Transportation, the Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the Executive Office of the President, and Independent Agencies (TTHUD): FY2007 Appropriations

Transportation, the Treasury,
Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary,
the District of Columbia, the Executive Office
of the President, and Independent Agencies
(TTHUD): FY2007 Appropriations
Updated June 4, 2007
David Randall Peterman and John Frittelli
Coordinators
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

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
bound 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 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers each
year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the Subcommittee on
Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of
Columbia of the House Committee on Appropriations, and by the Subcommittee on
Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. It summarizes the current legislative
status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related legislative activity. The
report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web Version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at [http://beta.crs.gov/cli/level_

2.aspx?P RDS_CLI _ITEM_ID=73].

Transportation, the Treasury,
Housing and Urban Development,
the Judiciary, the District of Columbia,
the Executive Office of the President,
and Independent Agencies (TTHUD):
FY2007 Appropriations
Summary
The Bush Administration requested $138.5 billion (after scorekeeping
adjustments) for these agencies for FY2007, an increase of $2.3 billion over the
$136.2 billion Congress provided in the agencies’ FY2006 appropriations act (this
FY2006 figure reflects a 1.0% across-the-board rescission that was included in the
FY2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, P.L. 109-148). The total
FY2006 funding (after scorekeeping adjustments) for the agencies in this bill was
$146.3 billion, due to emergency supplemental funding provided to deal with the
effects of the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005.
In the appropriations process during the 109^th Congress, the House-passed
version of H.R. 5576, the FY2007 Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and
Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and
Independent Agencies appropriations bill provided a net total of $139.6 billion for
FY2007, $3.4 billion (2%) over the amount provided in the FY2006 act and $1.1
billion (less than 1%) over the Administration’s request (after scorekeeping
adjustments). The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out H.R. 5576 on
July 26, 2006, recommending a net total of $141.2 billion, $3.6 billion (3%) over the
amount provided in the FY2006 Act and $2.6 billion (2%) over the Administration
request. Both the House-passed and Senate-reported bills provided significant
increases over the requested levels of funding for aviation programs and Amtrak, for
a number of programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
and for the Executive Office of the President. H.R. 5576 expired with the close of^th
the 109 Congress.
The Senate did not consider H.R. 5576, and Congress did not enact a regular
FY2007 TTHUD appropriations bill (nor most other FY2007 appropriations bills).
Instead, FY2007 funds were provided in a series of continuing resolutions (P.L. 109-
289, P.L. 109-369, and P.L. 109-383), which funded agencies at the lower of the
House- or Senate-passed levels or their FY2006 levels (since the Senate had not
passed an FY2007 TTHUD appropriations bill, TTHUD agencies were funded at the
lower of the House-passed or FY2006 levels). On February 15, 2007, President Bush
signed the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5),
which provided funding for most federal agencies for the remainder of FY2007. The
law provided agencies with funding for FY2007 essentially at their FY2006 levels,
except where otherwise statedi. Both DOT and HUD received increases over their
regular FY2006 levels (excluding FY2006 supplemental funding). FY2007 funding
levels for programs, projects, and activities were not specified in P.L. 110-5. This
report will not be updated.

