things,
providing overal leadership for the executive branch on electronic government and setting IT
standards and guidelines for executive branch agencies.154 By law, the E-Gov administrator leads
the activities of the Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council—also established by the E-Gov
Act—on behalf of OMB’s DDM.155 The CIO Council has several statutory responsibilities,
including dissemination of IT best practices among executive agencies. E-Gov must annual y
submit a report to Congress covering the implementation of E-Gov Act provisions.156
Subsequent legislation, namely the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) of
2014 and the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA),157 imposed
additional reporting requirements including, but not limited to, annual reviews of the technology

148 31 U.S.C. §3521(f).
149 31 U.S.C. §3512(a).
150 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Financial Management: Substantial Progress Made since the CFO
Act of 1990 and Preliminary Observations on Opportunities for Enhancement, GAO-20-203T, October 30, 2019, p. 2,
at https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/702414.pdf.
151 T his section was written by Dominick Fiorentino, Analyst in Gov ernment Organization and Management.
152 P.L. 107-347, December 17, 2002 (116 Stat. 2899, at 2902). Relevant provisions are codified at 44 U.S.C. 3602 (see
https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ347/PLAW-107publ347.pdf). Prior to this law’s enactment, OIRA had a
branch that focused on both information policy and information technology issues. Sometime after the E-Government
Act became law, the name of this OIRA branch dropped “information technology” from its name and became the
Information Policy Branch.
153 OMB, “Office of Management and Budget Office of E-Government & Information T echnology,” at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/egov/.
154 44 U.S.C. §3602.
155 44 U.S.C. §3603.
156 44 U.S.C. §3606. CRS was unable to locate instances of the report on OMB’s website beyond the FY2016 version,
see https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/egov/documents/omb-fy-2016-egov-act-report.pdf.
157 FISMA: P.L. 113-283, Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, 128 Stat. 3073, at
https://www.congress.gov/113/plaws/publ283/PLAW-113publ283.pdf; FIT ARA: See P.L. 113-291, the Carl Levin and
Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Division A, T itle VIII, Subtitle
D, “Federal Information T echnology Acquisition Reform,” 128 Stat. 3292, at 3438, at https://www.congress.gov/113/
plaws/publ291/PLAW-113publ291.pdf#page=148. T his subtitle of the act —which practitioners generally refer to as the
Federal Information T echnology Acquisition Reform Act —was named after earlier, stand-alone versions of the
legislation (e.g., H.R. 1232, 113th Cong.). T his law covers IT acquisition and investment management at lar ge
executive branch agencies.
Congressional Research Service
23

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

portfolio of executive branch agencies,158 and reporting on the status of federal cybersecurity.159
OMB also uses ITOR funding to support several IT initiatives including, but not limited to, the IT
policy-making and technology investment oversight activities of E-Gov.160 To implement these
statutory requirements, E-Gov helps to develop OMB memoranda, circulars, and strategy
documents guiding executive branch agencies on information security, IT standards, IT workforce
planning, and IT capital planning, among other topics.161
OMB Roles in Federal Personnel Policy
The DDM and the OMB director have various responsibilities that are associated with general
government management and human resources management (HRM) in the federal government.
With the OMB director’s direction and approval, the DDM is to establish general management
policies for executive agencies and perform the director’s functions that are related to HRM.162
The DDM is also required to facilitate congressional and executive branch actions to improve
federal government operations and administration and advise agencies on the qualifications,
recruitment, performance, and retention of federal managers.163 The DDM is the chairperson of
the President’s Management Council whose functions include “improving overal executive
branch management.”164 A Cross-Agency Priority Goal under the Trump Administration’s
“President’s Management Agenda” coordinates and tracks implementation on “Developing a
Workforce for the 21st Century.”165 The DDM is also the vice chairperson of the Chief Human
Capital Officers Council which advises and coordinates federal agency activities on modernizing
human resources systems, improving the quality of human resources information, and suggesting
legislation on human resources operations and organizations.166 In some contingency situations,
OMB may address federal personnel issues. For example, in the wake of the Coronavirus Disease
2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the OMB director, separately and jointly with the OPM director,
issued memoranda providing guidance to executive agencies on conducting government
operations.167 OMB also provides extensive guidance to agencies in the event of a government
shutdown.168

