P.L. 106-554 , signed December 21, 2000, is the law through which, H.R. 5658 , the Treasury, PostalService, Executive Office of the President, andGeneral Government Appropriations, 2001 was enacted. P.L. 106-275 , the FY2001 continuing funding resolution, as amended by 20 further continuing funding resolutions, provided funding for most Treasury andGeneral Government accounts at the FY2000 level. However, there was funding provided to the General ServicesAdministration to administer the transition andto the Executive Residence for the purpose of preparing for the transfer of families in the White House. On October 23, the President signed P.L. 106-346 ( H.R. 4475 ), the Transportation appropriations bill, Title V of which partially funds a selectgroup of accounts from the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government primary funding measure. Prior to enactment of P.L. 106-554 , through which the FY2001 Treasury and General Governmentappropriations were enacted, there were several measureswhich either would have, or actually did, fund affected accounts. Because the discussions in this report will referto various measures, the following key isprovided as a guide. House bill or H.R. 4871 (Reported by House Committee on Appropriations and passed the House) Senate bill or S. 2900 (Reported by Senate Committee onAppropriations) Legislative Branch Appropriation--conference report or H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 (Vetoed October 30) Transportation Appropriations or P.L. 106-346 ( H.R. 4475 ) (TitleV, partial funding and some general provisions) FY2001Continuing Funding Resolution or P.L. 106-275 , as amended. ( P.L. 106-426 , provides funding for the presidential transition and P.L. 106-520 authorizes use of White House funds for transition moving expenses) The Act or P. L. 106-554 (Enacts H.R. 5658 , Treasury and GeneralGovernment) The bulk of the accounts within the Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President, and GeneralGovernment FY2001 are funded through P.L.106-554 ( H.R. 4577 / H.R. 5658 ). However, P.L. 106-346 , signed by the President October 23, providessupplemental funding for certainof those accounts (Title V). The President, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to submit to Congress, annually, the Budget of the United States Government. On February 7, 2000, the budget for FY2001 was submitted. (1) Congress has established a procedure by which it passes a concurrent resolution establishing the congressional budget for the government and setting forthbudgetary levels for several years in the future. (2) TheHouse and Senate Appropriations Committees then allocate the discretionary funding levels (302(b))allocations to each of the subcommittees. See the section of this report entitled "Major Funding Trends" for adiscussion of the FY2001 allocations for Treasuryand General Government appropriations. Appropriations for the Department of the Treasury, in addition to funding the operations of the department, fund the work of a group of law enforcementorganizations, which include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; the Customs Service; the SecretService; the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network;and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Treasury appropriations also cover the Internal RevenueService, the Financial Management Service, and theBureau of the Public Debt. For the most part, the U. S. Postal Service has become self-supporting. Federal contributions are limited to payments to the Postal Service Fund tocompensate for revenues foregone ( e.g ., free postal service for the blind.) Appropriations for the Executive Office of the President provide salaries and expenses for the White House Office, operations of the residences of the Presidentand Vice President, and most other agencies within the Executive Office of the President (EOP). Organizations suchas the Council of Economic Advisers, theNational 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. Among the independent agencies financed through this appropriation are the Federal Election Commission, the General Services Administration, the NationalArchives and Records Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Special Counsel, and theUnited 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 generaltitles apply restrictions or "rules of the road" governmentwide and, quite often, contain authority for defined actions. For example, each year, there is standardlanguage which prohibits the use of any appropriated funds for the purpose of employing individuals who are notU.S. citizens or citizens of nations eitherspecified in that section of the act or on the State Department list of nations covered by treaties; which requires thatall agencies maintain drug-free workplaces;and which authorizes the expenditure of funds appropriated under any act to be used to pay the travel expenses ofimmediate family members if a federalemployee serving overseas has died or has a life-threatening illness. See below for a presentation of new provisionsin titles V and VI. As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, P.L. 106-554 , there will be a .22% across-the-board rescission of FY2001 discretionary budget authorityand obligation limitations funds (section 1403, H.R. 4577 / H.R. 5666 ). (3) All accounts in the Treasury and General Governmentappropriations will be affected. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to report on theimplementation of the rescission when the FY2002budget is submitted. On January 5, 2001, the Office of Management Budget issued guidelines to the agencies. (4) The rescission applies to all net positive discretionary budget authority and obligation limitations. Advanceappropriations for FY 2001 provided in FY 2000 or earlier years are subject to the rescission. Advanceappropriations provided in FY 2001 appropriations acts forFY 2002 and future years are not subject to the rescission. Discretionary emergency appropriations are subject tothe rescission. The Act requires that the 0.22 percent reduction be applied equally to each program, project, and activity subject tothe rescission. "Programs, projects, and activities" (PPA) are defined as that level of appropriations detail specifiedin the appropriations act or accompanyingreport for the relevant fiscal year covering each account, including earmarks and directives, or, for accounts anditems not included in appropriations acts, asspecified in the program and financing schedules in the FY 2001 President's budget. There is no discretion to change the allocation of the rescission among discretionary PPA; each must be reduced by0.22 percent. The rescission cannot be applied to mandatory PPA, or transfers of mandatory funds to discretionaryPPA. ... Required actions . Agencies will be separately provided with their rescission amounts by account by their OMBrepresentative. Agencies must allocate the reduction on a pro-rata basis to every program, project, and activitysubject to the rescission, without exception. Please note that the Act requires that all reductions be made from discretionary budget authority and obligationlimitations only. Subsequent to passage of FY2000 Treasury and General Government appropriations, (5) the FY2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act (6) provided for a so-calledacross-the-board rescission of 0.38%. As part of the FY2001 budget submission, the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) reported specific reductions in theaccounts. (7) OMB issued a fact sheet (2000-01-10OMB Fact Sheet, January 10, 2000) in which the administration stated that the law stipulated that 0.38% insavings was to be realized by each and every department. However, within each department, it provided latitudeto protect high-priority programs as long as thedollar figure amounting to 0.38% was achieved and certain other conditions were met. The FY2001 rescissionprovisions specifically exempts certain programs,none in the accounts discussed in this report, but otherwise is to be universally applied. The FY2001 Military Construction Appropriations Act is the vehicle for the FY2000 Supplemental funding provisions. (8) Some of the accounts covered by theTreasury/Postal Service measure are affected by that language. For example, section 6 provides that the pay datefor federal civilian personnel which had beenpushed into FY2001, will revert to the original scheduled date in FY2000. That will alter the "enacted" fundinglevel for FY2000. When the term "net," is usedin this report, it means the FY2000 appropriated levels reduced by the rescinded amount as reported by OMB andthe supplemental. Table 4 is designed to provide summary information for FY2000 enacted funding, for House and Senate reported or passed funding, and for FY2001 enacted, asappropriate. Although not all accounts are represented, those with significant funding levels or subject to criticaldiscussion can be found in the table. TheFY2000 enacted levels reflect the application of the rescissions and the supplemental. In addition to the 21 FY2001 continuing funding resolutions, (9) there were four legislative measures designed to provide appropriations for all the Treasury andGeneral Government accounts and one to provide partial funding for selected accounts. In summary, H.R. 4871 passed the House and the Senate had begun debate; S. 2900 was reported by the Senate Committee onAppropriations; H.R. 4985 was included as a section in Division B of the Legislative Branch appropriations( H.R. 4516 ) conferenceagreement, which was vetoed (October 30); P.L. 106-346 ( H.R. 4475 ), Title V of which partially fundsselected Treasury and General Governmentaccounts and includes some of the general provisions from other versions; and P.L. 106-554 ( H.R. 4577 )through which FY2001 Treasury andGeneral Government Appropriations Act ( H.R. 5658 ) is enacted. The House Bill. The House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, andGeneral Government held 10 days of hearings during March and April 2000. The Subcommittee markup was July11, with the full Appropriations Committeereporting H.R. 4871 on July 18, H.Rept. 106-756 . (10) The bill was approved in committee through a voice vote. The House passed H.R. 4871 , amended, July 20, 2000, by a vote of 216-202. (11) H.R. 4871 was considered under an open rule, H.Res. 560 . (12) The Senate Bill. The Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, andGeneral Government held five days of hearings during February, March, and April. The subcommittee sent the billto the full Appropriations Committee on July19. The full committee ordered S. 2900 to be reported on July 20. (13) On July 24, 2000, the Senate Majority Leader requested that a cloture motionbefiled against H.R. 4871 , Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriations bill. (14) On July 26, cloture was invoked by a vote of 97-0(Rollcall Vote No. 277) and the Senate began consideration of the measure. (15) Debate on H.R. 4871 was pending at the time the Senate adjourned,July 27, for the August recess/work period. Legislative Branch Appropriation. On July 26, 2000, Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman, JimKolbe, introduced H.R. 4985 , "Making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States PostalService, the Executive Office of thePresident, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for otherpurposes." (16) That same day, the conference reporttoaccompany the Legislative Branch FY2001 appropriations bill ( H.R. 4516 , H.Rept. 106-796 ) was filed. (17) On July 27, 2000, H.Rept. 106-797 wasfiled, to accompany H. Res. 565, waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 4516 . (18) The House agreed to the rule,subsequent to debate, by a recorded vote of 214 ayes to 210 noes, with one voting "present" (Roll No. 448). (19) Prior to adjourning, for the August recess/workperiod, there was no further debate on the issue. On September 14, 2000, the House agreed to the conference report for H.R. 4516 (FY2001 legislative branch funding), which included funding forthe Treasury and General Government accounts. (20) The House vote (Roll No. 476) was 212 yeas to 209 nays, with 13 not voting. (21) On September 20, the Senaterejected the conference report, by a vote of 28 to 69 (Vote No. 253). (22) On October 12, the Senate agreed to the conference report by a vote of 58to 37 (Vote No.273) (23) The bill was presented to the PresidentOctober 18 and subsequently vetoed by him on October 30. The House agreed, by voice vote, to recommit the billand veto message to the House Committee on Appropriations October 31. (24) FY2001 Continuing Funding Resolution. Most of the accounts were being funded, at FY2000 levels, throughthe series of continuing funding resolutions. (25) Those accounts which are new for FY2001 had no funding during the period October 1 through December 21,2000. The exception is the General Services Administration account through which the presidential transition isadministered. It was funded through a furthercontinuing resolution ( P.L. 106-426 , November 3, 2000). Although no additional funding was involved, the WhiteHouse was authorized to use funds for thepreparations involved in the transfer of families during the transition. That authorization came through the16th continuing funding resolution, P.L. 106-520 (November 15, 2000). Transportation Appropriations. On October 5, the conference committee for the Transportation FY2001appropriation, H.R. 4475 came to agreement and filed a report. (26) Title V of the conference agreement contains partial funding provisions forsomeof the accounts usually funded within the Treasury and General Government appropriation, as well as some relatedgeneral provisions. On October 6, both theHouse and Senate agreed to the conference language. (27) P.L. 106-346 was signed by the President October 23, 2000. The Act. P.L. 106-554 (28) enacts, through reference, H.R. 5658 , theTreasury and GeneralGovernment Appropriations, FY 2001. P.L. 106-554 is a two-page statute which acts as a ConsolidatedAppropriation and enacts several funding and legislativebills through reference. H.R. 5658 was introduced December 14, 2000 as a new bill, with funding levelsidentical to those in H.R. 4985 . The conference report for H.R. 4577 contains the legislative text and explanatory remarks for H.R. 5658 . (29) Table 1 shows the status of each of the bills which would affect the accounts. Table 1. Status of FY2001 Appropriations for the Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President, and GeneralGovernment (See Table 4 for breakdown of accounts within bills.) The Department of the Treasury has both financial and law enforcement functions. The financial functions are carried out by the Financial Management Service;the Mint; and the Bureau of Public Debt. The law enforcement functions are carried out by the Customs Service;the Secret Service; the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms (ATF); the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; and the Federal Law EnforcementTraining Center. The Internal Revenue Service hasboth a financial function--to determine and audit tax obligations--and a law enforcement function--to enforcecollection of tax revenue. The single largest account within the Department of Treasury appropriation is that for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The department's FY2000 net fundingwas $12.352 billion, with the IRS funded at $8.217 billion, or 66.7% of the total. P.L. 106-554 funds the departmentat $13.598 billion. The IRS is funded at$8.639 billion, or 63% of the departmental total. Combined with the funding in P.L. 106-346 , the total Departmentof Treasury enacted FY2001 funding is $13.89billion, with $8.86 billion for the IRS. If the .22% rescission is applied to all accounts, the departmental reductionwill equal approximately $30 million. The FY2001 budget request is $14.520 for the department. The request would more than double the account for department-wide systems and capitalinvestments, add funding for the Money Laundering Strategy; increase interagency crime and drug enforcement by40%; eliminate funding for the Violent CrimeReduction Program as previously defined; and increase Secret Service, ATF, and Customs Service funding. Theincrease for the IRS would be just under 10%. Five FY2001 key priorities are identified in the department's budget justification: Support continued IRS reform; Strengthen the department's ability to fight drugs and crime; Enhance financial reporting and resource accountability; Invest in community development and economic growth; and Maintain support for management operations. The House Appropriations committee reported H.R. 4871 , providing $13.225 billion for the department. As passed by the House, H.R. 4871 would reduce the Office of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration by $950,000 in order tofund a pilot project to check for radioactivematerials in scrap metal imported into the United States. It also would offset an additional $25 million for the HighIntensity Drug Trafficking Areas program byreducing the IRS Processing Assistance and Management Account. S. 2900 , as reported by the SenateCommittee on Appropriations, would haveprovided a total of $13.161 billion for the department. Under the vetoed Legislative Branch conference agreement, H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 would have funded the Department at $13.598 billion. The IRS would be funded at $8.639 billion, or 63% of thedepartmental total. Several Department of Treasury accounts have been provided with additional funding through the Department of Transportation funding bill ( P.L. 106-346 ). Those accounts include: Departmental Offices, $6.4 million to establish a new interagency National Terrorist Asset TrackingCenter, to fund detailees to the Center,and to increase staff in the Office of Foreign Assets Control. The Department is directed take action towardestablishing a centralized vehicle acquisition programbefore further funding is provided. Department-wide systems and capital investments programs, an additional $15 million for theIntegrated Treasury (WirelessNetwork). Expanded Access to Financial Services, an additional $8 million. Federal Law Enforcement, Salaries and Expenses, an additional $5 million to establish and operate ametropolitan area law enforcementtraining center to be accessible by the Treasury Department, other federal agencies, the United States Capitol Police,and the Washington, D.C. MetropolitanPolice Department. Federal Law Enforcement, Acquisition, Construction, Improvements and Related Expenses, $25million for the design and construction of ametropolitan area law enforcement training center. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, see discussion below. U.S. Customs Service (salaries and expenses), see discussion below. Internal Revenue Service (three accounts--tax law enforcement, information technology investments,and staffing tax administration forbalance and equity), see discussion below. U.S. Secret Service (salaries and expenses), see discussion below. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). The ATF is a law enforcement agency that regulates themanufacture, importation, and distribution of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. The ATF also enforcesfederal laws related to arson. ATF's mission isfocused on three goals: 1) reducing crime, 2) collecting revenue, and 3) protecting the public. In FY1999, ATFcollected $12,135,929,000 in taxes, penalties,fines, and other related revenues. From FY1992 to FY2000, Congress increased ATF's direct appropriations from$336,040,000 to $604,573,000, (30) an 80%increase. For FY2001, Congress has appropriated $772,843,000 in direct funding for ATF, a 28% increase over the agency's FY2000 appropriation and $12,792,000 morethan the administration's FY2001 request. For the salaries and expenses account, Congress provided $768,695,000in P.L. 106-554 . For counter-terrorism,Congress also provided ATF with $4,148,000 in P.L. 106-346 . With the exception of $5,521,000 for the tobaccocompliance initiative, Congress fully funded theadministration's FY2001 request for ATF. Like the enacted FY2001 measure, the vetoed Legislative Branch conference agreement ( H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 ), would have providedthe ATF with $768,695,000. By comparison, the House bill (H.R. 4871) would have provided ATF with$731,325,000, while the Senate version( S. 2900 ) would have provided $724,937,000. The administration's FY2001 request included $105,298,000 in program budget increases to expand ongoing initiatives, such as the Integrated ViolenceReduction Strategy ($41,322,000), the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative ($19,078,000), expanded gun tracing($9,990,000), enhanced ballistic imaging($23,361,000), tobacco compliance ($5,521,000), and the national laboratory center transition ($6,026,000). Inaddition, the administration also requested fundingto relocate the ATF headquarters ($7,290,000). To expand the Integrated Violence Reduction Strategy (IVRS) in FY2001, Congress provided an additional $41,322,000 to fund 224 agents, 112 inspectors, and59 support staff. This increase will bring total funding for IVRS to $62,200,000. With these additional resources,ATF reported in its FY2001 budget submissionthat the agency would: intensify local firearm initiatives, like Boston's Ceasefire and Richmond's Project Exile; review all Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) referrals where Brady law background checks indicatethat a prohibited person receivedfirearms as result of a delayed denial; investigate cases where intelligence data indicate that prohibited persons are engaging in multipleattempts to purchase firearms fromdifferent federal firearm licensees; investigate cases where prohibited persons with a history of violent crime are known to have acquired firearms through legitimate or illegalmarkets; and review the records of federal firearm licensees to ensure that instant checks are being performed onall firearm transfers and that requiredrecords are being maintained. To expand the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative (YCGII) to 12 additional cities in FY2001, Congress has provided ATF with $19,078,000 to hire 72 agentsand 98 inspectors. This increase will bring total funding for this program to $76,400,000 and expand its presenceto 50 cities. The objective of the YCGII is toreduce youth firearm violence and firearms trafficking among youth by making federal resources like ATF's firearmstracing and ballistics technology available tostate and local law enforcement agencies, and by providing coordination of these efforts. In addition, Congress alsoprovided $16 million for the Gang ResistanceEducation and Training (GREAT) program, under which ATF agents and uniformed policy officers teach ananti-violence curriculum to fourth and seventhgraders. To continue the Comprehensive Crime Gun Tracing Initiative in FY2001, Congress provided ATF with $9,990,000 and 20 additional positions. This increasebrings total funding for this initiative to $25,000,0000. This initiative provides nationwide, comprehensive tracingcapability for state and local law enforcement. The added resources will provide for faster trace results and indexing of gun identification information frombusiness records. For the Expanded Ballistics Identification Initiative, Congress has provided $23,361,000 and 20 additional positions. This increase will bring total funding forthis initiative to $26,400,000. On December 2, 1999, the ATF and FBI signed a memorandum of understanding thatwill provide for the further development ofthe Integrated Ballistics Identification System (IBIS) as the federal system that will compare images of ballisticevidence (projectiles and cartridge casings). From1993 to 1997, the ATF and FBI operated two parallel, but incompatible, systems. Congress also provided funding for the national laboratory transition and the relocation of the ATF headquarters, but it did not fund the Administration's requestfor the Tobacco Compliance/Diversion initiative of $5,521,000 and 88 additional positions. According to ATF, thisincrease was needed to monitor new permitand revenue requirements for importers of tobacco products that were enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Actof 1997. Among ATF's activities, the regulation and enforcement of laws related to firearms commerce and possession have been the most controversial. Both the Houseand the Senate bills included language that would prohibit the Department of the Treasury from giving preferencesregarding the acquisition of firearms to anymanufacturer or vendor that enters into agreements with any federal department or agency that set out codes ofconduct, operating practices, product designspecifications, and other requirements related to the importation, manufacture, or dealing in firearms that are greaterthan what is currently required under federalstatute. The Smith & Wesson Corporation entered into such an agreement with the Department of Housingand Urban Development (HUD). Shortly thereafter,HUD announced that 411 governments around the nation had joined the Communities for Safer Guns Coalition,and had pledged to give preferences tomanufacturers who enter into agreements similar to the one with Smith & Wesson. This language, however,was dropped from the Legislative Branch conferenceagreement, nor was it included in the enacted Labor-HHS appropriations act. (For further information on guncontrol-related legislation and issues, see CRS Issue Brief IB10014, Gun Control Legislation in the 106th Congress. ) Customs Service. The U.S. Customs Service, the federal government's oldest revenue collecting agency, isresponsible for regulating the movement of persons, carriers, merchandise, and commodities between the UnitedStates and other countries. In FY1999, Customscollected $22,405,800,000 in trade-related duties, taxes, and fees. From FY1992 to FY2000, Congress has increaseddirect appropriations for the U.S. CustomsService from $1,454,337,000 to $1,935,915,000 (31) ,a 33% increase. In addition to appropriated funding, the Customs Service collects COBRA fee receipts thatare available to the agency for expenditure ($299,000,000 in FY2000). For FY2001, Congress has appropriated $2,281,327,000 in direct funding for Customs. This amount represents an 18% increase over the agency's FY2000appropriation. For the salaries and expenses account, Congress provided $1,863,765,000 P.L. 106-554 . Forcounter-terrorism in FY2001, Congress provided anadditional $18,934,000 in P.L. 106-346 . These amounts togther are $5,167,000 less than the Administration'srequest. Also, included in the FY2001 Customsappropriation are monies provided in other accounts and a line item in P.L. 106-554 . For the air and marineinterdiction account for FY2001, Congress provided$133,228,000. Under another line item, Congress provided an additional $7,000,000 for the air and marineinterdiction account. These amounts together are$16,647,000 less than the Administration's request. In lieu of a new fee proposed by the Administration, Congressprovided $258,400,000 for the modernizationof Customs' automated systems. This amount is nearly $80,000,000 less than the offsetting fee receipts projectedby the Administration. Also appropriated forobligation, but not included in the total appropriation cited above, are $3,000,000 in offsetting fee receipts in theharbor maintenance fee account. Like P.L. 106-554 , the vetoed Legislative Branch appropriations ( H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 ) conference agreement would have providedCustoms with $1,863,725,000. The House bill ( H.R. 4871 ) would have provided Customs with$1,822,365,000, while the Senate bill( S. 2900 ) would have provided $1,804,687,000. For the air and marine interdiction account, the LegislativeBranch measure would have providedCustoms with $133,228,000. The House bill would have provided $125,778,000, while the Senate AppropriationsCommittee recommended $128,228,000. The Administration's FY2001 budget request for Customs' salaries and expenses account included $41,517,000 in program budget enhancements. Theseenhancements included: (1) $25,000,000 for the drug investigations initiative, (2) $10,000,000 for the narcoticsillicit proceeds strategy initiative, (3) $5,000,000for the forced child labor initiative, and (4) $1,517,000 for Customs' airborne support for the United States SecretService. The remaining $119,188,000 inincreased funding for the salaries and expenses account was requested for various budget adjustments that,according to the Administration, would allow Customsto maintain current levels of service associated with various FY1999 and FY2000 budget increases. Regarding these initiatives, the vetoed conference agreement included earmarks in report language ( H.Rept. 106-796 ) of $13,700,000 for the Southwest borderinitiative, $10,000,000 for security enhancement on the northern border, $11,000,000 for vehicle replacement,$3,700,000 for money laundering, $9,500,000 fordrug investigations, and an additional $5,000,000 for the forced child labor initiative. By comparison, reportlanguage accompanying the House bill( H.R. 4871 ) earmarked increases of $9,500,000 for the drug investigations initiative and $2,000,000 for theforced child labor initiative. In recent years, Customs' Automated Commercial System (ACS), the system Customs uses to track, control, and process all commercial goods imported into theUnited States, has proven inadequate and has suffered from "brownouts" that inhibit international commerce. Earlier in the year, GAO testified that the currentimport processes handled by ACS are "paper-intensive, error-prone, and transaction based, and out of step withjust-in-time inventory practices of the tradecommunity." (32) Since 1994, Congress appropriatedlarge infusions of funding for Customs to upgrade ACS and continue development of its replacement, theAutomated Commercial Environment (ACE), but Customs has struggled with the upkeep of ACS and thedevelopment of ACE. In the FY2000 conference report,Congress directed Customs to provide a revised blueprint, schedule, and budget for ACE. This report was deliveredto the Appropriations committees, but late inthe fiscal year. For FY2001, the Administration's request included a new Customs budget account for automation modernization, for which the administration requested $338million. To offset the ACE developmental costs, the Administration requested authorization for a new user fee thatwas similar to a fee proposal rejected byCongress in the FY2000 appropriations cycle. Of this amount, $123 million was requested for the continuedoperation and maintenance of ACS, $5 million forthe International Trade Data System (ITDS), and $210 million for the development of ACE. Once again, Congressrejected the fee proposal. Instead, Congressprovided over $258 million in a direct appropriation, which includes $5 million to continue the development of theITDS and at least $130 million to continue thedevelopment of ACE. It was reported in Government Executive magazine that the development,operation, and maintenance of ACE over 7 years will costbetween $1.4 and $1.8 billion, and that Customs would begin taking bids to develop the new system in FY2001. (33) GAO has also testified that Customs had taken deliberate steps to implement recommendations made in previous audits by reducing duplication of effort,developing an enterprise systems architecture, and improving acquisition and investment management. GAOcautioned, however, that the development of ACE isa complex and high-risk endeavor that supports the agency's ability to collect billions of dollars in revenue generatedby imports. In addition to appropriated funding, Customs generates offsetting receipts from two user fee programs. The first fee program consists of seven conveyance- andpassenger-related user fees established by the 1985 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA)and the user fee for processing bulk cargo fromMexico and Canada established by the 1986 Tax Reform Act. The second fee program consists of thecommerce-related merchandise processing fee (MPF)established by the 1986 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA). Customs generally has no control over theallocation of MPF fee receipts. COBRA feereceipts, on the other hand, are not appropriated for obligation by Congress, and they account for a substantialportion of funding available to Customs forexpenditure each year. From FY1992 to FY2000, COBRA fee receipts have increased from about $176,000,000to $299,000,000. There are codified limitations on the use of COBRA fee receipts, and initially they were used principally to pay overtime costs for inspectors and canineenforcement officers. Surplus revenues could be and were carried over from one year to the next. Such carryovercould be, and is, used to fund recurring costs inpositions and equipment from previous years. As a result, COBRA fee receipts have funded an increasing shareof permanent inspector positions and informationtechnology costs. In recent months, however, there have been reports of a drop-off in air passenger processing feereceipts. Consequently, the growing reliance onCOBRA fee receipts to fund base positions in conjunction with a drop-off in receipts may prove problematic in thecoming year, as Customs may not haveallocated enough to pay overtime for Customs officers. It is also notable that the authorization for the COBRA feesexpires at the end of FY2003. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The FY2001 request for IRS was $8,986,084,000. The request represented a9.36% increase over the net funding for FY2000 of $8,216,489,000. The net funding takes into account the 0.38%rescission in the IRS Processing, Assistance,and Management account required by Congress in the consolidated funding act. The request for that account was12.78% higher than the net funding for FY2000. The IRS budget increases focus on maintaining current operations and modernization. IRS Commissioner CharlesO. Rossotti has testified that the maintenance ofoperations will require additional staffing for enforcement and customer service. He has explained that refersparticularly to the need for a state-of-the-artcomputer system to replace 1960s era computers. As passed by the House, H.R. 4871 would have funded the IRS programs at $8.453 billion. This would represent a net increase of $236.5 million. There would be $140 million which would continue to be available for organizational modernization. Prior topassage, amendments were adopted which wouldreduce funding for the IRS Processing Assistance and Management account by $25 million (to offset $25 for theHigh Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA)program) and funding for the Office of Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration by $950,000 ( to createa pilot project to check for radioactive materialsin scrap metal imported into the United States.) As reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee ( S. 2900 ), IRS funding would total $8.535 billion. With the exception of the Earned IncomeTax Credit Compliance Initiative account ($145 million in all versions), the Senate would fund the IRS accountsat levels higher than passed by the House. P.L. 106-554 funds, with that same exception, the IRS accounts at levels higher than both the House or Senate versions, at a total of $8.639 million. Processing,Assistance and Management received $3,567.0 million. Tax Law Enforcement is funded at $3,382.4 million andInformation Systems at $1,545 million. Thevetoed conference agreement ( H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 ), was the same as the final version. FY2001 IRS funding was a major point of objection as the conference report for the Legislative Branch Appropriations ( H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 ) was considered in both the House and Senate. Although the White House did not issue a Statement of Policy,there were remarks by executive branch staffand congressional minority leaders that there would be a veto if those accounts, and others, were not funded at ahigher level. On October 23, the President signed P.L. 106-346 which contains partial funding for selected accounts in the Treasury/General Government bill. In spiteof that accommodation, the Presidentsubsequently vetoed the Legislative Branch Appropriations on October 30. The IRS supplemental provisions areas follows: Processing, Assistance and Management--IRS is instructed to delay implementing no-cost Internet tax filing service until a reportaddressing concerns has been submitted to Congress. Tax Law Enforcement--$7.974 million, including $3.135 for support of the money laundering strategy,and an additional $4.839 million for35 agents to participate in Joint Terrorism Task Forces. Information Technology Investments--$71.751 million, subject to conditions. Staff Tax Administration for Balance and Equity--$141million in a new account, subject to approvalof a staffing plan by the Department,Office of Management and Budget, and the Committees on Appropriations. IRS had earlier proposed the establishment of a Staffing Tax Administration for Balance and Equity (STABLE) initiative. The STABLE initiative, which is acollective effort within IRS to improve service to the taxpayers while carrying out statutory mandates, would includestaff increases throughout IRS. One of themost significant increases requested is in the Tax Law Enforcement account, an increase of full-time equivalent(FTE) staffing by 158 (41.6%) over the FY1999actual level. IRS staff have described the initiative as being an organizing plan to ensure that additional staff (newhires) would be placed in IRS where they aremost needed--in auditing, enforcement, and customer relations. H.R. 4985 would provide no funding for the STABLE initiative. However, theconferees agreed to fully fund the Tax Law Enforcement account with respect to adjustments required to maintaincurrent levels of service and operationalcontract support. While higher than both the House and Senate versions, the conference version is lower than thePresident's request. Secret Service. For FY2001, the President requested $829.5 million for the Secret Service. Of this total,$824.5 is for salaries and expenses related to protective functions, research and development, and the purchase ofvehicles; and $5 million for acquisition andconstruction costs. FY2000 net funding for the Secret Service was $691.5 million. The rescission was $738,000from the acquisition and construction account. P.L. 106-554 funds the Secret Service salaries and expenses account at $823.8 million. The acquisitions, construction, improvement, and related expensesaccount is funded at $8.941 million. That includes $3.920 million for security enhancement a the Vice President'sresidence. P.L. 106-346 provides supplemental funding of $2.9 million for the salaries and expenses account. These funds are for 21 agents to participated in Joint TerrorismTask Forces. Section 506 stipulates that $2 million of the FY2001 Secret Service funding be available, untilSeptember 30, 2001, for forensic and related supportof investigations of missing and exploited children. H.R. 4871 , as reported by the House Appropriations Committee and as passed by the House, would have funded the agency's salaries and expensesaccount at $823.8 million. This total is $156.5 million above the amount appropriated in FY2000, and $700,000.below the President's budget request. Of thisamount, $36,266,000 would fund activities previously funded elsewhere. Included would be $1,767,000 for supportof the National Threat Assessment Center,that was not requested in the President's budget request. Also included in H.R. 4871 , as passed, was $24.2million for additional protectiverequirements of the Secret Service during the Presidential election and transition period. S. 2900 , as reported,would fund the salaries and expensesaccount at $778.3 million. The vetoed conference agreement ( H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 ) on would havefunded the account at the samelevel as H.R. 4871 , as passed. Both the President's request and H.R. 4871 would have funded the Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses account at $5million. The Senate-reported version would have funded it at $4.3 million. However, H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 would have funded it at$8.9 million, providing the requested $5 million and adding $3.9 million for security enhancements at the VicePresident's residence. The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) generates most of the funding through the sale of products and services. It also receives an appropriation from the federalgovernment to pay for revenue foregone on free and reduced rate mail (for the blind and visually impaired andoverseas voting). To fund payment to the PostalService Fund for revenue foregone during FY2001, the President requested $96.1 million, of which $67.1 millionwould not be available until October 1, 2001. P. L. 106-58 provided funding for revenue foregone at $93.4 million for FY2000, with only $29 million to beavailable during FY2000. The FY2000appropriation, however, was subsequently reduced by .38% ($380,000) due to the across-the-board cut mandatedby the Consolidated Appropriations Act ofFY2000. Accordingly, the appropriation for the fiscal year was $93.1 million P.L. 106-554 provides FY2001 funding at $29 million with an advance appropriation of $67.1 million for FY2002. The rescission of .22% applies only toFY2001 funding. Therefore, funds appropriated in FY2000 for use in FY2001 would be affected. However, theFY2002 advance appropriation in this legislationwould be exempt. H.R. 4871 , as reported and passed, would have been in accord with the request, holding $67.1 million for FY2002. S. 2900 , as reported,however, would have funded the Postal Service at a total of $67.1 million. The vetoed measure would haveprovided $96.1 million, as proposed by the House. Ofthis amount, $67.1 million would have been held as an advance appropriations for free and reduced-rate mail and$29 million would be for reimbursement inFY2001 to the Postal Service for prior year losses. All versions would continue the general provision requiring the Postal Service to use appropriated funds to make available sufficient funds to cover theemployment of guards for all properties and areas owned, occupied, controlled, or in charge of by the agency. Theguards would be granted the same powers asthose granted special policemen by the Act of June 1, 1948, amended (62. Stat. 281; 20 U.S.C. 318a and 318b),attaching thereto penal consequences under thatauthority and within the limits provided in the act. The Treasury and General Government appropriations act funds all but three offices in the Executive Office of the President (EOP). Of the three exceptions, theCouncil on Environmental Quality (including Office of Environmental Quality) and the Office of Science andTechnology are funded under the Veterans Affairs,Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies appropriations act; and the Office of the United StatesTrade Representative is funded under theCommerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary and Related Agencies appropriations act. The President's FY2001 budget proposed an appropriation of $702,245,000 for the EOP, an 7.3% increase over the $654,422,000 appropriated in FY2000. Almost 70 % of these appropriations would be for accounts in the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and forFederal Drug Control Programs, andunanticipated needs, and would be transferred to agencies outside of the EOP, and to state and local entities. TheFY2001 appropriation request for these "transferaccounts" amounts to $474,900,000 (67.6%); for FY2000 it amounted to $441,250,000 (68%). The specific accounts are discussed below. In those cases in which there are no differences among the proposed and enacted funding levels, the enacted level isgiven. The .22% rescission is not factored into the funding data provided below. However, it will likely be appliedto each account. Compensation of the President. P.L. 106-554 provides an appropriation of $390,000 for compensation of thePresident, including an expense allowance of $50,000. This amount is a 56% increase over the $250,000appropriated in FY2000. The increase is due to the raisein presidential salary from $200,000 to $400,000 per year, effective January 20, 2001. White House Office. P.L. 106-554 was in accord with the FY2001 budget proposal of an appropriation of$53,288,000 for salaries and expenses in the White House Office, an increase of 2% over the $52,443,000appropriated in FY2000, of which $201,000 wassubsequently rescinded. H.R. 4871 would have provided $52,135,000, which is $1,153,000 below thePresident's request. The House denied therequests to restore the $201,000 rescinded in FY 2000, $450,000 for anticipated severance payments, $500,000 forcosts associated with replacing equipmentduring the transition, and $2,000 in unspecified increases for other services. The House also assumed a transfer of$500,000 to the Office of Administration forcosts associated with upgrading the web page of the Executive Office of the President. S. 2900 , as reported,and H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 , as vetoed, would fund the White House Office at the requested level. Executive Residence (White House). The Act provided the requested appropriation of $10,900,000 foroperating expenses, an 17.7% increase over the $9,258,000 appropriated in FY2000, from which $33,000 wassubsequently rescinded. While the appropriationfor repairs and restoration is $968,000, the request had been $5,510,000, an 581.2% increase over the $808,000appropriated in FY2000. H.R. 4871 would have appropriated $10,286,470 for operating expenses, and would have denied several requests, including$300,050 for an additional 4 FTEs; and $658,000for repairs and restoration. The House Appropriation Committee recommended denying $4,542,000 for renovationand replacement of the concrete racewaycontaining communication lines, while expressing concerning over the total estimated costs of the project. S. 2900 , as reported, and H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 , as vetoed, would have funded the accounts at the requested level, but the latterwould limit the repairs andrestoration account to $968,000. The repairs and restoration funding includes $458,000 for design and replacement of the existing the concrete raceway containing voice and communicationslines serving the East Wing and the Executive Residence. A completed design, including an estimate of totalconstruction costs associated with the project, mustbe submitted to the Committees on Appropriations. The FY2001 continuing funding resolution ( P.L. 106-275 , as amended by P.L. 106-520 ) the Executive Residence at the White House "is authorized to makeexpenditures to provide for the orderly transition and moving expenses following the election on November 7,2000." House Appropriations CommitteeChairman C.W. Bill Young stated that this would provide "approximately $200,000...that were contained in thevetoed Treasury, Postal Service, GeneralGovernment appropriations act." (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 theExecutive Residence are to be paid for inadvance by the sponsor, and all such advance payments are to be credited to a Reimbursable Expenses account. Thepolitical party of the President is to deposit$25,000 to be available for expenses relating to reimbursable political events during the fiscal year. The Actrequires those reimbursements be separatelyaccounted for and the sponsoring organizations be billed, and charged interested, as appropriate. The staff of theExecutive Residence is to report to theCommittees on Appropriations, after the close of each fiscal year and maintain a tracking system related to thereimbursable expenses. Special Assistance to the President (Office of the Vice President) and Official Residence of the Vice President. The Act, as proposed in the budget, appropriates $3,673,000 for salaries and expenses, an increase of 1.5% over the$3,609,000 appropriated in FY2000, and$354,000 for the Official Residence of the Vice President, a 2.6% increase over the $345,000 appropriated inFY2000, from which $15,000 was rescinded. TheHouse would have appropriated $3,664,000 for salaries and expenses, and $354,000 for operating expenses. S. 2900 , as reported, would have fundedthe accounts at the requested level, and H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 , as vetoed, would have funded the salariesand expenses and the operatingexpenses accounts at the requested level. Council of Economic Advisers. P.L. 106-554 appropriates $4,110,000, an increase of 7% over the $3,840,000appropriated in FY2000; of which $15,000 was subsequently rescinded. The House approved an appropriation of$3,997,000, denying the request of $106,000 fortwo additional FTE and $7,000 for increased travel expenses. Both S. 2900 , as reported, and H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 , asvetoed, would have funded the account at the requested level. Office of Policy Development. As the FY2001 budget proposed, P.L. 106-554 appropriates $4,032,000, thesame as appropriated in FY2000; $15,000 was rescinded from the FY2000 appropriation. The House approved anappropriation of $4,030,000, denying therequest of $2,000 for increased travel expenses. Both S. 2900 , as reported, and H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 , as vetoed, wouldhave funded the account at the requested level. National Security Council. The FY2001 budget proposed and P.L. 106-554 appropriated, $7,165,000, anincrease of 2.4% over the $6,997,000 appropriated in FY2000, of which $27,000 was rescinded. The Houseapproved an appropriation of $7,148,000, denying therequest of $17,000 to partially restore the $27,000 rescinded in FY2000. Both S. 2900 , as reported, and H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 , as vetoed, would have funded the account at the requested level. Office of Administration. The FY2001 budget proposed and the Act appropriated $43,737,000, an increase of11.6% over the $39,198,000 appropriated in FY2000, of which $148,000 was rescinded. The House approved anappropriation of $41,185,000, denying severalfunding requests, including $406,000 and five FTE for additional information technology staff, $360,000 in newmoney for upgrading the EOP web page,$660,000 and five FTE for implementation of the Chief Financial Officers Act. While the House also would havedelayed the implementation of the ChiefFinancial Officers Act from January 20, 2001 to May 1, 2001, the Act dropped that proposal. Both S. 2900 ,as reported, and the H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 , as vetoed, would fund the account at the requested level. Office of Management and Budget. The Act fully funded the FY2001 budget request at $68,786,000, anincrease of 8.3% over the $63,495,000 appropriated in FY2000, of which $239,000 was rescinded. The Houseapproved an appropriation of $67,143,000, denyingthe request of $613,000 for an additional nine FTE as well as the request of $1,030,000 for information technologyenhancements. S. 2900 , asreported, would have funded OMB at $67,935,000, and H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 , as vetoed, would havefunded the account at the requestedlevel. Section 624 of the Act makes permanent the provision directing OMB to provide a yearly accountingstatement and report on the costs and benefits ofFederal regulatory programs. Office of National Drug Control Policy. The Act appropriates $24,759,000 for the salaries and expensesaccount. The FY2001 budget requested an appropriation of $25,400,000, a 10.7% increase over the $22,951,000appropriated in FY2000, of which $128,000 wasrescinded. The House had, in H.R. 4871 , approved an appropriation of $24,759,000, denying the request of$641,000 for communications,equipment, and other services. S. 2900 , as reported, would have funded the account at $24,312,000. Thevetoed H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 would have funded the account at $24,759,000. P.L. 106-346 provides an additional$7,000,000, of which $5,000,000 is forcontinued operation of the technology transfer program, and $2,000,000 is for a counternarcotics research anddevelopment project in Colorado. For the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, the Act provides $29,053,000, while the FY2001 budget had proposed $20,400,000, a 37.6% decrease fromthe $32,052,000 appropriated in FY2000, of which $198,000 was rescinded. The House approved an appropriationof $29,750,000. S. 2900 , asreported, would fund the account at $29,052,000. The vetoed H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 would have fundedthe account at $29,053,000. Theappropriation includes $15,803,000, for the counterdrug research and development projects and which must beavailable for transfer to other federal departmentsand agencies, and $13,250,000 for the continued operation of the counterdrug technology transfer program. The Act maintains the current level of funding for the counterdrug technology transfer program, and includes funding to support CTAC's core research programsand to continue support for the U.S. Olympic Committee's anti-doping program. Federal Drug Control Programs. For the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program, the Act provides$206,500,000, while the FY2001 budget proposed $192,000,000, the same amount as appropriated for FY2000,from which $730,000 was rescinded. The HouseAppropriations Committee stated that given F2001 resource constraints, it would be best not to earmark the fundsand expects that ONDCP will make itsdesignation and funding decisions based on performance measures of effectiveness. The House bill would haveappropriated $217,000,000, and the Senate, inreporting S. 2900 , would have funded the account at $196,000,000. The vetoed H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 would have fundedthe account at $206,500,000, of which 51% would be for transfer to state and local entities and 49% for federalagencies and departments. In the conference report for P.L. 106-554 , the conferees stated that they were fully funding the Administration's request and providing an additional $14,500,000to increase funding or expand existing HIDTAs, or to fund newly designated HIDTAs. If existing HIDTAs arefunded at levels other than those established for theFY2000 programs, justification must be sent to Congress. Likewise, no funds may be obligated for new programsuntil a justification is sent to Congress. Theconferees restated the congressional interest in the work of the HIDTA Performance Management Working Group. The conferees directed ONDCP to reviewseveral specific geographic areas to be considered for new funding, others to receive increases, and full minimumfunding for three named areas. The confereesurged ONDCP to consider using funds provided above the budget request for designating new HIDTAs from areaswhich had previously submitted requests. For the Special Forfeiture Fund, the Act provides $233,600,000 rather than the FY2001 budget proposal of $259,000,000, which was a 19.9% increase over the$216,000,000 appropriated for FY2000, of which $703,000 was rescinded. The House bill would have providedan appropriation of $219,000,000, which wouldinclude $185,000,000 for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign; $30,000,000 to carry out the Drug FreeCommunities Act (DCFA); $1,000,000 for theNational Drug Court Institute; and $3,000,000 for the costs of space and operations of the counter drug intelligenceexecutive secretariat established as part of theGeneral Counterdrug Intelligence Plan. The House Appropriations Committee, in reporting H.R. 4871 ,recommended denying $10,000,000 forincreased funding for the Youth Media Campaign, $5,000,000 for the DCFA, and $25,000,000 for additionalfunding for a national criminal justice treatmentdemonstration project. S. 2900 , as reported, would have funded the account at $144,300,000, of which$90,700,000 would be for the anti-drugmedia campaign, and $40,000,000 would be for the DCFA. The vetoed H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 wouldhave funded the account at$233,600,000. The funding measure provides that $185,000,000 is for the anti-drug media campaign, $40,000,000 to carry out the DCFA, $3,000,000 for the counter drugintelligence executive secretariat, $3,300,000 for the U.S. Olympic Committee's anti-doping efforts, $1,300,000 forthe Metro Intelligence Support and TechnicalInvestigative Center, and $1,000,000 for the National Drug Court Institute. With regard to the administration ofthe National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign,the conferees provide direction to the ONDCP. Unanticipated Needs. Although the Act provided no funding for this account, P.L. 106-346 appropriated$1,000,000 for the unanticipated needs. The FY2001 budget proposed $1,000,000, the same as was appropriatedfor FY2000, of which $4,000 was rescinded, forexpenses necessary to enable the President to meet unanticipated needs, in furtherance of the national interest,security, or defense, which might arise at home orabroad. The FY2001 budget also proposed $2,500,000 to be provided to the Elections Commission of theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico as a transfer to be usedfor citizens' education and a choice by voters regarding the island's future status. P.L. 106-346 appropriates $2,500,000 to be provided to the Elections Commission. None of the funds may be obligated until 45 days after the ElectionsCommission submits to the Committees on Appropriations for approval an expenditure plan developed jointly bythe Popular Democratic Party, the NewProgressive Party, and the Puerto Rican Independence Party. The expenditures plan is to include additional viewsfrom any party that does not agree with theplan. (No funding of the Unanticipated Needs account had been provided by the earlier appropriations bills.) Federal Election Commission (FEC). The FEC administers federal campaign finance law; oversees disclosurerequirements, limits on contributions and expenditures, and the presidential election public funding system; andretains civil enforcement authority. P.L. 106-554 provides $40,500,000, of which no less than $4,689, 500 shall be available for internal automated data processingsystems and no more than $5,000 may be usedfor reception and representation expenses. The FY2000 appropriation of $38,152,000 for the FEC was subject to an across-the-board .38% government rescission under the Consolidated AppropriationsAct, reducing the appropriation by $144,000, to $38,008,000. For FY2001, the President's budget requested an appropriation of $40,500,000, allowing for 352 full-time equivalents (FTEs). This reflected a 6.6% increase, or$2,492,000, above the FY2000 level. As a concurrent submission agency, the FEC submitted its own request toCongress, calling for a funding level of$40,960,000 and for 356 FTEs. The House adopted its Appropriations Committee's recommendation for an appropriation of $40,240,000, a reduction of $260,000 from the Administration'srequest and $720,000 from the FEC's request. Specifically, the committee refused the agency's requests of $100,000for legal document imaging, $100,000 forcompletion of Voting Systems Standards, $60,000 for a national conference on the standards, and $460,000 for anadditional 4 FTEs within the Commissioners'offices. The committee stipulated that no less than $4,689,500 be used for internal automated data processingsystems and no more than $5,000 be used forreception and representation expenses. The House bill ( H.R. 4871 , section 637), as passed, included certain clarifications of federal election law, largely based on FEC recommendations:requiring election cycle-based reporting of certain expenditures; allowing 24-hour notices of large contributionsor independent expenditures in the last 20 days ofan election to be filed by FAX or electronic mail; allowing candidates to use lines of credit for campaign funds ifmade under commercially reasonable terms bylenders in the normal course of business; changing the deadline for submitting notices of large contributions in thelast 20 days of an election from 48 to 24 hoursafter receipt, and requiring the receipt, rather than the filing, of late independent expenditure notices within 24 hoursof being made. Finally, the House billincluded a committee amendment requiring House and Senate candidates who use federal aircraft to travel to acampaign event to report to the FEC the type ofaircraft used, the number of individuals who used the aircraft, and the amount the candidate paid to reimburse thefederal government for the aircraft's use(together with the methodology used to determine such amount). These provisions would take effect in 2001. The Senate accepted its Appropriations Committee's recommendation for an FEC appropriation of $39,755,000 , $745,000, or 1.8%, less than the Administrationproposed and $485,000, or 1.2%, less than the House approved. The Senate bill included the same stipulations asthe House bill regarding internal automateddata processing systems and reception and representation expenses. No legislative provisions concerning FECoperations were contained in the Senate measure. The vetoed conference agreement would have appropriated $40,500,000 for the FEC, the same figure as recommended by the Administration and more than ineither the House or Senate bills. It would have included the stipulation that no less than $4,689,500 be used forinternal automated data processing systems and nomore than $5,000 be used for reception and representation expenses. No legislative provisions concerning FECoperations or candidate use of government aircraftwere contained in the vetoed measure. Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). P.L. 106-554 provides funding of $25,058,000 for FLRA. Thismatches the amount recommended by the House Appropriations Committee, passed by the House, recommendedby the Senate Appropriations Committee, andrequested by the President in his FY 2001 budget. The law also provides for a 0.22% or $55,127 across-the-boardcut in the FY 2001 funding. After thisreduction, the FY 2001 funding is $25,002,873. The agency serves as a neutral party in the settlement of disputesthat arise between unions, employees, andagencies on matters outlined in the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute; decides major policyissues; prescribes regulations; and disseminatesinformation appropriate to the needs of agencies, labor organizations, and the public. The agency's FY 2000appropriation was $23,828,000. P.L. 106-113 mandated a 0.38% or $91,000 rescission in the FY 2000 funding. (35) According to the FLRA, the cut was to be absorbed by postponing an office move andmanaging positions that are vacant by filling them more slowly and at lower grade levels. After the reduction, theFY 2000 funding was $23,737,000. The FY2001 appropriation, after the rescission, is 5.3% above this amount. General Services Administration (GSA). P.L. 106-554 provides $632,211,000 for GSA. Of this total,$464,154,000 is appropriated for the Federal Buildings Fund; $123,920,000 for policy and operations; $34,520,000for the Office of Inspector General;$2,517,000 for benefits to former Presidents; and $7,100,000 for the presidential transition. An additional$2,070,000 is to be deposited into the Federal BuildingsFund. An advance FY2002 appropriation of $276,400,000 is also provided for the Federal Buildings Fund. Thereis also a .22% rescission of FY2001 FederalBuildings funds. Federal Buildings Fund. P.L. 106-346 appropriated $11,350,000 to the Federal Buildings Fund. Of this total,$3,000,000 was to be provided for non-prospectus construction projects; and $8,345,000 for repair of a courthouseannex located in Columbia, SC. On July 20, 2000, the House passed H.R. 4871 , which largely reflected the July 18, 2000 recommendations of the Appropriations Committee. H.R. 4871 , as passed, would have appropriated $152,471,000 to the GSA accounts. The Senate-reportedversion ( S. 2900 ) totaled$167,557. The vetoed H.R. 4516 ( H.R. 4985 ) would have funded GSA at $632,211, the first versionto appropriate funds to the FederalBuildings Fund. H.R. 4871 , as passed, would have provided $5,502,333,000 in new obligational authority for the Federal Buildings Fund. S. 2900 , asreported, authorized $5,502,333,000. The vetoed measure would have provided $5,971,509,000 in new obligationalauthority, and directly appropriated$464,154,000 into the Fund to cover a portion of the Fund's new obligational needs. Under H.R. 4871 , no funds would be appropriated to the Federal Buildings Fund for FY2001. In addition, there would be no provision for the$477,484,000 in the President's budget request for advanced appropriations. The Committee specifically stated thatthere would not be any appropriations forreimbursing the Federal Buildings Fund for moving costs incurred by GSA associated with relocating the FCC toa new location in Washington, D.C. TheCommittee stated that these expenses are the responsibility of the agency being moved. (36) S. 2900 , as reported, would not provide directappropriations to the Fund but would provide $374,345,000 in advance appropriations. H.R. 4516 , as vetoed,was silent on the moving costs butwould have provided $276,400,000 advance appropriations. The House committee also recommended no new obligational authority for construction and acquisition, which is a decrease of $54,197,000 from FY2000, and adecrease of $779,788,000 from the President's budget request. The committee stated that it is essential for GSA tomaintain, to the greatest extent possible, theinventory of existing federal properties. The Senate version would allow an obligational authority of $3,000,000for construction and acquisition. The conferees,on H.R. 4516 , determined that there would be a obligational authority of $472,176,000 and stipulated thatthe authority was to be directed to nineprojects. GSA would be required to provide a written report to the Appropriations Committees showing theproposed allocations. $3,500,000 would be earmarkedfor the design and site acquisition of a combined law enforcement facility in Saint Petersburg, Florida. With regard to new courthouse construction, the House committee noted, with disappointment, that it was not able to provide any funds for this effort. TheCommittee expressed concerned about aspects of the President's budget's submission, since it so greatly differedfrom the initial request of GSA and the JudicialConference in both funding amounts and new construction priorities. (37) In addition, H.R. 4871 , as passed, had a provision requiring thejudicial andexecutive branches to reach an agreement on new courthouse construction before GSA formally submits its budgetrequest. S. 2900 , as reported,would have authorized $671,193,000 to be made available from the Federal Buildings Fund for repairs andalterations (including three courthouse projects); andan additional amount of $374,345,000 to be deposited into the Fund for construction of additional projects(including four courthouse projects). H.R. 4516 , as vetoed, would have provided $472,176,000 for nine new construction projects (including four courthouseprojects); and $276,400,000 in advance fundingfor courthouse construction projects. The House committee recommended a limitation of $490,592,000 for repairs and alterations, a decrease of $108,082,000 below the enacted limitation level forFY2000 and a decrease of $230,601,000 below the President's budget request. S. 2900 , as reported, and theconferees would authorize obligationauthority for the repairs and alternations account at $671,193,000. The House and Senate committees, as well asthe conferees, recommended a limitation of$2,944,905,000 for rental of space, which is an increase of $162,719,000 above the enacted limitation level forFY2000, and the same as the budget estimate. Alimitation of $1,580,909,000 would be provided, under H.R. 4871 , as passed the House, for FY2001 buildingoperations, which is the same level asprovided for FY2000, and a decrease of $43,862,000 below the budget estimate. The Senate version, as reported,and H.R. 4516 , as vetoed, wouldlimit obligations to the same level as the requested $1,624,771,000. Presidential transition. The only account, within the vetoed H.R. 4516 , which has been fundedspecifically in the CR was that through which the General Services Administration was to administer the presidentialtransition. On November 2, Congress agreedto a continuing funding resolution ( H.J.Res. 123 ) which was amended to include the $7.1 million providedin the vetoed legislation. (38) There was norecorded vote on the amendment but the resolution, which amended P.L. 106-275 , was agreed to through a vote of310 to 7 (Roll No. 592). The Senate agreed to H.J.Res. 123 by unanimous consent. (39) P.L.106-426 was signed November 3, 2000. Policy and operations. P.L. 106-346 provided $13,789,000 for policy and operations. The House would haveappropriated $115,434,000, which was a decrease of $4,089,000 less than the amount appropriated in FY2000, anda decrease of $21,546,000 less than the amountin the President's budget request. S. 2900 , as reported, provided $123,420,000. The vetoed version wouldhave provided the policy and operationsaccount with $123,920,000. Office of Inspector General. S. 2900 , as reported, and H.R. 4516 , as vetoed, funded theaccount at $34,520,000. Allowances and office staff for former Presidents. H.R. 4871 , as passed, would have appropriate$2,517,000 for allowances and office staff for former Presidents, an increase of $276,000 above the FY2000 enactedlevel and the same as the President's budgetrequest. S. 2900 , as reported, and the conference version would also have funded that account at $2,517,000. In addition, while the House did notprovide funding for presidential transition, S. 2900 would provide $7,100,000, the amount requested. H.R. 4516 , as vetoed, would havefunded this account at the same level. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). P.L. 106-554 provides funding of $29,437,000 for the MSPB. Inaddition, $2,430,000 will be transferred from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability trust fund to provide foradministrative expenses to adjudicate retirementappeals. This total, $31,867,000, was the amount recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee andrequested by the President in his FY 2001 budgetproposal and in a June 5, 2000 request for an additional $580,000. The House Appropriations Committeerecommended and the House passed an appropriation of$28,857,000 for the MSPB, including the additional $2,430,000 for administrative expenses. The law also providesfor a 0.22% or $70,107 across-the-board cutin the FY 2001 funding. After this reduction, the FY 2001 funding is $31,796,893. The MSPB assists federalagencies in running a merit-based civil servicesystem. The agency's FY 2000 appropriation, not including the trust fund transfer, was $27,586,000. P.L. 106-113 mandated a 0.38% or $105,000 rescission inthe FY 2000 funding. (40) The reduction was to beabsorbed, said the MSPB, by reducing the funding dedicated to its 5-year information technology improvementplan which includes establishment of a system for filing cases electronically. After the reduction, the FY 2000funding for salaries and expenses was $27,481,000. When the trust fund transfer was added, the total FY 2000 funding was $29,911,000. The FY 2001 appropriation,including the trust fund transfer and after therescission, is 6.3% above this amount. As stated in the Senate Appropriations Committee report, the recommended appropriation includes $703,000 for mandatory cost increases including required payadjustments, $673,000 for the next installment for the ongoing information technology plan, $138,000 foranticipated costs of additional appeals cases, and$442,000 for increased lease costs. (41) National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The custodian of the historically valuable records ofthe federal government since its establishment in 1934, NARA also prescribes policy and provides both guidanceand management assistance concerning theentire life cycle of federal records. It also administers the presidential libraries system; publishes the laws,regulations, and presidential and other documents; andassists the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), which manages federal security classification anddeclassification policy; and the National HistoricalPublications and Records Commission (NHPRC), which makes grants nationwide to help nonprofit organizationsidentify, preserve, and provide access tomaterials that document American history. P.L. 106-554 funds NARA at $305,395,000, with no advance appropriation for use in the next fiscal year. The allocation of those funds is $209,393,000 foroperating expenses, $95,150,000 for repairs and restoration, and $6,450,000 for the National Historical Publications& Records Commission grants program. P.L.106-346 allocates $6,610,000 for repairs to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. The President's FY2001 budget requested $209,393,000 for NARA operating expenses, which was $28,995,000 greater than the $180,398,000 appropriated forFY2000. (With the FY2000 rescission applied, the net funding for operating expenses was $179,674,000.) H.R. 4871 , as passed by the House, wouldhave provided $195,119,000. The Senate bill, as reported, and the vetoed conference agreement would haveprovided the requested amount. Under the vetoedagreement ( H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 ), up to $5 million could have been used for the Implementation ofthe Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act(112 Stat. 1859; 5 U.S.C. 552 note), including preservation and restoration of declassified records, public accessand dissemination activities, and necessarysupport services for the Nazi War Criminal Records Interagency Working Group. (42) In addition, $99,560,000 was sought for repairs and restoration of NARA facilities, an increase of $77,264,000 over the $22,418,000 appropriated for the currentfiscal year. (The FY2000 rescission in this account resulted in net funding of $22,296,000.) H.R. 4871 , aspassed by the House, would haveappropriated $5,650,000, with the Senate bill recommending $92,950,000, with $4,950,000 to be available inFY2001 and $88,000,000 to be available in FY2002. The vetoed conference agreement would have funded the account at $95,150,000 in FY2001. The conference reportstipulated that $4,950,000 would be for thegeneral repairs and restoration program and $88,000,000 "for the major repair and restoration project at the mainArchives building, $1,500,000 for theconstruction of a new Southeast Regional Archives facility, and $700,000 for the design of a 10,000-square-footextension to the Gerald R. Ford museum." (43) P.L. 106-346 allocates $6,610,000 for repairs to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, but no other amounts forany NARA programs or operations. The $6,000,000 requested for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) for FY2001 was $250,000 less than the amountappropriated for FY2000. H.R. 4871 , as passed the House, would appropriate $6,000,000. The Senate billand the vetoed conference agreementwould appropriate $6,450,000. No new funding was sought for the NARA Records Center Revolving Fund, which was initially capitalized with a $22 million appropriation in FY2000. Section 514 of P.L. 106-554 instructs the Archivist of the United States to transfer land in Grand Rapids, Michigan to the Gerald R. Ford Foundation. The grant isto be held in trust for the purpose of supporting the Gerald R. Ford Museum in Grand Rapids and the Gerald R. FordLibrary in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The parcelsare described and the terms and conditions set out. Office of Government Ethics (OGE). The Office of Government Ethics, a small agency within the executivebranch, was established by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Originally part of the Office of PersonnelManagement, OGE became a separate agency onOctober 1, 1989, as part of the Office of Government Ethics Reorganization Act of 1988. The Office ofGovernment Ethics exercises leadership in the executivebranch to prevent conflicts of interest on the part of government employees, and to resolve those conflicts of interestthat do occur. In partnership with executivebranch agencies and departments, OGE fosters high ethical standards for employees and strengthens the public'sconfidence that the Government's business isconducted with impartiality and integrity. P.L. 106-554 provides $9,684,000, as was requested in the budget, a6.25% ($570,000) increase from the $9,114,000originally appropriated for FY2000. However, the appropriation for FY2000 was subsequently reduced by .038%($34,000), the across the board cut mandated bythe consolidated appropriations act of FY2000. Accordingly, the FY2000 net funding for OGE was $9,080,000,and the FY2001 request of $9,684,000 was anactual increase of $604,000 (6.6%) over the FY2000 appropriations. As vetoed, H.R. 4516 would havefunded OGE at the requested level of$9,684,000. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The budget for OPM is comprised of budget authority for bothpermanent and current appropriations. This report discusses the budget authority for current appropriations. P.L.106-554 provides funding of $14,609,403,000for the agency, which is responsible for administering personnel management functions. This total includesdiscretionary funding of $94,095,000 for salaries andexpenses and $1,360,000 for the Office of Inspector General (OIG). It also includes mandatory funding of$5,427,166,000 for the government payment forannuitants of the employees health benefits program, $35,000,000 for the government payment for annuitants ofthe employee life insurance program, and$8,940,051,000 for payment to the civil service retirement and disability fund. Included in this total as well areproposed trust fund transfers of $101,986,000 forsalaries and expenses and $9,745,000 for OIG salaries and expenses. The law also provides for a 0.22% or $455,000across-the-board cut in the FY 2001 funding. After this reduction, the FY 2001 funding is $14,608,948,000. The House Appropriations Committee recommended, and the House passed, an appropriation of $14,608,779,000 for the agency. This total includeddiscretionary funding of $93,471,000 for salaries and expenses and the amounts stated above for the OIG, healthbenefits, life insurance, and retirement accounts. Included in this total as well were proposed trust fund transfers of $101,986,000 for salaries and expenses and$9,745,000 for OIG salaries and expenses. TheHouse-passed amount was $7,087,000 below the $14,615,866,000 proposed by the President in his FY2001 budget;the reduction applies to the salaries andexpenses account (the President proposed $100,558,000). The House Appropriations Committee report stated that"the Committee denies without prejudice thePresident's request of $6,150,000 for the Federal Cyber-Service program; $300,000 to develop a workforce planningmodel; $300,000 for improvements in settingcompensation rates; and $100,000 to research best practices in compensation systems." (44) The President's budget also requested a one million dollarsupplemental to "help agencies meet a critical need for highly trained information security personnel." (45) The House Appropriations Committee did notaddressthis issue. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended an appropriation of $14,607,000,000. This total included discretionary funding of $94,095,000 for salariesand expenses; $1,356,000 for the OIG; and the amounts stated above for health benefits, life insurance, andretirement accounts. Included in this total as wellwere proposed trust fund transfers of $99,624,000 for salaries and expenses and $9,708,000 for OIG salaries andexpenses. The Senate recommendation was$6,467,000 below the $14,615,866,000 proposed by the President in his FY 2001 budget. P.L. 106-113 mandated a 0.38% or $756,000 rescission in the FY2000 funding. (46) OPM did not provide details as to how the cut was being absorbed. OPM'sFY2000 appropriation, including the trust fund transfers and after the reduction, was $14,458,081,000. The FY2001 appropriation, including the trust fundtransfers, and after the rescission, is 1% above this amount. As stated in the House Appropriations Committee report, the recommended appropriation included $237,000 for expanded oversight of non-Title 5 agency meritsystems; $400,000 for new qualification standards to simplify hiring and assessment; $313,000 to maintain currentlevels; $800,000 for on-going informationtechnology support; $700,000 for agency wide information technology architecture; $181,000 for NARA (NationalArchives and Records Administration) costs;and $1,900,000 for administrative financial systems support to ensure an unqualified audit opinion. (47) The House Appropriations Committee report "directs OPM to provide a report on options for addressing federal employees' elder care needs, including anylegislative recommendations that may be appropriate, to the Committee no later than March 1, 2001." (48) As stated in the Senate Appropriations Committee report, the recommended appropriation included $1,500,000 for investment technology infrastructure andarchitecture, $1,900,000 for administrative financial systems support and improvements, $1,574,000 for humanresources initiatives, and $181,000 for mandatorycost increases including required pay adjustments. (49) The Senate Committee report "recommends that the pilot project permitting Executive agencies to use their appropriated funds to help subsidize child careexpenses for their lower paid employees be extended until September 30, 2001." (50) H.R. 5658 , as enacted through Public Law 106-554, directs OPM to conduct a study to develop one or more alternative means for providing federalemployees with at least six weeks of paid parental leave in connection with the birth or adoption of a child (apartfrom any other paid leave). OPM is required toreport its findings and recommendations to Congress by September 30, 2001. This was an amendment to H.R. 4871 (Section 650) which was offeredby Representative Carolyn Maloney and agreed to by the House by voice vote. Section 516 of H.R. 5658 provides that OPM may accept and utilize funds made available to the agency pursuant to court approval to resolvelitigation and implement any settlement agreements for the nonforeign area cost-of-living allowance program. Thiswas section 513 of S. 2900 , asreported. President Clinton proposed a 3.7% pay adjustment for federal employees in his FY 2001 budget. This amount is the overall average increase, including localitypay adjustments. The conference agreement incorporating H.R. 5658 (as well as the vetoed H.R. 4516 conference agreement, H.R. 4871 , as passed by the House, and S. 2900 , as reported) is silent on this issue. However, theprogram funding in the legislationassumes a 3.7% pay adjustment in January 2001 for federal employees. Section 140 of H.R. 5666 , alsoenacted through Public Law 106-554,specifies a 3.7% pay adjustment, "consistent with the alternative pay plan submitted by the administration onNovember 30, 2000." (51) Locality Pay Designations. Section 637 of H.R. 5658 includes "a new provision authorizing thePresident's Pay Agent to use appropriate data from sources other than the Bureau of Labor Statistics in making newlocality pay designations" and "directs thePresident's Pay Agent to report on the status of efforts to resolve the methodological concerns with the NCS(National Compensation Survey) program and on theefficacy of utilizing non-BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) data in making comparability paymentrecommendations." (52) The report must besubmitted to theSenate and House Committees on Appropriations, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the HouseCommittee on Government Reform by May 1,2001. This was section 639 of H.R. 4871 , as passed by the House and section 637 of the vetoed H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 conference report. Section 645 of H.R. 5658 includes a provision which makes the compensation of administrative appeals judges and administrative law judgescomparable. This was an amendment to H.R. 4871 (Section 647) offered by Representative ConstanceMorella and agreed to by the House by voicevote. Section 641 of H.R. 5658 (Section 641 of the vetoed H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 conferenceagreement and Section 642 of H.R. 4871 , as passed) provides that overtime pay for a firefighter for hours in a regular tour of duty will beincluded in any computation of pay under5 U.S.C. 8114 related to compensation for work injuries. Section 642 of H.R. 5658 (Section 642 of thevetoed H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 conference agreement and Section 643 of H.R. 4871 , as passed) provides that theminimum charge for military leave(without loss in pay or time) for the reserves and National Guardsmen under 5 U.S.C. 6323(a) will be one hour andadditional charges will be in multiples thereof. Office of Special Counsel (OSC). P.L. 106-554 provides funding of $11,147,000 for the OSC. This was theamount requested by the President in his FY 2001 budget proposal. The House Appropriations Committeerecommended, and the House passed, an appropriationof $10,319,000 for the OSC. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended an appropriation of $10,733,000. The House amount was $828,000 below,and the Senate amount was $414,000 below, the law and the President's request. The law also provides for a 0.22%or $24,523 across-the-board cut in the FY2001 funding. After this reduction, the FY 2001 funding is $11,122,477. The agency investigates federal employeeallegations of prohibited personnel practicesand, when appropriate, prosecutes before the Merit Systems Protection Board; provides a channel for whistleblowing by federal employees; and enforces theHatch Act. The agency's FY2000 appropriation was $9,740,000. P.L. 106-113 mandated a 0.38% or $37,000rescission in the FY2000 funding. (53) The OSCsaidthat it will absorb the reduction by delaying the scope of the planned reconstruction of office space which wouldhave provided the agency's lawyers andinvestigators with private offices. After the reduction, the FY 2000 funding was $9,703,000. The FY 2001appropriation, after the rescission, is 14.6% above thisamount. The President's budget stated that, "The request will enable OSC to reduce its long-standing case-processing backlogs, and will ensure that OSC's customersreceive prompt and timely service in accordance with the time frames laid out in [law] ... (240 days to processprohibited practice complaints) and ... (15 days tomake initial determination on whistleblower disclosure)." (54) The House Appropriations Committee report stated that "the Committee denies without prejudicethePresident's request of $772,000 for additional personnel to reduce case backlog, and $56,000 for related equipment,travel, and training.". (55) As stated in theSenate Appropriations Committee report, the recommended appropriation included $616,000 for mandatory costincreases, including required pay adjustments,and $414,000 for five new full-time equivalent positions and the related equipment. (56) The report also urges the OSC to complete an investigation of allegationsmade by a State Department employee "in a timely manner." This section of the report calls attention, briefly, to some of the law enacted under the general provisions titles of the Treasury and General Government FY2001appropriation (see H.R. 5658 ). Both Title V and Title VI provide general government-wide guidance on basicinfrastructure-like policies, such asrequiring provisions related to the Buy America Act (sections 506 and 507), drug-free federal workplaces (section602), and authorizing agencies to pay GSA billsfor space renovation and other services (section 606). Title V . With the exception of the sections relating to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, whichcontinue provisions already in effect from previous years, the sections noted here are either new or contain modifiedpolicies. Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. See discussion of sections 509, 510, and 513 under the "FederalPersonnel Issues" section below. Gerald R. Ford Museum and Library. See discussion of section 514 under National Archives and RecordsAdministration above. Data Quality. Section 515 of the bill requires the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by notlater than September 30, 2001, and with public and federal agency involvement, to issue guidelines under 44 U.S.C.3504(d)(1) and 3516 that provide policy andprocedural guidance to federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrityof information, including statistical information,disseminated by the agencies in fulfillment of the purposes and provisions of chapter 35 of Title 44, United StatesCode--the Paperwork Reduction Act. Suchguidelines shall (1) apply to the sharing by federal agencies of, and access to, information disseminated by suchagencies, and (2) require that each federal agencyto which the guidelines apply: issue guidelines ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information,issued by the agency, by not later than one year after the date of issuance of the OMB guidelines; establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated bythe agency that does not comply with the OMB guidelines; and report periodically to the OMB director (1) the number and nature of complaints received by the agency regarding the accuracy ofinformation disseminated by the agency, and (2) how such complaints were handled by the agency. Kyoto Protocol. Section 517 provides that no funds appropriated by the Act may be used for any aspect ofimplementation of the December 17, 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate changes, which has not been submitted to theSenate for ratification. Paperwork Reduction Effectiveness. Under the provisions of section 518, the Office of Management and Budgetmust, by July 1, 2001, submit to the appropriate House and Senate committees a report that evaluates, for eachagency, the extent to which the implementation ofpaperwork burden reduction legislation (31 U.S.C. chapter 35) has been effective and discusses the need foradditional procedures to effect the goals. There is tobe an evaluation of the burden imposed by each major rule that imposes more than 10,000,000 hours of burden andan identification of specific reductionsexpected to be achieved, in FY2001 and FY2002, in the burden imposed by all rules issued by each agency thatissued such a major rule. Title VI. Unless noted, all the provisions set out here are new or modified policies. Regulatory Costs Accounting. Section 624 modifies, and makes permanent, the requirement that OMB annually,beginning for FY2002, submit, with the budget, an accounting statement and associated report containing anestimate of the total annual costs and benefits offederal rules and paperwork; an analysis of impacts of federal regulations on state, local, and tribal government,small business, wages, and economic growth; andrecommendations for reform. Dept. of Treasury Canine Certification. Section 626 continues, and makes permanent, the authorization for theSecretary of the Treasury to establish scientific certification standards for explosives detection canines. It alsoprovides , on a reimbursable basis, for thecertification of explosives detection canines employed by federal agencies, or other agencies providing explosivesdetection services at airports in the UnitedStates. National Science and Technology Council. Although section 610 is a continued provision prohibiting interagencyexpenditures on boards, committees, councils or commissions without prior statutory authorization, section 635 isa new provision which provides that fundsappropriated in this act, or others, for FY2001 shall be available for the interagency funding of specific projects,workshops, studies, and similar efforts to carryout the purposes of the national Science and Technology Council (Executive Order 12881). OMB is required toprovide a report describing the budget of, andresources connected to, the Council to specific congressional committees by March 21, 2001. Law Enforcement Retirement. See discussion, in "Law Enforcement --Washington Area Airport Authority"section below, of section 636 retirement provisions relating to members of the police force of the MetropolitanWashington Airports Authority. Federal Employee Locality Pay Designations. See "Locality Pay Designations" in the OPM section above, for adiscussion of the new provisions in section 637. Mandatory Removal of Law Enforcement Officers. Section 639 provides for the mandatory removal fromemployment of federal law enforcement officers who are convicted of felonies. Details of the policy are set out inthe section and will be codified at 5 U.S.C.7371. The policy will be effective January 21, 2001 and will apply to any conviction of a felony entered by a federalor state court on or after that date. Statutory Correction. Section 640 of P.L. 106-554 provides correction to FY2001 provisions enacted earlier. Section 640 of the Legislative Branch and Treasury FY2001 appropriation ( H.R. 4516 /4985, vetoed) wouldhave rolled back the increased rates ofcontributions federal employees make to the retirement funds. Section 505 of P.L. 106-346 (Department ofTransportation FY2001) provided for the rollback andSection 504 provided that section 640 of H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 would have no effect. At the time P.L.106-346 was signed, H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 was pending approval by the President and it was presumed it would beapproved. It was subsequently vetoed andnormally the language of P.L. 106-346 , section 504, would have been rendered moot. However, section 504 does not refer to the measure by bill number but refers to the "Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001." That is theshort title of H.R. 5658 , enacted by P.L. 106-554 . If P.L. 106-554 had not contained language, as found insection 640, any section in P.L. 106-554 , which carried the designation "640," would be rendered not in effect because of the language of section 504 of P.L.106-346 . Section 644 of P.L. 106-554 repeals section 501 of P.L. 106-346 for the similar purpose of preserving the integrity of any section numbered 644 in the Treasuryand General Government Appropriations Act, 2001. Federal Firefighter Workmen's Compensation. Section 641 provides that overtime paid to federal firefighters willbe used in the computation of the benefits to federal firefighters for work-related injuries. Military Leave. Section 642 provides that military leave taken by federal employees must be in increments of onehour. Federal Child Caregiver Background Checks. See "Federal Child Care" below for a discussion of the provisions ofsection 643. Administrative Appeals Judge -- Salary. See discussion of section 645 in "Administrative Appeals Judge --Salary" subsection of the OPM presentation above. IG Reports on Individual Data Through Internet Use. Section 646 requires that, by February 19, 2001, the InspectorGeneral of each department or agency will submit to Congress a report that discloses any activity relating to thecollection or review of singular data or thecreation of aggregate lists that include personally identifiable information about individuals who access anydepartment or agency's Internet site. The reports arealso to include activities relating to entering into agreements with third parties of collect, review, or obtain suchinformation or lists relating to any individual'saccess or viewing habits for governmental and nongovernmental Internet sites. During the debates in both the House and Senate on the Legislative Branch Appropriations conference report,several Members indicated that they supportedhigher levels of funding for some of the accounts under discussion. They were assured in floor exchanges thatfunding would be provided in subsequentappropriations measures to come before them. Partial funding is provided for the following accounts: Department of the Treasury: Departmental Offices, Department-wide systems and capital investments programs, Expanded Access toFinancial Services, Federal Law Enforcement (both the salaries and expenses and the acquisition, construction,improvements and related expenses accounts),Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, U.S. Customs Service (salaries and expenses), Internal Revenue Service(three accounts--tax law enforcement,information technology investments, and staffing tax administration for balance and equity), and the U.S. SecretService (salaries andexpenses). U.S. Postal Service (no funding) Executive Office of the President: Office of National Drug Control Policy (Counterdrug TechnologyAssessment Center) and FundsAppropriated to the President--Unanticipated Needs. Independent Agencies: General Services Administration (Federal Buildings Fund and Policy andOperations) and National Archives andRecords Administration (Repairs and Restoration) In addition to partially funding some of the accounts, P.L. 106-346 ( H.R. 4475 ) also addresses general provisions, such as privacy, federal employeeretirement changes, and U.S. Secret Service assistance for investigations related to missing and exploited children. The retirement language was intended as anamendment to the language in H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 , which has since been vetoed. Also, in effect, thefunding was intended assupplemental funding for the accounts within that measure. The supplemental has been enacted prior to the baseaccount funding. Section 501 of P.L. 106-346 prohibits funds appropriated by the legislation to be used by any executive agency (1) to collect, review, or create any aggregate list,derived by any means, that includes the collection of any personally identifiable information relating to anindividual's access to or use of any federal governmentInternet site of the agency, or (2) to enter into any agreement with a third party, including another governmentagency, to collect, review, or obtain any aggregatelist, derived from any means, that includes the collection of any personally identifiable information relating to anindividual's access to or use of anynon-governmental Internet site. These limitations do not apply to (1) any record of aggregate data that does notidentify particular persons; (2) any voluntarysubmission of personally identifiable information; (3) any action taken for law enforcement, regulatory, orsupervisory purposes, in accordance with applicablelaw; and (4) any action that is a system security action taken by the operator of an Internet site and is necessarilyincident to the rendition of the Internet siteservices or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of the Internet site. The first limitation may be viewed as a response to the June press revelation that the National Drug Control Policy Office, an agency within the Executive Officeof the President, was secretly tracking visitors to its website through the use of computer software known as"cookies." (57) In response, OMB issued a June 22,2000, memorandum to the heads of all executive departments and agencies indicating that "'cookies' should not beused at Federal web sites, or by contractorswhen operating web sites on behalf of agencies, unless, in addition to clear and conspicuous notice, the followingconditions are met: a compelling need to gatherthe data on the site; appropriate and publicly disclosed privacy safeguards for handling of information derived from"cookies"; and personal approval by the headof the agency." The second limitation may be regarded as a response to a September GAO report indicating that,in a survey of online privacy protections atfederal websites, it had been found that 23 of 70 agencies had disclosed personal information gathered from theirwebsites to third parties, mostly other agencies. However, at least four agencies were discovered to be sharing such information with private entities--tradeorganizations, bilateral development banks, productmanufacturers, distributors, and retailers. The offending agencies were not identified by GAO. Responding to thesefindings, some privacy advocates called forupdating the Privacy Act, while others urged better oversight and enforcement of the statute. (58) On October 5, the conference report to accompany H.R. 4475 was filed. (59) On October 6, it was brought up under the rule, H. Res. 612. (60) The voteto adopt the rule was unrecorded. The conference report was agreed to by the House on a vote of 344-50 (Roll no.516) and by the Senate on a vote of 78-10(Record Vote No. 267). (61) The President signed P.L. 106-346 on October 23, 2000. P.L. 106-275 , (62) as amended, is the statutoryvehicle through which all government programs and agencies, which have not been funded through regular FY2001appropriations, are being funded. Most are being funded at FY2000 funding levels. Most programs or accountsnew in FY2001 are receiving no funding. Subsequent to the passage of P.L. 106-275 , there were 20 additional continuing funding resolutions (CR) forFY2001, most of which amend P.L. 106-275 toprovide daily continuations One account, within the vetoed funding measure, was funded specifically in the November 3 ( P.L. 106-426 ) CR is that through which the General ServicesAdministration will administer the presidential transition. On November 2, Congress agreed to a continuing fundingresolution ( H.J.Res. 123 ) whichwas amended to include the $7.1 million provided in the vetoed legislation. (63) There was no recorded vote on the amendment but the resolution, whichamended P.L. 106-275 , was agreed to through a vote of 310 to 7 (Roll No. 592). The Senate agreed to H.J.Res. 123 by unanimous consent. (64) P.L. 106-520 ( H.J.Res. 125 ), in addition to extending the funding, amends the FY2001 continuing funding resolution to authorize the ExecutiveResidence at the White House to "make expenditures to provide for the orderly transition and moving expensesfollowing the election on November 7, 2000." (65) That authorization was also in H.R. 4871 , as passed the house, and in H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 , asvetoed. H.J.Res. 125 was adopted in the House November 13 (66) and in the Senate November 14. (67) Inclusion of the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government funding provisions in the legislative branch appropriations (68) caught many by surprise. Thereare no minority signatures on the conference report. The text of the floor debate on the rule would indicate thatsome knew about the strategy and others werecaught unaware. (69) The debate on the rule, agreedto in the House July 27, seemed to focus more on the protocol than on the substance of the provisions of H.R. 4985 , as introduced and as included in the conference report. The House had passed H.R. 4871 and the Senate had begun debateon that measure, as well as having reported their own version, S. 2900 . H.R. 4985 has received nostand-alone committee or floor actionby either chamber. The House, having already agreed to the rule, proceeded to debate the conference report, andsubsequently agreed to the report, on September14, 2000. The Senate rejected the conference report on September 20. There was substantial objection to the procedural protocol of bringing into a conference report, provisions of a bill which had been introduced the legislative daybefore it became part of the report and which contained spending levels considerably in excess of the House-passedand Senate-reported versions. Therecontinued to be contention with regard to the adequacy of the funding levels for IRS accounts and for courthouseconstruction. Although there was not a formalpress release nor a Statement of Administration Policy threatening a veto, the probability of a veto was suggestedby both administration representatives andDemocratic Members. The funding levels in H.R. 4985 , as introduced and as section 1001 of Division B of the H.R. 4516 conference report, are markedlydifferent than those in the House-passed and Senate-reported versions. Table 4 provides the details by account. Insummary, the conference version would havefunded the accounts at $30, 309.5 million. The FY2001 request was for $31,208.4 million. The House approved$29,081.6 million and the Senate AppropriationsCommittee reported their bill at $29,180.6 million. There are four accounts which would have exceeded thePresident's request as well as both the House andSenate versions (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Financial Management Service and the Bureau ofAlcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the U.S.Secret Service, all in the Department of the Treasury). There are two accounts which would have exceeded thePresident's request and would be equal to, or lowerthan, either the House or Senate versions (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network in the Department of the Treasuryand the National Historical Publications andRecords Commission Grants Program in the National Archives and Records Administration). There are 17 accountsin which the conference version would haveexceeded both the House and Senate versions, but would be equal to (two), or below the President's request. Thereare 26 accounts in which the conferenceversion would have exceeded the funding level proposed by either the House or the Senate. In most of thoseinstances, the funding level would have matched thePresident's request and whichever congressional version was higher. Other than the mandatory accounts, there areeight accounts in which the conference fundinglevel is in agreement with the President's request and both the House-passed and Senate-reported versions. (Noteto Reader: These differentials are in P.L.106-554 , as well.) Data Quality. Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government provisions would require the director ofthe Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by not later than September 30, 2001, and with public and federalagency involvement, to issue guidelines under44 U.S.C. 3504(d)(1) and 3516 that provide policy and procedural guidance to federal agencies for ensuring andmaximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, andintegrity of information, including statistical information, disseminated by the agencies in fulfillment of the purposesand provisions of chapter 35 of Title 44,United States Code--the Paperwork Reduction Act. Such guidelines (1) would apply to the sharing by federalagencies of, and access to, informationdisseminated by such agencies, and (2) would require that each federal agency to which the guidelines apply: issue guidelines ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information,issued by the agency, by not later than one year after the date of issuance of the OMB guidelines; establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated bythe agency that does not comply with the OMB guidelines; and report periodically to the OMB director (1) the number and nature of complaints received by the agency regarding the accuracy ofinformation disseminated by the agency, and (2) how such complaints were handled by the agency. Excise Tax. The repeal of the telephone excise tax, although in Division B, is not part of the Treasury andGeneral Government text. That provision can be found in Section 1003 of Division B, H.R. 4516 . For adiscussion of the issue, see CRS Report RS20119, Telephone Excise Tax , by Louis Alan Talley. On October 30, 2000, President Clinton vetoed H.R. 4516 , sending the FY2001 funding for the legislative branch and the Treasury and generalgovernment accounts back to Congress. In the veto message, the President noted that the "business of the Americanpeople remains unfinished" and stated that hecould not "in good conscience sign a bill that funds the operations of the Congress and the White House beforefunding our classrooms, fixing our schools andprotecting our workers." (70) On October 31, theHouse discussed the veto and referred the veto and bill to the Committee on Appropriations. (71) Many press reports have indicated that the President vetoed the congressional pay raise. His statement does not mention that issue. There is no provision in H.R. 4516 for a pay raise; the raise goes into effect automatically unless there is language denying it and H.R. 4516 is silent on the issue. (See "Federal Pay" below.) General. Under the Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA), federal white collar employees, paidunder the General Schedule and related salary systems, are to receive annual adjustments based on two separatemechanisms. The first is the adjustment to basepay which is based on changes in private sector salaries as reflected in the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The rateof pay adjustment is supposed to be thepercentage rate of change in that element of the ECI, minus .5. For January 2001, the base pay adjustment shouldbe 2.7%. At this time there are no legislativeproposals to change that rate. Since the President sent no alternative plan to Congress by the end of August, the basepay adjustment will be 2.7% Since the budget recommendation is for 3.7% and since the assumption in this legislation is that the programs are funded to accommodate that rate, it follows thatthe second tier of the adjustment would be 1%. Locality-based payments are calculated based on the results ofsurveys of occupations in specific localities withinthe continental United States. [See discussion under OPM above with regard to the designation of those localities.]The surveys show that locality-based paymentswould have to average about 16% in order to meet the expectations of FEPCA. On December 1, 2000, PresidentClinton sent an alternative plan to Congresswhich provides that locality payments equal 1% of payroll. Federal Wage System. The Federal Wage System (FWS) is designed to compensate the federal blue collar, orskilled labor, force at rates prevailing in local wage areas for like occupations. If the statutory system were allowedto be managed as planned, the wage rates andthe rates of adjustment in the over 130 wage areas would vary, according to the labor costs and compensation in theprivate sector. For the last several years,Congress has limited the rates of adjustment, based on the rates of adjustment for the General Schedule. Part of therationale for that decision is that, in certainhigh costs areas, the some FWS wages would exceed the salaries paid to General Schedule supervisors. Section613 of the FY2001 appropriations continues thelimitation. Wages in lower cost areas will be allowed to increase according to the findings of the wage surveys butthe high cost area wages will be capped. Members of Congress, Judges, and Other Officials. Under the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, as amended, payadjustments for federal officials, including Members of Congress and judges, is also based on ECI calculations, butfor a different 12-month period. The ECIcalculations would dictate a pay adjustment in January 2001 of 3%. However, the statute limits those adjustmentsto the rate of adjustment for base pay of theGeneral Schedule. Therefore, if General Schedule base pay is adjusted at the rate of 2.7%, that will be the maximumrate of adjustment in salaries of federalofficials. Although there has been substantial journalistic reporting that the President vetoed the Legislative Branch/Treasury and General Government in order to eliminatea January 2001 pay raise for Members of Congress, the pay raise would go into effect regardless of that action. Neither of those bills has any section in itproviding for a pay increase. The increase, under the statute discussed above, is automatic unless there is specificlanguage in some legislative measure denying it. The language to deny that pay increase has often been placed in the Treasury and General Government fundingmeasure. However, both the vetoed bill and P.L.106-554 are silent on the matter. Unlike that for Members of Congress and executive branch officials, the annual pay increase must be specifically authorized for judges. The authorization for theJanuary 2001 pay increase is in the Commerce, State, Justice and Judiciary appropriation ( P.L. 106-554 , section309). President. Pursuant to the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2000 ( P.L. 106-58 ), theincoming President will receive a salary of $400,000 per annum . Since 1969, Presidents have been paida salary of $200,000. Section 630 of H.R. 5658 , as enacted through P.L. 106-554 is that same provision as section 631 of H.R. 4871 , as passed the House. Itrequires health insurance plans participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) to includecoverage of prescription contraceptives undertheir prescription drug benefit. It exempts from this requirement three specific health maintenance organizationsfor religious reasons as well as "any existing orfuture plan [participating in the FEHBP] if the carrier for the plan objects to such coverage on the basis of religiousbeliefs." It also prohibits discriminationagainst "any individual who refuses to prescribe or otherwise provide for contraceptives because such activity wouldbe contrary to the individual's religiousbeliefs or moral convictions." A requirement that FEHBP plan cover prescription contraceptives was first includedin the FY1999 appropriations legislation. Theprovision in the FY2001 act is similar to that included in the FY2000 Treasury and General Governmentappropriations act. As reported, S. 2900 contains a similar provision. It would have exempted two additional plans from the program. Section 509 of H.R. 5658 prohibits funds appropriated through this Act to be used to pay for an abortion or the administrative expenses in connectionwith any health plan under FEHB which provides any benefits or coverage for abortions. An exception, in section510 would be if the mother's health wereendangered or if the pregnancy were the result of rape. Section 513 exempts contracts under FEHBP from the cost accounting standards promulgated under the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C.422). Repeal of Temporary Increase in Retirement Contributions. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA, P.L.105-33 ) mandated a temporary increase of 0.5% in employee contributions under both Civil Service RetirementSystem (CSRS) and Federal Employee RetirementSystem (FERS), which was to be phased in over 3 years. Employee contributions increased by 0.25% on January1, 1999; by a further 0.15% on January 1, 2000;and were scheduled to rise by another 0.1% on January 1, 2001. Employee contributions were to revert to theirprevious levels on January 1, 2003. The highercontributions do not increase the benefit accruals of federal employees under either CSRS or FERS. The President'sproposed budget for FY2001 included alegislative initiative to repeal the increase in employee contributions required by the BBA and two bills wereintroduced in the 106th Congress for that purpose( H.R. 2631 / S. 1472 ). The higher contribution rates were repealed for all federal employees with theexception of Members of Congressby P.L. 106-346 , the FY2001 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act. Law Enforcement --Washington Area Airport Authority. Section 636 of H.R. 5658 designatesqualified members of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority as eligible to be treated as law enforcementofficer under CSRS or FERS, as applicable. Federal law enforcement officers are permitted under both CSRS and FERS to receive an immediate, unreducedretirement annuity at age 50 with 20 years ofservice. Under FERS, employees in these positions are authorized to receive a retirement annuity at any age after25 years of service. Law enforcement officersmust retire upon reaching age 57 or after completing 20 years of service, if later. Federal law enforcement officersearn a larger retirement benefit for each yearof service than regular federal employees. Under both CSRS and FERS, law enforcement officers contribute anadditional 0.5% of pay over the amountcontributed by regular federal employees. Increase in maximum allowable contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan. The Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) wascreated by the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 ( P.L. 99-335 ) as a retirement savings plan forcivilian federal employees. Under the terms ofFERS Act, employees covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System are permitted to contribute to the TSPthe lesser of 10% of pay or the maximumdeferral permissible under section 402(g) of the Internal Revenue Code ($10,500 in 2001). Employees covered bythe Civil Service Retirement System arepermitted to contribute the lesser of 5% of pay or the maximum deferral permissible under IRC ï¿½ 402(g). Asamended by P.L. 106-554 , the maximum allowableemployee contribution to the TSP will increase by 1 percentage point each year for five years. Thepercentage-of-pay limitations on contributions to the TSP willthen be eliminated. However, employee contributions to the TSP will remain subject to the limits applicable underIRC ï¿½ 402(g). Beginning with the open season that starts May 15, 2001, employees covered by FERS will be allowed to contribute up to 11 percent of pay to the TSP, and thoseunder CSRS will be allowed to contribute up to 6 percent of pay to the TSP. These maximum permissiblecontributions will rise by 1 percentage point each yearuntil they reach 15 percent for FERS and 10 percent for CSRS in fiscal year 2005. In fiscal 2006, the percent-of-paylimits on TSP contributions will beabolished, and employees will be subject only to the contribution limits then prevailing under IRC ï¿½ 402(g). Section 633 of H.R. 5658 , as enacted through P.L. 106-554 continues and modifies the provisions authorizing agencies to provide child care infederal facilities. Section 643 is a new provision requiring criminal background checks for employees atfederally-provided day care facilities of the executivebranch, as proposed in H.R. 4871 . The provisions in H.R. 4871 pertaining to federal child care resemble those included in last year's House version of the FY2000 Treasury, Postal, andGeneral Government appropriations bill ( H.R. 2490 ), and ultimately in law ( P.L. 106-58 ). H.R. 4871 ,as passed by the House on July20, 2000, includes a provision (Sec. 634) that would have continued to permit executive branch agencies (notincluding the General Accounting Office) to useagency funds (otherwise available for agency salaries and expenses) to provide child care services, in a Federal orleased facility, or through contract, for civilianemployees of the agency. These funds would be used to improve the affordability of child care for lower incomefederal employees using or seeking to use thechild care services offered by the agency facility or contractor. The bill stipulated that amounts paid to licensed orregulated child care providers would be paid inadvance of child care services rendered, covering agreed upon periods as appropriate. The House also agreed to anamendment ( H.Amdt. 1019 )which would have required that all current and newly hired workers in all child care centers located in federallyowned or leased facilities undergo criminalbackground checks in compliance with the Crime Control Act of 1990. The Senate's bill ( S. 2900 ), as approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 20, 2000, included language identical to H.R. 4871 with respect to the use of funds for improving affordability of child care for lower income federal employees(Sec. 634), but did not include the H.R. 4871 provision regarding the timing of payments to child care providers, nor the House amendmentlanguage requiring that current and newlyhired child care workers in federal child care centers undergo criminal background checks. The vetoed Legislative Branch Appropriations conference report included federal child care provisions ( H.R. 4985 , Sec. 633 and 643) identical tothose in H.R. 4871 , as passed, with respect to using funds to improve affordability of federal child care andrequiring criminal background checks ofchild care workers. However, unlike H.R. 4871 , the conference version ( H.R. 4516 / H.R. 4985 )would not have providedfor advance payment of salaries to providers. P.L. 106-554 enacted the language from the conference version. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees have approved the allocations to the various appropriations. The House, on May 9, 2000, approveddiscretionary budget authority at $14.088 billion, with outlays at $14.563 billion. On July 19, the HouseAppropriations Committee reported a revised allocation( H.Rept. 106-761 ) of $14.402 billion in budget authority and $14.751 in outlays. The Senate, on May 4, 2000, allocated $14.3 billion for budget authority and$14.566 billion for outlays. While the congressional numbers are in disagreement with one another, they areconsistently lower than the requested funding. Theadministration's request for discretionary funding was for $14.678 billion in budget authority (according to CBOcalculations). H.R. 5658 , as enactedthrough P.L. 106-554 , funds the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government accounts at $30.31 billion. Themandatory accounts are funded at $14.68billion and the discretionary accounts at $15.63 billion. P.L. 106-346 provides supplemental funding for theTreasury/General Government accounts in theamount of $348 million. The sum of mandatory and discretionary funding requested, before CBO scorekeeping, is $30.8 billion. CBO calculates that total at $31.2 billion. Table 2. Appropriations for the Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President, and General Government, FY1996to FY2000 (in billions of current dollars) a Source for FY2000: U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, as of July 26 2000. a These figures, in current dollars, include CBO adjustments for permanent budget authorities, rescissions, and supplementals, as well as other elements factoredinto the CBO scorekeeping process. For a brief presentation on CBO scorekeeping see: U.S. Congressional BudgetOffice, Maintaining Budgetary Discipline:Spending and Revenue Options (Washington: GPO, 1999). The appendix beginning on p. 281 provides the"Scorekeeping Guidelines," as found in the conferencereport to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Also available at http://www.cbo.gov/ . Table 3. Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President, and General Government Appropriations, FY2001, byTitle (In millions, without CBO scorekeeping) Sources: Conference Report on H.R. 4516 , Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2001, Congressional Record , vol. 146, Jan. 14,2000, p. H7608-7626. Chart showing Treasury and General Government accounts in detail appears onH7609-7611. Funding information for H.R. 4475 provided by staff of House Committee on Appropriations,Oct. 3,2000. P.L. 106-554 --Conference Report on H.R., 4577, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,and Education, and Related AgenciesAppropriations Act, 2001, Congressional Record , vol. 146, Dec. 15, 2000, H.Rept. 106-1033 , pp.H12100-12439. The act is to be known as the ConsolidatedAppropriations Act , 2001. Section 1(a)(3) enacts the Treasury and General Government Appropriation ( H.R. 5658 ) by reference. Legislative textand explanatory remarks for H.R. 5658 appear on pages H12230-H12258. Chart showing Treasury andGeneral Government accounts in detailappears on H12249-H12258. Table 4. Department of the Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President, and General GovernmentAppropriations (in thousands of dollars) Sources: Conference Report on H.R. 4516 , Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2001, CongressionalRecord , vol. 146, Jan. 14, 2000, p. H7608-H7626. Chart showing Treasury and General Government accounts in detail appears on H7609-H7611. Funding information for H.R. 4475 provided by staff of House Committee on Appropriations, Oct. 3,2000. Conference Report on H.R. 5658 ,as enacted through P.L. 106-554 , Congressional Record ,vol. 146, Dec. 15, 2000, p. H12230-H12258. Chartshowing Treasury and General Government accounts in detail appears on p. H12249-H12258. Table 4 Notes : a The totals provided include the funding reductions pursuant to the 0.38% rescission required by P.L. 106-113 . Those individual accounts noted with "*" reflectthe appropriated sum reduced by the rescission. Not all of the rescissions are at the .38% rate, because agencies haddiscretion as to how to apply the reductions. b Title V of P.L. 106-346 ( H.R. 4475 ), Department of Transportation Appropriation, 2001,provides partial funding for selected accounts which aregenerally covered under the Treasury and General Government appropriation legislation. C P.L. 106-520 ( H.J.Res. 125 ), a further continuing funding resolution which amends P.L.106-275 , the FY2001 continuing funding resolution,provides an authorization for the use of funds to support the moving of families to and from the White House. Nospecific amount is named, however, it isestimated that it will be about $200,000. The following definitions are selected from the "Glossary of Budgetary Terms," as found in Manual onthe Federal Budget Process , a CRS report (98-720) by[author name scrubbed] 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 forspecified purposes. Annual appropriations are provided in appropriations acts; most permanent appropriations areprovided 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 congressionalbudget for at least the next five fiscal years. The budget resolution sets forth various budget totals and functionalallocations, and may include reconciliationinstructions, 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 beenenacted after the new fiscal year has started. A continuing resolution usually is a temporary measure that expireson a specified date or is superseded by enactmentof the regular appropriations act. Some continuing resolutions, however, are in effect for the remainder of the fiscalyear and are the means of enacting regularappropriations. Direct Spending. Budget authority, and the resulting outlays, provided in laws other than annual appropriations acts. Appropriated entitlements are classified asdirect spending. Direct spending is distinguished by the Budget Enforcement Act from discretionary spending andis subject to the PAGO rules. It is also referredto 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, publicenterprise, 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 forpayment 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 addto the deficit or reduce the surplus. PAGO requires that any increase in the deficit or reduction in the surplus dueto legislation be offset by other legislation orsequestration. PAGO is enforced by estimating the five-year budgetary effects of all new revenue and directspending laws. Reconciliation Process. A process established in the Congressional Budget Act by which Congress changes existing laws to conform tax and spending levels tothe levels set in a budget resolution. Changes recommended by committees pursuant to a reconciliation instructionare 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 yearlimitation. Scorekeeping. Procedures for tracking and reporting on the status of congressional budgetary actions affecting budget authority, receipts, outlays, the surplus ordeficit, 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 oftimely 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 therevenue should go into the U.S. Treasury or should be available to the agency providing the goods or services. CRS Issue Brief IB10053, Federal Employees and the FY2001 Budget , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB95035, Federal Regulatory Reform: An Overview , by Roger Garcia. CRS Issue Brief IB10014, Gun Control , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB89148, Item Veto and Expanded Impoundment Proposals , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Info Pack 517G, Government Performance and Results Act: Implementing the Results . CRS Report 98-648 , Appropriations Bills: What Are "General Provisions?", by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 98-558 , Appropriations Bills: What is report language? by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30202 , Appropriations for FY2000: Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President, and General Government , coordinated by SharonS. Gressle. CRS Report RL30512 , Appropriations for FY2001: Legislative Branch , by Paul Dwyer. CRS Report 97-635(pdf) , The Balanced Budget Act of 1997: Retirement and Health Insurance Provisions for Postal and Federal Personnel , by Carolyn L. Merck. CRS Report RL30458 , The Budget Reconciliation Process: Timing of Legislative Action , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20255, Civil Service Retirement Bills in the 106th Congress , by Patrick J. Purcell. CRS Report RL30023(pdf) , Civil Service Retirement Programs: Financing and Budget Status , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 97-684 , The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30343 , Continuing Appropriations Acts: Brief Overview of Recent Practices , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 98-157 GOV, Congressional Overrides of Presidential Vetoes , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30353, Discretionary Spending Limits and Social Security Surplus , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 96-329, Federal Civilian Employment Reduction , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30336, The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program , by Carolyn L. Merck. CRS Report RL30698, Federal Employees' Overtime Pay: 106th Congress Legislation , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 98-956, Federal Pay: FY2000 Salary Adjustment, by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30359, Federal Pay: FY2001 Salary Adjustment, by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 98-558 , Government Performance and Results Act and the Appropriations Process , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20257(pdf) , Government Performance and Results Act: Brief History and Implementation Activities During the First Session of the 106th Congress , by[author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 97-382, Government Performance and Results Act: Implications for Congressional Oversight , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 98-4, Implementation of P.L. 105-206: Personnel Management Flexibility for the Internal Revenue Service , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 98-721 , Introduction to the Federal Budget Process, by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30536, IRS Restructuring and Tax Law Compliance , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20278, Judicial Salaries: Current Situation , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20644, Long-term Care Insurance for Federal Personnel , by Carolyn L. Merck. CRS Report RL30254, Long-term Care: The President's FY2001 Budget Proposals and Related Legislation , by Carol V. O'Shaughnessy, [author name scrubbed], and CarolynL. Merck. CRS Report 98-720(pdf) , Manual on the Federal Budget Process, by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30194, Merit Systems Protection Board: Background, Strategic and Performance Plans, and Congressional Oversight , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 98-773, Office of Personnel Management: Background, Strategic and Performance Plans, and Congressional Oversight , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 94-971 , Pay and Retirement Benefits for Federal Civil Service and Military Personnel: Increases from 1969 to 2000 , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 98-147 GOV, President Clinton's Vetoes , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20709, Presidential Transition 2000-2001: Background and Federal Support , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 98-156 GOV, The Presidential Veto and Congressional Procedure, by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 98-148 GOV, Presidential Vetoes, 1789-Present: A Summary Overview, by [author name scrubbed] CRS Report RS20212, Restructuring of the IRS: Where Does It Stand? , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 98-53, Salaries of Federal Officials , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30014, Salaries of Members of Congress: Current Procedures and Recent Adjustments , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 97-1011 , Salaries of Members of Congress: Payable Rates and Effective Dates, 1789-1999 , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20388 , Salary Linkage: Members of Congress and Other Federal Officials , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20114, Salary of the President Compared with That of Other Federal Officials , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20115 , Salary of the President: Process for Change , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30363(pdf) , The Sequestration Process and Across-the-Board Spending Cuts for FY2000 , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 98-844, Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Effects, and Process , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30443 , The 0.38 Percent Across-the-Board Cut in FY2000 Appropriations , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20111, Travel Costs of the President, Vice President, and First Lady , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30450, United States Office of Special Counsel: Background, Strategic and Performance Plans, and Congressional Oversight , by Barbara L.Schwemle. CRS Report RS20719, Vetoed Annual Appropriations Acts: Presidents Carter through Clinton , by [author name scrubbed]. Syracuse University, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Government Performance Project, Grading Government, (Syracuse, NY: SyracuseUniversity, February 1999). U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Appropriations, Treasury and General Government Appropriation Bill, 2000 , report to accompany S. 1282, 106thCong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 106-5887 (Washington: GPO, 1999). U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Maintaining Budgetary Discipline: Spending and Revenue Options (Washington: GPO, 1999). [Available on CBO Web site.] U.S. Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Customs Service Strategic Plan (FY97-02), by Commissioner of Customs George Weiss,(Washington: U.S. Customs Service, August 1, 1997). U.S. General Accounting Office, High Risk Series: An Update , GAO report GAO-01-263, (Washington: January 2001) -----, High Risk Series, IRS Management , GAO Report HR 97-8 (Washington: February 1997). -----, Customs Service: Comments on Strategic Plan and Resource Allocation Process, GAO Report GGD-98-15, (Washington: October 16, 1998). -----, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the Treasury , GAO report OCG-99-14, (Washington: October 21, 1998). -----, Performance and Accountability Series, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: A Governmentwide Perspective , GAO report GAO-01-241,(Washington: January 2001). ----- Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the Treasury , GAO report GAO-01-254, (Washington: January 2001). -----, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: U. S. Postal Service , GAO report GAO-01-262, (Washington: January 2001). Important information regarding current and past budgets (including budget documents), the federal budget process, and duties and functions are available at thefollowing web sites. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) http://www.cbo.gov General Accounting Office (GAO) http://www.gao.gov National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service http://www.house.gov/natcommirs/main.htm Office of Government Ethics http://www.usoge.gov Office of Management and Budget (OMB) http://www.whitehouse.Gov/OMB/index.html Office of Management and Budget, Statements of Administration Policy (SAPS) http://www.whitehouse.Gov/OMB/legislative/sap/index.html 

Summary: FY2001 Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the president, and General Government funding was enacted through P.L. 106-554 , the ConsolidatedAppropriations Act for FY2001, December 21, 2001. Partial funding for a select few of the accounts and somegeneral provisions of the Treasury, Postal Service,Executive Office of the President, and General Government FY2001 Appropriations are included in the Departmentof Transportation FY2001 Appropriation( P.L. 106-346 , Title V, October 23, 2000) and the continuing funding resolution ( P.L. 106-275 , as amended). Twenty-one continuing resolutions providedstopgap funding during the period October 1 through December 21, 2000. There were four appropriations billswhich would have funded all or some of theaccounts usually funded through the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government FY2001 appropriations acts. The House had passed, on July 20, H.R. 4871 . The Senate had reported, on July 20, S. 2900 and, on July 26, had voted to invoke clotureto proceed with debate on H.R. 4871 . The third version, H.R. 4985 , was introduced on July 26 as a new bill and reported fromthe Legislative Branch( H.R. 4516 ) appropriations conference committee as section 1001, Division B of that conference. This billwas vetoed October 30, 2000.The Houseagreed to the conference report on H.R. 4516 September 14. On October 6, the House and Senate approvedand sent to the President, a conferenceagreement for Department of Transportation appropriations ( H.R. 4475 ). Title V partially funds ($348.4million) several of the accounts. P.L. 106-554 funds the accounts at $30.4 billion ($14.7 in mandatory funding and $15.6 in discretionary accounts). The FY2001 budget, submitted to Congresson February 7, 2000, requested $31.2 billion. The FY2000 funding totals $28.3 billion, including mandatoryfunding (reflecting scorekeeping by theCongressional Budget Office (CBO)). Incorporating the CBO scorekeeping for FY2001, the budget would havemandatory accounts funded at $14.7 billion anddiscretionary funding set at $16.5 billion. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees approved allocationsto the various appropriations:House--discretionary budget authority at $14.402 billion with outlays at $14.751 billion; and Senate--$14.3 billionfor budget authority and $14.566 billion foroutlays. While the congressional allocations were in disagreement with one another, they were consistently lowerthan the requested funding. P.L. 106-346 ( H.R. 4475 ) adds $348 million. The Budget and Key Policy Issues section of the report discusses both the funding provisions and policy initiatives in the funding statutes. The funding provisionsin Title V of the Department of Transportation appropriations act were critical to the success of passage of the mainfunding provisions in that compromises werereached on the main bill based on commitments to funding for the Department of the Treasury, principally theInternal Revenue Service's (IRS) STABLE programand for IRS information technology. Table 4 details the funding, in the various versions of the FY2001appropriations proposals, by account. Key Policy Staff Division abbreviations: G&F = Government and Finance; DSP = Domestic Social Policy; RSI=Resources, Science, and Industry.