Appropriations for FY2004: Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Released: 2004-02-13T00:00:00

CRS Key Policy Staff

Division abbreviations: ALD = American Law Division; DSP = Domestic Social Policy Division; FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division; G&F = Government and Finance Division;RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

Most Recent Developments

In November 2003, Congress packaged the remaining appropriations bills into an omnibus bill( H.R. 2673 ). A conference report for the bill ( H.Rept. 108-401 ) emerged just beforethe Thanksgiving recess. The House agreed to the conference report on December 8, 2003. TheSenate passed the conference report on January 22, 2004. The President signed The ConsolidatedAppropriations Act ( P.L. 108-199 ) on January 23, 2004.

In February 2003, the Bush Administration had submitted its budget for fiscal year 2004. During the months of March and April, the CJS appropriations subcommittees in the House andSenate held a series of hearings on the request. On July 9, 2003, the House AppropriationsSubcommittee on CJS reported its funding to the full committee. The House AppropriationsCommittee reported the CJS appropriations bill ( H.R. 2799 ; H.Rept. 108-221 ) on July16, 2003. The full House passed H.R. 2799 on July 23, 2003. The SenateAppropriations Committee introduced and reported its CJS bill ( S. 1585 ; S.Rept.108-144 ) on September 5, 2003.

The Administration request for CJS totaled roughly $41.22 billion. This included $19.005 billion for Justice, $5.814 billion for Commerce, $5.43 billion for the Judiciary, $8.644 billion forState, and $2.424 billion for the Independent Agencies. The House bill, H.R. 2799 contained roughly $41.23 billion, including $20.154 billion for Justice, $5.256 billion for Commerce,$5.194 billion for the Judiciary, $7.857 billion for State, and $2.237 for the Independent Agencies. The Senate bill provided approximately $40.37 billion, including $18.581 billion for Justice, $6.369billion for Commerce, $5.077 billion for Judiciary, $7.473 billion for State, and $2.378 billion forIndependent Agencies.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides a total of $41 billion including $19.942 billion for the Justice Department, $6.007 billion for the Department of Commerce, $5.167 billion for theJudiciary, and $8.264 billion for the Department of State. (These figures do not reflect the .465%nor the .59% rescissions included in the legislation.)

Table 1. Legislative Status of CJS Appropriations,FY2004

Background Information

Structure of the CJS Bill

Traditionally, the appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies is known as the "CJS" bill. It typically uses five titles to fund thesedepartments and agencies:

Title I. Justice

Title II. Commerce and Related Agencies

Title III. The Judiciary

Title IV. State and International Broadcasting

Title V. Independent Agencies

As needed, additional titles including general provisions or rescissions may be added to the CJS bill during the legislative process. The related agencies in Title II are the U.S. Trade Representativeand the International Trade Commission. The Independent Agencies in Title V include the FederalCommunications Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Small BusinessAdministration.

Synopsis of FY2003 Appropriations

The Administration's CJS request for FY2003 totaled $44.019 billion. The 107th Congress did not complete CJS FY2003 appropriations but passed numerous continuing resolutions authorizingshort-term funding into the 108th congressional term.

During the 108th Congress, the Senate passed an omnibus FY2003 spending package which included the CJS appropriations. The total CJS Senate level amounted to $44.940 billion. TheHouse bill ( H.R. 247 ) set total CJS appropriations at $44.353 million. Neither Housenor Senate numbers include rescissions. The 108th Congress passed the consolidated FY2003appropriation package on February 20, 2003 ( P.L. 108-7 ), which included 11 out of the 13appropriations bills. In April 2003, Congress passed an emergency supplemental appropriations bill( P.L. 108-11 ) providing further funding to selected entities within CJS. The total FY2003appropriation for CJS (adjusted to reflect rescissions) came to roughly $40.498 billion.

Departmental Funding Trends

The table below shows funding trends for the major agencies included in CJS appropriations over the six-year period FY1998-FY2003, excluding supplemental appropriations. Over the six-yearperiod, current-dollar funding increased for the Department of Justice by $1.241 billion (7.0%); forthe Department of Commerce by $1.453 billion (34%); for the Judiciary by $1.458 million (42%);and for the Department of State by $3.608 billion (89%).

The Justice Department's budget rose steadily until FY2003, when it was decreased by $4.7 billion below the FY2002 amount due to the relocation of some activities to the Department ofHomeland Security. The Commerce Department budget has generally increased over the five-yearspan, including a greater than $3.5 billion increase in FY2000, largely due to the cost of the 2000decennial census. Its FY2001 level, however, was comparable to its pre-census level. The StateDepartment and Judiciary Branch had significant increases in funding levels every year from FY1998to FY2003. The State Department's increases reflect the increase in costs associated with theFY1999 reorganization and post September 11th security expenditures. Of the four primarydepartments within the CJS appropriations bill, the Department of State has received the greatestnominal increase of about $3.608 billion from FY1998 to FY2003, not including supplemental fundsappropriated for FY2002, FY2003, and FY2004.

Table 2. Funding for Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, and the Judiciary (in billions of current dollars)

Sources: Funding totals provided by Budget Offices of CJS and Judiciary agencies, and U.S.Houseof Representatives, Committee on Appropriations.

CJS Overall Funding Trends

Appropriations for the CJS bill have risen steadily prior to FY2003. Selected departments funded through the bill received significant increases in fundingfollowing the terrorist attacks of September 2001. Overall funding for the billdecreased in FY2003, however, as some agencies and functions were transferred tothe new Department of Homeland Security.

Table 3. Funding CJS Appropriations (discretionary budget authority in billions of current and constant FY2004 dollars)

Note: Nominal $ represent the actual amount of the appropriation in the year it was appropriated.

Survey of High-Profile Issues

Following are issues that were key issues, or were expected to be key issues, debated within the context of congressional consideration of the FY2004 CJSappropriations:

Department of Justice

The adequacy of the Administration's request for an additional $699 million to bolster the Department of Justice's counterterrorism andcounterintelligence missions.

The proposed "performance-based" realignment of assistance grants administered by the Office of Justice Programs, including the elimination ofsome current programs that are providing over $1 billion in FY2003 funding for stateand local law enforcement assistance programs.

Department of Commerce and Related Agencies

Appropriations measures that limit the use by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of the full amount of fees collected in the current fiscal year.

The extent to which federal funds should be used to support industrial technology development programs at the National Institute of Standardsand Technology, particularly the Advanced Technology Program and theManufacturing Extension Partnership.

Whether to reinstate an earlier FCC decision regarding the broadcast-ownership cap for national audience as part of the appropriations process. In conference the cap was increased from 35% to 39%. Originally, both the Houseand Senate bills included amendments that would have restored the 35% broadcastownership cap, which had been increased to 45% by the FCC in June 2003. The 39%figure was a compromise with the White House, which promised to veto the omnibusbill if the limit was not raised.

The Judiciary

Whether to provide a funding increase that would assure that the Judiciary could meet its mandatory expenses and operate at FY2003 staffinglevels.

Whether to increase the hourly rate of pay to court-appointed "panel attorneys" representing indigent defendants in federal criminalcases.

Whether, as the Judicial Branch contended, federal judges and justices should receive a cost-of-living salary increase.

Department of State and International Broadcasting

Visa issuance policies and the Homeland Security proposals.

Expanded public diplomacy activities focusing on Muslim/Arab populations.

Increased hiring of foreign, civil service, and security experts.

Improved information/communication technology.

Department of Justice

Background

Title I of the CJS bill typically covers appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ). Established by an Act of 1870 (28 U.S.C. 501) with the AttorneyGeneral at its head, DOJ provides counsel for citizens and protects them through lawenforcement. It represents the federal government in all proceedings, civil andcriminal, before the Supreme Court. And in legal matters generally, the Departmentprovides legal advice and opinions, upon request, to the President and executivebranch department heads. The major functions of DOJ agencies and offices aredescribed below:

United States Attorneys prosecute criminal offenses against the United States, represent the federal government in civil actions, and initiateproceedings for the collection of fines, penalties, and forfeitures owed to the UnitedStates.

United States Marshals Service provides security for the federal judiciary, protects witnesses, executes warrants and court orders, manages seizedassets, detains and transports unsentenced prisoners, and apprehendsfugitives.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigates violations of federal criminal law; helps protect the United States from terrorism and hostileintelligence efforts; provides assistance to other federal, state and local lawenforcement agencies; and shares jurisdiction with Drug Enforcement Administration(DEA) over federal drug violations.

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigates federal drug law violations; coordinates its efforts with state, local, and other federal lawenforcement agencies; develops and maintains drug intelligence systems; regulateslegitimate controlled substances activities; and conducts joint intelligence-gatheringactivities with foreign governments.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) enforces federal law related to the manufacture, importation, and distribution ofalcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. It was transferred from the Departmentof the Treasury to the Department of Justice by the Homeland Security Act of 2002( P.L. 107-296 ).

Federal Prison System provides for the custody and care of the federal prison population, the maintenance of prison-related facilities, and theboarding of sentenced federal prisoners incarcerated in state and localinstitutions.

Office of Justice Programs (OJP) manages and coordinates the activities of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NationalInstitute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), and the Office of Victims ofCrime.

Defending the nation against future terrorist attacks is currently the principal focus of the Department of Justice. To this end, the Department is continuing itsefforts to disrupt and dismantle terrorist networks wherever they exist, preventterrorist attacks before they occur, and bring to justice those persons who carry outterrorist attacks against American interests at home and abroad. The Department ofJustice is working closely with the newly established Department of HomelandSecurity (DHS) to facilitate the transfer of the Immigration and NaturalizationService enforcement and service programs and the Justice Department's Office ofDomestic Preparedness to that new department. Justice is also working with theintelligence community, along with DHS, to establish new partnerships and reforgeold ones in the areas of intelligence sharing and interoperable systems. With thesupport of the Attorney General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation Directorcontinues to reorganize by realigning and centralizing FBI assets to more effectivelycounter terrorism and foreign intelligence services, and provide greater internalsecurity.

Most crime control, meanwhile, has traditionally been viewed as a state and local responsibility. Beginning with the passage of the Crime Control Act of 1968(P.L. 90-351), the federal role in the administration of criminal justice has increasedincrementally. Since 1984, Congress has enacted five major omnibus crime controlbills, designating new federal crimes, penalties, and additional law enforcementassistance programs for state and local governments. Crime control is one of the fewareas of the federal budget where discretionary spending has increased over the pasttwo decades.

GPRA. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) required the Department of Justice, along with other federalagencies, to prepare a 5-year strategic plan, including a mission statement, long-range goals, and program assessment measures. In September 2000, theDepartment submitted its Strategic Plan for 2000-2005 to Congress. Building uponthe strategic plan, the Department's FY2003 performance plan includes eight goals:

protect the United States from the threat of terrorism;

enforce federal criminal laws;

prevent and reduce crime and violence by assisting state, tribal,local, and community-based programs;

defend and protect the rights and interests of the Americanpeople by providing legal representation and enforcement of federallaws;

administer immigration and naturalization laws fairly andeffectively;

protect American society by providing for the safe, secure, andhumane confinement of persons in federal custody;

protect the federal judiciary and support the federal justicesystem; and

ensure professionalism, excellence, accountability, and integrityin the management and conduct of the Department of Justice.

Detailed performance plans for individual activities, agency, and program accounts were included in the departmental budget submission to Congress as well.

Administration FY2004 Request

For the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Administration's FY2004 requestincluded $19 billion, or nearly $643 million less than the amount appropriated byCongress for FY2003. According to the Administration, the FY2004 requestincluded $669 million and 2,170 positions for counterterrorism andcounterintelligence, with the lion's share of this funding going to the FBI. Therequest also included an additional $177 million for a DNA initiative to reduce thebacklog of both suspect and convicted offender DNA samples, and increase thecapacities of state and local crime labs to process DNA evidence.

These and other smaller proposed increases would have been offset by crosscutting efficiencies, program reductions, offsets, and the elimination of severalgrant programs. The eliminated grant programs, with the corresponding FY2003funding included in parentheses, included the Community Oriented Policing Services(COPS) hiring and overtime program ($200 million), the Juvenile JusticeAccountability Block Grant ($190 million), and the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program ($248 million). Furthermore, as part of a wider "performance-based"program realignment of the Office of Justice Programs, the Administration's requestincluded a proposal to eliminate the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLBGs)and the Byrne Grants, replacing those grant programs with a Justice Assistance Grant(JAG) program. The Administration's request included $600 million for theproposed JAG program, $437 million less than the amounts appropriated for theLLBG and Byrne grant programs for FY2003.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 ( P.L. 108-199 ), by comparison, provides DOJ with $20 billion for FY2004. This amount includes $756 million forvarious COPS programs. The Consolidated Appropriations Act also funds a numberof programs for which the Administration requested no funding. Those programs andcorresponding funding in parentheses include the Juvenile Justice AccountabilityBlock Grant ($60 million), the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program ($300million), the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants ($225 million), and the ByrneGrants ($659 million). As the Consolidated Appropriations Act provides for theseprograms, funding was not included for the proposed Justice Assistance Grants.

FY2004 Funding Issues

General Administration . For General Administration, the Administration's FY2004 request for Justice programsincluded $1.378 billion, $112 million more than the amount appropriated byCongress for FY2003. Of the requested amount, $810 million would have gone tothe Detention Trustee account to better manage departmental acquisition ofcontracted detention space. Besides the Detention Trustee, the GeneralAdministration account funds the Attorney General's office, senior departmentalmanagement, the Inspector General's office, efforts to integrate identification systems(e.g., IAFIS and IDENT), and narrowband communications, among other things. TheConsolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L.08-199) provides $1.331 billion forgeneral administration, about $47 million less than the Administration's request. TheSenate-reported bill would have provided $1.414 billion for general administration,while the House-passed bill included $1.322 billion.

For the Federal Detention Trustee's Office , the FY2004 request included $810 million, a nearly $42 million increase over the amount appropriated by Congress forFY2003. The Detention Trustee's Office was established in FY2001, with a $1million appropriation, to manage contractual detention funding for the Department,which is, for the most part, for the Marshals Service, since the immigration detentionand removal program has been transferred to DHS. The Consolidated AppropriationsAct provides $814 million for the Detention Trustee's Office. The Senate-reportedbill would have provided $850 million, the House-passed bill $810 million.

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is responsible for investigating possible departmental misconduct. In FY2001, the Attorney General ordered theOIG to investigate allegations of misconduct at the Federal Bureau of Investigationand the Drug Enforcement Administration. The Administration's FY2004 requestincluded $62 million for the OIG, which represented a $10 million increase ascompared to the FY2003 appropriation. The Consolidated Appropriations Actprovides $61 million for the OIG, the same amount the Senate bill would haveprovided. The House-passed bill would have provided $56 million.

U.S. Parole Commission. The U.S. Parole Commission adjudicates parole requests by federal and District ofColumbia Code prisoners who are serving felony sentences. For the commission, theFY2003 request was $11 million. The authorization for the parole commission wasdue to expire in November 2002, but the 21st Century Department of JusticeAppropriations Authorization Act ( P.L. 107-273 ) has authorized $10 and $11 millionto be appropriated for the commission for FY2002 and FY2003, respectively. ForFY2004, the Administration's request included $11.1 million for the parolecommission, a $631 thousand increase over the Commission's FY2003appropriation. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 ( P.L. 108-199 ) provides$10.6 million. The Senate-reported bill would have provided $10.8 million, whilethe House-passed bill would have provided $10.6 million.

Legal Activities. The Legal Activities account includes several accounts: (1) general legal activities, (2) U.S.Attorneys, (3) U.S. Marshals Service, (4) prisoner detention, and (5) other legalactivities. For FY2004, the Administration's request included nearly $3.2 billion forlegal activities, an increase of $172 million over the FY2003 enacted budget for thesepurposes. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 ( P.L. 108-199 ) provides$3.094 billion in funding for FY2004, a $82 million increase over the amountappropriated for FY2003. The Senate-reported bill would have provided nearly$2.993 billion, the House-passed bill $3.034 billion.

The general legal activities account funds the Solicitor General's supervision of the department's conduct in proceedings before the Supreme Court. It also fundsseveral departmental divisions (tax, criminal, civil, environment and naturalresources, legal counsel, civil rights, and antitrust). The Administration's FY2004request included $665 million, an increase of nearly $58 million over the FY2003enacted budget for these purposes. The Consolidated Appropriations Act providesnearly $621 million, the same amount as the House-passed bill. The Senate-reportedbill would have provided $633 million for these purposes. The ConsolidatedAppropriation Act, both bills and the Administrations request provide nearly $2million for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) program under thisaccount.

The U.S. Attorneys and the U.S. Marshals Service are present in all of the 94 federal judicial districts. The U.S. Attorneys prosecute criminal cases and representthe federal government in civil actions. For the U.S. Attorneys Office, theAdministration's FY2004 request included $1.557 billion, including an increase ofnearly $63 million over the enacted FY2003 budget for this office. TheAdministration's request assumed $16 million in savings due to crosscuttingefficiencies and program reductions, and included $18 million in budget increases foradditional activities in FY2004. The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides$1.526 billion in funding for FY2004, $31 million less than the Administration'srequest. The Senate bill would have provided $1.508 billion, nearly $49 million lessthan the request. The House-passed bill would have also provided $1.526 billion forU.S. Attorneys.

The U.S. Marshals are responsible for the protection of the Federal Judiciary, protection of witnesses, execution of warrants and court orders, custody andtransportation of unsentenced federal prisoners, and fugitive apprehension. TheFY2004 request included $721 million for the Marshals Service, an increase of nearly$22 million over the service's FY2003 enacted budget. For FY2004, theConsolidated Appropriations Act provides $734 million, an increase of more than$13 million from the Administration's request. The Senate-reported bill would haveprovided $628 million, nearly $93 million less than the request and $71 million lessthan the FY2003 enacted budget. The House-passed bill would have providedfunding for $679 million, $42 million less than the Administration's request and $20million less than the service's FY2003 enacted budget. The House-passed bill,however, would have provided $41 million under the Community Oriented PolicingServices account for U.S. Marshals-related activities.

For other legal activities . e.g., the Community Relations Service, the Independent Counsel, the U.S. Trustee Fund (The U.S. Trustee's office is responsiblefor maintaining the integrity of the U.S. bankruptcy system by, among other things,prosecuting criminal bankruptcy violations.), and the Asset Forfeiture program, theFY2004 request included $257 million, which included about $29 million more thanthe amount appropriated for these purposes for FY2003. The request assumed $11million in base reductions and $14 million in savings due to crosscutting efficienciesthat offset an increase of $26 million for additional protection for the Judiciary. Therequest also anticipated that $2 million would be available from Justice's WorkingCapital Fund for courthouse security equipment. The Consolidated AppropriationsAct provides funding for $214 million, more than $43 million less than theAdministration's request. A large portion of the difference can be explained by a$33 million request for office automation that the Consolidated Appropriations Actdoes not recommend. The Senate bill would have provided $290 million, $33million more than the request. Unlike the Consolidated Appropriations Act, theSenate bill would have provided $66 million for office automation. TheHouse-passed bill would have provided $209 million in funding for other legalactivities.

Interagency Law Enforcement. The Interagency Law Enforcement account reimburses departmental agencies fortheir participation in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) program. Organized into nine regional task forces, this program combines theexpertise of federal agencies with the efforts of state and local law enforcement todisrupt and dismantle major narcotics trafficking and money launderingorganizations. The federal agencies that participate in OCDETF are the DrugEnforcement Administration; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Internal RevenueService; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; U.S. Coast Guard;U.S. Marshals Service; the Justice, Tax and Criminal Divisions; and the U.S.Attorneys. In addition, it is likely that the Department of Homeland Security'sBureau of Customs and Border Protection and Bureau of Immigration and CustomsEnforcement will also participate in OCDETF, as these Bureaus are composed offormer elements of the U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and NaturalizationService.

For FY2004, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 ( P.L. 108-199 ) provides nearly $557 million for interagency drug enforcement, the same amount aspreviously passed by the House. The Senate-reported bill would have provided $967million for interagency law enforcement, including $415 million to target majornarcotics trafficking and money laundering operations, and $552 million to supportjoint federal, state, local and foreign law enforcement operations. The FY2004request included $542 million for OCDETF, or $172 million over the amountappropriated for FY2003. For new activities in FY2004, the request included $22million for automated technology, $26 million to target 53 major drug traffickingorganizations, and $10 million to expand money laundering investigations.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), as the lead federal investigative agency,continues to reorganize to focus more sharply on counterterrorism. For FY2004, theConsolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 ( P.L. 108-199 ) provides FBI with $4.64billion, the same amount as passed by the House and requested by theAdministration. By comparison, the Senate-reported bill would have provided theFBI with $4 billion. Unlike the request, the Appropriations Act breaks out amountsfor the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force ($62 million), construction ($11.2million), and counterintelligence/national security ($490 million).

The FY2004 request ($4.64 billion) assumed $26 million in savings due to crosscutting efficiencies. For new activities in FY2004, the request included $539million, which included the following budget increases: $267 million forcounterterrorism, $70 million for counterintelligence, $64 million for cybercrime,$37 million for background checks and other security enhancements, $82 million forTrilogy and other information technology improvements, $16 million for othercorporate fraud investigations, and $3 million for the forensic DNA program.

NOTE: The Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( P.L. 107-296 ) transferred the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC), the National DomesticPreparedness Office (NDPO), and the Domestic Emergency Support Teams (DEST)from the FBI to the DHS. NIPC was formed to detect, deter, assess, and warncomputer users as to cyber threats and to investigate and prosecute unlawfulcomputer intrusions. For a time, NDPO served as a single point of contact for stateand local authorities seeking interagency assistance in the areas of planning, training,equipment, and exercises to prepare for domestic terrorist incidents, but NDPOactivities were largely absorbed by the OJP's Office of Domestic Preparedness. DEST was an interagency team of experts that could be quickly assembled by the FBIto provide an on-scene commander (Special Agent in Charge) with advice andguidance in situations involving weapons of mass effect (WME). According to theDOJ FY2004 Budget Summary, NIPC's transfer to DHS's Information Analysis andInfrastructure Protection Directorate included about $51 million and 307 positions. The NDPO and DEST transfers to DHS's Emergency Preparedness and ResponseDirectorate include neither dollars nor positions.

Drug Enforcement Agency. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is the lead federal agency tasked withreducing the illicit supply and abuse of dangerous narcotics and drugs. For FY2004,the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 ( P.L. 108-199 ) provides the DEA with$1.6 billion for salaries and expenses and an additional $557 million for interagencydrug enforcement, or the same amounts as previously approved by the House. TheSenate-reported bill, meanwhile, would have provided the DEA with $1.5 billion forsalaries and expenses. Unlike the House bill, the Senate bill would have provided$967 million for interagency law enforcement. This amount included $415 millionfor interagency drug enforcement. The Administration FY2004 request includednearly $1.6 billion for the DEA. The FY2004 request assumed $63 million insavings due to crosscutting efficiencies, program reductions, and other offsets. Fornew activities, the request included $38 million for better targeting major drugtrafficking organizations, $2 million for international training, and $3 million forfinancial audit improvements.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms andExplosives. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms andExplosives (ATF) enforces federal law related to the manufacture, importation, anddistribution of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. The ConsolidatedAppropriations Act for FY2004 ( P.L. 108-199 ) provides ATF with $836 million. Bycomparison, the Senate-reported CJS bill would have provided ATF with $830million, and the House-passed bill, $831 million. The FY2004 request included $852million for ATF, an increase of nearly $51 million over the Bureau's FY2003 enactedbudget. The FY2004 request assumed $5 million in savings due to program offsets;and, for new activities, it included $13 million for the Youth Crime Gun InterdictionInitiative and $10 million to implement the Safe Explosives Act (Title XI, SubtitleC, of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( P.L. 107-296 ; 116 STAT. 2280)).

In addition, the ATF salaries and expenses language was amended in House full committee markup to include several limitations on the expenditure of ATF fundingprovided for FY2004. This language would have limited the ATF's authority toacquire certain firearm transfer records from licensed dealers pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ï¿½ 923(g)(5), unless such a request was part of a criminal investigation. In theConsolidated Appropriations Act, this language was modified to limit the ATF'sauthority generally to disclose certain information contained in firearm transferrecords and would prevent ATF from requiring licensed dealers to conduct physicalinventories of their businesses. As included in the House-passed bill, anotherprovision in the conference agreement would require the "next-day" destruction ofapproved firearm transfer records.

Federal Prison System. The Federal Prison System maintains 106 penal institutions nationwide, and contractswith state, local, and private concerns for additional detention space. TheAdministration projected that this system would house an average daily populationof 143,197 sentenced offenders in federal institutions, and another 28,043 in contractfacilities, in FY2003. For FY2004, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 ( P.L.108-199 ) provides $4.862 billion for the Federal Prison System, an increase of nearly$418 million over the FY2003 enacted budget. The Senate-reported bill would haveprovided $4.222 billion in funding, while the House-passed bill would have provided$4.668 billion. The Administration requested $4.493 billion for the Federal PrisonSystem, an increase of nearly $48 million over the FY2003 enacted budget and $369million less than the Consolidated Appropriations Act.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $398 million for the construction, modernization, and repair of prison facilities in FY2004. TheSenate-reported bill would have provided $346 million, and the House-passed bill$203 million, for these purposes. For new activities in FY2004, the Administration'srequest included $252 million to activate new facilities, $23 million for acounterterrorism project, $13 million for contract confinement, and $427 thousandfor a transitional drug treatment program. The Administration intended to offsetthese budget increases with savings from $17 million in crosscutting efficiencies, $28million in no longer needed criminal alien detention, and $188 million rescindedfrom new construction funding. The Consolidated Appropriations Act does notinclude this requested rescission.

Office of Justice Programs. The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) manages and coordinates the National Institute ofJustice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention, Office of Victims of Crimes, Bureau of Justice Assistance, and relatedgrant programs. For the Office of Justice Programs and related offices, bureaus andprograms, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 ( P.L. 108-199 ) provides$3.095 billion. The Senate-reported bill would have provided $2.631 billion, theHouse-passed bill would have provided $3.491 billion, as compared to theAdministration's revised FY2004 request of $2.331 billion. For FY2003, Congressappropriated $3.594 billion for OJP programs.

Several factors account for the difference in funding for FY2003, compared to the FY2004 Appropriations Act, the Senate and House bills, and the Administration'srequest. First, the Office of Domestic Preparedness was transferred from DOJ toDHS ($1 billion in FY2003 funding). Second, the Administration's FY2004 requestincluded no funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), forwhich Congress appropriated $248 million for FY2003. For FY2004, theConsolidated Appropriations Act provides $300 million for this program. TheSenate bill would have provided $250 million and the House bill, $400 million, forSCAAP. Third, the FY2004 request included no funding for COPS hiring andovertime ($200 million in FY2003 funding). The Consolidated Appropriations Actprovides $120 million, while the Senate-reported bill would have provided $200million, and the House-passed bill would have provided no funding for hiring andovertime. Fourth, the FY2004 request included a proposal to consolidate the LocalLaw Enforcement and Byrne grants, replacing them with a Justice Assistance Grantprogram, and reducing funding by about $437 million, compared to amountsappropriated for FY2003. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, the House, and theSenate bills do not reflect this proposal.

The OJP budget has traditionally included the following accounts: (1) Justice Assistance, (2) State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance, (3) Weed and Seedcrime prevention efforts, (4) Community Oriented Policing Services, (5) JuvenileJustice programs, and (6) Public Safety Officers Benefits. The ConsolidatedAppropriations Act breaks out Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grantprograms as an account separate from the State and Local Law EnforcementAssistance, however, the Senate-reported bill did not reflect this proposal.

For FY2004, the Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $190 million for Justice Assistance, $1.298 billion for State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance,$59 million for Weed and Seed, $756 million for Community Oriented PolicingServices, $388 million for VAWA programs, $353 million for Juvenile JusticeAssistance, and $52 million for Public Safety Officer Benefits. The Senate billwould have provided $166 million for Justice Assistance, $1.461 billion for State andLocal Law Enforcement Assistance (including $406 million for VAWA), $59 millionfor Weed and Seed, $657 million for Community Oriented Policing Services, $232million for Juvenile Justice Assistance, and $57 million for Public Safety OfficerBenefits. The House-passed bill would have provided $209 million for JusticeAssistance, $1.641 billion for State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance (notincluding a proposed $24.1 million rescission), $52 million for Weed and Seed, $683million for Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) (not including a proposed$6.4 million rescission), $462 million for Juvenile Justice Assistance, $388 millionfor VAWA programs, and $57 million for Public Safety Officer Benefits.

Justice Assistance. The Justice Assistance account funds the operations of OJP bureaus and offices. Besides fundingOJP management and administration, this account also funds the National Instituteof Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, cooperative efforts that address missingchildren, and regional criminal intelligence. Congress appropriated nearly $200million for this account for FY2003. For FY2004, the Administration's request was$2.125 billion for this account, reflecting a proposed "performance-based"realignment of the bulk of OJP grant programs in the Justice Assistance accountunder the following program categories:

Counterterrorism Research and Development,

Improving the Criminal Justice System,

Research, Development, Evaluation and Statistics,

Technology for Crime Identification,

Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System,

Substance Abuse: Demand Reduction, and

Services for Victims of Crime.

Under the Administration's proposal, COPS would be maintained as an account separate from Justice Assistance, but only 7 programs would continue to be fundedin the COPS account. Other COPS programs would be replaced or eliminated, whileat least seven other OJP administered COPS programs would be funded under theJustice Assistance account. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, theSenate-reported bill and the House-passed bill do not reflect the Administration'sproposed budget realignment of OJP programs, however.

State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance. Under State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance ,the Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $1.298 billion in funding. TheSenate-reported bill would have provided $1.461 billion, and the House-passed billwould have provided $1.641 billion. For various programs included in this account,the Administration's FY2004 request included about $748 million. For FY2003,Congress appropriated $2.031 billion. Two factors account for the lesser amountrequested by the Administration for FY2004. First, the Administration requested nofunding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program-- a program for whichCongress appropriated $250 million for FY2003. Second, the Administrationproposed consolidating the Byrne and Local Law Enforcement Assistance grantprograms in a new Justice Assistance Grant program, and requested $437 millionless in funding for FY2004 than previously appropriated for these programs forFY2003. For FY2004, the Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $300 millionfor SCAAP. The Senate-reported bill would have provided $250 million, while theHouse-passed bill would have provided $400 million for this program. For LocalLaw Enforcement Block Grants, the Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $225million. The Senate bill would have provided $150 million and the House bill, $400million. For Byrne grants, the Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $659million in funding. The Senate bill would have provided $589 million, the Housebill, $615 million. For Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grants, theConsolidated Appropriations Act provides $388 million. The Senate-reported billwould have provided $406 million, the House-passed bill, $389 million. Under theConsolidated Appropriations Act and the House-passed bill, VAWA funding isprovided in a separate account, and therefore is not included in the $1.298 billioncited above.

Weed and Seed. The Weed and Seed program is designed to "weed out" crime in selected neighborhoods, and "seed"them with coordinated prevention and human service programs. For FY2004, theConsolidated Appropriations Act provides nearly $59 million, the same as theSenate-reported bill. The House-passed bill would have provided nearly $52 million. While Congress appropriated nearly $59 million for this program for FY2003, theAdministration requested no funding for the Weed and Seed program for FY2004.

Community Oriented Policing Services. To enhance public safety, the Community OrientedPolicing Services (COPS) program provides grants to state, local, and tribalgovernments to expand community policing and cooperation between lawenforcement agencies and members of the community. The authority for the COPSgrant program lapsed at the end of FY2000. Congress, however, has continued tofund this program. For COPS, the Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $756.3million in funding, including $120 million for hiring. The Senate-reported bill wouldhave provided nearly $657 million for FY2004, including $200 million for COPShiring and overtime, as part of a school safety officer initiative. The House-passedbill would have provide $683 million for COPS. Unlike the ConsolidatedAppropriations Act and Senate bill, the House bill included no funding for COPShiring and overtime, nor did the Administration's request include funding for thisprogram. The Administration asserts that the program has served its purpose byassisting state and local law enforcement agencies in hiring or redeploying 117,000police officers from FY1994 through FY2002 at an expense of $7 billion. TheConsolidated Appropriations Act provides $30 million for the National CriminalHistory Improvement Program (NCHIP), The House-passed bill would have provided$57 million, the same amount requested by the Administration. The Senate billincluded no funding for this program. The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides$110 million for the DNA/Crime Lab Improvement program, of which $10 millionwould be for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science grant program. TheSenate-reported bill would have provided $19 million to the DNA initiative and $15million for the grant program. The House-passed bill would have provided $174million for the DNA/Crime Lab Improvement program and $15 million for theforensic grant program.

Juvenile Justice Assistance. Under the Juvenile Justice Assistance programs , OJP provides assistance to improvejuvenile justice and corrections. Congress reauthorized these programs in the 21stCentury Department of Justice Appropriations Reauthorization Act ( P.L. 107-273 ),including the making of appropriations in "such sums as may be appropriate" forthese programs for fiscal years 2003 through 2007. The Consolidated AppropriationsAct provides nearly $353 million for Juvenile Justice Assistance programs. TheSenate-reported bill would have provided $232 million for these programs, theHouse-passed bill, $462 million. The Administration's revised request was $214million-- previously it was $235 million-- for FY2004. For FY2003, Congressappropriated $264 million for these programs, and $190 million for the JuvenileAccountability Block Grant (JAIBG), under State and Local Law EnforcementAssistance. The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $60 million for JAIBG.The Administration, however, requested no funding for FY2004, nor would theSenate bill have provided any funding for this program. The House-passed bill,conversely, would have provided $100 million for JAIBG.

Public Safety Officers Benefit Program. The Public Safety Officers Benefit (PSOB) programprovides death benefits to survivors of public safety officers who die in the line ofduty, and disability benefits to those officers injured and disabled in the line of duty. While the Administration's FY2004 request included $49 million for this program,the Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $52 million, while the House-passedand Senate-reported bills would have provided nearly $57 million.

Table 4. Department of Justice Funding Accounts ($$millions in budget authority) a

Sources: Amounts included in the FY2003 enacted and the FY2004 request and House-passed columns were taken from H.Rept. 108-221 ; for the Senate-reportedcolumn, from S.Rept. 108-144 and H.Rept. 108-401 ; and for FY2004 enactedcolumn, from H.Rept. 108-401 .

a. Amounts may not total due to rounding.

b. Includes $2.0 million for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

c. Senate report language underscores that funding provided for the Foreign TerroristTracking Task Force (FTTTF) would not be provided to the FBI under theSenate bill, rather the task force would be funded as a stand-alone accountwithin the wider Department of Justice budget. Consequently, the amount thatthe Senate bill would provide the FBI, does not include the $72.6 million for theFTTTF.

d. This amount includes $415 million for interagency crime and drug enforcementand $552 million for interagency law enforcement support.

e. In the tables accompanying the House report, the interagency law enforcementaccount funding for drug enforcement was placed under the DEA, as it was inthe conference report.

f. The Homeland Security Act ( P.L. 107-296 ) transferred most of the Bureau ofAlcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to the DOJ.

g. This amount does not include the $1 million appropriated for the Office ofDomestic Preparedness in the FY2003 CJS appropriations act, as this office wastransferred to the Department of Homeland Security.

h. The large increase in the FY2004 request, as compared to the FY2003 enactedbudget, reflects the proposed performance-based realignment of the majorOffice for Justice Programs (OJP) grant programs in the Justice Assistanceaccount. However, the House and Senate Committees' recommendedmaintaining the traditional account structures for OJP.

i. Includes a rescission of $6.4 million.

j. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) programs have been funded under Stateand Local Law Enforcement Assistance. The House-passed bill, however,breaks out VAWA programs as a stand-alone account under the Office ofJustice Programs.

k. This amount includes $15 million for the United States Attorneys for OperationSeahawk (an interagency seaport security initiative) and $550 thousand for theLocal Law Enforcement Block Grant Program (for San Juan, Puerto Rico). forthe Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program (for San Juan, Puerto Rico).

Related Legislation

P.L. 108-21 , H.R. 1104 / S. 151

Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of ChildrenToday Act of 2003 (Protect Act). S. 141 reported in the Senate onFebruary 11, 2003 ( S.Rept. 108-2 ). Passed Senate, amended, on February 24, 2003. H.R. 1104 reported by the House on March 24, 2003 ( H.Rept. 108-47 ). Passed House, amended, on March 27. Conference report filed on April 9, 2003( H.Rept. 108-66 ). Passed House and Senate on April 10, 2003. Signed into lawApril 30, 2003.

H.R. 703 (Saxton)

Law Enforcement Partnership to Combat Terrorism Act. This bill would amendthe COPS program to authorize appropriations for hiring and training state and locallaw enforcement intelligence officers, and improving coordination of federal, stateand local counterterrorism intelligence officers. Introduced and referred toCommittee on the Judiciary on February 11, 2003. Referred to the Subcommittee onCrime, Terrorism and Homeland Security on March 6, 2003.

H.R. 834 (Ose)

Clean, Learn, Educate, Abolish, Neutralize, and Undermine Production(CLEAN-UP) of Methamphetamines Act. This bill would amend the COPS programto authorize the expanded use of COPS funds to increase enforcement andprosecution of methamphetamine offenses and provide for environmental cleanup ofclandestine labs. Introduced and referred to multiple committees, including theCommittee on the Judiciary, on February 13, 2003. Referred to the Subcommitteeon Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security on March 6, 2003.

H.R. 2260 (Ros-Lehtinen)

This bill would include Assistant United States Attorneys in the definition oflaw enforcement officer for the purposes of retirement. Introduced and referred tothe Committee on Government Reform on May 22, 2003. Referred to Subcommitteeon Civil Service and Agency Organization on June 2, 2003.

H.R. 2387 (Strickland)/ S. 1194 (Dewine)

To foster local collaborations which will ensure that resources are effectivelyand efficiently used within the criminal and juvenile justice systems. Introduced June5, 2003. Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Securityon June 25, 2003. Introduced to the Senate Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, andHomeland Security on December 10, 2003.

H.R. 2943 (Hooley)

This bill would waive certain restrictions on the hiring of law enforcementofficers under the COPS grant program, and for other purposes. Introduced on July25, 2003. Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and HomelandSecurity on September 4, 2003.

S. 679 (Biden)

Providing Reliable Officers, Technology, Education, Community Prosecutors,and Training in Our Neighborhoods Act of 2003 (Protection Act). Reauthorizes themaking of appropriations for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)programs for FY2004 through FY2009, among other things. Introduced and referredto the Committee on the Judiciary on March 20, 2003.

S. 798 (Hatch)

Sex Offender Apprehension Act of 2003. This bill would amend the COPSprogram to authorize the use of COPS funds to assist states in enforcing laws thatrequire convicted sex offenders to register their addresses with state or local lawenforcement agencies. Introduced and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary onApril 7, 2003.

Related CRS Products

CRS Report 97-196, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program: AnOverview , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Issue Brief IB10095, Crime Control: The Federal Response , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RS20539, Federal Crime Control Assistance to State and Local Governments , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RS21400, FY2003 Appropriations for First Responders: Fact Sheet , by Ben Canada and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL32095(pdf) , The Federal Bureau of Investigation: Past, Present and Future , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Issue Brief IB10112, Gun Control Legislation in the 108th Congress , by William Krouse.

CRS Report RS20576, Juvenile Justice: Legislative Activity and Funding Trends for Selected Programs , by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and DavidTeasley.

CRS Report RL30871 , Violence Against Women Act: History, Federal Funding, and Reauthorizing Legislation, by Garrine Laney and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Issue Brief IB10113, War On Drugs: Legislation in the 108th Congress and Related Developments, by [author name scrubbed].

Commerce and Related Agencies

Title II typically includes the appropriations for the Department of Commerceand related agencies. The origins of the department date back to 1903 with theestablishment of the Department of Commerce and Labor (32 Stat. 825). Theseparate Department of Commerce was established on March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 7365;15 U.S.C. 1501).

The department's responsibilities are numerous and quite varied, but its activities center on five basic missions: 1) promoting the development of Americanbusiness and increasing foreign trade; 2) improving the nation's technologicalcompetitiveness; 3) encouraging economic development; 4) fostering environmentalstewardship and assessment; and 5) compiling, analyzing and disseminatingstatistical information on the U.S. economy and population.

The following agencies within the Commerce Department carry out these missions:

Economic Development Administration (EDA) provides grants for economic development projects in economically distressed communities andregions.

Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) seeks to promote private and public sector investment in minoritybusinesses.

Bureau of the Census collects, compiles, and publishes a broadrange of economic, demographic, and social data.

Economic and Statistical Analysis Programs provide 1) timely information on the state of the economy through preparation, development, andinterpretation of economic data; and 2) analytical support to department officials inmeeting their policy responsibilities. Much of the analysis is conducted by theBureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

International Trade Administration (ITA) seeks to develop the export potential of U.S. firms and to improve the trade performance of U.S.industry.

Bureau of Industry and Security enforces U.S. export control laws consistent with national security, foreign policy, and short-supply objectives(formerly the Bureau of Export Administration).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides scientific, technical, and management expertise to 1) promote safe andefficient marine and air navigation; 2) assess the health of coastal and marineresources; 3) monitor and predict the coastal, ocean, and global environments(including weather forecasting); and 4) protect and manage the nation's coastalresources.

Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) examines and approves applications for patents for claimed inventions and registration oftrademarks.

Technology Administration , through the Office of Technology Policy, advocates integrated policies that seek to maximize the impact of technologyon economic growth, conducts technology development and deployment programs,and disseminates technological information.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) assists industry in developing technology to improve product quality, modernizemanufacturing processes, ensure product reliability, and facilitate rapidcommercialization of products based on new scientific discoveries.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) advises the President on domestic and international communications policy,manages the federal government's use of the radio frequency spectrum, and performsresearch in telecommunications sciences.

For FY2004 appropriations, the Administration requests roughly $5.814 billion for Title II, including the Commerce Department and related agencies. In FY2003,the enacted appropriation was roughly $5.796 billion.

FY2004 Funding Issues

International Trade Administration and Related Trade Agencies. The President's FY2004 request for theInternational Trade Administration (ITA) was $382.1 million, a $19.9 million increase over the FY2003 appropriation of $362.2 million and a $4.9 million increaseover the FY2003 request of $377.2 million. The House passed $382.1 million, butit also proposed the reorganization of the agency. The President's request and theappropriation passed by the House both envision $13 million in fee collections,raising the total resources of the agency to $395.1 million. The Senate AppropriationsCommittee recommended $372.1 million, which reflects the Committee'santicipation of only $3 million in fee collection. The Senate Committee did notattempt to change the organizational structure of ITA. The Omnibus AppropriationsAct ( P.L. 108-199 ) enacted the House figure of $395.1 million, its expectation of$13 million in fee collection, and its reorganization plan. ITA provides exportpromotion services, works to assure compliance with trade agreements, administerstrade remedies such as antidumping and countervailing duties, and providesanalytical support for ongoing trade negotiations. The agency is divided into fourpolicy units and an Executive and Administrative Directorate, with a total full timestaff of 2,550.

Trade Development Unit (TD). The Administration requested $57.1 million for the Trade Development Unit. InFY2003, Congress appropriated $67.7 million, including several textile relatedinitiatives not incorporated into the President's FY2003 request of $58.3 million. The House approved $46.7 million for this entity which it renamed theManufacturing and Services Unit (MSU). The House envisioned the MSU carryingon certain functions of TD such as the provision of industry analysis, but it alsointended that the new unit concentrate more resources on promoting thecompetitiveness and expansion of U.S. industry. The House transferred the tradepromotion activities of TD- the Advocacy Center, the Trade Information Center, andOffice of Export Assistance- to the new Trade Promotion Unit. Funds for the textileinitiatives, the National Textile Center, and the Textile/Clothing TechnologyCorporation were not requested in the President's FY2004 budget, but the Housefunded these initiatives at 2003 levels.

The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the appropriation of $69 million, which reflects the restoration of funds for certain initiatives: $10 million forthe National Textile Institute, $3 million for the Textile/Clothing Technology Center,$1 million for the Kansas World Trade Center, and $500,000 for the InternationalTrade Processing Center. P.L.108-199 enacted the House figure, $46.7 million, andits reorganization proposal, however, it funded the abovementioned programs atSenate levels.

Market Access and Compliance Unit (MAC). The Administration requested $37.4 million for the MarketAccess and Compliance Unit (MAC). In FY2003, Congress appropriated $31.2million. The House appropriated $38.2 million and directed the establishment of anOffice of Enforcement within the Unit. The Senate Appropriations Committeerecommended $32.2 million. P.L.108-199 enacted the House language and amount.

Import Administration Unit (IA). The President's FY2004 budget requested $53.6 million for the ImportAdministration (IA) unit; Congress appropriated $44.2 million in FY2003. TheHouse appropriated $68.2 million and directed the reorganization of the Unit intoseparate anti-dumping and countervailing duty case processing divisions, and a policyand negotiation division. The House version also provided $3 million for theestablishment of an Office of China Compliance to focus on trade remedy issuespertinent to small and medium sized domestic industry.

The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the appropriation of $46.6 million for IA. This recommendation included $4.5 million specifically to monitorimport data and customs flows in key markets and sectors, and to expedite unfairtrade cases when import surges are detected. P.L. 108-99 enacted the House amount($68.2 million), its reorganization proposal, and its establishment of the Office ofChina Compliance.

Commercial Service. The Administration requested $204.5 million for this Unit, formerly known as the U.S.and Foreign Commercial Service, an increase of $2.5 million from the $202 millionappropriated in FY2003. The House directed the reorganization of this entity,renaming it the Trade Promotion Unit (TPU), and appropriated $217 million. TheHouse proposed the transfer of the trade promotion functions of the current TD Unit(the Trade Information Center, the Advocacy Center, and the Office of ExportAssistance) to the TPU. It directed the TPU to establish a Middle East BusinessInformation Center and a China Business Information Center. The House alsodirected the agency to create American Trading Centers in China to promote theimportation of U.S. goods and services into China.

The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends $202 million for the CommercialService and notes its support for the Service's Appalachian-Turkish Trade Project.

P.L.108-199 enacted the House language with regard to the renamed TradePromotion Unit, and its funding level of $217 million.

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)

USTR is the chief trade negotiator for the United States and is located in the Executive Office of the President (EOP). It is responsible for developing andcoordinating U.S. international trade and direct investment policies. The Office had209 FTEs in FY2003. The President's FY2004 request was $37 million, $2 millionabove the amount approved by Congress in FY2003. The House appropriated $42million. Part of the increase in this request was meant to fund the negotiation ofaddition bilateral and regional free trade agreements. Since the FY2003 request, thePresident has begun or announced free trade negotiations with the 5 nations of theCentral American Common Market, the Southern African Customs Union, Australia,Morocco, Panama, Colombia, Peru, the Dominican Republic, Bahrain and Thailand.

The House has expressed concern about the degree of responsiveness of USTR to complaints by U.S. small and medium sized business about the agency'senforcement of U.S. trade laws and agreements with China. The House provides $2million in additional funding for 9 positions to monitor and enforce tradecommitments made by China. The House also cautioned trade negotiators againstusing U.S. Treasury funds to resolve trade disputes, and it refused to capitalize a fundset up by the Trade Act of 2002 ( P.L. 107-210 ) to settle monetary fines resultingfrom adverse decisions at the WTO.

The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends the adoption of the President's request of $37 million. The Committee also directs the USTR to beginnegotiations at the WTO that would explicitly recognize the right of members todistribute monies collected from antidumping and countervailing duties, as is doneby the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 ( P.L.106-387 , alsoknown as the Byrd Amendment). In January 2003, provisions of the ByrdAmendment were declared to be inconsistent with WTO Agreements. In addition,Sec. 214 would prohibit the use of funds available under the Act to negotiate or toenter into trade agreements that contain provisions relating to the temporary entryof foreign workers into the United States. Such provisions were a controversialfeature of the U.S. free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore.

P.L. 108-199 largely enacted the House language concerning USTR and its appropriation of $42 million. It enacted the Senate language regarding concerningthe Byrd amendment, but it did not contain Senate language concerning temporaryentry of foreign workers.

U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)

ITC is an independent, quasi-judicial agency that advises the President and Congress on the impact of U.S. foreign economic policies on U.S. industries and ischarged with administering various U.S. trade remedy laws. Its six commissionersare appointed by the President for 9-year terms. As a matter of policy, its budgetrequest is submitted to Congress by the President without revision. For FY2004, ITCrequested $58.3 million, an approximately $4.3 million increase over the FY2003appropriation ($54 million). The increase is intended to be used to fund a mandatory3.1% pay increase, to fund several information technology projects to increase publicaccess to trade information, to improve electronic transaction capability, and todevelop more accurate trade information for affected constituents. The Houseappropriated $57 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommendedadoption of ITC's request of $58.3 million. P.L.108-199 likewise enacted $58.3million.

Bureau of Industry and Security. The President's FY2004 request for the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)(formerly the Bureau of Export Administration) was $78.2 million. Congressappropriated $74.7 million in FY2003. In FY2003, the President requested $103.3million, however, that request included funds for the Critical InfrastructureAssurance Office which was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security.The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2004 ( P.L.108-199 ) enacted 68.2 million. The BIS administers export controls on dual-use goods and technology through itslicensing and enforcement functions. It facilitates cooperation with other nations onexport control policy, and provides assistance to the U.S. business community tocomply with U.S. and multilateral export controls. It administers the anti-boycottstatutes of the United States, and it is also charged with monitoring the U.S. defenseindustrial base. The agency had 459 full-time employees in FY2003.

The House appropriated $68.2 million (with an additional $1.9 million in unobligated balances from the previous year): $33.4 million for export administrationand licensing activities, $30.4 million for enforcement and $7.2 million forenforcement activities related to the Chemical Weapons Convention. The SenateAppropriations Committee recommended $73 million: $33.2 for exportadministration, $33.4 million for export enforcement, and $6.5 million foradministration and policy coordination. P.L.108-199 enacted the Houseappropriation.

BIS sought to create a new Office of Technology Evaluation to enable the Bureau to identify sensitive new technologies for inclusion on the Commerce ControlList (CCL), to conduct systematic reviews of items on the CCL including foreignavailability and mass market determinations, and to review multilateral exportcontrol regimes and national control regimes of regime partners. This Office wasproposed in response to criticism leveled by the GAO that BIS has failed to conductregular foreign availability assessments and has failed to analyze the cumulativeeffects of certain technology transfers. (See GAO Report 02-620, Export Controls:Rapid Advances in China's Semiconductor Industry Underscore Need forFundamental U.S. Policy Review, May 8, 2002) Neither the House nor the Senateprovided funds for this initiative.

Economic Development Administration. For FY2004, the Administration had requested atotal appropriation of $364.4 million. Of this amount, $331 million was for theagency's Economic Development Assistance Programs (EDAP), and $33.4 millionfor Salaries and Expenses (S&E). The House approved a total of $318.7 million forthe Economic Development Administration, including $288.1 billion for EDAP and$30.6 million for S&E. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a totalof $387.7 million for EDA, including $357.1 million for EDAP and $30.6 million forS&E. The conference agreement provides EDA with the total appropriation of$318.7 million approved by the House. More specifically with regard to programs,$202.3 million is for Public Works and Economic Development (the Senate versionhad recommend $272.1 million for Title I grants), $40.9 million is for EconomicAdjustment Assistance, $24 million is for planning, $8.4 million is for technicalassistance (including university centers), $12 million is for trade adjustmentassistance, and $500,000 is for research.

For FY2003, the Administration had requested a total appropriation of $349.9million for EDA. More specifically, it requested $317.2 million for EDAP,representing a net $17.8 million decrease from FY2002. The ConsolidatedAppropriations Resolution for FY2003 ( P.L. 108-7 ) provided EDA with a totalappropriation of $320.8 million--$290 million for EDAP and $30.8 million for S&E.

The agency's authorization expired at the end of FY2003. Hearings on the Administration's proposal for reauthorizing EDA were held on June 4 by the HouseSubcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and EmergencyManagement (for more information, see backgroundtestimony ). On June 25, theHouse Transportation and Infrastructure Committee adopted a modified version ofthe Administration's five-year reauthorization bill. The Senate Environment andPublic Works Committee did not take up the EDA reauthorization issue during the1st session of the 108th Congress.

Under H.R. 2535 , the local match rate for economic development district planning grants would be changed from the current rate of 50-50% to aminimum of 65-35% and maximum of 80-20%. As part of a compromise, the billalso incorporates the current 10 percent district bonus into a modified version of theAdministration's new performance incentive program for public works and economicadjustment assistance grantees. The overall performance award program would focuson the grantees ability to complete the project as scheduled, exceed job creation goalsand leverage private sector capital.

Minority Business Development Agency. For the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA)in FY2004, Congress passed $28.9 million. The Bush Administration requested$29.49 million. The House bill would have provided $29 million and the SenateAppropriations Committee recommended $28.72 million, which equals the FY2003funding level.

Economic and Statistical Analysis. The department's Economic and Statistical Analysis programs are conducted by theBureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the Bureau of the Census. In FY2004, thePresident requested $84.76 million for these programs, which is $13.08 million(18.2%) above the FY2003 funding level. The Administration believes that theBEA's timely and accurate statistical reports are essential for providing reliable datato policymakers, industry, and consumers. The House bill provided $75 million,which is roughly $9.76 million below the Administration request, but $3.31 millionabove the FY203 amount. The Senate bill would have matched the Administration'srequest. The conference agreement provided $75 million. The BEA has receivedprogrammatic increases over the past three years to ensure that policymakers haveaccess to more accurate and timely economic data.

Bureau of the Census. To fund the Bureau of the Census in FY2004, President Bush requested a total of $662million: $220.9 million for salaries and expenses and $441.1 million for periodicprograms, including the decennial census. The total request, which exceeded theFY2003 enacted amount by $111.1 million, asked an additional $39.1 million forsalaries and expenses, and an extra $72 million for periodic programs.

The House Appropriations Committee, and the full House, approved the President's request. The committee directed the Bureau "to continue to streamlineand prioritize programs to ensure the highest priority core activities are supported"in the areas of current economic and demographic statistics. Concerning the 2010decennial census, the committee stated its support for the Administration's efforts todesign and test a "simplified, streamlined short-form census," and expressed supportfor the American Community Survey (ACS), which will collect long-form censusdata on an on-going basis rather than once a decade. The House recommended$260.2 million for 2010 census planning, of which $112.1 million would be for are-engineered short form census and $64.8 million would be for the ACS.

The Senate Appropriations Committee noted that the Bureau will have available about $12.2 million in recoveries of prior year obligations. The committeerecommended a total of $550.9 million for the Bureau in FY2004, $111.1 millionbelow the President's request and the House-approved amount. Of the $550.9million, $215.5 million was recommended for the 2010 census. The committeedirected the Bureau to provide it, by May 1, 2004, with a report on reimbursementsreceived for work performed for other federal agencies and other organizations.

House and Senate conferees agreed to a total of $630.9 million for the Bureau, $31.1 million less than what the House approved and $80 million more thanproposed by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The $255.2 million agreed to inconference for 2010 census planning was $5 million less than the Houserecommended and $39.7 million above the Senate committee's proposal.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration. The National Telecommunications and InformationAdministration (NTIA) is the executive branch's principal advisory office ondomestic and international telecommunications and information technology issuesand policies. It has as its mandate to provide greater access for all Americans totelecommunications services; to support for U.S. attempts to open foreign markets;to advise on international telecommunications negotiations; to fund research grantsfor new technologies and their applications; and to assist non-profit organizationsconverting to digital transmission in the 21st century.

The NTIA overall budget has three components: Salaries and Expenses, the Technology Opportunity Program (TOP), and the Public TelecommunicationsFacilities, Planning and Construction (PTFPC) program. Salaries and Expenseslargely relate to administrative functions, maintaining domestic and internationalpolicy development, and spectrum management. The TOP is a competitive,merit-based matching grant program to develop information and telecommunicationsinfrastructure. The PTFPC program assists public broadcast stations, state and localgovernments, Indian tribes, and non-profit organizations in constructing facilities andbringing educational and cultural programs to the U.S. public, and is a competitive,merit-based grant program.

For FY2004, the Bush Administration has requested an NTIA budget of $21.4 million, down from $73.6 million in FY2003. For Salaries and Expenses, the BushAdministration has requested $18.6 million, up from $14.7 million in FY2003. Thisincrease would be used to further develop basic research, analytical, and management topics of interest to the U.S. telecommunications and information sectors of theeconomy. For the TOP, the Bush Administration has requested zero funding inFY2004; in FY2003, TOP receives $15.5 million. The Bush Administrationcontends that the TOP program has by its very successes achieved its objectives. Forthe PTFPC, the Bush Administration has requested $2.5 million in FY2004 to closeout this program's activities. Public broadcast transmission and digital conversionwould be taken over completely by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. InFY2003, the PTFPC receives $43.6 million.

The conference report provides the following for NTIA's FY2004 budget: $14.6 million for Salaries and Expenses, $15 million for TOP, $22 million forPTFPC; and a total appropriations of $51.6 million.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is funded by user fees collectedfrom customers that are designated as "offsetting collections" and subject to spendinglimits established by the Appropriations Committee. For FY2004, theAdministration's budget would have provided the USPTO with authority to spend$1.203 billion from fees generated in that fiscal year. In addition, the Administrationproposed to support legislation to change the statutory fee structure to raise anadditional $201 million for the Office. The $1.404 billion in budget authority wasalmost 19% more than FY2003, yet $100 million less than the $1.504 billion theUSPTO estimates it will collect in fees during FY2004.

H.R. 2799 , as initially passed by the House on July 23, 2003, recommended $1.239 billion in budget authority for the USPTO. Of this amount,$1.139 billion would be derived from fees to be collected in FY2004 and $100million from fees generated in prior fiscal years. The original House figure wasalmost 5% above the FY2003 budget authority, but approximately 12% below thePresident's budget request. The recommended authority was $265 million less thanthe expected FY2003 fee collection.

Subsequently, H.R. 2799 was incorporated into P.L. 108-199 , the FY2004 Omnibus Appropriations Act ( H.R. 2673 ), signed into law onJanuary 23, 2004. The USPTO is provided $1.222 billion in budget authority to bederived from fees collected in FY2004. The recommended figure is 3% more thanFY2003 but $282 million less than the anticipated amount of fees to be collected inFY2004.

As reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, S. 1585 would have provided the USPTO with the authority to use $1.217 billion in feesgenerated during FY2004.

Under the Omnibus Budget Act ( P.L. 108-7 ), the USPTO had the authority to spend $1.182 billion for FY2003. Of this amount, $1.015 billion was derived fromoffsetting collections and $167 million from fees generated in previous years. Whilethe budget authority was 5% more than the prior fiscal year, it was $345 million lessthan the $1.527 billion expected from fees collected in FY2003.

Since 1990, appropriation measures have limited the ability of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to utilize the full amount of fees collected in each fiscal year. This is an area of controversy. Opponents of this approach argue that agencyoperations are supported by payments for services that must be financed in the yearthe expenses are incurred. Proponents of current methods maintain that the fees arenecessary to help balance the budget and the amount of fees appropriated back to theUSPTO are sufficient to cover operating costs.

National Institute of Standards and Technology. The Bush Administration's FY2004 budget requested$496.8 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Thisamount was 30% less than the FY2003 appropriation due to significant reductionsin support for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and the ManufacturingExtension Partnership (MEP), two extramural programs operated by NIST. The $27million designated for ATP was to cover on-going commitments; no new projectswould be funded. The $12.6 million for MEP was to finance the operation of centersthat have not received 6 years of federal support. In-house research and developmentperformed under the Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS) accountwould have been funded at $387.6 million, an increase of 8% over the previous fiscalyear. The construction budget would total $69.6 million.

H.R. 2799 , as initially passed by the House on July 23, 2003, provided $460.1 million in FY2004 funding for NIST. This figure was 35% belowthe FY2003 appropriation due primarily to a major reduction in support for MEP andno funding for ATP. Included in the total was $357.9 million for the core programsin the STRS account (a small increase over FY2003) and $39.6 million for theManufacturing Extension Partnership (a 63% reduction from the earlier fiscal year). The construction budget would have been $62.6 million.

Subsequently, H.R. 2799 was incorporated into P.L. 108-199 , the FY2004 Omnibus Appropriations Act ( H.R. 2673 ), signed into law onJanuary 23, 2004. Under this legislation, NIST will be funded at $628.1 million,12% below the FY2003 appropriation but 26% above the President's budget request. The STRS account will receive $344.4 million (a 3.6% decrease from FY2003). Manufacturing extension is financed at $39.6 million, a 63% reduction from thecurrent fiscal year although 68% above the Administration's FY2004 request. ATPis funded at $179.2 million which represents a slight increase from FY2003 butalmost 7 times the amount recommended by the Administration. Construction willreceive $64.9 million. [Note that these figures do not reflect a 0.59% across the boardrescission included in the bill.]

S. 1585 , as reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations on September 5, 2003, would have funded NIST at $835.2 million for FY2004, 18%above FY2003 and almost 81% more than the amount in the initial House-passedbill. The significant increases contained in the Senate legislation primarily were dueto restoration of funding for the Manufacturing Extension Program and increasedsupport for the Advanced Technology Program. S. 1585 would haveprovided $383.4 million for the STRS account (7% above FY2003), $106.6 millionfor MEP (a slight increase from the current fiscal year), and $259.6 million for ATP(45% more than the FY2003 appropriation). In addition, the Committee Report toaccompany the Senate bill recommended that of the amount designated for ATP, $50million be used for homeland security projects. Construction would have beenfunded at $84.6 million.

NIST received $707.5 million in appropriations for FY2003 (after the 0.65% across the board recision required by P.L. 108-7 ), an increase of almost 5% above theprevious fiscal year. Included in this figure was $357.1 million for the STRSaccount, $178.8 million for ATP, $105.9 million for MEP, and $65.7 million forconstruction.

Continued support for the Advanced Technology Program has been a major funding issue. ATP provides "seed financing," matched by private sector investment,to businesses or consortia (including universities and government laboratories) fordevelopment of generic technologies that have broad applications across industries. Opponents of the program cite it as a prime example of "corporate welfare,"whereby the federal government invests in applied research activities that, theyemphasize, should be conducted by the private sector. Others defend ATP, arguingit assists businesses (and small manufacturers) develop technologies that, whilecrucial to industrial competitiveness, would not or could not be developed by theprivate sector alone. While Congress has maintained support for the AdvancedTechnology Program, the initial appropriation bills passed by the House sinceFY2002 failed to provide funding for ATP. The Bush Administration's FY2004budget proposal once again would have eliminated the program. However, P.L.108-199 , the Omnibus Appropriations Act, includes a small increase in supportfor ATP.

The budget for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, another extramural program administered by NIST, was an issue in the FY2004 appropriationsdeliberations. While in the recent past, congressional support for MEP remainedconstant, the Administration's FY2004 budget request, the initial House-passed bill,and the FY2004 Omnibus Appropriations Act substantially decreased federal fundingfor this initiative reflecting the President's recommendation that manufacturingextension centers "...with more than six years experience operate without federalcontribution."

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Agency Funding. On Jan. 23, 2004, President Bush enacted H.R. 2673 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 ( P.L.108-199 ). Title II of that act funds Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and RelatedAgencies (CJS) for FY2004, including NOAA. The conference committee on H.R.2673 reported H.R. 2673 ( H.Rept. 108-401 ) and recommended$3.77 billion for NOAA, the same amount as was enacted. Congress passed theconference report on Jan. 22, 2004. On Sept. 5, 2003, the Senate AppropriationsCommittee reported S. 1585 , its version of CJS appropriations forFY2004, and recommended $3.78 billion in funding for NOAA. The House passedits version, H.R. 2799 , on July 23, 2003, appropriating $3.05 billion forthe agency. President Bush requested $3.32 billion for NOAA in his FY2004 budgetsubmission in February 2003. Soon thereafter, Congress passed the ConsolidatedAppropriations Act, 2003 ( P.L. 108-7 ), funding NOAA at $3.24 billion.

Appropriations for FY2004 enacted for NOAA were $14 million, or 0.3%, less than Senate Appropriations Committee recommendations; $720 million, or 23.6%,greater than House-passed appropriations; $45.0 million, or 13.6%, greater than thePresident's request; and $53 million, or 16.4%, greater than FY2003 appropriations.

Highlights. In most cases, funding levels enacted for NOAA's line offices are higher than requested by the President, or that recommendedby congressional appropriations committees. There were exceptions, however. TheSenate Appropriation Committee had recommended 4.8% more for NOAA Fisheries. Also, appropriations enacted for NOAA Facilities are far less than requested by thePresident or recommended by House and Senate appropriations committees. Thoseobligations were transferred to a different NOAA account, however.

The following table shows NOAA funding enacted for FY2004, broken out by the Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF) account, which funds the agency'sfive line offices and Program Support; the Procurement, Acquisition, andConstruction (PAC) account; and NOAA's "Other Accounts." Also included are thePresident's FY2004 request, Senate Appropriations Committee recommendations,House-passed appropriations, and FY2003 enacted appropriations.

Table 5. NOAA: President's Budget Request and Congressional Appropriations for FY2004 ($ millions)

Source: Compiled by CRS from sources noted below. For more information about NOAA's FY2003 funding, see CRS Report RL31567(pdf) , The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA): President's Budget and Congressional Appropriations for FY2003 , by Wayne A.Morrissey.

*Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Table notes:

a. P.L. 108-7 , as printed in Congressional Record , February 12, 2003: H904-H932, H947. See also H.Rept. 108-10 , Division B, Title II-Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration.

b. FY2004 budget request numbers as reported by the House Appropriations Committee, May 5,2003. A breakout of NOAA line office funding requested for FY2004 was reported by the U.S.Dept. of Commerce in: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in: the FY2004 BudgetSummary , Feb. 3, 2003, found at http://www.noaa.gov .

c. As passed by the House. See H.Rept. 108-221 , to accompany H.R. 2799, July 21, 2003.

d. As reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, S.Rept. 108-144 , to accompany S.1585, Sept. 5, 2003.

e. See H.Rept. 108-401 on H.R. 2673, Division B, Title II, Congressional Record , November 25,2003: H12487-H12515.

f. ORF appropriations totals exclude other budget authority such as deobligations, mandatorytransfers within NOAA, or funding provided by other federal agencies. These are subtracted in theprevious line.

g. Reflects transfers of some facilities maintenance funding from some ORF line office accounts toPAC.

h. Amount included $65 million in FY2003 Supplemental Appropriations for NOAA weathersatellites ( P.L. 108-11 ). Deobligations of $3.2 million approved by Congress for the PAC accountare also reflected in this amount.

i. H.Rept. 108-401 , ï¿½212, provides an additional $6.1 million for one-time appropriations of specificprojects under PAC construction, which is not reflected in this total.

j . Amount includes request for $40 million as final U.S. payment for two restoration funds underthe 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty.

k. Neither the House, nor the conference committee included funding for "International FisheriesCommissions," a new fund recommended in the Senate Appropriations Committee bill. However,Senate Appropriations Committee funding tables attributed $16.9 million in appropriations for theHouse for this activity.

l. The Senate Appropriations Committee's total reported for the House exceeded that reported by theHouse Appropriations Committee by $148.3 million. The reasons for that difference are notapparent.

FY2004 Appropriations for NOAA. Of the $3.77 billion enacted for NOAA, $2.69 billion is provided for ORF, $990.1 million for PAC, and$90.0 million for "Other Accounts," which include the Pacific Coastal SalmonRecovery Fund (PCSRF) and NOAA Fisheries-related legal and financing accounts. (See table .) For FY2004, NOAA's five line offices collectively would transfer $4.3million to the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) under ProgramSupport, for fleet planning and maintenance activities. Enacted appropriations do notinclude $3 million for the Coastal Zone Management Fund (CZMF), additionalbudget authority which had been transferred to ORF in previous years.

Prior to enactment of FY2004 appropriations, the conference committee on H.R. 2673 had recommended budget instructions for NOAA in its committeereport ( H.Rept. 108-401 ). For example, it directed that $1.2 million be transferredfrom NOAA Fisheries (ORF) to the Marine Mammal Commission as compensationfor "salaries and expenses." The committee also recommended rescinding $2.5million from National Ocean Service (NOS) PAC funding for construction in theNational Estuarine Research Reserves System. Even so, conferees recommended$88.7 million more than the President had requested for NOS PAC, overall. Also,they recommended that no FY2004 funding be spent on the President's e-Govinitiative.

Under "General Provisions" Division B, Title II, ï¿½212, conferees recommended an additional $6.1 million for NOS PAC to fund seven specified constructionprojects. In ï¿½208, additional spending authority of $17 million (from PDAF) wasappropriated for regional fisheries products development programs. Section ï¿½215directed that $100 million be rescinded from all unobligated balances for FY2003,except for certain identified programs.

Other budget direction about NOAA Alaska fisheries management is found in Title VIII of H.R. 2673, "Alaskan Fisheries." Title VIII authorizesimplementation by a prior regulation a Bering Sea and Aleutian Crab buybackprogram and other fishery management-related activities authorized by the MagnusonFisheries Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq). NOAA Fisheries would make available $1.0million annually for the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to implement theprogram.

Some $5.5 million was enacted for the "NOAA Weather Radio-All Hazard National Warning Network," the same as requested by the President for FY2004, andas passed by the House. The Senate Appropriations Committee did not recommendfunding for this initiative. (An expanded review of NOAA's FY2004 budget andappropriations will be available in an upcoming CRS report.)

Departmental Management. The President's FY2004 budget request called for $80.57 million for DepartmentalManagement. This would have been about $15.4 million above the FY2003appropriation, a 23.6% increase. The House Appropriations Committeerecommended $66.66 million, an amount nearly $14 million below theAdministration's request, but roughly $1.5 million above the FY2003 level. TheHouse bill, which was passed on July 23, 2003, approved this funding level. TheSenate Appropriations Committee recommended $65.78 million. The enactedFY2004 Departmental Management budget was roughly $68.4 million, $12.2 millionless than the Administration requested.

The Office of Inspector General (IG) within the Commerce Department is funded through the Departmental Management account. The Administrationrequested $23.38 million for the IG, which was roughly $2.88 (14%) above theFY2003 amount. The House bill approved $22 million for the IG, which was $1.38million below the requested level. The Senate Appropriations Committeerecommended $21.12 million. The enacted FY2004 budget for the Inspector GeneralOffice was $21.116 million.

Table 6. FY2004 Funding for the Department of Commerce and RelatedAgencies ($ millions in budget authority)

Source: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations.

a. The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is fully funded by user fees. The fees collected, but not obligated during the current year, are available for obligation in the following fiscal year, and do not count toward theappropriation totals. Only newly appropriated funds count toward the annual appropriation totals.

Related Legislation

H.R. 2535 (LaTourette)

Economic Development Administration Reauthorization Act of 2003. This billreauthorizes and seeks to improve the programs authorized by the Public Works andEconomic Development Act of 1965. H.R. 2535 was introduced on June19, 2003, and referred to the House Committees on Transportation and Infrastructureand Financial Services. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approvedthe bill on June 25, 2003.

H.R. 1561 (L. Smith)

United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2003. This billwould amend federal patent law to lower patent filing and basic national fees;increase excess claims, disclaimer, appeal, extension, revival, and maintenance fees;and add new application examination, patent search, and patent issuance fees. Itwould also prescribe fees under the Trademark Act of 1946 for electronic and paperapplications for trademark registration. H.R. 1561 was referred to theHouse Committee on The Judiciary on April 3, 2003. On May 22, 2003, theSubcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property approved the bill andforwarded it to the full committee.

Related CRS Products

CRS Report RL31438(pdf) , Patent Administration: Current Issues and Possibilities for Reform , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report 95-36 , The Advanced Technology Program , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL31680, Homeland Security: Standards for State and Local Preparedness , by Ben Canada.

CRS Report 97-104 , Manufacturing Extension Partnership: An Overview , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report 95-30 , The National Institute of Standards and Technology: An Overview , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RS21460(pdf) , The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): A Brief Review of FY2003 Appropriations and the FY2004 Budget , by[author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RS20906(pdf) , U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Appropriations Process: A Brief Explanation , by [author name scrubbed].

The Judiciary

Background

Typically, Title III of the CJS appropriation covers funding for the Judiciary. By statute (31 U.S.C. 1105 (b)) the judicial branch's budget is accorded protectionfrom presidential alteration. Thus, when the President transmits a proposed federalbudget to Congress, he must forward the judicial branch's proposed budget toCongress unchanged. That process has been in operation since 1939. The totalappropriation for the Judiciary in FY2003, including supplemental appropriations,was $4.92 billion.

The Judiciary budget consists of more than 10 separate accounts. Two of these accounts fund the Supreme Court of the United States, one covering the Court'ssalary and operational expenses and the other covering expenditures for the care ofits building and grounds. Traditionally, in a practice dating back to the 1920s, oneor more of the Court's Justices appear before either a House or Senate appropriationssubcommittee to address the budget requirements of the Supreme Court for theupcoming fiscal year, focusing primarily on the Court's salary and operationalexpenses. Subsequent to their testimony, the Architect of the Capitol submits arequest for the Court's building and grounds account. Although it is at the apex ofthe federal judicial system, the Supreme Court represents only a very small share ofthe Judiciary's overall funding. For FY2003, the total appropriations enacted for theSupreme Court's two accounts, $88.3 million, were 1.8 % of the Judiciary's overallappropriation of $4.92 billion.

The rest of the Judiciary's budget provides funding for the "lower" federal courts and for related judicial services. Among the lower court accounts, one dwarfsall others-- the Salaries and Expenses account for the U.S. Courts of Appeals andDistrict Courts. The account, however, covers not only the salaries of circuit anddistrict judges (including judges of the territorial courts of the United States), but alsothose of retired justices and judges, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, bankruptcy andmagistrate judges, and all other officers and employees of the federal Judiciary notspecifically provided for by other accounts.

Other accounts for the lower courts include Defender Services (for compensation and reimbursement of expenses of attorneys appointed to representcriminal defendants), Fees of Jurors, the U.S. Court of International Trade, theAdministrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Federal Judicial Center (which, throughresearch and continuing education programs for judges and judicial personnel, seeksto further improvements in judicial administration), and the U.S. SentencingCommission (an independent commission in the judicial branch, which establishessentencing policies and practices for the courts).

The annual Judiciary budget request for the courts is presented to the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees after being reviewed and cleared by the JudicialConference, the federal court system's governing body. These presentations, typicallymade by the chairman of the conference's budget committee, are separate fromsubcommittee appearances a Justice makes on behalf of the Supreme Court's budgetrequest.

The Judiciary budget does not appropriate funds for three "special courts" in the U.S. court system: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (funded in theDepartment of Defense appropriations bill), the U.S. Tax Court (funded in theTreasury, Postal Service appropriations bill), and the U.S. Court of Appeals forVeterans Claims (funded in the Department of Veteran Affairs and Housing andUrban Development appropriations bill). Construction of federal courthouses alsois not funded within the Judiciary's budget. The legislative vehicle for fundingfederal courthouse construction is the Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill.

The Judiciary's FY2004 Request

For FY2004, the Judiciary requested $5.43 billion in total funding, a 10.3% increase over $4.92 billion enacted for FY2003. The Judiciary requested increasesover FY2003 levels for all of its budget accounts except for two-- the SupremeCourt's Building and Grounds account ($4.7 million requested for FY2004,compared with $41.4 million appropriated for FY2003), and Fees of Jurors andCommissioners ($53.2 million requested for FY2004, compared with $57.1 millionin FY2003). More than three quarters of the requested amount, $4.19 billion(compared with $3.79 billion for FY2003), was sought for the Judiciary's largestaccount, Salaries and Expenses for the Courts of Appeals, District Courts and OtherJudicial Services, which funds most lower court operations (hereafter referred to asthe Salaries and Expenses account).

At March 27, 2003, hearings before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on CJS, a Judiciary spokesman said that nearly two-thirds of the requested increasewas required to maintain current operations with pay and benefit adjustments,inflationary adjustments, increases in General Services Administration space rentalcosts, an increase in filled Article III judgeships, and continued security measures. The remaining one-third, he said, was primarily to provide for programmatic andworkload- related needs such as high-profile terrorist trials, an unprecedented numberof bankruptcy filings, and significant increases in the workload for probation andpretrial services officers.

In October 2003, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote to the chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees asking for a higher total appropriationfor the Judiciary than provided for in the CJS appropriations bills pending in theHouse and Senate. His letter focused on the Judiciary's Salaries and Expensesaccount, which, as noted above, received $3.79 billion in direct appropriations inFY2003. For FY2004, the House-passed CJS bill appropriated $4.0 billion for thisaccount, while the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $3.89 billion.

The Chief Justice stated that, if enacted, the amount provided for FY2004 in theSenate-reported bill could have a "significant, adverse impact on our judicialsystem." The courts, he said, likely would be "forced to reduce Probation/PretrialServices and Clerks Offices personnel by an estimated 2,900, or 13 percent belowcurrent, on-board staffing levels." As for the Housed-passed funding level, he saidstaffing reductions might not require future lay-offs or furloughs; nonetheless, "theend result will still be fewer court staff available to handle the historic growth inbankruptcy filings, the continuing increase in criminal cases and higher levels ofreleased felons under supervised release." With an "understanding" that Congresswas likely "not in a position to provide for our full request," the Chief Justice "respectfully requested" an appropriations for the Salaries and Expenses account of$4.06 billion. This, he said, represented a 7.3% increase over FY2003 funding, andwas the amount "we believe is necessary to fund our mandatory expenses and allowthe courts to continue to operate at FY2003 staffing levels."

Subsequently, on January 23, 2004, an FY2004 budget for the Judiciary was signed into law by President Bush as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act forFY2004 ( P.L. 108-199 ). (House-Senate conferees had reached agreement on the Acton November 2, 2003, and the Act was agreed to by the House on December 8, 2003. Although the Senate declined to act on the bill before the final adjournment of theFirst Session of the 108th Congress, it later agreed to the conference report onJanuary 22, 2004, by a 65-28 roll call vote.)

P.L. 108-199 provides total budget authority for the Judiciary of $5.17 billion, 5.0% over FY2003 funding (including supplemental appropriations for FY2003). For the Salaries and Expenses account, the Act appropriates $3.99 billion, 5.4%above FY2003 funding. However, the Act also includes two rescissions, resultingin a 1.055% reduction in the discretionary spending appropriated for each Judiciarybudget account.

In December 2003, in anticipation of the enactment of the FY2004 consolidated appropriations bill, the Judiciary prepared a final financial plan for FY2004. Theplan, according to Judiciary officials, left many court units with no alternative butto cut staffing and curtail services. Formulated by the Executive Committee of theJudicial Conference, the plan was based upon a 4.7% increase over FY2003 fundingfor the Salaries and Expenses account, and on a 5.0% increase over FY2003 fundingfor the federal Judiciary as a whole. These percentage increases, the Judiciary noted, reflected the two across-the-board rescissions affecting the Judiciary which wereincluded in the Consolidated Appropriations Act. In a "Budget Facts and Figures"synopsis on its internet web site (at http://www.uscourts.gov ), the Judiciarysaid thatthe 4.7% increase provided $4 billion for the Salaries and Expenses account, which,the Judiciary said, was $129 million below the amount needed to maintain courtstaffing levels. Also, it said, funding to make payments to private "panel attorneys"representing indigent defendants in federal criminal cases (appropriated in the Judiciary's Defender Services account), was inadequate and would run out threeweeks before the end of FY2004.

On January 1, 2004, in his 2003 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary , Chief Justice Rehnquist commented that the FY2004 budget process for the Judiciaryhad been "a difficult one." The delay in Congress in enacting an appropriations bill,he said, had "disrupted the Judiciary and forced it to operate at inadequate levels offunding under continuing resolutions." Also, he said, many courts, in the remainderof FY2004, might face hiring freezes, furloughs, or reductions in force. The ChiefJustice expressed his hope that Congress would soon pass a FY2004 appropriationfor the Judiciary and that, in future years, the Judiciary's budget would be enactedprior to the beginning of the fiscal year. ( 2003 Year-End Report available athttp://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/jan04ttb/)

FY2004 Funding Issues

Supreme Court. The budget request of the Supreme Court for FY2004, as customary, was in two parts. For theCourt's first account, Salaries and Expenses, the Judiciary had requested $57.5million-- 22.3% over FY2003 budget authority of $47.0 million. (Of the $4.2million requested over base adjustments, most was related to technologicalimprovements in automation and security. The request also included $675,000 tofund the hiring of 13 additional police officers. Subsequently, funding for additionalpolice officers was approved by Congress in the Emergency Wartime SupplementalAppropriations Act, Pub.L.108-11, enacted Apr.16, 2003.)

The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004 ( P.L.108-199 ) includes, asprovided by the earlier House-passed CJS bill, $55.4 million for the Court's Salariesand Expenses account, a 17.8% increase over FY2003 funding, instead of $59.4million as recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Conferees for theconsolidated bill said that, as described in the Senate Appropriations Committeereport ( S. Rept. 108-144 , at p. 116), the Court was expected to report to the twoAppropriation Committees on the savings associated with hiring systems accountantsto replace contractors. The conferees also adopted by reference House reportlanguage ( H. Rept. 108-221 , at p. 114), which had expressed concerns about minorityhiring and diversity among law clerks at the Supreme Court and urged the Court andthe Judicial Conference "to continue to make progress in this matter."

For the Court's second account, Care of the Building and Grounds, $16.8million was initially requested by the Court. This amount included the President'soriginal request of $4.7 million (for traditional building and grounds operations andnew capital projects) and a "budget amendment" (the phrase used by the Judiciary inits FY2004 budget submission) of $12.2 million for continuation of the SupremeCourt building modernization program. From FY1998 through FY2003, Congressappropriated a total of $110.1 million for the multi-year Supreme Courtmodernization project, the first major renovation of the Court building since itsopening in 1935. The $12.2 million originally requested for the project in FY2004have brought the total for the modernization project up to its final projected cost of$122.3 million. However, the Court subsequently reduced its FY2004 request for themodernization project from $12.2 million to $6 million to reflect the funding amountactually expected to be obligated during FY2004. The target date for completion ofthe project is the summer of 2008.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004 includes $26.4 million for the Building and Grounds account. The $26.4 million consists of an appropriationof $10.6 million within the Judiciary title of the Act, a transfer to this account of$16.0 million from Division H., Section 106 of the Act, and an FY2004 rescissionof $206,000. The $10.6 million appropriation is in keeping with that appropriatedin the House-passed CJS bill, H.R. 2799. (The $10.6 million appropriation isalmost equal to the sum of $4.7 million recommended by the President for traditionalbuilding and grounds operations and new capital projects and the $6 million mostrecently requested by the Court for its building modernization project.) The SenateAppropriations Committee had recommended $4.7 million for this account. Conferees for the consolidated bill also adopted by reference House report languageon H.R. 2799 which directed the Court and the Architect of the Capitol tosubmit, within 90 days of enactment of the bill, a study of the feasibility ofestablishing a "visitor screening site" outside the Supreme Court building. ( H. Rept.108-221 , at p. 115)

Defender Services. This account funds the operations of the federal public defender and community defenderorganizations, and the compensation, reimbursement, and expenses of privatepractice "panel attorneys" appointed by the courts to serve as defense counsel toindigent individuals accused of federal crimes. The Judiciary requested $635.5million in FY2004 funding for this account, 15.1% above the $552.2 million enactedfor FY2003 (including supplemental appropriations). The ConsolidatedAppropriations Act for FY2004 provides $604.5 million for Defender Services, a9.5% increase over FY2003. The amount of $604.5 million is exactly halfwaybetween $613.9 million for this account in the House-passed CJS bill, H.R.2799, and $595.0 million recommended by the Senate AppropriationsCommittee.

The requested amount included $2.6 million for an increase in the hourly pay rate for panel attorneys in "capital cases"--cases where the Department of Justice isseeking to impose the death penalty. The funding would have increased themaximum hourly pay rate in such cases from $125 to $157 effective on April 1,2004. (The $125 maximum hourly rate of compensation in capital cases has been inplace essentially since 1989, and subsequently was statutorily set as the maximumby the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, P.L. 104-132 .) Therequest also included $10.4 million for an increase in the hourly pay rate for panelattorneys in non-capital cases from $90 to $113, also effective on April 1, 2004. (The $90 hourly rate was implemented on May 1, 2002.)

The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004, however, does not provide for any increases in panel attorney hourly pay rates. Instead, conferees for the Actadopted by reference House and Senate report language, discussed below, concerningbudget requests for panel attorney pay rate increases. The conferrees stated that theyexpect the Judiciary to address these concerns before requesting pay increases abovethe rate of inflation.

The earlier-passed House CJS bill, H.R. 2799, had included funding for an inflationary increase in the non-capital panel attorney rate from $90 to $92 perhour and in the capital panel attorney rate from $125 to $128 per hour, effective April1, 2004. However, the House Appropriations Committee in its report ( H. Rept.108-221 , at p. 117) explicitly rejected the Judiciary's request for a pay raise innon-capital panel attorney rates to $113 per hour. The House committee said itexpected the Judiciary to document the impact of a $45 million increase provided toDefender Services in FY2002 and FY2003 on the Judiciary's ability to attract andretain adequate panel attorney representations. Further the committee questionedwhy the Judiciary "continues to propose a single hourly rate to be implementednationally," when, the committee said, it understood that there "continue to bedisparities throughout the country in the costs to attract and retain counsel."

For its part, the Senate Appropriations Committee declined to recommend any increase in either panel attorney rate. In its report ( S. Rept. 108-144 , at p. 120), thecommittee noted that it had provided for a significant increase in panel attorneyhourly rates in FY2002 The committee said it had not seen any empirical evidencefrom the Judiciary to support the latter's request for an additional increase in thehourly rate from $90 to $113 for non-capital cases and from $125 to $157 for capitalcases. The committee asked that, in future budget submissions, the Judiciary includesuch data as an accompaniment to its request, and it urged the Administrative Officeof the U.S. Courts to "survey appropriate judges and report as soon as practical to theCommittee statistical data supporting the issues as reported by the judges."

Court Security. The Judiciary requested $311.2 million for this account, a 16.7% increase over $267.7 millionenacted for FY2003. Court Security, conferees for the FY2003 bill (in H.Rept.108-10 ) had noted, "is a unique account appropriated to the Judiciary but primarilymanaged by the Department of Justice." The FY2003 conferees said they expectedthe Director of the U.S. Marshals Service "to provide the same level of budgetary andprogram oversight to this program as programs appropriated directly to the U.S.Marshals Service." The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004 includes$277.5 million for Court Security, a 4.1% increase over FY2003 funding, and anamount halfway between $288.9 million passed earlier by the House in its CJS bill, H.R. 2799, and $266.1 million recommended by the Senate AppropriationsCommittee.

Testifying before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary on March 27, 2003, a Judiciary spokesman referred tothe 106 supervisory deputy marshal positions, approved by Congress in FY2002 andtransferred to the Department of Justice in FY2003, as a "linchpin to effectivesecurity of our courthouses," and he asked for Congress's support to "ensure that theywill continue to be dedicated to courthouse security."

In response, the House Appropriations Committee, in its report ( H. Rept. 108-221 , at p. 117), noted that its recommendation, under the U.S. Marshals Service(USMS) account in Title I of the CJS bill, provided funding for the 106 supervisorydeputy marshal positions. However, the committee said it remained concerned aboutthe administration of court security by the USMS and the Administrative Office ofthe U.S. Courts. The committee noted that the Statement of Managers accompanyingthe FY2003 CJS Act had directed that future budget requests "clearly display thelevel and types of court security equipment and systems requested compared with thecurrent year." This information, the committee said, "was not provided in the fiscalyear 2004 budget justifications nor was it provided in a timely manner after thesubmission of the budget request." Likewise, the Senate Appropriations Committeein its report ( S. Rept. 108-144 , at p. 121) noted that it had "not received the study onthe management of this program and the unique relationship between the U.S.Marshals Service and the Federal Judiciary as requested last year."

Most recently, conferees for the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004 expressed their concern about "the delay in submitting the management study theUnited States Marshals Service was directed to conduct in fiscal year 2003." Theconferees said they hope this study "will provide recommendations to improve theadministration of this program by the USMS and the Judiciary."

In evident response to the Judiciary's court security concerns expressed at the March 27, 2003 hearings (discussed above), the Consolidated Appropriations Actprovides $10.7 million in funding for the U.S. Marshals Service "for 100 newpositions to address shortfalls in the protection of the judicial process." Thepositions, the conferees stated, "are to be allocated to those [judicial] districts withthe highest priority needs." ( H. Rept. 108-401 , at p. 522) The conference agreementalso provides $13.4 million to the Marshals Service "for courthouse securityequipment to be allocated to the USMS's highest priority needs."

Pay Increases for Judges and Justices. The Judiciary's FY2004 request included $4.0 million fora 2.0% cost-of-living increase adjustment for judges and justices, effective January2004. In February 2003, judges received a 3.1% cost-of-living increase in theirsalaries, retroactive to January 1, 2003. The FY2003 adjustment followed otherupward adjustments in judges' and justices' salaries, which Congress approved infiscal years 2002, 2001, 2000, 1998, and 1993. Congress, however, declined toauthorize such adjustments for FY1999 or for fiscal years 1994 through 1997.

The congressional reaction to the Judiciary's request for a FY2004 cost-of-living salary adjustment at first was mixed, but ultimately was favorable. In January 2004,upon enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004, salaries offederal judges and justices increased by 2.2%.

Earlier, the House-passed FY2004 CJS bill ( H.R. 2799 ) did not include funding for a pay adjustment. The Senate Appropriations Committee,however, recommended both a cost-of-living and a 16.5% salary increase for federaljudges. The Senate-reported bill, S. 1585, appropriated $36.0 million tofund the 16.5% salary hike, while the Senate Appropriations Committee in its report(S. 108-144, at p. 197) anticipated that $4.0 million would be required tofund the cost-of-living increase.

On May 7, 2003, in a related legislative development, separate from the appropriations process, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, chair of the Senate JudiciaryCommittee, introduced legislation, S. 1023 , to provide for a 16.5% payincrease to federal judges. On May 9, President George W. Bush announced hissupport for S. 1023, and on June 18, 2003, the bill was reported favorablyby the Senate Judiciary Committee to the full Senate, to await consideration by thatchamber. A companion bill in the House, H.R. 2118, was introduced byRepresentative Henry J. Hyde on May 15, 2003 and then referred to the HouseJudiciary Committee, to await committee consideration.

In November 2003, both Houses of Congress approved H.R. 3349 , a bill authorizing a cost-of-living salary adjustment for federal justices and judgesfor FY2004. On December 6, 2003, President George W. Bush signed the bill intolaw ( P.L. 108-167 ). Under federal law (specifically, P.L. 97-92 , Sec. 140), a newcongressional authorization is required before federal judges and justices may receivea so-called automatic pay adjustment under the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, and enactment of P.L. 108-167 met this authorization requirement for purposes of anFY2004 judicial cost-of-living increase. Upon enactment of the ConsolidatedAppropriations Act for FY2004, which adjusted the pay of federal General Scheduleemployees upward by 4.1%, retroactive to January 11, 2004, salaries of federaljudges and justices also were increased retroactively, by 2.2%.

The Judiciary's FY2004 request came on the heels of the 2002 Year-End Reporton the Federal Judiciary of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. In that report, theChief Justice maintained that more than a cost-of-living adjustment was needed inthe way of a judicial salary increase. "We cannot continue to use an arrangement forsetting pay," the Chief Justice declared, "that simply ignores the need to raise payuntil judicial and other high-level government salaries are so skewed that a large (andpolitically unpopular) increase is necessary." The Chief Justice explained, that "I amnot suggesting that we match the pay of the private sector-- but the large andgrowing disparity must be decreased if we hope to continue to provide our nation acapable and effective federal judicial system."

In his 2003 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary , released on January 1, 2004, Chief Justice Rehnquist commented that Congress had "failed this year to raisejudicial salaries significantly." Nevertheless, he thanked all of those who "workedso hard during the last year to get Congress to increase the pay of judges beyond amodest cost-of-living adjustment." The Chief Justice added, "We came remarkablyclose, but will have to continue the effort in 2004."

Table 7. FY2004 Funding for the Judiciary (all amounts in millions)

Source: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations.

Note:

a. In addition to $10.6. million appropriated to this account within the Judiciary title of theFY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 108-199 ), $16.0 million was transferredto this account from Division H, Section 106 of the Act..

Related Legislation

P.L. 108-167 /H.R.3349 (Sensenbrenner)

To authorize salary adjustments for justices and judges of the United States forfiscal year 2004. Authorizes salary adjustments for U.S. justices and judges for FY2004 concurrently with increases in the General Schedule of compensation forfederal employees. Introduced in House on Oct. 20, 2003. Passed House by voicevote, Nov. 5, 2003. Agreed to by Senate, by unanimous consent, on Nov. 21, 2003. Signed by President into law, Dec. 6, 2003.

S. 1023 (Hatch)

A bill to increase the annual salaries of justices and judges of the United States. Provides for a 16.5% pay increase to federal justices and judges. Introduced May7, 2003. Reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 18, 2003,without written report.

H.R. 2118 (Hyde)

Companion bill to S. 1023. Introduced and referred to HouseJudiciary Committee on May 15, 2003. Referred to Subcommittee on Courts, theInternet, and Intellectual Property on June 25, 2003.

Related CRS Products

CRS Report 98-527 , Federal Courthouse Construction, by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RS21689 , Federal Pay-- Status of January 2004 Adjustments: A Fact Sheet , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RS20278, Judicial Salary-Setting Policy , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report 98-53GOV, Salaries of Federal Officials: A Fact Sheet , by [author name scrubbed].

State and International Broadcasting

Background

The State Department, established July 27, 1789 (1 Stat.28; 22 U.S.C. 2651), has a mission to advance and protect the worldwide interests of the United States andits citizens. Currently, the State Department supports the activities of more than 50U.S. agencies and organizations operating at 257 posts in 180 countries. As coveredin Title IV, the State Department funding categories include administration of foreignaffairs , international operations , international commissions , and relatedappropriations . The enacted FY2003 appropriation for Title IV was $7.645 billion. Typically, more than half of State's budget is for Administration of Foreign Affairs(about 78% in FY2003), which consists of salaries and expenses, diplomatic security,diplomatic and consular programs, technology, and security/maintenance of overseasbuildings.

The Foreign Relations Authorization for FY1998-1999 ( P.L. 105-277 ) provided for the consolidation of the foreign policy agencies. As of the end of FY1999, theArms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) and the United States InformationAgency (USIA) were abolished, and their budgets and functions were merged intothe Department of State.

Security issues have remained a top priority since the August 7, 1998 terrorist attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa. An immediate response was a $1.56 billionsupplemental enacted by the end of that year. In November 1999, the OverseasPresence Advisory Panel reported its findings on embassy security needs andrecommendations. Also in November 1999, Congress authorized ( P.L. 106-113 )$900 million annually for FY2000 through FY2004 for embassy security spendingwithin the embassy security, construction and maintenance (ESCM) account, inaddition to worldwide security funds in the diplomatic and consular programs (D&CP) account.

After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, Congress passed emergency supplemental funds ( P.L. 107-38 and P.L. 107-117 ) which included a total of $254.9million for counter-terrorist and emergency response activities within the Departmentof State and $47.9 million for international broadcasting. In addition, Congresspassed an FY2002 supplemental ( H.R. 4775 ; H.Rept. 107-593 ) whichprovided $303 million for the Department of State and $15.1 million for internationalbroadcasting. (For an account-by-account presentation, see CRS Report RL31370 , State Department and Related Agencies: FY2003 Appropriations .)

The United States contributes in two ways to the United Nations and other international organizations: (1) voluntary payments funded in the Foreign OperationsAppropriations bill and (2) assessed contributions included in the Commerce, Justice,and State Appropriations measure. Assessed contributions are provided in twoaccounts, international peacekeeping (CIPA) and contributions to internationalorganizations (CIO). Following a period of dramatic growth in the number andcosts of U.N. peacekeeping missions during the early 1990s, a trend that peaked inFY1994 with a $1.1 billion appropriation, funding requirements have declined inrecent years. The FY2000 enacted appropriation for CIO was $885 million, $500million for international peacekeeping, and $351 million for U.S. arrearage paymentsto the U.N. if certain reform criteria were met. Only $100 million of the appropriatedarrearage payments had been released because the reforms had not beenimplemented. After the United States lost its seat on the U.N. Human RightsCommission in 2001, the Foreign Relations Authorization bill added a provision(Sec. 601, H.R. 1646 ) that would have restricted payment of $244million of U.S. arrearage payments to the U.N. until the United States regained itsseat. After the September 11th attacks, however, Congress passed S. 248 ( P.L. 107-46 ) which authorized arrearage payments to the U.N. (For more detail, seeCRS Issue Brief IB86116, U.N. System Funding: Congressional Issues , by [author name scrubbed]). The FY2002 funding level included $850 million for CIO and $844.1 million forCIPA, while FY2003 enacted levels amounted to $866 million for CIO and $673.7million for CIPA.

International broadcasting , which had been a primary function of the USIA prior to 1999, is now carried out by an independent agency referred to as theBroadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). The BBG includes the Voice of America(VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Cuba Broadcasting, Radio FreeAsia (RFA), Radio Free Iraq, Radio Free Iran and the newly-authorized Radio FreeAfghanistan. The BBG's FY2003 appropriation was $553.8 million. In FY2002 theBBG began a pilot project to create a new Middle East Radio Network (MERN) byreallocating base funds. The emergency supplementals passed in 2001 and 2002included funding for expanded broadcasting by VOA and RFE/RL to Muslimaudiences in and around Afghanistan and the creation of Radio Free Afghanistan.

FY2004 Funding Issues

The Administration of Foreign Affairs. The administration of foreign affairs makes up the bulk ofthe State Department budget-- 80% in the FY2004 request. The Administrationrequested $6,387.9 million for FY2004, 6.7% above the FY2003 level. This moneywould have funded Diplomatic & Consular Programs (D&CP), Embassy Security,Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM), Worldwide Security Upgrades in bothD&CP and ESCM, Educational and Cultural Exchanges, and the Capital InvestmentFund (CIF). The House Appropriations Committee recommended $6,186.4 million,about $200 million below the President's request. The House passed this amount in H.R. 2799 on July 23, 2003. The Senate Appropriations Committeeintroduced and reported it's bill ( S. 1585 ) out of committee onSeptember 4, 2003 recommending $5,958.1 million for Administration of ForeignAffairs.

The enacted FY2004 funding in the Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 108-199 ) provides $6,104.8 million for the Administration of Foreign Affairs. Additionally, the Act contains two rescissions: one (.465%) in the general provisionsof CJS for all discretionary accounts within CJS, and another (.59%) in the generalprovisions of the omnibus bill to be applied across-the-board.

Diplomatic & Consular Programs (D&CP). D&CP primarily covers salaries and expenses, hiring, diplomatic expenditures, cost of livingand foreign inflation, as well as exchange rate changes. The FY2004 request of$4,163.5 million would have been an increase of 6.8% over the $3,895.8 millionfunding level in FY2003. The House Appropriations Committee recommended$4,099.9 million for D&CP's FY2004 funding level, including $646.7million forworldwide security upgrades. The House passed the bill with this level of funding.The Senate Committee recommended $3,874.8 million for D&CP, including $594.4million for worldwide security upgrades. The final enacted funding level is $4,106.7million for D&CP, including $301.6 million designated only for public diplomacyand $646.7 million for worldwide security upgrades. The conferees also encouragemore progress on "right-sizing" overseas posts.

Embassy, Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM). ESCM provides funding for embassy construction, repairs,leasing of property for embassies and housing facilities at overseas posts. TheFY2004 request of $653 million was virtually the same as the combined regular andsupplemental funding for FY2003. The House Appropriations Committeerecommended $532.9 million, about $120 million below the President's request forFY2004. The House passed this funding level. The Senate committee recommended$483.5 million-- $169.5 million below the current year estimate and theAdministration request for FY2004. The enacted appropriation provides $530million for regular ESCM-- similar to the House-passed level.

Worldwide Security Upgrades. Ever since the bombings of two U.S. embassies in eastern Africa in August 1998, Congress has appropriatedadditional money within both D&CP and ESCM for increasing security. The fundsin D&CP for worldwide security upgrades are primarily for ongoing expenses dueto the upgrades that took place after 1998, such as maintaining computer security,maintaining bullet-proof vehicles, ongoing salaries for perimeter guards, etc. Worldwide security upgrades in ESCM are more on the order of bricks andmortar-type expenses. The FY2004 request for upgrades within D&CP were $646.7million, approximately the same as the regular and supplemental funding providedin FY2003. The FY2004 request for worldwide security funding within ESCMamounted to $861.4 million, about a 4% decline from the FY2003 regular andsupplemental appropriation. The House level was identical to the President's request.The Senate committee recommended $594.4 million within the D&CP account and$933.1 million within the ESCM account-- $71.7 million higher than both theAdministration request and the House-passed level. The Consolidated AppropriationAct contains $861.4 million-- identical to the President's request and theHouse-passed level.

Educational and Cultural Exchanges. This line item includes programs such as the Fulbright, Muskie, and Humphrey academicexchanges, as well as the international visitor exchanges and some Freedom SupportAct programs. The Secretary of State has testified that he believes exchangeprograms are a crucial element in promoting American ideals and democracy abroad. The Administration's FY2004 request of $345.3 million included transferring $100million for Freedom Support Act (FSA) and Support for Eastern EuropeanDemocracy (SEED) programs from the U.S. Agency for International Development(USAID) budget (within the Foreign Operations appropriation) to the StateDepartment budget. With that in mind, the $245.3 million remaining in the FY2004funding request for exchanges represented a straight line request from theprevious-year's enacted level of $243.7 million. The House Committeerecommendation, which was passed by the House, was identical to the President'sFY2004 request. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation of $255.3million for this account did not include transferring $100 million from USAID. Theenacted level is $320.0 million for exchanges, including FSA and SEED exchanges.

Capital Investment Fund (CIF). CIF was established by the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of FY1994/95 ( P.L. 103-236 ) to provide forpurchasing information technology and capital equipment which would ensure theefficient management, coordination, operation, and utilization of State's resources. As recently as FY1997 the CIF budget was $24.6 million. The FY2004 request wasfor $157 million, a 13.7% decline from the FY2003 level of $182.1 million. TheAdministration stated that the requested level would be sufficient when combinedwith estimated Expedited Passport Fees of $114 million to be used for informationand communications technology in FY2004. The House Appropriations Committeerecommended $142 million-- slightly less than the President's request. The Housepassed the bill with this funding level. The Senate committee recommended $207million for CIF. Both House and Senate reports noted that $114 million will beavailable to CIF from expedited passport fee collections. The ConsolidatedAppropriations Act provides $80 million for CIF. Noted in the conference report is$40 million that is included in the D&CP account for technology referred to asOpenNet.

International Organizations and Conferences. The International Organizations and Conferencesaccount consists of two line items: U.S. Contributions to International Organizations(CIO) and U.S. Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA). TheFY2004 request was $1.6 billion for the overall account, up 2% over the FY2003level of $1.5 billion. The House Appropriations Committee recommendation wasidentical to the President's request. The House passed the committee-recommendedlevel. The Senate committee recommended $1.4 billion overall. The final enactedlevel is $1.465 billion.

Contributions to International Organizations (CIO). The CIO supports U.S. membership in numerous international and multilateralorganizations that transcends bilateral relationships and covers issues such as humanrights, environment, trade, and security. The FY2004 request level for this line itemwas $1.0 billion, 17.4% above the $860.4 level of FY2003. According to theAdministration, $71 million of the increase was for the U.S. rejoining UNESCO afterwithdrawing from it in 1984, and $61.4 million represented an increase in regularcontributions to the U.N. The House bill contained $1.0 billion for CIO, including$71 million for rejoining UNESCO. The Senate Appropriations Committeerecommended $928.9 million for CIO with no funding for either the U.N. HumanRights Commission or for membership in UNESCO. The Act provides $1.0 billion,the same as the House and the President's request.

Contributions to International Peacekeeping (CIPA). The United States supports multilateral peacekeeping efforts around the world throughpayment of its share of the U.N. assessed peacekeeping budget. The FY2003 enactedlevel for CIPA was $669.3 million. The President's FY2004 request of $550.2million was a 17.8% decline. The Administration explained that the request reflecteda lower U.N. peacekeeping assessment rate, as well as plans for downsizingpeacekeeping missions in Sierra Leone and East Timor. The House bill equaled theAdministration's request of $550.2 million. The Senate committee recommended$482.6 million. The FY2004 enacted level for CIPA is $454.8 million. In addition,CIPA received $245 million within the FY2004 emergency supplementalappropriation ( P.L. 108-106 ) signed Nov. 6, 2003.

International Commissions. The International Commissions account includes the U.S.-Mexico Boundary and WaterCommission, the International Fisheries Commissions, the International BoundaryCommission, the International Joint Commission, and the Border EnvironmentCooperation Commission. The FY2004 funding request of $71.7 million representedan increase of 25.5% over the $57.1 million enacted in FY2003. The increasereflected wage and price increases, as well as increased operation and maintenanceneeds in all commissions. The House Appropriations Committee recommended$57.1 million-20% below the President's request. The House passed the bill withcommittee-recommended level. The Senate Appropriations Committeerecommended $47.5 million. Congress passed $57.8 million for this StateDepartment account.

Related Appropriations. Related appropriations include those for The Asia Foundation, the National Endowment forDemocracy (NED), and East-West and North-South Centers. The AdministrationFY2004 request for related appropriations totaled $60.4 million. The House bill( H.R. 2799 ) level was $53.3 million. The Senate AppropriationsCommittee level was $62.9 million. The FY2004 enacted level is $78.8 million.

The Asia Foundation. The Asia Foundation is a private, nonprofit organization that supports efforts to strengthen democratic processes andinstitutions in Asia, open markets, and improve U.S.-Asian cooperation. It receivesboth government and private sector contributions. Government funds for theFoundation are appropriated, and pass through, the Department of State. TheFY2004 request of $9.3 million equaled the FY2002 funding level, but was 11%lower than the FY2003 enacted level of $10.4 million. The Bush Administration saidthat The Asia Foundation expects to increase its private sector contributions inFY2004. The House Appropriations Committee recommended, and the full Housepassed, $10.4 million --slightly more than the President's request. The Senatecommittee recommended no funding for the Asia Foundation for FY2004. TheFY2004 enacted funding is $13.0 million.

National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Established during the Reagan Administration, the National Endowment for Democracy is aprivate, nonprofit organization that supports programs to strengthen democraticinstitutions in more than 90 countries around the world. NED proponents assert thatmany of its accomplishments are possible because it is not a U.S. governmentagency. NED's critics claim that it duplicates government democracy promotionprograms and could be eliminated or operated entirely through private sector funding. The FY2004 request was $36 million, up from the FY2002 level of $33.5 million, buta 14% reduction over the FY2003 level of $41.7 million. The House AppropriationsCommittee recommended $42 million-- $6 million more than the President's requestfor FY2004. The House passed the bill with this level of funding. The Senatecommittee recommended $36 million. Congress enacted $40 million for NED inFY2004.

International Broadcasting. International Broadcasting, which had been a primary function of the U.S.Information Agency (USIA) prior to 1999, is now carried out by an independentagency referred to as the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). The BBGincludes the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL),Cuba Broadcasting, and Radio Free Asia (RFA). The BBG's FY2004 fundingrequest amounted to a total of $563.5 million, 5.6% above the FY2003 level of$553.8 million. The funding request included $525.2 million for broadcastingoperations, $11.4 million for capital improvements, and $26.9 million forBroadcasting to Cuba. In addition to the ongoing international broadcastingactivities, the Administration proposed the creation of a new U.S. Middle EastTelevision Network.

The House passed the same funding level as the request for international broadcasting. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported out its bill( S. 1585 , S.Rept. 108-144 ) with $557.6 million for broadcasting--$518.1 million for broadcasting operations, $28.1 million for Broadcasting to Cuba,and $11.9 million for capital improvements. The enacted level for FY2004 is $557.4million, with $11.4 million going to Capital Improvements and $546 million toBroadcasting Operations. The conferees expect that $1 million will go toward a pilotprogram on using Internet technologies to overcome broadcast jamming in China and$1.2 million for alternative means of transmission of information, including use ofthe Internet, in Cuba.

Table 8. FY2004 Funding for the Department of State and International Broadcasting ($$millions in budget authority)

Source: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations.

a. In addition to appropriations, State has authority to spend certain collected fees from machine readable visas, expedited export fees, etc. The amount for such fees forFY2002 is $516.9 million; for FY2003 the estimate is $623.3 million, and forFY2004-$687.467 million.

b. These numbers do not reflect either the .465% nor the .59% rescissions within theConsolidation Appropriations Act.

Related Legislation

H.R. 1950 (Hyde)/ S. 925 (Lugar)

Foreign Relations Authorization, FY2004 and FY2005. To authorizeappropriations for the Department of State for the fiscal years 2004 and 2005, toauthorize appropriations under the Arms Export Control Act and the ForeignAssistance Act of 1961 for security assistance for fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and forother purposes. H.R. 1950 introduced May 5, 2003, and reported ( H.Rept.108-105 part I) by the House International Relations Committee on May 16, 2003. H.Rept 108-105 , Part II filed June 12. House floor action occurred July 15, and 16. House passed by recorded vote (382-42) on July 16, 2003. S. 925introduced April 24, 2003, and reported ( S.Rept. 108-39 ) to the Senate on the sameday. Senate floor action occurred July 9th and 10th.

S. 1161 (Lugar)

Foreign Assistance Authorization, FY2004. To authorize appropriations forforeign assistance for FY2004. Introduced May 29, 2003, and reported ( S.Rept.108-56 ) to the Senate the same day.

Related CRS Products

CRS Report RL31986 , Foreign Relations Authorization, FY2004: State Department, The Millennium Challenge Account, and Foreign Assistance , by Susan B.Epstein.

CRS Report RL31370 , State Department and Related Agencies: FY2003 Appropriations and FY2004 Request , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Issue Brief IB86116, U.N. System Funding: Congressional Issues , by [author name scrubbed].

Independent Agencies

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC).

FY2004 Appropriations. According to the conference report ( H.Rept. 108-401 ) on the omnibus appropriations bill( H.R. 2673 ), the EEOC's appropriation for FY2004 is $328.4 million. (This is subject to a 0.59% across-the-board rescission.) The House previously hadapproved the same sum. The Senate had approved $6.3 million more ($334.7million) in accordance with the Administration's request.

The $328.4 million appropriation for FY2004 is almost $21.6 million more than the $306.8 million (including the across-the-board rescission) Congress approved forthe agency in P.L. 108-7 , the FY2003 appropriations law. Because of a fundingshortfall during the year, the Commission received an additional appropriation of $15million in the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY2003( P.L. 108-11 ). Accordingly, the omnibus bill's funding level for FY2004 is $6.6million above the total appropriated to the EEOC for the prior year.

While recognizing that the Commission has solicited the different perspectives of stakeholders about its proposed restructuring effort, the conferees expressedconcern that the restructuring could affect the agency's quality of service. Accordingly, it instructed the EEOC to keep the Committees on Appropriationsapprized of any organizational changes in accordance with reprogrammingrequirements. The conferees also urged the agency to continue its commendablemeasures aimed at cost saving and financial management discipline. The conferenceagreement includes, by reference, language in the House report instructing the EEOCto continue submitting quarterly reports on projected and actual spending and staffinglevels. It similarly adopts, by reference, language in the House report aboutAlternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR) programs, namely, encouragement of theEEOC to rely on the experience of Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs)with mediation as the Commission goes forward with its ADR programs in order toreduce the average processing time of charges. (FEPAs are state and local bodieswith which the agency has work-sharing agreements. Also included by reference tothe House report may be payment of $33.0 million to FEPAs; the Senate report wassilent on this matter.)

Of the $334.7 million in appropriations for the EEOC that the President requested for FY2004, $30.0 million would have been provided to FEPAs. Another$5 million of the total would have gone toward beginning implementation of a 5-yearrestructuring initiative based upon studies undertaken by the National Academy ofPublic Administration and by the agency's Inspector General.

Agency Overview. The EEOC enforces laws banning employment discrimination based on race, color, nationalorigin, sex, age, or disability. The Commission's workload has increaseddramatically since it was created under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Civil Rights Act of1991, as well as employees' growing awareness of their rights, have made it difficultfor the agency's budget and staffing resources to keep pace with its heightenedcaseload.

FY2003 Funding. The President's budget request of $323.5 million for the EEOC for FY2003 included $14.7 millionto fund the agency's full share of federal employee retirement costs as part of theAdministration's government-wide proposal. Without this expense, the FY2003budget request was $308.8 million.

The 108th Congress approved the smaller figure in P.L. 108-7 . After taking into account the across-the-board rescission, the FY2003 appropriation was $306.8million. This is $3.4 million less than the FY2002 appropriation of $310.2 million(including that year's rescission) and $16.7 million less than the Administration'sFY2003 budget request.

As a reflection of the importance Congress places on the work of FEPAs, it directed that $33.0 million of the Commission's FY2003 appropriation (rather thanthe $30.0 million in the Administration's proposal) be directed toward their funding. The higher allocation allowed for a contract rate of $500 per charge.

The conferees to the FY2003 CJS appropriations bill expressed concern about the lack of sound managerial and fiscal practices that led to the possibility of a budgetshortfall for the year and instructed the Commission to prevent this eventualitythrough savings in salary expenses and other operational costs. They further requiredthe EEOC to submit to the Appropriations Committees, within 60 days of the bill'senactment in February 2003, a financial plan including steps the Commission wouldtake to stay within its FY2003 appropriation level. As noted above, however,Congress approved an additional $15 million for the EEOC to avoid furloughs duringthe fiscal year. (The funds could be used to pursue employee buyouts.) Againexpressing concern about the agency's managerial and fiscal practices that allowedthis situation to develop, the conferees to the supplemental appropriations billrequired the EEOC to submit quarterly reports (including projected and actualspending and staffing levels) to the Appropriations Committees ( H.Rept. 108-76 ).

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Federal Communications Commission, created in 1934,is an independent agency charged with regulating interstate and foreign radio,television, wire, cable, and satellite communications. The FCC performs four majorfunctions: spectrum allocation, creating rules to promote fair competition and protectconsumers where required by market conditions, authorization of service, andenforcement. Among its responsibilities are licensing of communications operators;interpretation and enforcement of rules, regulations, and authorizations regardingcompetition; publication and dissemination of consumer information services; andmanagement and allocation of the use of the electromagnetic spectrum.

P.L. 108-199 includes $273,958,000 for the salaries and expenses of the FCC for FY 2004. Of the amounts provided, $272,958,000 will be derived from offsettingfee collections, resulting in a net direct appropriation of $1,000,000. The FCC isallocated up to $85,000,000 to administer the spectrum auctions program. Thefollowing additional provisions were also included:

Increases the broadcast-ownership cap for national audience reach from 35 to 39 percent. Originally, both the House and Senate bills includedamendments that would have restored the 35 percent broadcast ownership cap, whichwas increased to 45 percent by the FCC in June 2003. The 39 percent figure was acompromise with the White House, which promised to veto the Omnibus bill if thelimit was not raised.

Requires that the FCC expend for enforcement in FY2004 anamount equal to or greater than the amount expended for enforcement in FY2003. InFY2003, the FCC expended $66,170,000 on enforcement activities (excluding$1,776,000 associated with one time equipment purchases and the relocation of aremote facility in Alaska ).

References language included in the House and Senate reportsexpressing concern about the declining standards of broadcast television and theimpact that decline is having on America's children. More specifically, the FCC wasdirected to continue to report to Congress on issues associated with "resurrecting abroadcast industry code of conduct for programming content."

References language in he Senate report requiring audits of theUniversal Service Fund (USF) (including the E-Rate program) be drawn from USFfunds rather than Office of Inspector General funds.

References language expressing pleasure at the FCC'sdevelopment of wireless portability requirements.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC). For FY2004, the Administration requested a program level of $191 million for theFTC, an increase of $14 million over the FY2003 level. The requested program levelfor FY2004 was to have been fully funded by a $14 million direct appropriation andoffsetting collections from two sources: $159 million from fees forHart-Scott-Rodino premerger notification filings; and $18 million from feessufficient to implement and enforce new Do-Not-Call provisions of theTelemarketing Sales Rule. The House approved a program level of $183 million forthe FTC. The Senate recommended a program level of $189 million. Congressenacted $186 million for the FTC. Of the amounts provided, $112 million is frompremerger fees, $23.1 million is derived from Do-Not-Call fees, and $50.9 millionis a direct appropriation.

The FTC, an independent agency, is responsible for enforcing a number of federal antitrust and consumer protection laws. In recent years the FTC has usedpre-merger filing fees collected under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act to mostly or entirelyfund its operations. For FY2000 through FY2002, zero ($0) direct appropriationswere required. For FY2003, the President's budget requested $171.6 million for theagency, an increase of approximately $15.6 million more than the FTC received forFY2002. The conference agreement provided the FTC with an FY2003 programlevel of $176.6 million; with offsetting fee collections, the agency received a finaldirect appropriation of $8.5 million.

Legal Services Corporation (LSC). The LSC is a private, non-profit, federally-fundedcorporation that provides grants to local offices that, in turn, provide legal assistanceto low-income people in civil (non-criminal) cases. The LSC has been controversialsince its incorporation in the early 1970s, and has been operating without authorizinglegislation since 1980. There have been ongoing debates over the adequacy offunding for the agency, and the extent to which certain types of activities areappropriate for federally funded legal aid attorneys to undertake. In annualappropriations laws, Congress traditionally has included legislative provisionsrestricting the activities of LSC-funded grantees, such as prohibiting representationin certain types of cases or conducting any lobbying activities.

P.L. 108-7 , the consolidated appropriations for FY2003, among other things increased the LSC funding by $9.5 million to $338.8 million to offset decennialCensus funding reallocations. The additional $9.5 million is to provide supplementalfunding for states that were scheduled to receive less funding for FY2003 than thestate received in FY2002 because of the use of data from the 2000 Census whichshowed a shift in state poverty populations. The FY2003 appropriation for the LSCincluded $310 million for basic field programs and required independent audits ofthose programs, $13.3 million for management and administration, $3.4 million forclient self-help and information technology, and $2.6 million for the inspectorgeneral. The FY2003 appropriation also included prior provisions restricting theactivities of LSC grantees. The $338.8 million LSC appropriation for FY2003 issubject to the mandated 0.65% across-the-board government-wide rescission, whichreduced the LSC appropriation to $336.6 million for FY2003. Current funding stillremains below the Corporation's highest level of $400 million in FY1994 andFY1995.

For FY2004, the Bush Administration requested $329.3 million for the LSC. This is $7.3 million less than the $336.6 million (after the rescission) that wasappropriated for the LSC for FY2003. The FY2004 budget request for the LSCincludes $310 million for basic field programs and required independent audits,$14.5 million for management and administration, $2.2 million for client self-helpand information technology, and $2.6 million for the inspector general. The budgetrequest for the LSC also includes existing provisions restricting the activities of LSCgrantees.

On July 16, 2003, the House Appropriations Committee recommended a total of $338.8 million for the LSC for FY2004. This is $2.2 million above the FY2003appropriation for LSC (the same amount as the original FY2003 appropriation beforethe 0.65% rescission); and $9.5 million above the Bush Administration's FY2004budget request for the LSC. The FY2004 House Committee recommendation for theLSC includes $319.5 million for basic field programs and required independentaudits, $13.3 million for management and administration, $3.4 million for clientself-help and information technology, and $2.6 million for the inspector general. TheCommittee recommendation also includes existing provisions restricting theactivities of LSC grantees. The full House approved the CJS bill, H.R.2799, on July 23, 2003 with no changes to the Committee recommendationfor the LSC.

On September 5, 2003, the Senate Appropriations Committee also recommended $338.8 million for the LSC for FY2004 ( S.Rept. 108-144 ). TheSenate Committee recommendation for the LSC includes $312.3 million for basicfield programs and required independent audits, $13.9 million for management andadministration, $3.4 million for client self-help and information technology, $2.6million for the inspector general, and $6.7 million for grants to offset losses due tocensus adjustments. It also includes existing provisions restricting the activities ofLSC grantees.

On December 8, 2003, the House passed H.R. 2673, the conference report ( H.Rept. 108-401 ) on a consolidated appropriations bill. The conferenceagreement includes $338,848,000 for the LSC, as proposed in both the House andSenate bills. The conference report includes $317.5 million for basic field programsand required independent audits, $13.3 million for management and administration,$3.0 million for client self-help and information technology, $2.6 million for theinspector general, and $2.5 million in grants to offset losses stemming from therecent census-based reallocations. It also includes existing provisions restricting theactivities of LSC grantees. Moreover, H.R. 2673 authorizes a 0.59%across-the-board government-wide rescission and an additional 0.465% uniformrescission applicable only to funding for the Commerce, Justice, State, and RelatedAgencies appropriation (which includes the LSC), thereby lowering the FY2004 LSCappropriation to $335.3 million. The Senate passed H.R. 2673 on January22, 2004. H.R. 2673 was signed into law ( P.L. 108-199 ) on January 23,2004.

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC administers and enforces federal securities laws toprotect investors and maintain fair and orderly stock and bond markets. The SECcollects fees on various securities market transactions. During the stock marketboom of the 1990s, these collections exceeded the agency's budget by a wide margin. Legislation passed by the 107th Congress ( P.L. 107-123 ) reduced these fees, with theintention of limiting collections to approximately the amount of the SEC's budget.

For FY2003, the Administration requested $466.9 million for the SEC, an increase of 6.6% over FY2002. In the wake of Enron and other corporate accountingscandals, broad support emerged in Congress for a much larger increase in the SEC'sbudget. The Sarbanes-Oxley accounting reform legislation ( P.L. 107-204 ) authorizedFY2003 appropriations of $775.0 million. The 107th Congress SenateAppropriations Committee approved $750.5 million, 60% more than theAdministration requested. The conference approved $716.35 million.

For FY2004, the Administration requested $841.5 million for the SEC. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees each approved that amount.

Congress reduced the amount requested by the Administration and approved by both chambers by $30 million, to $811.5 million. The conference report cited theSEC's inability to fill all the positions funded by the previous year's appropriationas the reason for the reduction. P.L. 108-199 , the omnibus appropriations measure,approves the $811.5 million. Of the total, $691.5 million is to come from feecollections, and $120 million from prior year unobligated balances.

Small Business Administration (SBA). For FY2004, the Administration had requested a totalappropriation of $801 million for the SBA, an increase of $69 million or 9.4% overthe agency's FY2003 funding. The FY2004 request included $360 million forSalaries and Expenses (S&E), an increase of approximately $48 million or 13% morethan SBA received for FY2003. The House approved $745.6 million for the SBA,which would have been roughly a 1.9% increase over the FY2003 amount. TheHouse-approved version included $326.6 million for S&E, about $33.6 million belowthe Administration request. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended$751.7 million for the agency, including $332.4 million for S&E. Congressappropriated $718.3 million for FY2004, or $18.2 million less than SBA received forFY2003.

For FY2003, the President requested a total appropriation of $783 million for SBA, including $352 million for S&E. The conference agreement provides SBAwith a total appropriation of $736.5 million, including $314 million for S&E.

The SBA is an independent federal agency created by the Small Business Act of 1953. Although the agency administers a number of programs intended to assistsmall firms, arguably its three most important functions are to guarantee--principally through the agency's Section 7(a) general business loan program--business loans made by banks and other financial institutions; to make long-term,low-interest loans to small businesses that are victims of hurricanes, earthquakes,other physical disasters, and acts of terrorism; and to serve as an advocate for smallbusiness within the federal government.

State Justice Institute (SJI). The institute is a private, nonprofit corporation that makes grants to state courts andconducts activities to further the development of judicial administration in statecourts throughout the United States. Under the terms of its enabling legislation, SJIis authorized to present its request directly to Congress, apart from the President'sbudget. For FY2004, the SJI requested $8 million, compared with $3 millionappropriated to it for FY2003. For its part, the President's FY2004 budget proposednothing for SJI. Subsequently, the House, in passing its FY2004 CJS appropriationsbill, provided $3 million for SJI. The Senate Appropriations Committeerecommended a $5 million appropriation. However, in its report, the Senatecommittee (at S. Rept. 108-144 , p. 178) earmarked all of the $5 million for specifiedstate projects, reserving no funds for salaries of SJI staff or for discretionary grantsby the Institute. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004 ( P.L. 108-199 ),signed into law by the President on January 23, 2004, provides $2.25 million for theInstitute, with none of the funding earmarked.

In the FY2002 annual appropriations cycle, Congress had scaled back the Institute's funding significantly, approving $3.0 million, instead of $6.835 millionand $6.2 million approved earlier by the House and Senate respectively. The actionto reduce SJI funding occurred at the conference committee stage. In their report, theFY2002 conferees stated that the $3.0 million appropriated for the SJI was "availablefor fiscal year 2002 only" and that the conferees did not recommend continuedfederal support for the institute beyond FY2002. "The termination of funding for thisprogram," the report explained, "does not necessarily mean the dissolution of theInstitute." The conferees encouraged the institute to solicit private donations andresources from state and local agencies. Conferees for the FY2003 omnibus fundingbill, however, noted (in H.Rept. 108-10 ) that SJI had "not been successful in itsefforts to obtain non-Federal funds"; the conferees, therefore, had included $3 million"to keep SJI operating." At the same time, the conferees encouraged SJI to continueto solicit donations from state, local, and national bar associations.

In its recommendations for FY2004, the House Appropriations Committee (at H. Rept. 108-221 , p. 156), said it understood that the Institute had continued tocontact bar associations and State court organizations. While "these organizationssupport SJI, and enjoy grant funding and services from SJI," the committee said,"they are not inclined to contribute to operations of the SJI beyond matching grantfunding for individual projects." The House committee encouraged SJI to apply forfunding from the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in the Department of Justice,noting that a variety of grant programs to assist State courts exist within OJP. In asimilar vein, conferees for the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004 (at H.Rept. 108-401 , at p. 642) encouraged SJI "to work with the Office of JusticePrograms on issues involving State courts" and "to apply for funding under OJP grantprograms that support State court programs."

Earlier, in November 2002, the Attorney General, as mandated by P.L. 107-179 , transmitted to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees a report on theeffectiveness of the institute in carrying out its statutory duties. The report concludedby stating, among other things, that SJI appeared "to have been effective in awardinggrants to improve the quality of justice in the state courts, facilitating bettercoordination and information sharing between state and federal courts, and fosteringsolutions to common problems faced by all courts." ( See Report [of the AttorneyGeneral] on the State Justice Institute Pursuant to Public Law 107-179 , transmittedNovember 2002 to the Committee on Judiciary, U.S. Senate, and Committee on theJudiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, available at: http://www.statejustice.org/attorney_general_evaluation.htm .)

Commission on Civil Rights. For FY2004, the Administration requested roughly $9.1 million. This amount wasroughly $59,000 more than the FY2003 appropriation of 9.04 million. The HouseAppropriations Committee also recommended $9.1 million, which was approved bythe full House on July 23, 2003. The Senate Appropriations Committee legislationwould have matched the Administration request. The FY2004 enacted funding levelis $9.1 million.

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Administration requested $3 million for thecommission in FY2004. This amount is $135,000 more than the FY2003 amount of$2.865 million. The House CJS bill set funding at $3 million. The SenateAppropriations Committee recommended $2 million, which would be $875,000 lessthan its FY2003 amount. The enacted level for FY2004 equals the Administrationrequest and House level of $3 million.

Table 9. FY2004 Funding for CJS Related Agencies ($ millions in budget authority)

Source: U.S. Houseof Representatives, Committee on Appropriations.

a. The FCC is partially funded by offsetting fee collections.

b. The FTC is fully funded by the collection of pre-merger filing fees.

c. The SEC is fully funded by transaction fees and securities registrationfees.

d. Under the terms of its enabling legislation, the State JusticeInstitute (SJI) is authorized to present itsbudget request directly to Congress. While the President's FY2004 budget proposed nothing forSJI, the Institute requested $8.0 million for itself.

e. "Other" includes agencies receiving appropriations of $2.0 millionor less in FY2002. These agenciesinclude Commission for the Preservation of American Heritage Abroad; Commission on Securityand Cooperation in Europe; Commission on Electronic Commerce; the Marine MammalCommission, the Commission on Ocean Policy, the Congressional/Executive Commission on China,the National Veterans Business Development Corp, and the Pacific Charter Commission, and theU.S. Canada Alaska Rail Commission.

Appendix: Appropriations for the CJS Bill

Source: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations.

Notes:

a The Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( P.L. 107-396 ) transferred functions of the Justice Department's Immigrationand Naturalization Service (INS) to the Department of Homeland Security.

b The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is fully funded by user fees. The fees collected, butnot obligated during the current year, are available for obligation in the following fiscal year, and do not count toward theappropriationtotals. Only newly appropriated funds count toward the annual appropriation totals.

c An FY2002 appropriation of $8.6 million for a cost-of-living increase in judicial salaries wasapportioned amongvarious Judiciary accounts.

d In addition to appropriations, State has authority to spend certain collected fees from machinereadable visas,expedited export fees, etc. The amount for such fees for FY2002 was $516.9 million; for FY2003 the estimate is$739.6 million.

e The FTC is fully funded by the collection of pre-merger filing fees.

f The SEC is fully funded by transaction fees and securities registration fees.

g Under the terms of its enabling legislation, the State Justice Institute (SJI) is authorized topresent its budgetrequest directly to Congress. The President's FY2004 budget proposed nothing for SJI, but the Institute requested$8 million for itself.

h "Other" includes agencies receiving appropriations of $2.0 million or less in FY2002. Theseagencies includeCommission for the Preservation of American Heritage Abroad; Commission on Security and Cooperation inEurope; Commission on Electronic Commerce; the Marine Mammal Commission; the Commission on OceanPolicy; the Congressional/Executive Commission on China; the National Veterans Business Development Corp;Pacific Charter Commission; and the U.S. Canada Alaska Rail Commission.

i This table only lists line-item rescissions requested in the Administration's FY2004 request.

j Grand Total amounts have been adjusted to reflect transfers of agencies and programs (e.g., thetransfer of INSfunctions from DOJ to DHS). Also, the Grand Total does not include an across-the-board cuts or rescissions thathave yet to be determined.

Return to CONTENTS section of this Long Report.