158 40 U.S.C. §11319.
159 44 U.S.C. §3553.
160 EOP, Congressional Budget Submission: Fiscal Year 2020, p. 85.
161 OMB, “Office of Management and Budget Office of E-Government & Information T echnology,” at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/egov/#A1.
162 31 U.S.C. §503(b)(2)(F).
163 31 U.S.C. §503(b)(3), (4), and (9).
164 A memorandum titled, “Implementing Government Reform,” issued by President George W. Bush on July 11, 2001,
established the President’s Management Council. T he memorandum can be found at 31 U.S.C. §501 note.
165 Information on this Cross-Agency Priority Goal is at https://www.performance.gov/CAP/workforce/.
166 P.L. 107-296; November 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2135, established the Chief Human Capital Officers Council. T he
council is authorized at 5 U.S.C. §1401 note.
167 See OMB, Memorandum for the Heads of Departments and Agencies, From Russell T . Vought, Acting Director,
“Federal Agency Operational Alignment to Slow the Spread of Coronavirus COVID-19,” M-20-16, March 17, 2020, at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/M-20-16.pdf. OMB and OPM, Memorandum for Heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies, From Russell T . Vought, Acting Direct or, OMB, and Michael J. Rigas, Acting
Director, OPM, “Aligning Federal Agency Operations with the National Guidelines for Opening Up America Again,”
M-20-23, April 20, 2020, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/M-20-23.pdf.
168 See CRS Report RL34680, Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects, coordinated by
Clinton T . Brass.
Congressional Research Service
24

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

In addition, OMB plays a significant role in federal employee pay. The OMB director, the
Secretary of Labor, and the director of OPM comprise the President’s Pay Agent, which has a
significant role in setting and adjusting General Schedule (GS) pay. The Pay Agent receives the
annual report of the Federal Salary Council and submits an annual report to the President with
recommendations on GS pay adjustment, locality pay areas, and the methodology underlying
surveys on locality pay.169
Management Reform and Government Performance Efforts170
In recent decades, OMB also has led the development of the President’s agenda for executive
branch management reform initiatives.171 Subject to the approval and direction of the OMB
director, the DDM is statutorily charged with leading such efforts.172 During the George W. Bush
Administration, OMB led the development and implementation of the President’s Management
Agenda, a package of initiatives intended to address management of federal personnel,
procurement, financial management, information technology, and linkage of budgeting and
performance.173 Under President Obama, OMB developed and implemented a range of
government-wide management efforts. Most often these initiatives were rolled out individual y on
an incremental basis,174 but sometimes they were presented under a common “President’s
Management Agenda” framework.175 More recently, OMB released the Trump Administration’s
version of the President’s Management Agenda, which articulated government-wide priorities for
the management of information technology, data transparency, and federal workforce
development.176 This was followed by a separate, but related, government reform and

169 5 U.S.C. §5304(d).
170 T his section was written by Henry B. Hogue, Specialist in American National Government, and Clinton T . Brass,
Specialist in Government Organization and Management.
171 Historically, Presidents have also used other mechanisms for developing and advancing government reform
initiatives. See Ronald C. Moe, Adm inistrative Renewal: Reorganization Com m issions in the 20 th Century (Lanham:
University Press of America, 2003); and Peri E. Arnold, Making the Managerial Presidency: Com prehensive
Reorganization Planning, 1905-1996 (Princeton: Princeton University, 1998).
172 31 U.S.C. §503. T he DDM is to carry out the OMB Director’s functions that pertain to “organizational studies, lon g-
range planning ... productivity improvement, and experimentation and demonstration programs.” T hey are further
directed to “[f]acilitate actions by the Congress and the executive branch to improve the management of Federal
Government operations and to remove impediments to effective administration [and to] [p]rovide leadership in
management innovation.”
173 For a copy of the plan, see “President’s Management Agenda,” archived White House website from the presidency
of George W. Bush, at https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/budintegration/pma_index.html.
174 CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum, Obama Administration Agenda for Government Performance:
Evolution and Related Issues for Congress, January 19, 2011, by Clinton T . Brass (available to congressional clients
upon request).
175 See, for example, OMB, Management Agenda Priorities for the FY2016 Budget, M-14-12, July 18, 2014, at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/memoranda/#memoranda-2014. “ The President ’s
Management Agenda seeks to improve the way that Gov ernment works and delivers for citizens. It is guided by four
pillars: efficiency, effectiveness, economic growth, and people and culture. T he Management Agenda is being executed
through eight distinct Management Cross-Agency-Priority Goals that fall under these four pillars (p. 1).” T he eight
goals pertained to customer service, smarter information technology delivery, strategic sourcing, shared services,
benchmarking, open data, transfer of new federally -funded technology to the private sector, and workfo rce
development (p. 8).
176 OMB, President’s Management Agenda: Modernizing Government for the 21 st Century, Washington, 2018, at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/pma/.
Congressional Research Service
25

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

reorganization plan that was intended to address executive branch agency mission alignment,
service delivery, and effective use of public funds.177
OMB also has focused on the performance of executive agencies in pursuing their statutory
missions and exercising discretion under law. Many of these initiatives have potential
implications for the generation, perceived usefulness, and use of information by a variety of
stakeholders in support of learning and informed policy deliberations. Some efforts relate
primarily to implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), as
modified by subsequent legislation (e.g., GPRA Modernization Act of 2010).178 These statutory
provisions require agencies to, among other things, articulate mission statements, goals, and
performance measures. Agencies are required to develop these items under their relevant
authorizing statutes in consultation with Congress and nonfederal stakeholders, albeit in policy
processes that historical y have been driven by presidential priorities. Other efforts have related to
analytical methods. For example, OMB had led implementation of administratively driven efforts
to address government performance, such as the George W. Bush Administration’s Program
Assessment Rating Tool and the Obama Administration’s varied initiatives.179 These efforts
especial y emphasized certain evaluation methods above others, which at times generated both
support and controversy.180 More recently, with enactment of the Foundations for Evidence-Based
Policymaking Act of 2018,181 OMB may be taking a broader view of analytical and evaluation
methods as agencies develop “learning agendas.”182
Potential Issues for Congress
This report surveys multiple perspectives on OMB: a capsule history, selected aspects of OMB as
an institution, and OMB’s major functions. As noted, OMB is tasked with numerous statutorily
and administratively established duties relating to the operations of executive branch agencies.
These functions are varied and pervasive, ranging from the budget process to rulemaking to
mission-support functions such as government procurement. In pursuing these activities, OMB is
required to faithfully execute its statutory responsibilities as passed by Congress. In addition,
OMB may act as an agent to pursue presidential policy preferences. From Congress’s perspective,
there may be tensions or contradictions between the two roles.

177 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century: Reform Plan and
Reorganization Recom m endations, Washington, 2018, at https://www.performance.gov/GovReform/index.html. For a
CRS analysis of the plan, see CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum, Trum p Adm inistration Reform and
Reorganization Plan: Discussion of 35 “Government-Wide” Proposals, July 25, 2018, coordinated by Henry B. Hogue
and Clinton T . Brass (available to congressional clients upon request).
178 CRS Report R42379, Changes to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Overview of the New
Fram ework of Products and Processes, by Clinton T . Brass.
179 For discussion, see, respectively, CRS Report RL32663, The Bush Administration’s Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART), by Clinton T . Brass; and CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum, Obam a Adm inistration Agenda
for Governm ent Perform ance: Evolution and Related Issues for Congress, January 19, 2011, by Clinton T . Brass
(available to congressional clients upon request).
180 See ibid. and CRS Report RL33301, Congress and Program Evaluation: An Overview of Randomized Controlled
Trials (RCTs) and Related Issues, by Clinton T . Brass, Erin D. Williams, and Blas Nuñez-Neto.
181 P.L. 115-435; January 14, 2019 (132 Stat. 5529).
182 See OMB, “Phase 1 Implementation of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018: Learning
Agendas, Personnel, and Planning Guidance,” M-19-23, July 10, 2019; and OMB, “Phase 4 Implementation of the
Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018: Program Evaluation Standards and Practices,” M -20-12,
March 10, 2020; at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/memoranda/.
Congressional Research Service
26

