Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Congressional research reportMar 6, 2012
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Financial Services and General Government:
FY2012 Appropriations
-name redacted-, Coordinator
Analyst in American National Government
March 6, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R42008
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Summary
The Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill includes funding for
the Department of the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President (EOP), the judiciary, the
District of Columbia, and more than two dozen independent agencies. Among those independent
agencies are the General Services Administration (GSA), the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM), the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), and the United States Postal Service (USPS). The Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC) is funded in the House through the Agriculture appropriations bill and in the
Senate through the FSGG bill. CFTC funding is included in all FSGG funding tables in this
report.
On February 14, 2011, President Obama submitted his FY2012 budget request. The request
included a total of $48.72 billion for agencies funded through the FSGG appropriations bill,
including $308 million for the CFTC. The President’s request would have increased funding
$4.03 billion above FY2011 enacted amounts.
On July 7, 2011, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 2434, the Financial Services
and General Government Appropriations Act, 2012. H.R. 2434 would have provided $42.97
billion for agencies funded through the House FSGG Appropriations Subcommittee. In addition,
the CFTC would have received $172 million through the FY2012 agriculture appropriations bill,
H.R. 2112. Total FY2012 funding provided by the House would have been $43.14 billion, about
$5.58 billion below the President’s FY2012 request and $1.55 billion less than FY2011 enacted
amounts.
On September 15, 2011, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its FY2012 financial
services bill, S. 1573. The Senate committee’s bill would have provided $44.64 billion for FSGG
agencies, including $240 million for the CFTC, for FY2012, which would have been $4.09 billion
below the President’s FY2012 request and $47.67 million less than FY2011 enacted amounts.
On December 23, 2011, President Obama signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L.
112-74), which funded the government through FY2012. FSGG agencies, including the CFTC,
were provided a total of $44.41 billion for FY2012, which is $277 million below FY2011 funding
levels and $4.31 billion less than the President’s request.
Congressional Research Service
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments ............................................................................................................. 1
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 2
FY2012 Appropriations by Title ...................................................................................................... 3
Title I: The Department of the Treasury .................................................................................... 3
Brief Summary of FY2011 Appropriations for Treasury Offices and Bureaus................... 6
FY2012 Appropriations for Treasury Offices and Bureaus: President’s Budget
Request and Congressional Action................................................................................... 6
President’s Budget Request................................................................................................. 6
Noteworthy Assessments of the Administration’s Budget Request for the IRS in
FY2012........................................................................................................................... 10
Congressional Action ........................................................................................................ 11
Title II: Executive Office of the President............................................................................... 25
President’s Budget Request and Key Issues...................................................................... 27
House Action..................................................................................................................... 28
Senate Action .................................................................................................................... 31
Conference Committee...................................................................................................... 34
Title III: The Judiciary............................................................................................................. 37
The Judiciary Budget and Key Issues...................................................................................... 38
Cost Containment Initiatives............................................................................................. 39
Judicial Security ................................................................................................................ 40
Workload and Southwest Border Issues ............................................................................ 40
Judicial Pay ....................................................................................................................... 41
FY2012 Request................................................................................................................ 42
Supreme Court .................................................................................................................. 42
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit................................................................... 43
U.S. Court of International Trade...................................................................................... 43
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services....................................... 43
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.......................................................................... 44
Federal Judicial Center...................................................................................................... 45
United States Sentencing Commission.............................................................................. 45
Judiciary Retirement Funds............................................................................................... 45
Administrative Provisions ................................................................................................. 46
Title IV: District of Columbia.................................................................................................. 47
The District of Columbia Budget and General Provisions ...................................................... 48
The President’s Budget Request........................................................................................ 48
District’s Budget................................................................................................................ 49
House Appropriations Committee..................................................................................... 49
Senate Appropriations Committee..................................................................................... 49
Conference Committee...................................................................................................... 49
Title V: Independent Agencies................................................................................................. 50
Civilian Property Realignment Board ............................................................................... 52
Commodity Futures Trading Commission ........................................................................ 52
Consumer Product Safety Commission............................................................................. 52
Election Assistance Commission....................................................................................... 55
Federal Communications Commission ............................................................................. 56
Congressional Research Service
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of the Inspector General......................... 58
Federal Election Commission ........................................................................................... 59
Federal Trade Commission................................................................................................ 60
General Services Administration....................................................................................... 62
Independent Agencies Related to Personnel Management Appropriations....................... 66
Federal Labor Relations Authority.................................................................................... 67
Merit Systems Protection Board ....................................................................................... 68
Office of Personnel Management...................................................................................... 69
Office of Special Counsel.................................................................................................. 70
National Archives and Records Administration ................................................................ 71
National Credit Union Administration .............................................................................. 73
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board .................................................................... 73
Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board ........................................................... 74
Securities and Exchange Commission .............................................................................. 74
Selective Service System .................................................................................................. 75
Small Business Administration ......................................................................................... 76
United States Postal Service.............................................................................................. 78
United States Tax Court..................................................................................................... 80
General Provisions Government-Wide.................................................................................... 80
Government Procurement........................................................................................................ 82
Cuba Sanctions ........................................................................................................................ 82
Payment Provisions for U.S. Exports to Cuba .................................................................. 83
U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances .................................................................... 84
Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2012 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations............... 1
Table 2. Financial Services and General Government Appropriations, FY2011-FY2012............... 2
Table 3. Department of the Treasury Appropriations, FY2010-FY2012 ......................................... 3
Table 4. Executive Office of the President, FY2011-FY2012 ....................................................... 26
Table 5. The Judiciary Appropriations, FY2011-FY2012.............................................................. 37
Table 6. District of Columbia Special Federal Payments, FY2011-FY2012 ................................. 48
Table 7. Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY2011-FY2012 ................................................ 50
Table 8. General Services Administration Appropriations, FY2011-FY2012 ............................... 63
Table 9. Independent Agencies Related to Personnel Management Appropriations,
FY2011-FY2012......................................................................................................................... 66
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 87
Key Policy Staff............................................................................................................................. 88
Congressional Research Service
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On July 7, 2011, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 2434, the Financial Services
and General Government Appropriations Act, 2012.1 H.R. 2434 would have provided $42.97
billion for agencies funded through the House Financial Services and General Government
(FSGG) Appropriations Subcommittee. In addition, H.R. 2112, the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2012,
would provide $172 million for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Total
FY2012 funding provided by the House would have been $43.14 billion, about $5.58 billion
below the President’s FY2012 request and $1.55 billion less than FY2011 enacted amounts.
On September 15, 2011, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its FY2012 financial
services bill, S. 1573. The committee’s bill would have provided $44.64 billion for FSGG
agencies, including $240 million for the CFTC, for FY2012, which would have been $4.09 billion
below the President’s FY2012 request and $47.67 million less than FY2011 enacted amounts.
On December 23, 2011, President Obama signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L.
112-74), which funded the government through FY2012. FSGG agencies, including the CFTC,
were provided a total of $44.41 billion for FY2012, which is $4.31 billion less than the
President’s request and $277 million below FY2011 funding levels. Table 1 reflects the status of
FSGG appropriations legislation at key points in the appropriations process.
Table 1. Status of FY2012 Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations
Subcommittee
Markup
House
Senate
06/16/11
09/14/11
Conference
Report Passed
House
Report
House
Passage
Senate
Report
Senate
Passage
Conference
Report
H.Rept.
112-136
—
S.Rept.
112-79
—
H.Rept. 112331
House
Senate
12/16/11
12/17/11
Public
Law
P.L.
112-74
Introduction
The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations reorganized their subcommittee structures
in early 2007. Each chamber created a new FSGG Subcommittee. In the House, the jurisdiction of
the FSGG Subcommittee was formed primarily of agencies that had been under the jurisdiction of
the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary,
the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies, commonly referred to as “TTHUD.”2 In
1
U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill,
2012, report to accompany H.R. 2434, 112th Cong., 1st Sess., H.Rept. 112-136, at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/
CRPT-112hrpt136/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt136.pdf.
2
The agencies previously under the jurisdiction of the TTHUD Subcommittee that did not become part of the FSGG
subcommittee were the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, the Federal Maritime Commission, the National
Transportation Safety Board, the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, and the United States Interagency Council
on Homelessness.
Congressional Research Service
1
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
addition, the House FSGG Subcommittee was assigned four independent agencies that had been
under the jurisdiction of the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee.3
In the Senate, the jurisdiction of the new FSGG Subcommittee was a combination of agencies
from the jurisdiction of three previously existing subcommittees. The District of Columbia, which
had its own subcommittee in the 109th Congress, was placed under the purview of the FSGG
Subcommittee, as were four independent agencies that had been under the jurisdiction of the
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.4 Additionally, most of the
agencies that had been under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury,
the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies were assigned to the
FSGG Subcommittee.5 As a result of this reorganization, the House and Senate FSGG
Subcommittees have nearly identical jurisdictions.6
Overview
The FSGG appropriations bill includes funding for the Department of the Treasury, the Executive
Office of the President (EOP), the judiciary, the District of Columbia, and more than two dozen
independent agencies. For each title of the regular FSGG appropriations bill, Table 2 lists the
enacted amounts for FY2011, the President’s FY2012 request, amounts recommended by the
House and Senate appropriations committees for FY2012, and enacted amounts for FY2012.
Table 2. Financial Services and General Government Appropriations,
FY2011-FY2012
(in millions of dollars)
FY2011
Enacted
FY2012
Request
FY2012
House
Committee
FY2012
Senate
Committee
$13,097
$14,040
$12,168
$12,239
Title II: Executive Office of the
President
706
740
640
661
659
Title III: The Judiciary
6,907
7,294
6,759
6,934
6,970
Title IV: District of Columbia
699
717
637
658
665
Title V: Independent Agencies
23,279
25,937
22,936
24,149
23,901
Total
$44,689
$48,727
$43,140
$44,640
$44,412
Title
Title I: Department of the
Treasury
FY2012
Enacted
$12,215
3
The agencies are the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Small Business Administration (SBA).
4
The agencies are the FCC, FTC, SEC, and SBA.
5
The agencies that did not transfer from TTHUD to FSGG were Transportation, HUD, the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, the Federal Maritime Commission, the National Transportation Safety
Board, the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, and the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.
6
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is under the jurisdiction of the FSGG Subcommittee in the Senate but
not in the House.
Congressional Research Service
2
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Sources: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Div. C, P.L. 111-117); Appendix, U.S. Government Budget,
FY2011; S.Rept. 111-238; Appendix, U.S. Government Budget, FY2012; H.R. 1473; H.Rept. 112-136; S.Rept. 11279; P.L. 112-74.
Note: Totals include funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The CFTC is funded in
the House through the Agriculture appropriations bill and in the Senate through the Financial Services and
General Government bill. Figures include rescissions and offsetting collections.
FY2012 Appropriations by Title
Title I: The Department of the Treasury7
This section examines FY2012 appropriations for the Treasury Department and its operating
bureaus, including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Table 3 lists the enacted amounts for
FY2011, the President’s FY2012 request, amounts recommended by the House and Senate
appropriations committees for FY2012, and enacted amounts for FY2012.
Table 3. Department of the Treasury Appropriations, FY2010-FY2012
(in millions of dollars)
FY2011
Enacted
FY2012
Request
FY2012
House
Committee
FY2012
Senate
Committee
FY2012
Enacted
$306
$325
$186
$306
$308
Department-wide Systems and Capital
Investments
4
0
0
0
0
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
—
—
100
—
—
Office of Inspector General
30
30
30
30
30
Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration
152
158
152
152
152
Special Inspector General for TARP
36
47
42
42
42
Community Development Financial
Institutions Fund
227
227
183
200
221
Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network
111
84
111
111
111
Financial Management Service
233
219
217
218
218
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau
101
98
97
100
100
Bureau of the Public Debt
175
166
164
166
166
Payment for Losses in Shipment
2
2
2
2
2
Internal Revenue Service (total)
12,122
13,284
11,516
11,663
11,817
Taxpayer Services
2,274
2,345
2,166
2,196
2,240
Enforcement
5,493
5,031
5,227
5,229
5,299
Departmental Offices
7
This section was authored by (name redacted) (x7-....).
Congressional Research Service
3
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
FY2011
Enacted
FY2012
Request
FY2012
House
Committee
FY2012
Senate
Committee
FY2012
Enacted
Enhanced Tax Enforcement
0
1,257
0
0
0
Operations Support Activities
4,076
4,299
3,794
3,893
3,947
Business Systems Modernization
264
334
330
330
330
Health Insurance Tax Credit
Administration
16
18
0
15
0
Rescissions: Treasury Forfeiture Fund
(-400)
(-600)
(-630)
(-750)
(-950)
Total
$13,097
$14,040
$12,168
$12,239
12,215
Sources: Appendix, Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2012, H.Rept. 112-136; S.Rept. 112-79; P.L. 112-74.
The Treasury Department performs a variety of critical governmental functions. They can be
summarized as protecting the nation’s financial system against a host of illicit activities
(particularly money laundering and terrorist financing), collecting tax revenue and enforcing tax
laws, managing and accounting for federal debt, administering the federal government’s finances,
regulating financial institutions, and producing and distributing coins and currency.
At its most basic level of organization, Treasury consists of departmental offices and operating
bureaus. In general, the offices are responsible for formulating and implementing policy
initiatives and managing Treasury’s operations, while the bureaus undertake specific tasks
assigned to Treasury, mainly through statutory mandates. In the past decade or so, the bureaus
have accounted for more than 95% of the agency’s funding and work force.
With one exception, the bureaus and offices can be divided into those engaged in financial
management and regulation and those engaged in law enforcement. In recent decades, the
Comptroller of the Currency, U.S. Mint, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Financial
Management Service, Bureau of the Public Debt, Community Development Financial Institutions
Fund, and Office of Thrift Supervision have taken on responsibilities related to the management
of the federal government’s finances or the supervision and regulation of the U.S. financial
system. In contrast, law enforcement arguably has been central to the responsibilities handled by
the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and the
Treasury Forfeiture Fund. With the advent of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002,
Treasury’s direct involvement in law enforcement has shrunk considerably. The exception to this
simplified dichotomy is the Internal Revenue Service, whose main responsibilities encompass
both the collection of tax revenue and the enforcement of tax laws and regulations.
The operating budget for most Treasury bureaus and offices comes largely from annual
appropriations. This is the case for the IRS, FMS, Bureau of Public Debt, FinCEN, ATB, Office
of the Inspector General, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Special Inspector
General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and the Community Development Financial
Institutions Fund. By contrast, funding for the Treasury Franchise Fund, the U.S. Mint, the
Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Office of the Comptroller of the Treasury, and the Office of
Thrift Supervision stems from the fees they receive for the services and products they provide.
In FY2011, appropriations for the Treasury Department are distributed among 11 accounts, each
of which is described briefly below.
Congressional Research Service
4
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Departmental Offices (DO): covers the salaries and other expenses of offices in the department
that formulate and implement policies in the areas of domestic and international finance, terrorist
financing and other financial crimes, taxation, international trade, and the domestic economy.
Also provides funding for the department’s financial and personnel management, procurement
operations, and information and telecommunications systems.
Department-Wide Systems and Capital Investments: covers salaries and other expenses
associated with the development and operation of new systems to improve the efficiency of
interactions among Treasury bureaus and offices or between Treasury and other federal agencies.
Office of Inspector General (OIG): covers the salaries and other expenses related to the audits
and investigations conducted by OIG staff. These evaluations are intended to promote improved
efficiency and effectiveness and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse among departmental operations
and programs, as well as to inform the Treasury Secretary and Congress about problems or
shortcomings in those activities.
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA): covers salaries and other
expenses related to the audits and investigations conducted by TIGTA staff. These evaluations are
intended to promote greater efficiency and effectiveness in the administration of tax law, deter or
prevent fraud and abuse in IRS programs and operations, and recommend changes in those
activities to resolve problems or remedy deficiencies.
Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP): covers salaries
and other expenses related to the audits and investigations into the management and effectiveness
of TARP conducted by SIGTARP staff. The office was established by the same law that created
TARP: the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (P.L. 110-343).
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN): covers salaries and other expenses related
to the activities of FinCEN, whose main responsibility is to protect the domestic financial system
from illicit uses, such as money laundering and terrorist financing. The legal basis for this role is
the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA; P.L. 91-508). FinCEN administers the act by developing and
implementing regulations and other guidance and working with private financial institutions and
eight federal agencies to ensure that the financial sector complies with the BSA’s reporting
requirements.
Financial Management Service (FMS): covers salaries and other expenses related to the
operations of the FMS, which is responsible for developing and implementing payment policies
and procedures for federal agencies, collecting debts owed to those agencies, and providing
financial accounting, reporting, and financing services for the federal government and its agents.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (ATB): covers salaries and other expenses related
to the activities of ATB, which was established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107296). The bureau is responsible for enforcing certain laws regarding the domestic sale and
production of alcohol and tobacco products and preventing harm to consumers by ensuring that
the products they regulate comply with federal consumer safety laws.
Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD): covers salaries and other expenses related to the conduct of
public debt operations and the promotion of U.S. bonds.
Congressional Research Service
5
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI): provides funding for the
activities of the CDFI, which makes investments (in the form of loans, grants, and equity
acquisitions) in community development financial institutions. These institutions include
community development banks, credit unions, and venture capital funds and provide financing for
affordable housing projects, small businesses, and community development projects in eligible
areas. CDFI also administers the Black Enterprise Award program and the New Markets tax
credit.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS): covers salaries and other expenses related to the activities of
the IRS, whose main responsibilities are to administer federal tax laws and collect revenue. Two
critical components of IRS operations and programs are the services it offers to taxpayers to help
them understand and meet their tax obligations and the enforcement activities it uses to improve
voluntary taxpayer compliance and punish those who violate the law. Some appropriated funds
are used to develop or upgrade business operations and information systems, as part of an
ongoing effort to improve the effectiveness of taxpayer services and enforcement activities.
Brief Summary of FY2011 Appropriations for Treasury Offices and Bureaus
In FY2011, the Treasury Department is receiving $13.097 billion in appropriated funds, or 2.7%
less than the amount enacted for FY2010. As usual, the vast share (92.5%) of the funds is being
used to finance the operations of the IRS, which is receiving $12.122 billion in FY2011, or 0.2%
less than the amount enacted for FY 2010. The remaining $975 million is distributed among
Treasury’s other main appropriations accounts in the following amounts: DO (which includes the
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence—or TFI—and the Office of Foreign Assets
Control), $306 million; department-wide systems and capital investments, $4 million; OIG, $30
million; TIGTA, $152 million; SIGTARP, $36 million; CDFI, $227 million; FinCEN, $111
million; FMS, $233 million; ATB, $101 million; and the BPD, $175 million.
FY2012 Appropriations for Treasury Offices and Bureaus: President’s Budget
Request and Congressional Action
President’s Budget Request
The Obama Administration is requesting $14.040 billion (including $600 million in recessions) in
appropriations for Treasury in FY2012, or 7.2% more than the amount enacted for FY2011.
Under the budget proposal, the IRS would receive $13.284 billion, or about 95% of the total
amount. The remaining $756 million would be split among Treasury’s 10 other appropriations
accounts in the following amounts: DO, $325 million; departmental systems and capital
investments, $0 million; OIG, $30 million; TIGTA, $158 million; SIGTARP, $47 million; CDFI,
$227 million; FinCEN, $84 million; FMS, $219 million; ATB, $98 million; and BPD, $166
million. All the accounts except FinCEN, FMS, ATB, and BPD would be funded at or above the
amounts enacted for FY2011.
Relative to FY2011, funding for the IRS would rise by $1.162 billion, while appropriations for all
other Treasury accounts would fall by $219 million.
Treasury’s budget request is intended, in part, to make further progress in accomplishing the same
three “high priority performance” objectives that guided its FY2010 and FY2011 budget requests:
(1) repair and reform the U.S. financial system, (2) increase voluntary tax compliance, and (3)
Congressional Research Service
6
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
significantly increase the volume of paperless transactions with the public.8 The ways in which
the proposed budget addresses each objective are examined below.
Repair and Reform the Financial System
According to Treasury budget documents, the FY2012 budget proposal would allow the
department to take a variety of steps aimed at encouraging the repair and reform of the financial
system. Several deserve brief mention here. One step is the implementation of a few key
provisions of the financial regulatory reform bill enacted in July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which is widely known as the Dodd-Frank
Act. Under the act, Treasury is responsible for managing the creation of two new independent
regulatory agencies (the Consumer Financial Protection Board and the Financial Stability
Oversight Council) and is required to create two new offices (the Office of Financial Research
and the Federal Insurance Office). Another step involves administering two new programs (the
Small Business Lending Fund and the State Small Business Credit Initiative) established by the
Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. They are intended to increase the availability of credit to small
businesses. In addition, repair and reform of the financial system remains a primary objective of
Treasury’s continuing efforts to ensure the viability of government-sponsored enterprises such as
the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
promote economic and community development through the CDFI, and manage the TARP
program.
These initiatives provide part of the rationale for the Administration’s request for an additional
$20 million in appropriations for DO and an additional $11 million in appropriations for
SIGTARP. Of the requested increase in DO funding, $5.5 million would be used to acquire the
expertise needed to carry out Treasury’s responsibilities under the Dodd-Frank Act.
Improve Voluntary Tax Compliance
Improving taxpayer compliance remains a top priority for the Treasury Department in FY2012.
As has been the case in recent years, the main concern is the size of the gross federal tax gap,
which is the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid in full and on time, before collection
actions are taken. This gap reached an estimated $345 billion in 2001, the most recent year for
which an estimate is available. Recent sharp rises in the federal budget deficit, coupled with a
strong congressional interest in finding additional sources of revenue as part of an effort to
eliminate projected budget deficits and shrink the burgeoning federal debt, have intensified the
pressure on the department to do more to collect delinquent taxes.
The budget request would improve voluntary tax compliance through the enactment of several
changes in the tax code and targeted investments in IRS enforcement activities, taxpayer service,
and business systems modernization. These initiatives are intended to boost tax collections by
strengthening tax administration, improving business compliance, and expanding information
reporting, “with minimum additional burden on taxpayers.” Treasury officials estimate that the
initiatives could increase tax collection by more than $10 billion over the next 10 years.9 Of the
8
See executive summary of Treasury budget request, p. 2, available at http://www.treasury.gov/about/budgetperformance/budget-in-brief/Documents/FY2012_BIB_Complete_508.pdf.
9
Treasury Department, Budget in Brief, p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
7
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
requested $1.162 billion increase in IRS appropriations for FY2012, $795 million (or about 68%
of the total) would be used for new enforcement initiatives.
Significantly Increase Paperless Transactions with the Public
Treasury’s budget request also assigns a high priority to moving the department closer to the goal
of the paperless processing of all transactions, including payments and collections. Starting in
calendar year 2012, individuals receiving Social Security, Supplemental Security Income,
Veterans Administration, Railroad Retirement Board, Office of Personnel Management, and
Black Lung benefits will be required to receive the payments electronically, through either direct
deposit into a bank account or a Treasury Direct Express debit card. Moreover, Treasury will no
longer issue paper savings bonds after December 31, 2011. Once the goal of the complete
electronic processing of transactions is reached, Treasury expects to save $525 million and 12
million pounds of paper over the following five years.10
While the FY2012 budget request seems to designate no funds for new initiatives to accelerate
the move toward complete paperless transactions, funding remains available for two initiatives
that are supposed to commence in FY2011. Treasury’s budget request for FY2011 included $22
million in added funding for departmental systems and capital investments. The funds were to be
used to create two new programs: Enterprise Content Management (ECM) and the Financial
Innovation and Transformation (FIT).11 ECM is intended to establish a common approach among
Treasury offices and bureaus to modernizing their “document-based business processes.” FIT
seeks to develop and expand shared government-wide solutions to issues in financial
management, such as invoice processing, cash collections, and interagency agreements.
Other Noteworthy Initiatives
The Treasury Department’s budget request for FY2012 would do much more than fund activities
aimed at achieving its three strategic goals. A substantial share of the requested funding is
intended to enable Treasury’s bureaus to meet their statutory responsibilities and core missions
even when budget planning is difficult. Of particular concern are satisfying conflicting demands
to cut costs and improve or enhance services at the same time. The budget request addresses this
concern in two ways: by providing the required services at a reduced cost in some cases, and by
meeting a perceived need for expanded operations through an increase in funding in other cases.
Several notable examples of each approach can be found in the budget request.
For instance, the budget request would allow the Treasury Department to reap about $227 million
in savings from efficiency improvements and program reductions in FY2012, relative to outlays
in FY2011.12 Planned process improvements at the IRS could yield $190 million in savings; $10.1
million in savings could come from consolidating the administrative and data centers for the
FMS; a proposed consolidation of information technology resources at the BPD could provide
$6.6 million in savings; consolidating the certification and accreditation operations and data
center at TIGTA could produce $2.6 million in savings; $2.1 million could be saved through
10
Ibid., p. 4.
Ibid., p. 17.
12
Ibid., p. 6.
11
Congressional Research Service
8
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
staffing reductions and improved efficiency in the use of information technology at FinCEN; and
planned changes in the departmental offices could provide $15.4 million in savings.
The FY2012 budget request also calls for $92.6 million in appropriations for Treasury’s Office of
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI), or $7.4 million less than the amount specified for that
purpose in FY2011. TFI develops and implements strategies to counter terrorist financing, money
laundering, and other financial crimes. It also imposes and enforces trade and financial sanctions
on designated countries (e.g., Burma, Iran, and North Korea) in support of foreign policy goals,
such as arresting the proliferation of nuclear weapons and combating Islamic terrorism. The
proposed reduction in funding for TFI may have little impact on its ability to perform its
functions, as the reduction would stem from savings from a cutback in staff travel, the elimination
of overseas support for its Brussels liaison, and increased efficiency in the procurement of
contracts, information technology licenses, subscriptions, and supplies.13
Appropriations for improving taxpayer services at the IRS would rise by $114 million under the
budget request for FY2012. About $44 million of that amount would be used to raise the level of
customer service provided through the agency’s toll-free telephone services, while $33 million
would be invested in a multi-year effort to upgrade the IRS.gov website so it can handle expected
growth in taxpayer demand for electronic tax information.14
In addition, the budget request would permanently cancel (or withdraw) $600 million and transfer
of $30 million to FinCEN from the unobligated balances of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF).
The fund serves as the receipt account for the deposit of assets held by criminal enterprises that
have been seized by five federal agencies, including the IRS and the Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Bureau at the Department of Homeland Security. Funds in the account normally are
used to sustain and improve the capabilities of those agencies to conduct criminal investigations,
seizures, and forfeitures, and to cover expenses related to those activities. Still, money may be
withdrawn from the TFF to pay for other law enforcement activities undertaken by member
bureaus, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury. Congress must be notified before
such a withdrawal can be made.
The enactment of several tax bills in 2009 and 2010 has placed new demands on the
administrative capabilities of the IRS. One such law is proving to be especially challenging: the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA; P.L. 111-148). According to the
IRS, the act contains more than 40 provisions that modify different aspects of federal tax law
between 2010 and 2018.15 Some of the provisions needed to be implemented during the 2010 tax
year, including a small business tax credit for health insurance, an expanded adoption credit, and
a credit for qualified therapeutic discoveries. In 2011, the IRS is to take on the added
responsibilities of administering a 10% excise tax on indoor tanning services, an increased
penalty for unqualified withdrawals from health savings accounts (HSAs), and a new definition of
medical expenses that qualify for flexible spending accounts and HSAs.
To implement and administer the tax provisions in the act, the IRS has determined that additional
resources are needed to construct new information technology systems; change existing tax
13
Ibid., p. 13.
Ibid., p. 66.
15
Internal Revenue Service, FY 2012 Budget Request: Congressional Budget Submission (Washington: Feb. 14, 2011),
p. IRS-6. Available at http://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-performance/Documents/CJ_FY2012_IRS_508.pdf.
14
Congressional Research Service
9
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
processing systems; expand taxpayer services and outreach; enhance notices, collections, and
case management systems to address and resolve taxpayer problems in a timely manner; and
conduct properly focused examinations. Funding for these resources is spread mainly among
three appropriations accounts: taxpayer services, enforcement, and operations support.
In FY2010 and FY2011, the IRS is obtaining funds for implementing PPACA provisions through
transfers from a fund (the Health Insurance Reform Implementation Fund) managed by the
Department of Health and Human Services; a total of $179 million had been transferred through
late July 2011.16 The IRS reportedly has decided that it will not draw upon money in the Fund
after FY2011.17 For FY2012, the IRS is asking Congress for $473 million in appropriations for
PPACA implementation. Most of that amount ($391 million) would go into the budget for
operations support and be used for the acquisition and development of information technology
and infrastructure; about $51 million would come from funds appropriated for enforcement; the
remaining $32 million would come out of funds appropriated for taxpayer services.18
Noteworthy Assessments of the Administration’s Budget Request for the IRS
in FY2012
IRS Oversight Board
The IRS Oversight Board was established by the IRS Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998
mainly to oversee the IRS’s performance in administering the tax laws, managing its operations,
and pursuing its strategic goals. Section 7802(d) of the federal tax code requires the board to
review and approve the annual budget proposal submitted by the IRS to the Treasury Department.
