Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission for FY2025: In Brief

April 24, 2024 R48049

Information Technology Spending in the
President’s Budget Submission for FY2025:
In Brief
April 24, 2024
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R48049

link to page 3 link to page 3 link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 10 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 12

Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission for FY2025

Introduction
Government spending on information technology (IT) has evolved from a minor component of
the President’s annual budget submission to a dedicated chapter over the past two decades. This
evolution reflects the increased importance of IT systems to agencies’ operations as well as the
increased focus on IT policy issues by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the
President.
In recognition of IT’s role in sustaining government operations and achieving policy goals,
Congress has passed a series of measures that assign certain IT planning and management
responsibilities to executive branch agencies, agency chief information officers (CIOs), and
OMB. These actors play significant roles in the budgeting, management, and funding of IT.
Federal agencies increasingly use IT systems as a way to interact with many groups outside
individual agencies’ boundaries, including:
• members of the public (e.g., providing information or services);
• other federal agencies (e.g., collaborating with or providing services to one
another);
• state and local governments (e.g., operating joint programs or providing funds);
and
• the private sector (e.g., receiving goods and services from contractors).
This report discusses how congressional and executive branch actions have shaped the format and
content of federal IT budgetary reporting, including aggregated reporting on IT spending that has
been included in the President’s budget submission. Drawing on this data, the report analyzes
how aggregate federal IT spending, as reported by OMB, has changed since FY2003. The report
concludes by briefly analyzing budget data presented in the most recent presidential budget
submission for FY2025.1 The proposed IT spending aggregates contained in this report, as well as
the spending trends, may be of interest to authorizing and appropriations committees that oversee
agencies with substantial IT investments. For more information about federal IT budgeting
processes in the context of the broader executive budget process, see CRS Report R46877,
Federal Information Technology (IT) Budgeting Process in the Executive Branch: An Overview,
by Dominick A. Fiorentino.
The President’s Budget Submission
The President’s annual budget submission is one of the most comprehensive modes of reporting
budgetary information at the federal level. In practice, OMB prepares the budget submission on
the President’s behalf. In recent decades, the President’s budget submission has included several
printed and electronic volumes, including the Budget of the U. S. Government, Appendix,
Historical Tables, and Analytical Perspectives.2

1 Detailed information about particular IT budget projects and corresponding budget proposals is outside the scope of
this CRS report. More information on these proposals may be found in agency congressional budget justifications.
2 To find these documents, see U.S. Government Publishing Office, “Budget of the United States Government,”
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/budget.
Congressional Research Service

1

Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission for FY2025

A Focus on IT Spending in the Analytical Perspectives Volume
The Analytical Perspectives volume contains in-depth discussion of government programs,
technical explanation of budget baselines and concepts, and policy-area-focused budgetary
breakouts including proposed IT spending, research and development, and credit and insurance
programs. The form and content of the IT budgetary information has evolved over time, reflecting
increased reliance on IT systems by executive agencies to carry out their missions as well as
increased focus on IT policy issues by OMB and the President.3
Evolving Reporting of IT Spending in Analytical Perspectives
Presentation of IT-related spending in the principal volumes of the President’s budget submission
has evolved over time. Prior to the FY2000 budget submission, IT investments were grouped
under the category of “major equipment,” which also included capital assets such as weapons
systems.4 In FY2000, the budget submission began listing individual IT investments separately
from other types of capital asset investments.5 The Analytical Perspectives volume began
including an aggregate federal IT spending figure for the first time in FY2003.6
In 2009, OMB created the IT Dashboard website to increase transparency of agency IT
investments.7 The resulting publicly accessible website currently displays data from 26 agencies
on the cost, schedule, and performance of certain IT investments.8 In FY2013, OMB began using
the Analytical Perspectives volume to report aggregated information about IT spending. OMB
used information submitted to the IT Dashboard by agencies to produce Department of Defense
(DOD) and non-DOD (referred to as “civilian agency”) IT spending totals.9
While spending totals presented in the Analytical Perspectives include both classified and non-
classified DOD IT spending, only non-classified IT spending appears on the IT Dashboard. DOD
reports classified IT investments separately to OMB.10
Since the President’s FY2018 budget submission, OMB has presented disaggregated IT spending
by agency in the Analytical Perspectives volume based on data submitted to the IT Dashboard.11
This disaggregation includes 26 agencies—25 civilian agencies and DOD—that report spending
data to the IT Dashboard. Those reporting to the dashboard include all of the major executive
branch departments and agencies. The inclusion of these agencies is driven by statute, namely the

3 In 2002, the George W. Bush Administration released the first President’s Management Agenda in which “Expanding
Electronic Government” was made one of the five government-wide management priorities. For more information
about the FY2002 agenda, see OMB, The President’s Management Agenda, FY2002, https://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/mgmt.pdf#page=22.
4 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 1999: Analytical Perspectives, February 1998, p. 139,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-1999-PER/pdf/BUDGET-1999-PER.pdf#page=139.
5 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2000: Analytical Perspectives, February 1999, p. 361,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2000-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2000-PER.pdf#page=361.
6 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2003: Analytical Perspectives, February 2002, p. 395,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2003-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2003-PER.pdf#page=395.
7 The IT Dashboard website is located at https://itdashboard.gov/.
8 IT Dashboard, “FAQ,” https://www.itdashboard.gov/.
9 See OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2013: Analytical Perspectives, February 2012, p. 361, note on
Table 20-1, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2013-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2013-PER.pdf#page=361.
10 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2013: Analytical Perspectives, p. 361.
11 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2018: Analytical Perspectives, May 2017, p. 206,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2018-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2018-PER.pdf#page=206.
Congressional Research Service

2

Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission for FY2025

Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act) and Federal Information Technology Acquisition
Reform Act (FITARA), which are discussed in the section below.
Statutory Requirements Related to IT Budgeting
Several pieces of legislation have shaped the presentation of IT spending data in the President’s
budget submission and other modes of reporting.
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996
Congress passed the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 due to growing concern about the federal
government’s ability to develop and maintain IT infrastructure and personnel.12 Provisions
pertinent to IT budgeting include:
• establishing the role of CIOs within agencies to develop and maintain IT systems
as well as to evaluate and report on IT improvements; and
• establishing a new federal IT capital planning and investment control process,
with prominent roles for OMB and agencies.13
From FY2003 to FY2009, OMB noted that the inclusion of the IT chapter in the Analytical
Perspectives fulfilled the reporting requirements of Clinger-Cohen.14
E-Government Act of 2002
The E-Government Act of 2002 created the Office of Electronic Government (E-Gov) within
OMB,15 which, among other responsibilities, helps guide executive branch agencies’ IT budgeting
and IT capital planning.16 E-Gov is responsible for aspects of two annually issued documents:
1. OMB Circular No. A-11, which provides agencies with instructions and
schedules for the submission of budget requests and justifications to OMB; and
2. the corresponding IT Budget—Capital Planning Guidance, which provides
annual guidance around IT budget submissions and budgetary reporting.17

12 The law, as subsequently retitled by P.L. 104-208 (110 Stat. 3009-393), comprised Divisions D (110 Stat. 642) and E
(110 Stat. 679) of P.L. 104-106 (110 Stat. 186), at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ106/pdf/PLAW-
104publ106.pdf.
13 Statutory provisions that are associated with Clinger-Cohen Act have been amended and codified into Title 40,
Subtitle III, of the U.S. Code (40 U.S.C. §§11101-11703) and relate to multiple aspects of IT management and
acquisition.
14 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2009: Analytical Perspectives, February 2008, p. 169,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2009-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2009-PER.pdf#page=169.
15 P.L. 107-347, December 17, 2002; 116 Stat. 2899, at 2902. Relevant provisions are codified at Title 44, Section
3602, of the U.S. Code.
16 OMB, “Office of Management and Budget Office of E-Government and Information Technology,”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/egov/#A1. For a more detailed discussion of the OMB statutory offices,
see CRS Report RS21665, Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview, coordinated by Taylor N. Riccard.
17 See OMB, Circular No. A-11, “Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget,” August 2023,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/circulars/; and OMB, FY 2022 IT Budget—Capital
Planning Guidance, November 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/egov/. OMB has not provided a
more recent version of the Capital Planning Guidance document on its website.
Congressional Research Service

3

Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission for FY2025

Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (2014)
Multiple provisions of FITARA were built upon provisions associated with Clinger-Cohen and
codified into the U.S. Code.18 FITARA’s provisions that relate to IT budgeting include:
• the increased transparency of reporting for IT investments via the IT
Dashboard;19
• requirements for categorizing IT investments according to risk;20 and
• requirements for an agency IT portfolio review process, where individual
investments are viewed in the context of the agency’s broader set of projects.21
Enactment of FITARA followed in the wake of several administrative initiatives undertaken by
OMB during the Obama Administration, including the creation of the IT Dashboard website in
2009.22
The CFO Act established the role of CFO and deputy CFO at certain executive agencies,
commonly referred to as the “CFO Act agencies.”23 FITARA applies only to the CFO Act
agencies, of which there are currently 24. OMB guidance encourages, but does not require, non-
CFO Act agencies to comply with FITARA.24 The IT Dashboard currently includes IT spending
data from 26 agencies: the 24 CFO Act agencies, the National Archives and Records
Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.25
Perspectives on IT Spending Trends: FY2003-FY2025
Reporting on overall IT-related spending for the executive branch has evolved over recent
decades, although it has been inconsistent in format and content. Nevertheless, the President’s
budget submission has given increased attention to the topic of IT funding and spending.
A review of presidential budget proposals may reveal trends in proposed IT spending. In practice,
OMB has frequently presented IT spending in terms of proposed amounts rather than obligated

18 Most practitioners refer to these statutory provisions as FITARA, even though they were not formally enacted into
law by that name. Rather, an earlier, stand-alone version of the legislation of that name was incorporated as a subtitle in
another measure. See P.L. 113-291, Title VIII, Subtitle D, of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015; 128 Stat. 3438.
19 40 U.S.C. §11302(c)(3)(A).
20 40 U.S.C. §11302(c)(3)(C).
21 40 U.S.C. §11319.
22 For an overview of these administrative initiatives, see Vivek Kundra, U.S. Chief Information Officer, OMB, 25
Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology Management, December 9, 2010,
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/digital-strategy/25-point-implementation-plan-to-reform-federal-
it.pdf.
23 40 U.S.C. §11302(c)(1)(A). The CFO Act (31 U.S.C. §901(b), P.L. 101-576, 104 Stat. 2838) enacted into law a
financial management and reporting framework in the executive branch. The legislation also created the role of CFO
and deputy CFO at certain executive agencies who have certain statutory responsibilities related to financial
management and reporting.
24 OMB, Memorandum M-15-14, “Management and Oversight of Federal Information Technology,” June 2015,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/memoranda/2015/m-15-14.pdf#page=2.
25 IT Dashboard, “Agency Analysis,” https://www.itdashboard.gov/agency-analysis.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 8 link to page 8 Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission for FY2025

amounts.26 The history of proposed amounts may provide perspective on the evolving scale of IT
spending in the executive branch as well as how that spending is allocated across agencies.
Proposed IT spending, in nominal terms, has generally increased each year since FY2003 (see
Figure 1). After adjusting for inflation, proposed IT spending totals have remained relatively
constant, with real proposed spending peaking in FY2018 (see Figure 2). Total proposed IT
spending was not provided in the FY2019, FY2022, FY2023, FY2024, and FY2025 budget
submissions because DOD IT spending figures were excluded.27
OMB’s methodology for measuring IT spending has varied since FY2003, as outlined in a
number of updates:
• In FY2015, OMB revised the FY2013 and FY2014 DOD IT spending figures
downward by 3% to account for past overstatements in amounts for the Defense
Working Capital Fund.28
• Prior to FY2019, the IT budgets for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Health and Human Services included grants made to state and
local governments for IT systems used to administer federal benefits. In FY2018,
these grants totaled $9 billion, accounting for approximately 10% of the total
federal IT budget. In FY2019, OMB updated its guidance to exclude these funds,
because state and local governments, rather than federal CIOs, are responsible for
the development and maintenance of these IT systems.29

26 Obligations are incurred when agencies enter into legally binding commitments such as employing personnel or
awarding contracts for the provision of goods or services. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, A Glossary of
Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP, September 2005, p. 70, https://www.gao.gov/products/
gao-05-734sp.
27 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2019: Analytical Perspectives, February 2018, p. 234,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2019-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2019-PER.pdf#page=234; OMB, Budget of
the United States, Fiscal Year 2022: Analytical Perspectives, May 2021, p. 179, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
BUDGET-2022-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2022-PER.pdf#page=179; OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2023:
Analytical Perspectives, “Information Technology and Cybersecurity Funding,” March 2022, p. 1,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2023-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2023-PER-4-2.pdf#page=1; OMB, Budget
of the United States: Fiscal Year 2024: Analytical Perspectives, “Information Technology and Cybersecurity Funding,”
March 2023, p. 153, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/spec_fy2024.pdf#page=167; OMB,
Budget of the United States: Fiscal Year 2025: Analytical Perspectives, “Information Technology and Cybersecurity
Funding,” March 2024, p. 168, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2025-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2025-
PER.pdf#page=179.
28 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2015: Analytical Perspectives, March 2014, p. 311,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2015-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2015-PER.pdf#page=311.
29 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2019: Analytical Perspectives, p. 233.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 9

Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission for FY2025

Figure 1. Presidential Proposals for IT Spending in Nominal Terms
FY2003-FY2025 (Billions of Nominal Dollars)

Source: CRS analysis of data from annual publications of OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States
Government, FY2003-FY2025.
Notes: Data for FY2019, FY2022, FY2023, FY2024, and FY2025 are excluded because aggregated DOD IT
spending figures were not provided. Starting in FY2020, IT spending totals have excluded grants made to state
and local governments. Nominal spending totals have not been adjusted to reflect changes in prices (inflation or
deflation) over time.
Figure 2. Presidential Proposals for IT Spending in Real Terms
FY2003-FY2025 (Billions of 2017 Dollars)

Source: CRS analysis of data from annual publications of OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States
Government, FY2003-FY2025. Data are adjusted for inflation using the gross domestic product deflator for federal
government consumption expenditures and gross investment. See U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Table
1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product” (accessed March 20, 2024).
Notes: FY2019, FY2022, FY2023, FY2024, and FY2025 are excluded because aggregated DOD IT spending
figures were not provided. Starting in FY2020, IT spending totals have excluded grants made to state and local
governments.
In FY2013, OMB began providing aggregated DOD and civilian IT spending figures, with DOD
consistently accounting for 40% or more of total IT spending (see Figure 3). In real terms, DOD-
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 9

Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission for FY2025

proposed IT spending peaked in FY2018. Civilian-agency-proposed IT spending increased until
FY2018, decreased in FY2019, and peaked again in FY2025 (see Figure 4).
Figure 3. Non-DOD vs. DOD Proposed IT Spending in Nominal Terms
FY2013-FY2025 (Billions of Nominal Dollars)

Source: CRS analysis of data from OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, FY2003-
FY2025.
Notes: DOD IT spending figures were not provided for FY2019, FY2022, FY2023, FY2024, and FY2025.
Figure 4. Non-DOD vs. DOD Proposed IT Spending in Real Terms
FY2003-FY2025 (Billions of 2017 Dollars)

Source: CRS analysis of data from annual publications of OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States
Government, FY2003-FY2025. Data are adjusted for inflation using the gross domestic product deflator for federal
government consumption expenditures and gross investment. See U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Table
1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product” (accessed March 20, 2024).
Notes: DOD IT spending figures were not provided for FY2019, FY2022, FY2023, FY2024, and FY2025.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 10

Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission for FY2025

Analysis of Proposed IT Spending: FY2025
The President’s budget submission for FY2025 proposes $75.1 billion in IT spending at civilian
agencies, a 0.93% increase from the FY2024 total proposed amount of $74.4 billion.30 DOD IT
funding is not included in the total IT spending figure provided by OMB in the FY2025
Analytical Perspectives. The FY2025 budget includes funding for 4,446 investments at 25
agencies, of which 595 are categorized as “major” IT investments.31 According to a breakdown of
this data by OMB, these investments support the following three IT portfolio areas:
1. Part 1: Mission Delivery (i.e., IT investments that directly support an agency’s
mission);
2. Part 2: Administrative Services and Support Systems (activities that are common
across all agencies such as human resources and financial management); and
3. Part 3: IT Infrastructure, IT Security, and IT Management (IT goods and services
common to all agencies such as IT security and IT network infrastructure).32
The Administrative Services and Support Systems category accounts for approximately 10% of
total proposed spending, with the remaining amount divided among Mission Delivery and IT
Infrastructure, IT Security, and IT Management (see Figure 5).
Figure 5. Proposed FY2025 Spending: Federal Civilian IT Investments

Source: CRS analysis of data from OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year
2025, “Information Technology and Cybersecurity Funding,” March 11, 2024.
Notes: DOD IT funding was not included in the total IT spending figure provided by OMB in the FY2025
Analytical Perspectives.

30 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2025: Analytical Perspectives, “Information Technology and
Cybersecurity Funding,” March 2024, p. 167.
31 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2025: Analytical Perspectives, “Information Technology and
Cybersecurity Funding,” March 2024, p. 169. OMB has defined major IT investment as
an IT investment requiring special management attention because of its importance to the mission
or function of the government; significant program or policy implications; high executive visibility;
high development, operating, or maintenance costs; unusual funding mechanism; or definition as
major by the Agency’s [Capital Planning and Investment Control] process.
See OMB, FY2022 IT Budget—Capital Planning Guidance, p. 10.
32 OMB, FY2022 IT Budget—Capital Planning Guidance, p. 7. In OMB’s FY2022 Capital Planning Guidance
document, the portfolio names differ slightly from the FY2024 Analytical Perspectives. In the Capital Planning
Guidance document, portfolio areas 1-3 are called “mission delivery,” “mission support services,” and “standard IT
investments,” respectively.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 11 Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission for FY2025

The FY2025 budget submission also disaggregated total proposed civilian IT spending by agency
(see Table 1). The top three civilian agencies by proposed IT spending are (1) the Department
Homeland Security, (2) the Department of Health and Human Services, and (3) the Department of
the Treasury.
Table 1. Proposed FY2025 Civilian Federal IT Spending and Percentage by Agency
Percent of
Percent Change
FY2025 Proposal
Civilian Federal
from FY2023
Agency
(Mil ions of Dol ars)
IT Spending
Proposal
Department of Homeland Security
$11,116
14.80%
23.0%
Department of Health and Human Services
$9,884
13.16%
-1.2%
Department of the Treasury
$9,067
12.07%
27.0%
Department of Veterans Affairs
$8,833
11.76%
-19.6%
Department of Energy
$5,511
7.34%
37.0%
Department of Justice
$4,446
5.92%
-7.5%
Department of Transportation
$4,361
5.80%
6.9%
Department of State
$3,267
4.35%
-7.2%
Department of Agriculture
$2,914
3.88%
-28.4%
Department of Commerce
$2,893
3.85%
-1.3%
Social Security Administration
$2,459
3.27%
-1.7%
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
$2,171
2.89%
-9.3%
Department of the Interior
$2,042
2.72%
3.6%
Department of Education
$1,690
2.25%
-3.0%
Department of Labor
$953
1.27%
-9.0%
General Services Administration
$888
1.18%
-21.1%
Department of Housing and Urban
Development
$539
0.72%
2.5%
Environmental Protection Agency
$439
0.58%
-12.9%
U.S. Agency for International Development
$383
0.51%
1.9%
Small Business Administration
$328
0.44%
-26.3%
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
$252
0.34%
-11.6%
National Science Foundation
$201
0.27%
4.7%
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
$186
0.25%
6.9%
Office of Personnel Management
$158
0.21%
-64.3%
National Archives and Records
$147
0.20%
36.1%
Administration
Total
$75,128
100.00%
0.93%
Source: CRS analysis of data from OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year
2025, “Information Technology and Cybersecurity Funding,” March 11, 2024.
Notes: This analysis excludes DOD. Agencies may use different accounting methodologies when reporting
proposed IT spending.
Congressional Research Service

9

Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission for FY2025

Author Information

Dominick A. Fiorentino

Analyst in Government Organization and
Management

Acknowledgments
Amber Wilhelm, Visual Information Specialist, collaborated on the report’s figures.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R48049 · VERSION 1 · NEW
10

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Apr. 24, 2024

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON