UnderminingIndependent

OVERSIGHT

H

MINO

S

RIT

G

YSTAF

A

FREP

C

ORT

ThePresident’sFiscalYear2019Budget

doesnotadequatelysupportfederal

InspectorsGeneral
P A G E | 1

Undermining Independent 

Oversight: 

The President’s Fiscal Year 2019 Budget does not adequately 

support federal Inspectors General 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Inspectors General (IGs) are nonpartisan, independent watchdogs who play a vital role 

in uncovering and preventing waste, fraud, and abuse at federal agencies. This year 

marks the 40th anniversary of the Inspector General Act (IG Act), which first established 

IGs across the federal government.1 Through audits, investigations, and other 

evaluations, the IG community works to ensure that agencies spend taxpayer dollars 

efficiently and effectively. In Fiscal Year 2016, the 73 IGs across the federal government 

collectively identified $45.1 billion in savings – representing a $17 return on every dollar 

spent on IG operations.2 In order to ensure that IGs are adequately funded, Congress 

included several provisions in the IG Reform Act of 2008 designed to safeguard the 

independence of the IGs throughout the budget process.3 One such provision allows 

IGs to freely voice any concerns they have about potential negative impacts to their 

work resulting from the President’s proposed funding levels.4

At the request of Ranking Member McCaskill, the Democratic staff of the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs examined the President’s Fiscal Year 2019 

(FY19) budget submissions for 24 of the largest federal departments and agencies and 

reviewed the comments submitted by the IGs regarding the potential impact of the 

proposed budgets. 

Key Findings

 The President’s FY19 budget proposes substantial cuts to IG funding at five agencies. 

IGs at three agencies face cuts while the President’s budget simultaneously 

proposes to increase the department’s total budget. Several IGs described the 

severe negative impacts these cuts would have if implemented. 

 The budgets of six IGs do not keep pace with the proposed budget increases for 

their agency. For six IGs, the President’s budget proposes increases to funding levels

that are not commensurate with the proposed increases to the respective agencywide budget – resulting in a relative reduction in resources for the IG. Some of these 

 

1 Pub. L. No. 95-452 (1978), codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. App.

2 Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Annual Report to the President and Congress: Fiscal Year 

2016.

3 Pub. L. No. 110-409 (2008), Sec. 8, codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. App. § 6(g).

4 5 U.S.C. App. § 6(g)(3)(E).
P A G E | 2

IGs expressed concern that the proposed FY19 budget levels would negatively 

impact their work.

 Overall, IG funding comprises a small fraction—0.075 %— of agency-wide funding in 

the President’s FY19 budget. If enacted, the President’s FY19 budget would further 

strain already-limited IG resources. Under the President’s proposal, for every $1,329

in agency-wide funding, IGs would receive one dollar. Even IGs that are not facing 

actual or relative reductions have expressed concerns about the impact of the 

President’s proposed funding levels. 

 Despite the requirements of the IG Reform Act, the President’s FY19 budget 

submission to Congress did not include initial budget requests for more than half of 

IGs. The President’s FY19 budget submission did not include the initial funding 

request for 16 of the 27 IGs included in the scope of this report. By failing to include 

a clear statement of each IG’s initial funding request, the President’s FY19 budget 

submission limits the transparency Congress sought when it enacted the IG Reform 

Act.

 At least nine IGs had their initial funding request lowered during the FY19 budget 

process. Of the 11 IGs whose initial request was identified in their agency’s budget 

justification, nine had their initial request lowered during the FY19 budget process. 

The President’s budget submission to Congress requests a total of $1.2 billion for 

these nine IGs—which is 7.6%, or $97.4 million, less than the total initially requested by 

these IGs.
P A G E | 3

BACKGROUND & METHODOLOGY

Inspectors General

Inspectors General (IGs) are nonpartisan, independent watchdogs who play a vital role 

in uncovering and preventing waste, fraud, and abuse at federal agencies. The 

Inspector General Act of 1978 (IG Act) established Offices of Inspector General (OIGs) 

at 12 federal agencies.5 Since the enactment of the IG Act, Congress has expanded 

and strengthened the IG community by creating additional IGs and enacting measures 

to safeguard their independence. As of 2018, there are 73 IGs throughout the federal 

government. 

IGs help Congress carry out its constitutional oversight responsibilities. They ensure that 

agencies spend taxpayer money as intended and that federal programs reach 

Americans who need the services. IGs also play a critical role in protecting 

whistleblowers who report waste, fraud, and abuse. To meet their oversight 

responsibilities, IGs conduct audits, investigations, and evaluations of their agency’s 

programs and operations. As a result of this work, agencies take action to improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of their operations. For example, in Fiscal Year 2016 (FY16), 

the collective work of the IGs resulted in an estimated $45.1 billion in potential savings.

6

The budgets of IGs are a small fraction of their respective agencies’ budgets, and their 

work consistently results in significant savings – in FY16, IGs returned an estimated $17 on 

every dollar.7 

Independence is a key aspect of the IG organization. Since the passage of the IG Act 

in 1978, Congress has enacted several amendments aimed at protecting IG 

independence. The Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988 ensured that all IGs 

have the authority to hire their own staff and manage their own resources.8 In 2008, the 

Inspector General Reform Act (IG Reform Act) added a requirement that the President 

or agency head give Congress advance notice of the planned transfer or termination 

of any IG, including the reasons for the transfer or termination.9 Most recently, in 2016, 

Congress passed the IG Empowerment Act, which protects the independence of IGs 

by ensuring IGs have prompt access to agency documents and data.10

While IGs are a largely self-policing community, Congress has enacted legislation to 

ensure that IGs are held accountable. For example, IGs have robust reporting 

obligations to Congress and to their agency head. In addition, the Council of the 

Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) plays a key role in coordination 

 

5 Pub. L. No. 95-452 (1978), codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. App.

6 Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Annual Report to the President and Congress: Fiscal Year 

2016. 

7 Id. 

8 Pub. L. No. 100-504 (1988). 

9 Pub. L. No. 110-409, Sec. 3 (2008).

10 Pub. L. No. 114-317 (2016). 
P A G E | 4

and oversight of the IG community. Established by the IG Reform Act, CIGIE is an 

independent coordinating body charged with “address[ing] integrity, economy and 

effectiveness issues that transcend individual Government agencies” and “increas[ing] 

the professionalism and effectiveness of [IG] personnel.”11 CIGIE’s members include all 

statutory IGs as well as officials from other government agencies such as the Office of

Management and Budget and the Office of Special Counsel.

12 CIGIE carries out its 

mission by developing governmentwide standards and policies for IGs, as well as 

investigating allegations of misconduct by IGs.13

Protecting the IG’s Independence in the Budget Process

In order to ensure that IGs are adequately funded, Congress included several provisions 

in the IG Reform Act to safeguard the independence of the IGs throughout the annual 

budget process.14 As depicted in Figure 1, each IG prepares and submits an initial 

funding request to the head of their agency. These budget proposals detail the 

amount needed for the OIG’s operations during the upcoming fiscal year and must 

include the specific amounts requested for training and to support CIGIE.15 During the 

next stage of the budget process, each agency head prepares a proposed budget to 

submit to the President on behalf of the entire agency, including its IG. The IG Reform 

Act requires that these agency proposals identify the total amount of funds requested 

for IG operations and the specific amounts allocated to training and to supporting 

CIGIE.16 While the agency head may propose a different amount for the IG than the IG 

initially requested, the IG Reform Act allows the IG to submit comments regarding the 

proposal and requires the agency head to include those comments in the budget 

request made by the agency head to the President.

17

 

At the next stage of the budget process, the President reviews each agency’s 

proposed budget and prepares a consolidated budget submission for Congress. While 

the President may make additional modifications to the proposed IG funding levels, the 

IG Reform Act requires that the President’s budget submission includes the IG’s initial 

budget estimate and any comments from the IG “if the Inspector General concludes 

that the budget submitted by the President would substantially inhibit the Inspector 

General from performing the duties of the office.”18 

 

11 Pub. L. No. 110-409, Sec. 7 (2008), codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. App. § 11.

12 5 U.S.C. App. § 11(b).

13 Id. §§ 11(c)-(d).

14 Pub. L. No. 110-409, Sec. 8 (2008), codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. App. § 6(g).

15 5 U.S.C. App. § 6(g)(1). As authorized by the IG Reform Act, CIGIE’s operations are funded by contributions from its 

OIG members. 

16 Id. §6(g)(2). Prior to the enactment of the IG Reform Act “there [was] not necessarily a separate line item for each 

OIG within the budget of its respective agency.” Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

Report to Accompany S. 2324, Inspector General Reform Act (S. Rept. 110-262) (2008). 

17 5 U.S.C. App. §6(g)(2).

18 Id. § 6(g)(3).
P A G E | 5

While agencies must stand behind the budget proposal that the President submits to 

Congress, the IG Reform Act gives IGs the unique ability to voice any concerns they 

have about potential negative impacts to their work resulting from the budget 

proposal. The requirements of the IG Reform Act were designed to “create greater 

transparency regarding IG program and training needs, to help ensure these offices are 

adequately funded and to protect against any punitive budget cuts.”19

At the request of Ranking Member McCaskill, the Democratic staff on the Senate 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs examined the President’s 

FY19 budget request and the congressional budget justifications submitted by the 24 

Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act agencies. This report provides an overview of the 

proposed budgets for IGs at major federal departments and agencies and highlights 

comments from IGs that were included in agencies’ FY19 budget materials.20

All references to budget levels refer to the agency or IG’s total budget authority.21 

Increases or decreases in proposed FY19 funding are calculated with respect to FY17 

actual budget authority as reported in FY19 budget materials. 

 

19 Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Report to Accompany S. 2324, Inspector General 

Reform Act (S. Rept. 110-262) (2008).

20 For agencies with more than one IG, unless stated otherwise, all references to the agency IG refer to the agency’s 

primary IG. 

21 This includes both discretionary and mandatory funding. 

Figure 1: Inspector General Budget Process

Agency’s Budget 

Request/Estimate

 aggregate amount 

requested by the agency 

for OIG operations

 amount requested by the 

agency for OIG training 

 amount requested by the 

agency to support CIGIE

 any comments of the 

affected IG with respect 

to the proposal

President’s 

Budget Request

 aggregate amount requested by 

the President for OIG operations

 amount requested by the 

President for OIG training 

 amount requested by the 

President to support CIGIE

 any comments of the affected IG 

with respect to the proposal “if 

the Inspector General concludes 

that the budget submitted by the 

President would substantially 

inhibit the Inspector General from 

performing the duties of the 

office”

 a separate statement of the 

original budget estimate 

prepared by the IG

President Congress

Initial IG Budget 

Request/Estimate

 aggregate amount 

requested for OIG 

operations

 amount requested 

for OIG training 

 amount requested 

to support CIGIE

Agency

Inspector Head

General
P A G E | 6

THE PRESIDENT’S FY19 BUDGET DOES NOT ADEQUATELY 

SUPPORT THE WORK OF INSPECTORS GENERAL

If enacted, the President’s FY19 budget will not provide sufficient funding for the critical 

oversight work of the IG community. Seven IGs at five major agencies are facing 

significant reductions to their budgets—totaling $63.4 million in cuts (see table 1). 

Additionally, under the President’s proposal, six other IGs would see budget increases 

that do not keep pace with increases to their agency’s budget – resulting in a relative 

reduction in resources for these IGs. Many IGs expressed concerns about the

adequacy of the funding levels proposed in the President’s FY19 budget and described 

the specific impacts the proposed budget would have on their work.

The President’s FY19 budget proposes substantial cuts to IG budgets at five 

agencies.

The President’s FY19 proposed budget includes cuts to seven IG budgets at five of the 

24 CFO Act agencies (see table 1).22 In total, the President’s budget proposes $63.4 

million in cuts to IG funding at the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the State Department, 

and the Treasury Department.

23 

The IGs at DHS, USDA, and the Treasury Department are facing cuts while the 

President’s budget simultaneously proposes to increase funding across the agency (see 

figure 2). In one instance, the DHS IG described that the combination of IG funding

cuts and an increase in the agency’s budget “critically impairs the [IG]’s ability to carry 

out its statutory oversight responsibilities.” 24

 

22 See Appendix A for a complete list of the proposed FY19 budgets for each of the IGs for the 24 CFO Act agencies. 

23 All three of the IGs within the Department of the Treasury are facing cuts. 

24 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Budget Overview: Fiscal Year 2019 Congressional 

Justification.

Table 1: IGs facing cuts in the President’s Fiscal Year 2019 budget

Inspector General Proposed Cut to IG’s FY19 Budget 

$ in millions %

Dept. of Agriculture Inspector General -$10.8 -11.0%

Environmental Protection Agency Inspector General -$4.0 -8.0%

Dept. of Homeland Security Inspector General -$12.6 -7.2%

Dept. of the Treasury Inspector General -$1.0 -2.8%

Treasury IG for Tax Administration (TIGTA)* -$8.5 -5.0%

Special IG for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP)* -$24.1 -57.9%

Dept. of State Inspector General -$2.3 -2.5%

Source: Agency Fiscal Year 2019 budget materials 

* Both TIGTA and SIGTARP are housed within the Treasury Department. 
P A G E | 7

Figure 2: IGs facing cuts while agency-wide budgets see proposed increases

If implemented, these cuts would directly impact the oversight capabilities of these IGs. 

Comments by IGs facing budget cuts make clear reduced funding levels would inhibit 

their ability to conduct investigations and obtain the strong return on investment that

they have achieved in the past:

-USDA IG describing the

impact of the $10.8 million 

cut proposed in the 

President’s FY19 budget25

 

25 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, 2019 President’s Budget. 8.8% 2.1% 18.8%

-7.2%

-11.0%

Treasury IG -2.8%

TIGTA -5.0%

SIGTARP -57.9%

D e p t . o f 

H o m e l a n d 

S e c u r i t y

D e p t . o f 

Ag r i c u l t u r e

D e p t . o f t h e 

T r e a s u r y

Proposed

Agency-wide

Budget

Increase

Proposed IG

Budget Cut

The estimated number of audits to be performed would 

decrease from 48 in FY 2018, to 40 in FY 2019. The impact on our 

Investigations program would be similar. . . . This will have an 

adverse impact on the number and type of program integrity 

cases OIG could undertake. For example, OIG may have to 

decline to investigate allegations of SNAP fraud and major farm 

program fraud (farm loan and crop insurance). The estimated 

number of investigations to be performed would decrease from 

323 in FY 2018, to 271 in FY 2019.
P A G E | 8

-SIGTARP describing 

the impact of the $24.1

million cut proposed in 

the President’s FY19

budget26

-DHS IG describing the 

impact of the $12.6 

million cut proposed in 

the President’s FY19 

budget, combined 

with the $6.0 billion 

proposed increase to 

the agency-wide 

budget27

The budgets of six IGs do not keep pace with the proposed budget increases for 

their agency. 

For six IGs, the President’s budget proposes increases to funding levels that are not 

commensurate with the proposed increases to the respective agency-wide budget—

resulting in a relative reduction in resources for the IG (see figure 3). 

 

26 Department of the Treasury, Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP, Congressional Budget Justification and 

Annual Performance Report and Plan, FY 2019.

27 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Budget Overview: Fiscal Year 2019 Congressional 

Justification.

The FY 2019 budget request . . . , substantially, inhibits the Office of 

the Special Inspector General for TARP from performing the duties 

of the office, including audits and criminal investigations . . . 

Taxpayers will lose millions of dollars under the request because 

SIGTARP’s work results in recoveries of millions of dollars to the 

Government each year. SIGTARP has a 35 times return on 

investment in actual dollars recovered.

The FY 2019 funding level requested for DHS would increase the 

Department’s budget total budget authority by $4.6 billion over FY 

2017 levels, and result in significant surges in the Department’s

activities in critical areas of law enforcement, border protection, 

disaster response, and cybersecurity . . . The President’s FY19 

budget proposes a reduction in DHS IG’s funding compared to 

FY17, and a relative reduction compared to DHS agency-wide 

FY18 funding. . . Substantially reducing the budget of DHS OIG 

while increasing the budget and activities of DHS, critically impairs 

the DHS OIG’s ability to carry out its statutory oversight 

responsibilities.
P A G E | 9

Figure 3: IGs facing relative reductions compared to proposed agency-wide budget increases

IGs described the specific negative impacts of proposed budget levels that do not 

keep pace with increases in agency-wide funding:

The President’s FY19 

budget proposes a 

$16.3 billion, or 8.9% 

increase to the VA’s 

agency-wide budget, 

but only a $12.5 million, 

or 7.8% increase for the 

VA IG. 

-The VA IG describing

the expected impact28

 

28 Department of Veterans Affairs, Annual Budget Submission, Volume III: Benefits and Burial Programs and Departmental 

Administration, Congressional Submission, FY 2019, Office of the Inspector General.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

General

Services

Administration

Dept. of

Defense

Dept. of

Veterans

Affairs

Dept. of

Health and

Human

Services

Dept. of

Justice

Nuclear

Regulatory

Commission

Proposed

Agency-wide

Budget

Increase

Proposed IG

Budget

Increase

The OIG is concerned that the $172,054,000 request included in 

the 2019 President’s Budget presents a shortfall that will undermine 

progress achieved to “right size” the OIG oversight capacity to the 

growth and demands of VA’s new initiatives, increased funding 

environment, and ongoing work on behalf of veterans. . . At the 

proposed level of funding, the OIG would be required to reduce 

its oversight staffing by almost 30 FTE, undercutting a significant 

portion of staff growth achieved over the past 24 months.
P A G E | 10

-The DOJ IG describing 

the impact of the 

President’s proposed 

budget29

Overall, IG funding comprises a small fraction—0.075 %— of agency-wide funding in the 

President’s FY19 budget. If enacted, the President’s FY19 budget would further strain 

already-limited IG resources. The President’s FY19 budget request proposes to allocate 

less than 1% of agency-wide funding to IGs. Under the President’s proposal, for every 

$1,329 in agency-wide funding, IGs would receive one dollar. 

Figure 4: Proposed FY19 IG Budget as % of Agency-wide Budget

 

29 Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General, FY 2019 Performance Budget, Congressional Justification.

5.19%

3.64%

1.47%

1.30%

0.92%

0.63%

0.32% 0.27% 0.22% 0.20% 0.12% 0.09% 0.05% 0.03%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

I have concluded that the President’s budget request would 

essentially keep the OIG’s budget flat in FY 2018 and FY 2019 even 

as budgets for other Department law enforcement components 

such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are 

recommended for increases during that same period. . . . The OIG 

cannot effectively oversee the Department’s largest components 

if their budgets and staff grow disproportionately to ours.

* includes SIGAR in IG Budget total 

** includes TIGTA and SIGTARP in IG Budget total
P A G E | 11

Many IGs described how resource constraints impact their oversight work. Several IGs 

described increasing costs and noted that statutorily required audits and evaluations 

take up an increasing percentage of available resources, leaving limited capacity to 

conduct proactive investigations and other audits.30 Even IGs that are not facing actual 

or relative cuts expressed concerns about the potential impact of the President’s 

budget proposal:

-The IG for the U.S. 

Agency for International 

Development describing 

the expected impact of 

the President’s FY19 

budget31

THE PRESIDENT’S FY19 BUDGET SUBMISSION DID NOT 

MEET THE TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS OF THE IG 

REFORM ACT

Under the IG Reform Act, the President’s budget submission to Congress must include a 

“separate statement” of the funding level each IG requested at the start of the budget 

process.32 Congress explained the importance of this provision:

[Section 8 of the IG Reform Act] requires that the President’s budget submission 

state how much money they are requesting for each IG office, as well as the 

funding level each Inspector General requested from their agency. This provision 

will provide Congress with transparency into the funding of the agency IGs but 

does not interfere with the agency head’s or the President’s right to formulate and 

transmit a budget to Congress. Ensuring adequate funding of the Office of the 

Inspector General in each agency through the current budget process is essential 

to ensuring the independence of the Inspectors General.33

 

30 See, e.g., Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request; Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, Fiscal Year 2019 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the 

Committee on Appropriations. 

31 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, Fiscal Year 2019 Congressional Budget Justification. 

32 5 U.S.C. App. § 6(g)(3)(A).

33 Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Report to Accompany S. 2324, Inspector General 

Reform Act (S. Rept. 110-262) (2008).

The amount provided in the FY 2019 President’s Budget request is 

not sufficient for OIG to continue to provide needed audit 

oversight and support ongoing investigative casework. . . OIG 

would not have sufficient resources to provide adequate 

oversight, for example, of overseas contingency and 

humanitarian assistance operations. . . Limitations on OIG 

resources will, in turn, have the effect of reducing accountability 

and exposing foreign assistance programs and activities to 

greater risks of waste, fraud, and abuse.
P A G E | 12

The President failed to satisfy this requirement as his FY19 budget submission to Congress 

did not include the initial requests made by 16 of the 27 IGs included in the scope of this 

report.

34 Of the 11 IGs whose initial request was identified, nine had their initial request 

lowered during the FY19 budget process. 

Despite the requirements of the IG Reform Act, the President’s FY19 budget 

submission to Congress did not include initial budget requests for more than half 

of IGs.

The President’s FY19 budget submission did not include the initial funding request for 16

of the 27 IGs included in the scope of this report. While it is possible that the amounts

initially requested by these IGs are the same as those requested in the President’s FY19 

budget, the IG Reform Act requires that the President’s budget submission to Congress 

include “a separate statement” of the initial budget request made by the IG to the 

agency head.35 For example, the President’s FY19 budget submission to Congress 

included the following in the Congressional Budget Justification for the Small Business 

Administration IG:

Figure 5: Excerpt from FY19 Congressional Budget Justification for SBA IG

By failing to include a clear statement of each IG’s initial funding request, the 

President’s FY19 budget submission limits the transparency Congress sought when it 

enacted the IG Reform Act.

At least nine IGs had their initial funding request lowered during the FY19 budget 

process. 

Of the 11 IGs whose initial request was identified in their agency’s budget 

justification, nine had their initial request lowered during the FY19 budget process (see 

Figure 5).36 The President’s budget submission to Congress requests a total of $1.2 billion 

 

34 See Appendix Table A-2 for a complete listing.

35 5 U.S.C. App. § 6(g)(3)(A) (emphasis added). 

36 See Appendix Table A-2 for IG initial request amounts. 
P A G E | 13

for these nine IGs—which is 7.6%, or $97.4 million, less than the total initially requested by 

these IGs. 

Figure 6: FY19 President’s Budget vs. Initial Budget Requests Submitted by IGs 

The inclusion of the IGs’ initial budget estimates in the President’s budget 

submission gives Congress valuable insight into the needs of the IG community and how 

the Administration is prioritizing resources. However, the absence of information about 

most IGs’ initial funding requests significantly limits insight into the budget process. 37 

CONCLUSION

Over the past 40 years – since the passage of the IG Act in 1978—federal IGs 

have been leaders in combating waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending. If 

enacted, the funding levels proposed in the President’s FY19 budget would inhibit 

ability of Inspectors General throughout the federal government to continue robust 

oversight of federal spending and jeopardize taxpayer dollars. 

 

37 While this report only examines materials submitted as part of the President’s FY19 budget, a limited review of materials 

from FY16-FY18 suggests that previous budget submissions also failed to include many IGs’ initial budget estimates. 

$0

$5

$9

$14

$18

$23

$27

$32

$36

$41

$45

Millions

IG's Initial FY19

Request

President's

FY19 Budget

Request for IG
P A G E | 14

APPENDIX

Table A-1: Actual FY17 and Proposed FY19 Agency-wide Budget Authority (CFO 

Act Agencies)

($ in millions)

CFO Act Agency FY17 Actual Budget Authority FY19 Proposed Budget Authority 

Dept. of Health and Human Services $1,144,013 $1,241,642

Dept. of Defense $626,239 $695,066

Dept. of the Treasury $549,455 $652,813

Dept. of Veterans Affairs $182,286 $198,590

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture $136,547 $134,429

Dept. of Education $116,042 $65,756

Dept. of Transportation $77,049 $76,500

Dept. of Homeland Security $68,393 $74,439

Dept. of Housing and Urban Development $60,734 $40,271

Dept. of Labor $43,698 $39,616

Dept. of Justice $31,202 $32,709

Dept. of Energy $30,087 $30,609

NASA $19,653 $19,892

Dept. of the Interior $19,261 $19,349

Dept. of State $17,169 $12,310

Social Security Administration $12,668 $12,600

Dept. of Commerce $9,549 $10,014

General Services Administration $9,098 $10,684

Environmental Protection Agency $8,257 $6,146

National Science Foundation $7,665 $7,615

Office of Personnel Management $2,104 $2,059

U.S. Agency for International Development $1,633 $1,377

Nuclear Regulatory Commission $935 $971

Small Business Administration $832 $629

TOTAL $3,174,572 $3,391,086
P A G E | 15

Table A-2: Actual FY17 and Proposed FY19 IG Budget Authority (CFO Act 

Agency IGs)

($ in millions)

CFO Act Agency IG FY17 Actual 

Budget Authority

IG’s Initial FY19 

Budget Request 

FY19 Proposed 

Budget Authority 

Dept. of Health and Human Services IG $359 $439 $388

Dept. of Defense IG $326 * $354

Dept. of the Treasury IG $37 $39 $36

Treasury IG for Tax Administration (TIGTA) $170 * $161

Special IG for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) $42 * $18

Dept. of Veterans Affairs IG $160 $181 $172

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture IG $98 * $87

Dept. of Education IG $59 * $63

Dept. of Transportation IG $90 $93 $92

Dept. of Homeland Security IG $175 $184 $162

Dept. of Housing and Urban Development IG $128 * $128

Dept. of Labor IG $88 $91 $88

Dept. of Justice IG $96 $100 $96

Dept. of Energy IG $44 * $51

NASA IG $38 * $39

Dept. of the Interior IG $50 * $52

Dept. of State IG $90 * $87

Special IG for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) $55 * $55

Social Security Administration IG $106 * $116

Dept. of Commerce IG $39 $41 $41

General Services Administration IG $65 * $67

Environmental Protection Agency IG $50 * $46

National Science Foundation IG $15 * $15

Office of Personnel Management IG $30 * $30

U.S. Agency for International Development IG $70 $76 $72

Nuclear Regulatory Commission IG $12 $13 $13

Small Business Administration IG $21 $23 $23

TOTAL $2,512 $2,552

* Budget materials did not identify the amount initially requested by the IG.