Transportation, the Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the Executive Office of the President, and Independent Agencies (TTHUD): FY2007 Appropriations
Released: 2007-06-04T00:00:00

Most Recent Developments

On February 14, 2007, Congress passed H.J.Res. 20 , the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007, the fourth in a series of continuing resolutions; it was signed into law on February 15, 2007 ( P.L. 110-5 ). P.L. 110-5 provided funding for the remainder of FY2007 for most federal agencies, including the Departments of Transportation, the Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, and the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the Executive Office of the President, and Independent Agencies. P.L. 110-5 provided funding generally at the level provided to agencies in FY2006, except where otherwise stated.

On July 26, 2006, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out H.R. 5576 , the FY2007 Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. The Committee recommended an overall net funding level of $141.2 billion (after budgetary scorekeeping adjustments), an increase of $3.6 billion (3%) over the amount in the FY2006 Act, $3.3 billion (2%) over the Administration request, and $2.5 billion (2%) over the House-passed amount. The Committee also recommended performance requirements for Amtrak, a 2.7% pay raise for federal civilian workers for calendar year 2007, an easing of restrictions on agricultural exports to Cuba, and a prohibition on easing restrictions on foreign control of U.S. airlines.

On June 14, 2006, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5576 . The House approved an overall funding level of $139.6 billion (after budgetary scorekeeping adjustments), a $2 billion (1%) increase over the amount in the FY2006 Act and a $1 billion (less than 1%) increase over the Administration's request. The House approved the Appropriations Committee's recommendations to provide the same pay raise (2.7%) to federal civilian workers as that provided for uniformed military personnel for calendar year 2007, to impose performance requirements on Amtrak, to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from using private collection agencies to collect taxes, and to restrict the outsourcing of federal work. The House approved several amendments to the bill, including ones increasing funding for Amtrak and for selected programs in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and to ease restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba (the Administration threatened to veto the bill if it contained provisions weakening sanctions on Cuba ).

Overview

The President's FY2007 request for the programs covered by this appropriations bill was $138.5 billion. This was $2.3 billion (2%) over the total in the FY2006 Act (after a 1.0% across-the-board rescission applied to the FY2006 funding). The FY2007 request included cuts from the FY2006 funding level for grants to airports (-$764 million), Amtrak (-$394 million), and housing programs for elderly and disabled in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (-$307 million). The FY2007 request for the Executive Office of the President was $225 million less than the FY2006 figure; that reduction was primarily due to the proposed transfer of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program ($225 million in FY2006) from the Executive Office of the President to the Department of Justice.

The President's FY2007 budget request proposals included:

funding Amtrak, the provider of intercity passenger rail service, at $900 million, down from $1.3 billion in FY2006; reducing funding for the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Airport Improvement Program (AIP) to $2.8 billion, $700 million below its 'guaranteed' authorization level, which would make the entire appropriations bill subject to a point of order. The proposed level was also below the AIP formula threshold of $3.2 billion, which could result in a halving of most AIP formula distributions; reducing funding for community and economic development programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to $6.8 billion, $815 million below the amount provided in the FY2006 Act; reducing funding for housing for elderly and disabled persons under HUD by $307 million (32%), from $971 million for FY2006 to $664 million for FY2007; eliminating the annual $29 million payment to the United States Postal Service for revenue forgone, as well as the absence of any funding requested for Postal Service security measures.

The House did not support most of these proposed changes. The House-passed version of H.R. 5576 , the FY2007 Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill, provided $139.6 billion, $1.1 billion (less than 1%) over the Administration's request. The bill generally reflected recommendations of the House Committee on Appropriations; the House did approve amendments increasing Amtrak's FY2007 funding from $900 million to $1.1 billion, and approved amendments increasing funding for several programs within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The White House objected to several provisions in the bill, and issued a veto threat against the bill if it included any provision easing sanctions on Cuba.

H.R. 5576 , as reported out by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, also did not support most of the changes proposed by the Administration. The committee recommended $141.2 billion (plus $597 million for the District of Columbia in a separate bill), a total of $3.3 billion (2%) over the Administration request. The committee recommended increases over the Administration request for aviation, Amtrak, housing, the Internal Revenue Service, and drug control programs in the Executive Office of the President. Among the provisions recommended by the committee was one easing restrictions on agricultural trade with Cuba, similar to the provision that had drawn a veto threat against the House-passed bill.

H.R. 5576 did not come to the Senate floor. A series of continuing resolutions kept most federal agencies operating early in FY2007, culminating in passage of the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for 2007 ( H.J.Res. 20 / P.L. 110-5 ), which was passed by Congress on February 14 and signed into law on February 15, 2007. This legislation provided funding for most federal agencies for the remainder for FY2007, generally at the level provided to agencies in FY2006, except where otherwise stated in the legislation. Among the agencies that received increases over their FY2006 levels were DOT and HUD. The legislation also provides that the "requirements, authorities, conditions, limitations, and other provisions" of the FY2006 appropriations acts would apply to the funding provided for FY2007, except where otherwise stated in the bill.

Different Appropriations Subcommittee Structures

In early 2005, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations reorganized their subcommittee structures. The House Committee on Appropriations reduced its number of subcommittees to ten. This change combined the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies subcommittee with the District of Columbia subcommittee; to the resulting subcommittee, in addition, jurisdiction over appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Judiciary as well as several additional independent agencies was added.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations reduced its number of subcommittees to 12. The Senate also added jurisdiction over appropriations for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, and the Judiciary, to the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies subcommittee; the Senate retained a separate District of Columbia Appropriations subcommittee. As a result, the area of coverage of the House and Senate subcommittees with jurisdiction over this appropriations bill are almost, but not quite, identical; the major difference being that in the Senate the appropriations for the District of Columbia originate in a separate bill.

Table 1 notes the status of the FY2007 Transportation et al. appropriations bill.

Table 2 lists the total funding provided for each of the titles in the bill (the last two titles cover general provisions affecting this bill and general provisions affecting the entire federal government) for FY2006 and the amount requested for that title for FY2007.

Table 3 shows funding trends over the five-year period FY2002-FY2006, and the amounts requested for FY2007, for the titles in the bill. The agencies generally experienced funding increases during the period FY2002-FY2006.

Title I: Transportation Appropriations

Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues

The President's budget proposed $64.4 billion for the Department of Transportation (DOT). This was $2.1 billion (3%) more than the $62.3 billion enacted for FY2006, including emergency spending, and $4.3 billion (7%) more than the amount provided in the FY2006 appropriations act (after then 1% rescission). The major funding changes requested from the FY2006 enacted levels were an increase of $3.5 billion (10%) in the obligation limitation for highways, reflecting the authorized level in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) ( P.L. 109-59 ) as well as an increase due to higher-than-projected Highway Trust Fund revenues; a decrease of $394 million (30%) in the request for Amtrak; and a decrease of $765 million (22%) in the Federal Aviation Administration's Airport Improvement Program.

The Administration's budget for DOT identified three agency-specific goals influencing the budget request: improving aviation and surface transportation safety through increased funding for safety programs, improving transportation mobility through investments in additional infrastructure and through investments in technology to increase the effective capacity of the transportation systems, and restraining spending and managing for results by, among other initiatives, restructuring federal intercity passenger rail policy and its provider, Amtrak, and eliminating the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program.

The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $64.7 billion for DOT, $287 million (less than 1%) more than the Administration request and $2.4 billion (4%) above total FY2006 funding. The primary changes from the President's request were additional funding for the Federal Aviation Administration ($1.5 billion), bringing the Airport Improvement Program and Facilities and Equipment Program up to their FY2007 authorized funding levels. The committee also recommended an increase of $100 million (7%) for the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Grants (New Starts) Program. The House supported the committee's recommendations regarding transportation funding, except that the House voted to add another $214 million (24%) for Amtrak (discussed below) and $6.7 million for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Operations and Research Program, for the Office of Fuel Economy to study how best to promote an increase in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) by the auto industry.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $65.0 billion for DOT. Compared to the Administration request, the committee recommended increased funding for airport grants-in-aid, for the Essential Air Services program, and for Amtrak; compared to the House bill, the committee recommended increased funding for Amtrak and for DOT's new headquarters building but less funding for FAA's facilities and equipment account and FTA's New Starts program.

P.L. 110-5 , the FY2007 Continuing Resolution, provided $63.1 billion in net budgetary resources for DOT ($67.4 billion in appropriations, reduced by $4.2 billion in rescissions of contract authority). This represented an increase of $3.7 billion (6%) over FY2006 appropriations, excluding rescissions of contract authority in both years and $2.8 billion in emergency appropriations in FY2006. The increases went largely to the federal-aid highway program and the federal transit program, reflecting their FY2007 authorized funding levels.

Amtrak

Amtrak is a quasi-governmental corporation that operates and maintains rail infrastructure in the Northeast and operates passenger rail service throughout the country. It operates at a deficit and requires federal support to continue operations. Amtrak's authorization expired at the end of FY2002. Reauthorization efforts have been stalled by fundamental disagreements between Congress and the Administration over the future shape of federal intercity passenger rail policy.

The Administration, which has appointed all the current members of the Amtrak Board of Directors, has sought to force changes in intercity passenger rail policy over the past several years by requesting less funding for Amtrak than is needed to maintain the status quo, arguing that "only a constrained budget will force Amtrak to change the way it conducts business." Congress has responded by providing more funding for Amtrak than requested by the Administration, while imposing conditions on Amtrak in the appropriations bills.

The Administration requested $900 million for Amtrak for FY2007. The Administration's proposal received bipartisan criticism in both the House and the Senate. The Administration has asserted in the past that it would support increased funding for intercity passenger rail if significant reforms are enacted. Some Members of Congress have questioned where that additional money would come from, given the competing demands from other transportation modes and from other agencies in the appropriations bill that funds DOT.

The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $900 million for grants to Amtrak for FY2007. The committee also recommended a number of requirements for Amtrak, including that Amtrak be required to submit a comprehensive business plan and a detailed plan for improving its managerial cost accounting system; to cut system overhead expenses by 10% annually; and to achieve savings through operating efficiencies in its food and beverage service, and first class service, resulting in these services breaking even by the end of FY2007.

In its consideration of H.R. 5576 , the House approved (266-158) an amendment to increase Amtrak's FY2007 appropriation by $214 million, from $900 million to $1.114 billion. This was $180 million less than the $1.294 billion Amtrak received in FY2006 (after the 1.0% across-the-board rescission), and significantly less than the $1.4 billion the DOT IG testified Amtrak needed in FY2007. The funding was divided into two parts: $629 million for capital grants and debt service, and $485 million for efficiency incentive grants. None of the funding would go directly to Amtrak; Amtrak would apply to the Secretary of DOT to receive grants.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $1.4 billion for Amtrak. As with the House, this funding was divided between capital grants and debt service ($750 million) and efficiency incentive grants for operating costs; in both cases, Amtrak would apply to the Secretary of DOT to receive funding. The committee asserted that this arrangement would provide increased oversight of Amtrak. The committee also recommended several requirements for Amtrak similar to the provisions in the House bill, such as requiring Amtrak to reduce the cost deficits on its first-class service and food and beverage service. The committee also included a provision forbidding Amtrak from outsourcing work to foreign countries, and one creating a pilot program to see if a state can operate passenger rail service at lower cost than Amtrak does now.

The FY2007 Continuing Resolution ( P.L. 110-5 ) provided $1.3 billion for Amtrak, the same amount provided in FY2006. The text of P.L. 110-5 provided that the requirements and limitations imposed on Amtrak in its FY2006 appropriations legislation would continue to apply throughout FY2007.

Aviation

The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) budget provides both capital and operating funding for the nation's air traffic control system, as well as providing federal grants to airports for airport planning, development, and expansion of the capacity of the nation's air traffic infrastructure. The President's budget requested $12.8 billion in net funding for FY2007, $937 million less than was enacted for FY2006. The President's request included $18 million to hire 1,136 air traffic controllers in FY2007. This was expected to result in a net gain of around 132 controllers after retirements expected in FY2007.

The House Committee recommended $15.2 billion for FY2007, $1.4 billion over the level enacted for FY2006 and $2.4 billion over the Administration request. The increases brought the FAA's capital programs up to their FY2007 authorized funding levels. The House supported this recommendation.

The House also adopted, 291-137, an amendment restricting foreign control over the business decisions of U.S. airlines. The DOT had proposed a rule whose stated purpose was to promote foreign investment in U.S. airlines. In response to concerns raised about the implications of this proposed rule for national security, the House adopted an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds provided in the FY2007 appropriations bill to finalize or implement the proposed rule. The Senate Committee on Appropriations also recommended a similar provision. The DOT subsequently withdrew the proposed amendment to the rule that would have increased the allowed degree of foreign ownership of U.S. airlines.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $14.2 billion for FY2007. The committee recommended more funding that the Administration requested, but less funding than the House provided; significant differences compared with the House levels were for the Facilities and Equipment account ($2.55 billion to the House's $3.11 billion) and the Airport Improvement Program ($3.52 billion to the House's $3.7 billion).

The FY2007 Continuing Resolution ( P.L. 110-5 ) provided $14.5 billion in net funding for the Federal Aviation Administration for FY2007. This was $1.7 billion (13%) more than the Administration requested and $770 million (6%) more than enacted for FY2006.

Airport Improvement Program

The President's budget proposed a cut to the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), from $3.5 billion in FY2006 to $2.8 billion for FY2007. The House provided $3.7 billion, the FY2007 authorized level; the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $3.5 billion. As a result of P.L. 110-5 , the AIP received $3.5 billion, the same amount as in FY2006.

AIP funds are used to provide grants for airport planning and development, and for projects to increase airport capacity (such as building new runways) and other facility improvements. Some Members of Congress have expressed concern at proposed cuts in the AIP program in the face of forecasts of renewed growth in aviation traffic.

Essential Air Service

The President's budget proposed a $59 million (54%) reduction in funding for the Essential Air Service program, from $109 million (FY2006) to $50 million. The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $117 million. The House-passed bill provided $117 million. The Senate Committee on Appropriations also recommended $117 million. As a result of P.L. 110-5 , the program received $109 million, the same amount as in FY2006.

This program seeks to preserve air service to small airports in rural communities by subsidizing the cost of that service. Supporters of the Essential Air Service program contend that preserving airline service to rural communities was part of the deal Congress made in exchange for deregulating airline service in 1978, which was expected to reduce air service to rural areas. Some Members of Congress expressed concern that the proposed cut in funding for the Essential Air Service program could lead to a reduction in the transportation connections of rural communities. Previous budget requests from the Current Administration, as well as budget requests from previous Administrations, have also proposed reducing funding to this program.

Surface Transportation

The President's budget requested $39.8 billion for federal highway programs for FY2007, an increase of $3.5 billion (10%) over the comparable level of $36.3 billion provided in FY2006. The budget also requested $8.8 billion for federal transit programs for FY2007, an increase of $342 million (4%) over the $8.5 billion provided in FY2006. These increases reflected the authorized level of funding provided (and "guaranteed") for surface transportation programs by SAFETEA ( P.L. 109-59 ), except that the request was $100 million less than the authorized level for transit. The authorized level of FY2007 highway funding included an increase of $842 million as a result of higher-than-expected revenues to the Highway Trust Fund, an adjustment provided for in SAFETEA known as Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority, or RABA.

The House approved the requested (authorized) level for highway programs—$37.0 billion —and added $100 million to the Capital Grants (New Starts) transit program to bring the transit funding up to its authorized level of $8.9 billion. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended the same level for federal highway programs and the requested level for transit programs (thus, $100 million less than the House provided). The FY2007 Continuing Resolution ( P.L. 110-5 ) provided $39.8 billion for the federal highway program and $9.0 billion for the federal transit program for FY2007. P.L. 110-5 also rescinded $3.5 billion from unobligated balances of previously provided contract authority for federal highway programs, resulting in a net FY2007 level of $36.3 billion for the federal highway program.

The Administration requested $517 million (a 6% increase) for the Federal Motor Carrier Administration (FMCSA) and $815 million (a 1% increase) for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The House Committee on Appropriations recommended the requested level for FMCSA and recommended an additional $6 million to the amount requested for NHTSA. The House concurred with these recommendations. The Senate Committee on Appropriations also recommended the requested level for FMCSA and $8 million less than requested for NHTSA. FMCSA received $517 million and NHTSA received $821 million for FY2007 as a result of P.L. 110-5 .

Maritime Administration (MARAD)

The Administration requested $299 million for the Maritime Administration for FY2007, $7 million (2%) below the $306 million enacted for FY2006. As in its FY2006 budget, the Administration did not request any new funding for National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction Program, and requested that $74 million Congress appropriated in FY2005 for this program be rescinded (bringing its net request down to $223 million, assuming this rescission). The House provided $300 million, and supported the request to rescind the $74 million for the National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction Program. That rescission, plus a $2 million rescission of administrative expenses for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program, brought the net total funding down to $224 million.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $344 million for MARAD, significantly above the request and the House level. The additional funding was for subsidies for the Title IX loan program ($30 million) and a new program to assist small shipyards ($15 million). The committee also recommended the requested $74 million rescission for the National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction Program (thus bringing the net total funding to $270 million). The FY2007 Continuing Resolution ( P.L. 110-5 ) provided $291 million for MARAD. P.L. 110-5 also rescinded the $74 million in the National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction Program, and rescinded $2 million from MARAD's ship construction account, resulting in a net FY2007 appropriation of $214 million.

The National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction Program is intended to decrease the Department of Defense's reliance on foreign-flag oil tankers by supporting the construction of up to five privately-owned product-tanker vessels in the United States. It would provide up to $50 million per vessel for the construction, in U.S. shipyards, of commercial tank vessels that are capable of carrying militarily useful petroleum products and that would be available for the military's use in time of war.

Title II: Department of the Treasury

This section examines FY2007 appropriations for the Treasury Department and its operating bureaus. FY2007 appropriations for the largest operating bureau, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), are examined in the following section.

The Treasury Department performs a variety of governmental functions. Foremost among them are protecting the nation's financial system against a host of illicit activities (e.g., money laundering and terrorist financing), collecting tax revenue, enforcing tax laws, managing and accounting for federal debt, administering the federal government's finances, regulating financial institutions, and producing and distributing coins and currency.

At its most basic level of organization, Treasury consists of departmental offices and operating bureaus. In general, the offices are responsible for formulating and implementing policy initiatives and managing Treasury's operations, while the bureaus perform specific duties assigned to Treasury, mainly through statutory mandates. In the past decade or so, the bureaus have accounted for more than 95% of the agency's funding and work force.

With one possible exception, the bureaus can be divided into those engaged in financial management and regulation and those engaged in law enforcement. In recent decades, the Comptroller of the Currency, U.S. Mint, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Financial Management Service (FMS), Bureau of Public Debt, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI), and Office of Thrift Supervision have undertaken tasks related to the management of the federal government's finances or the supervision and regulation of the U.S. financial system. By contrast, law enforcement has been the central focus of the tasks handled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; U.S. Secret Service; Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; U.S. Customs Service; Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN); and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. Since the advent of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, Treasury's direct involvement in law enforcement has shrunk considerably. The possible exception to this simplified dichotomy is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), whose main duties encompass both the collection of tax revenue and the enforcement of tax laws and regulations.

Treasury Offices and Bureaus (Excluding the Internal Revenue Service)

Funding for many bureaus comes largely from annual appropriations. Such is the case for the IRS, FMS, Bureau of Public Debt, FinCEN, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), and the CDFI. But there are some exceptions to this heavy reliance on appropriated funds. The Treasury Franchise Fund, U.S. Mint, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision finance their operations largely from the fees they charge for services and products they provide.

In FY2007, Treasury is receiving $11.624 billion in appropriated funds, or 0.4% more than it received in FY2006, after allowing for a rescission of 1%. Most of these funds are being used to finance the operations of the IRS, which is receiving $10.597 billion in FY2007. The remaining $1.027 billion is distributed among Treasury's other bureaus and departmental offices in the following amounts: Departmental offices (which includes the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence—or TFI—and the Office of Foreign Assets Control) is receiving $216 million; Department-wide systems and capital investments, $30 million; OIG, $17 million; TIGTA, $133 million; CDFI, $55 million; FinCEN, $73 million; FMS, $235 million; Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (ATB), $91 million; and Bureau of the Public Debt, $176 million.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

To help finance its operations and multitude of spending programs, the federal government levies individual and corporate income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and miscellaneous taxes and fees. The federal agency responsible for administering and collecting these taxes and fees (except for customs duties) is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In discharging this responsibility, the IRS receives and processes tax returns, related documents, and tax payments; disburses refunds; enforces compliance through audits and other procedures; collects delinquent taxes; and provides a host of services to taxpayers with the aim of enabling them to understand their rights and responsibilities under the federal tax code and resolving problems without litigation. In FY2006, the agency collected $2.537 trillion before refunds, the largest component of which was individual income tax revenue of $1.236 trillion.

The IRS receives funding for its operations from three sources: appropriated funds, user fees, and so-called reimbursables, which are payments the IRS receives from other federal agencies and state governments for services it provides. In FY2006, appropriated funds accounted for 98% of IRS's operating budget, with user fees and reimbursables each adding another 1%.

Starting in FY2007, appropriated funds are distributed among five accounts:

(1) taxpayer services , which provides resources for pre-filing taxpayer assistance, filing and account services, administrative services for IRS employees, and senior IRS management; (2) enforcement , which covers the cost of compliance services, research and statistical analysis, and administration of the earned income tax credit; (3) operations support , which addresses the improvement and maintenance of the agency's information and management systems; (4) business systems modernization (or BSM) , which provides funds for developing new information systems for tax administration and acquiring the hardware and software needed to integrate them into IRS's operations; and (5) health insurance tax credit administration , which covers the cost of administering the refundable tax credit for health insurance established by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002.

In FY2007, the IRS is receiving $10.597 billion in appropriated funds—or 0.5% more than it received in FY2006. Of this amount, $2.138 billion is designated for taxpayer services, $4.686 for enforcement, $3.545 for operations support, $213 million for the BSM program, and $15 million for administration of the health insurance tax credit. The IRS is one of the many federal agencies being funded in FY2007 under a year-long continuing resolution ( H.J.Res. 20 ) enacted in February 2007. Under the resolution, the "requirements, authorities, conditions, limitations, and other provisions" that governed the use of FY2006 appropriations by all affected agencies are also to govern their use of FY2007 appropriations. As a result, certain restrictions that applied to funding for IRS operations in FY2006 also apply to the funding for IRS operations in FY2007. Specifically, the IRS may not reorganize or reduce its workforce in FY2007 without the consent of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. In addition, during FY2007, the IRS is barred from entering the market for tax return preparation software, and from instituting reductions in taxpayer service until TIGTA completes a report on the effects of such reductions on taxpayer compliance.

Title III: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget and Key Policy Issues12

The President's FY2007 budget proposed to fund the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) at approximately $34.1 billion, just over HUD's $33.6 billion budget for FY2006 (not including FY2006 supplementals related to Hurricane Katrina). Although the overall request appeared to be an increase, the amount requested actually would have resulted in a slight decrease, with a number of HUD programs slated for funding cuts. This seeming contradiction resulted from a decrease in the amount of offsetting receipts available to subsidize the HUD budget. As can be seen in Table 6 , appropriations would have declined by more than $200 million and offsetting receipts would have declined by more than $1 billion under the President's request.

On June 14, 2006, the House passed its version of the FY2007 Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Judiciary, District of Columbia and Independent Agencies (TTHUD) Appropriations bill ( H.R. 5576 ), which would have provided $35.3 billion for HUD. Floor amendments that would have increased funding for Section 8 vouchers, lead-based paint hazard control, HOPE VI, supportive housing for the elderly, and Brownfields redevelopment were added to the bill. On July 27, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version of H.R. 5576 , which would have provided $36.6 billion for HUD.

Congress did not enact the majority of FY2007 appropriations bills before the end of the 2006 fiscal year. In order to fund government operations until final appropriations bills were enacted, Congress passed a series of continuing resolutions ( P.L. 109-289 , P.L. 109-369 , P.L. 109-383 ) which funded HUD programs at the lower of the House-passed or FY2006 enacted funding level. On February 15, 2007, President Bush signed a revised year-long continuing resolution into law ( P.L. 110-5 ). With some exceptions, the act funds accounts at their FY2006 levels. (For more details on the HUD budget, see CRS Report RL33344, The Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2007 Budget , by [author name scrubbed] et al.)

Community Development Fund and related programs

The Community Development Fund (CDF) funds the Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG) and the Economic Development and Neighborhood Initiatives (EDI and NI). CDBG provides formula grant funding to states and localities to be used for community development-related purposes; EDIs and NIs are collections of congressionally directed projects. The CDBG formula grant would have been funded at just under $3 billion in the Administration's budget for FY2007, compared to $3.7 billion in FY2006. The President proposed no new funding for EDIs and NIs, and requested that Congress rescind the funds provided in FY2006. The FY2007 budget would also have eliminated funding for several other community development-related programs, including Brownfields redevelopment, Section 108 loan guarantees, and Rural Housing and Economic Development.

The House-passed bill, H.R. 5576 , included about $4.2 billion for the Community Development Fund, $1.2 billion more than the Administration request. The funding level recommended by the House included about $3.9 billion for the CDBG formula program, $57.4 million for Indian tribes, $250 million for Economic Development Initiative earmarks, and $20 million for Neighborhood Initiative earmarks. Although the bill as reported would have provided no funding for the Brownfields Redevelopment program or Section 108 loan guarantees, funding for both programs was provided through floor amendments ($3 million for Section 108 and $15 million for Brownfields). No funding was included for Rural Housing and Economic Development.

The Senate committee-passed version of H.R. 5576 would have provided the same level of funding for the Community Development Fund as the House-passed bill, about $4.2 billion. The Senate committee recommended about $3.9 billion for the CDBG formula program, $58 million for Indian tribes, $250 million for Economic Development Initiative earmarks, and $30 million for Neighborhood Initiative earmarks. The Rural Housing and Economic Development program would have been funded at $20 million and Section 108 loan guarantees would have received $3 million under the Senate committee-passed bill. No funding was provided for the Brownfields Redevelopment program.

The CR provided almost $3.8 billion for the Community Development Fund, a decrease from the FY2006 funding level of $4.2 billion. The CDBG formula program is funded at just over $3.7 billion, about equal to the amount provided in FY2006. Funding is also provided for the Rural Housing and Economic Development program ($16.8 million), the Section 108 loan guarantees program ($3.7 million), and the Brownfields Redevelopment program ($9.9 million). No funds were provided for Economic Development Initiative or Neighborhood Initiative congressionally designated projects.

Housing Programs for the Elderly and the Disabled

The Administration's budget proposed to reduce funding for the Section 202 housing for the elderly program from $734.6 million in FY2006 to $545.5 million in FY2007, a cut of almost 26%. However, the House-passed bill would have funded the program at approximately $746.6 million, about $12 million more than FY2006. The Senate committee-passed bill recommended $750 million for Section 202. The FY2007 Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution ( P.L. 110-5 ) did not specify a funding level for elderly housing, which therefore received its FY2006 level of $734.6 million for FY2007.

For the second year in a row, the Administration's budget proposed to halve funding for the Section 811 housing for the disabled program, to $118.8 million from $236.6 million in FY2006. As passed by the House, H.R. 5576 would have increased funding to nearly $240 million. The Senate committee-passed bill would have provided $240 million for Section 811. Under the year-long CR, Section 811 is funded at the FY2006 level of $236.6 million for FY2007.

Public Housing/HOPE VI

Funding for the federal public housing program comes through three main programs: the Operating Fund, the Capital Fund, and the HOPE VI program. The first two are formula grant programs, the former to cover the costs of the day-to-day maintenance and operation of public housing and the latter to cover major modernization costs. HOPE VI is a competitive grant program that funds large scale revitalization of public housing.

The President proposed $3.5 billion for the Operating Fund in FY2007 (level with FY2006) and almost $2.2 billion for the public housing Capital Fund (an 11% reduction from FY2006). As in FY2006, the President asked Congress to provide no new money for the HOPE VI program for FY2007, and to rescind the funding that Congress provided in the previous year before the Department awarded it to grantees. The House Appropriations committee-reported bill would have funded all three programs at the President's request. A floor amendment ( H.Amdt. 1016 ) offered by Representative Artur Davis would have added $30 million to the Capital Fund, although his floor statements indicated it was intended for the HOPE VI program. The House-passed version of the FY2007 funding bill would not have rescinded FY2006 HOPE VI funds. The Senate committee-passed bill would have funded the Operating Fund at $3.6 billion, the Capital Fund at $2.4 billion (both increases over FY2006) and would have funded HOPE VI at $100 million. It would not have rescinded FY2006 funding. The CR did not contain a specific funding level for the Capital Fund or HOPE VI, and so the accounts are funded at the FY2006 levels. The CR funded the Operating Fund at $3.8 million, a $300 million increase over the FY2006 level.

Title IV: The Judiciary

The Judiciary Budget and Key Policy Issues

As a co-equal branch of government, the judiciary presents its budget to the President, who transmits it to Congress unaltered. Table 7 shows the FY2006 enacted amount, the FY2007 request, the House-passed amount, the Senate committee-approved amount, and the FY2007 enacted amount.

As Table 7 shows, while the FY2007 Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution ( P.L. 110-5 ) provided the same level of funding to agencies in FY2007 as they received in FY2006, unless otherwise provided in the resolution, the judiciary was one of the entities that received an increase over its FY2006 level. The FY2007 appropriations for the judiciary would essentially maintain current on-board staffing levels and address the immigration-related caseload.

In his January 11, 2007, letters to the Speaker of the House and the Majority and Minority leaders in both the House and the Senate, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., expressed his concern about a possible year-long continuing resolution. The Chief Justice stated that funding at the FY2006 level for FY2007 would have "a severe impact on court operations, our judicial system, and potentially all U.S. citizens." Specifically, he cited the Administrative Office of the U.S. Court's calculations that "almost 2,400 probation and pretrial services officers and clerks' offices staff currently employed by the courts would be lost. This reduction of almost 12 percent of the courts' staff would have to be accomplished through hiring freezes, furloughs and ultimately the firing of these dedicated employees." He emphasized that public safety would be at risk because the appropriate level of supervision would not be available for felons released from prison and for defendants during the pretrial stage. He also expressed concern that there would be no funds to pay court-appointed private attorneys for the last 10 weeks of FY2007 to ensure the timely disposition of criminal cases.

In his letter, the Chief Justice requested that the Judiciary not be subject to a budget freeze, and revised the FY2007 judiciary budget request to $6.029 billion. This was $231 million (or 3.7%) less than the original request of $6.260 billion, but $309 million (or 5.4%) more than the FY2006 enacted amount of $5.720 billion. He stated that the revised amount would be needed for the federal courts to fulfill their constitutional and statutory responsibilities.

Subsequently, Congress approved $5.98 billion in FY2007 appropriations for the judiciary ( P.L. 110-5 ). The FY2007 enacted amount is 4.5% more than the FY2006 appropriation of $5.72 billion.

In his 2005 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary , released on January 1, 2006, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., highlighted appropriations issues and their importance in maintaining an independent judiciary that can fulfill its mission. The Chief Justice expressed concern about the high cost of rent the judiciary pays to the General Services Administration (GSA), and asked Congress for rent relief. The rent now constitutes about 20% of the total judiciary budget. In early 2006, legislation was introduced in both the House and Senate which would direct GSA to establish rental fees that would not exceed the actual costs of operating and maintaining the space it provides the judiciary. On February 8, 2006, Representative James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (for himself and Representative Lamar S. Smith) introduced H.R. 4710 , the "Judiciary Rent Reform Act of 2006," which was referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (and subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management). On February 15, 2006, then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter (for himself, and Senators Patrick J. Leahy, John Cornyn, Saxby Chambliss, Dianne Feinstein, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., James M. Talent, Daniel K. Inouye, Richard M. Burr, and Wayne A. Allard) introduced S. 2292 , a similar measure, which was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On April 27, 2006, the Senate committee reported S. 2292 , and the bill was placed on the Senate Calendar. No further action was taken on H.R. 4710 or S. 2292 prior to the adjournment of the 109 th Congress.

