Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education: FY2013 Appropriations Preliminary Overview

Karen E. Lynch, Coordinator
Specialist in Social Policy

David H. Bradley
Specialist in Labor Economics

Gail McCallion
Specialist in Social Policy

Pamela W. Smith
Analyst in Biomedical Policy

Scott Szymendera
Analyst in Disability Policy

This report provides an overview of actions taken by Congress to provide FY2013 appropriations for the accounts funded by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies (L-HHS-ED) appropriations bill. The L-HHS-ED bill provides funding for all accounts subject to the annual appropriations process at the Departments of Labor and Education. It provides annual appropriations for most agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, with certain exceptions (e.g., the Food and Drug Administration is funded via the Agriculture appropriations bill). The L-HHS-ED bill also provides funding for more than a dozen related agencies, including the Social Security Administration. The bill includes both discretionary and mandatory funding.

On June 14, 2012, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported a bill that would provide FY2013 L-HHS-ED appropriations (S. 3295, S.Rept. 112-176). (Prior to this, on June 12, 2012, the L-HHS-ED Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations had approved a draft bill for full committee consideration.) As reported by the full committee, the Senate bill would provide $166.0 billion in discretionary funding for L-HHS-ED, which is about 1.2% more than the committee’s estimate of comparable FY2012 funding ($164.1 billion). In addition, S. 3295 would provide an estimated $611.6 billion in mandatory funding, for a combined total of $777.6 billion for L-HHS-ED as a whole. This amount is roughly 4.9% more than the comparable FY2012 funding level. The House has yet to take action on an FY2013 L-HHS-ED bill.

On February 13, 2012, prior to the initiation of congressional action on FY2013 appropriations, the Obama Administration released the FY2013 President’s Budget. The President’s request, as estimated in the committee report (S.Rept. 112-176) accompanying the FY2013 Senate bill, called for $166.1 billion in discretionary funding for L-HHS-ED accounts (+1.2% from FY2012). In addition, the President’s Budget requested $611.6 billion in mandatory funding, for a combined total of $777.6 billion (+4.9% from FY2012) in L-HHS-ED appropriations. 

Department of Labor (DOL): The FY2013 Senate committee bill would provide roughly $12.3 billion in discretionary funding for DOL. This amount is 1.7% less than the comparable FY2012 funding level of $12.6 billion and 3.0% more than the FY2013 request of $12.0 billion, as estimated in S.Rept. 112-176. 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): The FY2013 Senate committee bill would provide roughly $71.0 billion in discretionary funding for HHS. This amount is 2% more than the comparable FY2012 funding level of $69.6 billion and 1.4% more than the FY2013 request of $70.0 billion, as estimated in S.Rept. 112-176. 

Department of Education (ED): The FY2013 Senate committee bill would provide roughly $68.5 billion in discretionary funding for ED. This amount is 0.6% more than the comparable FY2012 funding level of $68.1 billion and 2.0% less than the FY2013 request of $69.9 billion, as estimated in S.Rept. 112-176. 

Related Agencies: The FY2013 Senate committee bill would provide roughly $14.1 billion in discretionary funding for related agencies included in L-HHS-ED appropriations. This amount is 2.3% more than the comparable FY2012 funding level of $13.8 billion and 0.2% less than the FY2013 request of $14.2 billion, as estimated in S.Rept. 112-176.


Date of Report: July 6, 2012
Number of Pages: 36
Order Number: R42588
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:

R42588.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

State and Local Economic Sanctions: Constitutional Issues

Jeanne J. Grimmett
Legislative Attorney

States and localities have at times proposed or enacted measures restricting their agencies from conducting economic transactions with firms that do business with or in foreign countries whose conduct the jurisdictions find objectionable. While some maintain that sub-federal entities may enact such laws under sovereign proprietary powers and other constitutional prerogatives, others argue that such statutes impermissibly invade federal commerce and foreign affairs authorities and in some cases may be preempted by federal law. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council that a Massachusetts law restricting state transactions with firms doing business in Burma was preempted by a federal Burma statute. In American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, a 2003 case, the Court reaffirmed the relevance of the dormant federal foreign affairs power to preempt state law, but the scope of the 5-4 decision is unclear.

Due to the troubled situation in Darfur, a number of states have proposed or enacted some type of divestment legislation against Sudan. States have also considered or adopted divestment legislation involving Iran and terrorist states in general. In February 2007, a federal district court held Illinois’s Sudan sanctions law unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement (National Foreign Trade Council v. Giannoulias). Illinois subsequently repealed its statute, and the state’s appeal in the case was dismissed as moot in November 2007.

Congress considered and enacted legislation in the 110th and 111th Congresses to authorize states to divest assets involving Sudan and Iran. The Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, P.L. 110-174, enacted into law December 31, 2007, authorizes states and local governments to adopt divestment measures involving (1) federally identified persons with investments and business in the Sudanese energy and military equipment sectors or (2) persons having a direct investment in or carrying on a trade or business with Sudan or the Government of Sudan, provided certain notification requirements are met. The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, P.L. 111-95, enacted into law on July 1, 2010, includes provisions authorizing state and local governments to divest from businesses making investments of $20 million or more in Iran’s energy sector after adequate investigation and notification have occurred. Both laws provide that a measure falling within the scope of the authorization is not preempted by any federal law or regulation.


Date of Report: June 27, 2012
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: RL33948
Price: $29.95


Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
 
To Order:

RL33948.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Legislative Branch: FY2013 Appropriations

Ida A. Brudnick
Specialist on the Congress

The legislative branch appropriations bill provides funding for the Senate; House of Representatives; Joint Items; Capitol Police; Office of Compliance; Congressional Budget Office (CBO); Architect of the Capitol (AOC); Library of Congress, including the Congressional Research Service (CRS); Government Printing Office (GPO); Government Accountability Office (GAO); and Open World Leadership Center.

The legislative branch FY2013 budget request of $4.512 billion, which is submitted to the President by the legislative branch agencies and entities and included in the budget without change, was submitted on February 13, 2012. The request represents an increase of $205.5 million over the $4.307 billion in discretionary funding provided in the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2055, P.L. 112-74), which was enacted on December 23, 2011.

The Subcommittees on the Legislative Branch of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees both held hearings during which Members considered the FY2013 legislative branch requests. Among issues that were considered during hearings were the following:  the tight budget environment, prioritization of budget resources, and further options for potential savings or efficiencies;

• state and district office security; 
• preparations and funding for the January 2013 Presidential Inauguration; 
• peferred maintenance around the Capitol Complex; and 
• the future of government printing in the digital age. 

On May 18, 2012, the House legislative branch subcommittee marked up a bill that would provide nearly $3.333 billion for FY2013, a decrease of 1.0% from FY2012 (not including Senate items). The full committee held its markup on May 31, during which four amendments were considered, and two were adopted. The bill, H.R. 5882, was reported by voice vote. The Rules Committee reported a rule for consideration of the bill, H.Res. 679, on June 6, which was agreed to the following day. On June 8, 2012, the House considered H.R. 5882, adopting five amendments and rejecting two, before passing it by recorded vote.

The legislative branch budget has decreased the last two fiscal years. The FY2012 level represented a decrease of $236.9 million (-5.2%) from the FY2011 level, which represented a $125.1 million decrease (-2.7%) from FY2010. P.L. 112-10 (enacted on April 15, 2011) provided $4.543 billion for FY2011 legislative branch operations. P.L. 111-68 (enacted on October 1, 2009) provided $4.656 billion for FY2010. The FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 111- 212) provided an additional $12.96 million for the Capitol Police. The FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8, enacted on March 11, 2009) provided $4.402 billion. In FY2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) provided an additional $25.0 million for GAO, and the FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-32) provided $71.6 million for the Capitol Police and $2.0 million for the CBO.

Since FY1976, the legislative branch has represented approximately 0.4% of total discretionary budget authority.


Date of Report: June 26, 2012
Number of Pages: 31
Order Number: R42500
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
 
To Order:

R42500.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool

Megan Suzanne Lynch
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

“Deeming resolution” is a term that refers to legislation deemed to serve as an annual budget resolution for purposes of establishing enforceable budget levels for a budget cycle. A deeming resolution is used when the House and Senate have not agreed on a budget resolution.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 provides for the annual adoption of a budget resolution establishing aggregate levels of revenues, spending, the debt limit, and the surplus or deficit, as well as allocations of spending. Enforcement of the budget resolution relies primarily upon points of order and reconciliation procedures. With regard to the enforcement of budget aggregates and committee spending allocations, the major points of order are found in Sections 311 and 302 of the act, respectively. The term “deeming resolution” is not officially defined, nor is there any specific statute or rule authorizing such legislation. Instead, the use of a deeming resolution simply represents the House and Senate employing regular legislative procedures to deal with the issue on an ad hoc basis.

The form and content of a deeming resolution is not prescribed, so it may be shaped to meet the particular needs at hand. For example, the House and Senate have used simple resolutions as the legislative vehicle in the past, but a deeming resolution may be incorporated into a bill, such as an annual appropriations act, as a single provision. At a minimum, deeming resolutions provide new spending allocations to the Appropriations Committees, but they also may set new aggregate budget levels, provide revised spending allocations to other House and Senate committees, or provide for other related purposes.

For purposes of this report, a distinction is drawn between instances in which the budget resolution was adopted in a tardy manner and deeming resolutions were employed in the interim before a budget resolution was finally agreed to and, alternately, those instances when the House and Senate never reached final agreement on a budget resolution and deeming resolutions were used as an alternative enforcement mechanism instead. This report deals largely with those years in which the House and Senate did not reach final agreement on a budget resolution. The relevant fiscal years were FY1999, FY2003, FY2005, FY2007, FY2011, and FY2012.

On April 17, 2012, the House agreed to H.Res. 614, a special rule deeming the House-passed budget resolution for FY2013 (H.Con.Res. 112) as enforceable, pending the adoption by the House and Senate of a budget resolution for FY2013. On May 8, the House agreed to H.Res. 643 which amended H.Res. 614, by inserting enforceable committee spending levels, known as 302(a) allocations, originally included in the committee report accompanying H.Con.Res. 112.

On March 20, 2012, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad filed in the Congressional Record aggregate spending levels, aggregate revenue levels, and committee spending levels enforceable in the Senate, which have been referred to as a “deeming resolution.” Both the requirement that the Senate Budget chair file such levels and the requirement that these levels be enforceable in the Senate results from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Section 106(b)(2); P.L. 112-25).


Date of Report: June 26, 2012
Number of Pages: 33
Order Number: RL31443
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:

RL31443.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Federal Advisory Committees: An Overview

Wendy Ginsberg
Analyst in American National Government

Federal advisory committees—which may be designated as commissions, councils, or task forces—are created as provisional advisory bodies to collect viewpoints on various policy issues. Advisory bodies have been created to address a host of issues and can help the government manage and solve complex or divisive issues. Congress, the President, or an agency head may create a federal advisory committee to render independent advice or make policy recommendations to various federal agencies or departments.

In 1972, Congress enacted the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA; 5 U.S.C. Appendix— Federal Advisory Committee Act; 86 Stat.770, as amended). Enactment of FACA was prompted by the perception that advisory committees were duplicative, inefficient, and lacked adequate control or oversight. FACA mandates certain formal structural and operational requirements, including formal reporting and oversight procedures. Additionally, FACA requires committee meetings be open to the public, unless they meet certain requirements. Also, FACA committee records are to be accessible to the public. Pursuant to statute, the General Services Administration (GSA) maintains and administers management guidelines for federal advisory committees. During FY2011, 1,029 active committees reported a total of 69,750 members. Operating costs for those committees reportedly was $395,179,373, of which $188,342,083 was reportedly spent on federal staff to support the committees’ operations.

FACA was originally enacted to make executive branch advisory committee operations more accessible and transparent. Congress can decide, however, to apply FACA’s requirements to a legislative branch advisory committee. Existing statutes are sometimes unclear as to whether a congressionally created committee would have to comply with FACA’s requirements—except in cases when the statute includes language that indicates whether the act is to apply.

In the 112th Congress, one bill has been introduced that would modify FACA’s implementation and administration. On October 6, 2011, Representative William Lacy Clay introduced H.R. 3124, the Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 2011. Among other changes, the bill would require the selection of advisory committee members without regard to their partisan affiliation. In addition, H.R. 3124 would create a formal process for the public to recommend potential advisory committee members. The bill seeks to clarify the ethics requirements placed on committee members, and the bill increases records access requirements. On October 6, 2011, the bill was concurrently referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Committee on Ways and Means. On October 13, 2011, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ordered the bill to be reported by unanimous consent. No further action has been taken on the bill.

In addition to considering H.R. 3124, the 112th Congress may create new advisory bodies as well as oversee the operations of existing bodies. This report offers a history of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, examines its current requirements, and analyzes various advisory body design elements and operations.


Date of Report: June 26, 2012
Number of Pages: 31
Order Number: R40520
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.


To Order:

R40520.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports