98-209 E
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY1999: Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Updated January 27, 1999
Edward Knight, Coordinator
Specialist in Industrial Organization and Corporate Finance
Economics Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions,
and budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget
request and is bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program authorizations. In addition, the line
item veto took effect for the first time in 1997.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress
passes each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House
and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Treasury, Postal Service, Executive
Office of the President, and General Government. It summarizes the current
legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related
legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered
and related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments,
especially following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House
and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with
active links is available to congressional staff at
[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html]

---

Appropriations for FY1999: Commerce, Justice, and State,
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Summary
This report tracks action by the 105th Congress on FY1999 appropriations for
the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and other related
agencies (often referred to as CJS appropriations). P.L. 105-119 (H.R. 2267)
appropriated $32.1 billion for these agencies for FY1998. The President’s FY1999
budget sent to Congress on February 3, 1998, requested about $34.4 billion for these
agencies, about a $2 billion increase or 6.2% above the FY1998 total.
The bill that finally passed Congress as part of the Omnibus consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1999 (H.R. 4328, P.L. 105-277)
approves $33.7 billion, about $1.6 billion (or about 5%) above that funded for
FY1998 and $750 million below the President's request. Congress, however, placed
a time limitation on all funding for agencies covered by CJS appropriations, pursuant
to section 626 of Title VI of the CJS appropriations sections of the Omnibus measure.
All funding will cease to be available after June 15, 1999, unless continued by
enactment of another appropriations measure by that date. The reason for this
limitation is the question about the proposed use of statistical sampling in the 2000
decennial census. The Supreme Court Ruled on January 25, 1999, that the census
statute (13 U.S.C.) prohibits this use to derive population data for House
reapportionment. The ruling, however, left unresolved related issues such as the use
of sampling in the census to produce data for within-state redistricting.
The major CJS appropriations issues or concerns that received attention in both
Houses include the following. Department of Justice: extending the 1994 Crime Act
funding authorization beyond FY2000 under the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
Fund; eliminating most funding under the 1994 Crime Act for Title III crime
prevention programs; increasing funding for drug-related programs; changing the
focus for the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention; determining the adequate level of resources for the Immigration and
Naturalization Service to implement provisions of recently enacted legislation; and the
question of reorganizing the federal immigration system. Department of Commerce:
the progress made in streamlining and downsizing Department programs; the use of
statistical sampling in conducting the forthcoming the decennial census; the
Department’s role in minority business programs; the use of Patent and Trademark
Office patent fees to fund operations; federal financial support of industrial technology
development programs; and implementing Weather Service modernization at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Department of State: increasing
funding for embassy security; possible reorganization of foreign policy agencies of
State, USIA, and other foreign policy agencies; and the payment of arrears to the
United Nations. The Judiciary: the efficient utilization of judicial resources;
containing the costs of the Defender Services account; and the merits of increasing
judges' salaries. Other Related Agencies: adequacy of funding for the Legal Services
Corporation; and adequacy of funding of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission given a rapidly growing workload of civil rights cases.

---

Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS Division
Tel.
Department of Commerce
Edward Knight
E
7-7785
Department of State/USIA
Susan Epstein
F
7-6678
Judiciary & FCC
Steve Rutkus
GOV
7-7162
Department of Justice
David Teasley
GOV
7-2382
Department of Justice
Garrine Laney
GOV
7-2518
Technology Programs
Wendy H. Schacht
STM
7-7066
Telecommunications
Glenn McLoughlin
STM
7-7073
Technology Programs
Lennard G Kruger
STM
7-7070
NOAA
Wayne Morrissey
STM
7-7072
Equal Employment Opportunity
Leslie Gladstone
GOV
7-8645
Legal Services Corporation
Karen Spar
EPW
7-7319
EDA, SBA, FTC, & SEC
Bruce Mulock
E
7-7775
Maritime Industry
Stephen J. Thompson
E
7-7771
Foreign Trade
William Cooper
E
7-7749
Bureau of the Census
Jennifer D. Williams
GOV
7-1773
Patent & Trademark Office
Wendy H. Schacht
STM
7-7066
Immigration
William J. Krouse
EPW
7-2225
Technical Coordinator
Marietta Sharperson
E
Division abbreviations: A = American Law; E = Economics; ENR = Environment and
Natural Resources; EPW = Education and Public Welfare; F = Foreign Affairs; GOV =
Government; STM = Science, Technology, and Medicine.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 2
Brief Survey of Major Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Department of Justice and Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Department of Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Judiciary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Department of State and Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Other Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Major Legislative and Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Department of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Department of Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
The Judiciary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Department of State and Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Other Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Compliance with GPRA Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Current Funding Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Related Legislative Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Department of Justice and Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Department of Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
The Judiciary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Department of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Department of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Department of Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
The Judiciary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Department of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Other Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

---

List of Tables
Table 1. Status of CJS Appropriations, FY1999 (H.R. 4328) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 2. Funding Trends for Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State, and the Judiciary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Table 3. Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, and the Judiciary
Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 1A. Appropriations Funding for Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State,
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, FY1998 and FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

---

Appropriations for FY1999: Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Most Recent Developments
On February 3, 1998, the President submitted the FY1999 budget request for
appropriations for the Department of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary
and related agencies. The Senate approved its bill, with amendments, on July 23,
1998 (S. 2260). The House approved its bill, with amendments on August 6, 1998
(H.R. 4276). Final action on this bill was taken by Congress on October 21, 1998,
as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act for FY1999 (H.R.. 4328).
Congress, however, placed a time limitation on all funding for agencies covered
by the CJS appropriations for FY1999, pursuant to section 626 of Title VI of the CJS
appropriations sections of the Omnibus measure. This section provides that all
funding will cease to be available after June 15, 1999, unless continued by
enactment of another appropriations measure by that date. The reason for this
limitation is the question about the proposed use of statistical sampling in the 2000
decennial census. The Supreme Court Ruled on January 25, 1999, that the census
statute (13 U.S. C.) prohibits this use to derive population data for House
reapportionment. The ruling, however, left unresolved related issues such as the use
of sampling in the census to produce data for within-state redistricting.
Introduction and Overview
This report tracks legislative action by the second session of the 105th Congress
on FY1999 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and other related agencies (often referred to as CJS appropriations).
Congress appropriated $32.1 billion for these agencies in FY1998. The President’s
FY1999 budget sent to Congress on February 3, 1998, requested about $34.4 billion
for these agencies, about a $2.3 billion increase or 7.2% above the FY1998 total.
Among the major agencies, this request called for substantial increases in
appropriations for the Judiciary and Department of Commerce, and moderate
increases for the Departments of Justice and State. The Senate approved its bill, with
amendments, on July 23, 1998 (S. 2260, S.Rept. 105-235); the vote was 99 to 0.
The bill approved total spending of $33.2 billion, about $2 billion below the request.
The House approved its version of the CJS bill on August 6, 1998 (H.R. 4276,
H.Rept. 105-636); the vote was 225 to 203. The bill, with amendments, approved
total funding of $33.5 billion, about $900 million less than the President’s request and

---

CRS-2
about $300 million above the Senate total. The
1
bill that was finally passed Congress
as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act for FY1999 (H.R. 4328, P.L. 105-277) and signed into law by the President on
October 21, 1998, approves $33.7 billion, about $1.6 billion (or about 5%) above that
funded for FY1998 and $750 million below ( or about -2.2%) the President's request.
The vote in the House was 333-95; in the Senate: 65-29.2
Congress, however, has placed a time limitation on all funding covered by the
bill, pursuant to section 626 of Title VI of the CJS appropriations sections of the
Omnibus measure. This section provides that all funding will cease to be available
after June 15, 1999, unless continued by enactment of another appropriations measure
by that date. The reason for this limitation is the question about the proposed use of
statistical sampling in the 2000 decennial census. The Supreme Court Ruled on
January 25, 1999, that the census statute (13 U.S. C.) prohibits this use to derive
population data for House reapportionment. The ruling, however, left unresolved
related issues such as the use of sampling in the census to produce data for within-
state redistricting.3
Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) Requirements
As part of the budget process, the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) enacted by Congress in 1993 (P.L. 103-62; 107 Stat 285) requires that
agencies develop strategic plans that contain goals, objectives, and performance
measures for all major programs. The GPRA requirements apply to nearly all
executive branch agencies, including independent regulatory commissions, but not the
judicial branch. According to the President’s FY1999 budget request to Congress,
all agencies have sent their strategic plans to Congress and are now in the process of
preparing annual performance plans. The request went on to say: “By March 2000,
these agencies will submit clear, concise annual performance reports on their progress
toward the goals they set in their annual plans.”4 Brief descriptions of the strategic
plans of the major agencies covered by CJS appropriations are contained in the
discussions of the FY1999 budget requests of individual agencies included in this
report.
The
1
floor debate in the Senate is contained in the Congressional Record. vol. 144 on : July
21, 1988, pp. S8604-8653; July 22, 1998, pp. S8689-8775; July 23, 1998, pp. S8815-8880,
S8951. House debate is contained in the Record on: August 3, 1988, pp. H6948-82; August
4, 1998, pp. H7104-75; August 5, 1998, pp. H7184-7288.
2The text of the Conference Report on H.R. 4328, H.Rept. 105-825 is contained in the
Congressional Record, vol. 144 on: October 19, 1998, pp. H11044-11545. The text covering
CJS appropriations is included in pp. H11057-11076. House debate on the Omnibus bill is
in the Record on: October 20, 1998, pp. H11592-11669. Senate debate is contained in the
Record on: October 20, 1998, pp. S12696-127161.
For more details on the Census sampling issue, see pp. 26-27 below.
3

4 Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1999. (105th Cong., 2d sess., H.Doc.
105-177, v. 1. ) p. 39.

---

CRS-3
Brief Survey of Major Issues
The more contentious issues that were considered in the House and Senate
debate over CJS appropriations included:
! the extent to which statistical sampling should be used in conducting the
decennial census;
! the extent to which the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is unable to use
patent fees collected from inventors for office operations due to legislation
(P.L. 101-508 and P.L. 103-66) that permits a portion of these funds to revert
back to the U.S. Treasury to be appropriated for other government activities.
(This surcharge will expire at the end of FY1998);
! whether or not the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has met its
responsibilities under the law. (Congress may consider legislation to
restructure the agency);
! the payment of arrears to the United Nations and international peacekeeping
through an advanced appropriation; and
! whether the legal bills of persons acquitted of federal charges should be paid
by the government, unless the court finds that the position of the United States
was “substantially justified.”
Other issues receiving attention included the following.
Department of Justice:
! Extending the 1994 Crime Act funding authorizations beyond FY2000 under
the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund (VCRTF).
! Eliminating most funding under the 1994 Crime Act for Title III crime
prevention programs.
! Increasing funding for drug-related efforts among the Department of Justice
(DOJ) agencies, since the 105th Congress reauthorized the Office of National
Drug Control Policy.
! Changing the focus and levels of appropriations for DOJ’s Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), especially if the 105th Congress
reauthorizes the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974,
amended.
! Determining the adequate level and distribution of resources for the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to implement provisions of three
major pieces of legislation, namely, the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act (P.L. 104-208); the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act (P.L. 104-132); and the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Act (P.L. 104-193).

---

CRS-4
! Funding for programs that would reduce violence in schools and would
address missing children under the Safe Schools Initiatives.
Department of Commerce:
! Progress made in the streamlining and downsizing of Department programs
and operations.
! Funding needs of the Bureau of the Census in conducting the forthcoming
decennial (Year 2000) census.
! Department’s role in minority business programs versus that of the Small
Business Administration.
! Extent to which federal funds should be used to support industrial technology
development programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), particularly the Advanced Technology Program.
! Appropriateness of the Administration’s proposal to increase funding for the
information infrastructure grants program at the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA).
! At the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the
extent to which recommendations for budgeting and management at the
National Weather Service should be implemented.
Department of State:
! Possible reorganization of foreign policy agencies of State, USIA, and other
foreign policy agencies.
! Increased funding for embassy security overseas.
! The payment of arrears to the United Nations.
The Judiciary:
! Whether the Judiciary was utilizing its resources with optimal efficiency.
! How to contain the growing costs of the Judiciary’s Defender Services
account.
! Whether the salaries of federal judges should receive a cost-of-living
adjustment, as they did in FY1998.
Other Agencies:
! Adequacy of funding for the Legal Services Corporation.

---

CRS-5
! Adequacy of funding for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
given a rapidly growing workload of civil rights cases.
This report provides background descriptions of the principal functions of the
federal agencies covered by CJS appropriations and identifies and more extensively
reviews the major legislative and policy issues that have emerged during the debate
on these appropriations.
Status
The table below shows the key legislative steps necessary for the enactment of
FY1999 CJS appropriations. The House CJS Subcommittee marked up its version
of the appropriations bill on June 24, 1998. The measure was subsequently approved
by the full Appropriations Committee on July 15, 1998 (H.R. 4276, H.Rept. 105-
636). The Senate CJS Subcommittee marked up its version of the bill on June 23,
1998. The full Appropriations Committee approved its version on June 25, 1998 (S.
2260; S.Rept. 105-235). The Senate approved its bill, with amendments, on July 23,
1998. The House approved its version of the bill, with amendments, on August 6,
1998. Congress passed the CJS bill on October 21, 1998, as part of the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1999 (H.R.
4328). It was signed into law by the President on the same day (P.L. 105-277).
Table 1. Status of CJS Appropriations, FY1999 (H.R. 4328)
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conference
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
Public Law
7-15-98
H.R.
7-2-98
H.Rept.
4276
S.Rept.
S. 2260
10-19-98
P.L. 105-277
6-24-98 6-23-98
105-636
8-6-98
105-235 7-23-98 H.Rept. 105-825 10-20-98
10-21-98
10-21-98
Background
The creation, legislative authority, and principal activities of the major agencies
covered by CJS appropriations for FY1999 are described below. Brief descriptions
of most of the related agencies covered by the bill are also included in this section.
Department of Justice and Related Agencies
Title I covers the appropriations for the Department of Justice and related
agencies. Established by an Act of 1870 (28 U.S.C. 501) with the Attorney General
at its head, the Department of Justice (DOJ) provides counsel for citizens and protects
them through its efforts for effective law enforcement. It conducts all suits in the
Supreme Court in which the United States is concerned and represents the
government in legal matters generally, providing legal advice and opinions, upon
request, to the President and the executive branch’s department heads.

---

CRS-6
The Department contains several divisions: Antitrust, Civil, Civil Rights,
Criminal, Environmental and Natural Resources, and Tax. Major agencies within the
Department of Justice include:
! Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigates violations of federal
criminal law, protects the United States from hostile intelligence efforts,
provides assistance to other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies,
and has concurrent jurisdiction with Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
over federal drug violations.
! Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is the lead drug law enforcement
agency at the federal level, coordinating its efforts with state, local, and other
federal officials in drug enforcement activities, developing and maintaining
drug intelligence systems, regulating legitimate controlled substances activities,
and undertaking coordination and intelligence-gathering activities with foreign
government agencies.
! Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is responsible for administering
laws relating to the admission, exclusion, deportation, and naturalization of
aliens, including the oversight of the process involving the admission of aliens
into the country and applications to become citizens, the prevention of illegal
entry into the United States, and the investigation, apprehension, and removal
of aliens who are in this country in violation of the law.
! Federal Prison System provides for the custody and care of the federal prison
population, the maintenance of prison-related facilities, and the boarding of
sentenced federal prisoners incarcerated in state and local institutions.
! Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) provides grants to states, units
of local government, Indian tribal governments, and other public and private
entities to increase police presence, to expand cooperation between law
enforcement agencies and members of the community, and to enhance public
safety.
! Office of Justice Programs (OJP) carries out policy coordination and general
management responsibilities for the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, and the Office of Victims of Crime, including
administering programs, awarding grants, and evaluating activities.
! United States Attorneys prosecute criminal offenses against the United States,
represent the government in civil actions in which the United States is
concerned, and initiate proceedings for the collection of fines, penalties, and
forfeitures owed to the United States.
! United States Marshals Service is primarily responsible for the protection of
the federal judiciary, protection of witnesses, execution of warrants and court
orders, management of seized assets, and custody and transportation of
unsentenced prisoners.

---

CRS-7
! Interagency Law Enforcement consists of 13 regional task forces composed
of federal agents working in cooperation with state and local investigators and
prosecutors to target and destroy major narcotic trafficking and money
laundering organizations.
The total appropriation for the Department of Justice in FY1998 was $17.8
billion. (For more details on the funding of individual programs, see Table 1A in the
Appendix.)
Appropriators also consider funding for criminal justice programs under the
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund (VCRTF), which was established in the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322). The VCRTF
provides new authorization for criminal justice spending over a 6-year period, from
FY1995 through FY2000. Trust Fund monies are to be derived from projected
savings to be realized by eliminating over 250,000 federal jobs as required by the
Federal Workforce Restructuring Act (P.L. 103-226). Spending must be provided in
the annual appropriations bills, extending indefinitely authorizations of appropriations
not fully appropriated. Across-the-board sequestration of spending from the VCRTF
is required, if outlays exceed the outlay limits set for the Trust Fund.
The fund authorizes $30.2 billion in spending from FY1995 through FY2000.
In FY1999, the CJS Appropriations Act for FY1998 (P.L. 105-119) provided $5.2
billion for DOJ’s anti-crime initiatives from the VCRTF.
Department of Commerce
Title II includes the appropriations for the Department of Commerce and related
agencies. The Department was established on March 4, 1913 (37 Stat.7365; 15
U.S.C. 1501). The origins of the Department of Commerce date back to 1903 with
the establishment of the Department of Commerce and Labor (32 Stat. 825). In 1913,
a separate the Department of Commerce was designated (37 Stat. 7365; 15 U.S.C.
1501). Though the responsibilities of the Department are numerous and quite varied,
it has five basic missions: promoting the development of American business and
increasing foreign trade; improving the nation’s technological competitiveness;
fostering environmental stewardship and assessment; encouraging economic
development; and compiling, analyzing, and disseminating statistical information on
the U.S. economy.
These missions are carried out by the following agencies of the Department:
! Economic Development Administration (EDA) provides grants for economic
development projects in economically distressed communities and regions.
! Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) seeks to promote private and
public sector investment in minority businesses.
! Bureau of the Census collects, compiles, and publishes a broad range of
economic, demographic, and social data.