Chief Justice Roberts also expressed concern that judicial pay has not kept pace with inflation over the years, and attributed increasing numbers of judges leaving the bench to this pay issue. On February 10, 2006, Senator Dianne Feinstein (for herself, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, and Senator John F. Kerry) introduced S. 2276 , the "Federal Judicial Fairness Act of 2006," to increase federal judges' salaries by 16.5%. In addition, S. 2276 would end the current linkage between congressional and judicial salaries, which has prevented increases in judicial salaries when Congress foregoes annual cost of living increases for its Members. S. 2276 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On March 28, 2006, Representative Adam B. Schiff (for himself and Representative Judy B. Biggert) introduced H.R. 5014 , the "Federal Judicial Fairness Act," a companion bill to S. 2276 , which was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. No further action was taken on S. 2276 or H.R. 5014 prior to the adjournment of the 109 th Congress.

Judicial security—the safe conduct of court proceedings and the security of judges in courtrooms and off-site—continues to be an issue of concern. The Chief Justice noted that the violence directed at judges in 2005 had shocked the nation, and that "we must take every step to ensure that our own judges, to whom so much of the world looks as models of independence, never face violent attack for carrying out their duties."

Appropriations for the judiciary—about two-tenths of 1% (0.2%) of the entire federal budget—are divided into budget groups and accounts. The two accounts that fund the Supreme Court (the salaries and expenses of the Supreme Court and the expenditures for the care of its building and grounds) together make up about 1.2% of the total judiciary budget. The structural and mechanical care of the Supreme Court building, and care of its grounds, are the responsibility of the Architect of the Capitol. The rest of the judiciary's budget provides funding for the "lower" federal courts and for related judicial services. The largest account, about 75% of the total budget—the Salaries and Expenses account for the U.S. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services—covers the salaries of circuit and district judges (including judges of the territorial courts of the United States), justices and judges retired from office or from regular active service, judges of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and all other officers and employees of the federal judiciary not specifically provided for by other accounts; and the necessary expenses of the courts. The judiciary budget does not fund three "special courts" in the U.S. court system: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the U.S. Tax Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Federal courthouse construction also is not funded within the judiciary's budget.

FY2007 Request and Appropriation

For FY2007, the judiciary requested $6.26 billion in total appropriations, a 9.4% increase over the $5.72 billion enacted for FY2006. The FY2007 budget request includes funding for 33,631 full-time-equivalent (FTE) positions—an increase of 417 FTEs or 1.3% above the FY2006 estimate of 33,214 FTEs. The requested additional positions were a continuation of efforts to restore some positions lost in previous years as well as to provide for expected workload increases. Of the total budget request increase of $540.1 million, $461.8 million (86%) would have funded pay adjustments and other inflation-related increases needed to maintain current services. The remaining $78.3 million (14%) of the $540.1 million increase was for expected workload changes and program enhancements. TheFY2007 enacted amount ( P.L. 110-5 ) was $5.98 billion, a 4.5% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.

House Action

On April 4, 2006, the House Appropriations TTHUD Subcommittee held a hearing on the Supreme Court budget request for FY2007, and heard testimony from Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Another hearing was held the following day to hear testimony on the overall judiciary budget request from Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and Chair of the Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and then-Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) Leonidas R. Mecham. Among issues raised at the hearings were judicial pay, televising the Supreme Court proceedings, rent paid to GSA, the Supreme Court building modernization project, and workload.

On May 26, 2006, the subcommittee held a markup on the bill and approved a total of $6.1 billion for the judiciary. By voice vote, on June 6, 2006, the House Appropriations Committee approved the recommended $6.1 billion funding level—a $342.8 million (6.0%) increase over the FY2006 level, but $197.3 million (3.2%) less than the FY2007 request. Three days later, on June 9, 2006, the committee reported H.R. 5576 . On June 14, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5576 to provide the judiciary with the same level of funding the committee had approved.

The House committee expressed concern over the judiciary's practice of including "one-time windfalls of offsetting collections and prior year carryover funds in the FY2007 funding base," and urged the judiciary to discontinue the practice in developing its FY2008 budget submission.

Senate Action

On July 18, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies held a markup on the bill, and approved a total of $6.1 billion for the judiciary. Two days later, on July 20, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee held a markup, and approved the $6.1 billion funding level—a $378 million (6.6%) increase over the FY2006 level, but $162.1 million (2.6%) less than the FY2007 request. In the committee report, the committee expressed its concerns about several issues; among them are the following:

Staffing: The committee recommended that the Judicial Conference make the retention of personnel a top priority. The committee also expressed concern about workload and staffing needs of the district courts along the U.S. southwest border, resulting from increased immigration funding law enforcement activities. It directed AOUSC to provide a hiring plan (in its FY2007 financial plan) for positions that would be funded for magistrate judges and staff, and to keep the committee apprised as the positions are filled. It also directed AOUSC to examine staffing formulas to ensure that they reflect changing trends, and report to Congress Courthouse construction. Noting that the self-imposed courthouse construction moratorium would end in September 2006, the committee urged the judiciary to carefully weigh its space needs with concerns about the rent it pays to GSA. It also called for adequate checks and balances to ensure that future construction needs and requests are "subjected to the highest standards of cost-effectiveness." It directed AOUSC to report to the committee, no later than 120 days after enactment of this bill, on the steps that have been and are being taken for more efficient use of space in the district and circuit courts. Further, it encouraged the judiciary to continue working with GSA on fair and accurate rent charges, and also to correct any inequities. Carryover funds: The committee directed that carryover funds be used to meet current and projected needs before enhancing any program. The AOUSC is to submit separately in future financial plans, for House and Senate appropriations committees' approval, all sources of carryover funds and their desired application.

Following are highlights of the FY2007 judiciary budget:

Supreme Court

For FY2007, the total request for the Supreme Court (salaries and expenses plus buildings and grounds) was $76.4 million, a 16.2% increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $65.7 million. The total request comprised two accounts: (1) Salaries and Expenses—$63.4 million was requested, compared with the FY2006 enacted amount of $60.1 million; and (2) Care of the Building and Grounds—$13.0 million was requested, compared with $5.6 million enacted for FY2006. Most of the requested increase in salaries and expenses was to fund increases in salary and benefit costs, inflationary fixed costs, and five new positions. The Buildings and Grounds account request increased by $7.4 million (132.7%), including funds for the Supreme Court Building roofing system repairs, maintenance of the building, and grounds operations, and continuation of the building modernization project. The House approved the full amount requested for this account. The Senate committee also approved the full amount. The FY2007 enacted amount for this account was $74.0 million, a 12.6% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

The FY2007 request for this account was $26.3 million—a $2.5 million (10.6%) increase over the $23.8 million appropriated for FY2006. The request provided for pay and other inflationary adjustments, increased health benefit costs, and increased rental costs related to space for senior judges. The requested increase also included $926,000 for information technology upgrades, infrastructure requirements for a disaster recovery plan, and the implementation of courtroom technology in two of this circuit's three courtrooms. The House approved $26.0 million for this account—a $2.2 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.3 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee recommended $25.3 million—a $1.5 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $1.0 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $25.3 million, a 6.3% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.

U.S. Court of International Trade

The FY2007 request was for $16.2 million—a $0.9 million (5.5%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $15.3 million that the judiciary budget submission ascribes largely to increases in pay and benefits. The House approved the full amount requested for this account. The Senate committee also approved the full amount. The FY2007 enacted amount was $15.8 million, a 3.3% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.

Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services

This budget group includes 12 of the 13 courts of appeals and 94 district judicial courts located in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Making up about 95% of the judiciary budget, the four accounts in the group—salaries and expenses, court security, defender services, and fees of jurors and commissioners—fund most of the day-to-day activities and operations of the federal circuit and district courts.

Salaries and Expenses

The FY2007 Salaries and Expenses request for this budget group was $4,691.2 million—a $361.0 million (8.3%) increase over the FY2006 level of $4,330.2 million. According to the budget request, about 99% of this increase was required for pay increases and other adjustments needed to maintain the courts' current services. For example, of the $361.0 million increase requested, $106.7 million was requested for pay and benefit adjustments for court personnel. Another $46.9 million of the increase was for increased rent to GSA and related costs, such as equipment. In addition, $42.6 million was requested for the Judiciary Technology Fund to support existing and newly installed information technology systems, and to continue the implementation of new information systems. Another increase of $22.1 million was to fund 257 FTEs—additional support staff needed to address the courts' anticipated workload increase during the year (as a result of an expected increase in the number of immigration-related cases along the southwest border with Mexico). Finally, according to the judiciary budget request, to maintain the same level of services provided in FY2006, a $115.1 million increase was needed in this account for FY2007 because of an anticipated shortfall of funds from fee collections and carryover funds from previous years. In addition to appropriated funds, this account receives other funds, including current year fee collections, carryover of fee balances from the prior year, and no-year appropriation balances. In FY2007, these non-appropriated funds were projected to total $285.9 million. The House approved $4,560.1 million for this account—a $229.9 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $131.1 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee recommended $4,587.3 million—a $257.1 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $103.9 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $4,480.5 million, a 3.5% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.

Court Security

This account provides for protective guard services, security systems, and equipment for courthouses and other federal facilities to ensure the safety of judicial officers, employees, and visitors. Under this account, a major portion of the funding is transferred to the U.S. Marshal Service for administering the Judicial Facility Security Program to pay for court security officers. The FY2007 request was $410.3 million—a $42.1 million (11.4%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $368.3 million. This increase was reportedly driven by pay and benefit adjustments and other adjustments needed to maintain current services. The increase would also cover the costs for 34 additional court security officers expected to be needed during FY2007. Payment to the Federal Protective Service (FPS) is also covered under this account. The FY2007 request for FPS was $67.9 million—a $7.4 million increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $60.5 million. In addition, $16.8 million was requested for security systems, perimeter (outside the building) security, and equipment for court security and for probation and pretrial service offices. An additional $6.6 million was requested to replace VCRs with digital video recorders. The House approved $400.3 million for this account—a $32.0 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $10 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee recommended $397.7 million for this account—a $29.4 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $ 12.6 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $378.7 million, a 2.8% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.

Defender Services

This account funds the operations of the federal public defender and community defender organizations, and the compensation, reimbursement, and expenses of private practice panel attorneys appointed by the courts to serve as defense counsel to indigent individuals accused of federal crimes. The FY2007 request was $803.9 million—a $94.1 million (13.3%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $709.8 million. The increase requested was reportedly to provide for pay increases and other inflationary adjustments, and to fund workload increases arising from Supreme Court rulings. The request also provided for the start-up of new federal defender organizations scheduled to open in FY2007. Currently, five judicial districts are not served by a Federal Defender Office: Alabama (Northern), Georgia (Southern), Kentucky (Eastern), Mississippi (Northern), and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The requested funding would have provided 80 FTEs to cope with the projected caseload increase of 5,500 cases. The House approved $750 million for this account—a $40.2 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $53.8 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee recommended $761.1 million for this account—a $51.3 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $42.8 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $776.3 million, a 9.4% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.

Fees of Jurors and Commissioners

This account funds the fees and allowances provided to grand and petit jurors, and the compensation of jury and land commissioners. The FY2007 request was $63.1 million—a $2.4 million (3.9%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $60.7 million. The increase was due mainly to inflationary costs associated with expenses paid to jurors. The House approved the full amount requested for this account. The Senate committee also approved the full amount. The FY2007 enacted amount was $60.9 million, a 0.3% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC)

As the central support entity for the judiciary, the AOUSC provides a wide range of administrative, management, program, and information technology services to the U.S. courts. The AOUSC also provides support to the Judicial Conference of the United States, and implements conference policies and applicable federal statutes and regulations. The FY2007 request for this account was $75.3 million—a $5.7 million (8.3%) increase over the FY2006 level of $69.6 million. The increase was reportedly for pay increases and other inflationary adjustments and for the anticipated reduction in non-appropriated funds. The AOUSC also receives non-appropriated funds from fee collections and carryover balances to supplement its appropriation requirements. The House approved $73.8 million for this account—a $4.2 million increase over the FY2006 level but $1.5 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee recommended $74.3 million for this account—a $4.7 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $1.0 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $72.4 million, a 4.0% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.

Federal Judicial Center

As the judiciary's research and education entity, the center undertakes research and evaluation of judicial operations for the Judicial Conference committees and the courts. In addition, the center provides judges, court staff, and others with orientation and continuing education and training. The center's FY2007 request was $23.8 million—a $1.7 million (7.5%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $22.1 million. The increase was reportedly to fund adjustments to pay and other expenses due to inflation, and also to restore staff to the FY2005 level (nine additional FTEs). The House approved $23.5 million for this account—a $1.4 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.3 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee recommended $23.4 million for this account—a $1.3 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.4 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $22.9 million, a 3.6% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.

United States Sentencing Commission

The commission promulgates sentencing policies, practices, and guidelines for the federal criminal justice system. The FY2007 request was $15.7 million—a $1.4 million (10.4%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $14.3 million. According to the budget request, the increase would provide for pay increases and other inflationary adjustments, and five FTE positions in the research and data collection area for one year. Supreme Court decisions and recent legislation have reportedly increased the commission's workload, and the need for data collection and analytical requirements. The House approved $15.5 million for this account—a $1.2 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.2 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee recommended $ 15.3 million for this account—a $1.0 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.4 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $14.6 million, a 2.1% increase over FY2006 appropriation.

Judiciary Retirement Funds

This mandatory account provides for three trust funds that finance payments to retired bankruptcy and magistrate judges, retired Court of Federal Claims judges, and spouses and dependent children of deceased judicial officers. The FY2007 request was for $58.3 million—a $17.7 million (43.6%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $40.6 million. The requirements for this account are calculated annually by an independent actuary company. The large increase reflected a change in methodology that a new actuary company had adopted to more accurately project future liabilities that had not been taken into account in the past. (The new methodology included a larger population of people who are likely to join the retirement system.) The House approved the full amount requested for this account. The Senate committee also recommended the full amount. The FY2007 enacted amount was $58.3 million, the full amount requested.

Administrative Provisions

Some administrative provisions continued language that has appeared in previous years. The House-passed bill included the following provisions, which apply to the judiciary only:

Section 401: To permit funds in the bill for salaries and expenses for the judiciary to be available for employment of experts and consultant services (as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109).

Section 402: To permit up to 5% of any appropriation made available for FY2007 to be transferred between judiciary appropriations accounts—provided that no appropriation shall be decreased by more than 5 percent or increased by more than 10 percent by any such transfer except in certain circumstances. In addition, the language provides that any such transfer shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds (under sections 805 and 810 of the accompanying bill), and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.

Section 403: To authorize not to exceed $11,000 to be used for official reception and representation expenses incurred by the Judicial Conference of the United States.

Section 404: To require a financial plan for the judiciary within 90 days of enactment of this act.

Section 405: To amend the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 ( P.L. 101-650 ) (extension of a temporary federal district judgeship in Wichita, Kansas).

The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended language similar to Sections 401-404 in the House-passed bill, but excluded Section 405 concerning a judgeship (see above). The Senate committee recommended the following additional provisions:

Section 405: To allow for a salary adjustment for justices and judges.

Section 406: To grant the judicial branch with the same tenant alteration authorities as the executive branch.

Section 407: To prohibit any judge from being entitled to sole use of a courtroom and to require courtrooms to be scheduled based on the needs of the circuit and district courts. (Intent of the section is to address circumstances in which courtrooms are not in full use and the sharing of courtrooms will help reduce the overburdened judicial docket.)

P.L. 110-5 , Section 113, stipulated that the departments and agencies covered by the law, including the judiciary, should submit to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees within 30 days of enactment of the law a spending, expenditure, or operating plan for FY2007 at a "level of detail below the account level."

Among the administrative and technical provisions contained in P.L. 110-5 that apply only to the judiciary are the following:

Section 21054. Authorizes the judiciary to transfer among its accounts not to exceed $81 million to provide flexibility to meet operating requirements, as necessary.

Section 21056. Extends a temporary judgeship in Kansas.

Titles V (Senate) and VI (House): Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the President

Executive Office of the President Budget and Key Policy Issues

All but three offices in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) are funded in the same appropriations act, entitled the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act.

The Office of Administration (OA) and the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) are the only accounts under the EOP (not including the federal drug control programs) for which increased funding was requested for FY2007. The $14 million OA increase primarily results from the movement of funds from other EOP components to the OA for enterprise services (discussed in more detail below). The CEA increase was 0.05%. For the Unanticipated Needs account, the budget requested $11.789 million, which was then offset by the requested rescission of $11.789 million from the Unanticipated Needs for Natural Disasters account. As for the remaining accounts, except for that on Compensation of the President, which was unchanged, decreased appropriations were requested for all other accounts under the EOP in FY2007. The OMB and ONDCP accounts had the largest reductions—9.7% and 12.5%, respectively—from their FY2006 appropriation levels after the rescission. The reductions primarily resulted from the movement of funds from these accounts to the Office of Administration for the continued centralization of enterprise services. OMB also would have lost 11 FTEs (full-time equivalent employees).

The FY2007 budget, like the FY2006 budget, proposed to transfer the HIDTAP to the Department of Justice and to fund the program at $207.6 million. For FY2006, the conference committee continued to fund the program under the EOP. This practice continues for FY2007 under P.L. 110-5 , the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution.

For the sixth consecutive fiscal year, the President's FY2007 budget proposed to consolidate and financially realign several salaries and expenses accounts that directly support the President into a single annual appropriation, called "The White House." This consolidated appropriation would total $184.252 million in FY2007 for the accounts proposed to be consolidated, an increase of 7.0% from the $172.249 million appropriated in FY2006 (after the 1.0% rescission). The increase primarily resulted from the Enterprise Services Initiative discussed below. The nine accounts included in the consolidated appropriation would be the following:

Compensation of the President, White House Office, Executive Residence at the White House, White House Repair and Restoration, Office of Policy Development, Office of Administration, Council of Economic Advisers, and National Security Council.

The EOP budget submission stated that consolidation "presents the best means for the President to realign or reallocate the resources and staff available in response to changing needs and priorities or emergent national needs." The conference committees on the FY2002 through FY2006 appropriations acts decided to continue with separate appropriations for the EOP accounts to facilitate congressional oversight of their funding and operation. For FY2007, P.L. 110-5 , the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, continues this practice.

The FY2007 budget requested a general provision in Title VI to continue and expand the authority for the EOP to transfer 10% of the appropriated funds among several accounts under the EOP. The authority would cover the following accounts in FY2007:

The White House, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), Special Assistance to the President and the Official Residence of the Vice President (transfers would be subject to the approval of the Vice President), Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Office of the United States Trade Representative.

The OMB Director (or such other officer as the President designates in writing) would be able to, 15 days after notifying the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, transfer up to 10% of any such appropriation to any other such appropriation. The transferred funds would be merged with, and available for, the same time and purposes as the appropriation receiving the funds. Such transfers could not increase an appropriation by more than 50%. According to the EOP budget submission, the transfer authority would "allow the President to address, in a limited way, emerging priorities and shifting demands" and would "provide the President with flexibility and improve the efficiency of the EOP." The authority "is not intended to be used for new missions or programs" and the need for it "arises in part due to the large number of small accounts at the President's discretion, as well as the need to be responsive to a dynamic environment."

The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005 (Section 533, Title V, Division H) authorized transfers of up to 10% of FY2005 appropriated funds among the accounts for the White House Office, OMB, ONDCP, and the Special Assistance to the President and Official Residence of the Vice President. For FY2006, P.L. 109-115 , the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Section 725) authorized transfers of up to 10% among the accounts for the White House and the Special Assistance to the President and Official Residence of the Vice President.

An enterprise services initiative was included in the FY2007 budget request to make the administration of certain services simpler and more efficient. Services included in the initiative would be expanded to include burn bag pickup costs, employee transportation subsidies, and Flexible Spending Account administrative fees. The budgets for these services in the WHO, Executive Residence at the White House, OPD, NSC, CEA, OMB, ONDCP, Office of Science and Technology Policy, United States Trade Representative, and the Council on Environmental Quality would be moved into the OA. In order to "be consistent with other EOP components," the budgets for health unit services, space-related rent costs, and rent-based Federal Protective Service in OMB and ONDCP also would be included in the OA.

As reported by the House Committee on Appropriations and as passed by the House, the FY2007 TTHUD appropriations bill continued separate appropriations for the EOP accounts. The provision authorizing the transfer of up to 10% of funds within the EOP also was continued. Notable among the appropriations for the EOP accounts were the following.

An appropriation of up to $1.5 million for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, an account under the White House Office, was recommended by the House committee. Under an amendment (No. 1025) offered by Representative Christopher Shays and agreed to by the House by voice vote on June 13, 2006, funding for the Board would be increased by $750,000. An appropriation of $91.4 million was provided for the OA, $11 million less than the FY2007 budget request. Funding for the OMB and ONDCP rental payments to GSA, $7.4 million and $3.6 million, respectively, was continued under salaries and expenses for those respective accounts. An appropriation of $26.9 million was provided for ONDCP. The increase of $3.6 million over the FY2007 budget request was accounted for by continuing the funding for rental payments to GSA under this account rather than transferring it to the OA. An appropriation of $19.6 million was provided for the CTAC, $10 million more than the FY2007 budget request. The increase was for the Technology Transfer Program whose termination was requested by the Administration. An appropriation of $227 million, $2.3 million above the FY2006 enacted level after the rescission, for the HIDTAP (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program) was recommended by the House committee. Increased funding was recommended for the Appalachian, Central Valley, and Lake County HIDTAs (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas). The program was continued under the EOP, rather than under the Department of Justice as the FY2007 budget requested. Under an amendment (No. 1026) offered by Representative Darlene Hooley and agreed to by the House on a 348 to 76 (Roll No. 273) vote on June 13, 2006, funding for the HIDTAP would be increased by $8 million. An appropriation of $194 million was provided for Other Federal Drug Control Programs, $18.2 million less than the FY2007 budget request. The Drug Free Communities initiative was funded at $80 million (rather than at $79.2 million, as requested), the National Drug Court Institute was funded at $1 million (rather than at $990,000, as requested), the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws was funded at $1 million (no funding was requested), and the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign was funded at $100 million (rather than at $120 million, as requested). An appropriation of $1 million was provided for unanticipated needs. The rescission of $11.8 million in emergency funds (from the Unanticipated Needs for Natural Disasters Account) to offset non-emergency appropriations, as requested in the FY2007 budget, was not included.

The report accompanying the bill addressed several policy issues. It expressed the Appropriations Committee's "serious concerns about the continued forced implementation" of the E-Gov initiative on departments and agencies. Stating its belief that "Many aspects of this initiative are fundamentally flawed, contradict underlying program statutory requirements and have stifled innovation by forcing conformity to an arbitrary government standard," the committee noted that the FY2007 bill continued the "government-wide general provision that precludes the use of funds" for the initiative without prior consultation with the committee. The provision was included as Section 938 of the House-passed bill and as Section 839 of the Senate bill as reported.

The report noted the committee's "concern that the ONDCP has resisted focusing its programs to fighting the alarming rise in domestic methamphetamine production, trafficking and abuse" and stated that future funding of the office's priorities could not be ensured if Congress continues to be ignored. The Director of the ONDCP was directed to include "an analysis of options and recommendations for the future course of counterdrug technology research" in the office's budget submission for FY2008. The committee directed the ONDCP Director to submit a financial plan, to be updated every six months, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations prior to the initial obligation of funds provided for FY2007. The first plan was due within 30 days of the act's enactment. Any new projects and changes in the funding of ongoing projects must receive the prior approval of the appropriations committees.

In a statement of administration policy on H.R. 5576 , OMB urged that the White House accounts be consolidated, the authority to transfer up to 10% of budgetary resources within EOP accounts be expanded, and the Enterprise Services initiative be expanded, as requested in the FY2007 budget. The Administration expressed concern about the House action to reduce funding for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign by $20 million.

As reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 5576 continued separate appropriations for the EOP accounts, with one exception discussed below. The provision authorizing the transfer of up to 10% of funds within the EOP also was continued. According to the report accompanying the bill, the committee rejected "a single, consolidated account" because "it would undermine the ability of the Congress to exercise adequate oversight" of the expenditure of funds. The committee incorporated the responsibilities of the Office of Policy Development (with its $3.4 million appropriation) into the White House Office salaries and expenses account "to allow the White House to better manage its resources." The committee expressed its belief that oversight of the use of the OPD funds will be adequate under this merger. Among the committee's directives and funding recommendations for the EOP accounts were the following.

The EOP was encouraged to submit its FY2008 budget justification within a few days of the transmittal of the President's budget to Congress. The justification was to include detailed budget information for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. A separate appropriation of $1.5 million was provided for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. (The House-passed bill funded the Board as part of the appropriation for the White House Office.) Under the Executive Residence at the White House account, restrictions on reimbursable expenses for use of the residence, enacted for FY2004, were continued. An appropriation of $91.4 million was provided for OA, the same amount as passed by the House, but some $11 million less than the FY2007 budget request. The committee report stated that OA "receives reimbursements for information management support and general office services." An appropriation of $76.2 million was provided for OMB, the same amount as passed by the House and $7.4 million more than the FY2007 budget request. The committee report directed the OMB Director, assisted by appropriate federal agencies, to report to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations on "the administration's and OMB's plans to monitor, measure, and increase Federal agency performance and participation in energy and environmental management." Possible statutory obstacles to meeting energy savings goals should be addressed in the report which must be submitted within 120 days of the act's enactment. "[P]roducts and services that guarantee energy and taxpayer savings, that measure performance, and that involve public/private partnerships" are of particular interest to the committee. An appropriation of $11.5 million was provided for ONDCP, $11.8 million less than the FY2007 budget request and $15.4 million less than the House-passed funding. The committee report stated that the appropriation had been reduced "to more closely reflect actual performance." Funding of $1.5 million was provided for a study of ONDCP's organization and management to be conducted by the National Academy of Public Administration and to begin within 60 days of the act's enactment. "Quarterly reports on travel expenditures, summarized by office, program, and individual, including dates and purpose of travel" were to be provided by the ONDCP Director to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations. The ONDCP Director was further directed to provide quarterly staffing reports, including plans to hire additional staff, to the Appropriations Committees. The office, position, title, salary, and job classifications of all ONDCP staff, including contractors, should be included in the report. An appropriation of $227 million was provided for HIDTAP, $8 million less than the House-passed funding. The FY2007 budget proposed to transfer the HIDTAP to the Department of Justice. In providing funding for the HIDTAP, the committee report stated that the program was an important function of ONDCP. Among the directives for the office are these: that the ONDCP Director "take appropriate steps to ensure that the HIDTA funds are transferred to the appropriate drug control agencies expeditiously" and the entities receiving the resources apply them "strictly for implementing the strategy for each HIDTA, taking into consideration local conditions and resource requirements" and that ONCDP "hold back all HIDTA funds from a State" until the State or locality meets its financial obligation. An appropriation of $214.5 million was provided for other federal drug control programs, $2.3 million more than the FY2007 budget request and $20.5 million more than the House-passed funding. The appropriation was allocated as shown in Table 9 , below. Of the $120 million provided for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, $15 million was to fund continued advertising against the use of methamphetamine. No more than 10% of the campaign's appropriation could be used for administrative costs. The committee directed that $2 million of the $80 million provided to the Drug-Free Communities Support Program was a direct grant to the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America for the National Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute. In providing membership dues for the World Anti-Doping Agency, "the Committee directs ONDCP to use its voice and vote as the United States' representative ... to ensure that all countries' athletes are subject to fair and equal standards and treatment."

An appropriation of $20 million was provided for the CTAC, $10.4 million more than the FY2007 budget request and $400,000 more than the House-passed funding. The funding was allocated as $10 million each for the demand reduction program and the Technology Transfer Program. With regard to the former program, the committee again directed that the FY2006 ONDCP operating plan, which had not been received by the committee, be submitted within 30 days after the act's enactment. The plan was to "include an accounting of the use of the FY2006 CTAC R&D appropriated funds and an accounting of all FY2006 funds that are unobligated and unexpended and the rationale for inaction." A spending plan for FY2007 must be submitted to the committee that includes "technology development projects that would provide researchers with the tools to conduct more advanced ... drug addiction and scientific studies." Within 45 days of the act's enactment, FY2007 "funds with expenditure project execution authority [must] be completed and transferred to other Federal departments and agencies." As for the technology transfer program (TTP), the FY2008 budget request for CTAC must include "the total number of TTP applications received and the number awarded in the previous year" to permit the committee to "have a true understanding of CTAC's ability to meet demand."

No further action occurred on H.R. 5576 . P.L. 110-5 , the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007, continues appropriations through September 30, 2007, at the levels shown in Table 8 , above. Sections 21057 through 21059 of P.L. 110-5 include requirements and directives for the appropriations for the federal drug control programs. Among these are a provision stating that "The structure of any of the offices or components within the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall remain as they were on October 1, 2006, and none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available ... may be used to implement a reorganization of offices within the Office of National Drug Control Policy without the explicit approval" of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

Title VII: Independent Agencies

In addition to funding for the aforementioned Departments and agencies, a diverse collection of 21 independent agencies receive funding through Title VII of this appropriations bill. Table 10 lists their respective appropriations for FY2006 as enacted, and for FY2007 as requested in the President's Budget, passed by the House, reported in the Senate, and ultimately enacted in P.L. 110-5 . Discussion following the table focuses on key budget and policy issues in some of the larger agencies.

Federal Election Commission (FEC)

The FEC administers federal campaign finance law, including overseeing disclosure requirements, limits on contributions and expenditures, and the presidential election public funding system; the FEC retains civil enforcement authority for the law.

The President's fiscal 2007 budget proposed an appropriation of $57.1 million for the FEC, a 5.5% increase above the fiscal 2006 appropriation of $54.2 million. Of this amount, at least $4.7 million was proposed to be designated for internal automated data systems and $5,000 for representational and reception expenses. Both the House Appropriations Committee and the full House accepted the overall amount proposed by the Administration but raised the $4.7 million minimum for automated data systems to $6.5 million. The agency was further authorized to collect registration fees for conferences, with such fees credited to the agency to help defray costs of such conferences. In addition, the House committee report commended the FEC on the implementation of its Administrative Fine Program, which allows the agency to assess fines for reporting violations, but it expressed concern that the program had not yet been authorized beyond December 31, 2008. The committee urged the FEC to work with the authorizing committee to achieve permanent authorization of the program prior to the FY2008 appropriations request. The Senate Appropriations Committee matched the House appropriation of $57.1 million for FY2007. The Senate Appropriations Committee report did not comment on the Administrative Fine Program or provide additional instructions to the FEC. Despite the proposed increase in FY2007 FEC appropriations requested in the President's budget and supported in the House-passed and Senate-reported legislation, The FY2007 Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution ( H.J.Res. 20 /( P.L. 110-5 ) extended the FY2006 FEC funding level for FY2007. FEC funding therefore remained at $54.5 million ($55 million), as shown in Table 10 .

Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA)

The FLRA, to the extent feasible, continues to implement the five government-wide goals of the President's Management Agenda during FY2007. Under the strategic management of human capital goal, the FLRA plans to implement cost savings measures to address projected changes in workload resulting from the implementation of the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) decisions and new personnel systems at the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Homeland Security (DHS). The FLRA reported that its regional workload declined by 32% between 2001 and 2004, and that this trend may continue because of the DOD and DHS reforms. The agency also plans to streamline and consolidate the FLRA's training functions and implement additional workforce flexibilities through OPM. As enacted, FLRA received $25 million for FY2007, the same amount (rounded) as in FY2006, and as passed by the House and reported in the Senate for FY2007.

General Services Administration (GSA)

The General Services Administration administers federal civilian procurement policies pertaining to the construction and management of federal buildings, disposal of real and personal property, and management of federal property and records. It is also responsible for managing the funding and facilities for former Presidents and presidential transitions. Typically only about 1% of GSA's total budget is funded by direct appropriations.

As shown in Table 11 , for FY2007, the President requested $52.5 million for government-wide policy and $83 million for operating expenses; $44 million for the Office of Inspector General; $3 million for allowances and office staff for former Presidents; and $16.9 million to be deposited into the Federal Citizen Information Center Fund. H.R. 5576 , as reported and passed in the House, mirrored these figures. Likewise, as reported in the Senate, the requested amounts were recommended.

The FY2007 appropriations for GSA enacted in P.L. 110-5 ultimately authorized $52.3 million for government-wide policy and $83.2 million for operating expenses; $52.6 million for the Office of Inspector General; $2.9 million for allowances and office staff for former Presidents; and $14.9 million to be deposited into the Federal Citizen Information Center Fund. In comparison with the previous House and Senate versions, the enacted FY2007 appropriation provided $8.6 million more for the Office of Inspector General and $2 million less for the Federal Citizen Information Center Fund. With respect to GSA total direct appropriations, FY2007 as enacted came to $303 million, representing an increase of $86 million over the total enacted for FY2006.

Federal Buildings Fund (FBF)

Most GSA spending is financed through the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). Rent assessments from agencies paid into the FBF provide the principal source of its funding. Congress may also provide direct funding into the FBF. Congress directs the GSA as to the allocation or limitation on spending of funds from the FBF in provisions found accompanying GSA's annual appropriations.

For FY2007, the President had requested that an additional amount of $245 million be deposited in the FBF and that the total limitation for the FBF be set at $8.047 billion. The President's budget further requested that $690 million remain available until expended for new construction projects from the FBF, and $866 million remain available until expended for repairs and alterations.

As reported and passed in the House, there would have been a total limitation of $7.740 billion for the FBF, in FY2007, a decrease of $12 million below the FY2006 enacted levels, and a decrease of $307 million below the President's request. According to the House approved language, to carry out the purposes of the FBF, $383.9 million would remain available until expended for new construction projects, and $866.2 million would remain available until expended for repairs and alterations.

As reported in the Senate, the Committee on Appropriations recommended a total limitation for the FBF in FY2007 of $8.065 billion, which constituted $884 million more than allowed by the House; $708.2 million for new construction, more than $496 million above the House passed version; and new obligational authority of $866.2 million for repairs and alterations, nearly $388 million more than approved by the House.

As enacted, P.L. 110-5 provided that for FY2007, an additional amount of $93.6 million be deposited in the FBF and that the total limitation for the FBF be set at $7.555 billion. The FY2007 enacted legislation further provided that $701.1 million remain available until expended for new construction projects from the FBF, and $618.2 million remain available until expended for repairs and alterations.

Electronic Government Fund (E-gov Fund)

Originally unveiled in advance of the President's proposed budget for FY2002, the E-gov Fund and its appropriation has been a somewhat contentious matter between the President and Congress. The President's initial $20 million request was cut to $5 million, which was the amount provided for FY2003 as well. Funding thereafter was held at $3 million for FY2004, FY2005, and FY2006. Created to support interagency e-gov initiatives approved by the Director of OMB, the fund and the projects it funds have been subject to close scrutiny by, and accountability to, congressional appropriators. The President requested $5 million for FY2007 and Senate appropriators concurred, but the House approved the usual $3 million, as recommended in the House Appropriations Committee report. The final amount provided for FY2007 was $2.9 million.

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)

The MSPB request in the President's budget for increased funding for FY2007 was to cover pay raises, performance management training for staff, and higher space rental rates. Additionally, $495,000 of the amount requested was to relocate the San Francisco office to a building which is fully compliant with current earthquake standards. The MSPB continues to adjudicate appeals, but with faster processing times, under the new personnel systems currently being implemented at DOD and DHS. The Board also is in the process of hiring the additional staff authorized by Congress in FY2006 and needed to meet the increased demands of DOD and DHS. The FY2007 appropriations enacted for the MSPB was $39 million (rounded), $1 million more than for FY2006.

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

The custodian of the historically valuable records of the federal government since its establishment in 1934, NARA also prescribes policy and provides both guidance and management assistance concerning the entire life cycle of federal records. It also administers the presidential libraries system; publishes the laws, regulations, and presidential and other documents; assists the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), which manages federal security classification and declassification policy; and assists the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC), which makes grants nationwide to help nonprofit organizations identify, preserve, and provide access to materials that document American history.

For FY2007, the President had requested $338 million for NARA, a modest increase over the $326 million appropriated for the agency for FY2006. Of this requested amount, the following distributions were specified: $289.6 million for operating expenses, a slight increase over the $280 million appropriated for FY2006; $45 million for the electronic records archive; $13 million for repairs and restoration; and no requested funds for the NHPRC, which had received $7 million in FY2006.

The House approved the $345.5 million recommended by the appropriators for NARA, which is approximately $7.5 million more than the amount requested for the agency in the President's budget. Of this amount, distributions were as follows: $289.6 million for operating expenses, $45 million for the electronic records archive, and $13 million for repairs and restoration. For the NHPRC account, $7.5 million was recommended—$2 million for operations and the remainder for grants. A $10 million debt adjustment in committee reduced the $355.5 million allocation to $345.5 million.

The Senate approved $328 million for NARA, distributed as follows: $280.9 million for operating expenses; $38.9 million for the electronic records archive, with $3 million of these funds designated for work with the National Oceanographic Office at the National Center for Critical Information Processing and Storage at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi; and a little over $11.6 million for repairs and restoration, with $5.5 million of this amount provided for projects at a new regional archives and records center in Alaska and at the Kennedy and Johnson presidential libraries. For the NHPRC account, $5 million was allocated. An almost $8.5 million debt adjustment was also accepted.

The final amount approved for NARA, with $10 million for debt reduction, was $331 million, allocated in the following distributions: $279 million for operating expenses, $45 million for the electronic records archive, $9 million for repairs and restoration, and almost $7.5 million for the NHPRC grants program.

Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

Funding for the following projects was included in OPM's FY2007 request for salaries and expenses: Enterprise Human Resources Integration ($6.9 million) and Human Resources Line of Business ($1.4 million). A priority of the agency during 2007 is the implementation of reforms to the position classification, pay, and performance management systems included in the Working For America Act draft legislative proposal submitted to Congress in July 2005 (not yet introduced). OPM also is giving priority to the issues of recruitment, the hiring process, training, career and professional development, dental and vision benefits, and health benefits options. The agency's Inspector General continues to develop a prescription drug audit program, which includes pharmacy benefit managers, to assist in recovering inappropriate expenses charged in previous years and negotiating more favorable contracts.

The House bill as passed provided the same appropriation for OPM salaries and expenses as requested by the President (albeit down $10 million from FY2006), but the allocation of the funding was changed. An increase in funds was denied for pay and performance modernization, and instead, the Management Services Division account was increased. The bill did not fund an increase for the retirement systems modernization project and therefore reduces the amount authorized to be transferred from trust funds. The committee report accompanying the bill directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to continue to monitor implementation of the retirement modernization program and update the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 1, 2007, "as to OPM's progress in converting the agency's paper personnel file system into a secure digital system." It included several directives for OPM:

to continue implementing and refining the new human resources management systems at the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense before expanding such systems to other departments and agencies. to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations an operating plan for FY2007 signed by the OPM Director. The plan must be submitted within 60 days of the act's enactment. It must include "funding levels including an identification of carryover funds for the various offices, centers, programs, and initiatives covered in the budget justification and supporting documents referenced in the House and Senate appropriations reports and the statement of the managers." to include changes—dollars requested broken out between trust fund and general funds for specific programs or activities within organizations, a total that includes reimbursements, and a breakout of direct appropriation and reimbursement—in future budget justifications. to continue efforts to include "clear, detailed, and concise information on how the programs will be funded and how they will be measured" in the budget justification.

H.R. 5576 , as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, would have provided the same appropriation for OPM salaries and expenses and for Office of Inspector General salaries and expenses that the FY2007 budget requested and the House passed. As requested by the President, up to $8.3 million dollars of the funding could be used for e-Government projects. The Senate committee report also included several directives for OPM:

to report to the committee within 120 days of the act's enactment on its human resources products and services and actions taken to respond to the committee's concerns that OPM is not allowing federal agencies "the flexibility to contract as they see fit, including contracting with private companies to provide online employment applications and processing services, as well as choice in selecting service providers and human resource systems." to report on progress in implementing any recommendations in the forthcoming OPM and GSA survey and report on the child care needs of executive, legislative, and judicial branch employees within six months after the report is issued, and to include in the report any further measures that may be taken. OPM is also directed "to continue its efforts to provide information and education to agencies and employees on promotion of the subsidy for child care expenses for lower income employees." to continue to give GAO's recommendations on modernization of the retirement system—especially related to progress, costs, and risks—careful consideration and to closely consult with GAO in the future.

The FY2007 total appropriations for OPM as enacted was $19.594 billion, more than the House-passed version but less than the figure in the President's request and the Senate-reported versions.

Office of Special Counsel (OSC)

The funding recommended by the Senate Committee on Appropriations ($16 million) was $63,000 more than the amount requested in the FY2007 budget or in the House-passed bill ($15.937 million). The committee's report directed the OSC to:

Submit its FY2008 budget justification on the first Monday in February and to "include highly detailed data and explanatory statements to support the appropriations requests, including tables that detail OSC's programs, activities and staffing levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2008." The agency was directed to coordinate with the committee "well in advance on its planned budget submission." Submit to Congress, with the FY2008 budget request, "a comprehensive strategy addressing capital needs and case processing in order to prevent any future backlog of cases." The agency was also directed to provide quarterly staffing reports from the Special Counsel to Congress. Communicate with the committee 45 days prior to any organizational change that would cause the agency's staffing to vary above or below these levels: 70 to 75 FTEs (headquarters), 6 to 8 FTEs (Detroit), 9 to 11 FTEs (Dallas), 8 to 10 FTEs (San Francisco Bay area), and 9 to 12 FTEs (District of Columbia field office). The OSC's total number of FTEs should not be less than 102 or greater than 116.

Postal Service40

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is self-supporting; it generates nearly all of its funding—over $70 billion annually—by charging users of the mail for the costs of the services it provides. Congress does provide a regular appropriation, however, to compensate USPS for revenue it forgoes in providing, at congressional direction, free mailing privileges for the blind and for overseas voting. Congress has also provided some funds in recent years for bio-terrorism detection in the wake of the anthrax events of 2001.

Under the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of 1993, Congress is authorized to reimburse USPS $29 million each year until 2035, for services provided below cost to non-profit organizations at congressional direction in the 1990s, but not paid for at the time. For the past 13 years, the Postal Service appropriation has consisted of that amount, plus an estimate of the amount needed to pay for mail for the blind and overseas voters for the current year.

In its FY2007 Budget, the Administration proposed an appropriation of $79.9 million, including $60.7 million for revenue forgone in FY2007 and a reconciliation adjustment for underestimated mail volume in FY2004 of $19.2 million. The Postal Service, which submits its own request as an independent entity, estimated that the FY2007 amount needed for the blind and overseas voting would be $80.1 million, or $19.4 million more than OMB requested, and asked Congress to appropriate that amount. Both proposals would have supplemented the FY2007 amount with a $19.2 million reconciliation adjustment reflecting that actual use of the subsidy in FY2004 was underestimated by that amount. The Postal Service's request also included a reconciliation adjustment of $24.4 million reflecting the amount by which actual expenditures for FY2005 exceeded the amount appropriated that year. Thus the Postal Service's request for FY2007 was $152.7 million: including $80.1 million for FY2007 revenue forgone, $43.6 million as a reconciliation adjustment for two years, and $29 million as the annual payment under the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of 1993.

The Administration's FY2007 budget not only estimated a lower usage figure for mail for the blind than did the Postal Service, it also proposed to eliminate the usual $29 million annual payment for revenue forgone in past years that is set forth in the Revenue Forgone Reform Act. It also proposed termination of the payment in FY2005 and FY2006, but Congress chose to provide the funding. USPS has argued that cancelling the payment could result in the whole 28-year obligation, totaling $841 million, being written off as a bad debt and charged to current postal ratepayers. The Administration's budget also proposed that the $79.9 million it requested would not be available for obligation until October 1, 2007, which is in FY2008, following a practice for the postal appropriation established several years ago.

The House bill, as reported by committee and passed by the House, adopted the Administration's recommendation by providing $79.9 million for the current year's revenue forgone, as an advance appropriation, but departed from it in once again by approving the annual $29 million for revenue forgone in the past. The committee report ( H.Rept. 109-495 ) commented that the method OMB used to estimate revenue forgone expenditures, which is to take an average of past expenses, was "inaccurate" compared to the Postal Service's estimate, which is based on current audits of mail volume. The Senate Committee mirrored the action of the House, providing $108.9 million for the Postal Service Fund. Its report ( S.Rept. 109-293 ) also "directed" the Postal Service not to implement mail processing center consolidations in Iowa, South Dakota, and Washington until GAO has issued a report on decision-making criteria used in such consolidations.

Ultimately, the FY2007 Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution provided USPS $108.9 in FY2007 appropriations, with $79.9 million in advanced appropriations for the current year's revenue forgone, and $29 million for revenue forgone in the past.

Titles VIII (Senate) and IX (House): General Provisions Government-Wide

The Transportation, Treasury, et al., Appropriations Act customarily includes general provisions which apply either government-wide or to specific agencies or programs. There also may be general provisions at the end of each individual title within the appropriations act which relate only to agencies and accounts within that specific title. The Administration's proposed language for government-wide general provisions was included in the FY2007 Budget, Appendix. Most of the provisions continue language that has appeared under the General Provisions title for several years. For various reasons, Congress has determined that reiterating the language is preferable to making the provisions permanent. Presented below are some of the government-wide general provisions that were proposed for elimination in the FY2007 budget. Inclusion of the provisions in H.R. 5576 , as passed by the House and reported in the Senate, is noted. H.R. 5576 was not enacted.

Section 809, which prohibits payment to political appointees who are filling positions for which they have been nominated, but not confirmed. Included as Section 909 of the House bill and Section 809 of the Senate bill. Section 819, which prohibits the obligation or expenditure of appropriated funds for employee training that (1) does not meet identified needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities bearing directly upon the performance of official duties; (2) contains elements likely to induce high levels of emotional response or psychological stress in some participants; (3) does not require prior employee notification of the content and methods to be used in the training and written end of course evaluation; (4) contains any methods or content associated with religious or quasi-religious belief systems or "new age" belief systems; or (5) is offensive to, or designed to change, participants' personal values or lifestyle outside the workplace. Included as Section 919 of the House bill and Section 819 of the Senate bill. Section 820, which prohibits the use of appropriated funds to implement or enforce employee non-disclosure agreements if they do not contain whistleblower protection clauses. Included as Section 920 of the House bill and Section 820 of the Senate bill. Section 823, which requires that the Committees on Appropriations approve the release of any "non-public" information, such as mailing or telephone lists, to any person or any organization outside the federal government. Included as Section 923 of the House bill and Section 823 of the Senate bill. Section 834, which states that Congress recognizes the United States Anti-Doping Agency as the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American, and Paralympic sports in the United States. Included as Section 934 of the House bill and Section 834 of the Senate bill. Section 836, which prohibits the use of appropriated funds to implement or enforce restrictions or limitations on the Coast Guard Congressional Fellowship Program or to implement OPM's proposed regulations limiting the detail of executive branch employees to the legislative branch. Included as Section 936 of the House bill and Section 836 of the Senate bill. Section 837, which requires agencies to report to Congress on the amount of the acquisitions made from entities that manufacture the articles, materials, or supplies outside the United States. Not included in the House bill. Included as Section 845 of the Senate bill. Section 839, which requires appropriate executive department and agency heads either to transfer funds to, or reimburse, the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure the uninterrupted, continuous operation of the Midway Atoll airfield. Not included in the House bill. Included as Section 838 of the Senate bill. Section 840, which provides certain requirements for conducting a public-private competition for the performance of an activity that is not inherently governmental for executive agencies with less than 100 full-time employees. Not included in either the House bill or the Senate bill. Section 842, which prohibits the use of funds to convert an activity or function of an executive agency to contractor performance if more than 10 federal employees perform the activity, unless the analysis reveals that savings would exceed 10 percent of the most efficient organization's personnel-related costs for performance of the activity or function by federal employees, or $10 million, whichever is lesser. Included as Section 939 of the House bill and Section 840 of the Senate bill. Section 845, which precludes contravention of the Privacy Act. Included as Section 942 of the House bill and Section 843 of the Senate bill.

Among new government-wide general provisions proposed in H.R. 5576 were those providing a 2.7% pay adjustment for federal civilian employees, including those in the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense (Section 940 of the House bill and Section 841 of the Senate bill), and prohibiting the use of funds to send or otherwise pay for more than 50 employees from a federal department or agency to attend a single conference outside the United States (Section 951 of the House bill and not included in the Senate bill). This latter provision was added to the bill by an amendment offered by Representative Scott Garrett and agreed to by the House by voice vote on June 14, 2006. The Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 5576 strongly opposed the 2.7% pay adjustment, stating that it exceeds the annual pay increase required by the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act for federal employees and the average private sector pay adjustment.

The FY2007 Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution ( P.L. 110-5 ) provided that "the requirements, authorities, conditions, limitations, and other provisions" of the FY2006 TTHUD appropriations act would continue in effect through FY2007, unless expressly changed in P.L. 110-5 .

Cuba Sanctions44

Since 2000, either one or both houses have approved provisions in the annual Treasury Department appropriations bill that would ease U.S. economic sanctions on Cuba (especially on travel and on U.S. agricultural exports), but none of these provisions has ever been enacted. In 2006, both the House-passed and Senate Appropriations Committee-reported versions of the FY2007 Transportation-Treasury-Housing appropriations bill, H.R. 5576 , included a provision that would have prevented Treasury Department funds from being used to implement a February 2005 amendment to the Cuba embargo regulations that tightened restrictions on "payment of cash in advance" for U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba. The Administration's Statement of Policy on the bill maintained that the President would veto the bill if it contained any provision that would weaken sanctions on Cuba. Action on H.R. 5576 was not completed by the end of the 109 th Congress, and Treasury Department appropriations for FY2007 ultimately were funded by a series of continuing resolutions that did not include any provision on Cuba sanctions.

In the House version of H.R. 5576 , the Cuba provision was in Section 950, which was added on June 14, 2006, when the House approved H.Amdt. 1049 (Moran, Kansas) by voice vote. On the same day, the House rejected two additional Cuba amendments: H.Amdt 1050 (Rangel), that would have prohibited funds from being used to implement the economic embargo of Cuba, was rejected by a vote of 183-245; H.Amdt. 1051 (Lee), that would have prohibited funds from being used to implement the Administration's June 2004 tightening of restrictions on educational travel to Cuba, was rejected by a vote of 187-236. An additional Cuba amendment, H.Amdt. 1032 (Flake), that would have prohibited the use of funds to amend regulations relating to travel for religious activities in Cuba, was withdrawn from consideration.

In the Senate version of the bill, the Cuba provision was in Section 846. It was added to the bill on July 20, 2006, when the Senate Appropriations Committee approved an amendment offered by Senator Dorgan by voice vote during the committee's markup of the bill. The committee subsequently reported the bill ( S.Rept. 109-293 ) with the Cuba provision on July 26, 2006.

Since the early 1960s, U.S. policy toward Communist Cuba under Fidel Castro has consisted largely of efforts to isolate the island nation through comprehensive economic sanctions, including prohibitions on U.S. financial transactions—the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR)—that are administered by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Restrictions on travel have been a key and often contentious component of U.S. efforts to isolate the Cuban government. The regulations have not banned travel itself, but have placed restrictions on any financial transactions related to travel to Cuba. In June 2004, the Bush Administration significantly tightened restrictions on travel, and there was considerable negative reaction to the Administration's tightening of restrictions for family visits and educational travel.

Some U.S. commercial agricultural exports to Cuba have been allowed since 2001 under the terms of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 or TSRA, but with numerous restrictions and licensing requirements. Exporters are denied access to U.S. private commercial financing or credit, and all transactions must be conducted in cash in advance or with financing from third countries. Since late 2001, Cuba has purchased about $1.2 billion in agricultural products from the United States. Overall U.S. exports to Cuba amounted to about $7 million in 2001, $146 million in 2002, $259 million in 2003, $400 million in 2004, $369 million in 2005, and $348 million in 2006, the majority in agricultural products.

In February 2005, the Administration tightened U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba by further restricting how U.S. agricultural exporters may be paid for their sales. OFAC amended the CACR to clarify that the term "payment of cash in advance" for U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba means that the payment is to be received prior to the shipment of the goods. This differs from the practice of being paid before the actual delivery of the goods, a practice that had been utilized by most U.S. agricultural exporters to Cuba since such sales were legalized in late 2001. U.S. agricultural exporters and some Members of Congress strongly objected that the action constituted a new sanction that violated the intent of TSRA, and could jeopardize millions of dollars in U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba. OFAC Director Robert Werner maintained that the clarification "conforms to the common understanding of the term in international trade." In July 2005, OFAC clarified that, for "payment of cash in advance" for the commercial sale of U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba, vessels can leave U.S. ports as soon as a foreign bank confirms receipt of payment from Cuba. OFAC's action would reportedly ensure that the goods would not be vulnerable to seizure for unrelated claims while still at the U.S. port. Supporters of overturning OFAC's February 2005 amendment, such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, were pleased by the clarification but indicated that they would still work to overturn the February rule.

For additional information, see CRS Report RL32730, Cuba: Issues for the 109 th Congress , by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report RL33499, Exempting Food and Agriculture Products from U.S. Economic Sanctions: Status and Implementation , by [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Report RL31139, Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances , by [author name scrubbed].