# Transportation, the Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the Executive Office of the President, and Independent Agencies (TTHUD): FY2007 Appropriations > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL33551 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** June 4, 2007 - **Citation:** RL33551 ## Text Transportation, the Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the Executive Office of the President, and Independent Agencies (TTHUD): FY2007 Appropriations (name redacted), Coordinator Analyst in Transportation Policy (name redacted), Coordinator Specialist in Transportation Policy June 4, 2007 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL33551 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations Summary The Bush Administration requested $138.5 billion (after scorekeeping adjustments) for these agencies for FY2007, an increase of $2.3 billion over the $136.2 billion Congress provided in the agencies’ FY2006 appropriations act (this FY2006 figure reflects a 1.0% across-the-board rescission that was included in the FY2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, P.L. 109148). The total FY2006 funding (after scorekeeping adjustments) for the agencies in this bill was $146.3 billion, due to emergency supplemental funding provided to deal with the effects of the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005. In the appropriations process during the 109th Congress, the House-passed version of H.R. 5576, the FY2007 Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill provided a net total of $139.6 billion for FY2007, $3.4 billion (2%) over the amount provided in the FY2006 act and $1.1 billion (less than 1%) over the Administration’s request (after scorekeeping adjustments). The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out H.R. 5576 on July 26, 2006, recommending a net total of $141.2 billion, $3.6 billion (3%) over the amount provided in the FY2006 Act and $2.6 billion (2%) over the Administration request. Both the House-passed and Senate-reported bills provided significant increases over the requested levels of funding for aviation programs and Amtrak, for a number of programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and for the Executive Office of the President. H.R. 5576 expired with the close of the 109th Congress. The Senate did not consider H.R. 5576, and Congress did not enact a regular FY2007 TTHUD appropriations bill (nor most other FY2007 appropriations bills). Instead, FY2007 funds were provided in a series of continuing resolutions (P.L. 109-289, P.L. 109-369, and P.L. 109-383), which funded agencies at the lower of the House- or Senate-passed levels or their FY2006 levels (since the Senate had not passed an FY2007 TTHUD appropriations bill, TTHUD agencies were funded at the lower of the House-passed or FY2006 levels). On February 15, 2007, President Bush signed the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5), which provided funding for most federal agencies for the remainder of FY2007. The law provided agencies with funding for FY2007 essentially at their FY2006 levels, except where otherwise statedi. Both DOT and HUD received increases over their regular FY2006 levels (excluding FY2006 supplemental funding). FY2007 funding levels for programs, projects, and activities were not specified in P.L. 110-5. This report will not be updated. Congressional Research Service TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations Contents Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................2 Different Appropriations Subcommittee Structures ..........................................................3 Title I: Transportation Appropriations..........................................................................................6 Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues .................................................7 Amtrak ...........................................................................................................................8 Aviation ..........................................................................................................................9 Surface Transportation .................................................................................................. 11 Maritime Administration (MARAD) ............................................................................. 11 Title II: Department of the Treasury .......................................................................................... 12 Treasury Offices and Bureaus (Excluding the Internal Revenue Service) ....................... 14 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ..................................................................................... 14 Title III: Department of Housing and Urban Development......................................................... 16 Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget and Key Policy Issues.................. 18 Community Development Fund and related programs ................................................... 19 Housing Programs for the Elderly and the Disabled....................................................... 20 Public Housing/HOPE VI.............................................................................................. 20 Title IV: The Judiciary............................................................................................................... 21 The Judiciary Budget and Key Policy Issues ....................................................................... 21 FY2007 Request and Appropriation .............................................................................. 23 House Action ................................................................................................................ 24 Senate Action................................................................................................................ 24 Supreme Court.............................................................................................................. 25 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ................................................................ 25 U.S. Court of International Trade .................................................................................. 26 Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services ..................................... 26 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) ...................................................... 28 Federal Judicial Center.................................................................................................. 28 United States Sentencing Commission........................................................................... 28 Judiciary Retirement Funds ........................................................................................... 28 Administrative Provisions ............................................................................................. 29 Titles V (Senate) and VI (House): Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the President ................................................................................................. 30 Executive Office of the President Budget and Key Policy Issues ......................................... 31 Title VII: Independent Agencies ................................................................................................ 38 Federal Election Commission (FEC) ............................................................................. 40 Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) ................................................................... 40 General Services Administration (GSA) ........................................................................ 40 Federal Buildings Fund (FBF)....................................................................................... 41 Electronic Government Fund (E-gov Fund) ................................................................... 42 Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) ...................................................................... 43 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) ............................................... 43 Office of Personnel Management (OPM)....................................................................... 44 Office of Special Counsel (OSC)................................................................................... 45 Congressional Research Service TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations Postal Service ............................................................................................................... 46 Titles VIII (Senate) and IX (House): General Provisions Government-Wide .............................. 47 Cuba Sanctions ................................................................................................................... 49 Tables Table 1. Status of FY2007 Departments of Transportation, the Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the Executive Office of the President, and Independent Agencies Appropriations ..........................................................4 Table 2. Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations, by Title, FY2006-FY2007 .......................4 Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations, FY2002FY2007....................................................................................................................................5 Table 4. Title I: Department of Transportation Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007......................6 Table 5. Title II: Department of the Treasury Appropriations, FY2006 and FY2007 ................... 12 Table 6. Title III: Housing and Urban Development Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007 ........... 16 Table 7. Title IV: The Judiciary Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007.......................................... 21 Table 8. Titles V and VI: Executive Office of the President (EOP) and Funds Appropriated to the President Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007 ......................................... 30 Table 9. Senate Committee on Appropriations Funding Recommendations for Federal Drug Control Programs in the Executive Office of the President, FY2007 .............................. 37 Table 10. Title VII: Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007 ......................... 38 Table 11. General Services Administration Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007......................... 41 Contacts Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 51 Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 52 Congressional Research Service TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations Most Recent Developments On February 14, 2007, Congress passed H.J.Res. 20, the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007, the fourth in a series of continuing resolutions; it was signed into law on February 15, 2007 (P.L. 110-5). P.L. 110-5 provided funding for the remainder of FY2007 for most federal agencies, including the Departments of Transportation, the Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, and the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the Executive Office of the President, and Independent Agencies. P.L. 110-5 provided funding generally at the level provided to agencies in FY2006, except where otherwise stated. On July 26, 2006, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out H.R. 5576, the FY2007 Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. The Committee recommended an overall net funding level of $141.2 billion (after budgetary scorekeeping adjustments), an increase of $3.6 billion (3%) over the amount in the FY2006 Act, $3.3 billion (2%) over the Administration request, and $2.5 billion (2%) over the House-passed amount.1 The Committee also recommended performance requirements for Amtrak, a 2.7% pay raise for federal civilian workers for calendar year 2007, an easing of restrictions on agricultural exports to Cuba, and a prohibition on easing restrictions on foreign control of U.S. airlines. On June 14, 2006, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5576. The House approved an overall funding level of $139.6 billion (after budgetary scorekeeping adjustments), a $2 billion (1%) increase over the amount in the FY2006 Act2 and a $1 billion (less than 1%) increase over the Administration’s request. The House approved the Appropriations Committee’s recommendations to provide the same pay raise (2.7%) to federal civilian workers as that provided for uniformed military personnel for calendar year 2007, to impose performance requirements on Amtrak, to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from using private collection agencies to collect taxes, and to restrict the outsourcing of federal work. The House approved several amendments to the bill, including ones increasing funding for Amtrak and for selected programs in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and to ease restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba (the Administration threatened to veto the bill if it contained provisions weakening sanctions on Cuba3). 1 These comparisons are based on a Senate figure of $141.8 billion, which includes the Senate-reported level for appropriations for the District of Columbia ($597 million). The House-passed version of H.R. 5576 includes appropriations for the District of Columbia, but the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out the District of Columbia’s appropriation in S. 3660. 2 FY2006 funding for some agencies funded in this act, notably the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, was increased in supplemental appropriations acts to deal with the effects of the hurricanes that struck Florida and the Gulf Coast in 2005. Total enacted FY2006 funding, including supplemental funding, after scorekeeping adjustments, was $151.0 billion. 3 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 5576—Transportation, Treasury, Housing, the Judiciary, and the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY2007, June 14, 2006, p. 6. Congressional Research Service 1 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations Overview The President’s FY2007 request for the programs covered by this appropriations bill was $138.5 billion. This was $2.3 billion (2%) over the total in the FY2006 Act (after a 1.0% across-theboard rescission applied to the FY2006 funding). The FY2007 request included cuts from the FY2006 funding level for grants to airports (-$764 million), Amtrak (-$394 million), and housing programs for elderly and disabled in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (-$307 million). The FY2007 request for the Executive Office of the President was $225 million less than the FY2006 figure; that reduction was primarily due to the proposed transfer of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program ($225 million in FY2006) from the Executive Office of the President to the Department of Justice. The President’s FY2007 budget request proposals included: • funding Amtrak, the provider of intercity passenger rail service, at $900 million, down from $1.3 billion in FY2006; • reducing funding for the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Airport Improvement Program (AIP) to $2.8 billion, $700 million below its ‘guaranteed’ authorization level, which would make the entire appropriations bill subject to a point of order. The proposed level was also below the AIP formula threshold of $3.2 billion, which could result in a halving of most AIP formula distributions; • reducing funding for community and economic development programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to $6.8 billion, $815 million below the amount provided in the FY2006 Act; • reducing funding for housing for elderly and disabled persons under HUD by $307 million (32%), from $971 million for FY2006 to $664 million for FY2007; • eliminating the annual $29 million payment to the United States Postal Service for revenue forgone, as well as the absence of any funding requested for Postal Service security measures. The House did not support most of these proposed changes. The House-passed version of H.R. 5576, the FY2007 Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill, provided $139.6 billion, $1.1 billion (less than 1%) over the Administration’s request. The bill generally reflected recommendations of the House Committee on Appropriations; the House did approve amendments increasing Amtrak’s FY2007 funding from $900 million to $1.1 billion, and approved amendments increasing funding for several programs within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The White House objected to several provisions in the bill, and issued a veto threat against the bill if it included any provision easing sanctions on Cuba.4 H.R. 5576, as reported out by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, also did not support most of the changes proposed by the Administration. The committee recommended $141.2 billion (plus $597 million for the District of Columbia in a separate bill), a total of $3.3 billion (2%) over the 4 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 5576—Transportation, Treasury, Housing, the Judiciary, and the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY2007, June 14, 2006. Congressional Research Service 2 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations Administration request. The committee recommended increases over the Administration request for aviation, Amtrak, housing, the Internal Revenue Service, and drug control programs in the Executive Office of the President. Among the provisions recommended by the committee was one easing restrictions on agricultural trade with Cuba, similar to the provision that had drawn a veto threat against the House-passed bill. H.R. 5576 did not come to the Senate floor. A series of continuing resolutions kept most federal agencies operating early in FY2007, culminating in passage of the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for 2007 (H.J.Res. 20/P.L. 110-5), which was passed by Congress on February 14 and signed into law on February 15, 2007. This legislation provided funding for most federal agencies for the remainder for FY2007, generally at the level provided to agencies in FY2006, except where otherwise stated in the legislation. Among the agencies that received increases over their FY2006 levels were DOT and HUD. The legislation also provides that the “requirements, authorities, conditions, limitations, and other provisions” of the FY2006 appropriations acts would apply to the funding provided for FY2007, except where otherwise stated in the bill. Different Appropriations Subcommittee Structures In early 2005, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations reorganized their subcommittee structures. The House Committee on Appropriations reduced its number of subcommittees to ten. This change combined the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies subcommittee with the District of Columbia subcommittee; to the resulting subcommittee, in addition, jurisdiction over appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Judiciary as well as several additional independent agencies was added. The Senate Committee on Appropriations reduced its number of subcommittees to 12. The Senate also added jurisdiction over appropriations for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, and the Judiciary, to the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies subcommittee; the Senate retained a separate District of Columbia Appropriations subcommittee. As a result, the area of coverage of the House and Senate subcommittees with jurisdiction over this appropriations bill are almost, but not quite, identical; the major difference being that in the Senate the appropriations for the District of Columbia originate in a separate bill. Table 1 notes the status of the FY2007 Transportation et al. appropriations bill. Congressional Research Service 3 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations Table 1. Status of FY2007 Departments of Transportation, the Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the Executive Office of the President, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Markup House Senate 5/25/06 7/18/06 — House Report — House Passage H.Rept. 109-495 6/9/06 6/14/06 406-22 — H.J.Res. 20 286-140 1/31/07 Senate Report Senate Passage Conference Report Approval Conf. Report House Senate Public Law S.Rept. 109-293 7/26/06 — — — — — — H.J.Res. 20 81-15 2/14/07 — — — P.L. 110-5 2/15/07 Table 2 lists the total funding provided for each of the titles in the bill (the last two titles cover general provisions affecting this bill and general provisions affecting the entire federal government) for FY2006 and the amount requested for that title for FY2007. Table 2.Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations, by Title, FY2006-FY2007 (millions of dollars) FY2006 Enacteda FY2007 Request FY2007 House Passed FY2007 Senate Reported FY2007 Enacted Title I: Department of Transportation $60,677 $64,432 $64,720 $65,028 $63,143 Title II: Department of the Treasury 11,552 11,606 11,522 11,706 11,624 Title III: Housing and Urban Development 33,594 34,118 35,309 36,588 36,626 Title IV: The Judiciary 5,720 6,260 6,063 6,098 5,980 Title V: District of Columbia 597 597 575 597 591 Title VI: Executive Office of the President 728 503 723 730 720 19,936 20,999 20,708 21,062 b — — — — — $137,623 $138,516 $139,620 $141,808 c Title Title VII: Independent Agencies Title VIII-VIIII: General Provisions Total Source: Budget tables in H.Rept. 109-307 and 109-495 and S.Rept. 109-293; “FY2007 Enacted” is from budget tables provided by the House Committee on Appropriations. No single table showing the enacted FY2007 figures for all these agencies is available, and so the “Total,” from the “Total budgetary resources” line in various budget tables, was calculated by CRS. The Senate-reported bill did not include the District of Columbia appropriation; that figure was added to the Senate total by CRS for comparative purposes. Totals may not add due to rounding and scorekeeping adjustments. a. The FY2006 figures represent the amounts enacted by the FY2006 Transportation/Treasury et al. appropriations act (P.L. 109-115). The Defense appropriations act (P.L. 109-148) contained an across-theboard rescission of non-emergency spending of 1.0%, and DOT and HUD received emergency supplemental funding for FY2006 to deal with the effects of several hurricanes; those changes are not reflected in these figures. Congressional Research Service 4 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations b. No single table available from the House Appropriations Committee shows the enacted FY2007 total for the Independent Agencies under the jurisdiction of the former TTHUD appropriations subcommittee. c. No single table available from the House Appropriations Committee shows the enacted FY2007 total for the agencies under the jurisdiction of the former TTHUD appropriations subcommittee. Table 3 shows funding trends over the five-year period FY2002-FY2006, and the amounts requested for FY2007, for the titles in the bill. The agencies generally experienced funding increases during the period FY2002-FY2006. Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations, FY2002-FY2007 (billions of current dollars) Department FY2002 FY2003a FY2004b FY2005c FY2006d FY2007 Request Title I: Transportatione $57.4 $55.7 $58.4 $59.6 $60.7 $64.4 Title II: Treasuryf 10.5 10.8 11.1 11.2 11.7 11.6 Title III: Housing and Urban Development 30.2 31.0 31.2 31.9 34.0 34.1 Title IV: Judiciary 4.7 5.4 5.2 5.4 5.8 6.3 Title V: District of Columbia 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 Title VI: Executive Office of the President 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 Title VII: Independent Agencies — — — 19.8 19.9 21.0 Source: United States House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Comparative Statement of Budget Authority tables from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. Figures for 2006 do not reflect emergency appropriations. Figures for 2007 are the Administration requested figures from table in H.Rept. 109-485. a. FY2003 figures reflect a 0.65% across-the-board rescission. b. FY2004 figures reflect a 0.59% across-the-board rescission. c. FY2005 figures reflect a 0.83% across-the-board rescission. d. FY2006 figures are as enacted in the FY2006 appropriations act (P.L. 109-115) and do not reflect a 1.0% across-the-board rescission or emergency supplemental funding provided for DOT and HUD. DOT and HUD received emergency funding for response to the effects of the Gulf Coast hurricanes; DOT’s total FY2006 funding, including emergency funding, was $63.0 billion; HUD’s total FY2006 funding, including emergency funding, was $45.5 billion. e. Figures for Department of Transportation appropriations for FY2002-FY2003 have been adjusted for comparison with FY2004 and later figures by subtracting the United States Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, and by adding the Maritime Administration. f. Figures for Department of the Treasury appropriations for FY2002-FY2003 have been adjusted for comparison with FY2004 and later figures by subtracting the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; the Customs Service; the United States Secret Service; and the Law Enforcement Training Center. Congressional Research Service 5 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations Title I: Transportation Appropriations Table 4.Title I: Department of Transportation Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007 (in millions of dollars—totals may not add) FY2006 Enacteda FY2007 Request FY2007 House Passed FY2007 Senate Reported FY2007 Enacted $237 $174 $151 $242 $171 109 — 117 117 109 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 13,711 12,774 15,154 14,251 14,482 Operations (trust fund & general fund) 8,104 8,366 8,360 8,366 8,374 Facilities & Equipment (F&E) (trust fund) 2,555 2,503 3,110 2,550 2,516 Grant-in-aid for Airports (AIP) (trust fund) (limit. on oblig.) 3,515 2,750 3,700 3,520 3,514 Research, Engineering & Development (trust fund) 137 130 134 136 130 33,392 39,825 37,661c 38,324 36,252 35,672 39,086 39,086 39,086 39,086 739 739 739 739 739 Additional funds (trust fund) 2,750 — — — — Additional funds (general fund) 19 — — 40 20 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 490 517 517 517 517 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 806 815 822 807 821 1,511 1,085 1,085 1,585 1,478 1,294 900 900d 1,400 1,294 8,504 8,846 8,932 8,846 8,975 General Funds 1,594 1,583 1,670 1,583 1,712 Trust Funds 6,910 7,263 7,263 7,263 7,263 St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 16 8 17 17 16 Maritime Administration (MARAD) 306 223 224 270 214 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 115 121 121 121 134 Pipeline safety program 72 76 76 76 75 Emergency preparedness grants 14 28 28 28 14 Research and Innovative Technology Administration 6 8 6 8 8 Department or Agency (Selected Accounts) Office of the Secretary of Transportation Essential Air Serviceb Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (Limitation on Obligations) (Exempt Obligations) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Amtrak Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Congressional Research Service 6 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations FY2006 Enacteda FY2007 Request FY2007 House Passed FY2007 Senate Reported FY2007 Enacted Office of Inspector General 62 64 64 64 64 Surface Transportation Board 25 22 24 25 26 $62,316 $64,432 $64,720 $65,028 $63,143 Department or Agency (Selected Accounts) Total, Department of Transportation Note: Figures are from the budget authority table in H.Rept. 109-495, except “FY2007 Enacted” figures are from a budget authority table provided by the House Committee on Appropriations. FY2007 figures do not reflect floor amendments increasing or decreasing funding for different programs. Because of differing treatment of offsets, the figures for “FY2007 Request” will not always match the Administration’s budget figures. The figures within this table may differ slightly from those in the text due to supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and other funding actions. Columns may not add due to rounding or exclusion of smaller program line-items. a. These figures reflect the 1.0% across-the-board rescission included in P.L. 108-447. b. The total comes from a $50 million annual authorization for the Essential Air Service program to be funded out of overflight fee collections and an additional amount appropriated for the program. c. The budget table in H.Rept. 109-495 gives a net total of $34. 411 billion for FHWA for FY2007in the bill, but appears to double-count a $2.2 billion rescission of contract authority. The FHWA net total figure in the text of the bill is $37.661billion (p. 29). d. Amtrak’s appropriation was increased to $1.2 billion by a floor amendment. Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues The President’s budget proposed $64.4 billion for the Department of Transportation (DOT). This was $2.1 billion (3%) more than the $62.3 billion enacted for FY2006, including emergency spending, and $4.3 billion (7%) more than the amount provided in the FY2006 appropriations act (after then 1% rescission). The major funding changes requested from the FY2006 enacted levels were an increase of $3.5 billion (10%) in the obligation limitation for highways, reflecting the authorized level in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59) as well as an increase due to higher-than-projected Highway Trust Fund revenues; a decrease of $394 million (30%) in the request for Amtrak; and a decrease of $765 million (22%) in the Federal Aviation Administration’s Airport Improvement Program. The Administration’s budget for DOT identified three agency-specific goals influencing the budget request: improving aviation and surface transportation safety through increased funding for safety programs, improving transportation mobility through investments in additional infrastructure and through investments in technology to increase the effective capacity of the transportation systems, and restraining spending and managing for results by, among other initiatives, restructuring federal intercity passenger rail policy and its provider, Amtrak, and eliminating the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program.5 The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $64.7 billion for DOT, $287 million (less than 1%) more than the Administration request and $2.4 billion (4%) above total FY2006 funding. The primary changes from the President’s request were additional funding for the Federal Aviation Administration ($1.5 billion), bringing the Airport Improvement Program and 5 Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, pp. 216-224. Congressional Research Service 7 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations Facilities and Equipment Program up to their FY2007 authorized funding levels. The committee also recommended an increase of $100 million (7%) for the Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Grants (New Starts) Program. The House supported the committee’s recommendations regarding transportation funding, except that the House voted to add another $214 million (24%) for Amtrak (discussed below) and $6.7 million for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Operations and Research Program, for the Office of Fuel Economy to study how best to promote an increase in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) by the auto industry. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $65.0 billion for DOT. Compared to the Administration request, the committee recommended increased funding for airport grants-in-aid, for the Essential Air Services program, and for Amtrak; compared to the House bill, the committee recommended increased funding for Amtrak and for DOT’s new headquarters building but less funding for FAA’s facilities and equipment account and FTA’s New Starts program. P.L. 110-5, the FY2007 Continuing Resolution, provided $63.1 billion in net budgetary resources for DOT ($67.4 billion in appropriations, reduced by $4.2 billion in rescissions of contract authority). This represented an increase of $3.7 billion (6%) over FY2006 appropriations, excluding rescissions of contract authority in both years and $2.8 billion in emergency appropriations in FY2006. The increases went largely to the federal-aid highway program and the federal transit program, reflecting their FY2007 authorized funding levels. Amtrak Amtrak is a quasi-governmental corporation that operates and maintains rail infrastructure in the Northeast and operates passenger rail service throughout the country. It operates at a deficit and requires federal support to continue operations. Amtrak’s authorization expired at the end of FY2002. Reauthorization efforts have been stalled by fundamental disagreements between Congress and the Administration over the future shape of federal intercity passenger rail policy. The Administration, which has appointed all the current members of the Amtrak Board of Directors, has sought to force changes in intercity passenger rail policy over the past several years by requesting less funding for Amtrak than is needed to maintain the status quo, arguing that “only a constrained budget will force Amtrak to change the way it conducts business.”6 Congress has responded by providing more funding for Amtrak than requested by the Administration, while imposing conditions on Amtrak in the appropriations bills. The Administration requested $900 million for Amtrak for FY2007. The Administration’s proposal received bipartisan criticism in both the House and the Senate. The Administration has asserted in the past that it would support increased funding for intercity passenger rail if significant reforms are enacted. Some Members of Congress have questioned where that additional money would come from, given the competing demands from other transportation modes and from other agencies in the appropriations bill that funds DOT. The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $900 million for grants to Amtrak for FY2007. The committee also recommended a number of requirements for Amtrak, including that Amtrak be required to submit a comprehensive business plan and a detailed plan for improving its managerial cost accounting system; to cut system overhead expenses by 10% annually; and to 6 Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, p. 222. Congressional Research Service 8 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations achieve savings through operating efficiencies in its food and beverage service, and first class service, resulting in these services breaking even by the end of FY2007. In its consideration of H.R. 5576, the House approved (266-158) an amendment to increase Amtrak’s FY2007 appropriation by $214 million, from $900 million to $1.114 billion. This was $180 million less than the $1.294 billion Amtrak received in FY2006 (after the 1.0% across-theboard rescission), and significantly less than the $1.4 billion the DOT IG testified Amtrak needed in FY2007.7 The funding was divided into two parts: $629 million for capital grants and debt service, and $485 million for efficiency incentive grants. None of the funding would go directly to Amtrak; Amtrak would apply to the Secretary of DOT to receive grants. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $1.4 billion for Amtrak. As with the House, this funding was divided between capital grants and debt service ($750 million) and efficiency incentive grants for operating costs; in both cases, Amtrak would apply to the Secretary of DOT to receive funding. The committee asserted that this arrangement would provide increased oversight of Amtrak. The committee also recommended several requirements for Amtrak similar to the provisions in the House bill, such as requiring Amtrak to reduce the cost deficits on its first-class service and food and beverage service. The committee also included a provision forbidding Amtrak from outsourcing work to foreign countries, and one creating a pilot program to see if a state can operate passenger rail service at lower cost than Amtrak does now. The FY2007 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-5) provided $1.3 billion for Amtrak, the same amount provided in FY2006. The text of P.L. 110-5 provided that the requirements and limitations imposed on Amtrak in its FY2006 appropriations legislation would continue to apply throughout FY2007. Aviation The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) budget provides both capital and operating funding for the nation’s air traffic control system, as well as providing federal grants to airports for airport planning, development, and expansion of the capacity of the nation’s air traffic infrastructure. The President’s budget requested $12.8 billion in net funding for FY2007, $937 million less than was enacted for FY2006. The President’s request included $18 million to hire 1,136 air traffic controllers in FY2007. This was expected to result in a net gain of around 132 controllers after retirements expected in FY2007. The House Committee recommended $15.2 billion for FY2007, $1.4 billion over the level enacted for FY2006 and $2.4 billion over the Administration request. The increases brought the FAA’s capital programs up to their FY2007 authorized funding levels. The House supported this recommendation. The House also adopted, 291-137, an amendment restricting foreign control over the business decisions of U.S. airlines. The DOT had proposed a rule whose stated purpose was to promote 7 Mark R. Dayton, Senior Economist, Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of Transportation, “Intercity Passenger Rail and Amtrak,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, March 16, 2006, p. 1. Congressional Research Service 9 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations foreign investment in U.S. airlines. 8 In response to concerns raised about the implications of this proposed rule for national security, the House adopted an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds provided in the FY2007 appropriations bill to finalize or implement the proposed rule. The Senate Committee on Appropriations also recommended a similar provision. The DOT subsequently withdrew the proposed amendment to the rule that would have increased the allowed degree of foreign ownership of U.S. airlines. 9 The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $14.2 billion for FY2007. The committee recommended more funding that the Administration requested, but less funding than the House provided; significant differences compared with the House levels were for the Facilities and Equipment account ($2.55 billion to the House’s $3.11 billion) and the Airport Improvement Program ($3.52 billion to the House’s $3.7 billion). The FY2007 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-5) provided $14.5 billion in net funding for the Federal Aviation Administration for FY2007. This was $1.7 billion (13%) more than the Administration requested and $770 million (6%) more than enacted for FY2006. Airport Improvement Program The President’s budget proposed a cut to the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), from $3.5 billion in FY2006 to $2.8 billion for FY2007. The House provided $3.7 billion, the FY2007 authorized level; the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $3.5 billion. As a result of P.L. 110-5, the AIP received $3.5 billion, the same amount as in FY2006. AIP funds are used to provide grants for airport planning and development, and for projects to increase airport capacity (such as building new runways) and other facility improvements. Some Members of Congress have expressed concern at proposed cuts in the AIP program in the face of forecasts of renewed growth in aviation traffic. Essential Air Service The President’s budget proposed a $59 million (54%) reduction in funding for the Essential Air Service program, from $109 million (FY2006) to $50 million. The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $117 million. The House-passed bill provided $117 million. The Senate Committee on Appropriations also recommended $117 million. As a result of P.L. 110-5, the program received $109 million, the same amount as in FY2006. 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 8 Notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 67389); supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 26425). For more information, see CRS Report RL33255, Legal Developments in International Civil Aviation, by (name re dacted). 9 Federal Register, vol. 71, no. 236 (December 8, 2006), 71106-71109. Congressional Research Service 10 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations communities. Previous budget requests from the Current Administration, as well as budget requests from previous Administrations, have also proposed reducing funding to this program. Surface Transportation The President’s budget requested $39.8 billion for federal highway programs for FY2007, an increase of $3.5 billion (10%) over the comparable level of $36.3 billion provided in FY2006.10 The budget also requested $8.8 billion for federal transit programs for FY2007, an increase of $342 million (4%) over the $8.5 billion provided in FY2006. These increases reflected the authorized level of funding provided (and “guaranteed”) for surface transportation programs by SAFETEA (P.L. 109-59), except that the request was $100 million less than the authorized level for transit. The authorized level of FY2007 highway funding included an increase of $842 million as a result of higher-than-expected revenues to the Highway Trust Fund, an adjustment provided for in SAFETEA known as Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority, or RABA. The House approved the requested (authorized) level for highway programs—$37.0 billion11— and added $100 million to the Capital Grants (New Starts) transit program to bring the transit funding up to its authorized level of $8.9 billion. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended the same level for federal highway programs and the requested level for transit programs (thus, $100 million less than the House provided). The FY2007 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-5) provided $39.8 billion for the federal highway program and $9.0 billion for the federal transit program for FY2007. P.L. 110-5 also rescinded $3.5 billion from unobligated balances of previously provided contract authority for federal highway programs, resulting in a net FY2007 level of $36.3 billion for the federal highway program. The Administration requested $517 million (a 6% increase) for the Federal Motor Carrier Administration (FMCSA) and $815 million (a 1% increase) for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The House Committee on Appropriations recommended the requested level for FMCSA and recommended an additional $6 million to the amount requested for NHTSA. The House concurred with these recommendations. The Senate Committee on Appropriations also recommended the requested level for FMCSA and $8 million less than requested for NHTSA. FMCSA received $517 million and NHTSA received $821 million for FY2007 as a result of P.L. 110-5. Maritime Administration (MARAD) The Administration requested $299 million for the Maritime Administration for FY2007, $7 million (2%) below the $306 million enacted for FY2006. As in its FY2006 budget, the Administration did not request any new funding for National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction Program, and requested that $74 million Congress appropriated in FY2005 for this program be rescinded (bringing its net request down to $223 million, assuming this rescission). The House provided $300 million, and supported the request to rescind the $74 million for the National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction Program. That rescission, plus a $2 million rescission of 10 In addition to the $36.3 billion in funding for federal-aid highways and exempt contract authority provided in FY2006, the DOT also received $3.5 billion in emergency relief funding to respond to the effects of the Gulf Coast hurricanes. 11 $39.1 billion in obligation limitations and $739 million in exempt obligations. A $2.2 billion rescission of contract authority brings the net total after score-keeping adjustments down to $37.7 billion. Congressional Research Service 11 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations administrative expenses for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program, brought the net total funding down to $224 million. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $344 million for MARAD, significantly above the request and the House level. The additional funding was for subsidies for the Title IX loan program ($30 million) and a new program to assist small shipyards ($15 million). The committee also recommended the requested $74 million rescission for the National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction Program (thus bringing the net total funding to $270 million). The FY2007 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-5) provided $291 million for MARAD. P.L. 110-5 also rescinded the $74 million in the National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction Program, and rescinded $2 million from MARAD’s ship construction account, resulting in a net FY2007 appropriation of $214 million. The National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction Program is intended to decrease the Department of Defense’s reliance on foreign-flag oil tankers by supporting the construction of up to five privately-owned product-tanker vessels in the United States. It would provide up to $50 million per vessel for the construction, in U.S. shipyards, of commercial tank vessels that are capable of carrying militarily useful petroleum products and that would be available for the military’s use in time of war. Title II: Department of the Treasury Table 5.Title II: Department of the Treasury Appropriations, FY2006 and FY2007 (millions of dollars) FY2007 Senate Committee Recommendation FY2007 Enacted FY2006 Enacteda FY2007 Request FY2007 House Passed $195 $224 $224 $224 $216 Department-wide Systems and Capital Investments 24 34 34 34 30 Office of Inspector General 17 17 17 18 17 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration 132 136 136 136 133 Air Transportation Stabilization Program 3 — — — — Community Development Financial Institutions Fund 55 8 40 55 55 Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration 10 — — — — Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 73 90 84 77 73 Financial Management Service 234 234 234 234 235 Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 90 64 93 93 91 Program or Account Departmental Offices Congressional Research Service 12 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations FY2007 Senate Committee Recommendation FY2007 Enacted Program or Account FY2006 Enacteda FY2007 Request FY2007 House Passed Bureau of the Public Debt 175 178 178 178 176 Internal Revenue Service, Total 10,545b 10,592 10,487 10,656 10,597 4,095 4,045 — — — — — 2,059 2,110 2,138 4,678 4,762 — — — — — 4,757 4,797 4,686 Information Systems 1,583 1,602 — — — Operations Support — — 3,459 3,487 3,545 Business Systems Modernization 197 167 197 245 213 Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration 20 15 15 15 15 Rescission (29) — — — — $11,581b $11,606 $11,528 $11,706 $11,624 Processing, Assistance and Management Taxpayer Services Tax Law Enforcement Enforcement 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. a. FY2006 figures reflect an across-the-board rescission of 1%. b. Excludes a rescission of $29 million for the IRS account. This section examines FY2007 appropriations for the Treasury Department and its operating bureaus. FY2007 appropriations for the largest operating bureau, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), are examined in the following section. The Treasury Department performs a variety of governmental functions. Foremost among them are protecting the nation’s financial system against a host of illicit activities (e.g., money laundering and terrorist financing), collecting tax revenue, enforcing tax laws, managing and accounting for federal debt, administering the federal government’s finances, regulating financial institutions, and producing and distributing coins and currency. At its most basic level of organization, Treasury consists of departmental offices and operating bureaus. In general, the offices are responsible for formulating and implementing policy initiatives and managing Treasury’s operations, while the bureaus perform specific duties assigned to Treasury, mainly through statutory mandates. In the past decade or so, the bureaus have accounted for more than 95% of the agency’s funding and work force. With one possible exception, the bureaus can be divided into those engaged in financial management and regulation and those engaged in law enforcement. In recent decades, the Congressional Research Service 13 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations Comptroller of the Currency, U.S. Mint, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Financial Management Service (FMS), Bureau of Public Debt, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI), and Office of Thrift Supervision have undertaken tasks related to the management of the federal government’s finances or the supervision and regulation of the U.S. financial system. By contrast, law enforcement has been the central focus of the tasks handled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; U.S. Secret Service; Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; U.S. Customs Service; Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN); and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. Since the advent of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, Treasury’s direct involvement in law enforcement has shrunk considerably. The possible exception to this simplified dichotomy is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), whose main duties encompass both the collection of tax revenue and the enforcement of tax laws and regulations. Treasury Offices and Bureaus (Excluding the Internal Revenue Service) Funding for many bureaus comes largely from annual appropriations. Such is the case for the IRS, FMS, Bureau of Public Debt, FinCEN, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), and the CDFI. But there are some exceptions to this heavy reliance on appropriated funds. The Treasury Franchise Fund, U.S. Mint, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision finance their operations largely from the fees they charge for services and products they provide. In FY2007, Treasury is receiving $11.624 billion in appropriated funds, or 0.4% more than it received in FY2006, after allowing for a rescission of 1%. Most of these funds are being used to finance the operations of the IRS, which is receiving $10.597 billion in FY2007. The remaining $1.027 billion is distributed among Treasury’s other bureaus and departmental offices in the following amounts: Departmental offices (which includes the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence—or TFI—and the Office of Foreign Assets Control) is receiving $216 million; Department-wide systems and capital investments, $30 million; OIG, $17 million; TIGTA, $133 million; CDFI, $55 million; FinCEN, $73 million; FMS, $235 million; Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (ATB), $91 million; and Bureau of the Public Debt, $176 million. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) To help finance its operations and multitude of spending programs, the federal government levies individual and corporate income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and miscellaneous taxes and fees. The federal agency responsible for administering and collecting these taxes and fees (except for customs duties) is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In discharging this responsibility, the IRS receives and processes tax returns, related documents, and tax payments; disburses refunds; enforces compliance through audits and other procedures; collects delinquent taxes; and provides a host of services to taxpayers with the aim of enabling them to understand their rights and responsibilities under the federal tax code and resolving problems without litigation. In FY2006, the agency collected $2.537 trillion before refunds, the largest component of which was individual income tax revenue of $1.236 trillion. The IRS receives funding for its operations from three sources: appropriated funds, user fees, and so-called reimbursables, which are payments the IRS receives from other federal agencies and Congressional Research Service 14 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations state governments for services it provides. In FY2006, appropriated funds accounted for 98% of IRS’s operating budget, with user fees and reimbursables each adding another 1%. Starting in FY2007, appropriated funds are distributed among five accounts: • (1) taxpayer services, which provides resources for pre-filing taxpayer assistance, filing and account services, administrative services for IRS employees, and senior IRS management; • (2) enforcement, which covers the cost of compliance services, research and statistical analysis, and administration of the earned income tax credit; • (3) operations support, which addresses the improvement and maintenance of the agency’s information and management systems; • (4) business systems modernization (or BSM), which provides funds for developing new information systems for tax administration and acquiring the hardware and software needed to integrate them into IRS’s operations; • and (5) health insurance tax credit administration, which covers the cost of administering the refundable tax credit for health insurance established by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002. In FY2007, the IRS is receiving $10.597 billion in appropriated funds—or 0.5% more than it received in FY2006. Of this amount, $2.138 billion is designated for taxpayer services, $4.686 for enforcement, $3.545 for operations support, $213 million for the BSM program, and $15 million for administration of the health insurance tax credit. The IRS is one of the many federal agencies being funded in FY2007 under a year-long continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 20) enacted in February 2007. Under the resolution, the “requirements, authorities, conditions, limitations, and other provisions” that governed the use of FY2006 appropriations by all affected agencies are also to govern their use of FY2007 appropriations. As a result, certain restrictions that applied to funding for IRS operations in FY2006 also apply to the funding for IRS operations in FY2007. Specifically, the IRS may not reorganize or reduce its workforce in FY2007 without the consent of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. In addition, during FY2007, the IRS is barred from entering the market for tax return preparation software, and from instituting reductions in taxpayer service until TIGTA completes a report on the effects of such reductions on taxpayer compliance. Congressional Research Service 15 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations Title III: Department of Housing and Urban Development Table 6.Title III: Housing and Urban Development Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007 (budget authority in $ billions) Program FY2006 enacted FY2007 request FY2007 House FY2007 S. Com. FY2007 enacteda Appropriations Tenant Based Rental Assistance (includes advanced appropriation) (Sec. 8) $15.418 $15.920 $15.846 $15.920 $15.920b Project Based Rental Assistance (Sec. 8) 5.037 5.676 5.476 5.676 5.976b Sec. 8 supplementalc 0.390 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.460 2.439 Public housing capital fund 2.439 2.178 2.208d Public housing operating fund 3.564 3.564 3.564 3.660 3.864b HOPE VI 0.099e 0.000c 0.000d 0.100 0.099 Native American housing block grants 0.624 0.626 0.626 0.626 0.624 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee 0.004 0.006 0.004 0.006 0.006 Native Hawaiian Block Grant 0.009 0.006 0.009 0.009 0.009b Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Housing, persons with AIDS (HOPWA) 0.286 0.300 0.300 0.295 0.286 Rural Housing Economic Development 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.017 Community Development Fund (Including CDBG)f 4.178 3.032 4.215g 4.215 3.772b CDF supplementalc 16.700 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Section 108 Loan Guarantees 0.004 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.000 0.010 Brownfields redevelopment 0.010 0.000 0.000g HOME Investment Partnerships 1.757 1.917 1.917 1.942 1.757 Homeless Assistance Grants 1.327 1.536h 1.536 1.511 1.442b Self-help Homeownership 0.060 0.040 0.060 0.066 0.049b Housing for the elderly 0.735 0.545 0.747 0.750 0.735 Housing for the disabled 0.237 0.119 0.240 0.240 0.237 Housing Counseling Assistancei 0.000 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.000 Rental Housing Assistance 0.026 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.026 Research and technology 0.056 0.068 0.056 0.060 0.050b Fair housing activities 0.046 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.046 Office, lead hazard control 0.150 0.115 0.150 0.152 0.150 0.573 0.590j 0.493j 0.594j 0.581k Salaries and expenses Congressional Research Service 16 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations Program FY2006 enacted FY2007 request FY2007 House FY2007 S. Com. FY2007 enacteda Working capital fund 0.195 0.220 0.000l 0.220 0.195 Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fundm 0.013 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.013 Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversightm 0.060 0.062 0.062 0.068 0.060 FHA Expensesm 0.727 0.734 0.714 0.724 0.722n GNMA Expensesm 0.011 0.061q 0.011 0.011 0.011 Inspector General 0.081 0.083 0.083 0.091 0.082k Appropriations Subtotal without supplemental 37.743 37.527 38.405 39.504 39.182 Appropriations Subtotal with supplemental 49.633 37.527 38.405 39.504 39.182 Sec. 8 recaptures (rescission)o -2.050 -2.000 -2.000 -2.000 -1.650b HOPE VI rescission 0.000 -0.099 0.000 0.000 0.000 Brownfields redevelopment rescission -0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Economic Development Initiative Rescission 0.000 -0.356p 0.000 0.000 0.000 -2.060 -2.455 -2.000 -2.000 -1.650 Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund -0.013 -0.016 -0.016 -0.016 -0.013 Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight -0.060 -0.062 -0.062 -0.068 -0.060 Federal Housing Administration (FHA) -1.648 -0.652 -0.849 -0.652 -0.652 GNMA -0.368 -0.224q -0.181 -0.181 -0.181 -2.089 -0.954 -1.108 -0.917 -0.906 Total before supplementals $33.594 $34.118 $35.297 $36.588 $36.626 Total with supplementals $50.684 $34.118 $35.297 $36.588 $36.626 Rescissions Rescissions Subtotal Offsetting Collections and Receipts Offsets Subtotal Source: Prepared by CRS based on H.R. 5576, H.Rept. 109-495, S.Rept. 109-293, P.L. 110-5, and tables provided by the Appropriations Committee. FY2006 figures are adjusted to reflect the 1% across-the-board rescission enacted in P.L. 109-148. Figures for FY2006 enacted and FY2007 request contained in earlier versions of this table were based on CRS estimates, which have since been replaced with House Appropriations Committee estimates. a. The FY2007 year-long continuing resolution funded most accounts at their FY2006 enacted level; however, the CR specified higher or lower funding levels for some HUD accounts. b. The CR included a specific amount for this account, which differed from the FY2006 enacted level. c. P.L. 109-148 provided emergency supplemental hurricane recovery funds, including $390 million for the Section 8 voucher program and $11.5 billion for CDBG. An additional $5.2 billion for CDBG was included in P.L. 109-234. These special purpose funds were not a part of the regular FY2006 appropriations law (P.L. 109-115). d. A floor amendment added $30 million to the Public Housing Capital Fund. Floor statements indicated that the funding was intended for the HOPE VI program; however, no language was included in the bill directing that the funds be used for HOPE VI. Congressional Research Service 17 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations e. The President’s FY2007 budget requested that Congress rescind the $99 million it provided for the HOPE VI program in FY2006. f. The Community Development Fund account funds the CDBG program and other related community development programs. CDBG accounts for the largest portion of the CDF account. g. A floor amendment added $15 million to the Community Development Fund. Floor statements indicated that the funds were to be used for Brownfields. h. The President’s request included $25 million that would be transferred to the Department of Labor. i. This program is typically funded as a set-aside within the HOME program. In FY2006, it was funded at $42 million within the HOME account. In recent years, including FY2007, the President’s budget has requested that the program be funded separately from HOME. The House, Senate, and final enacted versions of the FY2007 funding bill continued to fund Housing Counseling as a set-aside within the HOME account at $42 million. j. The President’s request assumed $4 million in savings from a legislative proposal. Neither the House-passed bill, the Senate committee-passed bill, or the final enacted bill assumed such savings. k. The CR appropriated such sums as may be necessary to fund 50% of the cost of the statutory cost-of-living salary increase approved for FY2007. This provision affected the HUD salaries and expenses account as well as the Inspector General’s account. The amount shown here may change if estimates of the cost of this provision change. l. The House Appropriations Committee-passed version included $100 million for the Working Capital Fund. A floor amendment decreased the account by $100 million to offset a $70 million increase in funding for tenant-based rental assistance. m. The administrative costs of these programs are generally paid by offsetting receipts collected by the program. In some cases, the administrative costs are fully offset by collected fees; in others, they are partially offset, and in others, the offsetting receipts are larger than the administrative costs, and the excess are used to offset the total cost of the HUD budget. See the offsetting receipts portion of Table 6. n. Each year, the Congressional Budget Office makes an estimate of how much additional, authorized contract authority FHA will use. In FY2006, CBO estimated HUD would use $5 million in additional contract authority. The CR did not include that $5 million in additional contract expenses. o. Each year, unobligated balances are recaptured from the Housing Certificate Fund, an account that previously funded the tenant-based and project-based Section 8 rental assistance programs, and which still contains long-term Section 8 contracts funded in prior years. p. The President’s FY2007 budget requested that Congress rescind the full amount it provided in FY2006 for Economic Development Initiative and Neighborhood Initiative earmarks within the CDF account. q. The President’s budget documents indicate that a new GNMA proposal would cost $43 million, but its costs would be offset by an additional $43 million in offsetting receipts. The House, Senate, and final enacted bills did not include that assumption. Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget and Key Policy Issues12 The President’s FY2007 budget proposed to fund the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) at approximately $34.1 billion, just over HUD’s $33.6 billion budget for FY2006 (not including FY2006 supplementals related to Hurricane Katrina). Although the overall request appeared to be an increase, the amount requested actually would have resulted in a slight decrease, with a number of HUD programs slated for funding cuts. This seeming contradiction resulted from a decrease in the amount of offsetting receipts available to subsidize the HUD 12 Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, pp. 216-224. Congressional Research Service 18 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations budget. As can be seen in Table 6, appropriations would have declined by more than $200 million and offsetting receipts would have declined by more than $1 billion under the President’s request. On June 14, 2006, the House passed its version of the FY2007 Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Judiciary, District of Columbia and Independent Agencies (TTHUD) Appropriations bill (H.R. 5576), which would have provided $35.3 billion for HUD. Floor amendments that would have increased funding for Section 8 vouchers, leadbased paint hazard control, HOPE VI, supportive housing for the elderly, and Brownfields redevelopment were added to the bill. On July 27, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version of H.R. 5576, which would have provided $36.6 billion for HUD. Congress did not enact the majority of FY2007 appropriations bills before the end of the 2006 fiscal year. In order to fund government operations until final appropriations bills were enacted, Congress passed a series of continuing resolutions (P.L. 109-289, P.L. 109-369, P.L. 109-383) which funded HUD programs at the lower of the House-passed or FY2006 enacted funding level. On February 15, 2007, President Bush signed a revised year-long continuing resolution into law (P.L. 110-5). With some exceptions, the act funds accounts at their FY2006 levels. (For more details on the HUD budget, see CRS Report RL33344, The Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2007 Budget, by (name redacted) et al.) Community Development Fund and related programs The Community Development Fund (CDF) funds the Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG) and the Economic Development and Neighborhood Initiatives (EDI and NI). CDBG provides formula grant funding to states and localities to be used for community development-related purposes; EDIs and NIs are collections of congressionally directed projects. The CDBG formula grant would have been funded at just under $3 billion in the Administration’s budget for FY2007, compared to $3.7 billion in FY2006. The President proposed no new funding for EDIs and NIs, and requested that Congress rescind the funds provided in FY2006. The FY2007 budget would also have eliminated funding for several other community developmentrelated programs, including Brownfields redevelopment, Section 108 loan guarantees, and Rural Housing and Economic Development. The House-passed bill, H.R. 5576, included about $4.2 billion for the Community Development Fund, $1.2 billion more than the Administration request. The funding level recommended by the House included about $3.9 billion for the CDBG formula program, $57.4 million for Indian tribes, $250 million for Economic Development Initiative earmarks, and $20 million for Neighborhood Initiative earmarks. Although the bill as reported would have provided no funding for the Brownfields Redevelopment program or Section 108 loan guarantees, funding for both programs was provided through floor amendments ($3 million for Section 108 and $15 million for Brownfields). No funding was included for Rural Housing and Economic Development. The Senate committee-passed version of H.R. 5576 would have provided the same level of funding for the Community Development Fund as the House-passed bill, about $4.2 billion. The Senate committee recommended about $3.9 billion for the CDBG formula program, $58 million for Indian tribes, $250 million for Economic Development Initiative earmarks, and $30 million for Neighborhood Initiative earmarks. The Rural Housing and Economic Development program would have been funded at $20 million and Section 108 loan guarantees would have received $3 million under the Senate committee-passed bill. No funding was provided for the Brownfields Redevelopment program. Congressional Research Service 19 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations The CR provided almost $3.8 billion for the Community Development Fund, a decrease from the FY2006 funding level of $4.2 billion. The CDBG formula program is funded at just over $3.7 billion, about equal to the amount provided in FY2006. Funding is also provided for the Rural Housing and Economic Development program ($16.8 million), the Section 108 loan guarantees program ($3.7 million), and the Brownfields Redevelopment program ($9.9 million). No funds were provided for Economic Development Initiative or Neighborhood Initiative congressionally designated projects. Housing Programs for the Elderly and the Disabled The Administration’s budget proposed to reduce funding for the Section 202 housing for the elderly program from $734.6 million in FY2006 to $545.5 million in FY2007, a cut of almost 26%. However, the House-passed bill would have funded the program at approximately $746.6 million, about $12 million more than FY2006.13 The Senate committee-passed bill recommended $750 million for Section 202. The FY2007 Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 110-5) did not specify a funding level for elderly housing, which therefore received its FY2006 level of $734.6 million for FY2007. For the second year in a row, the Administration’s budget proposed to halve funding for the Section 811 housing for the disabled program, to $118.8 million from $236.6 million in FY2006. As passed by the House, H.R. 5576 would have increased funding to nearly $240 million. 14 The Senate committee-passed bill would have provided $240 million for Section 811. Under the yearlong CR, Section 811 is funded at the FY2006 level of $236.6 million for FY2007. Public Housing/HOPE VI Funding for the federal public housing program comes through three main programs: the Operating Fund, the Capital Fund, and the HOPE VI program. The first two are formula grant programs, the former to cover the costs of the day-to-day maintenance and operation of public housing and the latter to cover major modernization costs. HOPE VI is a competitive grant program that funds large scale revitalization of public housing. The President proposed $3.5 billion for the Operating Fund in FY2007 (level with FY2006) and almost $2.2 billion for the public housing Capital Fund (an 11% reduction from FY2006). As in FY2006, the President asked Congress to provide no new money for the HOPE VI program for FY2007, and to rescind the funding that Congress provided in the previous year before the Department awarded it to grantees. The House Appropriations committee-reported bill would have funded all three programs at the President’s request. A floor amendment (H.Amdt. 1016) offered by Representative Artur Davis would have added $30 million to the Capital Fund, although his floor statements indicated it was intended for the HOPE VI program. The Housepassed version of the FY2007 funding bill would not have rescinded FY2006 HOPE VI funds. The Senate committee-passed bill would have funded the Operating Fund at $3.6 billion, the Capital Fund at $2.4 billion (both increases over FY2006) and would have funded HOPE VI at 13 Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, p. 222. Mark R. Dayton, Senior Economist, Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of Transportation, “Intercity Passenger Rail and Amtrak,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, March 16, 2006, p. 1. 14 Congressional Research Service 20 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations $100 million. It would not have rescinded FY2006 funding. The CR did not contain a specific funding level for the Capital Fund or HOPE VI, and so the accounts are funded at the FY2006 levels. The CR funded the Operating Fund at $3.8 million, a $300 million increase over the FY2006 level. Title IV: The Judiciary The Judiciary Budget and Key Policy Issues As a co-equal branch of government, the judiciary presents its budget to the President, who transmits it to Congress unaltered. Table 7 shows the FY2006 enacted amount, the FY2007 request, the House-passed amount, the Senate committee-approved amount, and the FY2007 enacted amount. Table 7.Title IV:The Judiciary Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007 (millions of dollars) FY2007 Senate Reported FY2007 Enacted $63.4 $63.4 $62.6 13.0 13.0 13.0 11.4 65.7 76.4 76.4 76.4 74.0 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 23.8 26.3 26.0 25.3 25.3 U.S. Court of International Trade 15.3 16.2 16.2 16.2 15.8 4,330.2 4,691.2 4,560.1 4,587.3 4,480.5 Court Security 368.3 410.3 400.3 397.7 378.7 Defender Services 709.8 803.9 750.0 761.1 776.3 Fees of Jurors and Commissioners 60.7 63.1 63.1 63.1 60.9 5,469.0 5,968.5 5,773.5 5,809.3 5,696.4 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 69.6 75.3 73.8 74.3 72.4 Federal Judicial Center 22.1 23.8 23.5 23.4 22.9 United States Sentencing Commission 14.3 15.7 15.5 15.3 14.6 Judicial Retirement Funds 40.6 58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 $5,720.3 $6,260.5 $6,063.2 $6,098.4 $5,979.7 FY2006 Enacted FY2007 Request Salaries and Expenses $60.1 $63.4 Building and Grounds 5.6 Subtotal Budget Groupings an Accounts FY2007 House Supreme Court Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services Salaries and Expensesa Subtotal Total Source: Data were provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the House Appropriations Committee (Congressional Record, June 14, 2006, pp. H3969-H3970), and the Senate Committee on Appropriations report (S.Rept. 109-293) accompanying H.R. 5576. The FY2006 enacted amount includes a 1% across-the-board government-wide rescission and the supplemental $18 million contained in P.L. 109-148. The Congressional Research Service 21 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations FY2007 enacted amount was provided by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. Subparts may not add up to totals due to rounding. a. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund (about $4 million) is included in the Salaries and Expenses account. As Table 7 shows, while the FY2007 Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 110-5) provided the same level of funding to agencies in FY2007 as they received in FY2006, unless otherwise provided in the resolution, the judiciary was one of the entities that received an increase over its FY2006 level. The FY2007 appropriations for the judiciary would essentially maintain current on-board staffing levels and address the immigration-related caseload. In his January 11, 2007, letters to the Speaker of the House and the Majority and Minority leaders in both the House and the Senate, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., expressed his concern about a possible year-long continuing resolution. The Chief Justice stated that funding at the FY2006 level for FY2007 would have “a severe impact on court operations, our judicial system, and potentially all U.S. citizens.” Specifically, he cited the Administrative Office of the U.S. Court’s calculations that “almost 2,400 probation and pretrial services officers and clerks’ offices staff currently employed by the courts would be lost. This reduction of almost 12 percent of the courts’ staff would have to be accomplished through hiring freezes, furloughs and ultimately the firing of these dedicated employees.” He emphasized that public safety would be at risk because the appropriate level of supervision would not be available for felons released from prison and for defendants during the pretrial stage. He also expressed concern that there would be no funds to pay court-appointed private attorneys for the last 10 weeks of FY2007 to ensure the timely disposition of criminal cases. In his letter, the Chief Justice requested that the Judiciary not be subject to a budget freeze, and revised the FY2007 judiciary budget request to $6.029 billion. This was $231 million (or 3.7%) less than the original request of $6.260 billion, but $309 million (or 5.4%) more than the FY2006 enacted amount of $5.720 billion. He stated that the revised amount would be needed for the federal courts to fulfill their constitutional and statutory responsibilities. Subsequently, Congress approved $5.98 billion in FY2007 appropriations for the judiciary (P.L. 110-5). The FY2007 enacted amount is 4.5% more than the FY2006 appropriation of $5.72 billion. In his 2005 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary,15 released on January 1, 2006, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., highlighted appropriations issues and their importance in maintaining an independent judiciary that can fulfill its mission. The Chief Justice expressed concern about the high cost of rent the judiciary pays to the General Services Administration (GSA), and asked Congress for rent relief. The rent now constitutes about 20% of the total judiciary budget. In early 2006, legislation was introduced in both the House and Senate which would direct GSA to establish rental fees that would not exceed the actual costs of operating and maintaining the space it provides the judiciary. On February 8, 2006, Representative James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (for himself and Representative Lamar S. Smith) introduced H.R. 4710, the “Judiciary Rent Reform Act of 2006,” which was referred to the House 15 Notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 67389); supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 26425). For more information, see CRS Report RL33255, Legal Developments in International Civil Aviation, by (name re dacted). Congressional Research Service 22 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations Judiciary Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (and subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management). On February 15, 2006, then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter (for himself, and Senators Patrick J. Leahy, John Cornyn, Saxby Chambliss, Dianne Feinstein, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., James M. Talent, Daniel K. Inouye, Richard M. Burr, and Wayne A. Allard) introduced S. 2292, a similar measure, which was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On April 27, 2006, the Senate committee reported S. 2292, and the bill was placed on the Senate Calendar. No further action was taken on H.R. 4710 or S. 2292 prior to the adjournment of the 109th Congress. Chief Justice Roberts also expressed concern that judicial pay has not kept pace with inflation over the years, and attributed increasing numbers of judges leaving the bench to this pay issue. On February 10, 2006, Senator Dianne Feinstein (for herself, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, and Senator John F. Kerry) introduced S. 2276, the “Federal Judicial Fairness Act of 2006,” to increase federal judges’ salaries by 16.5%. In addition, S. 2276 would end the current linkage between congressional and judicial salaries, which has prevented increases in judicial salaries when Congress foregoes annual cost of living increases for its Members. S. 2276 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On March 28, 2006, Representative Adam B. Schiff (for himself and Representative Judy B. Biggert) introduced H.R. 5014, the “Federal Judicial Fairness Act,” a companion bill to S. 2276, which was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. No further action was taken on S. 2276 or H.R. 5014 prior to the adjournment of the 109th Congress. Judicial security—the safe conduct of court proceedings and the security of judges in courtrooms and off-site—continues to be an issue of concern. The Chief Justice noted that the violence directed at judges in 2005 had shocked the nation, and that “we must take every step to ensure that our own judges, to whom so much of the world looks as models of independence, never face violent attack for carrying out their duties.” Appropriations for the judiciary—about two-tenths of 1% (0.2%) of the entire federal budget— are divided into budget groups and accounts. The two accounts that fund the Supreme Court (the salaries and expenses of the Supreme Court and the expenditures for the care of its building and grounds) together make up about 1.2% of the total judiciary budget. The structural and mechanical care of the Supreme Court building, and care of its grounds, are the responsibility of the Architect of the Capitol. The rest of the judiciary’s budget provides funding for the “lower” federal courts and for related judicial services. The largest account, about 75% of the total budget—the Salaries and Expenses account for the U.S. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services—covers the salaries of circuit and district judges (including judges of the territorial courts of the United States), justices and judges retired from office or from regular active service, judges of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and all other officers and employees of the federal judiciary not specifically provided for by other accounts; and the necessary expenses of the courts. The judiciary budget does not fund three “special courts” in the U.S. court system: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the U.S. Tax Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Federal courthouse construction also is not funded within the judiciary’s budget. FY2007 Request and Appropriation For FY2007, the judiciary requested $6.26 billion in total appropriations, a 9.4% increase over the $5.72 billion enacted for FY2006. The FY2007 budget request includes funding for 33,631 fulltime-equivalent (FTE) positions—an increase of 417 FTEs or 1.3% above the FY2006 estimate of Congressional Research Service 23 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations 33,214 FTEs. The requested additional positions were a continuation of efforts to restore some positions lost in previous years as well as to provide for expected workload increases. Of the total budget request increase of $540.1 million, $461.8 million (86%) would have funded pay adjustments and other inflation-related increases needed to maintain current services. The remaining $78.3 million (14%) of the $540.1 million increase was for expected workload changes and program enhancements. TheFY2007 enacted amount (P.L. 110-5) was $5.98 billion, a 4.5% increase over the FY2006 appropriation. House Action On April 4, 2006, the House Appropriations TTHUD Subcommittee held a hearing on the Supreme Court budget request for FY2007, and heard testimony from Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Another hearing was held the following day to hear testimony on the overall judiciary budget request from Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and Chair of the Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and then-Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) Leonidas R. Mecham. Among issues raised at the hearings were judicial pay, televising the Supreme Court proceedings, rent paid to GSA, the Supreme Court building modernization project, and workload. On May 26, 2006, the subcommittee held a markup on the bill and approved a total of $6.1 billion for the judiciary. By voice vote, on June 6, 2006, the House Appropriations Committee approved the recommended $6.1 billion funding level—a $342.8 million (6.0%) increase over the FY2006 level, but $197.3 million (3.2%) less than the FY2007 request. Three days later, on June 9, 2006, the committee reported H.R. 5576. On June 14, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5576 to provide the judiciary with the same level of funding the committee had approved. The House committee expressed concern over the judiciary’s practice of including “one-time windfalls of offsetting collections and prior year carryover funds in the FY2007 funding base,” and urged the judiciary to discontinue the practice in developing its FY2008 budget submission. Senate Action On July 18, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies held a markup on the bill, and approved a total of $6.1 billion for the judiciary. Two days later, on July 20, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee held a markup, and approved the $6.1 billion funding level—a $378 million (6.6%) increase over the FY2006 level, but $162.1 million (2.6%) less than the FY2007 request. In the committee report, the committee expressed its concerns about several issues; among them are the following: • Staffing: The committee recommended that the Judicial Conference make the retention of personnel a top priority. The committee also expressed concern about workload and staffing needs of the district courts along the U.S. southwest border, resulting from increased immigration funding law enforcement activities. It directed AOUSC to provide a hiring plan (in its FY2007 financial plan) for positions that would be funded for magistrate judges and staff, and to keep the committee apprised as the positions are filled. It also directed AOUSC to examine staffing formulas to ensure that they reflect changing trends, and report to Congress Congressional Research Service 24 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations • Courthouse construction. Noting that the self-imposed courthouse construction moratorium would end in September 2006, the committee urged the judiciary to carefully weigh its space needs with concerns about the rent it pays to GSA. It also called for adequate checks and balances to ensure that future construction needs and requests are “subjected to the highest standards of cost-effectiveness.” It directed AOUSC to report to the committee, no later than 120 days after enactment of this bill, on the steps that have been and are being taken for more efficient use of space in the district and circuit courts. Further, it encouraged the judiciary to continue working with GSA on fair and accurate rent charges, and also to correct any inequities. • Carryover funds: The committee directed that carryover funds be used to meet current and projected needs before enhancing any program. The AOUSC is to submit separately in future financial plans, for House and Senate appropriations committees’ approval, all sources of carryover funds and their desired application. Following are highlights of the FY2007 judiciary budget: Supreme Court For FY2007, the total request for the Supreme Court (salaries and expenses plus buildings and grounds) was $76.4 million, a 16.2% increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $65.7 million. The total request comprised two accounts: (1) Salaries and Expenses—$63.4 million was requested, compared with the FY2006 enacted amount of $60.1 million; and (2) Care of the Building and Grounds—$13.0 million was requested, compared with $5.6 million enacted for FY2006. Most of the requested increase in salaries and expenses was to fund increases in salary and benefit costs, inflationary fixed costs, and five new positions. The Buildings and Grounds account request increased by $7.4 million (132.7%), including funds for the Supreme Court Building roofing system repairs, maintenance of the building, and grounds operations, and continuation of the building modernization project. The House approved the full amount requested for this account. The Senate committee also approved the full amount. The FY2007 enacted amount for this account was $74.0 million, a 12.6% increase over the FY2006 appropriation. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit The FY2007 request for this account was $26.3 million—a $2.5 million (10.6%) increase over the $23.8 million appropriated for FY2006. The request provided for pay and other inflationary adjustments, increased health benefit costs, and increased rental costs related to space for senior judges. The requested increase also included $926,000 for information technology upgrades, infrastructure requirements for a disaster recovery plan, and the implementation of courtroom technology in two of this circuit’s three courtrooms. The House approved $26.0 million for this account—a $2.2 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.3 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee recommended $25.3 million—a $1.5 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $1.0 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $25.3 million, a 6.3% increase over the FY2006 appropriation. Congressional Research Service 25 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations U.S. Court of International Trade The FY2007 request was for $16.2 million—a $0.9 million (5.5%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $15.3 million that the judiciary budget submission ascribes largely to increases in pay and benefits. The House approved the full amount requested for this account. The Senate committee also approved the full amount. The FY2007 enacted amount was $15.8 million, a 3.3% increase over the FY2006 appropriation. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services This budget group includes 12 of the 13 courts of appeals and 94 district judicial courts located in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Making up about 95% of the judiciary budget, the four accounts in the group—salaries and expenses, court security, defender services, and fees of jurors and commissioners—fund most of the day-to-day activities and operations of the federal circuit and district courts. Salaries and Expenses The FY2007 Salaries and Expenses request for this budget group16 was $4,691.2 million—a $361.0 million (8.3%) increase over the FY2006 level of $4,330.2 million. According to the budget request, about 99% of this increase was required for pay increases and other adjustments needed to maintain the courts’ current services. For example, of the $361.0 million increase requested, $106.7 million was requested for pay and benefit adjustments for court personnel. Another $46.9 million of the increase was for increased rent to GSA and related costs, such as equipment. 17 In addition, $42.6 million was requested for the Judiciary Technology Fund to support existing and newly installed information technology systems, and to continue the implementation of new information systems. Another increase of $22.1 million was to fund 257 FTEs—additional support staff needed to address the courts’ anticipated workload increase during the year (as a result of an expected increase in the number of immigration-related cases along the southwest border with Mexico).18 Finally, according to the judiciary budget request, to maintain the same level of services provided in FY2006, a $115.1 million increase was needed in this account for FY2007 because of an anticipated shortfall of funds from fee collections and carryover funds from previous years. In addition to appropriated funds, this account receives other funds, including current year fee collections, carryover of fee balances from the prior year, and no-year appropriation balances. In FY2007, these non-appropriated funds were projected to total $285.9 million. The House approved $4,560.1 million for this account—a $229.9 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $131.1 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee recommended $4,587.3 million—a $257.1 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $103.9 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $4,480.5 million, a 3.5% increase over the FY2006 appropriation. 16 Federal Register, vol. 71, no. 236 (December 8, 2006), 71106-71109. In addition to the $36.3 billion in funding for federal-aid highways and exempt contract authority provided in FY2006, the DOT also received $3.5 billion in emergency relief funding to respond to the effects of the Gulf Coast hurricanes. 18 $39.1 billion in obligation limitations and $739 million in exempt obligations. A $2.2 billion rescission of contract authority brings the net total after score-keeping adjustments down to $37.7 billion. 17 Congressional Research Service 26 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations Court Security This account provides for protective guard services, security systems, and equipment for courthouses and other federal facilities to ensure the safety of judicial officers, employees, and visitors. Under this account, a major portion of the funding is transferred to the U.S. Marshal Service for administering the Judicial Facility Security Program to pay for court security officers. The FY2007 request was $410.3 million—a $42.1 million (11.4%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $368.3 million. This increase was reportedly driven by pay and benefit adjustments and other adjustments needed to maintain current services. The increase would also cover the costs for 34 additional court security officers expected to be needed during FY2007. Payment to the Federal Protective Service (FPS) is also covered under this account. The FY2007 request for FPS was $67.9 million—a $7.4 million increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $60.5 million. In addition, $16.8 million was requested for security systems, perimeter (outside the building) security, and equipment for court security and for probation and pretrial service offices. An additional $6.6 million was requested to replace VCRs with digital video recorders. The House approved $400.3 million for this account—a $32.0 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $10 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee recommended $397.7 million for this account—a $29.4 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $ 12.6 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $378.7 million, a 2.8% increase over the FY2006 appropriation. Defender Services This account funds the operations of the federal public defender and community defender organizations, and the compensation, reimbursement, and expenses of private practice panel attorneys appointed by the courts to serve as defense counsel to indigent individuals accused of federal crimes. The FY2007 request was $803.9 million—a $94.1 million (13.3%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $709.8 million. The increase requested was reportedly to provide for pay increases and other inflationary adjustments, and to fund workload increases arising from Supreme Court rulings. The request also provided for the start-up of new federal defender organizations scheduled to open in FY2007. Currently, five judicial districts are not served by a Federal Defender Office: Alabama (Northern), Georgia (Southern), Kentucky (Eastern), Mississippi (Northern), and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The requested funding would have provided 80 FTEs to cope with the projected caseload increase of 5,500 cases. The House approved $750 million for this account—a $40.2 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $53.8 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee recommended $761.1 million for this account—a $51.3 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $42.8 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $776.3 million, a 9.4% increase over the FY2006 appropriation. Fees of Jurors and Commissioners This account funds the fees and allowances provided to grand and petit jurors, and the compensation of jury and land commissioners. The FY2007 request was $63.1 million—a $2.4 million (3.9%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $60.7 million. The increase was due mainly to inflationary costs associated with expenses paid to jurors. The House approved the full amount requested for this account. The Senate committee also approved the full amount. The FY2007 enacted amount was $60.9 million, a 0.3% increase over the FY2006 appropriation. Congressional Research Service 27 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) As the central support entity for the judiciary, the AOUSC provides a wide range of administrative, management, program, and information technology services to the U.S. courts. The AOUSC also provides support to the Judicial Conference of the United States, and implements conference policies and applicable federal statutes and regulations. The FY2007 request for this account was $75.3 million—a $5.7 million (8.3%) increase over the FY2006 level of $69.6 million. The increase was reportedly for pay increases and other inflationary adjustments and for the anticipated reduction in non-appropriated funds. The AOUSC also receives nonappropriated funds from fee collections and carryover balances to supplement its appropriation requirements. The House approved $73.8 million for this account—a $4.2 million increase over the FY2006 level but $1.5 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee recommended $74.3 million for this account—a $4.7 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $1.0 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $72.4 million, a 4.0% increase over the FY2006 appropriation. Federal Judicial Center As the judiciary’s research and education entity, the center undertakes research and evaluation of judicial operations for the Judicial Conference committees and the courts. In addition, the center provides judges, court staff, and others with orientation and continuing education and training. The center’s FY2007 request was $23.8 million—a $1.7 million (7.5%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $22.1 million. The increase was reportedly to fund adjustments to pay and other expenses due to inflation, and also to restore staff to the FY2005 level (nine additional FTEs). The House approved $23.5 million for this account—a $1.4 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.3 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee recommended $23.4 million for this account—a $1.3 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.4 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $22.9 million, a 3.6% increase over the FY2006 appropriation. United States Sentencing Commission The commission promulgates sentencing policies, practices, and guidelines for the federal criminal justice system. The FY2007 request was $15.7 million—a $1.4 million (10.4%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $14.3 million. According to the budget request, the increase would provide for pay increases and other inflationary adjustments, and five FTE positions in the research and data collection area for one year. Supreme Court decisions and recent legislation have reportedly increased the commission’s workload, and the need for data collection and analytical requirements. The House approved $15.5 million for this account—a $1.2 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.2 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee recommended $ 15.3 million for this account—a $1.0 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.4 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $14.6 million, a 2.1% increase over FY2006 appropriation. Judiciary Retirement Funds This mandatory account provides for three trust funds that finance payments to retired bankruptcy and magistrate judges, retired Court of Federal Claims judges, and spouses and dependent children of deceased judicial officers. The FY2007 request was for $58.3 million—a $17.7 Congressional Research Service 28 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations million (43.6%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $40.6 million. The requirements for this account are calculated annually by an independent actuary company. The large increase reflected a change in methodology that a new actuary company had adopted to more accurately project future liabilities that had not been taken into account in the past. (The new methodology included a larger population of people who are likely to join the retirement system.) The House approved the full amount requested for this account. The Senate committee also recommended the full amount. The FY2007 enacted amount was $58.3 million, the full amount requested. Administrative Provisions Some administrative provisions continued language that has appeared in previous years. The House-passed bill included the following provisions, which apply to the judiciary only: Section 401: To permit funds in the bill for salaries and expenses for the judiciary to be available for employment of experts and consultant services (as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109). Section 402: To permit up to 5% of any appropriation made available for FY2007 to be transferred between judiciary appropriations accounts—provided that no appropriation shall be decreased by more than 5 percent or increased by more than 10 percent by any such transfer except in certain circumstances. In addition, the language provides that any such transfer shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds (under sections 805 and 810 of the accompanying bill), and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section. Section 403: To authorize not to exceed $11,000 to be used for official reception and representation expenses incurred by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Section 404: To require a financial plan for the judiciary within 90 days of enactment of this act. Section 405: To amend the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-650) (extension of a temporary federal district judgeship in Wichita, Kansas). The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended language similar to Sections 401-404 in the House-passed bill, but excluded Section 405 concerning a judgeship (see above). The Senate committee recommended the following additional provisions: Section 405: To allow for a salary adjustment for justices and judges. Section 406: To grant the judicial branch with the same tenant alteration authorities as the executive branch. Section 407: To prohibit any judge from being entitled to sole use of a courtroom and to require courtrooms to be scheduled based on the needs of the circuit and district courts. (Intent of the section is to address circumstances in which courtrooms are not in full use and the sharing of courtrooms will help reduce the overburdened judicial docket.) P.L. 110-5, Section 113, stipulated that the departments and agencies covered by the law, including the judiciary, should submit to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees within 30 days of enactment of the law a spending, expenditure, or operating plan for FY2007 at a “level of detail below the account level.” Congressional Research Service 29 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations Among the administrative and technical provisions contained in P.L. 110-5 that apply only to the judiciary are the following: Section 21054. Authorizes the judiciary to transfer among its accounts not to exceed $81 million to provide flexibility to meet operating requirements, as necessary. Section 21056. Extends a temporary judgeship in Kansas. Titles V (Senate) and VI (House): Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the President Table 8.Titles V and VI: Executive Office of the President (EOP) and Funds Appropriated to the President Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007 (in thousands of dollars) FY2007 Senate Reported FY2007 Enacted $450 $450 $450 51,952 51,952 51,952 53,616 12,312 12,041 12,041 12,041 12,398 White House Repair and Restoration 1,683 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,683 Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) 4,000 4,002 4,002 4,002 4,032 Office of Policy Development (OPD) 3,465 3,385 3,385 3,385 3,487 National Security Council (NSC) 8,618 8,405 8,405 8,405 8,684 — — — 1,500 — Office of Administration (OA) 88,429 102,417 91,393 91,393 88,643 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 76,161 68,780 76,185 76,185 76,714 Office of National Drug Control (ONDCP) 26,639 23,309 26,928 11,500 26,766 Federal Drug Control Programs (total) 447,381 221,760 448,600 461,500 437,681 —High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program (HIDTAP) 224,730 0c 235,000 227,000 224,730 —Other Federal Drug Control Programs 192,951 212,160 194,000 214,500 192,951 —Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC) 29,700 9,600 19,600 20,000 20,000 990 11,789 1,000 1,000 990 FY2006 Enacteda FY2007 Request Compensation of the President $450 $450 The White House Office (WHO) (salaries and expenses) 53,292 Executive Residence, White House (operating expenses) Office Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Boardb Unanticipated Needs Congressional Research Service FY2007 House Passed 30 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations Office FY2006 Enacteda Unanticipated Needs for Natural Disasters (emergency) FY2007 Request FY2007 House Passed FY2007 Senate Reported FY2007 Enacted 0 -11,789 0 0 0 Office of the Vice President (salaries and expenses) 4,410 4,352 4,352 4,352 4,432 Official Residence of the Vice President (operating expenses) 322 317 317 317 322 Total, EOP and Funds Appropriated to the President $728,152 $502,770 $730,610 $729,582 $719,898 Source: Figures are from the President’s budget request, the House Committee on Appropriations report (H.Rept. 109-495), the Senate Committee on Appropriations report (S.Rept. 109-293) accompanying H.R. 5576, and a Budget Authority table provided by the House Committee on Appropriations that shows FY2007 funding under P.L. 110-5, Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, enacted on Feb. 15, 2007. The figures are rounded. The table includes an offset of a rescission under the unanticipated needs account. a. FY2006 figures reflect an across-the-board rescission of 1.0%. b. For FY2006 enacted, FY2007 budget request, and FY2007 House-passed, the appropriation for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is included in the White House Office appropriation. c. The FY2007 budget proposed to transfer the HIDTAP to the Department of Justice. Executive Office of the President Budget and Key Policy Issues All but three offices in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) are funded in the same appropriations act, entitled the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. 19 The Office of Administration (OA) and the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) are the only accounts under the EOP (not including the federal drug control programs) for which increased funding was requested for FY2007. The $14 million OA increase primarily results from the movement of funds from other EOP components to the OA for enterprise services (discussed in more detail below). The CEA increase was 0.05%. For the Unanticipated Needs account, the budget requested $11.789 million, which was then offset by the requested rescission of $11.789 million from the Unanticipated Needs for Natural Disasters account. As for the remaining accounts, except for that on Compensation of the President, which was unchanged, decreased appropriations were requested for all other accounts under the EOP in FY2007. The OMB and ONDCP accounts had the largest reductions—9.7% and 12.5%, respectively—from their FY2006 appropriation levels after the rescission. The reductions primarily resulted from the movement of funds from these accounts to the Office of Administration for the continued centralization of enterprise services. OMB also would have lost 11 FTEs (full-time equivalent employees). The FY2007 budget, like the FY2006 budget, proposed to transfer the HIDTAP to the Department of Justice and to fund the program at $207.6 million. For FY2006, the conference committee 19 Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, pp. 216-224. Congressional Research Service 31 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations continued to fund the program under the EOP. This practice continues for FY2007 under P.L. 1105, the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution. For the sixth consecutive fiscal year, the President’s FY2007 budget proposed to consolidate and financially realign several salaries and expenses accounts that directly support the President into a single annual appropriation, called “The White House.” This consolidated appropriation would total $184.252 million in FY2007 for the accounts proposed to be consolidated, an increase of 7.0% from the $172.249 million appropriated in FY2006 (after the 1.0% rescission). 20 The increase primarily resulted from the Enterprise Services Initiative discussed below. The nine accounts included in the consolidated appropriation would be the following: • Compensation of the President, • White House Office, • Executive Residence at the White House, • White House Repair and Restoration, • Office of Policy Development, • Office of Administration, • Council of Economic Advisers, and • National Security Council.21 The EOP budget submission stated that consolidation “presents the best means for the President to realign or reallocate the resources and staff available in response to changing needs and priorities or emergent national needs.”22 The conference committees on the FY2002 through FY2006 appropriations acts decided to continue with separate appropriations for the EOP accounts to facilitate congressional oversight of their funding and operation. For FY2007, P.L. 110-5, the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, continues this practice. The FY2007 budget requested a general provision in Title VI to continue and expand the authority for the EOP to transfer 10% of the appropriated funds among several accounts under the EOP. The authority would cover the following accounts in FY2007: 20 • The White House, 23 • Office of Management and Budget (OMB), • Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, p. 222. 21 Mark R. Dayton, Senior Economist, Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of Transportation, “Intercity Passenger Rail and Amtrak,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, March 16, 2006, p. 1. 22 Notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 67389); supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 26425). For more information, see CRS Report RL33255, Legal Developments in International Civil Aviation, by (name re dacted). 23 Federal Register, vol. 71, no. 236 (December 8, 2006), 71106-71109. Congressional Research Service 32 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations • 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, and • Office of the United States Trade Representative. 24 The OMB Director (or such other officer as the President designates in writing) would be able to, 15 days after notifying the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, transfer up to 10% of any such appropriation to any other such appropriation. The transferred funds would be merged with, and available for, the same time and purposes as the appropriation receiving the funds. Such transfers could not increase an appropriation by more than 50%. According to the EOP budget submission, the transfer authority would “allow the President to address, in a limited way, emerging priorities and shifting demands” and would “provide the President with flexibility and improve the efficiency of the EOP.” The authority “is not intended to be used for new missions or programs” and the need for it “arises in part due to the large number of small accounts at the President’s discretion, as well as the need to be responsive to a dynamic environment.”25 The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005 (Section 533, Title V, Division H) authorized transfers of up to 10% of FY2005 appropriated funds among the accounts for the White House Office, OMB, ONDCP, and the Special Assistance to the President and Official Residence of the Vice President. For FY2006, P.L. 109-115, the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Section 725) authorized transfers of up to 10% among the accounts for the White House and the Special Assistance to the President and Official Residence of the Vice President. An enterprise services initiative was included in the FY2007 budget request to make the administration of certain services simpler and more efficient. Services included in the initiative would be expanded to include burn bag pickup costs, employee transportation subsidies, and Flexible Spending Account administrative fees. The budgets for these services in the WHO, Executive Residence at the White House, OPD, NSC, CEA, OMB, ONDCP, Office of Science and Technology Policy, United States Trade Representative, and the Council on Environmental Quality would be moved into the OA. In order to “be consistent with other EOP components,” the budgets for health unit services, space-related rent costs, and rent-based Federal Protective Service in OMB and ONDCP also would be included in the OA.26 As reported by the House Committee on Appropriations and as passed by the House, the FY2007 TTHUD appropriations bill continued separate appropriations for the EOP accounts. The provision authorizing the transfer of up to 10% of funds within the EOP also was continued. Notable among the appropriations for the EOP accounts were the following. 24 In addition to the $36.3 billion in funding for federal-aid highways and exempt contract authority provided in FY2006, the DOT also received $3.5 billion in emergency relief funding to respond to the effects of the Gulf Coast hurricanes. 25 $39.1 billion in obligation limitations and $739 million in exempt obligations. A $2.2 billion rescission of contract authority brings the net total after score-keeping adjustments down to $37.7 billion. 26 Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, pp. 216-224. Congressional Research Service 33 TTHUD: FY2007 Appropriations • An appropriation of up to $1.5 million for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, an account under the White House Office, was recommended by the House committee. Under an amendment (No. 1025) offered by Representative Christopher Shays and agreed to by the House by voice vote on June 13, 2006, funding for the Board would be increased by $750,000. • An appropriation of $91.4 million was provided for the OA, $11 million less than the FY2007 budget request. Funding for the OMB and ONDCP rental payments to GSA, $7.4 million and $3.6 million, respectively, was continued under salaries and expenses for those respective accounts. • An appropriation of $26.9 million was provided for ONDCP. The increase of $3.6 million over the FY2007 budget request was accounted for by continuing the funding for rental payments to GSA under this account rather than transferring it to the OA. • An appropriation of $19.6 million was provided for the CTAC, $10 million more than the FY2007 budget request. The increase was for the Technology Transfer Program whose termination was requested by the Administration. • An appropriation of $227 million, $2.3 million above the FY2006 enacted level after the rescission, for the HIDTAP (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program) was recommended by the House committee. Increased funding was recommended for the Appalachian, Central Valley, and Lake County HIDTAs (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas). The program was continued under the EOP, rather than under the Department of Justice as the FY2007 budget requested. Under an amendment (No. 1026) offered by Representative Darlene Hooley and agreed to by the House on a 348 to 76 (Roll No. 273) vote on June 13, 2006, funding for the HIDTAP would be increased by $8 million. • An appropriation of $194 million was provided for Other Federal Drug Control Programs, $18.2 million less than the FY2007 budget request. The Drug Free Communities initiative was funded at $80 million (rather than at $79.2 million, as requested), the National Drug Court Institute was funded at $1 million (rather than at $990,000, as requested), the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws was funded at $1 million (no funding was requested), and the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign was funded at $100 million (rather than at $120 million, as requested). • An appropriation of $1 million was provided for unanticipated needs. The rescission of $11.8 million in emergency funds (from the Unanticipated Needs for Natural Disasters Account) to offset non-emergency appropriations, as requested in the FY2007 budget, was not included. The report accompanying the bill addressed several policy issues. It expressed the Appropriations Committee’s “serious concerns about the continued forced implementation” of the E-Gov initiative on departments and agencies. Stating its belief that “Many aspects of this initiative are fundamentally flawed, contradict underlying program statutory requirements and have stifled innovation by forcing conformity to an arbitrary government standard,” the committee n [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL33551. Public record. Not legal advice.