Transportation, the Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the Executive Office of the President, and Independent Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

Congressional research reportJan 20, 2006

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Transportation, the Treasury, Housing and

Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District

of Columbia, the Executive Office of the

President, and Independent Agencies: FY2006

Appropriations

(name redacted), Coordinator

Analyst in Transportation Policy

(name redacted), Coordinator

Specialist in Transportation Policy

January 20, 2006

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

RL32905

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

Summary

At the beginning of the 109th Congress, both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations

reorganized their subcommittee structure, affecting the coverage of the FY2006 appropriations

bills. As a result, the appropriations subcommittees that previously oversaw the Departments of

Transportation and the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, and Independent Agencies

now also oversee the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and (in the

case of the House, but not the Senate) the District of Columbia.

The Bush Administration requested $126.1 billion for these agencies for FY2006, a slight

decrease from the comparable figure of $127.7 billion for FY2005 (after a 0.83% across-theboard rescission that was included in the FY2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-447).

The House-passed version of H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Departments of Transportation, Treasury,

and Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent

Agencies appropriations bill, provided $140.0 billion for FY2006, $6.5 billion (5%) over

comparable FY2005 enacted levels and $9.7 billion (7%) over the Administration’s request. The

House did not support most of the Administration’s requested changes, while providing

significant increases for aviation, highway and transit programs, Amtrak, rental subsidies for the

poor, and housing for Native Americans.

The Senate-passed version of H.R. 3058 provided $142.0 billion. The Senate Committee also did

not support most of the Administration’s requested changes, while also providing significant

increases for several programs. The bill included provisions that would restrict outsourcing of

federal work and ease restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba.

The conference version of H.R. 3058 was passed by Congress on November 18, 2005; the

President signed the bill into law on November 30, 2005 (P.L. 109-115). The bill provided $137.6

billion in net budgetary resources, less than either the House or Senate versions, but $4.1 billion

(3%) more than the FY2005 enacted level and $7.3 billion (6%) more than the Administration

requested. Conferees did not include provisions passed by both chambers easing restrictions on

agricultural exports to Cuba. Conferees added language prohibiting the use of funds in this bill for

projects using eminent domain to acquire land for private development. In a subsequent bill,

Congress enacted a one percent across-the-board rescission of non-emergency FY2006

discretionary funding, and provided almost $15 billion in supplemental funding to the

Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and the

General Services Administration to respond to the consequences of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and

Wilma. This report will not be updated.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

Contents

Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1

Overview ....................................................................................................................................2

New Appropriations Subcommittee Structure ..................................................................3

Title I: Transportation Appropriations..........................................................................................6

Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues .................................................7

Amtrak ...........................................................................................................................8

Aviation ........................................................................................................................ 10

Surface Transportation .................................................................................................. 11

Maritime Administration ............................................................................................... 11

Title II: Treasury Appropriations ............................................................................................... 12

Department of the Treasury Budget and Key Policy Issues .................................................. 12

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ..................................................................................... 15

Title III: Department of Housing and Urban Development......................................................... 18

Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget and Key Policy Issues.................. 20

Community and Economic Development Programs Consolidation Proposal .................. 21

Section 8 Voucher Funding Level and Reform Proposal................................................. 24

Section 811 Housing for the Disabled............................................................................ 25

HOPE VI ...................................................................................................................... 25

New FHA Proposals...................................................................................................... 26

Title IV: The Judiciary............................................................................................................... 26

The Judiciary Budget and Key Policy Issues ....................................................................... 26

FY2006 Request ........................................................................................................... 30

House Committee Markup ............................................................................................ 30

House Action ................................................................................................................ 31

Senate Committee Markup ............................................................................................ 31

Senate Action................................................................................................................ 31

Conference Action ........................................................................................................ 32

Supplemental Request ................................................................................................... 34

Across-the-Board Cut Exemption Request..................................................................... 34

Title V: Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the President ................... 35

Executive Office of the President Budget and Key Policy Issues ......................................... 35

Title VI: Independent Agencies ................................................................................................. 39

Independent Agencies Budget and Key Policy Issues........................................................... 39

Merit Systems Protection Board .................................................................................... 41

Office of Personnel Management .................................................................................. 41

Office of Special Counsel.............................................................................................. 42

Federal Election Commission........................................................................................ 42

General Services Administration (GSA) ........................................................................ 43

Electronic Government Fund (E-gov Fund) ................................................................... 45

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) ............................................... 45

Postal Service ............................................................................................................... 46

Titles VII and VIII: General Provisions ..................................................................................... 47

Division B: District of Columbia Appropriations ....................................................................... 49

District of Columbia Budget and Key Policy Issues............................................................. 49

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

President’s Request ....................................................................................................... 49

District Budget.............................................................................................................. 49

House Bill..................................................................................................................... 49

Senate Bill .................................................................................................................... 50

Senate Bill General Provisions ...................................................................................... 50

Conference Bill............................................................................................................. 51

Cuba Sanctions ................................................................................................................... 51

Tables

Table 1. Status of FY2006 Departments of Transportation, the Treasury, and Housing and

Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the Executive Office of

the President, and Independent Agencies Appropriations ..........................................................4

Table 2. Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations, by Title, FY2005-FY2006 .......................4

Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations, FY2001FY2006....................................................................................................................................5

Table 4. Title I: Department of Transportation Appropriations,FY2005 to FY2006.......................6

Table 5. Title II: Department of the Treasury Appropriations, FY2005 to FY2006...................... 12

Table 6. Title III: Housing and Urban Development Appropriations, FY2005 to FY2006 .......... 18

Table 7. Title IV: The Judiciary Appropriations, FY2005 to FY2006.......................................... 26

Table 8. Title V: Executive Office of the President (EOP) and Funds Appropriated to the

President Appropriations, FY2005 to FY2006 ........................................................................ 35

Table 9. Title VI: Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY2005 to FY2006 ............................ 40

Table 10. General Services Administration Appropriations, FY2005 to FY2006 ........................ 43

Table 11. Division B: District of Columbia Appropriations,FY2005 to FY2006 ......................... 49

Contacts

Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 56

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

Most Recent Developments

On December 30, 2005, President Bush signed the FY2006 Department of Defense

appropriations bill (P.L. 109-148), which included a one percent across-the-board rescission of

non-emergency federal discretionary funding for FY2006. This bill also provided supplemental

funding to several federal agencies to respond to the consequences of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita,

and Wilma, including $2.8 billion for the Department of Transportation, $11.9 billion for the

Department of Housing and Urban Development, $38 million for the General Services

Administration, and $18 million for the Judiciary.1

On November 30, 2005, President Bush signed H.R. 3058 into law (P.L. 109-115). The bill was

passed by Congress on November 18.2 The bill provided $137.6 billion in net budgetary

resources, less than either the House or Senate versions, but $4.1 billion (3.0%) more than the

FY2005 enacted level and $7.3 billion (5.6%) more than the Administration requested.

On November 2, 2005, the House Committee on Appropriations published a revised suballocation

of budget allocations for FY2006 (H.Rept. 109-264). Among the changes made by this report

were a reduction in the suballocation (“302(b) allocation”) for the House Appropriations

Committee Transportation-Treasury-HUD-The Judiciary-DC Subcommittee. The revised

suballocation for discretionary budget authority was $65.9 billion, $1 billion less than the

previous suballocation (and $1 billion less than the discretionary funding level in the Housepassed version of H.R. 3058, the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and

Urban Development, The Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies

Appropriations bill). 3

On October 20, 2005, the Senate passed H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Departments of Transportation,

Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary, District of Columbia, and

Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. The Senate added the text of S. 1446, the Senate’s

FY2006 appropriations bill for the District of Columbia, to the bill, and approved an overall

funding level of $141.6 billion, 6% more than provided in FY2005 and 9% more than the

Administration request. The Senate bill includes provisions that would restrict outsourcing of

federal work and ease restrictions on agricultural exports to Cuba.

On June 30, 2005, the House passed H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Departments of Transportation,

Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary, District of Columbia, and

Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. The House approved an overall funding level of

$139.1 billion, a 6% increase over comparable FY2005 funding and a 7% increase over the

Administration’s request. The House approved the Appropriations Committee’s recommendations

to provide the same pay raise (3.1%) to federal civilian workers as that requested for uniformed

military personnel for calendar year 2006, and to ease restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to

Cuba. The House approved several amendments to the bill, including ones increasing funding for

The FY2006 numbers in this report do not reflect either the across-the-board rescission or the supplemental funding

provided in P.L. 109-148.

The Senate, by unanimous consent, agreed to passage of the bill at such time as the Senate received the paperwork

from the House. Congressional Record, November 18, 2005, S13418.

Much of the funding in the annual Transportation et al. appropriations bill is not in the form of discretionary budget

authority, thus the total funding level is much higher than the discretionary funding level.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

Amtrak and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and restricting outsourcing of

federal work.

Overview

The President’s FY2006 request for the programs covered by this appropriations bill was $126.1

billion. This was $1.6 billion (1%) below the FY2005 enacted level of $127.7 billion (after a

0.83% rescission). The FY2006 request included cuts from the FY2005 funding level for the

Department of Housing and Urban Development ($2.8 billion, a 9% reduction) and the

Department of Transportation ($1.4 billion, a 2% reduction). The FY2006 request for the

Executive Office of the President was $300 million less than the FY2005 figure; that reduction

was largely due to the proposed transfer of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program

($227 million in FY2005) from the Executive Office of the President to the Department of

Justice, and to an FY2005 supplemental appropriation of $70 million to the Executive Office of

the President (P.L. 108-324) for unanticipated needs (for hurricane disaster relief assistance

through the American Red Cross).

The President’s FY2006 budget request proposals included:

•

zeroing out of funding for Amtrak, the provider of intercity passenger rail

service, which received $1.2 billion in FY2005;

•

reducing funding for the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Airport

Improvement Program (AIP) to $3.0 billion, $600 million below its ‘guaranteed’

authorization level, which would make the entire appropriations bill subject to a

point of order. The proposed level is also below the AIP formula threshold of

$3.2 billion, which could result in a halving of most AIP formula distributions;

•

eliminating the community and economic development programs under the

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), along with those of

several other agencies, and replace them with a new program administered by the

Department of Commerce. The proposed funding for the new program is $1.9

billion (34%) less than the aggregate FY2005 funding for the programs proposed

for elimination (reduced from $5.6 billion for FY2005 to $3.7 billion for

FY2006);

•

reducing the funding for housing for disabled persons under HUD by $118

million (50%), from $238 million for FY2005 to $120 million for FY2006;

•

eliminating the annual $29 million payment to the United States Postal Service

for revenue forgone, as well as the absence of any funding requested for Postal

Service security measures.

Neither the House nor the Senate supported most of these proposed changes. The House-passed

version of H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and

Urban Development, The Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies

Appropriations bill, provided $140.0 billion, $6.5 billion (5%) over comparable FY2005 enacted

levels and $9.7 billion (7%) over the Administration’s request. The bill generally reflected the

House Committee on Appropriations recommendations, including the overall funding level; the

House did approve amendments increasing Amtrak’s FY2006 funding from $550 million to

almost $1.2 billion, delete the House Committee’s provision barring federal assistance for

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

Amtrak’s routes whose subsidy per passenger exceeds $30, and approve amendments increasing

funding for several programs within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The

White House objected to several provisions in the bill, and issued a veto threat against a provision

easing a restriction on agricultural exports to Cuba.4

The Senate-passed version of H.R. 3058, to which was added S. 1446, the FY2006 appropriations

bill for the District of Columbia, provided $142.0 billion. The bill generally reflected the Senate

Committee on Appropriations recommendations, including the overall funding level; among the

amendments approved by the Senate were amendments deleting Senate Appropriations

Committee provisions which restricted Amtrak service and allowed Amtrak to charge commuter

authorities for track access, and an amendment limiting the use of eminent domain powers by

public authorities for economic development projects that result in primarily private gain. The

White House objected to several provisions in the bill, and issued veto threats against some of

them. 5

The conference version of H.R. 3058 was passed by the House on November 18, and by the

Senate on November 21, 2005. It was signed into law on November 30, 2005 (P.L. 109-115). The

conference bill provided $137.6 billion in net budgetary resources. This was $2.4 billion less than

the House bill and $4.4 billion less than the Senate bill, but $4.1 billion (3.0%) more than the

FY2005 enacted level and $7.3 billion (5.6%) more than the Administration requested. The

largest increases went to HUD ($2.1 billion over FY2005 funding and $4.8 billion more than

requested) and DOT ($1.0 billion over FY2005 funding and $2.4 billion more than requested).

Conferees included directives to Amtrak (the Administration had threatened to veto the bill if it

provided funding for Amtrak in the absence of any reform measures) and language that limits

outsourcing of federal jobs performed by more than ten people unless the savings would exceed

the lesser of 10% of or $10 million. Conferees did not include provisions passed by both

chambers easing restrictions on agricultural exports to Cuba, which had elicited veto threats from

the Administration. Conferees also did not include House language that would have prohibited the

use of federal or D.C. funds to enforce certain gun laws in the District of Columbia. Conferees

added language prohibiting the use of funds in this bill for projects using eminent domain to

acquire land for projects that primarily benefit private entities. Conferees also added language

that amended provisions in the recently-passed surface transportation reauthorization legislation

(SAFETEA-LU, P.L. 109-59) regulating household moving companies. SAFETEA-LU allowed

state consumer protection agencies to enforce federal laws regulating moving companies;

conferees added language limiting the ability of state agencies to enforce these laws (the

limitation would expire after one year).

New Appropriations Subcommittee Structure

In early 2005, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations reorganized their

subcommittee structures. The House Committee on Appropriations reduced its number of

subcommittees to ten. This change combined the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent

Agencies subcommittee with the District of Columbia subcommittee; to the resulting

subcommittee, jurisdiction over appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban

White House, Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 3058, June 29, 2005.

White House, Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 3058, October 19, 2005.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

Development and the Judiciary as well as several additional independent agencies was also

added.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations reduced its number of subcommittees to twelve. The

Senate also added jurisdiction over appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban

Development and the Judiciary to the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies

subcommittee; the Senate retained a separate District of Columbia Appropriations subcommittee.

As a result, the area of coverage of the House and Senate subcommittees with jurisdiction over

this appropriations bill are almost, but not quite, identical; the major difference being that in the

Senate the appropriations for the District of Columbia originate in a separate bill. The Senate

Appropriations Committee reported out a Transportation et al. appropriations bill (H.R. 3058) and

a District of Columbia appropriations bill (S. 1446); the Senate added the text of S. 1446 to H.R.

3058 during floor consideration. The conference agreement reflects that structure: the

appropriations for all agencies other than the District of Columbia are in Division A of the bill,

with the District of Columbia appropriations in Division B.

Table 1 notes the status of the FY2006 Transportation et al. appropriations bill.

Table 1. Status of FY2006 Departments of Transportation, the Treasury, and Housing

and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the Executive

Office of the President, and Independent Agencies Appropriations

Subcommittee

Markup

House

Senate

6/15/05

7/19/05

House

Report

House

Passage

H.Rept.

109-153

6/21/05

6/30/05

405-18

Senate

Report

S.Rept.

109-109

7/21/05

Senate

Passage

10/20/05

93-1

Conf.

Report

H.Rept.

109-307

Conference

Report Approval

House

Senate

11/18

392-31

11/21

Public

Law

11/30/05

P.L. 109115

Note: UC: unanimous consent.

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 FY2005 and the amount requested for that title for FY2006.

Table 2.Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations, by Title, FY2005-FY2006

(millions of dollars)

FY2005

Enacteda

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Enactedb

Title I: Department of

Transportation

$59,723

$58,297

$63,469

$64,244

$60,677

Title II: Department of the

Treasury

11,213

11,649

11,529

11,698

11,689

Title III: Housing and Urban

Development

31,915

29,147

33,671

34,759

33,974

Title IV: The Judiciary

5,426

5,971

5,768

5,778

5,756

834

525

779

731

736

Title

Title V: Executive Office of the

President

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

FY2005

Enacteda

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Enactedb

Title VI: Independent Agencies

19,756

19,948

19,967

19,987

19,989

Title VII-VIII: General Provisions

(125)

—

Div. B: District of Columbia

556

573

603

593

603

133,497

130,310

139,986

141,990

137,623

Title

Total

Source: Budget table in H.Rept. 109-307. “Total” is from “Net total budgetary resources” line in budget table

and does not reflect scorekeeping adjustments, though the figures for titles do reflect scorekeeping. Totals may

not add due to rounding and scorekeeping adjustments.

The FY2005 Omnibus appropriations bill contained an across-the-board rescission of 0.83%; that rescission

is reflected in these figures.

The FY2006 figures in this report do not reflect either the one percent across-the-board rescission nor the

supplemental funding provided in P.L. 109-148, the FY2006 Defense appropriations bill.

Table 3 shows funding trends over the five-year period FY2001-FY2005, and the amounts

requested for FY2006, for the titles in the bill. The agencies generally experienced funding

increases during the period FY2001-FY2006.

Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations,

FY2001-FY2006

(billions of current dollars)

Department

Title I: Transportatione

FY2001a

FY2002

FY2003b

FY2004c

FY2005d

FY2006

$51.9

$57.4

$55.7

$58.4

$59.6

$60.7

Title II: Treasuryf

9.9

10.5

10.8

11.1

11.2

11.7

Title III: Housing and Urban Development

28.5

30.2

31.0

31.2

31.9

34.0

Title IV: Judiciary

4.3

4.7

5.4

5.2

5.4

5.8

Title V: Executive Office of the President

0.7

0.8

0.7

Title VI: Independent Agencies

—

19.8

20.0

Division B: District of Columbia

0.5

0.4

0.5

0.6

Source: United States House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Comparative Statement of

Budget Authority tables from fiscal years 2001 through 2006.

FY2001 figures reflect 0.22% across-the-board rescission.

FY2003 figures reflect 0.65% across-the-board rescission.

FY2004 figures reflect 0.59% across-the-board rescission.

FY2005 figures reflect 0.83% across-the-board rescission.

Figures for Department of Transportation appropriations for FY2001-FY2003 have been adjusted for

comparison with FY2004 and later figures by subtracting the United States Coast Guard, the Transportation

Security Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, and by adding the Maritime Administration.

Figures for Department of the Treasury appropriations for FY2001-FY203 have been adjusted for

comparison with FY2004 and later figures by subtracting the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; the

Customs Service; the United States Secret Service; and the Law Enforcement Training Center.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

Title I: Transportation Appropriations

Table 4.Title I: Department of Transportation Appropriations,FY2005 to FY2006

(in millions of dollars—totals may not add)

Department or Agency

(Selected Accounts)

FY2005

Enacteda

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Enacted

Office of the Secretary of

Transportation

$238

$209

$198

$223

$239

Essential Air Serviceb

—

Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)

13,549

12,710

14,631

13,610

13,815

Operations (trust fund &

general fund)

7,713

8,201

8,397

8,176

8,186

Facilities & Equipment (F&E)

(trust fund)

2,525

2,448

3,053

2,448

2,540

Grant-in-aid Airports (AIP) (trust

fund) (limit. on oblig.)

3,517

3,010

3,630

3,520

3,570

Research, Engineering &

Development (trust fund)

130

135

138

Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA)

35,834

35,439

37,026

38,713

34,669

(Limitation on Obligations)

34,422

34,700

36,287

40,194

36,032

(Exempt Obligations)

739

Additional funds (trust fund)

735

—

Additional funds (general fund)

1,315

—

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA)

444

465

501

490

495

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA)

454

696

782

785

815

Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA)

1,432

552

1,332

1,669

1,526

1,207

—

1,176

1,450

1,315

7,646

7,781

8,482

8,209

8,590

General Funds

956

1,272

1,384

1,610

Trust Funds

6,691

6,825

7,210

6,825

6,980

St. Lawrence Seaway

Development Corporation

Maritime Administration

(MARAD)

305

294

291

323

301

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials

Safety Administration

117

116

Amtrak

Federal Transit Administration

(FTA)

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

FY2005

Enacteda

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Enacted

Pipeline safety program

Emergency preparedness grants

—

Research and Innovative

Technology Administration

Office of Inspector General

Surface Transportation Board

59,723

58,297

63,469

64,244

60,677

Department or Agency

(Selected Accounts)

Total, Department of

Transportation

Note: Figures are from the budget authority table in H.Rept. 109-307. 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.

These figures reflect the 0.83% across-the-board rescission included in P.L. 108-447.

These amounts are in addition to the $50 million annual authorization for the Essential Air Service program;

thus, the total FY2005 funding would be $102 million ($50 million + $52 million).

Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues6

The President’s budget proposed $58.3 billion for the Department of Transportation (DOT). This

was $1.4 billion (2%) less than the $59.7 billion enacted for FY2005. The major funding changes

requested from FY2005 were in the requests for Amtrak (no funding requested, resulting in a $1.2

billion (100%) reduction below FY2005) and in the Federal Aviation Administration’s Airport

Improvement Program ($500 million (14%) below FY2005).

The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $62.8 billion for DOT, $4.4 billion (8%)

above the Administration request and $3.0 billion (5%) above FY2005 funding. The primary

changes from the President’s request were additional funding for the Federal Aviation

Administration ($1.2 billion), the Federal Highway Administration ($1.6 billion), and Federal

Transit Administration ($700 million). In the case of the Federal Aviation Administration, the

increase brought the Airport Improvement Program and Facilities and Equipment Program up to

their FY2006 authorized funding levels. In the case of the highway and transit programs, the

increase brought those administrations up to the funding levels authorized in the House’s version

of surface transportation authorization legislation, which is currently in conference. The

Committee also recommended $550 million in passenger rail funding, more than the

Administration requested but less than the $1.2 billion enacted in FY2005. The House supported

the Committee’s recommendations regarding transportation funding, except that the House voted

to add another $550 million for Amtrak (discussed below), which increased the DOT total to

$63.5 billion.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $64.2 billion for DOT. Relative to the

House-passed bill, the Senate Committee recommended increases for the Office of the Secretary,

For more information about Department of Transportation appropriations issues, see CRS Report RL32945, FY2006

Appropriations for the Department of Transportation, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

the federal-aid highway program, Amtrak, and the Maritime Administration, and recommended

decreases for the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. The

Senate supported the Committee’s recommendations regarding transportation funding. The Senate

did approve amendments eliminating Senate Appropriations Committee recommendations to

restrict certain Amtrak services and allow Amtrak to charge commuter authorities for access to

the Northeast Corridor.

The conference version of H.R. 3058 provided $60.7 billion in net budgetary resources for the

Department of Transportation, less than either the House or Senate versions, but $1.0 billion

(1.6%) more than the FY2005 enacted level and $2.4 billion (4.1%) more than the Administration

requested. The bill included $1.3 billion for Amtrak, as well as numerous provisions governing

Amtrak’s operations.7

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 improving passenger rail services between cities by restructuring

federal intercity passenger rail policy and its provider, Amtrak.

Amtrak

Amtrak is a quasi-governmental corporation that operates and maintains rail infrastructure in the

northeast and operates passenger rail service throughout the country. It operates at a deficit and

requires federal support to continue operations. The President’s budget did not request any

funding for Amtrak for FY2006; Amtrak received $1.2 billion in FY2005. The Administration

requested $360 million for the Surface Transportation Board to maintain commuter rail service

that depends on Amtrak services in the event that Amtrak ceases operations during FY2006. The

Administration’s proposal received bipartisan criticism in both the House and the Senate. The

Administration asserted that their reauthorization plan for Amtrak (109th Congress: H.R. 1713;

108th Congress: S. 1501/H.R. 3211) received little attention from the 108th Congress, so they

requested no FY2006 money for Amtrak in order to spur congressional reauthorization action.8

Their budget request asserted that “with no subsidies, Amtrak would quickly enter bankruptcy,

which would likely lead to the elimination of inefficient operations and the reorganization of the

railroad through bankruptcy proceedings.”9 Others were less certain of the outcome of an Amtrak

bankruptcy proceeding. 10 The Administration also asserted that it would support increased

funding for intercity passenger rail if significant reforms are enacted. Some Members of Congress

After enactment of this appropriations bill, Congress passed the FY2006 Defense appropriations bill, which includes a

one-percent across-the-board rescission of non-emergency federal FY2006 discretionary funding, a $1.1 billion

rescission of unobligated highway funding, and a supplemental appropriation of $2.8 billion to DOT to respond to the

consequences of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.

Norman Mineta, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation, in transcript of the Senate Committee on

Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, and Housing and Urban Development,

Hearing on FY2006 Appropriations.

Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2006, p. 243.

Government Accountability Office, Intercity Passenger Rail: Potential Financial Issues in the Event that Amtrak

Undergoes Liquidation, GAO-02-871, September 2002; CRS Report RL31550, Railroad Reorganization Under the

U.S. Bankruptcy Code: Implications of a Filing by Amtrak, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

questioned where that additional money would come from, given the competing demands from

other transportation modes and from other agencies in the appropriations bill that funds DOT.

The House Committee on the Budget encouraged the House to continue funding Amtrak,11 and

the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure marked up H.R. 1630, the Amtrak

Reauthorization Act of 2005, on April 27, 2005; it would authorize $2 billion annually for three

years for Amtrak as it is currently structured. The bill has not been reported out of committee.

Similar legislation was reported out by the Committee during the 108th Congress, but was not

acted upon. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported out S.

1516, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2005 (S.Rept. 109-143) on October

18, 2005; it would authorize $11 billion for Amtrak over six years and make changes to Amtrak’s

operations. The Senate attached language similar to S. 1516 to the budget reconciliation bill (S.

1932) on November 3, 2005; the amendment was approved by a vote of 93-6. The House passed

an amended version of S. 1932, which did not include Amtrak authorization language, on

November 18, 2005.

The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $550 million for grants to Amtrak for

FY2006. The Committee also recommended a financial performance measure for Amtrak’s

individual routes. Routes requiring a federal subsidy greater than $30 per passenger would no

longer be eligible for federal support.

In its consideration of H.R. 3058, the House approved two amendments concerning Amtrak. One

amendment, agreed to by voice vote, increased Amtrak’s FY2006 appropriation from $550

million to $1.176 billion. This is $31 million less than the $1.207 billion Amtrak is receiving in

FY2005 (after the 0.83% across-the-board rescission), and significantly less than the $1.4 billion

the DOT IG testified Amtrak needed in FY2006. But it is $276 million more than the House

approved for Amtrak when it passed the FY2005 appropriations bill for transportation (108th

Congress: H.R. 5025). The other amendment, approved by a vote of 269-152, deleted the

Appropriation Committee’s financial performance requirement for Amtrak’s routes that would

have eliminated federal aid for Amtrak’s long-distance routes.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $1.45 billion for Amtrak, $243 million

over the FY2005 enacted level. The Committee also recommended several provisions that would

affect Amtrak’s operations: a requirement that Amtrak adopt a managerial cost accounting system

that can identify the average and marginal costs of services provided; a requirement that,

beginning six months after adoption of the FY2006 appropriations act, no federal funding could

be used to subsidize losses on food and beverage service or sleeper car service; and permission to

impose fees on passenger tickets to help fund capital improvements, and on commuter rail

systems using the Northeast Corridor for their share of direct maintenance costs on the Corridor.

In its consideration of H.R. 3058, the Senate supported the Amtrak funding level recommended

by the Committee on Appropriations. The Senate approved two amendments deleting some of the

Amtrak provisions recommended by the Committee: one amendment deleted the restriction on

food and beverage service and sleeper car service; the other deleted the permission to impose fees

on commuter rail authorities using the Northeast Corridor. The White House issued a veto threat

against the Senate’s Amtrak funding level in the absence of fundamental reforms to Amtrak.12

H.Rept. 109-17, on the FY2006 Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 95), 30.

White House, Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 3058, October 19, 2005, 1.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

On November 9, the House voted (by voice vote) to instruct conferees to agree to the Senate level

for Amtrak funding. The conference committee on H.R. 3058 provided $1.3 billion for Amtrak:

$495 million for operating subsidy grants, $780 million for capital and debt service grants, and

$40 million in efficiency incentive grants. These appropriations were accompanied by numerous

provisions affecting Amtrak’s receipt and use of these funds.

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 $12.7 billion for FY2006, $839 million less than was enacted for

FY2005. The President’s request included $25 million to hire 1,249 air traffic controllers in

FY2006. This was expected to result in a net gain of around 600 controllers, since around 650

controllers are expected to leave through attrition.

The House Committee recommended $14.6 billion for FY2006, $1.1 billion over the level

enacted for FY2005 and $1.9 billion over the Administration request. The increases brought the

FAA’s capital programs up to their FY2006 authorized funding levels. The House supported this

recommendation.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $14.3 billion. The difference from the

House-passed level was chiefly in lower funding for operations and grants-in-aid to airports. The

Senate approved the recommended level.

The conference committee provided $13.8 billion for aviation, after a rescission of $1.0 billion of

contract authority.

Airport Improvement Program

The President’s budget proposed a cut to the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), from $3.5

billion in FY2005 to $3.0 billion for FY2006. The House provided $3.6 billion, the FY2006

authorized level; the Senate provided $3.5 billion. Conferees provided $3.55 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. The

Administration asserted that airports could compensate for the proposed reduction in AIP funding

by increasing their use of passenger facility charges. The Administration estimated that airports

could raise an additional $350 to $400 million annually by increasing passenger facility fees to

the maximum allowed by law. Some Members of Congress questioned the wisdom of imposing

fee increases on an airline industry struggling with the impact of high fuel costs.

Essential Air Service

The President’s budget proposed a $52 million (51%) reduction in funding for the Essential Air

Service program, from $102 million (FY2005) to $50 million. The House Committee on

Appropriations recommended $104 million. The House-passed bill provided $104 million, though

the source of funding for $54 million of that was struck from the bill on a point of order. The

Senate-passed bill provided $110 million. The conference bill provided $110 million.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

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 the previous Administration, have also proposed reducing funding to this program.

Surface Transportation

The President’s budget requested $35.3 billion for federal highway programs, slightly less than

the $35.7 billion provided for FY2005, and $7.8 billion for federal transit programs, slightly more

than the $7.6 billion provided for FY2005. The House approved $37.0 billion for federal highway

programs and $8.5 billion for federal transit programs. The Senate approved $38.7 billion for

federal highway programs and $8.2 billion for federal transit programs. The conference bill

provided $36.7 billion13 for federal highway programs and $8.59 billion for federal transit

programs.

The funding authorization for federal highway and transit programs was increased as a result of

passage of H.R. 3, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy

for Users (SAFETEA-LU)(P.L. 109-59). The Act provides an FY2006 guaranteed authorization

of $38.6 billion for the federal highway program and $8.6 billion for the federal transit programs.

Maritime Administration

The Administration requested $220 million for the Maritime Administration for FY2006, $85

million (28%) below the $305 million enacted for FY2005. The major change was in the National

Defense Tanker Vessel Construction Program; the Administration did not request any new

funding for this program, and requested that the $74 million Congress appropriated in FY2005 for

this program be rescinded. The Committee on Appropriations recommended $291 million; the

Committee did not provide any new funding for the Tanker Vessel Construction Program, but did

not rescind the FY2005 funding. The House supported the Committee’s recommendations. The

Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $323 million, including $25 million for the

Tanker Vessel Construction Program; the Senate supported that recommendation. Conferees

provided $301 million, and neither rescinded previous funding for the Tanker Vessel Construction

Program nor provided any new funding for the program.

This program is intended to decrease the Department of Defense’s reliance on foreign-flag oil

tankers by supporting the construction of up to five privately-owned product-tanker vessels in the

United States. It would provide up to $50 million per vessel for the construction, in U.S.

shipyards, of commercial tank vessels that are capable of carrying militarily useful petroleum

products and that would be available for the military’s use in time of war.

$36.0 billion in obligation limitations and $739 million in exempt obligations. A $2.0 billion rescission of contract

authority brings the net total after score-keeping adjustments down to $34.7 billion.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

Title II: Treasury Appropriations

Department of the Treasury Budget and Key Policy Issues14

This section examines the FY2006 budget for the Treasury Department and its operating bureaus.

The FY2006 budget for its largest operating bureau, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), is

examined in the following section.

In FY2005, Treasury received $11.218 billion in appropriated funds—or 1.1% more than it

received in FY2004. Most of this money (about 91%) was used to finance the operations of the

IRS, whose budget was set at $10.236 billion. The remaining $982 million was distributed in the

following manner among Treasury’s other bureaus and departmental offices: departmental offices

(which includes the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence or TFI), $156 million; Office

of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), $22 million; department-wide systems and capital

investments, $32 million; Office of Inspector General, $16 million; Treasury Inspector General

for Tax Administration (TIGTA), $128 million; Air Transportation Stabilization program, $2

million; Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI), $55 million; Treasury

building and annex repair and restoration, $12 million; Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

(FinCEN), $72 million; Financial Management Service, $229 million; Alcohol and Tobacco Tax

and Trade Bureau, $82 million; and Bureau of the Public Debt, $174 million. These amounts

reflected the 0.83% across-the-board cut (or rescission) in non-defense discretionary spending

enacted for FY2005.

Table 5.Title II: Department of the Treasury Appropriations, FY2005 to FY2006

(millions of dollars)

FY2005

Enacteda

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Enacted

$156

$195

$157

$198

$197

Office of Foreign Asset Control

—

Department-wide Systems and

Capital Investments

Office of Inspector General

Treasury Inspector General for

Tax Administration

128

133

Air Transportation Stabilization

Program

—

Community Development

Financial Institutions Fund

Treasury Building and Annex

Repair and Restoration

Program or Account

Departmental Offices

For more information on the proposed budget for the Treasury, see CRS Report RL32898, Appropriations for the

Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service in FY2006: Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

FY2005

Enacteda

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Enacted

Financial Crimes Enforcement

Network

Financial Management Service

229

236

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and

Trade Bureau

Bureau of the Public Debt

174

177

Internal Revenue Service, Total

10,236

10,679

10,556

10,679

10,672

Processing, Assistance and

Management

4,057

—

4,182

4,137

Tax Law Enforcement

4,364

—

4,580

4,726

Information Systems

1,578

—

1,575

1,598

1,599

Business Systems

Modernization

203

199

Health Insurance Tax Credit

Administration

11,218

11,649

11,529

11,698

11,689

Program or Account

Total Appropriations,

Dept. of the Treasury

Source: Figures are from a budget authority table provided by the House Committee on Appropriations, except

Senate Committee figures are from a budget table in S.Rept. 109-109. Because of differing treatment of offsets,

the totals will not always match the Administration’s totals. The figures within this table may differ slightly from

those in the text due to supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and other funding actions. Columns may not

add due to rounding or exclusion of smaller program line-items.

FY2005 figures reflect an across-the-board rescission of 0.83%.

For FY2006, the Bush Administration asked Congress to provide Treasury with $11.649 billion in

appropriated funds—or 3.8% more than the amount enacted for FY2005. Under the request, the

vast majority of this requested funding would have gone to the IRS, whose budget would have

totaled $10.679 billion. The remaining funds would have been distributed as follows:

departmental offices, $195 million; departmental systems and capital investments, $24 million;

Office of Inspector General, $17 million; TIGTA, $133 million; Air Transportation Stabilization

program, $3 million; CDFI, $8 million; Treasury building and annex repair and restoration, $10

million; FinCEN, $74 million; Financial Management Service, $236 million; Alcohol and

Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, $62 million; and Bureau of the Public Debt, $177 million. All

accounts except those for departmental systems and capital investments and Treasury building

and annex repair and restoration would have been funded at higher levels than in FY2005. The

Administration also requested that funding for OFAC be folded into the budget for departmental

offices and not treated as a separate account. Under the Administration’s proposed budget, total

full-time employment at Treasury was projected to rise from 113,002 in FY2005 to 113,242 in

FY2006.15

According to budget documents released by the Treasury Department, its FY2006 budget request

was intended to support a variety of strategic objectives. The most important were improving

U.S. Treasury Department, Budget in Brief FY2006 (Washington: Feb. 2005), p. 8.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

taxpayer compliance with tax laws; modernizing IRS’s computer and management systems;

enhancing Treasury’s capability to analyze and disrupt terrorist financing and other financial

crimes; and maintaining and safeguarding the integrity of federal finances and the U.S. financial

system.

Congressional action on the Administration’s budget request for FY2006 commenced in the

House with a series of hearings held by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on

Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and District of

Columbia in March, April, May, and June of 2005. On June 15, the Subcommittee approved by

voice vote a measure (H.R. 3058) to provide funding for Treasury and a handful of other federal

agencies in FY2006. The Appropriations Committee favorably reported by voice vote (H.Rept.

109-153) an amended version of H.R. 3058 on June 21. Following the consideration of 48

amendments spread over two days of floor debate, the House approved the measure on June 30

by a vote of 405 to 18 and sent it on to the Senate.

As passed by the House, H.R. 3058 would have given the Treasury Department $11.529 billion in

funding in FY2006—or $311 million more than the amount enacted for FY2005 but $120 million

less than the level of funding requested by the Bush Administration. The IRS would have

received $10.556 billion to fund its operations—or $320 million more than its budget in FY2005

but $123 million less than the amount requested by the Administration. As recommended by the

Appropriations Committee in its report on H.R. 3058, the House denied a request by the

Administration to combine funding for taxpayer service, tax law enforcement, and IRS

information systems into a new single appropriations account for tax administration and

operations. In addition, the measure would have raised funding in FY2006 relative to the previous

fiscal year for the following accounts: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, +$9 million;

Financial Management Service, +$7 million; TIGTA, +$5 million; Bureau of Public Debt, +3

million; FinCEN, +$2 million; and departmental offices (which includes OFAC and TFI) and

Office of Inspector General, +$1 million. Three accounts would have received less in FY2006

than in FY2005: department-wide systems and capital investments, -$11 million; Treasury

building and annex repair and restoration, -$2 million; and CDFI, -$0.1 million. And one existing

account would have received no funding, effectively canceling it: the Air Transportation

Stabilization program.

In the Senate, the Appropriations Committee favorably reported by a vote of 28 to 0 on July 21

(S.Rept. 109-109) an amended version of H.R. 3058 as passed by the House. After three days of

debate and the consideration of over 100 amendments, the full Senate approved by a vote of 93 to

1 on October 20 a version of H.R. 3058 that differed in some significant ways from the Housepassed version.

As passed by the Senate, H.R. 3058 would have given Treasury $11.698 billion in funding in

FY2006—or $485 million more than the amount enacted for FY2005, $49 million more than the

amount requested by the Bush Administration, and $169 million more than the amount approved

by the House. The IRS would have received $10.679 billion—or $443 million more than its

budget in FY2005, the same amount as the Administration’s budget request, and $123 million

more than the amount approved by the House. Like the House, the Senate denied a request by the

Administration to combine funding for taxpayer service, tax law enforcement, and IRS

information systems into a new single appropriations account for tax administration and

operations. But unlike the House, the Senate gave the IRS the same amount for tax law

enforcement that the Administration asked for: $4.726 billion. What is more, the following

accounts would have received an increase in funding relative to FY2005: departmental offices

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

(including OFAC and TFI), +$42 million; Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, +$9

million; Financial Management Service, +$7 million; TIGTA, +$5 million; Bureau of the Public

Debt, +$3 million; FinCEN, +2 million; and Air Transportation Stabilization program and Office

of Inspector General, +$1 million. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 3058 would also have

restored funding for two programs whose funding was rescinded in FY2005: expanded access to

financial services (+$4 million) and violent crime reduction (+$1 million). Funding for three

Treasury accounts would have been cut relative to the amounts enacted for FY2005: departmentwide systems and capital investments, -$8 million; Treasury building and annex repair and

restoration, -$2 million; and CDFI, -$0.1 million.

There were significant differences between the House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 3058.

As a result, a conference committee had to be formed in order to resolve those differences and

reach an agreement that could gain the support of both houses. Such a committee was formed in

late October, and it reached an agreement that was spelled out in a conference report (H.Rept.

109-307) released on November 18. Later the same day, the House approved the report on H.R.

3058 by a vote of 392-31, and the Senate did likewise through a procedure known as unanimous

consent. President Bush signed the measure on November 30.

Under the enacted version of H.R. 3058, Treasury is receiving $11.698 billion in appropriated

funds in FY2006—or $471 million more than it received in FY2005. Of this amount, $10.671

billion goes to the IRS—or $435 million more than it received in FY2005. The conference report

specifies that the IRS may reorganize or reduce its workforce only with the consent of the House

and Senate Appropriations Committees. In addition, the act gives $197 million to Treasury’s

departmental offices—or $40 million more than the amount enacted in FY2005; $40 million of

this amount is to be used for combating financial crimes, $22 million of which is to go to OFAC.

The remaining accounts are funded at the following levels: department-wide systems and capital

investments programs, $24 million; Office of Inspector General, $17 million; TIGTA, $133

million; Air Transportation Stabilization program, $3 million (which is to be made available until

spent); Treasury building and annex repair and restoration, $10 million; FinCEN, $74 million;

Financial Management Service, $236 million; Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, $91

million; Bureau of Public Debt, $177 million; and CDFI, $55 million (which is to be available

until September 30, 2007).

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

In FY2005, the IRS received $10.237 billion in appropriated funds—or 0.3% more than it

received in FY2004. Of this amount, $4.057 billion was intended for processing, assistance, and

management; $4.364 billion for tax law enforcement; $1.578 billion for information systems

management; $203 million for the business systems modernization program (BSM); and $35

million to administer the health insurance tax credit established by the Trade Act of 2002. These

amounts reflected a rescission of 0.83% that was included in the measure funding Treasury

operations in FY2005. Of the funds appropriated for processing, assistance, and management,

Congress specified that $4 million be used to operate the Tax Counseling for the Elderly program

and that $7.5 million be used as grants for low-income taxpayer clinics. None of the funds

appropriated for the BSM program could be spent without the consent of the House and Senate

Appropriations Committees. In addition, the IRS Commissioner was required to submit quarterly

reports to both committees in FY2005 assessing the results of the agency’s initiatives to improve

taxpayer compliance.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

The Bush Administration requested that IRS operations be funded at $10.679 billion in

FY2006—or 4.3% more than the amount enacted for FY2005. To more closely align its budget

request with IRS’s major programs and current strategic plan, the Administration proposed that

the agency’s budget be restructured beginning in FY2006. Under the proposal, the number of

accounts in the IRS budget would be reduced from six to three: tax administration and operations

(TAO), BSM, and administration of the health insurance tax credit. TAO would replace the

existing accounts for tax law enforcement; processing, assistance, and management; and

information systems. For FY2006, the Administration sought $10.460 billion in appropriated

funds for TAO—or about 5% more than the amount set aside for this purpose in FY2005; $199

million for BSM—or 2% less than the amount enacted for FY2005; and $20 million for

administration of the health insurance tax credit—or 41.5% less than the amount enacted in

FY2005. Compared to the FY2005 budget, the Administration was seeking $500 million more for

enforcement but $38 million less for taxpayer service and $4 million less for the BSM program.

Some feared that a reduction in funding for taxpayer service would lead to higher rates of noncompliance among taxpayers who rely heavily on taxpayer assistance centers (TACs) and IRS

toll-free phone assistance centers to fulfill their obligations under the federal tax code.16 The

Administration estimated that its budget request would boost total full-time employment at the

IRS from 97,440 in FY2005 to 97,679 in FY2006.

According to budget documents issued by the IRS, the FY2006 budget request was intended to

support three key objectives in its current five-year strategic plan: (1) continued improvement of

taxpayer service; (2) strengthened enforcement of the tax laws; and (3) continued modernization

of IRS’s information systems.

Under a measure (H.R. 3058) providing appropriations for Treasury and a handful of other federal

agencies approved by the House on June 30, 2005, the IRS would have received $10.556 billion

in funds in FY2006. This amount was $319 million more than the agency received in FY2005 but

$123 million less than the amount requested by the Bush Administration. The House also rejected

the Administration’s proposed revision of the IRS budget. As a result, it is difficult to compare the

Administration’s budget request for the IRS and the funding for IRS operations recommended in

H.R. 3058. Nonetheless, it is possible to compare the funding level approved by the House with

the comparable amounts enacted for FY2005. Of the funding level for the IRS approved by the

House, $4.182 billion—or $125 million above the level for FY2005—would go to processing,

assistance, and management; $4.580 billion—or $216 million above the level for FY2005—

would be set aside for tax law enforcement; $1.575 billion—or $3 million below the level for

FY2005—for information systems; $199 million—or $4 million below the level for FY2005—for

BSM; and $20 million—or $14 million below the level for FY2005—for administering the health

insurance tax credit. The measure also specified that of the funds recommended for processing,

assistance, and management, $4 million be set aside for the Tax Counseling for the Elderly

program, $8 million for grants for low-income taxpayer clinics, and $1.5 million for the IRS

Oversight Board. Furthermore, H.R. 3058 included a provision barring the IRS from closing or

consolidating any Taxpayer Assistance Centers (TACs) until TIGTA completed a “thorough

study” of the likely impact of such an initiative on taxpayer compliance. In late May 2005, the

IRS announced that it planned to close 68 of 400 TACs by the end of FY2005; two months later

the IRS announced that it was suspending the plan until Congress had approved a budget for the

Allen Kenney, “Deja Vu? Bush Wants $500 Million for IRS to Toughen Up in 2006,” Tax Notes, Feb. 14, 2005, p.

748.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

agency in FY2006. Earlier in 2005, the IRS also revealed that it was planning to reduce the

weekly hours of operation for toll-free telephone assistance for individual taxpayers.

The Senate approved an amended version of H.R. 3058 by a vote of 93 to 1 on October 20. It

would have given the IRS the same level of funding in FY2006 requested by the Bush

Administration: $10.679 billion—or $443 million more than the amount enacted for FY2005 and

$123 million more than the amount approved by the House. Like the House, the Senate rejected

the Administration’s proposed restructuring of the IRS budget on the grounds that it was “overly

simplistic” and would have hindered the ability of the Senate and House Appropriations

Committees to hold the IRS accountable for its use of appropriated funds. Under the Senatepassed version of H.R. 3058, the IRS would have received $4.137 billion for processing,

assistance, and management—or $80 million than the amount enacted for FY2005 but $45

million less than the amount approved by the House; $4.726 billion for tax law enforcement—or

$362 million more than the amount enacted for FY2005 and $145 million more than the amount

approved by the House; $1.598 billion for information systems—or $20 million more than the

amount enacted for FY2005 and $23 million more than the amount approved by the House; $199

million for BSM—or $4 million less than the amount enacted for FY2005 but the same amount

requested by the Bush Administration and recommended by the House; and $20 million for

administering the health insurance tax credit—or $14 million less than the amount enacted for

FY2005 but the same amount requested by the Administration and approved by the House. Like

the version of H.R. 3058 passed by the House, the measure also specified that the IRS may not

cut services to taxpayers until TIGTA completed a study assessing the likely effects on taxpayer

compliance of planned reductions in the number of TACs and the operating hours of IRS call

centers offering taxpayer assistance. The Senate also agreed with the House in setting aside $4

million for the Tax Counseling for the Elderly program and $8 million for grants to low-income

taxpayer clinics. But unlike the House-passed bill, the version of H.R. 3058 passed by the Senate

would have removed the cap imposed by the FY1995 Treasury, Postal Service and General

Government Appropriations Act on the amount of user fees collected by the IRS in a fiscal year

that it is allowed to retain, and it would have prevented the IRS from competing with the private

sector in developing tax return preparation software by requiring the agency to continue an

agreement reached with the Free File Alliance in 2002.

The significant differences between the House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 3058 meant

that a conference committee needed to be formed in order to resolve them. Such a committee was

formed in late October. On November 18, it released a conference report (H.Rept. 109-307)

detailing the terms of the agreement it had reached. Later the same day, the House approved the

conference agreement on H.R. 3058 by a vote of 392 to 31, and the Senate did likewise by

unanimous consent. President Bush signed the measure on November 30.

Under the enacted version of H.R. 3058, the IRS is receiving $10.672 billion in FY2006—or

$435 million more than it received in FY2005. Of this amount, $4.137 billion is being used for

processing, assistance, and management; $4.726 billion for tax law enforcement; $1.599 billion

for information systems; $199 million for BSM; and $20.2 million for administering the health

insurance tax credit. The act specifies that the IRS may not reorganize or reduce its workforce

without the consent of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. It also directs the IRS

not to compete in the market for tax return preparation software and bars the agency from

reducing taxpayer service until TIGTA completes a report on the effects of proposed service

reductions on taxpayer compliance. In addition, under the act, the IRS is required to develop, in

consultation with the IRS Oversight Board and the National Taxpayer Advocate, a five-year plan

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

for improving taxpayer services based on a reasonable balance between strategic goals for

enforcement and service, and to submit the plan to the Committees no later than April 14, 2006.

Title III: Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Table 6.Title III: Housing and Urban Development Appropriations,

FY2005 to FY2006

(budget authority in $ billions)

FY2005

enacted

FY2006

request

FY2006

House

FY2006

Senate

FY2006

Enacted

Tenant-based rental assistance

(Sec. 8 vouchers)

(includes advanced appropriation)

14.766

15.845

15.631

15.636

15.574

Project-based rental assistance (Sec.

5.298

5.072

5.088

5.072

5.088

Public housing capital fund

2.579

2.327

2.600

2.327

2.464

Public housing operating fund

2.438

3.407

3.600

3.557

3.600

HOPE VI

0.143a

0.000a

0.060

0.150

0.100

0.622

0.583b

0.600c

0.622

0.630

0.009

Housing for Persons With AIDS

(HOPWA)

0.282

0.268

0.290

0.287

0.289

Rural Housing Economic

Development

0.024

0.000e

0.010

0.024

0.017

Empowerment Zones; Enterprise

Communities (EZ/EC)

0.010

0.000e

0.000

Community Development Fund

(CDF)/Community Development

Block Grant (CDBG) (including

supplemental funding)

4.852f

0.000e

4.243g

4.324

4.220h

Brownfields redevelopment

0.024

0.000e

0.015

0.010

HOME Investment Partnerships

1.900

1.941

1.900

1.775

Homeless Assistance Grants

1.241

1.440

1.340

1.415

1.340

0.030

0.061j

Housing for the elderly

(Sec. 202)

0.741

0.742

Housing for the disabled

(Sec. 811)

0.238

0.120

0.238

0.240

0.239

0.040

0.000

Rental Housing Assistance

0.000

0.026

Research and technology

0.045

0.070l

0.061m

0.048

0.056

Program

Native American housing block grants

Native Hawaiian Block Grant

Self Help Homeownership

Housing Counseling Assistance

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

FY2005

enacted

FY2006

request

FY2006

House

FY2006

Senate

FY2006

Enacted

Fair housing activities

0.046

0.039

0.047

0.046

Office, lead hazard control

0.167

0.119

0.167

0.152

Salaries and expenses

0.543

0.579

0.570

0.579

Working capital fund

0.268

0.265

0.062

0.265

0.197

Inspector General

0.079

0.082

Loan Guaranteesn

0.013

0.004

0.013

0.009

Appropriations subtotal

36.318

33.003

37.226

37.529

37.305

Sec. 8 recaptures (rescission)

-1.557

-2.500

-2.494

-1.500

-2.050

HOPE VI rescissiona

0.000

-0.143

0.000

-0.010o

Other rescissions

-0.764p

0.000

Rescissions subtotal

-2.321

-2.643

-2.494

-1.500

-2.060

Federal Housing Administration (net)

-1.724

-0.856

-0.913

GNMA (net)

-0.357

Offsets subtotal

-2.082

-1.213

-1.271

-1.270

-1.271

$31.915

$29.147

$33.671

$34.759

$33.974

Program

Brownfields rescission

Total

Source: Prepared by CRS based on information provided by the House Committee on Appropriations, HUD’s

Congressional Budget Justifications, House and Senate versions of H.R. 3058, H.Rept. 109-153, and S.Rept. 109109 and Conf. Rept. 109-307. FY2005 figures are adjusted to reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission

enacted in P.L. 108-447.

Note: This table does not include two accounts whose costs are equal to their offsetting receipts: Manufactured

Housing Fees Trust Fund ($12.9 million in FY2005 and $13 million in FY2006) and the Office of Federal Housing

Enterprise Oversight ($58.7 million in FY2005 and $60 million in FY2006).

The Administration has proposed that in FY2006, Congress provide no new funding and also rescind the

HOPE VI funding provided in FY2005.

Includes $58 million for Indian community and economic development activities, which, in FY2005, received

$68 million as a set-aside within the Community Development Fund.

Includes $45 million for Indian community and economic development activities, which, in FY2005, received

$68 million as a set-aside within the Community Development Fund.

In FY2005, $8.9 million was provided for this program (Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership) as a setaside within the Community Development Fund. The Senate bill provides $8.8 million for this program in

the Community Development Fund.

For FY2006, the Administration proposes to eliminate these programs and replace them with a new

program funded in the Commerce Department.

The CDBG appropriation includes $180.8 million in CDBG supplemental funding for FY2005, including

$30.8 million appropriated under Section 424 of P.L. 108-447 and $150 million appropriated under P.L. 108324.

Two floor amendments to the House Appropriations Committee version of H.R. 3058 adding funds to the

CDF account, were approved. H.Amdt. 396 added $67.5 million to the CDF account to increase funding for

CDBG formula grants and ensure funds were available for Youth build. H.Amdt. 404 added $24 million to

the CDF account to be used for Brownfields.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

Includes $310 million for Economic Development Initiative earmarks, $50 million for YouthBuild, $50

million for Neighborhood Initiative earmarks, $60 million for Indian CDBG, and $1.6 million for Working

Capital Fund.

In FY2005, $24.8 million was provided for this program as a set-aside within the Community Development

Fund. The Senate bill provides $15 million for this program in the Community Development Fund.

The House bill proposed to rename this account Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership and transfer to it

funding for several set-asides that were formerly funded under the Community Development Fund. The

final version of the bill adopted the House proposal, although it allocates the funds within the account

differently.

In FY2005, $41.7 million was provided for this program as a component of HOME.

The House provides $41.7 million for Housing Counseling Assistance as a set-aside within the HOME

program. The Senate bill proves $42 million for Housing Counseling Assistance as a set-aside within the

HOME program.

m. Includes $29 million requested for University Partnerships, which, in FY2005, received a total of $33 million

as set-asides within the Community Development Fund.

This category includes Section 108 ($7 million in FY2005, $0 in President’s request and House bill, $7

million in Senate bill), Native Hawaiian housing ($992,000 in FY2005 and $882,000 in President’s request

and House bill, $1 million in Senate bill) and Indian housing loan guarantees ($5 million in FY2005 and $2.6

million in President’s request and House bill, $5 million in Senate bill). For FY2006, the Administration

proposes to eliminate Section 108 loan guarantees and replace them with the new larger program in the

Commerce Department.

The bill rescinds $10 million from prior years’ appropriations; however, if sufficient funds are not available,

they can be taken from current year appropriations.

Includes one-time rescissions of unobligated balances from the following accounts: Public Housing Drug

Elimination grants, Title VI credit subsidy, Urban Development Action Grants, rental housing assistance and

GI/SRI credit subsidy.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget and Key

Policy Issues17

The President’s proposed FY2006 HUD budget of $29.1 billion represented a decline of almost

9% from the FY2005 enacted level of $31.9 billion. This decrease resulted from several factors

including a proposed transfer of the Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG) to

the Department of Commerce and the reduction or elimination of other HUD programs. Proposed

cuts to the major HUD programs are discussed below. Proposed cuts to smaller programs include

reductions in the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction program (-29%); Native American Block

Grants (-6%); Fair Housing programs (-15%); and Housing for Persons with AIDS (-5%). Several

program increases were proposed, including a $1.1 billion increase for HUD’s largest program,

the $14.8 billion Section 8 voucher program, and a $200 million increase for Homeless

Assistance Grants.

On June 30, 2005, the House passed its version of H.R. 3058, the FY2006 HUD funding bill,

proposing over $4 billion more for the Department than the President requested. It proposed to

For more details on the proposed HUD budget, see CRS Report RL32869, The Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD): FY2006 Budget, by (name redacted) et al. For a similarly detailed examination of the FY2005

budget, see CRS Report RL32443, The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): FY2005 Budget, by

Richard Bourdon et al.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

continue to fund CDBG within HUD and would have maintained or increase funding for several

programs slated for cuts in the President’s budget.

The Senate passed its version of H.R. 3058, the FY2006 HUD funding bill, on October 20, 2005.

The bill proposed over $34 billion for HUD, an increase over the FY2005 budget, the President’s

request, and the House-approved level. Like the House bill, the Senate bill would have continued

to fund CDBG within the HUD budget and restored funding for a number of programs proposed

for reductions.

The final conference agreement on H.R. 3058 passed Congress on November 18, 2005, and was

signed into law on November 30, 2005 (P.L. 109-115). For most accounts, the conference

agreement split the difference between the House and Senate-passed funding levels. It continues

to fund CDBG within HUD, but reduces its overall funding level. It also contains a provision

restricting the use of federal economic development funds in projects involving the use of

eminent domain.18

Community and Economic Development Programs Consolidation Proposal

The Bush Administration budget recommendations for FY2006 included a proposal that would

have consolidated the activities of at least 18 existing community and economic development

programs into a two-part grant proposal called the “Strengthening America’s Communities

Initiative (SACI).” As outlined by the Administration, the proposal would have realigned several,

but not all, federal economic and community development programs. The most prominent of

these programs is the Community Development Block Grant program. Other HUD programs that

would have been eliminated under the Administration proposal included Empowerment Zones,

Brownfield Economic Development Initiatives, CDBG Section 108 loan guarantees, and Rural

Housing and Economic Development Grants. If approved by Congress, the Department of

Commerce would have been responsible for administering the new program that would have

replaced the 18 existing programs that are currently administered by five federal agencies.

The Administration proposal would have reduced aggregate funding from $5.6 billion in FY2005

for the programs proposed for consolidation to $3.7 billion in FY2006 for the new program. The

Administration offered a general outline of the new programs, but it did not submit a detailed

realignment proposal for congressional consideration. It stated that the proposed new program

would emphasize flexibility, would be results oriented, and would be targeted to communities

based on need. The Administration sought this realignment, in part, because many of the 18

programs recommended for elimination have been judged by the Administration to be ineffective,

unable to demonstrate results, or duplicative of the efforts of other federal programs.

The agency that would have been most affected by the proposal is HUD; programs administered

by HUD account for nearly 81% of the $5.6 billion in FY2005 funding. The agency’s Community

Development Block Grant formula grants represent 74% of the total. The consolidation proposal

was opposed by groups representing state and local officials including the U.S. Conference of

Mayors, the National Governors Association, National League of Cities, and National Association

After enactment of H.R. 3058, Congress passed the FY2006 Defense appropriations bill, which includes a one

percent across-the-board rescission of all non-emergency FY2006 federal discretionary funding; that bill also included

a supplemental appropriation of $11.9 billion to HUD to respond to the consequences of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and

Wilma.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

of Counties. The House and Senate-passed budget resolutions for FY2006 both included language

that supported the continuation of the CDBG program. The House version of H.Con.Res. 95

included language increasing funding for the community and regional development budget

function by $1.1 billion to $4.8 billion. The Senate version of the budget resolution would have

restored $2 billion that would have been cut under the SACI proposal and stipulated that the

funds were to be used to support CDBG and the other 17 programs targeted for elimination by the

Administration. The conference agreement on the FY2006 budget resolution (H.Rept. 109-62)

assumed $1.5 billion more than the President requested for Community and Economic

Development purposes and the accompanying Joint Statement of Managers indicated that the

increase is intended to maintain economic and community development programs such as CDBG

at FY2005 levels.

On June 21, the House Committee on Appropriations completed consideration of H.R. 3058, the

FY2006 appropriations bill for HUD (and several other agencies). The measure rejected the

Administration’s proposed “Strengthening America’s Communities Initiative” and recommended

$4.15 billion for the CDBG program and Economic Development Initiative (EDI) grants. This

included $3.86 billion for CDBG formula grants awarded to entitlement communities and states,

which was $250 less than appropriated in FY2005. The Committee also included $290 million for

EDI grants for congressional earmarked projects. The committee bill did not provide funding for

a number of CDBG set-asides and related programs, including Youthbuild, Empowerment Zones,

Brownfields, and Section 108 loan guarantees. In addition, the committee bill recommended

transferring funding for several CDBG-related set-asides to other accounts within HUD. The bill

included a new self-help and assisted homeownership account that would have provided $23

million for the Self-Help Homeownership Program (SHOP), $28 million for the National

Community Development Initiative, $3 million for the Housing Assistance Council and $1

million each for the Special Olympics and the Native American Indian Housing Council. Indian

CDBG would have been funded as a set-aside of $45 million within the Native American

Housing Block Grants account. The Committee also recommended transferring to HUD’s Office

of Policy Development and Research $29 million in funding for university programs previously

included as CDBG set-asides under Section 107—including assistance to historic black colleges

and universities, institutions serving Hispanic populations, and a community development work

study program.

The House approved the Committee’s recommendations, and also approved two amendments

increasing FY2006 funding for the Community Development Fund account (CDF). The House

approved by voice vote an amendment offered by Representative Gary Miller adding $24 million

to the CDF for HUD’s Brownfield program. It also approved by voice vote an amendment

introduced by Representative Knollenberg that provided an additional $67.5 million to the CDF.

Floor debate indicated that up to $50 million of the increase was to be used to fund the

Youthbuild program, assuming it was not funded within the Department of Labor’s budget. The

remaining $17.5 million was designated for CDBG formula-based grants. This increase would

have resulted in CDBG formula-based funding at more than $230 million below the FY2005

level. During floor consideration of the bill, the chairman of the HUD Appropriations

Subcommittee, Representative Knollenberg, stated that it was his intention to find a way to

restore the CDBG formula-based program to its FY2005 funding level.

The Senate version of the bill would have appropriated $4.3 billion for Community Development

Fund (CDF) activities, which would be a decrease of $528 million from FY2005. The bill

included $3.77 billion for CDBG formula grants, which was a $100 million decrease from the

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

House and a $350 million decrease from FY2005. It also included $556.2 million for CDBGrelated set asides and earmarks.

Unlike the House bill, which would have provided no funding, reduced funding, or would have

transferred the activity to another account within HUD, the Senate bill recommended retaining

funding for most of the CDBG-related set-asides within the CDF account. For instance, the

Senate bill included $69 million for the Native American CDBG while the House version would

have appropriated $45 million for the program within the Native American Housing Block Grant.

The Senate bill would have appropriated $32.4 million in funding for college and university

programs and retained the programs under the CDF account while the House bill would have

transferred these activities to the Research and Development account; it would have appropriated

$40 million for the Neighborhood Initiative Program, a program that was not included in the

President’s request or the House version of the bill; and it would have appropriated $30 million

for capacity building grants under the National Community Development Initiative program,

which is $2 million less than the amount recommended by the House within a new Self Help and

Assisted Homeownership account.

During the Senate Appropriations Committee consideration of H.R. 3058, Senator Bond

introduced and then withdrew a proposed amendment that would have prohibited the use of

federal funds in economic development projects involving the use of eminent domain. The

amendment would have allowed the use of federal funds if the project involved airports, seaports,

mass transit, or was intended to revitalize a blighted area.

The conference version of H.R. 3058, which was approved by the House on November 18, and

the Senate on November 21, 2005, appropriates $4.220 billion for Community Development

Fund activities including $3.748 billion for the CDBG formula grant program. This is slightly less

than the $3.770 billion recommended by the Senate and the $3.86 billion recommended by the

House. The act includes $471 million for a select number of CDF set asides and earmarks with

the majority of such funds—$310 million—allocated among 1,126 EDI earmarked projects. Of

the remaining funds $50 million is earmarked for 50 Neighborhood Initiative projects identified

in the conference report, $1.6 million for the Working Capital Fund, and $50 million is to be

awarded to local YouthBuild organizations.

The $310 million in EDI earmarks represent a 7% increase in funding for such projects over the

amount appropriated in FY2005 ($290 million) while the $3.748 billion in CDBG formula grants

is 9% less than appropriated for such grants in FY2005. The Administration, some Members of

Congress, and organizations representing states and local governments have voiced concern about

the use, growth rate, and non-competitive nature of earmarks. They argue that the steady increase

in earmark projects siphons funds from the need-based formula portion of the program.

The conference version of the act, consistent with the recommendations included in the House,

shifts funding for a number of programs previously funded under this account to other HUD

accounts. Funding for the SHOP program ($20 million), National Community Development

Initiative ($30 million), the Housing Assistance Council ($ 3 million), the National American

Indian Housing Council ($1 million), and the La Raza HOPE Fund ($4 million) are now funded

under a new Self-Help Assisted Homeownership account. Assistance for minority universities and

colleges previously funded under Section 107 (Special Projects) are now funded under the Policy

Development and Research account at $20.6 million.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

The Senate version of H.R. 3058 recommended continued funding of the Section 108 loan

guarantee program by appropriating $6 million in loan subsidies in support of a loan commitment

ceiling of $275 million. The Administration included the Section 108 program in the list of

programs whose activities were to be consolidated under its Strengthening America’s

Communities Initiative. The House version of H.R. 3058 did not include funding for the program.

The conference version of the act includes $3 million in loan subsidies in support of a loan

commitment ceiling of $137 million.

Section 726 of the General Provisions of Title VII of the TTHUD Appropriations Act for FY2006,

includes the language prohibiting federal, state, and local governments from using funds

appropriated under the act for projects involving the use of eminent domain unless such projects

or activities involve a public purpose. The provision excludes economic development “that

primarily benefits private entities” as an eligible public purpose, except in cases involving the

removal of blighted areas, brownfield redevelopment, mass transit, transportation and utility

projects that benefit the general public. Such projects would be allowed the use of eminent

domain without the loss of federal funds. The provision also directs the Government Accounting

Office and the National Academy for Public Administration, state and local government

organizations, and property rights organizations to conduct a study-by-state study of the use of

eminent domain.

For additional information on the Administration’s SACI proposal see CRS Report RL32823, An

Overview of the Administration’s Strengthening America’s Communities Initiative, by (name r

edacted) et al.

Section 8 Voucher Funding Level and Reform Proposal

The President’s FY2006 request for the Section 8 tenant-based rental assistance program, also

called the Section 8 voucher program, represented a 7% increase in funding over FY2005. These

additional funds were to be used to renew existing subsidies, rather than create new subsidies.

The President’s budget proposed to continue and expand the practice of funding public housing

authorities (PHAs) on the basis of fixed costs, rather than on actual costs (as was the practice

prior to FY2004), and on the basis of fixed utilization rates, rather than on all available vouchers

(as was the practice prior to FY2005). This “budget-based” funding structure has been

controversial among some PHAs, who argue it does not provide them with sufficient funding to

meet their local needs.

Beyond funding levels, the budget request also stated that the President intended to introduce a

new proposal to reform the tenant-based voucher program. One purpose for this reform proposal

was to contain, if not reduce, costs. According to the President’s budget summary, “Section 8’s

program costs are cannibalizing every HUD program—at the same time waiting lists of families

seeking housing continue to grow.” The FY2006 HUD Congressional Budget Justifications stated

that the new proposal would provide additional flexibility to PHAs which would enable them to

run their programs more effectively and efficiently. The Administration’s reform proposal was

introduced in the Senate (S. 771) on April 13 and in the House (H.R. 1999) on April 28, 2005,

although no further action has been taken. Reform proposals were also submitted as part of the

FY2004 and FY2005 budgets; no congressional action was taken on either proposal.

The House Appropriations Committee recommended $15.5 billion for tenant based rental

assistance, which is $765 million more than was provided in FY2005 but $314 million less than

the President requested. Under the House bill, funding would have been allocated to agencies

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

based on the amount they received in the previous year, plus inflation. The $15.5 billion included

a set-aside of funds that the Secretary could have used to adjust the budgets of agencies that were

negatively impacted by the FY2005 formula due to anomalous circumstances, such as an increase

in voucher holders moving to more expensive areas. On June 30, 2005, during House floor

consideration of the bill, an amendment offered by Representative Nadler added an additional

$100 million to the tenant-based rental assistance account, increasing the appropriation to $15.6

billion. The amendment offset the increase by decreasing funding for the Working Capital Fund

by $120 million.

The Senate-passed bill would also have funded the voucher program at $15.6 billion in FY2006.

It proposed to allocate renewal funds based on agencies’ most recent 12 months of cost and

utilization data, an allocation method advocated by PHAs and low-income housing groups. It also

proposed to set aside funds to be provided to agencies that were negatively impacted by the

FY2005 distribution formula.

The conference version of H.R. 3058 funded renewals at the President’s requested level. It

adopted the President’s requested and House approved allocation method and set aside $45

million for the Secretary to use to adjust agency budgets.

For additional information, see CRS Report RL31930, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher

Program: Funding and Related Issues, by (name redacted).

Section 811 Housing for the Disabled

The President’s FY2006 request for the Section 811 housing for the disabled program represented

a 50% cut in funding from FY2005. The funding provided in the request would not have been

available for capital grants to build housing units for the disabled, as in the past. Instead the full

amount would have been used to provide vouchers to persons with disabilities. HUD budget

documents do not provide a rationale for the reduction or restriction on use for capital grants. In

testimony on March 17, 2005 before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation,

the Treasury, HUD, the Judiciary, and the District of Columbia, the Secretary of HUD referred to

the need to make unpopular cuts in programs such as Section 811 in order to maintain adequate

funding for Section 8 and programs for the homeless.

The House-passed version of the FY2006 HUD funding bill maintained Section 811 funding at

the FY2005 level of $238 million, while the Senate version increased funding to $240 million.

Both bills permitted funds to be used for capital subsidies. The enacted appropriation for FY2006

provides $239 million for Section 811, an increase of approximately $1 million over FY2005, and

twice as much as the President’s request. Like the House and Senate versions, the conference

version includes funds for capital grants.

HOPE VI

For a third year, the President’s budget requested no new funding for the HOPE VI Revitalization

of Distressed Public Housing program. HOPE VI provides grants to local public housing

administrators (PHAs) to help fund major redevelopment of troubled public housing projects. The

Administration claimed that the program has met its mandate and that program funds are spent

too slowly; however, the program has been popular with many local communities and Members

of Congress. Despite the President’s request, in FY2004 and FY2005, Congress funded HOPE

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

VI, but at a lower level than in FY2003 when over $570 million was provided to the program. In

addition to requesting no new funding for the program in FY2006, the President’s budget

requested that Congress rescind the funds it provided to the program in FY2005.

The House Appropriations Committee recommended no FY2006 funding for the HOPE VI

program, but did not support the President’s request to rescind FY2005 funding. In House floor

consideration of the bill, an amendment was adopted that provided $60 million for HOPE VI,

offset by a reduction of $60 million for the General Services Administration’s Federal Buildings

Fund. The Senate bill proposed $150 million for HOPE VI in FY2006, slightly more than was

provided in FY2005. The conference version of H.R. 3058 funded HOPE VI at $100 million and

did not enact the rescission of FY2005 funds requested by the President. For more information,

see CRS Report RL32236, HOPE VI Public Housing Revitalization Program: Background,

Funding, and Issues, by (name redacted).

New FHA Proposals

The Administration’s FY2006 budget includes proposals for two new FHA initiatives. Under the

FHA Zero Downpayment Homeownership Option proposal, first-time buyers with strong

credit records would be allowed to finance 100% of their home purchase price and settlement

costs. Insurance premiums would be increased to cover the higher risks and costs involved.

HUD’s FY2006 budget estimates this would generate 204,000 loans and $230.5 million in net

revenue. The House Committee on Appropriations did not assume these revenues in their reestimate of the President’s budget, resulting in a larger proposed appropriation request for HUD.

A bill to enact this proposal was introduced in the 109th Congress as H.R. 3043. Under the FHA

Payment Incentive Homeownership Initiative, first proposed in the FY2005 budget, HUD

would amend its underwriting guidelines in order to attract borrowers who would otherwise seek

loans in the subprime market. According to HUD, the borrowers would obtain better terms from

FHA than would be possible on the subprime market. The increased risk of default and the higher

costs associated with these borrowers would be offset by requiring more owner equity and higher

insurance premiums, although after a period of on-time payments, the premiums would be

reduced. HUD’s FY2006 budget estimates this program would generate 64,000 loans a year and

increase net revenues by $37.4 million. The Committee also did not include these revenue

projections in their re-estimate of the President’s budget.

Title IV: The Judiciary

The Judiciary Budget and Key Policy Issues

Table 7.Title IV:The Judiciary Appropriations, FY2005 to FY2006

(millions of dollars)

FY2005

Enacteda

FY2006

Requestb

House

Passedc

Senate

Passedd

FY2006

Enactede

$57.4

$60.7

60.7

Building and Grounds

9.8

5.6

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit

21.5

26.5

24.6

23.5

24.0

Court, Agency, or Program

Supreme Court, Salaries & Expenses

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

Court, Agency, or Program

FY2005

Enacteda

FY2006

Requestb

House

Passedc

Senate

Passedd

FY2006

Enactede

U.S. Court of International Trade

14.7

15.5

4,125.3

4,478.7

4,348.8

4,375.0

4,348.8

3.3

3.8

Defender Services

667.3

768.1

721.9

710.8

717.0

Fees of Jurors and Commissioners

60.7

71.3

60.1

61.3

Court Security

327.6

390.3

379.5

372.4

372.0

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

67.3

72.2

70.3

72.2

70.3

Federal Judicial Center

21.4

22.9

22.2

22.4

Retirement Funds

36.7

40.6

U.S. Sentencing Commission

13.1

14.7

14.0

14.7

14.4

5,426.2

5,970.9

5,767.7

5,778.5

5,756.4

Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and

Other Judicial Services, Salaries &

Expenses

Vaccine Injury Act Trust Fund

Total

Sources: U.S. Senate and U.S. House Committees on Appropriations.

Notes: House and Senate numbers may differ slightly in some instances. All figures are taken from House

budget documents, except for the Senate column. All figures have been rounded.

Amounts enacted for FY2005 reflect a 0.83% across-the-board rescission (P.L. 108-447).

Amounts reflect the budget amendments the President transmitted to Congress on June 13, 2005.

Amounts are based on the House Committee on Appropriations budget documents.

Amounts are based on Senate passage of H.R. 3058 on Oct. 20, 2005, and information from the

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Amounts are based on the conference report, as printed in the Congressional Record, Nov. 18, 2005.

Title IV covers funding for the Judiciary. As a co-equal branch of government, the Judiciary

presents its budget to the President, who transmits the proposed judicial branch budget to

Congress unaltered. Table 7 shows the FY2005 enacted amount, the FY2006 requested funding,

the House-passed amount, the Senate-passed amount, and the conference report, as passed.

The two accounts that fund the Supreme Court—the salaries and expenses of the Supreme Court

of the United States and the expenditures for the care of its building and grounds—together make

up less than 1.2% of the total Judiciary budget. The structural and mechanical care of the

Supreme Court building, and care of its grounds, are the responsibility of the Architect of the

Capitol. The rest of the Judiciary’s budget provides funding for the “lower” federal courts and for

related judicial services. The largest account, making up 75% of the total budget—the Salaries

and Expenses account for the U.S. Courts of Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial

Services—covers the salaries, benefits and operating expenses of circuit and district judges

(including judges of the territorial courts of the United States), and those of retired justices and

judges, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, bankruptcy and magistrate judges, and all other officers

and employees of the federal Judiciary not specifically provided for by other accounts. The

Judiciary budget does not fund three “special courts” in the U.S. court system: the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Armed Forces, the U.S. Tax Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans

Claims. Construction of federal courthouses also is not funded within the Judiciary’s budget.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

In his 2004 year-end annual report, released on January 1, 2005, then-Chief Justice William H.

Rehnquist stated that the Judiciary was facing a “funding crisis.” He expressed concern about

rising fixed costs to the Judiciary that have resulted in hiring freezes, furloughs, and reductions in

force while the workload continues to increase. The Judicial Conference, the principal policymaking body for the federal court system, has devised a cost containment strategy and has

implemented measures to reduce costs and to make operations more efficient. To alleviate budget

pressures that could lead to more staff cuts, he suggested that there be a reassessment of the rent

(which constitutes about 20% of the total budget) paid to the General Services Administration

(GSA). In January 2005, the Judiciary asked GSA for a partial rent exemption for the federal

courts.

Court security has become an increasingly critical issue since the bombing of a federal building in

Oklahoma City, the September 11 terrorist attacks, and threats of anthrax contamination. The

February 28, 2005, murders of family members of a U.S. District Court judge in Chicago and, on

March 11, 2005, of a state judge, a court reporter, and a sheriff’s deputy in an Atlanta courthouse

elevated federal judiciary security to an even higher priority. Congress held hearings and

introduced legislation on security protection for the federal judiciary.

On April 21, 2005, Representative Louie Gohmert introduced H.R. 1751, the Secure Access to

Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005, legislation which would do the following:

•

Prohibit possession of dangerous weapons in federal courthouses, and increase

penalties for assaulting, kidnapping or murdering judges or their families.

•

Impose fines and imprisonment for filing false liens against the property of a

federal judge, federal attorney, or public safety officer and the posting of

restricted personal information about judges, jurors or witnesses on the Internet.

•

Authorize a new federal grant program for $20 million annually (from fiscal

years 2006 to 2010) to fund witness protection by states, local governments and

American Indian tribes.

On April 26, 2005, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and

Homeland Security held a hearing on H.R. 1751. The Subcommittee held a mark-up and

forwarded the bill to the full Committee on June 30, 2005. On October 27, 2005, the House

Judiciary Committee voted 26 to 5 to approve H.R. 1751, including several amendments.

Representative Steve Chabot’s amendment would authorize appellate and district judges to allow

photographing, broadcasting, or televising court proceedings. Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee

sponsored two amendments: one would authorize $3 million dollars annually (from fiscal 2006

through 2008) for grants to state and local prosecutors, and to develop protective service

programs for young witnesses and their families; and another would create a grant program for

the establishment of a threat assessment database for the purposes of analyzing trends of domestic

terrorism and crime. Representative Adam Schiff also sponsored two amendments: one would

authorize $20 million annually (from 2006 through 2010) for the U.S. Marshals Service to hire

entry and senior level deputy marshals for the Judiciary; and another would authorize an

additional $20 million annually (also from 2006 through 2010) to implement courtroom safety

and security planning for the same period of time. Representative Robert C. Scott’s amendment

would strike habeas corpus provisions from the bill. All of these amendments were adopted. On

November 9, the House passed H.R. 1751 with several amendments, including the following:

•

Representative James Sensenbrenner’s Manager’s amendment to clarify text in

the House report that the death penalty shall apply only where death results and

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

covers only those offenders who qualify as principals in the killing; to make

tribal courts eligible for court security grants; and to correct drafting of

coordination requirement between U.S. Marshals and Administrative Office of

the U.S. Courts on security measures.

•

Representative Steve King’s amendment to authorize any federal judge,

magistrate, U.S. Attorney, or any other officer of the Department of Justice who

represents the U.S. in a court of law to carry firearms, subject to training and

regulation that the Attorney General prescribes.

•

Representative Henry Cuellar’s amendment to add a new category for witness

protection grants for jurisdictions that share an international border and face a

demonstrable threat from cross-border crime.

•

Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee’s amendment to require the Attorney General

to work, through the Office of Justice Programs, to make grants to the highest

state courts in states participating in the threat assessment database.

•

Representative Bob Filner’s amendment to provide grants for young witness

protection to include support for young witnesses trying to leave criminal gangs

or to prevent initial gang recruitment.

•

Representative Anthony Weiner’s amendment to make state and local courts

eligible for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant program; the Byrne Memorial

State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Discretionary Grant program; the

Assistance for Children’s Justice Act grants; and State Justice Statistic program

for Statistical Analysis Center

Representative Scott sponsored two amendments, one to replace all mandatory minimum

sentences with higher maximum sentences, and another to delete language providing the death

penalty for the killing of federally funded public safety officers. However, neither amendment

was adopted. On November 10, 2005, H.R. 1751 was referred to the Senate Committee on the

Judiciary.

On May 18, 2005, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on “Protecting the

Judiciary at Home and in the Courthouse.” The committee heard testimony on security

challenges, and recommendations from a judge whose family members were killed, the Chair of

the Committee on Security and Facilities of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the

Director of the U.S. Marshals Service, a U.S. Marshal, and a Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge.

Subsequently, on July 29, 2005, Senator Jon Kyl introduced the Law Enforcement Officers’

Protection Act of 2005 (S. 1605), calling for mandatory punishment for criminals who murder or

assault police officers, firefighters, judges, court employees, ambulance-crew members, and other

public-safety officers in the course of their duties. On November 7, Senator Arlen Specter

introduced the Courtroom Security Improvement Act of 2005 (S. 1968), which has components

similar to those in H.R. 1751. Both Senate bills, which have been referred to the Committee on

the Judiciary, seek to provide greater protection for judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims and

their family members, and to institute penalties for crimes committed against them.

On March 2, 2005, the Judiciary submitted an FY2005 emergency supplemental appropriations

request for $101.8 million for the Court of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services,

Salaries and Expenses Account, to fund costs associated with anticipated workload resulting from

recent Supreme Court rulings on sentencing guidelines and class action suits. The Senate

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

provided $65 million in its version of the FY2005 supplemental (H.R. 1268/P.L. 109-13), but the

conference agreement (H.Rept. 109-72) did not include any funding for the Judiciary.19

FY2006 Request

For FY2006, the Judiciary initially requested $5.95 billion in total appropriations, a 9.7% increase

over the $5.43 billion approved for FY2005. Of the total increase of $526.5 million, $408.3

million (78%) would be for mandatory pay adjustments, inflation and other adjustments to the

base required to maintain current services. The remaining $118.2 million (22%) would be for

workload increases and program enhancements. In requesting an additional 1,211 full-time

equivalent staff positions (FTEs) to the 32,902 FTEs funded for FY2005, the Judiciary seeks to

continue restoring staff positions that were cut in FY2004 due to insufficient funding and to cope

with the increased workload. Current staff levels are below FY2001 levels. During the period

2001 to 2005 there has been a 9% increase in released felons who are supervised by federal

probation officers and a 12% increase in criminal cases. Staff reductions have affected 87 of the

94 judicial districts nationwide.

On June 13, 2005, the President transmitted to Congress two budget amendments for the

Judiciary. The first amendment requested $17.8 million to fund 28 new temporary bankruptcy

judgeships, including the salaries and benefits of the judges, their support staff, and data

collection and tax return provisions (for the Court of Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial

Services account). The additional funds were requested in accordance with the Bankruptcy Abuse

Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-8). The act was signed into law on

April 20, 2005, after the FY2006 budget request had already been submitted. The second

amendment requested $690,000 for the Court Security account to provide for one additional court

security officer position in Delaware (required based on four new bankruptcy judgeships, and

security equipment associated with P.L. 109-8). Together, these two amendments total nearly

$18.5 million. The budget amendment request increased the total FY2006 request to $5.97

billion.20

House Committee Markup

On June 21, 2005, the House Appropriations Committee marked up the FY2006 appropriations

bill for the Judiciary. The bill would provide $5.8 billion for the federal judiciary, $341 million

(6%) more than the FY2005 level, and $203 million below the amended FY2006 request. The

amount would “fully fund the court’s revised request for security improvements at federal judicial

facilities, and enable the courts to effectively process priority criminal, civil and bankruptcy

cases.”21 The committee adopted, without objection, Representative Todd Tiahrt’s amendment

directing the U.S. Marshals Service to provide for the security for homes of federal judges as well

as managing judicial facility security. The House Committee also expressed its expectation that

the Judiciary, as it has in previous years, will submit a financial plan within 45 days of the

enactment of the FY2006 appropriations Act. The plan would provide information on available

Senate Committee on Appropriations, “Senate and House Conferees Agree to FY2005 Supplemental,” Press Release,

May 3, 2005.

The amounts of the budget amendments are reflected in Table 7.

House Committee on Appropriations, “Full Committee Reports FY06 Transportation, Treasury, Housing, and Urban

Development Bill,” Press Release, June 21, 2005.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

funds including appropriations, fee collections, and carry-over balances, and would set the

baseline for determining if reprogramming notification is required.

House Action

On June 30, 2005, the House passed appropriations for the Judiciary at the same level of funding

as proposed by the House Committee. The legislation also includes “the court’s revised request

for security improvements at federal judicial facilities, and enable the courts to effectively process

priority criminal, civil and bankruptcy cases.”22

Senate Committee Markup

On July 21, 2005, the Senate Committee on Appropriations marked up the FY2006 appropriations

bill for the Judiciary, following the Subcommittee markup two days earlier on July 19, 2005. The

Senate Committee recommendation for FY2006 was $5,778.5 million, or $10.8 million more than

the House-passed amount, $5,767.7 million.

The Senate committee report (S.Rept. 109-109) stated the Committee’s concern about the rent

increases and support for the Judiciary efforts to work with the GSA to reduce costs. The

Committee also urged the Judicial Conference to consider the size of future construction projects

as well as courtroom sharing as ways to reduce space needs. The Committee directed the

Administrative Office to report to the committee (no more than 120 days after enactment of the

bill) on the financial savings that could be realized through courtroom sharing. The Committee

also directed the Administrative Office to report to the committee (no later than June 1, 2006) on

actual increases in workload that have resulted from recent Supreme Court decisions to help the

Committee better understand the workload impact of the decisions. With regard to court security,

the Committee expressed its concern about the safety of “all Judicial employees and urges the

Administrative Office to continue to work closely with the United States Marshals Service to

forge an effective and lasting accommodation to achieve this common goal.” The Committee also

allocated $1 million to the Administrative Office to contract with the National Academy of Public

Administration to review resource and management issues (including rent costs, court caseloads

and other issues that have resulted in budget shortfalls and subsequently resulted in the Judiciary

seeking supplemental appropriations).

Senate Action

On October 19, 2005, the Senate adopted Senator Christopher Bond’s amendment (SA2109), to

provide the Judiciary with essentially the same procurement authorities as authorized for the

executive branch. The amendment’s intent is to give the judicial branch greater parity, flexibility,

and potential cost savings. On October 20, 2005, the Senate approved appropriations for the

Judiciary at the same level of funding as proposed by the Senate Committee.

House Committee on Appropriations, “House Passes FY06 Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban

Development Bill,” Press Release, June 30, 1005.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

Conference Action

The conference agreement provided a 6% increase in FY2006 funding for the Judiciary at $5.76

billion—$330.2 million above FY2005 funding but $214.5 million below the FY2006 request.

The total FY2006 funding is $11.3 million below the House amount, and $22.l million below the

Senate amount.

Following are highlights of the FY2006 Judiciary budget:

Supreme Court

For FY2006, the total request for the Supreme Court (salaries and expenses plus buildings and

grounds) is $66.3 million, a 1.3% decrease over the previous year. The request was for two

accounts: (1) Salaries and Expenses—$60.7 million requested, compared with the FY2005

enacted amount of $57.4 million, and (2) Care of the Building and Grounds—$5.6 million

requested, compared with $9.8 million enacted for FY2005. Most of the requested increase in

salaries and expenses was to fund mandatory increases in salary and benefit costs and inflationary

fixed costs. An additional 12 FTEs are requested for new protection and emergency procedures to

enhance the Court’s overall security. The buildings and grounds account decreased because the

previous year’s funding provided for non-recurring projects for exterior building improvements

and restoration work, and building security upgrades. The House and the Senate passed the same

amount as the FY2006 budget request for both accounts, and the conference reflects the same

funding.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

The FY2006 request is $26.5 million, a 23% increase over the $21.5 million for FY2005. In

addition to providing for pay and other inflationary adjustments, the requested increases support

the court’s efforts to improve security, including new perimeter security barriers and enhanced

information technology systems. The House passed $24.6 million for FY2006—an increase of

$3.1 million above the FY2005 funding level, but less than the amount requested. The Senate

approved $23.5 million, or $1.1 million less than the House amount.

The conference agreement provided $24.0 million—$0.6 million less than the House amount, and

$0.5 million more than the Senate amount.

Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services, Salaries and

Expenses

This account, making up almost 75% of the Judiciary budget, funds most of the day-to-day

activities and operations of the federal courts. The FY2006 request totals $4,478.7 million, an

increase of 8.1%, over the FY2005 level of just over $4,125.3 million. The House passed

$4,348.8 million—an increase of $223.5 million above the FY2005 funding level. The Senate

approved $4,375 million—$26.2 million above the House amount.

The conference agreement provided $4,348.8 million—the amount proposed by the House. The

conferees stated that there was substantial carry-over funding from the previous fiscal year that

would be available to supplement FY2006 appropriations. The conferees encourage the Judiciary

to make available (within the funding provided) $1.3 million for the Edwin L. Nelson Local

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

Initiatives Program, with $1 million reserved for local court grants. In addition, $672,000 was

provided for Electronic Probation Pretrial Services under the Judiciary Information Technology

Fund. The conferees also directed the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to report on all

new trends in caseload changes, including those resulting from increased law enforcement

activities along the borders, recently enacted bankruptcy reform legislation, and the Supreme

Court decisions concerning sentencing guidelines. In addition, the conferees encouraged the

Administrative Office to take into consideration the district courts with heavy caseloads along the

international border as the formula for distribution of FY2006 funds is developed.

Court Security

This account provides funds for the court security officers and for Federal Protective Service

(FPS) security charges for FY2006. For FY2005, Congress approved a transfer of funding from

the Salaries and Expenses and the Defender Services accounts to the Court Security account for

FPS security charges. The FY2006 revised request was $390.3 million, an increase of almost 20%

over the $327.6 million enacted for FY2005. The increase was mainly due to the Federal

Protective Service charges, court security officer hourly wage adjustments, and security systems

and equipment costs. The House-passed amount was $379.5 million—an increase of $51.9

million above the FY2005 funding level. The Senate approved $372.4 million, about $7 million

less than the House amount.

The conference agreement provided $372 million—$7.5 million below the House amount, and

$426,000 below the Senate amount. Under the conference agreement, payments to the Federal

Protective Service (FPS) will be limited to not more than $65.5 million, reflecting the conferees’

concern that the “FPS has yet to produce a full accounting of charges to the Judiciary,” and that

“security decisions made in the field without consultation with the Administrative Office have

placed in jeopardy other important court activities.” The conferees also directed the

Administrative Office to work with the U.S. Marshals Service to resolve an impasse over which

entity would administer maintenance of the $11.9 million for security systems provided in P.L.

109-13, the FY2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on

Terror, and the Tsunami Relief.

Defender Services

This account funds the operations of the federal public defender and community defender

organizations, and the compensation, reimbursement, and expenses of private practice “panel

attorneys” appointed by the courts to serve as defense counsel to indigent individuals accused of

federal crimes. The FY2006 request was $768.l million, an increase of 15.1% over the $667.4

million appropriated for FY2005. The increase was to provide for pay and inflationary costs and

to fund potential workload increase arising from recent Supreme Court rulings. The House passed

$721.9 million—an increase of $54.6 million above the FY2005 funding level. The Senate

approved $710.8 million, or $11.1 million less than the House amount.

The conference agreement provided $717 million—$4.9 million below the House amount, and

$6.2 million above the Senate amount. Although the conference deleted language denying costof-living adjustments to panel attorneys (as the Senate proposed) the issue will be revisited in

FY2007.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

Administrative Provisions

A number of administrative provisions for the Judiciary were contained in the conference

agreement, including the following:

•

A Senate provision requiring a financial plan to serve as an equivalent of

operating plans required of other entities receiving funding under this act.

•

A Senate provision providing cost of living adjustment to justices and judges.

•

Senate language providing certain procurement authorities to the judicial branch

that are currently available to the legislative and executive branches, and

directing the Administrative Office to provide a report to the Committee on

Appropriations detailing the two-year history of use of the authorities on or

before May 21, 2008.

Supplemental Request

As a result of Hurricane Katrina, the Judiciary has requested $65.5 million in emergency

supplemental funding to cover costs associated with the disruption of federal court operations in

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, including the relocation of over 400 judges and court staff.

Emergency measures could remain in place for six months or longer. On September 16, 2005, the

Judicial Conference urged the President to transmit the supplemental request to Congress. The

supplemental request was attached to the Department of Defense appropriations bill (P.L. 109148); Congress provided $18 million.

Across-the-Board Cut Exemption Request

On November 4, 2005, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote to both the President and the

congressional leadership to request that the Judiciary be exempt from any across-the-board

reductions for FY2006. He asserted that a 2% across-the-board cut applied to the Judiciary would

result in approximately 1,000 staff reductions, and “harm the ability of the courts to fulfill their

mission.” On the same day, the Judicial Conference approved a resolution urging the Congress

and the President to exempt the Judiciary from any FY2006 across-the-board cut, and to provide

funding at least at the level requested in the Judiciary’s request. The Judicial Conference

expressed concern that an across-the-board cut would “severely jeopardize the performance of

our constitutional duties.” (This request follows the Judiciary’s appeal to the House and Senate

conferees requesting a total of $5.801 billion in order for the Judiciary to carry out its duties.)23

The FY2006 Defense appropriations bill (P.L. 109-148) included a one percent across-the-board

rescission of all FY2006 non-emergency federal discretionary funding; the Judiciary was not

exempted.

The Third Branch, Judiciary Seeks to Avert Cuts, Nov. 2005, vol. 37, no. 11.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

Title V: Executive Office of the President and Funds

Appropriated to the President

Executive Office of the President Budget and Key Policy Issues

Table 8.Title V: Executive Office of the President (EOP) and Funds Appropriated to

the President Appropriations, FY2005 to FY2006

(millions of dollars)

FY2005

Enacteda

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Enacted

Compensation of the President

$0.5

The White House Office

(salaries and expenses)

62.0

53.0

53.8

56.6

53.8

Executive Residence, White

House (operating expenses)

12.7

12.4

White House Repair and

Restoration

1.9

1.7

Council of Economic Advisors

4.0

Office of Policy Development

2.3

3.5

National Security Council

8.9

8.7

Office of Administration

91.5

98.6

89.3

98.6

89.3

Office of Management and

Budget

67.9

68.4

67.9

68.4

76.9

Office of National Drug Control

Policy

(salaries and expenses)

26.8

24.2

26.9

24.2

26.9

Office of National Drug Control

Policy

Counterdrug Technology

Assessment Center

41.7

30.0

Federal Drug Control Programs:

High Intensity Drug Trafficking

Areas Program

226.5

—

236.0

227.0

Federal Drug Control Programs:

Other Programs

212.0

213.3

238.3

191.4

194.9

Office

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

FY2005

Enacteda

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Enacted

Office of the Vice President

(salaries and expenses)

4.5

Official Residence of the Vice

President (operating expenses)

0.3

833.9

525.0

787.9

730.8

735.5

Office

Total, EOP and Funds

Appropriated to the

President

Source: Figures are from the President’s budget request and a budget authority table provided by the House

Committee on Appropriations, except Senate figures are from a budget table in S.Rept. 109-109. Because of

differing treatment of offsets, the totals will not always match the Administration’s totals. The figures within this

table may differ slightly from those in the text due to supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and other funding

actions. Columns may not add due to rounding or exclusion of smaller program line-items.

FY2005 figures reflect an across-the-board rescission of 0.83%.

All but three offices in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) are funded in the same

appropriations act entitled the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban

Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies.24

For the fifth consecutive fiscal year, the President’s FY2006 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 $183.3 million in FY2006 for the accounts proposed to be consolidated, an increase of

0.05% from the $183.2 million appropriated in FY2005 (after the 0.83% rescission). 25 The nine

accounts included in the consolidated appropriation would be the following:

•

Compensation of the President,

•

White House Office (including the Homeland Security Council),

•

Executive Residence at the White House,

•

White House Repair and Restoration,

•

Office of Policy Development,

•

Office of Administration,

•

Council of Economic Advisers,

•

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (authorized by P.L. 108-458), and

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).

P.L. 108-447, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005, at Division J, Title I, Section 122, required a 0.83%

across-the-board rescission in non-defense discretionary spending accounts. The FY2005 appropriation for the EOP

accounts proposed to be consolidated totaled $187.126 million before the rescission.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

•

National Security Council.26

The EOP budget submission stated that consolidation would permit “the President to immediately

realign or reallocate the resources and staff available in response to changing needs and priorities

or emergent national needs.”27 The conference committees on the FY2002 through FY2005

appropriations act decided to continue with separate appropriations for the EOP accounts to

facilitate congressional oversight of their funding and operation.

The FY2006 budget, for the third consecutive year, proposed a general provision in Title VI that

would provide authority for the EOP to transfer 10% of the appropriated funds among the

following accounts:

•

The White House, 28

•

Office of Management and Budget (OMB),

•

Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP),

•

Special Assistance to the President and the Official Residence of the Vice

President (transfers would be subject to the approval of the Vice President),

•

Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality,

•

Office of Science and Technology Policy,

•

Office of the United States Trade Representative. 29

According to the EOP budget submission, the transfer authority would “allow the President to

address, in a limited way, emerging priorities and shifting demands” and would “provide the

President with flexibility, improve the efficiency of the EOP, and reduce administrative

burdens.”30 The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005 (Section 533, Title V, Division H)

authorized transfers of up to 10% of FY2005 appropriated funds among the accounts for the

White House Office, OMB, ONDCP, and the Special Assistance to the President and Official

Residence of the Vice President.

For FY2006, the House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House agreed that

separate appropriations for the EOP accounts be continued. The Senate Committee on

Appropriations recommended and the Senate agreed to the same, with one exception, proposing

to merge the Office of Policy Development and its funding into the White House Office. The

conference committee followed the House provision. Section 940 of the House-passed bill and

Section 716 of the Senate bill as passed continue the authorized transfers of up to 10% among the

accounts for the White House, Special Assistance to the President and Official Residence of the

Vice President, Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality, Office of

U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government

Fiscal Year 2006, Appendix (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 980. (Hereafter referred to as FY2006 Budget, Appendix.)

U.S. Executive Office of the President, Fiscal Year 2006 Congressional Budget Submission (Washington: GPO [Feb.

2005]), p. 12. (Hereafter cited as EOP Budget Submission.)

The accounts under the White House are Compensation of the President, White House Office (including the

Homeland Security Council), Executive Residence at the White House, White House Repair and Restoration, Council

of Economic Advisers, Office of Policy Development, National Security Council, Office of Administration.

FY2006 Budget, Appendix, p. 13.

EOP Budget Submission, p. 13.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

Science and Technology Policy, and Office of the United States Trade Representative. Section

725 of the conference report authorizes 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.

The OMB Director (or such other officer as the President may designate in writing) is authorized

to make such transfers 15 days after notifying the House and Senate Committees on

Appropriations. The transferred funds are to be merged with and available for the same time and

purposes as the appropriation receiving the funds. Such transfers cannot increase an appropriation

by more than 50%. The Vice President must approve transfers from the accounts for the Special

Assistance to the President and Official Residence of the Vice President.

Notable among the House Committee’s funding recommendations for the EOP accounts are the

following. Under the White House Office, $750,000 is included for the Privacy and Civil

Liberties Oversight Board and the funding for the White House Communications Agency is

transferred to DOD’s Defense Information Agency (DIA). For OMB, the committee increases the

funding and full-time equivalents and directs that the increases be applied in the areas of Defense,

Homeland Security, Natural Resources, and Human Resources “to emphasize that the principal

responsibility for which funds are being provided is the development and the execution of the

Federal budget.” With regard to the Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART), OMB is

required to:

include a detailed description of each program or activity or project that OMB intends to

subject to its [PART] study process for the 2007 and 2008 budgets ... [including] the specific

methodology that will be used to conduct each study, the data that will be used in the

analysis for each program studied, and office responsible for providing OMB with

information and analysis.

Under the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center account, the committee instructs ONDCP

to submit, with its FY2007 budget request, “an analysis of options and recommendations for the

future course of counter drug technology research.” The committee recommends that the High

Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program (HIDTAP) continue to be funded under the EOP (rather

than under the Department of Justice, as requested in the FY2006 budget) and fully funds the

account (rather than reducing it by 50%, as the FY2006 budget requested).

The House-passed bill includes several changes from the reported version. An amendment offered

and then modified by Representative Carolyn Maloney which was agreed to by voice vote would

provide funding of $1.5 million (an additional $750,000) for the Privacy and Civil Liberties

Oversight Board. Under an amendment offered by Representative Darlene Hooley and agreed to

by the House on a 315-103 vote (Roll No. 343), funding for OMB is reduced by $9 million and

for the HIDTAP is increased by $9 million. An amendment offered by Representative Mark

Souder and agreed to by the House on a 268-151 vote (Roll No. 344) provides funding of $238.3

million dollars for other federal drug control programs and $145 million for the national media

campaign, an account under the programs. Both amounts represent increases of $25 million over

the House committee recommendations.

OMB’s statement of administration policy on the House version of the legislation addresses

several provisions under the EOP. It urges the transfer of the HIDTAP to the Department of

Justice and reduced funding of the program, the consolidation of the White House Accounts and

continuation of the Enterprise Services initiative to OMB and ONDCP, and funding of the

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board at the level requested in the budget and modeling of

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

the board after the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.31 The views on the transfer of

HIDTAP and the consolidation of the White House Accounts are reiterated in OMB’s statement of

administration policy on the Senate version of the legislation.32

The Senate Committee on Appropriations marked up H.R. 3058 on July 21, 2005. The Committee

recommended $730.8 million, $33 million less than FY2005 (excluding FY2005 emergency

funding for disaster relief) and $48 million less than the House-passed amount. The difference

from FY2005 and the House’s FY2006 figure is largely in a reduction for drug control programs

other than the HIDTAP. Among the Committee’s funding recommendations for the EOP accounts

are these: the Office of Policy Development and its funds are merged into the White House Office

account, OMB is funded at the level requested by the President, and, like the House bill, the

HIDTAP’s funding is increased and remains within the EOP’s appropriation.

The Senate passed its version of H.R. 3058 on October 20,2005. The Senate supported the Senate

Appropriations Committee recommendations.

The conference agreement funds the White House Office, the Office of Administration, and the

ONDCP at the levels passed by the House. The appropriation for the Privacy and Civil Liberties

Oversight Board (under the White House Office Account) is $1.5 million dollars. As in the

House-passed bill, a separate appropriation is provided for the Office of Policy Development.

OMB is funded at a higher level than either the House-passed or Senate-passed bills provided.

The HIDTAP is funded at the Senate-passed level. The Other Federal Drug Control Programs

account is appropriated an amount less than that passed by the House, but more than the Senatepassed funding. Among the programs funded in this account, a national media campaign is funded

at $100 million dollars and the National Drug Court Institute and the National Alliance for Model

State Drug Laws are each funded at $1 million dollars.

Title VI: Independent Agencies

Independent Agencies Budget and Key Policy Issues

In addition to funding for the aforementioned Departments and agencies, a collection of 21

independent agencies receive funding through this appropriations bill. Table 10 lists

appropriations for FY2005 as enacted, and for FY2006 as requested in the President’s Budget and

passed in the House and the Senate, for each agency.

U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R.

3058—Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and the District of Columbia

Appropriations Bill, FY2006, June 29, 2005, pp. 3-5. (Hereafter cited as Statement of Administration Policy on H.R.

3058 (House).)

U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R.

3058—Transportation, Treasury, Judiciary, HUD, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY2006, Oct. 19, 2005,

p. 3. (Hereafter cited as Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3058 (Senate).)

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

Table 9.Title VI: Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY2005 to FY2006

(in millions of dollars)

FY2005

Enacteda

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

FY2006

Senate

FY2006

Enacted

Architectural and Transportation

Barriers Compliance Board

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Election Assistance Commissionb

Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation: Office of Inspector

General (transfer)

Federal Election Commission

Federal Labor Relations Authority

Federal Maritime Commission

General Services Administration

216

219

199

219

217

Merit Systems Protection Board

Morris K. Udall Foundation

311

315

325

328

329

1,500

Community Development Revolving

Loan Fund

National Transportation Safety Board

Neighborhood Reinvestment

Corporation

114

118

115

118

Office of Government Ethics

18,212

18,743

18,742

18,743

18,742

124

125

120

125

123

Government Payments for Annuitants,

Employees Health Benefits

8,135

8,393

Government Payments for Annuitants,

Employee Life Insurance

Payment to Civil Service Retirement

and Disability Fund

9,772

10,072

Office of Special Counsel

Selective Service System+

United States Interagency Council on

Homelessness

Agency

National Archives and Records

Administration

National Credit Union Administration

Limitation on direct loans

Office of Personnel Management (total)

Salaries and Expenses

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

FY2005

Enacteda

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

FY2006

Senate

FY2006

Enacted

United States Postal Service

630

149

178

United States Tax Court

19,756

19,948

19,967

19,986

19,989

Agency

Total, Independent Agencies

Source: Conference Report on H.R. 3058, Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the

Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, Congressional Record,

November 18, 2005, pp. H10935-H10937.

FY2005 figures reflect an across-the-board rescission of 0.83%.

Selective Service System is included in House bill; in Senate, this agency is in the Military

Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Defense (DOD) are in the

midst of implementing new human resources management systems for their federal civilian

employees. A significant issue for the human resources management-related federal agencies

during this appropriations cycle has been the impact of the DHS and DOD changes on the labormanagement relations and the adverse actions and appeals workloads of the Federal Labor

Relations Authority, Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and Office of Special Counsel

(OSC) and on the workforce management policies of the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM).

Merit Systems Protection Board

Both the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations reports state that the increased funding

recommended (and approved by both houses) for MSPB is to accommodate additional appeals

cases resulting from the decisions of DHS and DOD to maintain MSPB as an arbitrator.

Office of Personnel Management

Several directives for OPM are included in the House Committee on Appropriations report as

follows. OPM is to continue to implement and refine the new DHS and DOD personnel systems

before “bringing the system” to other agencies and departments. An FY2006 operating plan,

signed by the OPM Director, must be submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations

Committees within 60 days and include funding levels for the various offices, centers, programs,

and initiatives in the budget justification. OPM is to include “clear, detailed, and concise”

information in its budget justification on the funding and measurement of programs. OPM and

OMB must submit a report to Congress within 90 days after the act’s enactment on:

how many veterans and disabled veterans are employed in the Federal Government by

department and agency, including in the Executive Office of the President, the barriers that

exist to hiring veterans and disabled veterans, and ways to increase the number of veterans

and disabled veterans employed in the Federal Government to the level employed at the time

of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.

Notable among the funding recommended by the House Committee on Appropriations is

$680,000 for OPM to partner with the Partnership for Public Service “to identify successful

recruitment models across different college campuses” for application to the federal government

and a reduction of $3 million from the Center for Financial Services because the budget request

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

did not support costs related to performance management, program evaluation, and research

projects. OMB’s statement of administration policy on the legislation identifies the $3 million

funding reduction and the prohibition on expanding civil service reform to other agencies at this

time as among the provisions that “would impede” implementation of the President’s

Management Agenda (PMA). The statement cautions that, “if the final version of the bill were to

significantly erode the PMA, the President’s senior advisors would recommend he veto the bill.”33

The Senate Committee on Appropriations directs OPM to continue its work with GAO and GSA

in studying the child care needs of federal employees and to reevaluate its efforts to inform and

educate agencies on promoting the program which subsidizes child care for lower income

employees. Additionally, OPM is directed to carefully consider GAO’s recommendations for

modernization of the retirement system and continue consultations with GAO on the project. The

Committee recommends funding of up to $10.3 million for e-Government projects, matching the

President’s request.

The conference report specifies that, of the $122.5 million appropriation for salaries and

expenses, $6.9 million is for the Enterprise Human Resources Integration project, $1.4 million is

for the Human Resources Line of Business project, $500,000 is for the E-training project, and

$1.4 million is for the E-payroll project.

Office of Special Counsel

Directives for the Office of Special Counsel included in the Senate Committee on Appropriations

report are these: (1) that OSC submit its FY2007 budget justification on the first Monday in

February, (2) that, concurrent with the budget submission, OSC submit a comprehensive strategy

to address capital needs and case processing, and (3) that OSC provide quarterly staffing reports

to Congress.

Federal Election Commission

The FEC administers federal campaign finance law, including overseeing disclosure

requirements, limits on contributions and expenditures, and the presidential election public

funding system; the agency retains civil enforcement authority for the law.

The President’s fiscal 2006 budget proposed an appropriation of $54.6 million for the FEC, a

5.5% increase above the fiscal 2005 appropriation of $51.7 million. The increase reflects

adjustments for inflation and salary and benefit increases, but no additional funds or staff for new

programs. The House Appropriations Committee recommended and the House voted an

appropriation of $54.7 million, with at least $4.7 million designated for internal automated data

systems and $5,000 for representational and reception expenses.

The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended and the Senate voted an appropriation of

$54.6 million, the same as in the President’s budget. The Senate specified, as did the House, that

at least $4.7 million shall be designated for internal automated data systems and $5,000 for

representational and reception expenses. One provision added in the Senate committee, to allow

U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R.

3058—Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and the District of Columbia

Appropriations Bill, FY2006, June 29, 2005, pp. 4-5.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

unlimited transfers of funds between leadership PACs (those established, financed, maintained, or

controlled by a federal candidate or officeholder) and national party committees, was deleted by

voice vote on the Senate floor.

The conference version adopted the House-passed appropriation level of $54.7 million, with at

least $4.7 million designated for internal automated data systems and $5,000 for representational

and reception expenses.

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.

Table 10. General Services Administration Appropriations, FY2005 to FY2006

(in millions of dollars)

FY2005

Enacteda

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

FY2006

Senate

FY2006

Enacted

Limitations on Availability of

Revenues

$7,217

$7,769

$7,890

$7,753

Limitations on Obligation: New

Construction Projects

709

640

708

829

792

Limitations on Obligation: Repairs

and Alterations

980

1,029

961

861

Fund/Office

Federal Buildings Fund

Rescission

-$106

General Activities Accounts

Government-wide Policy

Operating Expenses

100

Office of Inspector General

Allowances and Office Staff for

Former Presidents

Federal Citizen Information

Center Fund

Electronic Gov’t (E-Gov) Fund

216

219

217

219

217

GSA direct appropriations total

Source: Conference Report on H.R. 3058, Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the

Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, Congressional Record,

Nov. 18, 2005, pp. H10935-H10936.

FY2005 figures reflect an across-the-board rescission of 0.83%.

As reported and passed in the House, H.R. 3058 provided $199.4 million in direct appropriations.

Of this total, an appropriation of $52.8 million was provided for government-wide policy and

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

$82.2 million for operating expenses; $43.4 million for the Office of Inspector General; $2.9

million for allowances and office staff for former Presidents; $3.0 million for the electronic

government initiatives; and $15 million to be deposited into the Federal Citizen Information

Center Fund.

As reported and passed in the Senate, H.R. 3058 provided $219 million in direct appropriations,

the same as requested by the President. The Senate and the President recommended $5 million for

the e-Gov fund compared to $3 million as approved by the House (see below). Otherwise the

Senate version mirrored the levels in the House-passed version.

The committee of conference appropriated $217 million in direct appropriations. Of this total, an

appropriation of $52.8 million was provided for government-wide policy and $99.9 million for

operating expenses; $43.4 million for the Office of Inspector General; $2.9 million for allowances

and office staff for former Presidents; $3 million for the electronic government initiatives; and

$15 million to be deposited into the Federal Citizen Information Center Fund.34

Federal Buildings Fund (FBF)

Most GSA spending is financed through the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). Rent assessments

from agencies paid into the FBF provide the principal source of its funding. Congress may also

provide direct funding into the FBF, as occurred in FY2004, with an appropriation of $443

million. Congress directs the GSA as to the allocation or limitation on spending of funds from the

FBF in provisions found accompanying GSA’s annual appropriations.

As approved by the House, $630.8 million shall remain available until expended for new

construction projects from the FBF, which totals $7.8 billion. For repairs and alterations, $393

million shall remain available until expended. This amount includes $15.7 million to implement a

glass fragmentation program; $10.0 million to implement a chlorofluorocarbons program; and

amounts to provide such reimbursable fencing, lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on

private or other property not in Government ownership or control as may be appropriate to enable

the United States Secret Service to perform its protective functions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3056.

As passed by the Senate, H.R. 3058 recommends a limitation of $829.1 million for the FBF (an

increase of $121.0 million above House enacted amount) for the construction of new federal

facilities, and $961.4 million for repairs and alterations (same as House enacted amount). The

Senate Committee also noted that it strongly supports the purpose and structure of the FBF, and

believes that GSA rent policies are “appropriate and necessary.” Any reduction in rent for federal

courthouses will “inhibit the ability” of GSA to address comprehensive building needs of the

federal government. The Senate Committee also directed the GSA Office of the Chief Architect to

use $5.0 million to continue to work with the private sector to enhance existing risk methodology

designed to support structural upgrades and hazard mitigation in new construction projects and

major renovations to existing facilities.

The committee of conference authorized $792 million to remain available until expended for new

construction projects from the FBF, which totals $7.8 billion. For repairs and alterations, $861

million shall remain available until expended.

In the FY2006 Defense appropriations bill (P.L. 109-148), Congress provided a supplemental appropriation of $38

million to GSA’s federal buildings fund to respond to the consequences of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.

Congressional Research Service

DOT, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, D.C., EOP, Independent Agencies: 2006 Appropriations

Electronic Government Fund (E-gov Fund)

Originally unveiled in advance of the President’s proposed budget for FY2002, the E-gov Fund

and its appropriation has been a somewhat contentious matter between the President and

Congress. The President’s initial $20 million request was cut to $5 million, which was the amount

provided for FY2003, as well. Funding thereafter was held at $3 million for FY2004 and FY2005.

Created to support interagency e-gov initiatives approved by the Director of OMB, the fund and

the projects it funds have been subject to close scrutiny by, and accountability to, congressional

appropriators. The House approved the $3 million for FY2006 recommended by appropriators;

the Senate allocated $5 million. The final amount prescribed by conferees and accepted by both

chambers was $3 million.

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

The custodian of the historically valuable records of the federal government since its

establishment in 1934, NARA also prescribes policy and provides both guidance and

management assistance concerning the entire life cycle of federal records. It also administers the

presidential libraries system; publishes the laws, regulations, and presidential and other

documents; and assists the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), which manages federal

security classification and declassification policy; and the National Historical Publications and

Records Commission (NHPRC), which makes grants nationwide to help nonprofit organizations

identify, preserve, and provide access to materials that document American history.

For FY2006, the President had requested $323 million fo

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.