Most Recent Developments

On October 18, 1999, the Conference Committee approved a FY2000 CJS bill totaling $39 billion--$2.8 billion (or 7.7%)above the FY1999 appropriation and $1.3 billion below the President's request. The bill passed the House andSenate,without amendment, on October 20. The President vetoed the bill on October 25, because, among other things, it(1) didnot provide enough money for his community policing program (better known as the COPS program), (2) containednofunding for its lawsuit against the tobacco industry, and (3) did not provide adequate funding for direct payment ofduesand arrears to the United Nations and for other peacekeeping operations abroad. 
Following negotiations between congressional leaders and the White House, these issues and number of other issues wereapparently resolved. A second CJS bill approved by Conference ( H.Rept. 106-479 ) included in H.R. 3194 ,the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2000, was passed by the House on November 18, 1999. The numberfor theCJS bill is H.R. 3421 , which is in Division B of H.R. 3194 , Section 1000(a). The legislation waspassed by the Senate on November 19, 1999. The bill approves total funding of $39.63 billion which is about $625millionabove the level initially approved by Congress, $3.4 billion (or 9.5%) above the FY1999 appropriation, and $920millionbelow the President's request. The President signed the bill into law on November 29, 1999 ( P.L. 106-113 ; 113 Stat.1501 ). 

	Introduction and Overview

This report tracks legislative action by the first session of the 106th Congress on FY2000 appropriations fortheDepartments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and other related agencies (often referred to as CJSappropriations). Congress appropriated $36.2 billion for these agencies in FY1999 ( P.L. 105-777 ; H.R. 4328 ). (1) The President's FY2000 budget sent toCongress on February 1, 1999, requested about $40.5 billion for theseagencies, about a $4.3 billion increase or 12.0% above the FY1999 total. (2) Among the major agencies, this request calledfor substantial increases in appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and State, and a moderate increase fortheDepartment of Justice.
The Senate, on July 22, 1999, approved a total of $35.4 billion, $5.2 billion below the Administration's request and $813million below the FY1999 appropriation ( S. 1217 , S.Rept. 106-76 ). On August 5, 1999, the House approveda total of $37.7 billion ( H.R. 2670 , H.Rept. 106-283 ), $2.9 billion below the President's request, $2.3 billionabove the level approved by the Senate and $1.5 billion above the FY1999 appropriation. This amount included$4.5billion for the decennial census, designated as emergency spending. The Senate measure did not include thisfunding. (3) OnOctober 18, the Conference Committee approved a CJS bill totaling $39 billion--$2.8 billion above the FY1999appropriation and $1.5 billion below the President's request. The bill was approved in the House and Senate,withoutamendment, on October 20, 1999. (4) The Presidentvetoed the bill on October 25, because, among other things, it (1) didnot provide enough money for his community policing program (better known as the COPS program), (2) containednofunding for its lawsuit against the tobacco industry, and (3) did not provide adequate funding for direct payment ofduesand arrears to the United Nations and for other peacekeeping operations abroad.
Following negotiations between congressional leaders and the White House, these issues were apparently resolved. Asecond CJS bill approved by Conference ( H.Rept. 106-479 ) included in H.R. 3194 , the ConsolidatedAppropriations Act for FY 2000, was passed by the House on November 18 by a vote of 296-135, and the SenateonNovember 19, 1999 by a vote of 74-24. (5) The numberfor the CJS bill is H.R. 3421 which is in Division B of H.R. 3194 , Section 1000(a). The President signed the bill into law on November 29, 1999. ( P.L. 106-113 ). (6) The law approves total funding of $39.63 billion which is about $625 million above the level initially approved byCongress, $3.4 billion (or 9.5%) above FY1999 appropriation and $920 million below the President's request. 
Government-wide rescissions. It is important to note that the ConsolidatedAppropriations Act also includes a provision which mandates a 0.38 percent government-wide recission ofdiscretionarybudget authority for FY2000. The Act further provides in carrying out these rescissions:
(1) no program, project or activity of any department, agency, instrumentality or entity may be reduced by more than 15percent (with "programs, projects, and activities" as delineated in the appropriations Act or accompanying reportfor therelevant account, or for accounts and items not included in appropriations Acts, as delineated in the most recentlysubmitted President's budget),
(2) no reduction shall be taken from any military personnel account, and 
(3) the reduction for the Department of Defense and Department of Energy Defense Activities shall be applied proportionately to all Defense accounts.
The Act provides further that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall include in the President's budgetsubmitted for fiscal year 2001 a report specifying the reductions made to each account pursuant to requirements ofthisprovision this section (Section 301 (a) of H.R. 3425 , included in H.R. 3194 ). (7)
On January 10, 2000, the White House released a fact sheet prepared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)which provides a general statement of actions taken by the Administration to comply with the government-widerescissionsrequirements of the Section 301 (a) of the act (included in H.R. 3194 ). To achieve the 0.38 cut, theAdministration stated it had achieved total savings of $2.356 billion, including cuts of $478 million inCongressionalearmarks (involving 2,372 projects), $192.5 from salaries and expenses, and $1.7 billion in government programs.
The fact sheet did not provide further details on cuts for all federal agencies. These cuts will be reflected in agency totalsfor FY2000 contained in the forthcoming budget request of the President for FY2001.

		Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) Requirements

As part of the budget process, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) enacted by Congress in 1993( P.L.103-62 ; 107 Stat 285) requires that agencies develop strategic plans that contain goals, objectives, andperformancemeasures for all major programs. The GPRA requirements apply to nearly all executive branch agencies, includingindependent regulatory commissions, but not the judicial branch. According to the President's FY2000 budgetrequest toCongress, all agencies have sent their strategic plans to Congress and are now in the process of preparing annualperformance goals they plan to meet in 2000. The request goes on to say that: "In 2000. . . agencies will submit tothePresident and Congress annual reports...that compare actual and target performance levels and explain any differencebetween them." (8) Brief descriptions of the strategicplans of the major agencies covered by CJS appropriations arecontained in the discussions of the FY2000 budget requests of individual agencies included in this report.

		Brief Survey of Major Issues

The more contentious issues that were given consideration in the House and Senate debate over FY2000 CJS appropriations included: 
The conduct of the 2000 decennial census, including whether statistical sampling should be used by the Census Bureau of the Department of Commerce to derive population data for purposes other than reapportioningtheHouse of Representatives.
The adequacy of funding the Department of Justice's COPS program to hire new police officers at the community level.
Changing the focus and levels of appropriations for DOJ's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Neither the 104th nor the 105th Congress reauthorized the JuvenileJustice and DelinquencyPrevention Act of 1974, as amended.
Determining the level of INS detention capacity necessary to comply with the statutory mandate that certain criminal aliens be detained until deported;
The payment of arrears to the United Nations.
The payment of embassy security measures through an advanced appropriation; 
How much funding was required to maintain essential services, operations and court security in the lower courts.
Other issues that received attention include the following. 
Department of Justice: 
Extending the 1994 Crime Act funding authorizations beyond FY2000 under the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund (VCRTF).
Eliminating most funding under the 1994 Crime Act for Title III crime prevention programs.
Increasing funding for drug-related efforts, especially interdiction, among the Department of Justice (DOJ) agencies, now that the 105th Congress has reauthorized the Office of National Drug ControlPolicy.
Funding for programs that would reduce violence in schools.
Determining the severity of INS budget overruns in FY1999 due to overhiring in FY1998 and other mandatory costs, e.g., rents and telecommunications.
Reducing pending case loads in immigration-related claims, particularly naturalization cases.
Meeting the statutory mandate that the Border Patrol be increased by 1,000 agents in FY2000.
Restructuring INS internally as proposed by the Administration or dismantling the agency by legislation.
Department of Commerce: 
Progress made in the streamlining and downsizing of Department programs and operations.
Funding needs of the Bureau of the Census in conducting the forthcoming decennial (Year 2000) census.
Extent to which federal funds should be used to support industrial technology development programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), particularly the Advanced TechnologyProgram.
Appropriateness of the Administration's proposal to increase funding for public broadcast facilities, planning, and construction at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration(NTIA).
The extent to which the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would implement a number of new ongoing Presidential initiatives to protect the environment and foster research anddevelopment in the 21st century.
Department of State: 
Reorganization issues of foreign policy agencies including State, USIA, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA).
Increased funding for embassy security overseas.
The Judiciary: 
How to contain the growing costs of the Judiciary's Defender Services account.
Whether to increase funding to compensate court-appointed defense attorneys in federal criminal cases.
Whether the salaries of federal judges should receive a cost-of-living adjustment.
How much funding to appropriate for the Supreme Court's building improvement program.
Other Agencies: 
Adequacy of funding for the Legal Services Corporation.
Adequacy of funding for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, given a rapidly growing workload of civil rights cases.
Adequacy of funding for programs of the Small Business Administration (SBA)
This report provides background descriptions of the principal functions of the federal agencies covered by CJS appropriations and identifies and more extensively reviews the major legislative and policy issues that emergedduring thedebate on these appropriations. 

	Status

The table below shows the key legislative steps necessary for the enactment of FY2000 CJS appropriationslegislation. OnJune 9, the Senate CJS Subcommittee approved its version of the appropriations bill. This was followed by approvalby theSenate Appropriations Committee on June 10. The report was ordered to be printed on June 14 ( S. 1217 ; S.Rept. 106-76 ). The Senate on July 22, 1999 approved a total of $35.4 billion, $4.9 billion below theAdministration'srequest and $813 million below the FY1999 appropriation.
On July 22, 1999 the House CJS Subcommittee approved its version of the FY 2000 bill. The House AppropriationsCommittee approved the bill on August 3, 1999. On August 5, the House approved a total of $37.7 billion( H.R. 2670 , H.Rept. 106-283 ), $2.9 billion below the President's request, $2.3 billion below the levelapproved by the Senate and $1.5 billion above the FY1999 appropriation. This amount included $4.5 billion forthedecennial census, designated as emergency spending. The Senate measure did not include this funding. On October18, theConference Committee approved a CJS bill totaling $39 billion--$2.8 billion above the FY1999 appropriation and$1.3billion below the President's request. The bill was passed by the House by a vote of 215 to 213, without amendment,onOctober 20, 1999. The Senate by unanimous consent also passed the bill, without amendment, on October 20.
The President vetoed the bill on October 25, because, among other things, it (1) did not provide enough money for hiscommunity policing program (better known as the COPS program), (2) contained no funding for its lawsuit againstthetobacco industry, and (3) did not provide adequate funding for direct payment of dues and arrears to the UnitedNations andother peacekeeping operations abroad.
Final action. Following negotiations between congressional leaders andthe White House, these issues were apparently resolved. A second CJS bill approved by Conference ( H.Rept.106-479 )included in H.R. 3194 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2000, was passed by the House onNovember 18, and the Senate on November 19, 1999. The number for the CJS bill is H.R. 3421 which isinDivision B of H.R. 3194 , Section 1000(a). The President signed the bill into law on November 29, 1999 ( P.L.106-113 ; 113 Stat. 1501). The law approves total funding of $39.63 billion which is about $625 million above thelevelinitially approved by Congress, $3.4 billion (or 9.5%) above FY1999 appropriation and $920 million below thePresident'srequest. 
It is also important to note that the Consolidated Appropriations Act also includes a provision which mandates a 0.38percent government-wide recission of discretionary budget authority for FY2000. For more details see page 3 ofthisReport.
Stopgap funding legislation. On September 28, the House and Senateapproved stopgap legislation to continue funding of agencies at FY1999 levels for the first three weeks of FY2000,beginning on October 1. This covered all agencies that had yet to have their FY2000 appropriations approved byCongressor signed into law by the President. The measure (H.J.Res 68, P.L. 106-62 ) was signed by the President onSeptember 30,1999. On October 19, Congress passed a second bill extending FY1999 funding through October 29( H.J.Res. 71 , P.L. 106-75 ). The legislation was signed by the President on October 21. A third bill was passed by CongressonOctober 28, ( H.J.Res. 73 , P.L. 106-85 ) extending such funding through November 5, 1999. The bill wassigned by the President on October 29. Congress passed a fourth continuing resolution on November 4, to continuefunding through November 10, 1999 ( H.J.Res. 75 , P.L. 106-88 ). The President signed the bill on November5.A fifth continuing resolution was approved by Congress on November 10 (H.J.Res 78, P. L. 106-94) and signed intolaw bythe President on the same day to continue funding through November 17, 1999. A sixth bill to continue fundingthroughNovember 18 ( H.J.Res. 80 , P.L. 106-105 ) was passed by Congress on November 17 and was signed by thePresident on November 19. A seventh bill ( H.J.Res. 82 ) was passed on November 18 which further extendedfunding through November 23. An eighth bill ( H.J.Res. 83 , 106-106) was also approved on November 18,which superceded H.J.Res. 82 and extended FY1999 funding through December 2, 1999. This was signedbythe President on November 19. 
 Table 1. Status of CJS Appropriations, FY2000 
1 H.R. 2670 vetoed by the President on October 25, 1999.
2 H.R, 3421 is included in Division B of H.R. 3194 , Section 1000(a), H.Rept. 106-479 , pp.69-243
Temporary restrictions on FY1999 appropriations. Congress had placeda time limitation on all funding for agencies covered by CJS appropriations, pursuant to Section 626 of Title VI of the CJSappropriations sections of the Omnibus measure ( H.R. 4328 ). This section provided that all funding wouldcease to be available after June 15, 1999, unless continued by enactment of another appropriations measure by thatdate.(The reason for this limitation was congressional concern about the proposed use of statistical sampling in the 2000decennial census. The Supreme Court Ruled on January 25, 1999, that the census statute, 13 U.S.C., prohibits thisuse toderive population data for House reapportionment, although the ruling left unresolved related issues such as the useofsampling in the census to produce data for within-state redistricting.) Section 626, Title VI, was repealed by H.R. 1141 , FY1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, which became law on May 21, 1999. H.R. 1141 included an additional $44.9 million for the 2000 census in FY1999, provided that Congressreceived, by June 1, 1999, a revised FY2000 budget submission for the census, with detailed justification. Therevisedsubmission requested an extra $1.7 billion for the census in FY2000. The Senate Appropriations Committee,reporting S. 1217 , approved the Administration's original FY2000 request of $2.8 billion for the census, without theadditional amount. The full Senate also approved $2.8 billion. In the House version of the bill, the CJSAppropriationsSubcommittee approved $4.5 billion designated as emergency spending. The full Appropriations Committeeapproved thisamount in its markup of the measure on July 30, 1999, as did the House when it passed H.R. 2670 on August5. 
It is important to note that during the final days of the 105th Congress, Congress approved a special supplementalappropriation for FY1999 to provide funds for American farmers affected by natural disasters and low commodityprices,embassy security and counter-terrorism as a result of the August embassy bombings, (9) meeting the year 2000 (Y2K)computer requirements, covering the costs of maintaining the U.S. troops in Bosnia, defense readiness,counter-narcoticsinterdiction initiatives, and domestic natural disaster needs. This funding totaling $20.8 billion was included invarioussections of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1999 ( P.L. 105-277 ). The supplemental appropriations relating to agencies covered by the FY1999 CJS appropriations (which are containedin samepublic law) are reflected in the FY1999 agency totals contained in this report.

	Background

The creation, legislative authority, and principal activities of the major agencies covered by the CJSappropriationslegislation for each fiscal year are described below. Brief descriptions of most of the related agencies covered bythelegislation are also included in this section.

		Department of Justice and Related Agencies

Title I of the CJS legislation covers the appropriations for the Department of Justice and related agencies. Established byan Act of 1870 (28 U.S.C. 501) with the Attorney General at its head, the Department of Justice (DOJ) providescounsel forcitizens and protects them through its efforts for effective law enforcement. It conducts all suits in the SupremeCourt inwhich the United States is concerned and represents the government in legal matters generally, providing legaladvice andopinions, upon request, to the President and the executive branch's department heads.
The Department contains several divisions: Antitrust, Civil, Civil Rights, Criminal, Environmental and Natural Resources,and Tax. Major agencies within the Department of Justice include:
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigates violations of federal criminal law, protects theUnited States from hostile intelligence efforts, provides assistance to other federal, state and local law enforcementagencies, and has concurrent jurisdiction with Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) over federal drugviolations.
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is the lead drug law enforcement agency at the federal level,coordinating its efforts with state, local, and other federal officials in drug enforcement activities, developing andmaintaining drug intelligence systems, regulating legitimate controlled substances activities, and undertakingcoordinationand intelligence-gathering activities with foreign government agencies.
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is responsible for administering laws relating to theadmission, exclusion, deportation, and naturalization of aliens, including the oversight of the process involving theadmission of aliens into the country and applications to become citizens, the prevention of illegal entry into theUnitedStates, and the investigation, apprehension, and removal of aliens who are in this country in violation of thelaw.
Federal Prison System provides for the custody and care of the federal prison population, themaintenance of prison-related facilities, and the boarding of sentenced federal prisoners incarcerated in state andlocalinstitutions.
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) provides grants to states, units of local government,Indian tribal governments, and other public and private entities to increase police presence, to expand cooperationbetweenlaw enforcement agencies and members of the community, and to enhance public safety.
Office of Justice Programs (OJP) carries out policy coordination and general management responsibilities for the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice, OfficeofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office of Victims of Crime, including administering programs,awarding grants, and evaluating activities.
United States Attorneys prosecute criminal offenses against the United States, represent thegovernment in civil actions in which the United States is concerned, and initiate proceedings for the collection offines,penalties, and forfeitures owed to the United States.
United States Marshals Service is primarily responsible for the protection of the federal judiciary,protection of witnesses, execution of warrants and court orders, management of seized assets, and custody andtransportation of unsentenced prisoners.
Interagency Law Enforcement consists of 13 regional task forces composed of federal agents workingin cooperation with state and local investigators and prosecutors to target and destroy major narcotic trafficking andmoneylaundering organizations.
The total appropriation for the Department of Justice in FY1999 was $18.2 billion. (For more details on the funding ofindividual programs, see Table 1A in the Appendix.)
Appropriators also considered funding for criminal justice programs under the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund(VCRTF), which was established in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 ( P.L. 103-322 ). TheVCRTF provides authorization for criminal justice spending over a 6-year period, from FY1995 through FY2000.TrustFund monies were to be derived in part from projected savings to be realized by eliminating over 250,000 federaljobs asrequired by the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act ( P.L. 103-226 ). Spending was provided in the annualappropriationsbills, extending indefinitely authorizations of appropriations not fully appropriated. Across-the-board sequestrationofspending from the VCRTF is required, if outlays exceed the outlay limits set for the Trust Fund.
The fund authorizes $30.2 billion in spending from FY1995 through FY2000. The Omnibus Consolidated and EmergencySupplemental Appropriations Act for FY1999 ( P.L. 105-277 ) provided a total of $5.5 billion for DOJ's anti-crimeinitiatives from the VCRTF. Legislation has been offered in the 106th Congress to extend the VCRTFbeyond FY2000.

		Department of Commerce

Title II includes the appropriations for the Department of Commerce and related agencies. The Department wasestablished on March 4, 1913 (37 Stat.7365; 15 U.S.C. 1501). The origins of the Department of Commerce dateback to1903 with the establishment of the Department of Commerce and Labor (32 Stat. 825). In 1913, a separate theDepartmentof Commerce was designated (37 Stat. 7365; 15 U.S.C. 1501). Though the responsibilities of the Department arenumerous and quite varied, it has five basic missions: promoting the development of American business andincreasingforeign trade; improving the nation's technological competitiveness; fostering environmental stewardship andassessment;encouraging economic development; and compiling, analyzing, and disseminating statistical information on the U.S.economy.
These missions are carried out by the following agencies of the Department: 
Economic Development Administration (EDA) provides grants for economic development projects ineconomically distressed communities and regions.
Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) seeks to promote private and public sectorinvestment in minority businesses.
Bureau of the Census collects, compiles, and publishes a broad range of economic, demographic, andsocial data.
Economic and Statistical Analysis Programs provide (1) timely information on the state of theeconomy through preparation, development, and interpretation of economic data; and (2) analytical support toDepartmentofficials in meeting their policy responsibilities.
International Trade Administration (ITA) seeks to develop the export potential of U.S. firms and toimprove the trade performance of U.S. industry.
Export Administration enforces U.S. export control laws consistent with national security, foreignpolicy, and short-supply objectives.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides scientific, technical, andmanagement expertise to (1) promote safe and efficient marine and air navigation; (2) assess the health of coastalandmarine resources; (3) monitor and predict the coastal, ocean, and global environments (including weatherforecasting); and(4) protect and manage the nation's coastal resources.
Patent and Trademark Office examines and approves applications for patents for claimed inventionsand registration of trademarks.
Technology Administration advocates integrated policies that seek to maximize the impact oftechnology on economic growth, conducts technology development and deployment programs, and disseminatestechnological information.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) assists industry in developingtechnology toimprove product quality, modernize manufacturing processes, ensure product reliability, and facilitate rapidcommercialization of products based on new scientific discoveries.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) advises the President ondomestic and international communications policy, manages the federal government's use of the radio frequencyspectrum,and performs research in telecommunications sciences.
The total appropriation for the Department of Commerce in FY1999 was $5.1 billion. (For more details on the funding ofindividual programs, see Table 1A in the Appendix.)

		The Judiciary

Title III covers appropriations for the Judiciary. By statute (31 U.S.C. 1105 (b)) the judicial branch's budget is accordedprotection from presidential alteration. Thus, when the President transmits a proposed federal budget to Congress,thePresident must forward the judicial branch's proposed budget to Congress unchanged. That process has been inoperationsince 1939. The total appropriation for the Judiciary in FY1999 was $3.65 billion.
The Judiciary budget consists of more than 10 separate accounts. Two of these accounts fund the Supreme Court of theUnited States -- one covering the Court's salary and operational expenses and the other covering expenditures forthe careof its building and grounds. Traditionally, in a practice dating back to the 1920s, one or more of the Court's Justicesappearbefore either a House or Senate appropriations subcommittee to address the budget requirements of the SupremeCourt forthe upcoming fiscal year, focusing primarily on the Court's salary and operational expenses. Subsequent to theirtestimony,the Architect of the Capitol appears to request a funding amount for the Court's building and grounds account. (10) Althoughit is at the apex of the federal judicial system, the Supreme Court represents only a very small share of the Judiciary'soverall funding. The FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act ( P.L. 105-277 ), for instance, provided a total of $36.5millionfor the Supreme Court's two accounts, which was 1.0% of the Judiciary's overall appropriation of $ 3.65 billion.
The rest of the Judiciary's budget provides funding for the "lower" federal courts and for related judicial services. Amongthe lower court accounts, one dwarfs all others -- the Salaries and Expenses account for the U.S. Courts of AppealsandDistrict Courts. The account, however, covers not only the salaries of circuit and district judges (including judgesof theterritorial courts of the United States), but also those of retired justices and judges, judges of the U.S. Court ofFederalClaims, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and all other officers and employees of the federal Judiciary notspecificallyprovided for by other accounts.
Other accounts for the lower courts include Defender Services (for compensation and reimbursement of expenses ofattorneys appointed to represent criminal defendants), Fees of Jurors, the U.S. Court of International Trade, theAdministrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Federal Judicial Center (charged with furthering the development ofimproved judicial administration), and the U.S. Sentencing Commission (an independent commission in the judicialbranch, which establishes sentencing policies and practices for the courts).
The annual Judiciary budget request for the courts is presented to the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees afterbeing reviewed and cleared by the Judicial Conference, the federal court system's governing body. Thesepresentations,typically made by the chairman of the Conference's budget committee, are separate from subcommittee appearancesaJustice makes on behalf of the Supreme Court's budget request.
The Judiciary budget does not appropriate funds for three "special courts" in the U.S. court system: the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Armed Forces (funded in the Department of Defense appropriations bill), the U.S. Tax Court(funded in theTreasury, Postal Service appropriations bill), and the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals (funded in the Departmentof VeteranAffairs and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill). Construction of federal courthouses is not fundedwithinthe Judiciary's budget. The usual legislative vehicle for funding federal courthouse construction is the Treasury,PostalService appropriations bill. (For more details on individual appropriations for Judiciary functions, see Table 1Ain theAppendix.)

		Department of State and Related Agencies

The State Department, established July 27, 1789 (1 Stat.28; 22 U.S.C. 2651), has a mission to advance and protect theworldwide interests of the United States and its citizens. Currently, the State Department represents the activitiesof 38U.S. agencies operating at over 250 posts in 163 countries. As covered in Title IV, the State Department fundingcategoriesinclude Administration of Foreign Affairs, International Operations, International Commissions, and RelatedAppropriations. The total FY1999 State Department budget was $5.7 billion (including $1.4 billion for anemergencysupplemental appropriation). Typically, more than half of State's budget (about 70% in FY1999) is forAdministration ofForeign Affairs, which consists of salaries and expenses, diplomatic security, diplomatic and consular programs,andsecurity/maintenance of buildings.
The United States Information Agency (USIA) was established as an independent agency on August 1, 1953 (67 Stat. 642;22 U.S.C. 1461), through the transfer of information and educational exchange functions performed at that time bytheState Department. USIA's current mission is to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics as a means ofsupportingU.S. national interests and promoting dialogue between Americans, their institutions, and their counterparts abroad. TheUSIA budget includes Salaries and Expenses, Education and Cultural Exchange Programs, InternationalBroadcasting,Regional Centers, and the National Endowment for Democracy. The FY1999 USIA budget totaled $1.1 billion.
The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) was established as a quasi-independent agency on September 26,1961 (75 Stat. 631; 22 U.S.C. 2551). It has close bureaucratic ties to the Department of State. ACDA's missionis tostrengthen U.S. national security by advocating, formulating, negotiating, implementing, and verifying sound armscontrol,nonproliferation, and disarmament policies and agreements. It is the only U.S. government agency dedicated solelyto thismission. ACDA's director, an independent advocate for arms control in the U.S. government, was also designatedtheprincipal adviser on arms control issues to the President, the Secretary of State, and the National Security Council. TheFY1999 budget for ACDA was $41.5 million. (For more details on appropriations for the State Department andrelatedagencies, see Table 1A in the Appendix.)
The Foreign Relations Authorization within P.L. 105-277 provides for the consolidation of the foreign policy agencies. Bythe end of FY1999, ACDA and USIA will be abolished with their budgets and functions merged into theDepartment ofState.

		Other Related Agencies

Title V covers several related agencies. FY1999 appropriations for these agencies are as follows: (11)
Maritime Administration administers programs to aid in the development, promotion, and operationof the nation's merchant marine: $168.7 million.
Small Business Administration provides financial assistance to small business and to victims ofphysical disasters: $820 million. (12)
Legal Services Corporation provides financial assistance to local, state, and national non-profitorganizations that provide free legal assistance to persons living in poverty: $300 million.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces laws relating to race, sex, religion,national origin, age, or handicapped status: $279 million.
Commission on Civil Rights collects and studies information on discrimination or denials of equalprotection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, and national origin: $8.9million.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates interstate and foreign communications byradio, television, wire, satellite, and cable: $19.5 million. (13)
Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) regulates the domestic offshore and international waterbornecommerce of the United States: $14.1 million.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) administers laws to prevent the free enterprise system from beingfettered by monopolies or restraints on trade and to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive trade practices: $10.2million. (14)
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) administers laws providing protection for investors andensuring that securities markets are fair and honest: $23.0 million. (15)
State Justice Institute is a private, non-profit corporation that makes grants and undertakes otheractivities designed to improve the administration of justice in the United States: $6.8 million.
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is located in the Executive Office of thePresident and is responsible for developing and coordinating U.S. international trade and direct investment policies. TheUSTR is also the chief trade negotiator for the United States: $25.5 million.
U.S. International Trade Commission is an independent, quasi-judicial agency that advises thePresident and the Congress on the impact of U.S. foreign economic policies on U.S. industries and is charged withimplementing various U.S. trade remedy laws. Its six commissioners are appointed by the President for 9-yearterms: $44.5 million.
The CJS appropriations also cover funding for several relatively small governmental functions, including several specialgovernment commissions. (For additional information on the funding of other related agencies covered by thismeasure,see : U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Making appropriations for the Government of theDistrict of Columbia andother activities chargeable in whole or in part against revenues of said District for the Fiscal Year ending September30,2000, and for other purposes. Conference Report to accompany HR. 3194, November 18, 1999, H.Rept.106-479 , pp.228-237.) 

	Major Legislative and Policy Issues

The 106th Congress addressed a number of issues during the CJS appropriations process for FY2000. Majorissuesincluded: extending the 1994 Crime Act funding beyond FY2000 under the Violent Crime Reduction Fund,eliminatingmost funding for Title III crime prevention programs, funding for programs that would reduce violence in schoolsand thatwould address missing children under the Safe Schools Initiatives, the adequacy of Immigration and NaturalizationServicefunding and the possible need for reorganizing the federal immigration system; the downsizing of CommerceDepartmentprograms, funding and sampling needs for the decennial census, the use of federal funds to support industrialtechnology,and implementing the modernization of the National Weather Service; the funding controversy regarding U.S.contributionsto international organizations (particularly the payment of arrears to the United Nations) and U.S. peacekeepingoperations, the reorganization of foreign policy agencies and a $3 billion advance appropriations request from theAdministration forembassy security in FY2001-2005; the adequacy of funding to maintain essential services and security in the lowercourts;the merits of a pay increase for federal judges; how to contain the growing costs of the Judiciary's Defender Servicesaccount; and whether to increase funding to compensate court-appointed defense attorneys in federal criminal cases.

		Department of Justice

Traditionally, state and local governments have primary responsibility for crime control. Especially within the last decade,a greater federal role has developed. Congress has enacted five major omnibus crime control bills since 1984,establishingnew penalties for crimes and providing increased federal assistance for law enforcement efforts by state and localgovernments. Federal justice-related expenditure is one of the few areas of discretionary spending that has increaseditsshare of total federal spending over the last two decades.
A major issue that was considered by Congress concerned funding for crime and drug programs. The Violent CrimeControl and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 ( P.L. 103-322 ) provides that authorizations of appropriations not fullyappropriated be extended indefinitely into succeeding fiscal years covered by the act, FY1995 through FY2000. ForFY1995 through FY1999, Congress has appropriated monies for the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund (VCRTF)belowauthorization levels for each year, resulting in total unappropriated authorizations of $1.084 billion. The totalremainingauthorization for VCRTF, including $6.5 billion authorized for FY2000, is $7.6 billion. The President's budgetrequestasked for and Congress appropriated $4.5 billion for VCRTF in FY2000. Congress did not extend the fund beyondFY2000.levels. (16)
Some Members of Congress believed the Clinton Administration needed to request more funding in order to address drugsupply-reduction goals, particularly in the area of interdiction of drugs at our borders. On the other hand, thePresidentmaintained that his budget provides for an increase in funding for drug control. He requested $17.8 billion for thenationaldrug control budget for FY2000. FY1999 regular appropriations were $17.0 billion, with an additional $844 millionappropriated by Congress for emergency purposes under FY1999 emergency supplemental legislation.
A recent increase in violence in schools, especially gun violence, attracted the attention of Congress. The Safe SchoolsInitiative (SSI) is a new congressional initiative to deal with the problem. The 105th Congress,2nd session, (OmnibusConsolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1999; H.R. 4328 ) approved fundingof$210 million for SSI for prevention and technology purposes at schools nationwide. Congress continued fundingfor SSI inFY2000.
The FY2000 budget request of the Clinton Administration asked for a total appropriation of $18.5 billion for theDepartment of Justice, including $4.15 billion from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. (17) The FY1999appropriation was $18.2 billion. DOJ funding for FY2000, is intended to continue the battle against crime and youthviolence, to fight cyber-terrorism, to fund construction and repair of prisons to house felons, to check drug abuse,toimprove the department's information resources, to improve enforcement of civil rights laws, to improve publicsafetyprograms in Indian Country, and to improve the border management of INS.
On October 20, Congress approved ( H.R. 2670 ) a total DOJ appropriation of $18.5 billion compared to thePresident's request of $18.5 billion and FY1999 appropriations of $18.2 billion. On October 25, the Presidentvetoed H.R. 2670 , according to media accounts "because it fails to fund the additional 50,000 community police weneed to keep crime going down in our communities. . . ." Under the conference report ( H.Rept. 106-398 ) for H.R. 2670 , the Community Oriented Policing (COPS) program received an appropriation of $325 million,almost a billion dollars less than the President requested ($1.3 billion) in his FY2000 budget. After the veto,Congressapproved FY2000 funding for DOJ at $18.6 billion. The President also cited the lack of funding to DOJ for tobaccolitigation in H.R. 2670 as another reason for his veto. Although the Consolidated Appropriations Act forFY2000 did not provide the $20 million in funding that the President requested for DOJ for tobacco litigation, thePresident, on signing the legislation November 29, 1999, stated that it did not "preclude the expenditure of fundsfor thispurpose" and planned to "identify existing resources to pursue this important case."
On June 14, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported ( S.Rept. 106-76 ) the CJS Appropriations bill ( S. 1217 ). The committee provided a total DOJ appropriation for FY2000 of $17.1 billion, a decrease of $1.2 billionunder the$18.2 billion appropriated for the agency in FY1999 and $1.5 billion less than the President's request. The Senatepassed S. 1217 on July 22, appropriating $17.1 billion for DOJ for FY2000. 
On August 2, the House Appropriations Committee reported ( H.Rept. 106-283 ) the CJS Appropriations bill ( H.R. 2670 ). The House Committee approved a total DOJ appropriation for FY2000 of $18.2 billion,comparable to the agency's $18.2 billion appropriation in FY1999 but below the Administration's budget requestof $18.5billion. August 5, the House passed H.R. 2670 , providing a billion dollars more than the Senate-passed billfor an appropriation of $18.1 billion for DOJ for FY2000.
With emphasis on community-based prevention plans, for FY2000 the Administration requested funding for a variety ofprograms to combat crime and youth violence . FY1999 was the last scheduled year for theCommunity Oriented Policing(COPS) program. For a 21st Century Policing Initiative (a proposal that evolved from the COPSprogram), the President forFY2000 proposed $1.3 billion to help communities enhance their community policing efforts, of which $600 millionwouldbe to hire and redeploy from 30 to 50 thousand additional law enforcement officers over the next 5 years; $200million toaid local communities in hiring more community-based prosecutors and to develop community-based prosecutionprograms; and $125 million for local crime prevention efforts, such as adopting community-wide plans to preventschoolviolence.
For FY2000, Congress initially approved funding of $325 million ($280 million in direct appropriations and $45 millionfrom the Violent Crime Trust Fund) for the Community Oriented Policing (COPS) program. The Presidentrequested $1.3billion in funding for COPS for FY2000 ($100 million in direct appropriations and $1.2 billion from the crime trustfund). FY1999 funding for COPS was $1.4 billion, all from the crime trust fund. The Safe Schools Initiative (SSI) received$225million, including funds for technology development, prevention, community planning and school safety officers. Congress approved $30 million of unobligated carryover balances in the COPS program for the Police Corps. Otherfunding includes $25 million for the bullet-proof vests initiative, $40 million for Indian country, $35 million for theCOPSmethamphetamine program, and $100 million for the COPS technology program. After the President's veto of thebill,Congress provided funding of $595 million for the COPS program ($550 million in direct appropriations and $45millionfrom the Violent Crime Trust Fund).
For FY2000, the Senate Committee would have transferred funding for COPS to other programs within OJP. TheCommittee directed that available funds be used to close the COPS office by the end of FY2000. By no later thanSeptember 1, 1999, the Committees on Appropriation were to be provided with a report giving details on the closureof theoffice.
For FY2000, the Senate-passed CJS appropriations bill ( S. 1217 ) would have restored funding of $325 millionfor the COPS program for FY2000, of which $140 million would have been derived from the Violent CrimeReductionTrust Fund. Funding would have included $180 million for police officers in school systems, $170 million forinnovativecommunity policing programs, of which $90 million would have been used for the Crime Identification TechnologyInitiative, $25 million for the bulletproof vest program and $25 million for the methamphetamine program (fundswouldhave been transferred for this program from the state and local law enforcement account to COPS).
The House-passed CJS appropriations bill ( H.R. 2670 ) would have funded the COPS program at the authorized level of $268 million, the same funding level recommended by the House Committee. This fundingwould haveincluded $25 million for the Police Corps program. Since the COPS program has reached its goal of hiring 100,000policeofficers, the Committee directed the COPS office to focus future new police hiring on the Safe School hiringprogram. TheHouse-passed bill would have provided $150 million for the Safe Schools initiative. Unused funds of $140 millionfromFY1999 would have been used for critical law enforcement requirements. The Committee directed the COPSprogram toestablish the following non-hiring grant programs: $70 million for COPS Law Enforcement Technology program($54.5million would have been derived from unobligated balances); $35 million for the methamphetamine/drug hot spotsprogram, and $25 million for the bullet-proof vests initiative. From the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, $17.5millionin funds were to be taken for the COPs program to support programs to prevent violence in schools, gang activityand toprovide education in crime prevention and safety, and $60 million were to be used for the Crime IdentificationTechnologyInitiative.
The President requested $3.5 billion in FY2000 for the Office of Justice Programs ; in FY1999, $4.8 billion wasappropriated. This included another DOJ initiative for $124.2 million for public safety programs on Indianland ,including 26 attorneys to investigate and prosecute crimes in Indian Country and $34 million to construct detentionfacilities in Indian Country.
Funding provided for FY2000 for the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) by Congress was initially $3.9 billion, $500 millionmore than the President's request and $800 million less than appropriated in FY1999. Funding included $34 millionfor theWeed and Seed program, and $287 million for juvenile justice programs. Congress provided $20 million for theRegionalInformation Sharing System, with an additional $5 million coming from the COPS law enforcement technologyprogram. After the presidential veto, funding for OJP increased to $.1 billion for FY2000, $534 million more than thePresident'srequest and $764 million less than appropriated in FY1999.
The Senate Committee recommended $3 billion for FY2000 for the Office of Justice Programs, including $1.5 billion fromthe violent crime reduction trust fund for law enforcement assistance, juvenile justice, research, and statisticsprograms. Funding would have included $218 million for the Safe Schools Act to implement school violence prevention andsafetyprograms, $25 million for Safe Schools Initiative for technology items needed to establish safe schools, $51 millionfor theNational Institute of Justice, and $20 million for the Regional Information Sharing System.
Congress approved $2.8 billion for FY2000 for state and local law enforcement assistance compared to the President'srequest of $1.6 billion and FY1999 funding of $2.9 billion. Bryne programs received funding of $552 million fromthecrime trust fund ($500 million for formula grants and $52 million for discretionary grants). Funding includes $523millionfor local law enforcement block grants, $40 million for drug courts, $284 million for Violence Against Women,$250million for juvenile accountability block grants, and $130 million for crime identification technology program. Before theveto, Congress appropriated $585 million for the state criminal alien assistance program; after the veto, this programwasfunded at $420 million for FY2000.
For state and local law enforcement assistance for FY2000, the Senate Committee recommended $2 billion, of which $1.6billion would have been provided from the violent crime reduction trust fund to assist state and local governmentsincombating drugs and for other law enforcement efforts. Funding would have included $452 million for the Byrneprograms($52.1 for discretionary grants and $400 million for formula grants), $400 million for local law enforcement blockgrants,$100 million for juvenile accountability incentive block grants, $40 million for drug courts, $25 million to combatmethamphetamine production, distribution, and use and to reimburse DEA for assisting state and local lawenforcement forremoving and disposing of hazardous materials at clandestine methamphetamine labs, $284 million for ViolenceAgainstWomen Act programs, $350 million for the Crime Identification Technology Initiative, and $45 million for theIndianCountry initiative.
For the Office of Justice Programs, the Senate-passed bill would have provided $3.1 billion for FY2000. The Senate wouldhave provided $38 million for the Safe Schools Initiative for community planning and crime prevention activities. S. 1217 would have provided $1.9 billion for state and local law enforcement assistance for FY2000, $760million more than the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended. It would have provided funding of $284millionfor Violence Against Women Act programs, as the Senate Committee recommended. Funding for local lawenforcementblock grants, juvenile accountability incentive block grants, drug courts, and Indian Country initiatives would havebeen atthe same levels as approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Senate-passed bill would have provided$260million for the Crime Identification Technology Initiative. The Senate bill would have provided $75 million forViolentOffender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing Incentive Grants (the Senate Committee did not provide fundingfor thisprogram). S. 1217 would have transferred $25 million to the COPS program from the state and local lawenforcement assistance account to combat methamphetamine production, distribution and use.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $3.7 billion for the Office of Justice Programs for FY2000, including$1.2 billion from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. The Weed and Seed program would have receivedfunding of$34 million from direct appropriations rather than $35 million from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, asrequestedin the budget. Under the Justice Assistance account the Regional Information Sharing System would have received$20million ($5 million to come from the law enforcement technology program of the COPS program). For FY2000for thestate and local law enforcement assistance account, the House Committee recommended $2.8 billion. JuvenileJusticeprograms would have received $285 million of which $10 million would have been for the drug prevention program. Under the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund Programs, funding would have included $552 million for theEdward Bryneprogram ($47 million for discretionary grants and $505 million for formula grants), $523 million for local lawenforcementblock grants, $250 million for the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant program, $283 million for theViolenceAgainst Women Act programs, and $40 million for the drug court program. The House Committee did notrecommendfunding for the Indian Tribal Court Initiative, as requested.
H.R. 2670 as passed by the House would have provided $3.7 billion for FY2000 for the Office of Justice Programs, a decrease of $1.1 billion below FY1999 appropriations, $109 million above the Administration budgetrequestand $605 million above the Senate funding level. H.R. 2670 would have funded the Weed and Seed programat $34 million, while the Senate-passed bill would have provided $40 million. The President's request of $34million forWeed and Seed would have come from the Crime Trust Fund. The House would have provided $287 million forJuvenileJustice Programs compared to the Senate's $323 million and the President's request of $289 million.
For FY2000, H.R. 2670 would have provided the state and local law enforcement assistance account with $2.8billion, $863 million above the Senate funding. H.R. 2670 would have funded a number of programs throughthe Violent Crime Trust Fund, including $250 million for the Juvenile Accountability Incentive block grant program($150million more than the Senate) and $287 million for the Juvenile Justice account ($2 million below the requestedamountand $36 million less than the Senate would provide). The House-passed measure would have provided $552 millionfor theByrne program ($505 million in formula grants and $47 million in discretionary funds) from the Violent Crime TrustFund,while the Senate would have funded the program at the same level through direct appropriations. Both the HouseandSenate bills would have provided the drug court program with $40 million from the Violent Crime Trust Fund. H.R. 2670 would have provided the Violence Against Women Act program with $283 million for FY2000compared to the Senate's $284 million and the President's request of $283 million.
The Clinton Administration's FY2000 funding request for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was $3.3 billion,compared to FY1999 request of $3.0 billion. To improve the information resources management ofDOJ, the Presidentrequested $93.1 million, of which $38.8 million is for the FBI'S Information Sharing Initiative (ISI). The ISIsupports thedepartment's information technology and Information Collection and Analysis strategy that is critical to the successof theFBI. With the ISI system, agents would get timely, complete information relevant to their cases and would beprovidedwith the analytical tools to use the information effectively. Also, $37 million in funding would have been used bytheLegal Activities Office Automation (which upgrades essential legal and managements tools) to install a newcomputersystem for the department.
To fight cybercrime and counterterrorism , President Clinton requested $122.6 million, which would have: enabled the FBIto hire 60 additional agents to identify, investigate, and prevent unlawful entry into government computer networks,civilian computers and the national information infrastructure; added 55 Assistant U.S. Attorneys to develop aglobalresponse to cyberattacks; enabled the Attorney General to reimburse federal departments and agencies for theirefforts incombating domestic and international terrorism ($27 million); helped resolve unique issues regarding new computerandtelecommunications technologies, the litigation of cases, and support to other federal law enforcement personnelas theycombat computer crime; and expanded the Office of Justice Program's (OJP) domestic preparedness efforts ($38.5million). (18)
Congress funded the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) at $3 billion for FY2000 compared to the President's requestof $3.3 billion and FY1999 funding of $2.9 billion. Of that total funding, $20 million is available for ISI fromFY2000base funding and $60 million is from unobligated balances from FY1999. For FY2000, Congress approved $213millionfor the Criminal Justice Information Services Division, of which $70 million is for the National Instant CheckSystem and$21 million for the National Infrastructure Protection Center (direct appropriation of $19 million with an additional$2million in carryover funding). After the presidential veto, total funding for the FBI in FY2000 was $3.1 billion.
The Administration proposed that $135 million, which was appropriated in the Counterterrorism Fund in 1999 for state anddomestic preparedness assistance, be transferred to the OJP. In addition, it wanted to redirect $31.5 million of theseresources, which, when combined with the $38.5 million requested increase (for a total of $70 million) will helpto fund the Bomb Technician Equipment Program ($45 million). The remaining funds ($25 million) were to support stateandlocal domestic preparedness efforts by providing grants, equipment, and training facilities.
The Senate Committee recommendation for FY2000 for the FBI was $3 billion, $310 million below the President'srequest. This funding would have included $280.5 million from the violent crime reduction trust fund and $260million indefense discretionary funding for counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and national security activities. TheCommitteewould have provided $20 million for the Information Sharing Initiative. The President's FY2000 budget requestswouldhave dismantled the Interagency Law Enforcement account. The Senate Committee, fearing the loss of the accountwouldcompromise the efforts of Justice Department agencies to cooperate on complex, long-term important investigations,wouldhave transferred $113 million from the FBI to the Interagency Law Enforcement account to ensure its continuedeffectiveness.
The Senate Committee used a broad approach in addressing the terrorism threat. It focused on every aspect of the federalgovernment and provided funding to departments and agencies accordingly. In the General Administration Account,theSenate Committee recommended $27 million for FY2000 for the Counterterrorism Fund, which is identical to thePresident's request. This was $118 million below the 1999 appropriation but reflected a transfer of the firstresponder grantaccount to the Office of Justice Programs. The Committee was concerned that the Attorney General'sCounterterrorismFund had improperly become an extension of the Department's annual budget. As a consequence, it would havemovedfunding for the National Infrastructure Protection Center, the National Domestic Preparedness Office, and theContinuationof Operations/Continuity of Government to the respective agency accounts. For the creation of two counterterrorismlaboratories designed to research new technologies and threat reduction, the Committee proposed $30 million forFY2000.
The Senate-passed bill would have provided $2.9 billion for the FBI, the same amount of funding approved by the SenateCommittee and $300 million below the President's request. It would have included $260 million in defensediscretionaryfunding for counterterrorism, counterintelligence and national security activities, the same level of funding approvedby theSenate Committee. S. 1217 would have provided $324 million for the Interagency Law Enforcement account,of which $20 million would have established and implemented the High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity AreasProgram.
The House-passed bill ( H.R. 2670 ) would have provided $3.1 billion for the FBI, $19 million below the House Committee recommendation, $108 million more than the Senate-passed bill, and $203 million less than thePresident requested. FBI funding for FY2000 would have included $753 million from the Violent Crime ReductionTrustFund and $20 million that has been recurred in base funding for the Information Sharing Initiative.
H.R. 2670 would have funded the Counterterrorism Fund at $10 million for FY2000, (the same level as theHouse Committee recommended), while the Senate-passed appropriations bill would have provided funding of $27million(the same level that both the Senate Committee and the President recommended). The House appropriation reflectedthetransfer of funding for training and equipment programs to the Office of Justice Programs.
In addressing the increase in the federal prison population, the Administration proposed funding of $738.2 million for newinitiatives for detention and incarceration programs . Of these funds, $119.6 million would have coveredhousing costsassociated with the increase in the detainee population, especially along the Southwest Border, because of majorincreasesin federal law enforcement personnel in the region, and $86.8 million would have activated five prisons scheduledto beopened in 2000. The Federal Bureau of Prisons would have received $411 million for construction of new prisons(two ofwhich will add capacity for District of Columbia felons), site and planning funding for six prisons, and constructionofinmate work program space. 
Congress approved $3.7 billion in funding for FY2000 ($23 million is from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund) forthe Federal Prison System , while the President requested $3.7 billion. In FY1999, the FederalPrison System received$3.3 billion of which $26 million was from the crime trust fund. 
The Senate Committee recommended $3.8 billion for FY2000 for the Federal Prison System, of which $47 million wouldhave been derived from the violent crime reduction trust fund. Also, the Committee assumed that $50 million wouldbeavailable in end-of-year carryover for necessary operating expenses. This FY2000 recommendation was $24 millionlessthan the Administration requested and $453 million more than appropriated in FY1999. Funding would haveprovided forfive new facilities (4,320 beds), housing in contract facilities for 2,000 D.C. Sentenced Felons, 3,000 short-termcriminalaliens, and up to 1,000 short-term criminal aliens. It would also have provided for an increase in the number ofresidentialdrug treatment units in Bureau of Prisons' facilities and community based transitional substance abuse treatmentcenters. To treat prisoners with drug abuse problems, the Committee recommendation included $6.6 million in resourcesfrom theViolent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. 
S. 1217 as passed by the Senate would have provided funding of $3.7 billion for the Federal Prison System,the same level of funding the President requested. The House-passed bill would have provided $3.6 billion for theFederalPrison System, including funds of $22.5 million from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, $86.8 million for"527additional positions for the activation of facilities" at five locations throughout the nation and $34 million to house2,000D.C. sentenced felons in contract facilities.
Under the legal activities account of DOJ, Congress approved $525 million for the federal prisoner detention account, $25million less than the Administration requested and a $100 million increase over the FY1999 level.
Concerned that local jurisdictions that house unsentenced federal prisoners for short periods under the federal prisonerdetention program are using it more for a source of profit rather than for reimbursement of cost, the Senate Committee,under the Legal Activities account, would have provided $500 million for FY2000 for federal prison detention,$50.2million less than the Administration request. Yet to insure that federal prisoner detention was fully funded, theCommitteemade up to $35 million available for transfer to this account from "U.S. Attorneys, Salaries and Expenses" and "FeesandExpenses of Witnesses." The Senate-passed bill approved funding of $500 million for the federal prisoner detentionprogram. As passed in the House, H.R. 2670 would have provided $525 million for FY2000 for the federalprisoner detention program, the same funding amount the House Committee recommended, $25 million below thePresident's request, and $100 million above current funding levels.
The President's budget for FY2000 called for $7.9 billion to control the flow of and reduce the demand for illegal drugs, anincrease of 2.5% over FY1999. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) would have received fundingof $1.38 billion of thisamount for its law enforcement resources (compared to the FY1999 request of $1.18 billion), including $23 millioninprogram enhancements. The Office of Justice Programs would have received funding of $2.2 billion, of which a$112million increase would have funded a $215 million initiative in 2000 to promote drug testing and treatment for thefollowing programs: $10 million in additional funding (for a total of $50 million ) for the drug courts program; $100million to establish a drug testing and treatment program that would have provided discretionary grants to state andlocalgovernments and Indian tribes; and $2.1 million in additional funding (for a total of $65.1 million) for the residentialsubstance abuse treatment program, which provides formula grants to states for state and local governments todevelop andimplement residential substance abuse treatment programs for prisoners.
For FY2000, Congress approved $1.3 billion for the Drug Enforcement Agency ($343 million is from the crime trust fundand $80 million is derived from the Diversion Control Fund for diversion control activities) compared to theAdministration's request of $1.4 billion and FY1999 funding of $1.2 billion. Congress provided $6 million inFY2000 toaugment the Caribbean Initiative, $11 million for domestic counter-drug activities, $80 million for the DrugDiversionControl Fee Account, and $21 million for investigative support requirements of DEA.
The Senate Committee recommendation would have provided $1.2 billion for the DEA for FY2000 compared with thePresident's request of $1.4 billion. Funding would have included $22.2 million for the expansion of DEA regionaldrugenforcement teams, $56.7 million to improve the agency's mobile enforcement teams to address drug threats at thestateand local levels, $14.9 million for DEA's heroin enforcement strategy, $27.5 million to address methamphetaminetrafficking, production, and abuse (additional funds for these purposes would also have been provided through theOffice ofJustice Programs and the DEA's asset forfeiture account), and $17.5 million for new DEA agents and supportpositions inSouth and Central America and Mexico. The Committee would have provided $89.3 million for DEA's drugdiversioncontrol program, the full amount requested and expected the level of balances in the Fee Account to fully supporttheprograms in FY2000. No funds were provided DEA for "Salaries and expenses" because the Committee expectedfederalagencies to provide sufficient personnel to operate the program. 
The House Committee recommended $1.3 billion for DEA for FY2000, of which $344 million would have come from theViolent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. For the Caribbean Initiative, the committee recommended $9 million and 30newagents. Funding would have included $22 million for program enhancements to address infrastructure needs and$80million for DEA'S Drug Diversion Control Fee account.
The Senate-passed bill ( S. 1217 ) would have provided $1.2 billion for the DEA, the same funding level asrecommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee and $165 million less than the President requested. ForFY2000,the bill passed by the House ( H.R. 2670 ) would have provided $1.3 billion for the Drug EnforcementAdministration (based on a revised budget submitted by the agency), $104 million below the President's request and$72million above the current funding level. 
For DOJ's Civil Rights Division under the Legal Activities Account, the Administration requested $82.2 million, anincrease of 19% over the FY1999 enacted level. These funds were to help prosecute hate crime violations, deterthevictimization of migrant workers and other minorities, and combat police misconduct. Increased resources to fighthousingand lending discrimination were provided to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It was anticipatedthat asa result of this action, additional cases would be referred to DOJ, therefore, the President requested $1.87 millionto handlethem.
Congress initially approved $494 million for General Legal Activities for FY2000 ($148 million is from the crime trustfund), while the President requested $577 million. FY1999 funding was $475 million. Of the FY2000 funding forthisaccount, $72 million was for the Civil Rights Division of DOJ. President Clinton requested a funding increase inFY2000for this account to fight hate crimes among other actions. Because the account was not funded at the requested level,thepresident vetoed H.R. 2670 . After the president's veto, Congress increased FY2000 funding for this accountto $504 million, with the Civil Rights Division receiving an increase of $10 million for a total appropriation of $82.2million.
The Senate Committee recommended $485 million for FY2000 for general legal activities, of which $185 million comesfrom the violent crime reduction trust fund. This recommendation is $10 million above the FY1999 appropriationand $91million less than the President requested. The Committee directed the Civil Rights Division as well as otherdivisions toredouble efforts in combating hate crimes and domestic terrorism. It did not specifically direct how much moneyshould bespent in this effort. The House Committee recommended $504 million for FY2000 for the general legal activitiesaccount,of which $148 million would have come from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. The committeerecommended $7million for the Community Relations Service to provide assistance to communities in resolving disagreementsarising formdiscriminatory practices. It did not specifically direct how much money should be spent in the Civil Rights Division. TheSenate-passed bill would have provided $485 million for the general legal activities account compared to theHouse-passedbill provision of $504 million for general legal activities and the President's request of $577 million.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is the principal federal agency charged with enforcing andadministering the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). From FY1993 to FY1999, Congress has increased theINSbudget from $1.5 to nearly $3.9 billion. (19) Duringthese years, INS staffing has increased from just over 18,000 to nearly31,000 funded permanent positions. INS now makes up the largest corps of federal civilian employees empoweredto makearrests and carry firearms.
Congress approved $4.3 billion in total FY2000 funding for INS. This amount included $3.0 billion in directfunding that is comprised of $1.6 billion from the general fund, $1.3 billion from the Violent Crime Reduction TrustFund,and an additional $100 million from the general fund for construction. The $3.0 billion in direct funding is $26million lessthan the Administration's request, but it is $460 million more than the direct funding appropriated last year byCongress. Inaddition, for FY2000, Congress approved $1.3 billion for INS in off-setting fee receipts.
While H.R. 2670 was vetoed largely for reasons unrelated to INS, the President's veto message did address theconcern that this bill did not include any funding to reimburse Guam and other U.S. territories for the costs ofdetainingsmuggled Chinese nationals who were and are being screened by INS for asylum or removal. The conferenceagreement,however, on the FY2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( H.R. 3194 ) did not include earmarked fundingforthis purpose.
Previously, the House-passed CJS appropriations bill would have provided INS with $4.3 billion in total funding forFY2000. This amount included a direct appropriation of $1.6 billion from the general fund. The House alsoadopted afloor amendment, which cut INS's direct appropriation by $44 million to increase funding for the Legal ServicesCorporation. Other funding for INS included $1.3 billion from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, $1.3billion infees, and an additional line item appropriation of $90 million for construction. In report language, the Housecommitteeearmarked increases of $100 million to hire an additional 1,000 Border Patrol agents and 140 support staff, and $200million for additional detention space. 
On the other hand, the Senate-passed CJS appropriations bill would have provided INS with $4.0 billion, the same level offunding approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee. This amount included a direct appropriation from thegeneralfund of $1.7 billion, $873 million from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, $1.3 billion in fees, and anadditional lineitem appropriation of $139 million for construction. In report language, the Senate committee earmarked increasesof $101million to hire and train an additional 1,000 Border Patrol agents, nearly $23 million for Border Patrol equipment,$10million to continue deploying the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS) to remotely monitor illegalactivities atthe border, $3 million for Law Enforcement Support Centers in Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, and $1.5million for a SENTRI (20) dedicated commuter laneat San Luis, Arizona. In addition, Senate appropriation language wouldhave capped the number of INS "full-time equivalent work years" at 29,784. Further, during consideration of S. 1217 , the Senate adopted several amendments related to compensation for Border Patrol agents and linkingINS databases with other DOJ law enforcement databases. 
Greater border control and deterrence of illegal immigration continued to be an ongoing issue for Congress. BetweenFY1993 and FY1999, funding for the Border Patrol increased from $362 million to $917 million. For FY1999, theconference agreement included an earmarked increase of $97 million to hire an additional 1,000 agents, increasingthe totalnumber of funded agent positions to 8,947. For FY2000, the Administration did not request funding to hire another1,000agents as mandated in P.L. 104-208 . Instead, the Administration interpreted this provision to be an authorization. Nevertheless, there was strong congressional support to increase the Border Patrol by 1,000 agents in FY2000: bothHouseand Senate report language included funding earmarks for this purpose. Conference report language included anearmark of$50 million for this purpose.
During FY1999, the Administration informed Congress that only 200 to 400 new agents would be hired due to lack ofqualified applicants in a strong labor market and high attrition rates among candidates at the Border Patrol Academy. Atthe end of FY1999, there were 8,225 Border Patrol Agents who were on duty and deployed, as compared to 7,856at thattime last year. To increase the attractiveness of a career as a Border Patrol agent, the Senate adopted twoamendmentsrelated to compensation for Border Patrol agents. The first would have provided that any Border Patrol agent whocompletes a 1-year period of service at a GS-9 grade level, and whose current rating on record is fully successfulor higher,shall be classified as a GS-11. The second would have authorized the Commissioner to provide Border Patrol agentswith alanguage proficiency bonus. Conference report language included a requirement that INS establish an Office ofBorderPatrol Recruitment and Retention. It also included an authorization to increase pay for non-supervisory agents whohaveserved for more than one year at the GS-9 level, if the agency is unable to recruit the required agents by June 1,2000.
In addition, the Senate adopted two amendments to require INS to develop a plan to link immigration and law enforcementdatabases , particularly IDENT, with other DOJ criminal-case-tracking databases, like NCIC (National CrimeInformationCenter). IDENT, a fingerprint-based positive identification system, was designed to give the Border Patrol anincreasedcapability to identify repeat offenders and criminal aliens. These amendments were in response to the case of AngelMaturino Resendiz, an illegal alien and Mexican national, who was on the FBI's 10 most wanted list in connectionwith astring of homicides. Resendiz was apprehended while illegally entering the United States by the Border Patrol, yethe wasallowed to return voluntarily to Mexico. The House committee, on the other hand, directed the agency in reportlanguageto suspend further deployment of IDENT until DOJ submits a report outlining the integration of IDENT with theInter-Agency Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) that was recently incorporated into NCIC. Conferencereportlanguage included a requirement that the Attorney General submit a plan to integrate the IDENT and IAFIS systems toCongress by November 1, 1999. 
The Senate bill included a provision to repeal Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant ResponsibilityAct (Division C, P.L. 104-208 ), which originally required the Attorney General to develop an entry/exitcontrol system totrack non-citizen arrivals and departures by September 30, 1998. Last year's omnibus appropriations act ( P.L.105-277 ),however, amended this provision to extend this deadline to March 30, 2001, for land border and sea ports of entry,but leftthe end of FY1998 deadline in place for air ports of entry. The conference agreement, however, included noprovision toamend or repeal Section 110.
In recent years, INS has come under intense criticism for failing to deport criminal aliens expeditiously. At the end ofFY1997, the Bureau of Prisons estimated that 27% of approximately 113,000 inmates in federal and federallycontractedcorrectional facilities were non-citizens, many of whom are subject to removal proceedings. Despite increasedfunding,INS officials reported that the agency did not possess the detention capacity to fully comply with statutory mandatesset outby the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ( P.L. 104-132 ) and the Illegal Immigration Reform andImmigrantResponsibility Act ( P.L. 104-208 ). To meet these detention mandates in FY1999, Congress provided INS with an$80million emergency supplemental appropriation for FY1999. (21) Both House and Senate appropriators expressed strongdissatisfaction with INS for failing to request sufficient funding to meet these detention mandates. TheAdministrationsubmitted an amendment to its FY2000 budget submission, which included a proposal to remove eligibilityrestrictionsunder Section 245(i) of the INA in order to increase funding for criminal alien detention through that provision'spenaltyfee. Neither House nor Senate bills, however, included a Section 245(i) provision. Instead, for FY2000, conference reportlanguage earmarked an increase $200 million for detention as was included originally in House report language,rather thanthe $150 million earmarked in Senate report language.
In spite of increased funding, INS continued to experience difficulty in processing immigration and naturalizationapplications . At the end of FY1999, INS's total pending caseload was over 4 million, including a pendingnaturalizationcaseload of 1.36 million. For FY2000, Senate report language earmarked an additional $96 million from DOJ'sWorkingCapital Fund for working down large pending caseloads. Senate report language also earmarked a transfer of nearly$50million from the examinations fee account to the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), which is the DOJagency that hears immigration-related administrative appeals. House report language, on the other hand, includednoincreased funding for the adjudication of immigration-related claims. Rather, House report language noted that overthepast 2 years, INS was provided with $339 million in enhancements for these purposes. As provided in FY1999, theconference agreement included $124 million to fully fund INS's naturalization backlog reduction efforts in FY2000.
INS Restructuring. Conference report language stressed that "a lack of resources is no longer an acceptable response toINS's inability to adequately address its mission responsibilities." The conference agreement left in place a split inINS'sdirect funding into two accounts: the Enforcement and Border Affairs account and Citizenship and Benefits,ImmigrationSupport and Program Direction account. This split, according to conference report language, was one step towardsestablishing clearer lines of accountability at INS. Meanwhile, Members of Congress and Administrationofficials were engaged in efforts to restructure INS.
On November 4, 1999, the House Judiciary's Immigration and Claims Subcommittee amended and approved a bill( H.R. 2528 ) -- originally introduced by Representative Harold Rogers, Chairman of the HouseAppropriationsCommerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Subcommittee -- to dismantle INS by establishing separate service andenforcement bureaus within the Department of Justice. As amended, this bill would have also established an Officeof theAssociate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs to "oversee and supervise" the directors of these two bureausand theExecutive Office for Immigration Review as well. The Subcommittee also defeated an amendment to H.R. 2528 offered by Representative Jackson-Lee, which was similar, but not identical, to her restructuring proposal( S. 2680 ). While the Senate Judiciary's Immigration Subcommittee held a hearing on another INSrestructuring proposal ( S. 1563 ) on September 23, there was no further action on this bill. (For furtheranalysis, see CRS Report RS20279, Immigration and Naturalization Service Reorganization and RelatedLegislativeProposals .). 
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires the Department of Justice, along with other federalagencies, to prepare a 5-year strategic plan which contains a mission statement, a statement of long-range goals ineach ofthe Department's core functions and a description of information to be used to assess program performance. TheDOJsubmitted its Strategic Plan for 1997-2002 to Congress in September 1997. During the FY1999 budget process, theSenateAppropriations Committee commended the Assistant Attorney General for Administration for preparing DOJ'sFY1999performance plan, finding it timely, with objective, measurable performance goals. The committee found thestrength ofthe performance plan in its clear strategies for meeting performance goals. DOJ was urged to follow therecommendationsof the General Accounting Office (GAO) in preparing a plan for fiscal year 2000, because the committee'srecommendations for fiscal year 2000 would be based on the GAO model. 
The DOJ FY2000 Summary Performance Plan describes what the Department of Justice plans to accomplish in FY2000,consistent with the long-term strategic goals, and complements the Department's budget request. It provides asummarystatement of themes and priorities of DOJ for seven core functional areas (investigation and prosecution of criminaloffenses, assistance to tribal, state, and local governments, legal representation, enforcement of federal laws, anddefense ofU.S. interests; immigration; detention and incarceration; protection of the federal judiciary and improvement of thejusticesystem; and management). It summarizes and synthesizes detailed performance plans of specific Justice componentorganizations such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the United StatesAttorneys, the United States Marshals Service, and others. 
Some of the goals identified are to: remove violent criminals and gangs off our streets through cooperative enforcementefforts with state and local law enforcement programs; work with tribal authorities to reduce the incidence of violentcrimeon Indian reservations, especially that related to gang activity; improve the nation's capability to prevent terroristactswithin the United States and abroad; respond to cyber-attacks, computer thefts and intrusions affecting computerusers;support Bureau of Prisons' efforts to reduce prison overcrowding and to modernize and repair facilities which areover 50years old; disrupt and dismantle the command and control operations of major drug trafficking criminal enterprisesthat areresponsible for the supply of illicit drugs in this country; reduce the production of illegal drugs in our borders;enforce civilrights laws, including hate crimes and misconduct by law enforcement; and to protect U.S. borders against illegalmigrationand more effectively remove illegal aliens.
The Senate Committee requested that by July 1, 1999, DOJ provide it with information about the agency's experiencesresulting from GPRA.
In assessing DOJ's performance plan for FY2000, GAO found that the plan furnishes clear relationships between goals andmeasure, provides goals and measures that are quantifiable, and discusses strategies to protect the credibility of itsperformance data. On the other hand, GAO found that the plan does not adequately identify mutually reinforcinggoals andmeasures among various DOJ components and does not establish complimentary performance indicators.

		Department of Commerce

In his FY2000 budget request to Congress, the President originally requested total funding for the Department ofCommerce and related agencies (22) of $9.1 billion,about a $3.9 billion increase (or 76%) over the $5.1 billion appropriatedby Congress for FY1999. With regard to FY1999 appropriations, these were to expire after June 15, 1999, unlessnewlegislation were enacted to continue them through the remainder of FY 1999. H.R. 1141 , which became lawon May 21, 1999, repealed this funding cutoff. H.R. 1141 included an additional $44.9 million for the 2000census in FY1999, provided that Congress received, by June 1, 1999, a revised FY2000 budget submission for thecensus,with detailed justification. The revised submission requested an extra $1.7 billion for the census in FY2000. 
The amount originally requested for the Department was $9 billion, which was about $3.8 billion (or 74.5%) over the $5.1billion appropriated for FY1999. The agency that would have received most of this increased appropriation forFY2000was the Census Bureau -- $3.4 billion. Virtually all of this additional money will go to cover the cost of year 2000decennial census. (As noted above, the revised FY2000 budget submission sought another $1.7 billion for thecensus inFY2000.) Other agencies that would receive noticeable increases include: National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA) -- $339 million; (23) National Institute of Standards and Technology --$90 million; the NationalTelecommunications and Information Administration -- $22.5 million; the Bureau of Export Administration -- $8.1million and Economic and Statistical Analysis --$6.6 million; and General Administration--$6.6 million. TheAdministration requested modest increases the Economic Development Administration and the Minority BusinessDevelopment Agency. It requested a decrease in direct appropriations for the Technology Administration -- -$.5million.No direct appropriations are requested for the Patent and Trademark Office; its funding will be covered by thecollection ofuser fees. 
The Senate approved $7.2 billion for the Department ( S. 1217 ), which is about $1.9 billion below the amountrequested by the Administration's request for FY2000. On the House side, the Appropriations Committee recommended$8.0 billion, about $1 billion below the President's request, about $846 million above the total approved by theSenate and$2.9 billion above the total appropriated for FY1999--$5.1 billion. The House-passed bill ( H.R. 2670 ) approved the Committee's recommendation. Congress approved $8.6 million which is $3.5 million above theFY1999appropriation and about $370 million below the Administration's request.
The major funding issues were considered during congressional deliberations on the President's request for Commerceappropriations include:
the progress made in the streamlining and downsizing the Department's programs and operations;
the needs of the Bureau of the Census in conducting the forthcoming decennial (Year 2000) census,including funding needs and sampling plans; and
the extent to which federal funds should be used to support industrial technology development programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), particularly the Advanced TechnologyProgram.
the extent to which the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would implement a number of new ongoing Presidential initiatives to protect the environment and foster research anddevelopment in the 21st century.
The President's FY2000 budget request for the Department called for $57.5 million for General Administration, whichwas about $6.5 million above the $51.0 million appropriated for FY1999. This total also included the request fortheInspector General's office which amounted to $23.4 million, about $2.4 million above the $21.0 million appropriatedforFY1999. For FY2000, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $51.9 million, which included $17.9millionfor the Office of the Inspector General. The Senate bill ( S. 1217 ) approved the same amount. The HouseAppropriations Committee recommended $52 million, including $22 million for the Office of Inspector General,whichwas $4.1 million higher than the level approved by the Senate for the Office. The House-passed bill ( H.R. 2670 ) approved the Committee's recommendation. Congress approved $51.5 million, $500 thousand above theFY1999appropriation and $6 million below the Administration's request.
To fund the Department's Economic and Statistical Analysis programs, the President requested $55.1 million, which wasabout $6.6 above the total appropriated for FY1999--$48.5 million. The Senate Appropriations Committeeessentiallyapproved the same level requested by the President. The Senate bill approved the Committee recommendation. The HouseAppropriations Committee recommended a lower level of $48.5 million, the same level appropriated for FY1999. TheHouse approved this amount. Congress approved $49.5 million, $1 million above the FY1999 appropriation and$5.6million less that the President's request. 
For the Bureau of the Census, the President requested a total of $4.8 billion for FY2000, an amount about $3.4 billionhigher than the $1.4 billion appropriated for FY1999. Most of this large increase was to fund preparations for andimplementation of the upcoming (Year 2000) decennial census. (The Administration's revised FY2000 budgetsubmissionof $4.8 billion for the Census Bureau included an additional $1.7 billion for the decennial census. Neither theSenateAppropriations Committee nor the full Senate approved the additional amount.) The Senate agreed to only theoriginalrequest of $3.1 billion for the Census Bureau, about $1.7 billion below the President's amended request. The HouseAppropriations Committee, the full House, and Congress approved about the same level requested by the President: $4.7billion.
During the course of debate on FY1998 CJS Appropriations, Congress addressed the Bureau's plans to incorporate certainnew sample survey results into the 2000 decennial census. (24) Proponents of sampling maintained that it would reduceoverall census costs as well as improve the headcount, resulting in a more accurate, more equitable census.Opponentsraised various questions about sampling in connection with the decennial census, which is the basis forreapportioning theHouse of Representatives and redrawing legislative districts within states. These questions included whether theplan waslegal and constitutional, whether it was operationally feasible, and whether the proposed sampling methods wereflawed. (25)
As agreed to in conference, the FY1998 CJS appropriations bill ( H.R. 2267 / S. 1022 , P.L. 105-119 ) granted $390 million for the decennial census. Of this amount, $27 million was for the Census Bureau to"develop a contingency plan in the event sampling is not used in the 2000 decennial census"; $4 million was "formodifications to the [census] dress rehearsal"; and $4 million was "transferred to the Census Monitoring Board."
Section 209 of P.L. 105-119 retained the provision of the House-passed H.R. 2267 that "any person aggrievedby the use of any statistical method," in connection with the decennial census to determine the reapportionment andredistricting population, might "in a civil action obtain declaratory, injunctive, and any other appropriate reliefagainst theuse of such method." This section provided for an expedited judicial review of the Bureau's proposed statisticalmethods todetermine whether their use in the census for reapportionment and redistricting "is forbidden by the Constitutionand lawsof the United States." (26)
The conference report (Section 210) also established a bipartisan eight-member Census Monitoring Board "to observe andmonitor all aspects of the preparation and implementation" of the 2000 census. The Board, in existence untilSeptember30, 2001, is to submit to Congress periodic reports of its findings. For each of the next four fiscal years, FY1998throughFY2001, a $4 million appropriation is authorized to carry out Section 210. 
For 2000 census activities in FY1999, the Administration requested $848 million. A small anticipated recovery of FY1998funds raised the FY1999 total to $856 million, which was $466 million above the $390 million appropriated inFY1998. This substantial increase reflected the additional funds needed as the Bureau accelerates its preparations for thecomingdecennial census.
As approved by Congress, the Bureau's FY1999 funding for Census 2000 activities was $1.027 billion. This figureexceeded the House-passed amount by $75 million and the Senate-passed amount, as well as the President's request,by$179 million. An additional $4 million was provided for the Census Monitoring Board. Section 626, Title VI, oftheOmnibus legislation funded all CJS agencies only through June 15, 1999. Funding for the remainder of FY1999wascontingent on enactment of another appropriations measure. H.R. 1141 , FY1999 Emergency SupplementalAppropriations, which became law on May 21, 1999, repealed this restriction.
The Administration originally requested $2.8 billion for 2000 census activities in FY2000. This amount, however, did notreflect the additional funds that the Bureau was expected to request so that it could conduct the census withoutreliance onsampling to derive the reapportionment population. Congress expressed concern about the Bureau's delay insubmitting arevised FY2000 budget, with detailed justification. Contingent on congressional receipt of this submission by June1,1999, H.R. 1141 provided an additional $44.9 million to the Bureau for census preparations in FY1999. (Therevised FY2000 budget submission sought another $1.7 billion for the census in FY2000. In S. 1217 , theSenate Appropriations Committee, the full Senate, approved the Administration's original FY2000 request of $2.8billionfor the census, without the additional amount. In the House version of the bill, the full Appropriations Committeeapproved the Administration's request of $4.5 billion for the 2000 Census, designated as emergency spending. Congressapproved this amount.
In the area of international trade, the Congress approved $311.5 million (direct appropriation of $308.5 million plus $3million from fee collections) for the International Trade Administration(ITA) for FY2000. Also, it assumed an additional$2 million in prior year carryover. The amount approved by Congress was an increase of $22.2 million over theFY1999appropriation of $286.3 million and an increase of $3.1 million over the President's request of $305.4 million. TheSenateAppropriations Committee and the full Senate approved $311.3 million for FY2000. Both the HouseAppropriationsCommittee and the full House approved $298.2 million.
Congress approved $54.0 million for the Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) , which was $1.7 million more than theFY1999 level ($52.3 million) but $6.5 million less than the Administration's request ($60.5 million). The Congressassumed an additional $0.7 million will be available in prior year carryover. The Congress provided that "no fundsmay beobligated or expended for processing licenses for the export of satellites of United States origin (includingcommercialsatellites and satellite components) to the People's Republic of China, unless, at least 15 days in advance, theCommitteeson Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate and other appropriate Committees of the Congressarenotified of such proposed action." The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $55.9 million for FY2000,and theSenate approved the same funding as the Committee. The House Appropriations Committee approved $49.5 millionforFY2000, and the full House approved the same level.
The President requested $27.6 million for the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), which was about $0.6million above the $27.0 million appropriated for FY1999. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommendeda level of$27.6 million for FY2000, equivalent to the Administration's request. The Senate approved the same amount. TheHouseAppropriations Committee approved $27 million, $.6 million below the amount requested by the President andapprovedby the Senate. House approve the Committee's recommendation. Congress approved $27.3 million, $300 thousandbelowthe President's request and $300 thousand above the FY1999 appropriation. 
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has experienced a tumultuous appropriations history over the past fewyears. (27) Its funding level was sharply reduced bythe 104th Congress, then partially restored by the 105th. In the 106thCongress, appropriators placed EDA programs in jeopardy until the last possible moment. In the end, P.L. 106-113 reduced the agency's funding by $4 million compared to its FY1999 level.
The President's FY2000 budget proposal requested $393 million for EDA, just about the same funding level under which itoperated in FY1999 ($392 million). (28) Morespecifically, EDA requested $364 million for its Economic DevelopmentAssistance Programs (EDAP) and $29 million for Salaries and Expenses (S&E).
The full Senate (following the recommendation of the Appropriations Committee), approved only $203.4 million for EDAPand $24.9 million for S&E -- which would have provided EDA a total FY2000 appropriations of $228.3million. Likewise, the House, following the recommendation of its Appropriations Committee, approved $364.4 millionfor EDAPand $24 million for S&E, for a total FY2000 appropriation of $388.4 million. This amount was only $4million below theFY1999 level. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000 provides EDA with $362 million for EDAP and $26.5million for S&E, for a total FY2000 appropriation of $388 million. Thus, funding for the agency's EconomicDevelopmentAssistance Programs was reduced by $6.5 million, and funding for its Salaries and Expenses was increased by $2.5million,compared to FY1999 levels. 
The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is fully funded by user fees collected from customers. The OmnibusConsolidated Appropriations Act for FY1999 assumed total funding for the PTO at $785 million although therewere nodirect appropriations from the General Fund. Of this amount, $643 million was to be derived from offsetting feecollections based on the then existing statutory fee schedule; $102 million from a fee increase mandated by P.L.105-358 ,the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Reauthorization Act; and $40 million from prior year unobligated funds.However, P.L. 105-277 also rescinded $71 million of the accumulated fees and returned that amount to the Treasury for useinbalancing the budget.
For FY2000, while there are again no direct appropriations for the PTO, the President requested that the Office be given thebudget authority to spend $922 million. This figure included $966 million that the Administration estimated would becollected in fees (with $20 million to be raised through a proposed fee increase to cover required additions to theEmployees Health Benefits and Life Insurance Fund), plus a carry over of $116 million from FY1999. Of thisamount,$160 million was not to be spent until FY2001.
S. 1217 , as passed by the Senate, provided that the Patent and Trademark Office be given budget authority of$902 million in FY2000. This included an estimated $786 million in accumulated fees as well as $116 million incarryover funds from the previous year. H.R. 2670 , as passed by the House, mandated a funding level of $852million for the PTO. Of this amount, $736 million was to be derived from offsetting fees collected in FY2000 plus$116million in funds carried over from fees collected in FY1999. There were no provisions for a fee increase (surcharge)forhealth and life insurance benefits in either bill.
The final legislation as approved by the Congress and signed by the President gives the PTO budget authority to spend$871 million for FY2000, including $755 million from current year fees and $116 million in carryover fees. Thisis an 11%increase over FY1999 (when funds were returned to the Treasury to balance the budget) but 6% less than theAdministration's request which included a provision for an extra fee to cover required increases in health and lifeinsurancebenefits.
Traditional budget line offices at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) include the NationalOcean Service (NOS); National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR);NationalWeather Service (NWS); National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS); ProgramSupport(PS); Facilities; Fleet Maintenance and Planning (FPM) under ORF. The NOAA budget request also includesProcurement,Acquisition and Construction (PAC); for FY2000, a Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSR), a Coastal ZoneManagement Fund (CZMF), and other non-ORF fisheries accounts. NOAA also analyzes its annual budget requestinterms of 7 strategic goals: 1) Advanced Short-Term Warning & Forecast Services; 2) Implement Seasonal toInter-annualClimate Forecasts; 3) Predict & Assess Decadal to Centennial Change; 4) Recover Protected Species; 5)Promote SafeNavigation; 6) Sustain Healthy Coasts; and 7) Build Sustainable Fisheries, all of which are intended to measureNOAA'sperformance and return on taxpayers investment in research, and shape future budget requests, as required by 1994Government Performance and Results Act. For more information on NOAA see CRS Report RL30139(pdf) : TheNationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Budget Activities and Issues for the 106th Congress. 
On November 18, 1999, Congress passed H.R. 3421 , The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 , Division B,Title II ( H.R. 3194 ), and approved a total of $2.34 billion for NOAA for FY2000 (See H.Rpt. 106-479 ). ThePresident signed the measure into law on November 29, 1999. This amount was about $38 million, or 2%, greaterthanlevels approved in H.R. 2670 , previously vetoed by the President. Of this amount, $1.69 billion was forOperations, Research Facilities (ORF), $596 million was for Procurement, Acquisitions and Construction (PAC)accounts,and also the bill provided $59.5 million for other NOAA accounts (Non-ORF). Bill language prohibited fundingaugmentation for Executive Programs and Administration at NOAA (capped at $31.4 million, and 33 ftes., forFY2000). Also, NOAA must report on new space requirements for employees in the Gulf of Mexico by March 1, 2000. Section 601of this bill contained language concerning funding implementation of the U.N. Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change,andlanguage in the conference report reiterated the intent of Congress with respect to public review of global changeresearchat the Agency. Congress did not approve a $3.4 million recission of FY1999 emergency appropriations for NOAA(proposed in S. 1217 ) under Title VII of this Act.
Appropriations were distributed by line offices as follows (and are compared with final H.R. 2670 levels): NOS-$279 million (an $11.5 million increase, or 4%, +$6 million of which is for response and restoration underOceanResources Conservation and +$5.5 for the Marine Sanctuary Program); NMFS-$422 million (+$18 million, or 4%,includes an additional $5 million for the Pacific Salmon Treaty information collection and analysis, +$2 million isfordamage restoration for the Fisheries industry, and +$11 million for an ESA recovery plan); OAR-$301 million,includes+$0.5 million for GLOBE. No changes were incurred for NWS-$604 million, NESDIS-$111 million, PS-$63million,FP&M-$13 million, and FAC-$11 million. However, PAC-$596 million was increased by $7 million, 1.2%greater than H.R. 2670 . H.R. 3194 includes +$4 million for National Estuarine Research Reserve Systemconstruction (NERRS) and +$3 million for National Marine Sanctuaries construction. Other NOAA accountstotaled about$60 million ($8 million greater than H.R. 2670 ), with PCSR accounting for $58 million of that. Also,Congress approved $52 million for NOAA Fleet Replacement. (See H.R. 2670 , below, for additionalinformation regarding funding and congressional directives for NOAA for FY2000.)
On October 20, 1999, Congress approved H.R. 2670 , Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations for FY2000. Atotal of $2.30 billion in total funding was approved for NOAA ( H.Rpt. 106-398 ). This amount was 8.4% below thePresident's request (see below) and 5.7% below FY1999 appropriations. The total for ORF would be $1.66 billion,2.9%less than the President's request and 4.7% greater than Congress approved in FY1999. PCSR received $50 million,abouthalf of the funding requested by the Senate and a third of the total requested by the President for treatyimplementation(including PCSR). (29) The President vetoed H.R. 2670 on October 25, 1999.
Final funding in H.R. 2670 for NOAA line offices was as follows: NOS-$267.4 million; NMFS-$403.7 million; OAR-$300 million; NWS-603.9 million; NESDIS $ 111.1 million; PS $62.6 million; FPM- $13.2 million;FAC-$11.2 million; PCSR-$50 million. Additional BA for NOAA included some $36 million in previous yeardeobligations. Non-ORF accounts include PAC-$589.1 million; PCSR fund-$50 million; CZMA-$4 million(transfer) and$3.2 million for other fishery funds. Also, the committee approved rescissions of $1.2 million from the fisheriespromotional fund. A $68 million transfer was approved for ORF from the Promote and Develop American Fisheriesaccount (from USDA). The committee did not authorize $34 million in collection of new fees; however, the House,in itsaccounting on H.R. 2670 , assumed this amount would be collected as revenues for FY2000.
Of note, conferees approved $445 million for NWS, forecast and warning activities, a 25% increase above FY1999appropriations levels but still below the Administration's request; $16 million was approved for AWIPS build 5.0. Fundingfor systems acquisitions declined overall reflecting completion of deployment of weather modernization systems. Thecommittee did not approve transfer of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab (GRERL) from OAR to NOS;Anadditional $5.2 million was approved for NOS for research on pfisteria, hypoxia and harmful algal blooms. Thecommitteeapproved $2.5 million for GLOBE, half of that requested by the Administration. (This is one of the reasons why thePresident vetoed the FY2000 CJS appropriations bill.) The Sea Grant and undersea research programs were fundedathigher levels than that requested by the President. Weather research (OAR) realized a 2% increase over thePresident'srequest. Large increases in funding for NMFS were for information collection and analysis (15%). NESDIS realizedincreases in the PAC account for satellite systems acquisition and related activities. Administration and ServicesunderProgram Support received overall decrease below FY1999 levels.
Committee report language( H.Rept. 106-398 ) retained House directives for NOAA to provide details on a new budgetstructure that would more closely reflect administrative expenditures at the agency (by February 2000), includingall lineoffice overhead. It also required an operating plan for expenditure of FY2000 appropriations 60 days after possibleenactment. Appropriations for retired NOAA CORPS officers, formerly under ORF-PS, was scored as mandatoryspending, and not included in ORF totals. Another House provision required all supporting research by NOAA,includingthat under the U.S. Global Change Research Program, to be published in the Federal Register for independentreview byoutside experts. Section 613, of Title II required NOAA develop a modernization plan for its fisheries researchvessels thattakes fully into account opportunities for contracting for fisheries surveys."
The House passed H.R. 2670 on August 6, 1999, approving amounts proposed by the House AppropriationsCommittee for NOAA for FY2000 ( H.Rept. 106-283 ). On July 30, 1999, the committee recommended $1.96 billionforNOAA in new budget authority (BA), including transfers and offsets of $280 million. This amount is about $5.9billionless than that requested by the President (including advanced appropriations for PAC through 2018) (30) , about $208 millionless than that appropriated in FY1999, and some 25% below Senate approved levels ( S. 1217 , see below). ORF would receive $1.48 billion (17% below Senate-approved levels) and $67 million transfer from the PromoteandDevelopment of Fisheries Account. Total BA approved for NOAA for FY2000 is about $103 million belowFY1999funding levels, and some $231 million below the Presidents request for FY2000. 
On June 14, 1999, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $2.6 billion in funding for NOAA for FY2000( S. 1217 ). ORF would receive $1.78 billion, $66.4 million of that would be transferred from a Promote andDevelop Fisheries Products and Research account. PAC would receive $671 million. The committee approved$100million for a Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery fund. Other Non-ORF funding for U.S. fisheries would total some$7.1million. Also, the committee reported rescissions for NOAA, including $1.2 million from the FisheriesPromotional Fund,and $3.4 million from ORF provided by the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1992 ( P.L.102-368 ). Section 606 of the Senate bill contained language prohibiting repair and maintenance and upgrade of NOAA vesselsinshipyards outside the United States, except in cases of emergency. On July 26, 1999, the Senate passed S. 1217 , with essentially the same funding levels and overall recommendations approved by the Senate AppropriationsCommittee.
In February 1999, the President requested $2.5 billion in BA for NOAA for FY2000, which is a 10% increase aboveFY1999 appropriations of $2.23 billion. Of that amount, $1.7 billion was for ORF. Another $631 million was forPAC. Anew NOAA account would earmark $100 million for Pacific NW Coastal Salmon Habitats Restoration. Fundingrequestedfor federal research and development (R&D) for NOAA totaled nearly $600 million. The President's budgetwould fundmany new presidential initiatives for Protection of the Environment and Research and Development advances forthe 21stCentury, including Ocean 2000, Natural Disaster Reduction (begun FY1999), and Climate in the 21stCentury, researchunder the White House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR), including the U.S. GlobalChangeResearch Program and High Performance Computing, and new for FY2000, an Integrated Sciences for EcosystemsChallenges (ISEC) initiative. Also of note, the Administration requested authority to collect $34 million in newfisheriesand charting fees.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) received an appropriation of $641.2 million for FY1999, adecrease of 5% from the previous year. This funding included $280.1 million for the Scientific and TechnicalResearch andServices (STRS) account (with $4.9 million for expansion of the Baldrige Quality Program into the health andeducationarenas); $304.3 million for Industrial Technology Services (ITS), including $197.5 million for the AdvancedTechnologyProgram (which reflects a $6 million recission in P.L. 105-277 of "deobligated" funds from projects that wereterminatedearly) and $106.8 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP); and $56.7 million for construction.
While continued support for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) has been a major funding issue, it should be notedthat the amount appropriated for FY1999 was 3% more than the previous year (after the recission). ATP providesseedfinancing, matched by private sector investment, to businesses or consortia (including universities and governmentlaboratories) for development of generic technologies that have broad applications across industries. Opponentsof theprogram cite it as a prime example of "corporate welfare," whereby the federal government invests in appliedresearchactivities that, they maintain, should be conducted by the private sector. The Administration has defended ATP,arguing itassists businesses (and small manufacturers) develop technologies that, while crucial to industrial competitiveness,wouldnot or could not be developed by the private sector alone. For FY2000, the appropriations bill passed by the Senateincluded a 15% increase in funding for ATP. However, H.R. 2670 , as passed by the House, contained noappropriation for ATP arguing that ". . . the program has not produced a body of evidence to overcome thosefundamentalquestions about whether to program should exist in the first place." While the Advanced Technology Program wasultimately funded in the version of the bill that became law, the support provided, $142.6 million, reflects a 28%decreasefrom FY1999.
The President's FY2000 budget requested $737 million for NIST. This amount was 15% above the previous year dueprimarily to proposed changes in support for ATP and for construction. Scientific and Technical Research andServiceswould have received $289.6 million and ITS would have been funded at $338.5 million, including $238.7 millionfor theAdvanced Technology Program (21% above FY1999) and $99.8 million for the Manufacturing ExtensionPartnership. Financing for construction at the laboratory would have increased 88% to $106.8 million allowing for improvementsinfacilities that are now 30 to 45 years old. The major portion of funds were to be used to build the AdvancedMeasurementLaboratory. 
In S. 1217 , the Senate approved FY2000 appropriations of $742 million for NIST, a 16% increase over theprevious year. This funding included $288 million for the STRS account and $336.3 million for ITS, of which$226.5million was for the Advanced Technology Program and $109.8 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. Support for ATP would have been 15% above the FY1999 figure, while financing for MEP would have expanded3%. Funding for construction of research facilities would more than double to $117.5 million.
H.R. 2670 , as passed by the House, funded NIST at $436.6 million, a decrease of 32% from its FY1999 budgetand $300 million less than the President requested. The major portion of this decrease was due to the absence ofsupportfor the Advanced Technology Program. The STRS account would have received $280.1 million (the same amountas theprevious fiscal year) and the total $99.8 million appropriated for ITS would have all been applied to theManufacturingExtension Partnership (with no funding for ATP). Construction would be financed at $56.7 million, of which $44.9millionwas for the Advanced Measurement Laboratory. The figure for construction was $50 million less than theAdministration'sbudget request and $60.8 million less than the support provided in S. 1217 . 
The final version of the bill as enacted into law provides $639 million in FY2000 appropriations for NIST, fundamentallythe same support as the previous year but 13% below the President's request. Of this amount, $283 million is forthe STRSaccount; $247.4 million is for ITS, including $142.6 million for ATP (28% below FY1999 funding) and $104.8million forMEP; and $108.4 million is for construction.
The Office of the Undersecretary for Technology and the Office of Technology Policy (OTP) was funded at $9.5 millionby the FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, an increase of almost 12% over the FY1998 figure. OTPisresponsible for civilian technology and competitiveness issues, and coordinates the various elements of theAdministration's technology policy. The major portion of the funding increase was for the Experimental ProgramtoStimulate Competitive Technology (EPSCoT), an activity designed to strengthen the technological infrastructurein statesthat are "... traditionally under-represented in federal R&D funding." For FY2000, the President requested $9million forthis Office, a decrease of 5% over the current fiscal year due for the most part to a cessation in funding for theEPSCoTprogram. S. 1217 , as passed by the Senate, and H.R. 2670 , as passed by the House, would haveprovided $8 million for OTP in FY2000, 16% less than the previous year. This is the amount provided in theversion of thebill that ultimately was signed into law. 
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) provides guidelines and recommendationsfor domestic and global communications policy, manages the use of the electromagnetic spectrum for publicbroadcast, andawards grants to industry-public sector partnerships for research on new telecommunications applications anddevelopmentof information infrastructure. The important budget figures for NTIA include the overall budget for its operationsandadministration, support for the Information Infrastructure Assistance Program (IIAP), continued development andconstruction of public broadcast facilities, and support for NTIA salaries and expenses. 
For FY2000, the Clinton Administration has requested an overall budget for NTIA of $72.3 million, well above its FY1999funding of $49.9 million (in addition, the Administration also asked for advance appropriations of $299 million forFY2001-2003, which Congress refused to consider). The most significant increase within the NTIA budget comesfrom theAdministration's request for public broadcast facilities, planning, and construction. For FY2000, the ClintonAdministration has requested $35 million for public broadcast facilities, planning, and construction, well above the$21million appropriated for this program in FY1999. The Clinton Administration argues that to successfully convertU.S.broadcast technology from analog to digital, a significant investment in public facilities must be made, starting inthecoming fiscal year. For NTIA salaries and expenses, the Clinton Administration has recommended $17.2 millionforFY2000, a 65% increase over FY1999 ($10.9 million). For the IIAP, the Administration has requested: $20.1million forFY2000, an increase of 11% over FY1999 ($18 million).
For FY2000, as passed by both the House and Senate and signed by the President, includes the following: a total of $52.9for the overall NTIA budget ($19.4 million less than the Administration request), $26.5 million for publicbroadcastingfacilities ($8.5 million below the request), $10.9 million for salaries and expenses ($6.3 million below the request), and$15.5million for the IIAP ($4.6 million below the request).
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) enacted by Congress in 1993 ( P.L. 103-62 ; 107 Stat 285) requiresthat agencies develop strategic plans that contain goals, objectives, and performance measures for all majorprograms. Thestrategic plan issued by the Department of Commerce enunciates three strategic themes:
Theme l. Build for the future and promote U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace, by strengthening and safeguarding the nation's economic infrastructure.
Theme 2. Keep America competitive with cutting edge science and technology and a world class information base.
Theme 3. Provide effective management and stewardship of the nation's resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic opportunity.
As stated by the Department: 
The Themes within the Commerce Strategic Plan help identify and capitalize on relationships among bureaus and on partnerships with other agencies and external groups. The Strategic Plansupportsthe concept that strong working relationships will serve to strengthen the effectiveness of the Department as a whole,aswell as demonstrate how individual bureaus logically and critically support the core mission of theDepartment.
The Commerce Strategic Plan provides the framework for strengthening existing relationships among bureaus and with external partners. Success for Commerce programs in the changingtechnological world and global economy will depend increasingly on alliances with businesses and industry,universities,State and local governments, and international parties.
For more information on the strategic plan's goals, objectives and performance measures see The Department of CommerceBudget in Brief, Fiscal Year 2000 (pp. vii-ix ).
Commerce Department Abolition Issue. Since the beginning of the 104th Congress, several legislative proposals havebeen considered that called for the abolition of the Department of Commerce by eliminating certain departmentalfunctionsand allowing others to operate as independent agencies or be transferred to other federal agencies. Those inCongress whohave favored the abolition of the Department argued that it "is an unwieldy conglomeration of marginally relatedprograms,nearly all of which duplicate those performed elsewhere in the federal government." The Clinton Administration,on theother hand, has strongly opposed abolishing the Commerce Department, arguing that "it would result in the needlessshuffling of governmental functions while eliminating successful activities that clearly benefit the Americanpeople,"especially in areas that promote economic growth, increase the international competitiveness of U.S. firms in globalmarkets, and advance U.S. technology. None of these proposals passed 104th Congress.
There continued to be some congressional interest in reorganizing or downsizing the Department in the 105th Congress,although interest in abolishing the Department was considerably less than in the 104th Congress. (31) A bill calling for abolition of the Department was introduced by Representatives Royce and Kasich and several other cosponsors( H.R. 2667 ) on October 9, 1997. This bill was referred to the House Committee on Commerce and two otherHouse Committees that have jurisdiction over certain functions of the Department. A very similar version of theproposalwas also introduced in the Senate by Senator Abraham and others on October 24, 1997 ( S. 1316 ). This wasreferred to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. No further action was taken on this issue. In the currentCongress, similar legislation was introduced by Representative Royce on July 1, 1999-- H.R. 2452 . The billwas referred to several committees: Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Banking and Financial Services,International Relations, Armed Services, Ways and Means, Government Reform, the Judiciary, Science, andResources. No further action was been taken in the House. No similar legislation was introduced in the Senate. 

		The Judiciary

For FY2000 Congress approved $3.96 billion in total budget authority for the Judiciary, an 8.4% increase over $3.65 billionenacted for FY1999--compared with the Judiciary's request of $4.16 billion, a 14.1% increase over FY1999 funding.TheFY2000 amount approved by Congress exceeded by $59 million the total Judiciary funding approved earlier by theHouseand by $145.6 million the total approved by the Senate. The budget total approved by Congress included:
an upward adjustment (above that approved earlier by the House and Senate) for lower court operations and services;
a slight decrease in the Judiciary's sensitive Defender Services account, accompanied, however, by a small increase in hourly compensation rates to court-appointed defense attorneys in federal criminalcases;
a cost-of-living increase in the salaries of federal judges;
a significant increase in funding for the Supreme Court's building improvement program;and
the authorization of nine new Article III judgeships, the first since 1990.
The unusual decision of House-Senate conferees to agree on greater Judiciary funding than approved earlier by eitherchamber followed appeals by the Judiciary for funding increases. Letters from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquistand thechairman of the Judicial Conference's Budget Committee warned Congress of the serious impact both the HouseandSenate versions of the CJS appropriations bill would have on the Judiciary's ability to provide services to the public.
The large disparity between the Judiciary's overall budget request for FY2000 and what the House and Senate approved intheir respective CJS appropriations bills was reflected in the largest Judiciary account, Salaries andExpenses for theCourts of Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services . This account funds the salaries andbenefits of judgesand supporting personnel and all operating expenses of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, BankruptcyCourts andthe U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The principal issue over this account concerned the funding level needed tomaintainessential court operations and services. 
For Salaries and Expenses of the lower courts, the Judiciary had requested $3.25 billion, a 14.7% increase over FY1999funding of $2.83 billion. The Senate Appropriations Committee, and then the Senate, approved $2.99 billion, a 4.5%increase. In recommending this amount, the Senate Appropriations Committee noted its understanding that up to$83.9million in "carryover, reimbursables, and fees" would be available to apply to this account. The committeeobserved thatthe Judiciary's request for space and facilities, included in the Salaries and Expenses account, represented 21% oftheJudiciary's FY2000 budget submission. The committee credited the Judiciary for making efforts to control GSAspacerental growth, noting, however, that GSA rental payments continued to consume a greater portion of the total fundsavailable to the courts. "To accommodate this growth," the
committee said, its recommendation "adjusts downward the request for court staff." (32)
The Judiciary, however, quickly protested these cuts. According to the Judiciary, the Senate provided $211million less intotal funding than required to maintain current services, which, in the Judiciary's view, might necessitate, inFY2000, anearly 11% reduction in court support staff from that authorized in FY1999 (the equivalent of approximately 2,300employees). (33) As a result of these budgetreductions, the Judiciary warned, court operations and services "would beseverely curtailed." (34)
The House in turn approved $3.09 billion for Salaries and Expenses -- $116.8 million below the Judiciary's request,$258.9 million above FY1999 funding, and $98.4 million more than approved by the Senate. The House-approvedamount,the House Appropriations Committee noted, was still short of what the Judiciary indicated was required: 
. . . but the amount is sufficient to avoid any involuntary personnel actions, and to permit hiring to replace attrition. Withrespect to the remaining shortfall, the Judiciary historically has been able, as the course of the year progresses, toidentifyadditional carryover and other resources to enable all critical operations to be funded, and that may serve to alleviateanyproblem. 
The Judiciary, in its official newsletter, The Third Branch , said that the House's proposed funding level would have a lessnegative impact on the courts than would the Senate's. Under the House bill, it said, furloughs of Judiciaryemployeeswould not be necessary, although a freeze on filling most vacant positions would still be likely. (35) However, in an August9, 1999 letter to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist criticized both the SenateandHouse FY2000 appropriations bills. The Chief Justice said that despite its growing workload, the Judiciary under S. 1217 would receive $280 million less than was required to furnish the services it provided in FY1999. Such a budget cut, he said, was "both unjustified and impractical." The House bill, H.R. 1670 , according tothe Chief Justice, while providing a significant increase above the Senate, would provide $180 million less than"requiredto furnish the services the Judiciary provided this year, and it also would have a noticeable adverse impact on courtoperations." (36)
Another issue regarding the Salaries and Expenses account for the lower courts concerned funding needed to handleworkload increases caused primarily by a sharp rise in criminal case filings. The Senate Appropriations Committee,in itsreport on S. 1217 , stated that it understood that increases in overall judicial caseloads were largely the resultof immigration proceedings. The committee said it also was aware that "these cases, while numerous, can beresolvedexpediently as compared to other criminal filings." Accordingly, the committee requested that the Judiciary conductastudy of whether the ratio of magistrate judges to U.S. district judges should be changed "to meet this pressingdemand onthe courts." 
Ultimately, following the House-Senate conference, Congress approved $3.1 billion for Salaries and Expenses--a 10.0%increase over FY1999, $122.4 million over the earlier Senate-approved amount, and $48.0 million over the Housebill. 
One of the more sensitive parts of the Judiciary's budget in recent years has been Defender Services . This account fundsthe operations of the federal public defender and community defender organizations, and the compensation,reimbursementand expenses of "panel attorneys" appointed to represent persons under the Criminal Justice Act. Duringconsideration ofthe Judiciary's FY1999 budget, congressional appropriators had expressed concerns about rising Defender Servicescosts;subsequently, conferees for the FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act directed the Judiciary to review DefenderServicescosts in "capital cases" (federal death penalty and death row appeal cases) and report its findings by to Congress bySeptember 30, 1999.
For FY2000 the Judiciary requested $411.4 million for Defender Services (including $36.6 million in Violent CrimeReduction Program trust funds), a 5.0% increase over FY1999 budget authority of $391.8 million. (37) Congress, however,ultimately approved a 1.8% reduction in total FY2000 funding for Defender Services. The totalapproved, $385.1 million(including $26.2 million in violent crime reduction trust funds) was $2.7 million less than passed earlier by theHouse and$31.2 million more than approved by the Senate. (38)
The Defender Services amount approved by Congress includes funding, as provided in the House bill, for an increase of $5an hour for in-court and out-of court compensation for Criminal Justice Act panel attorneys. Earlier, the Senatein its CJSbill, as requested by the Judiciary, (39) had providedfor a $10 increase in panel attorney hourly compensation rates--hikingin-court rates to $75 an hour and out-of-court rates to $55 an hour for all judicial districts, beginning April 1, 2000. According to the Judiciary, however, FY2000 funding approved for Defender Services by the Senate would beinsufficientto pay for panel attorneys at this higher rate for the entire fiscal year. Payments for panel attorneys, the Judiciarycontended, would have to be halted in late June 2000, deferring nearly $43 million in payments to these attorneysuntilFY2001. In that event, according to the Judiciary, a significant number of cases might not be able to proceed to trialduringFY2000 without violating the Sixth Amendment rights of persons to an adequate defense, in turn, compelling thecourts to postpone trials or dismiss charges against defendants. As noted above, Congress ultimately approved $31.2 millionmorefor Defender Services than did the Senate in its earlier CJS bill. 
On another matter involving Defender Services, House-Senate conferees stated in their report that they had adopted byreference language in the House Appropriations Committee report relating to the U.S. Court of Appeals for theNinthCircuit. (40)
In response to the Judiciary's request, Congress authorized a 3.4% cost-of-living increase in judges' and justices' salaries for FY2000, appropriating $9.6 million for this purpose. (41) The Judiciary had requested a salary increase for judicialofficers effective January 2000, which it stated was consistent with an expected cost-of-living increase for federalemployees. The requested salary increase was agreed to by the Senate but not by the House in their respective CJSbills; (42) House-Senate conferees then approved the Senate's recommendation, making the upward pay adjustment for judgeseffective January 2000. (43)
Congress previously had approved a pay increases for judges in its FY1998 CJS bill; that one-time 2.3% salary adjustmentcorresponded with a cost-of-living increase which Congress allowed for itself effective January 1998. Despite arequest ofthe Judiciary that it again do so the next year, Congress declined to include a pay adjustment for judges in theFY1999Omnibus Appropriations Act. In his 1998 Year-End Report of the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H.Rehnquistfaulted Congress for again denying judges a pay raise (the fifth such denial, he noted, in the past 6 years). Denyingcost-of-living adjustments to top officials, he said, was "a regressive approach to compensation and [was]counter-productive to the common sense goal of encouraging capable individuals to enter the Judiciary."
Congress also approved a substantial increase in funding for Care of the Building and Grounds of the SupremeCourt-- $8.0 million for FY2000. This amount was $2.6 million (or 32.5%) above theFY1999 appropriation of $5.4million but $14.7 million below the Judiciary's initial FY2000 request of $22.7 million. House-Senate confereesnoted thatthe $8.0 million finally approved was "the amount the Architect of the Capitol currently estimates is required forfiscal year2000, including building renovations and perimeter security." 
Earlier, the Senate had approved $9.7 million for this account, including $8.5 million for building improvements andfunding "for all requested perimeter security enhancements, including the replacement of aggregate sidewalks andtherestoration of brick walkways." The Senate Appropriations Committee had rejected $3.5 million requested foroff-sitedesign and construction, instead calling on the Court to provide the appropriations committees with a spaceutilizationstudy of the Court by February 1, 2000. (44)
The House, for its part, had approved much less than the Senate for this account--$6.9 million ($15.8 million below theJudiciary's initial request). The House Appropriations Committee noted that in July 1999, relatively late in thebudgetprocess, it had received a letter from the Architect of the Capitol, indicating that the original request was beingmodified,and that in lieu of the $22.7 million in the budget request, the Architect's estimated requirement had been revisedto $8.0million. 
Congress approved a relatively large proportional increase for Court Security , the account which covers the expenses ofsecurity and protective services for the lower federal courts in courtrooms and adjacent areas. Appropriated for thisaccount for FY2000 was $193.0 million, a 10.6% increase over FY1999 funding of $174.6 million. Earlier, theSenateappropriated $196.0 million for FY2000, a 12.2% increase over FY1999; this proposed amount, the SenateAppropriationsCommittee stated, reflected "a refined estimate by the U.S. Marshals Service of court security requirements andfundscourt security personnel, equipment, and perimeter enhancements." The Judiciary, however, which had requested$206.0million (an 18.0% increase) expressed its unhappiness with the Senate amount; at that level, the Judiciarymaintained,nearly $10 million in planned security enhancements could not be funded, causing increased threats to judicialpersonnel,trial participants, and the general public. (45) Forits part, the House approved $190.0 million--$6 million less thanappropriated by the Senate and $3 million less than ultimately approved by Congress. House-Senate conferees saidthat theamount finally approved for FY2000, $193.0 million, provided for "requested adjustments to base, the requestedprogramincreases to hire additional security officers, and for perimeter security, and the balance for additional securityequipment."
Congress approved decreased FY2000 funding for the United States Sentencing Commission. (The purpose of theCommission is to establish, review, and revise sentencing guidelines and policies for the federal criminal justicesystem.) Congress approved $8.5 million for the Commission, as provided in the House bill, which was a 10.4% decreasefromFY1999 funding of $9.5 million. Earlier, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $4.7 million for theCommission, a 50.0% decrease from the FY1999 appropriation of $9.5 million. The Judiciary had requested $10.6million,an 11.7% increase over FY1999. Ultimately, the Senate approved $9.7 million for the Commission and the Houseapproved $8.5 million ($1.0 million below FY1999 funding).
The Senate committee, in its June 14, 1999 report on S. 1217 , noted that the seven-member Sentencing Commission had been vacant since October 31, 1998, that no commissioners had been nominated or designated bythePresident and that, meanwhile, "the carriage of justice has continued unabated in the absence of commissioners." Thecommittee recommended that the Judiciary reassess the need for the Commission, and it directed that a phase-outplan forthe Commission be provided before November 31, 1999 if no commissioners were appointed by October 1, 1999. Subsequently, on June 24, 1999, the White House announced a full slate of seven nominees to fill the Commission.Atabout the same time, the commission's interim director warned that the budget cuts contained in S. 1217 , ifenacted, would prolong the agency's recovery and result in personnel layoffs. On November 10, 1999, all sevennomineesto the Commission received Senate confirmation.
Another point at issue in the Judiciary's budget was the funding needs of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO). This office supervises administrative matters of the lower federal courts, including the probation andbankruptcysystems. Congress approved $55.0 million for the AO, $500,000 over the $54.5 million appropriated for FY1999(compared with the Judiciary's request of $58.4 million, the House's funding amount of $54.5 million, and theSenate'sproposal of $56.1 million). In its report, the Senate Appropriations Committee stated that its recommendation, of$56.1million, provided "most of the requested base adjustments for this account and reflected a refinement of anticipatedfunding requirements." The Judiciary, however, asserted that at the funding level approved in S. 1217 , theSenate's CJS bill, the AO would be "unable to pursue economy and efficiency efforts which benefit the entirejudiciary ormaintain base services to the court" and that the funding initially requested by the Judiciary was required for the AOtomaintain current services. 
Congress approved a provision added by House-Senate conferees (which had been in neither the House nor the Senate CJSbill), authorizing nine new U.S. district judgeships-- three for the District of Arizona,four for the Middle District ofFlorida and two for the District of Nevada. An identical judgeship provision had been approved earlier by both theHouseand Senate as part of their respective juvenile justice bills, H.R. 1501 and S. 254 ; however, withprospects uncertain for the House and Senate resolving their differences in other parts of the juvenile justice bills,thejudgeship provision was then added to Judiciary's FY2000 appropriations legislation, where it was enacted into law.Thenine new Article III judgeships were the first authorized since 1990. (46)
As part of the budget process, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) enacted by Congress in 1993 ( P.L.103-62 ; 107 Stat. 285) requires that agencies develop strategic plans that contain goals, objectives, and performancemeasures for all major programs. However, as noted earlier, the Judicial branch is not subject to the requirementsof thisAct.

		Department of State and Related Agencies

The Administration's FY2000 budget request for the Department of State and international broadcasting totaled $6.3billion, about 15% above the FY1999 enacted level of $5.5 billion, excluding the $1.56 billion emergencysupplementalappropriation for overseas security and Y2K computer compliance. The Senate set a total of $5.54 billion for StateandInternational Broadcasting for FY2000, while the House passed $5.8 billion. Congress and the President ultimatelyagreedto $6.3 billion for the Department of State and international broadcasting FY2000 budget.
Reorganization of the foreign policy agencies occurred throughout FY1999, with both the U.S. Information Agency (USIA)and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) abolished, and their functions fully merged into theDepartmentof State as of October 1, 1999. The FY2000 State Department appropriation includes ACDA and USIA (minusinternational broadcasting) funds. If the agencies would have remained independent, the Administration's FY2000requestwould break out as follows: State Department operations -- $4.7 billion (17% below the FY1999 level), USIA --about$1.1 billion (2.7% above the FY1999 level); and ACDA -- $47.7 million (15% above the FY1999 level). Congressagreedto appropriate $5.5 billion for the Department of State and $421.8 million for international broadcasting, but didnot breakout funding for ACDA and USIA-type functions.
In addition to transfers of funds due to reorganization, the Department of State FY2000 request included funds toimplement increased overseas security measures. The August 7, 1998 terrorist attacks on two U.S. embassies inAfrica hadprompted the Administration to reconsider its funding request for diplomatic security at U.S. overseas facilities. OnSeptember 22, 1998, the President had submitted to Congress a request for emergency FY1999 supplementalappropriations amounting to a total of $1.8 billion. Within the omnibus appropriations bill, Congress had included$1.56billion for embassy security-related funding. (47) ForFY2000 the Administration requested $568 million for worldwidesecurity upgrades, as well as an advance appropriation of $3.6 billion for FY2001 - FY2005. The Senate passed$583.5million for overseas security for FY2000; the House passed $254 million for worldwide security within the diplomaticsecurity account and $313.6 million for worldwide security upgrades within the security and maintenance account (a totalof $568 million) for FY2000. The final appropriation passed by Congress and signed by the President set the totalforoverseas security upgrades at the House level of $568 million.
The President's FY2000 request for State's administration of foreign affairs of $4,094.8 million was nearly the same asthe FY1999 enacted level if the $1.56 billion supplemental for security upgrades is included. The FY2000 requestincluded: $568 million for worldwide security upgrades , an increase in the inspector general account due to theintegration of the agencies, and a 10% increase in the emergencies in the diplomatic and consularservice account whichpays for embassy evacuations and rewards regarding terrorist arrests. 
The Senate agreed to $3,714.6 million for administration of foreign affairs , $583.5 million for security and maintenanceof overseas buildings , including security upgrades, and $26.5 million for the inspector general . In contrast, the Houserecommended $3,889.9 million for the administration of foreign affairs account, above the Senate level, but below theAdministration request. The conference as passed by Congress included $4.0 billion for administration of foreign affairs ,including a total of $742 million for security and maintenance and security upgrades accounts. After the President'sveto ofthe original CJS conference, the administration of foreign affairs account was raisedto $4.04 billion which the Presidentsigned.
The capital investment fund request for FY2000 was $90 million--$47.9 million below the FY1999 level which included$57.9 million from the FY1999 supplemental for Y2K compliance. The full Senate agreed to reduce the capitalinvestmentfund by $30 million to $50 million in order to reinstate money for the National Endowment for Democracy whichtheSenate Appropriations Committee had recommended zeroing out. Like the Senate full committee, the House passed$80million for the capital investment fund. Congress set $80 million as the capital investment fund FY2000 level inthe finalbill.
The United States contributes in two ways to the United Nations and other international organizations: voluntary paymentsfunded in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill and assessed contributions included in the Commerce, Justice,andState Appropriations measure. Assessed contributions are provided in two accounts, internationalpeacekeeping and contributions to international organizations (CIO) . Following a periodof dramatic growth in the number and costs ofU.N. peacekeeping missions during the early 1990s, a trend that peaked in FY1994 with a $1.1 billion appropriation,funding requirements have declined in recent years. The FY1999 enacted appropriation for CIO was $922 millionand$231 million for international peacekeeping. The Administration had also requested and received funds for U.N.arrearagepayments of $475 million for FY1999, however, Congress did not provide authority for expenditure of thosefunds. (48) TheFY2000 budget request included $963.3 million for CIO and $235 million for international peacekeeping. TheSenatepassed $943.3 million for CIO, $107 million for U.N. arrearage payments, and $280.9 million for peacekeepingfor a totalof $1,331.2 million. The House passed $842 million for CIO, $200 million for peacekeeping, and $351 million forarrearage payments, totaling $1,393.9 million. Congress approved a total of $1,436.2 million, higher than eitherthe Houseor Senate levels: $885 million for CIO, $200 million for peacekeeping, and $351 million for U.S. arrearages to theU.N.The President, however, vetoed the FY2000 CJS appropriation bill because the amount approved by Congress forpaymentof arrearages was deemed inadequate. The final law provides $885.2 million for CIO, $500 million forpeacekeeping, and$351 million for U.S. arrearage payments to the U.N.
Education and cultural exchange programs funded within USIA include programs such as the Fulbright, Muskie, andHumphrey academic exchanges, as well as the international visitor exchanges and Freedom Support Act programs. Government exchange programs have come under close scrutiny in recent years for being excessive in number andduplicative. Funding has declined 14% since FY1995. The FY1999 enacted level for this account was $200.5million,including $95 million for the Fulbright program. The Administration requested $210.3 million for this functionwhich isnow within the State Department. The Senate set FY2000 funding for this account at $216.5 million, while theHousepassed a significantly lower level of $175 million. Congress and the Administration agreed on $205 million for educationand cultural affairs in FY2000, but did not specify an amount for the Fulbright exchange program.
USIA's international broadcasting operations account, established after consolidation under the Broadcasting Board ofGovernors (BBG) in FY1995, includes Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), CubaBroadcasting, and new surrogate facilities: Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio Free Iraq and Radio Free Iran. ForFY1999,Congress approved of $384.5 million for international broadcasting, including $22.1 million for Cuba Broadcasting,and$13.2 million for radio construction (now referred to as broadcasting capital improvements). When USIA integratedintothe Department of State at the end of FY1999, the BBG became an independent agency. The Administrationrequested$431.7 million for international broadcasting and $20.9 million for capital improvements for FY2000 to assist inthetransition toward becoming an independent agency. The Senate approved $386.1 million for broadcasting (including$23.7million for Cuba Broadcasting) and $13.2 million for capital improvements. The House approved $410.4 millionforinternational broadcasting activities and $11.3 million for capital improvements. Both Congress and theAdministrationagreed on funding international broadcasting at the House levels.
ACDA's FY1999 level of $41.5 million is $1.2 million below the FY1998 level. ACDA became integrated into the StateDepartment as of April 1, 1999. The Administration request for State's ACDA-related activities in FY2000 totals$47.7million. Congress did not set a budget level for ACDA as it is currently within State's Administration of ForeignAffairsaccount.
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) enacted in 1993 ( P.L. 103-62 ; 107 stat 285) required that agenciesdevelop strategic plans that contain goals, objectives, and performance measures for all major programs. Thesubsequentlypublished reports: U.S. Department of State Strategic Plan and the United States Strategic Planfor International Affairs ,both September 1997, did not refer to specific agencies, but rather identified seven national interests: nationalsecurity,economic prosperity, protection of American citizens and U.S. borders, international law enforcement, democracy,humanitarian response, and involvement in global issues. The plans then established 16 strategic goals andstrategies forpromoting and defending these interests. The goals were long-term with time frames of more than 5 years. TheSenateAppropriations Committee pointed to weaknesses in the State's GPRA plan and recommended that the DepartmentfollowGAO recommendations when preparing its FY2000 plan. 

		Other Related Agencies

This section includes all other related agencies covered by the CJS appropriations bill, whose appropriations exceed $1.5million. (49)
Maritime Administration. MARAD administers aid in the development,promotion, and operation of the nation's merchant marine (including programs that benefit vessel owners, shipyards,andship crews). The Administration requested $181 million for MARAD for FY2000, $12 million more than Congressappropriated to it in FY1999. The request consisted of $98.7 million for the Military Security Program (MSP),$72.2million for operating MARAD and training ship crews, $25 million for the higher cost of transporting agriculturalproductsin U.S.-flag vessels, $6 million for ship construction mortgage guarantees ("Title XI Program"), and $3.9 millionforadministering that guarantee program. The MSP program replaces the ODS (Operating Differential Subsidy)program. Only a few ships remained in the ODS program at the end of FY1999, and the last ship contract in the ODS expiresinFY2002. The Senate Appropriations Committee, and the full Senate, recommended $186.3 million, consisting of$98.7million for the MSP, $72.7 million for operations and training, $11 million for Title XI, and $4 million foradministeringthe Title XI program. The House Appropriations Committee, and the full House, recommended $179 million,consisting of$98.7 million for the MSP, $71.3 million for operations and training, $9.1 million for Title XI (including $3.7million foradministering the title XI program. Congress approved $178.1 million for FY2000, comprised of $96.2 million fortheMilitary Security Program (MSP), $72.1 million for Operations and Training, and $9.8 million for the MaritimeGuaranteedLoan (Title XI) Program. This compares to the FY1999 appropriation of $168.7 million, and $180.7 millionrequested bythe President.
Census Monitoring Board. The Administration requested $4 million forthe Census Monitoring Board for FY2000. This body is an eight-member bipartisan oversight board charged withobservingand monitoring all aspects of the preparation and implementation of the 2000 decennial census. (50) The Board was fundedwithin the Bureau of Census in FY1999. For FY2000, the House approved $3.5 million, which was included in theoverallappropriation for the Census Bureau. The Senate-passed bill approved the same level requested by the President--$4million. Congress approved $3.5 million for the Board, as part of the overall appropriation for the Census Bureau.
The Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA is an independentfederal agency created by the Small Business Act of 1953. While the agency administers a number of programsintended toassist small firms, arguably its three most important functions are: to guarantee -- via the 7(a) general business loanprogram -- business loans made by banks and other financial institutions; to make long-term, low-interest loans tovictimsof hurricanes, earthquakes, and other physical disasters; and, to serve as an advocate for small business within thefederalgovernment.
For FY2000, the Administration requested a total appropriation of $994.5 million -- $761.5 million in regular appropriations and $233 million in contingent and emergency appropriations. (51) This compares to a $819 million CJSappropriation for SBA for FY1999, including $719 million for regular appropriations (and $101 million incontingent andemergency appropriations, primarily to cover anticipated expenses associated with Hurricane George). Thatappropriationincluded $288 million for S&E. At first glance, the $288 million for S&E appears to have provided SBAwith asubstantial increase in this account compared to FY1998; it is perhaps worth noting, however, that more than $50millionincluded in S&E for FY1999 was not requested by SBA, and was earmarked for assorted projects in severalstates.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended total funding for SBA of $725.6 million for FY2000, a decrease of$186.2 million from the Administration's request. The Committee did not recommend funding any of the newinitiativesrequested by the SBA, noting that the Committee believes "the agency's existing programs should be able to delivertheservices envisioned by implementation of these new initiatives." The Senate approved a slightly lower amount -- $720.6million. The House, following the recommendation of the Appropriations Committee, approved slightly higherfunding forSBA: $734.5 million. This amount was $177 million below the budget request which, as noted above, included$233million in contingent emergency appropriations. More specifically, the House recommended $245.5 million forS&E, anamount $17.5 million below the Administration's request, and $42.8 million below the amount provided forFY1999.
In the end, Congress approved $877 million in total funding for SBA in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000,including $322.8 million for S&E. Thus, total funding for the agency for FY2000 is $57 million greater thanits FY1999CJS appropriation. 
Legal Services Corporation (LSC). This agencyis a private, non-profit,federally funded corporation that provides grants to local offices that, in turn, provide legal assistance to low-incomepeoplein civil (non-criminal) cases. The LSC has been controversial since its inception in the early 1970s, and has beenoperatingwithout authorizing legislation since 1980. There have been ongoing debates over the adequacy of funding for theagency,and the extent to which certain types of activities are appropriate for federally funded legal aid attorneys toundertake. Inannual appropriations laws, Congress traditionally has included legislative provisions restricting the activities ofLSC-funded grantees, such as prohibiting representation in certain types of cases or conducting any lobbyingactivities.
For FY2000, the Administration again requested $340 million for the LSC. The proposal would continue all restrictions onLSC-funded activities currently in effect. The Administration has requested $340 million every year since FY1997,in aneffort to partially restore recent cutbacks in funding. The Administration's FY2000 request for LSC is $40 millionhigherthan the $300 million FY1999 appropriation for the program. Historically, the Corporation's highest level of fundingwas$400 million in FY1994 and FY1995.
For FY2000, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a total of $300 million for the LSC. This is identical tothe FY1999 appropriation and $40 million lower than the Administration's request. The Senate Committee'srecommendation includes $289 million for basic program operations, $8.9 million for management andadministration ofthe program, and $2.1 million for the Office of the Inspector General. The Committee's recommendation alsoincludesexisting administrative provisions restricting the activities of LSC-funded grantees. The Senate approved the sametotalrecommended by the Senate Appropriation Committee.
For FY2000, the House Appropriations Committee recommended a total of $141 million for the LSC. This amount is $159million lower than the FY1999 appropriation and $199 million lower than the Administration's request. The House Committee's recommendation includes $134.6 million for basic program operations, $5.3 million for managementandadministration of the program, and $1.1 million for the Office of the Inspector General. The Committee'srecommendationalso includes existing administrative provisions restricting the activities of LSC-funded grantees. The HouseCommitteealso cited its concerns about inaccuracies in the reporting of the number of cases served and closed and directed theLSC tomake improvement of the accuracy of the annual data reports submitted to Congress a top priority.
During the House floor debate, Representative Serrano offered an amendment to increase the funding for LSC by $109million to $250 million for FY2000. As amended, the funding would include $242.6 million for basic programoperations,$5.3 million for management and administration of the program, and $2.0 million for the Office of the InspectorGeneral.The House passed the amendment and thereby approved $250 million for LSC for FY2000. This amount is $50millionlower than the FY1999 appropriation and the Senate request and $90 million lower than the Administration'srequest.
The Conference Committee report on H.R. 2670 included $300 million for LSC. This is identical to the FY1999 appropriation and the Administration's FY2000 budget request. Both the House and the Senate approvedtheConference Committee recommendation. H.R. 2670 was vetoed by the President on October 25, 1999. Inhisveto message, President Clinton stated that " adequate funding for legal services is essential to ensuring thatall citizenshave access to the Nation's justice system " and urged Congress to fully fund the program at $340 million.
The Conference Committee report on H.R. 3194 contains $305 million for LSC. The new Conference agreement includes $289.0 million for basic program operations and independent audits, $8.9 million formanagement andadministration of the program, $2.1 million for the Office of the Inspector General, and $5.0 million for technologygrantsfor LSC to improve pro se methods and acquire computerized systems that make basic legal information and courtformsaccessible to pro se litigants. The conferees cited their concerns about inaccuracies in the reporting of the numberof casesserved and closed and directed the LSC to make improvement of the accuracy of the annual data reports submittedtoCongress a top priority. The conferees also directed the LSC to submit its 1999 annual case service reports andassociateddata reports to Congress by April 30, 2000. Provisions restricting the activities of LSC-funded grantees, such asprohibiting representation in certain types of cases or conducting any lobbying activities are also included in theconferencereport.
The $305 million agreed to in the conference report for LSC for FY2000 is $5 million higher than the FY1999 appropriation and the Senate request and $35 million lower than the Administration's request.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). TheCommission enforces laws banning employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin,orhandicapped status. The EEOC's workload has increased dramatically since the agency first was created under TitleVII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964. As new civil rights laws have been enacted and employees' increased awareness oftheirrights has grown, the agency's budget and staffing resources have not been able to keep pace with the substantialincreasein case load. The Congress increased the agency's budget for FY1999, giving it $279 million, an increase of $37millionover the FY1998 appropriation. The additional funds have helped to speed resolution of a large backlog cases andexpandthe use of alternative dispute resolution techniques.
For FY2000, the President requested $312 million, an increase of $33 million to continue the agency's effort to lowercharge inventories, reduce excess backlogs in hearings and appeals, and facilitate compliance with EEO laws in theprivateand public sectors. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved $279 million for FY2000. This amount was$33million less than the request and the same as the FY1999 appropriation. In the accompanying committee report, itwassuggested that the EEOC expand its use of alternative dispute resolution techniques. Funding for fair employmentpracticesagencies, requested at $29 million, was included in the total amount. The Senate noted that the agency was to useitsanticipated FY1999 carryover funds and any amounts not used for the above purposes to modernize its computersystems. The full Senate approved the Committee's recommendation. The House Appropriations Committee followed theSenate'slead and approved the $279 million amount. The House Committee noted that no funds were requested for"employmenttesters" and that the EEOC does not intend to use any fiscal year 2000 appropriations for this purpose. TheCommittee saidit expected the EEOC to submit a spending plan to the Committee in accordance with section 605 of this Act beforeDecember 31, 1999. The House approved the same amount recommended by the House Committee. In this roundofsparring over appropriations with the White House, Congress approved an amount of $279 million.. 
In his message vetoing the initial FY2000 CJS appropriation measure, the President noted that one factor in his vetodecision was that funding for the EEOC was frozen at the FY1999 enacted level, an action which he said wouldunderminethe EEOC's progress in reducing the backlog of employment discrimination cases. Following the veto, Congressraised theEEOC appropriation to $282 million, which was the amount in the measure signed by the President.
Commission on Civil Rights. The Commission collects and studiesinformation on discrimination or denials of equal protection of the laws. It received an appropriation of $8.9 millionforFY1999. The President's request for FY2000 called for an increase to $11 million. The Senate Committeerecommended$8.9 million, $2.1 million less than the budget request and the same funding as appropriated for FY1999. The Senateapproved this amount. The House Appropriations Committee also recommended the same amount. The Houseapprovedthe Committee's recommendation. Congress approved $8.9 million.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC is anindependent agency charged with regulation of interstate and foreign communication by means of radio, television,wire,cable and satellite. Congress approved $210 million in FY2000 for the Commission--a 9.4% increase over FY1999resources of $192.0 million but $20.9 million less than the Commission's FY2000 request. The total fundingamountapproved by Congress consisted of a direct appropriation of $24.2 million and $185.8 million in offsettingregulatory feecollections--compared with a direct appropriation of $19.5 million and $172.5 million in regulatory fees enactedforFY1999. Before resolving their differences in conference, the House and Senate had approved $192.0 million and$232.8million respectively in total FY2000 funding for the Commission. (52)
President Clinton, in his October 25, 1999 veto message on the FY2000 CJS spending bill ( H.R. 2670 ), hadfound the bill's FCC section objectionable on several counts. First, the President said, the bill failed to include aproposedprovision to "clarify current law and protect taxpayer interests in the telecommunications spectrum auctionprocess." (53) This statement concerned the issue of what kind of legislation, if any, was appropriate to deal with "C-blockspectrum" thathad been auctioned off to bidders who subsequently filed for bankruptcy. (The Clinton Administration reportedlyregardedrevenues from this spectrum as offset for other spending in the federal budget and favored a provision to allow theFCC toreclaim spectrum from the bankrupt licensees.) The President also faulted the bill for "deny[ing] funds needed bythe FCCfor investments in technology to better serve the communications industry" and for not providing "sufficient fundsfor thecontinued operations of the FCC."
Ultimately, language addressing these presidential concerns was not included in the omnibus budget agreement agreed onby Administration and congressional negotiators. Specifically, the agreement signed into law by President ClintononNovember 29, 1999 was without a provision sought by the President allowing the FCC to reclaim spectrum frombankruptC-block licensees. (Reports in the telecommunications trade press said that the Clinton administration and someSenatorsstill regarded re-auction legislation as a high priority and would push for re-auction legislation in 2000.) Also, thefundingtotal of $210 million enacted for the Commission was precisely the same amount as in the CJS bill vetoed earlierby thePresident. Moreover, the final agreement contained no new language to provide additional funds requested by thePresident for FCC investments in technology.
The House-Senate conference report on the CJS bill ultimately agreed to by the President and Congress dropped languagewhich conferees earlier (prior to the President's veto of the CJS bill H.R. 2670 ) had approved involving FCCregulation of telephone companies' accounting methods. (54)
Two other FCC provisions approved by the Senate in its CJS bill in July 1999 also were not included in the FY2000funding bill finally approved by Congress. One provision would have given the FCC the authority to independentlyoperateits headquarters building. The other would have called on the FCC to release a report regarding the proliferationof newtelephone area codes no later than December 31, 1999 while minimizing "any disruptions and costs to consumersandbusinesses" associated with the report's implementation. In not including this provision, House-Senate confereesnotedthat the FCC had issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to assist State public utility commissions in their effortstoconserve numbers in specific area codes. The conferees stated they expected the FCC to issue a final order on areacodeconservation measures no later than March 31, 2000.
The FY2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act approved by Congress also contained a major new piece of telecommunications legislation separate from the CJS appropriations bill--the Intellectual Property andCommunicationsOmnibus Reform Act of 1999. (55)
Earlier in the FY2000 appropriations process, the Senate Appropriations Committee expressed its concern with an FCCdecision to increase charges on citizens' telephone bills for the e-rate program. Further, the committee maintainedthat theadministration of the e-rate program by the Schools and Libraries Corporation (SLC) had "not been adequatelyexaminedand assessed." Accordingly, the committee directed that the General Accounting Office to review the SLC's role,as wellas assess the FCC's statutory authority to increase e-rate fees. For its part, the House Appropriations Committeedirectedthe FCC to submit, no later than December 15, 1999, a financial plan proposing a distribution of all funds in itsbudgetaccount. 
In keeping with the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act, the FCC, as part of its FY2000 budgetrequest, presented a strategic plan setting forth its overall mission and general and specific goals for a 6-year timeframe. (56)
Federal Maritime Commission (FMC). The FMC regulates a large partof the waterborne foreign offshore commerce of the United States. The Administration requested $15.3 million fortheFMC for FY2000, $1.3 million more than Congress appropriated to it in FY1999. The Senate AppropriationsCommittee,and the full Senate, recommended $14.2 million. The House Appropriations Committee, and the full House,recommendedthe same amount. Congress approved $14.2 million for FY2000, compared to the FY1999 appropriation of $14.1million,and the $15.3 million total requested by the President. 
Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC, an independent agency, isresponsible for enforcing a number of federal antitrust and consumer protection laws. In the fall of 1998, Congressapproved a total FY1999 appropriation for the agency of $116.7 million, $106.5 million of which was in offsettingfeecollections ($76.5 million from the current year and $30 million in prior-year collections) resulting in a directappropriationof $10.2 million.
For FY2000, the Administration requested a total appropriation for the FTC of $133.4 million. This figure was to bederived entirely from premerger filing fees; no direct appropriation were requested for FY2000. Specifically, $93.9million would have come from offsetting collections derived from fees collected for premerger notification filingsunderthe Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, and the remaining $39.9 million would have come fromprior-year collections.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a total operating level of $133.4 million for FY2000, the same as theAdministration's request. The Committee, however, chose a different approach. It recommended $9.3 million bederivedfrom prior-year unobligated fee collections and $144 million from current year offsetting fees. But, as with theAdministration's assumptions, no direct appropriations would have been required. The Senate approved theCommittee'srecommendation. The full House, following the recommendation of the Appropriations Committee, approved atotalbudget authority of $116.7 million for FY2000, a decrease of $16.7 million below the agency's request, and the sameas theFY1999 appropriation. Of this amount, $39.5 million was to be derived from prior year unobligated fee collections,and$77 million from current year offsetting fee collections from premerger filing fees under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act,resulting -- as with the Senate bill -- in no net direct appropriation for the agency 
For FY2000, Congress approved a total operating level of $125 million for the FTC, a reduction of $8.4 million from theagency's FY1999 figure. More specifically, the $125 million is comprised of $104 million in offsetting feecollections and$21 million in prior year collections, resulting in no net direct appropriation.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC administers andenforces federal securities laws in order to protect investors and to maintain fair, honest and efficient markets. ForFY1999, the Administration had requested a total appropriation of $341.1 million for the SEC, including a generalfund(direct) appropriation of $118.1 million, $205 million from 1999 offsetting fee collections, and $18 million from1998offsetting fee collections. (This one-time proposed increase in the general fund (direct) appropriation, accordingto theAdministration, would enable the Commission to accommodate the elimination of appropriated budget authoritywhichprovides a guaranteed funding level that is later reduced as actual collections, are received.)
The Administration's suggested approach -- noted in the previous paragraph -- generally met with the approval of theHouse CJS appropriations subcommittee, albeit at a funding level of $324 million, $17.1 million less than theagencyrequested. The House-passed bill ( H.R. 4276 ) accepted the subcommittee's recommendation for a totalappropriation of $324 million to be comprised of the following components: (1) a direct appropriation of $23million forFY1999; (2) offsetting fees of $214 million to be collected during FY1999; and (3) offsetting fees of $87 millioncollectedin 1998. The CJS bill ( S. 2260 ) passed by the Senate, following the recommendation of the AppropriationsCommittee, rejected the approach of a one-time-only total direct appropriation. The Senate bill provided a totalappropriation for the agency of $341.1 million as requested in the President's FY1999 budget. However, it providednodirect appropriations at all; the full $341.1 million for the agency's Salaries and Expenses would be derived fromfeescollected in fiscal 1999. Congress generally adopted in P.L. 105-277 the Administration's suggested approach. Itprovided the SEC with a total appropriation of $330 million, including a direct appropriation of $23 million, $214millionfrom 1999 offsetting fees, and $93 million from fees collected in 1998. (57)
For FY2000, the Administration requested a total funding level of $360.8 million, a $19.5 million increase over theagency's 1999 funding level of $341.3 million. This total appropriation includes $230 in offsetting fee collectionsfor theyear 2000 and $130 million in 1998 offsetting fee collections.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $370.8 million in total funding for the SEC for FY2000. The totalappropriation recommended included $130.8 million in prior-year collections and $240 million in offsetting feecollectionsfor the year 2000. Under these assumptions, no direct appropriations would be required. The Senate approved theCommittee's recommendation. The House Appropriations Committee recommended a significantly lower amount. Itcalled for overall funding of $324 million for the SEC for FY2000, a decrease of $36.8 million below the agency'srequestand the same level provided in FY1999. The overall funding is comprised of the following components: (1) anappropriation of FY2000 offsetting fee collections of $193 million; and (2) an appropriation of 1998 offsetting feecollections of $130 million. The full House approved the Committee's recommendation.
The Congress approved a total operating level of $367.8 million for the SEC for FY2000, an increase of $43.8 million overFY1999. The figure is comprised of $194 million in prior year fees collected and $173.8 million in offsetting feecollections for FY2000. The result is that no direct appropriation is required for the agency for FY2000.
The State Justice Institute. The agency is a private, non-profitcorporation that makes grants and undertakes other activities designed to improve the administration of justice intheUnited States. The Administration requested $15 million for FY2000, which is $8.2 million above the $6.8 million appropriated for FY1999. 
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $6.8 million for FY2000 for the State Justice Institute, which is thesame as that appropriated in FY1999 and $8.1 below the President's request. The Committee notes that $8 millionisavailable to the Institute from "the Courts of appeals, district courts, and other judicial services" account. TheSenateapproved the Committee's recommendation. The House Appropriations Committee recommended no funding forthisagency. The House-passed bill did not approve any new funding. Congress approved $6.8 million which is thesame totalappropriated for FY1999 and $8.2 million less than the Administration's request. 
Commission on Ocean Policy (OPC). The Senate passed legislation inNovember 1996, creating a 16-member commission to examine national policy relative to ocean and coastalactivities. TheSenate bill approved $3.5 million for FY1999. (58) No funding was requested in the President's FY1999 budget. The Housebill did not approve any funding for this commission. Congress approved the $3.5 million amount recommendedby theSenate. No funds were requested by the President in his FY2000 request. The Senate Committee recommends nofunds forFY2000. The Senate bill contains no additional funding for the Commission. The House Committee alsorecommended nofunding. The House bill provides no new funding. Congress did not approve additional funding. 
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). The Congressapproved $25.6 million for FY2000, which is $1.4 million more than the $24.2 million appropriated for FY1999but $0.9million less that the $26.5 million requested by the Administration. The Senate Appropriations Committeerecommended$26.1 million for FY2000, and the Senate approved the Committee's recommendation. The House AppropriationsCommittee approved $25.2 million for FY2000, and the House approved the same level.
U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The FY2000 appropriationapproved by the Congress was $44.5 million, plus a $2.5 million carryover. This level is the same as the FY1999level and$2.7 million less than the President's request of $47.2 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended$45.7million for FY2000, and the Senate approved the recommended amount. The House Appropriations Committeeapproved$44.5 million, and the full House approved the amount recommended by the Committee.

	Compliance with GPRA Requirements

As noted earlier in this report, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) passed by Congress in1993 ( P.L.103-62 ) requires that agencies develop strategic plans that contain goals, objectives, and performance measures forallmajor programs. In its report on the CJS appropriations bill ( S. 2260 ; S.Rept. 105-235 , pp. 5-6), the SenateAppropriations Committee made the following evaluation regarding agency compliance with GPRA requirements:
The Committee has received a number of strategic plans from different organizations receiving appropriated funds within the bill. The Committee found weaknesses with the fiscal year1999performance plans of the Departments of Commerce and State and the Small Business Administration. TheCommittee wasespecially troubled by the lack of results-oriented, measurable goals in the performance plans. The Committee isalsoconcerned that the plans did not uniformly display clear linkages between performance goals and the programactivities inagencies' budget requests. Also, some plans did not sufficiently describe approaches to produce credibleperformanceinformation. The Committee considers the full and effective implementation of the Results Act to be a priority forallagencies under its jurisdiction. We recognize that implementation will be an interactive process, likely to involveseveralappropriations cycles. The Committee will consider agencies' progress in addressing weaknesses in strategic andannualperformance plans in tandem with their funding requests in light of their strategic goals. This effort will helpdeterminewhether any changes or realignments would facilitate a more accurate and informed presentation of budgetaryinformation.Agencies are encouraged to consult with the Committee as they consider such revisions prior to finalizing anyrequests.
The plan prepared by the Department of Justice was given high marks by the committee. It stated that: "The plan wasreceived in a timely fashion and contained objective, measurable performance goals. The strength of theperformanceplans was its presentation of reasonably clear strategies for its intended performance goals." (59)
In its report on its version of the CJS bill, the House Appropriations Committee in 1998 noted that "performance planshave generally been of mixed utility in considering the fiscal year budget request." The committee requests that eachagency consult with it early in the process of formulating the budget and performance plan for FY2000, to improvetheplan's usefulness to the committee when it examines the FY2000 request ( H.Rept. 105-636 , p. 8.).
In its report on the FY2000 CJS appropriations, the Senate Appropriations Committee stated that it had "...sent amemorandum to all organizations subject to GPRA funded within this Act. It requested information about theagencies'experiences resulting from the Act. The Committee reiterates that all responses be provided no latter than July 1,1999." (60) Brief descriptions of the latest versions of the Strategic plans of the major agencies covered by CJSappropriations arecontained in the discussions of the FY2000 budget requests of individual agencies included in this CRS report.

	Major Funding Trends

The table below shows funding trends for the major agencies included in CJS appropriations over the periodFY1995-FY1999. As seen in the table below, funding increased, in current dollars, for the Department of Justice by$5,871 million ( or 47.6%); for the Department of Commerce by $1,020 million ( or 25 %); and for Judiciary $748million(or 25.8%). Funding for the Department of State increased by $215 million (or 5.2%).
 Table 2. Funding Trends for Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, and theJudiciary (in millions of current dollars)
Sources : Funding totals provided by Budget Offices of CJS and Judiciary agencies, a ndCongressional Record , vol. 145,November 18,1999: H12776-12786.

	Current Funding Status

The President's FY2000 budget sent to Congress on February 1, 1999, requested about $40.5 billion for these agencies,about a $4.3 billion increase or about 12% above the FY1999 total. 
The Senate on July 22, 1999 approved a total of $35.4 billion, $5.1 billion below the Administration's request and $800million below the FY1999 appropriation. On August 5, 1999, the House approved a total of $37.7 billion( H.R. 2670 , H.Rept. 106-283 ), $2.8 billion below the President's request, $2.3 billion below the levelapproved by the Senate and $1.5 billion above the FY1999 appropriation. This amount included $4.5 billion forthedecennial census, designated as emergency spending. The Senate did not include this funding. On October 18, theConference Committee approved a CJS bill totaling $39 billion(including the House-passed total of $4.5 billion forthe2000 census)--$2.8 billion above the FY1999 appropriation and $1.5 billion below the President's request. The billwasapproved by both houses of Congress on October 20,1999.
The President vetoed the bill on October 25, because, among other things, it (1) did not provide enough money for hiscommunity policing program (better known as the COPS program), (2) contained no funding for its lawsuit againstthetobacco industry, and (3) did not provide adequate funding for direct payment of dues and arrears to the UnitedNations andother peacekeeping operations abroad.
Following negotiations between congressional leaders and the White House, these issues were apparently resolved. Asecond CJS bill approved by Conference ( H.Rept. 106-479 ) included in H.R. 3194 , the ConsolidatedAppropriations Act for FY 2000, was passed by the House on November 18, and the Senate on November 19, 1999. Thenumber for the FY2000 CJS bill is H.R. 3421 which is in Division B of H.R. 3194 , Section1000(a). The President signed the bill into law on November 29, 1999 ( P.L. 106-113 ; 113 Stat. 1501). The lawapprovestotal funding of $39.63 billion which is about $625 million above the level initially approved by Congress, $3.4billion (or9.5%) above FY1999 appropriation and $920 million below the President's request. 
The bill approved total funding of $39.63 billion which was about $625 million above the level initially approved byCongress, $3.4 billion (or 9.5%) above FY1999 appropriation and $920 million below the President's request. 
It is important to note that the Consolidated Appropriations Act passed by the House also includes a provision whichmandates a 0.38 percent government-wide recission of discretionary budget authority for FY2000. For more detailsseepage 3 of this Report. 
A Note about continuing funding resolutions: On September 28, the House and Senate approved stopgap legislation tocontinue funding of agencies at FY1999 levels for the first three weeks of FY 2000, beginning on October 1. Thiswouldcover all agencies that had yet to have their FY2000 appropriations approved by Congress or yet to be signed intolaw bythe President. The measure (H.J.Res 68, P.L. 106-62 )was signed into law by the President on September 30, 1999. (Formore information, see pp. 2-3 of this report) On October 19, Congress passed a second bill extending FY1999fundingthrough October 29, 1999 ( H.J.Res. 71 , 106-75). The legislation was signed by the President on October 21,1999. A third bill ( H.J.Res. 73 , P.L.106-85 ) was passed by Congress on October 28, extending such fundingthrough November 5, 1999. The bill was signed by the President on October 29, 1999. Congress passed a fourthcontinuing resolution on November 4, to continue funding through November 10, 1999 ( H.J.Res. 75 , P.L.106-88 ). The President signed the bill on November 5. A fifth continuing resolution was approved by Congress onNovember 10 ( H.J.Res. 78 , P.L. 106-94 ) signed into law by the President on the same day to continue fundingthrough November 17, 1999. A sixth bill to continue funding through November 18 ( H.J.Res. 80 , P.L.106-105 ) was passed by Congress on November 17. A seventh bill ( H.J.Res. 82 ) was passed on November18which further extended funding through November 23. An eight bill ( H.J.Res. 83 , 106-106) was alsoapproved on November 18 which superceded H.J.Res. 82 and extended FY1999 funding through December2,1999. This was signed by the President on November 19, 1999.
As noted earlier in the report, FY1999 appropriations were to expire after June 15, 1999, unless new legislation wereenacted to continue them through the remainder of FY 1999. H.R. 1141 , FY1999 Emergency SupplementalAppropriations, repealed this restriction and included an additional $44.9 million for the Census Bureau's 2000censusactivities in FY1999, contingent on congressional receipt, by June 1,1999, of a revised budget submission forFY2000, withdetailed justification. The revised submission requested an extra $1.7 billion for the census in FY2000. 
 Table 3. Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, and theJudiciaryAppropriations (in millions of dollars)
Source: Congressional Record , vol. 145, November 18, 1999: H12776-12786.

	Related Legislative Action

		Department of Justice and Related Agencies

H.R. 12 (Delay) 
Limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts with respect to prison release orders. Introduced January 6, 1999;referred toCommittee on Judiciary. 
H.R. 357 (Conyers) 
Combats violence against women by providing for law enforcement and prosecution grants, for education andtraininggrants to promote appropriate responses to victims of violence, for a National Domestic Violence Hotline, forcounselingservices and for transitional compensation for victims of violence. Introduced January 19, 1999; referred toCommittee onJudiciary.
S. 5 (DeWine) 
Drug Free Century Act. Reduces the transportation and distribution of illegal drugs and strengthens domesticdemandreduction. Provides for international reduction of drugs by denying safe havens to international criminals, promotionof global cooperation to fight international crime, money laundering deterrence, increased penalties by raisingmandatoryminimum sentencing for powder cocaine offenses and drug offenses committed in the presence of a child.Authorizesadditional funding for drug eradication and interdiction operations and confirms funding goals set by the WesternHemisphere Drug Elimination Act ( P.L. 105-277 , Title VIII). Contains provisions to protect children and teachersfromdrug-related school violence. Provides for drug education, prevention and treatment programs. Introduced January19,1999; referred to Committee on Judiciary.
S. 9 (Daschle) 
Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act. Addresses violent crime in schools, reforms the juvenilejusticesystem, combats gang violence, penalizes the sale and use of illegal drugs, enhances the rights of crime victims, andprovides assistance to law enforcement officers in their battle against street crime, international crime, and terrorism. Authorizes funding to hire or deploy 25,000 additional police officers, and for other crime and drug programs byextendingthe Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund through FY2002. Permits federal prosecution of juveniles only when theAttorneyGeneral certifies that the state cannot or will not exercise jurisdiction, or when the juvenile is alleged to havecommitted aviolent, drug, or firearm offense. Contains provisions allowing prosecutors sole, nonreviewable authority toprosecute asadults 16- and 17-year-olds who are accused of committing the most serious violent and drug offenses. Enumeratesprevention programs to reduce juvenile crime and includes grants to youth organizations and 'Say No to Drugs'Community Centers. Increases penalties for selling drugs to children, for drug trafficking in or near schools, andor use of"club drugs." Encourages pharmacotherapy research to develop medications for the treatment of drug addiction, andfundsdrug courts, which subject eligible drug offenders to programs of intensive supervision. Contains provisions to fightdrugmoney laundering. Introduced January 19, 1999; referred to Committee on Judiciary.
S. 254 (Hatch) 
Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act. Contains various drug-relatedprovisions:increases the penalties for using minors to distribute controlled substances. Authorizes $1 billion for selected crimeanddrug programs by extending the Violence Crime Reduction Trust Fund through FY2001. Introduced January 20,1999;placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders; passed Senate with amendments, May 20,1999.
H.R. 2528 (Rogers) 
Immigration Reorganization and Improvement Act of 1999 ( H.R. 2528 ). To dismantle INS and createtwonew bureaus at the Department of Justice, one for immigration services, the other for enforcement. Introduced onJuly 15,1999; referred to Committee on the Judiciary.

		Department of Commerce

H.R. 1553 (Calvert) 
A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 for the National Weather Service,AtmosphericResearch, and National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service activities of the National OceanicandAtmospheric Administration, and for other purposes. Introduced April 26, 1999; referred to House Committee onScience. Reported by Committee, May 18, 1999 ( H.Rept. 106-146 ). Passed House by voice vote, May 19, 1999.
H.R. 1744 (Morella) 
A bill to authorize appropriations for the National Institute of Standards and Technology for fiscal years 2000and 2001,and for other purposes. Introduced May 10, 1999; referred to the House Committee on Science. Mark-up sessionheld, May26, 1999.
H.R. 1907 (Coble) 
Patent and Trademark Office Efficiency Act. Establishes the PTO as an independent agency under the policydirection ofthe Secretary of Commerce. Provides that all revenues collected by PTO will be for the exclusive use of the PTO.
Introduced May 24, 1999; referred to House Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported May 26, 1999. 
H.R. 2452 (Royce) 
A bill to dismantle the Department of Commerce. Introduced on July 1, 1999. Referred to the Committees on Commerce,Transportation and Infrastructure, Banking and Financial Services, International Relations, Armed Services, WaysandMeans, Government Reform, the Judiciary, Science, and Resources.

		The Judiciary

H.R. 698 (Wicker) 
A bill to repeal the requirement relating to specific statutory authorization for increases in judicial salaries, toprovide forautomatic annual increases for judicial salaries, and for other purposes. Referred to House Committee on Judiciary,February 10, 1999; referred to Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, February 25, 1999.
H.R. 833 (Gekas) 
A bill to amend title 11 of the United States Code. Among many provisions of this bankruptcy reform bill,Section 128 (Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 1999) creates 18 new temporary bankruptcy judgeships and extends temporarybankruptcyjudgeships in five districts. Referred to House Committee on Judiciary and in addition to Committee on BankingandFinancial Services, February 24, 1999; referred to Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, March11,1999. Subcommittee hearings held March 16, 17 and 19, 1999; subcommittee markup, March 25, 1999. Committeeconsideration and markup, April 21, 22, 27 and 28, 1999. Reported to House (Amended), April 29, 1999. Committee onBanking and Financial Services discharged, April 29, 1999. Passed House by roll call vote, 313-108, May 5, 1999. Received in Senate, May 6, 1999; read twice and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, May 12,1999. 
H.R. 1752 (Coble) 
Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1999. Bill would effect various changes in federal court jurisdiction,authority ofjudicial officers, judicial financial administration, and judicial personnel administration. Referred to HouseCommittee onJudiciary, May 11, 1999; referred to Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, May 25, 1999. Subcommitteehearings held June 16, 1999; subcommittee markup, July 15, 1999. Committee consideration and markup, July 27,1999. Reported to House (Amended) and placed on Union Calendar, September 9, 1999.
S. 159 (Moynihan) 
A bill to amend chapter 121 of title 28, United States Code, to increase fees paid to Federal jurors, and for otherpurposes. Bill would increase fee Federal jurors are paid for the first thirty days of a trial from $40 per day to $45 per day. Referredto Senate Committee on Judiciary, January 19, 1999; referred to Subcommittee on Oversight and Courts, March24, 1999. 
S. 253 (Murkowski) 
Federal Ninth Circuit Reorganization Act of 1999. Bill organizes U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit intothreeregional divisions, as recommended by the Commission on Structural Alternatives for Federal Courts of Appeals. Referredto Senate Committee on Judiciary, January 19, 1999; referred to Subcommittee on Oversight and Courts, March 24,1999; Subcommittee hearings held July 16, 1999.
S. 625 (Grassley) 
Companion bill to H.R. 833 , above, including among its provisions Section 1126, Bankruptcy JudgeshipActof 1999, which creates new temporary bankruptcy judgeships and extends temporary bankruptcy judgeships in fivedistricts. Referred to Senate Committee on the Judiciary, March 16, 1999. Committee consideration and markup,April 15and 22, 1999. Reported to Senate and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, May 11, 1999. Laidbefore Senate and cloture motion presented, September 16, 1999. Cloture not invoked in Senate by roll call vote,53-45,September 21, 1999. Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent, November 5, 1999. Considered by Senate,November 5, 8, 9, 10, 16 and 17, 1999. Cloture motion presented in Senate, November 19, 1999.
S. 1145 (Leahy) 
Federal Judgeship Act. Creates 69 new federal circuit or district judgeships. Referred to the Senate Committeeon theJudiciary, May 27, 1999.
S. 1564 (Cochran) 
Federal Courts Budget Protection Act. Bill would allow the Judiciary to submit its annual budget, includingbuildings,directly to Congress, without going through the Office of Management and Budget. Referred jointly to SenateCommitteeson Budget and Governmental Affairs, August 5, 1999.

		Department of State

S. 886 (Helms) 
A bill to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal years 2000 and 2001; to provide forenhancedsecurity at U.S. diplomatic facilities; to provide for certain arms control, nonproliferation, and other national securitymeasures; to provide for the reform of the United Nations; and for other purposes. Introduced April 21, 1999;originalmeasure ordered reported by Senate Foreign Relations Committee April 27, 1999. ( S.Rept. 106-43 ).
H. R. 2415 (C. Smith) 
The American Security Act of 1999. Provides authorization for State Department and related agencies and forincreasesoverseas security. Introduced July 1, 1999. Passed by voice vote on July 21, 1999. 
H.R. 1211 (Smith, C.) 
A bill to authorize appropriations for the Department of State and related agencies for fiscal year 2000, and forotherpurposes. Introduced March 22, 1999; subcommittee marked-up and forwarded to full committee on March 23;Committee International Relations reported it out April 29, 1999. ( H.Rept. 106-122 ).

		Other Related Agencies

S. 414 ( Hutchinson); P.L. 105-258 
Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998. To amend the Shipping Act of 1984 to encourage competition ininternationalshipping and growth of United States imports and exports, and for other purposes. This law is administered by theFederalMaritime Commission. Signed into law October 14, 1998.

	For Additional Reading

		Department of Justice

CRS Issue Briefs 
CRS Issue Brief IB90078. Crime Control: The Federal Response , by David Teasley. 
CRS Issue Brief IB95025. Drug Supply Control: Current Legislation , by David Teasley. 
CRS Issue Brief IB92061. Prisons: Policy Options for Congress , by [author name scrubbed]. 
CRS Issue Brief IB98049. Police and Law Enforcement: Selected Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. 
CRS Reports 
CRS Report 97-265. Crime Control Assistance through the Byrne Programs , by Garrine Laney. 
CRS Report 98-622. Federal Crime Control Assistance to State and Local Governments: Department of Justice , bySuzanne Cavanagh and David Teasley
CRS Report 98-95. Juvenile Justice Act Reauthorization: The Current Debate , by Suzanne Cavanagh and David Teasley.
CRS Report 98-498. Federal Drug Control Budget: An Overview , by David Teasley. 
CRS Report 97-248. Prison Grant Programs , by [author name scrubbed]. 
CRS Report RS20183. Immigration and Naturalization Service's FY2000 Budget , [author name scrubbed]. 
CRS Report RS20279. Immigration and Naturalization Service Reorganization and Related Legislative Proposals ,[author name scrubbed].
CRS Report RL30257. Proposals to Restructure the Immigration and Naturalization Service , William Krouse.

		Department of Commerce

CRS Issue Briefs 
CRS Issue Brief IB95100. Economic Development Administration: Overview and Issues , by [author name scrubbed].
CRS Issue Brief IB95051. The National Information Infrastructure: The Federal Role , by [author name scrubbed].
CRS Issue Brief IB10018. Research and Development Funding: Fiscal Year 2000 , by [author name scrubbed].
CRS Reports 
CRS Report 95-36 . The Advanced Technology Program, by [author name scrubbed]. 
CRS Report 97-137. Census 2000: The Sampling Debate, by [author name scrubbed]. 
CRS Report 98-321. Census 2000: Sampling as an Appropriations Issue in the 105th Congress, by [author name scrubbed].
CRS Report 96-537. Department of Commerce Science and Technology Programs: Impacts of Dismantling Proposals , by[author name scrubbed].
CRS Report 97-126. Federal R&D Funding Trends In Five Agencies: NSF, NASA, NIST, DOE (Civilian) and NOAA , by[author name scrubbed].
CRS Report 97-104 . Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program: An Overview , by [author name scrubbed].
CRS Report 95-30 . The National Institute of Standards and Technology: An Overview, by [author name scrubbed] and WendyH. Schacht.
CRS Report 95-834. Proposals to Eliminate the U.S. Department of Commerce: An Issue Overview , by [author name scrubbed].
CRS Report RL30139(pdf) . The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Budget Activities and Issues forthe 106th Congress , by Wayne Morrissey.

		The Judiciary

CRS Reports 
CRS Report 98-510(pdf) . Judicial Nominations by President Clinton During the 103rd- 106th Congresses , by Denis StevenRutkus.
CRS Report RS20278. Judicial Salaries: Current Situation , by [author name scrubbed]. 
Other Information 
U.S. Administrative Office of the United States Courts. "Finally, a Budget! Year 2000 Brings COLA for Judges," TheThird Branch , vol. 31, December 1999, pp. 1,2. http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/dec99ttb/budget.html 
U.S. Administrative Office of the United States Courts. "White House Veto Returns Judiciary Budget to Negotiations," The Third Branch , vol. 31, November 1999, pp. 1,3. http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/nov99ttb/budget.html 
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State,the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Department of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and RelatedAgencies Appropriations for 2000 , hearings, part 8, 106th Cong., 1st sess., March 4& 10, 1999 (Washington: GPO, 1999), pp. 1-58(Supreme Court of the United States), pp. 59-101 (Architect of the Capitol), and pp. 103-263 (the Federal Judiciaryand theAdministrative Office).

		Department of State

CRS Report RL30197(pdf) . State Department and Related Agencies FY2000 Appropriations , by Susan Epstein.
CRS Report 98-624. State Department and Related Agencies FY1999 Appropriations , by Susan Epstein.
CRS Report 98-771. Embassy Security: Background, Funding, and FY2000 Budget Request , by [author name scrubbed].
CRS Report 97-711. U. N. Funding, Payment of Arrears and Linkage to Reform: Legislation in the 105th Congress, By[author name scrubbed], Marjorie Ann Brown, and Lois McHugh.
CRS Report 97-538(pdf) . Foreign Policy Agency Reorganization in the 105th Congress, by [author name scrubbed], Larry Q.Nowels, and [author name scrubbed]. 

		Other Related Agencies

CRS Reports 
CRS Report 95-178. Legal Services Corporation: Basic Facts and Current Status , by [author name scrubbed] and CarmenSolomon-Fears.
CRS Report 96-649 . Small Business Administration: Overview and Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. 
CRS Report 98-864. The Maritime Security Program (MSP) in an International Commercial Context: A Discussion, byStephen J Thompson. 
CRS Report 98-971. The Passenger Service Act, Domestic Ocean Passenger Service, and the 106th Congress, by Stephen JThompson.

		Selected World Wide Web Sites

House Committee on Appropriations http://www.house.gov/appropriations 
Senate Committee on Appropriations http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/ 
CRS Appropriations Products Guide http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html#la 
Congressional Budget Office http://www.cbo.gov 
General Accounting Office http://www.gao.gov 
Office of Management & Budget http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/ 

	Appendix

 Table 1A. Appropriations Funding for Departments ofCommerce, Justice, and State,the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, FY1999 and FY2000 (in millions of dollars)*
*Figures are for direct appropriations only; in some cases, agencies supplement these amount withoffsetting feecollections, including collections carried over from previous years. These agencies include: Immigration andNaturalization Service, Patent and Trademark Office, Small Business Administration, Federal CommunicationsCommission, Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Information on such feesarecontained in the background and issues sections of this report.
Note : Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 
1 Funds from the Violent Crime Reduction Programs (VCRTF) are provided as a subtotal in parentheses. These areincluded in the overall total for each federal agency.
2 The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is fully funded by user fees. The fees collected, but notobligated during thecurrent year, are available for obligation in the following fiscal year.
3 Funds provided for the Institute at Saint Anselm College and the New Hampshire State Library.
4 FY1999, levels exclude $1.56 billion from the FY1999 emergency supplemental appropriationsfor Y2K and embassysecurity ( P.L. 105-277 , Title VIII).
5 As of October 1, 1999 both USIA and ACDA will be consolidated into the Department of State. InternationalBroadcasting will remain an independent agency.
6 Congress has approved $210 million in overall FY2000 funding resources for the Commission,consisting of a directappropriation of $24.2 million (as shown in the above table) and $185.8 million in offsetting regulatory feecollections. Earlier: -- The President had requested $230.9 million funding for the Commission, consisting of a directappropriation of$45.1 million and $185.8 million in offsetting regulatory fee collections; -- the Senate, before going to conference, approved $232.8 million, consisting of a direct appropriation of $47.1 million and $185.8 million in offsettingregulatoryfees; and, -- the House, before going to conference, approved $192 million, consisting of a direct appropriationof $6.2million and $185.8 million in offsetting regulatory fees. 
7 For FY2000, the FTC is fully funded by the collection of premerger filing fees. 
8 For FY2000, the SEC is fully funded by transaction fees and securities registration fees.
9 Other includes agencies receiving appropriations of less than $1.5 million in FY1999 andFY2000. These agencies includeCommission for the Preservation of American Heritage Abroad; Commission on Security and Cooperation inEurope;Commission on Electronic Commerce; and the Marine Mammal Commission.
10 This total includes emergency appropriations approved under Title VIII of the OmnibusAppropriations Act for FY1999( H.R. 4328 , P.L. 105-277 ). The bulk of this funding was allocated to: Department of State for overseassecurity needs at diplomatic facilities and Y2K computer compliance ($1.56 billion); Department of Justiceprograms forY2K conversion and law enforcement ($206 million); and the SBA disaster loan program ($106 million). 
11 Total takes into account rescissions of -$234.8 million for FY1999.
12 Total takes into account rescissions of -$4.5 million proposed by the Administration.
13 Total takes into account rescissions of -$29.5 million recommended by the House.
14 Total takes into account rescissions of -$143.7 million recommended by the Senate.
15 Total takes into account rescissions of -$65.9 million recommended by the ConferenceCommittee and approved byCongress.
Source: Congressional Record , vol. 145, November 18, 1999: H12776-12786.

Summary:
This report tracks action by the 106th Congress on FY2000 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, andState, the Judiciary, and other related agencies (often referred to as CJS appropriations). P.L. 105-277 ( H.R. 4328 ) appropriated $36.2 billion for these agencies for FY1999. The President's FY2000 budget requested about $40.5billion for these agencies, about a $4.3 billion increase or 12% above the FY1999 total. On October 18, theConferenceCommittee approved a CJS bill for FY2000 ( H.R. 2670 , H.Rept. 106-283 ) totaling $39 billion--$2.8 billion(or 7.7%) above the FY1999 appropriation and $1.5 billion below the President's request. The bill passed CongressonOctober 20. However, the bill was vetoed by the President on October 25. A second CJS bill approved byConference( H.Rept. 106-479 ) and included in H.R. 3194 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2000, was passedby the House on November 18, 1999. The number for the CJS bill is H.R. 3421 which is in Division B of H.R. 3194 , Section 1000(a). The Senate passed the bill on November 19, 1999. The measure was signedintolaw by the President on November 29, 1999 ( P.L. 106-113 ; 113 Stat. 1501). The law approves total funding of$39.63billion which is about $625 million above the level initially approved by Congress, $3.4 billion (or 9.5%) aboveFY1999appropriation and $920 million below the President's request.
The major CJS appropriations issues or concerns that received attention in both the Senate and the House included thefollowing. Department of Justice: extending the 1994 Crime Act funding authorization beyondFY2000; eliminating mostfunding under the 1994 Crime Act for Title III crime prevention programs; increasing funding for drug-relatedeffortsamong the Department of Justice (DOJ) agencies; changing the focus and levels of appropriations for DOJ's OfficeofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP); funding for programs that would reduce violence in schools;determining the level of INS detention capacity necessary to comply with the statutory mandate that certain criminalaliensbe detained until deported; determining the severity of INS budget overruns in FY1999 due to over hiring in FY1998andother mandatory costs; meeting the statutory mandate that the Border Patrol be increased by 1,000 agents inFY2000;restructuring of INS either in the form of legislative proposals to dismantle the agency or as an internal restructuringof theagency by the Administration. Department of Commerce: the progress made in streamlining anddownsizing Departmentprograms; implementation of the forthcoming decennial census; federal financial support of industrial technologydevelopment programs; and implementing new White House environmental initiatives at the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration. Department of State: increasing funding for embassy security;reorganization of foreignpolicy agencies of State, USIA, and other foreign policy agencies; and the payment of arrears to the United Nations. TheJudiciary : level of funding required for court staff, defender services, security for the lower courts, courtadministration,and the Supreme Court's building improvements program; and the merits of increasing judges' salaries. OtherRelatedAgencies: adequacy of funding levels for the Legal Services Corporation, and the Equal EmploymentOpportunityCommission, given a rapidly growing workload of civil rights cases.
Key Policy Staff
Division abbreviations: A = American Law; G&F = Government and Finance; RSI = Resources; Science, and IndustryDivision, DSP = Domestic Social Policy Division; FTD = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade.