Appropriations for FY2003: Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President, and General Government

Report for Congress
Appropriations for FY2003:
Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office
of the President, and General Government
Updated March 26, 2003
Sharon S. Gressle, Coordinator
Government and Finance Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bound by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current
program authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government. It
summarizes the current legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels,
and related legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues
covered and related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at:
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtm l ] .

Appropriations for FY2003: Treasury, Postal Service,
Executive Office of the President,
and General Government
Summary
The Treasury and General Government accounts are funded for FY2003 through
the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (P.L. 108-7; Division J). Because
the accounts in this appropriation were not funded, other than under continuing
resolution, as the 107^th Congress adjourned, legislation was required for that purpose^th
early in the 108 Congress. During the interim, the accounts were funded at FY2002
enacted levels. P.L. 108-7 also requires a rescission across all discretionary funding
within the Act.
On February 4, 2002, President George W. Bush submitted his FY2003 budget
to Congress. The budget documents show, for accounts funded through the Treasury,
Postal Service, and General Government appropriations bill, a proposed FY2003
discretionary budget authority of $18.7 billion, an increase over FY2002 estimates
by just under $1 billion. Many of the FY2002 estimates offered earlier in the year are
no longer current because they have been affected by supplemental appropriations,
largely in response to the September 11 attacks.
H.R. 5120, as passed by the House July 24, 2002, would have provided $18.5
billion in discretionary funding. The total for the bill would have been $35.1 billion.
This would represent a 3.1% increase over FY2002, including supplemental and
emergency funding. After scorekeeping adjustments, including $745 million
associated with the Administration’s accrual funding proposal, the committee’s mark
was $147.6 million above FY2002 appropriations and $207.8 million below the
Administration request. S. 2740, as reported by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, would have provided a total of $34.8 billion to fund the accounts.
Discretionary funding under the reported measure would be $18.5 billion. The
FY2002 appropriation, P.L. 107-67, totaled $32.4 billion. Congressional Budget
Office scorekeeping put the totals at $32.8 billion ($15.7 billion mandatory and $17.1
billion discretionary). Several of the accounts were also receiving funding through
the Emergency Response Fund under P.L. 107-38 and P.L. 107-117.
Accounts in the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Secret Service, and the General Services
Administration usually receive funding for functions related to countering terrorism.
Emergency Response Fund allocations, as provided by P.L. 107-38, the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist
Attacks on the United States, FY2001, have gone to accounts in the Department of
the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, and the General Services
Administration. Three major entities covered by the Treasury and General
Government appropriation are being transferred to the newly created Department of
Homeland Security. Those are the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Customs Service,
and the Federal Protective Service of the General Services Administration. The
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms will be renamed and transferred to the
Department of Justice.

(For topics as discussed in this report)
CRS
Area of ExpertiseNameDivisionTel.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and FirearmsWilliam KrouseDSP7-2225
Council of Economic AdvisersPauline Smale G&F7-7832
Customs ServiceWilliam KrouseDSP7-2225
Department of the TreasuryGary GuentherG&F7-7742
Debt ManagementJames BickleyG&F7-7794
E-GovernmentHarold RelyeaG&F 7-8679
Executive Office of the PresidentBarbaraG&F7-8655
Schwemle
Federal Child CareMelinda GishDSP7-4618
Federal Election CommissionJoseph CantorG&F7-7876
Federal Employee Health Care PolicyHealth SectionDSP7-5863
Federal Employee Pension PolicyPatrick PurcellDSP7-7571
Federal Employee Workmen’sEdward
Compensation (FECA)RappaportDSP7-7740
General Services AdministrationStephanie SmithG&F7-8674
Homeland SecuritySharon GressleG&F7-8677
Independent AgenciesSharon GressleG&F7-8677
Internal Revenue ServiceGary GuentherG&F7-7742
National ArchivesHarold RelyeaG&F7-8679
Office of Government EthicsMildred AmerG&F7-8304
Office of Personnel ManagementBarbaraG&F7-8655
Schwemle
Postal ServiceNye StevensG&F7-0208
Presidential SalarySharon GressleG&F7-8677
ProcurementStephanie SmithG&F7-8674
Real Estate Brokerage RegulationWilliam JacksonG&F77834
Secret ServiceStephanie SmithG&F7-8674
^Divⁱ^sioⁿ^ab^b^r^ev^iatioⁿ^s^{: DSP}^{= Do}^m^e^{stic So}^{cial P}^o^licy^;^G&^{F = Go}^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^an^d^Fin^aⁿ^ce.

Contents
Most Recent Events................................................1
In troduction ......................................................1
P.L. 108-7 Rescission ..........................................4
Effects of Funding under Continuing Resolutions.....................4
Accounts Affected by Homeland Security Act of 2002.................4
Performance Plans.............................................5
Status and Legislative History........................................6
107^th Congress................................................7
Hearings .................................................7
House Committee Action....................................7
Committee Amendments................................7
House Rules Committee and Floor Action on Rule................7
House Floor Action........................................8
Senate Committee Action..................................10
Continuing Resolutions....................................10
Adjournment ............................................10^th
108 Congress...............................................10
House Action on Funding Resolution.........................10
Senate Action............................................10
Conference ..............................................10
Treasury and General Government Appropriations, FY2003...............11
Budget and Key Policy Issues...................................11
Department of the Treasury.....................................11
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF)...............13
Customs Service.........................................15
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)..............................16
U. S. Secret Service.......................................18
U.S. Postal Service............................................19
Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the President
.......................................................21
EOP Offices Funded Through Treasury and General
Government Appropriations............................23
Compensation of the President..........................23
Office of Homeland Security............................23
White House Office...................................23
Executive Residence (White House) and White House Repair
and Restoration..................................24
Special Assistance to the President
(Office of the Vice President).......................24
Official Residence of the Vice President...................25
Council of Economic Advisers (CEA)....................25
Office of Policy Development...........................25
National Security Council (NSC)........................25
Office of Administration...............................26
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).................27

Election Administration Reform and Related Expenses.......28
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)...........28
The Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC)....28
Federal Drug Control Programs..........................29
The Special Forfeiture Fund............................30
Unanticipated Needs..................................30
Independent Agencies.........................................30
Federal Election Commission (FEC)..........................30
Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA).....................31
General Services Administration (GSA).......................32
Federal Buildings Fund (FBF)...........................33
Electronic Government Fund............................33
Election Reform......................................35
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)......................35
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)..........35
Office of Government Ethics (OGE)..........................37
Office of Personnel Management (OPM)......................37
Office of Special Counsel (OSC).............................38
General Provisions............................................39
Homeland Security................................................48
Emergency Counterterrorism Funding.............................48
Office of Homeland Security, Executive Office of the President........49
Department of Homeland Security................................50
Counterterrorism Activity Funding — OMB Annual Report...........50
Federal Personnel Issues...........................................51
Pay ........................................................51
General .................................................51
Federal Wage System......................................51
Members of Congress, Judges, and Other Officials..............52
President ................................................52
Federal Employee Benefit Programs Pre-funding Proposal............53
Federal Retirement Program................................53
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program...................54
Federal Employees Workers Compensation Program (FECA)......54
Federal Child Care............................................55
Information Resources Management..................................55
Overlapping Cyber-Security Initiatives........................55
Government Web Sites....................................56
Government Printing......................................56
E-Government Initiatives...................................57
Endowment for Presidential Libraries.........................57
Cuba Sanctions...................................................58
Major Funding Trends.............................................60
Glossary of Budget Process Terms...................................66

Table 1. Status of FY2003 Appropriations for the Treasury, Postal
Service, Executive Office of the President, and General Government....11^a
Table 2. Title VI Governmentwide General Provisions..................40
Table 3. Appropriations for the Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office
of the President, and General Government, FY1998 to FY2002.........62
Table 4. Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President, and
General Government Appropriations, FY2003, by Title and Major
Accounts ...................................................62
Table 5. Department of the Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office
of the President, and General Government Appropriations, 2003........63

Appropriations for FY2003: Treasury,
Postal Service, Executive Office of the
President, and General Government
Most Recent Events
On March 25, 2003, the President sent a FY2003 supplemental request to
Congress, with requests for additional funding in support of actions in the Middle
East. Accounts within the Executive Office of the President, as well as the
Department of Homeland Security would be affected.
With the enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (P.L.
108-7, Division J), the accounts covered by the Treasury and General Government
appropriations legislation are funded through the end of FY2003. P.L. 108-7
requires an across-the-board rescission at a rate of 0.65%. During the interim
period between the close of FY2002 and February 20, 2003 the accounts were
funded at FY2002 enacted levels under a series of continuing resolutions.
H.R. 5120 and S. 2740 were the legislative vehicles under which the regular
appropriations were being considered for the affected accounts in the 107^th
Congress. The House passed H.R. 5120 (H.Rept. 107-575) on July 24, 2002 and the
Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 2740 (S.Rept. 107-212) on July 17,
2002. No further action was taken on either measure prior to 107^th Congress
adjournment in November.
Introduction
The President, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is
required to submit to Congress annually the Budget of the United States Government.¹
The FY2003 budget was submitted to Congress on February 4, 2002. In late
February 2001, the President and the Office of Management Budget had released A²
Blueprint for New Beginnings, A Responsible Budget for America’s Priorities. It is
intended to present a 10-year budget plan and provides more of an overview than

¹U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2003, Feb. 4,2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002). Hereafter the budget documents will be
cited as FY2002 Budget with the specific document noted.
²U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, A Blueprint for
New Beginnings, A Responsible Budget for America’s Priorities (Washington: GPO, 2001),

207 p. Available at [http://www.gpo.gov/usbudget/index.html].

details on specific accounts.³ In summary, the FY2003 proposed budget would fund
the accounts in the Treasury and General Government appropriations legislation at
$18.7 billion (discretionary).⁴ This is just under $1 billion over the estimated
FY2002 funding levels, not taking into consideration the supplemental funding
subsequently enacted. Additionally, it must be kept in mind that terrorist and security
events since early September 2001 have had enormous impact on planning, spending,
and funding for the federal government. All comparison of figures between the fiscal
years should take these circumstances into account.
The House passed H.R. 5120 on July 24, 2002, on a vote of 308-121. The bill,
as passed, would fund the discretionary accounts at $18.5 billion, for a total of $35.1
billion. The House Committee on Appropriations had presented its recommendations
in H.Rept. 107-575.⁵ The Senate Committee on Appropriations issued a report to
accompany S. 2740. S.Rept. 107-212 shows that the bill, as reported, would fund the
discretionary accounts at $18.5 billion, for a total of $34.8 billion.⁶ No further action
was taken on either measure prior to adjournment of the 107^th Congress on November
22, 2002. The accounts were funded through a series of continuing resolutions which
funded them at FY2002 levels. With enactment of P.L. 108-7,⁷ the accounts are
funded through the close of the fiscal year.
On March 25, 2003, the President sent a FY2003 supplemental request to
Congress, with requests for additional funding in support of actions in the Middle
East. Accounts within the Executive Office of the President, as well as the
Department of Homeland Security would be affected.
Usually under the budget procedures, Congress adopts a concurrent resolution
establishing the congressional budget for the government and setting forth budgetary
levels for several years in the future. The House and Senate Appropriations

³For discussion of the accounts in the FY2002 Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office
of the President, and General Government appropriations, see CRS Report RL31002,
Appropriations for FY2002: Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President,
and General Government, coordinated by Sharon S. Gressle.
⁴FY2003 Budget, Budget, Table S-8, p. 402.
⁵U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Treasury, Postal Service, and
General Government Appropriations Bill, 2003, 107^th Cong., 2^nd sess., H.Rept. 107-575, July

15, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002).

⁶U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Treasury and General Government
Appropriation Bill, 2003, 107^th Cong., 2^nd sess., S.Rept. 107-212, July 17, 2002
(Washington: GPO, 2002).
⁷Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003; P.L. 108-7; Division J; Feb. 20, 2003; H.J.
Res. 2. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, Conference Report on H.J.^th^st
Res. 2, Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, 108 Cong., 1 sess., H.Rept. 108-10,
Feb. 13, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003), 1505 p. Text of the conference report, as well as
funding tables can also be found in the Congressional Record, vol. 149, daily ed.
(Washington: GPO, 2003). Treasury and General Government bill text: Feb. 12, 2003, pp.
H819-H831; conference report explanatory language: Feb. 12, 2003, pp. H1227-H1235; and
funding tables: Feb. 14, 2003, pp. H639-H646. Further references will be to Conference
Report.

Committees then allocate the discretionary funding levels (302(b)) allocations to each
of the subcommittees. Those allocations are subject to change. The House and
Senate have yet to reach agreement on such a congressional budget resolution for
FY2003.
Appropriations for the Department of the Treasury, in addition to funding the
operations of the department, fund the work of a group of law enforcement
organizations, which include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; the
Customs Service; the Secret Service; the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network;
and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Treasury appropriations also
cover the Internal Revenue Service, the Financial Management Service, and the
Bureau of the Public Debt. Several of those entities have transferred to the
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice.
For the most part, the U.S. Postal Service operates outside federal funding
support. Federal contributions are normally limited to payments to the Postal Service
Fund to compensate for revenues forgone (e.g., free postal service for the blind.)
However, the Postal Service is receiving significant funding during the FY2002
period to support recovery costs subsequent to the terrorist attacks, including the
anthrax attacks.
Appropriations for the Executive Office of the President provide salaries and
expenses for the White House Office, operations of the residences of the President
and Vice President, and most other agencies within the Executive Office of the
President (EOP). Organizations such as the Council of Economic Advisers, the
National Security Council, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) are funded through these provisions.
Specific funding for drug control initiatives is appropriated for distribution to other
entities by the ONDCP. In FY2003, the Office of Homeland Security is a new entity
in this category.
Among the independent agencies financed through this appropriation are the
Federal Election Commission, the General Services Administration, the National
Archives and Records Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the
Office of Special Counsel, and the United States Tax Court.
The Treasury and General Government appropriation always has at least two
titles in addition to the four covering the funding for specific agencies. These general
titles apply restrictions or “rules of the road” governmentwide and, quite often,
contain authority for defined actions. For example, each year, there is standard
language which prohibits the use of any appropriated funds for the purpose of
employing individuals who are not U.S. citizens or citizens of nations either specified
in that section of the act or on the State Department list of nations covered by
treaties; which requires that all agencies maintain drug-free workplaces; and which
authorizes the expenditure of funds appropriated under any act to be used to pay the

travel expenses of immediate family members if a federal employee serving overseas
has died or has a life-threatening illness.⁸
The Committee on Appropriations in both the House and Senate have
reorganized to reflect the funding needs for the Department of Homeland Security.
There will be 13 appropriations bills. However, the funding for the Treasury, Postal
Service, Executive Office of the President, and the independent agencies will be
consolidated into a subcommittee with the Department of Transportation. That
subcommittee carry the name Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies.
P.L. 108-7 Rescission
As passed by the Senate and coming out of conference, the omnibus funding bill
for FY2003 requires the application of a rescission to accounts within the bill.⁹
Although there were a few programs specifically exempted from the rescission, none
of the accounts in the Treasury and General Government division were so affected.
On February 21, 2003, the Office of Management and Budget released a bulleting for
the purpose of providing instructions and guidelines to the heads of departments and
agencies in the application of the rescission. The agencies were given one week to
submit their proposed rescissions and then required that the approved rescissions be
reflected in their FY2003 funding reapportionments by March 7. The guidance
reflects the statutory requirements that the rescission be applied, proportionally, to
all
!budget authority provided (or obligation limitation imposed) forFY2003 for
any discretionary account in divisions A through K of P.L. 108-7;
!budget authority provided in any advance appropriation for FY2003 for any
discretionary account in any prior fiscal year appropriations act; and
!contract authority provided in FY2003 for any program subject to limitation
contained in P.L. 108-7.¹⁰
Effects of Funding under Continuing Resolutions
From October 1, 2002, the beginning of the fiscal year, until enactment of P.L.
108-7 the accounts covered by the Treasury and General Government appropriations
were funded at FY2002 levels under a series of continuing funding resolutions (CR).
As far as can be determined, no programs have been cancelled due to the lack of
regular appropriations of the Treasury and General Government accounts. Agencies
were forced to restrain spending on activities such as training, travel, supplies, and
new hiring. These restraints, in turn, hampered efforts by the agencies to enhance
activities already in place. For example, the Internal Revenue Service could not

⁸The Administration’s proposed “Government-Wide General Provisions” can be found at
FY2003 Budget, Appendix, pp. 9-15.
⁹P.L. 108-7, Division N, Sec. 601; Feb. 20, 2003. Conference Report, pp. 544 and 1504.
¹⁰U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Across-the-
Board Rescission in H.J. Res. 2, Bulletin No. 03-02, Feb. 21, 2003.
[ h t t p : / / www.whi t e house.go v/ omb/ bul l e t i n s/ b03-02.pdf ] .

bolster its capability to crack down on tax fraud, combat corporate tax shelters, and
assist low-income taxpayers, in particular.
Accounts Affected by Homeland Security Act of 2002
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296, November 25, 2002)
requires the transfer of major components from the Department of the Treasury and
the General Services Administration to other federal organizations. For example, the
U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Customs Service will transfer from the Department
of the Treasury to the Department of Homeland Security. The Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms will be renamed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives and will be transferred to the Department of Justice. The Federal
Protective Service will move from the Public Buildings Service in the General
Services Administration to the Department of Homeland Security. Other functional
responsibilities or parts of activities will also move to the Department of Homeland
Security.
P.L. 107-296, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, provides that the funds
appropriated for entities moving to the Department of Homeland Security will be
transferred to the new department but under the proviso that they be used for the
purposes for which they were appropriated. P.L. 107-294, a continuing resolution,
provides the Secretary of Homeland and the Office of Management and Budget with
the authority to transfer unobligated funds from those accounts, up to $140 million,
for the purpose of establishing the department. On December 20, 2002, the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget, Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., sent a letter to the
chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
The communication proposed the transfer of $125 million in unobligated funds from
eight accounts, including $30 million from the U.S. Customs Service Operation,
Maintenance and Procurement/Air and Marine account and $4.5 million from the
salaries and expenses account of the U.S. Secret Service. Further discussion of
homeland security issues is found later in this report.
Performance Plans
The funding decisions for agencies are increasingly referencing the performance
plans, goals, and measures set by the agencies. Specific goals and measures can be
found in the Budget Appendix for some of the agency accounts. For example, the
Internal Revenue Service sets out a substantial series of “Key Operational Measures
and Performance Indicators” and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
provides the information under “Performance and Workload Measures.” These are
organized by FY2001 actual, the FY2002 Performance Plan, and the FY2003¹¹
President’s Budget.

¹¹FY2003 Budget, Appendix, p. 832 and 821, respectively.

The FY2002 funding levels in the text and tables in this report were provided
by the House Appropriations Committee, adjusted to reflect supplemental funding.
The FY2003 funding levels in the text and tables are, unless otherwise noted, those
provided by the House Committee on Appropriations. These figures, rather than
those found in the budget submission, are used because they are the basis on which
appropriators make their decisions and provide the most recent updated
information.
The Budget documents provided by the Office of Management and Budget
and the appropriations bills do not necessarily follow the same organization of
accounts. For example, not all of the agencies which are organizationally within
the Executive Office of the President, as found in the budget, are funded through
the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriations legislation.
Also, the FY2003 and FY2002 individual account data in this report do not reflect
scorekeeping by the Congressional Budget Office.
See the glossary for definitions of discretionary and mandatory spending. In
some instances, the mandatory levels drive up the percent of increase represented
in the appropriation. The appropriators are bound by those entitlements under
permanent law and control only the discretionary spending levels. The data in the
tables and the funding levels provided in the text, unless otherwise noted, reflect
the mandatory and discretionary funding combined.
FTE, or full-time equivalent, is a budgetary term and does not represent the
number of personnel employed by, or the number of actual positions allowed in,
a department or agency. The FTE number is calculated by dividing the total
number of staff hours worked in a given 12-month period (usually the fiscal year)
by the total number of hours in a workyear (2080). The number of on-board
personnel at any given time and the total number of people working in the
organization during the course of the year are two entirely different statistical
results. Seasonal employment and part-time employment are two factors which
make the FTE and actual employment figures differ.
Status and Legislative History
Bills are introduced in the House and Senate when the Committees on
Appropriations have completed markup on the provisions. Usually the
subcommittees draft legislation and the accompanying reports. The full committees
use these documents as a basis for discussion and mark up. From the time legislation
is introduced, and through enactment, the status will be noted in Table 1.

107^th Congress
Hearings. Hearings in the House subcommittee began February 27, 2002, with¹²
nine scheduled between then and April 23. The Senate hearing schedule was
unavailable as of this writing.
House Committee Action. On June 26, 2002, the Subcommittee on
Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, by voice vote, approved a
spending measure. The full House Committee on Appropriations, also by voice vote,
approved the measure on July 9, 2002. H.Rept. 107-575 was filed July 15, 2002 to
accompany H.R. 5120.
Committee Amendments. There were four major amendments, as noted in
the Committee’s press release:¹³
Chairman Young: Requires OMB to submit a letter to the Committee taking
responsibility for their recent violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act.
Rep. Northup: Prohibits funds in the bill to be used to issue regulations
relating to the determination that real estate brokerage is an activity that is
financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity.¹⁴
Rep. DeLauro: Prohibits funds in the bill for payment on any new federal
contract to a subsidiary of a publicly traded corporation if the corporation
is incorporated in a tax haven country but the United States is the principal
market for the public trading of the corporation’s stock.
Rep. Pastor: Provides $2 million for the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and
Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation.
House Rules Committee and Floor Action on Rule. On July 17, 2002,
the House Committee on Rules issued a special rule for the consideration of H.R.¹⁵
5120. H.Rept. 107-585 is a report to accompany H.Res. 488. The rule waives all
points of order against bill provisions, with three exceptions noted. The rule also
included an amendment, related to travel to Cuba, as being part of the bill and waives
points of order against that amendment. (See discussion of Cuban travel below.)
Points of order can be brought against the provision withholding funds for any
transfer of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms during FY2003, some

¹²The House subcommittee’s hearing schedule can be found at
[http://www.house.gov/ appropriations/hearings/hear03tp.htm] .
¹³See [http://www.house.gov/appropriations/news/107_2/03tpofull.htm].
¹⁴For further information, see CRS Report RS21104, Should Banking Powers Expand Into
Real Estate Brokerage and Management?, by William D. Jackson.
¹⁵U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Providing for Consideration of H.R. 5120,
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2003, 107^th Cong., 2^nd sess., H.Rept.

