Order Code RL33551
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 (TTHUD):
FY2007 Appropriations
Updated August 23, 2006
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 (TTHUD):
FY2007 Appropriations
Summary
The Bush Administration requested $138.5 billion (after scorekeeping
adjustments) for these agencies for FY2007, an increase over the $136.2 billion
provided in their FY2006 appropriations act (after a 1.0% across-the-board rescission
that was included in the FY2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, P.L.
109-148). The total FY2006 funding (after scorekeeping adjustments) for the
agencies in this bill was $146.3 billion, due to emergency supplemental funding
provided to deal with the effects of the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005.
The House-passed version of H.R. 5576, the FY2007 Departments of
Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary,
District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill, provides a net
total of $139.6 billion for FY2007, $3.4 billion (2%) over the amount provided in the
FY2006 Act and $1.1 billion (less than 1%) over the Administration’s request (after
scorekeeping adjustments). The House provided significant increases over the
requested levels of funding for aviation programs and Amtrak, for a number of
programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and for the
Executive Office of the President.
Other provisions in the House-passed bill include provisions directing Amtrak
to achieve operating improvements, prohibiting the Internal Revenue Service from
using private collection agencies to collect overdue taxes, providing the same pay
increase to civilian federal employees as to military personnel for calendar year 2007
(2.7%), restricting outsourcing of federal work, prohibiting the Department of
Transportation (DOT) from allowing increased foreign control of U.S. airlines, and
easing restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out H.R. 5576 on July 26,
2006. The Committee recommended a net total of $141.2 billion, $3.6 billion (3%)
over the amount provided in the FY2006 Act and $2.6 billion (2%) over the
Administration request. The Committee recommended significant increases over the
requested levels of funding for aviation programs and Amtrak, for a number of
programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and for the
Executive Office of the President.
The Committee also recommended several provisions, including one barring
Amtrak from outsourcing work to foreign countries and one barring the DOT from
finalizing or implementing a rule that might allow increased foreign control of U.S.
airlines. This report will be updated.

---

Key Policy Staff
CRS
Telephone
Area of Expertise
Name
Div.
#
Title I: Department of Transportation
Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation
Bart Elias
RSI
7-7771
Administration
Airport Improvement Program, Transportation
Infrastructure Policy, Transportation Trust
John Fischer
RSI
7-7766
Funds
Federal Railroad Administration; Maritime
John Frittelli
RSI
7-7033
Administration; Surface Transportation Board
Airport Improvement Program, Federal
Bob Kirk
RSI
7-7769
Highway Administration
Amtrak, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, Federal Transit
Administration, High-Speed Rail, National
Randy Peterman
RSI
7-3267
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Surface Transportation Safety
Title II: Department of the Treasury
Treasury, Internal Revenue Service
Gary Guenther
G&F
7-7742
Title III: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Low-income housing programs and issues and
general HUD: Section 8, Public Housing,
Maggie McCarty
DSP
7-2163
HOPE VI, HOME
Community Development programs and
issues: Community Development Block Grants
Eugene Boyd
DSP
7-8689
(CDBG), EZ/EC, Brownfields redevelopment
Housing programs and issues for special
populations: Elderly (202), Disabled (811),
Libby Perl
DSP
7-7806
Homeless, AIDS housing
Homeownership and other housing issues:
Bruce Foote
G&F
7-7805
FHA, Rural, Indian housing, Fair Housing
Title IV: The Judiciary
Judiciary
Steve Rutkus
G&F
7-7162
Judiciary
Lorraine Tong
G&F
7-5846
Division B: District of Columbia
District of Columbia
Eugene Boyd
G&F
7-8689
Title V: 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 VI: Independent Agencies
Generally
Virginia McMurtry
G&F
7-8678
Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Nancy Jones
ALD
7-6976
Compliance Board
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
Harold Relyea
G&F
7-8679
GSA
Office of Personnel Management; Office of
Barbara Schwemle
G&F
7-8655
Special Counsel
National Credit Union Administration
Pauline Smale
G&F
7-7832
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
Eugene Boyd
G&F
7-8689
Selective Service Commission
David Burrelli
FDT
7-8033
United States Interagency Council on
Maggie McCarty
DSP
7-2163
Homelessness
US Postal Service
Nye Stevens
G&F
7-0208
Title VIII: 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
Different Appropriations Subcommittee Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Title I: Transportation Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Amtrak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Airport Improvement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Essential Air Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Surface Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Maritime Administration (MARAD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Title II: Department of the Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Department of the Treasury Budget and Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Title III: Department of Housing and Urban Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget and Key
Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Community Development Fund/Block Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Housing Programs for the Elderly and the Disabled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Public Housing/HOPE VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Title IV: The Judiciary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
The Judiciary Budget and Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
House Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Senate Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
U.S. Court of International Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services . . . . . 30
Salaries and Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Court Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Defender Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Federal Judicial Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
United States Sentencing Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Judiciary Retirement Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Administrative Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Title V: District of Columbia Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
District of Columbia Budget and Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
District Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

---

House Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Senate Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Titles V (Senate) and VI (House): Executive Office of the President and
Funds Appropriated to the President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Executive Office of the President Budget and Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . 37
Title VII: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Federal Election Commission (FEC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
General Services Administration (GSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Electronic Government Fund (E-gov Fund) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Office of Special Counsel (OSC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Postal Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Titles VIII (Senate) and IX (House): General Provisions Government-Wide . . 53
Cuba Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2007 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,
FY2006-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations,
FY2002-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 4. Title I: Department of Transportation Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 5. Title II: Department of the Treasury Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 6. Title III: Housing and Urban Development Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 7. Title IV: The Judiciary Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 8. Title V: District of Columbia Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 9. Titles V and VI: Executive Office of the President (EOP) and
Funds Appropriated to the President Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007 . 36
Table 10. Senate Committee on Appropriations Funding Recommendations
for Federal Drug Control Programs in the Executive Office of the
President, FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 11. Title VII: Independent Agencies Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 12. General Services Administration Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

---

Transportation, the Treasury, Housing and
Urban Development, the Judiciary, the
District of Columbia, the Executive Office of
the President, and Independent Agencies
(TTHUD): FY2007 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On July 26, 2006, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out H.R.
5576, the FY2007 Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations bill. The Committee recommended an overall net funding level of
$141.2 billion (after budgetary scorekeeping adjustments), an increase of $3.6 billion
(3%) over the amount in the FY2006 Act, $3.3 billion (2%) over the Administration
request, and $2.5 billion (2%) over the House-passed amount.1 The Committee also
recommended, performance requirements for Amtrak, a 2.7% pay raise for federal
civilian workers for calendar year 2007, an easing of restrictions on agricultural
exports to Cuba, and a prohibition on easing restrictions on foreign control of U.S.
airlines.
On June 14, 2006, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5576. The House
approved an overall funding level of $139.6 billion (after budgetary scorekeeping
adjustments), a $2 billion (1%) increase over the amount in the FY2006 Act2 and a
$1 billion (less than 1%) increase over the Administration’s request. The House
approved the Appropriations Committee’s recommendations to provide the same pay
raise (2.7%) to federal civilian workers as that provided for uniformed military
personnel for calendar year 2007, to impose performance requirements on Amtrak,
to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from using private collection agencies to
collect taxes, and to restrict the outsourcing of federal work. The House approved
several amendments to the bill, including ones increasing funding for Amtrak and for
1 These comparisons are based on a Senate figure of $141.8 billion, which includes the
Senate-reported level for appropriations for the District of Columbia ($597 million). The
House-passed version of H.R. 5576 includes appropriations for the District of Columbia, but
the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out the District of Columbia’s
appropriation in S. 3660.
2 FY2006 funding for some agencies funded in this act, notably the Departments of
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, was increased in supplemental
appropriations acts to deal with the effects of the hurricanes that struck Florida and the Gulf
Coast in 2005. Total enacted FY2006 funding, including supplemental funding, after
scorekeeping adjustments, was $151.0 billion.

---

CRS-2
selected programs in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and to
ease restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba (the Administration has
threatened to veto the bill if it contained provisions weakening sanctions on Cuba3).
Overview
The President’s FY2007 request for the programs covered by this appropriations
bill was $138.5 billion. This was $2.3 billion (2%) over the total in the FY2006 Act
(after a 1.0% across-the-board rescission applied to the FY2006 funding). The
FY2007 request included cuts from the FY2006 funding level for grants to airports
(-$764 million), Amtrak (-$394 million), and housing programs for elderly and
disabled in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (-$307 million). The
FY2007 request for the Executive Office of the President was $225 million less than
the FY2006 figure; that reduction was primarily due to the proposed transfer of the
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program ($225 million in FY2006) from the
Executive Office of the President to the Department of Justice.
The President’s FY2007 budget request proposals included:
! funding Amtrak, the provider of intercity passenger rail service, at
$900 million, down from $1.2 billion in FY2006;
! reducing funding for the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA)
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) to $2.8 billion, $700 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;
! reducing funding for community and economic development
programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) to $6.8 billion, $815 million below the amount provided in
the FY2006 Act;
! reducing funding for housing for elderly and disabled persons under
HUD by $307 million (32%), from $971 million for FY2006 to $664
million for FY2007;
! 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.
The House did not support most of these proposed changes. The House-passed
version of H.R. 5576, the FY2007 Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and
Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary, District of Columbia, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations bill, provided $139.6 billion, $1.1 billion (less
than 1%) over the Administration’s request. The bill generally reflected
recommendations of the House Committee on Appropriations; the House did
approve amendments increasing Amtrak’s FY2007 funding from $900 million to
3 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administration Policy, H.R. 5576 — Transportation, Treasury, Housing, the Judiciary, and
the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY2007, June 14, 2006, p. 6.

---

CRS-3
$1.1 billion, and approved 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 the bill if
it included any provision easing sanctions on Cuba.4
H.R. 5576, as reported out by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, also
does not support most of the changes proposed by the Administration. The
Committee recommended $141.2 billion (plus $597 million for the District of
Columbia in a separate bill), a total of $3.3 (2%) over the Administration request.
The Committee recommended increases over the Administration request for aviation,
Amtrak, housing, the Internal Revenue Service, and drug control programs in the
Executive Office of the President. Among the provisions recommended by the
Committee was one easing restrictions on agricultural trade with Cuba, similar to the
provision that had drawn a veto threat against the House-passed bill.
Different Appropriations Subcommittee Structures. 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, in addition, jurisdiction over appropriations for the
Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Judiciary as well as several
additional independent agencies was added.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reduced its number of subcommittees
to 12. The Senate also added jurisdiction over appropriations for the Departments
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.
4 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administration Policy, H.R. 5576 — Transportation, Treasury, Housing, the Judiciary, and
the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY2007, June 14, 2006.

---

CRS-4
Table 1 notes the status of the FY2007 Transportation et al. appropriations bill.
Table 1. Status of FY2007 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.
6/14/06
5/25/06
109-495
109-293
406-22
6/9/06
7/26/06
Table 2 lists the total funding provided for each of the titles in the bill (the last
two titles cover general provisions affecting this bill and general provisions affecting
the entire federal government) for FY2006 and the amount requested for that title for
FY2007.
Table 2. Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations, by Title,
FY2006-FY2007
(millions of dollars)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Enacted*
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Title
Passed
Reported
Title I: Department of
$60,677
$64,432
$64,720
$65,028
Transportation
Title II: Department of the Treasury
11,689
11,606
11,522
11,706
Title III: Housing and Urban
33,974
34,118
35,309
36,588
Development
Title IV: The Judiciary
5,756
6,260
6,063
6,098
Title V: District of Columbia
603
597
575
597
Title VI: Executive Office of the
736
503
723
730
President
Title VII: Independent Agencies
19,989
20,999
20,708
21,062
Title VIII-VIIII: General Provisions
—
—
—
—
—
Total
$137,623
$138,516
$139,620 $141,808
Source: Budget tables in H.Repts. 109-307 and 109-495 and S.Rept. 109-293. “Total” is from “Total
budgetary resources” line in budget table. The Senate-reported bill does not include the District of
Columbia appropriation; that figure was added to the Senate total by CRS for comparative purposes.
Totals may not add due to rounding and scorekeeping adjustments.
* The FY2006 figures represent the amounts enacted by the FY2006 Transportation/Treasury et al.
appropriations act (P.L. 109-115). The Defense appropriations act (P.L. 109-148) contained an
across-the-board rescission of non-emergency spending of 1.0%; also DOT and HUD received
emergency supplemental funding for FY2006 to deal with the effects of several hurricanes; those
changes are not reflected in these figures.

---

CRS-5
Table 3 shows funding trends over the five-year period FY2002-FY2006, and
the amounts requested for FY2007, for the titles in the bill. The agencies generally
experienced funding increases during the period FY2002-FY2006.
Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation/Treasury et al.
Appropriations, FY2002-FY2006
(billions of current dollars)
Department
FY2002
FY2003c
FY2004d
FY2005e FY2006f FY2007
Title I: Transportationa
$57.4
$55.7
$58.4
$59.6
$60.7
64.4
Title II: Treasuryb
10.5
10.8
11.1
11.2
11.7
11.6
Title III: Housing and
30.2
31.0
31.2
31.9
34.0
34.1
Urban Development
Title IV: Judiciary
4.7
5.4
5.2
5.4
5.8
6.3
Title V: District of
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
Columbia
Title VI: Executive Office
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.5
of the President
Title VII: Independent
—
—
—
19.8
19.9
21.0
Agencies
Source: United States House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Comparative
Statement of Budget Authority tables from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. Figures for 2006 do not
reflect emergency appropriations. Figures for 2007 are the Administration requested figures from
table in H.Rept. 109-485.
a. Figures for Department of Transportation appropriations for FY2002-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 FY2002-FY2003 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. FY2003 figures reflect a 0.65% across-the-board rescission.
d. FY2004 figures reflect a 0.59% across-the-board rescission.
e. FY2005 figures reflect a 0.83% across-the-board rescission.
f. FY2006 figures are as enacted in the FY2006 appropriations act (P.L. 109-115) and do not reflect
a 1.0% across-the-board rescission or emergency supplemental funding provided for DOT and
HUD. DOT and HUD received emergency funding for response to the effects of the Gulf Coast
hurricanes; DOT’s total FY2006 funding, including emergency funding, was $63.0 billion;
HUD’s total FY2006 funding, including emergency funding, was $45.5 billion.

---

CRS-6
Title I: Transportation Appropriations
Table 4. Title I: Department of Transportation Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007
(in millions of dollars — totals may not add)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Enacteda
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Department or Agency (Selected Accounts)
Passed
Reported
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
$237
$174
$151
$242
Essential Air Serviceb
109
— 117
117
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
13,711
12,774
15,154
14,251
Operations (trust fund & general fund)
8,104
8,366
8,360
8,366
Facilities & Equipment (F&E) (trust fund)
2,555
2,503
3,110
2,550
Grant-in-aid Airports (AIP) (trust fund)
(limit. on oblig.)
3,515
2,750
3,700
3,520
Research, Engineering & Development
(trust fund)
137
130
134
136
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
33,392
39,825
37,661c
38,324
(Limitation on Obligations)
35,672
39,086
39,086
39,086
(Exempt Obligations)
739
739
739
739
Additional funds (trust fund)
2,750
—
—
—
Additional funds (general fund)
19
—
—
40
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA)
490
517
517
517
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA)
806
815
822
807
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
1,511
1,085
1,085
1,585
Amtrak
1,294
900
900d
1,400
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
8,504
8,846
8,932
8,846
General Funds
1,594
1,583
1,670
1,583
Trust Funds
6,910
7,263
7,263
7,263
St. Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation
16
8
17
17
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
306
223
224
270
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration
115
121
121
121
Pipeline safety program
72
76
76
76
Emergency preparedness grants
14
28
28
28
Research and Innovative Technology
Administration
6
8
6
8
Office of Inspector General
62
64
64
64
Surface Transportation Board
25
22
24
25
Total, Department of Transportation
$62,316
$64,432
$64,720
$65,028

---

CRS-7
Note: Figures are from the budget authority table in H.Rept. 109-495. FY2007 figures do not reflect
floor amendments increasing or decreasing funding for different programs. 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 1.0% across-the-board rescission included in P.L. 108-447.
b. The total comes from a $50 million annual authorization for the Essential Air Service program to
be funded out of overflight fee collections and an additional amount appropriated for the
program.
c. The budget table in H.Rept. 109-495 gives a net total of $34. 411 billion for FHWA for FY2007in
the bill, but appears to double-count a $2.2 billion rescission of contract authority. The FHWA
net total figure in the text of the bill is $37.661billion (p. 29).
d. Amtrak’s appropriation was increased to $1.2 billion by a floor amendment.
Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues
The President’s budget proposed $64.4 billion for the Department of
Transportation (DOT). This was $2.1 billion (3%) more than the $62.3 billion
enacted for FY2006, including emergency spending, and $4.3 billion (7%) more than
the amount provided in the FY2006 appropriations act (after then 1% rescission).
The major funding changes requested from the FY2006 enacted levels were an
increase of $3.5 billion (10%) in the obligation limitation for highways, reflecting the
authorized level in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59) as well as an increase due
to higher-than-projected Highway Trust Fund revenues; a decrease of $394 million
(30%) in the request for Amtrak; and a decrease of $765 million (22%) in the Federal
Aviation Administration’s Airport Improvement Program.
The Administration’s budget for DOT identified three agency-specific goals
influencing the budget request: improving aviation and surface transportation safety
through increased funding for safety programs, improving transportation mobility
through investments in additional infrastructure and through investments in
technology to increase the effective capacity of the transportation systems, and
restraining spending and managing for results by, among other initiatives,
restructuring federal intercity passenger rail policy and its provider, Amtrak, and
eliminating the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program.5
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $64.7 billion for DOT,
$287 million (less than 1%) more than the Administration request and $2.4 billion
(4%) above total FY2006 funding. The primary changes from the President’s request
were additional funding for the Federal Aviation Administration ($1.5 billion),
bringing the Airport Improvement Program and Facilities and Equipment Program
up to their FY2007 authorized funding levels. The Committee also recommended
an increase of $100 million (7%) for the Federal Transit Administration’s Capital
Grants (New Starts) Program. The House supported the Committee’s
recommendations regarding transportation funding, except that the House voted to
add another $214 million (24%) for Amtrak (discussed below) and $6.7 million for
5 Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, pps. 216-224.

---

CRS-8
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Operations and Research
Program, for the Office of Fuel Economy to study how best to promote an increase
in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) by the auto industry.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $65.0 billion for DOT.
Compared to the Administration request, the Committee recommended increased
funding for airport grants-in-aid, for the Essential Air Services program, and for
Amtrak; compared to the House bill, the Committee recommended increased funding
for Amtrak and for DOT’s new headquarters building but less funding for FAA’s
facilities and equipment account and FTA’s New Starts program.
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. Amtrak’s authorization expired at the end of FY2002.
Reauthorization efforts have been stalled by fundamental disagreements between
Congress and the Administration over the future shape of federal intercity passenger
rail policy.
The Administration, which has appointed all the current members of the Amtrak
Board of Directors, has sought to force changes in intercity passenger rail policy over
the past several years by requesting less funding for Amtrak than is needed to
maintain the status quo, arguing that “only a constrained budget will force Amtrak
to change the way it conducts business.”6 Congress has responded by providing more
funding for Amtrak than requested by the Administration, while imposing conditions
on Amtrak in the appropriations bills.
The Administration requested $900 million for Amtrak for FY2007. The
Administration’s proposal received bipartisan criticism in both the House and the
Senate. The Administration has asserted in the past 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 Appropriations recommended $900 million for grants
to Amtrak for FY2007. The Committee also recommended a number of
requirements for Amtrak, including that Amtrak be required to submit a
comprehensive business plan and a detailed plan for improving its managerial cost
accounting system; to cut system overhead expenses by 10% annually; and to achieve
savings through operating efficiencies in its food and beverage service, and first class
service, resulting in these services breaking even by the end of FY2007.
In its consideration of H.R. 5576, the House approved an amendment 266-158
to increase Amtrak’s FY2007 appropriation by $214 million, from $900 million to
$1.114 billion. This is $180 million less than the $1.294 billion Amtrak is receiving
in FY2006 (after the 1.0% across-the-board rescission), and significantly less than
6 Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, p. 222.

---

CRS-9
the $1.4 billion the DOT IG testified Amtrak needed in FY2007.7 The funding is
divided into two parts: $629 million for capital grants and debt service, and $485
million for efficiency incentive grants. None of the funding goes directly to Amtrak;
Amtrak must apply to the Secretary of DOT to receive grants.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $1.4 billion for
Amtrak. As with the House, this funding is divided between capital grants and debt
service ($750 million) and efficiency incentive grants for operating costs; in both
cases, Amtrak must apply to the Secretary of DOT to receive funding. The
Committee asserts that this arrangement provides increased oversight of Amtrak.
The Committee also recommended several requirements for Amtrak similar to the
provisions in the House bill, such as requiring Amtrak to reduce the cost deficits on
its first-class service and food and beverage service. The Committee also included
a provision forbidding Amtrak from outsourcing work to foreign countries, and one
creating a pilot program to see if a state can operate passenger rail service at lower
cost than Amtrak does now.
Aviation. The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) 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
requested $12.8 billion in net funding for FY2007, $937 million less than was
enacted for FY2006. The President’s request included $18 million to hire 1,136 air
traffic controllers in FY2007. This was expected to result in a net gain of around 132
controllers after retirements expected in FY2007.
The House Committee recommended $15.2 billion for FY2007, $1.4 billion
over the level enacted for FY2006 and $2.4 billion over the Administration request.
The increases brought the FAA’s capital programs up to their FY2007 authorized
funding levels. The House supported this recommendation.
The House also adopted, 291-137, an amendment restricting foreign control
over the business decisions of U.S. airlines. The DOT has proposed a rule whose
stated purpose is to promote foreign investment in U.S. airlines.8 In response to
concerns raised about the implications of this proposed rule for national security, the
House adopted an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds provided in the
FY2007 appropriations bill to finalize or implement the proposed rule. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations also recommended a similar provision.
7 Mark R. Dayton, Senior Economist, Office of the Inspector General, United States
Department of Transportation, “Intercity Passenger Rail and Amtrak,” Testimony before the
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, March 16, 2006,
p. 1.
8 Notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2005 (70
Fed. Reg. 67389); supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal
Register on May 5, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 26425). For more information, see CRS Report
RL33255, Legal Developments in International Civil Aviation, by Todd B. Tatelman.

---

CRS-10
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $14.2 billion for
FY2007. The Committee recommended more funding that the Administration
requested, but less funding than the House provided; significant differences with the
House levels were for the Facilities and Equipment account ($2.55 billion to the
House’s $3.11 billion) and the Airport Improvement Program ($3.52 billion to the
House’s $3.7 billion).
Airport Improvement Program. The President’s budget proposed a cut to
the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), from $3.5 billion in FY2006 to $2.8 billion
for FY2007. The House provided $3.7 billion, the FY2007 authorized level; the
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $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 expressed concern at
proposed cuts in the AIP program in the face of forecasts of renewed growth in
aviation traffic.
Essential Air Service. The President’s budget proposed a $59 million (54%)
reduction in funding for the Essential Air Service program, from $109 million
(FY2006) to $50 million. The House Committee on Appropriations recommended
$117 million. The House-passed bill provided $117 million. The Senate Committee
on Appropriations also recommended $117 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 expressed
concern that the 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
previous Administrations, have also proposed reducing funding to this program.
Surface Transportation. The President’s budget requested $39.8 billion for
federal highway programs for FY2007, an increase of $3.5 billion (10%) over the
comparable level of $36.3 billion provided in FY2006.9 The budget also requested
$8.8 billion for federal transit programs for FY2007, an increase of $342 million
(4%) over the $8.5 billion provided in FY2006. These increases reflect the
authorized level of funding provided (and “guaranteed”) for surface transportation
programs by SAFETEA (P.L. 109-59), except that the request was $100 million less
than the authorized level for transit. The authorized level of FY2007 highway
funding included an increase of $842 million as a result of higher-than-expected
revenues to the Highway Trust Fund, an adjustment provided for in SAFETEA
known as Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority, or RABA.
9 In addition to the $36.3 billion in funding for federal-aid highways and exempt contract
authority provided in FY2006, the DOT also received $3.5 billion in emergency relief
funding to respond to the effects of the Gulf Coast hurricanes.

---

CRS-11
The House approved the requested (authorized) level for highway programs10
$37.0 billion for federal highway programs and added $100 million to the Capital
Grants (New Starts) transit program to bring the transit funding up to its authorized
level of $8.9 billion. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended the
same level for federal highway programs and the requested level for transit programs
(thus, $100 million less than the House provided).
The Administration requested $517 million (a 6% increase) for the Federal
Motor Carrier Administration (FMCSA) and $815 million (a 1% increase) for the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The House Committee
on Appropriations recommended the requested level for FMCSA and recommended
an additional $6 million to the amount requested for NHTSA. The House concurred
with these recommendations. The Senate Committee on Appropriations also
recommended the requested level for FMCSA and $8 million less than requested for
NHTSA.
Maritime Administration (MARAD). The Administration requested $299
million for the Maritime Administration for FY2007, $7 million (2%) below the
$306 million enacted for FY2006. As in its FY2006 budget, the Administration did
not request any new funding for National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction
Program, and requested that $74 million Congress appropriated in FY2005 for this
program be rescinded (bringing its net request down to $223 million, assuming this
rescission). The House provided $300 million, and supported the request to rescind
the $74 million for the National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction Program. That
rescission, plus a $2 million rescission of administrative expenses for the Maritime
Guaranteed Loan Program, brought the net total funding down to $224 million.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $344 million for
MARAD, significantly above the request and the House level. The additional
funding was for subsidies for the Title IX loan program ($30 million) and a new
program to assist small shipyards ($15 million). The Committee also recommended
the requested $74 million rescission for the National Defense Tanker Vessel
Construction Program (thus bringing the net total funding to $270 million).
The National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction 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.
10 $39.1 billion in obligation limitations and $739 million in exempt obligations. A $2.2
billion rescission of contract authority brings the net total after score-keeping adjustments
down to $37.7 billion.

---

CRS-12
Title II: Department of the Treasury
Department of the Treasury Budget and Key Policy Issues11
This section examines the FY2007 budget for the Treasury Department and its
operating bureaus. The FY2007 budget for the largest operating bureau, the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS), is examined in the following section.
The Treasury Department performs a variety of crucial governmental functions.
Heading the list are protecting the nation’s financial system against illicit activities
such as money laundering, collecting tax revenue, enforcing tax laws, managing and
accounting for federal debt, administering the federal government’s finances,
regulating financial institutions, and producing and distributing coins and currency.
At its most basic level of organization, Treasury consists of departmental offices
and operating bureaus. In general, the offices are responsible for formulating and
implementing policy initiatives and managing Treasury’s operations, while the
bureaus perform specific duties assigned to Treasury, largely through statutory
mandates. In the past decade or so, the bureaus have accounted for over 95% of the
agency’s funding and work force.
With one possible exception, the bureaus can be divided into those engaged in
financial management and regulation and those engaged in law enforcement. In
recent decades, the Comptroller of the Currency, U.S. Mint, Bureau of Engraving and
Printing, Financial Management Service (FMS), Bureau of Public Debt, Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI), and Office of Thrift Supervision
have undertaken tasks related to the management of the federal government’s
finances or the supervision and regulation of the U.S. financial system. By contrast,
law enforcement has been the central focus of the work done by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; U.S. Secret Service; Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center; U.S. Customs Service; Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
(FinCEN); and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. Since the advent of the Department of
Homeland Security in 2002, Treasury’s involvement in law enforcement has shrunk
considerably. The single possible exception to this simplified dichotomy is the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), whose main duties embrace both the collection of
tax revenue and the enforcement of tax laws and regulations.
Funding for many bureaus comes largely from annual appropriations. Such is
the case for the IRS, FMS, Bureau of Public Debt, FinCEN, Alcohol and Tobacco
Tax and Trade Bureau, Office of the Inspector General, Treasury Inspector General
for Tax Administration, and the CDFI. But there are more than a few exceptions to
this funding mechanism. The Treasury Franchise Fund, U.S. Mint, Bureau of
Engraving and Printing, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of
11
For more details on the FY2007 budget proposal for the Treasury Department, see CRS Report
RL32898, Appropriations for the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service in FY2007:
Issues for Congress, by Gary Guenther.

---

CRS-13
Thrift Supervision finance their operations largely from the fees they collect for
services and products they provide.
In FY2006, Treasury is receiving $11.554 billion in appropriated funds—after
allowing for an across-the-board 1% rescission—or $341 million more than it
received in FY2005. Most of this money is being used to finance the operations of
the IRS, whose budget totals $10.545 billion. The remaining $1.0 billion is divided
among Treasury’s other bureaus and departmental offices in the following amounts:
departmental offices (which includes the Office of Terrorism and Financial
Intelligence—or TFI—and the Office of Foreign Assets Control), $195 million;
department-wide systems and capital investments, $24 million; Office of Inspector
General, $17 million; Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA),
$132 million; Air Transportation Stabilization program, $3 million (to be available
until spent); CDFI, $55 million (to be available until September 30, 2007); Treasury
building and annex repair and restoration, $10 million; FinCEN, $73 million; FMS,
$234 million; Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (ATB), $90 million; and
Bureau of the Public Debt, $175 million.
Table 5. Title II: Department of the Treasury Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007
(millions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2007
Senate
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
Program or Account
House
Committee
Enacted*
Request
Enacted
Passed
Recom-
mendation
Departmental Offices
$195
$224
$224
$224
Department-wide Systems and Capital
Investments
24
34
34
34
Office of Inspector General
17
17
17
18
Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration
132
136
136
136
Air Transportation Stabilization
Program
3
—
—
—
Community Development Financial
Institutions Fund
55
8
40
55
Treasury Building and Annex Repair
and Restoration
10
—
—
—
Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network
73
90
84
77
Financial Management Service
234
234
234
234
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau 90
64
93
93
Bureau of the Public Debt
175
178
178
178
Internal Revenue Service, Total
10,545
10,592
10,487
10,656
Processing, Assistance and
Management
4,095
4,045
—
—

---

CRS-14
FY2007
FY2007
Senate
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
Program or Account
House
Committee
Enacted*
Request
Enacted
Passed
Recom-
mendation
Taxpayer Services
—
—
2,059
2,110
Tax Law Enforcement
4,678
4,762
—
—
Enforcement
—
—
4,757
4,797
Information Systems
1,583
1,602
—
—
Operations Support
—
—
3,459
3,487
Business Systems Modernization
197
167
197
245
Health Insurance Tax Credit
Administration
20
15
15
15
Rescission
(29)
—
—
—
Total Appropriations, Dept. of the
Treasury
$11,581**
$11,606 $11,528
$11,706
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.
* FY2006 figures reflect an across-the-board rescission of 1%.
** Excludes a rescission of $29 million for the IRS account.
For FY2007, the Bush Administration is asking Congress to approve $11.606
billion in funding for Treasury—or 0.2% more than the amount enacted for FY2006,
after allowing for the 1% rescission. Most of the requested funding would go to the
IRS, whose budget would total $10.592 billion. The remaining $1.014 billion would
be distributed among Treasury’s other bureaus and departmental offices in the
following amounts: departmental offices, $224 million; departmental systems and
capital investments, $34 million; Office of Inspector General, $17 million; TIGTA,
$136 million; no funding for the Air Transportation Stabilization program; CDFI, $8
million; no funding for Treasury building and annex repair and restoration; FinCEN,
$90 million; FMS, $234 million; ATB, $64 million (plus $29 million from proposed
user fees); and Bureau of the Public Debt, $178 million. Except for the air
transportation stabilization program, Treasury building and annex repair and
restoration, and CDFI, all accounts would be funded at the same level as or at high
levels than in FY2006.
Under the Administration’s budget proposal, total full-time employment at
Treasury would decline from an estimated 112,520 in FY2005 to 110,261 in
FY206.12 An anticipated loss of 2,241 full-time jobs at the IRS in FY2007 would
explain most of this decline.
According to budget documents and recent congressional testimony by senior
Treasury officials (including former Secretary John Snow), the proposed budget for
12 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Budget in Brief FY2007 (Washington: 2006), p. 11.

---

CRS-15
FY2007 is intended to support five strategic objectives: (1) promote economic
growth and security; (2) strengthen national security; (3) enforcing tax laws fairly and
efficiently; (4) managing the federal government’s finances; (5) strengthening
financial institutions; and (6) managing Treasury’s operations efficiently.13
One significant policy issue raised by the budget proposal is the extent to which
it would support or promote these objectives, and at what budgetary cost. The Bush
Administration claims that the proposal promotes the first objective by giving
Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy $500,000 to construct more reliable computer-based
models for analyzing the dynamic economic effects of revenue proposals,
reorganizing the CDFI, and expanding the budget for the Office of International
Affairs by $9.4 million. It maintains that the proposal would support the second
objective by increasing the budget for TFI by about $8 million. TFI collects and
analyzes financial intelligence, develops and implements measures to combat money
laundering, administers the provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act enforced by Treasury,
enforces economic sanctions against foreign entities, and conducts criminal
investigations of alleged financial crimes. The Administration contends that its
proposal would support the third objective by adding $137 million to the IRS’s
FY2006 budget for tax law enforcement and giving the ATB the authority to assess
user fees for claims for drawbacks of excise taxes paid on alcohol used in the
production of non-beverage products and applications to approve the content of
labels for alcoholic beverages. To support the fourth objective, the Administration
is seeking an additional $2.4 million to pursue a variety of initiatives, including
improving the securities services offered to retail customers, streamlining collections
and payments processes through the increased use of e-commerce technologies, and
strengthening accounting operations through use of FedDebt and Debt Check. And
in support of the sixth objective, the Administration wants to invest $1.8 million in
Treasury-wide management training and $34 million in ongoing projects aimed at
modernizing Treasury’s information technology infrastructure, such as the Treasury
Foreign Intelligence Network.
Congressional consideration of the Administration’s FY2007 budget request for
Treasury 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 and April 2006. On
June 9, the House Appropriations Committee favorably reported (H.Rept. 109-495)
by voice vote a measure (H.R. 5576) to provide funding for Treasury and certain other
federal agencies in FY2007. The Committee considered 18 amendments and adopted
four of them, one of which would bar the IRS from proceeding with a plan to hire
private debt collectors to assist in the collection of certain delinquent individual tax
debt. Following the consideration of 49 amendments spread over two days of floor
debate, the House approved the measure on June 14 by a vote of 406 to 22 and sent
it to the Senate. On July 20, the Senate Appropriations Committee favorably reported
(S.Rept. 109-293) by a vote of 28 to 0 an amended version of H.R. 5576.
As passed by the House, H.R. 5576 would grant the Treasury Department
$11.528 billion in funding in FY2007—or $53 million less than the amount enacted
13 Ibid., pp. 3-7.

---

CRS-16
for FY2006 (before the rescission of $29 million) and $78 million less than the level
of funding requested by the Bush Administration. The IRS would receive $10.487
billion—or $58 million less than its budget in FY2006 and $105 million less than the
amount requested by the Administration. As recommended by the Appropriations
Committee in its report on H.R. 5576, the House endorsed a new account structure for
the IRS. The bill would also prohibit the IRS from using any appropriated funds to
implement a plan to hire private debt collectors. In addition, H.R. 5576 would
increase funding in FY2007 relative to FY2006 for the following accounts:
departmental offices, +$29 million; FinCEN, +11 million; department-wide systems
and capital investments, +$10 million; TIGTA, +$4.5 million; Bureau of Public Debt,
+$3 million; ATB, +$2 million; and Office of Inspector General, +$0.5 million. Two
accounts would be funded at lower levels than in less in FY2006: CDFI, -$14 million;
and FMS, -$0.2 million. And two accounts would receive no funding in FY2007: the
Air Transportation Stabilization program and Treasury building and annex repair and
restoration fund. The House rejected requests by the Administration to shift control
of most of the programs managed by CDFI to the Commerce Department and to
establish a set of user fees to defray the cost of some of the regulatory functions
performed by the ATB.
As reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, H.R. 5576 would grant
Treasury $11.706 billion in funding for FY2007—or $124 million more than the
amount enacted for FY2006, $100 million more than the amount requested by the
Bush Administration, and $178 million more than the amount approved by the House.
The IRS would receive $10.656 billion—or $111 million more than it is receiving in
FY2006, $64 million more than the Administration requested, and $168 million more
than the amount endorsed by the House. In addition, the Committee gave its approval
to the same new account structure for the IRS that the House accepted but withheld
its support for the provision in the House-passed bill barring the IRS from proceeding
with its private debt collection initiative in FY2007. Besides the IRS, the version of
H.R. 5576 reported by the Committee would increase funding in FY2007 relative to
FY2006 for the following accounts: departmental offices, +$27 million; department-
wide systems and capital investments programs, +$10 million; TIGTA, +$4.5 million;
FinCEN, +$4.4 million; Bureau of the Public Debt, +$2.6 million; ATB, +$2.4
million; Office of Inspector General, +$1.5 million; and CDFI, +$50,000. One
account would be funded at a lower level in FY2007 than in FY2006: FMS, -
$227,000. And as in the case of the House-passed version of H.R. 5576, two accounts
would receive no funding in FY2007: the Air Transportation Stabilization program
and the Treasury building and annex repair restoration fund. The Committee also
agreed with the decision made by the House to keep management of the programs
administered by CDFI at the Treasury Department and to finance all the regulatory
functions performed by ATB through annual appropriations.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). To finance its operations and many
spending programs, the federal government levies individual and corporate income
taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and
miscellaneous taxes and fees. The federal agency responsible for administering and
collecting these taxes and fees (except for customs duties) is the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS). In discharging this responsibility, the IRS receives and processes tax
returns and related documents and tax payments, disburses refunds, enforces
compliance through audits and other procedures, collects delinquent taxes, and

---

CRS-17
provides a variety of services to taxpayers to help them understand their rights and
responsibilities under the federal tax code and resolve problems. In FY2005, the
agency collected $2.287 trillion before refunds, the largest component of which was
individual income tax revenue of $1.107 trillion.
The IRS relies on three sources for the funds it needs to operate: appropriated
funds, user fees, and so-called reimbursables, which are payments the IRS receives
from other federal agencies and state governments for services it provides. Nearly the
entire budget is derived from appropriated funds: in FY2006, these funds are expected
to account for about 98% of IRS’s operating budget, with user fees and reimbursables
each adding another 1%. Appropriated funds are distributed among five accounts:
(1) processing, assistance, and management, which provides resources for pre-filing
taxpayer assistance, filing and account services, administrative services for IRS
employees, and senior IRS management; (2) tax law enforcement, which covers the
cost of compliance services, research and statistical analysis, and administration of the
earned income tax credit; (3) information systems, which addresses the improvement
and maintenance of the agency’s information and management systems; (4) business
systems modernization (or BSM), which provides funds for developing new
information systems for tax administration and acquiring the hardware and software
needed to integrate them into IRS’s operations; and (5) health insurance tax credit
administration, which covers the cost of administering the refundable tax credit for
health insurance established by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002.
In FY2006, the IRS is receiving $10.545 billion in appropriated funds—or $309
million more than it received in FY2005. Of this amount, $4.095 billion is intended
for processing, assistance, and management; $4.678 billion for tax law enforcement;
$1.583 billion for information systems management; $197 million for the BSM
program; and $20 million to administer the health insurance tax credit. These
amounts reflect an across-the-board rescission of 1% for all discretionary non-defense
spending, but they do not take into account a $29 million rescission of unobligated
balances in the accounts for processing, assistance, and management and the health
care tax credit. Certain restrictions apply to the use of these funds. Specifically, the
IRS may not reorganize or reduce its workforce in FY2006 without the consent of the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees. In addition, the IRS is barred from
entering the market for tax return preparation software, and no reductions in taxpayer
service can be implemented in FY2006 until TIGTA completes a report on the effects
of such reductions on taxpayer compliance. Finally, the IRS must develop, in
consultation with the IRS Oversight Board and the National Taxpayer Advocate, a
five-year plan for improving taxpayer services without undermining efforts to reduce
the tax gap through improved tax law enforcement and submit it to the Committees
no later than April 14, 2006.
The Bush Administration is asking Congress to appropriate $10.592 billion for
IRS operations in FY2007—or $47 million more than the amount enacted for FY2006
(including the 1% rescission). Of this amount, $4.045 billion (or $50 million less than
in FY2006) would be used for processing, assistance, and management; $4.762 billion
(or $84 million more than in FY2006) for tax law enforcement; $1.602 billion (or $19
million more than in FY2006) for maintaining and upgrading information systems;
$167 million (or $30 million less than in FY2006) for the BSM program; and $15
million (or $5 million less than in FY2006) for administering the health insurance tax

---

CRS-18
credit. Under this budget proposal, total full-time employment at the IRS would drop
from an estimated 96,736 individuals in FY2006 to 94,495 individuals in FY2007.14
According to budget documents issued by the Administration, the FY2007
budget request for the IRS is intended to support three key objectives in the agency’s
current five-year strategic plan: (1) improving taxpayer service; (2) strengthening
enforcement of the tax laws; and (3) modernizing IRS’s management of its resources
to achieve its service and enforcement objectives.15 The proposed budget also strives
to strike what it calls an “appropriate balance between enforcement and taxpayer
service.” Two important issues raised by the request for lawmakers are how it would
support these objectives and what the appropriate allocation of resources is between
enforcement and service to taxpayers.
It appears that the proposed budget continues a trend several years in the making
of putting greater stress on enforcement at the expense of the modernization effort
and, to a lesser extent, taxpayer service. From FY2003 to FY2006, the proportion of
appropriated funds devoted to processing, assistance, and management (most of which
pays for the cost of assisting and educating taxpayers) edged downward from 40% to
39%; the proportion going into tax law enforcement rose from 39% to 44%; and the
proportion funneled into the BSM program dropped from 4% to 2%. If the
Administration’s budget request were to be enacted as submitted, the proportion of
appropriated funds going to processing, assistance, and management would fall to
38%; the proportion devoted to tax law enforcement would rise to 45%; and the
proportion funneled into the BSM program would drop below 2%.
A primary force driving this shift in IRS priorities is the Administration’s
avowed intention to reduce the federal tax gap, which is the difference between what
taxpayers owe and what they pay on time. According to the latest estimate by the IRS,
the net gap in 2001 was between $257 billion to $298 billion.16 The budget proposal
would rely on a combination of changes in tax law, improvements in IRS’s
“administrative procedures,” and the development of a “sound technological
infrastructure” to reduce the tax gap.17 Among the proposed changes in tax law are
a clarification of the liability of employee leasing companies and their clients for
federal employment taxes and an expansion of information reporting requirements for
payment card issuers, as well as for payments made by federal, state, and local
governments to acquire goods and services.18
Under a measure (H.R. 5576) providing appropriations in FY2007 for
Transportation, Treasury, and a handful of other federal agencies passed by the House
14 Ibid., p. 11.
15 Ibid., p. 60.
16 The net gap is the estimated amount of overdue or unpaid taxes after the IRS has received
late tax payments and exhausted its efforts collect overdue taxes through enforcement
action. See Internal Revenue Service, New IRS Study Provides Preliminary Tax Gap
Estimates, IR-2005-38 (Washington, March 29, 2005).
17 Treasury Department, Budget in Brief FY2007, p. 60.
18 Ibid., p. 68.

---

CRS-19
on June 14, 2006 by a vote of 406 to 22, IRS would receive $10.482 billion in
appropriated funds. This amount is $63 million less than the agency is receiving in
FY2006 and $110 million less than the amount requested by the Bush Administration.
More specifically, the bill would revise the IRS budget by creating three new
accounts—taxpayer services, enforcement, and operations support—while retaining
the current accounts for BSM and the health insurance tax credit. Under this structure,
the IRS would receive $2.059 billion for taxpayer services, $4.757 billion for
enforcement, $3.438 billion for operations support; $212 million for the BSM
program; and $15 million for administration of the health insurance tax credit. Of the
funds for taxpayer services, at least $8 million would be reserved for low-income
taxpayer clinic grants and at least $4 million for the tax counseling for the elderly
program. No restrictions would be placed on the IRS’s ability to close taxpayer
assistance centers (TACs), with one exception: the IRS would be required to notify
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees of any decision to close one or
more TACs at least 30 days before making a public announcement. Of the funds for
enforcement, $55 million would be used to support IRS activities related to the
Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement program. H.R. 5576 would also allow the
IRS to transfer up to 20% of appropriated funds among the accounts for taxpayer
services, enforcement, and operations support after giving the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees 30 days advance notice.
One of the more controversial provisions in H.R. 5576 dealing with the IRS’s
budget in FY2007 concerns the agency’s current program to hire private firms to
collect individual income tax debt. Under the program, which was authorized by the
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-357) and begun in 2005, the IRS plans
to hire as many as 12 contractors to assist in the collection of certain delinquent
individual tax debt under a set of stringent rules intended to protect taxpayer rights
and the confidentiality of taxpayer information.19 In early March 2006, the agency
awarded collection contracts to three firms but was forced to suspend them a short
time later after two unsuccessful bidders filed a formal protest. In early June, the
Government Accountability Office denied the protest, clearing the way for the
program to resume.20 Section 208 of Title II of H.R. 5576 would prohibit the IRS
from using any of the funds appropriated by the bill to “enter into, renew, extend,
administer, implement, enforce, or provide oversight of any qualified collection
contract.”
On July 20, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee favorably reported by
a vote of 28 to 0 an amended version of H.R. 5576. Under the measure, the IRS
would receive $10.656 billion in appropriated funds in FY2007—or $111 million
more than it is receiving in FY2006, $64 million more than the amount requested by
the Administration, and $168 million more than the amount approved by the House.
19 For more details on the program, see CRS Report RL33231, The Internal Revenue
Service’s Use of Private Debt Collection Agencies: Current Status and Issues for Congress,
by Gary Guenther.
20 Heidi Glenn and Dustin Stamper, “House Agrees to Eliminate IRS Debt Collection
Program,” Tax Notes, June 19, 2006, p. 1335.

---

CRS-20
More specifically, the Committee adopted the same new account structure for the
agency that the House approved, with one exception: it added a separate account for
the IRS Oversight Board. As passed by the Committee, H.R. 5576 would give the IRS
$2.110 billion for taxpayer services (or $51 million more than the amount endorsed
by the House), $4.797 billion for enforcement (or $40 million more than the amount
endorsed by the House), $3.487 billion for operations support (or $28 million more
than the amount endorsed by the House), $2 million for the IRS Oversight Board (no
equivalent in the House-passed version of H.R. 5576), $245 million for the BSM (or
$48 million more than the amount endorsed by the House), and $15 million for the
administration of the health insurance tax credit (the same amount endorsed by the
House). Of the funds appropriated for taxpayer services, at least $4.5 million would
be reserved for the tax counseling program for the elderly and at least $9 million for
low-income taxpayer clinics.
Although the version of H.R. 5576 passed by the Committee does not include a
provision barring the IRS from proceeding with the implementation of its private
taxpayer debt collection initiative in FY2007, it does direct the IRS to prepare a
“detailed strategic plan that demonstrates how it will achieve and how it will measure”
a voluntary compliance rate for taxpayers of 85% by 2009.21 No deadline is set for
submitting the plan to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Such a rate
would signify that 85% of taxes owed by individual and business taxpayers are paid
voluntarily and in a timely manner. The IRS estimates that the current compliance
rate is about 84%. Raising the rate is akin to reducing the net federal tax gap.
21 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Appropriations, Transportation, Treasury, Housing
and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2007,
report to accompany H.R. 5576, 109th Cong., 2d sess., S.Rept. 109-293 (Washington: GPO,
2006), p. 114.

---

CRS-21
Title III: Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Table 6. Title III: Housing and Urban Development
Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007
(budget authority in $ billions)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Program
enacted
request
House
S. Com.
Appropriations
Tenant Based Rental Assistance
(includes advanced appropriation) (Sec. 8)
$15.418
$15.920
$15.846
$15.920
Project Based Rental Assistance (Sec.8)
5.037
5.676
5.476
5.676
Sec. 8 supplementala
0.390
0.000
0.000
0.000
Public housing capital fund
2.439
2.178
2.208b
2.460
Public housing operating fund
3.564
3.564
3.564
3.660
HOPE VI
0.099c
0.000c
0.000b
0.100
Native American housing block grants
0.624
0.626
0.626
0.626
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee
0.004
0.006
0.004
0.006
Native Hawaiian Block Grant
0.009
0.006
0.009
0.009
Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Housing, persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
0.286
0.300
0.300
0.295
Rural Housing Economic Development
0.017
0.000
0.000
0.020
Community Development Fund (Including
CDBG)d
4.178
3.032
4.215e
4.215
CDF supplementala
11.500
0.000
0.000
0.000
Section 108 Loan Guarantees
0.004
0.000
0.003
0.003
Brownfields redevelopment
0.010
0.000
0.000e
0.000
HOME Investment Partnerships
1.757
1.917
1.917
1.942
Homeless Assistance Grants
1.327
1.536f
1.536
1.511
Self-help Homeownership
0.060
0.040
0.060
0.066
Housing for the elderly
0.735
0.545
0.747
0.750
Housing for the disabled
0.237
0.119
0.240
0.240
Housing Counseling Assistanceg
0.000
0.045
0.000
0.000
Rental Housing Assistance
0.026
0.025
0.025
0.025
Research and technology
0.056
0.068
0.056
0.060

---

CRS-22
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Program
enacted
request
House
S. Com.
Fair housing activities
0.046
0.045
0.045
0.045
Office, lead hazard control
0.150
0.115
0.150
0.152
Salaries and expenses
0.573
0.590h
0.493h
0.594h
Working capital fund
0.195
0.220
0.000i
0.220
Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fundj
0.013
0.016
0.016
0.016
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversightj
0.060
0.062
0.062
0.068
FHA Expensesj
0.727
0.734
0.714
0.724
GNMA Expensesj
0.011
0.061k
0.011
0.011
Inspector General
0.081
0.083
0.083
0.091
Appropriations Subtotal without
supplemental
37.743
37.527
38.405
39.504
Appropriations Subtotal with supplemental
49.633
37.527
38.405
39.504
Rescissions
Sec. 8 recaptures (rescission)l
-2.050
-2.000
-2.000
-2.000
HOPE VI rescission
0.000
-0.099
0.000
0.000
Brownfields redevelopment rescission
-0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
Economic Development Initiative Rescission
0.000
-0.356m
0.000
0.000
Rescissions Subtotal
-2.060
-2.455
-2.000
-2.000
Offsetting Collections and Receipts
Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund
-0.013
-0.016
-0.016
-0.016
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
-0.060
-0.062
-0.062
-0.068
Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
-1.648
-0.652
-0.849
-0.652
GNMA
-0.368
-0.224k
-0.181
-0.181
Offsets Subtotal
-2.089
-0.954
-1.108
-0.917
Total before supplementals
$33.594
$34.118
$35.297
$36.588
Total with supplementals
$45.484
$34.118
$35.297
$36.588
Source: Prepared by CRS based on H.R. 5576, H. Rept 109-495, and S. Rept 109-293. FY2006
figures are adjusted to reflect the 1% across-the-board rescission enacted in P.L. 109-148. Figures for
FY2006 enacted and FY2007 request contained in earlier versions of this table were based on CRS
estimates, which have since been replaced with House Appropriations Committee estimates.
a. P.L. 109-148 provided emergency supplemental hurricane recovery funds, including $390 million
for the Section 8 voucher program and $11.5 billion for CDBG. These special purpose funds
were not a part of the regular FY2006 appropriations law (P.L. 109-115).

---

CRS-23
b. A floor amendment added $30 million to the Public Housing Capital Fund. Floor statements
indicated that the funding was intended for the HOPE VI program; however, no language was
included in the bill directing that the funds be used for HOPE VI.
c. The President’s FY2007 budget requests that Congress rescind the $99 million it provided for the
HOPE VI program in FY2006.
d. The Community Development Fund account funds the CDBG program and other related community
development programs. CDBG accounts for the largest portion of the CDF account.
e. A floor amendment added $15 million to the Community Development Fund. Floor statements
indicated that the funds were to be used for Brownfields.
f. The President’s request includes $25 million that would be transferred to the Department of Labor.
g. This program is typically funded as a set-aside within the HOME program. In FY2006, it was
funded at $42 million within the HOME account. In recent years, including FY2007, the
President’s budget has requested that the program be funded separately from HOME. The House
and Senate versions of the FY2007 funding bill continue to fund Housing Counseling as a set-
aside within the HOME account, each at $42 million.
h. The President’s request assumed $4 million in savings from a legislative proposal. Neither the
House-passed bill nor the Senate committee-passed bill assumes such savings.
i. The House Appropriations Committee-passed version included $100 million for the Working Capital
Fund. A floor amendment decreased the account by $100 million to offset a $70 million increase
in funding for tenant-based rental assistance.
k. The President’s budget documents indicate that a new GNMA proposal will cost $43 million, but
its costs will be offset by an additional $43 million in offsetting receipts. The House and Senate
bills do not include that assumption.
l. Each year, unobligated balances are recaptured from the Housing Certificate Fund, an account that
previously funded the tenant-based and project-based Section 8 rental assistance programs, and
which still contains long-term Section 8 contracts funded in prior years.
m. The President’s FY2007 budget requests that Congress rescind the full amount it provided in
FY2006 for Economic Development Initiative and Neighborhood Initiative earmarks within the
CDF account.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget and
Key Policy Issues22
The President’s FY2007 budget proposes to fund the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) at approximately $34.1 billion, just over HUD’s $33.6
billion budget for FY2006 (not including FY2006 supplementals related to Hurricane
Katrina). Although the overall request appears to be an increase, the amount
requested actually results in a slight decrease, with a number of HUD programs slated
for funding cuts. This seeming contradiction results from a decrease in the amount
of offsetting receipts available to subsidize the HUD budget. As can be seen in Table
6, appropriations would decline by more than $200 million and offsetting receipts
would decline by more than $1 billion.
On June 14, 2006, the House passed its version of the FY2007 Transportation,
Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Judiciary, District of
Columbia and Independent Agencies (TTHUD) Appropriations bill (H.R. 5576),
providing $35.3 billion for HUD. Floor amendments increasing funding for Section
8 vouchers, lead-based paint hazard control, HOPE VI, supportive housing for the
elderly, and Brownfields redevelopment were added to the bill. On July 27, 2006, the
Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version of H.R. 5576, providing $36.6
22 For more details on the proposed HUD budget, see CRS Report RL33344, The
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): Fiscal Year 2007 Budget, by
Maggie McCarty, Libby Perl, Bruce Foote, Eugene Boyd, and Meredith Peterson.

---

CRS-24
billion for HUD. (For more details on the proposed HUD budget, see CRS Report
RL33344, The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): Fiscal Year
2007 Budget.)
Community Development Fund/Block Grants. For the second consecutive
year, the Administration included in its budget request a proposal that would eliminate
and/or replace a number of federal economic and community development programs.
Last year, the Administration’s FY2006 budget recommendations included a proposal
that would have consolidated the activities of at least 18 existing community and
economic development programs, including the Community Development Block
Grant program (CDBG), into a two-part grant proposal called the “Strengthening
America’s Communities Initiative” (SACI). (For more information on SACI, see CRS
Report RL32823, An Overview of the Administration’s Strengthening America’s
Communities Initiative.) The CDBG formula grant would be funded at just under $3
billion in the Administration’s budget of FY2007, compared to $3.7 billion in
FY2006. The FY2007 budget would eliminate funding for Brownfields
redevelopment, Section 108 loan guarantees, Rural Housing and Economic
Development.
The House-passed bill, H.R. 5576, includes about $4.2 billion for the Community
Development Fund, $1.2 billion more than the Administration request. The funding
level recommended by the House includes about $3.9 billion for the CDBG formula
program, $57.4 million for Indian tribes, $250 million for Economic Development
Initiative earmarks, and $20 million for Neighborhood Initiative earmarks. Although
the bill as reported provided no funding for the Brownfields Redevelopment program
or Section 108 loan guarantees, funding for both programs was provided through floor
amendments ($3 million for Section 108 and $15 million for Brownfields). No
funding was included for Rural Housing and Economic Development.
The Senate committee-passed version of H.R. 5576 provides the same level of
funding for the Community Development Fund as the House-passed bill, about $4.2
billion. The Senate committee recommends about $3.9 billion for the CDBG formula
program, $58 million for Indian tribes, $250 million for Economic Development
Initiative earmarks, and $30 million for Neighborhood Initiative earmarks. The Rural
Housing and Economic Development program would be funded at $20 million and
Section 108 loan guarantees would receive $3 million under the Senate committee-
passed bill. No funding is provided for the Brownfields Redevelopment program.
Housing Programs for the Elderly and the Disabled. The
Administration’s budget proposed to reduce funding for the Section 202 housing for
the elderly program from $734.6 million in FY2006 to $545.5 million in FY2007, a
cut of almost 26%. However, the House-passed bill would fund the program at
approximately $746.6 million, about $12 million more than FY2006. A floor
amendment (H.Amdt. 1020) added $12 million for the Section 202 program to the
$734.6 million included in the committee-reported bill. The Senate committee-passed
bill recommends $750 million for Section 202.

For the second year in a row, the Administration’s budget proposed to halve
funding for the Section 811 housing for the disabled program, to $118.8 million from
$236.6 million in FY2006. As passed by the House, H.R. 5576 would increase

---

CRS-25
funding to nearly $240 million. A floor amendment (H.Amdt. 1020) added $3 million
for the Section 811 program to the $236.6 million included in the committee-reported
bill. The Senate committee-passed bill would provide $240 million for Section 811.
Public Housing/HOPE VI. The President proposed almost $2.2 billion for the
public housing Capital Fund, an 11% reduction from the FY2006 funding level of
about $2.4 billion. As in FY2006, the President has asked Congress to provide no
new money for the HOPE VI program for FY2007, and to rescind the funding that
Congress provided in the previous year before the Department awards it to grantees.
The House Appropriations committee-reported bill would have funded the Capital
Fund and HOPE VI at the President’s request. A floor amendment (H.Amdt. 1016)
offered by Representative Artur Davis added $30 million to the Capital Fund,
although his floor statements indicated it was intended for the HOPE VI program.
Language was not added to the bill directing the funds to be used for HOPE VI, so it
is unclear whether the additional $30 million will be distributed via the Capital Fund
formula or though the competitive HOPE VI program. The House-passed version of
the FY2007 funding bill would not rescind FY2006 HOPE VI funds. The Senate
committee-passed bill would fund the Capital Fund at $2.4 billion (a slight increase
over FY2006) and would fund HOPE IV at $100 million. It would not rescind
FY2006 funding.
Title IV: The Judiciary
The Judiciary Budget and Key Policy Issues23
As a co-equal branch of government, the Judiciary presents its budget to the
President, who transmits it to Congress unaltered. Table 7 shows the FY2006 enacted
amount, the FY2007 request, the House-passed amount, and the Senate committee-
approved amount.
Table 7. Title IV: The Judiciary Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007
(millions of dollars)
FY2007
Budget Groupings an Accounts
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
Senate
FY2007
Enacted
Request
House
Reported
Enacted
Supreme Court
— Salaries and Expenses
$60.1
$63.4
$63.4
$63.4
— Building and Grounds
5.6
13.0
13.0
13.0
Subtotal
65.7
76.4
76.4
76.4
U.S. Court of Appeals for the
23.8
26.3
26.0
25.3
Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of International Trade
15.3
16.2
16.2
16.2
23 For a more detailed examination of judiciary funding, see CRS Report RL33339,
Judiciary Appropriations for FY2007, by Lorraine H. Tong.

---

CRS-26
FY2007
Budget Groupings an Accounts
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
Senate
FY2007
Enacted
Request
House
Reported
Enacted
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial
Services
— Salaries and Expenses*
4,330.2
4,691.2
4,560.1
4,587.3
— Court Security
368.3
410.3
400.3
397.7
— Defender Services
709.8
803.9
750.0
761.1
— Fees of Jurors and
60.7
63.1
63.1
63.1
Commissioners
Subtotal
5,469.0
5,968.5
5,773.5
5,809.3
Administrative Office of the U.S.
69.6
75.3
73.8
74.3
Courts
Federal Judicial Center
22.1
23.8
23.5
23.4
United States Sentencing
14.3
15.7
15.5
15.3
Commission
Judicial Retirement Funds
40.6
58.3
58.3
58.3
Total
$5,720.4 $6,260.5 $6,063.2 $6,098.4
Source: Data were provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the House Appropriations
Committee (Congressional Record, June 14, 2006, pp. H3969-H3970), and the Senate Committee on
Appropriations report (S.Rept. 109-293) accompanying H.R. 5576. The FY2006 enacted amount
includes a 1% across-the-board government-wide rescission and the supplemental $18 million contained
in P.L. 109-148. Subparts may not add up to totals due to rounding.
*The Vaccine Injury Trust Fund (slightly less than $4 million) is included in the Salaries and Expenses
account.
In his 2005 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary,24 released on January 1,
2006, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., highlighted appropriations issues and their
importance in maintaining an independent Judiciary that can fulfill its mission. The
Chief Justice expressed concern about the high cost of rent the Judiciary pays to the
General Services Administration (GSA), and asked Congress for rent relief. The rent
now constitutes about 20% of the total judiciary budget. In early 2006, legislation was
introduced in both the House and Senate which would direct GSA to establish rental
fees that would not exceed the actual costs of operating and maintaining the space it
provides the Judiciary. On February 8, 2006, Representative James F. Sensenbrenner,
Jr., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (for himself and Representative
Lamar S. Smith) introduced H.R. 4710, the Judiciary Rent Reform Act of 2006, which
was referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee (and subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management). On
February 15, 2006, Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee (for himself, and Senators Patrick J. Leahy, John Cornyn, Saxby
Chambliss, Dianne Feinstein, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., James M. Talent, Daniel K.
Inouye, Richard M. Burr, and Wayne A. Allard), introduced S. 2292, a similar
24 See [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2005year-endreport.pdf] for the
Chief Justice’s report.

---

CRS-27
measure, which was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On April 27, 2006,
the Senate committee reported S. 2292.
Chief Justice Roberts also expressed concern that judicial pay has not kept pace
with inflation over the years, and attributed increasing numbers of judges leaving the
bench to this pay issue. On February 10, 2006, Senator Dianne Feinstein (for herself,
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, and Senator John F. Kerry) introduced S. 2276, the Federal
Judicial Fairness Act of 2006, to increase federal judges’ salaries by 16.5%. In
addition, S. 2276 would end the current linkage between congressional and judicial
salaries, which has prevented increases in judicial salaries when Congress takes action
to withhold annual cost of living increases from its Members. S. 2276 was referred
to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On March 28, 2006, Representative Adam B.
Schiff (for himself and Representative Judy B. Biggert) introduced H.R. 5014, the
Federal Judicial Fairness Act, a companion bill to S. 2276, which was referred to the
House Judiciary Committee. Both bills are pending in the respective Judiciary
committees.
Judicial security, the safe conduct of court proceedings and the security of judges
in courtrooms and off-site, continues to be an issue of concern. The Chief Justice
noted that the violence directed at judges in 2005 had shocked the nation, and that “we
must take every step to ensure that our own judges, to whom so much of the world
looks as models of independence, never face violent attack for carrying out their
duties.” At the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury,
Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and
Independent Agencies hearings held on the judiciary budget request on April 4-5,
2006, Chairman Joseph Knollenberg expressed his view that court security was a “top
priority.”25
Appropriations for the Judiciary — about two-tenths of 1% (0.2%) of the entire
federal budget — are divided into budget groups and accounts. Two accounts that
fund the Supreme Court (the salaries and expenses of the Supreme Court and the
expenditures for the care of its building and grounds) together make up about 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, about 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 of circuit and district judges (including
judges of the territorial courts of the United States), justices and judges retired from
office or from regular active service, judges of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims,
bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and all other officers and employees of the
federal Judiciary not specifically provided for by other accounts; and the necessary
expenses of the courts. 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
25 For an examination of judicial security issues and legislation, see CRS Report RL33464,
Judicial Security: Responsibilities and Current Issues, by Lorraine H. Tong, and CRS
Report RL33473, Judicial Security: Comparison of Legislation in the 109th Congress, by
Nathan James.

---

CRS-28
Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Federal courthouse
construction also is not funded within the Judiciary’s budget.
FY2007 Request. For FY2007, the Judiciary requested $6.26 billion in total
appropriations, a 9.4% increase over the $5.72 billion enacted for FY2006. The
FY2007 budget request includes funding for 33,631 full-time-equivalent (FTE)
positions — an increase of 417 FTEs or 1.3% above the FY2006 estimate of 33,214
FTEs. The requested additional positions are a continuation of efforts to restore some
positions lost in previous years as well as to provide for expected workload increases.
Of the total budget request increase of $540.1 million, $461.8 million (86%) would
fund pay adjustments and other inflation-related increases needed to maintain current
services. The remaining $78.3 million (14%) of the $540.1 million increase is for
expected workload changes and program enhancements.
House Action. On April 4, 2006, the House subcommittee held a hearing on
the Supreme Court budget request for FY2007, and heard testimony from Supreme
Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Another hearing was held
the following day to hear testimony on the overall judiciary budget request from Judge
Julia Smith Gibbons, United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals and Chair of the Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United
States, and then-Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC)
Leonidas R. Mecham. Among issues raised at the hearings were judicial pay,
televising the Supreme Court proceedings, rent paid to GSA, the Supreme Court
building modernization project, and workload.
On May 26, 2006, the subcommittee held a markup on the bill and approved a
total of $6.1 billion for the Judiciary. By voice vote, on June 6, 2006, the House
Appropriations Committee approved the recommended $6.1 billion funding level —
a $342.8 million (6.0%) increase over the FY2006 level, but $197.3 million (3.2%)
less than the FY2007 request. Three days later, on June 9, 2006, the committee
reported H.R. 5576. On June 14, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5576 to provide the
Judiciary with the same level of funding the committee had approved.
The House committee expressed concern over the Judiciary’s practice of
including “one-time windfalls of offsetting collections and prior year carryover funds
in the FY2007 funding base,”and urged the Judiciary to discontinue the practice in
developing its FY2008 budget submission.
Senate Action. On July 18, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies held a markup on the bill, and approved a total of $6.1 billion for
the Judiciary. Two days later, on July 20, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee
held a mark up, and approved the $6.1 billion funding level — a $378 million (6.6%)
increase over the FY2006 level, but $162.1 (2.6%) less than the FY2007 request. In
the committee report, the committee expressed its concerns about several issues;
among them are the following:
! Staffing: The committee recommended that the Judicial Conference
make the retention of personnel a top priority. The committee also
expressed concern about workload and staffing needs of the district

---

CRS-29
courts along the U.S. southwest border, resulting from due to
increased immigration funding law enforcement activities. It directed
AOUSC to provide a hiring plan (in its FY2007 financial plan) for
positions that would be funded for magistrate judges and staff, and to
keep the committee apprised as the positions are filled. It also
directed AOUSC to examine staffing formulas to ensure that they
reflect changing trends, and report to Congress
! Courthouse construction. Noting that the self-imposed courthouse
construction moratorium will end in September 2006, the committee
urged the Judiciary to carefully weigh its space needs with concerns
about the rent it pays to GSA. It also called for adequate checks and
balances to ensure that future construction needs and requests are
“subjected to the highest standards of cost-effectiveness.” It directed
AOUSC to report to the committee, no later than 120 days after
enactment of this bill, on the steps that have been and are being taken
for more efficient use of space in the district and circuit courts.
Further, it encouraged the Judiciary to continue working with GSA
on fair and accurate rent charges, and also to correct any inequities.
! Carryover funds: The committee directed that carryover funds be used
to meet current and projected needs before enhancing any program.
The AOUSC is to submit separately in future financial plans, for
House and Senate appropriations committees’ approval, all sources
of carryover funds and their desired application.
Following are highlights of the FY2007 Judiciary budget:
Supreme Court. For FY2007, the total request for the Supreme Court (salaries
and expenses plus buildings and grounds) is $76.4 million, a 16.2% increase over the
FY2006 appropriation of $65.7 million. The total request comprises two accounts:
(1) Salaries and Expenses — $63.4 million was requested, compared with the FY2006
enacted amount of $60.1 million; and (2) Care of the Building and Grounds — $13.0
million was requested, compared with $5.6 million enacted for FY2006. Most of the
requested increase in salaries and expenses was to fund increases in salary and benefit
costs, inflationary fixed costs, and five new positions. The Buildings and Grounds
account increased by $7.4 million (132.7%), including the Supreme Court Building
roofing system repairs, maintenance of the building, and grounds operations, and
continuation of the building modernization project. The House approved the full
amount requested for this account. The Senate committee also approved the full
amount.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The FY2007 request for
this account is $26.3 million — a $2.5 million (10.6%) increase over the $23.8 million
appropriated for FY2006. The request provides for pay and other inflationary
adjustments, increased health benefit costs, and increased rental costs related to space
for senior judges. The requested increase also includes $926,000 for information
technology upgrades, infrastructure requirements for a disaster recovery plan, and the
implementation of courtroom technology in two of this circuit’s three courtrooms.
The House approved $26.0 million for this account — a $2.2 million increase over the

---

CRS-30
FY2006 level, but $0.3 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee
recommended $25.3 million — a $1.5 million increase over the FY2006 level, but
$1.0 million less than the FY2007 request.
U.S. Court of International Trade. The FY2007 request is for $16.2 million
— a $0.9 million (5.5%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $15.3 million that
the judiciary budget submission ascribes largely to increases in pay and benefits. The
House approved the full amount requested for this account. The Senate committee
also approved the full amount.
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services. This
budget group includes 12 of the 13 courts of appeals and 94 district judicial courts
located in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands. Making up about 95% of the judiciary budget, the four
accounts in the group — salaries and expenses, court security, defender services, and
fees of jurors and commissioners — fund most of the day-to-day activities and
operations of the federal circuit and district courts.
Salaries and Expenses. The FY2007 Salaries and Expenses request for this
budget group is $4,691.2 million — a $361.0 million (8.3%) increase over the
FY2006 level of $4,330.2 million. According to the budget request, about 99% of this
increase is required for pay increases and other adjustments needed to maintain the
courts’ current services. For example, of the $361.0 million increase requested,
$106.7 million is requested for pay and benefit adjustments for court personnel.
Another $46.9 million of the increase is for increased rent to GSA and related costs,
such as equipment.26 In addition, $42.6 million is requested for the Judiciary
Technology Fund to support existing and newly installed information technology
systems, and to continue the implementation of new information systems. Another
increase of $22.1 million would fund 257 FTEs — additional support staff needed to
address the courts’ anticipated workload increase during the year (as a result of an
expected increase in the number of immigration-related cases along the southwest
border with Mexico).27 Finally, according to the judiciary budget request, to maintain
the same level of services provided in FY2006, a $115.1 million increase is needed
in this account for FY2007 because of an anticipated shortfall of funds from fee
collections and carryover funds from previous years. In addition to appropriated
funds, this account receives other funds, including current year fee collections,
carryover of fee balances from the prior year, and no-year appropriation balances. In
FY2007, these non-appropriated funds are projected to total $285.9 million. The
House approved $4,560.1 million28 for this account — a $229.9 million increase over
the FY2006 level, but $131.1 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate
26 The Judiciary’s FY2007 request for rent paid to GSA is $997.8 million — a $32.4 million
(3.3%) increase over the $965.5 million FY2006 appropriation.
27 Workload increases are expected from cases created by an additional 1,500 border patrol
agents, positions for whom have recently been funded. The additional FTEs are reportedly
needed for additional probation and pretrial service officers and clerks’ office staff.
28 This amount includes $4.0 million for the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund.

---

CRS-31
committee recommended $4,587.3 million — a $257.1 million increase over the
FY2006 level, but $103.9 million less than the FY2007 request.
Court Security. This account provides for protective guard services, security
systems, and equipment for courthouses and other federal facilities to ensure the safety
of judicial officers, employees, and visitors. Under this account, a major portion of
the funding is transferred to the U.S. Marshal Service for administering the Judicial
Facility Security Program to pay for court security officers. The FY2007 request is
$410.3 million — a $42.1 million (11.4%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation
of $368.3 million. This increase is reportedly driven by pay and benefit adjustments
and other adjustments needed to maintain current services. The increase would also
cover the costs for 34 additional court security officers expected to be needed during
FY2007. Payment to the Federal Protective Service (FPS) is also covered under this
account. The FY2007 request for FPS is $67.9 million — a $7.4 million increase over
the FY2006 appropriation of $60.5 million. In addition, $16.8 million is requested for
security systems, perimeter (outside the building) security, and equipment for court
security and for probation and pretrial service offices. An additional $6.6 million is
requested to replace VCRs with digital video recorders. The House approved $400.3
million for this account — a $32.0 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $10
million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee recommended $397.7
million for this account — a $29.4 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $ 12.6
million less than the FY2007 request.
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 FY2007 request is $803.9 million — a $94.1 million (13.3%) increase over the
FY2006 appropriation of $709.8 million. The increase requested is reportedly to
provide for pay increases and other inflationary adjustments, and to fund workload
increases arising from Supreme Court rulings. The request also provides for the start-
up of new federal defender organizations scheduled to open in FY2007. Currently,
five judicial districts are not served by a Federal Defender Office: Alabama
(Northern), Georgia (Southern), Kentucky (Eastern), Mississippi (Northern), and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The requested funding would
provide for 80 FTEs to cope with the projected caseload increase of 5,500 cases. The
House approved $750 million for this account — a $40.2 million increase over the
FY2006 level, but $53.8 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee
recommended $761.1 million for this account — a $51.3 million increase over the
FY2006 level, but $42.8 million less than the FY2007 request.
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners. This account funds the fees and
allowances provided to grand and petit jurors, and the compensation of jury and land
commissioners. The FY2007 request is $63.1 million — a $2.4 million (3.9%)
increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $60.7 million. The increase is due mainly
to inflationary costs associated with expenses paid to jurors. The House approved the
full amount requested for this account. The Senate committee also approved the full
amount.

---

CRS-32
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC). As the central
support entity for the Judiciary, the AOUSC provides a wide range of administrative,
management, program, and information technology services to the U.S. courts. The
AOUSC also provides support to the Judicial Conference of the United States, and
implements conference policies and applicable federal statutes and regulations. The
FY2007 request for this account is $75.3 million — a $5.7 million (8.3%) increase
over the FY2006 level of $69.6 million. The increase is reportedly for pay increases
and other inflationary adjustments and for the anticipated reduction in non-
appropriated funds. The AOUSC also receives non-appropriated funds from fee
collections and carryover balances to supplement its appropriation requirements. The
House approved $73.8 million for this account — a $4.2 million increase over the
FY2006 level but $1.5 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee
recommended $74.3 million for this account — a $4.7 million increase over the
FY2006 level, but $1.0 million less than the FY2007 request.

Federal Judicial Center. As the Judiciary’s research and education entity,
the center undertakes research and evaluation of judicial operations for the Judicial
Conference committees and the courts. In addition, the center provides judges, court
staff, and others with orientation and continuing education and training. The center’s
FY2007 request is $23.8 million — a $1.7 million (7.5%) increase over the FY2006
appropriation of $22.1 million. The increase is reportedly to fund adjustments to pay
and other expenses due to inflation, and also to restore staff to the FY2005 level (nine
additional FTEs). The House approved $23.5 million for this account — a $1.4
million increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.3 million less than the FY2007 request.
The Senate committee recommended $23.4 million for this account — a $1.3 million
increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.4 million less than the FY2007 request.
United States Sentencing Commission. The commission promulgates
sentencing policies, practices, and guidelines for the federal criminal justice system.
The FY2007 request is $15.7 million — a $1.4 million (10.4%) increase over the
FY2006 appropriation of $14.3 million. According to the budget request, the increase
would provide for pay increases and other inflationary adjustments, and five FTE
positions in the research and data collection area for one year. Supreme Court
decisions and recent legislation have reportedly increased the commission’s workload,
and the need for data collection and analytical requirements. The House approved
$15.5 million for this account — a $1.2 million increase over the FY2006 level, but
$0.2 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee recommended $
15.3 million for this account — a $1.0 million increase over the FY2006 level, but
$0.4 million less than the FY2007 request.
Judiciary Retirement Funds. This mandatory account provides for three
trust funds that finance payments to retired bankruptcy and magistrate judges, retired
Court of Federal Claims judges, and spouses and dependent children of deceased
judicial officers. The FY2007 request is for $58.3 million — a $17.7 million (43.6%)
increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $40.6 million. The requirements for this
account are calculated annually by an independent actuary company. The large
increase reflects a change in methodology that a new actuary company has adopted to
more accurately project future liabilities that had not been taken into account in the
past. (The new methodology included a larger population of people who are likely to

---

CRS-33
join the retirement system.) The House approved the full amount requested for this
account. The Senate committee also recommended the full amount.
Administrative Provisions. Some administrative provisions continue
language that has appeared in previous years. The House-passed bill includes the
following provisions, which apply to the Judiciary only:
Section 401: To permit funds in the bill for salaries and expenses for the
Judiciary to be available for employment of experts and consultant services
(as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109).
Section 402: To permit up to 5 percent of any appropriation made available
for FY2007 to be transferred between Judiciary appropriations accounts —
provided that no appropriation shall be decreased by more than 5 percent or
increased by more than 10 percent by any such transfer except in certain
circumstances. In addition, the language provides that any such transfer
shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds (under sections 805 and 810
of the accompanying bill), and shall not be available for obligation or
expenditure except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that
section.
Section 403: To authorize not to exceed $11,000 to be used for official
reception and representation expenses incurred by the Judicial Conference
of the United States.
Section 404: To require a financial plan for the Judiciary within 90 days of
enactment of this act.
Section 405: To amend the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-
650) (extension of a temporary federal district judgeship in Wichita,
Kansas).
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended language similar to
Sections 401-404 in the House-passed bill, but excluded Section 405 concerning a
judgeship (see above). The Senate committee recommended the following additional
provisions:
Section 405: To allow for a salary adjustment for justices and judges.
Section 406: To grant the judicial branch with the same tenant alteration
authorities as the executive branch.
Section 407: To prohibit any judge from being entitled to sole use of a courtroom
and to require courtrooms to be scheduled based on the needs of the circuit and
district courts. (Intent of the section is to address circumstances in which
courtrooms are not in full use and the sharing of courtrooms will help reduce the
overburdened judicial docket.)

---

CRS-34
Title V: District of Columbia Appropriations29
Table 8. Title V: District of Columbia Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007
(millions of dollars)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2006
FY2006
Enacted*
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Passed
Reported
Total Federal Payments
$599.0
$597.2
$575.2
$597.0
Source: Figures are from a budget authority table provided by the House Committee on
Appropriations.
* FY2006 figure reflects an across-the-board rescission of 1.0%.
District of Columbia Budget and Key Policy Issues
President’s Request. The Administration’s proposed FY2007 budget
includes $597.2 million in federal payments to the District of Columbia. The courts
and criminal justice system (court operations, defender services, offender supervision
and criminal justice coordinating council) represent $456 million, or 76%, of the
request.
District Budget. On May 9, 2006, the District’s city council approved the
city’s $9.2 billion operating budget for FY2007, and $2.6 billion in capital outlays
including $63 million to finance a new baseball stadium. The District’s budget also
includes a request for $634 million in special federal payments, which is $37 million
more than the $597 million proposed by the President and recommended by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations, and $59 million more than the amount that was passed
by the House.
House Bill. The House provided $575.2 million for the District, $22 million
less than the Administration requested and $24 million less than enacted for FY2006.
The House approved the $479 million in FY2007 court and criminal justice funding.
This is $23 million more than the $456 million requested by the Administration. The
House would also provide $76 million in special federal payments in support of
elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education initiatives, as requested by the
Administration. This includes $13 million in special federal assistance to improve the
city’s public schools, $13 million in support of public charter schools, $14.8 million
in assistance in support of scholarships to private and religious schools, and $35.1
million for the District’s college tuition assistance program, which is $2.2 million
more than appropriated in FY2006.
29 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-35
The House also provided $5 million in special federal payments to the District’s
Chief Financial Officer for various education, economic development, health and
social service activities, and $7 million in federal payments to the District Water and
Sewer Authority. The House bill does not include a provision appropriating $20
million to fund improvements and expansion of the Navy Yard Metro Station, which
would service the new major league baseball stadium and the expanding federal
presence in the Federal Center Southeast area. Instead, the House bill would provide
the requested $20 million elsewhere in the bill as an earmark under the Department
of Transportation’s capital investment account.
In addition to recommending $599 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.
Senate Bill. On July 13, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved
and ordered reported the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for 2007, S. 3660
(S.Rept. 109-281). The bill would appropriate $597 million in special federal
payments. This is $21.8 million more than recommended by the House and
approximately the same amount as appropriated in FY2006. There are several
differences between the Senate bill and provisions included in the House-passed
version of H.R. 5576. The Senate bill recommends $33.2 million for the city’s college
tuition assistance program, $1.9 million less than recommended by the House bill and
$332,000 less than appropriated in FY2006. The bill also includes $206.6 million in
special federal payments for court operations, which is $13 million less than
recommended by the House and it recommends funding several activities not included
in the House version of H.R. 5576, including:
! $4.5 million for bioterrorism preparedness activities and a forensic
laboratory for the District;
! $5 million for the construction of a nature trail along the Anacostia
River;
! $2 million for improvements in the city’s foster care system;
! $4 million for marriage development accounts; and
! $15 million for improvements to the city’s public library system.
Unlike the House bill, which would appropriate $20 million in Department of
Transportation funds for the expansion of the Navy Yard Metro Station, the Senate
bill recommends a $4 million special federal payment in support of expansion of the
metro station. Like the House bill, the Senate bill would continue to prohibit the
District from using local or federal funds to implement a needle exchange program
and a medical marijuana initiative. The bill includes provisions that would continue
to prohibit the use of District and federal funds for abortion services, except in
instances of rape or incest, or when pregnancy endangers the life of the mother; and
to promote statehood or voting representation in Congress.

---

CRS-36
The bill, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, awaits approval
of the full Senate. Senate leadership must decide whether to incorporate the Senate’s
stand alone version of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2007, S.
3660, into H.R. 5576, the TTHUD bill. The Senate version of H.R. 5576, unlike the
House version, does not include provisions appropriating funds for the District.
Conversely, the House could remove the relevant District provisions from H.R. 5576
and create a stand alone counterpart to the Senate bill, S. 3660.
Titles V (Senate) and VI (House): Executive Office of
the President and Funds Appropriated to the
President
Table 9. Titles V and VI: Executive Office of the President (EOP)
and Funds Appropriated to the President Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Enacted*
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Office
Passed
Committee
Compensation of the President
$450
$450
$450
$450
The White House Office (WHO)
53,292
51,952
51,952
51,952
(salaries and expenses)
Executive Residence, White
12,312
12,041
12,041
12,041
House (operating expenses)
White House Repair and
1,683
1,600
1,600
1,600
Restoration
Council of Economic Advisors
4,000
4,002
4,002
4,002
(CEA)
Office of Policy Development
3,465
3,385
3,385
3,385
(OPD)
National Security Council (NSC)
8,618
8,405
8,405
8,405
Privacy and Civil Liberties
---
---
---
1,500
Oversight Board**
Office of Administration (OA)
88,429
102,417
91,393
91,393
Office of Management and Budget
76,161
68,780
76,185
76,185
(OMB)
Office of National Drug Control
26,639
23,309
26,928
11,500
(ONDCP)
Federal Drug Control Programs
447,381
221,760
448,600
461,500
(total)
— High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas Program
224,730
0***
235,000
227,000
(HIDTAP)
— Other Federal Drug Control
192,951
212,160
194,000
214,500
Programs

---

CRS-37
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Enacted*
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Office
Passed
Committee
— Counterdrug Technology
29,700
9,600
19,600
20,000
Assessment Center (CTAC)
Unanticipated Needs
990
11,789
1,000
1,000
Unanticipated Needs for Natural
0
-11,789
0
0
Disasters (emergency)
Office of the Vice President
4,410
4,352
4,352
4,352
(salaries and expenses)
Official Residence of the Vice
322
317
317
317
President (operating expenses)
Total, EOP and Funds
$728,152
$502,770
$730,610
$729,582
Appropriated to the President
Source: Figures are from the President’s budget request and the House Committee on Appropriations
report (H.Rept. 109-495) and the Senate Committee on Appropriations report (S.Rept. 109-293)
accompanying H.R. 5576, and are rounded. The table includes an offset of a rescission under the
unanticipated needs account.
* FY2006 figures reflect an across-the-board rescission of 1.0%.
** For FY2006 enacted, FY2007 budget request, and FY2007 House-passed, the appropriation for the
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is included in the White House Office appropriation.
*** The FY2007 budget proposed to transfer the HIDTAP to the Department of Justice.
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,
Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and
Independent Agencies.30
The Office of Administration (OA) and the Council of Economic Advisers
(CEA) are the only accounts under the EOP (not including the federal drug control
programs) for which increased funding was requested for FY2007. The $14 million
OA increase primarily results from the movement of funds from other EOP
components to the OA for enterprise services (discussed in more detail below). The
CEA increase is 0.05%. For the Unanticipated Needs account, the budget requested
$11.789 million, which is then offset by the requested rescission of $11.789 million
from the Unanticipated Needs for Natural Disasters account. As for the remaining
accounts, except for that on Compensation of the President, which is unchanged,
decreased appropriations are requested for all other accounts under the EOP in
FY2007. The OMB and ONDCP accounts have the largest reductions — 9.7% and
30 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).

---

CRS-38
12.5%, respectively — from their FY2006 appropriation levels after the rescission.
The reductions primarily result from the movement of funds from these accounts to
the Office of Administration for the continued centralization of enterprise services.
OMB also would lose 11 FTEs (full-time equivalent employees).
The FY2007 budget, like the FY2006 budget, proposed to transfer the HIDTAP
to the Department of Justice and to fund the program at $207.6 million. For FY2006,
the conference committee continued to fund the program under the EOP.
For the sixth consecutive fiscal year, the President’s FY2007 budget proposed
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 $184.252 million in FY2007 for
the accounts proposed to be consolidated, an increase of 7.0% from the $172.249
million appropriated in FY2006 (after the 1.0% rescission).31 The increase primarily
results from the Enterprise Services Initiative discussed below. The nine accounts
included in the consolidated appropriation would be the following:
! Compensation of the President,
! White House Office,
! Executive Residence at the White House,
! White House Repair and Restoration,
! Office of Policy Development,
! Office of Administration,
! Council of Economic Advisers, and
! National Security Council.32
The EOP budget submission stated that consolidation “presents the best means
for the President to realign or reallocate the resources and staff available in response
to changing needs and priorities or emergent national needs.”33 The conference
committees on the FY2002 through FY2006 appropriations acts decided to continue
with separate appropriations for the EOP accounts to facilitate congressional oversight
of their funding and operation.
The FY2007 budget requested a general provision in Title VI to continue and
expand the authority for the EOP to transfer 10% of the appropriated funds among
several accounts under the EOP. The authority would cover the following accounts
in FY2007:
31 P.L. 109-148, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006, at Division B, Title
III, §3801(a), required a 1.0% government-wide across-the-board rescission in discretionary
spending accounts. The FY2006 appropriation for the EOP accounts proposed to be
consolidated totaled $173.983 million before the rescission.
32 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the
United States Government Fiscal Year 2007, Appendix (Washington: GPO, 2006), pp.
1039-1048. (Hereafter referred to as FY2007 Budget, Appendix.)
33 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Fiscal Year 2007 Congressional Budget
Submission (Washington: [Feb. 2006]), p. EOP-11. (Hereafter cited as EOP Budget
Submission.)

---

CRS-39
! The White House,34
! 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.35
The OMB Director (or such other officer as the President designates in writing)
would be able to, 15 days after notifying the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, transfer up to 10% of any such appropriation to any other such
appropriation. The transferred funds would be merged with, and available for, the
same time and purposes as the appropriation receiving the funds. Such transfers could
not increase an appropriation by more than 50%. 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 and improve the efficiency of the EOP.” The authority “is not intended to
be used for new missions or programs” and the need for it “arises in part due to the
large number of small accounts at the President’s discretion, as well as the need to be
responsive to a dynamic environment.”36
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. For FY2006, P.L. 109-
115, the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary,
the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
(Section 725) authorized transfers of up to 10% among the accounts for the White
House and the Special Assistance to the President and Official Residence of the Vice
President.
An enterprise services initiative is included in the FY2007 budget request to
make the administration of certain services simpler and more efficient. Services
included in the initiative would be expanded to include burn bag pickup costs,
employee transportation subsidies, and Flexible Spending Account administrative
fees. The budgets for these services in the WHO, Executive Residence at the White
House, OPD, NSC, CEA, OMB, ONDCP, Office of Science and Technology Policy,
United States Trade Representative, and the Council on Environmental Quality would
be moved into the OA. In order to “be consistent with other EOP components,” the
34 The accounts under the White House are Compensation of the President, White House
Office, Executive Residence at the White House, White House Repair and Restoration,
Council of Economic Advisers, Office of Policy Development, National Security Council,
and the Office of Administration.
35 FY2007 Budget, Appendix, p. 1040.
36 EOP Budget Submission, p. EOP-12.

---

CRS-40
budgets for health unit services, space-related rent costs, and rent-based Federal
Protective Service in OMB and ONDCP also would be included in the OA.37
As reported by the House Committee on Appropriations and as passed by the
House, the FY2007 TTHUD appropriations bill continues separate appropriations for
the EOP accounts. The provision authorizing the transfer of up to 10% of funds
within the EOP also is continued. Notable among the appropriations for the EOP
accounts are the following.
! An appropriation of up to $1.5 million for the Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board, an account under the White House Office,
was recommended by the House committee. Under an amendment
(No. 1025) offered by Representative Christopher Shays and agreed
to by the House by voice vote on June 13, 2006, funding for the
Board would be increased by $750,000.
! An appropriation of $91.4 million is provided for the OA, $11
million less than the FY2007 budget request. Funding for the OMB
and ONDCP rental payments to GSA, $7.4 million and $3.6 million,
respectively, is continued under salaries and expenses for those
respective accounts.
! An appropriation of $26.9 million is provided for ONDCP. The
increase of $3.6 million over the FY2007 budget request is accounted
for by continuing the funding for rental payments to GSA under this
account rather than transferring it to the OA.
! An appropriation of $19.6 million is provided for the CTAC, $10
million more than the FY2007 budget request. The increase is for the
Technology Transfer Program whose termination was requested by
the Administration.
! An appropriation of $227 million, $2.3 million above the FY2006
enacted level after the rescission, for the HIDTAP (High Intensity
Drug Trafficking Areas Program) was recommended by the House
committee. Increased funding is recommended for the Appalachian,
Central Valley, and Lake County HIDTAs (High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas). The program is continued under the EOP, rather
than under the Department of Justice as the FY2007 budget
requested. Under an amendment (No. 1026) offered by
Representative Darlene Hooley and agreed to by the House on a 348
to 76 (Roll No. 273) vote on June 13, 2006, funding for the HIDTAP
would be increased by $8 million.
! An appropriation of $194 million is provided for Other Federal Drug
Control Programs, $18.2 million less than the FY2007 budget
request. The Drug Free Communities initiative is funded at $80
37 EOP Budget Submission, p. EOP-13.

---

CRS-41
million (rather than at $79.2 million, as requested), the National Drug
Court Institute is funded at $1 million (rather than at $990,000, as
requested), the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws is
funded at $1 million (no funding was requested), and the National
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is funded at $100 million (rather
than at $120 million, as requested).
! An appropriation of $1 million is provided for unanticipated needs.
The rescission of $11.8 million in emergency funds (from the
Unanticipated Needs for Natural Disasters Account) to offset non-
emergency appropriations, as requested in the FY2007 budget, is not
included.
The report accompanying the bill addresses several policy issues. It expresses
the Appropriations Committee’s “serious concerns about the continued forced
implementation” of the E-Gov initiative on departments and agencies. Stating its
belief that “Many aspects of this initiative are fundamentally flawed, contradict
underlying program statutory requirements and have stifled innovation by forcing
conformity to an arbitrary government standard,” the committee notes that the FY2007
bill continues the “government-wide general provision that precludes the use of funds”
for the initiative without prior consultation with the committee.38 The provision is
included as Section 938 of the House-passed bill and as Section 839 of the Senate bill
as reported.
The report notes the committee’s “concern that the ONDCP has resisted focusing
its programs to fighting the alarming rise in domestic methamphetamine production,
trafficking and abuse” and states that future funding of the office’s priorities cannot
be ensured if Congress continues to be ignored. The Director of the ONDCP is
directed to include “an analysis of options and recommendations for the future course
of counterdrug technology research” in the office’s budget submission for FY2008.
The committee directs the ONDCP Director to submit a financial plan, which will be
updated every six months, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
prior to the initial obligation of funds provided for FY2007. The first plan is due
within 30 days of the act’s enactment. Any new projects and changes in the funding
of ongoing projects must receive the prior approval of the appropriations
committees.39
In a statement of administration policy on H.R. 5576, OMB urged that the White
House accounts be consolidated, the authority to transfer up to 10% of budgetary
resources within EOP accounts be expanded, and the Enterprise Services initiative be
expanded, as requested in the FY2007 budget. The Administration expressed concern
about the House action to reduce funding for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign by $20 million.40
38 H.Rept. 109-495, p. 181.
39 Ibid., pp. 182 and 185.
40 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
(continued...)

---

CRS-42
As reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 5576 continues
separate appropriations for the EOP accounts, with one exception discussed below.
The provision authorizing the transfer of up to 10% of funds within the EOP also is
continued. According to the report accompanying the bill, the committee rejected “a
single, consolidated account” because “it would undermine the ability of the Congress
to exercise adequate oversight” of the expenditure of funds. The committee
incorporated the responsibilities of the Office of Policy Development (with its $3.4
million appropriation) into the White House Office salaries and expenses account “to
allow the White House to better manage its resources.”41 The committee expressed
its belief that oversight of the use of the OPD funds will be adequate under this
merger. Among the committee’s directives and funding recommendations for the
EOP accounts are the following.
! The EOP is encouraged to submit its FY2008 budget justification
within a few days of the transmittal of the President’s budget to
Congress. The justification is to include detailed budget information
for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
! A separate appropriation of $1.5 million is provided for the Privacy
and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. (The House-passed bill funds
the Board as part of the appropriation for the White House Office.)
! Under the Executive Residence at the White House account,
restrictions on reimbursable expenses for use of the residence,
enacted for FY2004, are continued.
! An appropriation of $91.4 million is provided for OA, the same
amount as passed by the House, but some $11 million less than the
FY2007 budget request. The committee report states that OA
“receives reimbursements for information management support and
general office services.”42
! An appropriation of $76.2 million is provided for OMB, the same
amount as passed by the House and $7.4 million more than the
FY2007 budget request. The committee report directs the OMB
Director, assisted by appropriate federal agencies, to report to the
Senate and House Committees on Appropriations on “the
administration’s and OMB’s plans to monitor, measure, and increase
Federal agency performance and participation in energy and
environmental management.” Possible statutory obstacles to meeting
energy savings goals should be addressed in the report which must be
submitted within 120 days of the act’s enactment. “[P]roducts and
40 (...continued)
Administration Policy, H.R. 5576 — Transportation, Treasury, Housing, the Judiciary, and
the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY2007, June 14, 2006, pp. 3-4. (Hereafter
referred to as Administration Policy on H.R. 5576.)
41 S.Rept. 109-293, p. 185.
42 Ibid., p. 188.

---

CRS-43
services that guarantee energy and taxpayer savings, that measure
performance, and that involve public/private partnerships” are of
particular interest to the committee.43
! An appropriation of $11.5 million is provided for ONDCP, $11.8
million less than the FY2007 budget request and $15.4 million less
than the House-passed funding. The committee report states that the
appropriation has been reduced “to more closely reflect actual
performance.” Funding of $1.5 million is provided for a study of
ONDCP’s organization and management to be conducted by the
National Academy of Public Administration and to begin within 60
days of the act’s enactment. “Quarterly reports on travel
expenditures, summarized by office, program, and individual,
including dates and purpose of travel” are to be provided by the
ONDCP Director to the Senate and House Committees on
Appropriations.44 The ONDCP Director is further directed to provide
quarterly staffing reports, including plans to hire additional staff, to
the Appropriations Committees. The office, position, title, salary,
and job classifications of all ONDCP staff, including contractors,
should be included in the report.
! An appropriation of $227 million is provided for HIDTAP, $8 million
less than the House-passed funding. The FY2007 budget proposed
to transfer the HIDTAP to the Department of Justice. In providing
funding for the HIDTAP, the committee report stated that the
program is an important function of ONDCP. Among the directives
for the office are these: that the ONDCP Director “take appropriate
steps to ensure that the HIDTA funds are transferred to the
appropriate drug control agencies expeditiously” and the entities
receiving the resources apply them “strictly for implementing the
strategy for each HIDTA, taking into consideration local conditions
and resource requirements” and that ONCDP “hold back all HIDTA
funds from a State” until the State or locality meets its financial
obligation.45
! An appropriation of $214.5 million is provided for other federal drug
control programs, $2.3 million more than the FY2007 budget request
and $20.5 million more than the House-passed funding. The
appropriation is allocated as shown in Table 10 below. Of the $120
million provided for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign,
$15 million is to fund continued advertising against the use of
methamphetamine. No more than 10% of the campaign’s
appropriation can be used for administrative costs. The Committee
directs that $2 million of the $80 million provided to the Drug-Free
43 Ibid., p. 188.
44 Ibid., p. 190.
45 Ibid, p. 192.

---

CRS-44
Communities Support Program is a direct grant to the Community
Anti-Drug Coalitions of America for the National Community Anti-
Drug Coalition Institute. In providing membership dues for the
World Anti-Doping Agency, “the Committee directs ONDCP to use
its voice and vote as the United States’ representative ... to ensure that
all countries’ athletes are subject to fair and equal standards and
treatment.”46
Table 10. Senate Committee on Appropriations Funding
Recommendations for Federal Drug Control Programs in the
Executive Office of the President, FY2007
Program
Appropriation
Recommended
(In thousands $)
National Youth Anti-
$120,000
Drug Media Campaign
Drug-Free Communities
80,000
Support Program
U.S. Anti-Doping
9,000
Agency
National Drug Court
1,000
Institute
National Alliance for
1,000
Model State Drug Laws
Performance Measure
2,000
Development
World Anti-Doping
1,500
Agency
! An appropriation of $20 million is provided for the CTAC, $10.4
million more than the FY2007 budget request and $400,000 more
than the House-passed funding. The funding is allocated as $10
million each for the demand reduction program and the Technology
Transfer Program. With regard to the former program, the committee
again directs that the FY2006 ONDCP operating plan, which has not
been received by the committee, be submitted within 30 days after the
act’s enactment. The plan is to “include an accounting of the use of
the FY2006 CTAC R&D appropriated funds and an accounting of all
FY2006 funds that are unobligated and unexpended and the rationale
for inaction.” A spending plan for FY2007 must be submitted to the
committee that includes “technology development projects that would
46 Ibid., p. 194.

---

CRS-45
provide researchers with the tools to conduct more advanced ... drug
addiction and scientific studies.” Within 45 days of the act’s
enactment, FY2007 “funds with expenditure project execution
authority [must] be completed and transferred to other Federal
departments and agencies.” As for the technology transfer program
(TTP), the FY2008 budget request for CTAC must include “the total
number of TTP applications received and the number awarded in the
previous year” to permit the committee to “have a true understanding
of CTAC’s ability to meet demand.”47
Title VII: Independent Agencies
In addition to funding for the aforementioned Departments and agencies, a
diverse collection of 21 independent agencies receive funding through Title VII of this
appropriations bill. Table 11 lists their respective appropriations for FY2006 as
enacted, and for FY2007 as requested in the President’s Budge, passed by the House,
and reported in the Senate. Discussion following the table focuses on key budget and
policy issues in some of the larger agencies.
Table 11. Title VII: Independent Agencies Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007
(in millions of dollars)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Enacted* Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Agency
Passed
Reported
Architectural and Transportation
$6
$6
$6
$6
Barriers Compliance Board
Consumer Product Safety
63
63
63
62
Commission
Election Assistance Commission
14
17
17
17
Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation: Office of Inspector
31
26
26
26
General (transfer)
Federal Election Commission
55
57
57
57
Federal Labor Relations Authority
25
25
25
25
Federal Maritime Commission
20
21
21
21
General Services Administration
217
450
203
466
Merit Systems Protection Board
38
39
39
39



Morris K. Udall Foundation
4
0
2
2
National Archives and Records
326
338
338
348
Administration
National Credit Union
Administration
Limitation on direct loans
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
47 Ibid., p. 191.

---

CRS-46
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Enacted* Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Agency
Passed
Reported
Community Development
941
941
941
941
Revolving Loan Fund
National Transportation Safety
77
80
82
80
Board
Neighborhood Reinvestment
117
120
120
120
Corporation
Office of Government Ethics
11
11
11
11
Office of Personnel Management
18,742
19,607
19, 580
19,607
(total)
Salaries and Expenses
123
113
113
113
Government Payments for
Annuitants, Employees Health
8,393
8,780
8,780
8,780
Benefits
Government Payments for
Annuitants, Employee Life
36
39
39
39
Insurance
Payment to Civil Service
10,072
10,532
10,532
10,532
Retirement and Disability Fund
Office of Special Counsel
15
16
16
16
Selective Service System+
25
24
24
24
United States Interagency Council
2
2
2
2
on Homelessness
United States Postal Service
116
80
109
109



United States Tax Court
48
47
47
47
Total, Independent Agencies
$19,936
$20,999
$20,708
$20,984
Source: Figures are rounded and come from the President’s budget request for FY2007, the House
Committee on Appropriations report to accompany H.R. 5576 (H. Rept. 109-495), or the Senate
Appropriations Committee report (S.Rept. 109-293)..
* FY2006 figures reflect an across-the-board rescission of 1.0%.
+ Selective Service System is included in House bill; in Senate, this agency is in the Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill.
Federal Election Commission (FEC). The FEC administers federal
campaign finance law, including overseeing disclosure requirements, limits on
contributions and expenditures, and the presidential election public funding system;
the FEC retains civil enforcement authority for the law.
The President’s fiscal 2007 budget proposed an appropriation of $57.1 million
for the FEC, a 5.5% increase above the fiscal 2006 appropriation of $54.2 million.
Of this amount, at least $4.7 million was proposed to be designated for internal
automated data systems and $5,000 for representational and reception expenses. Both
the House Appropriations Committee and the full House accepted the overall amount
proposed by the Administration but raised the $4.7 million minimum for automated
data systems to $6.5 million. The agency was further authorized to collect registration
fees for conferences, with such fees credited to the agency to help defray costs of such
conferences. In addition, the Committee report commended the FEC on the
implementation of its Administrative Fine Program, which allows the agency to assess

---

CRS-47
fines for reporting violations, but it expressed concern that the program had not yet
been authorized beyond December 31, 2008. The Committee urged the FEC to work
with the authorizing committee to achieve permanent authorization of the program
prior to the FY2008 appropriations request. The Senate Appropriations Committee
matched the House appropriation of $57.1 million for FY2007. The Senate
Appropriations Committee report did not comment on the Administrative Fine
Program or provide additional instructions to the FEC.
Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). The FLRA, to the extent
feasible, will continue to implement the five government-wide goals of the President’s
Management Agenda during FY2007. Under the strategic management of human
capital goal, the FLRA plans to implement cost savings measures to address projected
changes in workload resulting from the implementation of the BRAC (Base
Realignment and Closure) decisions and new personnel systems at the Departments
of Defense (DOD) and Homeland Security (DHS). The FLRA reports that its regional
workload has declined by 32% between 2001 and 2004, and that this trend may
continue because of the DOD and DHS reforms. The agency also plans to streamline
and consolidate the FLRA’s training functions and implement additional workforce
flexibilities through OPM. H.R. 5576, as passed by the House and reported by the
Senate Committee on Appropriations, would increase the appropriation for the FLRA
by $5,000 over the FY2006 funding, as requested in the FY2007 budget.
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 shown in Table 12, for FY2007, the President requested $52.5 million for
government-wide policy and $83 million for operating expenses; $44 million for the
Office of Inspector General; $3 million for allowances and office staff for former
Presidents; and $16.9 million to be deposited into the Federal Citizen Information
Center Fund. H.R. 5576, as reported and passed in the House, mirrors these figures.
Likewise, as reported in the Senate, the requested amounts were recommended.
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. 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.

---

CRS-48
Table 12. General Services Administration Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007
(in millions of dollars)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Fund/Office
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Federal Buildings Fund
Total Limitations on
$7,753
$8,047
$7,181
$8,065
Availability of Revenues
Limitations on Obligation:
792
690
212
708
New Construction Projects
Limitations on Obligation:
861
866
478
866
Repairs and Alterations
Limitation on Obligation:
Installment Acquisition
168
164
164
164
Payments
Limitation on Obligations:
4,046
4,323
4,323
4,323
Rental of Space
Limitation on Obligations:
1,885
2,004
2,004
2,004
Building Operations
Request for Additional
245
243
Amount
General Activities Accounts
Governm
ent-wide Policy
52
53
53
53
Operating Expenses
99
83
80
83
Office of Inspector General
43
44
44
44
Allowances and Office Staff
3
3
3
3
for Former Presidents
Federal Citizen Information
15
17
17
17
Center Fund

Electronic Gov’t (E-Gov) Fund
3
5
3
5
GSA direct appropriations total
$217
$450
$203
$205
Source: The President’s budget request for FY2007, the House Committee on Appropriations report
(H. Rept. 109-495), and the Senate Committee on Appropriations report (S.Rept. 109-293).
As reported and passed in the House, there would be a total limitation of $7,740
million for the FBF, in FY2007, a decrease of $12 million below the FY2006 enacted
levels, and a decrease of $307 million below the President’s request. According to the
House approved language, to carry out the purposes of the FBF, $383.9 million would
remain available until expended for new construction projects, and $866.2 million
would remain available until expended for repairs and alterations.

---

CRS-49
As reported in the Senate, the Committee on Appropriations recommended a
total limitation for the FBF in FY2007 of $8,065 million, which constitutes $884
million more than allowed by the House; $708.2 million for new construction, more
than $496 million above the House passed version; and new obligational authority of
$866.2 million for repairs and alterations, nearly $388 million more than approved by
the House.
For FY2007, the President had requested that an additional amount of $245
million be deposited in the FBF and that the total limitation for the FBF be set at
$8,047. The President’s budget further provided that $690 million would remain
available until expended for new construction projects from the FBF, and. $866
million would remain available until expended for repairs and alterations.
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, FY2005, and FY2006. 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 President requested $5 million for FY2007 and Senate appropriators concurred,
but the House approved the usual $3 million, as recommended in the House
Appropriations Committee report.
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The MSPB request for
increased funding for FY2007 is to cover pay raises, performance management
training for staff, and higher space rental rates. Additionally, $495,000 of the amount
requested is to relocate the San Francisco office to a building which is fully compliant
with current earthquake standards. The MSPB will continue to adjudicate appeals, but
with faster processing times, under the new personnel systems currently being
implemented at DOD and DHS. The Board also is in the process of hiring the
additional staff authorized by Congress in FY2006 and needed to meet the increased
demands of DOD and DHS. The Senate committee’s recommendation for MSPB
salaries and expenses is $19,000 more than the FY2007 budget request and the House-
passed funding.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Funding for the following
projects is included in OPM’s FY2007 request for salaries and expenses: Enterprise
Human Resources Integration ($6.9 million) and Human Resources Line of Business
($1.4 million). A priority of the agency during 2007 will be the implementation of
reforms to the position classification, pay, and performance management systems
included in the Working For America Act draft legislative proposal submitted to
Congress in July 2005 (not yet introduced). OPM also will give priority to the issues
of recruitment, the hiring process, training, career and professional development,
dental and vision benefits, and health benefits options. The agency’s Inspector
General will continue to develop a prescription drug audit program, which includes
pharmacy benefit managers, to assist in recovering inappropriate expenses charged in
previous years and negotiating more favorable contracts.

---

CRS-50
The House bill as passed provides the same appropriation for OPM salaries and
expenses as requested by the President (albeit down $10 million from FY2006), but
the allocation of the funding is changed. An increase in funds is denied for pay and
performance modernization, and instead, the Management Services Division account
is increased. The bill does not fund an increase for the retirement systems
modernization project and therefore, reduces the amount authorized to be transferred
from trust funds. The Committee report accompanying the bill directs the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to continue to monitor implementation of
the retirement modernization program and update the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations by March 1, 2007, “as to OPM’s progress in converting the
agency’s paper personnel file system into a secure digital system.” It includes several
directives for OPM:
! to continue implementing and refining the new human resources
management systems at the Departments of Homeland Security and
Defense before expanding such systems to other departments and
agencies.
! to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations an
operating plan for FY2007 signed by the OPM Director. The plan
must be submitted within 60 days of the act’s enactment. It must
include “funding levels including an identification of carryover funds
for the various offices, centers, programs, and initiatives covered in
the budget justification and supporting documents referenced in the
House and Senate appropriations reports and the statement of the
managers.”
! to include changes — dollars requested broken out between trust fund
and general funds for specific programs or activities within
organizations, a total that includes reimbursements, and a breakout of
direct appropriation and reimbursement — in future budget
justifications.
! to continue efforts to include “clear, detailed, and concise information
on how the programs will be funded and how they will be measured”
in the budget justification.
H.R. 5576, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, would
provide the same appropriation for OPM salaries and expenses and for Office of
Inspector General salaries and expenses that the FY2007 budget requested and the
House passed. As requested by the President, up to $8.3 million dollars of the funding
could be used for e-Government projects. The committee report includes several
directives for OPM:
! to report to the committee within 120 days of the act’s enactment on
its human resources products and services and actions taken to
respond to the committee’s concerns that OPM is not allowing federal
agencies “the flexibility to contract as they see fit, including
contracting with private companies to provide online employment

---

CRS-51
applications and processing services, as well as choice in selecting
service providers and human resource systems.”
! to report on progress in implementing any recommendations in the
forthcoming OPM and GSA survey and report on the child care needs
of executive, legislative, and judicial branch employees within six
months after the report is issued, and to include in the report any
further measures that may be taken. OPM is also directed “to
continue its efforts to provide information and education to agencies
and employees on promotion of the subsidy for child care expenses
for lower income employees.”48
! to continue to give GAO’s recommendations on modernization of the
retirement system — especially related to progress, costs, and risks
— careful consideration and to closely consult with GAO in the
future.
Office of Special Counsel (OSC). The funding recommended by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations ($16 million) is $63,000 more than the amount
requested in the FY2007 budget or in the House-passed bill ($15.937 million). The
committee’s report directs the OSC to:
! submit its FY2008 budget justification on the first Monday in
February and to “include highly detailed data and explanatory
statements to support the appropriations requests, including tables
that detail OSC’s programs, activities and staffing levels for fiscal
years 2007 and 2008.” The agency is directed to coordinate with the
committee “well in advance on its planned budget submission.”
! submit to Congress, with the FY2008 budget request, “a
comprehensive strategy addressing capital needs and case processing
in order to prevent any future backlog of cases.”49 The agency is also
directed to provide quarterly staffing reports from the Special
Counsel to Congress.
! communicate with the committee 45 days prior to any organizational
change that would cause the agency’s staffing to vary above or below
these levels: 70 to 75 FTEs (headquarters), 6 to 8 FTEs (Detroit), 9
to 11 FTEs (Dallas), 8 to 10 FTEs (San Francisco Bay area), and 9 to
12 FTEs (District of Columbia field office). The OSC’s total number
of FTEs should not be less than 102 or greater than 116.
48 S.Rept. 109-293, p. 220.
49 Ibid., p. 224.

---

CRS-52
Postal Service.50 The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is self-supporting; it
generates nearly all of its funding — about $71 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 some 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 13 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 FY2007 Budget, the Administration proposed an appropriation of $79.9
million, including $60.7 million for revenue forgone in FY2007 and a reconciliation
adjustment for underestimated mail volume in FY2004 of $19.2 million. The Postal
Service, which submits its own request as an independent entity, estimated that the
FY2007 amount needed for the blind and overseas voting would be $80.1 million, or
$19.4 million more than OMB requested, and asked Congress to appropriate that
amount. Both proposals would supplement the FY2007 amount with a $19.2 million
reconciliation adjustment reflecting that actual use of the subsidy in FY2004 was
underestimated by that amount. The Postal Service’s request also includes a
reconciliation adjustment of $24.4 million reflecting the amount by which actual
expenditures for FY2005 exceeded the amount appropriated that year. Thus the Postal
Service’s request for FY2007 is $152.7 million: including $80.1 million for FY2007
revenue forgone, $43.6 million as a reconciliation adjustment for two years, and $29
million as the annual payment under the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of 1993.
The Administration’s FY2007 budget not only estimates a lower usage figure for
mail for the blind than does the Postal Service, it also proposes to eliminate the usual
$29 million annual payment for revenue forgone in past years that is set forth in the
Revenue Forgone Reform Act. It also proposed termination of the payment in FY2005
and FY2006, but Congress chose to provide the funding. USPS argues that cancelling
the payment could result in the whole 28-year obligation, totaling $841 million, being
written off as a bad debt and charged to current postal ratepayers. The
Administration’s budget also proposed that the $79.9 million it requests would not be
available for obligation until October 1, 2007, which is in FY2008, following a
practice for the postal appropriation established several years ago.
The House bill, as reported by committee and passed by the House, adopted the
Administration’s recommendation by providing $79.9 million for the current year’s
revenue forgone, as an advance appropriation, but departed from it in once again
approving the annual $29 million for revenue forgone in the past. The Committee
50 Also see CRS Report RS21025, The Postal Revenue Forgone Appropriation: Overview
and Current Issues, by Nye Stevens.

---

CRS-53
report (H.Rept 109-495) commented that the method OMB uses to estimate revenue
forgone expenditures, which is to take an average of past expenses, is “inaccurate”
compared to the Postal Service’s estimate which is based on current audits of mail
volume. The Senate Committee mirrored the action of the House, providing $108.9
million for the Postal Service Fund. Its report (S.Rept. 109-293) also “directed” the
Postal Service not to implement mail processing center consolidations in Iowa, South
Dakota, and Washington until GAO has issued a report on decision-making criteria
used in such consolidations.
Titles VIII (Senate) and IX (House): General
Provisions Government-Wide
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 FY2007 Budget, Appendix.51 Most of the provisions
continue language that 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 were proposed for elimination in the
FY2007 budget. Inclusion of the provisions in the House bill as passed, and the
Senate bill as reported, is noted.
! Section 809, which prohibits payment to political appointees who are
filling positions for which they have been nominated, but not
confirmed. Included as Section 909 of the House bill and Section
809 of the Senate bill.
! Section 819, which prohibits the obligation or expenditure of
appropriated funds for employee training that (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 and Section 819 of the Senate bill.
51 FY2007 Budget, Appendix, pp. 9-14. The 800 section numbers refer to the provisions as
they were enacted in P.L. 109-115, the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2006.

---

CRS-54
! Section 820, which prohibits the use of appropriated funds to
implement or enforce employee non-disclosure agreements if they do
not contain whistleblower protection clauses. Included as Section
920 of the House bill and Section 820 of the Senate bill.
! Section 823, 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. Included as Section 923 of the House bill and
Section 823 of the Senate bill.
! Section 834, 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 and Section 834 of the Senate bill.
! Section 836, which prohibits the use of appropriated funds to
implement or enforce restrictions or limitations on the Coast Guard
Congressional Fellowship Program or to implement OPM’s proposed
regulations limiting the detail of executive branch employees to the
legislative branch. Included as Section 936 of the House bill and
Section 836 of the Senate bill.
! Section 837, which requires agencies to report to Congress on the
amount of the acquisitions made from entities that manufacture the
articles, materials, or supplies outside the United States. Not
included in the House bill. Included as Section 845 of the Senate bill.
! Section 839, which requires appropriate executive department and
agency heads either to transfer funds to, or reimburse, the Federal
Aviation Administration to ensure the uninterrupted, continuous
operation of the Midway Atoll airfield. Not included in the House
bill. Included as Section 838 of the Senate bill.
! Section 840, which provides certain requirements for conducting a
public-private competition for the performance of an activity that is
not inherently governmental for executive agencies with less than 100
full-time employees. Not included in either the House bill or the
Senate bill.
! Section 842, which prohibits the use of funds to convert an activity
or function of an executive agency to contractor performance if more
than 10 federal employees perform the activity, unless the analysis
reveals that savings would exceed 10 percent of the most efficient
organization’s personnel-related costs for performance of the activity
or function by federal employees, or $10 million, whichever is lesser.
Included as Section 939 of the House bill and Section 840 of the
Senate bill.

---

CRS-55
! Section 845, which precludes contravention of the Privacy Act.
Included as Section 942 of the House bill and Section 843 of the
Senate bill.
Among new government-wide general provisions in the FY2007 bill are those
providing a 2.7% pay adjustment for federal civilian employees, including those in the
Departments of Homeland Security and Defense (Section 940 of the House bill and
Section 841 of the Senate bill), and prohibiting the use of funds to send or otherwise
pay for more than 50 employees from a federal department or agency to attend a single
conference outside the United States (Section 951 of the House bill and not included
in the Senate bill). This latter provision was added to the bill by an amendment
offered by Representative Scott Garrett and agreed to by the House by voice vote on
June 14, 2006. The Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 5576 strongly
opposed the 2.7% pay adjustment, stating that it exceeds the annual pay increase
required by the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act for federal employees and
the average private sector pay adjustment.52
Cuba Sanctions53
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
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 June 2004, the
Bush Administration significantly tightened restrictions on travel, and there was
considerable negative reaction to the Administration’s tightening of restrictions for
family visits and educational travel.
Some U.S. 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. Since
late 2001, Cuba has purchased about $1.2 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 $369 million
in 2005, the majority in agricultural products.54
52 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administration Policy, H.R. 5576 — Transportation, Treasury, Housing, the Judiciary, and
the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY2007, June 14, 2006, p. 4.
53 Prepared by Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.
54 World Trade Atlas. Department of Commerce Statistics.

---

CRS-56
In February 2005, the Administration tightened U.S. economic sanctions against
Cuba by further restricting how U.S. agricultural exporters may be paid for their sales.
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 maintained
that the clarification “conforms to the common understanding of the term in
international trade.”55 In July 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 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.56
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 have ever been enacted. This year, both the House-passed and Senate
Appropriations Committee-reported versions of the FY2007 Transportation-Treasury-
Housing appropriations bill, H.R. 5576, include a provision that would prevent
Treasury Department funds from being used to implement the February 2005
amendment to the Cuba embargo regulations that tightened restrictions on “payment
of cash in advance” for U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba.57 The Administration’s
Statement of Policy on the bill maintains that the President would veto the bill if it
contained any provision that would weaken current sanctions on Cuba.
In the House version of the bill, the Cuba provision is in Section 950, which was
added on June 14, 2006, when the House approved H.Amdt. 1049 (Moran, Kansas)
by voice vote. On the same day, the House rejected two additional Cuba amendments:
H.Amdt 1050 (Rangel), that would have prohibited funds from being used to
implement the economic embargo of Cuba, was rejected by a vote of 183-245;
H.Amdt. 1051 (Lee), that would have prohibited funds from being used to implement
the Administration’s June 2004 tightening of restrictions on educational travel to
Cuba, was rejected by a vote of 187-236. An additional Cuba amendment, H.Amdt.
55 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Testimony of Robert Werner, Director, OFAC, before
the House Committee on Agriculture, March 16, 2005.
56 Christopher S. Rugaber, “Treasury Clarifies Cuba Farm Export Rule, and Baucus Relents
on Nominees,” International Trade Reporter, August 4, 2005.
57 A similar provision was included in both the House-passed and Senate-passed versions
of the FY2006 Transportation appropriations bill, H.R. 3058, but it was dropped in the
conference report to the bill (H.Rept. 109-307). The Administration had threatened to veto
the measure over the provision.

---

CRS-57
1032 (Flake), that would have prohibited the use of funds to amend regulations
relating to travel for religious activities in Cuba, was withdrawn from consideration.
In the Senate version of the bill, the Cuba provision is in Section 846. It was
added to the bill on July 20, 2006, when the Senate Appropriations Committee
approved an amendment offered by Senator Dorgan by voice vote during the
committee’s markup of the bill. The committee subsequently reported the bill (S.Rept.
109-293) with the Cuba provision on July 26, 2006.
For additional information, see CRS Report RL32730, Cuba: Issues for the 109th
Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan; CRS Report RL33499, Exempting Food and
Agriculture Products from U.S. Economic Sanctions: Status and Implementation, by
Remy Jurenas; and CRS Report RL31139, Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and
Remittances, by Mark P. Sullivan.
crsphpgw

---