Order Code RL32905
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Transportation, the Treasury, Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, the District of
Columbia, the Executive Office of the President,
and Independent Agencies:
FY2006 Appropriations
Updated November 7, 2005
David Randall Peterman and John Frittelli
Coordinators
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service { The Library of Congress

---

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bound by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current
program authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers each
year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the Subcommittee on
Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of
Columbia of the House Committee on Appropriations, and by the Subcommittee on
Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. 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://beta.crs.gov/cli/level_2.aspx?PRDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=
73].

---

Transportation, the Treasury, Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia,
the Executive Office of the President, and
Independent Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations
Summary
At the beginning of the 109th Congress, both the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations reorganized their subcommittee structure, affecting the coverage
of the FY2006 appropriations bills. As a result of this change, the appropriations bill
that formerly provided funding for the Departments of Transportation and the
Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, and Independent Agencies now
includes funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
Judiciary, and (in the case of the House, but not the Senate) the District of Columbia.
The Bush Administration requested $126.1 billion for these programs for
FY2006, a slight decrease from the comparable figure of $127.7 billion for FY2005
(after a 0.83% across-the-board rescission that was included in the FY2005 Omnibus
Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-447). Cuts were proposed for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development ($2.8 billion, or 9%, below the FY2005 level) and
the Department of Transportation ($1.4 billion, or 2%, below the FY2005 level). The
reduction in the request for the Executive Office of the President was largely due to
the transfer of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program to another agency.
The House-passed version of H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Departments of
Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary,
District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill, provided $140.0
billion for FY2006, $6.5 billion (5%) over comparable FY2005 enacted levels and
$9.7 billion (7%) over the Administration’s request. The House did not support most
of the Administration’s requested changes, while providing significant increases for
aviation, highway and transit programs (reflecting the guaranteed authorization levels
for these programs), Amtrak, rental subsidies for the poor, and housing for Native
Americans. The House also provided that the federal civilian workforce receive the
same raise (3.1%) as that requested for the uniformed military for calendar year 2006,
and that restrictions on agricultural exports to Cuba be eased. Three amendments
— one requiring revision of the A-76 Circular governing outsourcing of federal
work, one nullifying a Federal Aviation Administration contract to privatize flight
service stations, and one easing restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba —
drew veto threats from the Administration.
The Senate-passed version of H.R. 3058 provided $142.0 billion. The Senate
Committee also did not support most of the Administration’s requested changes,
while also providing significant increases for several programs. The bill included
provisions that would restrict outsourcing of federal work and ease restrictions on
U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba. Several provisions, including Amtrak and highway
funding levels and easing restrictions on agricultural exports to Cuba, drew veto
threats from the Administration. This report will be updated.

---

Key Policy Staff
CRS
Telephone
Area of Expertise
Name
Div.
#
Title I: Department of Transportation
Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation
Administration
Bart Elias
RSI
7-7771
Airport Improvement Program, Transportation
Infrastructure Policy, Transportation Trust
Funds
John Fischer
RSI
7-7766
Federal Railroad Administration; Maritime
Administration; Surface Transportation Board
John Frittelli
RSI
7-7033
Airport Improvement Program, Federal
Highway Administration
Bob Kirk
RSI
7-7769
Amtrak Federal Transit Administration, High-
Speed Rail
Randy Peterman
RSI
7-3267
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Surface Transportation Safety
Paul Rothberg
RSI
7-7012
Title II: Department of the Treasury
Treasury, Internal Revenue Service
Gary Guenther
G&F
7-7742
Financial Center (FINCEN)
William Jackson
G&F
7-7834
Title III: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Low-income housing programs and issues and
general HUD: Section 8, Public Housing,
HOPE VI, HOME
Maggie McCarty
DSP
7-2163
Community Development programs and
Eugene Boyd
DSP
7-8689
issues: Community Development Block Grants
(CDBG), EZ/EC, Brownfields redevelopment
Housing programs and issues for special
Libby Perl
DSP
7-7806
populations: Elderly (202), Disabled (811),
Homeless, AIDS housing
Homeownership and other housing issues:
FHA, Rural, Indian housing, Fair Housing
Bruce Foote
G&F
7-7805
Title IV: The Judiciary
Judiciary
Steve Rutkus
G&F
7-7162
Judiciary
Lorraine Tong
G&F
7-5846
Title V: District of Columbia
District of Columbia
Eugene Boyd
G&F
7-8689
Title VI: Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the President
Executive Office of the President
Barbara Schwemle
G&F
7-8655

---

CRS
Telephone
Area of Expertise
Name
Div.
#
Title VII: Independent Agencies
Generally
Virginia McMurtry
G&F
7-8678
Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board
Nancy Jones
ALD
7-6976
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Bruce Mulock
G&F
7-7775
Election Assistance Commission
Kevin Coleman
G&F
7-7878
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: OIG
Pauline Smale
G&F
7-7832
Federal Election Commission
Joe Cantor
G&F
7-7876
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Gerald Mayer
DSP
7-7815
Federal Maritime Commission
John Frittelli
RSI
7-7033
General Services Administration
Stephanie Smith
G&F
7-8674
National Transportation Safety Board
Bart Elias
RSI
7-7771
Merit Systems Protection Board
Barbara Schwemle
G&F
7-8655
National Archives; E-Government Fund in
GSA
Harold Relyea
G&F
7-8679
Office of Personnel Management; Office of
Special Counsel
Barbara Schwemle
G&F
7-8655
National Credit Union Administration
Pauline Smale
G&F
7-7832
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
Eugene Boyd
G&F
7-8689
Robert Goldich
7-7633
Selective Service Commission
David Burelli
FDT
7-8033
United States Interagency Council on
Homelessness
Maggie McCarty
DSP
7-2163
US Postal Service
Nye Stevens
G&F
7-0208
Title IX: General Provisions, Government-Wide
Government-wide General Provisions
Barbara Schwemle
G&F
7-8655
Competitive Sourcing
L. Elaine Halchin
G&F
7-0646
Cuba
Mark Sullivan
FDT
7-7689
ALD = American Law Division
DSP = Domestic Social Policy Division
FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
G&F= Government & Finance Division
RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

---

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Title I: Transportation Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Amtrak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Airport Improvement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Essential Air Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Surface Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Maritime Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Title II: Treasury Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Department of the Treasury Budget and Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Title III: Department of Housing and Urban Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget and
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Community and Economic Development Programs
Consolidation Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Section 8 Voucher Funding Level and Reform Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Section 811 Housing for the Disabled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
HOPE VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
New FHA Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Title IV: The Judiciary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
The Judiciary Budget and Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
FY2006 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
House Committee Markup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
House Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Senate Committee Markup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Senate Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other
Judicial Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Court Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Defender Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Title V: District of Columbia Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
District of Columbia Budget and Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
District Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
House Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Senate Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Senate Bill General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

---

Title VI: Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the
President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Executive Office of the President Budget and Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . 33
Title VII: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Independent Agencies Budget and Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Merit Systems Protection Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Office of Personnel Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Office of Special Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Federal Election Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
General Services Administration (GSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Electronic Government Fund (E-gov Fund) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) . . . . . . . . . . 42
Postal Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Titles VIII and IX: General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Cuba Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2006 Departments of Transportation, the Treasury, and
Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia,
the Executive Office of the President, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations, by Title,
FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 3: Funding Trends for Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations,
FY2001-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 4. Title I: Department of Transportation Appropriations,
FY2005 to FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 5. Title II: Department of the Treasury Appropriations,
FY2005 to FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 6. Title III: Housing and Urban Development Appropriations,
FY2005 to FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 7. Title IV: The Judiciary Appropriations,
FY2005 to FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 8. Title V: District of Columbia Appropriations,
FY2005 to FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 9. Title VI (House) V (Senate): Executive Office of the President (EOP)
and Funds Appropriated to the President Appropriations,
FY2005 to FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 10. Title VII: Independent Agencies Appropriations,
FY2005 to FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 11. General Services Administration Appropriations,
FY2005 to FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

---

Transportation, the Treasury, Housing and
Urban Development, the Judiciary, the
District of Columbia, the Executive Office of
the President, and Independent Agencies:
FY2006 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On November 2, 2005, the House Committee on Appropriations published a
revised suballocation of budget allocations for FY2006 (H.Rept. 109-264). Among
the changes made by this report were a reduction in the suballocation (“302(b)
allocation”) for the House Appropriations Committee Transportation-Treasury-HUD-
The Judiciary-DC Subcommittee. The revised suballocation for discretionary budget
authority is $65.9 billion, $1 billion less than the previous suballocation (and $1
billion less than the discretionary funding level in the House-passed version of H.R.
3058, the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban
Development, The Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations bill).1
On October 20, 2005, the Senate passed H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Departments
of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary,
District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. The Senate
added the text of S. 1446, the Senate’s FY2006 appropriations bill for the District of
Columbia, to the bill, and approved an overall funding level of $141.6 billion, 6%
more than provided in FY2005 and 9% more than the Administration request. The
Senate bill includes provisions that would restrict outsourcing of federal work and
ease restrictions on agricultural exports to Cuba.
On June 30, 2005, the House passed H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Departments of
Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary,
District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. The House
approved an overall funding level of $139.1 billion, a 6% increase over comparable
FY2005 funding and a 7% increase over the Administration’s request. The House
approved the Appropriations Committee’s recommendations to provide the same pay
raise (3.1%) to federal civilian workers as that requested for uniformed military
personnel for calendar year 2006, and to ease restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports
to Cuba. The House approved several amendments to the bill, including ones
1 Much of the funding in the annual Transportation-Treasury-the Judiciary-HUD
appropriations bill is not in the form of discretionary budget authority, thus the total funding
level is much higher than the discretionary funding level.

---

CRS-2
increasing funding for Amtrak and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and restricting outsourcing of federal work.
Overview
The President’s FY2006 request for the programs covered by this appropriations
bill was $126.1 billion. This was $1.6 billion (1%) below the FY2005 enacted level
of $127.7 billion (after a 0.83% rescission). The FY2006 request included cuts from
the FY2005 funding level for the Department of Housing and Urban Development
($2.8 billion, a 9% reduction) and the Department of Transportation ($1.4 billion, a
2% reduction). The FY2006 request for the Executive Office of the President was
$300 million less than the FY2005 figure; that reduction was largely due to the
proposed transfer of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program ($227
million in FY2005) from the Executive Office of the President to the Department of
Justice, and to an FY2005 supplemental appropriation of $70 million to the
Executive Office of the President (P.L. 108-324) for unanticipated needs (for
hurricane disaster relief assistance through the American Red Cross).
The President’s FY2006 budget request proposals included:
! zeroing out of funding for Amtrak, the provider of intercity
passenger rail service, which received $1.2 billion in FY2005;
! reducing funding for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) to $3.0 billion, $600 million
below its ‘guaranteed’ authorization level, which would make the
entire appropriations bill subject to a point of order. The proposed
level is also below the AIP formula threshold of $3.2 billion, which
could result in a halving of most AIP formula distributions;
! eliminating the community and economic development programs
under the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
along with those of several other agencies, and replace them with a
new program administered by the Department of Commerce. The
proposed funding for the new program is $1.9 billion (34%) less
than the aggregate FY2005 funding for the programs proposed for
elimination (reduced from $5.6 billion for FY2005 to $3.7 billion for
FY2006);
! reducing the funding for housing for disabled persons under HUD
by $118 million (50%), from $238 million for FY2005 to $120
million for FY2006;
! eliminating the annual $29 million payment to the United States
Postal Service for revenue forgone, as well as the absence of any
funding requested for Postal Service security measures.
Neither the House nor the Senate supported most of these proposed changes.
The House-passed version of H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Departments of Transportation,
Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary, District of Columbia,
and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill, provided $140.0 billion, $6.5 billion
(5%) over comparable FY2005 enacted levels and $9.7 billion (7%) over the
Administration’s request. The bill generally reflected the House Committee on
Appropriations recommendations, including the overall funding level; the House did

---

CRS-3
approve amendments increasing Amtrak’s FY2006 funding from $550 million to
almost $1.2 billion, delete the House Committee’s provision barring federal
assistance for Amtrak’s routes whose subsidy per passenger exceeds $30, and
approve amendments increasing funding for several programs within the Department
of Housing and Urban Development. The White House objected to several
provisions in the bill, and issued a veto threat against a provision easing a restriction
on agricultural exports to Cuba.2
The Senate-passed version of H.R. 3058, to which was added S. 1446, the
FY2006 appropriations bill for the District of Columbia, provided $142.0 billion.
The bill generally reflected the Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommendations, including the overall funding level; among the amendments
approved by the Senate were amendments deleting Senate Appropriations Committee
provisions which restricted Amtrak service and allowed Amtrak to charge commuter
authorities for track access, and an amendment limiting the use of eminent domain
powers by public authorities for economic development projects that result in
primarily private gain. The White House objected to several provisions in the bill,
and issued veto threats against some of them.3
In early 2005, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations reorganized
their subcommittee structures. The House Committee on Appropriations reduced its
number of subcommittees to ten. This change combined the Transportation,
Treasury, and Independent Agencies subcommittee with the District of Columbia
subcommittee; to the resulting subcommittee, jurisdiction over appropriations for the
Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Judiciary as well as several
additional independent agencies was also added.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reduced its number of subcommittees
to twelve. The Senate also added jurisdiction over appropriations for the Department
of Housing and Urban Development and the Judiciary to the Transportation,
Treasury, and Independent Agencies subcommittee; the Senate retained a separate
District of Columbia Appropriations subcommittee. As a result, the area of coverage
of the House and Senate subcommittees with jurisdiction over this appropriations bill
are almost, but not quite, identical; the major difference being that in the Senate the
appropriations for the District of Columbia originate in a separate bill. This report
will follow the organization of the House Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury,
and Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary, District of Columbia.
Table 1 notes the status of the FY2006 Transportation, the Treasury, et al.
appropriations bill.
2 White House, Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 3058, June 29, 2005.
3 White House, Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 3058, October 19, 2005.

---

CRS-4
Table 1. Status of FY2006 Departments of Transportation, the
Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary,
the District of Columbia, the Executive Office of the President,
and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Conference
Subcommittee
Report
Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
Report Passage
Report
Passage Report
Approval
Law
House
Senate
House Senate
H.Rept.
S.Rept.
6/30/05
10/20/05
6/15/05 7/19/05 109-153
109-109
405-18
93-1
6/21/05
7/21/05
Table 2 lists the total funding provided for each of the nine titles in the bill (the
last two titles cover general provisions affecting this bill and general provisions
affecting the entire federal government) for FY2005 and the amount requested for
that title for FY2006.
Table 2. Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations, by Title,
FY2005-FY2006
(millions of dollars)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Title
House
Senate
Enacted*
Request
Passed
Passed
Title I: Department of Transportation
$59,724
$58,297
$63,469
$64,238
Title II: Department of the Treasury
11,213
11,649
11,529
11,698
Title III: Housing and Urban
Development
31,915
29,147
33,671
34,759
Title IV: The Judiciary
5,426
5,971
5,768
5,778
Title V: District of Columbia
556
573
603
593
Title VI: Executive Office of the
President
834
525
779
731
Title VII: Independent Agencies
19,756
19,948
19,967
19,987
Title VIII-IX: General Provisions
(125)
—
—
—
Total
133,499
130,310
139,986
141,984
Source: Budget table provided by the House Committee on Appropriations, except Senate figures from budget
table in S.Rept. 109-109. “Total” is from “Net total budgetary resources” line in budget table and does not reflect
scorekeeping adjustments, though the figures for titles do reflect scorekeeping. Totals may not add due to
rounding and scorekeeping adjustments.
*The FY2005 Omnibus appropriations bill contained an across-the-board rescission of 0.83%; that rescission
is reflected in these figures.
Table 3 shows funding trends over the five-year period FY2001-FY2005, and
the amounts requested for FY2006, for the titles in the bill. All of the agencies
generally experienced funding increases during the period FY2001-FY2005.

---

CRS-5
Table 3: Funding Trends for Transportation/Treasury et al.
Appropriations, FY2001-FY2006
(billions of current dollars)
FY2006
Department
FY2001c
FY2002
FY2003d
FY2004e
FY2005f
Request
Title I: Transportationa
$51.9
$57.4
$55.7
$58.4
$59.6
$58.2
Title II: Treasuryb
9.9
10.5
10.8
11.1
11.2
11.6
Title III: Housing and
Urban Development
28.5
30.2
31.0
31.2
31.9
29.1
Title IV: Judiciary
4.3
4.7
5.4
5.2
5.4
6.0
Title V: District of
Columbia
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
Title VI: Executive
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.5
Office of the President
Title VII: Independent
—
—
—
—
19.8
19.9
Agencies
Source: United States House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Comparative Statement of
Budget Authority tables from fiscal years 2001 through 2006.
a. Figures for Department of Transportation appropriations for FY2001-FY2003 have been adjusted for
comparison with FY2004 and later figures by subtracting the United States Coast Guard, the
Transportation Security Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, and by adding the Maritime Administration.
b. Figures for Department of the Treasury appropriations for FY2001-FY203 have been adjusted for comparison
with FY2004 and later figures by subtracting the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; the Customs
Service; the United States Secret Service; and the Law Enforcement Training Center.
c. FY2001 figures reflect 0.22% across-the-board rescission.
d. FY2003 figures reflect 0.65% across-the-board rescission.
e. FY2004 figures reflect 0.59% across-the-board rescission.
f. FY2005 figures reflect 0.83% across-the-board rescission.

---

CRS-6
Title I: Transportation Appropriations
Table 4. Title I: Department of Transportation Appropriations,
FY2005 to FY2006
(in millions of dollars — totals may not add)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Department or Agency (Selected Accounts)
House
Senate
Enacteda
Request
Passed
Passed
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
$238
$209
$198
$223
Essential Air Serviceb
52
—
54
60
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
13,549
12,710
14,631
13,610
Operations (trust fund & general fund)
7,713
8,201
8,397
8,176
Facilities & Equipment (F&E) (trust fund)
2,525
2,448
3,053
2,448
Grant-in-aid Airports (AIP) (trust fund)
(limit. on oblig.)
3,517
3,000
3,620
3,520
Research, Engineering & Development
(trust fund)
130
130
130
135
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
35,834
35,439
37,026
38,713
(Limitation on Obligations)
34,422
34,700
36,287
40,194
(Exempt Obligations)
739
739
739
739
Additional funds (trust fund)
735
—
—
—
Additional funds (general fund)
1,315
—
—
80
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA)
444
465
501
490
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA)
454
696
782
779
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
1,432
552
1,332
1,669
Amtrak
1,207
—
1,176
1,450
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
7,646
7,781
8,482
8,209
General Funds
956
956
1,272
1,384
Trust Funds
6,691
6,825
7,210
6,825
St. Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation
16
16
16
16
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
305
294
291
323
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration
69
117
116
116
Pipeline safety program
69
73
73
73
Emergency preparedness grants
14
—
14
14
Research and Innovative Technology
Administration
47
6
4
4
Office of Inspector General
59
62
62
62
Surface Transportation Board
20
23
25
23
Total, Department of Transportation
59,724
58,297
63,469
64,238

---

CRS-7
Note: Figures are from a budget authority table provided by the House Committee on Appropriations, except
Senate Committee figures from budget table in S.Rept. 109-109. Because of differing treatment of offsets, the
totals will not always match the Administration’s totals. The figures within this table may differ slightly from
those in the text due to supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and other funding actions. Columns may not
add due to rounding or exclusion of smaller program line-items.
a. These figures reflect the 0.83% across-the-board rescission included in P.L. 108-447.
b. These amounts are in addition to the $50 million annual authorization for the Essential Air Service program;
thus, the total FY2005 funding would be $102 million ($50 million + $52 million).
Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues4
The President’s budget proposed $58.3 billion for the Department of
Transportation (DOT). This was $1.4 billion (2%) less than the $59.7 billion enacted
for FY2005. The major funding changes requested from FY2005 were in the
requests for Amtrak (no funding requested, resulting in a $1.2 billion (100%)
reduction below FY2005) and in the Federal Aviation Administration’s Airport
Improvement Program ($500 million (14%) below FY2005).
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $62.8 billion for DOT,
$4.4 billion (8%) above the Administration request and $3.0 billion (5%) above
FY2005 funding. The primary changes from the President’s request were additional
funding for the Federal Aviation Administration ($1.2 billion), the Federal Highway
Administration ($1.6 billion), and Federal Transit Administration ($700 million). In
the case of the Federal Aviation Administration, the increase brought the Airport
Improvement Program and Facilities and Equipment Program up to their FY2006
authorized funding levels. In the case of the highway and transit programs, the
increase brought those administrations up to the funding levels authorized in the
House’s version of surface transportation authorization legislation, which is currently
in conference. The Committee also recommended $550 million in passenger rail
funding, more than the Administration requested but less than the $1.2 billion
enacted in FY2005. The House supported the Committee’s recommendations
regarding transportation funding, except that the House voted to add another $550
million for Amtrak (discussed below), which increased the DOT total to $63.5
billion.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $64.2 billion for DOT.
Relative to the House-passed bill, the Senate Committee recommended increases for
the Office of the Secretary, the federal-aid highway program, Amtrak, and the
Maritime Administration, and recommended decreases for the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. The Senate supported the
Committee’s recommendations regarding transportation funding. The Senate did
approve amendments eliminating Senate Appropriations Committee
recommendations to restrict Amtrak service and allow Amtrak to charge commuter
authorities for access to the Northeast Corridor.
The Administration’s budget for DOT identifies three agency-specific goals
influencing the budget request: improving aviation and surface transportation safety
through increased funding for safety programs, improving transportation mobility
4 For more information about Department of Transportation appropriations issues, see CRS
Report RL32945, FY2006 Appropriations for the Department of Transportation.

---

CRS-8
through investments in additional infrastructure and through investments in
technology to increase the effective capacity of the transportation systems, and
improving passenger rail services between cities by restructuring federal intercity
passenger rail policy and its provider, Amtrak.
Amtrak. Amtrak is a quasi-governmental corporation that operates and
maintains rail infrastructure in the northeast and operates passenger rail service
throughout the country. It operates at a deficit and requires federal support to
continue operations. The President’s budget did not request any funding for Amtrak
for FY2006; Amtrak received $1.2 billion in FY2005. The Administration requested
$360 million for the Surface Transportation Board to maintain commuter rail service
that depends on Amtrak services in the event that Amtrak ceases operations during
FY2006. The Administration’s proposal received bipartisan criticism in both the
House and the Senate. The Administration asserted that their reauthorization plan
for Amtrak (109th Congress: H.R. 1713; 108th Congress: S. 1501/H.R. 3211) received
little attention from the 108th Congress, so they requested no FY2006 money for
Amtrak in order to spur congressional reauthorization action.5 Their budget request
asserted that “with no subsidies, Amtrak would quickly enter bankruptcy, which
would likely lead to the elimination of inefficient operations and the reorganization
of the railroad through bankruptcy proceedings.”6 Others are less certain of the
outcome of an Amtrak bankruptcy proceeding.7 The Administration also asserts that
it would support increased funding for intercity passenger rail if significant reforms
are enacted. Some Members of Congress have questioned where that additional
money would come from, given the competing demands from other transportation
modes and from other agencies in the appropriations bill that funds DOT.
The House Committee on the Budget encouraged the House to continue funding
Amtrak8, and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure marked up
H.R. 1630, the Amtrak Reauthorization Act of 2005, on April 27, 2005; it would
authorize $2 billion annually for three years for Amtrak as it is currently structured.
The bill has not been reported out of committee. Similar legislation was reported out
by the Committee during the 108th Congress, but was not acted upon. The Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported out S. 1516, the
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2005 (S.Rept. 109-143) on
October 18, 2005; it would authorize $11 billion for Amtrak over six years and make
changes to Amtrak’s operations. The Senate attached language similar to S. 1516 to
the budget reconciliation bill on November 3, 2005; the amendment was approved
by a vote of 93-6.
5 Norman Mineta, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation, in transcript of
the Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the
Judiciary, and Housing and Urban Development, Hearing on FY2006 Appropriations.
6 Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2006, p. 243.
7 Government Accountability Office, Intercity Passenger Rail: Potential Financial Issues
in the Event that Amtrak Undergoes Liquidation, GAO-02-871, September 2002; CRS
Report RL31550, Railroad Reorganization Under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code: Implications
of a Filing by Amtrak.
8 H.Rept. 109-17, on the FY2006 Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 95), 30.

---

CRS-9
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $550 million for grants
to Amtrak for FY2006. The Committee also established a financial performance
measure for Amtrak’s individual routes. Routes requiring a federal subsidy greater
than $30 per passenger would no longer be eligible for federal support. The
Committee noted that the states served by these routes could provide the funding
needed to support the routes; otherwise, the routes would be eliminated. This would
have affected Amtrak’s long-distance routes and a few corridor routes, affecting
service to 23 states. In a press release describing the bill’s Amtrak provisions, the
Committee wrote that the bill “fully supports rail service for ... 80 percent of
Amtrak’s ridership.”9 Amtrak’s President, David Gunn, noting that Amtrak would
owe employees $1.4 billion over three years in severance payments if the long-
distance trains were eliminated,10 asserted the Committee’s recommended funding
would lead to an Amtrak shutdown, because the company could not meet debt
service, pay its obligations to the railroad retirement fund and make required
payments to the workers it would have to lay off.11
In testimony before a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee in May 2005, the
Inspector General of the Department of Transportation testified that Amtrak needed
between $1.4 and $1.5 billion in federal funding for FY2006, and noted that even a
federal funding level of $1.2 billion, equal to the FY2005 level, would almost
certainly lead to very significant cuts in service.12 The Inspector General also
testified that eliminating Amtrak’s long-distance trains would not reduce Amtrak’s
costs quickly:
It’s important to appreciate that while [long-distance trains] are highly
subsidized and often inefficient, their total elimination will not come close to
making ends meet. Savings ultimately would be in the neighborhood of around
$300 million, and the savings would not be immediate due to the need for labor
severance payments.13
In its consideration of H.R. 3058, the House approved two amendments
concerning Amtrak. One amendment, agreed to by voice vote, increased Amtrak’s
FY2006 appropriation from $550 million to $1.176 billion. This is $31 million less
9 House of Representatives, United State Congress. Smarter, More Effective Funding for
A mt r a k. P r e s s R e l e a s e i s s u e d J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 5. [ A va i l a b l e a t
[http://appropriations.house.gov/]
index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=492&Month=6&Year=2
005]
10 Chris Mondics, “Amtrak Chief says ‘Ideologues’ Urging Cuts,” Philadelphia Inquirer,
June 16, 2005, A1.
11 Matthew L. Wald, “National Briefing Washington: Committee Votes To Cut Amtrak
Subsidy “, New York Times, June 16, 2005, A23.
12 Kenneth Mead, Inspector General, United States Department of Transportation, in
transcript of Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the
Judiciary and Housing and Urban Development, Hearing on FY2006 Appropriations, May
12, 2005, published by CQ.
13 Ibid.

---

CRS-10
than the $1.207 Amtrak is receiving in FY2005 (after the 0.83% across-the-board
rescission), and significantly less than the $1.4 billion the DOT IG testified Amtrak
needed in FY2006. But it is $276 million more than the House approved for Amtrak
when it passed the FY2005 appropriations bill for transportation (108th Congress:
H.R. 5025). The other amendment, approved by a vote of 269-152, deleted the
Appropriation Committee’s financial performance requirement for Amtrak’s routes
that would have eliminated federal aid for Amtrak’s long-distance routes.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $1.45 billion for
Amtrak, $243 million over the FY2005 enacted level. The Committee included
several provisions that would affect Amtrak’s operations: a requirement that Amtrak
adopt a managerial cost accounting system that can identify the average and marginal
costs of services provided; a requirement that, beginning six months after adoption
of the FY2006 appropriations act, no federal funding could be used to subsidize
losses on food and beverage service or sleeper car service; and permission to impose
fees on passenger tickets to help fund capital improvements, and on commuter rail
systems using the Northeast Corridor for their share of direct maintenance costs on
the Corridor.
In its consideration of H.R. 3058, the Senate supported the Amtrak funding level
recommended by the Committee on Appropriations. The Senate approved two
amendments deleting some of the Amtrak provisions recommended by the
Committee: one amendment deleted the restriction on food and beverage service and
sleeper car service; the other deleted the permission to impose fees on commuter rail
authorities using the Northeast Corridor. The White House issued a veto threat
against the Senate’s Amtrak funding level in the absence of fundamental reforms to
Amtrak.14
Aviation. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s budget provides both
capital and operating funding for the nation’s air traffic control system, as well as
providing federal grants to airports for airport planning, development, and expansion
of the capacity of the nation’s air traffic infrastructure. The President’s budget
requests $12.7 billion for FY2006, $839 million less than was enacted for FY2005.
The President’s request includes $25 million to hire 1,249 air traffic controllers in
FY2006. This is expected to result in a net gain of around 600 controllers, since
around 650 controllers are expected to leave through attrition.
The House Committee recommended $14.6 billion for FY2006, $1.1 billion
over the level enacted for FY2005 and $1.9 billion over the Administration request.
The increases brought the FAA’s capital programs up to their FY2006 authorized
funding levels. The House supported this recommendation.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $14.3 billion. The
difference from the House-passed level was chiefly in lower funding for operations
and grants-in-aid to airports. The Senate approved the recommended level.
14 White House, Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 3058, October 19, 2005, 1.

---

CRS-11
Airport Improvement Program. The President’s budget proposes a cut to
the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), from $3.5 billion in FY2005 to $3.0 billion
for FY2006. The House provided $3.6 billion, the FY2006 authorized level; the
Senate provided $3.5 billion.
AIP funds are used to provide grants for airport planning and development, and
for projects to increase airport capacity (such as building new runways) and other
facility improvements. Some Members of Congress have questioned AIP cuts at a
time when aviation traffic is finally returning to pre-September 11th volumes and is
expected to continue to grow. Construction of new runways is seen by many as the
best way to alleviate airport congestion. The Administration’s requested $3 billion
for FY2006 is $600 million below the funding level “guaranteed” for FY2006 in the
Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (VISION 100, P.L. 108-176). Section 104
of Vision 100 (49 USC 48114(c)(2)) provides that “it shall not be in order” for
Congress to consider any bill appropriating funding for FAA Operations or Research
and Development accounts if the combined funding for the Grants-in-Aid to Airports
and Facilities and Equipment accounts is below their combined authorization level
for that year. The proposed FY2006 funding level for the Facilities and Equipment
program is $500 million below the level “guaranteed” for FY2006; the combined
FY2006 proposal for the AIP and Facilities and Equipment programs is $5.45 billion,
$1.2 billion below their combined authorized level of $6.65 billion. In addition, the
proposed AIP funding level of $3 billion is below the $3.2 billion threshold set under
AIP distribution formulas in VISION 100; due to a provision in the authorizing
legislation, this shortfall could result in cutting most AIP formula distributions in
half.
The Administration asserts that airports can compensate for the reduction in AIP
funding by increasing their use of passenger facility charges. The Administration
estimates that airports could raise an additional $350 to $400 million annually by
increasing passenger facility fees to the maximum allowed by law. Some Members
of Congress have questioned the wisdom of imposing fee increases on an airline
industry struggling with the impact of high fuel costs.
Essential Air Service. The President’s budget proposes a $52 million (51%)
reduction in funding for the Essential Air Service program, from $102 million
(FY2005) to $50 million. The House Committee on Appropriations recommended
$104 million. The House-passed bill provided $104 million, though the source of
funding for $54 million of that was struck from the bill on a point of order. The
Senate Committee provided $110 million.
This program seeks to preserve air service to small airports in rural communities
by subsidizing the cost of that service. Supporters of the Essential Air Service
program contend that preserving airline service to rural communities was part of the
deal Congress made in exchange for deregulating airline service in 1978, which was
expected to reduce air service to rural areas. Some Members of Congress have
expressed concern that this proposed cut in funding for the Essential Air Service
program could lead to a reduction in the transportation connections of rural
communities. Previous budget requests from the current Administration, as well as
budget requests from the previous Administration, have also proposed reducing
funding to this program.

---

CRS-12
Surface Transportation. The President’s budget requests $35.3 billion for
federal highway programs, slightly less than the $35.7 billion provided for FY2005,
and $7.8 billion for federal transit programs, slightly more than the $7.6 billion
provided for FY2005. The House approved $37.0 billion for federal highway
programs and $8.5 billion for federal transit programs. The Senate approved $40.2
billion for federal highway programs and $8.2 billion for federal transit programs..
The funding authorization for federal highway and transit programs was
increased as a result of passage of H.R. 3, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)(P.L. 109-59). The
Act provides an FY2006 guaranteed authorization of $38.6 billion for the federal
highway program and $8.6 billion for the federal transit programs. The White House
has issued a veto threat against the Senate’s federal highway program funding for
exceeding the authorized level.15
Maritime Administration. The Administration requested $220 million for the
Maritime Administration for FY2006, $85 million (28%) below the $305 million
enacted for FY2005. The major difference was in the National Defense Tanker
Vessel Construction Program; the Administration not only did not request any new
funding for this program, but requested that the $74 million Congress appropriated
in FY2005 for this program be rescinded. The Committee on Appropriations
recommended $291 million; the Committee did not provide any new funding for the
Tanker Vessel Construction Program, but did not rescind the FY2005 funding. The
House supported the Committee’s recommendations. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended $323 million, including $25 million for the Tanker
Vessel Construction Program; the Senate supported that recommendation.
This program is intended to decrease the Department of Defense’s reliance on
foreign-flag oil tankers by supporting the construction of up to five privately-owned
product-tanker vessels in the United States. It would provide up to $50 million per
vessel for the construction, in U.S. shipyards, of commercial tank vessels that are
capable of carrying militarily useful petroleum products and that would be available
for the military’s use in time of war.
Title II: Treasury Appropriations
Department of the Treasury Budget and Key Policy Issues16
In FY2005, Treasury received $11.218 billion in appropriated funds, or 1.3%
more than it received in FY2004. Most of this money (about 92%) was used to
finance the operations of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), whose budget was set
15 White House, Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 3058, October 19, 2005, 1.
16 For more information on the proposed budget for the Treasury, see CRS Report RL32898,
Appropriations for the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service in FY2006:
Issues for Congress.

---

CRS-13
at $10.236 billion. The remaining $929 million was distributed in the following
manner among Treasury’s other bureaus and departmental offices: departmental
offices (which includes the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence or TFI),
$156 million; Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), $22 million; department-
wide systems and capital investments, $32 million; Office of Inspector General, $16
million; Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), $128 million;
Air Transportation Stabilization program, $2 million; Community Development
Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI), $55 million; Treasury building and annex repair
and restoration, $12 million; Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), $72
million; Financial Management Service, $229 million; Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, $82 million; and Bureau of the Public Debt, $174 million. These
amounts reflected the 0.83% across-the-board cut (or rescission) in non-defense
discretionary spending enacted for FY2005.
Table 5. Title II: Department of the Treasury Appropriations,
FY2005 to FY2006
(millions of dollars)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Program or Account
House
Senate
Enacted*
Request
Passed
Passed
Departmental Offices
$156
$195
$157
$198
Office of Foreign Asset Control
22
—
—
—
Department-wide Systems and Capital
Investments
32
24
21
24
Office of Inspector General
16
17
17
17
Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration
128
133
133
133
Air Transportation Stabilization Program
2
3
—
3
Community Development Financial
Institutions Fund
55
8
55
55
Treasury Building and Annex Repair and
Restoration
12
10
10
10
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
72
74
74
74
Financial Management Service
229
236
236
236
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau 82
62
91
91
Bureau of the Public Debt
174
177
177
177
Internal Revenue Service, Total
10,236
10,679
10,556
10,679
Processing, Assistance and
Management
4,057
—
4,182
4,137
Tax Law Enforcement
4,364
—
4,580
4,726
Information Systems
1,578
—
1,575
1,598
Business Systems Modernization
203
199
199
199
Health Insurance Tax Credit
Administration
35
20
20
20

---

CRS-14
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Program or Account
House
Senate
Enacted*
Request
Passed
Passed
Total Appropriations, Dept. of the
Treasury
11,218
11,649
11,529
11,698
Source: Figures are from a budget authority table provided by the House Committee on Appropriations, except
Senate Committee figures are from a budget table in S.Rept. 109-109. Because of differing treatment of offsets,
the totals will not always match the Administration’s totals. The figures within this table may differ slightly from
those in the text due to supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and other funding actions. Columns may not
add due to rounding or exclusion of smaller program line-items.
*FY2005 figures reflect an across-the-board rescission of 0.83%.
For FY2006, the Bush Administration is asking Congress to provide Treasury
with $11.649 billion in appropriated funds, or 3.8% more than the amount enacted
for FY2005 (after allowing for the rescission). Once again, the vast majority of this
budget request would go to the IRS, whose budget would total $10.679 billion. The
remaining funding would be distributed as follows: departmental offices, $195
million; departmental systems and capital investments, $24 million; Office of
Inspector General, $17 million; TIGTA, $133 million; Air Transportation
Stabilization program, $3 million; CDFI, $8 million; Treasury building and annex
repair and restoration, $8 million; FinCEN, $74 million; Financial Management
Service, $236 million; Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, $91 million; and
Bureau of the Public Debt, $177 million. Each account except those for departmental
systems and capital investments, and Treasury building and annex repair and
restoration, would be funded at a higher level than in FY2005. The Administration
also wants funding for OFAC to be treated not as a separate account but as part of the
budget for departmental offices.
According to budget documents released by the Treasury Department, its
FY2006 budget request is intended to achieve a variety of strategic objectives. The
most important appear to be improving taxpayer compliance with tax laws;
modernizing IRS’s computer and management systems; enhancing Treasury’s
capability to analyze and disrupt terrorist financing and other financial crimes;
maintaining and safeguarding the integrity of federal finances and the U.S. financial
system; and increasing opportunities for economic development through policy
initiatives such as fundamental tax reform.
Congressional action on the Administration’s budget request for FY2006
commenced in the House with a series of hearings held by the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the
Judiciary, and District of Columbia in March, April, May, and June of this year. On
June 15, the Subcommittee approved by voice vote a measure (H.R. 3058) to provide
funding for Treasury operations in FY2006. The full Appropriations Committee
favorably reported by voice vote (H.Rept. 109-153) an amended version of H.R. 3058
on June 21. Following the consideration of 48 amendments spread over two days of
lively floor debate, the full House approved the measure on June 30 by a vote of 405
to 18 and sent it on to the Senate.

---

CRS-15
Under H.R. 3058 as passed by the House, the Treasury Department would
receive $11.529 billion in appropriated funds in FY2006 — or $316 million more
than the amount enacted for FY2005 but $120 million less than the level of funding
requested by the Bush Administration. As one might expect, proposed funding for
the IRS accounts for virtually all of these differences. H.R. 3058 would give the
agency $10.556 billion in appropriated funds, or $320 million more than its budget
in FY2005 but $123 million less than the Administration’s budget request. The
House denied a request by the IRS to combine funding for taxpayer service, tax law
enforcement, and information systems into a single appropriations account for tax
administration and operations. In addition, H.R. 3058 would also raise funding in
FY2006 relative to the current fiscal year for the following accounts: departmental
offices (which includes OFAC and TFI), +.$1.1 million; Office of Inspector General,
+$0.6 million; TIGTA, +$5.2 million; FinCEN, +$1.5 million; Alcohol and Tobacco
Tax and Trade Bureau, +$8.8 million; Bureau of Public Debt, +3.1 million; and the
Financial Management Service, +$7.1 million. Three accounts would receive less
in FY2006 than in FY2005: department-wide systems and capital investments, -
$10.6 million; Treasury building and annex repair and restoration, -$2.2 million; and
CDFI, -$0.1 million. One existing account would receive no funding, effectively
terminating it: the Air Transportation Stabilization program.
In the Senate, the Appropriations Committee favorably reported by a vote of 28
to 0 on July 21 (S. Ret. 109-109) an amended version of H.R. 3058 as passed by the
House. After three days of debate and the introduction of over 130 amendments, the
full Senate approved a version of H.R. 3058 by a vote of 93 to 1 on October 20 that
differs in some significant ways from the House-passed version. Conferees from the
House and Senate have been appointed and are planning to meet soon in an attempt
to resolve those differences.
Under H.R. 3058 as passed by the Senate, Treasury would receive $11.698
billion in funding in FY2006 — or $485 million more than the amount enacted for
FY2005, $49 million more than the amount requested by the Bush Administration,
and $169 million more than the amount approved by the House. Most of the
appropriated funds would go to the IRS, which would receive $10.679 billion — or
$443 million more than its budget in FY2005, the same amount as the
Administration’s budget request, and $123 million more than the amount approved
by the House. Like the House, the Senate denied a request by the Administration to
combine funding for taxpayer service, tax law enforcement, and information systems
into a single appropriations account for tax administration and operations. But unlike
the House, the Senate endorsed the same level of funding for tax law enforcement
that was requested by the Administration: $4.726 billion. What is more, the
following accounts would receive an increase in funding relative to the current fiscal
year: departmental offices (including OFAC and TFI), +$41.3 million; TIGTA,
+$5.2 million; Air Transportation Stabilization program, +$0.1 million; FinCEN,
+1.7 million; the Financial Management Service, +$7.2 million; Alcohol and
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, +$8.8 million; and the Bureau of the Public Debt,
+$3.1 million. The version of H.R. 3058 passed by the Senate would also restore
funding for two programs that was rescinded in FY2005: expanded access to
financial services (+$4.0 million) and violent crime reduction (+$1.2 million).
Funding for three Treasury accounts would be cut relative to the amounts enacted for
FY2005: department-wide systems and capital investments, -$7.6 million;

---

CRS-16
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, -$0.1 million; and Treasury
building and annex repair and restoration, -$2.2 million.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In FY2005, the IRS received $10.237
billion in appropriated funds, or 1.3% more than it received in FY2004. Of this
amount, $4.057 billion was intended for processing, assistance, and management;
$4.364 billion for tax law enforcement; $1.578 billion for information systems
management; $203 million for business systems modernization (BSM); and $35
million to administer the health insurance tax credit established by the Trade Act of
2002. These amounts reflected a rescission of 0.83% that was enacted as part of the
measure funding Treasury operations in FY2005. Of the funds appropriated for
processing, assistance, and management, Congress specified that $4.1 million be used
to operate the Tax Counseling for the Elderly program and $7.5 million be reserved
to pay for grants for low-income taxpayer clinics. None of the funds appropriated for
the BSM program could be spent without the consent of the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees. In addition, the IRS Commissioner was required to
submit quarterly reports in FY2005 on the agency’s activities aimed at improving
taxpayer compliance to both committees.
The Bush Administration is requesting that IRS operations be funded at $10.679
billion in FY2006, or 4.3% more than the amount enacted for FY2005. To bring its
budget request into closer alignment with IRS’s major programs and most recent
strategic plan, the Administration wants to revamp the agency’s budget beginning in
FY2006. Under the Administration’s proposal, the number of accounts in the IRS
budget would be reduced from six to three: tax administration and operations
(TAO), BSM, and administration of the health insurance tax credit. TAO would be
equivalent to the existing accounts for tax law enforcement; processing, assistance,
and management; and information systems. For FY2006, the Administration wants
to spend $10.46 billion on TAO, or 4.6% more than is being spent for this purpose
in FY2005; $199 million on BSM, or 2.3% less than the amount enacted for FY2005;
and $20 million on administration of the health insurance tax credit, or 41.5% less
than the amount enacted for the current fiscal year. Compared to the FY2005 budget,
the Administration is seeking $500 million more for enforcement but $38 million less
for taxpayer service and $4 million less for the ongoing effort to upgrade IRS’s
business systems. Some are concerned that a cutback of that amount in taxpayer
service could end up exacerbating compliance problems among those taxpayers who
rely heavily on taxpayer assistance centers (TACs) and IRS toll-free phone assistance
centers for help in meeting their obligations under the federal tax code.17
According to budget documents issued by the IRS, this budget request is
intended to support the three main goals guiding the agency’s current five-year
strategic plan: (1) continued improvement of taxpayer service; (2) strengthened
enforcement of the tax laws; and (3) continued modernization of IRS’s information
systems.
17 Allen Kenney, “Deja Vu? Bush Wants $500 Million for IRS to Toughen Up in 2006,”
Tax Notes, Feb. 14, 2005, p. 748.

---

CRS-17
Under a measure (H.R. 3058) providing appropriations for Treasury and a host
of other federal agencies approved by the House on June 30, 2005, the IRS would
receive $10.556 billion in funds in FY2006. This amount is $320 million more than
the agency’s budget in the current fiscal year but $123 million less than the Bush
Administration’s budget request. The House rejected the Administration’s proposed
revision of the IRS budget. As a result, it is difficult to make meaningful
comparisons between the Administration’s budget request for the IRS and the
funding for IRS operations included in the House-passed version of H.R. 3058. Of
the funding for the IRS approved by the House, $4.181 billion (or $125 million above
the level for FY2005) would go to processing, assistance, and management; $4.580
billion (or $217 million above the level for FY2005) would be set aside for tax law
enforcement; $1.575 billion (or $3 million below the level for FY2005) for
information systems; $199 million (or $4 million below the level for FY2005) for
BSM; and $20.2 million (or $14 million below the level for FY2005) for
administering the health insurance tax credit. Furthermore, the House-passed version
of H.R. 3058 would bar the IRS from using any of the funds appropriated by the bill
to close TACs in FY2006 until TIGTA has completed a “thorough, scientific review
of the impact this initiative would have on individual taxpayers.” In late May 2005,
the IRS announced that it planned to close 68 of the 400 existing TACs by the end
of FY2005; two months later the IRS announced that it would do nothing to
implement the plan until the Congress had completed work on the agency’s budget
for FY2006. The IRS is also considering reducing the weekly hours of operation for
toll-free telephone assistance for individual taxpayers.
The Senate approved an amended version of H.R. 3058 by a vote of 93 to 1 on
October 20. It would give the IRS the same level of funding in FY2006 that was
requested by the Bush Administration: $10.679 billion. This amount is $443 million
more than the amount enacted for FY2005 and $123 million more than the amount
approved by the House. Under the Senate-passed version of H.R. 3058, the IRS
would receive $4.137 billion for processing, assistance, and management (or $80
million than the FY2005 budget but $45 million less than the amount approved by
the House); $4.726 billion for tax law enforcement (or $362 million more than
FY2005 and $145 million more than the amount approved by the House); $1.598
billion for information systems (or $20 million more than FY2005 and $23 million
more than the amount approved by the House); $199 million for BSM (or $4 million
less than FY2005 but the same amount requested by the Bush Administration and
endorsed by the House); and $20 million for administering the health insurance tax
credit (or $14 million less than FY2005 but the same amount requested by the
Administration and approved by the House). Like the version of H.R. 3058 passed
by the House, the measure also specifies that none of the funds appropriated for the
IRS in FY2006 may be used to reduce services the IRS currently provides to
taxpayers until TIGTA has completed a study assessing the likely effects on taxpayer
compliance of planned reductions in the number of TACs and IRS call centers
offering taxpayer assistance.

---

CRS-18
Title III: Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Table 6. Title III: Housing and Urban Development
Appropriations, FY2005 to FY2006
(budget authority in $ billions)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Program
House
Senate
Enacted
Request
Passed
Passed
Tenant-based rental assistance
(Sec. 8 vouchers)
(includes advanced
appropriation)
14.766
15.845
15.631
15.636
Project-based rental assistance
(Sec.8)
5.298
5.072
5.088
5.072
Public housing capital fund
2.579
2.327
2.600
2.327
Public housing operating fund
2.438
3.407
3.600
3.557
HOPE VI
0.143a
0.000a
0.060
0.150
Native American housing block
grants
0.622
0.583b
0.600c
0.622
Native Hawaiian Block Grant
d
0.009
0.009
d
Housing for Persons With AIDS
(HOPWA)
0.282
0.268
0.290
0.287
Rural Housing Economic
Development
0.024
0.000e
0.010
0.024
Empowerment Zones; Enterprise
Communities (EZ/EC)
0.010
0.000e
0.000
0.000
Community Development Fund
(CDF)/Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) (including
supplemental funding)
4.852f
0.000e
4.243g
4.324
Brownfields redevelopment
0.024
0.000e
g
0.015
HOME Investment Partnerships
1.900
1.941
1.900
1.900
Homeless Assistance Grants
1.241
1.440
1.340
1.415
Self Help Homeownership
h
0.030
0.061i
h
Housing for the elderly
(Sec. 202)
0.741
0.741
0.741
0.742
Housing for the disabled
(Sec. 811)
0.238
0.120
0.238
0.240
Housing Counseling Assistance
j
0.040
k
k
Rental Housing Assistance
0.000
0.026
0.026
0.026
Research and technology
0.045
0.070l
0.061l
0.048

---

CRS-19
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Program
House
Senate
Enacted
Request
Passed
Passed
Fair housing activities
0.046
0.039
0.047
0.046
Office, lead hazard control
0.167
0.119
0.167
0.167
Salaries and expenses
0.543
0.579
0.579
0.570
Working capital fund
0.268
0.265
0.062
0.265
Inspector General
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.082
Loan Guaranteesm
0.013
0.004
0.004
0.013
Appropriations Subtotal
36.318
33.003
37.226
37.529
Sec. 8 recaptures (rescission)
-1.557
-2.500
-2.494
-1.500
HOPE VI rescissiona
0.000
-0.143
0.000
0.000
Other rescissions
-0.764n
0.000
0.000
0.000
Rescissions Subtotal
-2.321
-2.643
-2.494
-1.500
Federal Housing Administration
(net)
-1.724
-0.856
-0.913
-0.913
GNMA (net)
-0.357
-0.357
-0.357
-0.357
Offsets Subtotal
-2.082
-1.213
-1.271
-1.270
Total
31.915
29.147
33.671
34.759
Source: Prepared by CRS based on information provided by the House Committee on Appropriations, HUD’s
Congressional Budget Justifications, H.R. 3058, H.Rept. 109-153, and S.Rept. 109-109. FY2005 figures are
adjusted to reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission enacted in P.L. 108-447.
Note: This table does not include two accounts whose costs are equal to their offsetting receipts: Manufactured
Housing Fees Trust Fund ($12.9 million in FY2005 and $13 million in FY2006) and the Office of Federal
Housing Enterprise Oversight ($58.7 million in FY2005 and $60 million in FY2006).
a. The Administration has proposed that in FY2006, Congress provide no new funding and also rescind the
HOPE VI funding provided in FY2005.
b. Includes $58 million for Indian community and economic development activities, which, in FY2005, received
$68 million as a set-aside within the Community Development Fund.
c. Includes $45 million for Indian community and economic development activities, which, in FY2005, received
$68 million as a set-aside within the Community Development Fund.
d. In FY2005, $8.9 million was provided for this program (Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership) as a set-aside
within the Community Development Fund. The Senate bill provides $8.8 million for this program in the
Community Development Fund.
e. For FY2006, the Administration proposes to eliminate these programs and replace them with a new program
funded in the Commerce Department.
f. The CDBG appropriation includes $180.8 million in CDBG supplemental funding for FY2005, including
$30.8 million appropriated under Section 424 of P.L. 108-447 and $150 million appropriated under P.L.
108-324.
g. Two floor amendments to the House Appropriations Committee version of H.R. 3058, adding funds to the
CDF account, were approved. H.Amdt. 396 added $67.5 million to the CDF account to increase funding
for CDBG formula grants and ensure funds were available for Youthbuild. H.Amdt. 404 added $24
million to the CDF account to be used for Brownfields.
h. In FY2005, $24.8 million was provided for this program as a set-aside within the Community Development
Fund. The Senate bill provides $15 million for this program in the Community Development Fund.
i. The House bill would rename this account Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership and transfer to it funding
for several set-asides that were formerly funded under the Community Development Fund, including $24
million for the Self-Help Homeownership Program (SHOP), $28 million for the National Community
Development Initiative, $3 million for the Housing Assistance Council, $1 million for Special Olympics,
and $1 million for the National American Indian Housing Council. The account also includes $4 million
for a one-time grant to the Housing Partnerships Network, which was not previously funded under CDBG.
j. In FY2005, $41.7 million was provided for this program as a component of HOME.
k. The House provides $41.7 million for Housing Counseling Assistance as a set-aside within the HOME
program. The Senate bill proves $42 million for Housing Counseling Assistance as a set-aside within the
HOME program.

---

CRS-20
l. Includes $29 million requested for University Partnerships, which, in FY2005, received a total of $33 million
as set-asides within the Community Development Fund.
m. This category includes Section 108 ($7 million in FY2005, $0 in President’s request and House bill, $7
million in Senate bill), Native Hawaiian housing ($992,000 in FY2005 and $882,000 in President’s
request and House bill, $1 million in Senate bill) and Indian housing loan guarantees ($5 million in
FY2005 and $2.6 million in President’s request and House bill, $5 million in Senate bill). For FY2006,
the Administration proposes to eliminate Section 108 loan guarantees and replace them with the new
larger program in the Commerce Department.
n. Includes one-time rescissions of unobligated balances from the following accounts: Public Housing Drug
Elimination grants, Title VI credit subsidy, Urban Development Action Grants, rental housing assistance
and GI/SRI credit subsidy.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget and
Key Policy Issues18
The President’s proposed HUD budget of $29.1 billion for FY2006 represents
a decline of almost 9% from the FY2005 enacted level of $31.9 billion. This
decrease is the result of several factors including the proposed transfer of the
Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG) to the Department of
Commerce and the reduction or elimination of other HUD programs. Proposed cuts
to the major HUD programs are discussed below. Proposed cuts to smaller programs
include reductions in the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction program (-29%);
Native American Block Grants (-6%); Fair Housing programs (-15%); and Housing
for Persons with AIDS (-5%). Several program increases are proposed, including a
$1.1 billion increase for HUD’s largest program, the $14.8 billion Section 8 voucher
program, and a $200 million increase for Homeless Assistance Grants.
On June 30, 2005, the House passed its version of H.R. 3058, the FY2006 HUD
funding bill, providing over $4 billion more for the Department than the President
requested.
H.R. 3058 would continue to fund CDBG within HUD and would maintain or
increase funding for several programs slated for cuts in the President’s budget.
The Senate passed its version of H.R. 3058, the FY2006 HUD funding bill, on
October 20, 2005. The bill provides over $34 billion for HUD, an increase over the
FY2005 budget, the President’s request, and the House-approved level. Like the
House bill, the Senate bill would continue to fund CDBG within the HUD budget and
restore funding for a number of programs proposed for reductions.
Community and Economic Development Programs Consolidation
Proposal. The Bush Administration budget recommendations for FY2006 include
a proposal that would consolidate the activities of at least 18 existing community and
economic development programs into a two-part grant proposal called the
“Strengthening America’s Communities Initiative (SACI).” As outlined by the
Administration, the proposal would realign several, but not all, federal economic and
community development programs. The most prominent of these programs is the
18 For more details on the proposed HUD budget, see CRS Report RL32869, The
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): Fiscal Year 2006 Budget. For a
similarly detailed examination of the FY2005 budget, see CRS Report RL32443, The
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): FY2005 Budget.

---

CRS-21
Community Development Block Grant program. Other HUD programs that would
be eliminated under the Administration proposal include Empowerment Zones,
Brownfield Economic Development Initiatives, CDBG Section 108 loan guarantees,
and Rural Housing and Economic Development Grants. The Department of
Commerce would be responsible for administering the new program that would
replace the 18 existing programs that are currently administered by five federal
agencies.
The Administration proposal would reduce aggregate funding from $5.6 billion
in FY2005 for the programs proposed for consolidation to $3.7 billion in FY2006 for
the new program. The Administration has offered a general outline of the new
programs, but it has not yet submitted a detailed realignment proposal for
congressional consideration. It has stated that the new program will emphasize
flexibility, will be results oriented, and will be targeted to communities based on
need. The Administration is seeking this realignment, in part, because many of the
18 programs recommended for elimination have been judged by the Administration
to be ineffective, unable to demonstrate results, or duplicative of the efforts of other
federal programs.
The agency that would be most affected by the proposal is HUD; programs
administered by HUD account for nearly 81% of the $5.6 billion in FY2005 funding.
The agency’s Community Development Block Grant formula grants represent 74%
of the total. The consolidation proposal is being opposed by groups representing state
and local officials including the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Governors
Association, National League of Cities, and National Association of Counties. The
House and Senate-passed budget resolutions for FY2006 both included language that
would support the continuation of the CDBG program. The House version of
H.Con.Res. 95 included language that would increase funding for the community and
regional development budget function by $1.1 billion to $4.8 billion. It also included
language supportive of the continued funding of the CDBG program. The Senate
version of the budget resolution would restore $2 billion that would be cut under the
Administration’s “Strengthening America’s Communities Initiative” and stipulated
that the funds were to be used to support CDBG and the other 17 programs targeted
for elimination by the Administration. The conference agreement on the FY2006
budget resolution (H.Rept. 109-62) includes language that supports the continuation
of the CDBG program. It assumes $1.5 billion more than the President requested for
Community and Economic Development purposes and the accompanying Joint
Statement of Managers indicates that the increase is intended to maintain economic
and community development programs such as CDBG at FY2005 levels.
On June 21, the House Committee on Appropriations completed consideration
of H.R. 3058, the FY2006 appropriations bill for HUD (and several other agencies).
The measure rejected the Administration’s proposed “Strengthening America’s
Communities Initiative” and recommended $4.15 billion for the CDBG program and
Economic Development Initiative (EDI) grants. This includes $3.86 billion for
CDBG formula grants awarded to entitlement communities and states, which is $250
less than appropriated in FY2005. The Committee also included $290 million for
EDI grants for congressional earmarked projects. The committee bill did not provide
funding for a number of CDBG set-asides and related programs, including
Youthbuild, Empowerment Zones, Brownfields, and Section 108 loan guarantees.

---

CRS-22
In addition, the committee bill recommended transferring funding for several CDBG-
related set-asides to other accounts within HUD. A new self-help and assisted
homeownership account would provide $23 million for the Self-Help
Homeownership Program (SHOP), $28 million for the National Community
Development Initiative, $3 million for the Housing Assistance Council and $1
million each for the Special Olympics and the Native American Indian Housing
Council. Indian CDBG would be funded as a set-aside of $45 million within the
Native American Housing Block Grants account. The Committee also recommended
transferring to HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research $29 million in
funding for university programs previously included as CDBG set-asides under
Section 107 — including assistance to historic black colleges and universities,
institutions serving Hispanic populations, and a community development work study
program.
The House approved the Committee’s recommendations, and also approved two
amendments increasing FY2006 funding for the Community Development Fund
account (CDF). The House approved by voice vote an amendment offered by
Representative Gary Miller adding $24 million to the CDF for HUD’s Brownfield
program. It also approved by voice vote an amendment introduced by Representative
Knollenberg that provided an additional $67.5 million to the CDF. Floor debate
indicated that up to $50 million of the increase is for the Youthbuild program,
assuming it is not funded within the Department of Labor’s budget. The remaining
$17.5 million is designated for CDBG formula-based grants. This increase still
leaves formula-based grants funded more than $230 million below the FY2005 level.
During floor consideration of the bill, the chairman of the HUD Appropriations
Subcommittee, Representative Knollenberg, stated that it was his intention to find a
way to restore the CDBG formula-based program to its FY2005 funding level.
The Senate version of the bill would appropriate $4.3 billion for Community
Development Fund (CDF) activities, which is a decrease of $528 million from
FY2005. The bill includes $3.77 billion for CDBG formula grants, which is a $100
million decrease from the House and a $350 million decrease from FY2005. It also
includes $556.2 million for CDBG-related set asides and earmarks.
Unlike the House bill, which would provide no funding, reduce funding, or
would transfer the activity to another account within HUD, the Senate bill retains
funding for most of the CDBG-related set-asides within the CDF account. For
instance, the Senate bill includes $69 million for the Native American CDBG while
the House version would appropriate $45 million for the program within the Native
American Housing Block Grant. The Senate bill would appropriate $32.4 million in
funding for college and university programs and retain the programs under the CDF
account while the House bill would transfer these activities to the Research and
Development account; it would appropriate $40 million for the Neighborhood
Initiative Program, a program that was not included in the President’s request or the
House version of the bill; and it would appropriate $30 million for capacity building
grants under the National Community Development Initiative program, which is $2
million less than the amount recommended by the House within a new Self Help and
Assisted Homeownership account.

---

CRS-23
The Senate version of H.R. 3058 funds the Section 108 loan guarantee program
by appropriating $6 million in loan subsidies in support of a loan commitment ceiling
of $275 million. The Administration included the Section 108 program in the list of
programs whose activities would be consolidated under its Strengthening America’s
Communities Initiative. The House version of H.R. 3058 does not include funding
for the program.
During the Senate Appropriations Committee consideration of H.R. 3058,
Senator Bond introduced and then withdrew a proposed amendment that would have
prohibited the use of federal funds in economic development projects involving the
use of eminent domain. The amendment would have allowed the use of federal funds
if the project involved airports, seaports, mass transit, or was intended to revitalize
a blighted area.
For additional information on the Administration’s proposal see CRS Report
RL32823, An Overview of the Administration’s Strengthening America’s
Communities Initiative.
Section 8 Voucher Funding Level and Reform Proposal. The
President’s FY2006 request for the Section 8 tenant-based rental assistance program,
also called the Section 8 voucher program, represents a 7% increase in funding over
FY2005. These additional funds would be used to renew existing subsidies, rather
than create new subsidies. The President’s budget proposes to continue and expand
the practice of funding public housing authorities (PHAs) on the basis of fixed costs,
rather than on actual costs (as was the practice prior to FY2004), and on the basis of
fixed utilization rates, rather than on all available vouchers (as was the practice prior
to FY2005). This “budget-based” funding structure has been controversial among
some PHAs, who argue it does not provide them with sufficient funding to meet their
local needs.
Beyond funding levels, the budget request also states that the President intends
to introduce a new proposal to reform the tenant-based voucher program. One
purpose for this reform proposal is to contain, if not reduce, costs. According to the
President’s budget summary, “Section 8’s program costs are cannibalizing every
HUD program — at the same time waiting lists of families seeking housing continue
to grow.” The FY2006 HUD Congressional Budget Justifications state that this new
proposal will provide additional flexibility to PHAs which will enable them to run
their programs more effectively and efficiently. The Administration’s reform
proposal was introduced in the Senate (S. 771) on April 13 and in the House (H.R.
1999) on April 28, 2005. Reform proposals were also submitted as part of the
FY2004 and FY2005 budgets; no congressional action was taken on either proposal.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $15.5 billion for tenant
based rental assistance, which is $765 million more than was provided in FY2005 but
$314 million less than the President requested. The funding would be allocated to
agencies based on the amount they received in the previous year, plus inflation. The
$15.5 billion includes a set-aside of funds that the Secretary could use to adjust the
budgets of agencies that were negatively impacted by the FY2005 formula due to
anomalous circumstances, such as an increase in voucher holders moving to more
expensive areas. On June 30, 2005, during House floor consideration of the bill, an

---

CRS-24
amendment offered by Representative Nadler added an additional $100 million to the
tenant-based rental assistance account, increasing the appropriation to $15.6 billion.
The amendment offset the increase by decreasing funding for the Working Capital
Fund by $120 million.
The Senate-passed bill would also fund the voucher program at $15.6 billion in
FY2006. It proposes to allocate renewal funds based on agencies’ most recent 12
months of cost and utilization data. It also proposes to set-aside funds to be provided
to agencies that were negatively impacted by the FY2005 distribution formula.
For additional information, see CRS Report RL31930, Section 8 Housing
Choice Voucher Program: Funding and Related Issues.
Section 811 Housing for the Disabled. The President’s FY2006 request
for the Section 811 housing for the disabled program would be a 50% cut in funding
from FY2005. Further, the funding provided would not be available for capital
grants to build housing units for the disabled, as in the past. Instead, the full amount
would be used to provide vouchers to persons with disabilities. HUD budget
documents do not provide a rationale for the reduction or restriction on use for capital
grants. In testimony on March 17, 2005 before the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Transportation, the Treasury, HUD, the Judiciary, and the District
of Columbia, the Secretary of HUD referred to the need to make unpopular cuts in
programs such as Section 811 in order to maintain adequate funding for Section 8
and programs for the homeless.
The House-passed version of the FY2006 HUD funding bill maintains Section
811 funding at the FY2005 level of $238 million and the Senate version would
increase funding to $240 million. Both bills would permit funds to be used to
provide capital subsidies.
HOPE VI. For the third year, the President’s budget requests no new funding
for the HOPE VI revitalization of distressed public housing program. HOPE VI
provides grants to local public housing administrators (PHAs) to help fund major
redevelopment of troubled public housing projects. The Administration claims that
the program has met its mandate and that program funds are spent too slowly;
however, the program has been popular with many local communities and Members
of Congress. Despite the President’s request, in FY2004 and FY2005, Congress
funded HOPE VI, but at a lower level than in FY2003 when over $570 million was
provided to the program. In addition to requesting no new funding for the program
in FY2006, the President’s budget requests that Congress rescind the funds it
provided to the program in FY2005.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended no FY2006 funding for
the HOPE VI program, but did not support the President’s request to rescind FY2005
funding. In House floor consideration of the bill, an amendment was adopted that
provides $60 million for HOPE VI, offset by a reduction of $60 million for the
General Services Administration’s Federal Buildings Fund. The Senate bill would
provide $150 million for HOPE VI in FY2006, slightly more than was provided in
FY2005. For more information, see CRS Report RL32236, HOPE VI Public
Housing Revitalization Program: Background, Funding, and Issues.

---

CRS-25
New FHA Proposals. The Administration’s FY2006 budget includes
proposals for two new FHA initiatives. Under the FHA Zero Downpayment
Homeownership Option proposal, first-time buyers with strong credit records would
be allowed to finance 100% of their home purchase price and settlement costs.
Insurance premiums would be increased to cover the higher risks and costs involved.
HUD’s FY2006 budget estimates this would generate 204,000 loans and $230.5
million in net revenue. The House Committee on Appropriations did not assume
these revenues in their re-estimate of the President’s budget, resulting in a larger
proposed appropriation request for HUD. A bill to enact this proposal was
introduced in the 109th Congress as H.R. 3043. Under the FHA Payment Incentive
Homeownership Initiative, first proposed in the FY2005 budget, HUD would
amend its underwriting guidelines in order to attract borrowers who would otherwise
seek loans in the subprime market. According to HUD, the borrowers would obtain
better terms from FHA than would be possible on the subprime market. The
increased risk of default and the higher costs associated with these borrowers would
be offset by requiring more owner equity and higher insurance premiums, although
after a period of on-time payments, the premiums would be reduced. HUD’s FY2006
budget estimates this program would generate 64,000 loans a year and increase net
revenues by $37.4 million. The Committee also did not include these revenue
projections in their re-estimate of the President’s budget.
Title IV: The Judiciary
The Judiciary Budget and Key Policy Issues
Title IV covers funding for the Judiciary. As a co-equal branch of government,
the Judiciary presents its budget to the President, who transmits the proposed judicial
branch budget to Congress unaltered. Table 7 shows the FY2005 enacted amount,
the FY2006 requested funding, the House-passed amount, and the Senate-passed
amount.
The two accounts that fund the Supreme Court — the salaries and expenses of
the Supreme Court of the United States and the expenditures for the care of its
building and grounds — together make up less than 1.2% of the total Judiciary
budget. The structural and mechanical care of the Supreme Court building, and care
of its grounds, are the responsibility of the Architect of the Capitol. The rest of the
Judiciary’s budget provides funding for the “lower” federal courts and for related
judicial services. The largest account, making up 75% of the total budget — the
Salaries and Expenses account for the U.S. Courts of Appeals, District Courts and
Other Judicial Services — covers the salaries, benefits and operating expenses of
circuit and district judges (including judges of the territorial courts of the United
States), and those of retired justices and judges, U.S. Court of Federal Claims,
bankruptcy and magistrate judges, and all other officers and employees of the federal
Judiciary not specifically provided for by other accounts. The Judiciary budget does
not fund three “special courts” in the U.S. court system: the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Armed Forces, the U.S. Tax Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims. Construction of federal courthouses also is not funded within the
Judiciary’s budget.

---

CRS-26
Table 7. Title IV: The Judiciary Appropriations,
FY2005 to FY2006
(millions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
House
Senate
Court, Agency, or Program
Enacteda
Requestb
Passedc
Passedd
Supreme Court, Salaries &
$57.4
$60.7
$60.7
60.7
Expenses
Building and Grounds
9.8
5.6
5.6
5.6
U.S. Court of Appeals for the
21.5
26.5
24.6
23.5
Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of International Trade
14.7
15.5
15.5
15.5
Courts of Appeals, District
Courts, and Other Judicial
Services, Salaries & Expenses
4,125.3
4,478.7
4,348.8
4,375.0
Vaccine Injury Act Trust Fund
3.3
3.8
3.8
3.8
Defender Services
667.3
768.1
721.9
710.8
Fees of Jurors and
60.7
71.3
60.1
61.3
Commissioners
Court Security
327.6
390.3
379.5
372.4
Administrative Office of the U.S.
67.3
72.2
70.3
72.2
Courts
Federal Judicial Center
21.4
22.9
22.2
22.4
Retirement Funds
36.7
40.6
40.6
40.6
U.S. Sentencing Commission
13.1
14.7
14.0
14.7
Total
5,426.2
5,970.9
5,767.7
5,778.5
Sources: U.S. Senate and U.S. House Committees on Appropriations. House and Senate numbers may differ
slightly in some instances. All figures are taken from House budget documents, except for the Senate column.
All figures have been rounded.
a. Amounts enacted for FY2005 reflect a 0.83% across-the-board rescission (P.L.108-447).
b. Amounts reflect the budget amendments the President transmitted to Congress on June 13, 2005.
c. Amounts are based on the House Committee on Appropriations budget documents.
d. Amounts are based on Senate passage of H.R. 3058 on Oct. 20, 2005, and information from the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts.
In his 2004 year-end annual report, released on January 1, 2005, Chief Justice
William H. Rehnquist stated that the Judiciary was facing a “funding crisis.” The
Chief Justice expressed concern about rising fixed costs to the Judiciary that have
resulted in hiring freezes, furloughs, and reductions in force while the workload
continues to increase. The Judicial Conference, the principal policy-making body for
the federal court system, has devised a cost containment strategy and has
implemented measures to reduce costs and to make operations more efficient. To
alleviate budget pressures that could lead to more staff cuts, the Chief Justice
suggested that there be a reassessment of the rent (which constitutes about 20% of

---

CRS-27
the total budget) paid to the General Services Administration (GSA). In January
2005, the Judiciary asked GSA for a partial rent exemption for the federal courts.
Court security has become an increasingly critical issue since the bombing of
a federal building in Oklahoma City, the September 11 terrorist attacks, and threats
of anthrax contamination. The February 28, 2005, murders of family members of a
U.S. District Court judge in Chicago and, on March 11, 2005, of a state judge, a court
reporter, and a sheriff’s deputy in an Atlanta courthouse elevated federal judiciary
security to an even higher priority. Congress planned a series of hearings on security
protection for the federal judiciary.
On April 21, 2005, Representative Louie Gohmert introduced H.R. 1751, the
Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005, legislation that would
prohibit possession of dangerous weapons in federal courthouses, and increase
penalties for assaulting, kidnapping or murdering judges or their families. The bill
would also impose fines and imprisonment for filing false liens against the property
of a federal judge, federal attorney, or public safety officer and the posting of
restricted personal information about judges, jurors or witnesses on the Internet. In
addition, the measure would authorize a new federal grant program for $20 million
annually (from fiscal years 2006 to 2010) to fund witness protection by states, local
governments and American Indian tribes. On April 26, 2005, the House Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security held a hearing on the
bill. The Subcommittee held a mark-up and forwarded the bill to the full Committee
on June 30, 2005. On October 27, 2005, the House Judiciary Committee voted 26
to 5 to approve H.R. 1751, including several amendments. Representative Steve
Chabot’s amendment would authorize appellate and district judges to allow
photographing, broadcasting, or televising court proceedings. Representative Sheila
Jackson-Lee sponsored two amendments: one would authorize $3million dollars
annually (from fiscal 2006 through 2008) for grants to state and local prosecutors,
and to develop protective service programs for young witnesses and their families;
and another would create a grant program for the establishment of a threat assessment
database for the purposes of analyzing trends of domestic terrorism and crime.
Representative Adam Schiff also sponsored two amendments: one would authorize
$20 million annually (from 2006 through 2010) for the U.S. Marshals Service to hire
entry and senior level deputy marshals for the Judiciary; and another would authorize
an additional $20 million annually (also from 2006 through 2010) to implement
courtroom safety and security planning for the same period of time. Representative
Robert C. Scott’s amendment would strike habeas corpus provisions from the bill.
All of these amendments were adopted.
On May 18, 2005, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on federal
Judiciary security. Review of security procedures, processes, and programs could
result in remedies that have budgetary implications.
On March 2, 2005, the Judiciary submitted an FY2005 emergency supplemental
appropriations request for $101.8 million for the Court of Appeals, District Courts,
and Other Judicial Services, Salaries and Expenses Account, to fund costs associated
with anticipated workload resulting from recent Supreme Court rulings on sentencing
guidelines and class action suits. The Senate provided $65 million in its version of

---

CRS-28
the FY2005 supplemental (H.R. 1268/P.L. 109-13), but the conference agreement
(H.Rept. 109-72) did not include any funding for the Judiciary.19
FY2006 Request. For FY2006, the Judiciary initially requested $5.95 billion
in total appropriations, a 9.7% increase over the $5.43 billion approved for FY2005.
Of the total increase of $526.5 million, $408.3 million (78%) would be for mandatory
pay adjustments, inflation and other adjustments to the base required to maintain
current services. The remaining $118.2 million (22%) would be for workload
increases and program enhancements. In requesting an additional 1,211 full-time
equivalent staff positions (FTEs) to the 32,902 FTEs funded for FY2005, the
Judiciary seeks to continue restoring staff positions that were cut in FY2004 due to
insufficient funding and to cope with the increased workload. Current staff levels
are below FY2001 levels. During the period 2001 to 2005 there has been a 9%
increase in released felons who are supervised by federal probation officers and a
12% increase in criminal cases. Staff reductions have affected 87 of the 94 judicial
districts nationwide.
On June 13, 2005, the President transmitted to Congress two budget
amendments for the Judiciary. The first amendment requested $17.8 million to fund
28 new temporary bankruptcy judgeships, including the salaries and benefits of the
judges, their support staff, and data collection and tax return provisions (for the Court
of Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services account). The additional
funds were requested in accordance with the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and
Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (P. L. 109-8). The act was signed into law on
April 20, 2005, after the FY2006 budget request had already been submitted. The
second amendment requested $690,000 for the Court Security account to provide for
one additional court security officer position in Delaware (required based on four
new bankruptcy judgeships, and security equipment associated with P. L. 109-8).
Together, these two amendments total nearly $18.5 million. The budget amendment
request increases the total FY2006 request to nearly $5.97 billion. The House did
not receive these amendments in time to take action.20
House Committee Markup. On June 21, 2005, the House Appropriations
Committee marked up the FY2006 appropriations bill for the Judiciary. The bill
would provide $5.8 billion for the federal judiciary, $341 million (6%) more than the
FY2005 level, and $203 million below the amended FY2006 request. The amount
would “fully fund the court’s revised request for security improvements at federal
judicial facilities, and enable the courts to effectively process priority criminal, civil
and bankruptcy cases.”21 The committee adopted, without objection, Representative
Todd Tiahrt’s amendment directing the U.S. Marshals Service to provide for the
security for homes of federal judges as well as managing judicial facility security.
The House Committee also expressed its expectation that the Judiciary, as it has in
19
Senate Committee on Appropriations, “Senate and House Conferees Agree to FY2005
Supplemental,” Press Release, May 3, 2005.
20 The amounts of the budget amendments are reflected in Table 7.
21 House Committee on Appropriations, “Full Committee Reports FY06 Transportation,
Treasury, Housing, and Urban Development Bill,” Press Release, June 21, 2005.

---

CRS-29
previous years, will submit a financial plan within 45 days of the enactment of the
FY2006 appropriations Act. The plan would provide information on available funds
including appropriations, fee collections, and carry-over balances, and would set the
baseline for determining if reprogramming notification is required.
House Action. On June 30, 2005, the House passed appropriations for the
Judiciary at the same level of funding as proposed by the House Committee. The
legislation also includes “the court’s revised request for security improvements at
federal judicial facilities, and enable the courts to effectively process priority
criminal, civil and bankruptcy cases.”22
Senate Committee Markup. On July 21, 2005, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations marked up the FY2006 appropriations bill for the Judiciary,
following the Subcommittee markup two days earlier on July 19, 2005. The Senate
Committee recommendation for FY2006 is $5,778.5 million, or $10.8 million more
than the House-passed amount, $5,767.7 million.
The Senate committee report (S.Rept. 109-109) stated the Committee’s concern
about the rent increases and support for the Judiciary efforts to work with the GSA
to reduce costs. The Committee also urged the Judicial Conference to consider the
size of future construction projects as well as courtroom sharing as ways to reduce
space needs. The Committee directed the Administrative Office to report to the
committee (no more than 120 days after enactment of the bill) on the financial
savings that could be realized through courtroom sharing. The Committee also
directed the Administrative Office to report to the committee (no later than June 1,
2006) on actual increases in workload that have resulted from recent Supreme Court
decisions to help the Committee better understand the workload impact of the
decisions. With regard to court security, the Committee expressed its concern about
the safety of “all Judicial employees and urges the Administrative Office to continue
to work closely with the United States Marshals Service to forge an effective and
lasting accommodation to achieve this common goal.” The Committee also allocated
$1,000,000 to the Administrative Office to contract with the National Academy of
Public Administration to review resource and management issues (including rent
costs, court caseloads and other issues that have resulted in budget shortfalls and
subsequently resulted in the Judiciary seeking supplemental appropriations).
Senate Action. On October 19, 2005, the Senate adopted Senator Christopher
Bond’s amendment (SA2109), to provide the Judiciary with essentially the same
procurement authorities as authorized for the executive branch. The amendment’s
intent is to give the judicial branch greater parity, flexibility, and potential cost
savings. On October 20, 2005, the Senate approved appropriations for the Judiciary
at the same level of funding as proposed by the Senate Committee.
Following are highlights of the FY2006 Judiciary budget:
22 House Committee on Appropriations, “House Passes FY06 Transportation, Treasury,
Housing and Urban Development Bill,” Press Release, June 30, 1005.

---

CRS-30
Supreme Court. For FY2006, the total request for the Supreme Court is
$66.4 million, a 1.3% decrease over the previous year. Funding would be for two
accounts: (1) Salaries and Expenses — $60.7 million requested, compared with the
FY2005 enacted amount of $57.4 million, and (2) Care of the Building and Grounds
— $5.6 million requested, compared with $9.8 million enacted for FY2005. Most
of the requested increase is to fund mandatory increases in salary and benefit costs
and inflationary fixed costs. An additional 12 FTEs are requested for new protection
and emergency procedures to enhance the Court’s overall security. The House
passed the same total amount as the FY2006 budget request, and the Senate approved
the same amount.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The FY2006 request is
$26.5 million, a 23% increase over the $21.5 million for FY2005. In addition to
providing for pay and other inflationary adjustments, the requested increases support
the court’s efforts to improve security. These improvements would include new
perimeter security barriers and enhanced information technology systems. The
House passed $24.6 million for FY2006 — an increase of $3.1 million above the
FY2005 funding level. The Senate approved $23.5 million, or $1.1 million less than
the House amount.
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services.
Salaries and Expenses This account, making up the largest share of the Judiciary
budget at almost 75% of the total request, funds most of the day-to-day activities and
operations of the federal courts. The FY2006 request totals $4.5 billion, an increase
of 8.1%, over the FY2005 level of $4.1 billion. The House passed $4,348.7 million
— an increase of $223.5 million above the FY2005 funding level. The Senate
approved $4,375 million — $26.2 million more than the House amount.
Court Security. This account provides funds for the court security officers
and for Federal Protective Service (FPS) security charges for FY2006. Congress in
FY2005 approved a transfer of funding from the Salaries and Expenses and the
Defender Services accounts to the Court Security account for FPS security charges.
The FY2006 request is $389.6 million, an increase of 19% over the $327.6 million
enacted for FY2005. The increase is mainly due to the Federal Protective Service
charges, court security officer hourly wage adjustments, and security systems and
equipment costs. The House-passed amount is $379.5 million — an increase of
$51.9 million above the FY2005 funding level. The Senate approved $372.4 million,
about $7 million less than the House amount.
Defender Services. This account funds the operations of the federal public
defender and community defender organizations, and the compensation,
reimbursement, and expenses of private practice “panel attorneys” appointed by the
courts to serve as defense counsel to indigent individuals accused of federal crimes.
The FY2006 request is $768.l million, an increase of 15.1% over the $667.3 million
appropriated for FY2005. The increase is to provide for pay and inflationary costs
and to fund potential workload increase arising from recent Supreme Court rulings.
The House passed $721.9 million — an increase of $54.6 million above the FY2005
funding level. The Senate approved $710.8 million, or $11.1 million less than the
House amount.

---

CRS-31
As a result of Hurricane Katrina, the Judiciary is seeking $65.5 million in
emergency supplemental funding to cover costs associated with the disruption of
federal court operations in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, including the
relocation of over 400 judges and court staff. Emergency measures could remain in
place for six months or longer. On September 16, 2005, the Judicial Conference
urged the President to transmit the supplemental request to Congress. The request
is pending.
Title V: District of Columbia Appropriations23
Table 8. Title V: District of Columbia Appropriations,
FY2005 to FY2006
(millions of dollars)
FY2005*
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Passed
Passed
Total Federal Payments
$555.5
$573.4
$603.4
$593
Source: Figures are from a budget authority table provided by the House Committee on Appropriations.
*FY2005 figure reflects an across-th-board rescission of 0.83%.
District of Columbia Budget and Key Policy Issues
President’s Request. The Administration’s proposed FY2006 budget
includes $573.3 million in federal payments to the District of Columbia. The courts
and criminal justice system (court operations, defender services, and offender
supervision) represent $470.1 million, or 82%, of the request.
District Budget. On June 2, 2005, the District’s city council approved the
city’s $8.8 billion operating budget for FY2005, and $2.7 billion in capital outlays
including $534 million to finance a new baseball stadium. The District’s budget also
includes a request for $635 million in special federal payments, which is $62 million
more than the $573 million proposed by the President and $32 million more than the
amount that was passed by the House.
House Bill. The House provided $603 million for the District, $30 million
more than the Administration request and $48 million more than enacted for FY2005.
The House approved the $470 million in FY2006 court and criminal justice funding
23 Prior to the reorganization of House and Senate Committee on Appropriations
subcommittee structures at the beginning of the 109th Congress, both houses of Congress had
a separate Appropriations Subcommittee for the District of Columbia appropriations.
Appropriations for the District of Columbia are now included in the responsibilities of the
House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and
Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary, District of Columbia, while in the Senate,
there is still a separate Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.

---

CRS-32
requested by the Administration. The House also provided $75 million in special
federal payments in support of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education
initiatives, as requested by the Administration. This includes $13.525 million in
special federal assistance to improve the city’s public schools, $13.525 million in
support of public charter schools, $14.566 million in assistance in support of
scholarships to private and religious schools, and $33.2 million for the District’s
college tuition assistance program, $7 million more than appropriated in FY2005.
The House also provided $20 million in special federal payments to the
District’s Chief Financial Officer for various, but unspecified, education, economic
development, health and social service activities, and $10 million in federal payments
to the District Water and Sewer Authority.
In addition to recommending $603 million in special federal payments to the
District of Columbia, the bill also contains a number of general provisions, including
a number of so-called “social riders.” Consistent with provisions included in previous
appropriations acts, the bill would prohibit the use of federal and District funds to
finance or administer a needle exchange program intended to reduce the spread of
AIDS and HIV; or provided abortion services except in instances of rape, incest, or
the health of the mother is threatened. The bill would also prohibit the city from
decriminalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes, and limit the city’s ability
to use District funds to lobby for congressional voting representation or statehood.
The House also approved an amendment banning the use of funds to enforce a
District law requiring guns in homes to be disassembled or secured by a gun lock.
Senate Bill. On July 21, 2005, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported
the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2006, S. 1446 (S.Rept. 109-106).
The bill would appropriate $593 million in special federal payments for the District
and would approve the District $8.8 billion FY2006 operating budget. As reported
by the Committee, the bill recommends $33.2 million for the city’s college tuition
assistance program. This is the same amount recommended by the House and
represents a $7.8 million increase above the program’s FY2005 funding level. The
bill also includes $40 million in special federal payments in support of continued
efforts to strengthen public schools and expand elementary and secondary education
choices, including funds for public charter schools and private school scholarships.
This is $1.6 million less than recommended by the House. The bill includes $17.2
million in support of security planning ($12 million) and bioterrorism preparedness
($5.2 million for bioterrorism and forensic laboratory). This is $5 million less than
approved by the House. It would continue congressional support ($3 million — $2
million less than the House-passed level) for the construction of a nature trail along
the Anacostia River. These proposed funding reductions, which total $8.6 million,
would be offset by three new initiatives not included in the House bill: $3 million for
marriage development accounts and life skills training for low income persons; $2
million for a Latino youth education and health initiative; and $3 million for a
housing initiative for recently released ex-offenders.
Senate Bill General Provisions. The Senate bill includes a provision not
included in the House bill. It would transfer 15 acres of federal land at Robert F.
Kennedy Stadium to the District. Unlike the House bill, the Senate measure would
allow local funds to be used for lobbying for District voting representation in

---

CRS-33
Congress and to fund or operate a needle exchange program. Consistent with the
provisions included in the House bill, the Senate bill would prohibit the use of
District and federal funds to implement the District medical marijuana initiative, or
to provide abortion services except in cases of rape or incest, or the mother’s life is
endangered.
The Senate added the text of S. 1446 to H.R. 3058 and approved the
Committee’s recommendations.
Title VI: Executive Office of the President and Funds
Appropriated to the President
Executive Office of the President Budget and Key Policy
Issues
All but three offices in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) are funded
in the same appropriations act entitled the Departments of Transportation, Treasury,
and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and
Independent Agencies (House) and the Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (Senate).24
For the fifth consecutive fiscal year, the President’s FY2006 budget proposes
to consolidate and financially realign several salaries and expenses accounts that
directly support the President into a single annual appropriation, called “The White
House.” This consolidated appropriation would total $183.3 million in FY2006 for
the accounts proposed to be consolidated, an increase of 0.05% from the $183.2
million appropriated in FY2005 (after the 0.83% rescission).25 The nine accounts
included in the consolidated appropriation would be the following:
! Compensation of the President,
! White House Office (including the Homeland Security Council),
! Executive Residence at the White House,
! White House Repair and Restoration,
! Office of Policy Development,
! Office of Administration,
! Council of Economic Advisers,
24 Of the three exceptions, the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality are funded in the House Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Act and the Senate Interior and Related Agencies Act. The Office of Science and
Technology Policy and the Office of the United States Trade Representative are funded
under the same appropriations act entitled Science, State, Justice, and Commerce, and
Related Agencies (House) and Commerce, Justice, and Science (Senate).
25 P.L. 108-447, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005, at Division J, Title I,
Section 122, required a 0.83% across-the-board rescission in non-defense discretionary
spending accounts. The FY2005 appropriation for the EOP accounts proposed to be
consolidated totaled $187.126 million before the rescission.

---

CRS-34
! Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (authorized by P.L. 108-
458), and
! National Security Council.26
Table 9. Title VI (House) V (Senate): Executive Office of the
President (EOP) and Funds Appropriated to the President
Appropriations,
FY2005 to FY2006
(millions of dollars)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Office
House
Senate
Enacted*
Request
Passed
Passed
Compensation of the President
$0.5
$0.5
$0.5
$0.5
The White House Office
(salaries and expenses)
62.0
53.0
53.8
56.6
Executive Residence, White House
(operating expenses)
12.7
12.4
12.4
12.4
White House Repair and Restoration
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.7
Council of Economic Advisors
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Office of Policy Development
2.3
3.5
3.5
0
National Security Council
8.9
8.7
8.7
8.7
Office of Administration
91.5
98.6
89.3
98.6
Office of Management and Budget
67.9
68.4
67.9
68.4
Office of National Drug Control Policy
(salaries and expenses)
26.8
24.2
26.9
24.2
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center
41.7
30.0
30.0
30.0
Federal Drug Control Programs:
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
226.5
—
236.0
227.0
Federal Drug Control Programs: Other
Programs
212.0
213.3
238.3
191.4
Office of the Vice President
(salaries and expenses)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Official Residence of the Vice President
(operating expenses)
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Total, EOP and Funds Appropriated to the
President
833.9
525.0
787.9
730.8
Source: Figures are from the President’s budget request and a budget authority table provided by the House
Committee on Appropriations, except Senate figures are from a budget table in S.Rept. 109-109. Because of
differing treatment of offsets, the totals will not always match the Administration’s totals. The figures within this
table may differ slightly from those in the text due to supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and other funding
actions. Columns may not add due to rounding or exclusion of smaller program line-items.
26 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the
United States Government Fiscal Year 2006, Appendix (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 980.
(Hereafter referred to as FY2006 Budget, Appendix.)

---

CRS-35
*FY2005 figures reflect an across-the-board rescission of 0.83%.
The EOP budget submission states that consolidation would permit “the
President to immediately realign or reallocate the resources and staff available in
response to changing needs and priorities or emergent national needs.”27 The
conference committees on the FY2002 through FY2005 appropriations act decided
to continue with separate appropriations for the EOP accounts to facilitate
congressional oversight of their funding and operation.
The FY2006 budget, for the third consecutive year, proposes a general provision
in Title VI that would provide authority for the EOP to transfer 10% of the
appropriated funds among the following accounts:
! The White House,28
! Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
! Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP),
! Special Assistance to the President and the Official Residence of the
Vice President (transfers would be subject to the approval of the
Vice President),
! Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental
Quality,
! Office of Science and Technology Policy,
! Office of the United States Trade Representative.29
According to the EOP budget submission, the transfer authority would “allow
the President to address, in a limited way, emerging priorities and shifting demands”
and would “provide the President with flexibility, improve the efficiency of the EOP,
and reduce administrative burdens.”30 The Consolidated Appropriations Act for
FY2005 (Section 533, Title V, Division H) authorized transfers of up to 10% of
FY2005 appropriated funds among the accounts for the White House Office, OMB,
ONDCP, and the Special Assistance to the President and Official Residence of the
Vice President.
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House agreed
that separate appropriations for the EOP accounts be continued. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations recommended and the Senate agreed to the same, with
one exception, proposing to merge the Office of Policy Development and its funding
into the White House Office. Section 940 of the House-passed bill and Section 716
27 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Fiscal Year 2006 Congressional Budget
Submission (Washington: GPO [Feb. 2005]), p. 12. (Hereafter referred to as EOP Budget
Submission.)
28 The accounts under the White House are Compensation of the President, White House
Office (including the Homeland Security Council), Executive Residence at the White House,
White House Repair and Restoration, Council of Economic Advisers, Office of Policy
Development, National Security Council, Office of Administration.
29 FY2006 Budget, Appendix, p. 13.
30 EOP Budget Submission, p. 13.

---

CRS-36
of the Senate bill as passed continue the authorized transfers of up to 10% among the
accounts for the White House, Special Assistance to the President and Official
Residence of the Vice President, Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Office of the
United States Trade Representative.
Notable among the House Committee’s funding recommendations for the EOP
accounts are the following. Under the White House Office, $750,000 is included for
the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and the funding for the White House
Communications Agency is transferred to DOD’s Defense Information Agency
(DIA). For OMB, the committee increases the funding and full-time equivalents and
directs that the increases be applied in the areas of Defense, Homeland Security,
Natural Resources, and Human Resources “to emphasize that the principal
responsibility for which funds are being provided is the development and the
execution of the Federal budget.” With regard to the Performance Assessment Rating
Tool (PART), OMB is required to:
include a detailed description of each program or activity or project that OMB
intends to subject to its [PART] study process for the 2007 and 2008 budgets ...
[including] the specific methodology that will be used to conduct each study, the
data that will be used in the analysis for each program studied, and office
responsible for providing OMB with information and analysis.
Under the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center account, the committee
instructs ONDCP to submit, with its FY2007 budget request, “an analysis of options
and recommendations for the future course of counter drug technology research.” The
committee recommends that the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
(HIDTAP) continue to be funded under the EOP (rather than under the Department
of Justice, as requested in the FY2006 budget) and fully funds the account (rather
than reducing it by 50%, as the FY2006 budget requested).
The House-passed bill includes several changes from the reported version. An
amendment offered and then modified by Representative Carolyn Maloney which
was agreed to by voice vote would provide funding of $1.5 million (an additional
$750,000) for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Under an amendment
offered by Representative Darlene Hooley and agreed to by the House on a 315-103
vote (Roll No. 343), funding for OMB is reduced by $9 million and for the HIDTAP
is increased by $9 million. An amendment offered by Representative Mark Souder
and agreed to by the House on a 268-151 vote (Roll No. 344) provides funding of
$238.3 million dollars for other federal drug control programs and $145 million for
the national media campaign, an account under the programs. Both amounts
represent increases of $25 million over the House committee recommendations.
OMB’s statement of administration policy on the House version of the
legislation addresses several provisions under the EOP. It urges the transfer of the
HIDTAP to the Department of Justice and reduced funding of the program, the
consolidation of the White House Accounts and continuation of the Enterprise
Services initiative to OMB and ONDCP, and funding of the Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board at the level requested in the budget and modeling of the

---

CRS-37
board after the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.31 The views on the
transfer of HIDTAP and the consolidation of the White House Accounts are
reiterated in OMB’s statement of administration policy on the Senate version of the
legislation.32
The Senate Committee on Appropriations marked up H.R. 3058 on July 21,
2005. The Committee recommended $730.8 million, $33 million less than FY2005
(excluding FY2005 emergency funding for disaster relief) and $48 million less than
the House-passed amount. The difference from FY2005 and the House’s FY2006
figure is largely in a reduction for drug control programs other than the HIDTAP.
Among the Committee’s funding recommendations for the EOP accounts are these:
the Office of Policy Development and its funds are merged into the White House
Office account, OMB is funded at the level requested by the President, and, like the
House bill, the HIDTAP’s funding is increased and remains within the EOP’s
appropriation.
The Senate passed its version of H.R. 3058 on October 20,2005. The Senate
supported the Senate Appropriations Committee recommendations.
Title VII: Independent Agencies
Independent Agencies Budget and Key Policy Issues
In addition to funding for the aforementioned Departments and agencies, a
collection of 21 independent agencies receive funding through this appropriations
bill. Table 10 lists appropriations for FY2005 as enacted, and for FY2006 as
requested in the President’s Budget and passed in the House and the Senate, for each
agency.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Defense
(DOD) are in the midst of implementing new human resources management systems
for their federal civilian employees. A significant issue for the human resources
management-related federal agencies during this appropriations cycle has been the
impact of the DHS and DOD changes on the labor-management relations and the
adverse actions and appeals workloads of the Federal Labor Relations Authority,
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and
on the workforce management policies of the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM).
31 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administration Policy, H.R. 3058 — Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, and the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY2006, June
29, 2005, pp. 3-5. (Hereafter referred to as Statement of Administration Policy on H.R.
3058 (House).)
32 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administration Policy, H.R. 3058 — Transportation, Treasury, Judiciary, HUD, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY2006,Oct. 19, 2005, p. 3. (Hereafter referred to as
Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3058 (Senate).)

---

CRS-38
Table 10. Title VII: Independent Agencies Appropriations,
FY2005 to FY2006
(in millions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Agency
Enacted*
Request
House
Senate
Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board
$6
$6
$6
$6
Consumer Product Safety Commission
62
62
62
63
Election Assistance Commission+
14
18
16
14
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office
of Inspector General
30
30
30
31
Federal Election Commission
52
55
55
55
Federal Labor Relations Authority
25
25
25
25
Federal Maritime Commission
19
20
20
20
General Services Administration
216
219
199
219
Merit Systems Protection Board
37
37
38
38
Morris K. Udall Foundation
3
1
4
3
National Archives and Records Administration
311
315
325
328
National Credit Union Administration
Limitation on direct loans
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
Community Development Revolving Loan
Fund
1
1
1
1
National Transportation Safety Board
76
77
77
77
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
114
118
118
115
Office of Government Ethics
11
11
11
11
Office of Personnel Management (total)
18,212
18,743
18,742
18,743
Salaries and Expenses
124
125
120
125
Government Payments for Annuitants,
Employees Health Benefits
8,135
8,393
8,393
8,393
Government Payments for Annuitants,
Employee Life Insurance
35
36
36
36
Payment to Civil Service Retirement and
Disability Fund
9,772
10,072
10,072
10,072
Office of Special Counsel
15
15
15
15
Selective Service System+
26
26
24
26
United States Interagency Council on
Homelessness
1
2
1
2
United States Postal Service
630
149
178
178
United States Tax Court
41
49
49
48
Total, Independent Agencies
19,756
19,948
19,967
19,986
Notes: Figures for FY2005 enacted and FY2006 are from a budget authority table dated provided by the House
Committee on Appropriations. Because of differing treatment of offsets, the totals will not always match the
Administration’s totals. The figures within this table may differ slightly from those in the text due to
supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and other funding actions. Columns may not add due to rounding or
exclusion of smaller program line-items.
*FY2005 figures reflect an across-the-board rescission of 0.83%.

---

CRS-39
+Selective Service System is included in House bill; in Senate, this agency is in the Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs appropriations bill.
Merit Systems Protection Board. Both the House and Senate Committee
on Appropriations reports state that the increased funding recommended (and
approved by both houses) for MSPB is to accommodate additional appeals cases
resulting from the decisions of DHS and DOD to maintain MSPB as an arbitrator.
Office of Personnel Management. Several directives for OPM are
included in the House Committee on Appropriations report as follows. OPM is to
continue to implement and refine the new DHS and DOD personnel systems before
“bringing the system” to other agencies and departments. An FY2006 operating plan,
signed by the OPM Director, must be submitted to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees within 60 days and include funding levels for the various
offices, centers, programs, and initiatives in the budget justification. OPM is to
include “clear, detailed, and concise” information in its budget justification on the
funding and measurement of programs. OPM and OMB must submit a report to
Congress within 90 days after the act’s enactment on:
how many veterans and disabled veterans are employed in the Federal
Government by department and agency, including in the Executive Office of the
President, the barriers that exist to hiring veterans and disabled veterans, and
ways to increase the number of veterans and disabled veterans employed in the
Federal Government to the level employed at the time of the Civil Service
Reform Act of 1978.
Notable among the funding recommended by the House Committee on
Appropriations is $680,000 for OPM to partner with the Partnership for Public
Service “to identify successful recruitment models across different college campuses”
for application to the federal government and a reduction of $3 million from the
Center for Financial Services because the budget request did not support costs related
to performance management, program evaluation, and research projects. OMB’s
statement of administration policy on the legislation identifies the $3 million funding
reduction and the prohibition on expanding civil service reform to other agencies at
this time as among the provisions that “would impede” implementation of the
President’s Management Agenda (PMA). The statement cautions that, “if the final
version of the bill were to significantly erode the PMA, the President’s senior
advisors would recommend he veto the bill.”33
The Senate Committee on Appropriations directs OPM to continue its work
with GAO and GSA in studying the child care needs of federal employees and to
reevaluate its efforts to inform and educate agencies on promoting the program which
subsidizes child care for lower income employees. Additionally, OPM is directed to
33 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administration Policy, H.R. 3058 — Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, and the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY2006, June
29, 2005, pp. 4-5.

---

CRS-40
carefully consider GAO’s recommendations for modernization of the retirement
system and continue consultations with GAO on the project. The Committee
recommends funding of up to $10.3 million for e-Government projects, matching the
President’s request.
Office of Special Counsel. Directives for the Office of Special Counsel
included in the Senate Committee on Appropriations report are these: (1) that OSC
submit its FY2007 budget justification on the first Monday in February, (2) that,
concurrent with the budget submission, OSC submit a comprehensive strategy to
address capital needs and case processing, and (3) that OSC provide quarterly
staffing reports to Congress.
Federal Election Commission. The FEC administers federal campaign
finance law, including overseeing disclosure requirements, limits on contributions
and expenditures, and the presidential election public funding system; the agency
retains civil enforcement authority for the law.
The President’s fiscal 2006 budget proposed an appropriation of $54.6 million
for the FEC, a 5.5% increase above the fiscal 2005 appropriation of $51.7 million.
The increase reflects adjustments for inflation and salary and benefit increases, but
no additional funds or staff for new programs. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended and the House voted an appropriation of $54.7 million, with at least
$4.7 million designated for internal automated data systems and $5,000 for
representational and reception expenses.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended and the Senate voted an
appropriation of $54.6 million, the same as in the President’s budget. The Senate
specified, as did the House, that at least $4.7 million shall be designated for internal
automated data systems and $5,000 for representational and reception expenses. One
provision added in the Senate committee, to allow unlimited transfers of funds
between leadership PACs (those established, financed, maintained, or controlled by
a federal candidate or officeholder) and national party committees, was deleted by
voice vote on the Senate floor.
General Services Administration (GSA). The General Services
Administration administers federal civilian procurement policies pertaining to the
construction and management of federal buildings, disposal of real and personal
property, and management of federal property and records. It is also responsible for
managing the funding and facilities for former Presidents and presidential transitions.
Typically only about 1% of GSA’s total budget is funded by direct appropriations.
As reported and passed in the House, H.R. 3058 provides $217 million in direct
appropriations ($2 million less than requested). Of this total, an appropriation of
$52.8 million is provided for government-wide policy and $99.9 million for
operating expenses; $43.4 million for the Office of Inspector General; $2.9 million
for allowances and office staff for former Presidents; $3.0 million for the electronic
government initiatives; and $15.0 million to be deposited into the Federal Citizen
Information Center Fund.

---

CRS-41
As reported and passed in the Senate, H.R. 3058 provides $219 million in direct
appropriations, the same as requested by the President. The Senate and the President
recommend $5 million for the eGov fund compared to $3 million as approved by the
House (see below). Otherwise the Senate version mirrors the levels in the House-
passed version.
Table 11. General Services Administration Appropriations,
FY2005 to FY2006
(in millions of dollars)
FY2006
FY2006
Fund/Office
FY2005
FY2006
House
Senate
Enacted*
Request
Federal Buildings Fund
Limitations on Availability of
Revenues
$7,217
$7,769
$7,769
$7,890
Limitations on Obligation:
829
New Construction Projects
709
640
708
Limitations on Obligation:
961
Repairs and Alterations
980
1,029
961
Rescission
-$106
General Activities Accounts
Government-wide Policy
62
53
53
53
Operating Expenses
91
100
100
100
Office of Inspector General
42
43
43
43
Allowances and Office Staff
for Former Presidents
3
3
3
3
Federal Citizen Information
Center Fund
15
15
15
15
Electronic Gov’t (E-Gov) Fund
3
5
3
5
GSA direct appropriations total
216
219
217
219
Source: Figures for FY2005 enacted and FY2006 request are adapted from a budget authority table,
dated 04/04/05, compiled by the House Committee on Appropriations. Because of differing treatment
of offsets, the totals will not always match the Administration’s totals.
*FY2005 figures reflect an across-the-board rescission of 0.83%.
Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). Most GSA spending is financed through
the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). Rent assessments from agencies paid into the
FBF provide the principal source of its funding. Congress may also provide direct
funding into the FBF, as occurred in FY2004, with an appropriation of $443 million.

---

CRS-42
Congress directs the GSA as to the allocation or limitation on spending of funds from
the FBF in provisions found accompanying GSA’s annual appropriations.
As approved by the House, $708.1 million shall remain available until expended
for new construction projects from the FBF, which totals $7.8 billion. For repairs
and alterations, $961.4 million shall remain available until expended. This amount
includes $15.7 million to implement a glass fragmentation program; $10.0 million
to implement a chlorofluorocarbons program; and amounts to provide such
reimbursable fencing, lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on private or other
property not in Government ownership or control as may be appropriate to enable the
United States Secret Service to perform its protective functions pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3056.
As passed by the Senate, H.R. 3058 recommends a limitation of $829.1 million
for the FBF (an increase of $121.0 million above House enacted amount) for the
construction of new federal facilities, and $961.4 million for repairs and alterations
(same as House enacted amount). The Senate Committee also noted that it strongly
supports the purpose and structure of the FBF, and believes that GSA rent policies
are “appropriate and necessary.” Any reduction in rent for federal courthouses will
“inhibit the ability” of GSA to address comprehensive building needs of the federal
government. The Senate Committee also directed the GSA Office of the Chief
Architect to use $5.0 million to continue to work with the private sector to enhance
existing risk methodology designed to support structural upgrades and hazard
mitigation in new construction projects and major renovations to existing facilities.
Electronic Government Fund (E-gov Fund). Originally unveiled in
advance of the President’s proposed budget for FY2002, the E-gov Fund and its
appropriation has been a somewhat contentious matter between the President and
Congress. The President’s initial $20 million request was cut to $5 million, which
was the amount provided for FY2003, as well. Funding thereafter was held at $3
million for FY2004 and FY2005. Created to support interagency e-gov initiatives
approved by the Director of OMB, the fund and the projects it funds have been
subject to close scrutiny by, and accountability to, congressional appropriators. The
House approved the $3 million for FY2006 recommended by appropriators. Senate
appropriators recommended $5 million for the fund, which was then approved by the
full Senate.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The custodian
of the historically valuable records of the federal government since its establishment
in 1934, NARA also prescribes policy and provides both guidance and management
assistance concerning the entire life cycle of federal records. It also administers the
presidential libraries system; publishes the laws, regulations, and presidential and
other documents; and assists the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO),
which manages federal security classification and declassification policy; and the
National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC), which makes
grants nationwide to help nonprofit organizations identify, preserve, and provide
access to materials that document American history.
For FY2006, the President had requested $323 million for NARA, a modest
increase over the $264.8 million appropriated for the agency for FY2005. Of this

---

CRS-43
requested amount, the following distributions were specified: $280.9 for operating
expenses, a modest increase over the $266.9 appropriated for FY2005; $36.0 for the
electronic records archive; $6.1 million for repairs and restoration, a significant
reduction from the $13.4 appropriated for this account for FY2005; and no requested
funds for the NHPRC, which had received $5 million in FY2005.
The House approved the $325 million recommended by the appropriators for
NARA, which is approximately $10 million more than the amount requested for the
agency in the President’s budget. Of this amount, distributions would be as follows:
$283.9 for operating expenses, with $2.9 million of these funds designated for the
anticipated receipt, and initial operation, of the now privately maintained Nixon
presidential library; $35.9 for the electronic records archive; and almost $6.2 million
for repairs and restoration. For the NHPRC account, $7.5 million was recommended,
$2 for operations and the remainder for grants. An almost $8.5 million debt
adjustment in committee reduced the $333.5 million allocation to $325 million.
The Senate approved $328 million for NARA, distributed as follows: $280.9 for
operating expenses; $38.9 for the electronic records archive, with $3 million of these
funds designated for work with the National Oceanographic Office at the National
Center for Critical Information Processing and Storage at the Stennis Space Center
in Mississippi; and a little over $11.6 million for repairs and restoration, with $5.5
million of this amount provided for projects at a new regional archives and records
center in Alaska and at the Kennedy and Johnson presidential libraries. For the
NHPRC account, $5 million was allocated. An almost $8.5 million debt adjustment
was also accepted.
Postal Service.34 The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is self-supporting; it
generates nearly all of its funding — about $69 billion annually — by charging users
of the mail for the costs of the services it provides. Congress does provide a regular
appropriation, however, to compensate USPS for revenue it forgoes in providing, at
congressional direction, free mailing privileges for the blind and for overseas voting.
Congress has also provided funds in recent years for bio-terrorism detection in the
wake of the anthrax events of 2001.
Under the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of 1993, Congress is authorized to
reimburse USPS $29 million each year until 2035, for services provided below cost
to non-profit organizations at congressional direction in the 1990s, but not paid for
at the time. For the past 12 years, the Postal Service appropriation has consisted of
that amount, plus an estimate of the amount needed to pay for mail for the blind and
overseas voters for the current year.
In its FY2006 Budget, the Administration proposed an appropriation of $87.4
million, including $58.8 million for revenue forgone in FY2006 and a reconciliation
adjustment for underestimated mail volume in FY2002 of $28.6 million. The Postal
Service estimated that the FY2006 amount would be $79.9 million, or $21.2 million
34 Also see CRS Report RS21025, The Postal Revenue Forgone Appropriation: Overview
and Current Issues, by Nye Stevens.

---

CRS-44
more than OMB requested, and asked Congress to appropriate that amount. Either
amount would be supplemented by a $28.6 million reconciliation adjustment
reflecting that actual use of the subsidy in FY2002 was underestimated by that
amount. The Administration’s budget proposed that the $87.4 million would not be
available for obligation until October 1, 2006, which is in FY2007.
The Administration’s FY2006 budget also proposed to eliminate the usual $29
million annual payment for revenue forgone in past years that is set forth in the
Revenue Forgone Reform Act. USPS argues that cancelling the payment could result
in the whole 29-year obligation, totaling $870 million, being written off as a bad debt
and charged to current postal ratepayers.
In its detailed justification of its FY2006 budget request, USPS asked Congress
for an additional $51 million in emergency response funds to protect the safety of
employees and customers from threats such as the 2001 anthrax attack. The
Administration’s FY2006 Budget does not include any additional funds for
emergency preparedness for the Postal Service.
The House bill, as reported by committee and passed by the House, adopted the
Administration’s recommendation by providing $87.4 million for the current year’s
revenue forgone. It departed from the budget, however, in holding only $73 million
of that until FY2007, and in providing the annual $29 million for revenue forgone in
the past. The USPS request for $51 million to carry out the latter stages of the
emergency preparedness plan was not granted.
The Senate mirrored the action of the House in its action on H.R. 3058, even
though the Statement of Administration Policy on the bill opposed the $29 million
for past revenue forgone.
Titles VIII and IX: General Provisions
The Transportation, Treasury, et al. Appropriations Act customarily includes
general provisions which apply either government-wide or to specific agencies or
programs. There also may be general provisions at the end of each individual title
within the appropriations act which relate only to agencies and accounts within that
specific title. The Administration’s proposed language for government-wide general
provisions is included in the FY2006 Budget, Appendix.35 Most of the provisions
continue language which has appeared under the General Provisions title for several
years. For various reasons, Congress has determined that reiterating the language is
preferable to making the provisions permanent. Presented below are some of the
government-wide general provisions that are proposed for elimination in the FY2006
budget. Inclusion of the provisions in the House-passed and Senate-passed bill is
noted.
! Section 609, which prohibits payment to political appointees functioning in jobs
for which they have been nominated, but not confirmed. Included as Section 909
of the House bill as passed and as Section 807 of the Senate bill as passed.
35 FY2006 Budget, Appendix, pp. 9-14.

---

CRS-45
! Section 619, which prohibits the obligation or expenditure of appropriated funds
for employee training when it (1) does not meet identified needs for knowledge,
skills, and abilities bearing directly upon the performance of official duties; (2)
contains elements likely to induce high levels of emotional response or
psychological stress in some participants; (3) does not require prior employee
notification of the content and methods to be used in the training and written end-
of-course evaluation; (4) contains any methods or content associated with religious
or quasi-religious belief systems or “new age” belief systems; or (5) is offensive
to, or designed to change, participants’ personal values or lifestyle outside the
workplace. Included as Section 919 of the House bill as passed and as Section
817 of the Senate bill as passed.
! Section 620, which prohibits the use of appropriated funds to require and execute
employee non-disclosure agreements without those agreements having whistle-
blower protection clauses. Included as Section 920 of the House bill as passed and
as Section 818 of the Senate bill as passed.
! Section 623, which requires that the Committees on Appropriations approve the
release of any “non-public” information, such as mailing or telephone lists, to any
person or any organization outside the federal government. The Administration
also requested repeal of this requirement in its FY2003 and FY2005 budget
requests. Included as Section 923 of the House bill as passed and as Section 821
of the Senate bill as passed.
! Section 628, which prohibits using appropriated funds to contract independently
with private companies to provide online employment applications and processing
services. The Administration also proposed eliminating this prohibition in its
FY2005 budget request. Included as Section 928 of the House bill as reported, but
not included in the House bill as passed and not included in the Senate bill as
passed.
! Section 635, which states that Congress recognizes the United States Anti-Doping
Agency as the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American, and
Paralympic sports in the United States. Included as Section 934 of the House bill
as passed and as Section 832 of the Senate bill as passed.
! Section 637, which prohibits the purchase of a product or service offered by the
Federal Prison Industries, Inc., unless the agency making such purchase
determines that such product or service provides the best value. The
Administration also proposed repealing this prohibition in its FY2005 budget
request. Included as Section 936 of the House bill as passed and not included in
the Senate bill as passed.
Among new government-wide general provisions in the FY2006 bill are those
on (1) public-private competitions for activities not inherently governmental (Section
941 of House-passed and Sec. 840 of Senate-passed), (2) requirements for transfers
or reimbursements to the E-Government Initiatives (Section 942 of House-passed),
and (3) a 3.1% pay adjustment for federal civilian employees, including those in the
Departments of Homeland Security and Defense (Section 943 of House-passed and
Sec. 836 of Senate-passed). OMB’s statement of administration policy on the House
version of the legislation reflects strong opposition to the government-wide pay
adjustment provision and states that recruitment or retention problems “are limited

---

CRS-46
to a few areas and occupations.”36 The OMB statement that accompanies the Senate
version of the legislation expresses strong opposition to any provision providing a
government-wide pay adjustment in excess of the 2.3% recommended by the
President in the FY2006 budget.37
Cuba Sanctions38
Since 2000, either one or both houses have approved provisions in the annual
Treasury Department appropriations bill that would ease U.S. economic sanctions on
Cuba (especially on travel and on U.S. agricultural exports) but none of these
provisions was enacted. This year, the House-passed and Senate-passed versions of
the FY2006 Transportation-Treasury-Housing appropriations bill, H.R. 3058, include
identical provisions (Section 945 in the House version and Section 721 in the Senate
version) that would prevent funds from being used to implement a February 2005
amendment to the Cuba embargo regulations that tightened restrictions on “payment
of cash in advance” for U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba. The tightened restrictions
require that cash payment for the exports is received prior to the shipment of the
goods from the port at which they are loaded. The Administration’s Statements of
Policy on the bill, for both the House and Senate versions, maintain that the President
would veto the bill if it contained this provision.
Several House amendments to H.R. 3058 that would have eased Cuba sanctions
further failed during June 30, 2005 floor consideration: H.Amdt. 420 (Davis) on
family travel, by a vote of 208-211; H.Amdt. 422 (Lee) on educational travel, by a
vote of 187-233; and H.Amdt. 424 (Rangel) on the overall embargo, by a vote of
169-250. An additional amendment on religious travel, H.Amdt. 421 (Flake), was
withdrawn, and an amendment on family travel by members of the U.S. military,
H.Amdt. 419 (Flake), was ruled out of order for constituting legislation in an
appropriations bill.
During Senate consideration, S.Amdt. 2133 (Dorgan), proposed on October 19,
2005, would have prohibited funds from being used to enforce restrictions on travel.
The amendment was withdrawn the following day after a second-degree amendment,
S.Amdt. 2158 (Ensign), related to abortion (and unrelated to Cuba) was proposed.
Since the early 1960s, U.S. policy toward Communist Cuba under Fidel Castro
has consisted largely of efforts to isolate the island nation through comprehensive
economic sanctions, including prohibitions on U.S. financial transactions — the
Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) — that are administered by the Treasury
Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Restrictions on travel have
36 Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3058 (House), p. 4. The statement discusses
concerns about several of the general provisions vis a vis the President’s constitutional
authority at p. 6.
37 Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3058 (Senate), p. 3. The statement discusses
concerns about several of the general provisions vis a vis the President’s constitutional
authority at pp. 6-7.
38 Prepared by Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.

---

CRS-47
been a key and often contentious component of U.S. efforts to isolate the Cuban
government. The regulations have not banned travel itself, but have placed
restrictions on any financial transactions related to travel to Cuba. In 2004, the Bush
Administration significantly tightened restrictions on travel, and there was
considerable reaction to the Administration’s tightening of restrictions for family
visits and educational travel.
Under U.S. sanctions, commercial agricultural exports to Cuba have been
allowed since 2001 under the terms of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 or TSRA, but with numerous restrictions and licensing
requirements. Exporters are denied access to U.S. private commercial financing or
credit, and all transactions must be conducted in cash in advance or with financing
from third countries.
Earlier this year, the Administration tightened U.S. economic sanctions against
Cuba by further restricting how U.S. agricultural exporters may be paid for their
sales. On February 22, 2005, OFAC amended the CACR to clarify that the term
“payment of cash in advance” for U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba means that the
payment is to be received prior to the shipment of the goods. This differs from the
practice of being paid before the actual delivery of the goods, a practice that had been
utilized by most U.S. agricultural exporters to Cuba since such sales were legalized
in late 2001. U.S. agricultural exporters and some Members of Congress strongly
objected that the action constituted a new sanction that violated the intent of TSRA,
and could jeopardize millions of dollars in U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba. OFAC
Director Robert Werner maintains that the clarification “conforms to the common
understanding of the term in international trade.”39 On July 29, 2005, OFAC clarified
that, for “payment of cash in advance” for the commercial sale of U.S. agricultural
exports to Cuba, vessels can leave U.S. ports as soon as a foreign bank confirms
receipt of payment from Cuba. OFAC’s action would reportedly ensure that the
goods would not be vulnerable to seizure for unrelated claims while still at the U.S.
port. Supporters of overturning OFAC’s February 22, 2005 amendment, such as the
American Farm Bureau Federation, were pleased by the clarification but indicated
that they would still work to overturn the February rule.40
Since late 2001, Cuba has purchased over $1 billion in agricultural products
from the United States. Overall U.S. exports to Cuba amounted to about $7 million
in 2001, $146 million in 2002, $259 million in 2003, $400 million in 2004, and $245
million in the first eight months of 2005, the majority in agricultural products. U.S.
exports to Cuba for January to August 2005 declined about 22% from the same time
period in 2004.41
39 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Testimony of Robert Werner, Director, OFAC, before
the House Committee on Agriculture, March 16, 2005.
40 Christopher S. Rugaber, “Treasury Clarifies Cuba Farm Export Rule, and Baucus Relents
on Nominees,” International Trade Reporter, August 4, 2005.
41 Trade Atlas. Department of Commerce Statistics.

---

CRS-48
For additional information, see CRS Report RL32730, Cuba: Issues for the
109th Congress; CRS Issue Brief IB10061, Exempting Food and Agriculture
Products from U.S. Economic Sanctions: Status and Implementation; and CRS
Report RL31139, Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances.

---