107-585, July 17, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002).

language in Sec. 605 related to federal employment of foreign nationals, Sec. 615
relating to construction of law enforcement training facilities, and Sec. 646 relating
to corporate expatriates.
During floor consideration of the rule, the discussion centered on allowing
points of order against Sec. 646. The minority position was that the provision will
be defeated because it will not be protected under the rule.¹⁶ The rule was adopted
on a vote of 224-188. (See discussion under “Department of the Treasury,” below.)
House Floor Action. The House took up H.R. 5120 and began debate and¹⁷
amendment on July 23, 2002. Consideration continued on July 24 with passage on
a final vote of 308-121 (Roll no. 341).¹⁸
There were numerous amendments offered to the legislation:
Agreed to —
Rep. Mike Rogers (H.Amdt. 548) — An amendment that prohibits the use of
funds in the bill by the Customs Service to permit the importation of
municipal solid waste originating in Canada for deposit in Michigan.
Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald (H.Amdt. 549) — An amendment that
reserves $600,000 of the bill’s $250 million appropriation for the National
Archives and Records Administration for the preservation of the records
of the Freedmen’s Bureau.
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (H.Amdt. 550) — An amendment to strike the section
that exempts health insurance companies that have contracts with the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program from complying with the cost
accounting standards that apply to other federal contracts.
Rep. Jeff Flake (H.Amdt. 552) — An amendment to prohibit funds in the bill
from being used for administration or enforcement of part 515 of title 31,
Code of Federal Regulations, with respect to any travel or travel-related
transaction; and to provide that the limitation established shall not apply
to the issuance of general or specific licenses for travel or travel-related
transactions, and shall not apply to transactions in relations to any business
travel covered by such regulations.

¹⁶Providing for Consideration of H.R. 5120, Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2003, Congressional Record, daily edition, July 18, 2002 (Washington:
GPO, 2002), pp. H4909-H4916.
¹⁷Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2003, Congressional Record, daily
edition, 107^th Cong., 2^nd sess., vol. 148, July 23, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002), pp. H5229-
H5273, H5291-H5306.
¹⁸Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2003, Congressional Record, daily
edition, 107^th Cong., 2^nd sess., vol. 148, July 24, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002), pp. H5322-
H5346, H5352.

Rep. Jeff Flake (H.Amdt 553) — An amendment to prohibit funds in the bill
from being used to enforce any restriction on remittances to nationals of
Cuba covered by the Code of Federal Regulations.
Rep. Jerry Moran (H.Amdt. 554) — An amendment to prohibit the use of any
funding to implement sanctions imposed by the United States on private
commercial sales of agricultural commodities, medicine, or medical
supplies to Cuba.
Rep. James Moran (H.Amdt. 556) — An amendment to prohibit any funding to
be used to establish or enforce any numerical goal or quota for subjecting
the employees of an agency to public-private competitions or converting
the employees or the work they perform to private contractor performance
under OMB Circular A-76 or any other administrative regulation,
directive, or policy (Roll No. 336: 261-166).
Rep. Bernard Sanders (H.Amdt. 562) — An amendment to prohibit any funding
to be used by the Internal Revenue Service for activities that contravene
current tax, Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) pension
or age discrimination statutes (Roll No. 339: 308-121).
Rep. Bob Barr (H.Amdt. 563) — An amendment to prohibit the use of national
anti-drug media campaign funding to pay any amounts pursuant to a
specific contract with a company currently under investigation.
Rejected —
Rep. Porter Goss (H.Amdt. 551) — An amendment to require the President to
certify to Congress that the government of Cuba does not possess
biological weapons, is not developing or providing terrorist states or
terrorist organizations the technology to develop biological weapons, and
is not providing support or sanctuary to international terrorists before any
limitation on funding is applied to the enforcement and administration of
travel restrictions to Cuba (Roll No. 330: 182-247).
Rep. Charles Rangel (H.Amdt. 555) — An amendment to prohibit use of any
funding to implement, administer, or enforce the economic embargo of
Cuba (Roll No. 333: 204-226).
Rep. Joel Hefley (H.Amdt. 559) — An amendment to reduce funding for the
allowance and office staff for former presidents by $339,000 (Roll No.

337: 165-265).

Rep. Joel Hefley (H.Amdt. 559) — An amendment to reduce each amount
appropriated or otherwise made available by 1% (Roll No. 338: 147-282).
Other amendments, withdrawn, would have prohibited any funding to be used
to enforce or implement discounts for the statistical value of a human life estimated
during regulatory reviews through implementation of OMB Circular A-94; prohibited
any funding to be used to prevent the rehabilitation of urban and rural post offices;

prohibited any funding to be used by entities unless specifically identified by name
as a recipient in the Act; established a centralized reporting system to enable agencies
to generate reports on efforts regarding both contracting out and contracting in; and
prohibited any funding to be used by the Customs Service to require reports on
repairs to U.S. flag vessels on the high seas.
Senate Committee Action. On July 11, 2002, the Subcommittee on
Treasury and General Government, by voice vote, approved the FY2003 spending
provisions. S. 2740 was introduced with the Committee report, S.Rept. 107-212,
filed July 17, 2002¹⁹. The committee communications did not include information
on amendments to the subcommittee’s recommendations.
Continuing Resolutions. The accounts were funded after the close of
FY2002 through a series of continuing funding resolutions which held the funding
for these accounts at the FY2002 enacted levels.
Adjournment. The 107^th Congress adjourned November 22, 2002.
108^th Congress
House Action on Funding Resolution. In the early days of the 108^th
Congress, it was necessary to enact a further continuing resolution until a permanent
funding solution for FY2003 could be developed. H.J.Res. 1 was introduced and
passed for that purpose. In addition, the House passed H.J. Res. 2 on January 8,
2003. H.J.Res. 2 contained language identical to H.J.Res. 1 and was considered to
be a shell vehicle which would be amended by the Senate to provide permanent
funding for the accounts in the 11 FY2003 appropriations bills still pending.
Senate Action. On January 15, 2003, the Senate began consideration of
H.J.Res. 2. The first order of business was to agree to an amendment (S.Amdt.1),
offered by the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, in the nature of
a substitute. At the close of the sixth day of consideration, the measure was
approved, amended, on a vote of 69-29.²⁰
Conference. The conference for H.J.Res. 2 was relatively extensive because
it was a matter of reconciling the House language for the bills that had previously
passed with the new language from the Senate. Although the conferee held only 3
days of formal meetings, there was considerable discussion outside those meetings.
The conferees reported on February 13, 2003, House Report 108-10.²¹ Both the

¹⁹U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Appropriations, Treasury and General Government
Appropriation Bill, 2003, 107^th Cong., 2^nd sess., S.Rept. 107-212, July 17, 2002
(Washington: GPO, 2002).
²⁰Passage and vote are at Congressional Record, vol. 149, daily edition 108^th Cong., 1^st sess.,
Jan. 23, 2003, p. S. 1440. Text, as passed, can be found at Congressional Record, vol. 149,^th^st
daily edition 108 Cong., 1 sess., Jan. 28, 2003, pp. S. 1512-S1642.
²¹U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, Conference Report on H.J.Res. 2,
(continued...)

House (vote: 338-83, Roll no. 32) and Senate (vote: 76-20, recorded vote no. 34)
agreed to the conference on that evening.
Table 1. Status of FY2003 Appropriations for the Treasury,
Postal Service, Executive Office of the President,
and General Government
(See Table 5 for breakdown of accounts within bills)
^Subc^om^m^itte^e^Coⁿ^f^eren^{ce Rep}^o^r^t
^Ma^rk^up^H^ous^e^H^ous^e^Se^na^te^A^ppr^ov^a^l
^Rep^o^r^t^S^en^at^e^C^onf^.
^R^e^por^t^P^a^ssage^P^a^ssage^R^e^por^t^P^ublic^L^a^w^Ho^u^s^e^S^en^at^e^H^o^u^s^e^S^en^at^e
^H^.^R^.⁵¹²⁰^{S. 2740}
^Ju^ly²⁴
^J^une^Ju^ly^Ju^ly¹⁵^vo^t^e^:^Ju^ly¹⁷
²⁶¹¹^107-⁵⁷⁵^308-¹²¹^107-²¹²
¹⁰⁸^th^Coⁿ^g^ress,^H.^J.^Res.²
^J^a^{n. 23}^Fe^{b. 13}^Fe^{b. 13}^P^.^L^.^108-⁷
^Jan^.⁸^vo^t^e^:^Fe^{b. 13}^vo^t^e^:^vo^t^e^:^Fe^{b. 20,}
^Voi^c^e^69-²⁹^108-¹⁰^338-⁸³^76-²⁰²⁰⁰³
Treasury and General Government Appropriations,
FY2003
Budget and Key Policy Issues
Department of the Treasury
In recent decades, the Department of the Treasury has performed four basic
functions: (1) formulating, recommending, and implementing economic, financial,
tax, and fiscal policies; (2) serving as the financial agent for the federal government;
(3) enforcing federal financial, tax, tobacco, alcoholic beverage, and gun laws; and
(4) producing all postage stamps, currency, and coinage. With the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) late in 2002, however, this operational
profile is undergoing a major revision.
Reduced to its most basic level of organization, the department consists of
departmental offices and operating bureaus. The departmental offices are responsible
for the formulation and implementation of policy and the management of the
department as a whole, while the operating bureaus carry out specific duties assigned
to the department. The bureaus typically account for an overwhelming share of
Treasury Department employment and funding. With one notable exception, the

²¹(...continued)
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, 108^th Cong., 1^st sess., H.Rept. 108-10, Feb.

13, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003), 1505 p.

bureaus can be separated into those having financial duties and those engaged in law
enforcement. In recent decades, financial duties have been handled by the
Comptroller of the Currency, U.S. Mint, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Financial
Management Service, Bureau of Public Debt, Community Development Financial
Institutions Fund, and Office of Thrift Supervision; while law enforcement has been
done by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, U.S. Secret Service, Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center, U.S. Customs Service, Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network, and Treasury Forfeiture Fund. The sole exception to this
simple dichotomy has been the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which performs both
financial functions and law enforcement through its administration of federal tax
laws. As a result of the creation of the DHS, the department’s law enforcement
functions are likely to shrink substantially. Under the law establishing the new
department, the Secret Service, Customs Service, and Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center are being transferred from the Treasury Department to DHS, while
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund are
being transferred to the Justice Department.
Under P.L. 107-67, funding for Treasury operations in FY2002 totaled $15.042
billion, which was about $1 billion more than the department received in FY2001.
Continuing a longstanding trend, the IRS constituted the single largest account in the
department’s FY2002 budget, accounting – as it did in FY2001 – for 63% of total
enacted funding. Other major accounts were the budgets for the Customs Service
(18% of total funding), Secret Service (6%), and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms (5%). Compared to FY2001, the largest percentage increase in funding was
for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCen), whose budget expanded
by 41%. Large increases were also enacted for the Customs Service (18% greater),
Secret Service (11% greater), and Treasury Department Systems and Capital
Investments Programs (11% greater). Several Treasury Department accounts were
funded at reduced levels in FY2002 compared to FY2001. The largest percentage
cuts were for spending on the Expanded Access to Financial Services (or First
Accounts) program (80% smaller), the Counterterrorism Fund (17% smaller), and the
Financial Management Service (17% smaller).
In its budget request for FY2003, the Bush Administration proposed that the
Treasury Department be authorized to spend $16.903 billion at the program level, or
about $400 million more than the amount appropriated in FY2002. These figures
excluded the imputed cost of accrued pension and health benefits under the Federal
Employee Retirement System and the old Civil Service Retirement System. Of this
amount, $10.418 billion (or about 60%) was go to the IRS, $2.869 billion (or 17%)
to the U.S. Customs Service, and $1.0 billion (or 6%) to the U.S. Secret Service.
According to budget documents released by the administration, requested funding for
the Department reflected two priorities: (1) an increase in the resources available for
strengthening “security at home and abroad, as an outgrowth of the events of
September 11, 2001; and (2) an increase in funding for efforts to modernize the
Customs Service and the business information systems at the IRS. Other important
objectives in the FY2003 budget request for Treasury included upgrading the
capabilities and raising the productivity of the Department’s workforce, expanding
the electronic services offered by Treasury bureaus, furthering the integration of
bureau performance goals into budgetary decision-making, and improving customer
service and compliance enforcement at the IRS.

On July 9, 2002, the House Appropriations Committee approved by unanimous
consent a bill (H.R. 5120) funding the Treasury Department in FY2003. The
appropriations measure would give Treasury a total of $16.168 billion, or about $523
million more than the amount appropriated in FY2002 and $303 million more than
the amount requested by the Bush Administration for FY2003. Of the amount
approved for FY2003, $9.899 billion would go to the IRS, $3.128 billion to the U.S.
Customs Service, and $1.021 billion to the U.S. Secret Service. The committee
adopted several amendments to the bill, including a controversial one (Section 646
of the bill) that would deny federal government contracts to a subsidiary of any
publicly traded corporation that is incorporated in a country deemed a tax haven but
whose stock is traded mainly through exchanges in the United States.
The House passed H.R. 5120 by a vote of 308 to 121 on July 24, 2002.
Although the House made no changes in the amounts appropriated for Treasury
bureaus approved by the Appropriations Committee, it did remove on a point of order
the amendment that would have barred publicly traded corporations that are
incorporated in nations designated as tax havens but whose stock is traded mainly on
U.S. exchanges from winning federal government contracts.
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a similar measure (S. 2740) on
July 16, 2002. It would have funded Treasury operations at a level of $16.304 billion
in FY2003, or $1.262 billion more than the amount appropriated for FY2002 and
$438 million more than the amount requested by the Bush Administration. The
biggest chunk by far was allotted to the IRS, which was to receive $9.995 billion,
followed by the Customs Service at $3.141 billion and the Secret Service at $1.020
billion. Proposed funding for the Treasury Department in FY 2003 was $135 million
greater under S. 2740 than under H.R. 5120. Appropriations for the IRS accounted
for about 71% of this difference. The Senate bill would have permitted the agency
to spend more on tax law enforcement, business system modernization, and an
initiative to improve taxpayer compliance with the rules for the earned income tax
credit. The full Senate never voted on the measure.
Owing to disagreements between the Congress and the Bush Administration
over spending priorities and levels, the 107^th Congress adjourned before passing 11
of the 13 appropriations measures required to fund the operations of the federal
government in FY2003. From October 1, 2002 until mid-February 2003, Treasury
offices and bureaus were funded at FY2002 levels under a total of eight continuing
resolutions. On February 13, 2003, the House and Senate approved an omnibus
appropriation measure (H.J.Res. 2, the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for
FY2003); and President Bush signed it into law on February 20 (P.L. 108-007).
Under the measure, the Treasury Department is funded at $16.171 billion, or $535
million more than the total spending authorized for FY2002. Increased
appropriations for the IRS and Customs Service accounted for 90% of this rise.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). The ATF is a law
enforcement agency that regulates the manufacture, importation, and distribution of
alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. The ATF also enforces federal laws
related to arson. ATF’s mission is focused on three goals: (1) reducing crime, (2)
collecting revenue, and (3) protecting the public. Among ATF’s activities, the
regulation and enforcement of laws related to firearms commerce and possession

have been the most controversial.²² In FY2000, ATF collected $14,100,000,000 in
taxes, penalties, fines, and other related revenues. From FY1992 to FY2001,
Congress increased ATF’s direct appropriations from $336,040,000 to $772,673,000,
an 130% increase. For FY2002, Congress appropriated $854,747,000²³ in direct
funding for ATF, an 11% increase over the agency’s FY2001 appropriation. The
FY2002 appropriation supports 5,106 full time equivalents.²⁴
The Administration’s FY2003 budget request includes $883,775,000 for ATF,
a 3% increase over the agency’s FY2002 appropriation. The Administration’s
request anticipates reductions in non-recurring costs and other savings in the base
budget of $27,797,000 that would partially offset increases over the agency’s base
budget of $30,836,000 and 77 additional full time equivalents. Among other things,
this budget increase includes (1) $9,136,000 to cover costs associated with
annualizing new positions provided by Congress in the FY2002 emergency
supplemental and other adjustments associated with World Trade Center bombings,
(2) $10,700,000 for the construction of a new ATF National Headquarters and
improved security for the agency’s workforce, and (3) $11,000,000 to increase the
Integrated Violence Reduction Strategy/Youth Crime Interdiction Initiative.
The 107^th Congress House-passed bill would provide ATF with $891,034,000,
or $7,259,000 more than the Administration’s FY2003 request for certain non-pay
inflation costs associated with a proposal (that has not been enacted) to integrate
Federal Employees Compensation Act administrative and benefit costs. The Senate-
reported bill would provide ATF with $899,753,000, or $66,006,000 more than the
Administration’s request. Among other things, this amount includes $13,000,000 to
continue the Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) program, part of the
Integrated Violence Reduction Strategy. To improve regulation of explosives, it also
includes an increase of $10,000,000 for the creation of explosives enforcement
teams to work with state and local law enforcement.
As the Senate passed H.J.Res. 2, the account would have been funded at
$888,430,000. The conference agreed upon $886,430,000. A sum of $3,000,000
was included for an explosives enforcement initiative. The bureau is being
reconstituted in the Department of Justice as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives. The conferees also noted that $2,500,000, the same
amount as in FY2002, would continue to be available for the purpose of management
and technological enhancements.

²²For further information on gun control-related legislation and issues, see CRS Issue Brief
IB10071, Gun Control Legislation in the 107^th Congress, by William Krouse.
²³This amount includes $823,316,000 provided by the FY2002 Treasury-Postal
Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-67) and $31,431,000 in FY2002 emergency supplemental
funding allocated in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-117).
²⁴One full time equivalent is equal to 2,080 hours worth of funding, or the amount of funding
necessary to fund one position over the course of a single year. Usually, newly funded
positions are only funded at one-half a full time equivalent, since those positions will not
be filled for the entire year, and hiring will occur incrementally over the course of that year.

Customs Service. The U.S. Customs Service, the federal government’s
oldest revenue collecting agency, is responsible for regulating the movement of
persons, carriers, merchandise, and commodities between the United States and other
countries. The U.S. Customs Service has been transferred to the Department of
Homeland Security.
In FY2001, Customs collected $22,325,323,000 in trade-related duties, taxes,
and fees.²⁵ From FY1992 to FY2001, Congress has increased direct appropriations
for the U.S. Customs Service from $1,454,337,000 to $2,314,500,000, a 59%
increase. In addition to appropriated funding, the Customs Service collects COBRA
fee receipts that are available to the agency for expenditure ($305,251,257 in
FY2001). For FY2002, Congress appropriated $3,116,729,000²⁶, supporting 18,595
full time equivalents. This amount represents a 35% increase over the agency’s
FY2001 appropriation.
The Administration’s FY2003 request includes $2,834,113,000 for the Customs
Service. This amount included: (1) $2,224,952,000 for the salaries and expenses
account, (2) $170,829,000 for the air and marine interdiction account, (3)
$435,332,000 for the automation modernization account, and (4) $3,000,000 from
the harbor maintenance fee account. While this request represents a net decrease of
10% in funding as compared to the agency’s FY2002 appropriation, the
Administration anticipates that raising the COBRA air passenger inspection fee from
$5 to $11 dollars will generate an additional $249,750,000 in offsetting revenues.
With these new revenues and a complicated series of reductions in non-recurring
costs and other offsets, the Administration’s request envisions $158,239,000 in
FY2003 budget enhancements for Customs. These budget enhancements include (1)
$77,797,000 and 114 full-time equivalent positions to secure the northern border and
increase terrorism-related investigations, (2) $57,991,000 and 148 full-time
equivalent positions to provide greater maritime port security, (3) $8,651,000 and 52
full-time equivalent positions for the southwest border, and (4) $13,800,000 for
communication systems replacement and upgrades.
The House-passed bill in the 107^th Congress would have provided Customs with
$3,128,497,000, or $294,384,000 more than the Administration’s FY2003 request.
This amount includes: (1) $2,496,165,000 for the salaries and expenses account, (2)
$190,000,000 for air and marine interdiction, (3) $439,332,000 for the automation
modernization account, and (4) $3,000,000 for the harbor maintenance fee account.
For salaries and expenses, the House bill would provide $104,213,000 more than the
Administration’s request. Among other things, this increase includes funding for
base operations that the Administration proposed funding through an increase in the

²⁵U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Customs Service: America’s Frontline, FY2001 Annual
Report, (Washington, July 2002), p. 70.
²⁶This amount includes the FY2002 emergency supplemental appropriation of $392,603,000
allocated in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-117). It also includes
monies appropriated into four accounts: 1) $2,501,297,000 in salaries and expenses account,
2) $184,600,000 in air and marine interdiction program account, 3) $427,832,000 in
automation modernization account, and 4) $3,000,000 in the harbor maintenance fee
account.

COBRA air passenger inspection fee. House report language addresses multiple
concerns about Customs operations that include northern border staffing and
infrastructure, personnel search procedures, enforcement of U.S. trade law pertaining
to steel, the sea cargo container security initiative, and automated cargo manifests.
The Senate-reported bill would have provide Customs with $3,141,614,000, or
$307,501,000 more than the Administration’s FY2003 request. This amount
includes: (1) $2,525,453,000 for the salaries and expenses account, (2) $177,829,000
for the air and marine interdiction account, (3) $435,332,000 for the automation
modernization account, and (4) $3,000,000 for the harbor maintenance fee account.
Unlike the House bill, the Senate bill assumes an increase in two unspecified fees
that will provide Customs with an additional $250,000,000 for the agency’s day-to-
day operations. According to the Senate Appropriations Committee press release,
however, Congress has yet to authorize those fee increases. The Senate bill would
also provide Customs with an increase of $18,000,000 for the sea cargo container
security initiative. Senate report language addresses many of the same concerns as
in the House report language.
The 108^th Congress funded, for FY2003, the Customs Service at $3,147,316,
000, an increase over both versions in the 107^th Congress. The funding includes
$18,377,000 for non-pay inflation; $15,115,000 to fully fund FY2003 operations;
$150,000 for the Vermont World Trade Center; $750,000 for the Center for
Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies; $3,000,000 for port and nonintrusive
inspection technology research and development; $1,250,000 for steel tariff
enforcement; $1,000,000 for a curriculum for canine detection of chemical and
biological threats; $12,000,000 for the container security initiative; $1,000,000 for
a bulk outbound currency initiative; $1,400,000 to expand the intellectual property
rights initiative; $200,000 for a University of Texas border protection management
program; and $125,000 for a smart border technology program at the Texas
Transportation Institute.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The federal government levies
individual and corporate income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes, estate and
gift taxes, customs duties, and other miscellaneous taxes and fees. The federal
agency responsible for administering these taxes and fees is the IRS. In carrying out
that responsibility, it receives and processes tax returns and other related documents,
processes payments and refunds, enforces compliance through audits and other
methods, collects delinquent taxes, and provides a variety of services to taxpayers in
an effort to help them understand their responsibilities and resolve problems. In FY
2001, the most recent year for which data are available, the IRS collected $2,129
billion before refunds, the largest component of which was individual income tax
revenue of $1,178 billion.
Under P.L. 107-67, the IRS received $9.437 billion in funding in FY2002, or
$548 million more than it received in FY2001. With this increase, the agency gained
the authority to add 600 individuals to its staff in FY2002. Of the total amount
appropriated, $3.798 billion was for tax processing, assistance, and management;
$3.538 billion for tax law enforcement; $1.563 billion for information systems; and
$146 million for the earned income tax credit (EITC) compliance initiative. In
addition, the IRS obtained $391.6 million for its Information Technology Investment

Account (ITIA) through September 30, 2004. Funds can be drawn from the account
only with the prior approval of the House and Senate Appropriations Committee, and
are allocated on a project or milestone basis. In June 2001, the committees
authorized the release of $128 million from the ITIA to enable the IRS to continue
its program to modernize its information system. No additional money was provided
for the Staffing Tax Administration for Balance and Equity initiative (STABLE) in
FY2002, however, contrary to the wishes of the Bush Administration. STABLE was
intended to improve the IRS’s customer service and bolster its capability to enforce
federal tax laws; Congress approved initial funding for the initiative in FY2001. P.L.
107-67 also gave the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration $123.7
million in FY2002, $500,000 of which was to be used for bimonthly audits of IRS
taxpayer assistance centers. The Act also directed the IRS to improve its customer
service by increasing its staffing of its toll-free help-line service, and to take added
steps to safeguard the confidentiality of taxpayer information.
The Bush Administration asked Congress to fund the IRS at a level of $10.418
billion in FY2003. This amount included imputed costs for accrued pension and
health benefits for IRS retirees and was $482 million (or nearly 5%) greater than its
budget in FY2002. The proposed funding was to be allocated as follows: $4.150
billion for processing, assistance, and management; $3.988 billion for tax law
enforcement; $1.676 billion for information systems; $450 million for the ITIA; and
$154 million for the EITC compliance initiative. With the funding increase, the IRS
expected to hire an additional 1,179 employees in FY2003, increasing total agency
employment to 101,080 individuals. Nearly 70% of the IRS budget typically covers
personnel costs.
On July 9, 2002, the House Appropriations Committee approved by unanimous
consent a measure (H.R. 5120) providing funding for the IRS in FY 2003. It gave
the agency $9.899 billion, or $429 million above the amount enacted for FY 2002 but
$16 million below the amount requested by the Bush Administration. Of this total,
$3.956 billion was to be allocated to tax processing, assistance, and management;
$3.729 billion to tax law enforcement; $1.632 billion to information systems; $146
million to the EITC compliance initiative; and $436 million to the business systems
modernization effort known as PRIME. Most of the difference between the
Administration’s budget request and the funding level endorsed by the committee
related to funding for PRIME: the committee approved $14 million less than the
Administration requested, mainly out of a concern about the ability of the IRS to
manage the program efficiently. In its report to the full House on the measure
(H.Rept. 107-575), the Committee expressed concern about recent reported declines
in compliance activity by the IRS and the agency’s priorities in combating taxpayer
fraud and errors. It noted that the “IRS recently testified that the amount of revenue
lost due to tax errors and fraud is about $250 billion a year.” The Committee also
directed the IRS to accelerate its efforts to collect reliable data under the national
Research Program on tax compliance among corporations and partnerships, two
categories of tax revenue “in which the highest noncompliance rates occur each
year.”
On July 24, 2002, the full House passed H.R. 5120. It made no changes in the
funding for the IRS approved by the Appropriations Committee. During debate on
the bill, the House did approve one amendment related to the IRS. The amendment,

introduced by Representative Bernie Sanders, sought to curtail age discrimination in
the conversion of employee defined-benefit pension plans to cash-balance plans.
One week later, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a similar
measure (S. 2740). It granted to the IRS $9.995 billion in FY2003, or $524 million
more than the amount enacted for FY2002 and $79 million more than the amount
requested by the Bush Administration. Of this total, $3.985 was go to processing,
assistance, and management; $3.774 to tax law enforcement; $1.639 billion to
information systems; $147 million to the EITC compliance initiative; and $450
million to PRIME. Most of the difference between the Administration’s budget
request and the amount endorsed by the committee related to processing and
assistance and to tax law enforcement: in both cases, the committee sought a larger
budget than the Administration requested. In the report accompanying H.R. 5120
(S.Rept. 107-212), the committee directed the IRS to devote $4.3 million to a
program to assist low-income taxpayers in filing their tax returns known as the
Volunteer Income Tax Assistance, $9 million to a program to assist low-income
taxpayers in resolving disputes with the IRS known as Low-Income Taxpayer
Clinics, and $10 million to an enhanced effort to investigate and combat “abusive tax
shelters.” The full Senate never voted on S. 2740.
After being funded at its FY2002 level under a series of continuing resolutions
starting October 1, 2002, the IRS received a budget of $9.889 billion for FY 2003
with the enactment of H.J.Res. 2 on February 20, 2003. Of this amount, $3.956
billion is intended for processing, assistance, and management; $3.729 billion for tax
law enforcement; $146 million for the EITC compliance initiative; $1.632 for
information systems; $366 million for PRIME; and $70 million to administer a tax
credit for health insurance enacted as part of the Trade Act of 2002. The budget is
$424.7 million more than the amount appropriated in FY2002 but $16.6 million
below the amount requested by the Bush Administration, largely because of lower
enacted spending on PRIME. A total of $7 million is provided for low-income
taxpayer clinic grants, and at least $60 million is to be spent on combating abusive
tax shelters. The conference agreement on H.J.Res. 2 (H.Rept. 108-10) directs the
IRS to focus its resources on conducting “base operations” rather than undertaking
new initiatives. This emphasis may partly explain why the agreement takes away $70
million in funding for PRIME in FY 2003 that Congress earlier had approved through
the ITIA. As a result, the IRS is expected to curtail or drop five long-term
technology development projects, including the customer account management
program and a filing and payment software project.
U. S. Secret Service. The U.S. Secret Service is mandated by statute to carry
out two distinct missions: the protection of designated government officials and
individuals, and criminal investigations. It is also responsible for the enforcement
of laws relating to counterfeiting. The U.S. Secret Service has been transferred to the
Department of Homeland Security.
P.L. 108-7 provides a total appropriation of $1,032,669,000, a sum in excess of^th
either the House or Senate version in the 107 Congress. The conferees provided
$6,824,000 for non-pay inflation; $6,475,000 to fully fund FY2003 operations;
$4,200,000 to fund annualization of the costs of the workload rebalancing and
retention initiative; $3,519,000 for acquisition, construction, improvement and

related expenses; $1,633,000 for forensic support to the national Center for Missing
and Exploited Children (NCMEC); and $4,583,000, for grants to NCMEC, including
$300,000 for support of the Web-Wise Kids program.
H.R. 5120 (107^th Congress), as passed, would authorize an appropriation of
$1,017,892,000, of which $1,633,000 shall be available for forensic support of
investigations of missing and exploited children, and $4,000,000 to be made
available as a grant for activities related to missing and exploited children. Up to
$18,000,000 is provided for protective travel until Sept. 30, 2004, and $3,519,000 for
necessary construction and repair expenses. H.R. 5120, as introduced and reported,
authorized an appropriation of $1,017,892,000, which is an increase of $7,457,000
above the President’s request. This increase included $6,824,000 for non-pay
inflation; $991,000 in additional support to the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children. It also reflected a reduction of $358,000 for the administrative
costs associated with the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA).
S. 2740 (107^th Congress), as introduced and reported, would authorize an
appropriation of $1,016,947,000. This would be an increase of $6,475,000 above the
President’s request for pay parity, and an additional $395,000 for the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children.
For FY2003, the President requested $1,044,070,000 for salaries and expenses
related to protective functions, research and development, and the purchase of
vehicles, an increase of $123,455,000 over FY2002 enacted. Of this total,
$1,633,000 was to be available for support of investigations of missing and exploited
children, and $3,009,000 to be available as a grant for activities related to
investigations of exploited children. Up to $18,000,000 was provided for protective
travel to remain available until September 30, 2004. Funds appropriated in this
account were also be made available to the Director of the Secret Service for the
training of federal, Postal Service, state and local law enforcement officers, as well
as private sector security officials on a space-available basis.
Under P.L. 107-38, an additional $104,769,000 is to remain available until
expended for emergency salaries and expenses associated with the September 11,

2001, terrorist attacks.

U.S. Postal Service
The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) generates nearly all of its funding through the
sale of products and services. It does receive a regular appropriation from Congress,
however, to compensate for revenue it forgoes in providing, at congressional
direction, free mailing privileges for the blind and visually impaired and for overseas
voting. Under the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of 1993, Congress is required to
reimburse USPS $29 million each year until 2035, for services performed but not
paid for in the 1990s. (See also, CRS Report RS21025, The Postal Revenue Forgone
Appropriation: Overview and Current Issues.) The terrorist attacks in the fall of
2001, however, including use of the mail for bio-terroristic delivery of anthrax spores
to congressional and media offices, generated new funding needs that USPS argues
should be met through appropriations.

In FY2002, USPS received a revenue forgone appropriation of $76,619,000,
including $47,619,000 for revenue forgone in FY2002 but not payable until October
1, 2003, and the $29 million due annually under the Revenue Forgone Reform Act
of 1993. In addition, USPS received a total of $675,000,000 to compensate it for
extraordinary expenses arising from the terrorist attacks. The President allocated
$175,000,000 from the Emergency Response Fund authorized by P.L. 107-38, the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery From and Response to
Terrorist Attacks on the United States, FY2001. Another $500,000,000 was
allocated to USPS by the FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Act, Division B of P.L.
107-117, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2002. The conference
report explaining this appropriation noted that “the Postal Service has not received
a direct appropriation for operations for nearly two decades.... In providing these
emergency funds, the conferees do not intend to set a precedent for operational
subsidies ... [and] continue to support current law requirements that the Postal
Service operate on a self-sustaining basis.” Obligation of the $500,000,000 was to
be withheld until USPS submitted to its oversight and appropriations committees an
emergency preparedness plan to combat the threat of biological and chemical
substances in the mail. USPS issued its plan on March 6, 2002.²⁷
In its FY2003 Budget, the Administration proposed an appropriation of
$48,999,000 for revenue forgone in fiscal 2003, and $29 million for the FY2003
installment under the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of 1993, reduced by $17,985,000
as a reconciliation adjustment to reflect actual versus estimated free mail volume in
2000, for a total of $60,014,000. The $48,999,000 is proposed as an advance
appropriation, payable on October 1, 2003. However, USPS will also have available
for obligation during FY2003 the $47,619,000 provided for revenue forgone in fiscal
2002, for a total of $76,619,000. In its FY2002 Budget, the Bush Administration had
proposed to “reverse the misleading budget practice of using advance appropriations
simply to avoid [annual] spending limitations.” The Senate agreed to this proposal,
but the House and the conferees did not. The Administration did not renew the
proposal in its FY2003 Budget.
In its detailed justification of its FY2003 budget request, USPS asked for an
additional $928,174,000 (above the OMB proposal of $60,014,000) as an accelerated
payment of the amounts due for FY1994 through FY2035 under the revenue Forgone
Reform Act of 1993. The postmaster general, in his statement at the March 13, 2002
House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on its budget, said the extra funds
would be used for facilities improvements, which have been frozen for two years.²⁸
Neither the Administration’s FY2003 Budget nor the USPS detailed justification
included any funds for emergency preparedness. The Budget does reflect, however,
in the column on FY2002 appropriations, the $500,000,000 appropriated to USPS by
P.L. 107-117. The March 6, 2002 emergency preparedness plan did identify
substantial needed appropriations in addition to the $675,000,000 already
appropriated: $87,000,000 as a supplemental for FY2002; $799,800,000 for FY2003;

²⁷See [http://www.usps.com/news/2002/press/pr02_pmg0313.htm ], visited July 19, 2002.
²⁸Statement can be found at [http://www.usps.com/news/2002/epp/welcome.htm], visited
July 19, 2002.

and $897,500,000 for FY1994. Apparently USPS expects these needs to be
discussed in the context of a broader supplemental appropriations request for
homeland security. H.R. 4775, the FY2002 Supplemental Appropriations bill for
Further Recovery From and Response To Terrorist Attacks, does provide the $87
million that the USPS plan says it needs in FY2002.
P.L. 108-7 provides, as would both the House bill as passed on July 25 (H.R.
5120), and the Senate Appropriations Committee’s version (S. 2740) of the FY2003
Act, $76,619,000 to USPS. This is exactly what is contained in the Bush
Administration’s budget request, with nothing added to accelerate payments under
the Revenue Forgone Reform Act as requested by USPS. The bills differ in the
timing of the appropriation, however. H.R.5120 would make the $31,014,000 for
FY2003 revenue forgone an advance appropriation to be paid in FY2004. S.2740
does not propose an advance appropriation, but would have the whole amount paid
in FY2003. Thus the Senate report (107-212) recommends a total of $107,633,000
to be paid in FY2003: $29,000,000 for past revenue forgone, $31,014,000 for net
revenue forgone in FY2003, and $47,619,000 appropriated in the FY2002 Act as an
advance appropriation.
P.L. 108-7 require several reports from the Postal Service. With regard to
utilizing electronic commerce technology in their procurement processes, the
conferees and suggest testing, with specific restrictions and require a report of on any
such test or pilot project no later than six months following enactment. No later than
90 days after enactment, there is a report required on steps taken to address the
quality of service at the Jensen Drive Postal Station in Houston, Texas. Also, no
later than 120 days following enactment, the USPS is to expand its investigation on
delivery problems in the Bronx, New York and to report its findings and
recommendations for corrective action.
Executive Office of the President and
Funds Appropriated to the President
The Treasury and General Government appropriations act funds all but three
offices in the Executive Office of the President (EOP). Of the three exceptions, the
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality, and the
Office of Science and Technology Policy are funded under the Veterans Affairs,
Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies appropriations; and the
Office of the United States Trade Representative is funded under the Commerce,
Justice, State, and the Judiciary and Related Agencies appropriations.
The President’s FY2003 budget proposed consolidation of 12 annual EOP
salaries and expenses appropriations into a single annual appropriation which would
total $336,228,000 in FY2003. This would be an increase of 21.5% over the

$276,819,000²⁹ appropriated in FY2002 for these programs. The 12 programs
included in the consolidated account would be:
!Compensation of the President/White House Office
!Executive Residence/White House Repair and Restoration
!Special Assistance to the President (Office of the Vice President)/Official
Residence of the Vice President
!Council of Economic Advisers
!Office of Policy Development
!National Security Council
!Office of Administration/Capital Investment Plan
!Office of Management and Budget
!Office of National Drug Control Policy (Salaries and Expenses)
!Council on Environmental Quality
!Office of Science and Technology Policy
!U.S. Trade Representative
Resources for common acquisition-related goods and services would be
consolidated into the Office of Administration. A separate appropriation would be
continued for Unanticipated Needs.
According to the Budget, “This proposal would give the President maximum
flexibility in allocating resources and staff in support of his office and is intended to:
permit a more rapid response to changing needs and priorities; allow the President
to address emergent national needs; produce greater economies of scale and other
efficiencies in procuring goods and services; and enhance accountability for
performance.” Additionally, the budget states that “this initiative would enable the
President to effectively manage and align EOP resources consistent with decision
making in an efficient and straightforward manner, while enhancing the accuracy of
the financial systems and significantly reducing the administrative volume and cost
of processing transactions through the United States Treasury.”³⁰
The Administration proposed the consolidation of 10 accounts into one account
in the FY2002 budget, but the conference committee for the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2002, H.R. 2590, agreed to continue with separate
accounts for the EOP programs.
P.L. 108-7 retained the funding for the accounts as separate accounts within the
Executive Office of the President, as had been reported by the House Committee on
Appropriations and passed by the House through H.R. 5120 (107^th Congress) and
reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

²⁹The EOP Budget Submission for FY2003 states the total amount appropriated for the 12
programs as $276,820,000 because the submission states the FY2002 appropriation for
Special Assistance to the President (Office of the Vice President) as $3,926,000. P.L. 107-
67 states the amount appropriated for this program as $3,925,000. U.S. Executive Office
of the President, Fiscal Year 2003 Congressional Budget Submission (Washington: GPO,
Feb. 2002), p. 8. (Hereafter referred to as EOP Budget Submission.)
³⁰FY2003 Budget, Appendix, p. 927.

On March 25, 2003, the President sent a FY2003 supplemental request to
Congress, with requests for additional funding in support of actions in the Middle
East. Accounts within the Executive Office of the President, as well as the
Department of Homeland Security would be affected. As part of general homeland
security requirements, $250 million is requested for the EOP unanticipated needs
account to “support immediate and emerging terrorism-related prevention and
response requirements throughout the federal government. The Director of the Office
of Management and Budget would be required to provide Congress with 15 days
notice before any such transfer were made. An Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund
of $2.4 billion would be established within the Executive Office of the President.
The document supporting the supplemental request indicate that $543 million would
be for humanitarian assistance, up to $200 million would be available to reimburse
accounts from which food relief was drawn, and $1.7 billion would be for
reconstruction efforts. ³¹
EOP Offices Funded Through Treasury and General Government
Appropriations. As noted in H.Rept. 107-575 and S.Rept. 107-212, the amount
of money requested for FY2003 for EOP programs and funds appropriated to the
President, under the Treasury and General Government appropriations is $786
million an increase of 1.5% less than the $797.6 million appropriated in FY2002.
The figures shown are from P.L. 108-7, H.Rept. 108-10. The figures from the^th
President’s request and the 107 Congress are not shown unless there are differences.
The requested and House recommended funding for specific programs discussed
below are taken from H.Rept. 107-575. The Senate recommended funding is from
S.Rept. 107-212.
Compensation of the President. The account is funded for FY2003 at
$450,000, which includes an expense allowance of $50,000. This is the same amount
as was appropriated in FY2002. The salary of the President is $400,000 per annum,
effective January 20, 2001.
Office of Homeland Security. P.L. 108-7 funds the account at $19,398,000.
The Senate had set the H.J.Res. 2 funding at $24,844,000. The House committee had
recommended and the House had passed an appropriation of $24,061,000 and the
Senate committee had recommended $25,301,000. P.L. 108-7 retained the language
directing the office to submit a report identifying estimated obligations for each
function assigned to the office to the House Committee on Appropriations no later
than November 1, 2002 [sic]. (See section on “Homeland Security” below for
further details.)
White House Office. This account provides the President with staff
assistance and administrative services.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is $84,595,000, an increase of

54.8% over the $54,651,000 appropriated in FY2002. The budget also proposes a

³¹Estimate #4, FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom, Mar. 25, 2003; accessible
through [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments.htm].

gain of 46 positions, as measured by full-time equivalent (FTE) employment,³² for
the White House Office in FY2003. According to the EOP budget submission, “The
bulk of the funding increase and 40 of the additional FTE are directly related to the
establishment of the Office of Homeland Security created in the wake of the terrorist
attack on September 11, 2001.” The submission also states that “Increased funding
and 6 additional FTE are also requested for the newly established U.S. Freedom
Corps Office that will promote public service opportunities for all Americans.”³³
P.L. 108-7 funds this account at the level passed, during the 107^th Congress, by
the House of $50,715,000, $33,880,000 less than the President’s request. The
conferees, in support of a pilot program for procurement centralization, agreed to
transfer $9,020,000 to the Office of Administration.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations had recommended an appropriation
of $60,212,000 and the Senate had passed H.J.Res. 2 with a funding level of
$59,735,000.
Executive Residence (White House) and White House Repair and
Restoration. This account provides for the care, maintenance, and operation of the
Executive Residence.
The amount of money enacted for FY2003 is $13,428,000 for this account, a
decrease of 33.9% from the $20,320,000 appropriated in FY2002. For the executive
residence, the budget proposes an appropriation of $12,228,000, an increase of 4.6%
over the $11,695,000 appropriated in FY2002. For repair and restoration of the
White House, the budget proposes an appropriation of $1,200,000, a decrease of
86.1% from the $8,625,000 appropriated in FY2002. The EOP budget submission
states that the decrease in repair and restoration “is attributed to less costly projects
scheduled for FY2003.”³⁴
Maintenance and repair costs for the White House are also funded by the
National Park Service as part of that agency’s responsibility for national monuments.
Entertainment costs for state functions are funded by the Department of State.
Reimbursable political events in the Executive Residence are to be paid for in
advance by the sponsor, and all such advance payments are to be credited to a
Reimbursable Expenses account. The political party of the President is to deposit
$25,000 to be available for expenses relating to reimbursable political events during
the fiscal year. Reimbursements are to be separately accounted for and the
sponsoring organizations billed, and charged interest, as appropriate. The staff of the
Executive Residence must report to the Committees on Appropriations, after the

³²Full-time equivalents (FTEs) are an estimate of the total number of work years required
by an agency over the course of a fiscal year. They are calculated by adding up the total
number of hours worked by all employees (not including overtime or holiday hours) and
then dividing that total by 2,080, the number of hours in a work year. One FTE equals 2,080
hours. An employee working 40 hours per week for 52 weeks in the year equals one FTE.
Two part-time employees, each working 1,040 hours, equals one FTE.
³³EOP Budget Submission, p. 3.
³⁴EOP Budget Submission, p. 5.

close of each fiscal year, and maintain a tracking system on the reimbursable
expenses.
Special Assistance to the President (Office of the Vice President).
This account funds the Vice President in carrying out the responsibilities assigned to
him by the President and by law.
The amount of money enacted for FY2003 is $4,066,000 for salaries and
expenses, an increase of 3.6% over the $3,925,000 appropriated in FY2002.³⁵ The
EOP budget submission states that the increase is for “increased per diem costs of
staff accompanying the Vice President following the terrorist attack on September³⁶

11, 2001.”