A critical consideration in the assessment is the extent to which the proposal supports the annual
and long-term strategic objectives of the agency. The same tax code provision requires the
President to submit the board’s budget recommendation to Congress together with his budget
request for the IRS.
For FY2012, the board recommends that the IRS receive $13.342 billion in appropriated funds, or
$1.220 billion more than the amount enacted for FY2011, nearly $59 million more than the
budget request for FY2012, and $1.826 billion more than the amount recommended in the
FY2012 appropriations bill (H.R. 2434) reported by the House Appropriations Committee on July
7, 2011.19 In the board’s view, its budget recommendation is the “minimum imperative for strong
and responsible tax administration.” Of the recommended amount, $2.35 billion would go to
taxpayer services, $5.97 billion to enforcement, $4.67 billion to operations support, $334 million
to the BSM, and $18 million to the administration of the health insurance tax credit. These
amounts are mostly consistent with the budget request. The primary difference is that the board
favors putting more resources into upgrading IRS security systems.
16
Figure obtained through an email exchange with Floyd Williams of the IRS’s congressional liaison office on July 26,
2011.
17
U.S. Government Accountability Office, IRS Budget 2012: Extending Systematic Reviews of Spending Could Identify
More Savings Over Time, GAO-11-547 (Washington: April 2011), p. 36.
18
Ibid., p. 37.
19
IRS Oversight Board, FY2012 IRS Budget Recommendation: Special Report (Washington: Mar. 2011), p. 3.
Available at http://www.treasury.gov/irsob/reports/2011/IRSOB%20FY12%20BUDGET%20REPORT.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Among its budget recommendations, the board assigns the top priority to boosting funding for the
BSM. This includes any funds in the operations support account used for the development of the
information technology infrastructure needed to support the maintenance of BSM elements that
already have been implemented. In the board’s view, increased investment in modernizing the
core taxpayer account system for individuals is vital to laying the technological foundation for
future advances in IRS operational efficiency, taxpayer service, and tax law enforcement. Nearly
60% (or $157 million) of the recommended BSM budget would go into the Customer Account
Data Engine 2 (CADE 2) program.20 At the current pace of progress, CADE 2 is expected to
allow for the daily processing of individual taxpayer accounts beginning with the 2012 filing
season. When fully operational, the program will have several tangible benefits for taxpayers,
including more timely account balance information and faster refunds to the tens of millions of
taxpayers who are due a refund each tax year.
Achieving an 80% level of service for IRS’s toll-free telephone lines during FY2012 is the
board’s second-highest priority. The level of service, or LOS, measures the percentage of calls
that go through to an IRS customer service representative out of all incoming calls over a period.
In FY2008, the LOS reached 53%, but it has been rising ever since and stands at 74% according
to the IRS, in FY2011. In the board’s estimation, appropriations for taxpayer service should be
increased by at least $23.3 million from the amount enacted for FY2011 in order to reach that
level of service. Tens of millions of taxpayers still depend on the toll-free telephone service to
understand their tax obligations and their eligibility for tax credits and other tax preferences, and
to resolve their account balances. Recent changes to the tax laws have boosted demand for the
service, a trend that is likely to continue in the next few years, as the IRS begins to implement
certain PPACA provisions.
In addition, the board agrees with the budget request’s estimate that the IRS will require
additional funding of $473 million in FY2012 and a staff of 1,269 full-time equivalent employees
to implement PPACA provisions. About 83% of the funds would come from the operations
support account.21
Congressional Action
House
On July 7, 2011, the House Appropriations Committee reported a bill (H.R. 2434) to fund
financial services and general government accounts in FY2012. H.R. 2434 would provide
$12.168 billion in appropriations (including $630 in rescissions) for the Treasury Department, or
$929 million less than the amount enacted for FY2011 and $1.872 billion less than the amount
requested by the Obama Administration. Details on recommended funding for each account and
selected issues addressed by the House committee in its report (H.Rept. 112-136) on the bill
follow.
20
21
Ibid., p. 26.
Ibid., p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
11
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Departmental Offices
In its report on H.R. 2434, the House committee recommends that DO receive $186 million in
appropriated funds in FY2012, or $120 million less than the amount enacted for FY2011 and
$139 million less than the budget request. The report specifies that $7 million of those funds be
available until September 30, 2013, for information technology and use by the Office of Critical
Infrastructure Protection and Compliance Policy.22
The House committee also notes that it is creating a separate appropriations account for the
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence from the DO account beginning in FY2012.
Though the report gives no explanation for the change, a likely motive is to give the
appropriations committees more control over how much is spent on TFI operations and how those
funds are used.
On the topic of terrorist financing, the House committee directs the Treasury Secretary to submit
a report (with no specified deadline) to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, the
House Financial Services Committee, and the Senate Banking Committee on the “potential risks
to U.S. financial markets and economy posed by economic warfare and financial terrorism.”
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
The House committee recommends an appropriation of $100 million for TFI in FY2012, or the
same amount of appropriated funds that is set aside for the office in FY2011 and $7.4 million
more than the President’s budget request.23
In its report on H.R. 2434, the House committee directs the Office of Foreign Assets Control
(OFAC) to submit to the House committee a report (with no specified deadline) on the current
number of pending applications seeking licenses for travel to Cuba related to educational
exchanges not involving academic study, the number of these licenses issued to date, and OFAC’s
plans for speeding up review of applications in the future.
Office of Inspector General
The House committee recommends that the OIG receive $30 million in appropriations in
FY2012, or the same amount that was enacted for FY2011 and $214,000 less than the amount
requested by the Treasury Department.24
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
The House committee recommends an appropriation of $152 million to TIGTA in FY2012, or the
same amount that was enacted for FY2011 and $6 million less than the budget request.
In its report on H.R. 2434, the House committee directs TIGTA to submit a report to the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees no later than 60 days after the enactment of the bill
22
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
Bill, 2012, report to accompany H.R. 2434, 112th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 112-136 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 5.
23
Ibid., p. 7.
24
Ibid., p. 9.
Congressional Research Service
12
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
examining the extent to which IRS employees use tax preparation software or hire tax preparation
professionals, how much they pay for those services, and how those fees compare to the fees
charged the general public for the same services.
Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program
The House committee recommends that SIGTARP receive $42 million in appropriated funds for
FY2012, or $5.6 million more than the amount enacted for FY2011 but $5.6 million less than the
budget request. According to the report on H.R. 2434, initial funding for the program was
mandated in the legislation creating TARP (P.L. 110-343), but the funds were limited and
decreased over time. Discretionary appropriations have increasingly filled the gap between those
mandatory appropriations and the operating expenses of the program.25
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
The House committee recommends an appropriation of $111 million for FinCEN in FY2012, or
the same amount that was enacted for FY2011 and $26.5 million more than the budget request.
Of that amount, $20 million is available until September 30, 2014.
In its report on the bill, the House committee says that the recommended funding is intended to
continue the agency’s multi-year effort to modernize its information systems and to ensure that
FinCEN’s information is readily accessible to state and local law enforcement personnel, field
representative, and the intelligence community.26 In its budget request, the Treasury Department
proposes to reduce funding for making that information more accessible by $3 million.
Treasury Forfeiture Fund
The House committee recommends a rescission of $630 million of unobligated balances in the
Fund, or $230 million more than the amount that was enacted for FY2011 and $30 million more
than the budget request.
In its report on H.R. 2434, the House committee points out that the size of the Fund has grown
rapidly in recent years because of the “exceptionally large” seizures of property and assets from
criminal organizations.27
Financial Management Service
The House committee recommends $217 million in appropriations for FMS in FY2012, or $16
million less than the amount enacted for FY2011 and $2 million less than the budget request. Of
that amount, $4 million would be available until September 30, 2014, for upgrading the agency’s
information systems.
According to the report on H.R. 2434, funding for FMS can be reduced largely because of the
savings in operating costs that FMS expects to realize in FY2012. These savings include greater
25
Ibid., p. 10.
Ibid., p. 11.
27
Ibid., p. 12.
26
Congressional Research Service
13
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
use of paperless transactions, “space and data consolidation,” and a “revaluation of new
systems.”28
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
The House committee recommends that ATB receive $97 million in appropriated funds in
FY2012, or $4 million less than the amount that was enacted for FY2011 and $979,000 less than
the budget request. According to the report on H.R. 2434, the reduction in funding should not
affect the agency’s level of service, as recent efforts by ATB to simplify reporting requirements
and reduce overhead expenses have lowered its operating costs.29
Bureau of the Public Debt
The House committee recommends an appropriation of $172 million for the BPD in FY2012, or
$13 million less than the amount enacted for FY2011 and about $2 million less than the budget
request. Of that amount, $10 million would be available until September 30, 2013. H.R. 2434
contains language that reduces total appropriations by up to $8 million as “definitive security
issue fees and Treasury Direct Investor Account Maintenance fees” are collected.30
Planned cost savings in FY2012 make it possible to reduce funding without affecting the level of
service. The savings include greater use of paperless transactions, consolidating the agency’s data
center, and “decommissioning its legacy information systems.”
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
The House committee recommends that CDFI receive $183 million in appropriated funds in
FY2012, or $43.5 million less than the amount enacted for FY2011 and $44 million less than the
budget request. Of that amount, $12 million would be set aside for grants, loans, technical
assistance, and job training for native American, Alaskan, and Hawaiian communities. No funds
would be provided for two current programs: Bank on USA and the Health Food Financing
Initiative (HFFI).31
In its report on H.R. 2434, the House committee directs the Government Accountability Office to
conduct a study by April 2012 of the extent to which CDFI technical and financial assistance and
New Markets Tax Credits (NMTC) are concentrated in urban areas and the contributions to that
concentration of the design, administration, and history of the CDFI and the NMTC. The report
also directs the Treasury Department to report to the House committee by May 2012 on the
operation and effectiveness of the HFFI, including the criteria and processes used to make grant
awards.
Internal Revenue Service
The House committee recommends that the IRS receive $11.516 billion in appropriated funds for
FY2012, or $606 million less than the amount enacted for FY2011 and $1.768 billion less than
28
Ibid., p. 12.
Ibid., p. 13.
30
Ibid., p. 13.
31
Ibid., p. 15.
29
Congressional Research Service
14
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
the budget request. Funding for the IRS is spread among five accounts: taxpayer services,
enforcement, operations support, BSM, and administration of the health insurance tax credit.
Recommended appropriations for each are discussed here.
Of the $11.516 billion in recommended appropriations for the IRS, $2.166 billion would be used
for taxpayer services. This amount is $108.5 million less than the amount enacted for FY2011 and
$179 million less than the budget request. Several taxpayer service grant programs are funded
through this account.32 Under H.R. 2434, “not less than” $5.1 million would be provided for the
Tax Counseling for the Elderly program, $9.5 million in grants for low-income taxpayer clinics,
and $12 million in grants for Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA). These amounts match the
budget request with the exception of VITA grants, which would receive $4 million less. The
House committee further recommends that funding for the administration of the health insurance
tax credit established by the Trade Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-210) be folded into appropriations for
taxpayer services and that “not less than” $15.5 million be used for that purpose in FY2012. In
addition, the House committee expresses approval of the IRS’s decision not to develop a prefilled or simple tax return and makes it clear that it expects the IRS to seek specific authority and
appropriations from Congress before embarking on the development of a simple tax return pilot
program.33
As reported by the House committee, H.R. 2434 would provide $5.227 billion in appropriations
for tax law enforcement in FY2012, or $266 million less than the amount enacted for FY2011 and
$740 million less than the budget request. Of that amount, at least $60 million would be used to
support IRS’s involvement in the Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement program. In its report
on the bill, the House committee expresses concern over the agency’s recent record of improper
payments to taxpayers while administering the first-time home buyer tax credit and the earned
income tax credit. As a step in the direction of reducing those erroneous payments, the House
committee directs the IRS to submit a report within 180 days of the enactment of the bill on steps
it has taken in the past year to reduce improper payments, and the steps it is planning to take in
the coming year to prevent improper payments related to all refundable tax credits. Another
matter of concern to the House committee is IRS’s role in the implementation of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA). During FY2010 and FY2011, the agency
has received transfers totaling over $90 million from the Department of Health and Human
Services to implement certain provisions of the act. The House committee prohibits additional
transfers. It also prohibits the IRS from using appropriated funds in FY2012 to verify that
taxpayers have health insurance and to impose a penalty on those who lack coverage.34 These
prohibitions are included in the bill as Sections 107 and 108 of the administrative provisions for
the IRS.
The House committee recommends that the IRS receive $3.793 billion for operations support in
FY2012, or $282 million less than the amount enacted in FY2011 and $827 million less than the
budget request. At least $2 million of that amount is intended for the operating expenses of the
IRS Oversight Board. In its report on H.R. 2434, the House committee expresses concern about
the security of IRS’s information systems, especially their vulnerability to identity theft by
hackers trying to steal tax refunds.35 To address this concern, it directs the IRS to submit a report
32
Ibid., p. 15.
Ibid., p. 16.
34
Ibid., p. 17.
35
Ibid., p. 18.
33
Congressional Research Service
15
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
within 30 days of the enactment of the bill on the number of taxpayers who have had their tax
return rejected because someone else improperly used their Social Security numbers to commit
tax fraud. The report should include such details as the average time taken to resolve such cases
and provide a refund, when one is due, and the number of cases that were not resolved within 45
days.
H.R. 2434 would provide $330 million in appropriations for the BSM program in FY2012, or $67
million more than the amount enacted for FY2011 but $4 million less than the budget request.36
As has been the case since the start of the program, the release of those funds is contingent on
approval by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees of expenditure plans that have
been reviewed the GAO. In its report on the bill, the House committee notes the progress the IRS
has made in recent years in developing a new customer account data engine known as CADE 2
and the likely productivity gains among IRS staff that it will make possible. When fully
operational, the system would make it possible to store up to 140 million individual taxpayer
account records and update them daily, if necessary.
Other Issues
In its report on the bill, the House committee expressed concern about two issues related to the
Dodd-Frank Act that do not involve direct appropriations under current law.
One issue is funding in FY2012 for the operations of the Office of Financial Research (OFR),
which was created by the Dodd-Frank Act to collect financial data and analyze financial market
activities in support of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which was also created by the
act. While OFR’s start-up costs have been covered by transfers of funds from the Federal
Reserve, the office has the authority to cover its operating expenses after it begins to operate on
July 21, 2011, through assessments on bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of
$50 billion or more and on non-bank financial companies supervised by the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve.
The House committee holds the view that the OFR should not have unlimited power to charge
fees and obligate funds for administrative costs. Thus, language is included in H.R. 2434 that
restricts OFR’s obligations to $64.5 million in FY2012.37
A second issue concerns funding in FY2012 for the newly operational Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) established by the Dodd-Frank Act. Under Section 1017 of the act, the
board receives funds for its start-up and operating costs through transfers from the Federal
Reserve. These transfers are capped at 10% of the total operating expenses of the Federal Reserve
System in FY2011 (or $404 million), 11% of such expenses in FY2012 (or $445 million), and
12% of such expenses in FY2013 and thereafter (or $485 million). The dollar amounts in FY2013
and thereafter are adjusted for any increases in the employment cost index for total compensation
by state and local government workers during the 12 months ending on September 30 of the year
before the transfer; the index is computed quarterly by the U.S. Department of Labor. Moreover,
funding for the CFPB is not subject to review by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations. Between early July 2010 and early March 2011, the CFPB requested three fund
transfers totaling about $60 million from the Federal Reserve. In its budget request for FY2012,
36
37
Ibid., p. 19.
Ibid., p. 21.
Congressional Research Service
16
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
the Treasury Department estimates that the bureau’s operating budget will amount to $143 million
in FY2011 and $329 million in FY2012, as it works to phase in key functions and construct the
necessary technological infrastructure.38
Expressing disappointment that the bureau has not been not more “forthcoming” about what it
plans to do, how it proposes to accomplish those objectives, and how much it will cost to do so,
the House committee recommends that fund transfers from the Federal Reserve and the bureau’s
authority to obligate funds be limited to $200 million in FY2012.39 In addition, to gain more
control over the bureau’s budget and operations in the future, the House committee has added a
provision to H.R. 2434 that would subject funding for the CFPB to the annual appropriations
process beginning in FY2013. The House committee also directs the bureau to submit an
operating plan to the House committee within 60 days of enactment of the bill that discusses how
the CFPB plans to allocate resources by “type of financial institution, financial product and
service, and consumer.”
A third issue, which is unrelated to the Dodd-Frank Act, deals with funding for Treasury’s Office
of Financial Stability (OFS), which administers the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).
Under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343), which created OFS and
TARP, no limits are placed on appropriations for the office’s administrative expenses. Since the
House committee holds the view that no federal agency should have “unlimited spending
authority for administrative expenses,” it recommends that OFS’s authority to obligate funds be
limited to $200 million in FY2012.40 According to the report on H.R. 2434, this amount should be
sufficient to meet the office’s operating costs, as the bill would also terminate a program that OFS
has been administering: the Home Affordable Modification Program.
Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends $12.237 billion for Treasury in FY2012. This
amount is $859 million less than the amount enacted for FY2011 and $1.801 billion less than the
President’s budget request. In the case of the President’s budget request, 90% of the difference
stems from a lower recommendation for IRS appropriations. Details on recommended funding for
each Treasury account and certain issues addressed in the committee’s report follow.
Departmental Offices
The Senate committee recommends that DO receive $306 million in appropriations in FY2012, or
the same amount that was enacted for FY2011 and $18.5 million less than the President’s budget
request. In its report on S. 1573, the Senate committee endorses a proposal included in the request
that two offices funded through the account be renamed “international affairs and economic
policy” and “domestic finance and tax policy,” respectively.41 Expressing concern about the
continuing rash of home mortgage foreclosures, the Senate committee directs the department to
38
See written testimony of Elizabeth Warren, the Special Advisor to the Treasury Secretary for the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, at a hearing held by the House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit on
Mar. 16, 2011.
39
House Committee on Appropriations, report to accompany H.R. 2434, p. 8.
40
Ibid., p. 22.
41
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
Bill, 2012, report to accompany S. 1573, 112th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 9.
Congressional Research Service
17
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
focus its resources on finding more effective ways to convince mortgage servicers to grant
reductions in loan principal to homeowners at risk of foreclosure so they can afford to remain in
their homes, and to make better use of programs like Home Affordable Modification and the
Hardest Hit Fund to lower foreclosure rates among homes financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac. The Senate committee does not recommend that funding for the Office of Terrorism and
Financial Intelligence be treated as an appropriations account separate from DO, unlike the
House–passed version of H.R. 2434. At the same time, the Senate committee directs the
department to fully implement all sanctions and divestment measures imposed on North Korea,
Belarus, Burma, Iran, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, and to notify the Senate committee if a lack of
resources is hampering the department’s ability to do so. To bolster its oversight of the
department’s management of capital investments, the Senate committee directs it to prepare an
annual report on the steps it is taking to improve its handling of those investments and submit it
to the House and Senate appropriations committees within 30 days of the release of the
President’s annual budget request. The Senate committee also directs the department, in
consultation with the Department of Homeland Security, to submit a written report within 30 days
of the enactment of the bill on the status of a proposed rule to redefine stored value cards as
monetary instruments for the purpose of international transport reporting.
Office of Inspector General
The Senate committee recommends that OIG receive $30 million in appropriations in FY2012, or
the same amount that was enacted for FY2011 and $214,000 less than the budget request. In its
report on S. 1573, the Senate committee directs the office to undertake, when feasible, an audit of
the Bank Secrecy Act Information Technology Modernization project being managed by FinCEN;
it also requires OIG to submit a written report to the Senate committee by March 31, 2012 (and
semi-annually thereafter), on the extent to which contractors for the project are adhering to its
budget and production schedule.42 The committee also urges the office to perform audits, as its
resources permit, of Treasury’s activities to thwart money laundering and terrorist financing, its
management of capital investments, and the investment activities of the CDFI.
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
The Senate committee recommends that TIGTA receive $152 million in appropriations for
FY2012, or the same amount that was enacted for FY2011 and $6 million less than the budget
request. In its report on S. 1573, the committee commends the office for its reviews of IRS’s
BSM program and other technology-improvement projects. At the same time, it urges TIGTA to
carefully monitor the IRS’s efforts to implement 56 tax provisions from the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as well as the 40 tax provisions in the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA). In the case of the latter law, the Senate committee
expresses an interest in having TIGTA maintain oversight of IRS’s implementation and
administration of new requirements concerning taxpayer education and outreach, new tax credits,
and the development of an information technology base to support the PPACA initiatives.43
Provided resources and time allow, the Senate committee would also like TIGTA to undertake
projects in FY2012 that evaluate the newly created Return Preparer Program, examine schemes
like “phishing” that are intended to lure taxpayers into revealing personal information that could
42
43
Ibid., p. 13.
Ibid., p. 15.
Congressional Research Service
18
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
be used to steal their identity and harm tax administration, and identify the best practices and
safeguards for reducing threats to the security of IRS employees and its databases and facilities.
Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program
Commending SIGTARP for the “quality of its audits and investigations” and the written material
it has provided to the general public and Congress, the Senate committee recommends that the
office receive $42 million in appropriations for FY2012, or $5.5 million above the amount
enacted for FY2011, but $5.6 million below the budget request. According to the report on S.
1573, a portion of FY2012 spending could be covered by funds carried over from the current
fiscal year.44
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
The Senate committee recommends that FinCEN receive $111 million in appropriations in
FY2012, or the same amount that was enacted for FY2011 and $26.5 million above the budget
request. Acting on a request by Treasury, the Senate committee turns down a proposal to fund part
of FinCEN’s budget in FY2012 through a transfer of funds from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. As
a result, the increase in appropriations relative to the budget request reflects the Senate
committee’s view that the entire FinCEN budget be funded from the account designated for
FinCEN salaries and expenses. In addition, the Senate committee rejects a proposal in the budget
request to cut $2.3 million from the office’s funding by reducing access to BSA information by
state and local law enforcement agencies. In its report on S. 1573, the Senate committee defends
the rejection on the grounds that it makes no sense to restrict the flow of data that “is a critical
tool for investigating serious financial crimes, including money laundering, mortgage fraud, drug
trafficking, and terrorist financing” to those authorities.45 The Senate committee also expresses
support for FinCEN’s efforts to modernize the information technology infrastructure for
collecting and analyzing BSA data. In the Senate committee’s view, the “previous infrastructure is
outdated and limits the capabilities of (these) users.” FinCEN is directed to continue to submit
semi-annual reports to the Senate committee on the status of the modernization project; the
reports should address “milestones planned and achieved, progress on cost and schedule,
management of contractor oversight, strategies to involve stakeholders, and acquisition
management efforts.”
Treasury Forfeiture Fund
The Senate committee recommends a rescission of $750 million of unobligated balances in the
fund for FY2012.
Financial Management Service
The Senate committee recommends that FMS receive $218 million in appropriations for FY2012,
or $15 million less than the amount enacted for FY2011 and $1 million less than the budget
request. In making such a recommendation, the Senate committee notes that the bureau can
expect to have at its disposal an estimated $97 million in FY2012 from the fees it charges
44
45
Ibid., p. 15.
Ibid., p. 16.
Congressional Research Service
19
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
agencies for its debt collection services.46 Under Section 111 of S. 1573, FMS is given the
authority to transfer funds from the salaries and expenses account to the Debt Collection Fund to
cover the costs of debt collection. Those funds should be reimbursed from the amount of debt
collected by FMS.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
The Senate committee recommends that ATB receive $100 million in appropriations for FY2012,
or $920,000 less than the amount enacted for FY2011 and $2 million more than the budget
request. This amount includes $2 million for the cost of hiring special law enforcement agents to
combat tobacco smuggling and other criminal activities within the jurisdiction of ATB.
Bureau of the Public Debt
For FY2012, the Senate committee recommends appropriations of $166 million for BPD, or $9
million below the amount enacted for FY2011 and the same amount as the budget request.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
The Senate committee recommends $200 million in appropriations for the CDFI in FY2012, or
$26.5 million less than the amount enacted for FY2011 and $27 million below the budget request.
Despite the recommended reduction in funding, the Senate committee expresses support for the
basic aims of the fund, especially its role in expanding private investment in community
development projects, such as affordable housing, community centers, and increases in lending to
small firms. Of the $200 million in funding, $36 million would be used for the Bank on USA
program, which promotes improved access to financial services and consumer credit for lowerincome households; the Senate committee directs CDFI to submit a detailed spending plan for the
program within 120 days of enactment of the bill.47 Another $22 million would be used to fund
the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, which is intended to increase the supply of affordable,
wholesome foods in urban and rural communities lacking access to such foods. In addition, the
Senate committee recommends that $12 million be set aside for grants, loans, and technical
assistance and training programs for native American, Alaskan, and Hawaiian communities.
Recognizing the difficulty of attracting private funding in the current economic environment, the
Senate committee favors extending the current waiver of matching fund requirements for CDFI
programs so they can continue to invest in and assist targeted communities. The requirements
would be reinstated “when capital markets return to normal function.”
Internal Revenue Service
The Senate committee recommends that the IRS receive $11.663 billion in appropriations for
FY2012, or $459 million less than the amount enacted for FY2011 and $1.621 billion less than
the budget request. In its report on S. 1573, the Senate committee directs the agency to include
details on planned reorganizations, job cuts or increases, and changes to current service and
enforcement activities in the operating plan the IRS is required to submit along with its annual
budget request. The plan should include comments from the IRS Oversight Board.
46
47
Ibid., p. 18.
Ibid., p. 21.
Congressional Research Service
20
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
One IRS account provides funding for taxpayer services. The Senate committee recommends that
it receive $2.195 billion in FY2012, or $78.5 million less than the amount enacted for FY2011
and $150 million less than the budget request. Of the recommended funding, “not less than” $6.1
million should be used for the tax-counseling for the elderly program, $10 million for low-income
taxpayer clinic grants, and $12 million (over two years) for the community volunteer income tax
assistance matching grant program. Another $208 million would be used to fund the operations of
the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS). The Senate committee deems it “imperative” that the IRS
continues to staff TAS Centers in Alaska and Hawaii with collection and examination technical
advisors, along with other needed staff. In addition, the Senate committee expresses concern
about the ability of the agency to handle the added demands placed on its workload by PPACA
without compromising the quality and effectiveness of its service to taxpayers. Reflecting the
continuing controversy over the constitutionality of the health insurance mandates in the act, the
Senate committee directs the IRS to identify in its budget request and operating plan for FY2013
any proposed increases in spending to implement the health care mandates in the law. It also
directs the IRS to submit to the Senate committee within 30 days of the enactment of the bill a
report addressing the amount and use of funds that the Department of Health and Human Services
has transferred to the IRS in order to implement the PPACA provisions, as well as the provisions
in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 for which it is responsible.
The largest IRS account covers enforcement activities. For FY2012, the Senate committee
recommends that the IRS receive $5.229 billion in appropriations for such activities, or $264
million less than the amount enacted for FY2011 and $738 million less than the budget request.
Of the recommended funding, “not less than” $60 million would be transferred to the Interagency
Crime and Drug Enforcement program. In its report on S. 1573, the Senate committee expresses
support for current initiatives by the IRS to combat offshore tax evasion by companies and
individuals, and to improve income reporting compliance through increased audits of noncorporate (or passthrough) business and high-income individual tax returns.48 The report also
draws attention to two specific compliance issues that may result in substantial losses of revenue.
One concerns a series of recent TIGTA reports examining “fraudulent and erroneous payments in
the First-Time Homebuyer and Residential Energy tax credit programs.” The Senate committee
directs the IRS to increase its scrutiny of questionable claims for these and other credits. A second
issue is the misclassification of workers as independent contractors. Such an error usually leads to
the underreporting and underpayment of employment and payroll taxes by employers and
workers. To get a better understanding of the extent of the problem, the IRS is undertaking a
three-year study of worker classification and other employment tax issues. Underscoring its
concern about the revenue effects from the misclassification of workers, the Senate committee
urges the IRS to maintain adequate staffing in a program (SS-8) designed to assist employers in
determining a worker’s employment tax status. On the matter of collecting overdue individual tax
debt, the Senate committee extends a ban on using appropriated funds to administer a debt
collection program involving the use of private debt collectors. (See Section 105 of the report.)
The ban was first imposed on FY2010 appropriations and was intended to enforce a decision
announced by the IRS in March 2009 to terminate a controversial private tax debt collection
program that started three years earlier.49
48
49
Ibid., p. 27.
Ibid., p. 31.
Congressional Research Service
21
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Operations Support
For FY2012, the Senate committee recommends that the IRS receive $3.893 billion for operations
support, or $182.5 million below the amount enacted for FY2011 and $727 million less than the
budget request. Several stipulations apply to the use of these funds. Up to $250 million would be
available for information technology support through the end of FY2013. Another $1 million
would be available for research through the end of FY2014, and not less than $2 million would be
used to fund the activities of the IRS Oversight Board. In its report on S. 1573, the Senate
committee expressed some concerns about IRS’s management of its non-BSM information
technology projects. Of particular concern are the classification of investment projects, oversight,
risk management, contingency planning, and contractor performance and accountability.50 As a
result, the Senate committee directs the IRS to include in its FY2013 budget request a multi-year
funding plan within the Operations Support account for upgrading and modernizing the agency’s
aging information technology infrastructure. In addition, the IRS must include in the budget
justification documents for FY2013 an up-to-date cost and performance schedule for all major
information systems funded through the account.
Business Systems Modernization
A separate account is maintained for funding for the BSM. The Senate committee recommends
that the IRS receive $330 million for the program in FY2012, or $69 million more than the
amount enacted for FY2011 and $3.4 million below the budget request. To augment these funds,
the Senate committee encourages the agency to draw upon user fees collected by the agency from
services it provides. In the Senate committee’s view, BSM is the IRS’s “highest management and
administrative priority.” Completion of the new core taxpayer account database in time for the
2012 filing season would allow for daily processing of taxpayer accounts, leading to faster direct
deposit of refunds for electronic filers, quicker account adjustments, and expedited resolution of
taxpayer issues and transactions.51
Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration
The Senate committee recommends that the IRS receive $15.5 million for administering the
health insurance tax credit in FY2012, or the same amount that was enacted for FY2011 and $2.5
million less than the budget request.
P.L. 112-74
In December 2011, the House and Senate agreed on a measure to provide appropriations in
FY2012 for a majority of federal agencies, including the Treasury Department. Under the enacted
legislation (P.L. 112-74; the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012) Treasury is receiving
$12.215 billion, or $882 million less than the amount enacted for FY2011. About 35% of the
decrease (or $305 million) is due to reduced funding for the IRS, while another 62% (or $550
million) stems from an increase in rescissions from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. More details on
FY2012 appropriations for all Treasury accounts follow.
50
51
Ibid., p. 29.
Ibid., p. 30.
Congressional Research Service
22
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Departmental Offices
P.L. 112-74 provides $308 million in appropriations for DO in FY2012. Of this amount, TFI is to
receive $100 million, no more than $26.6 million of which may be used for administrative
expenses. The conferees direct OFAC to “fully implement” the sanctions and divestment
measures imposed on North Korea, Burma, Belarus, Iran, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. They also
specify that Treasury should focus on improving its management of capital projects by integrating
all its bureaus into “improvement efforts and institutionalizing improvements.”52 Under P.L. 11274, up to $3 million of the appropriated funds for FY2012 will remain available until September
30, 2013, to support Treasury’s information technology modernization projects under the DO
account.
Office of Inspector General
P.L. 112-74 provides $30 million in appropriations for the OIG in FY2012.
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
P.L. 112-74 provides TIGTA $152 million for FY2012.
Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program
P.L. 112-74 provides SIGTARP $42 million in FY2012 to cover its salaries and other expenses in
implementing the provisions in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110343) for which it has responsibility.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
P.L. 112-74 provides $111 million in appropriations for FinCEN in FY2012, of which up to $34.3
million will be available until September 30, 2014. The conference report contains the same
language from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees reports rejecting a proposal by
the Obama Administration to cut about $3 million from the bureau’s budget by reducing field law
enforcement support and intelligence support for outside agencies and consolidating state and
local access to BSA data. The conferees also turned down a proposed transfer of $30 million from
the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to FinCEN for the purpose of supporting the ongoing modernization
of BSA’s information technology.53
Treasury Forfeiture Fund
P.L. 112-74 rescinds $950 million of the unobligated funds in the fund in FY2012. In their report,
the conferees state that the resources in the fund should be used to cover the costs of an “effective
asset seizure and forfeiture program,” not to “augment agency funding or to circumvent the
appropriations process.” They also point out that money in the fund can be held in reserve,
rescinded, or used to cover any expenses incurred in enhancing the government’s forfeiture
capabilities. On the matter of allocating large surpluses or rescinding resources in the fund, the
52
U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2012, conference report to accompany H.R. 2055, H.Rept. 112-331, 112th Cong., 2nd sess.
(Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 898.
53
Ibid., p. 898.
Congressional Research Service
23
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
conferees direct the Obama Administration to avoid using a “formulaic” method and to consider
the needs of programs involved in asset seizure and forfeiture and their funding priorities.
Financial Management Service
P.L. 112-74 provides FMS $218 million in appropriations in FY2012. Of this amount, $4.2
million is to remain available until September 30, 2014, to support information technology
modernization projects.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Under P.L. 112-74, ATB is receiving $100 million in appropriations in FY2012. Of this amount,
$2 million is to be used to hire and train special law enforcement agents for the purpose of
combating the smuggling of tobacco products and “other criminal diversion activities.”54
Bureau of the Public Debt
P.L. 112-74 provides $174 million in appropriations for the BPD in FY2012. Of this amount, $10
million will be available for obligation through September 30, 2014, to reduce improper
payments. In addition, P.L. 112-74 specifies that FY2012 appropriations for the bureau can be
reduced by up to $8 million through the collection of definitive security issue fees and Legacy
Treasury Direct Investor Account Maintenance fees. As a result, appropriations from the general
fund for BPD could total about $166 million.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
CDFI is receiving $221 million in appropriations under P.L. 112-74 for FY2012; the entire
amount will remain available until September 30, 2013. Of this amount, $12 million shall be used
for financial and technical assistance, training, and outreach programs designed to benefit Native
American, Hawaiian, and Alaskan communities and delivered mainly through community
development entities with proven expertise in lending in such communities. In addition, $22
million is set aside for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative; $18 million for the Bank Enterprise
Awards program; $23 million to administer the New Markets Tax Credit program; and $10.3
million for the cost of direct loans and the cost of administering them. No funding is provided for
the Bank on USA Initiative. P.L. 112-74 waives the matching fund requirement for the Native
Initiatives and Small and/or Emerging CDFI Applicants programs for FY2012 only.
Internal Revenue Service
Under P.L. 112-74, the IRS is receiving $11.817 billion in appropriations for FY2012, or about
97% of Treasury appropriations for the year. This amount is divided among five accounts:
taxpayer services, enforcement, operations support, BSM, and the administration of the health
care tax credit established by the Trade Act of 2002.
54
Ibid., p. 900.
Congressional Research Service
24
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Taxpayer Services
P.L. 112-74 provides $2.240 billion for taxpayer services in FY2012. Of that amount, at least
$9.75 million is to be used for low-income taxpayer clinic grants; $5.60 million for the Tax
Counseling for the Elderly program, and $12 million (to be available until September 30, 2013)
for the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance grants program. Another $205 million is designated for
the operating expenses of the Taxpayer Advocate Service. In addition, the conferees direct the
IRS Commissioner to continue to allocate adequate resources to support the ongoing effort to
upgrade the IRS’s toll-free telephone service for taxpayer assistance by adding new lines and
hiring additional staff.
Enforcement
Under P.L. 112-74, the IRS is receiving $5.300 billion for its enforcement activities in FY2012.
Of this amount, at least $60.3 million shall be used to support the Interagency Crime and Drug
Enforcement program.
Operations Support
Under P.L. 112-74, the IRS is getting $3.947 billion in appropriations for operations support. in
FY2012. Of this amount, up to $250 million shall remain available until September 30, 2013, for
the purpose of supporting information technology projects. Another $65 million is to be used for
acquiring real property, equipment, construction, and the renovation of facilities. And at least $2
million is to be set aside for expenses of the IRS Oversight Board.
To bolster congressional oversight, the conferees direct the agency to submit quarterly reports to
the Committees on Appropriations and the GAO explaining in “plain English” the cost and
schedule for the previous three months and the expected cost and schedule for the coming three
months of certain major information technology projects, including IRS.gov, Returns Remittance
Processing, and E-services.55 They also specify that the GAO is to conduct an annual review of
the cost and schedule of the same projects and report its findings to the committees. The IRS is to
include with its annual budget justification for FY2013 a “summary” of the cost and schedule for
its major information technology systems.
Business Systems Modernization
P.L. 112-74 provides $330 million for the BSM in FY2012. It attaches two of the same strings to
the use of these funds that it included in the appropriations for operations support: quarterly IRS
reports to the Committees on Appropriations and GAO on the cost and schedule of CADE2 and
MeF for the previous three months and their expected cost and schedule for the coming three
months, as well as an annual review of the same projects by the GAO.
Title II: Executive Office of the President56
The FSGG appropriations bill provides funding for all but three offices under the EOP.57 The
White House, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of National Drug Control
55
56
Ibid., p. 901.
This section was authored by Barbara Schwemle (x7-....).
Congressional Research Service
25
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Policy are among the EOP offices funded through FSGG appropriations. Table 4 lists the enacted
amounts for FY2011, the President’s FY2012 request, amounts recommended by the House and
Senate appropriations committees for FY2012, and the enacted amounts for FY2012.
Table 4. Executive Office of the President, FY2011-FY2012
(in millions of dollars)
FY2011
Enacted
FY2012
Request
FY2012
House
Committee
FY2012
Senate
Committee
FY2012
Enacted
$207
$207
$195
$205
$202
Compensation of the President
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
The White House Office (salaries
and expenses)
58
58
56
58
60
Executive Residence, White
House (operating expenses)
14
14
13
14
13
White House Repair and
Restoration
2
1
1
1
1
Council of Economic Advisers
4
4
4
4
4
National Security Council and
Homeland Security Council
13
13
12
13
13
Office of Administration
115
116
109
115
113
Office of Management and Budget
92
92
83
91
89
Federal Drug Control Programs
(total)
406
356
352
359
357
Office of National Drug Control
Policy (net of rescissions)
27
12
12
15
13
High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas Program
239
200
239
239
239
Other Federal Drug Control
Programs
141
144
102
106
106
Counterdrug Technology
Assessment Center
0
0
0
0
0
Unanticipated Needs
1
1
0
1
1
Partnership Fund for Program
Integrity Innovation
(-5)
20
0
0
0
Integrated, Efficient and Effective
Uses of Information Technology
0
60
5
0
5
Special Assistance to the President
(salaries and expenses)
5
4
4
4
5
The White House (total)
(...continued)
57
Of the three exceptions, the Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Environmental Quality are funded
in the House and Senate Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The Office of Science and
Technology Policy and the Office of the United States Trade Representative are funded in the House and Senate
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
Congressional Research Service
26
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
FY2011
Enacted
FY2012
Request
FY2012
House
Committee
FY2012
Senate
Committee
FY2012
Enacted
Official Residence of the Vice
President (operating expenses)
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Total: EOP and Funds
Appropriated to the President
$706
$740
$640
$661
$659
Sources: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Div. C, P.L. 111-117), FY2011 Budget, Appendix, pp. 1145-1156
and 1267-1269, U.S. Executive Office of the President, Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Budget Submission
(Washington: February 2010), FY2012 Budget Appendix, pp. 1107-1118 and pp. 1235-1237, and U.S. Executive
Office of the President, Fiscal Year 2012 Congressional Budget Submission (Washington: February 2011), H.Rept.
112-136; S.Rept. 112-79; P.L. 112-74
Note: FY2011 enacted rescission was applied to the Partnership fund for program integrity account. FY2012
rescission for both the President’s request and House committee approved amounts would apply to the Office
of National Drug Control Policy.
President’s Budget Request and Key Issues
The Administration’s FY2012 budget requested an appropriation (discretionary funds) of $739.3
million for the EOP and funds appropriated to the President, an increase of $34.1 million or 4.8%
above the $705.2 million (discretionary funds) enacted for FY2011. The budget requested the
same appropriation as that enacted for FY2011 for the Unanticipated Needs account and
increased or decreased appropriations for the following accounts:
•
The White House Office (-$61,000 or -0.1%), the Executive Residence (-$15,000
or -0.1%), the White House Repair and Restoration (-$1.0 million or -50%).
•
The Council of Economic Advisers (+$211,000 or +5.0%), the National Security
Council and Homeland Security Council (+$26,000 or +0.2%), and the Office of
Administration (+$799,000 or +0.7%).
•
The Office of Management and Budget (-$90,000 or -0.1%).
•
The Special Assistance to the President (-$221,000 or -4.9%), and the Official
Residence of the Vice President (-$19,000 or -5.8%).
The justification that accompanied the EOP’s budget submission noted that the increase requested
for the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council “funds requirements
commensurate with supporting the President’s efforts on cybersecurity, Weapons of Mass
Destruction, terrorism, transborder security, information sharing, resilience policy, including
preparedness and response, and global engagement, as outlined in Presidential Study-Directive
1.” According to the justification, the requested funding increase for the Council of Economic
Advisers “supports additional economists required for monitoring the state of the economy for the
President and his staff and assisting the President in developing economic policies promoting the
growth of the economy, creating jobs, and increasing incomes and standards of living for all
Americans.”58 The appropriation requested for the account entitled Integrated, Efficient and
Effective Uses of Information Technology (IEEUIT) would be used “to establish a coherent
58
U.S. Executive Office of the President, Fiscal Year 2012 Congressional Budget Submission (Washington: February
2011), pp. NSC&HSC-4 and CEA-3.
Congressional Research Service
27
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Federal strategy for centralized, efficient provision of IT services and infrastructure across the
Government.”59
Federal Drug Control Programs
For the accounts under the Federal Drug Control Programs, the President’s FY2012 budget
requested an appropriation of $355.7 million, a decrease of $50.5 million or 12.4% below the
$406.2 million enacted for FY2011. The FY2012 budget justification states that the proposed
reduction in funding “reflects a reprioritization of resources.”60 Appropriations for all of the
accounts follow.
•
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP, -$3.7 million or -13.5%).
•
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program (HIDTAP, -$38.5 million or
-16.1%).
•
Other Federal Drug Control Programs (OFDCP, +$3.0 million or +2.1%).
•
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC, a rescission of $11.3
million is requested).
House Action
H.R. 2434, as reported by the House Committee on Appropriations would provide an
appropriation of $639.5 million for the EOP, which is $65.7 million (-9.3%) less than the FY2011
enacted appropriation and $99.8 million (-13.5%) less than the President’s request. The House
report states the House committee’s disappointment “that the Administration’s request did not
propose additional reductions for the EOP” and that “Therefore, the Committee has reduced the
Salaries and Expenses appropriation for each organization.”
The appropriations for each of the EOP accounts, as recommended by the House Appropriations
Committee are as follows:
59
60
•
The White House Office: $55.5 million; 2.9 million (-5%) less than the FY2011
enacted amount and almost $2.9 million (-4.9%) less than the President’s request.
The House committee report states that this amount includes “sufficient funds”
for the Office of National AIDS Policy.
•
Executive Residence, White House: $13 million; $684,000 (-5.0%) less than the
FY2011 enacted amount and $669,000 (-4.9%) less than the President’s request.
•
White House Repair and Restoration: $1 million; $1 million (-50%) less than the
FY2011 enacted amount and the same as the President’s request.
•
Council of Economic Advisers: $4.0 million; $210,000 (-5.0%) less than the
FY2011 enacted amount and $421,000 (-9.6%) less than the President’s request.
Ibid., p. OMB-12.
Ibid. p. ONDCP-7.
Congressional Research Service
28
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
•
National Security Council and Homeland Security Council: $12.4 million;
$652,000 (-5%) less than the FY2011 enacted amount and $678,000 (-5.2%) less
than the President’s request.
•
Office of Administration: $109.3 million; $5.7 million (-5%) less than the
FY2011 enacted amount and $6.5 million (-5.6) less than the President’s request.
Of the total, $10.7 million would remain available until expended for continued
modernization of the information technology infrastructure within the EOP. The
office is directed to report annually to the House Committee on Appropriations,
at the same time that the President’s budget is submitted, on progress on
modernization of information technology, including the amounts obligated and
expended and for what purposes, specific milestones achieved, and requirements
and specific plans for further investment.
•
Office of Management and Budget: $82.6 million; $9.2 million (-10%) less than
the FY2011 enacted amount and $9.1 million (-9.9%) less than the President’s
request. The House committee encourages OMB and federal agencies to use
business management techniques, including continuous process improvement
methods, to improve the use of resources. OMB is directed to examine and revise
Circular A-94 on cost-benefit analysis, incorporate life-cycle cost analysis, and
report to the House Committee on Appropriations on the status of the review
within 180 days of the act’s enactment.
•
Unanticipated Needs: 0.0; $1 million (-100%) less than the FY2011 enacted
amount and the President’s request.
•
Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation: 0.0; $20 million less than the
President’s request.
•
Integrated, Efficient and Effective Uses of Information Technology: 5.0 million;
$55 million less than the President’s request. The OMB Director could transfer
the funds to one or more agencies to carry out projects and would submit
monthly reports to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
identifying the savings achieved by the government-wide information technology
reform efforts.
•
Special Assistance to the President: $4.3 million; $227,000 (-5.0%) less than the
FY2011 enacted amount and $6,000 (-0.1%) less than the President’s request.
•
Official Residence of the Vice President: $307,000; $19,000 (-5.8%) less than the
FY2011 enacted amount and the same as the President’s request.
H.R. 2434, as reported, would fund the federal drug control accounts at the following levels:
•
ONDCP: $23 million; $4.1 million (-15.1%) less than the FY2011 enacted
amount and $413,000 (-1.8%) less than the President’s request. Of the total,
$250,000 would remain available until expended for policy research and
evaluation. ONDCP is expected “to focus resources on the counter-drug policy
development, coordination and evaluation functions which are the primary
mission of the Office and the original reason for its existence.”
•
HIDTAP: $238.5 million; the same as the FY2011 enacted amount and $38.5
million (+19.3%) more than the President’s request. Of the total, up to $2.7
million could be used for auditing services and related activities. The ONDCP
Congressional Research Service
29
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Director would notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of
the initial allocation of FY2012 funding among HIDTAs within 45 days after the
act’s enactment and of planned uses of discretionary HIDTA funding within 90
days after the act’s enactment.
•
OFDCP : $102.0 million; $38.6 million (-27.5%) less than the FY2011 enacted
amount and $41.6 million (-29%) less than the President’s request. The
appropriation would be allocated as follows: $88.6 million for the Drug-Free
Communities Program, $8.9 million for anti-doping activities, $1.9 million for
the United States membership dues to the World Anti-Doping Agency, and $2.5
million for competitive discretionary grants. An appropriation is not provided for
the anti-drug media campaign.
Section 628(a)(1) of H.R. 2434, as reported, would provide the mandatory appropriation for the
compensation of the President ($450,000, including $50,000 for expenses). According to the
House Committee on Appropriations report, this is an account “where authorizing language
requires the payment of funds.”
Administrative provisions under the appropriation for the EOP and funds appropriated to the
President are the following:
•
Section 201 would continue to authorize the OMB Director (or other official
designated by the President) to transfer up to 10% of appropriations between the
White House, Executive Residence at the White House, White House Repair and
Restoration, Council of Economic Advisers, National Security Council and
Homeland Security Council, Office of Administration, Special Assistance to the
President, and Official Residence of the Vice President accounts, after the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations are notified at least 15 days in
advance. An appropriation would not be increased by more than 50% by such
transfers. The Vice President would approve transfers from the Special
Assistance to the President or Official Residence of the Vice President accounts.
•
Section 202 would rescind $11.3 million in unobligated balances of prior year
appropriations from the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center.
•
Section 203 would prohibit the use of funds to pay the salaries and expenses of
any EOP officer or employee to prepare, sign, or approve statements abrogating
legislation passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate and signed by
the President.
•
Section 204 would require the OMB Director to submit quarterly reports to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the implementation of
Executive Order 13563 relating to Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.
The reports would be submitted on January 2, April 2, July 2, and October 1,
2012, and would include information on increasing public participation in the
rulemaking process and reducing uncertainty; improving coordination across
federal agencies to eliminate redundant, inconsistent, and overlapping
regulations; and identifying existing regulations that have been reviewed and
determined to be outmoded, ineffective, or excessively burdensome.
•
Section 205 would require the OMB Director to report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, within 30 days after the act’s enactment, on the
costs of implementing P.L. 111-203, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Congressional Research Service
30
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Consumer Protection Act. The report would include the estimated mandatory and
discretionary obligations of funds through FY2016, by federal agency and by
fiscal year, including (1) the estimated obligations by cost inputs such as rent,
information technology, contracts, and personnel; the methodology and data
sources used to calculate such estimated obligations; and the specific section of
such act that requires the obligation of funds; and (2) the estimated receipts
through FY2016 from assessments, user fees, and other fees by the federal
agency making the collections, by fiscal year, including the methodology and
data sources used to calculate such estimated collections; and the specific section
of such act that authorizes the collection of funds.
Section 632 of H.R. 2434, as reported, would prohibit the use of funds for the White House
Director of the Office of Health Reform, the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate
Change, the Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury assigned to the Presidential Task
Force on the Auto Industry and Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy, and the White House
Director of Urban Affairs.
The House committee continues the provision that would prohibit funding for the EOP to request
an FBI background investigation except with the express consent of the individual involved or in
extraordinary circumstances involving national security at Section 610.
Senate Action
S. 1573, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, would provide an appropriation
of $660.7 million for the EOP, which is $45 million (-6.4%) less than the FY2011 enacted
appropriation and $79.1 million (-10.7%) less than the President’s request.
The appropriations for each of the EOP accounts, as recommended by the Senate Appropriations
Committee, are as follows:
•
The White House Office: $57.8 million; $584,000 (-1%) less than the FY2011
enacted amount and $523,000 (-0.9%) less than the President’s request. The
Senate committee report directs the EOP “to allocate sufficient resources to
continue the robust operation of the Office of National AIDS Policy” and “the
administration to continue to coordinate a Government-wide effort to develop
and implement a domestic AIDS strategy.”
•
Executive Residence, White House: $13.5 million; $137,000 (-1.0%) less than
the FY2011 enacted amount and $122,000 (-0.9%) less than the President’s
request.
•
White House Repair and Restoration: $990,000; $1 million (-50.5%) less than the
FY2011 enacted amount and $10,000 (-1.0%) less than the President’s request.
•
Council of Economic Advisers: almost $4.2 million; the same as the FY2011
enacted amount and $211,000 (-4.8%) less than the President’s request.
•
National Security Council and Homeland Security Council: $13 million; the
same as the FY2011 enacted amount and $26,000 (-0.2%) less than the
President’s request.
•
Office of Administration: $114.9 million; $141,000 (-0.1%) less than the FY2011
enacted amount and $940,000 (-0.8) less than the President’s request. Of the
Congressional Research Service
31
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
total, $10.7 million would remain available until expended for continued
modernization of the information technology infrastructure within the EOP. This
initiative will “refresh the aging information technology infrastructure,
strengthen disaster recovery and information security capabilities, and transition
the [EOP’s] communications architecture to integrate mobile devices while
complying with security and records management requirements.” The office is
directed to “place a top priority on the implementation of comprehensive policies
and procedures” to preserve all records, work closely with the National Archives
and Records Administration, and fully apprise the committee of funding needed
to preserve and retain records.
•
Office of Management and Budget: $90.8 million; $917,000 (-1.0%) less than the
FY2011 enacted amount and $827,000 (-0.9%) less than the President’s request.
The Senate report states that the committee “expects OMB to provide timely and
complete responses ... to all requests for information” and directs the agency to
report to the committee within 120 days after the act’s enactment on “the current
capabilities of and deficiencies in the Federal Government’s core budgeting
system.”
•
Unanticipated Needs: $988,000; $10,000 (-1.0%) less than the FY2011 enacted
amount and $12,000 (-1.2%) less than the President’s request.
•
Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation: 0.0; $20 million less than the
President’s request. The Administration is directed to leverage the FY2010
funding to continue the initiative. The Senate report reminds the interagency
council that semiannual reports must be submitted to the committees, directs that
the council “be the exclusive decisionmaking body,” and directs the OMB
director, as the council chair, “to seek consensus and input to the maximum
extent possible from council members and participating Federal and State
agencies.”
•
Integrated, Efficient and Effective Uses of Information Technology: 0.0; $60
million less than the President’s request. The Administration is directed to
continue the current reform efforts using funding from the EOP and other
sources, to regularly apprise the committee “of how Government-wide IT reform
efforts affect agency-specific projects and missions on a case-by-case basis,” and
to immediately notify the committee of changes in agency spending plans for IT
projects.
•
Special Assistance to the President: $4.3 million; $221,000 (-4.8%) less than the
FY2011 enacted amount and the same as the President’s request.
•
Official Residence of the Vice President: $307,000; $19,000 (-5.8%) less than the
FY2011 enacted amount and the same as the President’s request.
S. 1573, as reported, would fund the federal drug control accounts at the following levels:
•
ONDCP: $26.1 million; $959,000 (-3.5%) less than the FY2011 enacted amount
and $2.7 million (+11.6%) more than the President’s request. The increased
funding “prevents a reduction-in-force of 20 FTE.” Policy research is not funded.
The office is directed to provide an update on the implementation of the National
Academy of Public Administration’s study within 30 days after the act’s
enactment and is urged to ensure that the staff in the Office of Demand Reduction
Congressional Research Service
32
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
are experts in drug abuse prevention. The EOP is urged to improve the office’s
responsiveness in providing critical budget information to the committee.
Reports, to be submitted to the committee on a quarterly basis, are to discuss the
“continued efforts to address prescription drug abuse.”
•
HIDTAP: $238.5 million; the same as the FY2011 enacted amount and $38.5
million (+19.3%) more than the President’s request. The office is directed to
consult with the HIDTA’s prior to allocating funds. Of the total, up to $2.7
million could be used for auditing services and associated activities and up to
$500,000 is to be used to continue the operation and maintenance of the
Performance Management System. HIDTA funds are to be expeditiously
transferred to the appropriate drug control agencies and are to be withheld from a
State “until such time as a State or locality has met its financial obligation.”
•
OFDCP : $105.9 million; $34.7 million (-24.6%) less than the FY2011 enacted
amount and $37.6 million (-26.2%) less than the President’s request. The
appropriation would be allocated as follows: $92.6 million for the Drug-Free
Communities Support Program (DFCSP), including $2 million for National
Community Anti-Drug Coalition training; $8.9 million for anti-doping activities;
$1.9 million for the United States membership dues to the World Anti-Doping
Agency; $1.1 million for activities related to model State drug laws; and $1.4
million for drug court training and technical assistance. For reasons of fiscal
austerity and mixed reviews of the campaign’s effectiveness, an appropriation is
not provided for the anti-drug media campaign.
Administrative provisions under the appropriation for the EOP and funds appropriated to the
President are the following:
•
Section 201 would continue to authorize the OMB Director (or other official
designated by the President) to transfer up to 10% of appropriations between the
White House, Executive Residence at the White House, White House Repair and
Restoration, Council of Economic Advisers, National Security Council and
Homeland Security Council, Office of Administration, Special Assistance to the
President, and Official Residence of the Vice President accounts, after the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations are notified at least 15 days in
advance. An appropriation would not be increased by more than 50% by such
transfers. The Vice President would approve transfers from the Special
Assistance to the President or Official Residence of the Vice President accounts.
•
Section 202 would require the ONDCP Director to submit to the Senate and
House Appropriations Committees, within 60 days after the act’s enactment, and
prior to initially obligating more than 20% of the ONDCP funds, “a detailed
narrative and financial plan on the proposed uses of all funds under the account
by program, project, and activity.” The reports must be updated every six months
and include any changes in the estimates and assumptions of the previous reports.
New projects and changes in the funding for ongoing projects require advance
approval by the committees.
•
Section 203 would provide that up to 2% of ONDCP appropriations could be
transferred between appropriated programs within ONDCP with advance
approval by the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, but such
transfer could not increase or decrease an appropriation by more than 3%.
Congressional Research Service
33
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
•
Section 204 would provide that up to $1 million of ONDCP appropriations could
be reprogrammed within a program, project, or activity with advance approval by
the Senate and House Appropriations committees.
•
Section 205 would rescind $11.3 million in unobligated balances of prior year
appropriations from the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center.
The Senate committee continues the provision at Section 610 that would prohibit the use of funds
appropriated to the EOP to request an FBI background investigation except with the written
consent of the individual involved, within six months prior to the date of the request and during
the same presidential administration, or in extraordinary circumstances involving national
security.
Conference Committee
P.L. 112-74 provides appropriations of $57 million for The White House Office, $13.4 million for
the Executive Residence, $750,000 for White House Repair and Restoration, $112.9 million for
the Office of Administration, and $89.5 million for the Office of Management and Budget.
With regard to the Federal Drug Control Programs, $24.5 million is provided for the Office of
National Drug Control Policy and $105.5 million is provided for Other Federal Drug Control
Programs, to be allocated as follows: Drug-Free Communities Program, $92 million, of which $2
million is for training; Drug court training and technical assistance, $1.4 million; Anti-doping
activities, $9 million; World Anti-doping Agency membership dues, $1.9 million; and
Discretionary grant, $1.2 million (to be awarded competitively). Funding is not provided for the
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign and Performance Measures Development. The
conferees support a plan “to preserve the substantial federal investment in anti-drug messaging”
of the media campaign. ONDCP is directed to report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on how the remaining unobligated balances for the media campaign will be used
within 180 days after the act’s enactment. The conference report states the concern that
“ONDCP’s decision to obligate funds that the President’s budget proposed to rescind [from the
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center] demonstrates an inability to effectively manage
their funds.”
The appropriation for the Integrated, Efficient, and Effective Uses of Information Technology ($5
million) is the same as recommended by the House committee. The conference report states that
initiatives for reform “shall not be a substitute for consideration of agency requirements.” The
EOP is directed to inform the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on changes in
spending plans for information technology.
The appropriations for the Council of Economic Advisers ($4.2 million), National Security
Council and Homeland Security Council ($13 million), Unanticipated Needs ($988,000), and
Special Assistance to the President ($4.3 million) are the same as recommended by the Senate
committee.
The appropriations for the Official Residence of the Vice President ($307,000) and HIDTAP
($238.5 million) are the same as recommended by the House and Senate committees.
Among the provisions and directives included in the law are these:
Congressional Research Service
34
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
•
The EOP, including ONDCP, is expected to respond to requests for information
from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in a timely manner.
The EOP is directed to improve the responsiveness of ONDCP in this regard.
•
OMB is directed to report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the current capabilities and deficiencies in the federal
government’s core budgeting system within 120 days after the act’s enactment.
•
OMB is directed to examine Circular A-94, including the potential incorporation
of life-cycle cost analysis, and report on the status of the review to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations within 180 days after the act’s enactment.
The analysis is to be “as accurate, complete and reflective of the real costs and
lifespans of materials as possible, including the use of material-specific discount
rates and maintenance scheduled cost” and involve experts in the field of lifecycle cost analysis and industry experts and research centers.
•
The conference report states the policy that “agency staffing decisions should be
based on agency workload and the level of funds made available, rather than predetermined formulaic reductions” and that “Decisions to backfill vacant positions
should be based on the number of staff with the combination of skills and
qualifications necessary to carry out the agency’s mission within available
funding levels.” Any agencies not adhering to these policies will be identified for
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in a report to be submitted
by the OMB Director each February.
•
OMB is directed to issue guidance on the “use of direct conversions to contract
out, in whole or in part, activities or functions last performed by Federal
employees” that is consistent with Section 735 of division D of the Omnibus
Appropriations Act, 2009, P.L. 111-8, and Section 739(a)(1) of division D of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161), and Section 327 of the
2008 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 110-181).
•
OMB is expected to honor the terms and conditions of appropriations acts by
reviewing reprogramming requests submitted to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations and reviewing agency activities for compliance.
OMB and agencies are to consult with the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations in determining the applicability of Section 608 of this act which
provides reprogramming authority. A reprogramming of funds under the section
includes reimbursable agreements and other similar funding mechanisms used to
reallocate funds.
The law includes nine administrative provisions as follows:
•
Section 201 continues to authorize the OMB Director (or other official
designated by the President) to transfer up to 10% of appropriations between the
White House, Executive Residence at the White House, White House Repair and
Restoration, Council of Economic Advisers, National Security Council and
Homeland Security Council, Office of Administration, Special Assistance to the
President, and Official Residence of the Vice President accounts, after the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations are notified at least 15 days in
advance. An appropriation may not be increased by more than 50% by such
transfers. The Vice President approves transfers from the Special Assistance to
the President or Official Residence of the Vice President accounts.
Congressional Research Service
35
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
•
Section 202 requires the OMB Director to submit a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations on the implementation of Executive Order
13563 relating to Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review by April 2, 2012,
and include information on increasing public participation in the rulemaking
process and reducing uncertainty; improving coordination across federal agencies
to eliminate redundant, inconsistent, and overlapping regulations; and identifying
existing regulations that have been reviewed and determined to be outmoded,
ineffective, or excessively burdensome.
•
Section 203 requires the OMB Director to report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, within 120 days after the act’s enactment, on the
costs of implementing P.L. 111-203, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act. The report is to include the estimated mandatory and
discretionary obligations of funds through FY2014, by federal agency and by
fiscal year, including (1) the estimated obligations by cost inputs such as rent,
information technology, contracts, and personnel; the methodology and data
sources used to calculate such estimated obligations; and the specific section of
such act that requires the obligation of funds; and (2) the estimated receipts
through FY2014 from assessments, user fees, and other fees by the federal
agency making the collections, by fiscal year, including the methodology and
data sources used to calculate such estimated collections; and the specific section
of such act that authorizes the collection of funds.
•
Section 204 requires the ONDCP Director to submit to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, within 60 days after the act’s enactment, and
prior to initially obligating more than 20% of the ONDCP funds, “a detailed
narrative and financial plan on the proposed uses of all funds under the account
by program, project, and activity.” The reports must be updated every six months
and include any changes in the estimates and assumptions of the previous reports.
New projects and changes in the funding for ongoing projects require advance
approval by the committees.
•
Section 205 provides that up to 2% of ONDCP appropriations may be transferred
between appropriated programs within ONDCP with advance approval by the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, but such transfer may not
increase or decrease an appropriation by more than 3%.
•
Section 206 provides that up to $1 million of ONDCP appropriations may be
reprogrammed within a program, project, or activity with advance approval by
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
•
Section 207 rescinds $5.2 million in unobligated prior year balances from the
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center.
•
Section 208 rescinds, from Other Federal Drug Control Programs, $359,958 in
unobligated prior year balances for a chronic users study and $5.7 million in
unobligated prior year balances for a National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign.
•
Section 209 extends the availability of funds under the Partnership Fund for
Program Integrity Innovation. Additional funding for this account is not provided
for FY2012 and the Administration is directed to continue to leverage funds
provided in FY2010 to continue the initiative during FY2012 and FY2013.
Congressional Research Service
36
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Title III: The Judiciary61
As a co-equal branch of government, the judiciary presents its budget to the President, who
transmits it to Congress unaltered. The President’s FY2012 budget request for $7.29 billion is
$423 million more than appropriated for FY2010 and $387 million above FY2011 enacted
amounts. Table 5 lists the enacted amounts for FY2011, the President’s FY2012 request, amounts
recommended by the House and Senate appropriations committees for FY2012, and enacted
amounts for FY2012.
Table 5. The Judiciary Appropriations, FY2011-FY2012
(in millions of dollars)
FY2011
Enacted
FY2012
Request
FY2012
House
Committee
FY2012
Senate
Committee
FY2012
Enacted
Total: Supreme Court (total)
$82
$84
$83
$83
$83
Salaries and Expenses
74
75
75
75
75
Building and Grounds
8
9
8
8
8
U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit
33
35
31
32
33
U.S. Court of International Trade
21
23
21
21
21
Courts of Appeals, District
Courts, and Other Judicial
Services (Subtotal)
6,554
6,913
6,403
6,569
6,603
Salaries and Expenses
5,004
5,236
4,791
4,971
5,015
Defender Services
1,026
1,099
1,050
1,034
1,031
Fees of Jurors and
Commissioners
52
60
57
59
52
Court Security
467
513
500
500
500
Vaccine Injury Trust Fund
5
5
5
5
5
Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts
83
88
80
82
83
Federal Judicial Center
27
29
26
27
27
17
17
United States Sentencing
Commission
17
18
16c
Judicial Retirement Funds
90
104b
99d
104e
104
Total: The Judiciary
$6,907
$7,294
$6,759
$6,934
6,970
Sources: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Division C, P.L. 111-117). H.Rept. 112-136, pp. 110-112,
H.Rept. 112-136, S.Rept. 112-79; P.L. 112-74. The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2012, Congressional Budget Summary
(Washington: February 2011) was also examined. All figures are rounded. Columns also may not equal the total
due to rounding.
Notes: The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2012, Congressional Budget Summary (Washington: February 2011) was also
examined. According to the Summary, the FY2012 request for the Judicial Retirement Funds was $103.8 million,
61
This section was authored by Lorraine Tong (x7-....).
Congressional Research Service
37
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
and the total judiciary request was $7,293.9 million. All figures are rounded. Columns also may not equal the
total due to rounding.
a.
Total for the FY2010 enacted amount reflects $10 million (to remain available until September 30, 2011)
to assist the federal courts along the southwest border with increased workload, as part of P.L. 111-230
(FY2010 emergency supplemental appropriations for border security, and for other purposes).
b.
According to The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2012, Congressional Budget Summary, the FY2012 request for the
Judicial Retirement Funds was $103.8 million, and the total judiciary request was $7,293.9 million.
c.
The United States Sentencing figure for the House recommendation of $16.1 included a $0.1million
rescission.
d.
The House did not include appropriations for judicial retirement funds in Title III, as it has in previous
years. Instead, these mandatory funds were included in Section 628 of H.R. 2434. The House provided
an additional $334 million in mandatory funding for other judiciary accounts in Title III. Judicial
retirement funds recommended in H.R. 2434 are counted in Title III totals in this report to be consistent
with prior year calculations.
e.
The Senate provided $103.8 million (rounded to $104 million) in Section 628 of S. 1573.
The Judiciary Budget and Key Issues
Appropriations for the judiciary—about two-tenths of 1% (0.2%) of the entire federal budget—
are divided into budget groups and accounts. Two accounts that fund the Supreme Court (salaries
and expenses of the Court and expenditures for the care of its building and grounds) together total
about 1% of the total judiciary budget. The structural and mechanical care of the Supreme Court
building, and care of its grounds, are the responsibility of the Architect of the Capitol. The rest of
the judiciary’s budget provides funding for the “lower” federal courts and related judicial
services. The largest account, about 73% of the total budget—the Salaries and Expenses account
for the U.S. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services—covers the salaries
of circuit and district judges (including judges of the territorial courts of the United States),
justices and judges retired from office or from regular active service, judges of the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and other officers and employees of the
federal judiciary not specifically provided for by other accounts. It also covers the necessary
expenses of the courts. The remaining 26% of the judiciary budget is disbursed among these
accounts: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, U.S. Court of International Trade,
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Federal Judicial Center, U.S. Sentencing Commission,
and Judicial Retirement Funds.
The judiciary budget does not fund three “special courts” in the U.S. court system: the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Armed Forces (funded in the Department of Defense appropriations bill), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (funded in the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies appropriations bill), and the U.S. Tax Court (funded under Independent
Agencies, Title V, of the FSGG bill). Federal courthouse construction is funded within the
General Services account under Independent Agencies, Title V, of the FSGG bill.
The judiciary also uses non-appropriated funds to offset its appropriations requirement. The
majority of these non-appropriated funds are from fee collections, primarily from court filing
fees. These monies are used to offset expenses within the Salaries and Expenses account. In some
instances, the judiciary also has funds which may carry forward from one year to the next. These
funds are considered “unencumbered” because they result from savings from the judiciary’s
financial plan in areas where budgeted costs did not materialize. According to the judiciary, such
savings are usually not under its control (e.g., the judiciary has no control over the confirmation
Congressional Research Service
38
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
rate of Article III judges and must make its best estimate on the needed funds to budget for
judgeships, rent costs based on delivery dates, and technology funding for certain programs).
The judiciary also has “encumbered” funds—no-year authority funds for specific purposes, which
are used when planned expenses are delayed, from one year to the next (e.g., costs associated
with space delivery, and certain technology needs and projects).62
Judge Julia S. Gibbons, chair of the Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United
States,63 expressed the judiciary’s recognition that the country was undergoing very serious
financial difficulties and the need to reduce federal spending. In her April 6, 2011, written
testimony submitted to the House Subcommittee on the Judiciary’s FY2012 budget request, Judge
Gibbons stated that the Judicial Conference proposed a FY2012 budget that reflects the
judiciary’s smallest requested percentage increase on record (an estimated 4.3% over the previous
year). She asked that “Congress take into account the impact of the legislative process and law
enforcement on the jurisdiction and workload of the federal courts, and ensure that the Judiciary
continues to have the resources required to perform its statutory duties and to address a growing
workload.”64 She noted that the workload of the federal courts could further increase if the
budgets of the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security are increased. Judge
Gibbons also stated noted that 80% of the judiciary’s costs are spent on salaries and rent, and that
a funding shortfall would see significant staffing reductions in court clerks and probation and
pretrial services nationwide.65
Cost Containment Initiatives
According to Judge Gibbons, the judiciary has adopted a comprehensive strategy since 2004 to
contain costs and allow for more modest budget requests. At the FY2012 budget hearing, she
stated that one of the biggest cost-containment efforts has been to limit space costs through
process improvements and redesigns so that projected rent payments to the General Services
Administration are “nearly $400 million below the 2012 rent projection made prior to initiating
our cost-containment efforts.”66 The judiciary has also taken steps to control personnel costs by
changing salary and performance policies for court staff in order to reduce future compensation
costs. These policies are estimated to save compensation costs by $300 million through FY2019.
According to Judge Gibbons, containing information technology costs, such as the consolidation
of computer servers at a single location, is expected to save $65 million in cost avoidance.67
Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts James Duff, who also testified, stated
62
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2012 Congressional Budget Summary
(Washington: February 2011), p. 33.
63
The Judicial Conference of the United States is the principal policymaking body for the federal courts system. The
Chief Justice is the presiding officer of the conference, which comprises the chief judges of the 13 courts of appeals, a
district judge from each of the 12 geographic circuits, and the chief judge of the Court of International Trade.
64
Statement of Honorable Julia S. Gibbons, Chair, Committee on the Budget of the Judicial Conference of the United
States, U.S. House, Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, April
6, 2011, p. 3. The testimony was given prior to the enactment of the FY2011 FSGG budget.
65
Ibid., pp. 2-3.
66
Ibid., p. 6.
67
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
39
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
that a task force had been formed—comprising representatives from every directorate—to
examine ways to curtail spending while maintaining court services to the public.68
Judicial Security69
The safe conduct of court proceedings and security of judges in courtrooms and off-site continue
to be a concern. The 2005 Chicago murders of family members of a federal judge; the Atlanta
killings of a state judge, a court reporter, and a sheriff’s deputy at a courthouse; and the 2006
sniper shooting of a state judge in his Reno office spurred efforts to improve judicial security. In
the 110th Congress (2007-2008), the President signed into law the Court Security Improvement
Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-177), which was designed to enhance security for judges and court
personnel as well as courtroom safety for the public. Legislation enacted in the 109th Congress
(P.L. 109-13) included a provision that provided intrusion detection systems for judges in their
homes. Threats against judges and the courts, however, have not abated. On January 4, 2010, a
lone gunman wounded a deputy U.S. marshal and killed a court security officer at the Lloyd D.
George U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building in Las Vegas.70 The judiciary has been working
closely with the U.S. Marshals (USMS) to review the incident to ensure that adequate protective
policies, procedures, and practices are in place. USMS has primary responsibility for the
protection and security of more than 2,000 sitting federal judges, as well as approximately 5,250
other court officials at over 400 court facilities in the United States and its territories. According
to the USMS, the Marshals Service now “Assesses, mitigates and deters approximately 1,400
threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary each year.”71
The FY2012 budget request would reauthorize a pilot program for the USMS to assume
responsibility for perimeter security at selected courthouses that were previously the
responsibility of the Federal Protective Service (FPS). This pilot was first authorized in FY2009
as a result of the judiciary’s stated concerns that FPS was not providing adequate perimeter
security. After the initial planning phase, USMS implemented the pilot program on January 5,
2009, and assumed primary responsibility for security functions at seven courthouses located in
Chicago, Detroit, Phoenix, New York, Tucson, and two in Baton Rouge. The judiciary and USMS
have been evaluating the program and identifying areas for improvement. The judiciary
reimburses USMS for the protective services.
Increased court security enhancements might be necessary should more suspects charged with
terrorism be tried in federal courts rather than military tribunals.
Workload and Southwest Border Issues
In her April 6, 2011, written testimony to the subcommittee, Judge Gibbons stated that
bankruptcy filings are at near record levels due to the downturn in the economy. Such filings
68
Statement of James Duff, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, U.S. House, Committee on
Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, April 6, 2011, p. 4.
69
For an analysis of court security and federal building security in general, see CRS Report R41138, Federal Building,
Courthouse, and Facility Security, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
70
Steve Friess, “Two Killed in Las Vegas Courthouse,” New York Times, January 4, 2010, available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/us/05vegas.html.
71
U.S. Marshals Service, Fact Sheet, Judicial Security 2011, April 5, 2011, http://www.usmarshals.gov/duties/
factsheets/jsd-2011.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
40
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
increased 29% in 2008, 35% in 2009, and 20% in 2010 to 1,572,597 filings. For 2011, the
judiciary projected an additional 20,000 case filings nationwide.72 She also highlighted the
increase in probation and pretrial services. Convicted offenders under the supervision of federal
probation officers reached a record 126,642 in 2010 and is projected to increase to 131,000 cases
in 2011. Pretrial supervision cases have also grown—110,671 cases in 2010, and a projected
increase to 113,000 in 2011.73
Judge Gibbons also stated at the hearing, “After several years of steady growth, our criminal
workload nationally is projected to decline 2 percent, from 78,213 filings in 2010—an all-time
high—to 76,500 filings in 2011.” Between 2000 and 2010, criminal case filings grew 25%
nationally with immigration prosecutions in the judicial districts along the southwest border
spurring the increase.74 She emphasized that the federal judiciary does not determine the
workload of the courts but must handle the cases that are brought before the courts.75
Judicial Pay
Judicial pay has been an issue of concern to the judiciary for many years. Chief Justice John G.
Roberts, Jr. reaffirmed his support for significant increases in judicial salaries in his 2008 YearEnd Report on the Federal Judiciary. Chief Justice Roberts maintained that the salary of judges
had not kept pace with inflation over the years and led judges to leave the bench in increasing
numbers. However, the judicial pay issue was not mentioned in the Chief Justice’s last two yearend reports on the federal judiciary.
During the 110th Congress, legislation was introduced in both the House and Senate to
substantially increase judicial salaries, but no final action was taken on the bills before Congress
adjourned.76 However, federal judges received a salary adjustment in 2009. In the FY2011
request, the judiciary proposed that federal judges receive the same automatic cost-of-living
adjustments that Members of Congress are authorized to receive. However, no cost-of-living
adjustment was provided to Members of Congress or judges in FY2011. Near the end of the first
session of the 111th Congress on November 3, 2009, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced (for
herself and Senators Orrin Hatch, Patrick Leahy, and Lindsey Graham) S. 2725, the Federal
72
Statement of Honorable Julia S. Gibbons, Chair, Committee on the Budget of the Judicial Conference of the United
States, U.S. House, Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, April
6, 2011, pp. 3-4.
73
Ibid., pp. 4-5.
74
Ibid., 4.
75
In August 2010, Congress passed H.R. 6080, legislation making FY2010 emergency supplemental appropriations for
border security, to provide $600 million to enhance southwest border security.75 H.R. 6080 also contained $10 million
(to remain available until September 30, 2011) to assist the federal courts along the border with the expected increased
workload. The president signed the bill into law (P.L. 111-230) on August 13, 2010.
76
On June 15, 2007, Senator Patrick Leahy introduced S. 1638, the “Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2008,”
that, before markup, would have provided a 50% pay adjustment for justices and judges. Representative John Conyers
Jr. introduced a companion bill, H.R. 3753, “Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2007,” on October 4, 2007. The
House bill, before markup, would have provided for a 41.3% pay adjustment. As amended in markup, and ordered to be
reported by the respective committees, S. 1638 and H.R. 3753, would have authorized pay increases of 28.7% to 28.8%
respectively. On November 14, 2007, Senator Richard J. Durbin introduced S. 2353, the Fair Judicial Compensation
Act of 2007, to authorize a 16.5% increase in the annual salaries of the Chief Justice of the United States, Associate
Justices of the Supreme Court, courts of appeals judges, district court judges, and judges of the United States Court of
International Trade, and to increase fees for bankruptcy trustees. S. 2353 was referred to the Senate Judiciary
Committee. No further action was taken on any of these bills.
Congressional Research Service
41
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Judicial Fairness Act of 2009. The bill would have repealed a law requiring that salary increases
for federal judges and Supreme Court Justices be specifically authorized by acts of Congress, and
would have applied the same automatic annual cost-of-living adjustment to judicial salaries as
takes effect under the General Schedule for civilian federal employees. No further action was
taken prior to the adjournment of the 111th Congress. Although the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended a 2010 salary adjustment for Justices and judges under Section 307
(S.Rept. 111-43),77 the enacted FY2010 legislation (P.L. 111-117) did not provide for the salary
adjustment.
In the 112th Congress, on March 14, 2011, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced, S. 569, the
Federal Judicial Fairness Act of 2011, legislation similar to S. 2725. The bill, with nine
cosponsors, has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it is pending. The
judiciary did not propose a cost-of-living adjustment for federal judges for FY2012.
FY2012 Request78
For FY2012, the judiciary requested $7.29 billion in total appropriations. This represents an
increase of $386.9 million over the $6.91 billion enacted FY2011, although the request was
released prior to the enactment of the FY2011 act. Approximately 86.1% of the requested
increase would cover pay adjustments, benefits, and inflation to maintain current services. The
FY2012 request included funding for an additional 523 full-time-equivalent (FTE) positions,
including 264 FTEs to meet increased workload requirements, 16 FTE magistrate judges and
staff, and 9 FTE police officers and associated costs for the Supreme Court. A total of 35,695
FTEs were requested for FY2012, an increase of 1.5% from the estimated 35,172 FTEs in 2011.79
The following summarizes the FY2011 enacted amount, the FY2012 judiciary budget request,
and the amounts recommended by the House and Senate appropriations committees, and the
enacted amounts, for FY2012.
Supreme Court
The total FY2012 request for the Supreme Court was $84.1 million contained in two accounts: (1)
Salaries and Expenses: $75.6 million was requested, a $1.7 million increase over the $73.9
million enacted for FY2011; and (2) Care of the Building and Grounds: $8.5 million was
requested, a $0.3 million increase over the $8.2 million enacted for FY2011. The total FY2012
budget request was a $2.0 million increase over the FY2011 appropriation of $82.1 million. The
request included pay and benefits increases to maintain FY2011 services, and 9 additional FTE
police officers and associated costs (e.g., training) to enhance the Court’s security and to staff
new posts needed after completion of the Supreme Court Building Modernization Project. The
House committee recommendation for FY2012 was $74.8 million for the Salaries and Expenses
77
For further details about these bills and judicial pay issues, see CRS Report RS20388, Salary Linkage: Members of
Congress and Certain Federal Executive and Judicial Officials, by (name redacted), and CRS Report RL33245,
Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Officials: Process for Adjusting Pay and Current Salaries, by (name redac
ted).
78
U.S. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2012 Congressional Budget Justification
(Washington: February 2011).
79
The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2012 Congressional Budget Summary, p. 5, and The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2012
Congressional Budget Justification, p. 6.
Congressional Research Service
42
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
account, and $8.2 million for the Care of Building and Grounds account for a total of $83.0
million, which would include funds for additional police officers as requested. The Senate
committee recommended, and P.L. 112-74 provides, the same amounts recommended by the
House committee.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
This court, consisting of 12 judges, has jurisdiction and reviews, among other things, certain
lower court rulings on patents and trademarks, international trade, and federal claims cases. The
FY2012 budget request was $35.1 million, which was $2.6 million more than the FY2011
appropriation of $32.5 million. The House committee recommendation for FY2012 was $31.5
million. The Senate committee recommendation for FY2012 was $31.9 million. P.L. 112-74
provides $32.5 million.
U.S. Court of International Trade
This court has exclusive jurisdiction nationwide over the civil actions against the United States,
its agencies and officers, and certain civil actions brought by the United States arising out of
import transactions and the administration as well as enforcement of federal customs and
international trade laws. The FY2012 request was $22.9 million, a $1.5 million increase over the
FY2011 appropriation of $21.4 million. The budget request would pay for standard pay and other
inflationary adjustments, and to maintain current services. The House committee recommendation
for FY2012 was $20.6 million. The Senate committee recommendation for FY2012 was $21.0
million. P.L. 112-74 provides $21.4 million.
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services
The FY2011 funding request for this budget group covers 12 of the 13 courts of appeals and 94
district judicial courts located in the 50 states, District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands. The FY2012 request was $6,912.7 million, a $359.0 million increase over the
FY2011 appropriation of $6,553.7 million. The House recommendation for FY2012 was $6,402.9
million. The Senate committee recommendation for FY2012 was $6,568.6 million. P.L. 112-74
provides $6,602.9 million.
The account, which comprises more than 90% of the total judicial budget, covers salaries and
expenses, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund, court security, defender services, and fees
of jurors and commissioners.
Salaries and Expenses
The FY2012 request for this account was $5,236.2 million, an increase of $232 million over the
FY2011 appropriation of $5,004.2 million. According to the budget request, this increase is
needed primarily for inflationary and other adjustments to maintain the courts’ current services.
The House recommendation for FY2012 was $4,790.9 million. The Senate committee
recommendation for FY2012 was $4,970.6 million. P.L. 112-74 provides $5,015.0 million.
Congressional Research Service
43
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund
Established to address a perceived crisis in vaccine tort liability claims, the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program funds a federal no-fault program that protects the availability of vaccines
in the nation by diverting substantial number of claims from the tort arena. The FY2012 request
for the Trust Fund account was $5.0 million, a $0.2 million increase from the FY2011
appropriation of $4.8 million. The House and Senate committee recommendation for FY2012 was
$4.8 million. P.L. 112-74 provides the requested level of $5.0 million.
Court Security
This account provides for protective guard services, security systems, and equipment needs in
courthouses and other federal facilities to ensure the safety of judicial officers, employees, and
visitors. Under this account, the majority of funding for court security is transferred to the U.S.
Marshals Service to pay for court security officers under the Judicial Facility Security Program.
The request would fund salary adjustments and inflationary increases to maintain current
services. The FY2012 request was $513.1 million, a $46.4 million increase over the FY2011
appropriation of $466.7 million. The request included 50 additional court security officers for
new and renovated existing space expected to be delivered in FY2012, changes in operating
expenses based on anticipated billings from the Federal Protective Service, and improvements,
and enhancements to security systems and equipment. P.L. 112-74 provides $500.0 million, the
same amount proposed by the House and Senate.
Defender Services
This account funds the operations of the federal public defender and community defender
organizations, and compensation, reimbursements, and expenses of private practice panel
attorneys appointed by federal courts to serve as defense counsel to indigent individuals. The cost
for this account is driven by the number and type of prosecutions brought by U.S. Attorneys. The
FY2012 request for these services was $1,098.7 million, a $73.0 million increase over the
FY2011 appropriation of $1,025.7 million. The request includes an additional 61 FTE positions to
handle 206,200 defense representations and complex caseloads. The House recommendation for
FY2012 was $1,050.0 million. The Senate committee recommendation for FY2012 was $1,034.2
million. P.L. 112-74 provides $1,031.0 million.
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners
This account funds the fees and allowances provided to grand and petit jurors, and compensation
for jury and land commissioners. The FY2012 request was $59.7 million, a $7.4 million increase
over the FY2011 appropriation of $52.3 million. The requested increase would be primarily for
adjustments to allow payment for statutory fees and expenses. The House recommendation for
FY2012 was $57.3 million. The Senate committee recommendation for FY2012 was $59.0
million. P.L. 112-74 provides $51.9 million.
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
As the central support entity for the judiciary, the AOUSC provides a wide range of
administrative, management, program, and information technology services to the U.S. courts.
Congressional Research Service
44
Financial Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
AOUSC also provides support to the Judicial Conference of the United States, and implements
conference policies and applicable federal statutes and regulations. The FY2012 request for
AOUSC was $88.5 million, a $5.6 million increase over the FY2011 appropriation of $82.9
million. The request would fund adjustments to its base, and maintain current services, including
recurring costs such as travel, communications, service agreements, and supplies. Three new
positions (two FTEs) were requested for a six-month period to address high priority court support
functions (including modernization and consolidation of the judiciary’s nationwide accounting
system). AOUSC also receives non-appropriated funds from fee collections and carry-over
balances to supplement its appropriations requirements. The House recommendation for FY2012
was $80.0 million. The Senate committee recommendation for FY2012 was $82.0 million. P.L.
112-74 provides $82.9 million.
Federal Judicial Center
As the judiciary’s research and education entity, the Federal Judicial Center undertakes research
and evaluation of judicial operations for the Judicial Conference committees and the courts. In
addition, the center provides judges, court staff, and others with orientation and continuing
education and training. The center’s FY2012 request was $29.0 million, a $1.7 million increase
over the FY2011 appropriation of $27.3 million. The request would cover standard pay and other
inflationary adjustments, the hiring of one FTE (two positions), and enhanced education and
training initiatives. The House recommendation for FY2012 was $26.3 million. The Senate
committee recommendation for FY2012 was $27.0 million. P.L. 112-74 provides $27.0 million.
United States Sentencing Commission
The commission promulgates sentencing policies, practices, and guidelines for the federal
criminal justice system. The FY2012 request was $17.9 million, an $0.8 million increase over the
FY2011 appropriation of $16.8 million. The increase would cover pay and other inflationary
adjustments. The House recommendation for FY2012 was $16.1 million (which included a
rescission of $0.1 million). The Senate committee recommended, and P.L. 112-74 provides, $16.5
million for FY2012.
Judiciary Retirement Funds
This mandatory account provides for three trust funds that finance payments to retired bankruptcy
and magistrate judges, retired Court of Federal Claims judges, and the spouses and dependent
children of deceased judicial officers. According to the House report, the FY2012 request was
$99.0 million,80 an $8.6 million increase over the FY2011 appropriation of $90.4 million. The
House provided for these funds in Title VI of the FSGG bill, rather than in Title III. P.L. 112-74
provides $103.8 million, the same amount proposed by the Senate, which was reported in Title
III.
80
Acc
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.