---

CRS-8
! Economic and Statistical Analysis Programs provide (1) timely information
on the state of the economy through preparation, development, and
interpretation of economic data; and (2) analytical support to Department
officials in meeting their policy responsibilities.
! International Trade Administration (ITA) seeks to develop the export
potential of U.S. firms and to improve the trade performance of U.S. industry.
! Export Administration enforces U.S. export control laws consistent with
national security, foreign policy, and short-supply objectives.
! National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides
scientific, technical, and management expertise to (1) promote safe and
efficient marine and air navigation; (2) assess the health of coastal and marine
resources; (3) monitor and predict the coastal, ocean, and global environments
(including weather forecasting); and (4) protect and manage the nation’s
coastal resources.
! Patent and Trademark Office examines and approves applications for patents
for claimed inventions and registration of trademarks.
! Technology Administration advocates integrated policies that seek to
maximize the impact of technology on economic growth, conducts technology
development and deployment programs, and disseminates technological
information.
! National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) assists industry in
developing technology to improve product quality, modernize manufacturing
processes, ensure product reliability, and facilitate rapid commercialization of
products based on new scientific discoveries.
! National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) advises
the President on domestic and international communications policy, manages
the federal government’s use of the radio frequency spectrum, and performs
research in telecommunications sciences.
The total appropriation for the Department of Commerce in FY1998 was $4.2
billion. (For more details on the funding of individual programs, see Table 1A in the
Appendix.)
The Judiciary
Title III covers the appropriations for the Judiciary. By statute (31 U.S.C. 1105
(b)) the judicial branch’s budget is accorded protection from presidential alteration.
Thus, when the President transmits a proposed federal budget to Congress, the
President must forward the judicial branch’s proposed budget to Congress unchanged.
That process has been in operation since 1939. The total appropriation for the
Judiciary in FY1998 was $3.5 billion.

---

CRS-9
The Judiciary budget consists of two primary components. One funds the
Supreme Court of the United States, the nation’s highest court. Covered by these
funds are the Court’s salary and operational expenses as well as expenditures for the
care of the Court’s building and grounds. Traditionally, in a practice dating back to
the 1920s, one or more of the Court’s Justices appears before either a House or
Senate appropriations subcommittee to address the budget requirements of the
Supreme Court for the upcoming fiscal year. Although it is at the apex of the federal
judicial system, the Supreme Court accounts for only a very small share of the
system’s overall funding. The CJS Appropriations Act for FY1998 (P.L. 105-119),
for instance, provided a total of $32.7 million for the Supreme Court, which was less
than 1.0% of the Judiciary’s overall appropriation of $ 3.5 billion.
The rest of the Judiciary appropriation provides funding for the “lower” federal
courts and for related judicial services. Among the lower court accounts, one dwarfs
all others — the Salaries and Expenses account for the U.S. Courts of Appeals and
District Courts. The account, however, covers not only the salaries of circuit and
district judges (including judges of the territorial courts of the United States), but also
those of retired justices and judges, judges of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims,
bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and all other officers and employees of the
federal Judiciary not specifically provided for by other accounts.
Other accounts for the lower courts include Defender Services (for
compensation and reimbursement of expenses of attorneys appointed to represent
criminal defendants), Fees of Jurors, the U.S. Court of International Trade, the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Federal Judicial Center (charged with
furthering the development of improved judicial administration), and the U.S.
Sentencing Commission (an independent commission in the judicial branch, which
establishes sentencing policies and practices for the courts).
The annual Judiciary budget request for the courts is presented to the House and
Senate appropriations subcommittees after being reviewed and cleared by the Judicial
Conference, the federal court system’s governing body. These presentations, typically
made by the chairman of the Conference’s budget committee, are separate from
subcommittee appearances a Justice makes on behalf of the Supreme Court’s budget
request.
The Judiciary budget does not appropriate funds for three “special courts” in the
U.S. court system: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (funded in the
Department of Defense appropriations bill), the U.S. Tax Court (funded in the
Treasury, Postal Service appropriations bill), and the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals
(funded in the Department of Veteran Affairs and Housing and Urban Development
appropriations bill). (For more details on individual appropriations for Judiciary
functions, see Table 1A in the Appendix.)
Department of State and Related Agencies
The State Department, established July 27, 1789 (1 Stat.28; 22 U.S.C. 2651),
has a mission to advance and protect the worldwide interests of the United States and
its citizens. Currently, the State Department represents the activities of 38 U.S.
agencies operating at 249 posts in 163 countries. As covered in Title IV, the State

---

CRS-10
Department funding categories include Administration of Foreign Affairs,
International Operations, International Commissions, and Related Appropriations.
The total FY1998 State Department budget was about $4 billion. Typically, more
than half of State’s budget (about 69% in FY1998) is for Administration of Foreign
Affairs, which consists of salaries and expenses, diplomatic security, diplomatic and
consular programs, and acquisition/maintenance of buildings.
The United States Information Agency (USIA) was established as an
independent agency on August 1, 1953 (67 Stat. 642; 22 U.S.C. 1461), through the
transfer of information and educational exchange functions performed at that time by
the State Department. USIA’s current mission is to understand, inform, and influence
foreign publics as a means of supporting U.S. national interests and promoting
dialogue between Americans, their institutions, and their counterparts abroad. The
USIA budget includes Salaries and Expenses, Education and Cultural Exchange
Programs, International Broadcasting, Regional Centers, and the National
Endowment for Democracy. The FY1998 USIA budget totals $1.1 billion.
The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) was established as a
quasi-independent agency on September 26, 1961 (75 Stat. 631; 22 U.S.C. 2551).
It has close bureaucratic ties to the Department of State. ACDA’s mission is to
strengthen U.S. national security by advocating, formulating, negotiating,
implementing, and verifying sound arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament
policies and agreements. It is the only U.S. government agency dedicated solely to
this mission. ACDA’s director, an independent advocate for arms control in the U.S.
government, was also designated the principal adviser on arms control issues to the
President, the Secretary of State, and the National Security Council. The FY1998
budget for ACDA is $42.7 million. (For more details on appropriations for the State
Department and related agencies, see Table 1A in the Appendix.)
In addition to the appropriations listed above, the Administration submitted an
FY1998 budget amendment to provide authority for a one-time transfer of funds to
various agencies that employ personnel in U.S. embassies, so that they eventually can
pay some of their own costs in the embassies. This cost-sharing measure is known
as the International Cooperative Administration Support Services (ICASS). The
conference agreement appropriated $109.6 million in one-time transfers to other
appropriations in FY1998 for the transition to the ICASS cost-sharing system.
Other Related Agencies
Title V covers several related agencies. FY1998 appropriations for these
agencies are as follows:5
! Maritime Administration administers programs to aid in the development,
promotion, and operation of the nation’s merchant marine: $139 million.
5 Figures are for direct appropriations only; in some cases, agencies supplement these
amounts with offsetting fee collections, including collections carried over from previous years.

---

CRS-11
! Small Business Administration provides financial assistance to small business
and to victims of physical disasters: $716 million.6
! Legal Services Corporation provides financial assistance to local, state, and
national non-profit organizations that provide free legal assistance to persons
living in poverty: $283 million.
! Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces laws relating
to race, sex, religion, national origin, age, or handicapped status: $242 million.
! Commission on Civil Rights collects and studies information on discrimination
or denials of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex,
age, handicap, and national origin: $8.7 million.
! Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates interstate and foreign
communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable: $24 million.7
! Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) regulates the domestic offshore and
international waterborne commerce of the United States: $14 million.
! Federal Trade Commission (FTC) administers laws to prevent the free
enterprise system from being fettered by monopolies or restraints on trade and
to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive trade practices: $18.5 million.8
! Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) administers laws providing
protection for investors and ensuring that securities markets are fair and
honest: $33.5 million.9
! State Justice Institute is a private, non-profit corporation that makes grants
and undertakes other activities designed to improve the administration of
justice in the United States: $6.8 million.
! Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is located in the
Executive Office of the President and is responsible for developing and
coordinating U.S. international trade and direct investment policies. The
USTR is also the chief trade negotiator for the United States: $23.4 million.
! U.S. International Trade Commission is an independent, quasi-judicial agency
that advises the President and the Congress on the impact of U.S. foreign
6 This figure included an emergency appropriations of $135 million for disaster loans. All
other appropriations less this amount totaled $711 million for FY1997.
7 Offsetting fee collections were $162.5 million, bringing total FY1998 funding to $186.5
million.

8 Offsetting fee collections were estimated to be $85 million, bringing total FY1998 funding
to $106.5 million.
9 Offsetting fee collections were $282 million, bringing total FY1998 funding to $315.5
million.

---

CRS-12
economic policies on U.S. industries and is charged with implementing various
U.S. trade remedy laws. Its six commissioners are appointed by the President
for 9-year terms: $41.2 million.
The CJS appropriations also covers funding for several relatively small
governmental functions, including several special government commissions. (For
additional information on the funding of other related agencies covered by this
measure, see the Congressional Record, November 13, 1997. v. 143, Part II,
H10921-H10929 and Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year
1999—Appendix,105th Cong., 2d sess., H.Doc. 105-177.)
Major Legislative and Policy Issues
The 105th Congress addressed a number of issues during the CJS appropriations
process. Major issues included: extending the 1994 Crime Act funding beyond
FY2000 under the Violent Crime Reduction Fund, and eliminating most funding for
Title III crime prevention programs, funding for programs that would reduce violence
in schools and that would address missing children under the Safe Schools Initiatives,
the adequacy of Immigration and Naturalization Service funding and the possible need
for reorganizing the federal immigration system; the downsizing of Commerce
Department programs, funding and sampling needs for the decennial census, the use
of fees to fund Patent and Trademark Office operations, the use of federal funds to
support industrial technology, and implementing the modernization of the National
Weather Service; the funding controversy regarding U.S. contributions to
international organizations and U.S. peacekeeping operations and the reorganization
of foreign policy agencies; the cost effectiveness of the Judiciary’s operations, the
adequacy of funding to cover costs of the Judiciary’s growing caseload; the merits of
providing a pay increase for federal judges and of splitting the Ninth judicial circuit
into two circuits; how to contain the growing costs of providing legal representation
to death penalty defendants; and whether to pay the attorney fees of defendants who
prevail in federal prosecutions.
Department of Justice
Traditionally, state and local governments have primary responsibility for crime
control. Especially within the last decade, a greater federal role has developed.
Congress has enacted five major omnibus crime control bills since 1984, establishing
new penalties for crimes and providing increased federal assistance for law
enforcement efforts by state and local governments. Federal justice-related
expenditure is one of the few areas of discretionary spending that has increased its
share of total federal spending over the last two decades.
The 104th Congress considered several legislative proposals that called for the
elimination of the Crime Act’s COPS program (Title I) and most of the crime preven-
tion programs (Title III). In their place, Congress debated the establishment of the
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBG) program and, in addition, increased
funding for prison grant programs (Title II).

---

CRS-13
Although Congress did not enact legislation to eliminate Titles I and III, it
approved the redirection of partial funding earmarked for the COPS program under
Title I to the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBG) program in FY1996
($1.4 billion to COPS and $503 million to LLEBG) and FY1997 ($1.4 billion to
COPS and $523 million to LLEBG). Only those prison grants provisions for Violent
Offender Incarceration and Truth-In-Sentencing programs (VOI/TIS) under Title II,
Subtitle A, were amended to increased authorization levels in the Omnibus
Consolidated Rescission and Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134).
The 105th Congress considered bills that would have eliminated most of the
crime prevention programs (Title III). For example, S. 10, as reported with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute by the Senate Judiciary Committee on
October 9, 1997 contained a provision (section 310) to repeal Title III, Subtitles A
through C, and E through S. On the other hand, another proposed bill, S. 15, sought
funding for this title. In addition, S. 10 would have extended 1994 Crime Act funding
authorizations for the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund (VCRTF) beyond FY2000
to FY2002 (sec. 311).
Also, Congress considered several bills in the area of juvenile justice and drug
control. For example, the House approved at least one bill, H.R. 1818, to reauthorize
DOJ’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). H.R. 1818,
H.R. 3, and S. 10 would have provided for the establishment of new juvenile crime
control block grants. Other bills, especially H.R. 2610, would have reauthorized the
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), an agency within the Executive
Office of the President that coordinates drug control funding.
FY1999 Budget Request. The FY1999 budget of the Clinton Administration
requested a total of $18.5 billion for the Department of Justice compared with the
FY1998 request of $17.3 billion (an increase of 6.4%). DOJ funding for FY1999,
was intended to strengthen the battle against crime and youth violence, cybercrime,
illegal drugs, illegal immigration, crime in Indian country, and other crime problems.
To address anti-gang and youth violence, the Administration requested funding
for a variety of programs, including: $100 million for state and local prosecutors
offices that would allow earlier intervention, better identification and quicker
prosecution of young, violent offenders; $50 million for a youth violence court
program to more quickly and effectively adjudicate youth cases ; and, $95 million for
the At-Risk Children’s Program to fight truancy and school violence and strengthen
anti-crime after-school programs.
To restructure current juvenile justice programs under the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-415, as amended), the Administration
requested the following: $89 million for a juvenile justice formula grant program; $45
million for a discretionary grant program to develop, test, and demonstrate new
programs; $17 million for an incentive grants program with seven purposes ranging
from crime prevention to accountability-based sanctions; and, $6 million for an Indian
tribal grants program. Regarding the Juvenile Crime Accountability Block Grant
program established by the CJS Appropriations Act, FY1998 (P.L. 105-119), the
Administration requested no FY1999 funding.

---

CRS-14
For other anti-crime initiatives, the Administration requested $50 million in
FY1999 to establish a community prosecutors program that would be modeled after
successful programs around the country in which community prosecutors, police
officers, and community residents interact directly to identify and solve crime
problems in their neighborhoods. In its attack on violence against women, in FY1999
the Administration requested $27 million for targeted set-asides for civil legal
assistance programs, research on violence against women, and for the U.S. Attorneys’
domestic violence unit in the District of Columbia. Also, $10 million in discretionary
funds was for Project Safe Start, a new program designed to reduce the impact of
violence on young children.
For FY1999, the DOJ sought an increase of $64 million to broaden efforts to
protect the use of computers and the information highway from cybercrime. By hiring
new FBI agents and Assistant U.S. Attorneys and forming six additional computer
investigation and infrastructure threat assessment squads (CITAC). In addition, the
current CITAC would be expanded ($10 million). This Cybercrime Initiative would
include $33.6 million for the Counterterrorism Fund, with $16 million recurred to
continue to equip and train state and local officials to respond to terrorist activity.
Based on feedback from local law enforcement, the President requested $12.5 million
to upgrade crime technology such as DNA testing and identification and for criminal
records and history programs at the local level.
As part of DOJ’s anti-drug activities, funding for the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) would grow by 4.6% to $1.25 billion, with program
enhancements totaling $64 million. The President requested in FY1999, $167.3
million to hire more drug enforcement agents and prosecutors to attack
methamphetamine production, trafficking, and abuse; for the Caribbean Corridor
strategy, for heroin traffickers, for an on-going classified project, and to strengthen
foreign cooperative drug investigators against Asian heroin traffickers. At the state
and local level, the Department of Justice would direct $94 million in additional
grants to implement systems of drug testing, drug treatment, and graduated sanctions
and expansion of the residential substance abuse treatment program. Other DOJ
agencies, such as the FBI, the U.S. Marshals Service and the U.S. Attorneys’ Office,
requested drug-related funding for FY1999.
In a joint $182 million initiative with the Department of the Interior to address
a serious crime problem in Indian country, the DOJ requested $157 million in new
and redirected funds. The Department sought to raise law enforcement standards in
Indian country to national levels by hiring more FBI agents, by improving
victim/witness assistance, and by focusing on violent crime, gang-related violence and
juvenile crime in Indian country. This initiative would rely primarily on anti-crime
grants from the Office of Justice Programs and the COPS program for new drug
testing and intervention programs ($10 million); At-Risk Children’s Program ($20
million); the state correctional grant program ($52 million); and COPS ($54 million).
House Action. On July 15, the House Appropriations Committee reported
(H.Rept. 105-636) the CJS appropriations bill (H.R. 4276). The House enacted the
bill on August 5. The committee emphasized empowering communities to fight crime
and drugs and recommended an increase in funding for anti-drug efforts, juvenile
crime, counterterrorism, and immigration. The measure contained a total DOJ

---

CRS-15
appropriation of $18.3 billion, a $524 million increase for the agency over FY1998
and $224 million less than the President requested. The committee recommended $1
billion for the U.S. Attorneys, of which $54 million is provided from the Violent
Crime Reduction Trust Fund; these funds support efforts to increase drug
prosecutions.
The President requested $86 million to establish a new fund, under the control
of the Attorney General, to cover the costs of DOJ organizations’ conversion to
narrowband communications systems. While the committee supported a consolidation
of this activity under the Attorney General, it did not provide funding. Rather, the
committee assumed that base requirements of $23 million for DOJ components may
be obtained from super surplus balances in the Assets Forfeiture Fund. The
committee noted that of the $86 million requested for this new fund by the President,
$23 million was requested as base transfers from DOJ components budgets into the
fund, and $62 million was requested as program increases for the FBI for the costs
of narrowband conversion. The committee believed that any DOJ narrowband
conversion initiative must be based upon a comprehensive strategy. Therefore, the
committee directed the DOJ’S Justice Management Division to develop and
implement an integrated, department-wide, 5-year strategic plan that meets the
narrowband conversion and interoperability requirements of the department by
December 1, 1998.
The Committee recommended for the Office of Justice Programs $4.8 billion,
with $2.9 billion for State and Local Law Enforcement, $523 million for Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant (a program the President wanted to terminate), and $283
million to support juvenile crime prevention programs as well as $250 million for the
Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant. The committee recommended $12
million for the Missing Children program to combat crimes against children, especially
kidnaping and sexual exploitation. The Byrne program would receive $553 million,
of which $48 million is for discretionary grants and $505 million for formula grants.
To reimburse states for the costs of incarceration of criminal aliens, the committee
provided $585 million of which $420 million is for the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program and $165 million is for the State Prison Grants program. The Violence
Against Women Act would receive an increase of $9 million over the FY1998 funding
and the President’s request for a total of $280 million. For the Community Oriented
Policing Service (COPS), the bill would provide $1.4 billion. It would allow COPS
to use $160 million of carryover balances for non-hiring initiatives which include
innovative community policing grants for bullet proof vests ($25 million), school
violence ($20 million), methamphetamine trafficking and drug hot spots ($50 million),
COPS technology program ($50 million), and COPS Indian law enforcement training
and equipment program ($15 million).
For the FBI, the committee recommended $3 billion. It provided $15 million to
build the FBI’s capability to counter, investigate and prevent acts of terrorism. To
address counterterrorism and to protect against biological and chemical weapons, the
House bill provided $129 million to the counterterrorism fund, an increase of $77
million over FY1998, with $99 million for equipment grants for state and local first
responders and state and local bomb technicians, and $17 million for anti-terrorism
training for state and local agencies and $10 million for development of

---

CRS-16
counterterrorism technologies to help state and local law enforcement efforts in
combating terrorism.
To fight drugs, the DEA would receive $1.3 billion, (an increase of $74 million
over FY1998). The increases included funding for several initiatives for: combating
domestic methamphetamine and heroin trafficking, a heroin strategy ($13 million),
investigative and intelligence requirements ($20 million), the drug diversion control
program ($95 million), and supporting source country and transit zone enforcement
($29 million).
Senate Action. On July 2, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported
(H.Rept. 105-235) the CJS appropriations bill (S. 2260). On July 23, the Senate
approved S. 2260. At the direction of Congress, DOJ developed a strategic plan for
drug enforcement activities and submitted it to the committee on March 31, 1998.
While commending DOJ for its efforts in preparing the report, the Senate
Appropriations Committee, however, concluded (based on statistics that show an
increase in drug usage by teenagers since 1991) that the nation’s overall drug strategy
was not working. It directed the Attorney General to use the strategic plan for drug
control in consultation with other federal departments and agencies, members of
academia, the private sector, and state and local law enforcement personnel to
develop a 5-year interdepartmental drug strategy that would outline plans for
preventing, deterring, and reducing drug usage.
S. 2260 contains a total DOJ appropriations of $17.8 billion for FY1999, an
increase for the agency of $34 million over FY1998. The committee recommended
$1.2 billion for the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), with $22 million for a new
initiative to establish DEA regional drug enforcement teams. Organized criminal drug
syndicates from Mexico and Colombia have established regional command centers and
transhipment points in smaller nontraditional trafficking locations across the United
States. This initiative would enable the DEA to better address national drug
trafficking threats on a regional basis. The committee recommended $3 billion for the
FBI, of which $17 million was for establishment of computer crime squads in six field
offices to fight against counterterrorism and cybercrime and to enhance the operations
of the National Infrastructure Protection Center. Also, the committee recommended
$9 million to continue the improvement of FBI capabilities for dealing with the threat
of weapons of mass destruction.
Concerned with the threat that terrorists pose to individuals, institutions, and
facilities, especially in using chemical and biological weapons, the committee provided
$194 million dollars for a counterterrorism initiative; $132 million over the President’s
request and $141 million above FY1998 funding.
Noting the growth of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) since 1995, the
Senate Appropriations Committee was aware of duplication and overlap that it traces
to the agency’s structure and its recent enlargement. Consequently, it directed the
Assistant Attorney General for Office of Justice Programs and DOJ to develop a new
OJP structure with consolidated authorities for submission to the Appropriations
Committees by February 1, 1999.