In the 107^th Congress, the House Committee on Appropriations recommended
and the House passed an appropriation of $3,160,000, $906,000 less than the
President’s request. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an
appropriation of $4,093,000.
Official Residence of the Vice President. This account provides for the
care and operation of the Vice President’s official residence and includes the
operation of a gift fund for the residence.
The amount of money enacted for FY2003 is $324,000 for the operating
expenses of the Official Residence, an increase of 1.9% over the $318,000
appropriated in FY2002. Passage of the Senate committee recommended version in
the last Congress would have increased the account by $1,000.
Council of Economic Advisers (CEA). The three-member council was
created in 1946 to assist and advise the President in the formulation of economic
policy. The council analyzes and evaluates the national economy, economic
developments, federal programs, and federal policy to formulate economic advice.
The council assists in the preparation of the annual Economic Report of the President
to Congress.
P.L. 108-7 funds the account at $3,763,000, the same as that passed by the
House in the last Congress. The Senate approved the level requested by the
President, $4,405,000, an increase of 4.6% over the $4,211,000 appropriated in
FY2002. According to the EOP budget submission, “The increase provides funding
to attract and retain top-quality professional economists.” The submission states:
“Current salary levels for CEA economists are lower than comparable positions both
in other government agencies and in the academic community. This increase will
provide an equivalent salary level and allow CEA’s job offers to be competitive with
those of other Government agencies.”

³⁵The EOP Budget Submission states the FY2002 appropriation for this account as
$3,926,000 (p. 37).
³⁶EOP Budget Submission, p. 3.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations had recommended an appropriation
of $4,444,000 in the 107^th Congress bill.
Office of Policy Development. The Office supports the National Economic
Council and the Domestic Policy Council in carrying out their responsibilities to
advise and assist the President in formulating, coordinating, and implementing
economic and domestic policy. The Office also supports other domestic policy
development and implementation activities.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 was $4,221,000, an increase of
1.9% over the $4,142,000 appropriated in FY2002. The Senate version would have
provided full funding. P.L. 108-7 follows the House-passed level and appropriates
$3,251,000, $970,000 less than the President’s request.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations, in the 107^th Congress had
recommended an appropriation of $4,254,000.
National Security Council (NSC). The NSC advises the President on
integrating domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to national security.
P.L. 108-7 funds the account at $7,821,000. The Senate would have provided
the full requested amount of $9,525,000, an increase of 27.1% over the $7,494,000
appropriated in FY2002. The budget also proposes a gain of 11 positions, as
measured by FTE employment, for the NSC in FY2003. The EOP budget
submission states that “Both funding and FTE increases are attributed to the ongoing
operations of the new Office of Combating Terrorism created in response to the³⁷
terrorist attack on September 11, 2001.”
In the 107^th Congress, the House Committee on Appropriations recommended
and the House passed an appropriation of $7,803,000, $1,722,000 less than the
President’s request. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an
appropriation of $9,600,000.
Office of Administration. The Office of Administration provides
administrative services, including financial, personnel, library and records services,
information management systems support, and general office services, to the
Executive Office of the President.
P.L. 108-7 funds the account at $91,505,000, considerably higher than the
requested amount of $70,128,000, a decrease of 27.7% over the $96,995,000
appropriated in FY2002. (The Senate-passed version would have funded the account
at the requested level.) Of the total request, $53,353,000 is for salaries and expenses
and $16,775,000 is for the Capital Investment Plan. (In FY2002, the salaries and
expenses appropriation was $35,180,000 and the Capital Investment Plan
appropriation was $11,775,000.) The budget also proposes a gain of 20 positions, as
measured by full-time equivalent (FTE) employment, for the Office of
Administration in FY2003. According to the EOP budget submission:

³⁷EOP Budget Submission, p. 4.

Of the $23.2 million increase, $21 million and all of the additional FTE are
directly attributed to the ongoing costs of the numerous security measures taken
in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. These ongoing
costs include the GSA rent for the EOP offices that were relocated outside of the
White House complex, increased telephone service, information systems disaster
recovery measures including the addition of a remote data center, expanded mail
service and additional personnel to support the dispersed offices. The remaining
$2.2 million increase is for start up costs for a new 5 year facilities contract and³⁸
EOP common software maintenance to upgrade operating systems.
P.L. 108-7 comes closer to the funding level passed by the House in the 107^th
Congress of $92,681,000 than to the Senate committee recommendation equal of
$70,338,000. The House provided more detail related to the increase stating that
$17,495,000 would remain available until expended for the Capital Investment Plan
for continued modernization of the information technology infrastructure within the
Executive Office of the President. The EOP would be directed to submit a report to
the House Committee on Appropriations that would be reviewed and approved by the
Office of Management and Budget and reviewed by the General Accounting Office.
The report would include a current description of the Enterprise Architecture, the
Information Technology (IT) Human Capital Plan, the capital investment plan for
implementing the Enterprise Architecture, and the IT capital planning and investment
control process.
The conference report provides additional detail related to the transfer of funds
for the procurement consolidation effort:
The conferees agree to transfer $21,377,000 from the White House Office, the
Office of Homeland Security, the Office of Management and Budget, the Office
of Policy Development, the National Security Council, and the Council of
Economic Advisers to the Office of Administration to establish a pilot project for
centralized procurement and management of information technology, rent,
printing and reproduction, supplies and materials and equipment. The conferees
expect that the Office of Administration will achieve economies of scale using
centralized procurement practices and directs the Office of Administration to
identify these savings within 120 days of enactment of this Act. The conferees
direct the Office of Administration to submit a description of this pilot project,
including a description of the standards established for the procurement of each
commodity included in this project no later than 60 days after enactment of this³⁹
Act.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB assists the President
in discharging budgetary, management, and other executive responsibilities. The
agency’s activities include preparing the budget documents; examining agency
programs, budget requests, and management activities; preparing the government-
wide financial management status report and five-year plan (with the Chief Financial
Officer Council); reviewing and coordinating agency regulatory proposals and
information collection requirements; and promoting economical, efficient, and
effective procurement of property and services for the executive branch.

³⁸EOP Budget Submission, pp. 3-4.
³⁹Conference Report, p. 1342.

P.L. 108-7 funds the account at $62,394,000, a level less than the request and
all of the earlier versions. The Senate-passed version would have funded the account
at the requested level of $70,752,000, the same amount as was appropriated in
FY2002. The budget also proposes the loss of 17 positions, as measured by full-time
equivalent employment, at OMB in FY2003. The EOP budget submission states that
the proposal “holds spending to last year’s levels, while funding new initiatives
including emphasis on government-wide information technology and E-government,
and maintains resources to fund OMB’s responsibilities.”⁴⁰
In the 107^th Congress, the House Committee on Appropriations recommended
and the House passed an appropriation of $61,492,000, $9,260,000 less than the
President’s request. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an
appropriation of $71,370,000.
Electronic Government Fund. This account supports interagency projects
that enable the federal government to expand its ability to conduct activities
electronically, through the development and implementation of innovative uses of the
Internet and other electronic methods. The conferees concurred in the House
Committee on Appropriations recommendation that the account be moved from the
General Services Administration account to “more closely associate the funding with
the decision-making mechanism for these funds,” and appropriated $5,000,000.
These funds could be transferred to federal agencies to carry out the purposes of the
fund. The Senate Committee recognized the expanded role of OMB but kept the
funding under GSA. (For further discussion, see the “GSA” section below.)
Election Administration Reform and Related Expenses. P.L. 108-7
addresses election reform in Division N and provides funding to the General Services
Administration.⁴¹ In the 107^th Congress, the House Committee on Appropriations
had recommended and the House had passed an appropriation of $200,000,000. The
OMB director would be required to transfer funds to federal entities specified by the
legislation on election administration reform which is pending. The only mention of
this account in the Senate report is an entry in the summary table showing no funding
requested or recommended.
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). The ONDCP
develops policies, objectives, and priorities for the National Drug Control Program.
The account also funds general policy research to support the formulation of the
National Drug Control Strategy.
P.L. 108-7 reflects the Senate-passed funding level of $26,456,000 for salaries
and expenses. The President had requested $25,458,000 for salaries and expenses,
an increase of 0.8% over the $25,263,000 appropriated in FY2002. According to the
EOP budget submission, “The increase reflects the realignment of the National
Alliance of Model State Drug Laws from Salaries & Expenses (S&E) to the Special
Forfeiture Fund,” resulting in a $1 million dollar reduction in S&E. The submission

⁴⁰EOP Budget Submission, p. 4.
⁴¹Conference Report, p. 1502-1503.

also states that “The operations portion of the S&E budget has increased by $1.2
million and will fund higher graded staff supporting the ONDCP Director.”⁴²
In the 107^th Congress, the House Committee on Appropriations recommended
and the House passed an appropriation of $24,458,000, $1,000,000 less than the
President’s request. Of this total, $2,350,000 would remain available until expended,
consisting of $1,350,000 for policy research and evaluation, and $1,000,000 for the
National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations had recommended an appropriation of $26,605,000.
The Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC). The
CTAC is the central counterdrug research and development organization for the
federal government.
P.L. 108-7 funds the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center at
$48,000,000. The amount of money requested for FY2003 is $40,000,000, a
decrease of 5.4% from the $42,300,000 appropriated in FY2002. Of the total request,
$18,000,000 is for counternarcotics research and development projects (which shall
be available for transfer to other federal departments or agencies) and $22,000,000
is for the continued operation of the technology transfer program.⁴³
In the 107^th Congress, the House Committee on Appropriations had
recommended and the House had passed an appropriation of $55,800,000,
$15,800,000 more than the President’s request. Of this total, $26,064,000 would be
for counternarcotics research and development projects and would be available for
transfer to other federal departments or agencies, and $29,736,000 would be for the
continued operation of the technology transfer program. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations had recommended an appropriation of $40,000,000.
Federal Drug Control Programs. The High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas (HIDTA) program provides assistance to federal, state, and local law
enforcement entities operating in those areas most adversely affected by drug
trafficking. Funds are disbursed at the discretion of the director of ONDCP for joint
local, state, and federal initiatives.
P.L. 108-7 funds the account at $226,350,000. No less than 51% of the total
shall be transferred to State and local entities for drug control activities, which shall
be obligated within 120 days of enactment of the Treasury appropriations act. Up to
49% of the total shall remain available until September 30, 2004 and may be
transferred to federal agencies and departments at a rate to be determined by the
director of which not less than $2,100,000 shall be used for auditing services and
associated activities, and at least $500,000 of the $2,100,000 shall be used to develop

⁴²EOP Budget Submission, p. 4.
⁴³FY2003 Budget, Appendix, p. 1127.

and implement a data collection system to measure the performance of the High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program.⁴⁴
The Administration had requested $206,350,000, a decrease of 8.8% from the
$226,350,000 appropriated in FY2002. In the 107^th Congress, the House Committee
on Appropriations had recommended and the House had passed an appropriation of
$246,350,000, $40,000,000 more than the President’s request. The Senate Committee
on Appropriations had recommended an appropriation of $226,350,000.
The conferees on H.J.Res. 2 expressed concern for the manner in which the
HIDTA program is being managed.
The conferees provide that existing HIDTAs shall be funded at no less than the
fiscal year 2002 levels prior to the obligation of the $20,000,000 in additional
funds provided for fiscal year 2002, unless the Director submits to the
Committees on Appropriations and the Committees approve, justification for
changes in those levels based on clearly articulated priorities for the HIDTA
program, as well as published ONDCP performance measures of effectiveness.
The conferees also provide that no funds in excess of the fiscal year 2003 budget⁴⁵
request shall be obligated without the prior approval of the Committees.
In the language which follows, the conferees express continued concern by the lack
of ONDCP’s progress in developing performance measures of effectiveness and
restrict $5,000,000 in obligations until the submissions are made to the Committees.
The Special Forfeiture Fund. The Fund, administered by the director of
ONDCP, supports high-priority drug control programs. The funds may be transferred
to drug control agencies or directly obligated by the ONDCP director.
P.L. 108-7 provides funding of $223,200,000. The amount of money requested
for FY2003 was $251,300,000, an increase of 5% over the $239,400,000
appropriated in FY2002. Of the enacted total, $150,000,000 is to support a national
media campaign, as authorized by the Drug-Free Media Campaign Act of 1998;
$60,000,000 is for a program of assistance and matching grants to local coalitions
and other activities, as authorized in chapter 2 of the National Narcotic Leadership
Act of 1988, as amended; $3,000,000 is for the Counterdrug Intelligence Executive
Secretariat; $2,000,000 is for evaluations and research related to National Drug
Control Program performance measures; $1,000,000 is for the National Drug Court
Institute; $6,400,000 is for the United States Anti-Doping Agency for anti-doping
activities; $800,000 is for the United States membership dues to the World Anti-
Doping Agency; and $2,000,000 of the Drug Free Communities funds will be used
for a grant to the Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute.⁴⁶
In the 107^th Congress, the House Committee on Appropriations had
recommended and the House had passed an appropriation of $240,800,000,

⁴⁴Conference Report, p. 439.
⁴⁵Conference Report, p. 1344-1345.
⁴⁶Ibid., p. 1345.

$10,500,000 less than the President’s request. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended an appropriation of $172,700,000, the same as the
Senate-passed version of H.J.Res. 2.
Unanticipated Needs. The account provides funds for the President to meet
unanticipated needs in furtherance of the national interest, security, or defense.
P.L. 108-7 provides $1,000,000 for this account. This is the same amount as
was appropriated in FY2002, requested by the President and recommended by both
chambers.
Independent Agencies
Federal Election Commission (FEC). The FEC administers federal
campaign finance law, including overseeing disclosure requirements, limits on
contributions and expenditures, and the presidential election public funding system;
the agency retains civil enforcement authority for the law. The Office of Election
Administration, which serves as a clearinghouse for information on voting laws and
procedures for state and local election officers, is another part of the FEC .
P.L. 108-7 funds the FEC at $49,866,000, a level higher than any of the earlier
versions, including the $45,244,000 requested by the President in 2002 and passed
by the Senate in 2003. At least $5,866,700 is to be used for internal automated data
processing systems. The funding includes $4,198,000 to implement the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform At and $424,000 to fully fund FY2003 operations. See “Election
Reform” in the section on the General Services Administration, below, for further
discussion of election reform funding.
The Administration had requested $45,244,000 for the FEC in FY2003, a $1.6
million increase over the $43,689,000 appropriated for FY2002. Of the requested
amount, no less than $5,128,000 was slated for internal automated data processing
systems and no more than $5,000 for reception and representational expenses. The
budget called for a full-time equivalent staffing authorization of 362, the same as for
FY2002.
The initial request in the President’s January budget submission ($46.7 million)
and the proposed staffing levels were the same as those proposed by the FEC in its
initial, separate submission to OMB and Congress. As the FEC noted, the initial
request represented a continuation of the FY2002 funding level for core programs,
as adjusted for inflation and salary and benefits, with no additional funds or staff for
new programs or initiatives. That request included $1,673,000 to account for a new
method of providing for federal retirees under the Civil Service Retirement Program
(CSRS), which the Administration has proposed for all government agencies.
In the wake of enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (P.L.
107-155), the FEC submitted an amended request, calling for an additional
$5,366,200 to implement the new law. Taking this into account, the House
Appropriations Committee recommended an appropriation of $49,426,000, including
$4,198,000 to implement the new law. This amount reflects a decrease of $1,168,200
from the FEC ‘s amended request but $4,182,000 above the Administration’s request.

The House adopted the $49,426,000 appropriation recommended by its Committee,
with additional designations of no less than $5,866,700 for internal automated data
processing systems and no more than $5,000 for reception and representation
expenses.
The Senate Appropriations Committee, however, recommended an
appropriation of $45,668,000, which does not take into account the amended request
by the FEC for implementing the new statute. The Senate figure reflects the
Administration’s request, plus $224,000 for pay parity, and allows no more than
$5,000 for reception and representational expenses.
Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). The agency serves as a
neutral party in the settlement of disputes that arise between unions, employees, and
agencies on matters outlined in the Federal Service Labor Management Relations
Statute; decides major policy issues; prescribes regulations; and disseminates
information appropriate to the needs of agencies, labor organizations, and the public.
The FLRA also engages in case-related interventions and training and facilitates
labor-management relationships. It has three components: the Authority which
adjudicates labor-management disputes; the Office of the General Counsel which,
among other duties, investigates all allegations of unfair labor practices filed and
processes all representation petitions received; and the Federal Service Impasses
Panel which resolves impasses which occur during labor negotiations between
federal agencies and labor organizations.
P.L. 108-7 funds FLRA at $28,950,000, including $273,000 to fully fund
FY2003 operations.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 was $28,684,000 for the FLRA,
an increase of 8.1% over the $26,524,000 appropriated in FY2002. Both the Senate
passed version of H.J.Res 2 and the House-passed H.R. 5120 from the previous
Congress would have funded the agency at $28,677,000, $7,000 less than the
President’s request. In the 107^th Congress, the Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended an appropriation of $28,950,000.
General Services Administration (GSA). The General Services
Administration administers federal civilian procurement policies pertaining to the
construction and management of federal buildings, disposal of real and personal
property, and management of federal property and records. It is also responsible for
managing the funding and facilities for former Presidents and presidential transitions.
The President’s FY2003 budget request for GSA includes the largest requests to date
to renovate and improve security measures in federal buildings.
P.L. 108-7 (H.J.Res. 2, 108^th Congress) funds GSA at a level totaling
$586,933,000. The funding breaks down as $66,304,000 for policy and citizen
service; $83,663,000 for operating expenses; $37,916,000 for Office of Inspector
General; $5,000,000 to the electronic government fund; $3,339,000 for allowances
and office staff for former Presidents; and $15,000,000 for election reform
reimbursements. It also provides limitations on Federal Buildings Fund obligations
at $7,006,033,000.

H.R. 5120 (107^th Congress), as introduced, reported, and passed, would
authorize $65,995,000 for policy and citizen services; $77,904,000 for operating
expenses (two new accounts to replace policy and operations); $37,617,000 for the
Office of Inspector General; and $3,339,000 for allowances and office staff for
former Presidents.
S. 2740 (107^th Congress), as reported, would authorize an appropriation of
$75,304,000 for salaries and expenses; $87,674,000 for operating expenses;
$37,916,000 for the Office of Inspector General; $45,000,000 for electronic
government; and $3,344,000 for allowances and office staff for former presidents.
S. 2740, as introduced, would authorize $75,304,000 for policy and citizen services;
$87,674,000 for operating expenses; $45,000,000 for the electronic government fund;
and $3,344,000 for allowances and office staff for former presidents.
The President’s FY2003 budget contained a request of $143,139,000 for policy
and operations, of which $25,887,000 would remain available until expended;
$39,587,000 for the Office of Inspector General, $3,441,000 for allowances and
office staff for former Presidents; $45,000,000 for interagency electronic government
initiatives; and $12,681,000 to be deposited into the Federal Consumer Information
Center Fund.
Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). Revenue to the FBF is the principal source
of funding. Congress, however, directs the GSA as to the allocation or limitation on
spending of funds.
H.R. 5120, as introduced, reported, and passed, would authorize a direct
appropriation of $325,711,000 into the Federal Buildings Fund. An amount of
$646,385,000 from the FBF would be made available until expended for new
construction, which includes 11 new courthouse projects totaling $309,349,000. In
addition, $978,529,000 would be made available until expended for repairs and
alternations, including three courthouses totaling $44,192,000. Also included is
$8,000,000 for a chlorofluorocarbons program, $20,000,000 for a glass fragmentation
program, and $10,000,000 for terrorism. A total of $178,960,000 is to be made
available for installation acquisition payments, $3,153,211,000 for rental of space,
and $1,925,160,000 for building operations.
S. 2740, as reported, would authorize $653,913,000 to be made available for the
construction and acquisition account. The Senate Committee also recommended new
obligational authority of $995,589,000 for repairs and alterations. S. 2740, as
introduced, would authorize that $6,952,703,000 remain available until expended:
$653,913,000 for construction and design, and $995,589,000 for repairs and
alterations.
Of the $6,885,375,000 deposited in the FBF, the President’s FY2003 budget
requested that $276,400,000 remain available until expended for the operation,
maintenance, and protection of federally owned and leased buildings, and that
$556,574,000 remain available until expended for construction and design services
(approximately $260,000,000 for courthouse projects). The President’s budget also
requested that $986,029,000 from the FBF be made available for repairs and
alterations of federal buildings, an increase of $117,000,000 over FY2002 enacted.

Of this total, $367,340,000 would be used to fund costs associated with
implementing security improvements to federal buildings; $20,000,000 to implement
a glass fragmentation program; $8,000,000 to implement a chlorofluorocarbons
program; and $10,000,000 for antiterrorism efforts.
Electronic Government Fund. As it was last year, the Electronic
Government Fund continues to be a somewhat contentious matter between the
President and Congress. In advance of his proposed budget for FY2002, the
President released, on February 28, 2001, A Blueprint for New Beginnings: A
Responsible Budget for America’s Priorities. Intended as a 10-year budget plan, the
Blueprint, among other innovations, proposed the establishment of an electronic
government account, seeded with “$10 million in 2002 as the first installment of a
fund that will grow to a total of $100 million over three years to support interagency
electronic Government (e-gov) initiatives.” Managed by OMB, the fund was
foreseen as supporting “projects that operate across agency boundaries,” facilitating
“the development of a Public Key Infrastructure to implement digital signatures that
are accepted across agencies for secure online communications,” and furthering “the
Administration’s ability to implement the Government Paperwork Elimination Act
of 1998, which calls upon agencies to provide the public with optional use and
acceptance of electronic information, services and signatures, when practicable, by⁴⁷
October 2003.” About one month later, on March 22, OMB Deputy Director Sean
O’Keefe announced that the Bush Administration had decided to double the amount⁴⁸
to be allocated to the e-gov fund, bringing it to $20 million.
As included in the President’s budget, the fund was established as an account
within the General Services Administration (GSA), to be administered by the
Administrator of General Services “to support interagency projects, approved by the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, that enable the Federal
Government to expand its ability to conduct activities electronically, through the
development and implementation of innovative uses of the Internet and other
electronic methods.” The President’s initial request for the fund was $20 million, to
remain available until September 30, 2004. Congress, however, appropriated $5
million for the fund for FY2002, to remain available until expended. Appropriators
specified that transfers of monies from the fund to federal agencies could not be
made until 10 days after a proposed spending plan and justification for each project
to be undertaken using such monies had been submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations. Expressing general support for the purposes of the fund, they also
recommended, and both chambers agreed, that the administration work with the
House Committee on Government Reform and the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs to clarify the status of its authorization.
The President’s budget for FY2003 “recognizes GSA as operator of the official
federal portal for providing citizens with one-stop access to federal services via the
Internet or telephone” and, therefore, a key agency in implementing the President’s

⁴⁷U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, A Blueprint for
New Beginnings, pp. 179-180.
⁴⁸William Matthews, “Bush E-gov Fund to Double,” Federal Computer Week, vol. 15, Mar.

26, 2001, p. 8.

e-gov vision, which will “require cross-agency approaches that permit citizens,
businesses, and state and local governments to easily obtain services from, and
electronically transact business with the federal government.” In this regard, an
administration interagency Quicksilver E-Gov Task Force, according to the budget,
has “identified 23 high priority Internet services for early development.” Seeking
$45 million for the e-gov fund, the budget acknowledged that this amount was “a
significant increase over the $20 million requested in 2002,” but noted that the
request “is supported by specific project plans developed by the Quicksilver Task
Force.”⁴⁹ Furthermore, according to the fund account statement, these monies
“would also further the Administration’s implementation of the Government
Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) of 1998, which calls upon agencies to provide
the public with optional use and acceptance of electronic information, services, and
signatures, when practicable, by October 2003.”
The House Appropriations Committee again rejected the amount requested by
the President and recommended $5 million for the fund, reiterating, as previously,
that transfers of monies from the fund to federal agencies could not be made until 10
days after a proposed spending plan and justification for each project to be
undertaken using such monies had been submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations. The committee also declined to recommend an appropriation for the
fund as a GSA account, but did fund it as an account under the jurisdiction of the
Office of Management and Budget within the Executive Office of the President.⁵⁰
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended the full $45 million
requested by the President. Their report states that OMB “would control the
allocation of the fund and direct its use for information systems projects and affect
multiple agencies and offer the greatest improvements in access and service.”⁵¹ As
noted above, P.L. 108-7 funds the account at $5,000,000.
Election Reform. P.L. 108-7, Division J, provides $15,000,000 for a program
of payments to states that obtained optical scan or electronic voting equipment for the⁵²
administration of federal elections prior to November 2000. In addition, in Division
N of the Act, Congress provides GSA with $650,000,000 “to carry out a program of
payments to the States for improving the administration of elections and replacing
punch card and level voting machines with new voting technology.”⁵³ The Division
N funding is part of a $1,500,000,000 appropriations for election reform.
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The MSPB serves as guardian
of the federal government’s merit-based system of employment. The agency carries
out its mission by hearing and deciding appeals from federal employees of removals

⁴⁹U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2003 Budget of the U.S. Government,
pp. 386-387.
⁵⁰U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Treasury, Postal Service, and
General Government Appropriations Bill, 2003, a report to accompany H.R. 5120, 107^th^nd
Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 107-575 (Washington: GPO, 2002), pp. 64, 83.
⁵¹S.Rept. 107-212, p. 77.
⁵²Conference Report, p. 1350.
⁵³Ibid., p. 1502.

and other major personnel actions. MSPB also hears and decides other types of civil
service cases, reviews OPM regulations, and conducts studies of the merit systems.
The agency’s efforts are to assure that personnel actions taken involving employees
are processed within the law and that actions taken by OPM and other agencies
support and enhance federal merit principles.
P.L. 108-7 appropriates $32,027,000 for this account. The amount of money
requested for FY2003 was $31,790,000 for the MSPB, an increase of 4% over the
$30,555,000 appropriated in FY2002. The Senate has passed, the House Committee
on Appropriations had recommended, and the House had passed an appropriation of
$31,788,000, $2,000 less than the President’s request. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations had recommended an appropriation of $32,027,000.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The custodian
of the historically valuable records of the federal government since its establishment
in 1934, NARA also prescribes policy and provides both guidance and management
assistance concerning the entire life cycle of federal records. It also administers the
presidential libraries system; publishes the laws, regulations, and presidential and
other documents; and assists the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO),
which manages federal security classification and declassification policy; and the
National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC), which makes
grants nationwide to help nonprofit organizations identify, preserve, and provide
access to materials that document American history.
P.L. 108-7 funds the NARA accounts at $263,397,000. The specific account
amounts are $249,875,000 for operating expenses; -$7,186,000 for reduction of debt;
$14,208,000 for repairs and restoration; and $6,500,000 for the national Historical
Publications and Records Commission grants program.
On July 24, the House passed H.R. 5120 without amending provisions related
to the NARA accounts, as reported. The House Appropriations Committee had
recommended $267,189,000 for NARA, $12,202,000 less than the President’s
$279,391,000 budget request, which was a $10,435,000 decrease from the
$289,826,000 appropriated for, and requested by the President for, NARA for
FY2002. Of the total amount requested, $2.3 million, according to the President’s
budget, “will enable NARA to continue leading the Electronic Records Management⁵⁴
project.” The committee recommended $249,731,000 for NARA operating funds,
which is $14,202,000 less than the $263,933,000 requested (the requested amount
being a $19,686,000 increase over the FY2002 allocation of $244,247,000). The
committee report explained that the “reduction from the President’s request is for the
initiative to train state and local personnel in the handling of classified and sensitive
homeland security data.” It was felt that “funding this effort in this account is
premature” because the “directive for addressing sensitive homeland security
information has not been issued, the specific state and local needs for training have
not been determined, training options have not been fully developed, and the portion
of the initiative aimed at ensuring that Federal agencies have appropriate authorities

⁵⁴U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2003 Budget of the U.S. Government,
p. 388.

is unknown.”⁵⁵ For repairs and restoration, the requested amount of $10,458,000 was
recommended. This is a $28,685,000 decrease compared to the FY2002
appropriation of $39,143,000 for this account. Furthermore, the recommended
amount is provided in accordance with the dedication of funds specified in the
President’s request: $1,250,000 for Military Personnel Records Center design studies
and $3,250,000 for repair of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library plaza.
For the NHPRC, $7 million was recommended, $2 million more than requested (the
requested $5 million being a $1,436,000 reduction compared to the FY2002
appropriation).
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended funding the NARA
accounts at $265 million. Of this amount, $249.9 million is recommended for
operations, $14.2 million for repairs and restoration, and $8 million for NHPRC. The
recommended appropriation provides for, among other activities, “training personnel
at the State and local level in the proper use and handling of classified and sensitive
but unclassified homeland security information. Funding,” the report continued,
“will also be used to facilitate security clearances for appropriate individuals at the
State and local level, and to ensure that Federal agencies have the necessary
classification authority for homeland security information.”⁵⁶ Elsewhere, the report
indicated that section 515 of the appropriation bill was “a new provision increasing
the size of the endowment for future Presidential libraries.”⁵⁷ (For further discussion,
see the Information Resources Management section below.)
Office of Government Ethics (OGE). The Office of Government Ethics,
a small agency within the executive branch, was established by the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978. Originally part of the Office of Personnel Management,
OGE became a separate agency on October 1, 1989, as a result of the Office of
Government Ethics Reorganization Act of 1988. The Office of Government Ethics
exercises leadership in the executive branch to prevent conflicts of interest on the
part of government employees, and to resolve those conflicts of interest that do occur.
In partnership with executive branch agencies and departments, OGE fosters high
ethical standards for employees and strengthens the public’s confidence that the
government’s business is conducted with impartiality and integrity.
P.L. 108-7 funds OGE at $10,557,000. The funding request for FY2003 is
$10,488,000, a 3.3% increase over the enacted FY2002 amount of $10,117,000. The
House passed the recommended funding at the requested level of $10,486,000. The
Senate Committee, however, has recommended $10,557,000. The Senate report
states that the increase is for pay parity.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The budget for OPM is
comprised of budget authority for both permanent and current appropriations. This

⁵⁵U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Treasury, Postal Service, and
General Government Appropriations Bill, 2003, a report to accompany H.R. 5120, 107^th^nd
Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 107-575 (Washington: GPO, 2002), p. 86.
⁵⁶S.Rept. 107-212, p. 82.
⁵⁷Ibid., p. 91.

report discusses the budget authority for current appropriations. The agency is
responsible for administering personnel management functions. Among the activities
OPM engages in are helping agencies develop merit-based human resources
management accountability systems to support their missions; developing,
implementing, and monitoring employment policies for agencies in the areas of
workforce planning, recruiting, selecting, promoting, reassigning, downsizing, and
reshaping; administering the retirement, health benefits, and life insurance programs
for current and retired federal employees; developing and implementing policies on
pay and leave administration and evaluating the effectiveness of alternative
compensation systems; and developing governmentwide policies, issuing guidance,
and providing assistance to agencies on employee relations issues. The Office of
Inspector General (OIG) conducts audits, investigations, evaluations, and inspections
throughout the agency and may issue administrative sanctions related to the operation
of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
P.L. 108-7 appropriates a total of $16,559,682,000. The funding of the accounts
is as follows: salaries and expenses, $129,486,000; Office of Inspector General,
$1,519,000; government payment for annuitants (employee health benefits),
$6,853,000,000; government payment for annuitants (employee life insurance),
$34,000,000; and payment to civil service retirement and disability fund,
$9,410000,000. Sums were included to carry out a telecommuting training program
($500,000) and to award a grant or contract to study retirement readiness ($250,000).
The conferees also instructed OPM to report to the Committees on Appropriations,
within 45 days, on certain locality pay consideration and, by June 1, 2003, on official
time used for representational activities.⁵⁸
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is as follows: Discretionary
funding of $128,804,000 for salaries and expenses and $1,498,000 for OIG salaries
and expenses. It also includes mandatory funding of $6,853,000,000 for the
government payment for annuitants of the employees health benefits program,
$34,000,000 for the government payment for annuitants of the employee life
insurance program, and $9,410,000,000 for payment to the civil service retirement
and disability fund. The request is 29.3% more than the $99,636,000 appropriated
in FY2002 for salaries and expenses; the same as the $1,498,000 for OIG salaries and
expenses; 11.8% more than the $6,129,000,000 for the government payment for
annuitants of the employees health benefits program; the same as the $34,000,000 for
the government payment for annuitants of the employee life insurance program; and
2% more than the $9,229,000,000 for payment to the civil service retirement and
disability fund.
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed
the following appropriation: Discretionary funding of $128,986,000 for salaries and
expenses, ($182,000 more than the President’s request) and $1,498,000 for OIG
salaries and expenses (the same amount as the President’s request). It also includes
mandatory funding in the same amounts as the President’s request. Of the
$128,986,000 appropriated for salaries and expenses, $20,800,000 would fund the
Human Resources Data Network, $5,800,000 would fund the electronic government

⁵⁸Conference Report, p. 1352-1353.

initiatives, $2,500,000 would fund the governmentwide payroll modernization
initiatives, and $500,000 would establish a telecommuting training program.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an appropriation of
$129,686,000 for salaries and expenses; $1,519,000 for OIG salaries and expenses;
$6,853,000,000 for health benefits; $34,000,000 for life insurance; and
$9,410,000,000 for the civil service retirement and disability fund.
Office of Special Counsel (OSC). The agency investigates federal
employee allegations of prohibited personnel practices and, when appropriate,
prosecutes matters before the Merit Systems Protection Board; provides a channel for
whistle blowing by federal employees; and enforces the Hatch Act. In carrying out
the latter activity, the OSC issues both written and oral advisory opinions. The OSC
may require an agency to investigate whistleblower allegations and report to the
Congress and the President as appropriate.
P.L. 108-7 funds the OSC at $12,449,000, including full operational funding for
FY2003. The amount of money requested for FY2003 was $12,434,000 for the OSC,
an increase of 4.6% over the $11,891,000 appropriated in FY2002. According to the
budget, “This request will enable OSC to continue to reduce its long-standing case
processing backlogs.” The number of pending prohibited personnel practice cases
older than 240 days were reduced by 15% in 2001.⁵⁹
In the 107^th Congress, for FY2003, the House Committee on Appropriations had
recommended and the House had passed an appropriation of $12,432,000, $2,000
less than the President’s request. The Senate Committee on Appropriations had
recommended an appropriation of $12,449,000.
General Provisions
This section of the report discusses, briefly, general provisions such as
governmentwide guidance on basic infrastructure-like policies. Examples would be
provisions related to the Buy America Act, drug-free federal workplaces, and
authorizing agencies to pay GSA bills for space renovation and other services which
are annually incorporated into the Treasury and General Government appropriations
legislation. Quite frequently, additionally, there will be provisions which relate to
specific agencies or programs. For both Title V and VI, with noted exceptions, the
sections discussed here will be those which are new or contain modified policies.
H.R. 5120, as passed by the House, has dropped the requirements (formerly Sec.
513) that read: “The costs accounting standards promulgated under section 26 of the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (Public Law 93-400; 41 U.S.C. 422) shall
not apply with respect to a contract under the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program established under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.” There was
considerable floor debate related to whether there would be negative impact on the

⁵⁹FY2003 Budget, Appendix, p. 1167.

federal employees who subscribe to the program if the carriers are required to be
subject to these cost accounting standards.⁶⁰
The Administration’s proposed language for general provisions in Title VI is
found the Appendix.⁶¹ The House and Senate amendments adopted and rejected
during House consideration and passage will be presented in the section of the report
entitled “Status and Legislative History.” Table 2 provides a comparison of the
disposition of key sections under discussion. Unless the text appears in quotations
for H.R. 5120, the language and section designation are from the House report as
cited in the notes. The right-hand column reflects the statutory enactment.

⁶⁰Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2003, Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 148, July 23, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002), pp. H5229, at H. 5260-H5263.
⁶¹FY2003 Budget, Appendix, pp. 9-15.

CRS-41
Table 2. Title VI Governmentwide General Provisions^a
Administration ProposalsCongressional ProposalsP.L. 108-7, Enacted
Bill is noted, as appropriate.
Sec. 605. This section limits payment ofSec. 605. Provision included.
compensation, as employees of the government,
for non-citizens of the United States. The online
version of the section, as passed, does not contain
the provisions relating to the required affidavits
and to the applicable penal clause.(H.R. 5120)
Repeats recommendation elimination of theSec. 609. Continue the provision prohibitingSec. 609. Provision continued.
ision (section 609, FY2002) which prohibitspayments to persons filling positions for which
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31302}ment to political appointees functioning in jobsthey have been nominated after the Senate has
^g/w have been nominated, but notvoted not to approve the nomination. (H.R. 5120,
^s^.ored. This provision has been in the bill forS. 2740)
^le^akears. The previous administration also
mended its elimination.
^://wiki
^h^ttpRecommended elimination of the provisionSec. 612. Continue the provision prohibiting theSec. 612. Provision continued.

use of funds for enforcing regulations disapproved
plement, administer, or enforce anyin accordance with the applicable law of the
ulation” which has been disapproved throughUnited States. (H.R. 5170, S. 2740)
authorized means. If the provision were
inated, conceivably the executive could
ulatory activities which Congress had
ed, through resolution of disapproval or
ressional Review Act. The provision, in
1980s, had been
mended for elimination in FY2002 and by
ious administration also.

CRS-42
Administration ProposalsCongressional ProposalsP.L. 108-7, Enacted
Bill is noted, as appropriate.
Recommends, elimination of provisionSec. 621. Continue the provision prohibitingSec. 621. Provision continued.
federal training not directly related to the
ay be obligated or expended for employeeperformance of official duties.(H.R. 5120, S. 2740)
not directly related to the employee’s
ay induce high levels of
otional response or psychological stress in some
re course content
course evaluation; that contains methods or
ious or quasi-
ious belief systems or ‘new age’ belief
stems;” and that is offensive to, or designed to
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31302}e, participants’ personal values or lifestyles
^g/way from the workplace. Elimination of
^s^.oruage in the bill since the mid-1990s, was
^le^akear by the Bush Administration and
iously by the Clinton Administration.
^://wiki
^h^ttpSection 622 (FY2002) prohibits the use ofSec. 622. Continue the provision prohibiting theSec. 622. Provision continued.
ployee non-expenditure of funds for implementation of
reements without those agreementsagreements in non-disclosure policies unless
ing whistle-blower protection clauses. Thecertain provisions are included. (H.R. 5120, S.

2740)

ination of that provision, which has been in
er ten years.
Section 625 (FY2002) requires approval bySec. 625. Continue the provision prohibiting fundsSec. 625. Provision continued.

ommittees on Appropriations of release ofto be used to provide non-public information such
“non-public” information such as mailing oras mailing or telephone lists to any person or
person or any organizationorganization outside the government without the
overnment. The Bushapproval of the Committee on
ministration is repeating their request for itsAppropriations.(H.R. 5120, S. 2740)
ination.

CRS-43
Administration ProposalsCongressional ProposalsP.L. 108-7, Enacted
Bill is noted, as appropriate.
Federal employees in executive agencies areSec. 627. Continue the provision directing agencySec. 627. Provision continued.
employees to use official time in an honest effort
e in an honest effort to perform official duties.” to perform official duties. (H.R. 5120, S. 2740)
at requirement, in the bill since FY1999, has
ination by both the Bush and
et proposals. The argument has been
, in fact, place that same
ent on all federal personnel.
e Bush proposal would repeal the provisionsNo repeal provision. (H.R. 5120, S. 2740)Sec. 630. Provision continued.
to federal child care enacted as Section
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31302}
^g/w 3 U.S.C. 112No repeal provision. (H.R. 5120, S.2740)No repeal provision.
^s^.orbursement of detailees in executive
^le^akents), would be repealed. The FY2002
^://wikiade that provision permanent law.
^h^ttpOne new section is proposed by theNo similar provision. (H.R. 5120, S. 2740)No similar provision.
inistration. Section 632 would amend
isions of the Federal Employees
mpensation Act (FECA) which relates to
rkers compensation available to federal
ployees. (See discussion below under “Federal
ployee Pre-Funding Proposal” section.)
Sec. 637. New provision regarding federalSec. 637. New provision regarding federal
employee pay adjustment. Would provide a 4.1%employee pay adjustment. Would provide a 4.1%
adjustment. (S. 2740)adjustment. Further policy on locality
Sec. 643. New provision to require that thecomparability payment determinations.

adjustment in rates of basic pay for the statutory
pay systems that takes effect in fiscal year 2003

CRS-44
Administration ProposalsCongressional ProposalsP.L. 108-7, Enacted
Bill is noted, as appropriate.
shall be an increase of 4.1%. (H.R. 5120)
Sec. 639. New provision expressing the sense of
the Congress regarding the United States Postal
Service funding of Civil Service Retirement
System benefits.
Sec. 640. New provision expressing the sens of
the Congress regarding pay parity between
uniformed employees and civilian employees,
including wage grade civilian employees.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31302}Sec. 641. New provision directing GSA to accept
^g/wall right, title, and interest in a certain piece of real
^s^.orproperty in Boca Raton, Florida.
^le^ak
Sec. 641. New provision to make a technicalSec. 642. New provision changing the definition
^://wikicorrection to the Law Enforcement Pay Equity Actof average pay for certain Secret Service retirees
^h^ttpof 2000 regarding locality pay for the Uniformedfor purposes of determining their annual retirement
Division of the Secret Service and the U.S. Parkannuity.
Police. (H.R. 5120)
Sec. 640. New provision to make a technicalSec. 643. New provision creating a sunset clause
correction to the 1994 Pay Act for Federal Lawfor Sec. 902(b) of the Law enforcement Pay Equity
Enforcement Officers for certain series 1811Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-554).
criminal investigators. (H.R. 5120)
Sec. 642. New provision regarding the Bureau ofSec. 644. New provision prohibiting the use of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm’s policy onfunds to facilitate the release of certain law
releasing law enforcement data base information.enforcement database information in response to
(H.R. 5120)requests made under the Freedom of Information
Act.

CRS-45
Administration ProposalsCongressional ProposalsP.L. 108-7, Enacted
Bill is noted, as appropriate.
Sec. 644. New provision to amend Title 5, U.S.Sec. 645. New provision amending 5 U.S.C.
Code to make Senior Executive Service employees9505(d) to allow Internal Revenue Service Senior
of the IRS eligible for the same level of payExecutive Service employees to receive the same
bonuses as all other federal employees. (H.R.bonus payments as other federal Senior Executive

5120)Service employees.

Sec. 645. New provision to prohibit funds in theSec. 646. New provision prohibiting the use of
bill from being used to issue regulations relatingfunds to implement or enforce regulations relating
tot he determination that real estate brokerage is anto the determination that real estate brokerage is an
activity that is financial in nature or incidental to aactivity that is financial in nature or incidental to a
financial activity. (H.R. 5120)financial activity.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31302}“SEC. 650. None of the funds made available inSec. 647. New provision prohibiting the use of
^g/wthis Act may be used by an executive agency tofunds to establish, apply or enforce any numerical
^s^.orestablish, apply, or enforce any numerical goal,goal, target, or quota for contracting out.
^le^aktarget, or quota for subjecting the employees of the
^://wikiagency to public-private competitions or
^h^ttpconverting such employees or the work performed
by such employees to private contractor
performance under Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-76 or any other administrative
regulation, directive, or policy.”(H.R. 5120, as
passed the House)
Sec. 640. New provision regarding numerical
quotas for contracting out. (S. 2740, reported)
Sec. 648. Technical correction re air traffic
controllers.
Sec. 638. New provision to require each agency toSee discussion under OPM re reporting official
submit a report, at the time the President’s budgettime used for representational activities.

is submitted, on the use of official time within such

CRS-46
Administration ProposalsCongressional ProposalsP.L. 108-7, Enacted
Bill is noted, as appropriate.
agency during the previous year. (H.R. 5120)
Sec. 638. New provision extending the expiration
date of certain government information security
requirements. (S. 2740, reported)
Sec. 639. New provision to require each agency to
annually review all programs and activities that it
administers and identify all such programs and
activities that may be susceptible to significant
improper payments.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31302}Sec. 646. New provision to prohibit funds in the
^g/wbill from being used for payment on any new
^s^.orfederal contract to a subsidiary or a publicly traded
^le^akcorporation if the corporation is incorporated in a
^://wikitax haven country but the U.S. is the principalmarket for the public trading of the corporation’s
^h^ttpstock. (See also discussion under the Department
of the Treasury above.) Section as reported, fell to
a point of order.
“SEC. 646. None of the funds made available in
this Act may be used to implement any sanction
imposed by the United States on private
commercial sales of agricultural commodities (as
defined in section 402 of the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954) or
medicine or medical supplies (within the meaning
of section 1705(c) of the Cuban Democracy Act of
1992) to Cuba (other than a sanction imposed
pursuant to agreement with one or more other

CRS-47
Administration ProposalsCongressional ProposalsP.L. 108-7, Enacted
Bill is noted, as appropriate.
countries).” (H.R. 5120, as passed the House)
“SEC. 647. (a) None of the funds made available
in this Act may be used to administer or enforce
part 515 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations
(the Cuban Assets Control Regulations) with
respect to any travel or travel-related transaction
and (b) the limitation established in subsection (a)
shall not apply to the issuance of general or
specific licenses for travel or travel-related
transactions, and shall not apply to transactions in
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31302}relation to any business travel covered by section
^g/w515.560(g) of such part 515.” (H.R. 5120, as
^s^.orpassed the House)
^le^ak“SEC. 648. None of the funds made available in
^://wikithis Act may be used to enforce any restriction on
^h^ttpremittances to nationals of Cuba covered by
section 515.570(a)(1)(i), (a)(2), (b)(1)(i), or (b)(2)
of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations.” (H.R.

5120, as passed the House)

“SEC. 649. None of the funds made available in
this Act under the heading `Special Forfeiture
Fund (Including transfer of funds)’ to support a
national media campaign shall be used to pay any
amount pursuant to contract number N00600-02-
C-0123.” (H.R. 5120, as passed the House)
“SEC. 651. None of the funds appropriated by this
Act may be used by the Internal Revenue Service
for any activity that is in contravention of Internal

CRS-48
Administration ProposalsCongressional ProposalsP.L. 108-7, Enacted
Bill is noted, as appropriate.
Revenue Service Notice 96-8 issued on January 18,

1996, section 411(b)(1)(H)(i) or section 411(d)(6)

of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, section
204(b)(1)(G) or 204(b)(1)(H)(i) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or
section 4(i)(1)(A) of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967.”
^th^th
^{ee H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 107-}^{575, pp. 95-}^{98, f}^o^{r H}^.^R^.^{5120 (107}^Co^ngr^e^ss)^;^S.^Re^p^t^{. 107-}^{212, pp. 93-}^{95, f}^o^{r S}^.^{2740 (107}^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s⁾^;^an^{d H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 108-}^{10, pp.1355-}^{1361, f}^o^{r P.L}^.^108-^7,
^en^acted.

ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31302}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

Homeland Security
Prior to the terrorist attacks of last fall, the Office of Management and Budget
had identified several accounts under this appropriation (Department of the Treasury,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Secret
Service, and the General Services Administration) as being funded for functions
related to countering terrorism. With the exception of the Counterterrorism fund
account within the Department of the Treasury, none of the agencies carried a line
account specifically funding counterterrorism, or terrorism responses.
Emergency Counterterrorism Funding
Subsequent to the attacks, certain accounts have been allocated funds from
the Emergency Response Fund established through P.L. 107-38. Also, under the
provisions of P.L. 107-38, a further supplemental appropriation is authorized. The
Administration submitted detailed information for the allocation of funds under such
an emergency supplemental and through P.L. 107-117 funds were appropriated.⁶²
The role of the Department of the Treasury relates to both its statutory
missions and the capabilities of its law enforcement groups. Although the Federal
Bureau of Investigation is the lead agency for several functions, the Customs Service
has the lead in preventing terrorists from entering the United States; the Secret
Service is responsible for protection of officials and facilities and has the lead in
providing security plans to prevent terrorist incidents at National Special Security
Events, such as the 2002 Olympics; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms is the lead on firearms and explosives. The Department itself has a general
responsibility for the support and security of the nation’s financial structure.
The General Services Administration has the responsibility for the
management and oversight of federal buildings and federal real property. Under the
Government Information Security Reform Act of 2000, (P.L. 106-398) the GSA is
directed to assist agencies in fulling their responsibility to maintain procedures for
detecting, reporting, and responding to security incidents. In this latter regard, GSA
operates the Federal Computer Incident Response Center (FedCIRC), whose purpose
it is to ensure that the government has a central focal point for handling computer
security related incidents, can withstand or quickly recover from attacks against its
information systems, and has a centralized computer security information-sharing
program.

⁶²For further detail on accounts covered by Treasury and General Government
appropriations, see CRS Report RL31002, Appropriations for FY2002: Treasury, Postal
Service, Executive Office of the President, and General Government, by Sharon S. Gressle.
See also: CRS Report RL31168, Terrorism Funding: FY2002 Appropriation Bills, by Larry
Nowels; CRS Report RL31406, Supplemental Appropriations for FY2002: Combating
Terrorism and Other Issues, by Amy Belasco and Larry Nowels; and CRS Report RL31187,
Combating Terrorism: 2001 Congressional Debate on Emergency Supplemental
Allocations, by Amy Belasco and Larry Nowels.

Office of Homeland Security, Executive Office of the
President
There has been established, within the Executive Office of the President, an
Office of Homeland Security.⁶³ Funding for this activity was requested in the
consolidated account for the Executive Office of the President. Both the House and
Senate committees recommended funding of $24,061, 000. H.Rept. 107-575 states
that the activity is of a high priority and should be funded as a separate activity. The
report goes on to explain that in “creating a new Office of Homeland Security within
the Executive Office of the President, the Committee seeks to better highlight and
isolate those costs directly associated with the operations of this office.”⁶⁴ The
Committee further explains its position:
Despite its strong belief that the Committee should have received
testimony from the Director of the office of Homeland Security within the
regular Committee hearing process, the Committee accommodated the
executive branch by conducting a more informal briefing. The committee’s
decision to focus on cooperation rather than confrontation does not
diminish its belief that a regular hearing with testimony should have been
agreed to by the executive branch.
It is the expectation of the Committee that, by establishing anew
account for this function, information related to the operations of and
funding for this office will be more readily available. Witnesses who
testify before the Committee on behalf of this account are expected to be
fully prepared to answer questions about the functions and operations of the⁶⁵
Office of Homeland Security.
With the adjournment of the 107^th Congress, that account remained
undefined. It was expected that discretionary funding available to the President
would continue to fund that activity until an appropriation were available. As noted
above, P.L. 108-7 funds the office at $19,398,000. The Senate-passed version would
have provided $24,844,000. In the explanatory section of the conference report, there
are references to funding that would related to the operation and location of the
Department of Homeland Security in Washington, DC, referenced as the Nebraska
Avenue site:
The conferees agree to provide $19,398,000 instead of $24,061,000 as
proposed by the House and $24,844,000 as proposed by the Senate. The
conferees agree to transfer $738,000 to the Office of Administration in
support of the pilot program to centralize the procurement of certain
common goods and services. The conferees do not include $4,663,000 in
funds proposed for various costs associated with the operations of the
Nebraska Avenue complex. The conferees are aware of an unobligated
balance of $3,745,200 in fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations for

⁶³See CRS Report RL31148, Homeland Security: The Presidential Coordination Office, by
Harold C. Relyea.
⁶⁴H.Rept. 107-575, p. 53.
⁶⁵Ib i d .

Nebraska Avenue; and the conferees also note that funds were transferred
through the authority provided in Public Law 107-294 for various Nebraska
Avenue operations. The conferees note that detailed justification materials
related to the funds transferred under the authority of Public Law 107-294
have not yet been provided to the Committee. Given the availability of
these other funding sources, the conferees defer consideration of⁶⁶
$4,663,000 proposed for Nebraska Avenue operations.
The conferees went on to remark that they are aware of mail processing
problems in the Executive Office of the President and support the plans to transfer
$9,000,000 of FY2003 funds from the Office of Homeland Security to the
Department of Homeland Security.
The conferees support this transfer of responsibilities and encourage the
Office of Administration to move expeditiously toward this goal. The
Office Administration is directed to report back to the Committees on all
efforts to transfer funds and responsibilities for this effort to the
Department of Homeland Security no later than 60 days after enactment of⁶⁷
this Act.
Department of Homeland Security
Under the provisions of P.L. 107-296 (November 25, 2002), effective January⁶⁸
24, 2003, there will be established the Department of Homeland Security. Among
the units and activities, covered by Treasury and General Government appropriations
accounts, being transferred to the department are the U.S. Customs Service, the U.S.
Secret Service, as well as the GSA’s Federal Protective Service and the Federal⁶⁹
Computer Incident Response Center. Also, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms will be renamed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
and transferred to the Department of Justice.
On March 25, 2003, the President sent a FY2003 supplemental request to
Congress, with requests for additional funding in support of actions in the Middle
East. While most of the funds would go to support the military effort, $4.25 billion
is requested for homeland security requirements. The Department of Homeland
Security would receive $3.5 billion, the Department of Justice, $500 million; and the
Executive Office of the President, $250 million. The Director of the Office of
Management and Budget would be required to provide Congress with 15 days notice
before any such transfer were made.⁷⁰

⁶⁶Conference Report, p. 1340.
⁶⁷Ibid., pp. 1340-1341.
⁶⁸ Text of the measure can be found through a link to H.R. 5005 at
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi -bin/ge t d o c . c gi ? dbname =107_cong_bills&docid=f:h

5005enr.txt.pdf], visited January 3, 2003.

⁶⁹For an overview of the departmental provisions, see CRS Report RL31393, Homeland
Security: Department Organization and Management, by Harold C. Relyea.
⁷⁰Estimate #4, FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom, Mar. 25, 2003; accessible
(continued...)

Counterterrorism Activity Funding — OMB Annual Report
The Office of Management and Budget is required to submit an Annual
Report on Combating Terrorism.⁷¹ The 2002 report was released on June 24, 2002.
It provides projects for FY2003 funding needs.⁷²
Federal Personnel Issues
Pay
General. Under the Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA),
federal white collar employees, paid under the General Schedule and related salary
systems, are to receive annual adjustments based on two separate mechanisms. The
first is the adjustment to base pay which is based on changes in private sector salaries
as reflected in the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The rate of pay adjustment is
supposed to be the percentage rate of change in that element of the ECI, minus .5.
Under that formula, for January 2003, the base pay adjustment will be 3.1%. On
December 31, 2002, the President signed an Executive Order establishing the salary
schedules for federal civilian personnel effective January 2003.⁷³ The President had
determined that the locality comparability payments will be made at the same rate at
that effective January 2002. Therefore, the federal General Schedule net increase
was 3.1% payable rate throughout the system.
Under the provisions of Section 637, Division J, P.L. 108-7, the full pay
increase for the General Schedule is 4.1%. There was no stipulation as to how the
additional 1% will be apportioned between base pay and locality-based comparability
payments. On March 21, 2003, the President signed Executive Order 13291, which
applies the additional 1% to locality-based comparability payments. The payment
will be retroactive to January 2003.⁷⁴
The President’s budget proposed a federal civilian pay increase of 2.6% in⁷⁵
January 2003. However, the proposal did not indicate how the pay increase would
be split between basic pay and locality-based payments for the General Schedule and
related pay systems.

⁷⁰(...continued)
through [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments.htm].
⁷¹See CRS Report RL31002 for further detail.
⁷²See [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/combating_terrorism06-2002.pdf],
visited January 3, 2003, to access the full report.
⁷³National Archives and Records Administration, “Executive Order 13282 – Adjustments
of Certain Rates of Pay,” Federal Register, vo. 68, Jan. 8, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003),
pp. 1133-1142.
⁷⁴National Archives and Records Administration, “Executive Order 13291 – Further
Adjustment of Certain Rates of Pay,” Federal Register, vo. 68, Mar. 25, 2003 (Washington:
GPO, 2003), pp. 14525-14526.
⁷⁵FY2003 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 23.

In the 107^th Congress, both the House Committee on Appropriations and the
Senate Committee on Appropriations supported an overall federal civilian pay
adjustment of 4.1%, which would put it in parity with the projected military pay
adjustment. The House-passed version includes the 4.1% adjustment but stipulates
that the adjustment would be absorbed by the agencies. The Senate committee
version would have increased salaries and expenses accounts in the bill to fund the
pay parity provision.
Federal Wage System. The Federal Wage System (FWS) is designed to
compensate the federal blue collar, or skilled labor, force at rates prevailing in local
wage areas for like occupations. If the statutory system were allowed to be managed
as planned, the wage rates and the rates of adjustment in the over 130 wage areas
would vary, according to the labor costs and compensation in the private sector. For
the last several years, Congress has limited the rates of adjustment, based on the rates
of adjustment for the General Schedule (P.L. 108-7, Division J, Sec. 613). Part of
the rationale for that decision is that, in certain high cost areas, some FWS wages
would exceed the salaries paid to General Schedule supervisors. Wages in lower
cost areas will be allowed to increase according to the findings of the wage surveys⁷⁶
but the high cost area wages will be capped.
P.L. 107-117 extends the Monroney Amendment out-of-area survey
application to Department of Defense personnel.
Members of Congress, Judges, and Other Officials. Under the
Ethics Reform Act of 1989, as amended, pay adjustments for federal officials,
including Members of Congress and judges, are also based on ECI calculations, but
for a different 12-month period. The ECI calculations dictate a pay adjustment in
January 2003 of 3.3%. However, the statute limits those adjustments to the rate of
adjustment for base pay of the General Schedule. Therefore, since the General
Schedule base pay is being adjusted at the rate of 3.1%, 3.1% is the maximum rate
of adjustment in salaries of federal officials for January 2003. Since the additional
1% in General Schedule pay was apportioned to locality pay only, the salary of
officials is unaffected and the rate of adjustment for January 2003 remains at 3.1%.
Unlike that for Members of Congress and executive branch officials, the
annual pay increase must be specifically authorized for judges. The authorization for
the January 2002 pay increase was in the Commerce, State, Justice and Judiciary
appropriation (P.L. 107-77, section 305). The language permitting the judges to
receive the January 2003 increase was reported by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations as section 304 of S. 2778. However, Congress adjourned prior to
enactment. Therefore, the judges did not receive the 3.1% adjustment as of January
1, 2003. The 108^th Congress enacted P.L. 108-6⁷⁷ for the purpose of permitting the
judges to receive the increase retroactive to the first of the year. At no time, since the
authorization was required, have the judges received lower adjustments than the other
officials.

⁷⁶For Office of Personnel Management guidance to the agencies, see
[http://www.opm.gov/oca/compme mo/2003/2003-03.asp].
⁷⁷P.L. 108-6; H.R. 16; February 13, 2003; 117 Stat. 10.

Because the mechanism described above is automatic, there is no bill
language necessary to establish the pay adjustment for January 2003. During debate
on the Treasury bill rule and provisions there was very brief discussion about whether
the bill would allow an increase in pay for Members.⁷⁸
President. Pursuant to the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-58), effective noon, January 21, 2001, the
President receives a salary of $400,000 per annum. Since 1969, Presidents had been
paid a salary of $200,000. No further action on presidential pay is expected. Former
Presidents receive a pension equal to the rate of pay for Cabinet Secretaries (currently⁷⁹
$161,200) and the pension is adjusted automatically as those pay rates are changed.
Federal Employee Benefit Programs Pre-funding Proposal
In its report, the House Committee addresses the funding strategies of the^th
Administration with regard to the accrual funding proposals set out in S. 1612 (107
Congress), the Managerial Flexibility Act:⁸⁰
The President’s Budget included a legislative proposal under the
jurisdiction of the House Committee on Government Reform to charge to
individual agencies, starting in fiscal year 2003, the fully accrued costs
related to retirement benefits of Civil Service Retirement System
employees and retiree health benefits for all civilian employees. The
Budget also requested an additional dollar amount in each affected
discretionary account to cover these accrued costs.
Without passing judgement on the merits of this legislative
proposal, the Committee has reduced the dollar amounts of the president’s
request shown in the “Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority”
and other tables in this report to exclude the accrual funding proposal. The
disposition by Congress of the legislative proposal is unclear at this time.
Should the proposal be passed by Congress and enacted, the Committee
will make appropriate adjustments to the President’s request to include
accrual amounts.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations joined with the House Committee
in admonishing the Administration for adjusting the funding data in the budget
request to reflect a pending legislative proposal rather than waiting to adjust the
figures after enactment. Since the Senate “authorizing committee has not acted on

⁷⁸See also, CRS Report RL30014, Salaries of Members of Congress: Current Procedures
and Recent Adjustments and CRS Report 97-1011, Salaries of Members of Congress:
Payable Rates and Effective Dates, 1789-2001, both by Paul E. Dwyer. Also see, CRS
Report RS20388, Salary Linkage: Members of Congress and Other Federal Officials; CRS
Report RS20278, Judicial Salaries: Current Situation; and CRS Report 98-53, Salaries of
Federal Officials, by Sharon S. Gressle.
⁷⁹See CRS Report RS20114, Salary of the President Compared with That of Other Federal
Officials, by Sharon S. Gressle.
⁸⁰H.Rept. 107-575, p. 4.

this legislation ... the Senate Appropriations Committee has reduced the dollar
amounts of the President’s request ... to exclude the accrual funding proposal.”⁸¹
Federal Retirement Program. Pensions for federal employees are funded
through contributions by employees and the federal government to the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF). Under the Federal Employees’
Retirement System (FERS), which covers federal employees hired since 1984,
employee pensions are fully “pre-funded” by contributions from employees and their
employing agencies and interest on those contributions. Pensions under the Civil
Service Retirement System (CSRS), which covers only federal employees who were
hired before 1984, are not fully pre-funded. Contributions from employees and their
employing agencies and the interest on those contributions do not cover the full cost
of the pension benefits that employees in the CSRS accrue each year. The CSRS
therefore has a substantial unfunded liability, and it accrues additional unfunded
liability each year. Part of this unfunded liability is paid for by annual transfers from
the general revenues of the U.S. Treasury to the CSRDF. The part of the unfunded
liability that is not paid for by these transfers eventually will be paid for through
additional transfers to the CSRDF from the general revenues of the Treasury.
Subtitle A of Title II of S. 1612 (107^th Congress), the Managerial Flexibility
Act, would have required each federal agency to make additional contributions to the
CSRDF on behalf of employees covered by CSRS.⁸² These additional contributions
would be made from the salary and expense accounts appropriated annually by
Congress to each agency. Whether the agencies’ salary and expense accounts would
be increased by the amount of the additional contributions would be determined by
the Congress. The additional contributions would prevent further unfunded liability
from accruing to the CSRS. They would not amortize (pay off) the unfunded liability
that already has accrued under the CSRS. Increasing agency contributions to the
CSRDF requires legislation and could not be done under the existing regulatory
authority of the Office of Personnel Management, which administer the Civil Service
Retirement System.
In the FY2003 Budget documents, the primary account presentations, for
Salaries and Expenses Accounts, factor in the pre-funding proposals. Alternative
tables are also provided.
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Under the
Administration’s pre-funding proposal, the health plans covering federal retirees
would also be affected. The current program and the possible effects of the proposal
on the program are discussed in a CRS congressional distribution memorandum by
Carolyn Merck, entitled Pre-Funding Federal Retiree Health Insurance (February

13, 2002).

⁸¹S.Rept. 107-212, p. 4.
⁸²An analysis of the proposal can be found in: U.S. Congressional Budget Office, The
President’s Proposal to Accrue Retirement Costs for Federal Employees, June 2002
(Washington: CBO, 2002).

H.R. 5120 (107^th Congress), as passed by the House, dropped the
requirements (formerly Sec. 513) that read: “The costs accounting standards
promulgated under section 26 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act
(Public Law 93-400; 41 U.S.C. 422) shall not apply with respect to a contract under
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program established under chapter 89 of title
5, United States Code.” There was considerable floor debate related to whether there
would be negative impact on the federal employees who subscribe to the program if
the carriers are required to be subject to these cost accounting standards.⁸³
Federal Employees Workers Compensation Program (FECA). The
Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) provides workers compensation
benefits for injured Federal employees. Under current law (5 U.S.C. Sect. 8147), the
direct costs of these benefits are reimbursed via transfers from the budgets of each
Federal agency to the Labor Department, which administers the program and
disburses the benefits. The costs of administration are covered by appropriation
directly to the Labor Department.
The proposed legislation would have charged administrative costs in the same
manner as benefit costs, i.e. through the budgets of each employing agency. The
stated intention was to make each agency explicitly bear the full cost of their
employees’ claims, thus “bolstering their incentive to improve workplace safety.”
Based on recent experience, the administrative surcharge would be around 4.5% of
benefit costs. (For example, in FY2000 this would have represented $92 million in
administrative costs related to $2,025 million in program benefits.) Most of the
surcharge would be paid by the two agencies that account for more than 60% of
FECA claims: the U.S. Postal Service and the Defense Department. (However, the
Postal Service already pays its share pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8147(c).)
The Senate Committee on Appropriations addressed the proposal.⁸⁴
The authorizing committee has not acted on this legislation; therefore, the
Senate Appropriations Committee will continue to fund this administrative
cost through the Department of Labor, Employment Standards
Administration Salaries and Expenses Account.
Federal Child Care
The Bush administration has proposed elimination of the provisions found at
Section 630 of P.L. 107-67. The provisions authorize use of appropriated funds
(salaries and expenses accounts) to provide child care in a federally owned or leased
facility, either directly or through contract, for civilian employees of the agency. The
funds used are to be applied so as to improve affordability of the service for lower
income personnel. The Committees on Appropriations are to be notified before
implementation. P.L. 107-67 also added language authorizing payment to licensed

⁸³Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2003, Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 148, July 23, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002), pp. H5229, at H. 5260-H5263.
⁸⁴S.Rept. 107-212, p. 5.

or regulated child care providers “in advance of services rendered, covering agreed
upon periods, as appropriate.”
Neither the House and Senate bills (H.R. 5120 and S. 2740, 107^th Congress)
nor H.J.Res. 2 (108^th Congress) propose repeal of the aforementioned provisions
found in Section 630 of P.L. 107-67. (For more information on child care issues in
the 107^th Congress, see CRS Report RL30944.)
Information Resources Management
Overlapping Cyber-Security Initiatives. In its report, the House
Committee on Appropriations indicated that it was “concerned about redundancies
in developing and implementing governmental cyber-security initiatives for the
protection of government information technology” and directed OMB to submit a
report within 90 days of the enactment of the appropriation bill detailing “the cyber-
security initiatives undertaken by the various government departments and agencies,”
specifying “total costs, as of the date of the report, by department or agency for
cyber-security, an identification of those initiatives that are being shared between
departments or agencies, an identification of those initiatives that respond to unique
requirements, and an identification of initiatives that satisfy requirements of more
than one department or agency yet are not being shared.”⁸⁵
Government Web Sites. Concerned “about the lack of uniformity of
standards and user friendliness that affect usability of the various department and
agency web sites,” the House Committee on Appropriations, in its report, encouraged
“the adoption by the Administration of uniform standards that can lead to more user
friendly and usable government web sites.”⁸⁶
Government Printing. The House Committee on Appropriations took
issue with a recent OMB proposal for “disregarding the statutory requirement of Title
44, U.S. Code, Section 501, that Executive-branch agencies produce or procure their
printing through the Government Printing Office.”⁸⁷ In a May 3, 2002, memorandum
to the heads of all executive branch departments and agencies, OMB Director
Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., set forth new policy with respect to the use of GPO in
handling departmental and agency printing and duplicating needs. The new policy
allowed that, 44 U.S.C. 501 not withstanding, “Executive Branch departments and
agencies should not be required to select GPO when more efficient and cost-effective
options are available through the private sector or other avenues.” Continuing, the
memorandum specified that “Executive Branch departments and agencies should
select printing and duplicating services based upon the best quality, cost, and time of
delivery.” The memorandum implied that this change in policy was effective

⁸⁵U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Treasury, Postal Service, and
General Government Appropriations Bill, 2003, a report to accompany H.R. 5120, 107^th^nd
Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 107-575 (Washington: GPO, 2002), p. 62.
⁸⁶Ib i d .
⁸⁷Ibid., p. 64.

immediately, and stated that guidance would be forthcoming from OMB’s Office of
Federal Procurement Policy and that a proposal would be made for amending the
Federal Acquisition Regulation to reflect the new policy.⁸⁸
Noting that prior “examinations of such proposals have questioned whether
such a policy could result in significant increases in the cost of printing government-
wide and could substantially impair public access to government information
through the Federal Depository Library Program,” the House committee directed
OMB to report within 30 days on how its proposal “(1) improves economy and
efficiency in federal printing; (2) improves public access to government information;
and (3) comports with the concern that unless and until Title 44 is changed by a
constitutional process, Executive-branch officials responsible for printing are legally
bound to uphold it.”⁸⁹
Similarly, in its report, the Senate Committee on Appropriations stated that
it “strongly opposes the Office of Management and Budget’s plans, announced in a
May 3, 2002, memorandum (M-02-07), to ignore the statutory requirement that the
procurement of Government publications must be conducted through the
Government Printing Office (GPO). Not only has the administration announced an
intention to completely disregard a law which has been in place since 1895 and
strengthened in 1994,” the report continued, “it has failed to consider the
consequences particularly in terms of Government printing costs and public access
to Government publications.” The committee directed “the administration to abide
by the statutory requirement, 44 U.S.C. 501, that printing be done by or through the
Government Printing Office.”⁹⁰
E-Government Initiatives. In its report, the House committee expressed
concern “about the establishment of government’s proper role in providing digital
services.” Noting that “the federal government’s investment in information
technology is estimated to be $50 billion for fiscal year 2003 and rife with
inefficiencies and redundancies,” the report indicated that “the Administration is to
be strongly encouraged to leverage related government business processes to improve
productivity, eliminate redundant systems, and significantly improve the quality of
government services,” but added that “its E-government plans must be carefully
evaluated and monitored to ensure that they do not support government competition
with market-based private providers of digital services.” Furthermore, the committee
report expressed concern “that the government needs a new blueprint for guiding e-
government initiatives.” Consequently, the committee directed OMB to provide
within 90 days after the enactment of the appropriations bill a report detailing the
blueprint used by the e-government task force in its review and adoption of the e-

⁸⁸U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Procurement of Printing and Duplicating
Through the Government Printing Office,” Memorandum for Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies, M-02-07 (Washington: May 3, 2002) (emphasis in original).
⁸⁹U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Treasury, Postal Service, and
General Government Appropriations Bill, 2003, p. 64.
⁹⁰S.Rept. 107-212, p. 56.

government initiatives mentioned in the President’s budget.⁹¹ Other matters to be
addressed in the report include “The process used by the Task Force to consider, and
adopt or reject E-Government initiatives; the evaluations of those and other E-
Government initiatives that were already provided for, or were requested by an
agency or from the private sector; the reviews undertook [sic] by the Task Force for
establishing and deciding which digital activities and services are inherently
governmental and should be pursued as an E-Government initiative and which are
non-governmental and therefore fall under private provider’s domain; and the support
and guidance from the private sector used by the Task Force in its work.”
Endowment for Presidential Libraries. The report of the Senate
Committee on Appropriations noted that section 515 of the bill (S. 2740) “is a new⁹²
provision increasing the size of the endowment for future Presidential libraries.”
Current law provides that presidential libraries built after 1985 must have a privately
funded endowment equal to 20% of the facility’s assessed value to defray operational
costs.⁹³ The provision in the appropriations bill would increase the private
endowment requirement to 40%. Presidential libraries are constructed at private
expense and, when completed, are deeded to the federal government for operation by
the National archives. The private endowment requirement provides an offset to the
public cost of maintaining the facility.
Cuba Sanctions
Since the early 1960s, U.S. policy toward Cuba has consisted largely of
efforts to isolate the communist government of Fidel Castro through comprehensive
economic sanctions, including a near total trade embargo and prohibitions on U.S.
financial transactions with Cuba. The Bush Administration has continued this policy
of isolating Cuba. Restrictions on travel to Cuba have been a key and often
contentious component of the sanctions, as have restrictions on agricultural exports
to Cuba. The 106^th Congress passed the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-387, Title IX), which allows for one-year export
licenses for shipping agricultural exports to Cuba, although no U.S. private
commercial financing is allowed.
Numerous initiatives have been introduced to ease U.S. sanctions toward
Cuba, including efforts to ease restrictions on travel and the prohibition against
private commercial financing for agricultural products. In the first session of the
107^th Congress, the House debated two amendments to the FY2002 Treasury
Department appropriations bill, H.R. 2590, that would ease U.S. sanctions on Cuba,
approving one, which would prohibit spending for administering Treasury
Department regulations restricting travel to Cuba, by a vote of 240-186 (H.Amdt.

241, offered by Representative Flake) and rejecting the second, which would prohibit

⁹¹U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2003 Budget of the U.S. Government,
pp. 386-387.
⁹²S.Rept. 107-212, p. 91.
⁹³See 44 U.S.C. 2112.

Treasury Department funds from administering the overall U.S. embargo on Cuba,
by a vote of 201-227 (H.Amdt. 242, offered by Representative Rangel). Ultimately,
however, the provision regarding Cuba travel restrictions was not included in final
congressional action on the bill. In the second session, the Senate approved its
version of the 2002 “Farm Bill,” H.R. 2646, on February 13, 2002, which included
a provision (Section 335) that would have eliminated the prohibition on U.S. private
commercial financing for agricultural sales to Cuba. The House version had no such
provision, and it was not included in the conference report on the bill.
The issue of whether to ease Cuba sanctions was part of the debate during
consideration of the FY2003 Treasury Department appropriations measure (H.R.
5120 and S. 2740). Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of the Treasury
Paul O’Neill said they would recommend that the President veto legislation that
includes a loosening of restrictions on travel to Cuba or the prohibition on private
financing for U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba. The White House also indicated that
President Bush would veto the Treasury Department appropriations bill if it had such
provisions.
In July 23, 2002 floor action on H.R. 5120, the House approved three Cuba
sanctions amendments and rejected two. The House approved a Flake amendment
(H.Amdt. 552), by a vote of 262-167, that would provide that no funds could be used
to administer or enforce the Treasury Department regulations with respect to travel
to Cuba. The Flake amendment would not prevent the issuance of general or specific
licenses for travel to Cuba. The House also approved a second Flake amendment,
(H.Amdt. 553), by a vote of 251-177, that would prohibit funds from being used to
enforce any restriction on remittances to nationals of Cuba. Current regulations
allow remittances, but these are limited to $300 per quarter. Finally, the House
approved a Moran (Kansas) amendment (H.Amdt. 554), by voice vote, that would
provide that no funds could be used to implement any sanction on private
commercial sales of agricultural commodities or medicines. Some suggest that the
practical effect of this amendment would be to prevent the Treasury Department’s
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) from ensuring that sales to Cuba do not
include private financing.⁹⁴ Some observers have also raised the issue of whether the
effect of all three of these amendments would be limited since the underlying
embargo regulations would remain unchanged; enforcement action against violations
of the relevant embargo regulations could potentially take place in future years when
the Treasury Department appropriations measure did not include the funding
limitations on enforcing the Cuba embargo.⁹⁵
The House also rejected two Cuba amendments during consideration of H.R.
5120. A Rangel amendment (H.Amdt. 555), rejected by a vote of 204-226, would
have prevented any funds in the bill from being used to implement, administer, or
enforce the overall economic embargo of Cuba. A Goss amendment (H.Amdt. 551),
rejected by a vote of 182-247, would have provided that any limitation on the use of
funds to administer or enforce regulations restricting travel to Cuba or travel-related

⁹⁴“House Approves Limits on Treasury Enforcement of Cuba Embargo,” Inside U.S. Trade,
July 26, 2002.
⁹⁵Ib i d .

transactions would only apply after the President certified to Congress that certain
conditions were met regarding biological weapons and terrorism. The rule for the
bill’s consideration, H.Res. 488 (H.Rept. 107-585), had provided that the Goss
amendment would not be subject to amendment.
The Senate version of the Treasury Department appropriations measure, S.

2740, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations (S.Rept. 107-212),

includes a provision, in Section 516, that is similar although not identical to the Flake
amendment described above regarding travel. It provides that no funds may be used
to enforce the Treasury Department regulations with respect to any travel or travel-
related transactions, but would not prevent OFAC, which implements the travel
regulations, from issuing general and specific licenses for travel to Cuba. In addition,
Section 124 of the Senate bill stipulates that no Treasury Department funds for
“Departmental Offices, Salaries, and Expenses” may be used by OFAC, until OFAC
has certain procedures in place to expedite the processing of license applications for
travel.
Final action on the FY2003 Treasury Department appropriations measure was
not completed before the end of the 107^th Congress, but in the 108th Congress, the
FY2003 omnibus appropriations bill (H.J.Res. 2) included Treasury Department
Appropriations. The Senate version of H.J.Res. 2, approved January 23, 2003, did
not include the Senate Appropriations Committee provision from the 107th Congress
that would have eased travel restrictions. However, the Senate omnibus bill included
a provision with the goal of expediting action by the Treasury Department’s Office
of Foreign Assets Control on license applications for travel within 90 calendar days
(Division J, Treasury appropriations, Section 124). In the end , however, the
conference report to the omnibus bill, H.Rept. 108-10, filed on February 13, 2003,
did not retain the provision expediting action on travel license applications.
For further information, see CRS Report RL31139, Cuba: U.S. Restrictions
on Travel and Legislative Initiatives; CRS Issue Brief IB10061, Exempting Food and
Agricultural Products from U.S. Economic Sanctions: Status and Implementation;
and CRS Report RL31740, Cuba: Issues for the 108^th Congress.
Major Funding Trends
The FY2003 funding cycle was unusual in several respects. The House and
Senate generally agree upon a congressional budget resolution which sets a ceiling
for overall spending. The respective Committees on Appropriations then allocate to
the subcommittees what their spending limits are for the funding cycle. During the
FY2003 funding cycle, there was no formal agreement on such a resolution. The
House Committee on Appropriations issued so-called 302(b) allocations for the⁹⁶
House subcommittees on June 21, 2003. A second unusual aspect was that not only
did the funding measures fail to be adopted prior to the beginning of the fiscal year,

⁹⁶“House Appropriations Sets 302(b) Allocations,” Congress Daily E-Mail Alert for June
21, 2003 and “Reluctant Appropriators Approve FY03 Spending Allocations,” Congress
Daily AM, June 25, 2003.

there was no solution by the time the Congress adjourned. The funding for the fiscal
year was enacted almost two months into the next Congress, one month short of the
halfway mark of the fiscal year. During the interim period, the accounts were funded
at the FY2002 enacted levels.
P.L. 108-7, the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 funded the
Treasury and General Government accounts at $34,653,476,000.⁹⁷ The conference
report does not provide a breakdown of mandatory and discretionary funding.
The House Committee on Appropriations filed a report to accompany H.R.
5120. H.Rept. 107-575 shows that the bill, as reported, would fund the discretionary
accounts at $18.5 billion, for a total of $35.1 billion.⁹⁸
The following summaries appeared in the press release from the House
Appropriations Committee following their July 9, 2003 mark up:⁹⁹
The Subcommittee recommends $18.5 billion in support of fiscal year 2003
operations of programs under its jurisdiction. This recommendation is
above the President’s request by $538 million and is consistent with the
Subcommittee’s 302(b) spending allocation. The Committee includes $200
million for election administration reform and makes the availability of
these funds subject to authorization. Excluding election administration
reform, the Subcommittee’s recommendation is $338 million above the
President’s request and $51 million below the fiscal year 2002 enacted
levels.
The Subcommittee rejects the President’s proposal to fund $250 million in
base operations of the Customs Service through an increase in passenger
processing fees – estimated to generate only $167 million in new revenue.
Instead, the Subcommittee funds base operations thru a direct
appropriation, which accounts for most of the increase above the
president’s request. The Committee provides approximately $4.2 billion
in support of homeland security efforts; $246.4 million for the High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program; $439 million for Customs
Service Automation Modernization, including $316.9 million to continue
modernization of the antiquated Automated Commercial System; $646
million for GSA’s construction program, including $309 million for site
acquisition, design and/or construction of 11 courthouse; and $436 million
for continued upgrades to IRS’s information technology systems.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations filed S.Rept. 107-212 to
accompany S. 2740. The report shows that the accounts would be funded at
$34,766,450,000 (mandatory and discretionary), which exceeds the request of

⁹⁷Funding tables are found at “Conference Report on H.J. Res. 2, Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution, 2003," Congressional Record, vol. 149, 108^th Cong., 1^st sess.,
Feb. 14, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. H639-H645.
⁹⁸U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Treasury, Postal Service, and
General Government Appropriations Bill, 2003, 107^th Cong., 2^nd sess., H.Rept. 107-575, July

15, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002).

⁹⁹See [http://www.house.gov/appropriations/news/107_2/03tpofull.htm].

$34,276,277,000, an increase of almost $500 million. It appears that a significant
amount of the increase reflects the committee’s recommendation that the pay parity
provision be funded.

Table 3. Appropriations for the Treasury, Postal Service,
Executive Office of the President, and General Government,
FY1998 to FY2002^a
(in billions of current dollars)
F Y 1998 F Y 1999 F Y 2000 F Y 2001 F Y 2002
25.585 27.122 28.257 30.8 33.8
^S^o^u^{rce for FY2002:}^U^.^S^.^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^,^H^o^u^s^{e, C}^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee on}^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^.
^a^T^h^es^{e f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^{, in}^cu^rren^t^dollars^,^{include CB}^O^a^d^j^u^st^m^e^nt^s^f^o^{r perm}^an^en^t^b^u^d^g^e^t
^au^th^o^r^{ities, r}^e^scissioⁿ^{s, an}^d^su^p^p^l^em^en^{tals, as w}^e^{ll as o}^t^h^e^r^elem^eⁿ^t^s^f^a^cto^r^ed
ⁱⁿ^{to th}^{e C}^B^{O s}^c^orek^eepin^g^proces^s^.^F^o^{r a bri}^e^f^pres^en^t^a^tⁱ^{on on}^C^B^O
^s^c^orek^eepin^g^s^{ee: U.S. C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al B}^u^dg^{et Of}^fⁱ^ce,^M^aⁱⁿ^t^aⁱⁿⁱⁿ^g^Budge^t^a^r^y
^Dⁱ^s^cⁱ^p^lⁱⁿ^e^:^S^p^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^{and R}^{evenue O}^p^tⁱ^ons^(Was^hⁱⁿ^g^t^on^:^G^P^O^,^{1999). T}^h^e
^appen^dⁱ^x^begⁱⁿⁿⁱⁿ^g^on^{p. 281 prov}ⁱ^d^es^t^h^{e “}^S^corek^eepiⁿ^g^G^uⁱ^d^elⁱⁿ^es^,”^as^f^o^uⁿ^d
ⁱⁿ^t^h^{e con}^f^eren^{ce report}^t^o^t^h^{e Bal}^aⁿ^{ced Bu}^dg^et^A^c^t^of^1997.^A^l^s^o^av^ai^l^a^bl^{e at}
^[^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www.^c^b^o^.^g^o^v^/^]^.
Table 4. Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the
President, and General Government Appropriations, FY2003, by
Title and Major Accounts
(In millions, without CBO scorekeeping)
House Senat e F Y 2003
FY2002FY2003Passed^H^.^R^.⁵¹²⁰Passed^H.^J^.^Res.²Enacted
TitleEnactedRequest¹⁰⁷^th^Con^g^.¹⁰⁸^th^Con^g^.P.L. 108-7
I. Treasury$15,646.2$15,865.4$16,168.8$16,128.3$16,171.7
II. USPS683.1107.6107.6107.6107.6
III. EOP 801.3786.01,034.5728.4782.1
IV. Agencies16,696.617,517.217,510.517,569.117,592.0
T otal $33,817.1 $34,276.3 $34,821.5 $34,718.8 $34,653.5
^Source:^“^C^on^f^e^ren^{ce R}^e^port^on^H^.^J.R^e^s^.^{2, C}^oⁿ^s^olⁱ^d^at^{ed A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^R^e^s^o^l^u^tⁱ^oⁿ^,^2003,”^th^st
^C^ongr^es^sⁱ^onal^Recor^d^,^v^o^l^.^149,¹⁰⁸^C^oⁿ^g^{., 1}^s^e^s^s^.,^F^e^{b. 14, 2002 (Was}^hⁱⁿ^g^t^on^:^G^P^O^,^{2003), pp.}
^H^639-^H^645.

CRS-65
Table 5. Department of the Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President, and General Government
Appropriations, 2003
(in thousands of dollars)
^FY^{2002 E}ⁿ^acted^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Sena^t^e^P^a^ssed
^B^u^{reau or Agency Account}^Including^Supplem^ent^a^l^FY²⁰⁰³^Request^P^a^sse^d^Reported^FY²⁰⁰³^Ena^c^t^e^d^P.L^.^108-7
^F^unding^H.R^.⁵¹²⁰^S^.²⁷⁴⁰^H.J.Res²
^{tle I}^:^Departm^e^{nt of the}^T^reas^u^{ry, Selected Accounts}
^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^O^f^fⁱ^ces^177,142^191,914^187,241^195,100^191,887^189,201
^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^-^wⁱ^d^{e S}^y^s^t^em^s^an^{d C}^a^pi^t^a^l^In^v^e^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^s^Prog^ram^s^68,828^68,828^68,828^68,828^68,828^65,628
^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^In^s^p^ect^{or G}^eⁿ^e^ral^35,424^35,428^35,424^35,736^35,424^35,736
^s^p^ect^{or G}^eⁿ^e^ral^f^o^{r T}^a^x^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^125,778^123,962^123,962^125,011^123,962^125,011
ⁱ^{r T}^r^an^s^port^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^S^t^abi^lⁱ^zatⁱ^oⁿ^Prog^ram^–^-⁶^,041^6,041^6,041^6,041^6,041
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31302}^eas^u^r^y^Buⁱ^l^dⁱⁿ^g^R^e^pai^r^an^{d R}^e^s^t^oratⁱ^oⁿ^28,932^32,932^32,932^32,932^30,932^28,932
^g/w^pan^d^{ed A}^cces^s^t^o^Fⁱⁿ^aⁿ^cⁱ^a^l^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^2,000^2,000^4,000^2,000^2,000^2,000
^s^.or^uⁿ^t^ert^e^rrori^s^m^F^uⁿ^d^(em^e^rg^en^cy^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g⁾^40,000^40,000^33,000^40,000^20,000^10,000
^le^akⁿ^aⁿ^cⁱ^a^l^C^rⁱ^m^es^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^N^e^t^w^ork^47,537^50,517^51,444^50,825^50,517^51,752
^deral^L^a^w^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^T^r^aiⁿⁱⁿ^g^C^eⁿ^t^er^170,614^145,722^184,751^166,450^158,689^170,986
^://wiki^t^e^rag^eⁿ^c^y^C^rⁱ^m^{e an}^{d D}^r^u^g^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^107,576^107,576^110,594^108,532^107,576^107,576
^h^ttpⁿ^aⁿ^cⁱ^a^l^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^S^e^rvⁱ^{ce , S}^a^l^a^ri^es^an^{d Ex}^pen^s^es^212,850^220,712^220,664^222,078^220,664^222,078
^reau^of^A^l^coh^o^{l, T}^{obacco, an}^{d F}ⁱ^rearm^s^-^S^a^laries^an^{d Ex}^pen^s^es^841,747^870,775^878,034^886,753^875,430^873,430
^gr^ant^s^13,000^13,000^13,000^13,0000^13,000^13,000
^.^S^.^C^u^s^t^om^s^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e³^,087,352^2,^834,113^3,129,197^3,141,⁶¹⁴^3,117,649^3,147,316
^reau^of^t^h^{e Pu}^blⁱ^c^D^e^bt^186,9533^191,119^168,673^192,068^191,073^190,068
^m^en^t^of^g^o^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^l^o^s^s^e^sⁱⁿ^s^hⁱ^p^m^eⁿ^t^1,000^1,000^1,000^1,000^1,000^1,000
^t^e^rn^al^R^e^v^eⁿ^u^e^S^e^rvⁱ^{ce, T}^o^t^a^l^9,474,604^9,915,853^9,898,593^9,995,221^9,899,293^9,899,293
^oces^sⁱ^{ng, As}^sⁱ^s^t^{ance, and M}^anagem^e^nt^3,810,880^3,958,337^3,955,077^3,985,151^3,955,777^3,955,777
^{x L}^a^w^Enf^o^r^cem^ent³^,542,,891^3,^729,072^3,729,072^3,774,¹²¹^3,729,072^3,729,072
ⁿ^{ed Income Tax C}^r^{edit C}^o^{mpliance Initiative}^146,000^146,000^146,000^147,233^146,000^146,000
^o^r^m^atⁱ^{on Sys}^t^em^s^1,579,240^1,^632,444^1,632,444^1,638,⁷¹⁶^1,632,444^1,632,444
ⁱ^nes^s^Sys^t^em^s^M^oderⁿⁱ^z^atⁱ^oⁿ^391,593^450,000^436,000^450,000^436,000^366,000
^.^S^.^S^ecret^S^e^rvⁱ^ce^1,028,841^1,^013,954^1,021,411^1,020,⁴⁶⁶^1,014,336^1,032,669
^tal^,^T^reas^u^ry^15,646,178^15,865,⁴⁴⁶^16,168,789^16,303,655^16,128,301^16,171,717
^oprⁱ^a^tⁱ^ons^15,041,918^15,865,446^16,168,789^16,303,⁶⁵⁵^16,128,301^16,171,717
^er^{gency Fundi}^ng^604,260^–-^–-^-

CRS-66
^FY^{2002 E}ⁿ^acted^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Sena^t^e^P^a^ssed
^B^u^{reau or Agency Account}^Including^Supplem^ent^a^l^FY²⁰⁰³^Request^P^a^sse^d^Reported^FY²⁰⁰³^Ena^c^t^e^d^P.L^.^108-7
^F^unding^H.R^.⁵¹²⁰^S^.²⁷⁴⁰^H.J.Res²
^l^e^II:^U.^S.^P^o^st^a^l^Se^r^v^ic^e
^m^en^t^t^o^Pos^t^al^S^e^rvⁱ^{ce F}^uⁿ^d^29,000^29,000^29,000^60,015^29,000^29,000
^oprⁱ^a^tⁱ^{on, FY}^2002/²⁰⁰³^67,093^47,619^47,619^60,014^47,619^47,619
^er^{gency Fundi}^ng^500,000^–-^–-^–-^-^-
^t^a^l^FY^2002/²⁰⁰³^596,093^76,619^76,619^47,619^76,619^76,619
^opr^{iation, FY2004: N}^o^{t in}^C^o^{mmittee total: 31,014}^31,014^31,014^31,014
^tal^,^Pos^t^al^S^ervi^ce^596,093^76,619^107,633^107,633^107,633^107,633
^l^{e III:}^Executⁱ^v^e^O^f^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^t^h^{e P}^resident⁽^E^O^P⁾^a^{nd F}^{unds Appro}^p^ria^t^{ed t}^o^t^h^{e P}^resident
^m^p^en^s^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^of^t^h^{e Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t⁴⁵⁰⁴⁵⁰⁴⁵⁰⁴⁵⁰⁴⁵⁰⁴⁵⁰
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31302}^{e Wh}ⁱ^t^e^H^o^u^s^{e O}^f^fⁱ^{ce (s}^al^ari^e^s^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es⁾^54,651^84,595^50,715^60,212^59,735^50,715
^g/w^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^H^o^m^e^l^aⁿ^d^S^ecu^ri^t^y^—^—^24,061^25,301^24,844^19,398
^s^.or^ecu^tⁱ^v^{e R}^e^sⁱ^den^{ce at}^t^h^{e Wh}ⁱ^t^e^H^o^u^s^{e (operat}ⁱⁿ^g^ex^pen^s^es⁾^11,695^12,228^12,228^12,339^12,228^12,228
^le^akⁱ^t^e^H^o^u^s^{e R}^e^pai^r^an^{d R}^e^s^t^oratⁱ^oⁿ⁸^,625^1,200^1,200^1,200^1,200^1,200
^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^t^h^{e V}ⁱ^{ce Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^(s^al^ari^e^s^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es⁾³^,925^4,066^3,160^4,093^4,066^4,066
^://wiki^f^fⁱ^ci^al^R^e^sⁱ^den^{ce of}^t^h^{e V}ⁱ^{ce Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^(operatⁱⁿ^g^ex^pen^s^es⁾³¹⁸³²⁴³²⁴³²⁵³²⁴³²⁴
^h^ttp^uⁿ^cⁱ^l^of^Econ^omⁱ^c^A^d^vⁱ^s^e^rs^4,211^4,405^3,763^4,444^4,405^3,763
^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^Polⁱ^c^y^D^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t⁴^,142^4,221^3,251^4,254^4,221^3,251
^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^S^ecu^ri^t^y^C^o^uⁿ^cⁱ^l^7,494^9,525^7,803^9,600^9,525^7,821
^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^100,795^70,128^92,681^70,338^70,128^91,505
^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d Bu}^dg^et^70,752^70,752^61,492^71,370^70,752^62,394
^G^o^ve^rⁿ^m^e^nt^Fund⁽^f^r^o^m^G^S^A⁾^—^—⁵^,⁰⁰⁰^–^-^-^-
^ectⁱ^oⁿ^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^R^e^f^o^rm^—^—^200,000^–-^-^-
^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^Natioⁿ^a^{l Dru}^g^C^oⁿ^t^ro^{l P}^o^licy^(ONDC^P⁾
^l^a^ri^es^an^{d Ex}^pen^s^es^25,263^25,458^24,458^26,605^26,456^26,456
^P^C^o^uⁿ^t^erd^r^u^g^T^echⁿ^o^lo^g^y^A^ssessm^en^{t C}^eⁿ^t^er⁴²^,³⁰⁰⁴⁰^,⁰⁰⁰⁵⁵^,⁸⁰⁰⁴⁰^,⁰⁰⁰⁴⁰^,⁰⁰⁰⁴⁸^,⁰⁰⁰
^a^l^D^r^{ug C}^ont^r^o^l^Pr^ogr^am^{, H}ⁱ^{gh Int}^e^nsⁱ^t^y^D^r^{ug T}^r^af^fⁱ^cki^ng
^eas^Pr^ogr^am⁽^H^ID^T^A⁾^226,350^206,350^246,350^226,350^226,300^226,350
^a^l^D^r^{ug C}^ont^r^o^l^Pr^ogr^am^{, Speci}^al^Fo^r^f^ei^t^u^r^e^Fund^239,400^251,300^240,800^172,700^172,700^223,200
ⁿ^d^s^A^ppropri^a^t^e^{d t}^o^t^h^{e Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^-^Uⁿ^an^tⁱ^cⁱ^p^at^{ed N}^eeds^1,000^1,000^1,000^1,000^1,000^1,000
^{tal, E}^O^{P and Funds}^{Appropriated to}^{the Pres}^ident^797,571^786,⁰⁰²^1,034,536^730,581^728,384^782,121

CRS-67
^FY^{2002 E}ⁿ^acted^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Sena^t^e^P^a^ssed
^B^u^{reau or Agency Account}^Including^Supplem^ent^a^l^FY²⁰⁰³^Request^P^a^sse^d^Reported^FY²⁰⁰³^Ena^c^t^e^d^P.L^.^108-7
^F^unding^H.R^.⁵¹²⁰^S^.²⁷⁴⁰^H.J.Res²
^l^{e IV:}^Independent^Ag^encies
^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee f}^o^{r Pu}^rch^a^s^e^f^r^om^Peopl^{e Wh}^{o A}^r^{e Bl}ⁱⁿ^{d or S}^e^v^e^rel^y
ⁱ^s^a^bl^ed^4,629^4,629^4,629^4,658^4,629^4,658
^e^r^a^{l Electio}ⁿ^Co^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^43,689^45,244^49,426^45,668^45,244^49,866
^e^r^a^{l L}^a^b^o^r^Relatioⁿ^s^A^u^th^ori^t^y^26,524^28,684^28,677^28,950^28,677^28,950
^eⁿ^e^ral^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^620,393^516,614^510,566^620,727^569,890^586,933
^a^l^Bui^l^dⁱ^ngs^Fund^432,⁷¹²^276,400^325,711^371,489^363,299^375,711
ⁱ^{cy and O}^p^er^atⁱ^ons^143,139^—^–^–^–^–
^itiz^{en Ser}^v^ices^—^65,995^65,995^75,304^65,995^66,304
^p^er^atⁱ^{ng Expens}^es^—^88,263^77,904^87,674^94,640^83,663
^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^Ins^p^ect^or^G^e^ner^a^l^36,346^7,617^37,617^37,916^37,617^37,916
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31302}^{onic Gover}^{nment (}^E^-GO)⁽^m^{ove to Exec.}^{Off. Of Pr}^es^ident)^5,000^45,000^–^45,000^5,000^5,000
^g/w^ances^{and Office Staff for}^For^m^er^Pr^es^idents^3,196^3,339^3,339^3,344^3,339^3,339
^s^.or^s^t^em^s^P^r^otection^B^o^{ard (s}^alaries^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es⁾^30,555^31,790^31,788^32,027^31,788^32,027
^le^ak^r^rⁱ^{s K. Ud}^{all Sch}^o^lar^s^hⁱ^p^an^d^Ex^cellen^{ce in}^Natioⁿ^a^l
^vⁱ^r^oⁿ^m^en^{tal P}^o^licy^Fo^uⁿ^d^atioⁿ
^://wiki^o^r^rⁱ^s^K^.^U^dal^l^T^r^us^t^Fund^1,996^1,996^1,996^1,996^1,996^1,996
^h^ttp^r^onm^ent^a^l^Dⁱ^s^put^{e Res}^o^l^u^tⁱ^{on Fund}^1,309^1,309^1,309^1,309^1,309^1,309
^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^A^r^chⁱ^v^es^an^{d R}^ecords^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^285,814^265,003^260,003^264,897^263,753^263,397
^p^er^atⁱ^{ng Expens}^es^245,847^256,731^249,731^249,875^249,731^249,875
ⁱ^{on of}^D^e^bt^-6,612^-7,186^-7,186^-7,186^-7,186^-7,186
^r^s^{and Res}^t^or^atⁱ^oⁿ^40,¹⁴³^10,458^10,458^14,208^14,208^14,208
^tⁱ^onal^Hⁱ^s^t^orⁱ^c^al^Publⁱ^c^atⁱ^ons^{and Recor}^d^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on:
^r^ant^s^Pr^ogr^am^6,436^5,000^7,000^8,000^7,000^6,500
^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^G^o^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^Et^hⁱ^cs^10,117^10,488^10,486^10,557^10,486^10,557
^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^Pers^onⁿ^e^l^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^15,619,⁰⁷⁸^16,558,859^16,559,041^16,^560,856^16,558,791^16,559,682
^arⁱ^e^s^{and Expens}^es^99,636^128,804^128,986^129,686^128,736^129,486
^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^Ins^p^ect^or^G^e^ner^a^l¹^,498^1,498^1,498^1,519^1,498^1,519
^{nment Payment for}^A^nnuitants^,^Employees^{Health Benefits}^6,^129,000^6,853,000^6,853,000^6,^853,000^6,853,000^6,853,000
^{nment Payment for}^Annuitant^s^,^Employees^{Life Ins}^u^r^ance^34,000^34,000^34,000^34,000^34,000^34,000
ⁱ^{vil Ser}^v^{ice Retir}^{ement and Dis}^ab^{ility Fund}^9,^229,000^9,410,000^9,410,000^9,^410,000^9,410,000^9,410,000
^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^S^p^eci^al^C^o^uⁿ^s^el^11,891^12,434^12,432^12,449^12,434^12,449
ⁿⁱ^t^e^{d S}^t^at^es^T^a^x^C^o^u^r^t^37,305^37,305^37,305^37,611^37,305^37,305
ⁱ^t^e^H^o^u^s^{e C}^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^on^t^h^{e N}^a^t^’^l^Mom^eⁿ^t^of^R^e^m^e^m^b^ran^c^e⁵⁰⁰²⁵⁰²⁵⁰²⁵⁰²⁵⁰²⁵⁰
^t^a^{l, Independent}^Ag^encies^16,674,020^17,517,199^17,510,502^17,624,581^17,569,146^17,592,005^th^st
^rces:^“^C^onf^e^r^eⁿ^c^e^R^e^por^{t on H}^.^J^.^R^e^s^.^2,^C^ons^olida^t^e^d^A^ppr^opr^ia^tions^R^e^s^o^lution,^2003,”^C^ongr^e^s^sⁱ^{onal Re}^c^o^r^d^,^v^o^{l. 149, 108}^C^ong^{., 1}^s^e^s^s^{., Fe}^{b. 14, 2002 (}^W^a^s^hing^{ton: G}^P^O^,²⁰⁰³⁾^{, pp.}^H^639-
^u^r^e^s^f^o^r^{S. 2740 a}^r^e^f^r^om^S.R^e^{pt. 107-}^{212. N}^o^te^tha^t^fⁱ^g^u^r^e^s^{do not r}^e^f^l^e^c^t^the^0.65%^a^c^r^os^s^-^the^-^boa^r^d^r^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^{on r}^e^quir^e^{d by}^P^.^L^.^108-^7.

Glossary of Budget Process Terms
The following definitions are selected from the “Glossary of Budgetary Terms,” as
found in CRS Report 98-720, Manual on the Federal Budget Process, by Robert
Keith in consultation with Alan Schick.
Account. A control and reporting unit for budgeting and accounting.
Appropriation. A provision of law providing budget authority that permits federal
agencies to incur obligations and to make payments, of the Treasury for specified
purposes. Annual appropriations are provided in appropriations acts; most
permanent appropriations are provided in substantive law.
Authorization. A provision in law that authorizes appropriations for a program or
agency.
Budget Authority. Authority provided by law to enter into obligations that normally
result in outlays. The main forms of budget authority are appropriations, borrowing
authority, and contract authority.
Budget Resolution. A concurrent resolution passed by both Houses of Congress, but
not requiring the signature of the President, setting forth the congressional budget for
at least the next five fiscal years. The budget resolution sets forth various budget
totals and functional allocations, and may include reconciliation instructions, to
designated House or Senate committees.
Continuing Resolution. An act (in the form of a joint resolution) that provides
budget authority to agencies or programs whose regular appropriation has not been
enacted after the new fiscal year has started. A continuing resolution usually is a
temporary measure that expires on a specified date or is superseded by enactment of
the regular appropriations act. Some continuing resolutions, however, are in effect
for the remainder of the fiscal year and are the means of enacting regular
appropriations.
Direct Spending. Budget authority, and the resulting outlays, provided in laws other
than annual appropriations acts. Appropriated entitlements are classified as direct
spending. Direct spending is distinguished by the Budget Enforcement Act from
discretionary spending and is subject to the PAGO rules. It is also referred to as
“mandatory spending.”
Discretionary Spending. Budget authority, and the resulting outlays, provided in
annual appropriations acts, but not including appropriated entitlements.
Federal Funds. All monies collected and spent by the federal government other than
those designated as trust funds. Federal funds include general, special, public
enterprise, and intragovernmental funds.
Mandatory Spending. See “Direct Spending.”

Obligation. A binding agreement (such as through a contract or purchase order) that
will require payment.
Outlays. Payments made (generally through the issuance of checks or disbursement
of cash) to liquidate obligations. Outlays during a fiscal year may be for payment of
obligations incurred in prior years or in the same year.
PAGO (Pay-as-You-Go) Process. The procedure established by the Budget
Enforcement Act to ensure that revenue and direct spending legislation does not add
to the deficit or reduce the surplus. PAGO requires that any increase in the deficit
or reduction in the surplus due to legislation be offset by other legislation or
sequestration. PAGO is enforced by estimating the five-year budgetary effects of all
new revenue and direct spending laws.
Reconciliation Process. A process established in the Congressional Budget Act by
which Congress changes existing laws to conform tax and spending levels to the
levels set in a budget resolution. Changes recommended by committees pursuant to
a reconciliation instruction are incorporated into a reconciliation bill.
Revolving Fund. An account or fund in which all income derived from its
operations is available to finance the fund’s continuing operations without fiscal year
limitation.
Scorekeeping. Procedures for tracking and reporting on the status of congressional
budgetary actions affecting budget authority, receipts, outlays, the surplus or deficit,
and the public debt limit.
Supplemental Appropriation. Budget authority provided in an appropriations act
in addition to regular or continuing appropriations already provided. Supplemental
appropriations acts sometimes include items not included in regular appropriations
acts for lack of timely authorization.
Trust Funds. Accounts designated by law as trust funds for receipts and
expenditures earmarked for specific purposes.
User Fees. Fees charged to users of goods or services provided by the federal
government. In levying or authorizing these fees, Congress determines whether the
revenue should go into the U.S. Treasury or should be available to the agency
providing the goods or services.