Appropriations for FY2005: Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies

CRS Report for Congress
Appropriations for FY2005:
Commerce, Justice, State,
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Updated January 12, 2005
Ian F. Fergusson, Coordinator
Analyst in International Trade and Finance
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Susan B. Epstein, Coordinator
Specialist In Foreign Policy and Trade
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current
program authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress passes each
year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittees. It summarizes the current
legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related legislative
activity, and will be updated as events warrant. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant
to the issues covered and related CRS products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at:
[http://www.crs.gov/ products/ appropri ati ons/ apppage.shtml ].

Appropriations for FY2005: Commerce, Justice, State,
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Summary
This report monitors actions taken by the 108^th Congress on FY2005
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the judiciary
and related agencies (often referred to as the CJS appropriations). The
Administration requested $43.216 billion for CJS appropriations in its FY2005
budget request sent to Congress on February 2, 2004. In the spring of 2004, the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees held hearings on these requests. The
House Appropriations Committee reported out its unnumbered bill on June 23, 2004,
recommending a total of $43.483 billion for CJS in FY2005 (H.Rept 108-576). The
House passed this bill, H.R. 4754, on July 8, 2004. On September 15, 2004, the
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $43.467 billion in its bill (S. 2809,
S.Rept. 108-344). The CJS Appropriation was included into an omnibus
Consolidated Appropriation Act (CAA) (H.R. 4818), and its Conference Report was
agreed to on November 20, 2004. The act, providing $43.681 billion to CJS, was
signed into law on December 8, 2004. These figures do not reflect a general $0.80%
rescission and a 0.54% rescission of CJS expenditures.
Department of Justice. The CAA provides $20.6 billion in budget authority for
FY2005. The Administration’s FY2005 request was $19.945 billion, approximately
$145 million above the FY2004 enacted level of $19.800 billion including recissions.
The House bill approved $20.786 billion and the Senate Appropriations Committee
bill would have provided $20.217 billion.
Department of Commerce. The CAA provides $6.5 billion in budget authority
for the Department of Commerce. The Administration’s FY2005 request of $6.058
billion was about $115 million more than the FY2004 enacted appropriation of
$5.943 billion. The House bill would have provided $5.8 billion, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $6.9 billion.
The Judiciary. The CAA provides $5.5 billion in total spending for the
Judiciary. The FY2005 request of $5.705 billion was about $573 million more than
the FY2004 enacted appropriation of $5.16 billion. The House would have provided
$5.546 billion and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $5.362
billion.
Department of State and International Broadcasting. The CAA provides $8.3
billion in total spending for the Department of State. The FY2005 request was $9.121
billion, $.378 billion above the FY2004 enacted level of $8.743 billion. The House
approved a total of $9.031 billion, and the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $8.569 billion.

^CRS
^{Area of E}^x^pertis^e^N^am^e^Divⁱ^sioⁿ^Telepho^{ne a}^{nd E-}^M^a^il
^Depa^rt^m^e^nt^s
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^Ju^s^tⁱ^c^e^Cⁱⁿ^dy^Hⁱ^l^l^D^S^P⁷^-⁴²⁷¹
^ch^ill@cr^s.lo^c.g^o^v
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^C^o^m^m^e^rce^K^evⁱⁿ^K^o^s^a^r^G^&^F^7-³⁹⁶⁸
^kko^sa^r^@^c^r^s.^l^o^c^.^go^v
^T^h^{e Ju}^di^ci^ary^S^t^e^v^e^R^u^t^k^u^s^G^&^F⁷^-⁷¹⁶²
^sr^ut^kus@c^r^s^.^l^o^c^.^g^o^v
^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^{State an}^d^S^u^s^aⁿ^Eps^t^eiⁿ^F^D^T^7-⁶⁶⁷⁸
^Iⁿ^terⁿ^atioⁿ^a^{l B}^r^o^a^d^castin^g^s^e^ps^t^eⁱⁿ^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^Agencies^{and Policy Areas}
^Scien^{ce an}^{d T}^echⁿ^o^log^y^-^R^elated^Wen^d^y^H^.^S^c^h^ach^t^R^S^I^7-⁷⁰⁶⁶
^A^g^en^cies^{: P}^T^{O, NIST}^w^s^ch^ach^t@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^T^e^l^ecom^m^uⁿⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^s^{, N}^T^IA^G^l^enⁿ^McL^o^u^g^h^lⁱⁿ^R^S^I⁷^-⁷⁰⁷³
^gm^c^l^o^ughlⁱⁿ^@c^r^s^.^l^o^c^.^g^o^v
^F^C^C^P^at^t^y^Fⁱ^g^lⁱ^o^l^a^R^S^I⁷^-²⁵⁰⁸
^p^f^ig^lio^la@cr^s^.lo^c^.g^o^v
^N^O^A^A^W^ayⁿ^e^Morri^s^s^e^y^R^S^I^7-⁷⁰⁷²
^w^m^o^r^rⁱ^sse^y^@^c^r^s.^lo^c^.^go^v
^ED^A^,^S^B^A^,^an^{d F}^T^C^B^ru^{ce Mu}^l^o^ck^G^&^F⁷^-⁷⁷⁷⁵
^b^m^ul^o^c^k@c^r^s.^l^o^c^.^go^v
^B^u^reau^of^th^{e C}^eⁿ^s^u^s^J^eⁿⁿⁱ^f^e^{r D. W}^illiam^s^G&^F⁷^-⁸⁶⁴⁰
^j^w^illiam^s^@cr^s^.lo^c^.g^o^v
^T^r^{ade ag}^en^ci^es^:^IT^A^,^IT^C^,^U^S^T^R^{, BIS}^I^an^F^e^rg^u^s^s^oⁿ^F^D^T^7-⁴⁹⁹⁷
^if^erg^u^s^s^oⁿ^@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^Equ^a^l^Em^pl^oy^m^eⁿ^t^O^pport^uⁿⁱ^t^y^Lⁱⁿ^d^{a L}^e^vⁱⁿ^e^D^S^P⁷^-⁷⁷⁵⁶
^C^o^mmi^s^sⁱ^oⁿ^l^l^e^vi^ne^@c^r^s^.^l^o^c^.^g^o^v
^L^e^g^a^{l Ser}^v^{ices Co}^r^p^o^r^atioⁿ^C^ar^m^eⁿ^So^lo^m^oⁿ^-^D^S^P⁷^-⁷³⁰⁶
^Fears^cs^olom^on^f^ears^@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^Secu^rities^an^{d Ex}^ch^an^g^e^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^Mark^Jⁱ^ck^lin^g^G^&^F^7-⁷⁷⁸⁴
^m^j^ick^lin^g^@^cr^s.lo^c.g^o^v
^U^.^S^.^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^on^Cⁱ^vⁱ^l^Rⁱ^g^h^t^s^G^arriⁿ^e^L^aⁿ^e^y^D^S^P^7-²⁵¹⁸
^g^l^an^ey^@^c^rs^.loc.g^ov
^{State J}^u^s^{tice In}^s^titu^te^Stev^{e R}^u^tk^u^s^G&^F⁷^-⁷¹⁶²
^sr^ut^kus@c^r^s^.^l^o^c^.^g^o^v
^Iⁿ^terⁿ^atioⁿ^a^{l Relig}^io^u^s^Fr^eed^o^m^Vⁱ^t^a^Bi^t^e^F^D^T⁷^-⁷⁶⁶²
^C^o^mmi^s^sⁱ^oⁿ^v^b^ite@^c^rs^.loc.g^ov
^{U.S. In}^s^titu^{te of}^P^eace^Su^s^aⁿ^Eps^t^ein^F^DT^7-⁶⁶⁷⁸
^s^e^ps^t^eⁱⁿ^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^Divⁱ^sioⁿ^ab^b^r^ev^iatioⁿ^s^{: A}^L^{D = A}^m^er^ican^L^a^w^Divⁱ^sioⁿ^{; DSP}^{= Do}^m^e^s^tⁱ^c^So^{cial P}^o^licy^Divⁱ^sioⁿ^;
^FD^T⁼^Fo^r^eⁱ^gn^A^ffaⁱ^r^s,^D^e^fe^nse^,^aⁿ^d^T^r^a^d^e^Dⁱ^vi^si^oⁿ^;^G^&^{F =}^G^o^ve^rⁿ^m^e^nt^aⁿ^d^Fi^na^nc^e^Dⁱ^vi^si^oⁿ^;^RSI
^{= R}^e^s^o^u^r^ces^{, Scien}^{ce, an}^{d In}^du^s^t^ry^Divⁱ^sⁱ^on^.

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Background Information............................................2
Structure of the CJS Bill........................................2
Synopsis of FY2004 Appropriations...............................2
Departmental Funding Trends....................................2
CJS Overall Funding Trends.....................................3
Survey of High-Profile Issues........................................3
Department of Justice..............................................5
Background ..................................................5
FY2005 Funding..........................................6
GPRA ...................................................6
Administration FY2005 Request .................................7
FY2005 Funding Issues.........................................8
General Administration.....................................8
U.S. Parole Commission....................................9
Legal Activities...........................................9
Interagency Law Enforcement...............................11
Federal Bureau of Investigation..............................11
Drug Enforcement Agency.................................12
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives............13
Federal Prison System.....................................13
Office of Justice Programs..................................14
Related Legislation...........................................19
Related CRS Products.........................................22
Commerce and Related Agencies....................................23
Departmental Management .....................................24
International Trade Administration...............................25
Manufacturing and Services Unit (MSU)......................25
Market Access and Compliance Unit (MAC)...................25
Import Administration Unit (IA).............................26
Trade Promotion/U.S. Foreign Commercial Service (TP/FCS).....26
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)....................26
NIPLECC ..................................................27
U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)........................28
Bureau of Industry and Security .................................28
Economic Development Administration...........................29
Minority Business Development Agency..........................30
Economic and Statistical Analysis................................30
Bureau of The Census.........................................31
National Telecommunications and Information Administration ........32
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office................................33
National Institute of Standards and Technology.....................34
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration..................36
P.L. 108-477.............................................36
Senate Appropriations Committee............................39

The President’s FY2005 Budget Request......................40
A NOAA Organic Act.....................................41
Related Legislation...........................................42
Related CRS Products.........................................44
The Judiciary ....................................................46
Background .................................................46
The Judiciary’s FY2005 Request.................................48
FY2005 Funding Issues........................................52
Supreme Court...........................................52
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services.....55
Defender Services........................................56
Court Security...........................................58
Related Legislation...........................................61
Related CRS Products.........................................63
Department of State and International Broadcasting .....................63
Background .................................................63
FY2005 Funding Issues........................................65
International Organizations and Conferences...................67
Contributions to International Organizations (CIO)..............67
Contributions to International Peacekeeping (CIPA).............67
International Commissions.................................67
Related Appropriations....................................68
The Asia Foundation......................................68
National Endowment for Democracy (NED)....................68
East-West and North-South Centers..........................69
International Broadcasting..................................69
Related Legislation...........................................70
Related CRS Products.........................................71
Independent Agencies.............................................71
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)................71
FY2005 Appropriations....................................71
Agency Overview.........................................72
FY2004 Funding.........................................72
Federal Communications Commission (FCC).......................73
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)................................75
Legal Services Corporation (LSC)................................76
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).......................78
Small Business Administration (SBA)............................78
State Justice Institute (SJI) .....................................79
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights................................81
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom................82
U.S. Institute of Peace.........................................82
Related CRS Products.........................................83

Table 1: Legislative Status of CJS Appropriations, FY2005................1
Table 2. Funding for Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State,
and the Judiciary..............................................3
Table 3. Funding CJS Appropriations.................................3
Table 4: Department of Justice Funding Accounts.......................18
Table 1. NOAA: FY2004 Appropriations, the President’s Budget Request,
and Congressional Recommendations For FY2005..................38
Table 7. FY2005 Funding for the Department of Commerce and Related
Agencies ...................................................45
Table 8. FY2005 Funding for the Judiciary.............................61
Table 9. FY2005 Funding for the Department of State and
International Broadcasting......................................70
Table 10. FY2005 Funding for CJS Related Agencies....................83
Appendix: CJS Appropriations by Department, FY2005..................85

Appropriations for FY2005: Commerce,
Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies
Most Recent Developments
The 2005 appropriation for Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies, which was incorporated into the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004
(P.L.108-447), was signed into law on December 8, 2004. The Conference Report
(H. Rept 108-792) was approved by both the Senate and the House on November 20,
and it provides $43.681 billion in appropriations for the CJS agencies. These figures
do not reflect a general 0.80% rescission and a 0.54% rescission of CJS expenditures.
The Administration submitted its FY2005 budget to Congress on February 2,
2004. It requested $43.2 billion for CJS Appropriations including $20.1 billion for
the Department of Justice; $6.1 billion for the Department of Commerce; and $9.1
billion for the Department of State. The House and Senate Appropriations
Committees have held hearings on the FY2005 budget requests.
The House CJS Subcommittee on Appropriations marked up its bill on June 15,
2004. The full House Appropriations Committee by voice vote approved the
unnumbered bill on June 23, and reported it as H.R. 4754 (H.Rept. 108-576) on July
1. The House passed this bill on July 8, 2004. The House bill provides a total of
$43.5 billion including $20.8 billion for the Department of Justice; $5.7 billion for
the Department of Commerce; $5.5 billion for the Judiciary; and $9.0 billion for the
Department of State.
The Senate Appropriations Committee marked up its bill (S. 2809, S.Rept. 108-
344) and passed it unanimously on September 15, 2004. The Senate Committee bill
provides a total of $40.5 billion including $20.4 billion for the Department of Justice;
$6.9 billion for the Department of Commerce; $5.4 billion for the Judiciary; and $8.5
billion for the Department of State.
Table 1: Legislative Status of CJS Appropriations, FY2005
SubcommitteeConf. Report
Markup House House Senat e Senat e Conf . Approval Public
Re por t P assage Re por t P assage Re por t Law
H ouse Senat e H ouse Senat e

6-15-047-1-047-8-049-15-04H.Rept.108-79211-20-0411-20-04P.L. 108-447

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 these departments 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 Representative and the International Trade Commission. The
Independent Agencies in Title V include the Federal Communications Commission,
Securities and Exchange Commission, and Small Business Administration.
Synopsis of FY2004 Appropriations
The Administration’s CJS request for FY2004 totaled $41.22 billion. Congress
packaged a number of appropriations bills including CJS into an omnibus bill (H.R.
2673) in November 2003. A conference report, (H.Rept. 108-401), was produced
just prior to the Thanksgiving recess. The CJS portion of the bill (Division B)
contains total appropriations of $41.0 billion, not reflecting a 0.465% rescission in
the general provisions of Division B. A further 0.59% across-the-board rescission
was included in Division H-Miscellaneous Appropriations and Offsets-Section 168.
The House agreed to the conference report on December 8th, while the Senate passed
the package on January 22, 2004. The President signed The Consolidated
Appropriations Act into law (P.L. 108-199) on January 23, 2004.
Departmental Funding Trends
The table below shows funding trends for the major agencies included in CJS
appropriations over the five-year period FY2000-FY2005, including supplemental
appropriations. Over the five-year period, funding increased for the Department of
Justice by $2.217 billion (11.9%); for the Department of Commerce by $1.5 billion
(29%)¹; for the Judiciary by $1.536 billion (39%); and for the Department of State
by $2.403 billion (41%).
The Justice Department’s budget rose steadily until FY2003, when it was
reduced by nearly $4.7 billion below the FY2002 level due to the relocation of some
activities to the Department of Homeland Security. The Commerce Department
budget has generally increased over the five-year span, including a greater than $3.5

¹ Comparison is with FY1999 ($5.1 billion); the one-time $3.5 billion increase for
Commerce in FY2000 was due to costs associated with the 2000 decennial census.

billion increase in FY2000, largely due to the cost of the 2000 decennial census. Its
FY2001 level, however, was comparable to its pre-census level. The State
Department and Judiciary Branch had significant increases in its funding level every
year from FY1999 to FY2004, but then fell back for FY2005. The State
Department’s increases reflect the increase in costs associated with post-September
11^th security expenditures. Of the four primary departments within the CJS
appropriations bill, the Department of State, despite the FY2005 reduction, has
received the greatest increase of about $2.4 billion from FY2000 to FY2005,
including supplemental funds appropriated in FY2002, FY2003, and FY2004.
Table 2. Funding for Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State,
and the Judiciary
(in billions of current dollars)
^D^e^p^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^{or A}^g^en^cy^FY²⁰⁰⁰^FY²⁰⁰¹^FY²⁰⁰²^FY²⁰⁰³^FY²⁰⁰⁴^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^Ju^s^tⁱ^c^e^18.647^21.049^23.707^19.005^19.850^20.864
^C^o^m^m^e^rce⁸^.649^5.153^5.739^5.704^5.943^6.598
^Ju^di^ci^ary³^.959^4.255^4.740^5.430^5.157^5.495
^S^t^at^e⁵^.880^6.601^7.362^7.645^8.837^8.283
^Sources^:^F^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^t^o^t^a^l^s^provⁱ^d^{ed by}^Bu^dg^et^O^f^fⁱ^ces^of^C^J^S^an^{d J}^u^diciary^ag^en^cies^{, an}^{d U.S. Hou}^s^{e of}^R^e^pres^en^tativ^es^,
^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee on}^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^{. F}^Y^{2005 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^{do n}^o^tⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{e f}ⁱⁿ^a^l^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^s^.
CJS Overall Funding Trends
Appropriations for the CJS bill had risen steadily prior to FY2003. Selected departments
funded through the bill received significant increases in funding following the terrorist attacks of
September 2001. Overall funding for the bill decreased in FY2003, however, as some agencies and
functions were transferred to the new Department of Homeland Security. Since then, CJS has crept
back to near FY2002 levels.
Table 3. Funding CJS Appropriations
( budget authority in millions of dollars)
^FY¹⁹⁹⁸^FY¹⁹⁹⁹^FY²⁰⁰⁰^FY²⁰⁰¹^FY²⁰⁰²^FY²⁰⁰³^FY^{2004 FY}²⁰⁰⁵
^N^o^mⁱⁿ^a^l^$s^32,086.0^33,693.3^39,601.0^39,^786.7^44,058.4^40,497.8^41,041.5^43,681.5
^No^te:^No^mⁱⁿ^a^{l $}^r^e^p^r^esen^{t th}^{e actu}^a^{l am}^o^uⁿ^t^o^f^th^{e ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿⁱⁿ^th^{e y}^ear^{it w}^a^{s ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iated^.
Survey of High-Profile Issues
Department of Justice
^!The merger and consolidation of the Local Law Enforcement Block
Grants and the Byrne Formula Grants, replacing those grant
programs with a Justice Assistance Grants program, a provision of
H.R. 3036.

^!Language incorporating provisions of H.R. 4564 that would provide
the FBI with enhanced retention, recruitment, and retirement
authorities in order to improve their ability to attract and retain
necessary staff.
^!In an effort to consolidate intelligence functions within the FBI, the
creation of a new Directorate of Intelligence.
^!Language in the ATF’s salaries and expenses account that would
include several limitations on the expenditure of ATF funding
provided for FY2005.
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 Standards and Technology, particularly the Advanced Technology
Program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership.
^!Whether the importation of prescription drugs from foreign countries
should be expanded.
^!The ability of U.S. trade agencies and PTO to fight intellectual
property infringement abroad.
^!The efficacy of U.S. trade agency enforcement of U.S. trade remedy
laws against unfair foreign competition.
^!Whether Congress will consolidate all of NOAA’s budget authority
under a single Organic Act.
^!Whether funding is adequate to ensure that NOAA can maintain
operation of its environmental satellites and continue to provide
meteorological data for the National Weather Service.
The Judiciary
^!Whether, as the Judiciary contended, projected workload increases,
along with budget imposed cutbacks in court staffing during
FY2004, required a more than 10% increase in funding for FY2005.
^!Whether a major increase was called for in the rate of pay to court-
appointed “panel attorneys” representing indigent defendants in
federal criminal cases in which prosecutors seek the death penalty.

Department of State and International Broadcasting
^!Creating a new embassy in Baghdad with regional offices
throughout Iraq.
^!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.
Department of Justice²
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 Attorney
General at its head, DOJ provides counsel for citizens and protects them through law
enforcement. It represents the federal government in all proceedings, civil and
criminal, before the Supreme Court. And in legal matters generally, the Department
provides legal advice and opinions, upon request, to the President and executive
branch department heads. The major functions of DOJ agencies and offices are
described below:
^!United States Attorneys prosecute criminal offenses against the
United States, represent the federal government in civil actions, and
initiate proceedings for the collection of fines, penalties, and
forfeitures owed to the United States.
^!United States Marshals Service provides security for the federal
judiciary, protects witnesses, executes warrants and court orders,
manages seized assets, detains and transports unsentenced prisoners,
and apprehends fugitives.
^!Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigates violations of
federal criminal law; helps protect the United States from terrorism
and hostile intelligence efforts; provides assistance to other federal,
state and local law enforcement 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

² This title is written by Cindy S. Hill, Analyst in Social Legislation, Domestic Social Policy
Division.

federal law enforcement agencies; develops and maintains drug
intelligence systems; regulates legitimate controlled substances
activities; and conducts joint intelligence-gathering activities with
foreign governments.
^!Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
enforces federal law related to the manufacture, importation, and
distribution of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. It was
transferred from the Department of 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 the boarding of sentenced federal prisoners
incarcerated in state and local institutions.
^!Office of Justice Programs (OJP) manages and coordinates the
activities of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS), and the Office of Victims of Crime.
FY2005 Funding. Countering the threat of terrorism is the principal focus of
the Department of Justice. To this end, the Department is continuing its efforts to
disrupt and dismantle terrorist networks wherever they exist, prevent terrorist attacks
before they occur, and bring to justice those persons who carry out terrorist attacks
against American interests at home and abroad. The Department of Justice is
working with the intelligence community, along with the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), to establish new partnerships and reforge old ones in the areas of
intelligence sharing and interoperable systems. With the support of the Attorney
General, the FBI Director continues to reorganize by realigning and centralizing
Bureau assets to more effectively counter terrorism and foreign intelligence services,
and provide greater internal security.
Most crime control has traditionally been a state and local responsibility. With
the passage of the Crime Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-351), however, the federal
role in the administration of criminal justice has increased incrementally. Since
1984, Congress has enacted five major omnibus crime control bills, designating new
federal crimes, penalties, and additional law enforcement assistance programs for
state and local governments. Crime control is one of the few areas of the federal
budget where discretionary spending has increased over the past two decades.
GPRA. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) required the
Department of Justice, along with other federal agencies, to prepare a five-year
strategic plan, including a mission statement, long-range goals, and program
assessment measures. The Department’s Strategic Plan for FY2003-2008 sets forth
four goals:
^!prevent terrorism and promote national security;

^!enforce federal criminal laws and represent the rights and interests
of the American people;
^!prevent and reduce crime and violence by assisting state, local, and
tribal efforts;
^!ensure the fair and efficient operation of the Federal justice system.
Administration FY2005 Request
For the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2005 (P.L. 108-447) provides $20.6 billion in budget authority for FY2005. The
Senate Appropriations Committee bill (S. 2809) recommended nearly $20.4 billion
in budget authority for FY2005. The House-passed appropriations bill for FY2005
(H.R. 4754) recommended $20.9 billion in budget authority. The Administration’s
FY2005 request included $20.1 billion in funding, while Congress provided nearly
$19.6 billion in funding for FY2004 (including rescissions).
The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides funding increases for
intelligence and counterterrorism-related efforts within DOJ, which focus on the
prevention, investigation, and prosecution of terrorist acts. Funding also includes
over $1 billion for the FBI’s counterintelligence and national security programs; $100
million for State and local interoperable communications systems; and $10.5 million
for State and local intelligence sharing. In addition, the act establishes an Office of
Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism within DOJ.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides funding for a number of
programs for which the Administration requested no funding. Those programs
include the Juvenile Justice Accountability Block Grant, the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program, and the Byrne Discretionary Grants.
As part of a wider “performance-based” program realignment of the Office of
Justice Programs (OJP), the Administration’s request included a proposal to
eliminate the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBGs) and the Byrne
Formula Grants, replacing those grant programs with a Justice Assistance Grant
(JAG) program. The Administration’s request included $528 million for the
proposed JAG program, nearly $190 million less than the amounts appropriated for
the LLEBG and Byrne Formula Grant programs for FY2004. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act and the House-passed bill provided $634 million for this new
grant program, $106 million more than the Administration’s request. The Senate-
reported bill, however, did not recommend a consolidated grant program and
recommended $210.9 million in funding for the LLEBG program and $500 million
in funding for the Byrne Formula Grants program. In FY2004, Congress funded the
LLEBG program at $222.6 million and the Byrne Formula Grants program at $494.7
million.
Among other things, the House-passed bill included $625.7 million for various
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) programs (including a $61 million
rescission), including $113 million for a new COPS enhancement grants program
which would create a flexible discretionary program for hiring, training, police
integrity training, equipment, overtime, school security, information technology, and
forensic technology. Under this program, a law enforcement agency could apply for

funding for multiple activities in one application. Both the Senate-reported bill and
the Consolidated Appropriations Act did not recommend the creation of this grant
program.
It should be noted that, unless otherwise stated, all FY2004 amounts include a

0.59% government wide rescission and a 0.465% discretionary account rescission.

Additionally, for FY2004 there were $364.7 million in rescissions for prior year
unobligated balances. The Administration’s FY2005 request proposed $108.5
million in rescissions of prior year balances. The House-passed bill recommended
$81 million in rescissions: $20 million in funding from the State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance (SLLEA) account and $61 million in funding from the
COPS account. The Senate-reported bill recommended $172.1 million in rescissions:
$44 million from the Working Capital Fund; $30 million from the Asset Forfeiture
Fund; and $98.1 million from the Department of Justice (excluding rescinding funds
from the OJP account or the COPS account).
The Consolidated Appropriations Act includes $255.3 million in program
rescissions: $60 million from the Working Capital Fund; $61.8 million from the
Asset Forfeiture Fund; $1.6 million from Justice Assistance (excluding amounts
available for the Missing Children’s Program and the National White Collar Crime
Center and Regional Information Sharing System); $29.4 million from the SLLEA
account (excluding amounts available for Tribal Courts and Indian Prison
Construction); $99 million from COPS; and $3.5 million from Juvenile Justice
(excluding amounts available for Tribal Youth and Alcohol Prevention).
Additionally, the Consolidated Appropriations Act includes a 0.80% across-the-board
rescission and a 0.54% rescission to Commerce, Justice, State discretionary accounts.
FY2005 Funding Issues
General Administration. For General Administration, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447) provides nearly $1.444 billion in funding
for FY2005 (excluding rescissions). The Senate-reported bill (S. 2809)
recommended $1.870 billion, including $410 million in funding for the Office on
Violence Against Women, which has been traditionally funded under the Office of
Justice Programs (OJP) account. The House-passed bill (H.R. 4754) recommended
$1.445 billion for general administration expenses in FY2005. The Administration’s
FY2005 request for Justice programs in this account included $1.519 billion, $309.7
million more than the $1.317 billion appropriated by Congress for FY2004.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act includes a $60 million rescission to the
Working Capital Fund.The FY2004 appropriated amount included two rescissions:
$67.3 million to the Working Capital Fund and $40 million to the Counterterrorism
Fund.
Besides the Detention Trustee, the General Administration account funds the
Federal Detention Trustee’s Office, the Attorney General’s office, senior
departmental management, the Inspector General’s office, efforts to integrate
identification systems (e.g., IAFIS and IDENT), and narrowband communications,
among other things.

The Federal Detention Trustee’s Office provides overall management and
oversight for federal detention services relating to the detention of federal prisoners
in non-federal institutions or otherwise in the custody of the U.S. Marshal’s Service.
The Detention Trustee Office has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regarding available detention space that
could be used for DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement. For the Detention
Trustee’s Office, the Consolidated Appropriations Act provides, and the Senate-
reported bill recommended, $886.0 million, a $80.5 million increase over the amount
appropriated by Congress for FY2004. The House-passed bill recommended $938.8
million for FY2005, a $133 million increase over the amount appropriated by
Congress for FY2004 and the same as the Administration’s request.
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is responsible for investigating
possible departmental misconduct. OIG’s mission is to detect and deter waste, fraud,
abuse, and misconduct involving DOJ programs and personnel and to promote
economy and efficiency in DOJ operations. The Consolidated Appropriations Act
includes $63.8 million for the OIG, the same amount recommended by the House-
passed bill and requested by the Administration. The Senate-reported bill
recommended $63.2 million for the OIG. Congress provided $60.2 million in funding
for FY2004.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act includes a $60 million rescission of the
unobligated balances available in the Working Capital Fund. The Senate-reported
bill recommended a $44 million rescission to this account.
U.S. Parole Commission. The U.S. Parole Commission adjudicates parole
requests by federal and District of Columbia Code prisoners who are serving felony
sentences. The authorization for the parole commission was due to expire in
November 2002, but the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act (P.L. 107-273) provided for a temporary extension of the parole
commission for three years until November 1, 2005. For FY2005, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447) and the Senate-reported bill (S. 2809)
includes, $10.6 million for the parole commission, a $140 thousand increase over the
FY2004 appropriation. The House-passed bill (H.R. 4754) and the Administration’s
request included $10.65 million for the parole commission, a $152 thousand increase
over the Commission’s FY2004 appropriation of $10.5 million.
Legal Activities. The Legal Activities account includes several accounts: (1)
general legal activities, (2) U.S. Attorneys, (3) U.S. Marshals Service, and (4) other
legal activities. For FY2005, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-
447) provides nearly $3.222 billion for legal activities, which is $143 million more
than what Congress enacted for these purposes for FY2004. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommendation (S. 2809) provided $3.154 billion for
legal activities. The House-passed bill (H.R. 4754) recommended nearly $3.251
billion in funding. The Administration’s FY2005 request included nearly $3.318
billion for this account. Congress enacted $3.078.5 billion in funding for legal
activities in FY2004.
The general legal activities account funds the Solicitor General’s supervision
of the department’s conduct in proceedings before the Supreme Court. It also funds

several departmental divisions (tax, criminal, civil, environment and natural
resources, legal counsel, civil rights, and antitrust). For these purposes, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act includes $634.2 million for FY2005. The Senate-
reported bill recommended $623 million in funding, while the House-passed bill
recommended $639.3 million for general legal activities. The Administration’s
FY2005 request included $657 million in funding. Congress provided $629 million
in FY2004, which included $15.0 million in supplemental appropriations provided
by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the
Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 (P.L. 108-106).
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 represent
the federal government in civil actions. For the U.S. Attorneys Office, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act includes nearly $1.548 billion, the same amount as
requested by the Administration. The Senate-reported bill recommended $1.532
billion for FY2005. The House-passed bill recommended $1.535 billion in funding.
Congress provided $1.510 billion in FY2004 for U.S. Attorneys and an additional
$14.8 million in supplemental appropriations for Operation Seahawk, an interagency
seaport security initiative. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, and the Senate-
reported recommendation, includes additional funding of $15 million for the
continuation of Project Seahawk.
The U.S. Marshals are responsible for the protection of the Federal Judiciary,
protection of witnesses, execution of warrants and court orders, custody and
transportation of unsentenced federal prisoners, and fugitive apprehension. For
FY2005, the Consolidated Appropriations Act includes $757.7 million for the
Marshals Service, $31.6 million more than what Congress enacted for FY2004. The
Senate-reported bill recommended $744.7 million in funding, while the House-
passed bill recommended $753.4 million for the Marshals Service for FY2005. The
Administration’s request included $743.4 million, while the Service’s FY2004
enacted budget was $726.1 million.
For other legal activities. e.g., the Community Relations Service, the
Independent Counsel, the U.S. Trustee Fund (which is responsible for maintaining
the integrity of the U.S. bankruptcy system by, among other things, prosecuting
criminal bankruptcy violations), and the Asset Forfeiture program, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005 provides $282.1 million in funding. The Senate-reported
bill recommended $254 million in funding; The House-passed bill recommended
$323 million. The Administration requested $405 million in funding for FY2005,
while Congress appropriated $213 million in funding for other legal activities for
FY2004. A large portion of the differences can be explained by the Administration’s
request of $80.5 million for legal activities office automation in this account.
Traditionally funding for office automation has been provide in the General
Administration account ($26.7 million in FY2004). The House-passed bill
recommended, as the Administration requested, $72 million in discretionary funding
for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund (RECA). The Consolidated
Appropriations Act includes $27.8 million for RECA. In addition, there was a $61.6
million rescission of unobligated balances to the Asset Forfeiture Fund in FY2004.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act includes a $61.8 million rescission in the
Asset Forfeiture Fund for FY2005. The Senate-reported bill also recommended a

$30 million rescission of the unobligated balances available in the Asset Forfeiture
Fund for FY2005.
Interagency Law Enforcement. The Interagency Law Enforcement account
reimburses departmental agencies for their participation in the Organized Crime
Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) program. Organized into nine regional
task forces, this program combines the expertise of federal agencies with the efforts
of state and local law enforcement to disrupt and dismantle major narcotics
trafficking and money laundering organizations. From the Department of Justice, the
federal agencies that participate in OCDETF are the Drug Enforcement
Administration; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives; U.S. Marshals Service; the Justice, Tax and Criminal
Divisions; and the U.S. Attorneys. From the Department of Homeland Security, the
U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Coast
Guard participate in OCDETF. Additionally, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and
Treasury Office of Enforcement also participate from the Department of Treasury.
State and local law enforcement agencies participate in approximately 87% of all
OCDETF investigations.
For FY2005, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447) and the
House-passed bill provides $561 million for OCDETF. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommendation provided $295.4 million for this program. The FY2005
request included $580.6 million for OCDETF. For FY2004, Congress provided
$550.6 million in funding for OCDETF. The Senate Appropriations Committee did
not recommend funding for the non-Justice agencies. Additionally, funding
previously provided under this account for the FBI’s participation in OCDETF had
been transferred to the FBI to expand and enhance the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task
Forces (JTTF) in the Senate-reported recommendation. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act and the House-passed recommendation did not fund proposed
program increases for the IRS and reduced the current services level for both the IRS
and ICE. They also cited that the Department of Justice should not fund the
Departments of Homeland Security and Treasury participation in OCDETF.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), as the lead federal investigative agency, continues to reorganize to focus more
sharply on preventing terrorism and other criminal activities. For FY2005, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447) provides $5.215 billion in
funding for the FBI. The Senate Appropriations Committee bill (S. 2809)
recommended nearly $5.112 billion, while the House-passed bill (H.R. 4754)
recommended $5.215 billion in funding for FY2005. The Administration’s FY2005
request was for $5.115 billion, while Congress enacted nearly $4.591 billion in
funding for the FBI for FY2004.
In an effort to consolidate intelligence functions within the FBI, the House-
passed bill directed the FBI to create a new Directorate of Intelligence, led by the
Executive Assistant Director for Intelligence. The Consolidated Appropriations Act
adopts the House-reported language and provides $13.4 million and 151 new
positions to support its new Office of Intelligence.

The House-passed bill included four provisions that incorporated H.R. 4564.
These provisions would provide the FBI with enhanced retention, recruitment, and
retirement authorities in order to improve their ability to attract and retain necessary
staff. One provision provided the possibility for retention and relocation bonuses to
employees with high or unique qualifications who, in the absence of a bonus, would
likely leave the FBI. The provision also allowed for retention and relocation bonuses
for individuals transferred to a different geographic area with a higher cost of living.
Another provision authorized pay to critical intelligence positions up to an
Executive Schedule I salary provided that the position is a high level position in a
scientific, technical, professional, or administrative field, and critical to the FBI’s
mission. A third provision could allow the Director in certain circumstances to delay
the mandatory retirement age of 57 for FBI agents until the agent reaches 65 years of
age. A fourth provision authorized the establishment and training of a FBI Reserve
Service that would facilitate streamlined, temporary rehiring from a pre-certified
cadre of retired FBI employees who possess specialized skills required for crises or
other specialized circumstances. The Consolidated Appropriations Act adopts the
House language for these four provisions.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended bill language establishing
a total program cost cap at $600 million for the FBI’s technology modernization
program, Trilogy. The Consolidated Appropriations Act does not adopt this language
but does recommend that the FBI commission an independent study of Trilogy that
evaluates the overall achievements of the program.
Drug Enforcement Agency. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
is the lead federal agency tasked with reducing the illicit supply and abuse of
dangerous narcotics and drugs. For the DEA, the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2005 (P.L. 108-447) provides $1.653 billion in funding for FY2005. The Senate
Appropriations Committee bill (S. 2809) recommended $1.645 billion, while the
House-passed bill (H.R. 4754) and the Administration’s request for FY2005 included
nearly $1.662 billion in funding. For FY2004, Congress appropriated nearly $1.585
billion in funding for the DEA.
Funding provides for the following increases: $53.1 million for inflationary and
other costs to maintain the current operating level; $15.0 million and 165 positions
for priority targeting; $3.0 million for the Special Operations Division; $4.0 million
for investigative technology support; $1.2 million for computer forensics support;
$1.0 million for aviation support; $8.5 million for the Concorde project and web
infrastructure; and $4.8 million for the El Paso Intelligence Center.
The FY2005 request assumed $25 million in savings due to crosscutting
efficiencies, program reductions, and other offsets. The Consolidated Appropriations
Act assumes the implementation of all of the Administration’s proposed offsets
except a $3.1 million proposal to charge the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police
Department fees for forensic evidence analysis services. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act reduces funding for requested program increases in order to
offset this proposal.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) enforces federal law related to
the manufacture, importation, and distribution of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and
explosives. For FY2005, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447)
includes $890.4 million for this account, the same amount recommended by the
Senate Appropriations Committee bill (S. 2809). The House-passed bill (H.R. 4754)
recommended $870.4 million in funding for the ATF, while the Administration
requested $868.9 million. The Bureau’s FY2004 enacted budget was $827.3 million.
Among other things, the Consolidated Appropriations Act includes an increase
of $10.2 million for the creation and operation of four specialized explosives groups
who will be responsible for investigating the misuse and trafficking of explosives,
increasing inspection efforts for high-risk explosives licensees, and increasing
forensic support to explosives crimes and acts of terrorism.
The House-passed bill recommended bill language to make funding available
to investigate and act upon applications filed by corporations for relief from federal
firearms disabilities under section 18 U.S.C. 925(c). The House-passed bill also
included a new provision that prohibits funding to deny an application for a license,
or renewal of such a license, under 18 U.S.C. 923 due to a lack of business activity,
provided that the applicant is otherwise eligible to receive such a license and is
eligible to report business income or to claim an income tax deduction for business
expenses under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act includes this language.
Federal Prison System. The Federal Prison System maintains 116 penal
institutions nationwide, and contracts with state, local, and private concerns for
additional detention space. The Administration projected that this system will house
an average daily population of 186,040 sentenced offenders in federal institutions,
and another 29,212 in contract facilities, in FY2005. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447) provides $4.820 billion in funding for the
Federal Prison System for FY2005, the same amount recommended by Senate
Appropriations Committee bill (S. 2809). The House-passed bill (H.R. 4754)
recommended $4.760 billion in funding for FY2005. The Administration’s FY2005
request was $4.710 billion. For FY2004, Congress provided $4.811 billion for the
Federal Prison System.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, as proposed by the House and the Senate,
provides $189 million for the construction, modernization, maintenance, and repair
of facilities. In FY2004, there was a $51.9 million rescission of unobligated balances
to the Federal Prison System account for building and facilities.
FY2005 supplemental funding contained in the Military Construction and
Emergency Hurricane Supplemental Appropriations Act, signed into law on October
13, 2004 (P.L. 108-324) provides an additional $24.1 million in emergency
hurricane-related funding for the Federal Prison System in FY2005. The amount
will fund expenses related to repairing and replacing roofs and fences, building and
perimeter fence repair and replacement, clean-up activities at numerous federal
prison facilities in Florida, Alabama, and Georgia that sustained damage in Hurricane
Ivan and related severe storms.

Office of Justice Programs. The Office of Justice Programs (OJP)
manages and coordinates the National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Victims
of Crimes, Bureau of Justice Assistance, and related grant programs. For the Office
of Justice Programs and related offices, bureaus and programs, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447) provides nearly $3.033 billion in funding.
The Senate Appropriations Committee bill (S. 2809) recommended $2.576 billion
in funding for FY2005. The House-passed bill (H.R. 4754) recommended $3.012
billion in funding, while the Administration’s request for FY2005 was $2.126 billion.
Congress appropriated $3.165 billion in funding for OJP for FY2004.
The OJP budget has traditionally included the following accounts: (1) Justice
Assistance, (2) State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance, (3) Weed and Seed
crime prevention efforts, (4) Community Oriented Policing Services, (5) Violence
Against Women Act programs, (6) Juvenile Justice programs, and (6) Public Safety
Officers Benefits.
Justice Assistance. The Justice Assistance account funds the operations of
OJP bureaus and offices. Besides funding OJP management and administration, this
account also funds the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
cooperative efforts that address missing children, and regional criminal intelligence.
For FY2005, the Administration’s request was $1.657 billion for this account (which
included a proposed $53.5 million rescission of prior year balances), reflecting a
proposed “performance-based” realignment of the bulk of OJP grant programs in the
Justice Assistance account under 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.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act does not reflect the Administration’s
proposed budget realignment of OJP programs, providing nearly $228 million in
funding for Justice Assistance. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
nearly $211 million in funding, while the House-passed bill recommended $217
million for the Justice Assistance account, as compared to the $188.1 million in
funding Congress enacted for FY2004 for these purposes. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act includes a $1.6 million rescission from this account, excluding
amounts available for the Missing Children’s Program and the National White Collar
Crime Center and Regional Information Sharing System.
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance. Under State and Local
Law Enforcement Assistance, the Consolidated Appropriations Act provides nearly
$1.296 billion in funding for FY2005. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommendation included $1.118 billion in funding, while the House-passed bill
recommendation included $1.255 billion (not including a proposed $20 million
rescission to unobligated balances), to state and local law enforcement. Congress

appropriated $1.315 billion in funding for these purposes for FY2004 (including a
$21.6 million rescission of unobligated balances). For various programs included in
this account, the Administration’s FY2005 request included nearly $715 million in
funding.
The Administration proposed consolidating the Byrne Formula and Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) programs in a new Justice Assistance Grant
program. The Administration requested $509 million for this new program, a
reduction in funding by about $393 million, compared to amounts appropriated for
these two programs in FY2004. The House-passed bill also recommended the
consolidation of the LLEBG program and the Byrne Formula program into the
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants program. The House
recommendation included $634 million for this new program, $125 million above the
requested amount. In addition, the House-passed bill provided $110 million for the
Byrne Discretionary Grant program, which the Administration did not request any
funding for FY2005. Like the House recommendation, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act includes $634 million for the newly created Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program. In addition, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act provides $170 million in funding for Byrne Discretionary grants.
Congress provided $157 million in funding for FY2004 for the Byrne Discretionary
program.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation did not include
consolidating the LLEBG and Byrne programs. The Senate-reported bill
recommended $150 million to the LLEBG program, $500 million to the Byrne
Formula Grant program and $118 million to the Byrne Discretionary Grant program.
Additionally, the Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $37 million to
implement the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79). The House-
passed bill recommended $52 million in funding for these purposes. The
Administration did not request, nor did the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommend, funding for this program for FY2005. Congress provided $36.8 million
for prison rape programs for FY2004. The Consolidated Appropriations Act and the
House-passed bill also includes $10 million for the Harold Rogers Prescription Drug
Monitoring Program, which was a $3.1 million increase over what Congress
provided in FY2004. The Senate-reported bill recommended, and the Administration
requested, no funding for this program.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act included $10.5 million for the
implementation of the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan and the efforts of
the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative. The House-passed bill
recommended $10 million in funding for these purposes. The Administration
requested nearly $10.7 million for these purposes. The Senate-reported bill
recommended $11 million in new funding for state and local antiterrorism training
programs.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act includes a $29.4 million rescission from
unobligated balances in this account. Amounts from Tribal Courts and Indian Prison
Construction shall not be included in this rescission. The House-passed bill included

a proposed $20 million rescission to unobligated balances of the State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance account.
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. The Consolidated Appropriations Act includes $62 million
in funding for this program for FY2005, the same amount recommended by the
Senate. The House-passed bill recommended, and the Administration requested,
$51.2 million for this program. Congress, by comparison, provided $57.9 million for
Weed and Seed for FY2004. The Administration’s request proposed merging the
Weed and Seed program under the Justice Assistance account.
Community Oriented Policing Services. To enhance public safety, the
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program provides grants to state,
local, and tribal governments to expand community policing and cooperation
between law enforcement agencies and members of the community. The authority
for the COPS grant program lapsed at the end of FY2000. Congress, however, has
continued to fund this program. For COPS, the Consolidated Appropriations Act
provides $606.4 million in funding to COPS for FY2005 (not including rescissions).
The Senate-reported bill recommended $756 million in funding for FY2005, while
the House-passed bill recommended $687 million (not including rescissions).
Congress provided $748.3 million in funding for FY2004 (not including a $6.4
million rescission). The Administration’s request for the COPS office was $43.6
million (including a proposed $53.5 million rescission). If funding from the other
COPS programs which were requested under the Justice Assistance account were
added together, the Administration’s request for programs which traditionally fall
under the COPS account would have totaled $435.7 million (including a proposed
$53.5 million rescission).
The House-passed bill included $113 million for COPS enhancement grants
which would have created a flexible discretionary program for hiring, training, police
integrity training, equipment, overtime, school security, information technology, and
forensic technology. Under this new program, a law enforcement agency could apply
for funding for multiple activities in one application. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act and Senate-reported bill did not recommend funding for this new
grant program. The Consolidated Appropriations Act did however include $10
million for the hiring of law enforcement officers. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $200 million in funding for hiring officers. For FY2004,
Congress provided $118.7 million for these purposes.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $110 million for the DNA
Initiative program, $28.5 million for crime identification technology, and $15 million
for Paul Coverdell forensic science grants. The Senate-reported bill recommended
$100 million for DNA backlog grants, $35 million for crime identification
technology, and $20 million for Paul Coverdell forensic science grants. The House-
passed bill and the Administration’s request provided $175.8 million for the DNA
Initiative. For FY2004, Congress enacted $98.9 million in funding for the DNA
Initiative, $24.0 million for the Crime Identification Technology Act, and $9.9
million for Coverdell forensic science grants.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act includes $52.6 million for
methamphetamine enforcement and clean-up, of which $20 million would reimburse
the DEA for assistance to State and local law enforcement for proper removal and
disposal of hazardous materials at clandestine methamphetamine labs. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommendation included $55 million for state and local
enforcement programs to combat methamphetamine production and distribution, of
which $10 million would reimburse the DEA. The House-passed bill recommended
$60 million for methamphetamine enforcement and clean-up, of which $20 million
would reimburse the DEA. The Administration did not request any funding for this
program for FY2005. Congress provided $53.5 million in funding for this program
for FY2004.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $138.6 million for the Law
Enforcement Technology Program. The Senate-reported bill recommended $111
million for this program, while the House-passed bill recommended $130 million.
The Administration did not request any funding for COPS technology grants for
FY2005, while Congress provided $157 million in funding for these purposes for
FY2004.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act and Senate Appropriations Committee
recommendation includes $100 million to continue COPS Interoperable
Communications Technology program. The House Committee did not recommend
funding for this program, while the Administration requested $1.6 million for DOJ’s
contribution to the Department of Homeland Security’s Project SAFECOM. For
FY2004, Congress provided $84.1 million for this program.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act includes a $99 million rescission from
unobligated balances in this account. The House-passed bill recommended a $61
million rescission to the COPS account. The Administration requested a $53.5
million rescission of prior year balances.
Violence Against Women Act. Funding under the Violence Against
Women Act (VAWA) provides resources to expand units of law enforcement officers
and prosecutors specifically targeted at crimes against women, to develop and
implement effective arrest and prosecution policies to prevent, identify and respond
to violent crimes against women, and to provide victim services. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act includes $387.3 million for VAWA programs. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $410 million for VAWA programs under
the General Administration account. The House-passed bill recommended $383.6
million to support grants under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which
was the same amount of funding Congress provided for FY2004. The
Administration requested $362.5 million for these programs for FY2005.
Juvenile Justice Assistance. Under the Juvenile Justice Assistance
programs, OJP provides assistance to improve juvenile justice and corrections.
Congress reauthorized these programs in the 21^st Century Department of Justice
Appropriations Reauthorization Act (P.L. 107-273), including the making of
appropriations in “such sums as may be appropriate” for these programs for fiscal
years 2003 through 2007. The Consolidated Appropriations Act includes $384.2
million for Juvenile Justice programs (not including rescissions). The Senate-

reported bill recommended $360 million for FY2005, while the House-passed bill
recommended $349 million in funding. The Administration proposed funding
juvenile justice programs under the Justice Assistance heading at $244.5 million.
Congress provided $333.1 million in funding for juvenile justice programs in
FY2004 (including a $15.9 million rescission).
Included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act is a $3.5 million rescission of
unobligated balances in the Juvenile Justice account. Amounts for Tribal Youth and
Alcohol Prevention shall not be rescinded.
Public Safety Officers Benefit Program. The Public Safety Officers
Benefit (PSOB) program provides death benefits to survivors of public safety officers
who die in the line of duty, and disability benefits to those officers injured and
disabled in the line of duty. The Consolidated Appropriations Act includes $69.5
million in funding for this program, the same amount recommended by the Senate-
reported bill and the House-passed bill. Of that amount, $63.1 million is for death
benefits, as requested by the Administration, and an additional $6.4 million is for
disability and education benefits. Congress appropriated $52 million for this
program in FY2004.
Table 4: Department of Justice Funding Accounts
(millions of dollars in budget authority)^a
^FY²⁰⁰⁴^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^Accounts^enacted^wi^t^h^FY²⁰⁰⁵^request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁵^enacted^c
^res^cis^sⁱ^ons^b^pa^sse^d^reported
^G^eⁿ^e^ral^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^$1,^316.6^$1,669.0^$1,444.8^$1,869.8^d^$1,443.6
^U^.^S^.^Parol^e^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^10.5^10.7^10.7^10.6^10.6
^L^e^g^a^{l A}^c^tiv^ities³^,078.5³^,317.7³^,250.9³^,154.4³^,221.6
^Gener^a^{l legal activities}^629.0^e^657.1^639.3^623.4^634.2
^Uⁿⁱ^t^e^{d St}^at^es^At^t^o^rⁿ^eys^1,510.2¹^,547.5¹^,535.0¹^,532.2^f^1,547.5
^Uⁿⁱ^t^e^{d St}^at^es^M^a^r^s^hal^s^Ser^vⁱ^c^e^726.1^743.4^753.5^744.7^757.7
^O^t^her^213.2^369.7^323.2^254.2^282.1
^F^e^deral^Bu^reau^of^In^v^e^s^tⁱ^g^atⁱ^oⁿ⁴^,590.7⁵^,115.2⁵^,215.3⁵^,111.5⁵^,215.3
^Sal^arⁱ^e^s^{and expens}^e^s⁴^,033.8⁴^,563.9⁵^,205.0³^,973.7⁴^,188.0
^C^ounter^{intelligence and}^484.9^495.0⁽^916.0)^1,017.0¹^,017.0
^natⁱ^onal^s^ecurⁱ^t^y
^C^ons^t^r^uctⁱ^oⁿ^11.1⁽^1.2)^g^10.2⁽^16.4)^10.2
^For^eⁱ^{gn t}^e^r^r^o^rⁱ^s^t^t^r^acki^ng^60.9^56.3⁽^56.3)^120.8^-^--
^Dru^g^En^f^o^rcem^en^t
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ¹^,584.5¹^,661.5¹^,661.5¹^,645.0¹^,653.3
^In^t^e^rag^eⁿ^c^y^L^a^w^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^550.6^580.6^561.0^295.4^h^561.0
^B^u^reau^of^A^l^coh^o^{l, T}^obacco,ⁱ
^Fⁱ^rearm^s^an^{d Ex}^pl^osⁱ^v^es^827.3^868.9^870.4^890.4^890.4
^F^e^deral^Pri^s^on^S^y^s^t^em^4,811.²⁴^,709.7⁴^,759.7⁴^,820.1⁴^,820.1
^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^Ju^s^tⁱ^{ce Prog}^ram^s^3,^164.9²^,126.3³^,012.0²^,576.2³^,032.8

^Jus^tⁱ^{ce as}^sⁱ^s^t^ance^188.1¹^,657.2^j^217.0^210.9^227.9
^St^at^{e and l}^o^cal^l^a^w^enf^o^r^cem^ent^k
^as^sⁱ^s^t^ance¹^,386.0---^1,255.0¹^,117.9¹^,295.5
^W^{eed and s}^{eed pr}^ogr^am^f^und^57.9^-^--^51.2^62.0^62.0
^Co^mmuⁿ^{ity o}^r^ien^t^ed^p^o^licin^g^l
^s^e^r^vⁱ^ces^748.3^43.6^686.7^756.0^606.4
^Juveni^l^e^j^u^s^tⁱ^{ce pr}^ogr^am^s^349.0^-^--^349.0^360.0^384.2
^O^f^fⁱ^{ce on Vi}^ol^{ence Agai}^ns^t^383.6^362.5^383.6⁽^410.0)^m^387.3
^W^o^men
^Pu^b^{lic sa}^{fety o}^{fficers b}^eⁿ^e^fits
^pr^ogr^am^52.0^63.1^69.5^69.5^69.5
^A^d^d^itioⁿ^a^{l Fu}ⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g¹⁵^.⁴ⁿ^15.5^o^15.0^p
^R^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^s^-^100.0^q^(-^108.4)
^Subtotal^19,850.3^20,059.7^20,786.²^20,389.1^20,863.6
^A^ddition^a^{l R}^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^on^s^-^264.8^-^81.0^-^172.1^-^255.3
^T^o^tal^:^D^e^p^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^{of Ju}^s^tⁱ^c^e^$19,585.5^$20,059.7^$20,705.²^$20,217.0^$20,608.3
^Source:^A^m^ouⁿ^t^s^w^e^{re t}^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^H^.^R^.^{4818 (}^C^ongr^es^sⁱ^onal^Recor^d^,^N^o^v^e^m^b^{er 20,2004, pp. H}^10109-^10118).
^a.^A^m^o^unt^{s m}^a^y^no^t^t^o^t^a^l^{due t}^o^ro^undi^ng^.
^b^.^A^m^ouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^c^l^u^d^e^a⁰^.⁵⁹^%^gove^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^wⁱ^d^e^r^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^aⁿ^d^a⁰^.^{465% D}^e^part^m^e^nt^o^f^Justⁱ^{ce resci}^ssi^oⁿ^.
^c.^A^m^o^unts^do^no^{t incl}^{ude a 0.}^{80% acro}^s^s^{the bo}^{ard res}^c^is^sⁱ^oⁿ^{and a 0.}^{54% Co}^m^m^e^rce,^J^u^s^{tice S}^t^{ate dis}^c^retio^nary^acco^unts^res^cⁱ^ssi^oⁿ^.^d.^This^am^o^{unt incl}^udes^{$410 m}ⁱ^l^lⁱ^oⁿ^{in funding}^fo^r^the^O^ffice^oⁿ^Vⁱ^o^l^{ence A}^g^ains^{t Wo}^m^e^n,^w^h^{ich has}^{been traditio}^nal^l^y^{funded u}^{nder t}^h^{e Offi}^{ce o}^f
^J^u^s^{tice P}^r^o^g^r^am^s^acco^unt.
^e.^A^m^o^untⁱⁿ^cl^{udes $2.}^{0 m}ⁱ^l^lⁱ^oⁿ^fo^{r t}^h^{e Radi}^atⁱ^oⁿ^Expo^sure^Co^m^p^ensatⁱ^o^{n A}^c^t^,^{$15 m}ⁱ^l^lⁱ^oⁿⁱⁿ^suppl^em^ent^a^l^reso^{urces fo}^{r 9/}¹¹^Vⁱ^c^tim^s^Co^m^p^en^s^a^tioⁿ
^F^und,^{and $15 m}ⁱ^l^lⁱ^oⁿⁱⁿ^suppl^em^ent^a^l^appro^p^ri^atⁱ^o^ns^fo^{r Sal}^a^ri^{es and Expenses pro}^vⁱ^d^{ed by}^P.^L^.^108-^106.^f.^The^S^e^nate-^r^epo^r^{ted bil}^l^incl^{uded funding}^fo^{r I}ⁿ^terag^e^ncy^D^r^ug^{and L}^a^w^Enfo^rcem^ent^w^{ithin the U}^.^S^.^A^tto^rney^s^acco^unt.^Tradi^tioⁿ^a^l^l^y^Iⁿ^ter^a^g^eⁿ^c^y
^L^a^w^Enfo^rcem^{ent is}^{funded w}^{ithin it’s}^o^wⁿ^acco^unt.^This^am^o^{unt do}^es^no^{t incl}^{ude funding}^fo^{r I}ⁿ^terag^e^ncy^L^a^w^Enfo^rcem^ent.
^g^.^{The A}^d^mⁱ^nis^t^ratio^n’s^reques^t^m^e^rg^es^co^ns^tructioⁿ^funds^into^{the F}^B^I^’^s^s^a^l^a^ries^{and expens}^es^acco^unt.^h.^{The S}^e^nate-^r^epo^r^{ted bil}^l^incl^uded^funding^fo^{r I}ⁿ^terag^e^ncy^D^r^ug^and^L^a^w^Enfo^rcem^ent^w^{ithin the U}^.^S^.^A^tto^rney^s^acco^unt.^Tradi^tioⁿ^a^l^l^y^Iⁿ^ter^a^g^eⁿ^c^y
^L^a^w^Enfo^rcem^{ent is}^{funded w}^{ithin its}^o^w^{n acco}^unt.
ⁱ^.^Thi^sⁱⁿ^cl^{udes a pro}^p^o^s^{ed $1.}^{5 m}ⁱ^l^lⁱ^oⁿ^resci^ssi^oⁿ^o^f^pri^o^{r y}^{ear bal}^a^nces.^j^.^The^l^a^rg^eⁱⁿ^{crease i}ⁿ^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2005 request}^,^as^co^m^p^ared^t^o^t^h^e^F^Y^{2004 enact}^{ed budg}^et^,^refl^ect^{s t}^h^{e pro}^p^o^s^{ed perfo}^rm^ance-^based^r^eal^igⁿ^m^en^{t o}^f^th^e
^m^a^j^o^{r O}^{ffice fo}^{r J}^u^s^{tice P}^r^o^g^r^am^s^(O^J^P^{) g}^r^{ant pro}^g^r^am^s^{in the J}^u^s^{tice A}^s^sⁱ^s^t^ance^acco^unt.^This^am^o^{unt al}^s^o^incl^udes^{a pro}^p^o^s^ed^$53.^{5 m}ⁱ^l^lⁱ^oⁿ
^res^c^is^sⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^prio^{r y}^{ear bal}^a^nces^.
^k^.^This^am^o^{unt incl}^udes^$49.^{7 m}ⁱ^l^lⁱ^oⁿ^{in additio}^nal^funding^fo^{r di}^s^c^retio^nary^g^r^ants^fo^{r reim}^burs^e^m^e^{nt to}^s^t^{ate and l}^o^cal^l^a^w^eⁿ^f^o^r^cem^en^{t en}^tities^f^o^r^securi^t^y^{and rel}^a^t^e^{d co}^st^{s asso}^ci^at^{ed w}ⁱ^t^h^t^h^{e 2004 Presi}^d^entⁱ^a^l^Candi^dat^e^N^o^mⁱ^natⁱⁿ^g^Co^nv^entⁱ^o^{ns and $2.}^{2 m}ⁱ^l^lⁱ^oⁿⁱⁿ^mⁱ^scel^l^aⁿ^eo^us^g^r^ant
^appro^p^riatio^ns^(P^.^L^.^108-^199).^Iⁿ^additio^n,^this^am^o^{unt incl}^ude^s^{$50 m}ⁱ^l^lⁱ^oⁿ^{in additio}^nal^funding^fo^{r dis}^c^retio^nary^g^r^ants^fo^{r rei}^m^bursem^e^nt
^to^s^t^{ate and l}^o^cal^l^a^w^enfo^rcem^{ent entities}^fo^r^s^ecurity^and^re^l^a^{ted co}^s^t^s^as^s^o^{ciated w}^{ith the}²⁰⁰⁴^P^r^es^idential^Candidate^N^o^mⁱⁿ^a^tin^g^Coⁿ^v^en^tioⁿ^s^(P.^L^.^108-^287).
^l^.^Thi^s^am^o^untⁱⁿ^cl^{udes a pro}^p^o^s^{ed $53.}^{5 m}ⁱ^l^lⁱ^oⁿ^resci^ssi^oⁿ^o^f^pri^o^{r y}^{ear bal}^a^nces.
^m^.^{The S}^e^nate-^r^epo^r^{ted bil}^l^incl^udes^{the O}^{ffice o}ⁿ^Vⁱ^o^l^ence^A^g^ains^{t Wo}^m^e^{n funding}^{under the}^G^e^neral^A^d^mⁱ^nis^t^ratio^{n acco}^unt.^n.^T^h^is^am^o^{unt incl}^ude^s^{$14.8 m}ⁱ^l^lⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^r^the^Uⁿ^ite^{d S}^t^ate^s^A^tto^rⁿ^e^y^s^f^o^r^O^p^e^r^atio^{n S}^e^ahaw^{k (}^aⁿ^inte^r^a^g^e^ncy^s^e^apo^r^{t s}^e^cur^ity^initi^ativ^e⁾^{and $544}
^t^h^ou^saⁿ^d^{for t}^h^e^L^o^c^a^l^L^a^w^Eⁿ^forc^e^m^eⁿ^t^B^l^oc^k^G^r^aⁿ^t^Progra^m^{(for Sa}ⁿ^Ju^aⁿ^,^Pu^e^r^t^o^Rⁱ^c^o^).
^o.^T^h^is^a^m^ouⁿ^t^incl^ude^s^{$15 m}ⁱ^l^lⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^r^the^Uⁿ^ite^{d S}^t^ate^s^A^tto^rⁿ^e^y^s^f^o^r^O^p^e^r^atio^{n S}^e^ahaw^{k (}^a^{n inte}^r^a^g^e^ncy^s^e^apo^r^{t s}^e^cur^ity^initiat^iv^e⁾^{and $544}
^t^h^ou^saⁿ^d^{for t}^h^e^L^o^c^a^l^L^a^w^Eⁿ^forc^e^m^eⁿ^t^B^l^oc^k^G^r^aⁿ^t^Progra^m^{(for Sa}ⁿ^Ju^aⁿ^,^Pu^e^r^t^o^Rⁱ^c^o^).
^p.^T^h^is^am^o^{unt incl}^ude^s^{$15 m}ⁱ^l^lⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^r^the^Uⁿ^ite^{d S}^t^ate^s^A^tto^rⁿ^e^y^s^f^o^r^O^p^e^r^atio^{n S}^e^ahaw^{k (}^a^{n inte}^r^a^g^e^ncy^s^e^apo^r^{t s}^e^cur^ity^initiat^iv^e⁾^.^q.^Thi^s^resci^ssi^oⁿⁱ^s^fo^{r D}^e^part^m^e^nt^o^f^Justⁱ^{ce funds fro}^m^prⁱ^o^r^y^{ear appro}^p^ri^atⁱ^o^{ns w}ⁱ^t^h^t^h^{e except}ⁱ^o^{n o}^f^{funds pro}^vⁱ^ded^fo^r^co^uⁿ^t^er^ter^r^o^rⁱ^s^m^activ^ities^,
^co^uⁿ^t^erⁱⁿ^tel^lⁱ^g^eⁿ^{ce activ}^ities^,^wh^{ite co}^l^l^a^r^en^f^o^r^cem^en^t,^o^r^g^aⁿⁱ^zed^cr^im^{e en}^f^o^r^cem^en^t,^an^d^d^r^u^g^en^f^o^r^cem^en^t.
Related Legislation
P.L. 108-182/S. 459 (Leahy)
The Hometown Heroes Survivor Benefits Act of 2003. Amends current law by
providing that if an officer has a fatal heart attack or stroke while on duty, his is
presumed to have died in the line of duty for purposes of survival benefits.
Introduced on February 26, 2003. Passed/agreed to in Senate without amendment by
Unanimous Consent on May 16, 2003. Passed/agreed to in House without objection
on November 22,2003. Became Public Law 108-182 on December 15,2003.

P.L. 108-275/H.R. 1731 (Carter)/S. 153 (Feinstein)
The Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act. Among other things, amends the
Federal criminal code to establish penalties for aggravated identity theft and
authorizes appropriations to the Department of Justice for the investigation and
prosecution of identity theft and related credit card and other fraud cases constituting
felonies. Introduced on April 10, 2003. Reported (Amended) by the House
Committee on the Judiciary on June 8, 2004. Passed/agreed to in House on motion
to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote on June
23, 2004. Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by
Unanimous Consent on June 25, 2004. Became Public Law 108-275 on July 15,

2004.

P.L. 108-277/H.R. 218 (Cunningham)
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003. Amends the Federal criminal
code to authorize qualified law enforcement officers carrying the photographic
identification issued by their governmental agency to carry a concealed firearm.
Provides that such authorization shall not supersede State laws that (1) permit private
entities to prohibit the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or (2)
prohibit the possession of firearms on State or local government property. Excludes
from the definition of "firearm" any machine gun, firearm silencer, or destructive
device. Introduced on January 7, 2003. Reported by the House Committee on the
Judiciary on June 22, 2003. Passed/agreed to in House on motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill, as amended agreed to by voice vote on June 23, 2003.
Passed/agreed to in Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent and cleared
for White House on July 7, 2004. Became P.L. 108-277 on July 22, 2004.
P.L. 108-372/H.R. 2714 (Smith)
The State Justice Institute Reauthorization Act of 2004. Among other things,
reauthorized the Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant program through FY2007.
Introduced on July 14, 2003. Report by the House Committee on the Judiciary on
September 25, 2003. Passed/agreed to in House on motion to suspend the rules and
pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote on March 10, 2004. Senate
Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent and Passed/agreed
to in Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent on September 30, 2004.
Became Public Law 108-372 on October 25, 2004.
P.L. 108-405/S. 1700 (Hatch)/H.R. 3214 (Sensenbrenner)/H.R. 5107
(Sensenbrenner)
Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act/ Justice for All Act. Among
other purposes, these bills are aimed at eliminating the backlog of DNA samples
collected from crime scenes and convicted offenders, to improve and expand the
DNA testing capacity of Federal, State, and local crime laboratories, to increase
research and development of new DNA testing technologies, to develop new training
programs regarding the collection and use of DNA evidence, to provide post-
conviction testing of DNA evidence to exonerate the innocent, to improve the
performance of counsel in State capital cases. S. 1700 introduced October 1, 2003,
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary October 1, 2003. Ordered to be reported
(with an amendment in the nature of a substitute) September 21, 2004; H.R. 3214
introduced October 1, 2003; Passed/agreed to in House on motion to suspend the

rules November 5, 2003; Received in the Senate November 6, 2003; H.R. 5107
reported by the House Judiciary Committee on September 30, 2004; the House
passed H.R. 5107 after adopting a manager’s amendment that made a number of
changes to the measure on October 6, 2004; The Senate passed H.R. 5107 without
amendment by Unanimous Consent on October 9, 2004. Became P.L. 108-405 on
October 30, 2004.
P.L. 108-414/S. 1194 (DeWine)
The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003. Among
other purposes, this bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 to authorize the Attorney General to award grants to eligible State and local
governments and Indian tribes and organizations to plan and implement programs
that promote public safety by ensuring access to mental health and other treatment
services for mentally ill adults or juveniles; and are overseen cooperatively by a
criminal justice agency, juvenile justice agency, or mental health court and a mental
health agency (collaboration programs). This bill requires such programs to target
nonviolent adults or juveniles who: have been diagnosed as having a mental illness
or co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders or who manifest
obvious signs of such an illness or disorder during arrest or confinement or before
any court; and face criminal charges and are deemed eligible on the ground that the
commission of the offense is the product of the person's mental illness. Introduced
on June 5, 2003. Committee on the Judiciary reported with an amendment in the
nature of a substitution on October 23, 2003. Passed Senate with amendment on
October 27, 2003. Forwarded to full House Committee on the Judiciary by voice
vote on September 23, 2004. House passed on October 6, 2004. Became Public Law

108-414 on October 30, 2004.

H.R. 3036 (Sensenbrenner)
Authorizes appropriations for the Department of Justice for fiscal years 2004
through 2006, and for other purposes. Introduced on September 9, 2003. Reported
to the House on February 24, 2004. Referred to the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary on March 31, 2004.
H.R. 4547 (Sensenbrenner)
Defending America’s Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and
Child Protection Act of 2004. Among other things, amends the Controlled Substance
Act to strengthen penalties for drug trafficking, especially to minors or near drug
rehabilitation centers. Introduced on June 14, 2004. Forwarded to full House
Committee on the Judiciary by voice vote on September 23, 2004.
H.R. 4564 (Wolf)
Amends Title 5, United States Code, to provide for reform relating to
employment at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Among other things, provisions
would provide the FBI with enhanced retention, recruitment, and retirement
authorities in order to improve their ability to attract and retain necessary staff.
Introduced on June 14, 2004. Referred to the House Committee on Government
Reform on June 14, 2004. Provisions of this bill have been included in P.L. 108-447.

S. 1735 (Hatch)
Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003. Among other things,
this bill is aimed to increase and enhance law enforcement resources committed to
investigation and prosecution of violent gangs, to deter and punish gang crime, to
reform and facilitate prosecution of juvenile gang members who commit violent
crimes, and to revise and enhance criminal penalties for violent crime.
Introduced/Originated in the Senate on October 15, 2003. Referred to the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary and reported by Senator Hatch with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. Placed on the Senate Calendar July 6, 2004.
S. 1860 (Hatch)
Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003. Among
other purposes, this bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 to authorize the Attorney General to make grants to State and local prosecutors
for drug treatment alternatives to prison grants. Introduced and referred to the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary on November 14, 2003.
S. 2863 (Hatch)
A bill to authorize appropriations for the Department of Justice for fiscal years
2005, 2006, and 2007, and for other purposes. Introduced and referred to the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary on September 29, 2004.
Related CRS Products
CRS Report 97-196, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program: An
Overview, by JoAnne O’Bryant.
CRS Report RS20539, Federal Crime Control Assistance to State and Local
Governments, by JoAnne O’Bryant.
CRS Issue Brief IB10012, Gun Control Legislation in the 108^th Congress, by
William Krouse.
CRS Report RL32249, Gun Control Proposals to Regulate Gun Shows, by William
Krouse.
CRS Report RS20576, Juvenile Justice: Legislative Activity and Funding Trends for
Selected Programs, by JoAnne O’Bryant, Edith Fairman Cooper, and David
Teasley.
CRS Report RL32095, The Federal Bureau of Investigation: Past, Present and
Future, by Todd Masse and William J. Krouse.
CRS Report RL32336, FBI Intelligence Reform Since September 11, 2001: Issues
and Options for Congress, by Alfred Cummings and Todd Masse.
CRS Report RL30871, Violence Against Women Act: History, Federal Funding, and
Reauthorizing Legislation, by Garrine Laney and Alison Siskin.

CRS Report RS21259, Violence Against Women Office: Background and Current
Issues, by Garrine P. Laney.
CRS Issue Brief IB10113, War On Drugs: Legislation in the 108^th Congress and
Related Developments, by Mark Eddy.
CRS Report RL32366, Terrorist Identification, Screening, and Tracking Under
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6, by William J. Krouse.
Commerce and Related Agencies³
Title II typically includes the appropriations for the Department of Commerce
and related agencies. The origins of the department date back to 1903 with the
establishment of the Department of Commerce and Labor (32 Stat. 825). The
separate 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 American
business and increasing foreign trade; (2) improving the nation’s technological
competitiveness; (3) encouraging economic development; (4) fostering
environmental stewardship and assessment; and (5) compiling, analyzing and
disseminating statistical 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 and regions.
^!Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) seeks to promote
private and public sector investment in minority businesses.
^!Bureau of the Census collects, compiles, and publishes a broad range
of economic, demographic, and social data.
^!Economic and Statistical Analysis Programs provide (1) timely
information on the state of the economy through preparation,
development, and interpretation of economic data; and (2) analytical
support to department officials in meeting their policy
responsibilities. Much of the analysis is conducted by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA).

³ This title is coordinated by Kevin Kosar, Analyst in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division.

^!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 and efficient marine and air navigation; (2) assess the
health of coastal and marine resources; (3) monitor and predict the
coastal, ocean, and global environments (including weather
forecasting); and (4) protect and manage the nation’s coastal
resources.
^!Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) examines and approves
applications for patents for claimed inventions and registration of
trademarks.
^!Technology Administration, through the Office of Technology
Policy, advocates integrated policies that seek to maximize the
impact of technology on 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,
modernize manufacturing processes, ensure product reliability, and
facilitate rapid commercialization 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 performs research in
telecommunications sciences.
For FY2005 appropriations, the Administration requested roughly $5.96 billion
for Title II, including the Commerce Department and related agencies. The House
bill (H.R. 4754) would have appropriated $5.65 billion and the Senate bill (S. 2608)
would have appropriated $6.80 billion. The final appropriation (P.L. 108-447, before
rescissions) is $6.60 billion.
Departmental Management
The President’s FY2005 budget request called for $78.27 million for
Departmental Management: $56.02 million for salaries and expenses and $22.25
million for the Office of Inspector General (IG). The $56.02 million for salaries and

expenses would have been approximately $9.22 million above the FY2004
appropriation, a 19.7% increase. The $22.25 million for the IG would have been
$1.36 million above the FY2004 appropriation, a 6.5% increase. The House bill
(H.R. 4754) would have approved $74.36 million for departmental management:
$52.11 in salaries and expenses and $22.25 million for the IG. The Senate bill (S.
2608) would have approved $96.62 million for departmental management: $55.55
million for salary and expenses, $21.07 million for the IG, and $20.0 million for a
travel and tourism advertisement program directed at foreign consumers. The final
appropriation (P.L. 108-447, before rescissions) is $79.77 million, with $48.11
million for salaries and expenses, $21.66 million for the IG, and $10 million for a
travel and tourism advertisement program.
International Trade Administration⁴
The Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA)(H.R. 4818, H. Rept 108-792)
enacted $393.513 million in appropriations with $8 million to be derived from fees,
thus raising the level of budget authority to $401.513 million. Each version of the
bill provided different amounts to the 4 functional units of the agency, although each
allocated $26 million for central administration. ITA’s FY2004 enacted level was
$378.1 million with $13 million in fee collections, raising total resources that year
to $395.1 million.
ITA provides export promotion services, works to assure compliance with trade
agreements, administers trade remedies such as antidumping and countervailing
duties, and provides analytical support for ongoing trade negotiations. The agency is
divided into four policy units and an Executive and Administrative Directorate, with
a total full time staff of 2,553. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L.
108-199) mandated the reorganization of ITA. These changes are discussed in
context of the new organizational structure.
Manufacturing and Services Unit (MSU). The MSU carries out certain
industry analysis functions of the former Trade Development Unit (TD), but it is also
tasked with promoting the competitiveness and expansion of the U.S. manufacturing
sector under the President’s Manufacturing Initiative of March 2003. Congress
transferred the trade promotion activities of TD - the Advocacy Center, the Trade
Information Center, and Office of Export Assistance - to the new Trade Promotion
Unit. The Administration requested $47.5 million for the MSU in FY2005 and the
House appropriated the same amount. The Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC)
recommended $49.5 million, which includes funding for the National Textile Center
($ 10 million), the Textile/Clothing Technology Corporation ($3 million) and the
Kansas City Smart Port (0.5 million). The CAA enacted $48.5 million for the MSU
and included the above earmarks. In FY2004, Congress enacted an appropriation of
$46.7 million.
Market Access and Compliance Unit (MAC). The MAC monitors foreign
country compliance with trade agreements, identifies compliance problems and

⁴ The sections on ITA, USTR, NIPLECC, ITC, and BIS were written by Ian F. Fergusson,
Analyst in International Trade and Finance, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.

market access obstacles, and informs U.S. firms of foreign business practices and
opportunities. MAC retains the same core functions as before the reorganization. The
Administration requested $39.1 million for MAC in FY2005 and the House
appropriated the same amount. The SAC recommended $41.1 million and
earmarked $2 million for the placing of compliance officers in key overseas markets.
The CAA enacted a figure of $40.1 million. In FY2004, Congress enacted an
appropriation of $38.2 million and directed the establishment of an Office of
Enforcement within the Unit.
Import Administration Unit (IA). IA administers the trade remedy laws of
the United States, including antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard actions.
The CAA enacted an appropriation of $64.5 million, of which no less than $3 million
is for the Office of China Compliance. The President requested $69 million for the
IA unit. The House appropriated $58 million, and earmarked $3 million for the
Office of China Compliance. The House Appropriations Committee report language
noted the Committee’s concern that antidumping and countervailing duty
investigations decreased significantly between 2001-2003. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $71 million. Its report language earmarks
$2 million for continued placement of overseas enforcement officers, and to monitor
foreign commitments to WTO and other agreements on antidumping and subsidies.
In FY2004, Congress enacted an appropriation of $68.2 million in FY2004. It also
directed the reorganization of the Unit into separate anti-dumping and countervailing
duty case processing divisions, and a policy and negotiation division. Congress also
provided $3 million for the establishment of an Office of China Compliance to focus
on trade remedy issues pertinent to small and medium sized domestic industry.
Trade Promotion/U.S. Foreign Commercial Service (TP/FCS). The
Administration requested $211.9 million for this Unit, formerly known as the U.S.
and Foreign Commercial Service. The House appropriated $230.9 million (which
includes the $8 million fee allocation), earmarking $1.5 million for the Advocacy
Center, $2.5 million for the Trade Information Center, and $2.1 million for the China
and Middle East Business Center. The Senate Committee report language
recommended an appropriation of $213.9 million and directs USFCS to support the
Appalachian-Turkish trade project. The Conferees enacted $222.4 million for this
Unit and adopted the earmarks above. The Conference Agreement provides $0.5
million to the Rural Export Initiative to be made available to the West Virginia High
Technology Consortium Foundation. In FY2004, Congress appropriated $217
million and directed the reorganization of this entity, renaming it the Trade
Promotion Unit (TPU). Congress transferred the trade promotion functions of the
former TD Unit (the Trade Information Center, the Advocacy Center, and the Office
of Export Assistance) to the TPU. It directed the TPU to establish a Middle East
Business Information Center and a China Business Information Center. Congress also
directed the agency to create American Trading Centers in China to promote the
importation of U.S. goods and services into China.
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 and
coordinating U.S. international trade and direct investment policies. The President’s

FY2005 request is $39.6 million, $2.6 million more than the President’s FY2004
request of $37 million and $2.4 million less than the amount appropriated by
Congress in FY2004. The Conference enacted $41.552 million, the amount
recommended by the House and by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The
USTR is responsible for advancing U.S. interests at the WTO and negotiating
bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTA). In the last year, the
Administration has concluded FTA with the 5 nations of the Central American
Common Market, Australia, Morocco, and Bahrain. The Administration is also
conducting negotiations with the Southern African Customs Union, Panama,
Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, Bahrain and Thailand. The
Office had 225 FTEs in FY2004.
The Conference adopted language of the House Appropriations Committee
expressing concern with the continuing U.S. trade deficit and urged the USTR to use
all available trade remedies to address the disruptions resulting from unbalanced
trade, especially with China. It also adopted House language directing USTR to
advance the interests of U.S. business in international standards negotiations and to
push for the adoption of U.S. standards. The Conference adopted Senate language
directing the establishment of the Office of Chief Negotiator for Intellectual Property
Enforcement. It also incorporated Senate language directing USTR to continue to
negotiate within the WTO for the right to distribute monies collected from
antidumping and countervailing duties actions.
NIPLECC
The Consolidated Appropriations Act provided a direct appropriation of $2
million for the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordinating Council
(NIPLECC). This interagency council, which was created by the Treasury
Appropriations Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-58) and funded by the participating agencies,
previously had not received a direct appropriation. The Senate bill originally
provided $20 million for NIPLECC. Its function is to coordinate the activities of
government agencies with domestic and international intellectual property law
enforcement functions. It is comprised of the of Director of the Patent and Trademark
Office, the Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, the Under Secretary of
State for Economic and Business Affairs, the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative,
the Commissioner of Customs, and the Undersecretary of Commerce for
International Trade.
The Conferees adopted Senate language directing the President to appoint a
Coordinator of International Intellectual Property Enforcement with the responsibility
of establishing policies, objectives, and priorities in IP enforcement, to develop a
strategy for protecting U.S. intellectual property overseas, and to coordinate and
oversee implementation of these policies. The Coordinator will develop an annual
budget in conjunction with its participating agencies to carry out its activities. This
appropriation follows a recent GAO report which found that while some U.S. efforts
have encouraged strengthened intellectual property legislation overseas, enforcement
remains weak in many countries. GAO found that NIPLECC “has struggled to find
a clear mission, has undertaken few activities, and is generally viewed as having little
impact.” (GAO Report 04-912, Intellectual Property: U.S. Efforts Have Contributed
to Strengthened Laws Overseas, but Challenges Remain, September 23, 2004)

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,
along with the Import Administration Unit of ITA, is charged with administering
various U.S. trade remedy laws. Its six commissioners are appointed by the President
for nine-year terms. As a matter of policy, its budget request is submitted to
Congress by the President without revision.
For FY2005, ITC requests $61.7 million, a $4 million increase from the amount
requested and appropriated by Congress in FY2004 ($57.7 million). The House and
the Senate Appropriation Committee recommended this amount, and the Conference
enacted the full $61.7 million. The 6.9% increase is intended to be used to fund a
mandatory pay increase, to fund several information technology projects to increase
public access to trade information, to improve electronic transaction capability, and
to develop more accurate trade information for affected constituents. In FY2004, ITC
had 374 employees.
Bureau of Industry and Security
The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriation Act (H. Rept 108-792) enacted $68.4
million for the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), including $61.2 million for
operations and administration and $7.2 for enforcement activities related to the
Chemical Weapons Convention. This figure represents a 1.3% increase from the final
FY2004 enacted level of $67.5 million. The President’s FY2005 request for the BIS
(formerly the Bureau of Export Administration) was $76.5 million. The House
recommended $68.4 million; the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$70.9 million. BIS administers export controls on dual-use goods and technology
through its licensing and enforcement functions. It cooperates with other nations on
export control policy, and provides assistance to the U.S. business community to
comply with U.S. and multilateral export controls. BIS administers the anti-boycott
statutes of the United States, and it is also charged with monitoring the U.S. defense
industrial base. The bureau had 447 full-time employees in FY2004.
The President’s request highlighted 3 new programmatic initiatives which
would have added 35 full-time employees (FTEs) and cost $8.1 million. BIS sought
$2.3 million for a License Condition Enforcement Program to insure that licensees
adhere to the conditions placed on export licenses. This proposal responded to
criticism leveled at the agency by the General Accounting Office (GAO) that the
bureau lacked a system to monitor and to enforce license conditionalities. (See GAO
Report 04-357, Export Controls: Post-Shipment Verification Provides Limited
Assurance that Dual-Use Items Are Being Properly Used, January 2004).
BIS also sought to create an Office of Technology Evaluation to enable the
Bureau to identify new technologies for inclusion on the Commerce Control List
(CCL), to review the inclusion of current items on the CCL, and to review
multilateral export control regimes and national control regimes of other nations. BIS
requested $2 million for this program. This Office was originally proposed in

FY2004 to respond to another GAO report that cited BIS for failing to conduct
regular foreign availability assessments and neglecting to analyze the cumulative
effects of certain technology transfers. (See GAO Report 02-620, Export Controls:
Rapid Advances in China’s Semiconductor Industry Underscore Need for
Fundamental U.S. Policy Review, May 8, 2002). Congress did not appropriate funds
for this proposal in 2004.
A third priority for BIS in its funding request was the provision of additional
resources for export enforcement to prevent the diversion of sensitive dual-use items
to countries of concern and terrorist entities. BIS sought an additional appropriation
of $3.8 million for additional enforcement personnel.
Neither the House nor the Senate Appropriations Committee included funding
for these proposals. The House adopted the recommendation of the House
Appropriations Committee for $68.4 million in total funding, of which $7.1 million
is earmarked for compliance inspections related to Chemical Weapons Convention
enforcement. The House recommended $33.4 million for export administration and
licensing activities, $30.1 million for export enforcement including end-user checks,
and $4.9 million for management and policy coordination. The Senate
Appropriations Committee’s recommendation of $70.9 million included $32.9
million for export administration, $34 million for export enforcement, and $4 million
for management and policy coordination. The Senate Committee version
recommended $7.2 million “for inspections and other activities related to national
security.” The Conference report enacted the House funding level of $68.393
million, but it enacted the Senate figure of $7.2 million for CWC enforcement, thus
the operations budget was reduced by $.073 million to $61.193 million.
Economic Development Administration⁵
For FY2005, the Administration requested a total appropriation of $320.3
million for the Economic Development Administration. More specifically, it is
requested $289.8 million for the agency’s Economic Development Assistance
Programs (EDAP) and $30.6 million for Salaries and Expenses (S&E). The House
approved the amounts for EDAP and S&E requested by the Administration. The
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a slightly lower amount for EDAP
— $285 million — and $30.4 million for S&E, for a total appropriation of $315.5
million for FY2005 (the same total amount the agency received for FY2004).
The Omnibus bill for FY2005 significantly reduces the agency’s appropriation
for EDAP, providing $257.4 million or $26.6 million less than EDA received for
FY2004. Salaries and Expenses remained virtually unchanged at $30.48 million,
giving EDA a total FY2005 appropriation of $287.9 million. It is perhaps worth
noting that for FY2001, FY2002 and FY2003, Congress provided EDA with
appropriations of $439 million, $365.6 million, and $320.8 million, respectively.

⁵ This section was written by Bruce Mulock, Specialist in Government and Business,
Government and Finance Division.

For FY2004, the Administration had requested a total appropriation of $364.4
million. Of this amount, $331 million was for EDAP, and $33.4 million was for
S&E. The House approved a total of $318.7 million for the Economic Development
Administration, including $288.1 billion for EDAP and $30.6 million for S&E. The
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a total of $387.7 million for EDA,
including $357.1 million for EDAP and $30.6 million for S&E. The conference
agreement provided EDA with a total appropriation of $315.3 million — $285
million for EDAP and $30.2 million for S&E.
The agency’s authorization expired at the end of FY2003. Hearings on the
Administration’s proposal (H.R. 2454) for reauthorizing EDA were held in June
2003 by the House Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and
Emergency Management (for more information, see background testimony). On June
23, 2003, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee adopted a modified
version (H.R. 2535) of the Administration’s five-year reauthorization bill. The
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee did not take up the EDA
reauthorization issue until late in the 2^nd session of the 108^th Congress. On October
7, 2004, S. 1134 under a suspension of the rules by a vote of 388 to 31. President
Bush signed the bill, the Economic Development Administration Reauthorization Act
of 2004, into law (P.L. 108-382) on October 15, 2004.
The legislation will allow the Secretary of Commerce to finance more than 80
percent of project costs with federal funds. Additionally, the bill Gives EDA the
authority to allow local governments to keep surplus (or under-run) funds from
projects completed under budget. Finally, the bill allows EDA to use additional
excess project funds to increase the federal government’s share of the cost or to allow
individual projects to be improved without the need for further appropriations action
by Congress.
Minority Business Development Agency⁶
For FY2005, the Administration requested $34.46 million for the Minority
Business Development Agency (MBDA), an increase of nearly $6 million over
FY2004 funding. The House approved $28.9 million. (The conference agreement
for FY2004 appropriations provided the MBDA with $28.56 million.) The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $31.55 million for the agency. The
Omnibus bill provides the MBDA with $29.9 million for FY2005, an increase of a
little less than $1.5 million over FY2004.
Economic and Statistical Analysis⁷
The Commerce Department’s Economic and Statistical Analysis (ESA)
programs are conducted by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the Bureau

⁶ This section was written by Bruce Mulock, Specialist in Government and Business,
Government and Finance Division.
⁷ This section was written by Brian W. Cashell, Specialist in Quantitative Economics,
Government and Finance Division.

of the Census. In FY2005, the President requested $88.4 million for these programs,
which is $14.2 million (17.9%) above the FY2004 funding level. The Administration
believes that the BEA’s timely and accurate statistical reports are essential for
providing reliable data to policymakers, industry, and consumers. The BEA has
received programmatic increases over the past three years to ensure that policymakers
have access to more accurate and timely economic data.
For FY2005, the House approved the Appropriations Committee
recommendation of $78.211 million, $2 million of which is for a grant to the
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to study the impacts of off-
shoring on the economy. The Senate approved bill provided $81.764 million. The
conference agreement provides $80.000 million, and also includes funds for the grant
to the NAPA for the study on off-shoring.
Bureau of The Census⁸
To fund the Bureau of the Census in FY2005, President Bush requested a total
of $828.6 million: $220.4 million for salaries and expenses and $608.2 million for
periodic programs, including the decennial census. The total request exceeds the
FY2004 enacted amount by $204.4 million. Much of the increase is due to
accelerated planning for the 2010 census. For 2010, the Bureau anticipates a
redesigned short-form census, to be answered by all U.S. households. Also, the
American Community Survey (ACS), which collects data annually from a sample of
households, is intended to replace the census long form.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended, and the full House
approved, $773.9 million for the Bureau in FY2005. Of this amount, which is $54.7
million below the Administration’s request, but $149.7 million above the amount
provided in FY2004, $202.8 million is for salaries and expenses and $571.1 million
for periodic programs. The periodic programs account includes $173.8 million for
a short-form 2010 census ($9.2 million below the request, but $66.7 million over the
current fiscal year amount) and $146 million for the American Community Survey
($19 million below the request, but $81.2 million above the current amount).
Overall, the committee allocated $400 million for 2010 census expenses.
During House consideration of H.R. 4754, Representative Hefley proposed an
amendment to eliminate FY2005 funding for the redesigned short-form 2010 census.
Mr. Hefley indicated that $173.8 million was an excessive amount for this purpose
and suggested that the Census Bureau, in subsequent years, “come back to us with
a little more reasonable effort about what it takes to redesign a short form.” Among
the Members speaking against the amendment was Representative Wolf, who
observed, “The White House statement on the bill states clearly that the funding
provided in this bill is the minimal amount viable for the 2010 census.” The
amendment was defeated by a vote of 71 to 342, Roll No. 331 (Congressional
Record, daily edition, vol. 150, July 7, 2004, pp. H5279-H5280, H5318). Another
amendment, offered by Representative Paul, sought to prohibit the use of FY2005
funds for the American Community Survey. According to Mr. Paul, “We have no

⁸ This section was written by Jennifer D. Williams, Government and Finance Division.

right to give this authority to meddle into the privacy of American citizens.”
Representative Davis of Virginia countered that the ACS “is a new approach for
collecting accurate, timely information needed for critical government functions such
as funding highway planning, school lunch programs, and community block grants.”
The Paul amendment was rejected by voice vote (Ibid., pp. H5292-H5293).
The Senate Appropriations Committee’s recommended FY2005 funding amount
of $605.8 million for the Bureau ($174.3 million for salaries and expenses, and
$431.5 million for periodic programs) is $168.1 million less than the House
approved, $222.8 million short of the Administration’s request, and $18.5 million
below the FY2004 level. The committee recommended $250.6 million for the 2010
census, $149.4 million less than the House approved. The committee directed that
not less than $82.3 million of the decennial census funding should be for the Master
Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System
(MAF/TIGER). The Bureau relies on MAF/TIGER to produce address lists for,
among other uses, mailing census questionnaires. The committee also expressed
particular concern that the Bureau’s reports on manufacturing as well as economic
and foreign trade statistics be maintained and released in a timely way.
National Telecommunications and Information
Admi ni str a ti on⁹
For the FY2005 appropriations, congressional policymakers decided to
terminate funding for NTIA’s Technologies Opportunities Program (TOP). All
current grants provided for this program will be administered until their expiration
at the end of the fiscal year. In FY2004, the TOP received $15 million in
appropriations. Regarding other components of the NTIA budget, for Salaries and
Expenses, Congress appropriated $17.4 million for FY2005; in FY2004 it was $14
million. For the Public Telecommunications Facilities, Planning and Construction,
Congress provided $21.7 million for FY2005; in FY2004 this was $22 million. The
total budget for NTIA in FY2005 is $39.1 million, compared to $51 million in
FY2004.
The NTIA is the executive branch’s principal advisory office on domestic and
international telecommunications and information technology issues and policies.
It has as its mandate to provide greater access for all Americans to
telecommunications services; to support U.S. attempts to open foreign markets; to
advise on international telecommunications negotiations; to fund research grants for
new technologies and their applications; and to assist non-profit organizations^st
converting to digital transmission in the 21 century. The NTIA also manages
federal use of radio frequency spectrum domestically and internationally.
NTIA’s overall budget has had three major components: Salaries and Expenses,
the Technology Opportunity Program (TOP), and the Public Telecommunications
Facilities, Planning and Construction (PTFPC) program. Salaries and Expenses
largely relate to administrative functions, maintaining domestic and international

⁹ This section was written by Glenn McGloughlin, Specialist in Technology and
Telecommunications Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

policy development, and spectrum management. Through FY2004, the TOP was a
competitive, merit-based matching grant program to develop information and
telecommunications infrastructure. The PTFPC program assists public broadcast
stations and other non-profit stakeholders in constructing facilities to bring
educational and cultural programs to the public, and is a competitive, merit-based
grant program.
Even as congressional policymakers have decided that the TOP program receive
no future funding, other issues will likely be considered by the 109^th Congress.
Among the issues being considered by policymakers is whether more of the policies
and programs related to public broadcast transmission, public television
infrastructure construction and conversion of television broadcasts from analog to
digital technologies should be given to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Some have also argued that NTIA’s role in spectrum management responsibilities
should be broadened and expanded to include greater coordination across the federal
government through an expanded budget and resources.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office¹⁰
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is funded by user fees paid by
customers that are designated as “offsetting collections” and subject to spending
limits established by the Appropriations Committee. For FY2005, the Omnibus
Appropriations Act, provides the USPTO with the budget authority to spend $1.555
billion (prior to a mandated 0.8% across the board rescission and a 0.54% rescission
from Commerce, Justice, State discretionary accounts). Of this amount, $1.336
billion is to come from fees collected under current statutory authority. An additional
$219 million is to be generated under a new fee structure mandated in Title VIII of
the Omnibus Appropriations Act. This is a 27% increase over the budget authority
provided in FY2004.
In the Administration’s FY2005 budget request, the USPTO was given the budget
authority to spend $1.314 billion derived from fees generated during the fiscal year
based on the current fee structure. In addition, the Administration expected an
additional $219 million to be raised through a statutory change in fee rates (as
proposed in H.R. 1561 which passed the House on March 3, 2004). According to the
budget document, the USPTO would have a “program level” of $1.533 billion, the
amount the Office anticipates collecting in fees during FY2005 under new fee
requirements.
H.R. 4754, the FY2005 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill passed by the
House on July 8, 2004, provided the USPTO with the budget authority to spend
$1.523 billion. According to the House report to accompany the bill, $1.314 billion
was to be from fees collected in FY2005 under the existing statutory mandate. An
additional $209 million in funds was to be derived from an expected $219 million
collected if a fee increase contained in authorizing legislation is enacted.