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

OMB also may be viewed in the broader context of how the President attempts to use policy and
institutional tools. Some observers have expressed concerns about potential “politicization” of
OMB. One scholar has characterized politicization as
a term that has been used by critics ... to denote an increasing number of political appointees
[at OMB] and the responsiveness of the agency to the personal political interests of the
president rather than to institutional interests of the presidency..... [Yet] OMB has not been
the only presidential institution to undergo these developments; they are part of a broader
historical trend over the past several decades to increase centralized control of the executive
branch in the White House. OMB is only one part of that trend.183
Other observers have focused on the nature of OMB’s behavior. OMB has been characterized as
both “neutral y competent” and “responsively competent.”184 Neutral competence has been
described as “operational expertise, nonpartisanship, and professionalism.”185 Responsive
competence, in turn, refers to “centralizing the activities of policy development and executive
branch coordination within the White House and by appointing presidential loyalists to positions
deep within the bowels of executive agencies.”186
Critics who perceive a trend toward responsive competence (i.e., potential political centralization)
express concern this might adversely affect the quality of analysis and coordination from OMB.187
At the same time, others have argued that labeling OMB as neutral y competent or responsively
competent presents a false dichotomy. Instead, from their point of view, it seems that both terms
may at times be simultaneously applicable to OMB.188
In light of these complicated dynamics, it is clear that Congress faces potential trade-offs when
considering issues that involve OMB. Congress may choose to authorize OMB to undertake
certain activities in order to leverage its expertise and position to help implement Congress’s
institutional and policy objectives.189 However, granting such authorities may leave room for
OMB to implement policies more in line with presidential agendas regardless of the intent of
Congress. As a result, Congress may face difficult choices when considering how to legislate with
respect to OMB’s activities. Congress also may face related chal enges in conducting oversight of
OMB in situations when OMB’s interactions with agencies are not publicly visible.
Nonetheless, OMB was created by Congress, and Congress has control over many aspects of the
organization, scope, activities, and authority of OMB through the legislative process.190 Congress,

183 James P. Pfiffner, “OMB: Professionalism, Politicization, and the Presidency,” in Executive Leadership in Anglo-
Am erican System s, ed. Colin Campbell, S.J., and Margaret Jane Wyszomirski (Pittsburgh, P A: University of Pittsburgh
Press, 1991), pp. 195-196 and 212.
184 Matthew J. Dickinson and Andrew Rudalevige, “Presidents, Responsiveness, and Competence: Revisiting the
“Golden Age” at the Bureau of the Budget,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 119, no. 4 (Winter 2004/2005), pp. 633-
654.
185 Patrick J. Wolf, “Neutral and Responsive Competence: T he Bureau of the Budget 1939 -1948, Revisited,”
Adm inistration & Society, vol. 31, no. 1 (March 1999), p. 143.
186 Ibid., pp. 142-143.
187 Hugh Heclo, “OMB and the Presidency—the Problem of ‘Neutral Competence’,” Public Interest, no. 38 (Winter
1975), pp. 97-98, at https://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_interest/issues/winter-1975.
188 Ibid., p. 163.
189 For example, Congress might consider using OMB to coordinate among executive agencies in pursuit of agencies’
statutory missions or to address issues that cut across agency boundaries, while safeguarding against undesired OMB
discretion.
190 For discussion, see CRS Report R45442, Congress’s Authority to Influence and Control Executive Branch Agencies,
by T odd Garvey and Daniel J. Sheffner; and Morton Rosenberg, When Congress Com es Calling: A Study on the
Principles, Practices, and Pragm atics of Legislative Inquiry (Washington: T he Constitution Project, 2017), p. 6, at
https://archive.constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/WhenCongressComesCalling.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
27

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

for instance, may assign statutory duties to OMB in several ways, sometimes in response to
administratively established practices that the President has delegated to OMB. Looking back,
Congress has assigned statutory responsibilities to OMB for the governance of procurement,
financial management, and paperwork reduction practices across the executive branch. Other
legislation has addressed the manner in which OMB implements presidential delegations and
administratively established processes, such as those relating to budget formulation, regulatory
review, and executive-legislative relations. In some of these contexts, Congress may intend for
OMB to promote interagency coordination.
Across this variety of contexts, potential issues for Congress may be grouped into two categories:
(1) opportunities to conduct oversight of OMB’s activities and (2) options for potential legislation
that would modify OMB’s role or authority over particular issues. With regard to oversight and
legislation, Congress may consider several questions when formulating and evaluating any
options, including the option of continuing with the status quo.
 Oversight. Which OMB activities are of interest to Congress? Are these
activities transparent to Congress and the public? Is OMB pursuing these
activities in line with congressional intent? Has OMB been effective at
addressing problems? Who defines the problems to be solved? Are there areas in
which OMB and other institutions might improve?
 Legislation. Are there opportunities for Congress to legislate on OMB’s roles
and activities? Is OMB an appropriate institution for addressing a particular
issue, or might Congress consider assigning responsibilities to other agencies?
How might authority or responsibility provided to OMB by Congress alter power
relationships between Congress and the President or between agencies and
OMB? For example, might an increase in transparency of executive branch
agency activities enable OMB to exercise undesired influence over statutory
authorities that are vested in agency heads?191
Given the breadth of areas in which OMB operates, considerations for Congress may vary
substantial y from context to context. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of particular
options, including continuation of the status quo, may be evaluated from multiple perspectives.
Questions such as these may be relevant as Congress continues to fulfil its constitutional
obligations and work with OMB, agencies, the President, and the public.

191 For discussion, see Clinton T . Brass and Wendy Ginsberg, “Congress Evolving in the Face of Complexity:
Legislative Efforts to Embed T ransparency, Participation, and Representation in Agency Operations,” in CRS
Committee Print CP10000, The Evolving Congress: A Com m ittee Print Prepared for the Senate Com m ittee on Rules
and Adm inistration, coordinated by Walter J. Oleszek, Michael L. Koempel, and Robert Jay Dilger.
Congressional Research Service
28

link to page 33 Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

Appendix A. OMB Budget and Staffing History
Table A-1, below, shows the appropriations and full-time equivalent (FTE) employment for the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from FY2010 (actual) to FY2020 (estimate). FTEs
assign workforce estimates to agencies based on the number of work years required to achieve
agency missions and objectives. One work year is equivalent to 2,080 hours of work and could
represent, for example, one employee working 40 hours per week for 52 weeks, or two employees
working 20 hours per week for 52 weeks. The work year estimate is based on the maximum
cumulative number of hours that can be worked by al employees, including full-time, part-time
and intermittent employees. Over the period, the data show that actual appropriations ranged from
a low of $89.3 mil ion in FY2014 to a high of $102.0 mil ion in FY2019, and actual FTE levels
ranged from a low of 435 in FY2014 to a high of 527 in FY2010.
Table A-1. OMB Salaries and Expenses (S&E) Account: Appropriations, Obligations,
and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Employment
FY2010 (Actual) to FY2020 (Estimate)
Fiscal Year
Obligations (rounded to
(FY)
Appropriations
nearest million)
FTE Employment (direct)
FY2010
$92,863,000
$93
527
FY2011
$91,934,000
$92
506
FY2012
$89,456,000
$89
511
FY2013
$89,456,000
$85
466
FY2014
$89,300,000
$89
435
FY2015
$91,750,000
$93
457
FY2016
$95,000,000
$95
487
FY2017
$95,000,000
$95
467
FY2018
$101,000,000
$101
472
FY2019
$102,000,000
$103
466
FY2020
$101,600,000
$102 (estimate)
477 (estimate)
Sources: The appropriations amounts for FY2010, FY2012, FY2014, FY2015, FY2016, and FY2020 are taken
from OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government, Appendix, Fiscal Years 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2021
(Washington, GPO, February 2010, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2020), pp. 1150, 1212, 1186, 1144, 1162, and
1142, respectively. Obligations amounts for FY2010-FY2020 are taken from Budget Appendix volumes FY2012-
FY2021, which provide figures rounded to the nearest mil ion. More detailed information on OMB
appropriations and obligations is available from OMB’s MAX Web portal, at https://portal.max.gov/portal/
document/SF133/Budget/FACTS%20II%20-
%20SF%20133%20Report%20on%20Budget%20Execution%20and%20Budgetary%20Resources.html.
The appropriations for FY2011 are taken from Division B, Title V, Section 1516 of P.L. 112-10, Department of
Defense and Ful -Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, 125 Stat. 133.
The appropriations for FY2013 are taken from Title I, Section 1101(2) of P.L. 113-6, Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, 27 Stat. 412, which provides appropriations at the FY2012 level.
The appropriations for FY2017 are taken from Division E, Title II of P.L. 115-31, Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2017, 131 Stat. 339.
The appropriations for FY2018 are taken from Division E, Title II of P.L. 115-141, Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2018, 132 Stat. 548.
The appropriations for FY2019 are taken from Division D, Title II of P.L. 116-6, Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2019, 133 Stat. 151.
Congressional Research Service
29

link to page 34 Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

The FTE totals correspond to direct FTEs and not reimbursable FTEs. These figures are taken from OMB, Budget
of the U.S. Government, Appendix, Fiscal Years 2012 through 2021 (Washington, GPO, February 2011 through
February 2020), pp. 1113, 1213, 1123, 1187, 1145, 1163, 1053, 1059, 1063, and 1143 (for FY2019 and FY2020) ,
respectively.
Notes: Typical y, an agency’s prior year appropriations are shown in the Budget of the U.S. Government, Appendix.
For those years in which appropriations are provided in consolidated or continuing appropriations, the enacted
appropriations provide the funding amounts. This was the case for the FY2011, FY2013, FY2017, FY2018, and
FY2019 appropriations.
The requirements for reporting FTE employment in the President’s budget are prescribed in Section 85 of the
Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-11 on “Estimating Employment Levels and the Employment
Summary (Schedule Q).” See, OMB, Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget
(Washington: GPO, July 2020).
The table does not include any supplemental appropriations amounts.
Table A-2, below, shows FTEs corresponding to OMB’s Salaries and Expenses (S&E) account.
Specifical y, the table displays FTEs broken down by OMB “program activity” from FY2016
actual to FY2021 proposed. These categories general y refer to OMB’s organizational units. The
first five rows correspond to the resource management offices. The next three rows correspond to
three of OMB’s statutory offices. The final row includes one of the statutory offices, the Office of
Electronic Government, and the OMB-wide support offices (see table notes for a list). Over this
period, the data show that the largest number of FTEs is al ocated among the offices that provide
services across the agency, including the director, the deputy director, and the deputy director for
management (DDM). The smal est number of FTEs is al ocated to the Office of Federal Financial
Management and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.
Table A-2. OMB’s S&E Account: FTE Positions, by “Program Activity”
FY2016 (Actual) to FY2021 (Proposed)
FTE Positions
Program
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
Activity
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Proposed
National Security
57
57
55
50
53
57
Programs
General
55
53
54
49
55
56
Government
Programs
Natural Resource
55
52
48
50
47
50
Programs
Health Programs
44
41
41
41
42
43
Education,
30
29
30
29
28
30
Income
Maintenance, and
Labor Programs
Office of Federal
17
15
13
17
16
16
Financial
Management
Information and
48
46
46
49
61
67
Regulatory
Affairs
Office of Federal
16
15
14
15
17
17
Procurement
Policy
Congressional Research Service
30

link to page 16 link to page 35 Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

FTE Positions
Program
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
Activity
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Proposed
OMB-Wide
165
159
159
166
158
185
Offices
Total
487
467
460
466
477
521
Source: Executive Office of the President (EOP), Congressional Budget Submission, Fiscal Years 2018 through
2021 (Washington: EOP, February 2017 through February 2020), pp. OMB-13, OMB-13, OMB-8 and OMB-10,
respectively.
Notes: OMB-Wide Offices include the director’s office, the deputy director, the DDM, the executive associate
director, Communication, the General Counsel, Legislative Affairs, Economic Policy, the Management and
Operations Division, the Performance and Personnel Management Division, the Legislative Reference Division,
the Budget Review Division, and the Office of the Federal Chief Information Officer.
The requirements for reporting FTE employment in the President’s budget are prescribed in Section 85 of the
OMB Circular No. A-11 on “Estimating Employment Levels and the Employment Summary (Schedule Q).” See
OMB, Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, (Washington: GPO, July 2020).
The FTE totals correspond to those that are shown in Table 1, except for the FY2018 total. No explanation for
the difference is provided in the respective budget documents.
Table A-3, below, shows on-board employment at OMB from September 2010 through June 2019
(most current available). On-board employment is the number of employees in pay status at a
particular point in time. Over this multiyear period, employment was at its highest level (630) in
September 2016, at its lowest level (452) in September 2013, and at 584 in June 2019 (most
current available).
Table A-3. OMB: On-Board Employment
September 2010 Through June 2019
Month and Year
On-Board Employment
September 2010
535
September 2011
527
September 2012
525
September 2013
452
September 2014
466
September 2015
582
September 2016
630
September 2017
581
September 2018
606
June 2019
584
Source: OPM, FedScope database, Employment cubes, September 2010 through September 2018 and June
2019, at https://www.fedscope.opm.gov/.
Note: For 2019, the most current data available are for June.

Congressional Research Service
31

link to page 36 Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

Appendix B. Case Study of Trump Administration
OMB Appointments
Table B-1, below, provides information on the positions of director, deputy director, and DDM at
OMB during the Administration of President Donald Trump. These positions are appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate. The table shows the incumbent for the position, date the
nomination was sent to the Senate, and the confirmation date and vote for each position.
Table B-1. OMB: Positions of Director, Deputy Director, and Deputy Director for
Management, Nomination and Confirmation
Administration of President Donald Trump
Nomination Sent to
Position
Incumbent
the Senate
Confirmation
Director
Mick Mulvaney
January 30, 2017
February 16, 2017
51 to 49 vote (Record
No. 68)
Became Acting White
House Chief of Staff in
mid-December 2018
Director
Russel Vought
May 4, 2020
July 20, 2020
51 to 45 vote (Record
No. 131)
Vought had been serving
as Acting OMB Director
since mid-December 2018
Deputy Director
Russel Vought
May 2, 2017
February 28, 2018
50 to 49 vote (Record
No. 40)
Became Acting OMB
Director in mid-
December 2018
Deputy Director
Derek Kan
June 2, 2020
July 30, 2020
71 to 21 vote (Record
No. 152)
Deputy Director for
Margaret Weichert
September 5, 2017
February 14, 2018
Management (DDM)
Voice vote
Resigned mid-March 2020
Deputy Director for
Michael Rigas
Has not been nominated
Not applicable
Management
for the position.
Became Acting DDM in
mid-March 2020.

Source: CRS analysis of nominations database at Congress.gov.
Notes: Margaret Weichert also served as acting director of OPM from early October 2018 until mid-September
2019.
Michael Rigas, the Senate-confirmed deputy director at OPM, is also serving as the acting director of OPM.

Congressional Research Service
32

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

Author Information

Taylor N. Riccard, Coordinator
Barbara L. Schwemle
Analyst in Government Organization and
Analyst in American National Government
Management

Clinton T. Brass

Specialist in Government Organization and
Management

Congressional Research Service
33

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview

Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
Executive budget process
Clinton T. Brass

Taylor N. Riccard

Dominick A. Fiorentino
Federal personnel policy
Barbara L. Schwemle

Taylor N. Riccard
Federal procurement
L. Elaine Halchin
Financial management
Dominick A. Fiorentino
Government information policy
Meghan M. Stuessy
Government organization
Henry B. Hogue
Government performance
Clinton T. Brass
OMB appropriations
Barbara L. Schwemle
Paperwork reduction
Maeve P. Carey
Presidential directives
Ben Wilhelm
Regulatory affairs
Maeve P. Carey
Separation of powers
Ben Wilhelm
Statistical policy
Jennifer D. Wil iams

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
RS21665 · VERSION 5 · UPDATED
34