---

CRS-17
Funding for the Office of Justice Programs was $4.6 billion, with $552 million
for the Byrne Program of which $47 million was for discretionary grants and $505
million for formula grants. No funding was provided for this program under the
violent crime reduction trust fund as authorized under the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994. To address the growing problem of juvenile crime,
the committee encouraged accountability-based reforms at the state and local level.
Instead of funding the youth violence courts, the Juvenile Prosecutor Program, the
Juvenile Drug Prevention Program, the Community Prosecutors Program, and the
Drug Intervention Treatment Program, the committee recommended total funding
of $100 million for a Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program. The
Senate approved $500 million for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG).
In addition, an amendment was approved authorizing LLEBG at $750 million each
year, FY1998 through FY2003.
Concerned about crimes against children, especially kidnaping and sexual
exploitation, the committee provided for the following programs: $7.8 million for the
Missing Children Program and $8 million for the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children.
The committee recommended $283 million for grants to support the Violence
Against Women Act, an increase of $12 million over both the President’s request and
FY1998 funds. This funding was to be distributed to states to enhance the availability
of services, prosecutors, and law-enforcement personnel to women and children who
are victims of domestic violence. The amended version of S. 2260 approved by the
Senate would have amended the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 to include
coverage for older women.
The State Prison Grant Program received $711 million, of which $150 million
is available to states for the incarceration of criminal aliens. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $350 million for the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program (SCAAP), which when combined with the $150 million provided
under the State Prison Grant Program totals $500 million for reimbursement to states
for alien incarceration. This amount was $70 million less than appropriated in
FY1998. A year ago, the committee had urged the OJP to accelerate its schedule for
release of these funds; but the committee found that in FY1998, SCAAP funding
again will not be allocated until December 1999. The committee expressed its
reluctance to provide funding under these circumstances, despite the recognized need
for such program support.
The committee provided funding of $1.4 billion for the Community Oriented
Policing Services program (COPS) ($20 million above the President’s request and $10
million over funds appropriated in FY1998) to meet the target of 100,000 police
officers by 2000. Since the COPS program is scheduled to terminate at the end of
FY2000, the committee directed the COPS office to provide a report by December
31, 1998, giving details on the plan for concluding its operations. Funding for COPS
included $175 million for Safe Schools Initiative. This initiative would provide
funding to police departments and sheriffs’ offices in partnerships with schools and
other community-based entities to develop programs to improve safety at primary and
secondary schools. To improve law enforcement capabilities in Indian country, the
committee recommended $54 million.

---

CRS-18
Juvenile Justice programs received $285 million, an increase of $46 million over
the FY1998 appropriation and $7 million more than the President requested. This
included $25 million for the Safe Schools Initiative to enable communities to
implement training and services for their areas that address accountability and
responsibility training; violence reduction training, including dispute resolution;
juvenile mentioning; training for teachers and families to recognize troubled children;
and parent accountability and family strengthening education.
Final Action of Congress compared to the President's request and FY1998
appropriations (excluding INS programs of DOJ which are discussed later in this
section). On October 20 and 21, 1998, the House and Senate, respectively, approved
the conference report (H.Rept. 105-825). Congress approved funding of $18.2 billion
for FY1999 for DOJ, over $400 million more than was appropriated in FY1998 and
$298 million below the amount requested by the President. As noted earlier, funding,
however, for all CJS agencies will cease to be available after June 15, 1999, unless
Congress enacts a continuing resolution. (For more details, see page 2 above.) In
addition, Congress reauthorized the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)
and provided funding of $48 million for FY1999.
For FY1999, Congress provided funding of $2.97 billion for the FBI compared
to the President's request of $3.03 billion and the FY1998 amount of $2.97 billion.
DEA was funded at $1.2 billion, an increase of $78.4 million over FY1998 ($1.1
billion) and of $35.5 million over the President's request ($1.2 billion). The Office of
Justice Programs received funding of $4.8 billion, an increase of $49 million over
FY1998 ($4.8 billion) and $402 million above the Administration's request ($4.4
billion). The Safe Schools Initiative was funded at $210 million. The Byrne program
received an increase over FY1998 funding of $43 million for a total of $552 million,
$47 million for discretionary grants and $505 million for formula grants. Funding for
the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants remained the same as in FY1998, $523
million; the President did not request funding for this program. Drug Courts received
$40 million.
For the Violence Against Women Act programs, Congress provided funding of
$282.8 million, $12 million more than the FY1998 appropriation and the President's
request. Congress funded the Community Oriented Policing Services program at
$1.4 billion, the same level as in FY1998 and as requested by the Administration. Of
this amount, $12.5 million is for the Community Policing to Combat Domestic
Violence Program. The State Prison Grant program received the same funding as in
FY1998, $721 million; the President requested $711 million. Funding for the State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program also was the same as in FY1998, $420 million, but
is $70 million more than the Administration requested ($350 million).
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is the principal federal
agency of the Department of Justice charged with enforcing and administering the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). At issue for the 105 Congress wa
th
s
determining the appropriate level of resources for INS to effectively implement laws
enacted during the 104 Congress, which placed new demands upon INS operations
th
and budget. These laws are: the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (Division C, P.L. 104-208), the Antiterrorism and

---

CRS-19
Effective Death Penalty Act (P.L. 104-132), and the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Act (P.L. 104-193).
From FY1993 to FY1998, the INS budget more than doubled, from $1.5 to $3.8
billion. Despite increased funding, some maintain that the agency’s funding and
resources have not kept pace with Congress’s immigration enforcement priorities, let
alone increases in immigration-related adjudications. Nonetheless, the agency ha
10
s
come under fire for not meeting its responsibilities under the law, and has been
characterized as suffering from conflicting priorities and mission overload.
For FY1999, Congress approved $3.9 billion in total funding for INS. Of this
amount, Congress appropriated $2.5 billion from general revenues ($1.622 billion)
and the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund ($842 million) -- $198 million over the
FY1998 appropriation. By comparison, the $2.5 billion in direct appropriations is $22
million less than House-passed bill, $195 million more than the Senate-passed bill, and
$141 million less than the Administration’s request for FY1999. Congress has also
included a line-item appropriation of $90 million for INS construction. In addition,
about one-third of INS’s budget is derived from fees charged for immigration-related
services, fines and breached bonds. The $3.9 billion budget approved by Congress for
FY1999 included $1.3 billion in anticipated fee receipts and other revenues.
In recent years, INS experienced large increases in the amount of examination
fees the agency collects from immigrants and their sponsors for the costs associated
with processing and adjudicating immigration and naturalization claims. In FY1998,
11
however, there was a significant short-fall in projected examination fee receipts. This
short-fall prompted the Administration to re-estimate projected FY1999 examination
fee receipts downward from $826 to $636 million. In addition, the Administration
12
submitted a reprogramming of its FY1999 request to the Appropriations Committees.
Conference report language endorsed this reprogramming of $171 million, of which
$88 million was earmarked to continue the agency’s FY1998 base level of activities
in FY1999, and an increase of $83 million was earmarked for improving immigration
claims processing and reducing the 1.8 million naturalization backlog.
For immigration law enforcement, conference report language earmarked an
increase of $97 million to hire 1,000 additional border patrol agents and an increase
of $41 million for interior enforcement. The latter amount included $22 million to
form INS quick response teams to assist state and local law enforcement in the
apprehension of removable aliens, $11 million for additional INS detention personnel,

10
Peter H. Schuck, “INS Detention and Removal: A ‘White Paper,’” Georgetown
Immigration Law Journal, Summer 1997, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 667-708; and Jason Juffras,
Impact of the Immigration Reform and Control Act on the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, The Rand Corporation and the Urban Institute (JR-09/UI Report 91-08), January
1991, 93 p.
In
11
obligational budget authority, examination fees generated $300 million in FY1993, $249
million in FY1994, $356 million in FY1995, $522 million in FY1996, and $637 million in
FY1997. For FY1998, examination fees were originally projected to generate $785 million.
12 The recent increase in examination fees was incorporated in both estimates. See 63 Fed.
Reg. 43604-10, August 14, 1998, for final INS rule.

---

CRS-20
$3 million to fund INS participation in Department of Justice antiterrorism task
forces, $3 million to expand the Law Enforcement Support Center, and nearly $2
million for dedicated commuter lanes.
In recent years, INS has come under intense criticism for not expeditiously
deporting criminal aliens. At the end of FY1997, the Bureau of Prisons estimated that
out of approximately 113,000 inmates in federal and federally contracted correctional
facilities, 27% were non-citizens — many of whom are subject to removal
proceedings. Despite increased funding, INS officials reported that the agency does
not possess the detention capacity to fully comply with statutory mandates set out by
the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (P.L. 104-132) and the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (P.L. 104-208). Conference
report language earmarked $17 million of the $90 million INS construction line item
appropriation to increase INS detention facilities.
Conference report language also earmarked an increase of $36 million in user
fees for improving the inspections process at international ports of entry. Also,
related to inspections, the conference agreement did not include a provision to repeal
Section 110 of P.L. 104-208, as originally included in the Senate-passed bill. Section
110 requires INS to develop a system to record the arrival and departure of all aliens
to and from the United States at all ports of entry. The conference agreement,
however, amended Section 110 to extend the end of FY1998 deadline for land border
and sea ports of entry for 30 months (to March 30, 2001), but only extended the
deadline for air ports of entry by fifteen days (to October 15, 1998). Of the $36
million cited above, nearly $20 million was earmarked for the continued development
of Section 110-related arrival-departure management pilot programs.
13
In addition, the conference agreement did not include a provision included in the
Senate-passed bill that would have removed a limitation on a controversial
immigration provision, Section 245(i) of the INA. This provision allows aliens who
are otherwise eligible for immigrant visas, but who have either entered without
inspection or overstayed the terms of their nonimmigrant visa, to adjust status to legal
permanent residence provided they pay a penalty fee of $1,000. The FY1998 CJS
Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-119) limited this avenue of discretionary relief to
immigrants whose sponsors have submitted a petition on the immigrant’s behalf by
January 14, 1998 — effectively providing a sunset for this provision. Further, the
14
conference agreement did not include another controversial provision included in the
Senate-passed bill, the result of a floor amendment, to provide for an expanded
temporary agricultural workers program and farm-worker registry.
Proposals to restructure INS were explored in hearings before both the Senate
and House Judiciary Immigration Subcommittees during the 105 Congress. Th
th
e
House Subcommittee approved legislation for full Committee action. In ninth hour
budget negotiations, Representative Harold Rogers made a final bid to include
13For further information on the these two provisions, see Immigration: Visa Entry/Exit
Control System, CRS Report 98-89, by William J. Krouse and Ruth Ellen Wasem.
For
14
background, see Immigration: Adjustment to Permanent Resident Status under Section
245(i), CRS Report 97-946, by Larry M. Eig and William J. Krouse.

---

CRS-21
language in the FY1999 CJS appropriations that would have split off INS
enforcement programs, creating a "Bureau of Enforcement and Border Affairs" within
the DOJ, and leaving the residual INS programs as an immigration service agency.15
Such language, however, was not included in the final bill. It is likely that proposals
to reorganize INS will be considered in the 106 Congress.
th
Reorganizing INS emerged as an issue last fiscal year after report language
accompanying the FY1998 CJS Appropriations Act directed the Attorney General to
review a series of recommendations made by the U.S. Commission on Immigration
Reform (P.L. 104-119; H.Rept. 105-207). In its final report to Congress, the
Commission concluded that INS suffered from conflicting priorities and mission
overload and, thus, recommended transferring INS responsibility for adjudication of
immigration and citizenship benefits to the Department of State and for immigration-
related worksite enforcement to the Department of Labor. Other INS enforcement
programs would remain at the DOJ as the nucleus of a “border and immigration
enforcement” office. The commission recommended further that a consolidated and
independent immigration appeals board be established outside the DOJ to handle all
immigration-related administrative appeals.
However, the Administration opposed such measures, and INS submitted an
internal reorganization plan at a hearing before the House CJS Appropriations
Subcommittee on March 31, 1998. This plan calls for more clearly demarcating the
chain of command for immigration services and enforcement operations over a 3-year
time span. The Administration maintains that some integration between the
immigration services and enforcement operations is necessary and can be achieved
through policy planning, shared resources (information and otherwise), and budget
alignment. The Subcommittee’s Chairman, Representative Harold Rogers, expressed
his dissatisfaction with the scope of this plan, noting that it did not address specifically
recommendations made by the Commission on Immigration Reform.
Representative Rogers introduced a bill to implement the Commission’s
recommendations (H.R. 3904), but later introduced a bill of lesser scope (H.R. 4264).
This bill was similar to legislation previously introduced by Representative Silvestre
Reyes to split out INS’ enforcement programs and create an "Office of Enforcement
and Border Affairs" within the DOJ, leaving the residual INS service and support
programs as a legal immigration and citizenship agency (H.R. 2588). The House
Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee approved H.R. 3904 on July 30, 1998. In turn,
Representative Melvin Watt and Senator Ted Kennedy introduced bills (H.R. 4363/S.
2428) that would restructure INS internally according to the Administration’s
proposals. In the meantime, Senator Spencer Abraham, Chairman of the Senate
Judiciary’s Immigration Subcommittee, indicated that his Subcommittee would wait
until next year to consider legislative proposals to restructure INS.
16
Washin
15
gton (AP), "Key GOP Rep. Wants to Shift INS," by Michelle Mittelstadt, October
9, 1998.
Fo
16
r further information on past proposals, see Reorganization Proposals for U.S. Border
Management Agencies, CRS Report 97-974, by Frederick M. Kaiser.)

---

CRS-22
New Ethical Standards for Federal Prosecutors. Title VIII of the House bill
(H.R. 4276), a section separate from the Department of Justice title, establishes new
ethical standards and disciplinary procedures for federal prosecutors. The section
would subject Justice Department attorneys to state legal ethics rules, establish a
Misconduct Review Board, and direct the Attorney General to establish penalties for
attorney misconduct that would include dismissal. The Clinton Administration
strongly opposes retention of this section in the House-passed version of the FY1999
CJS appropriations bill. Entitled the “Citizens Protection Act of 1998,” the section
was approved first by the House Appropriations Committee. During floor debate,
the House voted 82-345 to reject an amendment that would have stricken the section.
Critics maintained that the section would handcuff prosecutors. Supporters
contended it was needed to rein in overly zealous prosecutors. The House also
approved, by a 249-182 vote, an amendment to extend the applicability of this section
to independent counsels.
This provision was not contained in the Senate-passed CJS bill, S. 2260. The
Conference agreement on the Omnibus appropriations bill, however, modified Title
VIII, Section 801, Citizens Protection Act, as included in the House bill. The
Attorney General is to make and amend rules of DOJ to assure that the agency is in
compliance with the above provisions. Section 801 takes effect 180 days after
enactment of this act.
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires that the
Department of Justice, along with other federal agencies, prepare a 5-year strategic
plan that contained a mission statement, a statement of long-range goals in each of the
Department’s core functions and a description of information to be used to assess
program performance. The DOJ submitted its Strategic Plan for 1997-2002 to
Congress in September 1997. The DOJ Summary Performance Plan describes what
the Department of Justice plans to accomplish in FY1999, consistent with the long-
term strategic goals, and complements the Department’s budget request.
This FY1999 performance plan provides a summary statement of mission-driven
performance goals and activities for the year and summarizes and synthesizes detailed
performance plans of specific Justice component organizations such as the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the United States
Attorneys, the United States Marshals Service, and others. Some of the goals
identified include: reduction in violent and drug-related crime; 16,000 more law
enforcement officers on the streets in communities; expanded drug courts and drug
testing; more effective control over our borders and greater removals of illegal aliens;
improvement in delivery of immigration-related services; additional prisons and
detention centers; stronger law enforcement in Indian country; and, more aggressive
enforcement of civil rights laws, including efforts against hate crimes.
During the FY1999 budget process, the Senate Appropriations Committee
commended the Assistant Attorney General for Administration for preparing DOJ’s
FY1999 performance plan, finding it timely, with objective, measurable performance
goals. The committee found the strength of the performance plan in its clear
strategies for meeting performance goals. DOJ was urged to follow the
recommendations of the General Accounting Office (GAO) in preparing a plan for

---

CRS-23
fiscal year 2000, because the committee’s recommendations for fiscal year 2000 will
be based on the GAO model.
Department of Commerce
In his FY1999 budget request to Congress, the President requested total funding
for the Department of Commerce and related agencies of $4.9 billion, about a $648
17
million increase (or 15.2%) over the $4.2 billion appropriated by Congress for
FY1998.
Both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended about
$4.8 billion for the Department, which was about $100 million less than the level
requested by President. The Senate bill (S. 2260) passed on July 23, 1998 and the
House bill passed (H.R. 4276) on August 6, 1998 also approved about $4.8 billion
On October 21, 1998, Congress passed the Omnibus Appropriations Act (H.R. 4328)
which approved total funding for the Department of about $5 billion. This level is
about $100 million above the President's request of $4.8 billion and about $801
million above the $4.2 million appropriated for FY1998. As noted above, these
appropriations will expire after June 15, 1999, unless new legislation is enacted to
continue them through the remainder of FY1999. (For more detail, see page 2
above.)
The Agency receiving most of the $800 million in increased appropriations for
FY1999 was the Census Bureau--$630 million. Other agencies that would receive
noticeable increases include: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) — $164 million; the Economic Development Administration (EDA) — $
18
31.4 million, the Bureau of Export Administration — $8.4 million; General
Administration—$4 million; and the Minority Business Development Agency—$2
million. The Administration also requested modest increases for Economic and
Statistical Analysis, the Technology Administration, the International Trade
Administration. It requested a substantial decreases in direct appropriations for the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): -$30.7 and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration: -$7.5 million. No direct
appropriations were requested for the Patent and Trademark Office; its funding will
be covered by the collection of user fees.
The major funding issues that were addressed during congressional deliberations
on the President’s request for Commerce appropriations included:
! the progress made in the streamlining and downsizing the Department’s
programs and operations;
! the needs of the Bureau of the Census in conducting the forthcoming decennial
(Year 2000) census, including funding needs and sampling plans;

17 Related agencies include the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the International
Trade Commission.
For
18
FY1998, NOAA’s funding accounts for about 47% of the Commerce Department’s total
budget.

---

CRS-24
! the Department’s role in minority business programs versus that of the Small
Business Administration;
! the extent to which the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is unable to use
patent fees collected from inventors for office operations due to legislation
(P.L. 101-508 and P.L. 103-66) that permits a portion of these funds to revert
to the U.S. Treasury to be appropriated for other government activities. This
legislation will expire at the end of FY1998.
! the extent to which federal funds should be used to support industrial
technology development programs at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), particularly the Advanced Technology Program.
! the Administration’s proposal to increase funding for the information
infrastructure grants program at the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), while both the House and Senate are
considering significant cuts in this program’s funding for FY1999.
The President’s FY1999 budget request for the Department called for $53.8
million for general administration, which was about $6.2 million above the $47.6
million appropriated for FY1998. The House-passed bill (H.R. 4276) approved a
lower amount -- $50.3 million; the Senate-passed bill (S. 2260) approved a higher
total — $52.4 million. Congress approved $51 million which is $2.8 million below
the President's request and $3.4 million above the level funded for FY1998.
For the Bureau of the Census, the President requested $1.188 billion for
FY1999, an amount about $495 million higher than the $693 million appropriated for
FY1998. Most of this large increase in funding was intended for preparations for the
upcoming (Year 2000) decennial census. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended, and the House approved, funding totaling $1.252 billion, about $64
million above the President’s request. In contrast, the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended a lower spending level of $1.144 billion, about $44 million
below the request and $108 million below the House total. The Senate approved this
amount. Congress enacted $1.323 billion which is $135 million above the President's
request and $630 above that appropriated for FY1998.
During the course of debate on FY1998 CJS Appropriations, Congress
addressed the Bureau’s plans to incorporate certain new sample survey results into
the 2000 decennial census. Proponents of
19
sampling maintained that it would reduce
overall census costs as well as improve the headcount, resulting in a more accurate,
more equitable census. Opponents raised various questions about sampling in
connection with the decennial census, which is the basis for reapportioning the House
of Representatives and redrawing legislative districts within states. These questions

19 The Bureau planned to conduct sample surveys for two purposes: non- response follow-
up at the end of the enumeration period and correction of miscounts before the final census
figures are released.

---

CRS-25
included whether the plan was legal and constitutional, whether it was operationally
feasible, and whether the proposed sampling methods were flawed.20
As agreed to in conference, the FY1998 CJS appropriations bill (H.R.
2267/S.1022, P.L. 105-119) granted $390 million for the decennial census. Of this
amount, $27 million was for the Census Bureau to “develop a contingency plan in the
event sampling is not used in the 2000 decennial census”; $4 million was “for
modifications to the [census] dress rehearsal”; and $4 million was “transferred to the
Census Monitoring Board.”
Section 209 of P.L. 105-119 retained the provision of the House-passed H.R.
2267 that “any person aggrieved by the use of any statistical method,” in connection
with the decennial census to determine the reapportionment and redistricting
population, might “in a civil action obtain declaratory, injunctive, and any other
appropriate relief against the use of such method.” This section provided for an
expedited judicial review of the Bureau’s proposed statistical methods to determine
whether their use in the census for reapportionment and redistricting “is forbidden by
the Constitution and laws of the United States.”21
The conference report (Section 210) also established a bipartisan eight-member
Census Monitoring Board “to observe and monitor all aspects of the preparation and
implementation” of the 2000 census. The Board, in existence until September 30,
2001, is to submit to Congress periodic reports of its findings. For each of the next
four fiscal years, FY1998 through FY2001, a $4 million appropriation is authorized
to carry out Section 210.
For 2000 census activities in FY1999, the Administration requested $848 million.
A small anticipated recovery of FY1998 funds raised the FY1999 total to $856
million, which was $466 million above the $390 million appropriated in FY1998. This
substantial increase reflected the additional funds needed as the Bureau accelerates
its preparations for the coming decennial census.
The Senate Appropriations Committee, and the Senate, approved the
Administration’s request of $848 million for FY1999 Census 2000 preparations,
without making a final judgment about sampling. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended $952 million, with an additional $4 million for the Census
Monitoring Board. While $952 million was substantially more than the

20 For views on both sides of this issue that carried over from the 104th to the 105th Congress,
see: U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Sampling and
Statistical Adjustment in the Decennial Census: Fundamental Flaws, H.Rept. 104-821, 104th
Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1996). See also: CRS Report 97-137 GOV, Census
2000: the Sampling Debate, by Jennifer D. Williams, and CRS Report 98-321 GOV, Census
2000: Sampling as an Appropriations Issue in the 105th Congress, by Jennifer D. Williams.
Two
21
suits, seeking to prevent the use of sampling in the census for reapportionment, were
brought under Section 209: Glavin v. Clinton (Feb. 12, 1998) and U.S. House of
Representatives v. U.S. Department of Commerce (Feb. 20, 1998). The Supreme Court ruled
on January 25, 1999, that the census statute (13 U.S.C.) Prohibits sampling for this purpose,
but did not answer the constitutional question.

---

CRS-26
Administration requested, $476 million of this amount was to be withheld until
Congress (by March 31, 1999, after a formal request by the President) passed
legislation making the $476 million available. The House approved the
Appropriations Committee’s recommendation, after defeating an amendment
proposed by Representative Alan Mollohan to make the full $952 million available
without the Committee’s restriction.
As approved by Congress, the Bureau’s FY1999 funding for Census 2000
activities is $1.027 billion. This figure exceeds the House-passed amount by $75
million and the Senate-passed amount, as well as the President’s request, by $179
million. An additional $4 million is provided for the Census Monitoring Board.
Instead of the funding restriction voted by the House, the final legislation (Title VI,
Section 626) funds the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the federal
judiciary, and related agencies only through June 15, 1999. Funding for the remainder
of FY1999 is contingent on enactment of another appropriations measure. Congress,
as it considers this legislation, might again debate the proposed use of sampling to
derive redistricting data within states and substate areas.
In the area of international trade, the Administration had requested that the
International Trade Administration (ITA) receive $286.5 million in FY1999, an
increase of $3.4 million over the FY1998 appropriation. The Senate approved
$304.2 million for ITA, which is $21.1 million over the FY1998 appropriation and
$17.7 million over the Administration’s request. The House approved $282.5 million
for ITA, which is $21.7 million under the Senate recommendation, $0.5 million below
the FY1998 appropriation, and $3.9 million below the Administration’s FY1999
request. Congress approved an appropriation of $284.7 million for ITA which is $1.6
million above the appropriation for FY1998, $1.8 million below the Administration’s
request, $3.1 million above the House’s recommendation, and $18.7 million below the
Senate’s recommendation.
The Administration requested that Bureau of Export Administration (BXA)
receive $52.2 million, an increase of $8.3 million over the FY1998 appropriation.
The Senate approved $45.7 million for BXA, which was $6.7 million below the
Administration’s request but $1.8 million above the FY1998 appropriation. The
House approved $47.8 million for BXA, which is $2.1 million above the Senate
recommendation, $3.9 million above the FY1998 appropriation, and $4.6 million
below the Administration’s request. Congress approved an appropriation of $52.3
million for BXA (including $1.88 million for implementation of the Chemical
Weapons Convention) which is $8.4 million above the appropriation for FY98, $0.98
million above the Administration’s request, $4.6 million above the House
recommendation, and $6.8 million above the Senate recommendation.
The President requested $28.1 million for the Minority Business Development
Agency (MBDA), which was about $3 million above the $25 million appropriated for
FY1998. Both the House and the Senate passed bills approved a lower level of
funding-- $25.3 million. Congress approved $27 million, $1.1 million below the
President's request and $2 million above the level funded for FY1998. Some have
advocated the elimination of the agency, saying that its functions are already
duplicated by the programs of the Small Business Administration. The Clinton
Administration, on the other hand, has argued that MBDA serves a valuable function

---

CRS-27
in promoting the development of minority business enterprise. Moreover, it claims
that the agency is already essentially “privatized” since all 100 of the minority business
development centers through which assistance is extended are non-federal; most of
these centers are operated by private entrepreneurs, with others operated by local
governments and universities.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has experienced a
tumultuous appropriations history over the past few years. Its funding level wa
22
s
sharply reduced by the 104 Congress, but for the second consecutive year funding
th
for the agency was increased by the 105 . Following a $12.5 million increase under
th
the FY1998 omnibus appropriations bill, the Administration proposed a $37 million
increase for EDA for FY1999. More specifically, EDA requested $368 for
Economic Development Assistance Programs (EDAP) and $30 million for Salaries
and Expenses (S&E). The House-passed bill (H.R. 4276), likewise, would have
provided $368 for EDAP, but a smaller figure of $25 million for S&E — for a total
EDA appropriation of $393 million. These funding levels stood in stark contrast to
the CJS bill (S. 2260) passed by the Senate, which would have provided only $281
million for EDAP and $22 million for S&E, for a total EDA appropriation of $303
million. In the end, Congress approved $368 million for EDAP and $24 million for
S&E — providing EDA a total FY1999 appropriation of $392 million.23
The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is fully funded by user fees collected
from customers. In 1990, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (P.L. 101-508)
eliminated taxpayer support for the PTO at the same time that it instituted a large
increase in the level of fees required (referred to as a “surcharge”). Congress
controlled the allocation of the additional “receipts,” which accounted for
approximately 20% of the total fees collected to cover the costs of administering
patents and trademarks. The funds have been used to support other government
programs not related to the Patent and Trademark Office. P.L. 103-66 extended
these provisions through the end of FY1998.
The “surcharge” mandate no longer is applicable to the FY1999 budget. During
the 105th Congress there was debate over its possible reinstatement. An issue was
whether or not the money generated — used to help offset the federal deficit —
adversely affected the funding requirements and operations of the Patent and
Trademark Office. The conference agreement on the FY1998 appropriations
(H.Rept. 105-405) included new language allowing the PTO to keep all fees. This
approach is consistent with “...the language included in all other fee-funded agencies
in [H.R. 2267], and ensures that all fee revenues collected remain with the agency...”
while providing congressional oversight on spending. However, $92 million in fees
paid to the PTO were sent back to the U.S. Treasury in FY1998.
For
22
background, see: Economic Development Administration: Overview and Issues, CRS
Issue Brief 95100, by Bruce K. Mulock.
Separately,
23
as part of the Agriculture appropriations bill, Congress transferred $20 million
($15 million for fisheries and $5 million for trade) from the Department of Agriculture to
EDA for FY1999.

---

CRS-28
The FY1998 CJS appropriations legislation passed by Congress allocated $27
million from the surcharge account back to the Patent and Trademark Office. This
was combined with an anticipated $664 million in offsetting collections (as estimated
by the Congressional Budget Office) and a carryover of $25 million from FY1997, for
a total operating budget of $716 million. Fees generated in excess of the PTO’s
current estimate were to remain with the agency and be made available on October
1, 1998.
As the “surcharge” no longer exists, the President’s FY1999 proposal addressed
funding for the Patent and Trademark Office in a manner different from the previous
year. Included was a request for $786 million, of which $604 million (the total
amount of offsetting collections) is authorized under permanent statute and $182
million (expected new collections if patent fees are revised) must be authorized by
new statute. The Administration was seeking legislation to reestablish patent
statutory fees for FY1999 at current FY1998 levels. A recission of $116 million
(from the collected fees) was designated for use in balancing the budget (similar to the
portion of the surcharge previously remitted back to the U.S. Treasury).
In the Senate, S. 2260, as passed, assumed a FY1999 budget for the PTO of
$786 million, although there were to be no direct appropriations. The report to
accompany the bill noted the Committee's rejection of the President’s request for a
$116 million recission, and recommended extension of the surcharge but “only upon
enactment of authorizing legislation.” The House appropriations bill, H.R. 4276, as
passed, also approved funding of $786 million. The committee report supported
authorization legislation to adjust the fee schedule and stated that the Members were
“pleased” that the surcharge “diversion” has expired.
The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY1999 assumes total
funding for the PTO at $785 million although there are no direct appropriations. Of
this amount, $643 million is to be derived from offsetting fee collections based on the
current statutory fee schedule; $102 million from the fee increase mandated by The
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Reauthorization Act (as discussed below); and $40
million is from prior year unobligated funds. This is the same amount requested by
the Administration.
In light of the expiration of the surcharge provision, H.R. 3723, the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office Reauthorization Act for FY1999, has passed both the House
and Senate, and was sent to the President for signature on October 14, 1998. The law
establishes a new fee schedule for patents that would generate funds above those
authorized by permanent statute. According to the committee report to accompany
the bill, the fee structure will result in $132 million of additional collections
(previously generated under the “surcharge”), all of which are slated for use by the
Patent and Trademark Office.
On October 20, 1998, Congress approved H.R. 2348, and provided $2,166
million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for
FY1999, including $1,579.8 million for Operations, Research and Facilities (ORF),
which funds programmatic activities, and $584.7 million for Procurement, Acquisition
and Construction (PAC) funding. This total is $164 million (9.3%) above FY1998
enacted levels and $56 million above the President's request. Of this amount $67.8

---

CRS-29
million was transferred to ORF from NOAA's Promote and Develop Fisheries Fund.
Final funding include $1.17 billion for the National Weather Service (NWS) and its
modernization, an increase of $41 million above FY1998 enacted levels, and $465
million for weather satellites. NOAA's greatest funding concerns were continuity of
satellites and data for civilian and military weather operations, and congressional
funding limitations imposed on executive direction and central administrative support
at NWS. Conferees approved a ceiling of 250 NOAA Corps Officers, through
September 30, 1999; but did not approve $22 million in new fees for budget offsets.
The Committee reduced NOAA's budget by $7 million, an emergency add-on in the
FY1998 budget for Northwest Fisheries, and approved $5 million in supplement
emergency disaster assistance appropriation (Title IV) for Northeast fisheries
The President requested $2.1 billion for NOAA for FY1999, with about $1.6
billion for ORF, and $622 million for PAC. NOAA proposed $518 million for
research and development activities (about 24% of total NOAA budget). The
President sought to restore $20.5 million in rescissions from NOAA’s environmental
satellite accounts and credit ORF with $5 million in rent savings. Also, the President’s
budget proposed $55 million for a NOAA-wide Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative
(NDRI); $22 million for NOAA research on polluted runoff and toxic contaminants,
harmful algal blooms, and pfiesteria under a Clean Water Initiative; and $5.1 million
for a NOAA/South Florida Ecosystems Restoration Initiative. Noteworthy changes
in the structure of the FY1999 budget request included the transfer of the Great Lakes
Environmental Research Laboratory from Oceanic and Atmospheric Research to
National Ocean Services, and an OMB request to transfer a Systems Acquisition
account from NOAA's Program Support line to the Department of Commerce.
On July 23, 1998, the Senate passed S. 2260 (amended, concurring with funding
levels approved on July 2, 1998, by the Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept.
105-235), that granted NOAA total spending authority of $2.2 billion. This
represented a 6% increase over FY1998 funding levels, less than 1% above the
President's request, and 5.5% above the House recommendations for FY1999. ORF
accounted for $1.6 billion of that, and PAC, $588 million. The Committee gave
special instructions for reprogramming funds to provide adequate resources for key
NOAA core programs; authorized $4 million in collection of new fees; did not
support an OMB recommendation to transfer the NOAA Systems Acquisition Office
to the Department of Commerce; recommended restoring $2.5 million in rescissions
from FY1998; rescinded authority of $7 million in ORF for pervious emergency
supplemental appropriations for Pacific Northwest fisheries, and increased funding for
the National Weather Service over FY1998 levels.
The House passed H.R. 4276 (amended), on August 4, 1998, with slightly
increased funding levels for NOS, but reflecting total funding for NOAA, approved
on July 15, 1998, by the House Appropriations Committee. The committee report on
H.R. 4276 (H.Rept. 105-636), granted NOAA a total spending authority, of $2,010
million including collections of fees, an increase of less than 1% over FY1998
appropriation levels, 5% below the request, and about 5.5% below Senate approved
levels. ORF was funded $1,470 million and PAC, $538 million. The Committee
authorized NOAA to accept gifts and contributions under the Marine Sanctuary
Program to cover some personnel expenses; expressed concern about ambiguous
accountancy and disregard of previous congressional direction concerning the

---

CRS-30
Agency’s budget structure; and requested a report of spending of obligations against
the committee’s distribution on a quarterly basis. Funds of $68 million were
earmarked for AWIPS build 4.2 (NWS), and $5 million was rescinded from
unobligated balances in the PAC account. The committee rejected outright NOAA-
proposed offsetting fees of $22 million to be collected by NMFS for fisheries services;
criticized NOS for a backlog in updated charts and surveys for critical navigable
waters; and withheld support for transfer of the Great Lakes Environmental Research
Laboratory to NOS, pending a coordinated plan for reorganization of all of such
services. The committee placed a ceiling of not to exceed 240 commissioned officers
the NOAA Corps program, by September 30, 1999, and approved the appointment
of civilian head for the NOAA Corps to focus on ship and aircraft services to meet
mission requirements. No funds were approved for the GLOBE program. The
committee noted plans for increases in total funds for the NWS (and related
programs). NESDIS research account decreases reflected a transfer of funding for the
National Polar Satellite Convergence Program to the PAC account. The committee
also noted how $98 million would be assessed by NOAA to various lines in the
budget to support overhead requirements and functions (e.g., rent, utilities, etc.), and
directed that all such overhead be funded under Executive Direction and
Administration line (PS), and accounted for in the FY2000 budget submission.
Since FY1994, NOAA has used a “Strategic Plan” to project anticipated funding
requirements for the next 5-years. The Agency plans, budgets, and measures
performance based on seven goals which define its mission: 1) Advanced Short-Term
Warning & Forecast Services; 2) Implement Seasonal to Inter-annual Climate
Forecasts; 3) Predict & Assess Decadal to Centennial Change; 4) Recover Protected
Species; 5) Promote Safe Navigation; 6) Sustain Healthy Coasts; and 7) Build
Sustainable Fisheries. NOAA was chosen as a pilot agency under GPRA. Some
aspects of NOAA's 1998 performance plan, under DOC, scored fairly well. However,
House ands Senate Appropriations committees have criticized aspects of this new
budget structure that, along with other methods used by financial managers, such as
assessing NOAA line components for the costs of agency overhead, has made some
aspects of the budget request obtuse and difficult to allow for better oversight.
The Administration’s budget proposal for FY1999 included funding of $715
million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a 6%
increase over FY1998 ($673 million). Of this amount, $291.6 million is for Scientific
and Technical Research and Services (STRS), $5.4 million of which is for the
Baldrige National Quality Program; $259.9 is for the Advanced Technology Program
(ATP); $106.8 is for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP); and $56.7
million is for construction of research facilities. Support for ATP would increase 35%
over the previous year while funding for the MEP would be 6% below FY1998.
S. 2260, as passed by the Senate, would have appropriated $646.6 million in
funding for NIST, which breaks down to $290.6 million for STRS (including $5.4
million for the Quality Program), $192.5 million for ATP, $106.8 million for MEP,
and $56.7 million for construction. H.R. 4276, as passed by the House, provided
$624.2 million for NIST, including $280.5 million for STRS ($5.4 million of which
is for the Quality Program), $180.2 million for ATP, $106.8 million for MEP, and
$56.7 million for construction. It should be noted that in both bills, as well as the

---

CRS-31
Administration’s budget, additional funding is provided to expand the Malcolm
Baldrige Quality Awards Program into educational and health related activities.
Under the FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act as signed into
law, NIST receives $647.1 million in appropriations, almost 10% less than the
President requested and approximately 5% under FY1998 funding. The
appropriations include $280.1 million for the STRS account (with $5.4 million for the
Baldrige Quality Program to expand into health and education areas), $203.5 million
for ATP, $106.8 million for MEP, and $56.7 million for construction. While
continued support for the Advanced Technology Program has been a major funding
issue, it should be noted that the amount appropriated for FY1999 is 6% more than
the previous year. ATP provides seed funding, matched by private sector investment,
to businesses or consortia (including universities and government laboratories) for
development of generic technologies that have broad application across industries.
Opponents of ATP cite this program as a prime example of “corporate welfare,”
whereby the federal government invests in applied research activities which, they
maintain, should be conducted by the private sector. The Administration has defended
the program, arguing that it assists businesses (and small manufacturers) develop
technologies that, while crucial to industrial competitiveness, would not or could not
be developed by the private sector alone.
The President requested FY1999 funding of $10 million for the Office of the
Undersecretary for Technology and the Office of Technology Policy (OTP), an
increase of 18% over the FY1998 appropriation of $8.5 million. OTP is responsible
for civilian technology and competitiveness issues, and coordinates the various
elements of the Administration’s technology policy. The major portion of the funding
increase will be used for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Technology (EPSCoT), an activity designed to strengthen the technological
infrastructure in states that are “...traditionally under-represented in federal R&D
funding.” S. 2260, as passed by the Senate, would have provided support at $10
million while H.R. 4276, as passed by the House, would fund this Office at $9
million. The FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act provides financing
at $9.5 million, an increase of almost 12% over the FY1998 figure, but 5% less than
the Administration’s original request.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
provides guidelines and recommendations for domestic and global
telecommunications policy, manages the use of the electromagnetic spectrum for
public broadcast, and awards grants to industry-public sector partnerships for research
on new telecommunications applications and development of information
infrastructure. The important budget figures for NTIA include the overall budget for
its operations and administration, support for the Information Infrastructure
Assistance Program (IIAP), continued development and construction of public
broadcast facilities, and support for NTIA salaries and expenses.
For FY1999, the Clinton Administration requested an overall budget for NTIA
of $47.9 million, a decline of 16% from FY1998 ($57.5 million). The funding
reductions were slated for NTIA’s salaries and expenses ($10.9 million requested for
FY1999, $16.5 million appropriated for FY1998) and in public broadcast facilities
($15 million requested for FY1999, $21 million appropriated in FY1998). For the

---

CRS-32
TIIAP, the Administration has requested: $22 million for FY1999, an increase over
the $20 million appropriated for FY1998.
For FY1999, the 105 Congress differed f
th
rom the Administration on how NTIA
should be funded. In the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY1999,
legislators approved a total of $49.9 million for the NTIA budget, an increase of 4%
over the Administration request. For salaries and expenses, Congress approved $10.9
million, as the Administration requested. However, Congress did not agree with the
Administration’s request for $15 million for public broadcast facilities in FY1999,
instead approving $21 million, the same level Congress appropriated for FY1998. For
the TIIAP, Congress approved $18 million for FY1999; 18% below the
administration request for the coming fiscal year, and 10% below the FY1998
appropriations level.
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) enacted by Congress
in 1993 (P.L. 103-62; 107 Stat 285) requires that agencies develop strategic plans that
contain goals, objectives, and performance measures for all major programs. The
strategic plan issued by the Department of Commerce in September 1997 enunciates
three strategic themes:
! Theme l. Build for the future and promote U.S. competitiveness in the global
marketplace, by strengthening and safeguarding the nation’s economic
infrastructure.
! Theme 2. Keep America competitive with cutting edge science and technology
and an unrivaled information base.
! Theme 3. Provide effective management and stewardship of the nation’s
resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic opportunities.
In implementing this plan the Department’s initiatives related to Theme 1 would
upgrade the nation’s statistics; foster sustainable development; preserve and enhance
scientific infrastructure; promote natural disaster reduction, economic and trade
assistance for impacted communities; support public broadcasting digital conversion;
and promote electronic commerce. Initiatives related to Theme 2 would conduct the
Decennial Census; upgrade the nation’s statistics; preserve and enhance scientific
infrastructure; promote natural disaster reduction; and promote electronic commerce.
Initiatives related to Theme 3 would foster sustainable economic development;
promote natural disaster reduction; support public broadcasting digital conversion;
and promote electronic commerce. For more information on the strategic plan’s
goals, objectives and performance measures see The Department of Commerce
Budget in Brief, Fiscal Year 1999 (pp. 3-10).
In response to its GPRA mandate, officials at the Department of Commerce have
provided draft GPRA plans to the 105 Congress outlining how they are responding
th
to the act. The most recent draft, sent to Congress on September 30, 1997, in part
addressed congressional concerns raised in previous drafts, such as steps to improve
evaluation criteria for performance throughout the agency. However, policymakers
are still concerned that the agency has not linked its annual program evaluation,

---

CRS-33
planning, and budgeting activities to its long-term strategic plan. This will likely
continue to be a matter of concern during the second session of the 105 Congress.
th
In its report on the CJS appropriations bill (S. 2260; S.Rept. 105-235, p. 5.), the
Senate Appropriations Committee was critical of the Commerce Department plan.
It stated the plan, similar to a number of other strategic plans of agencies covered by
the bill, lacked results oriented, measurable goals. Moreover, the plan did not
“display clear linkages between performance goals and the program activities”
included in its budget request (for more discussion, see pp. 40-41 below).
Commerce Department Abolition Issue. Since the beginning of the 104th
Congress, several legislative proposals have been considered that called for the
abolition of the Department of Commerce by eliminating certain departmental
functions and allowing others to operate as independent agencies or be transferred to
other federal agencies. Those in Congress who have favored the abolition of the
Department argued that it “is an unwieldy conglomeration of marginally related
programs, nearly all of which duplicate those performed elsewhere in the federal
government.” The Clinton Administration, on the other hand, has strongly opposed
abolishing the Commerce Department, arguing that “it would result in the needless
shuffling of governmental functions while eliminating successful activities that clearly
benefit the American people,” especially in areas that promote economic growth,
increase the international competitiveness of U.S. firms in global markets, and
advance U.S. technology. None of these proposals passed 104th Congress.
There continued to be some congressional interest in reorganizing or downsizing
the Department in the 105 Cong
th
ress, although interest in abolishing the Department
was considerably less than in the 104 Congress.
th
The most recent proposal, calling
24
for abolition, was introduced by Representatives Royce and Kasich and several other
cosponsors (H.R. 2667) on October 9, 1997. This bill was referred to the House
Committee on Commerce and two other House Committees that have jurisdiction
over certain functions of the Department. A very similar version of the proposal was
also introduced in the Senate by Senator Abraham and others on October 24, 1997
(S. 1316). This was referred to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. No
further action was taken on this issue.
The Judiciary
Congress has approved $3.65 billion in total budget authority for the Judiciary
in FY1999, $187.5 million (or 5.4%) more than the $3.46 million enacted for
FY1998. The approved funding level for FY1999 is $155.8 million less than the
Judiciary’s request of $3.8 billion (which would have been a 9.9% increase over
FY1998 budget authority). As noted above, these appropriations will expire after
June 15, 1999, unless new legislation is approved to continue them for the remainder
of the fiscal year . (For more detail, see page 2 above.)

24 For information , see CRS report 95-834 E, Proposals to Eliminate the U.S. Department
of Commerce: An Issue Overview, by Edward Knight.

---

CRS-34
Much of the approved increase was traceable to the largest Judiciary account,
Salaries and Expenses for the Court of Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial
Services.
25 For this account, Congress approved $2.9 billion, or 4.9% more than the
$2.7 billion enacted for FY1998. (The Judiciary had requested $3 billion, a 10.5%
increase over FY1998 funding.) Conferees for the Omnibus Appropriations Ac
26
t
stated that in addition to appropriated resources there is likely to be available for this
account at least $155.6 million in fee carryover from prior years, $142.9 million in
current year fees and $78.3 million in other resources.
Among program increases requested within this account, Probation and Pretrial
Services were underscored by conferees for the Omnibus Appropriations Act as
having a high priority. Sufficient resources, the conferees said, needed to be provided
“to allow these services to keep up with the rapidly rising number of offenders under
post-release supervision.”
In reporting their respective FY1999 CJS bills, both Appropriations Committees
had revisited a general funding issue raised in the first session of the 105 Congress
th
— namely, whether the Judiciary was utilizing its resources with optimal efficiency.
In this context, the Senate committee recommended $2.6 million for a courtroom
technology pilot project in 10 districts or circuits, explaining that new video and
computer technology in the courtroom could have a “profound impact on backlogs
common to federal court dockets.” The
27
committee also recommended $3 million
for a courtroom utilization study, commenting that it believed that “a thorough and
objective analysis of courtroom sharing should be conducted” before any major new
courtroom construction programs were undertaken.28
For its part, the House Appropriations Committee had requested that the
Judiciary, in an annual report on the optimal utilization of judicial resources, focus
on new initiatives specific to fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and provide specific
recommendations and timetables. The committee also said it expected to be informed,
either as part of the budget or through separate report, of the amounts being spent on
25 This account funds the salaries and benefits of judge and supporting personnel and all
operating expenses of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, Bankruptcy Courts, and
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
2 In its CJS bill, S. 2260, the Senate had approved a total of $2.8 billion, a 3.2% increas
6
e
over FY1998 funding but $200.2 million below the Judiciary’s request. House-passed H.R.
4276 would have provided $2.9 billion in budget authority (including $60 million from the
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund), a 6.9% increase over FY1998 and $100.4 million less
than requested.
To
27
ensure hardware and software standardization, the Committee directed the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) to coordinate its investments with the Executive Office of the
U.S. Attorneys; also, it said it expected the AO to report to the Senate and House
Appropriations Committees on its courtroom technology efforts not later than February 1,
1999.
The
28
committee said it expected the study would be conducted by “a competitively selected
contractor,” with the contractor to consult with the Appropriations Committees, the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Office of Management and Budget, and the
General Services Administration in developing the parameters of the study.

---

CRS-35
electronic courtroom pilot projects now underway, and improvements which these
projects have made in the conduct of trials. The House committee’s language relating
to electronic courtrooms was adopted by reference by conferees for the Omnibus
Appropriations Act.
Another account for which the Judiciary sought a substantial funding increase
for FY1999 was Defender Services. This account funds the operations of the federal
public defender and community defender organizations, and the compensation,
reimbursement and expenses of attorneys appointed to represent persons under the
Criminal Justice Act. Congress in the Omnibus Appropriations Act has approved the
Judiciary’s request of $361 million for Defender Services, a 9.5% increase over
FY1998 budget authority of $329.5 million. (Earlier, S. 2260 as passed by the Senate
and its House-approved CJS counterpart, H.R. 4276, also had provided $361 million
for Defender Services as requested.) In addition, conferees for the omnibus bill said
they expected $30.9 million to be provided from funds made available under the
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.
Funding for Defender Services was one of the more sensitive subjects during
congressional debate over FY1998 appropriations for the Judiciary. Congressional
appropriators expressed particular concern about growing Defender Services costs
to pay for attorney fees in death penalty and death row appeal cases (also referred to
as “capital cases”), and the FY1998 CJS conference report, as well as earlier reports
by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, directed the Judiciary to
develop guidelines aimed at containing costs in capital cases.
In its report on S. 2260, the FY1999 CJS bill, the Senate Appropriations
Committee again expressed its concerns about the Defender Services account,
focusing on the “disproportionate claim on [the account’s] limited resources” made
by representations in capital cases. The committee noted that in a recently completed
study, the Judiciary had found that while capital and capital habeas cases comprise
only 1% of Defender Services representations, “they account for almost 15 percent
of total program costs and over 30 percent of the increase in costs.”
For its part, the House Appropriations Committee, in its report on FY1999 CJS
funding, noted that steps were underway in the Ninth judicial circuit to “address the
disproportionate [Defender Services] expenses incurred” by three judicial districts
within that circuit. Further, the committee requested that the Judicial Conference
continue to monitor Defender Services cost trends for all of the Circuits and make
recommendations to the committee by March 1, 1999 on whether additional steps are
warranted. Also by March 1, 1999, the committee requested a report on why the
percentage of defendants who receive representation from federal defenders and panel
attorneys has risen in recent years, as well as a set of recommendations for cost
containment and best practices for defender services representations. Subsequently,
conferees for the Omnibus Appropriations Act endorsed the directives of the House
Appropriations Committee, stating that they expected the Judiciary to provide the
reports which the House committee had requested.
The Omnibus Appropriations Act does not include a provision which had been
included in Senate-passed S. 2260, to limit attorney fees for court-appointed lawyers
in death penalty cases to no more than the pay rate of the U.S. Attorneys prosecuting

---

CRS-36
the cases. Instead, conferees for the omnibus bill directed the Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts to review defense costs in federal capital cases and report on its
finding to the House and Senate Judiciary and Appropriations Committees by
September 30, 1999.29
The Omnibus Appropriations Act raised overall funding for the Supreme Court
to $36.5 million, an 11.7% increase over $32.6 million enacted for FY1998 but
$507,000 less than requested. The approved total consists of $31.1 million for Court
salaries and expenses, a 6.2% increase over FY1998 funding, and $5.4 million for the
Court’s Care of the Building and Grounds account, a 58.8% increase over FY1998.
(Earlier, in their CJS bills the Senate had approved just $36,000 less than the total
amount requested for the Court, while the House-approved amount was $471,000
less than the Judiciary’s request.)
The bulk of the approved increase for the Building and Grounds account would
be used to start the design phase of a six-year building improvements and systems
upgrade program for the Court. (At present, it is estimated the construction of the
building improvements and installation of the systems upgrades will cost
approximately $20 million, with $5 million required to begin this work in FY2001,
followed by increments of $5 million in fiscal years 2002 through 2004. While the
Court building has undergone various systems alterations since its initial occupation
in 1935, the FY1999 request represents part of its first complete systems upgrade.)
Not included in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, however, was an additional
$500,000 requested to develop a design for enhancing security around the Court
building based on a study of perimeter security performed in FY1997. .
The Omnibus Appropriations Act does not contain a provision included in the
Senate-passed CJS bill, which would have allowed a cost-of-living increase in
judges’ and justices’ salaries.30
At the same time, conferees for the omnibus bill addressed Senate concerns over the level
29
of reimbursement to court-appointed lawyers in death penalty cases. The conferees directed
that the Administrative Office report, among other things, on the number of instances in the
four previous fiscal years in which individual appointed counsel in federal capital cases have
submitted invoices for legal representation for a calendar year that exceeded the amount of
salary that the U.S. attorney in the district in which the case was prosecuted was authorized
by law to be paid.

30 In its FY1998 CJS bill, Congress approved a one-time 2.3% salary adjustment for judges,
to correspond with a cost-of-living increase that Congress earlier allowed for itself effective
January 1998. The Judiciary’s FY1999 request, as part of its standard budget submission
practice, provided for cost-of-living increases for judges and justices, consistent with
expected salary increases for federal employees. A salary adjustment for judges, however,
was contingent on Congress approving a corresponding salary adjustment for itself and also
on its explicitly authorizing an increase for judges. To accomplish the second requirement for
a judicial pay adjustment, S. 2260 as passed by the Senate would have authorized a cost-of-
living increase for judges in FY1999, providing $6.9 million in budget authority for this
purpose. H.R. 4276 as passed by the House was without a provision authorizing a judicial
pay adjustment. Ultimately, conferees for the Omnibus Appropriations Act favored the House
position over the Senate’s.

---

CRS-37
In passing the Omnibus Appropriations Act, Congress dropped a provision,
included earlier in the Senate-passed CJS bill, that would have required the Judicial
Conference to study whether Criminal Rule 6 should be amended to allow a witness
appearing before a grand jury to have counsel present. Conferees for the omnibus
bill explained that they understood that the Judicial Conference would address this
specific issue at the October 1998 meeting of one of its advisory committees. The
conferees directed the Judicial Conference to report their findings to the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees not later than April 15, 1999.
As part of the budget process, the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) enacted by Congress in 1993 (P.L. 103-62; 107 Stat. 285) requires that
agencies develop strategic plans that contain goals, objectives, and performance
measures for all major programs. As noted earlier, the Judicial branch is not subject
to the requirements of this Act.
Department of State and Related Agencies
The omnibus appropriations bill for FY1999 (H.R. 4328) passed by Congress
provides $5.5 billion for the Department of State and related agencies for FY1999.
As noted above, these appropriations will expire after June 15, 1999, unless new
legislation is approved to continue them for the remainder of the fiscal year. (For
more detail, see page 2 above.) The Senate had approved a total of $5.6 billion for
State and related agencies (including $475 million for UN arrears. The Senate bill
would have provided $4.5 billion for the State Department and just over $1 billion for
USIA. The Senate passed the bill, with amendments, on July 23, 1998, and essentially
approved the Committee’s recommendations. On August 6, 1998, the House had
approved $5.5 billion for the State Department and related agencies, including $4.4
billion for State (including $475 million for UN arrears) and $1.1 billion for USIA.
The Administration’s FY1999 budget request for State and related agencies
totaled $5.4 billion (excluding a supplemental request for U.N. arrearage payments),
4% above the FY1998 enacted level but 2% below the FY1999 enacted level, the year
before the 104th Congress reductions. The Administration’s FY1999 request for the
State Department operations was $4.2 billion (5% above the FY1998 level), about
$1.1 billion for USIA (1.2% above the FY1998 level); and $43.4 million for ACAD.
(4.6% above the FY1998 level). Major components of the President’s State and
related agency FY1999 budget request included notable increases for State’s security
and maintenance of U.S. missions, capital investment fund, and The Asia
Foundation. Smaller increases were requested for the American Institute in Taiwan
(up 17%) and international commissions (up 6%). Decreases from FY1998 levels
in the budget request include 58% less for the East-West Center and 37% less for
USIA’s radio construction account.
The August 7, 1998 terrorist attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa prompted
the Administration to reconsider its funding request for diplomatic security at U.S.
overseas facilities. On September 22, 1998, the President submitted to Congress a
request for emergency FY1998 supplemental appropriations amounting to a total of
$1.8 billion. This request included: $1.4 billion for the Department of State for
emergency expenses of the bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, for security
improvements to U.S. facilities worldwide, and for a security review panel; $200

---

CRS-38
million to reimburse the Department of Defense for costs associated with the embassy
bombings in August; $90.4 million for the Department of Treasury for increased Secret
Service protection and law enforcement training; $70 million for the State
Department’s antiterrorism program; $21.7 million to increase FBI capacity to respond
to act of terrorism; and $6 million to upgrade the National Park Service’s security.
Within the omnibus appropriations bill, Congress included $1.445 billion for embassy
security-related funding.
31
The Department of State’s security and maintenance of U.S. missions is
responsible for carrying out the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of
overseas facilities to provide appropriate, safe, secure, and functional facilities for U.S.
diplomatic missions abroad. The Administration’s FY1999 budget request for this
account was $640.8 million, $236.8 million greater than the enacted FY1998 level,
reflecting the construction of two chancery buildings: $200 million for one in China
and $50 million (out of a total of $120 million required) for one in Berlin. The Senate
passed $550.8 million for this account, including $42.2 million for housing and design
for a new chancery in Beijing and $21.5 million for the same in Berlin. The House
passed $396 million ($8 million below the FY1998 level)for this account, including $15
million for design of the Beijing embassy and no funds for chancery construction in
Berlin Both House and Senate committees recommended these level because neither
site would be ready for construction until at least FY2000. Congress approved $403.6
million, approximately equal to the FY1998 enacted level and $237 million below the
President’s request.
The capital investment fund provides resources for needed investments in State’s
worldwide information system. In recent years, communication and information
equipment has deteriorated and State has not been able to keep up with technology.
This fund was designed to improve the informational network to enable reliable and
timely news flow to facilitate quick and accurate decision-making. Recognizing that
the State Department’s information systems were inadequate and obsolete, Congress
agreed to $86 million for FY1998 (about 3.5 times greater than the FY1997 enacted
level for this account). The President’s FY1999 request of $118.3 million would have
boosted the fund’s resources by 38% over the FY1998 level, in part to help meet the
Year 2000 Compliance requirements at State. The Senate agreed with the President’s
request; the House excluded Year 2000 (YAK) compliance funds in its funding level
of $80 million, saying those funds would be provided in a separate bill addressing
government-wide YAK compliance. Congress passed $80 million for this fund, $38
million less than the President’s request and $6 million below the FY1998 level.
The Asia Foundation is a private nonprofit organization that supports efforts to
strengthen democratic processes and institutions in Asia, open markets, and improve
U.S.-Asian cooperation. The Administration requested $15 million, an increase of
88% over the FY1998 enacted level of $8 million. The request would have put this
Foundation back to its FY1999 funding level. The Administration stated that the
increased request was for rule of law and legal education projects in China, as well as

31 For more detail, see CRS report 98-771, Embassy Security: Background, Funding,
and FY1998 Supplemental Request.

---

CRS-39
for promoting countries in transition and developing stronger market ties with the
region. The Senate did not provide funding for The Asia Foundation, stating that it
should graduate from public support. The House set funding at $8.2 million for this
organization. Congress approved of $8.2 million for the Foundation, slightly more
than the FY1998 enacted level, but $7 million less than the Administration request.
The United States contributes in two ways to the United Nations and other
international organizations: voluntary payments funded in the Foreign Operations
Appropriations bill and assessed contributions included in the Commerce, Justice, and
State Appropriations measure. Assessed contributions are provided in two accounts,
International Peacekeeping and Contributions to International Organizations
(CIO). Following a period of dramatic growth in the number and costs of U.N.
peacekeeping missions during the early 1990s and a trend that peaked in FY1994 with
a $1.1 billion appropriation, funding requirements have declined in recent years. The
FY1999 request for CIO was $930.8 million and $231 million for international
peacekeeping. The Administration had also requested funds for U.N. arrearage
payments of $475 million for FY1999 within a supplemental appropriation request
(H.R. 3580). The Senate passed $1.1 billion for CIO, of which $254 million would be
for arrearage payments. For international peacekeeping, the Senate agreed to $431
million, of which $221 million would be for arrearage payments. The House passed
$915 million for CIO and $220 million for international peacekeeping. In addition, the
House agreed to $475 million for UN arrearage payment funding, subject to UN
reform and a reduction in the U.S. assessment rate. Congress agreed to $922 for CIO
($33.5 million less than the FY1998 enacted level and nearly $9 million below the
President’s request). For international peacekeeping, Congress passed $231 million
which is $25 million below the FY1998 level, but equal to the President’s request. In
addition, Congress provided the requested $475 million for U.N. arrearage payments,
although the President vetoed H.R. 1757 which would have provided the authority for
the U.N arrearage payments.
32
USIA’s international broadcasting operations account, established after
consolidation in FY1995, includes Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty (RFE/RL), Cuba Broadcasting, and a new surrogate facility: Radio Free Asia
(RFA). The President’s FY1999 request of $388.7 million ($2.8 million less than the
FY1998 enacted level) primarily would have provided for mandatory wage and price
increases. The Senate-passed bill provided $355 million, including $22.1 million for
broadcasting to Cuba, $69.9 million for RFE/RL, and $19.4 million for Radio Free
Asia. The House agreed to $384 million for the international broadcasting account,
including $21.9 million for the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, $22 million for Radio Free
Asia, and $4 million for RFE/RL’s operating costs of Radio Free Iran. Congress
approved of $384.5 million for international broadcasting, including $22.1 million for
Cuba Broadcasting. This amount is $7 million below the FY1998 enacted level and
$4 million below the Administration’s FY1999 request.
For
32
more detail on U.N. issues, see CRS Report 97-711, U.N. Funding, Payment of Arrears
and Linkage to Reform: Legislation in the 105th Congress, by Vita Bite, Marjorie Ann
Browne, and Lois McHugh.

---

CRS-40
Education and cultural exchange programs funded within USIA include
programs such as the Fulbright, Muskie, and Humphrey academic exchanges, as well
as the international visitor exchanges and Freedom Support Act programs.
Government exchange programs have come under close scrutiny in recent years for
being excessive in number and duplicative. Funding has declined 15% since FY1995.
The President’s $199 million FY1999 request ($1.3 million greater than the FY1998
level) included $104.5 million for the Fulbright Program, according to USIA. The
Senate passed $205 million for FY1999, including $101.5 million for the Fulbright
Program. The House passed a total of $200 million, including $95 million for the
Fulbright Program. Congress passed $202.5 million for the total account, nearly $5
million above the FY1998 enacted level and $3.5 million above the President’s request.
The Administration requested increased funding for the North-South Center from
the FY1998 level of $1.5 million to $2.5 million. At the same time, however, the
Administration FY1999 request would have lowered East-West Center funding from
the FY1998 level of $12 million to $5 million, to continue to phase out this program
due to budgetary constraints. The Senate would have doubled the North-South Center
to $3 million and continued the East-West Center at its FY1998 level. The House
would have provided no FY1999 funding for either center, suggesting that both
centers should seek private funding. Congress approved of $12.5 million for the East-
West Center and $1.8 million for the North-South Center.
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a private, nonprofit
corporation established in Washington, DC “to promote democracy and human rights
abroad.” The President requested an FY1999 level of $31 million, up $1 million from
the FY1998 level. The increase reflects increased grants in Asia and the need to offset
price increases in the coming year. The Senate-passed measure would have provided
$30.5 million for FY1999, while the House-passed bill would have provided $31
million. Congress agreed with the President’s request of $31 million.
ACDA’s FY1999 budget request of $43.4 million (up $1.9 million from the
FY1998 level) would have provided for ongoing ACDA activities, such as ratification
and implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Chemical Weapons
Convention, and Non Proliferation Treaty. The Senate agreed with the President’s
request of $43.4 million, while the House voted to continue ACDA at its FY1998 level
of $41.5 million. Congress approved of continuing the FY1998 level into FY1999.
Within the omnibus appropriations package, Congress passed authority to
reorganize the foreign policy agencies. A year earlier, Secretary Albright had
announced that the ACDA Director would be “double-hatted” as the Acting
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs to show
progress in implementation of the President’s decision to integrate the foreign policy
agencies. The reorganization provisions require that ACDA fully merge with State by
April 1, 1999; USIA merge into State by October 1, 1999; the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) reorganize and come under the authority of the

---

CRS-41
Secretary of State by April 1, 1999. A final report is due to Congress by January 1,
2001.
33
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) enacted in 1993 (P.L.
103-62; 107 stat 285) requires that agencies develop strategic plans that contain goals,
objectives, and performance measures for all major programs. The subsequently
published reports: U.S. Department of State Strategic Plan and the United States
Strategic Plan for International Affairs, both September 1997, do not refer to specific
agencies, but rather identify seven national interests: national security, economic
prosperity, protection of American citizens and U.S. borders, international law
enforcement, democracy, humanitarian response, and involvement in global issues.
The plans then establish 16 strategic goals and strategies for promoting and defending
these interests. The goals are long-term with time frames of more than 5 years. The
Senate Appropriations Committee points to weaknesses in the State’s GPRA plan and
recommends that the Department follow GAO recommendations when preparing its
FY2000 plan.
Other Related Agencies34
This section includes all other related agencies covered by the CJS appropriations
bill. As noted earlier, the Omnibus Appropriation Act for FY1999 (H.R. 4328)
funding for all CJS agencies, including the ones covered in this section, will cease to
be available after June 15, 1999, unless Congress enacts a continuing resolution. (For
more details, see page 2 above.)
Maritime Administration (MARAD). MARAD administers programs that aid
in the development, promotion, and operation of the nation’s merchant marine
(including programs that benefit vessel owners, shipyards, and ship crews). The
Administration requested $178.2 million for MARAD for FY1999, $39.4 million more
than Congress appropriated to it in FY1998. The request consisted of $98 million for
the Military Security Program (MSP), $71 million for operating MARAD and training
ship crews, $16 million for ship construction mortgage guarantees (“Title XI
Program”), and $4 million for administering that guarantee program. The MSP
program replaces the ODS program. Only a few ships remained in the ODS program
at the end of FY1998, and the last ship contract in the ODS expires in FY2002. The
House approved $185 million for FY1999 of which $97.7 million was for the MSP
program, $67.6 million was for operating MARAD and training ship crews, $16 million
was for ship construction mortgage guarantees and $3.7 million was for administering
the guarantee program. The Senate approved $177.5 million of which $97.7 million
was for the MSP program, $69.8 million was for operating MARAD and training ship
crews, and $10 million was for ship construction mortgage guarantees and for
administering the guarantee program. Congress approved $168.7 million, which was
$29.9 million above the level appropriated for FY1998 and $9.5 million below the
amount requested by the President. It should be noted that Congress also approved
the rescission of $17 million from the ship construction fund.
For
33
more detail, see Foreign Policy Agency Reorganization in the 105th Congress, 97-538F.

---

CRS-42
The Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA is an independent federal
agency created by the Small Business Act of 1953. While the agency administers a
number of programs intended to assist small firms, arguably its three most important
functions are: to guarantee — via the 7(a) general business loan program — business
loans made by banks and other financial institutions; to make long-term, low-interest
loans to victims of hurricanes, earthquakes, and other physical disasters; and, to serve
as an advocate for small business within the federal government.
For FY1999, the Administration requested a total appropriation of $724 million
for the SBA. The House-passed bill (H.R. 4276) would have provided the agency with
$705.9 million, including $247 million for Salaries and Expenses (S&E). The
committee’s report noted that its recommendation for S&E “represent[ed] a significant
reduction” and directed that staff reductions “shall be taken primarily from
headquarters staff.” The Senate bill (S. 2260) would have provided a significantly
lower total appropriation of $614 million for SBA, including $265 for S&E. Under
the CJS bill passed last fall, the agency received an appropriation of $716.1 million —
including $254 for S&E — for FY1998. Congress approved $719 million including
$288 million for S&E. (Separately in the legislation, Congress also approved $101
million in supplemental emergency disaster assistance, primarily to cover anticipated
expenses associated with Hurricane George) At first glance the $288 million for S&E
appears to provide SBA with a substantial increase in this account. It is perhaps worth
noting, however, that more than $50 million included in S&E was not requested by
SBA, and is earmarked for assorted projects in several states.
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA; P.L. 103-62) seeks to
improve federal management by shifting the focus of decisionmaking from more
traditional concerns, such as staffing and activities, to the real results of programs. As
one component of GPRA, agencies are required to prepare performance plans that
clearly describe (1) annual performance goals and measures, (2) the strategies and
resources to achieve those goals, and (3) procedures to verify and validate reported
performance. SBA submitted its FY1999 performance plan to Congress in March.
The Senate Appropriations Committee report says that it “is not confident that the
information provided [by SBA’s Performance Plan] will accurately assess SBA’s
performance.” Further, “(t)he Committee directs that the fiscal year 2000 request be
linked to the performance plan. The committee will use this plan as a guide for SBA
fiscal year 2000 funding. Agencies will have had 2 years to implement and perfect
their plans.”
Legal Services Corporation (LSC). This agency is a private, non-profit, federally
funded corporation that provides grants to local offices that, in turn, provide legal
assistance to low-income people in civil (non-criminal) cases. The LSC has been
controversial since its inception in the early 1970s, and has been operating without
authorizing legislation since 1980. There have been ongoing debates over the
adequacy of funding for the agency, and the extent to which certain types of activities
are appropriate for federally funded legal aid attorneys to undertake. In annual
appropriations laws, Congress traditionally has included legislative provisions
restricting the activities of LSC-funded grantees, such as prohibiting representation in
certain types of cases or conducting any lobbying activities.

---

CRS-43
For FY1999, the omnibus appropriations bill contains $300 million for the LSC,
which is the amount recommended by the Senate. The House had approved $250
million for the LSC in FY1999. The legislation also continues all restrictions on LSC-
funded activities currently in effect. This final level of $300 million is $17 million
higher than the FY1998 level, but $40 million below the Administration’s request for
FY1999. The Administration had requested $340 million for FY1999, in an effort to
partially restore recent cutbacks in funding. Historically, the Corporation’s highest
level of funding was $400 million in FY1994 and FY1995.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The Commission
enforces laws banning employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, or handicapped status. The EEOC’s workload has changed drastically
since the agency first was created under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As
new civil rights laws have been enacted and employees’ increased awareness of their
rights has grown, the agency’s budget and staffing resources have not kept pace. The
President requested $279 million for the EEOC for FY1999, an increase of $37 million
over the FY1998 appropriation, which was $242 million. The additional funds were
intended to speed resolution of a large backlog cases and expand the use of alternative
dispute techniques resolution.
The Senate approved $253.5 million, an amount $25.4 million less than the
Administration’s request and $11.5 million above the 1998 appropriation. In its
report, the Senate Appropriations Committee suggested that EEOC in addition to
reducing its complaint backlog, increase funding for state and local Fair Employment
Practices Agencies (FEPAs). The committee also directed the EEOC not to fund the
use of testers to document discrimination against applicants for employment, a
recommendation also made by Speaker Gingrich. The House bill approved a funding
level of $260.5 million, which is $18 million below the President’s request and about
$7 million above the total approved by the Senate. Final action by Congress approved
$279 million, the same amount requested by the Administration and $37 million above
FY1998 appropriation.
Commission on Civil Rights. The Commission collects and studies information
on discrimination or denials of equal protection of the laws. It received an
appropriation of $8.7 million for FY1997. The President’s request for FY1999 calls
for an increase to $11 million. The House bill approved $8.7 million, the same level
appropriated in FY1998. The Senate approved a slightly higher level of $8.9 million.
Congress approved $8.9 million.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC is an independent
agency charged with regulation of interstate and foreign communication by means of
radio, television, wire, cable and satellite. The Omnibus Appropriations Act includes
a total of $192 million in total resources for the Commission, a 2.6% increase over
FY1998 funding of $186.5 million, but well below the $213 million in budget authority
requested by the Commission (which would have been a 14.2% increase over
FY1998).35 The funding amount approved in the omnibus bill is $10.5 million more
35 In its budget estimate to Congress, the Commission has said that 51% of the increase in
(continued...)

---

CRS-44
than the funding level approved earlier by the House in its CJS bill and $5.9 million
less than that approved in the Senate-passed CJS legislation.
Of the overall amount provided to the FCC by the omnibus act, $172.million is
to be derived from offsetting fee collections, as proposed in both the House and Senate
CJS bills, resulting in a net direct appropriation of $19.5 million. (In the earlier-
passed CJS bills, $9 million had been directly appropriated to the FCC by the House
and $25.4 million by the Senate.) The Omnibus Appropriations Act, as well as the
House and Senate CJS bills, all rejected a request by the Commission that it be fully
funded from the General Fund of the Treasury for FY1999 on a one-time basis.36
The Omnibus Appropriations Act does not include a provision, contained in the
House CJS bill, prohibiting the use of funds for FCC relocation to a new headquarters
location in SW Washington, D.C.37
As enacted, the Omnibus Appropriations Act includes language making it a
federal crime to commercially distribute through the World Wide Web “material that
is harmful to minors.” Commer
38
cial Web sites are required by the Act to put in place
systems to block access to such material to persons under 17 years of age or face
criminal fines, or imprisonment, in addition to civil penalties. Similar language had
been contained in the Senate-passed CJS bill, S. 2260, and a comparable measure,
while not approved as part of the House’s CJS legislation, had been passed by the
House as a standing alone bill, H.R. 3783. According to press reports the Clinton
Administration initially had objected to this language, on grounds that it was probably
(...continued)
35
funds, or $13.6 million, was for uncontrollable cost increases for salaries and benefits ($4.2
million), GSA rent for the FCC’s new headquarters location in the Portals office building in
SW Washington, DC ($8.4 million), Federal Protective Service increases ($527,000), and
inflationary increases to other contract services ($523,000). An additional $6.1 million, or
23% of the requested increase, represented the first installment payment to reimburse the GSA
for costs to relocate headquarters employees to the Portals.
The FY1999 request had
36
proposed a change to the current appropriation language which
would prevent offsetting total Direct Authority for FY1999 with regulatory fees. In FY1999,
on a one-time base, the FCC appropriation would be fully funded from the General Fund of
the Treasury. Offsetting regulatory fees of $172.5 million, although collected in FY1999,
would be unavailable for use by the Commission until October 1, 1999 (FY2000).

37 House-passed H.R. 4276 would have prohibited the use of funds provided under the FCC account
for rental payments to the General Services Administration for the Portals II building or for costs of
relocating to the Portals, until ongoing investigations by Congress and the Department of Justice
determined the legality of the Portals lease.
For its part, the Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report on S. 2260, specifically
had disapproved the FCC’s request for increased funding to repay the GSA for rent paid for
the FCC’s new headquarters location. The committee, however, left open the the possibility
of later approving a reprogramming of FCC funds to cover this expense.
38 Cited as the “Child Online Protection Act,” the language was passed in Title XIV of
Division C of the omnibus bill.

---

CRS-45
unconstitutional and would likely draw resources away from more important law
enforcement efforts, but then dropped its objections.39
Regulation of information on the Internet is provided for in another part of the
Omnibus Appropriations Act as well. Title XIII of Division C of the Act requires the
Federal Trade Commission to write rules requiring commercial users of the Internet
to obtain parent consent before collection or disclosing “personal information from
children” under the age of 13.
40
The Omnibus Appropriations Act does not include three provisions involving the
FCC or telecommunications regulation which the Senate earlier had approved in its
CJS bill, S. 2260. Omitted from the omnibus bill were provisions in S. 2260 that
would:
! require that every elementary school, secondary school or library, before
receiving federal “universal service” funding assistance to become connected to
the Internet, certify to the FCC that it has installed, or will install, filtering
equipment designed to block “material deemed to be inappropriate for minors;"
! ban most types of gambling on the Internet, extending to Internet gambling
prohibitions which under current law apply to gambling by mail or by telephone;
! roll back copyright royalty fee rates which satellite televison carriers were
required to pay for broadcast superstation and network signals effective January
1, 1998 (with the Copyright Office prohibited from implementing these rates
before March 31, 1999).
In keeping with the requirements of the Government Performance and Results
Act, the FCC, as part of its FY1999 budget request, prepared a strategic plan setting
forth its overall mission and general and specific goals for a 6-year time frame.
41
Federal Maritime Commission (FMC). The FMC regulates a large part of the
waterborne foreign offshore commerce of the United States. The Administration
requested $14.5 million for the FMC for FY1999, $0.5 million more than Congress
appropriated to it in FY1997 and FY1998. The House recommended $14 million for
FY1999, and the Senate recommended $14.3 million. Congress approved $14.2

39 See, for example, “Give-and-Take in the Bowels of the Budget,” Washington Post, October
16, 1998, p. A16.

40 Cited as the “Children’s On-Line Privacy Protection Act of 1998,” the bill earlier had been
introduced in the Senate as S. 2326 by Senator Richard H. Bryan.
41 The four general “activity goals” of this plan called for the FCC to: promote efficient and
innovative licensing and authorization of services; encourage, through policy and rulemaking
activities, the development of competitive, innovative and excellent communications systems, “with
a minimum of regulation or with an absence of regulation where appropriate in a competitive
marketplace”; promote the public interest and pro-competitive policies by enforcing rules and
regulations that ensure that all Americans are afforded efficient use of communications services and
technologies; provide information services to its “customers” in the most useful formats available
and in the most timely, accurate and courteous manner possible.

---

CRS-46
million, which was $0.2 million above the level appropriated for FY1998 and $0.3
million below the amount requested by the President.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC, an independent agency, is
responsible for enforcing a number of federal antitrust and consumer protection laws.
Last year’s appropriations bill provided the FTC with a total appropriation of $106.5
million for FY1998, an increase of $4.6 million over FY1997. The FY1998 figure was
derived from providing a direct appropriation of $18.5 million, augmented by $70
million in offsetting fee collections from Hart-Scott-Rodino premerger filing fees as
well as $18 million in offsetting fee collections carried over from previous years.
For FY1999, the Administration requested a total appropriation for the FTC of
$113 million. This figure was to be derived from providing a direct appropriation of
$101 million, augmented by $12 million in fee collections. (This one-time increase in
the general fund (direct) appropriation, according to the Administration, would enable
the Commission to accommodate the elimination of appropriated budget authority
which provides a guaranteed funding level that is later reduced as actual collections,
i.e., premerger filing fees, are received. During 1999, the FTC anticipates collecting
$86.6 million in premerger filing fees, which — under the proposed plan — would
have been available for obligation starting October 1, 1999.)
The Administration’s suggested approach — noted in the previous paragraph —
was not adopted by the appropriators in the 105
th Congress. The House-passed bill
(H.R. 4276) would have provided the FTC a total appropriation of $110.5 million for
FY1999, $2.4 million less than the agency requested. The figure was derived from a
direct appropriation of only $4 million, augmented by $106.5 million in offsetting fee
collections (including $30 million in carryover fee collections from previous years).
The Senate-passed bill (S. 2260), provided a total budget authority of $111.9 million.
This figure was derived from a direct appropriation of only $3.2 million, augmented
by $98.7 million in offsetting fee collections (including $18.7 million in prior-year
unobligated fee collections). Congress approved $116.7 million, $106.5 million of
which was in offsetting fee collections ($76.5 million from the current year and $30
million in prior-year collections) resulting in a direct appropriation of $10.2 million.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC administers laws
providing protection for investors and ensuring that securities markets are fair and
honest. As passed by last fall during the 1 session of the 105th Congress, the CJ
st
S
appropriations bill provided a total appropriation for the SEC of $315 million for
FY1998, an increase of $9.6 million over the previous year. The total was derived
from a direct appropriation of $33.5 million, offsetting registration fees of $250
million, and $32 million carried over from previous years.
For FY1999, the Administration requested a total appropriation of $343 million
for the SEC. (This one-time increase in the general fund (direct) appropriation,
according to the Administration, would enable the Commission to accommodate the
elimination of appropriated budget authority which provides a guaranteed funding level
that is later reduced as actual collections, i.e., registration fees, are received. During
1999, the SEC anticipates collecting $284 million in registration fees, which — under
the proposed plan — would be available for obligation starting October 1, 1999.)

---

CRS-47
The Administration’s suggested approach — noted in the previous paragraph —
met with the approval of the House CJS appropriations subcommittee i.e., providing
the SEC with a direct total appropriation, albeit at a funding level of $324 million, $17
million less than the agency requested. The House-passed bill (H.R. 4276) following
the recommendation of the full committee, however, rejected that approach. While the
House bill accepted the subcommittee’s recommendation for a total appropriation of
$324 million, that figure was to be comprised of the following components: (1) a direct
appropriation of $23 million for FY1999; (2) offsetting fees of $214 million to be
collected during FY1999; and (3) offsetting fees of $87 million from previous years.
The CJS bill (S. 2260) passed by the Senate, following the recommendation of the
Appropriations Committee, also rejected the approach of a one-time-only total direct
appropriation. The Senate bill provided a total appropriation for the agency of $341
million as requested in the President’s FY1999 budget. However, it provided no direct
appropriations at all, assuming the full $341 million for the agency’s Salaries and
Expenses would be derived from fees collected in fiscal 1999. Congress adopted the
Administration's suggested approach. It provided the SEC with a total direct
appropriation of $324 million.
The State Justice Institute. The agency is a private, non-profit corporation that
makes grants and undertakes other activities designed to improve the administration
of justice in the United States. The Administration requested $12.0 million for
FY1999, which was $5.2 million above that appropriated for FY1998. Both the House
the Senate approved the same level appropriated for FY1998: $6.8 million. Congress
approved $6.8 million.
Commission on Ocean Policy (OPC). Senate passed legislation in November
1996, creating a 16-member commission to examine national policy relative to ocean
and coastal activities. The Senate bill approved $3.5 million for FY1999. N
42
o
funding was requested in the President’s FY1999 budget. The House bill did not
approve any funding for this commission. Congress approved the $3.5 million amount
recommended by the Senate.
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). The Senate approved
$24.8 million for the USTR for FY1999 which is equal to the Administration’s request
and is an increase of $1.4 million over the FY1998 appropriation. The House approved
$24 million for the USTR which is slightly above the FY1998 appropriation but $0.8
million below the Senate’s recommendation and the Administration’s request.
Congress approved an appropriation of $24.2 million for USTR, which is $0.75 million
above the appropriation for FY1998 and $0.6 million below the Administration's
request.
U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The Senate approved $45.5
million for ITC for FY1999, which is equal to the Administration’s request and is an
increase of $4.3 million over the FY1998 appropriation. The House approved $44.2
million for, which is $3 million above the FY1998 appropriation but $1.3 million below
the Senate’s recommendation and the Administration’s request. Congress approved
See: S.Rept. 105-235, p.150.
42

---

CRS-48
$44.4 million, which is $3.3 million above the appropriation for FY1998, and $1
million below the President's request.
Compliance with GPRA Requirements
As noted earlier in this report, the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) passed by Congress in 1993 (P.L. 103-62) requires that agencies develop
strategic plans that contain goals, objectives, and performance measures for all major
programs. In its report on the CJS appropriations bill (S. 2260; S.Rept. 105-235, pp.
5-6), the Senate Appropriations Committee made the following evaluation regarding
agency compliance with GPRA requirements:
The Committee has received a number of strategic plans from different
organizations receiving appropriated funds within the bill. The Committee found
weaknesses with the fiscal year 1999 performance plans of the Departments of
Commerce and State and the Small Business Administration. The Committee was
especially troubled by the lack of results-oriented, measurable goals in the
performance plans. The Committee is also concerned that the plans did not
uniformly display clear linkages between performance goals and the program
activities in agencies’ budget requests. Also, some plans did not sufficiently
describe approaches to produce credible performance information. The Committee
considers the full and effective implementation of the Results Act to be a priority
for all agencies under its jurisdiction. We recognize that implementation will be
an interactive process, likely to involve several appropriations cycles. The
Committee will consider agencies’ progress in addressing weaknesses in strategic
and annual performance plans in tandem with their funding requests in light of their
strategic goals. This effort will help determine whether any changes or
realignments would facilitate a more accurate and informed presentation of
budgetary information. Agencies are encouraged to consult with the Committee as
they consider such revisions prior to finalizing any requests.
The plan prepared by the Department of Justice was given high marks by the
committee. It stated that: “The plan was received in a timely fashion and contained
objective , measurable performance goals. The strength of the performance plans was
its presentation of reasonably clear strategies for its intended performance goals.”43
In its report on its version of the CJS bill, the House Appropriations Committee
noted that “performance plans have generally been of mixed utility in considering the
fiscal year budget request.” The committee requests that each agency consult with it
early in the process of formulating the budget and performance plan for FY2000, to
improve the plan’s usefulness to the committee when it examines the FY2000 request
(H.Rept. 105-636, p. 8. preprint version).
S.Rept. 105-235, p. 8.
43

---

CRS-49
Major Funding Trends
Major agencies under this CJS appropriation, except the Department of State,
have generally received annual increases over the period FY1995-FY1999. As seen
in the table below, funding increased, in current dollars, for the Department of Justice
by $5,878 million ( or 48%); for the Department of Commerce by $973 million ( or
23.9%); and for Judiciary $747 million (or 25.7%). Funding for the Department of
State increased by $215 million (or 5.2%).
Table 2. Funding Trends for Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State, and the Judiciary
(in millions of current dollars)
Department or Agency
FY1995
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
Justice
12,336
14,625
16,425
17,764
18,214
Commerce
4,078
3,640
3,804
4,251
5,051
Judiciary
2,904
3,053
3,260
3,464
3,651
State
4,144
3,905
3,974
4,037
4,359
Sources: Funding totals provided by Budget Offices of CJS and Judiciary agencies; and
Congressional Record. Vol 144, October 20, 1998, pp. H11603-11612.
Current Funding Status
The President submitted his FY1999 budget request on February 3, 1998. Both
the CJS subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have
completed their hearings on the funding requests for agencies to be covered by the
forthcoming FY1999 CJS appropriations bill. The House CJS Subcommittee marked
up its version of the appropriations bill on June 24, 1998. The measure was
subsequently approved by the full Appropriations Committee on July 15, 1998 (H.R.
4276, H.Rept. 105-636). The Senate CJS Subcommittee marked up its version of the
bill on June 23, 1998. The full Appropriations Committee approved its version on
June 25, 1998 (S. 2260; S.Rept. 105-235). The Senate approved its bill, with
amendments, on July 23, 1998. The House passed its version of the bill, with
amendments, on August 6, 1998.
Congress passed the CJS bill on October 21, 1998, as part of the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1999 (H.R.
4328). It was signed into law by the President on the same day (P.L. 105-277). As
noted above, these appropriations will expire after June 15, 1999, unless new
legislation is enacted to continue them through the remainder of FY1999. (For more
detail, see page 2 above.)

---

CRS-50
Table 3. Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, and the
Judiciary Appropriations
(in millions of dollars)
House
Senate
Final
Department or
FY1999
FY1998
Bill,
Bill,
Enacted,
Agency
Request
H.R. 4276
S. 2260
H.R. 4328
Justice
17,764
18,512
18,230
17,800
18,214
Commerce
4,250
4,827
4,814
4,822
5,051
Judiciary
3,464
3,807
3,697
3,608
3,651
State
4,037
4,240
4,357
4,505
4,359
Sources: Congressional Record. Vol 144, October 20, 1998, pp. H11603-11612.
Related Legislative Action
Department of Justice and Related Agencies
H.R. 3 (McCollum)
The Juvenile Crime Control Act of 1997. Introduced January 7, 1997. Provides
for the adult prosecution of juveniles 14 or older who commit federal violent crimes
or federal drug trafficking offenses. Creates a new block grant program outside the
Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act of 1974 by amending Title I, Part R
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.)
to encourage states to adopt reforms to reduce juvenile crime. Passed House,
amended, May 8, 1997. Received in Senate May 8, and referred to Committee on
Judiciary.
H.R. 1818 (Riggs)
The Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1997. Introduced
June 5, 1997. Reauthorizes the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of
1974, amended. Passed House, as amended, July 15, 1997. Received in Senate July
16, and referred to Committee on Judiciary.
H.R. 4264 (Rogers)
A bill to establish the Bureau of Enforcement and Border Affairs within the
Department of Justice. Introduced July 17, 1998. Approved by the Judiciary
Immigration Subcommittee on July 30, 1998.
H.R. 4363 (Watt)
A bill to provide for the restructuring of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, and for other purposes. Introduced July 30, 1998.
S. 10 (Hatch/Sessions)
Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act of 1997. Repeals Title III (crime
prevention), Subtitles A through C, and E through S; and Title V (drug courts).
Introduced January 21, 1997; referred to Committee on Judiciary. Reported, amended
(S.Rept. 105-108), October 9, 1997.

---

CRS-51
S. 15 (Daschle)
Youth Violence, Crime, and Drug Abuse Control Act of 1997. Extends the
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, as established in Title XXXI of the 1994 Crime
Act, with authorizations of $6.5 billion each year, FY2001 and FY2002, to provided
new authorizations of (1) $1.24 billion each year, FY2001 and FY2002, to hire or
deploy an additional 25,000 police officers to the original goal of 100,000 officers
authorized to be funded under Title I of the Act; (2) $200 million each year, FY2001
and FY2002, for Byrne grants; and (3) additional funding for the drug courts program
and for rural drug enforcement and training. Introduced January 21, 1997; referred to
Committee on Judiciary.
S.Con.Res. 86 (Domenici)
An Original Concurrent Resolution Setting Forth the Congressional Budget for
the United States Government for Fiscal Years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 and
Revising the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998. Introduced
March 20, 1998. Committee on Budget ordered to be reported an original measure,
March 18 (S.Rept. 105-170), that contained amendments adopted, including provisions
against the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes; on support for federal, state, and
local law enforcement; and on extension of the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund
through Fiscal Year 2002.
Department of Commerce
H.R. 1278 (Calvert)
To authorize appropriations for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, and other purposes. Introduced April
10, 1997. Reported by Committee on Science, April 22, 1997 (H.Rept. 105-66, Part
I; Committee on Natural Resources, June 20, 1997 (H.Rept.105-66, Part II).
H.R. 2667 (Royce/Kasich and others)
A bill to abolish the Department of Commerce. Introduced October 9, 1997;
referred to the Committees on Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Banking
and Financial Services, International Relations, National Security, Agriculture, Ways
and Means, Government Reform and Oversight, Judiciary, Science, and Resources.
S. 1316 (Abraham and others)
A bill to abolish the Department of Commerce. Introduced October 24, 1997.
Legislation is virtually the same as H.R. 2667; referred to Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee.
The Judiciary
H.R. 1252 (Hyde)
Judicial Reform Act of 1998 (A bill to modify the procedures of the federal courts
in certain matters, and for other purposes). Bill, as amended, includes provisions that:
refer complaints of judicial misconduct not dismissed as frivolous, relating to the merits
of a decision, or not in conformity with a the statute, to another circuit for complaint
proceedings; authorize the presiding judges of an appellate or district court to permit
broadcasting to the public of court proceedings; require a three-judge court to hear an

---

CRS-52
application for an injunction restraining, on the grounds of unconstitutionality, the
enforcement, execution, or operation of a state law adopted by referendum; and
authorize a court of appeals to permit an appeal by either party from a district court’s
class action certification decision. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary,
April 9, 1997; referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, April
10, 1997. Subcommittee hearings held, May 14, 1997. Marked-up and forwarded,
amended, by Subcommittee to full Committee, June 10, 1997. Committee
consideration and mark-up, March 10, 1998. Reported to House, April 1, 1998
(H.Rept. 105-478). Passed House by voice vote, April 23, 1998. Received in Senate
and referred to Committee on the Judiciary, April 24, 1998. Referred to
Subcommittee on Oversight and Courts, May 15, 1998.
H.R. 2294 (Coble)
Federal Courts Improvement Act. Among other things, bill: provides for the
transfer of funds from the Justice and Treasury Departments asset forfeiture funds to
the judiciary to offset funds appropriated for the operation of the U.S. courts for
expenses incurred in the adjudication of civil and criminal forfeiture proceedings;
removes limitations on the authority of U.S. magistrate judges to try petty offense
cases; directs the President to appoint three additional district judges for the middle
district, and two additional district judges for the southern district, of Florida and
authorizes appropriations for this purpose; and authorizes a judicial officer of the
United States to carry a firearm, whether concealed or not, under regulations
promulgated by the Judicial Conference. Referred to the House Committee on the
Judiciary, July 30, 1997; referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual
Property, August 8, 1998. Subcommittee hearings held, October 9, 1997. Committee
consideration and mark-up, March 3, 1998. Reported to House (Amended), March
12, 1998 (H.Rept. 105-437). Called up by House under suspension of the rules, and
passed by voice vote, March 18, 1998. Received in the Senate, March 19, 1998,
referred to Committee on the Judiciary, March 20, 1998, and referred to Subcommittee
on Oversight and Courts, May 15, 1998.
S. 1892 (Kyl); P.L. 105-300
Bill as enacted provides that a person closely related to a judge of an Article III
court other than the Supreme Court may not be appointed as a judge of the same
court. Referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, March 31, 1998; reported
by the Committee favorably, without amendment and without written report, May 21,
1998. Passed Senate without amendment by voice vote, October 6, 1998. Called up
by House under suspension of the rules and passed by voice vote, October 7, 1998.
Signed by President, October 27, 1998.
S. 2163 (Hatch)
Judicial Improvements Act of 1998. Bill, among other things, requires a three-
judge district court panel to hear appeals and grant injunctions based on claims that a
state law enacted by referendum or a federal law is unconstitutional; requires federal
courts to periodically review existing consent decrees or civil actions in which
prospective relief is issued; deprives a federal court of the authority to order state or
local government to increase taxes as part of a judicial remedy; prevents a federal court
in consideration of habeas corpus petitions from prohibiting state or local officials from
re-prosecuting a defendant; prevents a federal court from ordering the release of
prisoners on grounds that their conditions of imprisonment violate their constitutional

---

CRS-53
rights; repeals a provision of law requiring specific congressional authorization for
salary increases for federal judges and justices of the Supreme Court. Referred to
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, June 11, 1998.
Department of State
H.R. 1757 (Gilman)
A bill to authorize appropriations for the Department of State and related
agencies for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, and for other purposes. Replaces H.R.
1486. Passed by voice vote in the House on June 11, 1997; the Senate version was
passed by the Senate on June 17, 1997. Conference began on July 30, 1997.
Conference report was approved by the Committee on March 10, 1998. President
vetoed measure on October 21, 1998.
H.R. 1235 (Smith, C)
A bill to authorize appropriations for the Department of State and related
agencies for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, and for other purposes. Introduced April 9,
1997. Referred to the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.
Marked up April 19. Forwarded to full Committee on International Relations on April
10, 1997. Subsumed by H.R. 1486.
For Additional Reading
Department of Justice
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Issue Brief 90078. Crime Control: The Federal Response, by Suzanne
Cavanagh.
CRS Issue Brief 95025. Drug Supply Control: Current Legislation, by David Teasley.
CRS Issue Brief 92061. Prisons: Policy Options for Congress, by JoAnne O’Bryant.
CRS Reports
CRS Report 97-196. The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program:
An Overview, by David Teasley and JoAnne O’Bryant.
CRS Report 97-265. Crime Control Assistance through the Byrne Programs, by
Garrine Laney.
CRS Report 94-910. Crime Control: Summary of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, Charles Doyle, coordinator.
CRS Report 98-622. Federal Crime Control Assistance to State and Local
Governments: Department of Justice, by Suzanne Cavanagh and David Teasley
.

---

CRS-54
CRS Report 98-414. Community Anti-Crime Weed and Seed Program: Current
Developments, by Suzanne Cavanagh and David Teasley.
CRS Report 98-167. Youth Gangs: Recent Developments, by Suzanne Cavanagh.
CRS Report 98-934. Juvenile Justice: Funding Trends for Selected Programs, by
Suzanne Cavanagh and David Teasley.
CRS Report 98-95. Juvenile Justice Act Reauthorization: the Current Debate, by
Suzanne Cavanagh and David Teasley.
CRS Report 98-565. Drug Courts: An Overview, by Suzanne Cavanagh and David
Teasley.
CRS Report 98-498. Federal Drug Control Budget: An Overview, by David Teasley.
CRS Report 97-87. Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program, by David
Teasley.
CRS Report 97-248. Prison Grant Programs, by JoAnne O’Bryant.
CRS Report 95-921. Violence Against Women: Federal Funding and Recent
Developments, by Leslie W. Gladstone. .
CRS Report 95-1158. Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund: An Overview, by David
Teasley.
CRS Report 98-269. Immigration and Naturalization Service’s FY1999 Budget, by
William J. Krouse.
CRS Report 98-237. Civil Rights Enforcement: Proposed FY1999 Appropriations,
by Leslie W. Gladstone.
Department of Commerce
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Issue Brief 95100. Economic Development Administration: Overview and
Issues, by Bruce K. Mulock.
CRS Issue Brief 95051. The National Information Infrastructure: The Federal Role,
by Glenn J. McLoughlin.
CRS Issue Brief 97023. Research and Development Funding: Fiscal Year 1998, by
Michael E. Davey.
CRS Reports
CRS Report 95-36. The Advanced Technology Program, by Wendy H. Schacht.

---

CRS-55
CRS Report 97-137. Census 2000: The Sampling Debate, by Jennifer D. Williams.
CRS Report 98-321. Census 2000: Sampling as an Appropriations Issue in the 105th
Congress, by Jennifer D. Williams.
CRS Report 96-537. Department of Commerce Science and Technology Programs:
Impacts of Dismantling Proposals, by Lennard G. Kruger.
CRS Report 97-126. Federal R&D Funding Trends In Five Agencies: NSF, NASA,
NIST, DOE (Civilian) and NOAA, by Michael E. Davey.
CRS Report 97-104. Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program: An Overview,
by Wendy H. Schacht.
CRS Report 95-30. The National Institute of Standards and Technology: An
Overview, by Lennard G. Kruger and Wendy H. Schacht.
CRS Report 95-834. Proposals to Eliminate the U.S. Department of Commerce: An
Issue Overview, by Edward Knight.
The Judiciary
CRS Report 98-187. Judicial Reform Act of 1998, H.R. 1252, 105 Congress,
th
by
Paul L. Morgan
CRS Report 98-510. Judicial Nominations by President Clinton During the 103rd-
105th Congresses, by Denis Steven Rutkus.
U.S. Administrative Office of the United States Courts. “Omnibus Appropriations
Bill a Mixed Bag for Judiciary,” The Third Branch, vol. 30, November 1998, pp.
1,5.
U.S. Judicial Conference of the United States. Report to Congress on the Optimal
Utilization of Judicial Resources. Washington, Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts, January 1998. 62 pages. [http://www.uscourts.gov]
U.S. Supreme Court of the United States. 1997 Year-End Report of the Federal
Judiciary [by] Chief Justice William Rehnquist. [http://www.uscourts.gov]
Department of State
CRS Report 98-642. State Department and Related Agencies FY1999
Appropriations, by Susan Epstein.
CRS Report 98-771. Embassy Security: Background, Funding, and FY1998
Supplemental Request, by Susan B. Epstein.

---

CRS-56
CRS Report 97-711. U. N. Funding, Payment of Arrears and Linkage to Reform:
Legislation in the 105 Congress,
th
By Vita Bite, Marjorie Ann Brown, and Lois
McHugh.
CRS Report 97-538. Foreign Policy Agency Reorganization in the 105th Congress,
by Susan B. Epstein, Larry Q. Nowels, and Steven A. Hildreth.
CRS Report 97-384. Foreign Affairs Budget for FY1998: Understanding the
Numbers and Assessing the Request, by Larry Nowels.
CRS Report 97-750. Foreign Relations Authorizations: A Comparison of House and
Senate Selected Provisions of H.R. 1757, by Susan B. Epstein.
CRS Report 97-432. State Department and Related Agencies FY1998 Appropriations,
by Susan B. Epstein.
CRS Report 98-123. Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for FY1998, by
Larry Nowels.
Other Related Agencies
CRS Report 95-178. Legal Services Corporation: Basic Facts and Current Status,
by Karen Spar.
CRS Report 96-649. Small Business Administration: Overview and Issues, by Bruce
K. Mulock.

---

CRS-57
Selected World Wide Web Sites
House Committee on Appropriations
[http://www.house.gov/appropriations]
Senate Committee on Appropriations
[http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/]
CRS Appropriations Products Guide
[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html#la]
Congressional Budget Office
[http://www.cbo.gov]
General Accounting Office
[http://www.gao.gov]
Office of Management & Budget
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/html/ombhome.html]

---

CRS-58
Appendix
Table 1A. Appropriations Funding for Departments of Commerce, Justice, and
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, FY1998 and FY1999
(in millions of dollars)*
Final
FY1999
House Bill
Senate Bill
Department or Agency
FY1998
Enacted
Request
H.R. 4276
S. 2260
H.R. 4328
Title I. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
4,800.2
4,447.4
4,890.9
4,643.2
4,849.0
(VCRTF funds only)1
(3,812.4)
(3,829.4)
(3,794.4)
(3,564.6)
(3,800.0)
Legal Activities
2,509.7
2,931.2
2,629.0
2,638.2
2,637.5
(VCRTF funds only)1
(96.3)
(88.6)
(84.9)
(0.0)
(114.4)
Interagency Law Enforcement
295.0
304.0
304.0
295.0
304.0
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
2,974.5
3,032.5
2,977.3
2,956.5
2,971.4
(VCRTF funds only)1
(179.1)
(215.3)
(215.4)
(433.1)
(223.4)
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
1,135.4
1,178.3
1,209.3
1,217.1
1,213.8
(VCRTF funds only)
1
(403.5)
(405.0)
(405.0)
(407.0)
(405.0)
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
2,342.1
2,723.5
2,567.6
2,380.2
2,554.3
(VCRTF funds only)1
(608.2)
(738.0)
(866.5)
(1,099.7)
(842.5)
Federal Prison System
3,404.9
3,357.1
3,320.9
3,298.7
3.299.9
(VCRTF funds only)1
(26.1)
(26.6)
(26.5)
(9.6)
(26.5)
General Provisions
—
—
—
6.0
-20.0
Other
302.8
537.9
349.3
365.2
404.0
(VCRTF funds only)1
(59.3)
(151.1)
(59.3)
(0.0)
(59.3)
Total: Justice Department
17,764.5
18,511.8
18,230.2
17,800.1
18,214.0
(VCRTF funds only)1
(5,185.0)
(5,454.0)
(5,452.0)
(5,514.0)
(5,471.1)
Title II. Department of Commerce and Related Agencies
General Administration
47.6
53.8
50.3
51.0
51.0
Bureau of Census
693.1
1,188.0
1,252.0
1,139.9
1,323.0
Economic and Statistical Analysis
47.5
53.7
48.0
49.0
48.5
International Trade Administration
283.1
286.4
281.5
303.3
284.7
Bureau of Export Administration
43.9
52.2
47.8
45.5
52.3
Minority Business Development Agency
25.0
28.1
25.3
25.2
27.0
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
2,002.1
2,110.5
2,009.9
2,201.2
2,166.0
Patent and Trademark Office
27.02
(-116.3)3
(-41.0)
0.0
(-71)
Technology Administration
8.5
10.0
9.0
10.0
9.5
National Institute of Standards and
677.8
715.0
624.2
646.3
647.1
Technology

---

CRS-59
Final
FY1999
House Bill
Senate Bill
Department or Agency
FY1998
Enacted
Request
H.R. 4276
S. 2260
H.R. 4328
National Telecommunications and Information
Administration
57.5
47.9
47.9
51.8
50.0
Economic Development Administration
361.0
398.0
393.4
301.7
392.4
Rescissions
(-23.5)
(-116.3)
(-46.0)
(0.0)
(-71.0)
Subtotal: Commerce Department
4,250.8
4,827.3 4
4,814.3
4,821.8
5,051.5
Related Agencies
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
23.4
24.8
24.0
24.8
24.2
International Trade Commission
41.2
45.5
44.2
45.5
44.5
Subtotal: Related Agencies
64.6
70.3
68.2
70.3
68.7
Total: Dept. of Commerce and Related
Agencies
4,315.4
4,897.6 4
4,882.5
4,892.1
5,120.2
Title III. Judiciary
Supreme Court
32.6.
37.0
36.5
36.9
36.5
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
15.6
16.8
16.1
15.6
16.1
U.S. Court of International Trade
11.5
11.8
11.8
11.5
11.8
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, other
judicial services — salaries and expenses
2,722.3
3,008.7
2,908.3
2,808.5
2,862.9
(VCRTF funds only)1
(40.0)
(27.1)
(60.0)
(0.0)
(41.0)
Defender Services
329.5
361.0
361.0
361.0
361.0
(VCRTF funds only)1
(0)
(30.9)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners
64.4
68.1
67.0
68.7
66.9
(VCRTF funds only)1
(0.0)
(1.4)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
Court Security
167.2
179.1
174.1
176.9
174.6
(VCRTF funds only)1
(0.0)
(0.5)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
52.0
56.2
54.5
54.7
54.5
Federal Judicial Center
17.5
18.5
18.0
17.7
17.9
Retirement Funds
34.2
37.3
37.3
37.3
37.3
U.S. Sentencing Commission
9.2
9.9
9.6
9.4
9.5
Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
General Provisions—Judge’s Pay Raise
5.0
0.0
0.0
6.9
0.0
Total: Judiciary
3,463.6
3,806.9
3,696.8
3,607.6
3,651.1
(VCRTF funds only)1
(40.0)
(60.0)
(60.0)
(0.0)
(41.0)

---

CRS-60
Final
FY1999
House Bill
Senate Bill
Department or Agency
FY1998
Enacted
Request
H.R. 4276
S. 2260
H.R. 4328
Title IV. Department of State and Related Agencies
Administration of Foreign Affairs5
2,773.7
3,014.9
2,693.6
2,897.8
2,676.8
International Organizations and Conferences
1,211.5
1,138.0
1,609.0
1,562.8
1.628.0
International Commissions
44.0
46.7
45.5
44.0
45.8
Other
8.0
15.0
8.2
0.0
8.2
Subtotal: State Department
4,037.3
4,714.6
4,356.3
4,504.6
4,358.8
Related Agencies
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency5
41.5
43.4
41.5
43.4
41.5
U.S. Information Agency (USIA)5
Salaries and Expenses
427.1
461.7
457.1
427.1
455.2
Education and Cultural Exchange
197.7
199.0
200.0
205.0
202.5
International Broadcasting
391.5
388.7
384.0
355.0
384.5
National Endowment for Democracy
30.0
31.0
31.0
30.5
31.0
Other
59.6
38.9
17.3
34.2
28.4
Total: USIA
1,105.9
1,119.3
1,089.4
1,051.8
1,101.6
Subtotal: Related Agencies
1,147.4
1,162.7
1,130.9
1,095.2
1,143.1
Total: State Department and Related
Agencies
5,184.0
5,877.4
5,487.2
5,599.8
5,501.9

---

CRS-61
Final
FY1999
House Bill
Senate Bill
Department or Agency
FY1998
Enacted
Request
H.R. 4276
S. 2260
H.R. 4328
Title V. Other Related Agencies
Maritime Administration
138.8
178.2
175.0
177.5
166.7
Small Business Administration
716.1
724.4
706.1
613.6
719.0
Legal Services Corporation
283.0
340.0
250.0
300.0
300.0
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC)
242.0
279.0
260.5
253.6
279.0
Commission on Civil Rights
8.7
11.0
8.7
8.9
8.9
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
23.9
40.46
9.0
25.4
19.5
Federal Maritime Commission
14.0
14.5
14.0
14.3
14.1
Federal Trade Commission
18.5
101.2
4.0
3.2
10.2
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
33.5
341.1
324.0
0.0
324.0
State Justice Institute
6.8
12.0
6.8
6.8
6.8
Ocean Policy Commission
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
3.5
Other
4.0
2.2
2.7
2.6
2.7
Total: Related Agencies
1,489.5
2,044.4
1,762.9
1,409.4
1,856.4
Adjustments
(-93.0)7
(-45.3)8
(-62.4)9
(-70.3)10
(-143.8)11
GRAND TOTAL:
32,086.0
34,443.8 4
33,473.2
33,162.4
33,693.3
(VCRTF funds only)1
(5,225.0)
(5,514.0)
(5,511.9)
5,514.0
5,512.0
*Figures are for direct appropriations only; in some cases, agencies supplement these amount with offsetting fee collections,
including collections carried over from previous years. These agencies include: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Patent
and Trademark Office, Small Business Administration, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, and
the Securities and Exchange Commission. Information on such fees are contained in the background and issues sections of this
report.
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Funds from
1
the Violent Crime Reduction Programs (VCRTF) are provided as a subtotal in parentheses. These are included in
the overall total for each federal agency.
The
2
Patent Office is fully funded by user fees collected from customers. Congress, however, appropriated $27 million from the
surcharge account. For more explanation see page 21 of this report.
3 The Patent Office is fully funded by user fees collected from customers. The $116.3 million figure is the Administration’s
estimate of the amount to be remitted to the U.S. Treasury that will not be utilized by the Patent Office.

4 This total does not include $2,912.8 million in advance appropriations: the National Institute of Standards and Technology ($115
million) and National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration ($2,797.8 million).

5 For FY1998, numbers have been adjusted to reflect a one-time transfer authority from State’s Diplomatic and Consular Programs
to agencies that have representation in State’s embassies abroad for cost sharing purposes.

6 The President’s FY1999 budget requests a direct appropriation of $213.0 million for the FCC. Under the request, regulatory fees
of $172.5 million collected in FY1999 would not be available as an offsetting collection to the appropriation but would become
available only on October 1, 1999 (FY2000). The amount of $40.4 million, shown above, is the difference between the requested
direct appropriation of $213 million and the regulatory fee collection amount of $173.5 million treated as an offset.

7 Includes a recission of $100 million for the Department of Justice Working Capital fund and a $7 million emergency supplemental
appropriation for NOAA.
A recission for the Department of Justice Working Capital fund.
8

9 Includes recission s of $45.3 million for the Department of Justice Working Capital fund and $17 million in the United States
trustee system fund.

---

CRS-62

10 Includes rescissions of $45.3 million for the Department of Justice Working Capital fund, $22.9 million for the FBI, and $2.1
million for the Department of Commerce.
Includes rescissions of $99 million for the Departme
11
nt of Justice Working Capital fund, $2 million for the assets forfeiture fund
of the Department of Justice, $12.7 million for the FBI, $5 million for the Immigration emergency fund of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, $2.1 million in FY1998 funding for the Department of Commerce, $6 million for industrial technology
services of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and $17 million from the ship construction fund of the Maritime
Administration.
Source: Congressional Record. Vol 144, October 20, 1998, pp. H11603-11612.

---