¹⁰ This section was written by Wendy Schacht, Specialist in Science and Technology,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

As reported to the Senate by the Committee on Appropriations, S. 2809 gave the
Patent and Trademark Office $1.545 billion in budget authority for FY2005. This
figure included $1.336 billion in fees generated under the existing fee system and
$209 million from the proposed fee increase.
For FY2004, P.L. 108-199, the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provided
the USPTO with $1.222 billion in budget authority to be derived from fees generated
in the current fiscal year. This amount was 3% above FY2003, but $81 million
below the $1.303 billion anticipated to be collected in fees during FY2004 (as
determined without changes to the fee structure proposed by the Administration but
not enacted).
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 agency operations
are supported by payments for services that must be financed in the year the expenses
are incurred. Proponents of current methods maintain that the fees are necessary to
help balance the budget and the amount of fees appropriated back to the USPTO are
sufficient to cover operating costs.
National Institute of Standards and Technology¹¹
For FY2005, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, provides the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) with $708.7 million (prior to a mandated 0.8%
across the board rescission and a 0.54% rescission from Commerce, Justice, State
discretionary accounts). This amount is 16% above FY2004 funding. Internal
research and development under the Scientific and Technical Research and Services
(STRS) account is to receive $383.9 million, almost 14% over the previous fiscal
year. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is funded at $109 million, an
increase of 182% that will bring support for the program up to pre-FY2004 levels.
The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) is financed at $142.3 million (16.5%
below FY2004) and the construction budget is to receive $$73.5 million. The
legislation also rescinds $3.9 million of unobligated balances from prior year funds
in the ATP account.
The Bush Administration’s FY2005 budget requested $521.7 million for NIST. This
amount was 14.6% below the FY2004 appropriation due primarily to the absence of
funding for the Advanced Technology Program. The STRS account would be
financed at $422.9 million, an increase of 25.4% over the previous fiscal year.
Support for MEP would total $39.2 million (a small increase over FY2004) and the
construction budget would be $59.4 million.
H.R. 4754, the FY2005 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill passed by the
House on July 8, 2004, provided NIST with $524.9 million, 14% less than FY2004
as a result of the lack of financing for ATP. Funding for the intermural research

¹¹ This section was written by Wendy Schacht, Specialist in Science and Technology,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

programs under the STRS account would increase 11.4% to $375.8 million. The
$106 million for the Manufacturing Extension Program would bring support up to
pre-FY2004 levels before financing was reduced by 63%. There is no funding for the
Advanced Technology Program. The construction budget would be $43.1 million.
S. 2809, as reported to the Senate on September 15, 2004, would appropriate $784.9
million for NIST, almost 29% above the FY2004 budget. Included in this figure is
$383.9 million for the STRS account, a 14% increase over the current fiscal year.
The Manufacturing Extension Partnership would receive $112 million (an increase
of 189% from FY2004) to “fully fund” existing centers and to provide additional
assistance to small and rural States. ATP would be financed at $203 million, 19%
more than the current fiscal year. Construction activities would be supported by $86
million in appropriations.
P.L. 108-199, the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2673), signed into
law on January 23, 2004 funds NIST at $610.7 million after a 0.59% across the board
rescission included in the act, almost 14% below the FY2003 appropriation. The
STRS account is to receive $337.2 million (a 5.5% decrease from FY2003).
Manufacturing extension is financed at $38.7 million, a 63% reduction from the
previous fiscal year. ATP is funded at $170.5 million which is 4.5% below FY2003.
Support for construction totals $64.2 million.
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) for
development 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, they
emphasize, should be conducted by the private sector. Others defend ATP, arguing
it assists businesses (and small manufacturers) develop technologies that, while
crucial to industrial competitiveness, would not or could not be developed by the
private sector alone. While Congress has maintained support for the Advanced
Technology Program, the initial appropriation bills passed by the House since
FY2002 failed to provide funding for ATP. While support again is provided in the
FY2005 appropriations legislation, it is 16.5% below the earlier fiscal year.
The budget for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, another extramural
program administered by NIST, was an issue during the FY2004 appropriations
deliberations. While in the recent past, congressional support for MEP remained
constant, the Administration’s FY2004 budget request, the initial House-passed bill,
and the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act substantially decreased federal
funding for this initiative reflecting the President’s recommendation that
manufacturing extension centers “...with more than six years experience operate
without federal contribution.” However, H.R. 4818 restores financing for MEP in
FY2005 to the level that existed prior to the 63% reduction taken in FY2004.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration¹²
On December 8, 2004, P.L. 108-477, Division B, Title II, the Commerce,
Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies (CJS) Appropriations Act, 2005,
provided $3.94 billion for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). That amount is $567 million, or 16.9%, more than the President’s FY2005
request of $3.37 billion, and 6.5%, or $239 million more than FY2004 appropriations
for NOAA of $3.70 billion.
Table 1, below, shows: 1) FY2004 appropriations for NOAA (P.L. 108-199);

2) the President’s request for the agency for FY2005; 3) the House-passed H.R. 4754;

4) Senate Appropriations Committee recommendations for NOAA in S. 2809; and
5) appropriations for FY2005 (P.L. 108-477). The table is organized by NOAA’s
Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF) account, which funds NOAA’s six line
offices, including the Office of Policy and Planning Integration (OPPI), and Program
Support; the Procurement, Acquisitions, and Construction (PAC) account; and
NOAA’s Other Accounts.
P.L. 108-477. Division B. Title II of P.L. 108-477, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004, provided total appropriations
of $3.94 billion for NOAA, funding its ORF, PAC, and Other Accounts for FY2005.
(See Table 1.) The act encouraged government outsourcing of NOAA mapping and
charting functions, and other marine services, such as hydrographic data collection.
It adopted Senate Appropriations Committee recommendations for NOAA to use its
marine fleet more cost effectively; to operate vessels that might otherwise be idled
in port for extended periods of time; and to consider the amount of ship-time needed
to implement the agency’s Ocean Exploration program. Funding for NOAA’s
National Ocean Service (NOS) would procure the necessary equipment to develop
an Integrated Coastal Ocean Observation System (ICOOS).
The act funded a NOAA seafood safety education program, and a research and
development program for possible forensic tools to detect and evaluate seafood
pathogens. Funding was also provided for scientific study and eradication of certain
invasive marine species. The act consolidated all Alaska seal and sea lion research
programs under a single category under NOAA Fisheries (NMFS), and directed
NMFS to heed congressional guidance concerning species protection and dolphin
encirclement, with respect to regulating size of vessels. Funding was also provided
for maintenance, operation, and leasing of NOAA Fisheries labs, and for several
NMFS fishery conservation and marine species habitat restoration activities.
P.L. 108-477 funded most Climate Change Research activities at FY2004 levels,
but called for greater attention to be paid to impacts of abrupt climatic changes,
regional climate changes, and improved coastal weather forecasting, especially for
coastal communities in rural Alaska. The act encouraged NOAA’s undersea research
program (NURP) participants to seek grants available through the Ocean Exploration
program, and it approved the establishment of a Pacific Services Center to manage

¹² This section was prepared by Wayne A. Morrisey, Science and Technology Information
Analyst, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

and distribute satellite and buoy data collected in Hawaii and the Western Pacific
Ocean. The act urged Members of Congress to consider and act on the September,
2004 Research Review Team report, which assessed the state of NOAA’s laboratory
system. The act directed the National Weather Service (NWS) to “take maximum
advantage of capabilities and services ... in the commercial sector,” and avoid
duplicating programs and operations that distract NWS from its core mission.
P.L. 108-447 sanctioned NOAA’s realignment of financial and administrative
organization along functional services, and consolidation of administrative costs
under Corporate Services. On the other hand, the act did not approve of the Senate
Appropriations Committee’s method of reporting NOAA’s budget in FY2005,
corresponding with the agency’s 5-strategic goals. (Although the conference report
contained a budget crosswalk to the agency’s five strategic goals for NOAA’s ORF
and PAC accounts.) The act also consolidated funding and management of NOAA’s
premier educational programs under the Program Support budget line.
NOAA was directed to report (5-year) Acquisition Program Out-Year Budget
Estimates, an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) practice discontinued for
most non-defense programs three years ago. Accordingly, NOAA would report out-
year cost estimates for PAC account programs having a total multi-year costs of more
than $5 million. The act also required a report that detailed “line office personnel,
agency overhead, and positions, number of full-time equivalents, and salary-related
expenses for each of NOAA’s line offices. (See H.Rept. 108-792, p. 134.)
P.L. 108-477 would fund several construction and land acquisition projects
previously authorized on a three-year basis under the Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program (CELCP). The act directed NOAA to assess the state of its
aging laboratories, and marine and aircraft fleets. It approved funding of $34 million
to complete a third Fisheries Research Vessel (FRV#3), authorized in FY2001; $5.6
million for long-lead procurement for FRV#4; and $9.3 million for a new
hydrographic research vessel. Further, it provided an increase of $2.1 million to
NOAA Fleet Maintenance and Planning to meet rising fuel costs associated with
marine research vessels and aircraft operations.
The act provided $90 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
(PCSRF) for FY2005, $1 million more than FY2004 levels, and required NOAA to
develop performance measures for recovery outcomes. Finally, the act approved
transfer of $3 million in fees collected in the Coastal Zone Management Fund to ORF
to support the Coastal Zone Management Act, and provided $0.5 million for the
NMFS Fishermen’s Contingency Fund.

Table 1. NOAA: FY2004 Appropriations, the President’s Budget Request,
and Congressional Recommendations For FY2005
($ millions)
^{NOAA L}ⁱ^{ne Office}^FY²⁰⁰⁴^a^FY²⁰⁰⁵^b^H.R.^c^S^.²⁸⁰⁹^d^P.L^.^108-^e
^B^udg^et^Acco^unt^s^Ena^c^t^e^d^Req.⁴⁷⁵⁴⁴⁷⁷
^{NOAA Ocean Service (NOS)}^622.6^394.3^361.0^737.6^677.7
^OR^F^513.9^378.8^351.0^583.1^548.8
^PA^C^f^108.7^14.5^10.0^151.7^128.9
^OMA^O^tran^s^f^er^2.8^—^—^2.8^2.8
^{NOAA Fisheries (NM}^F^S)^745.1^735.2^530.7^733.5^705.7
^OR^F^640.0^623.2^525.7^712.3^674.2
^PA^C^26.1^2.0^5.0^20.5^31.5
^OMA^O^tran^s^f^er^0.7^—^—^0.7^0.7
^{NOAA Resea}^{rch (OAR)}^422.5^360.7^324.5^479.4^418.8
^OR^F^400.8^350.2^318.5^460.8^409.3
^PA^C^21.7^10.5^6.0^18.5^9.5
^OMA^O^tran^s^f^er^0.1^—^—^0.1^0.1
^N^a^ti^on^al^W^e^ath^{er Service (NWS)}^833.6^836.8^783.7^806.8^791.0
^OR^F^g^729.7^749.2^698.7^723.4^710.8
^PA^C^103.9^87.6^85.0^83.4^80.2
^OMA^O^tran^s^f^er^0.5^—^—^0.5^0.5
^NO^{AA Sa}^t^e^llit^{es (}^N^ESDIS)^836.5^898.0^875.0^912.5^920.3
^OR^F^153.8^149.0^139.5^171.1^178.3
^PA^C^682.7^749.0^735.5^741.4^742.0
^OMA^O^tran^s^f^er^0.3^—^—^0.3^0.3
^Pl^anⁿⁱⁿ^g^&^Program^Iⁿ^tegrati^oⁿ²^.0^2.0^—^4.0²^.5
^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^Suppo^rt⁽^T^o^t^a^l⁾^h,ⁱ^357.3^257.4^305.1^437.9^410.5
^OR^F^310.3^220.4^303.6^366.1^348.2
^PA^C^47.0^37.0^1.5^71.8^62.3
^{Corporate Services}^(CS)^j^183.3^82.0^173.6^178.7^172.5
^OR^F^183.3^82.0^173.6^178.7^171.5
^PA^C^0.0^0.0^0.0^0.0^1.0
^N^O^A^A^E^d^u^c^ati^oⁿ^Program^s^k^——^—^19.5^14.5
^Ma^rⁱⁿ^e^&^A^vⁱ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^O^p^s^.^153.4^155.5^115.5^202.6^189.7
^OR^{F Marin}^e^O&^M^95.6^99.9^95.5^110.2^109.8
^{ORF A}^v^iatioⁿ^Op^er^atioⁿ^s^18.3^18.6^18.5^20.6^18.6
^P^A^C^{Fleet R}^e^placem^en^{t &}^A^c^q.^38.4^37.0^1.5^71.8^61.3
^Fa^cilit^ies^18.6^19.8^16.0^37.2^33.8
^OR^{F Mg}^m^t^{, Main}^{t., C}^oⁿ^s^{t., &}^En^vⁱ^ro.^10.0^19.8^16.0^37.2^33.8
^Cl^e^a^nup^l
^P^A^C^Main^ten^aⁿ^{ce B}^ack^log^8.6^—^—^—^—
^OR^{F BA}^d^eri^ved^from^m(^a⁾^(115.0)^(92.0)^(92.0)^(60.0)^(68.0)
^deo^b^lig^a^t^io^ns/t^ra^nsf^ers
^OR^{F A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^m(^b⁾^2,643.3²^,380.9²^,245.0²^,965.3²^,807.1
^{PAC Appro}^p^ria^t^ioⁿ^n,^o^979.7^898.5^840.0¹^,087.3¹^,053.4

^{NOAA L}ⁱ^{ne Office}^FY²⁰⁰⁴^a^FY²⁰⁰⁵^b^H.R.^c^S^.²⁸⁰⁹^d^P.L^.^108-^e
^B^udg^et^Acco^unt^s^Ena^c^t^e^d^Req.⁴⁷⁵⁴⁴⁷⁷
^{Other Accounts}^78.1^94.1^73.0^89.1^79.5
^P^acifⁱ^{c C}^o^as^{tal Salm}^on^R^ecov^.^Fuⁿ^d^Fis^h^eries^89.1^100.0^80.0^99.0^90.0
^Fund^{s & Fi}^na^ncⁱⁿ^g^(11.0)^(5.9)^(7.0)^(9.9)^(10.5)
^G^r^a^{nd To}^t^a^l^p^$3,701.0^$3,373.5^$3,158.⁰^$4,141.7^$3,940.0
^{NOAA Appro}^p^ria^t^io^ns
^Source:^C^o^m^pⁱ^l^e^d^by^C^R^S^f^r^om^s^o^u^r^cesⁿ^o^t^e^d^bel^o^w^.^F^o^{r m}^o^{re i}ⁿ^f^o^rm^atⁱ^oⁿ^abou^t^N^O^A^A^’^s^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r F}^Y^2004,^s^e^e
^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^31567,^T^h^{e N}^a^tⁱ^onal^O^ceani^{c and At}^m^o^s^pherⁱ^{c Adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^r^a^tⁱ^{on (}^N^O^AA)^{: A Revi}^ew^of^t^h^{e FY}^{2004 Budget}
^{and Pr}^esⁱ^d^ent^’^s^Budget^{and C}^ongr^es^sⁱ^onal^Appr^oprⁱ^a^tⁱ^ons^f^o^r^FY²⁰⁰⁴^{, by}^Wayⁿ^{e A}^.^Morris^s^e^y^.^Num^b^ers^m^ay^not
^a^{dd due t}^o^ro^unding^.
^Ta^{ble no}^t^e^s:
^{a. FY2004 en}^{acted f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^{reported by}^th^{e Hou}^s^{e A}^ppropriation^s^Su^bcom^m^{ittee on}^C^o^m^m^e^{rce, State,}^J^u^s^tice,^J^u^diciary
^an^{d R}^e^{lated A}^g^en^cies^,^Pr^es^ident’s^Reques^t^{, March}^{31, 2004.}
^{b. N}^O^A^A^lⁱⁿ^{e of}^fⁱ^{ce f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^requ^es^t^e^{d f}^o^{r F}^Y^{2005 w}^a^s^report^e^dⁱⁿ^:^FY^{2005 Budget}^Sum^m^a^r^y^{, N}^a^tⁱ^onal^O^ceani^{c and}
^At^m^o^s^pherⁱ^{c Adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ra^tⁱ^oⁿ^{, Febru}^a^ry^{2, 2004, f}^o^uⁿ^d^{at NOA}^A^’^s^w^e^bs^{ite at [h}^ttp://^www.ⁿ^o^a^a^.^g^o^v^]^,^aⁿ^d^a^r^e
^s^u^bj^{ect to ch}^an^g^e^.
^{c. H}^o^u^s^{e A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^ee’^s^t^a^bl^es^f^o^{r H}^.^R^.^{4754 (H}^.R^ept^.^108-^{576), Ju}ⁿ^e^{23, 2004.}
^{d. S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^ee’^s^t^a^bl^es^f^o^{r S}^.^{2809 (S}^.R^ept^.^108-^{344), S}^e^pt^em^{ber 15, 2004.}
^{e. F}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^t^a^bl^es^f^o^{r P.L}^.^108-^477,^t^h^{e C}^ons^olⁱ^dat^{ed Appr}^oprⁱ^a^tⁱ^ons^Act^,²⁰⁰⁵^{appear i}ⁿ^(H^.R^ept^.^108-^792).
^f.^T^hⁱ^s^fundⁱ^{ng i}^s^p^a^sse^d^t^h^r^o^{ugh t}^o^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^Su^pport^f^o^{r u}^s^{e of}^O^M^A^O^Mariⁿ^e^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^by^N^O^A^A^’^s^fⁱ^v^e^lⁱⁿ^e^of^fⁱ^ces^.
^It^fⁱ^rs^t^{appeared i}ⁿ^t^h^{e C}^J^S^con^f^eren^{ce report}^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2004 (H}^.R^ept^.^108-^{401), bu}^tⁱ^sⁿ^o^t^s^e^parat^e^{d ou}^tⁱⁿ^ei^t^h^{er t}^h^e
^requ^es^t^{or H}^o^u^s^{e appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^.
^g^.^{For FY2005, NW}^{S f}^ac^ilities^m^aⁱⁿ^ten^aⁿ^{ce f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^is^con^s^{olidated u}ⁿ^d^{er Facilities}^(OR^F^).
^h^.^T^o^{tal f}^o^{r P}^r^og^ram^Su^{pport does}ⁿ^o^{t in}^clu^d^{e $4.4 m}^illion^pas^s^e^{d th}^rough^by^lin^{e of}^fⁱ^ces^u^s^{e of}^OMA^O^Marin^e
^Serv^ices^.
^{i. Man}^d^atory^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r NOA}^A^C^o^rps^retirem^en^{t ($17.8}^m^illion⁾^isⁿ^o^{t in}^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^dis^c^retion^a^ry^total.
^j^.^C^o^rporate^Serv^icesⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^{appropriation}^s^f^o^{r th}^{e Un}^{der Secretary}^f^o^{r C}^o^m^m^e^{rce f}^o^{r Ocean}^s^an^{d A}^t^m^o^s^p^h^e^re^an^d
^A^s^s^o^{ciated Of}^fⁱ^ces^(USA^{O), an}^{d th}^e^divⁱ^sⁱ^on^of^P^o^lic^y^Fo^r^m^u^l^atioⁿ^an^d^Dev^e^lo^p^m^en^{t (}^P^FD)^,^w^h^ich^co^m^p^rⁱ^ses
^m^o^s^t^of^N^O^A^A^admⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^v^{e s}^u^pport^operatⁱ^oⁿ^s^.
^k^.^N^e^w^bu^dg^et^s^u^bactⁱ^vⁱ^t^y^lⁱⁿ^{e f}^o^{r F}^Y^{2005, as}^recom^m^eⁿ^d^{ed i}ⁿ^S^.^2809.
^{l. A}^{ll NOA}^A^f^acilities^m^aⁱⁿ^ten^aⁿ^{ce f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^con^s^{olidated in}^OR^{F Facilities}^accouⁿ^t^af^{ter FY2004}
^m⁽^{a). In}^clu^d^es^{total res}^c^is^sⁱ^on^s^of^{$100 m}^illion^an^{d retu}^rn^of^{$15 m}^illionⁱⁿ^deoblig^ation^s^{to U.S. T}^r^eas^u^r^y^.
^m⁽^{b). O}^R^F^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^o^t^a^l^s^ex^cl^u^d^{e ot}^h^e^{r bu}^dg^et^aut^h^o^rⁱ^t^y^s^u^ch^as^deoblⁱ^g^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^(prevⁱ^ou^s^fⁱ^s^cal^y^{ear bu}^dg^et
^s^a^vⁱⁿ^g^s⁾^,^m^a^nd^a^t^ory^tran^s^f^ers^w^ithⁱⁿ^NOA^A^,^f^ees^collected^f^o^{r s}^e^rvⁱ^ces^{, or f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^provⁱ^d^{ed by}^ot^h^e^{r f}^e^deral
^ag^en^cies^{. T}^h^es^{e am}^ouⁿ^t^s^{are s}^u^{btracted in}^th^{e prev}^iou^s^lin^e.
ⁿ^.^F^o^{r F}^Y^{2005, S}^.^{2809 com}^bⁱⁿ^es^OR^F^an^{d P}^A^C^accouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^{to an}^Oper^ations^{, Res}^e^ar^ch,^F^a^cⁱ^lities^,^{and Sys}^t^ems
^Acq^uⁱ^sitioⁿ^acco^uⁿ^{t; th}^o^s^{e rem}^aⁱⁿ^sep^a^{rate in}^th^{is tab}^l^{e to}^f^{acilitate co}^m^p^arisoⁿ^w^ith^o^t^h^e^{r en}^tries.
^{o. For FY2004 §212 of}^T^{itle II prov}^{ided an}^addition^a^{l $6.1}^m^illion^f^o^{r on}^e-^tim^{e appropriation}^s^of^s^p^ecifⁱ^c^proj^ects^uⁿ^d^er
^P^A^{C co}ⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ^.^T^h^{at am}^o^uⁿ^t^{is n}^o^{t r}^e^f^l^ectedⁱⁿ^th^{is to}^tal.
^{p. For FY2004, th}^{e con}^f^eren^{ce com}^m^{ittee on}^H.R^.²⁶⁷³^recom^m^eⁿ^d^{ed $990.1 m}^illion^f^o^{r NOA}^A^P^A^C^.⁽^C^ongr^es^sⁱ^onal
^Recor^d^{, Decem}^{ber 3, 2003: H12779). T}^h^at^am^ouⁿ^t^w^a^s^$10.4^m^illion^g^r^{eater th}^an^th^{at reported in}^th^{e FY2005}
^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^t^a^bl^es^f^o^{r t}^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e an}^{d S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^ees^{. O}ⁿ^{e pl}^au^sⁱ^bl^{e ex}^pl^an^atⁱ^oⁿⁱ^s^t^h^at^{§215 of}
^H.R^e^pt.^108-^{401 called f}^o^{r a C}^o^m^m^e^{rce Departm}^eⁿ^t^-^w^{ide res}^c^is^sⁱ^on^of^{$100 m}^illion^.^A^lth^o^{ugh c}^e^r^t^aⁱⁿⁱ^d^eⁿ^tⁱ^fⁱ^e^d
^N^O^A^A^prog^ram^s^w^e^{re ex}^em^pt^{, ot}^h^e^rs^w^e^{re n}^o^t^.^T^h^at^redu^ctⁱ^oⁿ^of^bu^dg^et^au^t^h^ori^t^y^w^a^s^on^t^{op of}^a^0.67%^acros^s^-
^th^e-^b^o^a^r^d^r^e^scⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^f^o^{r all ag}^en^cies^f^uⁿ^d^{ed u}ⁿ^d^{er C}^J^S^A^ppropriation^s^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2004, an}^{d lik}^ely^accouⁿ^t^s^f^o^r
^di^f^f^e^ren^ces^report^e^{d i}ⁿ^t^h^{e con}^f^eren^{ce com}^mⁱ^t^t^ee’^s^PA^C^t^o^t^a^l^s^f^o^{r F}^Y^2004.
Senate Appropriations Committee. On September 15, 2004, the Senate
Appropriations Committee reported S. 2809 (S.Rept. 108-344), its version of CJS
Appropriations for FY2005. The committee recommended funding of $4.1 billion
for NOAA. That amount is $441.0 million, or 12%, more than FY2004
appropriations of $3.7 billion; $768.3 million, or 23%, more than the President’s
request for FY2005 of $3.4 billion; and $983.3 million, or 31%, more than the

House-passed appropriation for NOAA (H.R. 4754) of $3.2 billion. In addition, the
Senate committee noted that it disapproved $700 million in program terminations for
NOAA, as was proposed by the President for FY2005, and a portion of which was
targeted for cuts by the House (H.Rept. 108-576, p. 71).
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended that NOAA implement
some actions recommended in the U.S. Ocean Policy Commission’s final report that
was presented to Congress and the Administration in September 2004. Accordingly,
S. 2809 would have earmarked and allocated $4.5 million to specific programs and
projects throughout the agency. Budgets for some extant programs (e.g., the Ocean
Exploration and Ocean Health Initiatives), would have increased. Excluding funding
for the committee’s Ocean Commission Initiative, appropriations recommended for
NOAA would have been $3.69 billion, nearly the same as appropriated for FY2004.
House Appropriations. On July 8, 2004, the House passed H.R. 4754, its
version of CJS Appropriations for FY2005, and approved $3.16 billion for NOAA
(H.Rept. 108-576, June 14, 2004). Of that total, $2.25 billion was appropriated for
ORF, $840 million for PAC, and $80 million for the PCSRF. (See Table 1.) House
appropriations were $210 million, or 6.6%, less than the President’s request of $3.37
billion, and $540 million, or 17.1%, less than the $3.70 billion appropriated for
NOAA in FY2004.
The House Appropriations Committee reported that funding for a number of
non-recurring programs, many of which the President also planned to cut, would
terminate in FY2005 (H.Rept. 108-576, p. 71), and cuts below FY2004 program
levels would be sustained across the agency. The NOAA line offices which stood to
be affected the greatest were the National Ocean Service (NOS) cut by 42%; NOAA
Fisheries (NMFS) by 29%; NOAA Research (OAR) by 23%; and, Program Support
by 14%. ORF line offices least affected would include the National Weather Service
(NWS) and NOAA Satellite Programs (NESDIS), both funded at the requested
levels. Excluding satellite systems acquisitions funding, the PAC account would
have been cut 14.3% below the FY2004 appropriation, and many of NOS
construction projects targeted for termination. The House provided additional budget
authority of $79 million derived by transfer from the NOAA Promote and Develop
American Fisheries (PDAF) Fund, $13 million from FY2004 deobligations (budget
savings) for ORF, and $3 million from FY2004 deobligations in the PAC account.
The House appropriated $840 million for the NOAA PAC account, which was
$59 million less than the President’s request, and nearly $140 million less than
FY2004 appropriations. For NOAA’s Other Accounts, the House appropriated $80
million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCRF), which was $20
million less than the FY2005 request. It did not approve transferring $3 million to
ORF from fees collected in the Coastal Zone Management Fund (CZMF), and
zeroed-out funding of $8.1 million requested for fisheries financing programs, noting
that current account balances were sufficient for FY2005 obligations.
The President’s FY2005 Budget Request. In February 2004, President
Bush submitted his FY2005 budget to Congress, requesting a total of $3.38 billion
for NOAA. Congress enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L.108-

199), in January 2004. Division B, Title II of that act, CJS Appropriations, 2004,

provided NOAA $3.70 billion. TheFY2005 request was $360 million, or 8.6%, less
than the FY2004 appropriation.
Of the total amount requested for NOAA, $2.38 billion was for ORF; $898.5
million for PAC; and $104.5 million for NOAA’s Other Accounts, including the
PCSRF. (See Table 1.) Also, the President requested that $3 million be transferred
to ORF to be derived from the CZMF, and a $79 million for ORF be transferred from
the interagency PDAF. Other budget authority requested included $13 million
derived from FY2004 deobligations (budget savings). The President requested large
cuts for NOAA, one of which included some $130.6 million in program terminations,
most of which were construction projects added by Congress in FY2004. Another
$64.4 million in program terminations was requested for NOAA Research. The
President cut the NOAA Corporate Services budget by $79 million. NOAA informed
OMB that flat-rate administrative overhead costs, formerly assessed for each NOAA
line office, would henceforth be based on the five line offices’ actual use of
administrative services. Funding requested for the NESDIS PAC account would be
increased to $897.9 million for polar-orbiting and geostationary satellite systems.
At a May 2004 hearing held by the House Appropriations Commerce, State
Justice Subcommittee, NOAA’s Administrator testified that the agency’s FY2005
budget request would meet four major programmatic goals:
^!To understand climate variability and change to enhance society’s
ability to plan and respond;
^!To serve society by providing weather and water information;
^!To protect, restore, and manage the use of coastal and ocean
resources through ecosystem approaches to management; and
^!To support the Nation’s commerce with information pertaining to
safe, efficient, and environmentally sound transportation.
He alluded to NOAA’s new emphasis on ecosystem-based management of the
Nation’s ocean and coastal resources, which he stated responds to recommendations
in the U.S. Ocean Policy Commission (OPC) report presented to Congress and the
Administration in September 2004. He maintained that NOAA investments in the
OPC recommendations would address environmental and species concerns, prompted
by proposed cuts in funding requested for NOAA Fisheries for FY2005.
A NOAA Organic Act. There was another item on the congressional agenda
that may have future implications for the NOAA budget. In response to preliminary
findings of the OPC, the Pew Commission, and studies initiated by NOAA,
legislation was introduced in the 108^th Congress to create an organic act for the
agency. A NOAA organic act would authorize appropriations for all agency
operations and programs under a single law. Currently, those are funded by several
legal authorities. Various constituencies of NOAA have called for establishment of
an organic act since 1970, when President Nixon’s Reorganization Plan No. 4 created
NOAA in the Department of Commerce and merged programs and budget authorities
from many different federal agencies.
On June 14, 2004, H.R. 4546, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Act was
introduced jointly by Representative Ehlers of the House Committee on Science and

Representative Gilchrest of the House Committee on Resources. Title I of H.R. 4546
was under consideration as a possible legislative vehicle for a NOAA-wide organic
act inn the 108^th Congress. Also, the Administration drafted its own NOAA organic
act, which Representative Ehlers introduced as H.R. 4607 on June 17, 2004. H.R.

4546 had specific recommendations for NOAA administration and organization;

retained NOAA within the Department of Commerce; and created a deputy director
of NOAA to implement the act. H.R. 4607, focused on four new broad mission areas
for NOAA, but did reorganize NOAA’s existing administrative structure. Both
committees requested executive comment on the measure, and the House Science
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards held hearings on July 15,
2004. The Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Fisheries, Ocean, and Wildlife held
hearings on H.R. 4546, September 29, 2004. No further legislative action occurred
on either of these bills in the 108^th Congress.
H.R. 4368, introduced by Representative Saxton on May 13, 2004, would have
transferred NOAA to the Department of the Interior; however, it would maintain the
agency’s present internal line office structure. The House Committee on Resources
held hearings on H.R. 4368 on September 30, 2004. No further legislative action
occurred in the 108^th Congress.
Two other bills of a similar purpose to H.R. 4546 were introduced in the 108^th
Congress, each having provisions for implementing specific recommendations of the
OPC. Both would have redefined the organization and mission of NOAA, but
foremost establish it as lead agency and coordinator for all federal ocean and coastal
activities. S. 2647, introduced by Senator Hollings on July 13, 2004, was referred to
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. As introduced,
it would have given independent status to NOAA. However, on September 22, 2004,
S. 2647 was amended in the nature of a substitute bill, which retained NOAA in the
Department of Commerce, but provide greater budget autonomy. The committee
approved the measure by voice vote; however, there was no further legislative action.
On July 22, 2004, Representative Greenwood introduced H.R. 4900, which was
referred jointly to the House Committees on Science and Resources. The House
Resources Committee requested executive comment on the measure. H.R. 4900 was
subsequently referred jointly to the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans on August 6, 2004, and the House Science
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards on August 9, 2004. No
further legislative action was reported in the 108^th Congress.
While many generally support an organic act for NOAA, others would argue
that it might provide too much independence from the Secretary of Commerce’s
budget policy and decision making authority. Similar legislation to these bills seems
likely to be reintroduced in the 109^th Congress. For more information on the OPC
and its recommendations, see CRS Issue Brief IB10132, Ocean Commissions: Ocean
Policy Review and Outlook.
Related Legislation
H.R. 959 (Saxton). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Oceanography Amendments Act of 2003. Amends federal law to establish as a

permanent program (previously conducted in FY1992 and FY1993) a Coastal Ocean
Program to augment and integrate existing research capabilities of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Administration) with other research
capabilities. The bill was introduced on February 27, 2003, and referred to the House
Committee on Resources. A hearing was held by the Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans on March 27, 2003.
H.R. 1081 (Ehlers). Establishes marine and freshwater research, development,
and demonstration programs to support efforts to prevent, control, and eradicate
invasive species, as well as to educate citizens and stakeholders and restore
ecosystems. Introduced March 5, 2003 and referred to the House Committees on
Science, Transportation and Infrastructure, Resources, and House Administration.
Reported by House Science Committee (H.Rept. 108-324, Part 1) on April 4, 2004,
and placed on the Union Calendar, No. 263.
H.R. 2535 (LaTourette). Economic Development Administration
Reauthorization Act of 2003. This bill reauthorizes and seeks to improve the
programs authorized by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965.
H.R. 2535 was introduced on June 19, 2003, and referred to the House Committees
on Transportation and Infrastructure and Financial Services. The Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee approved the bill on June 25, 2003.
H.R. 1561 (L. Smith). United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization
Act of 2003. This bill would 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. It would also prescribe fees under the Trademark Act of 1946 for
electronic and paper applications for trademark registration. H.R. 1561 was referred
to the House Committee on The Judiciary on April 3, 2003. On May 22, 2003, the
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property approved the bill and
forwarded it to the full committee.
H.R. 1856 (Ehlers) . Reauthorizes the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Research and Control Act of 1998, and for other purposes. Introduced April 29,
2003, and referred to the House Committees on Science, Resources, and
Transportation and Infrastructure. Reported by House Science Committee (H.Rept.

108-326, Part 1) on April 2, 2004, and placed on the Union Calendar, No. 264.

H.R. 5117 (Schiff). Fortifying America’s Intellectual Property Rights (FAIR)
Act. Creates the position of Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intellectual
Property within the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Introduced September

21, 2004; referred to the Ways and Means Committee.

S. 1218 (Hollings). Provides for Presidential support and coordination of
interagency ocean science programs and development and coordination of a
comprehensive and integrated United States research and monitoring program.
Introduced Jun. 10, 2003, and referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation, and House Committees on Science and Energy and Commerce.
Reported by Commerce Committee (S.Rept. 108-203) on April 8, 2004, and referred
to House Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards.

S. 1400 (Snowe). Develops a system that provides for ocean and coastal
observations, to implement a research and development program to enhance security
at United States ports, to implement a data and information system required by all
components of an integrated ocean observing system and related research, and for
other purposes. Introduced July 14, 2003, and referred to House Committees on
Science, Armed Services, and Transportation and Infrastructure. Reported by Senate
Commerce Committee (S.Rept. 108-171) on January 5, 2004, Executive comment
was requested from the Department of Defense.
S. 1401 (McCain). Reauthorizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and for other purposes. Introduced July 14, 2003, and referred to the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by the
Committee (S.Rept. 108-219) on December 9, 2003, and placed on Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders, No. 423.
S. 2280 (Stevens). Establishes a coordinated national ocean exploration
program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Introduced
on April 5, 2004. Referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
S. 2647 (Hollings). Makes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration into an independent agency of the department of Commerce.
Introduced July 13, 2004 and ordered to be reported by the Senate Commerce
Committee on September 22, 2004.
Related CRS Products
CRS Issue Brief IB95100, Economic Development Administration: Background and
Overview, by Bruce Mulock.
CRS Report 95-36, The Advanced Technology Program, by Wendy H. Schacht.
CRS Report RL31252, Internet Commerce and State Sales and Use Taxes, Steve
Maguire.
CRS Report RL31293, E-Commerce Statistics: Explanation and Sources, by Rita
Tehan.
CRS Report 97-104, Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program: An Overview,
by Wendy H. Schacht.
CRS Report 95-30, The National Institute of Standards and Technology: An
Overview, by Wendy H. Schacht.
CRS Report RL32413, NOAA: A Review of the FY2004 Budget Request and Final
Appropriations, by Wayne Morrissey.
CRS Report RL31832, The Export Administration Act: Evolutions, Provisions, and
Debate, by Ian F. Fergusson.

CRS Report RS20906, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Appropriations Process:
A Brief Explanation, by Wendy H. Schacht.
CRS Report RS21469: The National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA): Budget, Programs, and Issues, by Glenn McGloughlin.
Table 7. FY2005 Funding for the Department of Commerce and
Related Agencies
($ millions in budget authority)
^B^u^{reau or}^FY²⁰⁰³^FY²⁰⁰⁴^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Admⁱ^n.^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^Agency^Ena^c^t^e^d^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^H.R^.⁴⁷⁵⁴^S^.²⁶⁰⁹^Ena^c^t^e^d
^Iⁿ^terⁿ^atioⁿ^a^l
^Tr^a^d^e^$359.8^{$378. 1}^$393.5^$393.5^$393.5^$393.5
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ
^B^u^reau^of
^In^du^s^t^ry^an^d^$66.3^{$67.5 $76.5}^$68.4^$70.9^$68.4
^Secu^rity
^Econ^omⁱ^c
^D^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t^$318.7^{$315.3 $320.3}^$320.3^$315.5^$287.9
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ
^Min^o^r^ity
^B^u^sine^ss^$28.7^{$28.6 $34.5}^$28.9^$31.6^$29.9
^D^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t
^A^g^en^cy
^Econ^omⁱ^c^an^d
^Statistical^$71.7^{$74.2 $88.4}^$78.2^$81.8^$80.0
^An^a^l^y^sⁱ^s
^B^u^reau^of^th^e^$550.9^{$624.2 $828.6}^$773.9^$605.8^$754.9
^Ce^nsus
^Natioⁿ^a^l
^T^e^lecom^m^uⁿⁱ^-
^cation^s^an^d^$73.3^{$51.1 $24.6}^$17.8^$58.2^$39.2
^In^f^o^rm^atⁱ^oⁿ
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ
^Pa^t^eⁿ^t^aⁿ^d
^T^r^adem^ark^a^($1,182.0)^{($1,222.5) ($1,314.7)}^($1,^314.7)^($1,336.0)^($1,336.0)
^O^ffi^c^e
^T^e^c^hno^l^o^gy^$9.8^$6.3^$8.3^$6.5^$6.4^$6.5
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ
^Natioⁿ^a^l
^Iⁿ^stitu^{te o}^f^$707.5^$621.5^$521.5^$525.0^$784.9^$708.7
^Stan^dards^an^d
^T^e^c^hno^l^o^gy
^Natioⁿ^a^l
^Ocean^{ic an}^d^$3,235.7^$3,701.0^$3,373.5^$3,158.0^$4,141.8^$3,940.0
^At^m^o^s^p^h^e^rⁱ^c^A
^d^mⁱⁿ^istr^atioⁿ
^Dep^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^al^$65.2^$67.7^$78.3^$74.4^$96.6^$79.8
^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt
^O^t^h^e^r^$8.1^$208.7^$208.7^$208.8^$209.1

^B^u^{reau or}^FY²⁰⁰³^FY²⁰⁰⁴^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Admⁱ^n.^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^Agency^Ena^c^t^e^d^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^H.R^.⁴⁷⁵⁴^S^.²⁶⁰⁹^Ena^c^t^e^d
^D^e^par^t^m^ent^of
^C^o^mmerce^$5,704.0^$5,943.5^$5,956.7^$5,653.6^$6,795.8^$6,597.9
^Subt^ot^al^:
^{U.S. T}^r^ad^e^$37.1^{$41.6 $39.6}^$41.6^$41.6^$41.6
^Rep^r^esen^tativ^e
^Iⁿ^terⁿ^atioⁿ^a^l
^Tr^a^d^e^$53.7^{$57.7 $61.7}^$61.7^$61.7^$61.7
^C^o^mmi^s^sⁱ^oⁿ
^Natioⁿ^a^l
^Iⁿ^tellectu^a^l
^Propert^y^L^a^w^$20.0^$2.0
^En^f^o^rcem^en^t
^C^oordiⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ
^Co^uncⁱ^l
^Rela^ted
^Agencies^$91.7^$99.3^$101.3^$103.3^$123.3^$105.3
^Subt^ot^al^:
^Re^sc^issioⁿ^($100.0)
^T^{itle I}^I^T^o^tal:^$5,795.8^$5,942.8^$6,058.0^$5,756.9^$6,919.1^$6,703.2
^S^o^u^rce:^U.S^.^Ho^use^o^f^Re^pre^s^eⁿ^ta^tiv^e^s^{, Co}^m^m^itte^e^oⁿ^Appro^p^ria^tio^{ns a}^{nd P}^.^L^.^108-^447.
^a^.^T^h^e^P^a^te^{nt a}^{nd T}^r^a^d^e^m^a^r^k^Offic^e^(P^T^O^{) is fully}^funde^d^b^y^u^s^e^r^f^e^e^s^{. T}^h^e^fe^e^s^c^o^lle^c^t^e^{d, but no}^{t o}^b^lig^a^t^e^d^during^the
^cu^rren^t^y^ear,^{are av}^ai^l^a^b^l^{e fo}^{r o}^b^lⁱ^g^atⁱ^oⁿⁱⁿ^t^h^{e fo}^l^l^o^wⁱⁿ^g^fi^s^cal^y^ear,^an^d^{do not}^c^o^{unt to}^w^a^r^d^the^a^ppr^o^p^rⁱ^a^tio^{n to}^ta^ls.
^Only^ne^w^l^y^a^ppro^p^ria^t^e^d^{funds c}^o^{unt to}^w^a^{rd the}^a^nnua^{l a}^ppro^p^ria^tio^{n to}^ta^ls.
The Judiciary¹³
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 protection
from presidential alteration. Thus, when the President transmits a proposed federal
budget to Congress, he must forward the judicial branch’s proposed budget to
Congress unchanged. That process has been in operation since 1939. The total
appropriation for the Judiciary in FY2005 was $5.50 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’s
salary and operational expenses and the other covering expenditures for the care of
its building and grounds. (By authority of the act of May 7, 1934 (P.L. 73-211), the
Architect of the Capitol is responsible for the structural and mechanical care of the
Supreme Court building, including care of its grounds. The Architect, however, is

¹³ This title was written by D. Steven Rutkus, Specialist in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division.

not charged with responsibility for custodial care, which is under the jurisdiction of
the Marshal of the Supreme Court.)
Traditionally, in a practice dating back to the 1920s, one or more of the Court’s
Justices appear before either a House or Senate appropriations subcommittee to
address the budget requirements of the Supreme Court for the upcoming fiscal year,
focusing primarily on the Court’s salary and operational expenses. Frequently, if not
always, in conjunction with the Justices’ testimony, the Architect of the Capitol
submits a request for the Court’s building and grounds account. Although it is at the
apex of the federal judicial system, the Supreme Court represents only a very small
share of the Judiciary’s overall funding. For FY2004, the total appropriations enacted
for the Supreme Court’s two accounts, $81.2 million, were less than 1.6% of the
Judiciary’s overall appropriation of $5.16 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 dwarfs
all others — the Salaries and Expenses account for the U.S. Courts of Appeals,
District Courts and Other Judicial Services. The account covers not only the salaries,
benefits and operating expenses of circuit and district judges (including judges of the
territorial courts of the United States), but also those of retired justices and judges,
U.S. Court of Federal Claims, bankruptcy and magistrate judges, and all other
officers and employees of the federal Judiciary not specifically provided for by other
accounts.
Other accounts for the lower courts include Defender Services (for
compensation and reimbursement of expenses of attorneys appointed to represent
criminal defendants), Fees of Jurors, the U.S. Court of International Trade, the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Federal Judicial Center (which, through
research and continuing education programs for judges and judicial personnel, seeks
to further improvements in judicial administration), and the U.S. Sentencing
Commission (an independent commission in the judicial branch, which establishes
sentencing policies and practices for the courts).
The annual Judiciary budget request for the courts is presented to the House and
Senate appropriations subcommittees after being reviewed and cleared by the Judicial
Conference, the federal court system’s governing body. These presentations, typically
made by the chairman of the Conference’s budget committee, are separate from
subcommittee appearances a Justice makes on behalf of the Supreme Court’s budget
request.
The Judiciary budget does not appropriate funds for three “special courts” in the
U.S. court system: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (funded in the
Department of Defense appropriations bill), the U.S. Tax Court (funded in the
Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims (funded in the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and
Urban Development appropriations bill). Construction of federal courthouses also
is not funded within the Judiciary’s budget. The usual legislative vehicle for funding
federal courthouse construction is the Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill.

The Judiciary’s FY2005 Request
For FY2005, the Judiciary requested $5.70 billion in total appropriations, a
10.6% increase over FY2004 funding of $5.16 billion. The FY2005 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-287), after adjusting for two rescissions, provides
$5.43 billion in total spending for the Judiciary, a 5.2% increase over FY2004
funding. Specifically, the act appropriates $5.50 billion for the Judiciary as a whole,
a 6.5% increase over FY2004 — with total discretionary spending, however, reduced
by 1.34% as a result of two across-the-board cuts in the act. The FY2005 omnibus
bill includes a provision authorizing a cost-of-living salary adjustment for Justices
and judges. The conference report for the omnibus bill (H.Rept. 108-792) was
agreed to in the House and Senate on November 20, 2004.
Earlier, H.R. 4754, the CJS bill passed by the House on July 8, 2004, provided
$5.55 billion for the Judiciary — 8.0%, above the Judiciary’s total appropriations for
FY2004, and $158.8 million below the Judiciary’s request. S. 2809, the CJS measure
approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 15, 2004, provided
$5.36 billion for the Judiciary in FY2005 — $230.2 million, or 4.5%, above the
Judiciary’s FY2004 total, and $343.0 million below the Judiciary’s request. In
response to the Judiciary’s request, the Senate-reported measure contained a
provision authorizing a cost-of-living salary adjustment for Justices and judges
during FY2005. The House-passed bill, however, was without such language.
The Judiciary’s FY2005 budget request received two hearings before the House
CJS Appropriations Subcommittee — on March 11,2004, for the lower courts, and
on March 17, 2004, for the Supreme Court. At the March 11 hearing, officials for
the Judiciary stated that 71% of their requested increase, $421 million, was required
simply to maintain current services. This amount, they said, would fund
uncontrollable expenses such as judges’ compensation and rent payments to the
General Services Administration, allow the courts to return to FY2002 end-of-year
staffing levels, fund required adjustments to pay and benefits, maintain the
judiciary’s core information technology infrastructure, and provide legal
representation for indigent defendants. The remaining 29% of the increase, $168
million, was requested for programmatic and workload-related needs, primarily due
to increases in criminal and bankruptcy filings and in the number of offenders
released from prison requiring supervision and drug and mental health treatment.
As part of its FY2005 budget, the Judiciary also requested additional funding
for a 1.7% cost-of-living adjustment for judges, effective January 2005. This
adjustment, the Judiciary explained in its budget submission, was consistent with an
expected 2005 salary increase for federal employees.
In addition, the Judiciary said it was seeking an FY2004 supplemental
appropriation of $55.7 million. Of this total, $39.2 million would be appropriated
for the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other
Judicial Services account, to avoid adverse personnel actions in the courts. The
remainder, $16.4 million, would be appropriated for the Defender Services account,
to avert, near the end of FY2004, a three-week suspension of payments to court-
appointed attorneys who represent indigent defendants in federal criminal cases.
Ultimately, this Judiciary effort was partially successful, for when the House and

Senate, on July 22, 2004, approved an FY2005 Department of Defense
appropriations bill (P.L.108-287), they included (in Title X, Sec. 11003) $26.0
million in supplemental funding for the Judiciary’s Defender Services account,
specifically for compensation of attorneys representing indigent defendants.
The Judiciary maintained that the federal courts were critically underfunded in
FY2003 and FY2004, and that its FY2005 budget request, in conjunction with its
request for the FY2004 supplemental, was one of “catching up.” From 2002 to 2004,
according to the Judiciary, criminal cases were projected to increase 10%, activated
pretrial services cases by 17%, bankruptcy filings by 11%, and Criminal Justice Act
representations of indigent defendants by 19%. Yet overall funding for the courts in
FY2004, according to the Judiciary, was, in real dollar terms, less than FY2002
levels. As a result, a Judiciary official said at the March 11, 2004 hearing, the courts
were “freezing the filling of most vacant positions and are planning for the
involuntary separation and buyout of hundreds of employees, and the furlough of
thousands of court employees.”
To meet the budget squeeze in the remainder of FY2004, the courts, as of the
end of April 2004, reported the layoff of 126 court staff, provided “early outs” and
buy-outs to 268 staff, and furloughed probation officers and other court staff for a
total of 745 days. More adverse employee actions were projected for the months
immediately thereafter.
At the March 11, 2004 hearing, the chairman of the House CJS Subcommittee,
Representative Frank R. Wolf of Virginia and the subcommittee’s ranking
Democratic Member, Jose E. Serrano of New York, expressed their desire to do all
within the subcommittee’s power to meet the Judiciary’s funding needs. Chairman
Wolf, however, commented that in light of the subcommittee’s limited budget
allocation for FY2005, the overall budget increase requested by the Judiciary, in
addition to the supplemental appropriation requested for FY2004, was “unlikely.”
On June 23, 2004, the House Appropriations Committee approved its CJS-
Judiciary appropriations bill for FY2005. The committee-approved measure, H.R.
4754, provided $5.55 billion for the Judiciary — $414.4 million, or 8.0%, above the
Judiciary’s total appropriations for FY2004, and $158.8 million below the Judiciary’s
request. In its report on H.R. 4754 (H.Rept. 108-576, p. 85), the committee stated
that its recommendation included increases “to provide inflationary pay and benefit
adjustments for court staff; to enhance court security measures; to increase the
number of positions to handle workload increases; and to support the Judiciary’s core
information technology infrastructure.” Upon the report’s release, a staff member
on the Appropriations Committee told the weekly publication Legal Times that the
recommended 8.0% increase for the Judiciary was one of the largest percentage
increases for FY2005 received by any department under the committee’s purview.
The Legal Times story also reported the fears of the Judiciary that Congress
might approve a government-wide FY2005 budget under which overall non-defense,
non-homeland security discretionary appropriations would be set at FY2004 levels
— referred to on Capitol Hill as a “hard-freeze.” Federal judges, the Legal Times
reported, “fear such a ‘hard-freeze’ on spending will leave courts with no money to
pay for jury trials or court-appointed lawyers.” The Legal Times said it remained

“unclear what funding the Senate will decide upon,” noting that “[o]ver the past two
years, the Senate slashed increases proposed by the House.”
In a related development, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) wrote to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate
Appropriations Committee to urge sufficient funding for the Judiciary in FY2005.
“A hard freeze,” Senator Hatch said, “would truly cripple the federal Judiciary in the
coming year, and for years to come.” The Senator acknowledged that the
Appropriations Committee faces a “difficult task” in FY2005. “Nonetheless,” he
added, “I ask that as the Committee proceeds, it considers the fact that a fully
operational federal Judiciary contributes significantly to the security and stability of
our country. Judiciary funding should be considered a priority. I urge, at a minimum
the courts’ funding for FY2005 be sufficient to allow for current services and
operations to be continued.”
Subsequently, on July 8, 2004, the full House, in its passage of H.R. 4754,
followed the recommendation of its Appropriations Committee in approving $5.55
billion for the Judiciary. The House-passed bill made no changes in any of the
Judiciary budget accounts approved earlier by the Appropriations Committee.
During Congress’ ensuing August recess, the Judicial Conference, the policy-
making body of the federal Judiciary, unanimously adopted a resolution regarding the
Judiciary’s FY2005 budget. The resolution, adopted on August 18, 2004, urged
Congress and the President to exempt the judicial branch from any FY2005
continuing resolution and to provide full-year FY2005 funding for the Judiciary at
least at the current services level approved in H.R. 4754, the House-passed CJS bill.
The resolution stated that it was “imperative” that an exemption from any continuing
resolution be provided by October 1, 2004. “To remain at the same funding level at
the beginning of FY2005,” the Judicial Conference said, “would require the judiciary
to begin unprecedented action: cutting operating expenses by 50 percent and either
firing or furloughing 10 to 20 percent of all judiciary staff, the equivalent of 2,000
to 5,000 probation, pretrial services, and clerks’ office employees. This action would
be necessary due to the uncertainty of time and amount of a full-year appropriation.”
Shortly after Congress reconvened in September, the Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist reiterated the concerns of the Judicial Conference in identical letters sent
to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Senate Democratic Leader Thomas A.
Daschle. In the September 13, 2004 letter, the Chief Justice requested that Congress
take timely action to provide funds needed by the federal judiciary for FY2005 “to
meet its constitutional and statutory responsibilities.” The Chief Justice said he was
making this request because of reports that Congress might adjourn for the upcoming
elections “without passing an appropriations bill for the judicial branch and that
funding for the federal courts would be included in a long-term continuing resolution
(CR).” He added that the Judicial Conference was “very concerned that, under such
a CR, the courts would have to operate at FY2004 funding levels for up to five
months until Congress enacts a final appropriations bill.” This, he said, “amounts
to a hard freeze in appropriations that would be devastating to the judiciary.”
Two days later, on September 15, 2004, the Senate Appropriations Committee
approved its CJS bill, S. 2809, which provided $5.36 billion for the Judiciary in

FY2005 — $230.2 million, or 4.5%, above the Judiciary’s FY2004 total, and $343.0
million below the Judiciary’s request. In its written report (S.Rept. 108-344, at p.
121), the Committee declared that its budget recommendation for the Judiciary
“funds programs necessary to maintain current services and retain current
employees.” The Committee said it did “not support the judiciary’s request for
program increases for personnel at a time when the judiciary is planning significant
furloughs, layoffs, and early out programs.” It urged the Judicial Conference to
consider “directing all available funds to the local courts to prevent adverse personnel
separations instead of attracting new employees.”
Less than a week later, on September 21, 2004, the Judicial Conference agreed
to implement what the Legal Times reported were “$225 million in cost-cutting
measures, including substantial layoffs and a moratorium that will freeze plans for
42 new federal courthouses.” The Legal Times quoted the chair of the Conference’s
executive committee as saying that between 2,000 and 4,800 judicial employees
might be laid off in FY2005 if funding for the Judiciary, under a “hard freeze,” were
indefinitely kept at FY2004 levels. A Judiciary news release explained that 42
courthouse projects on the Judicial Conference’s five-year courthouse project plan
would be delayed, to help reduce the rate of growth in future rental expenses that the
Judiciary pays to the General Services Administration for court facilities. (For
FY2004, the news release said, the Judiciary was paying GSA about $900 million in
rent for court facilities.)
In anticipation of action by House and Senate conferees on the two CJS bills,
H.R. 4754 and S. 2809, the chairman and the secretary of the Judicial Conference’s
budget committee sent a letter, dated October 12, 2004, to the chairmen and ranking
members of the House and Senate CJS appropriations subcommittees. The Judiciary
officials stated that while, for most of the Judiciary, the House-passed funding levels
were “sufficient to provide for current services, we face significant shortfalls in
almost every account if funding is provided at the levels recommended in the Senate
bill.” Moreover, they said, the levels of funding contained in both the House and
Senate bills fell short of the Judiciary’s FY2005 requirements. Nonetheless, they
said, the Judiciary was “well aware of the overall budget constraints under which
you [congressional appropriators] are forced to operate this year.” Thus, they
continued,
...we have decided not to appeal for the funds necessary to met our FY2005
workload requirements, but instead to appeal for the minimum funding needed
to maintain FY2004 levels of services and operations. For most judiciary
accounts that is the Housed-passed level of funding, but there are a couple of
exceptions where we find the need to appeal to a funding level that is greater
than that in both the House and Senate bills.
On November 20, 2004, the House and Senate agreed to the FY2005
Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 4818), as reported by conferees for the
omnibus bill, and on December 8, 2004, President Bush signed the bill into law (P.L.
108-447). FY2005 funding for the Judiciary is provided for in Title III of Division
B of the act (and is discussed in the act’s conference report, H.Rept. 108-792, at pp.
814-818). As noted above, the act, after adjusting for two rescissions, provides
$5.43 billion in total spending for the Judiciary, a 5.2% increase over FY2004

funding of $5.16 billion. Specifically, the act appropriates $5.50 billion for the
Judiciary as a whole, a 6.5% increase over FY2004 — with total discretionary
spending, however, reduced by 1.34% as a result of two across-the-board cuts in the
act. (One of the cuts reduces discretionary spending in the CJS Division of the act
by 0.54%, and the other reduces non-defense and non-homeland security
discretionary spending throughout the act by .80%.) The FY2005 omnibus bill
includes a provision authorizing a cost-of-living salary adjustment for Justices and
judges.
In the omnibus bill, only one of the Judiciary’s 13 accounts (Judiciary
Retirement Funds) was unaffected by the 1.34% across-the-board cuts in
discretionary spending.Prior to adjusting for the cuts, funding amounts for nine of
the 13 Judiciary’s accounts were identical to those in the earlier House-passed CJS
bill, H.R. 4754, while the other four accounts received less funding than in the House
bill.
The increased funding levels approved for the Judiciary in the omnibus bill
“averted a disaster,” according to the Legal Times. “There was talk,” the journal
reported on November 29, 2004, “of additional furloughs, nonpayment of court-
appointed lawyers and closing courthouses one day a week if no substantial budget
increases were made in 2005.” But “such drastic scenarios” were reportedly avoided,
when Congress, in the omnibus bill, afforded the Judiciary enough funding to avoid
further reductions. “The bottom line is we’re pretty lucky,” a Judiciary spokesman
told the Legal Times, adding, “Given the budgetary environment, it’s about the best
you could have hoped for.”
FY2005 Funding Issues
Supreme Court. The budget request of the Supreme Court for FY2005, as
customary, was in two parts. For its first account, Salaries and Expenses, the Court
requested $58.1 million, an increase of $3.3 million, or 6.1%, over budget authority
of $54.8 million for FY2004. Most of the increase, $2.9 million, was requested to
fund required increases in salary and benefit costs and inflationary increases in fixed
costs. The rest of the increase, $440,000, was requested to fund eight additional
positions.
The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447), after adjusting
for two rescissions, provides $57.4 million for this account, a 4.7% increase over the
FY2004 amount. Specifically, the act, as requested by the Court, appropriated
$58.1 million for the account — with total discretionary spending, however, reduced
by 1.34% as a result of two across-the-board cuts in the act. Earlier, the full House
and the Senate Appropriations Committee, in their respective CJS-Judiciary
appropriations bills, also approved $58.1 million for Salaries and Expenses.
For its second account, Care of the Building and Grounds, the Court requested
$10.6 million—a decrease of $15.8 million, or 60.0%, from the FY2004 available
appropriation of $26.4 million. (The FY2004 total for this account consisted of an
enacted appropriation of $10.6 million within the Judiciary title of the FY2004
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199), a transfer to this account of $16.0

million from Division H, Section 106 of the Consolidated Act, and an FY2004
rescission of $206,000.)
The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, after adjusting for the two
rescissions, provides $9.8 million for Care of the Building and Grounds account,
$734,000 below the Court’s request. The act specifically appropriated $10.0 million
for the account — with total discretionary spending, however, reduced by 1.34% as
a result of the two across-the-board cuts noted above. Earlier, the House, following
the recommendation of its Appropriations Committee, approved $10.0 million, while
the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the full $10.6 million requested
by the Court.
The funding requested by the Court for FY2005 for Building and Grounds was
divided into budget adjustments to maintain current services and program increases.
To maintain current services in FY2005, the Court said $3.9 million was required —
$22.5 million less than required in FY2004. Nearly all of this downward adjustment
was due to a decrease of $21.8 million requested for the Court’s building
modernization project. In its budget submission, the Court stated that funding
appropriated in prior years was sufficient to meet planned obligations for the
modernization project through FY2005 and that additional funding to complete the
project would be requested in FY2006.
Requested program increases for Building and Grounds totaled $6.7 million.
This funding, the Court said, would cover various projects, including modernization
of elevators, a seismic safety study, restoration of the original exterior bronze on the
Court building, restoration of stonework, additional roof fall protection (for worker
safety), kitchen renovations, design for exterior property renovation, and building
security upgrades. The largest portion of funding for program increases would be
$3.6 million to upgrade building security. This amount, the Court explained in its
budget submission, “would provide for the initial costs of the complex and
comprehensive installation of security intrusion alarms, surveillance, monitoring and
communications systems in the new operations center for the Supreme Court police
force. This upgrade to the building security will effectively accomplish the police
force mission and enhance the protection of the Justices, visitors, personnel and
building assets.”
A hearing on the Court’s budget request was held by the House CJS
appropriations subcommittee on March 17, 2004. Testifying on behalf of the
Court’s budget request were Associate Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence
Thomas. In addition to querying the Justices about particulars of their budget
request, Representatives on the subcommittee sought the Justices’ views concerning
the idea of constructing a tunnel between the Court and the Capitol Visitors Center.
Justice Kennedy expressed reservations about the feasibility of such a tunnel, but told
the subcommittee that the Justices would “get back” to the subcommittee on the
question of whether, in their view, the Court could be linked in some way to the
Visitors Center. Some members of the subcommittee also expressed concerns that
the Court might not be publishing or otherwise making publicly available sufficient
information about the Court’s operations.

On June 23, 2004, the House Appropriations Committee approved its CJS-
Judiciary appropriations bill for FY2005, H.R. 4754. For the Court’s Salaries and
Expenses account, the Appropriations Committee recommended $58.1 million, the
same amount as requested by the Court. For the Building and Grounds account, the
committee recommended $10.0 million, $600,000 below the Court’s request. (The
recommendation did not include requested funding for renovation of the Court’s
kitchen. In its report, the committee noted that it had been assured by Architect of
the Capitol staff that the requested modifications to the Court’s kitchen could “be
deferred and that no funds are needed in FY2005.”) On July 8, 2004, the House
passed H.R. 4754, leaving unchanged all funding amounts that the House
Appropriations Committee had recommended for the Judiciary, including those for
the Court’s Salaries and Expenses and Building and Grounds accounts.
Along with its FY2005 funding recommendations, the House Appropriations
Committee made several requests of the Court. Specifically, in its report (H.Rept.

108-576, at pp. 87-88), the committee:

^!Requested from the Court, within 30 days of enactment of the
appropriations bill, a report on “providing improved public access
to Supreme Court proceedings.” Related to this request, the
committee encouraged the court to “pursue internet and audio
release of Court proceedings in near real-time.” The committee
explained it “wants to ensure that the public is provided sufficient
insight into the Supreme Court’s operations.” This request language
subsequently, in November 2004, was adopted by reference in the
conference report for the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act
(H.Rept. 108-792, at p. 815).
^!Urged the Court and the Architect to “remain diligent in their efforts
to control the cost” of the Court’s modernization project and to
inform the committee “if any changes to the scope of the original
project are made.” (In so urging, the committee said that it appeared
the “some of the renovation costs initially included in the
modernization project may have been removed and requested
separately” in the FY2005 request.) This House report language as
well was adopted by reference in the conference report for the
FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
^!Said the Court and the Architect of the Capitol should provide to the
committee “any information pertaining to the Court’s approval of the
visitor screening facility plan, including options considered
(including a connection to the Capitol Visitors’ Center) and related
costs.”
On September 15, 2004, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its
CJS-Judiciary appropriations bill for FY2005, S. 2809. The committee
recommendations included $58.1 million for the Court’s Salaries and Expenses
account and $10.6 million for Building and Grounds, the same amounts as requested
by the Court. In its report (S.Rept. 108-344, on p.122), the committee said that, in

providing the requested funding amounts, it understood that the Court’s “long-term
requirements for personnel are a top priority.”
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services. By
far the largest of the Judiciary’s budget accounts is the Salaries and Expenses account
for Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services. This account
funds the salaries, benefits, and other operating expenses of judges and supporting
personnel for the regional courts of appeals, district courts, bankruptcy courts, U.S.
Court of Federal Claims, and federal probation and pretrial services officers. In both
FY2003 and FY2004, 77% of the Judiciary’s total funding was appropriated to this
account. For FY2005, the House, following the recommendation of its
Appropriations Committee, approved $4.18 billion for Salaries and Expenses —
75.3% of the $5.54 billion it appropriated to the Judiciary as a whole. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $4.13 billion for this account — 77.1% of
its overall Judiciary appropriation of $5.36 billion.
For FY2005 the Judiciary requested $4.32 billion for Salaries and Expenses, a
9.2% increase over FY2004 funding of $3.96 billion. The House-approved amount
of $4.18 billion for Salaries and Expenses was $222.2 million, or 5.6% over FY2004,
and $143.0 million below the Judiciary’s request. The Senate-reported amount of
$4.13 billion was $176.5 million, or 4.5%, above the FY2004 appropriation and
$188.8 million below the Judiciary’s request. Subsequently, this account received
$4.18 billion in the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447), the
same amount proposed in the House-passed bill. That amount, however, has in turn
been reduced by 1.34% — to $4.13 billion — as the result of two across-the-board
rescissions in the omnibus act.
In its FY2005 budget submission, the Judiciary stated that its request included:
^!an upward adjustment to its FY2004 base of $73.2 million to meet
FY2004 supplemental appropriations requirements and to restore
court support staffing to FY2003 end-of-year on-board levels;
^!$83.4 million for pay and benefit increases for court support and
probation and pretrial services staff;
^!a program increase of $87.1 million for 870 full-time-equivalents
(FTEs), to address staffing shortfalls, and for operating costs funded
in FY2004; and
^!$3.6 million for eight additional magistrate judges and their staff,
“to help Article III judges handle civil cases and the record level of
criminal cases facing the courts.”
In response, the House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 108-
576, at p. 88), noted that its FY2005 recommendation for Salaries and Expenses
included a $74.6 million program increase for the courts’ staffing and operating
expenses. In FY2004, the committee observed, the courts were forced to take
adverse personnel actions, including reductions-in-force, encouragement of early
retirements, and employee furloughs. The committee said its recommendation would
provide 745 additional FTEs, “restoring the courts to the FY2003 level of on-board
staff and providing an increase of 100 additional staff to address an increased
workload.”

Further, as the Judiciary requested, the House committee approved increased
funding of $3.6 million for the cost of eight new magistrates and their staff, “to assist
in districts with heavy caseloads.”
The committee also recommended an increase of $8.9 million for probation and
pretrial services offices. In its report, the committee cited increases in the number
of offenders under the supervision of probation officers or under court supervision
after serving prison terms. Its recommendation, the committee said, would
“enhance the Judiciary’s ability to supervise offenders,” by funding additional costs
associated with drug testing and treatment, alternatives to pretrial detention, mental
health treatment, electronic monitoring, and other related contract costs.
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 108-344, at p. 123)
stated that it was “not supportive” of the Judiciary’s request for program increases
for Salaries and Expenses and was “extremely concerned about not furloughing or
laying off personnel.” The Committee urged the Judicial Conference “to reconsider
this course of action by making the retention of current personnel a top priority and
directing funds to the courts to the greatest extent possible to assist them in this
perilous situation.”
The conference report for the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act
(H.Rept. 108-792, at p. 815) noted that its agreement provides $4.18 billion for
Salaries and Expenses, “as proposed by the House.” This amount, the report added,
assumes that Federal Protective Service charges will no longer be funded in Salaries
and Expenses but rather in the Judiciary’s Court Security account.
Defender Services. This account funds the operations of the federal public
defender and community defender organizations, and the compensation,
reimbursement and expenses of private practice “panel attorneys” appointed by the
courts to serve as defense counsel to indigent individuals accused of federal crimes.
The Judiciary requested $681.6 million for Defender Services in FY2005, compared
with $598.1 million appropriated for FY2004 — a 14.0% increase, and
approximately 12% of the Judiciary’s total budget request.
The House approved $676.5 million for this account in FY2005, a 13.1%
increase over FY2004 funding, while the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $648.1 million, an 8.4% increase. The House-passed amount and the
Senate-reported amount for Defender Services both included funding to substantially
increase the rate of hourly compensation paid to “panel attorneys” appointed under
the Criminal Justice Act to represent indigents in federal death penalty cases.
Apart from its requests for FY2005 funding, the Judiciary, in its FY2005 budget
submission, also requested $16.4 million in supplemental funding for Defender
Services in FY2004. This amount was sought to avert, near the end of FY2004, a
budget shortfall that, according to the Judiciary, would result in a three-week
suspension of payments to panel attorneys representing indigent clients in federal
criminal cases. In response to this request, Congress, on July 22, 2004, in approving
the FY2005 Department of Defense Appropriations bill (P.L.108-287), included
$26.0 million in supplemental funding for the Judiciary’s Defender Services account,

specifically for panel attorney compensation. The supplemental brought the total
FY2004 appropriation for this account up to $624.1 million.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447, enacted December 8,
2004) appropriates$676.4 million for Defender Services in FY2005, an 8.4% increase
over total FY2004 funding of $624.1 million. The appropriation, however, is subject
to a 1.34% cut in discretionary spending (as the result of two rescissions in the act
which affect Judiciary budget accounts), leaving Defender Services with $667.3
million in available funding for FY2005.
Nearly all (95%) of the Judiciary’s requested increase for FY2005 was sought
for inflationary and other adjustments to maintain current services. Inflation and
current services adjustments included $45.9 million to cover increased costs of an
additional 11,000 projected representations of indigents in non-capital cases (cases
in which federal prosecutors do not seek to impose the death penalty), 3,300
representations not funded by the FY2004 appropriation, and $3.5 million in
additional costs associated with capital cases (cases in which prosecutors do seek the
death penalty). The increase also included $12.9 million to provide pay and benefit
adjustments to Federal Defender Organization staff and $2.7 million for a 1.7% hike
in the hourly rate paid to panel attorneys. The hourly rates paid would increase from
$90 to $92 for non-capital casts and $125 to $127 for capital cases, effective January

1, 2005.

The Judiciary also requested one program increase for the Defender Services
account, specifically an increase in the hourly rate of compensation to panel attorneys
in capital cases. In these cases, the current hourly pay rate for panel attorneys, in
place since 1989, is $125. The Judiciary requested $3.0 million to allow for the rate
to be increased, beyond the inflationary increase referred to above, to $159. The
Judiciary noted that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
established $125 per hour as the statutory maximum while also, however, providing
for annual cost of living adjustments to this rate. The $159 figure, according to the
Judiciary, represented the culmination of all statutorily authorized adjustments since

1996.

Testifying before the House CJS Appropriations Subcommittee on March 11,
2004, a Judiciary spokesman underscored the need for a substantial increase in the
hourly rate paid to panel attorneys in capital cases. In his prepared statement, U.S.
District Judge John G. Heyburn II said that a “very limited number of attorneys”
have the qualifications set by law to represent defendants charged with the death
penalty. Consequently, the same lawyers are asked repeatedly to assume this “very
burdensome responsibility.” When lawyers take on a capital case, he said, the
remainder of their practice is foregone for the length of the case, which frequently
lasts at least two years. Since most of these lawyers are sole practitioners or in very
small firms, their sole source of income for the duration becomes the $125 an hour
paid by the government, “well below the rates charged in private practice.” The
$125 rate, Judge Heyburn said, must cover not only the attorney’s salary but also
overhead expenses, including retirement and benefits and salary for office staff.
During the case, “future work is foregone and the law practice has to be rebuilt at the
[case’s ] conclusion . . . .” Further, Judge Heyburn observed, the number of capital
cases is increasing. He concluded that the hourly pay for panel attorneys in capital

cases needs to be raised to a level where, upon finishing a capital case, a lawyer will
be willing to take on more such cases in the future.
On June 23, 2004, the House Appropriations Committee approved, H.R. 4754,
its CJS-Judiciary appropriations bill for FY2005. For the Defender Services account
the Appropriations Committee recommended $676.5 million. The recommendation,
as the Judiciary requested, provided panel attorneys with an inflationary pay rate
increase and increased the hourly rate for representation in capital cases from $127
to $159. The committee noted that its recommendation also included, as the
Judiciary requested, an increase of $45.9 million above the FY2004 appropriation for
additional representations of indigents in non-capital cases. The committee-
approved funding amount for Defender Services in FY2005 was left unchanged when
the House passed H.R. 4754 on July 8, 2004.
On September 15, 2004, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved S.
2809, its FY2005 CJS-Judiciary appropriations bill. For the Defender Services
account, the Appropriations Committee recommended $648.1 million. In its report
(S.Rept. 108-344, at p. 125), the committee recommended that, effective January 1,
2005, the hourly rates payable to panel attorneys in capital cases be increased to
$160, $1 more per hour than the Judiciary-requested and House-approved rate. This
increase, the committee said, was needed “to maintain a high quality of panel
representations.”
In addition, S. 2809 as reported increased the maximum compensation limits for
panel attorneys specified under Section 3006A(d)(2) of title 18 of the U.S. Code.
(The bill, for instance, increased the maximum compensation for a panel attorney
representing a defendant before a federal magistrate or district court judge in a case
in which one or more felonies are charged, from $5,200 to $7000. Other pay rate
maximums, such as for representing a defendant in an appellate court, or in a case in
which only misdemeanors are charged, also are increased in the bill.) In its report,
the Appropriations Committee said the increase in maximum pay limits was included
in S. 2809 “to make the representation compensation more accurately reflect actual
expenses.” The committee said that the case compensation maximum amounts
currently in effect “are creating an unnecessary hardship on panel attorneys, court
staff, and judges.”
As noted above, the Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447, enacted
December 8, 2004) appropriates $676.4 million for Defender Services in FY2005 —
compared with $676.5 million earlier approved by the House and $648.1 million
recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The appropriation,
however, is subject to a 1.34% cut in discretionary spending (as the result of two
rescissions in the act which affect Judiciary budget accounts), leaving Defender
Services with $667.3 million in available funding for FY2005. In their report
(H.Rept. 108-792, at p. 816), conferees for the omnibus bill adopted by reference
report language of the Senate Appropriations Committee regarding an increase in the
hourly rate for panel attorneys in capital cases and an increase in the case
compensation maximum for panel attorneys in non-capital cases.
Court Security. For Court Security in FY2005, the Judiciary requested
$383.3 million, compared with $274.58 million enacted for FY2004, a 39.6%

increase. The House approved $379.6 million for Court Security, an increase of
$105.0 million, or 38.2%, above the FY2004 level and $3.7 million below the
Judiciary’s request. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $274.65
million for Court Security, an increase of $73,000, or less than .1%, above the
FY2004 appropriation, and $108.6 million below the Judiciary’s request. The
committee, however, stated it would reconsider the expenditure of additional funds
for Court Security in FY2005 when the Department of Homeland Security provided
“sufficient justification” for Federal Protective Service charges assigned to the
account.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447, enacted December 8,
2004) appropriates $332.0 million for the Court Security account — a 20.9% increase
over FY2004 funding, $47.6 million less than proposed by the House, and $57.3
million more than proposed by the Senate. The appropriation in the omnibus act,
however, is subject to a 1.34% rescission in discretionary spending, leaving Court
Security with $327.6 million in available funding for FY2005.
In the Judiciary’s FY2005 request, $75.3 million was included for Federal
Protective Service (FPS) charges, which in previous fiscal years were charged as
General Services Administration (GSA) rent and funded from the Judiciary’s Salaries
and Expenses and Defender Services accounts. Specifically, for FPS charges, the
Judiciary’s FY2005 request shifted to Court Security $74.0 million from Salaries and
Expenses and $1.3 million from Defenders Services. In its budget submission, the
Judiciary explained that with the relocation of the FPS from GSA to the Department
of Homeland Security, FPS basic security services “are no longer a component of the
rental charge and funds will not remain with GSA. Consequently, these security
services should be funded out of the Court Security account, as are other security
functions.” Shifting FPS costs to Court Security, the Judiciary explained, “is budget
neutral”— i.e., the costs are neither increased nor decreased by being shifted to Court
Security.
Apart from the $75.3 million transfer for FPS charges, the largest funding
increase requested for Court Security was $20.1 million for security systems and
equipment.
The Court Security appropriation, the Judiciary noted in its budget submission,
was “approximately seven percent of the judiciary’s total budget, and with the
nationwide emphasis on security, it has become one of the highest priority programs
of the judiciary.” The majority of funding provided for Court Security each fiscal
year is transferred by the Judiciary to the U.S. Marshals Service (in the Department
of Justice), which is responsible for administering the Judicial Facility Security
Program.
H.R. 4754, which passed the House on July 8, 2004, provided $379.6 million
for Court Security, an increase of $105.0 million, or 38.2%, above the FY2004 level
and $3.7 million below the Judiciary’s request. The House-passed amount was the
same as that recommended earlier by the House Appropriations Committee. In its
report (H.Rept. 108-576, at p. 90), the committee said its recommendations, among
other things:

^!Shifted funding for FPS costs from the Salaries and Expenses
account to Court Security, as the Judiciary requested;
^!Provided for inflationary increases, additional equipment and
security systems, and new contract court security officers; and
^!Funded a program increase for additional staff to assist the U.S.
Marshals Service in managing the Judicial Facility Security
Program.
In its report, the Appropriations Committee said, as well, that it remained
concerned about the administration of the Judicial Facility Security Program. The
committee directed the Marshals Service and the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts to submit quarterly reports to the committee on courthouse security equipment
and systems spending throughout FY2005.
S. 2809, which was approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee on
September 15, 2004, provided $274.65 million for Court Security, an increase of
$73,000, or less than .1%, above the FY2004 appropriation, and $108.6 million
below the Judiciary’s request.
The Senate committee, in its report (S.Rept. 108-344, at p. 126), noted that the
Judiciary’s budget request assumed the transfer of FPS security costs, previously
paid for under the Judiciary’s Salaries and Expenses and Defender Services accounts,
to the Court Security account. The committee, however, stated that its
recommendation did not include this transfer. Rather, the committee said, it was
“concerned over the size of the increase in FPS costs in FY2005 and prohibits the
expenditure of any additional funds until sufficient justification for the 34 percent
increase to the judiciary is provided” to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
by the Department of Homeland Security. “Once a breakout of the full FPS security
costs by Federal agency is provided,” the committee explained, it would “ reconsider
both the prohibition on the expenditure of the additional funds and the transfer of
these funds to this account.”
The issue over the appropriate amount of FPS security costs to transfer to the
Court Security account was addressed by conferees for the FY2005 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447). In their report (H.Rept. 108-792, at p. 816), the
conferees explained that their agreement includes funding for most, but not all, of the
FPS charge for security services:
The conferees understand that the FPS has not provided the Administrative
Office (AO) of the U.S. Courts with a detailed justification to substantiate the 34
percent increase in FPS security costs assessed to the judiciary in fiscal year
2005, as discussed in the Senate report. The conferees are unable to confirm the
need for an increase, and therefore the conference agreement only provides
$58,000,000 for security charges, which is the fiscal year 2004 payment plus an
inflationary cost increase.

Table 8. FY2005 Funding for the Judiciary
($ millions of budget authority)
^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Hou^s^e-^Sena^t^e^-^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^C^o^u^r^{t, A}^g^en^{cy or Program}^FY²⁰⁰³^Ena^c^t^e^d^FY²⁰⁰⁴^Ena^c^t^e^d^a^J^udic.^P^a^sse^d^Rept’d^Ena^c^t^e^d^c
^Request^H.R^.⁴⁷⁵⁴^S^.²⁸⁰⁹
^Su^prem^{e C}^o^u^r^{t —}^$47.0^$54.8^$58.1^$58.1^$58.1^$58.1
^Salaries^an^{d Ex}^pen^s^es
^Su^prem^{e C}^o^u^r^{t —}^$41.4^$26.4^$10.6^$10.0^$10.6^$10.0
^B^uⁱ^l^dⁱ^{ng a}ⁿ^d^G^r^o^und^s
^U^.^S^.^C^o^u^r^t^of^A^ppeal^s^f^o^r^$21.2^$20.5^$25.0^$22.9^$20.6^$21.8
^th^{e Fed}^e^r^a^{l Cir}^c^uⁱ^t
^U^.^S^.^C^o^u^r^t^of^In^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^T^r^ade^$13.7^$13.9^$15.1^$14.9^$14.1^$14.9
^C^o^u^r^ts^of^A^ppeals^,^Dis^t^rict
^C^o^u^r^ts^{, an}^{d Oth}^e^{r J}^u^dicial^$3,789.2^$3,955.0^$4,320.2^$4,177.2^$4,131.5^$4,177.2
^Serv^ices^{— Salaries}^&^Ex^pen^s^es
^Vaccin^e^In^j^u^ry^A^c^{t T}^r^u^s^{t Fu}ⁿ^d^$2.8^$3.2^$3.5^$3.5^$3.2^$3.3
^D^e^f^eⁿ^d^{er S}^e^rvⁱ^ces^$552.2^$624.1^b^$681.6^$676.5^$648.1^$676.4
^Fees^of^J^u^rors^an^d^$57.1^$57.2^$62.8^$62.8^$62.8^$61.5
^C^o^mmi^s^sⁱ^oⁿ^e^r^s
^C^o^u^r^t^S^ecu^ri^t^y^$266.7^$274.6^$383.3^$379.6^$274.7^$332.0
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rativ^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^e^$63.1^$65.3^$72.2^$68.6^$67.2^$68.2
^{U.S. C}^o^u^r^ts
^F^e^deral^Ju^di^ci^al^C^eⁿ^t^er^$20.7^$21.2^$22.1^$21.7^$21.7^$21.7
^R^e^tⁱ^r^em^en^t^F^uⁿ^d^s^$35.3^$29.0^$36.7^$36.7^$36.7^$36.7
^U^.^S^.^S^eⁿ^t^en^ciⁿ^g^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^$12.0^$12.2^$13.5^$13.3^$12.4^$13.3
^T^{itle III T}^o^tal:^$4,922.2^$5,157.4^$5,704.6^$5,545.9^$5,361.6^$5,495.1
^S^o^u^rces^:^U.S^.^S^e^na^te^a^{nd U.S}^.^Ho^use^Co^m^m^itte^e^s^oⁿ^Appro^p^ria^tio^ns.
^a^.^A^m^ouⁿ^t^s^en^act^{ed f}^o^{r F}^Y^{2004 ref}^l^ect^t^h^{e ef}^f^ect^of^t^w^{o res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^s^,^w^hⁱ^c^h^res^u^l^t^e^{d i}ⁿ^{a 1}^.^055%^redu^ctⁱ^oⁿⁱⁿ
^dis^c^retion^a^ry^s^p^en^din^g^{appropriated f}^o^{r accou}ⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^th^is^colu^mⁿ^.
^b.^A^m^ouⁿ^tⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^{a s}^u^pplem^en^{tal appropriation}^{to Def}^eⁿ^d^{er Serv}^ices^of^{$26.0 m}^illionⁱⁿ^T^{itle X, Sec. 11003 of}^P^.^L^.
^108-^{287, D}^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^of^{2005, en}^act^{ed A}^ugust⁵^,^2004.
^c^.^A^m^ouⁿ^t^s^en^act^{ed f}^o^{r F}^Y^{2005 do n}^o^t^ref^l^ect^t^h^{e ef}^f^ect^of^t^w^{o res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^s^,^w^hⁱ^c^h^res^u^l^t^e^{d i}ⁿ^{a 1.34%}^redu^c^tⁱ^oⁿⁱⁿ
^dis^c^retion^a^ry^s^p^en^din^g^{appropriated f}^o^{r accou}ⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^th^is^colu^mⁿ^.
Related Legislation
P.L. 108-167/H.R. 3349 (Sensenbrenner). To authorize salary adjustments for
justices and judges of the United States for FY2004. Authorizes salary adjustments
for U.S. justices and judges for FY2004 concurrently with increases in the General
Schedule of compensation for federal employees. Introduced in House, October 20,
2003. Passed House by voice vote, November 5, 2003. Agreed to by Senate, by
unanimous consent, on November 21, 2003. Signed by President into law, December

6, 2003.

H.R. 1302 (Smith, Lamar S.). Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2003. Sets
forth or modifies various provisions regarding judicial process and judicial personnel
administration and benefits. Introduced, March 18, 2003. Referred to the House
Judiciary Committee, March18, 2003. Referred to Subcommittee on Courts, the
Internet, and Intellectual Property, March 19, 2003. Considered in mark-up session
and forwarded to full committee by voice vote, March 20, 2003.
P.L. 108-491/H.R. 5363 (Sensenbrenner). Authorizes U.S. justices and judges
to receive a cost-of-living salary adjustment during FY2005 (in accordance with
specified federal judicial code provisions). Introduced, November 16, 2004. Passed
in House (on motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill), by voice vote, November
17, 2004. Passed in Senate without amendment, by unanimous consent, December

8, 2004. Signed by the President into law, December 23, 2004.

S. 878 (Craig). As amended in Senate, bill creates 12 new permanent district
judgeships and 36 bankruptcy judgeships. As amended in House committee, and
further amended in the House, bill drops provisions for new bankruptcy judgeships
while creating 32 new permanent district judgeships and nine new circuit court
judgeships, and splits the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals into three circuits (keeping
California, Guam, Hawaii and the Northern Marianas Island in the Ninth Circuit;
placing Arizona, Nevada, Idaho and Montana in a new Twelfth Circuit; and placing
Alaska, Oregon and Washington in a new Thirteenth Circuit). Referred to Senate
Judiciary Committee, April 10, 2003. Reported by Senate Judiciary Committee with
an amendment in the nature of a substitute, May 20, 2003. Passed Senate with an
amendment by unanimous consent, May 22, 2003. Referred to House Judiciary
Committee June 2, 2003. Reported, as amended, by House Judiciary Committee
(H.Rept. 108-708), September 29, 2004. As further amended on floor, passed House
by voice vote (after amendment to split the Ninth Circuit passed by a recorded vote
of 205-194), October 5, 2004. Message on House action received in Senate and at
desk, October 6, 2004.
S. 1023 (Hatch); H.R. 2118 (Hyde).A bill to increase the annual salaries of
justices and judges of the United States. This bill would provide for a 16.5% pay
increase to federal justices and judges. S. 1023: Introduced, May 7, 2003. Reported
favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 18, 2003, without written
report. H.R. 2118: Introduced and referred to House Judiciary Committee on May 15,
2003. Referred to Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property on
June 25, 2003.
S. 2396 (Hatch). Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2004. Sets forth or
amends various judicial, criminal, and bankruptcy code provisions to address the
federal judicial process and various federal judicial personnel matters. Introduced and
referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, May 10, 2004.

Related CRS Products
CRS Report RS21847, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts: History, Operations,
and Current Issues, by Mitchel A. Sollenberger.
CRS Report 98-527, Federal Courthouse Construction, by Stephanie Smith.
CRS Report RS21689, Federal Pay — Status of January 2004 Adjustments: A Fact
Sheet, By Sharon S. Gressle.
CRS Report RS20278, Judicial Salary-Setting Policy, by Sharon S. Gressle.
Department of State and International
Broadcasting¹⁴
Background
The State Department, established on 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 and
its citizens. Currently, the State Department supports the activities of more than 50
U.S. agencies and organizations operating at 260 posts in 180 countries. As covered
in Title IV, the State Department funding categories include administration of foreign
affairs, international operations, international commissions, and related
appropriations, such as international broadcasting. The enacted FY2004
appropriation for Title IV was $9.429 billion (reflecting both the emergency
supplementals, P.L. 108-106, P.L. 108-287, and the rescissions). Typically, more
than three-fourths of State’s budget is for Administration of Foreign Affairs (about

79% in FY2004), which consists of salaries and expenses, diplomatic security,

diplomatic and consular programs, technology, and security/maintenance of overseas
buildings.
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, the
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) and the United States Information
Agency (USIA) were abolished, and their budgets and functions were merged into
the 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 billion
supplemental enacted by the end of that year. In November 1999, the Overseas
Presence Advisory Panel reported its findings on embassy security needs and
recommendations. Also in November 1999, Congress authorized (P.L. 106-113)
$900 million annually for FY2000 through FY2004 for embassy security spending
within the embassy security, construction and maintenance (ESCM) account, in

¹⁴ This section was written by Susan B. Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Affairs and Trade,
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.

addition 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 $254.9
million for counter-terrorist and emergency response activities within the Department
of State and $47.9 million for international broadcasting. In addition, Congress
passed an FY2002 supplemental (H.R. 4775; P.L.107-206) which provided $303
million for the Department of State and $15.1 million for international broadcasting.
The 108^th Congress voted for three supplemental appropriations – P.L. 108-11 and
P.L. 108-106 and P.L. 108-287 – which provided a combined total of $1.3 billion for
the Department of State and international broadcasting. (For an account-by-account
presentation, see CRS Report RL31370, State Department and Related Agencies:
FY2004 Appropriations and FY2005 Request.)
The United States contributes in two ways to the United Nations and other
international organizations: (1) voluntary payments funded in the Foreign Operations
Appropriations bill and (2) assessed contributions included in the Commerce, Justice,
and State Appropriations measure. Assessed contributions are provided in two
accounts, international peacekeeping (CIPA) and contributions to international
organizations (CIO). Following a period of dramatic growth in the number and
costs of U.N. peacekeeping missions during the early 1990s, a trend that peaked in
FY1994 with a $1.1 billion appropriation, funding requirements have declined in
recent years. The FY2000 enacted appropriation for CIO was $885 million, $500
million for international peacekeeping, and $351 million for U.S. arrearage payments
to the U.N. if certain reform criteria were met. Only $100 million of the appropriated
arrearage payments had been released because the reforms had not been
implemented. After the United States lost its seat on the U.N. Human Rights
Commission in 2001, the Foreign Relations Authorization bill added a provision
(Sec. 601, H.R. 1646) that would have restricted payment of $244 million of U.S.
arrearage payments to the U.N. until the United States regained its seat. 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, see CRS Issue Brief
IB86116, U.N. System Funding: Congressional Issues, by Vita Bite). The FY2002
funding level included $850 million for CIO and $844.1 million for CIPA, while
FY2003 enacted levels amounted to $866 million for CIO and $673.7 million for
CIPA. The FY2004 enacted levels (reflecting both the rescissions and emergency
supplemental funding) amount to $999.8 million for CIO and $695.1 million 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 the
Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). The BBG includes the Voice of America
(VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Cuba Broadcasting, Radio Free
Asia (RFA), Radio Free Iraq, Radio Free Iran and the newly-authorized Radio Free
Afghanistan. The BBG’s FY2004 appropriation was $591.5 million (including
emergency supplemental funds and reflecting rescissions). In FY2002 the BBG
began a pilot project to create a new Middle East Radio Network (MERN) by
reallocating base funds. The emergency supplementals passed in 2001, 2002, and

2003 included funding for expanded broadcasting by VOA and RFE/RL to Muslim

audiences in and around Afghanistan and the creation of Radio Free Afghanistan.
In 2003, the BBG initiated a satellite Middle East Television Network (MTN) called
Alhurra.
FY2005 Funding Issues
Administration of Foreign Affairs. The Administration of Foreign Affairs
makes up the bulk of the State Department budget — 78% in the FY2005 State
Department enacted funds. The Administration’s FY2005 request for State’s
Administration of Foreign Affairs sought $6,533.5 million, about 7% below the
FY2004 enacted level which includes 2 supplementals. The House bill (H.R. 4754)
provided $6,457.3 million. The Senate bill (S. 2809) offered a lower amount of
$6,242.7 million. This money would cover Diplomatic & Consular Programs
(D&CP), Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM), Worldwide
Security Upgrades in both D&CP and ESCM, Educational and Cultural Exchanges,
and the Capital Investment Fund (CIF).
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2005 (P.L. 108-447/H.R. 4818)
provided $6,446.7 million (not including rescissions) for the Administration of
Foreign Affairs for FY2005. Two rescissions for CJS were included in the act: one
(0.54%) in Division B, sec. 640 applied to all discretionary accounts within CJS, and
another (0.80%) in sec. 122, Division J was applied across-the-board to all agencies
covered in the law.
Diplomatic & Consular Programs (D&CP). D&CP primarily covers
salaries and expenses, hiring, diplomatic expenditures, cost of living and foreign
inflation, as well as exchange rate changes. The FY2005 request of $4,285.0 million
represented an decrease of more than 11% as compared to the $4,849.3 million
funding level (including supplementals) in FY2004. This funding level request was
to allow the Department to complete its three-year diplomatic readiness hiring plan
first requested in FY2001. Also, within this account was a request for $658.7 million
for worldwide security upgrades, as compared to $639.9 million in the FY2004
appropriation. In addition, the D&CP funding request included $309.2 million (as
compared to $301.6 million in the FY2004 budget) designated only for public
diplomacy. The House passed $4,278.7 million, including $320 million for public
diplomacy, $658.7 million for worldwide security upgrades. The Senate bill included
$4,151.8 million for D&CP with $658.7 million for worldwide security upgrades.
Congress enacted $4,228.7 million (before rescissions) — more than the Senate level,
but less than the House level and the President’s request.
Embassy, Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM). ESCM
provides funding for embassy construction, repairs, leasing of property for embassies
and housing facilities at overseas posts. The FY2005 request of $626.7 million was
$102.3 million above the FY2004 level of $524.4 million for the same account. The
House recommended $611.7 million for ESCM in FY2005. The Senate bill provided
$509.7 million. The final enacted level, before rescissions, was $611.7 million, as the
House recommended.
Worldwide Security Upgrades. Ever since the bombings of two U.S.
embassies in eastern Africa in August 1998, Congress has appropriated additional

money within both D&CP and ESCM for increasing security. The funds in D&CP
for worldwide security upgrades are primarily for ongoing expenses due to 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-and-mortar-
type expenses. The FY2005 request for upgrades within D&CP totaled $658.7
million – nearly $19 million above the enacted and the request for FY2004. The
FY2005 request for worldwide security funding within ESCM amounted to $912.3
million, $4 million less than the FY2004 enacted level which includes two
supplementals. The combined total request for worldwide security upgrades was
$1,571.0 million. The House agreed with the Administration’s request on both
funding levels. The Senate bill provided less in both accounts than the House bill
and the President’s request. The Senate bill’s worldwide security upgrades within
D&CP amounted to $658.7 million, as noted in the D&CP section above, and $867.0
million within the ESCM account. Congress passed the President’s requested level
in both accounts, before applying rescissions.
Educational and Cultural Exchanges. This line item includes programs
such as the Fulbright, Muskie, and Humphrey academic exchanges, as well as the
international visitor exchanges and some Freedom Support Act and SEED programs.
The Secretary of State testified that he believes exchange programs are a crucial
element in promoting American ideals and democracy abroad. The Administration’s
FY2005 request was for $345.3 million, a 9% increase over the FY2004 level of
$316.6 million. This was less than the $345 million that the Administration said was
needed to fully cover the newly-transferred FSA and SEED programs to the
Department of State from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
The Administration request included $150 million for the Fulbright Program. For
FY2005, the House recommended $345.4 million, with no mention of a funding level
for the Fulbright Program. The Senate bill provided $360.8 million for exchanges,
including a recommendation of $155 million for the Fulbright Program. Congress
passed the Senate level of $360.8 million including $160.5 million that was
designated for the Fulbright Program. Neither figure reflects rescissions.
Capital Investment Fund (CIF). CIF was established by the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act of FY1994/95 (P.L. 103-236) to provide for purchasing
information technology and capital equipment which would ensure the efficient
management, coordination, operation, and utilization of State’s resources. In
FY1997 the CIF budget was $24.6 million. The FY2005 request was for $155.1
million, a 95.8% increase from the FY2004 level of $79.2 million. The
Administration stated that the requested FY2005 level would be combined with
estimated Expedited Passport Fees of $114 million to be used for information and
communications technology in FY2005 for a total of $269.1 million. The House
voted for $100 million for CIF in FY2005, noting that $40 million for IT comes from
the D&CP account and an estimated $114 million from passport fees would also be
available. The Senate bill recommended $52.1 million for CIF, $79 million below
the current funding level. Instead of fully funding CIF, the Senate bill recommended
a new information technology (IT) account — Centralized Information Technology
Modernization Program — funded at $103.0 million. Combined, these two accounts
would meet the President’s request. The final enacted CIF funding, before

rescissions, was $52.1 million plus $77.9 million for a newly created Centralized
Information Technology Modernization Program.
International Organizations and Conferences. The International
Organizations and Conferences account consists of two line items: U.S.
Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) and U.S. Contributions for
International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA). The FY2005 request sought $1.84
billion for the overall account, up nearly 9% over the FY2004 level of $1.69 billion,
including supplementals and reflecting rescissions. The House bill (H.R. 4754)
agreed with the Administration request level. The Senate bill (S. 2809) provided a
total of $1,594.8 million for CIO and CIPA combined. The FY2005 enacted level
of $1,672 million (not reflecting rescissions) was less that the President’s request and
the House recommendation, but more than the Senate bill.
Contributions to International Organizations (CIO). The CIO supports
U.S. membership in numerous international and multilateral organizations that
transcends bilateral relationships and covers issues such as human rights,
environment, trade, and security. The FY2005 request level for this line item was
$1.2 billion, 19.4% above the $998 million enacted level of FY2004. The request
would have satisfied full funding needs of U.S. assessed contributions to the 44
international organizations, as well as subsidy costs of a direct loan for the U.N.
Capital Master Plan project. The House passed this funding level. The Senate bill,
however, provided $1,020.8 million — more than the current funding level, but less
than the President’s request. Congress passed $1,182 million (not including
rescissions) for International Organizations in FY2005.
Contributions to International Peacekeeping (CIPA). The United States
supports multilateral peacekeeping efforts around the world through payment of its
share of the U.N. assessed peacekeeping budget. The FY2004 enacted level for
CIPA was $450.1 million. (It should be noted that $245 million had been provided
to CIPA by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 108-106), signed in
November 2003.) The President’s FY2005 request of $650 million represented a
decrease of 6.5% increase from the FY2004 enacted level, including the
supplemental. The House also recommended $650 million for this account in
FY2005. The Senate bill provided $574 million. Congress enacted $490 million for
CIPA in FY2005 prior to rescissions — well below both the Administration request
and the House-passed level.
International Commissions. The International Commissions account
includes the U.S.-Mexico Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), the
International Fisheries Commissions (IFC), the International Joint Commission (IJC),
the International Boundary Commission (IBC), and the Border Environment
Cooperation Commission (BECC). The IBWC ‘s mission is to apply rights and
obligations assumed by the United States and Mexico under numerous treaties and
agreements, improve water quality of border rivers, and resolve border sanitation
problems. The mission of the IFC is to recommend to member governments
conservation and management measures for protecting marine resources. The IJC’s
mission is to develop and administer programs to help the United States and Canada
with water quality and air pollution issues along their common border. The IBC is
obligated by the Treaty of 1925 to maintain an effective boundary line between the

United States and Canada. And, established by the North American Free Trade
Agreement, the BECC’s main purpose is to help local states and communities to
develop solutions to environmental problems along the U.S.-Mexico border. The
FY2005 funding request of $70.4 million represented an increase of 23% over the
$57.2 million enacted in FY2004. The request increase reflected wage and inflation
increases, as well as increased engineering requirements at a number of wastewater
treatment plants. The House-passed bill (H.R. 4754) recommended $59.7 million for
this account in FY2005. The Senate bill (S. 2809) provided $66.3 million. The
enacted FY2005 funding level in P.L 108-447 was $64.1 million, before rescissions.
Related Appropriations. Related appropriations include those for The Asia
Foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the East-West and
North-South Centers. The Administration FY2005 request for related appropriations
totaled $103.5 million – 32.7% over the FY2004 enacted level of $78 million. The
House Appropriations Committee in H.R. 4754 recommended $68.9 million, nearly
$35 million less for FY2005 than the President requested. The House recommended
$59.5 million for related appropriations, diverging from the request mainly in the
NED amount. The House Committee recommended $50 million rather than the $80
million the President sought for NED. The full House in floor action reduced NED
funding by $9.4 million in order to provide funds for Small Business loans. The
Senate bill provided $77.4 million for all related agencies and agreed with the House
bill in providing significantly less for NED than the President requested.
The Asia Foundation. The Asia Foundation is a private, nonprofit
organization that supports efforts to strengthen democratic processes and institutions
in Asia, open markets, and improve U.S.-Asian cooperation. It receives both
government and private sector contributions. Government funds for the Foundation
are appropriated, and pass through, the Department of State. The Asia Foundation
plans to increase its private sector fund-raising efforts and expects to raise about $4.5
million in private funds in FY2005. The FY2005 request of $8.9 million was a 31%
reduction over the FY2004 funding level of $12.9 million that Congress enacted.
The House passed $13 million for FY2005. The Senate bill contained no language
about The Asia Foundation funding. The final FY2005 enacted level, before
rescissions, was the House-passed level of $13 million.
National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The National Endowment
for Democracy is a private, nonprofit organization established during the Reagan
Administration that supports programs to strengthen democratic institutions in more
than 90 countries around the world. NED proponents assert that many of its
accomplishments are possible because it is not a U.S. government agency. NED’s
critics claim that it duplicates government democracy promotion programs and could
be eliminated, or could be operated entirely through private sector funding. The
FY2005 request was for $80 million, as mentioned in the President’s State of the
Union Address in January 2004. This request represented more than a 100% increase
over the $39.6 million FY2004 appropriation. The more than doubling of funds
would have supported NED’s Greater Middle East Democracy Initiative, as well as
continued NED’s past programs at the FY2004 level. The House Appropriations
Committee, however, disagreed with the Administration request and recommended
$50 million for NED in FY2005. In floor action, the House further reduced NED
funding to $40.6 million so that more funding for Small Business loans would be

available. The Senate bill provided $50 million for NED, directing $10 million to
go to the four core grantees to expand programs in the greater Middle East. Congress
passed $60 million, before rescissions, for NED in FY2005.
East-West and North-South Centers. The Center for Cultural and
Technical Interchange between East and West (East-West Center), located in
Honolulu, Hawaii, was established in 1960 by Congress to promote understanding
and cooperation among the governments and peoples of the Asia/Pacific region and
the United States. The FY2005 request for the East-West Center was $13.7 million,
a 22.6% decline from the FY2004 enacted level of $17.7 million. The Center for
Cultural and Technical interchange between North and South (North-South Center)
is a national educational institution in Miami, Florida, closely affiliated with the
University of Miami. It promotes better relations, commerce, and understanding
among the nations of North America, South America and the Caribbean. The North-
South Center began receiving a direct subsidy from the federal government in 1991;
however, it has not received a direct appropriation since FY2000. The House passed
its bill with $5 million for the East-West Center and no funding for the North-South
Center. The Senate bill provided $19.5 million, for the East-West Center, and
Congress agreed with the Senate level, before applying rescissions.
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 independent agency referred to as the Broadcasting Board of
Governors (BBG). The BBG includes the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Cuba Broadcasting, Radio Sawa, Radio Farda, and
Radio Free Asia (RFA).
The BBG’s FY2005 funding request was for a total of $569.3 million, 3.8%
below the FY2004 level of $591.6 million (including supplemental funding). The
request included $533.1 million for broadcasting operations, $8.6 million for capital
improvements, and $27.6 million for Broadcasting to Cuba. In addition to the
ongoing international broadcasting activities, the Administration initiated a new U.S.
Middle East Television Network – Alhurra, as well as an Arabic radio station –
Radio Sawa.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended and the House passed $41
million more than the request for international broadcasting–$610.3 million. For
broadcasting operations the Committee recommended $601.7 million and it agreed
with the Administration’s request of $8.6 million for capital improvements. The
Senate bill provided $552.2 million for broadcasting operations and $8.6 million for
capital improvements, for a total of $560.8 million. Congress enacted a total of
$599.6 million, before rescissions, for international broadcasting. Of that, $8.6
million was for capital improvements and $591 million was for broadcasting
operations.

Table 9. FY2005 Funding for the Department of State and
International Broadcasting
($ millions in budget authority)
^Hou^s^e-
^FY²⁰⁰⁴^FY²⁰⁰⁵^pa^ssed^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^B^u^{reau or Agency}^FY²⁰⁰³^Ena^c^t^e^d^Ena^c^t^e^d^b^Request^H.R.^B^ill^enacted^c
⁴⁷⁵⁴
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^o^f^Fo^r^e^igⁿ^$5,987.1^{$7,007.2 $6,533.5}^$6,457.3^$6,242.1^$6,446.7
^Affaⁱ^r^s
^Iⁿ^terⁿ^atioⁿ^a^{l Or}^g^aⁿⁱ^zatioⁿ^s^$1,529.7^{$1,694.9 $1,844.2}^$1,844.2^$1,594.8^$1,672.0
^an^{d C}^oⁿ^f^eren^ces
^Iⁿ^terⁿ^atioⁿ^a^{l Co}^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^s^$57.1^{$57.1 $70.4}^$59.7^$66.4^$64.1
^R^e^l^a^t^e^{d A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^$70.9^$78.0^$103.5^$59.5^$77.4^$100.4
^Subt^ot^al^{: St}^at^{e D}^e^par^t^m^ent^a^$7,644.8^$8,837.2^$8,551.4^$8,420.7^$7,981.3^$8,283.2
^In^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Broadcas^tⁱⁿ^g^$533.8^$591.5^$569.3^$610.3^$560.8^$599.6
^Tⁱ^tl^{e I}^V^T^o^tal^$8,178.6^$9,428.⁷^$9,120.7^$9,031.0^$8,542.1^$8,882.8
^S^o^u^rce:^U.S^.^Ho^use^o^f^Re^pre^s^eⁿ^ta^tiv^e^s^{, Co}^m^m^itte^e^oⁿ^Appro^p^ria^tio^ns.
^a^.^{In a}^dditio^{n to}^a^ppr^o^p^rⁱ^a^tio^{ns, Sta}^t^e^ha^{s a}^u^tho^r^ity^to^spe^nd^c^e^r^ta^{in c}^o^lle^c^t^e^d^f^e^e^s^f^r^o^m^m^a^c^h^ine^r^e^a^d^a^b^le
^vⁱ^s^a^s^,^e^x^p^e^dⁱ^t^e^d^e^x^p^o^r^t^f^e^e^s^,^e^t^c^.^Th^e^a^m^o^uⁿ^t^f^o^r^s^u^c^h^f^e^e^s^fo^r^F^Y²⁰⁰⁴^is^e^s^tⁱ^m^a^t^e^d^a^t^$687.5
^m^illio^{n a}^{nd f}^o^r^{FY2005 the}^eⁿ^a^c^t^e^d^le^v^e^{l is $661.5 m}^illio^n.
^{b. F}^Y^{2004 num}^be^{rs inc}^l^u^d^e^t^h^e^e^m^e^r^g^e^nc^y^supple^m^eⁿ^ta^{l (P}^.L^{. 108-}^{106 a}^{nd P}^.^L^.^108-^{287) a}^{nd re}^fle^c^t
^bo^{th re}^sc^issioⁿ^{s in the}^Co^nso^lida^t^e^d^Appro^p^ria^tio^{n Ac}^{t o}^f^F^Y^{2004, P}^.^L^.^108-^199.
^c^.^F^Y²⁰⁰⁵^num^be^{rs do}^no^{t re}^fle^c^t^the^tw^o^re^sc^issioⁿ^{s in the}^Co^nso^lida^t^e^d^Appro^p^ria^tioⁿ^Ac^t^o^f^F^Y^2005,
^P^.^L^.^108-^447.
Related Legislation
S. 2845/P.L. 108-458 (Collins). National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004.
A bill to reform the intelligence community and the intelligence and intelligence-
related activities of the United States Government, and for other purposes, including
expanded and targeted public diplomacy programs and amendments in visa issuance.
Introduced September 23, 2004. Passed by the Senate October 6, 2004, and passed
by the House on October 16, 2004. The House agreed to the conference report on
December 7^th and the Senate on December 8^th. The President signed the bill into law
on December 17, 2004.
H.R. 1950 (Hyde)/S. 2144(Lugar). Foreign Relations Authorization, FY2004
and FY2005. To authorize appropriations for the Department of State for the fiscal
years 2004 and 2005, to authorize appropriations under the Arms Export Control Act
and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for security assistance for fiscal years 2004
and 2005, and for other 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. 2144
introduced February 27, 2004, and reported (S.Rept. 108-248) to the Senate on
March 18, 2004. No Senate floor action.

Related CRS Products
CRS Report RL31986, Foreign Relations Authorization, FY2004 and FY2005: State
Department and Foreign Assistance, by Susan B. Epstein.
CRS Report RL31370, State Department and Related Agencies: FY2004
Appropriations and FY2005 Request, by Susan B. Epstein.
CRS Issue Brief IB86116, U.N. System Funding: Congressional Issues, by Vita Bite.
CRS Issue Brief IB90103, United Nations Peacekeeping: Issues for Congress, by
Marjorie Ann Browne.
CRS Report RL31959, Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, FY2004, by Larry
Nowels.
CRS Report RL32607, U.S. Public Diplomacy: Background and the 9/11
Commission Recommendations, by Susan B. Epstein.
CRS Report RS21565, The Middle East Television Network: An Overview, by
Jeremy M. Sharp.
Independent Agencies
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)¹⁵
FY2005 Appropriations. The Administration requested an appropriation of
$350.8 million for the EEOC’s FY2005 budget, or $26 million above the $324.9
million (including rescissions of 0.465% and 0.59%) provided by the 2004
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199). Some $21 million of the total
would have gone toward adding 100 enforcement staff (investigators, attorneys, and
support personnel) to reduce the rising inventory of private sector charges and federal
sector complaints, and to continue processing a substantial number of charges within
180 days. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (H.R. 4818) instead allots
$331.2 million to the agency, which – after rescissions of .80% and 0.54% – likely
translates into a small increase from its FY2004 appropriation. The FY2005
appropriation is less than the $334.9 million the House approved in H.R. 4754 and
more than the $327.5 million the Senate Appropriations Committee included in S.

2809.

The Administration had requested that $3 million of the EEOC’s proposed
increase for FY2005 be used for ongoing efforts to restructure its operations, with
one-third of the funds for further implementation of the National Contact Center and
two-thirds for office relocation costs, furniture/equipment purchases, and employee

¹⁵ This section was prepared by Linda Levine, Specialist in Labor Economics, Domestic
Social Policy Division.

development. Language in both H.R. 4754 and the Appropriations Committee’s
report (H.Rept. 108-576) would have precluded the EEOC from undertaking any
workforce repositioning, restructuring, or reorganization until the Committee had
received advance notification of its proposals; and only after submitting a spending
plan to the Committee would about $1 million have become available to the agency
for use in connection with the National Contact Center. The House Appropriations
Committee further required the agency to submit quarterly status reports on projected
and actual spending levels, by function, for repositioning and to continue submitting
quarterly reports on projected and actual agency spending and staffing levels. The
conference agreement (H.Rept. 108-792) adopts this language, absent the allocation
of a specific sum for the National Contact Center. In addition, H.R. 4818 states that
the EEOC shall not have fewer positions in the field in FY2005 than in FY2004.
The Administration included $2 million in its proposed $26 million increase to
carry out a $500,000 review of states’ strategies for removing employment barriers
confronting people with disabilities and to undertake other activities related to the
President’s New Freedom Initiative, which is intended to fully integrate individuals
with disabilities into the country’s economic and social life; to increase contract
funds for the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program due to anticipated
growth in the number of employers agreeing to mediation ($820,000); to provide
more money for the litigation program ($430,000); and to improve the outreach,
education, and technical assistance programs for small and large employers and their
employees ($204,000). In addition to the House Appropriations Committee
recommending that $2 million be devoted to ADR, litigation, and outreach activities
($1.45 million) and to the New Freedom Initiative ($500,000), H.R. 4754 and
H.Rept. 108-576 had included prior years’ language that up to $33 million be devoted
to payment of Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs). (FEPAs are state and
local bodies with which the agency has work-sharing agreements.) The conference
agreement incorporates the House Report language regarding ADR, litigation, and
and outreach activities, and the New Freedom Initiative; and H.R. 4818 states that
sums to FEPAs not exceed $33 million.
Agency Overview. The EEOC enforces laws banning employment
discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. The
Commission’s workload has increased dramatically 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 of 1991, as well as employees’ growing awareness
of their rights, have made it difficult for the agency’s budget and staffing resources
to keep pace with its heightened caseload.
FY2004 Funding. Under P.L. 108-199, the EEOC’s appropriation for
FY2004 was $324.9 million (including rescissions). According to the conference
report (H.Rept. 108-401), the House previously had approved the same sum while the
Senate had approved $6.3 million more ($334.7 million, as the Administration
requested).
The $324.9 million appropriation for FY2004 was $18.1 million more than the
agency’s FY2003 appropriation of $306.8 million (including rescissions) that
Congress had approved in P.L. 108-7. Because of a funding shortfall during FY2003,
the EEOC had received an additional appropriation of $15 million in the Emergency

Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY2003 (P.L. 108-11). Thus, the
agency’s FY2004 appropriation in P.L. 108-199 was actually $3.1 million above the
total appropriated to the EEOC for the prior year.
While recognizing that the Commission had solicited the different perspectives
of stakeholders about its proposed restructuring effort, members of the conference
committee expressed concern that the restructuring could affect the agency’s quality
of service. Accordingly, it instructed the EEOC to keep the Committees on
Appropriations apprised of any organizational changes in accordance with
reprogramming requirements. The conferees also urged the agency to continue its
measures aimed at cost saving and financial management discipline. The conference
agreement included, by reference, language in the House report instructing the EEOC
to continue to submit quarterly reports on projected and actual spending and staffing
levels and encouraging the Commission to rely on the FEPAs experience with
mediation as it proceeded with its ADR programs. Also included by reference to the
House report was payment of up to $33.0 million to FEPAs, or $3 million more than
in the President’s request. Another $5 million of the Administration’s request would
have gone toward beginning implementation of a five-year restructuring initiative
based upon studies undertaken by the National Academy of Public Administration
and by the agency’s Inspector General.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)¹⁶
The Federal Communications Commission, created in 1934, is an independent
agency charged with regulation of interstate and foreign communication of radio,
television, wire, cable, and satellite. The FCC performs four major functions:
spectrum allocation, creating rules to promote fair competition and protect consumers
where required by market conditions, authorization of service, and enforcement.
Among its responsibilities are licensing of communications operators; interpretation
and enforcement of rules, regulations, and authorizations regarding competition;
publication and dissemination of consumer information services; and management
and allocation of the use of the electromagnetic spectrum. FCC priorities for FY2005
include increasing broadband penetration throughout the country; implementing
spectrum-use plans; overseeing competitive developments in all areas of broadcast
and cable media; monitoring compliance with indecency regulations; and promoting
homeland security goals with respect to critical communications infrastructures. The
FCC obtains the majority of its funding through the collection of regulatory fees
pursuant to Title I, section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934; therefore, its direct
appropriation is considerably less than its overall budget.
P.L. 108-447 includes $281,098,000 for the salaries and expenses of the FCC
for FY2005, a $7,140,000 increase over the FY2004 appropriation of $273,958,000.
Of the amounts provided, $280,098,000 will be derived from offsetting fee
collections, resulting in a net direct appropriation of $1,000,000. The Administration
originally requested a budget of $292,958,000 with a direct appropriation of
$20,000,000 for FY2005; the House approved $279,851,000 with a direct

¹⁶ This section was written by Patty Figliola, Specialist in Telecommunications and Internet
Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

appropriation of $6,893,000 and the Senate approved $282,346,000 with a direct
appropriation of $1,000,000. The FCC is allocated up to $85,000,000 to administer
the spectrum auctions program. The law includes the following specific items:
^!Up to $600,000 for land and structure
^!Up to $500,000 for care and improvement of grounds and repair to
buildings
^!Up to $4,000 for official reception and representation expenses
^!Purchase and hire of vehicles (no amount given)
^!Special counsel fees (no amount given)
^!Fees as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 (which limits the maximum
earnings of experts and consultants)
^!Collection of $280,098,000 in section 9 fees
-- The sum appropriated to be reduced as section 9 fees are collected
-- Fees in excess of $280,098,000 to be available in FY2006.
^!Proceeds up to $85,000,000 from any auctions may be retained and
made available for obligation for FY2006.
Other sections of P.L. 108-447 will also have an impact on the FCC. First,
section 634 of prohibits the FCC from “ modifying, amending, or changing its rules
or regulations for universal service support payments to implement the February 27,
2004, recommendations of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service
regarding single connection or primary line restrictions on universal service support
payments.” (For more information on this item, please refer to In the Matter of
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45,
RECOMMENDED DECISION, FCC 04J-1, February 27, 2004. This document is
available online at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/
FCC-04J-1A1.pdf].) Second, section 638 allows the FCC to sell monitoring facilities
in Hawaii and California. Finally, P.L. 108-447 included the Satellite Home Viewer
Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 in Title IX. (The Satellite Home Viewer
Extension and Reauthorization Act, H.R. 4501, was introduced by Representative
Fred Upton and was reported out of the House on July 22, 2004. See House Report

108-634 for additional information.)

The conference agreement also includes, by reference, language from both the
House and Senate reports.
House report:
^!Set forth public notice requirements for broadcast applications
^!Set forth requirements for ravel payments
^!Included language regarding the FCC’s accounting system, stating
that Congress expected the FCC to differentiate between the costs of
auctions and other costs.

Senate report:
^!Noted the continuing concern about the declining standards of
broadcast television and the impact of that decline on America’s
children.
^!Directed the FCC to continue to report to Congress on the issues
associated with implementing a broadcast industry code of conduct
for content of programming that, if adhered to by the broadcast
industry, would protect against the further erosion of broadcasting
standards.
The conference report includes language on a number of other issues, as well.
First, the conferees noted that the FCC is considering subjecting prepaid phone cards
to increased regulation. They expressed concern that members of the armed services
and their families make extensive use of prepaid phone cards to stay in contact and
that increased regulation could increase the cost of those cards. Therefore, the
conferees directed the FCC not to take any action that would directly or indirectly
have the effect of raising the rates charged to military personnel or their families for
telephone calls placed using prepaid phone cards.
Second, the conferees encouraged the FCC to follow through on its plan to
modernize its Radio Frequency Radiation monitoring equipment by purchasing
Selective Radiation Meter (SRM) units and anticipates that future budget requests
will address replacement of outdated equipment.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)¹⁷
For FY2005, the Administration requested a program level of $205.4 million for
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This figure is considerably larger than both
the FY2004 request and the amount approved in the conference report. The House
approved a program level of $203.4 million, an increase of $17.9 million over the
current-year funding. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $207.7
million for FY2005. The conference agreement provides the FTC with $205.4
million, as requested. More specifically, of the amounts provided, $101 million will
come from fees for Hart-Scott-Rodino premerger notification filings, $21.9 million
will come from Do-Not-Call provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and
Congress will provide a direct appropriation of $82.5 million.
For FY2004, the Administration had requested a program level of $191 million
for the FTC, an increase of $14 million over the FY2003 level. The requested
program level for FY2004 was to have been fully funded by a $14 million direct
appropriation and offsetting collections from two sources: $159 million from fees for
Hart-Scott-Rodino premerger notification filings; and $18 million from fees
sufficient to implement and enforce new Do-Not-Call provisions of the
Telemarketing Sales Rule. The House approved a program level of $183 million for
the FTC. The Senate recommended a program level of $189 million. The

¹⁷ This section was prepared by Bruce Mulock, Specialist in Government and Business,
Government and Finance Division.

conference agreement provides $185.5 million for the FTC, including recisions. Of
the amounts provided, $112 million is from premerger fees, $23.1 million is derived
from Do-Not-Call fees, and $50.4 million is 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 used pre-merger
filing fees collected under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act to mostly or entirely fund its
operations. For FY2000 through FY2002, zero ($0) direct appropriations were
required.
Legal Services Corporation (LSC)¹⁸
The LSC is a private, non-profit, federally-funded corporation that provides
grants to local offices which, in turn, provide legal assistance to low-income people
in civil (non-criminal) cases. The LSC has been controversial since its incorporation
in the early 1970s, and has been operating without authorizing legislation since 1980.
There have been ongoing debates over the adequacy of funding for the agency, and
the extent to which certain types of activities are appropriate for federally funded
legal aid attorneys to undertake. In annual appropriations laws, Congress
traditionally has included legislative provisions restricting the activities of LSC-
funded grantees, such as prohibiting any lobbying activities or prohibiting
representation in certain types of cases.
P.L. 108-199, the consolidated appropriations for FY2004, among other things
continued funding for the LSC at the FY2003 level of $338.8 million. P.L. 108-199
included $317.5 million for basic field programs and required independent audits,
$13.3 million for management and administration, $3.0 million for client self-help
and information technology, $2.6 million for the inspector general, and $2.5 million
in grants equitably distributed to the ten states most negatively affected by recent
census-based reallocations that were based on shifts in the poverty population
indicated by the 2000 Census. It also included existing provisions restricting the
activities of LSC grantees. Moreover, the $338.8 million LSC appropriation for
FY2004 was subject to the mandated 0.59% across-the-board government-wide
rescission, and an additional 0.465% uniform rescission applicable only to funding
for the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies appropriation
(which includes the LSC), thereby lowering the FY2004 LSC appropriation to $335.3
million.
For FY2005, the Bush Administration requested $329.3 million for the LSC.
This is $6 million less than the $335.3 million (after the rescissions) that was
appropriated for the LSC for FY2004. The FY2005 budget request for the LSC
included $310.4 million for basic field programs and required independent audits,
$13.3 million for management and administration, $3.0 million for client self-help
and information technology, and $2.6 million for the inspector general. The budget
request for the LSC also included existing provisions restricting the activities of LSC
grantees.

¹⁸ This section was prepared by Carmen Solomon-Fears, Specialist in Social Legislation,
Domestic Social Policy Division.

On June 23, 2004, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $335.3
million for the LSC for FY2005 (H.R. 4754, See H.Rept. 108-576). This amount is
the same as the FY2004 appropriation for the LSC (after the 0.59% and 0.465%
rescissions); and $6.0 million above the Bush Administration’s FY2005 budget
request for the LSC. The House Committee recommendation for the LSC included
$316.6 million for basic field programs and required independent audits, $13.2
million for management and administration, $2.9 million for client self-help and
information technology, and $2.6 million for the inspector general. It also included
existing provisions restricting the activities of LSC grantees. In addition the House
Appropriations Committee recommendation included a provision to allow the LSC
to spend up to $1 million of prior-year funding balances for a law school student loan
repayment pilot program in FY2005 in an effort to encourage more lawyers to pursue
careers in legal assistance. On July 8, 2004, the House passed H.R. 4754 which
includes $335.3 million of the LSC.
On September 15, 2004, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$335.0 million for the LSC for FY2005 (S. 2809, see S.Rept. 108-344). This amount
is $282,000 below the FY2004 appropriation for LSC and $5.7 million above the
Administration’s FY2005 budget request. The Senate Committee recommendation
for the LSC included $312.251 million for basic field programs and required
independent audits, $13.9 million for management and administration, $3.4 million
for client self-help and information technology, $2.6 million for the inspector
general, and $2.849 million for grants to offset losses due to Census adjustments. It
also included existing provisions restricting the activities of LSC grantees.
On November 20, 2004, the House passed H.R. 4818, the conference report
(H.Rept. 108-792) on a consolidated appropriations bill. The conference agreement
included $335.3 million for the LSC: $316.6 million for basic field programs and
required independent audits, $13.0 million for management and administration, $1.3
million for client self-help and information technology, $2.6 million for the inspector
general, and $1.8 million in grants to offset losses stemming from the 2000 census-
based reallocations. It also included existing provisions restricting the activities of
LSC grantees. In addition, it allows the LSC to spend up to $1 million of prior-year
funding balances for a school student loan repayment pilot program. The Senate also
passed H.R. 4818 on November 20, 2004, but held it back because of a dispute with
the House over access to tax records of individual taxpayers; the House passed a
resolution making the necessary changes on December 6, 2004; and H.R. 4818
became P.L. 108-447 on December 8, 2004. Further, P.L. 108-447 authorizes a 0.8%
across-the-board government-wide rescission and an additional 0.54% uniform
rescission applicable only to funding for the Commerce, Justice, State, and Related
Agencies appropriation (which includes the LSC), thereby lowering the FY2005 LSC
appropriation to $330.8 million.

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)¹⁹
The SEC administers and enforces federal securities laws to protect investors
from fraud and to maintain fair and orderly stock and bond markets. The SEC
collects fees on sales of stock and other securities market transactions. During the
stock market boom 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 the intention of limiting collections to approximately the amount of
the SEC’s budget.
For FY2004, the Administration requested $841.5 million for the SEC. The
House and Senate Appropriations Committees each approved that amount. The
conference agreement reduced the amount requested by the Administration and
approved by both chambers by $30 million, to $811.5 million. The conference report
cited the SEC’s inability to fill all the positions funded by the previous year’s
appropriation as the reason for the reduction. P.L. 108-199, the omnibus
appropriations measure, approved the $811.5 million. Of the total, $691.5 million
is to come from fee collections, and $120 million from prior year unobligated
balances.
For FY2005, the Administration requested $913.0 million, an increase of 13%
over FY2004. The House approved the amount requested by the Administration for
the SEC in FY2005. Of the total $913.0, $893 million is to come from current-year
fee collections, and the remaining $20 million from prior-year unobligated balances.
There will be no appropriation from the general fund. The Senate Appropriations
Committee also approved the requested amount of $913.0 million.
The Conference Committee approved the $913.0 amount, but that was to include
$56 million in prior-year unobligated balances. Thus, the new appropriation is $856
million, which will be covered by current-year fee collections.
Small Business Administration (SBA)²⁰
For FY2005, the Administration requested a total appropriation of $678.4 million
for the Small Business Administration (SBA), a reduction of $32.9 million, or about
4.6%, from the agency’s current funding level. The FY2005 request includes $326.3
million for Salaries and Expenses (S&E). The House approved $742.8 million, $31.5
million more than the agency’s FY2004 appropriation. The House-approved FY2005
appropriation included $315.4 million for S&E, which was $10.9 million less than
the President’s Budget recommendation and approximately $7 million less than its
FY2004 appropriation. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a total
FY2005 appropriation of $761.9 million, including $357.7 million for S&E.

¹⁹ This section was prepared by Mark Jickling, Specialist in Public Finance, Government and
Finance Division.
²⁰ This section was prepared by Bruce Mulock, Specialist in Government and Business,
Government and Finance Division.

During the debate on the FY2005 CJS bill several amendments were adopted on
the House floor, including one by Chairman of the Small Business Committee,
Donald A. Manzullo, which would have provided a $79 million subsidy for the
SBA’s 7(a) loan program.
The conference report provides the SBA with $579.5 million for FY2005,
including $322.3 million for S&E. While this is substantially less than the
Administration requested — and the House and Senate recommended — it is not will
not result in a reduction in the agency’s guaranteed loan program levels. It is not
clear, however, what the economic effect will be. Proponents for making the
agency’s largest guaranteed loan program — the so-called 7(a) program — “self-
funding”maintain that the subsidy costs for the programs can be offset by charging
slightly higher fees to borrowers and lenders. Opponents express worry that shifting
cost burdens to lenders will reduce the number of lenders willing to participate in the
program. It may be that only time will tell.
For FY2004, the President’s budget request had included $797.9 million for the
SBA. The House approved $745.6 million for the agency, which would have been
roughly a 1.9% increase over the FY2003 amount. The House-approved version
included $326.6 million for S&E, about $33.6 million below the Administration
request. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended and the Senate
approved $751.7 million for the agency, including $332.4 million for S&E. The
conference agreement provided the SBA with a total appropriation of $711.3 million
for FY2004, including recisions.
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 assist
small 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 small
business within the federal government.
State Justice Institute (SJI)²¹
The institute is a private, nonprofit corporation that makes grants to state courts
and conducts activities to further the development of judicial administration in state
courts throughout the United States. Under the terms of its enabling legislation, SJI
is authorized to present its request directly to Congress, apart from the President’s
budget. For FY2005, the SJI requested $7 million, compared with $2.2 million
appropriated to it for FY2004. (In its budget submission, SJI noted that its FY2005
request was $6 million lower than the amount it requested for FY2004.) For its part,
the President’s FY2005 budget, like the previous two years’ budgets, proposed
nothing for SJI.

²¹ This title was written by D. Steven Rutkus, Specialist in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division.

The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447) provides $2.6
million for SJI. However, as the result of two across-the-board rescissions in the
act, discretionary spending in the SJI account is reduced by 1.34%. (Earlier, the
House approved $2.2 million for SJI in FY2005, the same as its FY2004
appropriation, while the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $3.0
million.)
Over the past three fiscal years, Congress has approved funding for SJI at a level
significantly below previous levels. For FY1999, 2000 and 2001, SJI received an
annual appropriation of $6.85 million, compared with $3.0 million in both FY2002
and FY2003 and $2.2 million in FY2004. For their part, conferees for the CJS
appropriations bills in the last three fiscal years have encouraged the institute to
obtain funds from sources other than Congress. In response to specific directives
from conferees for the FY2002 and FY2003 CJS bills, SJI explored the availability
of support from private donors, state and local agencies, state and local bar
associations, and state court systems, but was unable to secure funding from any of
them. In FY2004, conferees on the CJS bill encouraged SJI to apply for funding
from programs in the Department of Justice (DOJ) which support state court
programs, and discussions between SJI and DOJ officials followed. In November
2003, an inter-agency agreement was reached between SJI and DOJ’s Office on
Violence Against Women, for the latter to transfer $1.2 million to the institute to
support state court projects educating judges about rape, sexual assault, and other
violence against women. Adding the $1.2 million from the inter-agency agreement
increased the funds available to SJI in FY2004 to $3.45 million. The institute also
has been in recent discussions with the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice
Assistance to pursue other possible fund transfers to SJI.
SJI said its FY2005 request for a $4.75 million increase over its FY2004
appropriation would support: a continuation of its national technical assistance
program addressing the highest priorities identified by state courts; an anti-terrorism
initiative to protect highly vulnerable and symbolic courthouses from violent acts;
and an expansion of the institute’s Special Interest categories beyond the five high
priority areas in current SJI guidelines. (SJI is currently awarding grants in these five
categories: Access to the Courts, Application of Technology in the Courts, Children
and Families in Court; Judicial Branch Education, and The Relationship Between
State and Federal Courts.)
On June 23, 2004, the House Appropriations Committee approved H.R. 4754, its
CJS-Judiciary appropriations bill for FY2005. In its report on the bill, the committee
explained its funding support for SJI, despite the fact that the President’s budget
proposed eliminating federal funding for the institute. The committee observed that
the President’s budget provided a variety of grant programs to assist state courts
under the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in the Department of Justice. The
committee commended SJI for beginning to work with OJP in FY2004 and
encouraged SJI to continue to seek funds from OJP grant programs. The committee
noted that SJI has been unable to generate stable sources of non-federal funding.
While SJI has contacted bar associations and court organizations, the committee said,
“these groups are not inclined to contribute to operations of the SJI beyond providing
matching grant funds for individual projects. For this reason, the Committee has

continued to provide Federal funds for SJI even though the President’s request does
not include funding for this organization.”
Subsequently, the House on July 8, 2004, in its passage of H.R. 4754, approved
the $2.2 million appropriation to SJI for FY2005, as recommended by the House
Appropriations Committee. On September 15, 2004 the Senate Appropriations
Committee approved S. 2809, which includes an FY2005 appropriation for SJI of
$3.0 million.
In a related development, the Senate on September 30, 2004 by unanimous
consent passed H.R. 2714, authorizing a $7 million appropriation for SJI annually for
FY2005 through FY2008. On October 8, 2004, the House agreed to the Senate-
amended version of H.R. 2714, and on October 25, 2004, the bill was signed into law
by the President (P.L. 108-372).
Prior to the Senate action, H.R. 2714 had been approved by House Judiciary
Committee on September 10, 2003 (and, as amended, passed by the full House, on
March 10, 2004, by voice vote under suspension of the rules). In its report on H.R.
2714 (H.Rept. 108-285, at p. 2), the House Judiciary Committee endorsed SJI’s
continued operation. “Sustaining the Institute’s operations,” the committee said,
. . . is necessary because the states, as a practical matter, devote the great majority
of their judicial funding to address personnel, construction, and maintenance needs.
They simply lack the resources to develop programs that improve the administrative
efficiency and overall productivity of their courts.
SJI serves a Federal interest precisely because it makes state courts more efficient.
State courts are the primary fora in which the vast majority of lawsuits are resolved.
In fulfilling that mission, state courts address Federal constitutional and statutory
issues everyday. . . .
In sum if litigants largely resolve their legal differences at the state level —
including those that involve Federal issues — then Congress promotes a Federal
interest by supporting SJI.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights²²
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), established by the Civil
Rights Act of 1957, investigates allegations of citizens that they were denied the
right to vote based on color, race, religion, or national origin; studies and gathers
information on legal developments constituting a denial of the equal protection of the
laws; assesses federal laws and policies in the area of civil rights; and submits reports
on its findings to the President and Congress when the Commission or the President
deem it appropriate.
For the Commission on Civil Rights, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
(P.L. 108-447) provides $9.1 million, the same amount requested by the

²² This section was written by Garrine P. Laney, Analyst in Social Legislation, Domestic
Social Policy Division.

Administration. In FY2004, the Commission received an appropriation of $9
million.
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom²³
The Commission on International Religious Freedom was created by the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-292) as a federal government
commission to monitor religious freedom abroad and to advise the President, the
Secretary of State, and Congress on promoting religious freedom and combating
intolerance in other countries. The Administration requested $3 million for the
commission in FY2004, and $2.968 million was appropriated ($3.0 million before
an across the board cut for all non-defense spending). For FY2005, the
Administration requested $3.0 million for the commission and H.R. 4754 as passed
by the House included that amount. The House Appropriations Committee in its
report commended the commission for its efforts to promote religious freedom and
urged the commission and the State Department to continue work on developing an
Index on Religious Freedom that may be used to assess progress within regions and
in specific countries. The Senate Appropriations Committee in reporting S. 2809
(S.Rept. 108-344) did not include any funds for the commission. As finally enacted
as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, P.L.108-447, $3.0 million was
appropriated for the commission. The conference agreement also included language
allowing the commission to procure temporary services for a study of the right to
freedom of religion in North Korea.
U.S. Institute of Peace²⁴
The U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) was established in 1984 by the U.S. Institute
of Peace Act, Title XVII of the Defense Authorization Act of 1985 (P.L. 98-525).
USIP‘s mission is to promote international peace through such activities as
educational programs, conferences and workshops, professional training, applied
research, and facilitating dialogue in the United States and abroad. Prior to the
FY2005 budget, USIP funding came from the Labor, HHS appropriation. In the
FY2005 budget process, it was transferred to the Commerce, Justice, State and
related agencies appropriation primarily for relevancy reasons. The FY2003 actual
budget was $16.3 million and the FY2004 estimate is $17.1 million. Also in
FY2004, USIP received $10 million within the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan
(P.L. 108-106) and a $3 million grant from the Department of State to facilitate the
Philippines peace process.
The FY2005 Administration request was for $22.1 million. The House-passed
bill (H.R. 4754) provided $23 million. The Senate kept the U.S. Institute of Peace
in its Labor, HHS appropriation bill (S. 2810) which contained $22.1 million for

²³ This section was written by Vita Bite, Specialist in International Relations, Foreign
Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.
²⁴ This section was written by Susan B. Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Affairs and Trade,
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.

USIP in FY2005. The final CJS appropriation included $23 million for the Institute
of Peace in FY2005.
Related CRS Products
CRS Report 96-649, Small Business Administration: Overview and Issues, by Bruce
K. Mulock.
CRS Report RS20418, Funding for Major Civil Rights Enforcement Agencies, by
Garrine Laney.
CRS Report RS20204, Securities Fees and SEC Pay Parity, by Mark Jickling.
CRS Report 95-178, Legal Services Corporation: Basic Facts and Current Status,
by Carmen Solomon-Fears.
CRS Report RL32451, The Legal Services Corporation: Distribution of Funding, by
Carmen Solomon-Fears.
CRS Report RL32589, The Federal Communications Commission: Current Structure
and its Role in the Changing Telecommunications Landscape, by Patty Figliola.
Table 10. FY2005 Funding for CJS Related Agencies
⁽^$^m^illioⁿ^sⁱⁿ^b^u^d^g^{et au}^th^o^r^ity⁾
^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^B^u^{reau or Agency}^FY²⁰⁰⁴^enacted^Admⁱ^n.^H.R.^S^.²⁸⁰⁹^Ena^c^t^e^d
^Request⁴⁷⁵⁴
^U^.^S^.^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^on^Cⁱ^vⁱ^l^Rⁱ^g^h^t^s^$9.0^$9.1^$9.1^$9.1^$9.1
^{U.S. Co}^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^oⁿ^Iⁿ^terⁿ^atioⁿ^a^l^{$3.0 $3.0}^$3.0^$0.0^$3.0
^Relig^io^u^s^Fr^eed^o^m
^Equ^a^l^Em^pl^oy^m^eⁿ^t^O^pport^uⁿⁱ^t^y^{$324.9 $350.8}^$334.9^$327.5^$331.2
^Co^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ⁽^E^E^O^C)
^Fed^e^r^a^{l Co}^m^m^uⁿⁱ^catioⁿ^s^Co^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^a^{$1.0 $20.0}^$6.9^$1.0^$1.0
^(F^C^C⁾
^{Federal T}^r^{ade C}^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^b^{$50.4 $84.4}^$80.5^$86.7^$82.5
^L^e^g^a^l^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^C^o^rporatⁱ^oⁿ^$335.3^$329.3^$335.3^$335.0^$335.3
^Secu^r^{ities an}^d^Ex^ch^an^g^e^Co^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^c^{$691.5 $893.0}^$893.0^$893.0^$856.0
^Sm^a^{ll B}^u^sine^{ss A}^d^mⁱ^nistr^a^tioⁿ ^d^{$711.3 $678.4}^$742.8^$761.9^$579.5
^{State J}^u^{stice I}ⁿ^stitu^te^$2.2^$0.0^e^$2.2^$3.0^$2.6
^{U.S. In}^s^titu^{te of}^P^eace^$27.1^$22.1^$23.0^$0.0^$23.0
^Oth^e^r^f^$14.3^$11.3^$13.3^$10.2^$13.5
^T^o^{tal T}^{itle V}^{$2,170.0 $2,401.4}^$2,444.¹^$2,427.4^$2,236.7
^S^o^u^rce:^U.^S^.^Ho^u^s^{e o}^f^R^e^p^r^es^en^t^a^tⁱ^v^es^,^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee o}ⁿ^Ap^p^r^o^p^ri^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^.^T^h^es^eⁿ^u^m^b^e^rs^d^oⁿ^o^t^acco^uⁿ^t
^f^o^r^the^0.8%^a^c^r^o^ss-^the^-^bo^a^r^{d r}^e^sc^issioⁿ^a^{nd the}^a^dditio^na^{l 0.54%}^{CJS r}^e^sc^issioⁿ^.
^a^.^Dir^e^c^t^a^ppr^o^p^rⁱ^a^tio^{n; the}^{FCC is pa}^r^tia^lly^f^unde^{d by}^o^f^f^s^e^tting^f^e^e^c^o^lle^c^tio^ns.

^{b. Dir}^e^c^t^a^ppr^o^p^rⁱ^a^tio^{n; the}^FT^{C is pa}^r^tia^lly^f^unde^{d by}^the^c^o^lle^c^tio^{n o}^f^pr^e^-^m^e^r^g^e^r^f^iling^f^e^e^s^.
^c^.^Budg^e^t^a^u^tho^r^ity^{; the}^{SEC is f}^unde^{d by}^tr^aⁿ^sa^c^tio^{n f}^e^e^s^a^{nd se}^c^u^r^itie^{s r}^e^gⁱ^str^a^tio^{n f}^e^e^s^.
^{d. Dire}^c^t^a^ppro^p^ria^tio^{n; the}^re^duc^tio^{n in the}^S^B^A'^{s F}^Y^{2005 funding}^do^e^s^no^{t tra}ⁿ^sla^t^e^into^a^re^duc^tioⁿ
^{in the}^a^g^eⁿ^c^y^{'s pro}^g^r^a^m^funding^le^v^e^ls;^re^duc^tio^nsⁱⁿ^di^re^c^t^a^ppro^p^ria^tio^{ns a}^r^e^o^ffse^t^by^inc^r^e^a^s^e^d^fe^e^s^fo^r
^bo^rro^w^e^{rs a}^{nd le}^nde^rs.
^e^.^U^nde^r^the^te^r^m^{s o}^f^{its e}ⁿ^a^b^ling^le^gⁱ^sla^tio^{n, the}^Sta^t^e^Justic^e^Institute⁽^S^JI)^is^a^u^tho^r^iz^e^d^to^pr^e^s^eⁿ^t^its
^budg^e^t^re^que^{st dire}^c^tly^to^Co^ng^re^ss.^W^h^ile^the^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^{t’s F}^Y^{2005 budg}^e^t^pro^p^o^s^e^d^no^thing^fo^{r S}^J^I^,^the
^Iⁿ^stitute^r^e^que^ste^d^{$8.0 m}^illio^{n f}^o^r^itse^l^f^.
^{f. “}^O^{ther” includes ag}^en^{cies receiv}ⁱ^ng^appr^o^p^riatio^{ns o}^f^{less than $3.0 m}^illio^{n in F}^Y^{2005. T}^h^ese^ag^encies
^inc^l^ude^Aⁿ^titr^{ust Mo}^de^rⁿ^iz^a^tio^{n Co}^m^mⁱ^ssio^{n, Co}^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^f^o^r^the^P^r^e^s^e^r^v^a^tⁱ^{on o}^f^A^m^e^r^ic^aⁿ^H^e^r^ita^g^e
^Ab^ro^ad^,^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^oⁿ^oⁿ^S^ecu^ri^t^y^an^d^C^o^o^p^eratⁱ^oⁿⁱⁿ^Eu^ro^p^e^,^t^h^e^C^oⁿ^g^res^sⁱ^oⁿ^al^-^E^x^ecu^tⁱ^v^e^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^oⁿ
^oⁿ^China^,^the^H^E^L^P^Co^m^mⁱ^ssio^{n, the}^Ma^rⁱ^ne^Ma^m^m^a^{l Co}^m^mⁱ^ssio^{n, the}^N^a^tio^na^{l V}^e^te^r^a^{ns Busine}^s^s
^De^v^e^l^o^p^m^eⁿ^t^C^o^r^{p, the}^U.S^.^-^China^Ec^oⁿ^o^m^ic^a^{nd S}^e^c^u^rity^Re^vⁱ^e^w^Co^m^mⁱ^ssio^{n, a}^{nd the}^U.S^.^-^C^hina
^Inte^r^p^a^r^lia^m^e^nta^r^y^G^r^o^up.

Appendix: CJS Appropriations by Department, FY2005
⁽^$^m^illioⁿ^sⁱⁿ^b^u^d^g^{et au}^th^o^r^ity⁾
^B^u^{reau or Agency}^FY²⁰⁰⁴^Ena^c^t^e^d^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Request^Hou^s^e^H.R^.⁴⁷⁵⁴^Sena^t^e^B^ill^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Ena^c^t^e^d^*
^Tⁱ^{tle I}^:^Departm^e^{nt of Jus}^t^ice
^G^eⁿ^e^ral^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^$1,^316.6^$1,669.0^$1,444.8^$1,869.8^a^$1,443.6
^L^e^g^a^{l A}^c^tiv^ities^$3,078.5^$3,317.8^$3,250.9^$3,449.8^$3,221.6
^In^t^e^rag^eⁿ^c^y^L^a^w^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^$550.6^$580.6^$561.0^$295.4^$561.0
^F^e^deral^Bu^reau^of^In^v^e^s^tⁱ^g^atⁱ^oⁿ^$4,590.7^$5,115.2^$5,^215.3^$5,111.5^$5,215.3
^D^r^u^g^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^$1,584.5^$1,661.5^$1,661.5^$1,645.0^$1,653.3
^A^l^coh^o^{l, T}^{obacco an}^{d F}ⁱ^rearm^s^$827.3^$868.9^$870.4^$890.4^$890.4
^F^e^deral^Pri^s^on^S^y^s^t^em^$4,811.²^$4,709.7^$4,759.7^$4,820.1^$4,820.1
^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^Ju^s^tⁱ^{ce Prog}^ram^s^$3,^164.9^$2,126.3^$3,012.0^$2,576.2^$3,032.8
^O^t^h^e^r^$26.0^$10.7^$10.7^$26.3^$25.5
^R^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^($100.0)^($108.4)^($81.0)^–
^T^{itle I}^T^o^tal:^$19,850.3^$20,059.7^$20,786.³^$20,389.1^$20,863.6
^Tⁱ^{tle I}^I^:^Departm^e^{nt of Com}^m^erce
^{and Related Agencies}
^In^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^T^r^{ade A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^$378.1^$393.5^$393.5^$393.5^$393.5
^Bu^reau^of^In^du^s^t^ry^an^{d S}^ecu^ri^t^y^$67.5^$76.5^$68.4^$70.9^$68.4
^Econ^omⁱ^c^D^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^$315.3^$320.3^$320.3^$315.5^$287.9
^Miⁿ^o^ri^t^y^Bu^sⁱⁿ^e^s^s^D^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t^A^g^en^cy^$28.6^$34.5^$28.9^$31.6^$29.9
^Econ^omⁱ^c^an^{d S}^t^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^cal^Aⁿ^al^y^sⁱ^s^$74.2^$88.4^$78.2^$81.8^$80.0
^Bu^reau^of^t^h^{e C}^eⁿ^s^u^s^$624.2^$828.6^$773.9^$605.8^$754.9
^Natioⁿ^a^{l T}^e^leco^m^m^uⁿⁱ^catioⁿ^s^an^d^$51.1^$24.6^$17.8^$58.2^$39.2
^Iⁿ^f^o^r^m^atioⁿ^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ
^P^a^ten^t^an^{d T}^r^adem^ark^Of^fⁱ^ce^b^($1,222.5)^($1,314.7)^($1,^314.7)^($1,336.0)^($1,336.0)
^T^echⁿ^o^l^o^g^y^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^$6.3^$8.3^$6.5^$6.4^$6.5
^Natioⁿ^a^{l I}ⁿ^stitu^{te o}^f^Stan^d^a^r^d^{s an}^d^$621.5^$521.5^$525.0^$784.9^$708.7
^T^e^c^hno^l^o^gy
^Nation^a^{l Ocean}^{ic an}^{d A}^t^m^o^s^p^h^e^ric^$3,701.0^$3,373.5^$3,158.⁰^$4,141.8^$3,940.0
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^al^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^$67.7^$78.3^$74.4^$96.7^$79.8
^O^t^h^e^r^$8.1^$208.7^$208.8^$208.8^$209.1
^D^e^par^t^m^ent^of^C^o^m^m^e^r^{ce Subt}^ot^al^:^$5,943.5.^$5,956.7^$5,653.7^$6,795.9^$6,597.9
^U^.^S^.^T^r^{ade R}^e^pres^en^t^a^tⁱ^v^e^$41.6^$39.6^$41.6^$41.6^$41.6
^In^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^T^r^{ade C}^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^$57.7^$61.7^$61.7^$61.7^$61.7
^Natioⁿ^a^{l I}ⁿ^tellectu^a^{l P}^r^o^p^e^r^t^y^L^a^w^–^–^{– $20.0}^$2.0
^Eⁿ^fo^r^c^e^m^eⁿ^t^Co^o^r^dⁱ^na^tⁱ^{ng Co}^uncⁱ^l
^R^e^l^a^t^e^{d A}^g^en^ci^es^S^u^bt^ot^al^:^$99.3^$101.3^$103.2^$123.2^$105.3
^R^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^($100.0)
^T^{itle I}^I^T^o^tal:^$5,942.8^$6,058.0^$5,756.⁹^$6,919.1^$6,703.2
^Tit^l^e^III:^J^udicⁱ^a^r^y
^Su^prem^{e C}^o^u^r^{t — s}^a^laries^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es^$54.8^$58.1^$58.1^$58.1^$58.1
^Sup^r^e^m^e^Co^ur^t^—^b^uⁱ^l^dⁱ^{ng a}ⁿ^d^gr^o^und^s^$26.4^$10.6^$10.0^$10.6^$10.0
^U^.^S^.^C^o^u^r^t^of^A^ppeal^s^f^o^{r t}^h^{e F}^e^deral^$20.5^$25.0^$22.9^$20.6^$21.8

^Cir^c^uit

^B^u^{reau or Agency}^FY²⁰⁰⁴^Ena^c^t^e^d^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Request^Hou^s^e^H.R^.⁴⁷⁵⁴^Sena^t^e^B^ill^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Ena^c^t^e^d^*
^{U.S. Co}^u^r^{t o}^f^Iⁿ^terⁿ^atioⁿ^a^{l T}^r^ad^e^$13.9^$15.1^$14.9^$14.1^$14.9
^C^o^u^r^ts^of^A^ppeals^,^Dis^t^{rict C}^o^u^r^ts^{, oth}^e^r^$3,955.0^$4,320.2^$4,177.2^$4,131.5^$4,177.2
^j^u^{dicial s}^e^rv^ices^{— s}^a^laries^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es
^Vaccin^e^In^j^u^ry^A^c^{t T}^r^u^s^{t Fu}ⁿ^d^$3.2^$3.5^$3.5^$3.2^$3.3
^Def^eⁿ^d^{er Serv}^ices^$624.1^$681.6^$676.5^$648.1^$676.4
^Fees^of^J^u^rors^an^{d C}^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^ers^$57.2^$62.8^$62.8^$62.8^$61.5
^Co^u^r^{t Secu}^r^ity^$274.6^$383.3^$379.6^$274.7^$332.0
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rativ^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e U.S. C}^o^u^r^ts^$65.3^$72.2^$68.6^$67.2^$68.2
^{Federal J}^u^{dicial C}^eⁿ^t^er^$21.2^$22.1^$21.7^$21.7^$21.7
^Retir^em^en^{t Fu}ⁿ^d^s^$29.0^$36.7^$36.7^$36.7^$36.7
^U^.^S.^Se^nt^eⁿ^cⁱ^{ng Co}^m^mⁱ^ssi^oⁿ^$12.2^$13.5^$13.3^$12.4^$13.3
^T^{itle III T}^o^tal:^$5,157.4^$5,704.6^$5,^545.9^$5,361.6^$5,495.1
^Tit^l^{e IV:}^Depa^rt^m^e^nt^o^f^St^a^t^e
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^of^F^o^rei^gⁿ^A^f^f^aⁱ^r^s^{$7,007.2 $6,533.5}^$6,^457.3^$6,242.7^$6,446.7
^Iⁿ^terⁿ^atioⁿ^a^{l Or}^g^aⁿⁱ^zatioⁿ^s^an^d^{$1,694.9 $1,844.2}^$1,844.²^$1,594.8^$1,672.0
^C^oⁿ^f^eren^ces
^Iⁿ^terⁿ^atioⁿ^a^{l Co}^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^s^{$57.1 $70.4}^$59.7^$66.4^$64.1
^R^e^l^a^t^e^{d A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^$78.0^$103.5^$59.5^$77.4^$100.4
^Subt^ot^al^{: St}^at^{e D}^e^par^t^m^ent^c^$8,837.2^$8,551.6^$8,420.⁷^$7,981.3^$8,283.2
^In^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Broadcas^tⁱⁿ^g^$591.5^$569.2^$610.3^$560.8^$599.6
^T^{itle I}^V^T^o^tal^$9,428.7^$9,120.8^$9,^031.0^$8,542.1^$8,882.8
^Tit^l^{e V:}^Independent^Ag^encies
^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^on^Cⁱ^vⁱ^l^Rⁱ^g^h^t^s^$9.1^$9.1^$9.1^$9.1^$9.1
^{U.S. Co}^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^oⁿ^Iⁿ^terⁿ^atioⁿ^a^l^{$3.0 $3.0}^$3.0^$0.0^$3.0
^Relig^io^u^s^Fr^eed^o^m
^Equ^a^l^Em^pl^oy^m^eⁿ^t^O^pport^uⁿⁱ^t^y^{$324.9 $350.8}^$334.9^$327.5^$331.2
^Co^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ⁽^E^E^O^C)
^Fed^e^r^a^{l Co}^m^m^uⁿⁱ^catioⁿ^s^Co^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^{$1.0 $20.0}^$6.9^$1.0^$1.0
⁽^F^CC)
^{Federal T}^r^{ade C}^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^d^{$50.4 $84.4}^$80.5^$86.7^$82.5
^L^e^g^a^l^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^C^o^rporatⁱ^oⁿ^$335.3^$329.3^$335.3^$335.0^$335.3
^Secu^r^{ities an}^d^Ex^ch^an^g^e^Co^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^e^{$691.5 $893.0}^$893.0^$893.0^$856.0
^S^m^al^l^Bu^sⁱⁿ^e^s^s^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^$711.3^$678.4^$742.8^$761.9^$579.5
^{State J}^u^{stice I}ⁿ^stitu^te^$²^.²^$⁰^.⁰^f^$2.2^$3.0^$2.6
^{U.S. In}^s^titu^{te of}^P^eace^$27.1^$22.1^$23.0^$0.0^$23.0
^Oth^e^r^g^$14.2^$11.7^$13.4^$10.2^$13.5
^T^o^{tal T}^{itle V}^{$2,170.0 $2,401.4}^$2,444.¹^$2,427.4^$2,236.7
^Tit^l^e^VII:^Re^sc^issioⁿ^s^h
^T^o^{tal T}^{itle VII R}^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^on^s⁽^$307.^{2) ($128.0)}^($81.0)^($172.1)^($500.2)
^G^r^a^{nd To}^t^a^{l (}ⁱ^{n B}^ill)ⁱ^($42,242.⁰⁾^$43,216.6^$43,483.2^$43,492.1^$43,681.2
^S^o^u^rce:^U.S^.^Ho^use^o^f^Re^pre^s^eⁿ^ta^tiv^e^s^{, Co}^m^m^itte^e^oⁿ^Appro^p^ria^tio^ns.
^Notes:
^*^T^h^e^F^Y^{2005 fig}^u^re^{s do}^no^{t re}^fle^c^t^tw^o^re^sc^issioⁿ^{s (0.80% a}^{nd 0.54%) in the}^Co^nso^lida^t^e^d^Appro^p^ria^tio^{ns Ac}^{t o}^f^F^Y^2005.

^a^T^h^is^a^m^o^{unt inc}^l^ude^{s $410 m}^illio^{n in f}^unding^f^o^r^the^Of^fⁱ^c^e^oⁿ^Vio^l^eⁿ^c^e^Ag^aⁱ^{nst W}^o^m^e^{n w}^h^ic^h^ha^s^be^eⁿ^tr^a^d^itio^na^lly^f^unde^d
^{under t}^h^{e Offi}^{ce o}^f^Justⁱ^{ce Pro}^g^r^am^{s acco}^unt^.^b
^T^h^e^P^a^te^{nt a}^{nd T}^r^a^d^e^m^a^r^k^Offic^e^(P^T^O^{) is fully}^funde^{d by}^use^r^fe^e^s^{. T}^h^e^fe^e^s^c^o^lle^c^t^e^{d, but no}^t^o^b^lig^a^t^e^d^during^t^h^{e cu}^rren^t
^y^ear,^{are av}^ai^l^a^b^l^{e fo}^{r o}^b^lⁱ^g^atⁱ^oⁿⁱⁿ^t^h^{e fo}^l^l^o^wⁱⁿ^g^fi^s^cal^y^ear,^an^d^{do not}^c^o^{unt to}^w^a^r^d^the^a^ppr^o^p^rⁱ^a^tio^{n to}^ta^{ls. O}ⁿ^lyⁿ^e^w^l^y
^a^ppro^p^ria^t^e^d^{funds c}^o^{unt to}^w^a^{rd the}^a^nnua^{l a}^ppro^p^ria^tio^{n to}^ta^ls.^c
^{In a}^dditioⁿ^to^a^ppr^o^p^rⁱ^a^tio^ns,^Sta^t^e^ha^{s a}^u^tho^r^ity^to^spe^{nd c}^e^r^ta^{in c}^o^lle^c^t^e^d^f^e^e^s^f^r^o^m^m^a^c^h^ine^r^e^a^d^a^b^le^vⁱ^sa^{s, e}^xpe^dite^{d e}^xpo^rt
^f^e^e^s^{, e}^t^c^.^T^h^e^a^m^o^{unt f}^o^r^suc^h^f^e^e^s^f^o^r^{FY2004 is e}^s^tim^a^t^e^d^to^be^{$687.5 m}^illio^{n a}^{nd the}^{FY2005 a}^ppr^o^p^rⁱ^a^tio^{n inc}^l^ude^{s $661.5}
^m^illio^{n in f}^e^e^c^o^lle^c^tio^ns.^d
^T^h^e^FT^{C is f}^u^lly^f^unde^{d by}^the^c^o^lle^c^tio^{n o}^f^pr^e^-^m^e^r^g^e^r^f^iling^f^e^e^s^.^e
^T^h^e^{SEC is f}^u^lly^f^unde^{d by}^tr^aⁿ^sa^c^tio^{n f}^e^e^s^a^{nd se}^c^u^r^itie^{s r}^e^gⁱ^str^a^tio^{n f}^e^e^s^.^f
^Unde^r^the^te^r^m^{s o}^f^{its e}ⁿ^a^b^ling^le^gⁱ^sla^tio^{n, the}^Sta^t^e^Justic^e^Iⁿ^stitute⁽^S^JI⁾^is^a^u^tho^r^iz^e^d^to^pr^e^s^eⁿ^t^its^budg^e^t^r^e^que^{st di}^r^e^c^tly^to
^Co^ng^r^e^{ss. W}^h^ile^the^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^t’^{s FY2005 budg}^e^t^pr^o^p^o^s^e^d^no^thing^f^o^r^SJI^,^the^Iⁿ^stitute^r^e^que^ste^d^{$8.0 m}^illio^{n f}^o^r^itse^l^f^.^g
^“^O^{ther” includes ag}^enci^{es receiv}ⁱ^ng^appro^p^riatio^{ns o}^f^{$3.0 m}^illio^{n o}^r^{less in F}^Y^2005.^T^h^ese^ag^encies^include^C^o^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^fo^r
^the^P^r^e^s^e^r^v^a^tio^{n o}^f^A^m^e^r^ic^aⁿ^H^e^r^ita^g^e^A^b^r^o^a^d^{; Co}^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^oⁿ^Se^c^u^r^ity^a^{nd Co}^o^p^e^r^a^tio^{n in Eur}^o^pe^{; A}ⁿ^titr^{ust Mo}^de^rⁿⁱ^z^a^tioⁿ
^C^o^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^{; the}^Ma^rⁱ^ne^Ma^m^m^a^{l Co}^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^{; the}^Co^ng^r^e^ssioⁿ^a^l/Exe^c^u^tiv^e^Co^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^oⁿ^China^;^the^N^a^tio^na^l^V^e^t^e^r^aⁿ^s
^Busine^{ss D}^e^v^e^lo^pm^eⁿ^{t Co}^r^p^{; the}^U^.^S.-China^Ec^oⁿ^o^m^ic^a^nd^Se^c^u^r^ity^Re^vⁱ^e^w^Co^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^{; U}^.^{S. Se}^na^te^-China^Inte^r^p^a^r^lia^m^e^nta^r^y
^Gro^{up, a}^{nd the}^HEL^P^Co^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^.
^h^T^h^{is ta}^ble^oⁿ^ly^{lists line}^-^ite^m^re^sc^issioⁿ^{s re}^que^ste^d^{in the}^Admⁱ^nistra^tio^{n’s F}^Y^{2005 re}^que^st.
ⁱ^Gra^{nd T}^o^ta^{l a}^m^o^{unts ha}^v^e^be^eⁿ^a^d^j^u^ste^d^to^re^fle^c^t^supple^m^eⁿ^ta^ls^,^traⁿ^sfe^r^s^o^f^a^g^eⁿ^cⁱ^e^s^a^{nd pro}^g^r^a^m^{s (e}^.g^{., the}^traⁿ^sfe^r^o^f^I^N^S
^func^tio^{ns fro}^m^{DOJ to}^DHS^).