^CRS^Telepho^ne
^{Area of E}^x^pertis^e^N^am^e^Div^.^#
^D^e^p^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^{of T}^r^an^s^p^ortati^on
^A^v^iatioⁿ^Saf^e^ty^{, Fed}^e^r^a^{l A}^v^iatioⁿ^Bart^Elⁱ^a^s^R^S^I^7-⁷⁷⁷¹
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ
^Aⁱ^rport^Im^prov^em^en^t^Prog^ram^,^T^r^an^s^port^a^tⁱ^oⁿ
^Iⁿ^f^r^astr^u^c^tu^r^e^P^o^licy^,^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^T^r^u^s^t^Johⁿ^Fⁱ^s^c^h^e^r^R^S^I^7-⁷⁷⁶⁶
^Fund^s
^Fed^e^r^a^{l Railr}^o^a^d^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^;^Mar^itim^e^J^o^hⁿ^Frittelli^R^S^I⁷^-⁷⁰³³
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^;^Su^rf^{ace T}^r^an^s^portation^B^o^ard
^Aⁱ^rport^Im^prov^em^en^t^Prog^ram^,^F^e^deral^{Bob K}ⁱ^rk^R^S^I⁷^-⁷⁷⁶⁹
^Hⁱ^ghw^a^y^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^oⁿ
^A^m^tr^ak^{, Fed}^e^r^a^{l Mo}^to^r^Car^r^ier^Saf^e^ty
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^,^Fed^e^r^a^{l T}^r^an^sit
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^,^Hig^h^-^Sp^eed^{Rail, Natio}ⁿ^a^l^D^.^R^aⁿ^d^y^Pet^e^rm^an^R^S^I⁷^-³²⁶⁷
^Hⁱ^ghw^a^y^T^r^a^ffi^c^Sa^fe^t^y^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^o^n,
^Su^rf^{ace T}^r^an^s^portation^Saf^e^ty
^Departm^e^{nt of the T}^reas^u^ry
^T^r^eas^u^r^y^,^In^t^e^rn^al^R^e^v^eⁿ^u^e^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e^G^ary^G^u^en^t^h^er^G^&^F⁷^-⁷⁷⁴²
^Depa^rt^m^e^nt^o^f^H^o^using^a^{nd Urba}^{n Dev}^e^lo^pm^ent
^L^o^w^-ⁱⁿ^com^e^h^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^prog^ram^s^an^{d is}^s^u^es^an^d
^g^eⁿ^e^{ral HUD: Sectio}ⁿ⁸^,^P^u^b^{lic Ho}^u^sⁱⁿ^g^,^Mag^gⁱ^{e McC}^a^rt^y^D^S^P^7-²¹⁶³
^HOP^{E VI, HOME}
^C^o^m^m^uⁿⁱ^t^y^D^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t^prog^ram^s^an^d
^issu^{es: Co}^m^m^uⁿ^ity^Dev^e^lo^p^m^en^{t B}^l^o^c^k^Gr^an^ts^Eu^g^eⁿ^e^Boy^d^D^S^P⁷^-⁸⁶⁸⁹
⁽^C^DB^G)^{, EZ}^{/EC, B}^r^o^wⁿ^f^ield^{s r}^e^d^e^v^e^lo^p^m^en^t
^Hou^sⁱⁿ^g^prog^ram^s^an^{d is}^s^u^es^f^o^{r s}^p^ecial
^popu^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^:^El^derl^y^{(202), D}ⁱ^s^a^bl^{ed (811),}^Lⁱ^bby^Perl^D^S^P⁷^-⁷⁸⁰⁶
^Ho^m^e^{less, A}^I^{DS h}^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g
^H^o^m^e^o^w^ne^r^s^hi^p^aⁿ^d^o^t^he^r^ho^usi^{ng i}^ssue^s^:^Bru^{ce F}^oot^e^G^&^F^7-⁷⁸⁰⁵
^FH^A^,^Rur^a^l^,^Iⁿ^dⁱ^aⁿ^ho^usi^ng,^Faⁱ^r^H^o^usiⁿ^g
^T^h^{e Judiciary}
^Ju^di^ci^ary^L^orraiⁿ^{e T}^oⁿ^g^G^&^F⁷^-⁵⁸⁴⁶
^Ju^di^ci^ary^S^t^e^v^e^R^u^t^k^u^s^G^&^F⁷^-⁷¹⁶²
^Dis^t^{rict of Colum}^b^ia
^Dⁱ^s^t^ri^ct^of^C^o^l^u^m^bⁱ^a^Eu^g^eⁿ^e^Boy^d^G^&^F⁷^-⁸⁶⁸⁹
^Executⁱ^v^e^O^f^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^t^h^{e P}^resident^a^nd^F^{unds Appro}^p^ria^t^{ed t}^o^t^h^{e P}^resident
^Ex^ecu^tⁱ^v^{e O}^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^t^h^{e Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^B^{arbara S}^c^h^w^em^l^e^G^&^F⁷^-⁸⁶⁵⁵

^CRS^Telepho^ne
^{Area of E}^x^pertis^e^N^am^e^Div^.^#
^Independent^Ag^encies
^G^eⁿ^e^ral^l^y^Vⁱ^rgⁱⁿⁱ^a^McMu^rt^ry^G^&^F⁷^-⁸⁶⁷⁸
^A^r^ch^itectu^r^{al an}^{d T}^r^an^s^portation^B^a^rriers^N^aⁿ^c^y^Jon^e^s^A^L^D^7-⁶⁹⁷⁶
^C^o^m^p^lian^{ce B}^o^ard
^C^oⁿ^s^u^m^{er Produ}^ct^S^a^f^e^t^y^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^Bru^{ce Mu}^l^o^ck^G^&^F⁷^-⁷⁷⁷⁵
^El^ectⁱ^oⁿ^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce C}^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^K^e^vⁱⁿ^C^o^l^e^m^aⁿ^G^&^F^7-⁷⁸⁷⁸
^F^e^deral^D^e^posⁱ^t^In^s^u^ran^{ce C}^o^rporatⁱ^oⁿ^:^O^I^G^P^au^lⁱⁿ^{e S}^m^al^e^G^&^F^7-⁷⁸³²
^F^e^deral^El^ectⁱ^oⁿ^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^R^.^S^a^m^G^a^rret^t^G^&^F⁷^-⁶⁴⁴³
^F^e^deral^L^a^{bor R}^e^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^u^t^h^ori^t^y^G^e^ral^d^May^e^r^D^S^P^7-⁷⁸¹⁵
^{Federal Maritim}^{e C}^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^J^o^hⁿ^Frittelli^R^S^I⁷^-⁷⁰³³
^G^eⁿ^e^ral^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^S^t^e^ph^anⁱ^e^S^mⁱ^t^h^G^&^F⁷^-⁸⁶⁷⁴
^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^T^r^an^s^port^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^S^a^f^e^t^y^Board^B^art^Elⁱ^a^s^R^S^I^7-⁷⁷⁷¹
^Meri^t^S^y^s^t^em^s^Prot^ectⁱ^oⁿ^Board^B^{arbara S}^c^h^w^em^l^e^G^&^F⁷^-⁸⁶⁵⁵
^Natioⁿ^a^{l A}^r^ch^iv^{es; E-}^Go^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^Fuⁿ^dⁱⁿ^H^a^rol^d^R^e^l^y^ea^G^&^F⁷^-⁸⁶⁷⁹
^GSA
^O^ffi^c^e^o^f^P^e^r^s^o^nne^l^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^;^O^ffi^c^e^o^f^{Barbara S}^c^h^w^em^l^e^G^&^F⁷^-⁸⁶⁵⁵
^{Special C}^o^uⁿ^s^el
^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^C^r^edi^t^Uⁿⁱ^oⁿ^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^P^au^lⁱⁿ^{e S}^m^al^e^G^&^F^7-⁷⁸³²
^N^eⁱ^g^h^borh^{ood R}^eⁱⁿ^v^e^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^C^o^rporatⁱ^oⁿ^E^u^g^eⁿ^e^Boy^d^G^&^F⁷^-⁸⁶⁸⁹
^S^e^l^ectⁱ^v^{e S}^e^rvⁱ^{ce C}^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^D^a^vⁱ^{d Bu}^rrel^lⁱ^F^D^T⁷^-⁸⁰³³
^Un^ited^{States I}ⁿ^ter^a^g^eⁿ^c^y^Co^uⁿ^c^{il o}ⁿ^Mag^gⁱ^{e McC}^a^rt^y^D^S^P^7-²¹⁶³
^Ho^m^e^le^ssne^s^s
^U^S^Pos^t^al^S^e^rvⁱ^ce^K^e^vⁱⁿ^K^o^s^a^r^G^&^F^7-³⁹⁶⁸
^G^eⁿ^eral^Provi^sⁱ^on^s^,^G^overn^m^eⁿ^t^-Wⁱ^d^e
^G^o^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^-^wⁱ^d^{e G}^eⁿ^e^ral^Provⁱ^sⁱ^oⁿ^s^{Barbara S}^c^h^w^em^l^e^G^&^F⁷^-⁸⁶⁵⁵
^C^o^m^p^etitiv^{e Sou}^r^cin^g^L^.^Elain^e^Halchⁱⁿ^G^&^F^7-⁰⁶⁴⁶
^C^u^ba^Mark^Su^lliv^an^FDT⁷^-⁷⁶⁸⁹
^!ALD — American Law Division
^!DSP — Domestic Social Policy Division
^!FDT — Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
^!G&F — Government & Finance Division
^!RSI — Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Overview ........................................................2
Different Appropriations Subcommittee Structures...............3
Title I: Transportation Appropriations.................................7
Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues............8
Amtrak ..................................................9
Aviation ................................................10
Airport Improvement Program...........................11
Essential Air Service..................................11
Surface Transportation.....................................12
Maritime Administration (MARAD)..........................13
Title II: Department of the Treasury..................................14
Treasury Offices and Bureaus (Excluding
the Internal Revenue Service)...........................15
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)..............................16
Title III: Department of Housing and Urban Development................18
Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget
and Key Policy Issues.....................................20
Community Development Fund and related programs............21
Housing Programs for the Elderly and the Disabled..............22
Public Housing/HOPE VI..................................22
Title IV: The Judiciary............................................23
The Judiciary Budget and Key Policy Issues........................23
FY2007 Request and Appropriation..........................26
House Action............................................26
Senate Action............................................26
Supreme Court...........................................27
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...................28
U.S. Court of International Trade............................28
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services.....28
Salaries and Expenses.................................28
Court Security.......................................29
Defender Services....................................29
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners.......................30
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC)..............30
Federal Judicial Center....................................30
United States Sentencing Commission........................31
Judiciary Retirement Funds.................................31
Administrative Provisions..................................31

Titles V (Senate) and VI (House): Executive Office of the President
and Funds Appropriated to the President...........................33
Executive Office of the President Budget and Key Policy Issues........34
Title VII: Independent Agencies.....................................42
Federal Election Commission (FEC)..........................43
Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA).....................44
General Services Administration (GSA).......................44
Federal Buildings Fund (FBF)...............................45
Electronic Government Fund (E-gov Fund)....................46
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)......................46
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)..........47
Office of Personnel Management (OPM)......................47
Office of Special Counsel (OSC).............................49
Postal Service............................................50
Titles VIII (Senate) and IX (House): General Provisions
Government-Wide ............................................51
Cuba Sanctions...............................................53
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2007 Departments of Transportation, the Treasury,
and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District
of Columbia, the Executive Office of the President,
and Independent Agencies Appropriations..........................4
Table 2. Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations, by Title,
FY2006-FY2007 ..............................................5
Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations,
FY2002-FY2007 ..............................................6
Table 4. Title I: Department of Transportation Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007............................................7
Table 5. Title II: Department of the Treasury Appropriations,
FY2006 and FY2007..........................................14
Table 6. Title III: Housing and Urban Development Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007 ...........................................18
Table 7. Title IV: The Judiciary Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007........23
Table 8. Titles V and VI: Executive Office of the President (EOP)
and Funds Appropriated to the President Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007...........................................33
Table 9. Senate Committee on Appropriations Funding Recommendations
for Federal Drug Control Programs in the Executive Office
of the President, FY2007.......................................41
Table 10. Title VII: Independent Agencies Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007...........................................42
Table 11. General Services Administration Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007...........................................45

Transportation, the Treasury,
Housing and Urban Development,
the Judiciary, the District of Columbia,
the Executive Office of the President,
and Independent Agencies (TTHUD):
FY2007 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On February 14, 2007, Congress passed H.J.Res. 20, the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution for FY2007, the fourth in a series of continuing
resolutions; it was signed into law on February 15, 2007 (P.L. 110-5). P.L. 110-5
provided funding for the remainder of FY2007 for most federal agencies, including
the Departments of Transportation, the Treasury, and Housing and Urban
Development, and the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the Executive Office of
the President, and Independent Agencies. P.L. 110-5 provided funding generally at
the level provided to agencies in FY2006, except where otherwise stated.
On July 26, 2006, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out H.R.
5576, the FY2007 Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations bill. The Committee recommended an overall net funding level of
$141.2 billion (after budgetary scorekeeping adjustments), an increase of $3.6 billion
(3%) over the amount in the FY2006 Act, $3.3 billion (2%) over the Administration¹
request, and $2.5 billion (2%) over the House-passed amount. The Committee also
recommended performance requirements for Amtrak, a 2.7% pay raise for federal
civilian workers for calendar year 2007, an easing of restrictions on agricultural
exports to Cuba, and a prohibition on easing restrictions on foreign control of U.S.
airlines.
On June 14, 2006, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5576. The House
approved an overall funding level of $139.6 billion (after budgetary scorekeeping

¹ These comparisons are based on a Senate figure of $141.8 billion, which includes the
Senate-reported level for appropriations for the District of Columbia ($597 million). The
House-passed version of H.R. 5576 includes appropriations for the District of Columbia, but
the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out the District of Columbia’s
appropriation in S. 3660.

adjustments), a $2 billion (1%) increase over the amount in the FY2006 Act² and a
$1 billion (less than 1%) increase over the Administration’s request. The House
approved the Appropriations Committee’s recommendations to provide the same pay
raise (2.7%) to federal civilian workers as that provided for uniformed military
personnel for calendar year 2007, to impose performance requirements on Amtrak,
to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from using private collection agencies to
collect taxes, and to restrict the outsourcing of federal work. The House approved
several amendments to the bill, including ones increasing funding for Amtrak and for
selected programs in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and to
ease restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba (the Administration threatened
to veto the bill if it contained provisions weakening sanctions on Cuba³).
Overview
The President’s FY2007 request for the programs covered by this appropriations
bill was $138.5 billion. This was $2.3 billion (2%) over the total in the FY2006 Act
(after a 1.0% across-the-board rescission applied to the FY2006 funding). The
FY2007 request included cuts from the FY2006 funding level for grants to airports
(-$764 million), Amtrak (-$394 million), and housing programs for elderly and
disabled in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (-$307 million). The
FY2007 request for the Executive Office of the President was $225 million less than
the FY2006 figure; that reduction was primarily due to the proposed transfer of the
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program ($225 million in FY2006) from the
Executive Office of the President to the Department of Justice.
The President’s FY2007 budget request proposals included:
^!funding Amtrak, the provider of intercity passenger rail service, at
$900 million, down from $1.3 billion in FY2006;
^!reducing funding for the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA)
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) to $2.8 billion, $700 million
below its ‘guaranteed’ authorization level, which would make the
entire appropriations bill subject to a point of order. The proposed
level was also below the AIP formula threshold of $3.2 billion,
which could result in a halving of most AIP formula distributions;
^!reducing funding for community and economic development
programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) to $6.8 billion, $815 million below the amount provided in
the FY2006 Act;

² FY2006 funding for some agencies funded in this act, notably the Departments of
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, was increased in supplemental
appropriations acts to deal with the effects of the hurricanes that struck Florida and the Gulf
Coast in 2005. Total enacted FY2006 funding, including supplemental funding, after
scorekeeping adjustments, was $151.0 billion.
³ U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administration Policy, H.R. 5576 — Transportation, Treasury, Housing, the Judiciary, and
the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY2007, June 14, 2006, p. 6.

^! reducing funding for housing for elderly and disabled persons under
HUD by $307 million (32%), from $971 million for FY2006 to $664
million for FY2007;
^!eliminating the annual $29 million payment to the United States
Postal Service for revenue forgone, as well as the absence of any
funding requested for Postal Service security measures.
The House did not support most of these proposed changes. The House-passed
version of H.R. 5576, the FY2007 Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and
Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary, District of Columbia, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations bill, provided $139.6 billion, $1.1 billion (less
than 1%) over the Administration’s request. The bill generally reflected
recommendations of the House Committee on Appropriations; the House did
approve amendments increasing Amtrak’s FY2007 funding from $900 million to
$1.1 billion, and approved amendments increasing funding for several programs
within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The White House
objected to several provisions in the bill, and issued a veto threat against the bill if
it included any provision easing sanctions on Cuba.⁴
H.R. 5576, as reported out by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, also did
not support most of the changes proposed by the Administration. The committee
recommended $141.2 billion (plus $597 million for the District of Columbia in a
separate bill), a total of $3.3 billion (2%) over the Administration request. The
committee recommended increases over the Administration request for aviation,
Amtrak, housing, the Internal Revenue Service, and drug control programs in the
Executive Office of the President. Among the provisions recommended by the
committee was one easing restrictions on agricultural trade with Cuba, similar to the
provision that had drawn a veto threat against the House-passed bill.
H.R. 5576 did not come to the Senate floor. A series of continuing resolutions
kept most federal agencies operating early in FY2007, culminating in passage of the
Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for 2007 (H.J.Res. 20/P.L. 110-5),
which was passed by Congress on February 14 and signed into law on February 15,
2007. This legislation provided funding for most federal agencies for the remainder
for FY2007, generally at the level provided to agencies in FY2006, except where
otherwise stated in the legislation. Among the agencies that received increases over
their FY2006 levels were DOT and HUD. The legislation also provides that the
“requirements, authorities, conditions, limitations, and other provisions” of the
FY2006 appropriations acts would apply to the funding provided for FY2007, except
where otherwise stated in the bill.
Different Appropriations Subcommittee Structures. In early 2005, the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations reorganized their subcommittee
structures. The House Committee on Appropriations reduced its number of
subcommittees to ten. This change combined the Transportation, Treasury, and

⁴ U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administration Policy, H.R. 5576 — Transportation, Treasury, Housing, the Judiciary, and
the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY2007, June 14, 2006.

Independent Agencies subcommittee with the District of Columbia subcommittee;
to the resulting subcommittee, in addition, jurisdiction over appropriations for the
Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Judiciary as well as several
additional independent agencies was added.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reduced its number of subcommittees
to 12. The Senate also added jurisdiction over appropriations for the Departments
of Housing and Urban Development, and the Judiciary, to the Transportation,
Treasury, and Independent Agencies subcommittee; the Senate retained a separate
District of Columbia Appropriations subcommittee. As a result, the area of coverage
of the House and Senate subcommittees with jurisdiction over this appropriations bill
are almost, but not quite, identical; the major difference being that in the Senate the
appropriations for the District of Columbia originate in a separate bill.
Table 1 notes the status of the FY2007 Transportation et al. appropriations bill.
Table 1. Status of FY2007 Departments of Transportation,
the Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development,
the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the Executive Office
of the President, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
^Subco^m^mⁱ^t^t^ee^Conference^Repo^rt
^Ma^r^k^u^p^Hou^s^e^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Sena^t^e^Co^nf.^A^p^p^r^oval^Public
^Repo^rt^Pas^s^age^Repo^rt^Pas^s^age^Repo^rt^La^w
^H^o^use^S^ena^t^e^H^o^u^se^Sena^t^e
^H.R^e^p^t^.^6/^14/⁰⁶^S.Rep^t^.
^5/^25/⁰⁶^7/^18/⁰⁶^109-⁴⁹⁵^406-²²^109-²⁹³^—^—^—^—^—
^6/^9/⁰⁶^7/^26/⁰⁶
^H.J^.^R^e^s.^H.J^.^R^e^s.^P.^L^.
^—^—^—^{20 286-}¹⁴⁰^—²⁰^81-¹⁵^—^—^—^110-⁵
^1/^31/⁰⁷^2/^14/⁰⁷^2/^15/⁰⁷

Table 2 lists the total funding provided for each of the titles in the bill (the last
two titles cover general provisions affecting this bill and general provisions affecting
the entire federal government) for FY2006 and the amount requested for that title for
FY2007.
Table 2. Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations,
by Title, FY2006-FY2007
⁽^m^illioⁿ^s^o^f^d^o^llar^s⁾
^FY²⁰⁰⁶^a^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^Tit^l^e^P^a^sse^d^Reported
^T^{itle I}^:^Dep^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^$60,677^$64,432^$64,720^$65,028^$63,143
^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ
^T^{itle I}^I^:^Dep^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^th^{e T}^r^easu^r^y¹¹^,⁵⁵²¹¹^,⁶⁰⁶¹¹^,⁵²²¹¹^,⁷⁰⁶¹¹^,⁶²⁴
^T^{itle III: Hou}^sⁱⁿ^g^an^{d Urban}^33,594^34,118^35,309^36,588^36,626
^D^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t
^T^{itle I}^V^{: T}^h^{e J}^u^dⁱ^ciar^y⁵^,7²⁰⁶^,²⁶⁰⁶^,⁰⁶³⁶^,⁰⁹⁸⁵^,⁹⁸⁰
^T^{itle V: Distr}ⁱ^{ct o}^f^Co^lu^m^b^ia⁵⁹⁷⁵⁹⁷⁵⁷⁵⁵⁹⁷⁵⁹¹
^T^{itle VI}^{: Ex}^ecu^tiv^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^th^e⁷²⁸⁵⁰³⁷²³⁷³⁰⁷²⁰
^P^r^es^iden^t
^T^{itle VI}^I^:^Iⁿ^d^e^p^eⁿ^d^en^{t A}^g^en^cies¹⁹^,⁹³⁶²⁰^,⁹⁹⁹²⁰^,⁷⁰⁸²¹^,⁰⁶²^b
^T^{itle VIII-}^{VIIII: Gen}^e^{ral P}^r^ov^is^ion^s^—^—^—^—^—
^T^o^tal^$137,623^$138,516^$139,620^$141,808^c
^Source:^Bu^dg^et^t^a^bl^esⁱⁿ^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{307 an}^{d 109-}^{495 an}^{d S}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^293;^“^F^Y²⁰⁰⁷^En^act^ed”ⁱ^s
^f^r^om^bu^dg^et^t^a^bl^es^provⁱ^d^{ed by}^t^h^e^H^o^u^s^e^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^ee^on^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^{. N}^o^sⁱⁿ^g^l^{e t}^a^bl^{e s}^h^owⁱⁿ^g^t^h^e
^en^act^{ed F}^Y^{2007 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^f^o^{r al}^l^t^h^es^{e ag}^en^ci^esⁱ^s^a^v^aⁱ^l^a^b^l^e^,^an^{d s}^o^t^h^{e “}^T^ot^al^{,” f}^r^om^t^h^{e “}^T^ot^al
^bu^dg^etary^res^o^u^r^ces^{” lin}^{e in}^v^a^riou^s^bu^dg^{et tables}^{, w}^a^{s calcu}^lated^b^y^CRS.^T^h^{e Sen}^a^te-^r^ep^o^r^ted^b^ill
^dⁱ^dⁿ^o^tⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e th}^{e Distr}ⁱ^{ct o}^f^Co^lu^m^b^{ia ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^;^th^{at f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{e w}^a^{s ad}^d^e^d^to^th^{e Sen}^a^{te to}^tal^b^y
^C^R^S^f^o^{r com}^p^arativ^{e pu}^rpos^es^{. T}^o^tals^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add du}^e^to^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^an^d^s^c^orek^eepin^g^adj^u^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^s^.
^{a. T}^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^repres^en^t^t^h^e^am^ouⁿ^t^s^en^act^{ed by}^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 T}^r^an^s^port^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^/^T^r^eas^u^r^y^et^al^.
^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^act^(P.L^{. 109-}^{115). T}^h^{e D}^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^act^(P.L^{. 109-}¹⁴⁸⁾^c^o^nt^aiⁿ^e^d
^an^acros^s^-^th^e-b^o^a^r^d^r^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^on^ofⁿ^oⁿ^-^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^p^en^din^g^of^{1.0%, an}^{d DOT}^an^{d HUD}
^receiv^e^{d em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^pplem^en^{tal f}^undⁱ^ng^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2006 to deal w}^ith^th^{e ef}^f^ects^of^s^e^v^e^ral
^h^u^rrican^es^{; th}^os^{e ch}^an^g^e^s^{are n}^o^{t ref}^l^{ected in}^th^es^{e f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^.
^{b. N}^o^sⁱⁿ^g^l^{e t}^a^bl^e^av^ai^l^a^bl^e^f^r^om^t^h^e^H^o^u^s^e^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee s}^h^ow^s^t^h^{e en}^act^{ed F}^Y²⁰⁰⁷
^to^{tal f}^o^{r th}^{e In}^d^e^p^eⁿ^d^en^t^A^g^en^cies^uⁿ^d^{er th}^{e j}^u^risd^ictioⁿ^o^f^th^{e f}^o^rm^{er T}^T^{HUD ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s
^s^u^bcom^mⁱ^t^t^ee.
^c.^N^o^sⁱⁿ^g^l^{e t}^a^bl^{e av}^ai^l^a^bl^{e f}^r^om^t^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee s}^h^ow^s^t^h^e^en^act^ed^F^Y²⁰⁰⁷
^to^{tal f}^o^{r th}^{e ag}^en^{cies u}ⁿ^d^{er th}^{e j}^u^risd^ictioⁿ^o^f^th^{e f}^o^rm^{er T}^T^{HUD ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^su^b^c^o^m^m^ittee.

Table 3 shows funding trends over the five-year period FY2002-FY2006, and
the amounts requested for FY2007, for the titles in the bill. The agencies generally
experienced funding increases during the period FY2002-FY2006.
Table 3. Funding Trends
for Transportation/Treasury et al. Appropriations,
FY2002-FY2007
⁽^b^illioⁿ^s^o^f^cu^r^r^eⁿ^t^d^o^llar^s⁾
^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^D^e^p^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^FY²⁰⁰²^FY²⁰⁰³^c^FY²⁰⁰⁴^d^FY²⁰⁰⁵^e^FY²⁰⁰⁶^f^Request
^T^{itle I}^:^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^a^$57.4^$55.7^$58.4^$59.6^$60.7^$64.4
^T^{itle I}^I^:^T^r^easu^r^y^b^10.5^10.8^11.1^11.2^11.7^11.6
^T^{itle III: Hou}^sⁱⁿ^g^an^d^30.2^31.0^31.2^31.9^34.0^34.1
^U^r^ban^D^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t
^T^{itle I}^V^{: J}^u^dⁱ^ciar^y⁴^.7⁵^.⁴⁵^.2⁵^.⁴⁵^.8⁶^.³
^T^{itle V: Distr}ⁱ^{ct o}^f^0.4⁰^.5^0.5⁰^.6^0.6⁰^.6
^Co^lu^m^b^ia
^T^{itle VI}^{: Ex}^ecu^tiv^{e Of}^fⁱ^ce^0.8⁰^.8^0.8⁰^.8^0.7⁰^.5
^of^th^{e P}^r^es^iden^t
^T^{itle VI}^I^:^Iⁿ^d^e^p^eⁿ^d^en^t^—^—^—^19.8^19.9^21.0
^A^g^en^cies
^So^urc^e^:^Un^ited^{States Ho}^u^s^{e o}^f^Rep^r^esen^tativ^{es, Co}^m^m^{ittee o}ⁿ^A^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^{, Co}^m^p^ar^ativ^e
^S^t^at^em^en^t^of^Bu^dg^et^A^u^t^h^ori^t^y^t^a^bl^es^f^r^om^fⁱ^s^cal^y^ears^{2001 t}^h^ro^ugh^2007.^Fⁱ^g^u^r^es^f^o^{r 2006}^doⁿ^o^t
^ref^l^ect^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^{. F}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^f^o^{r 2007 are t}^h^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^requ^es^t^e^{d f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^f^r^om
^t^a^bl^{e i}ⁿ^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^485.
^{a. F}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^f^o^{r D}^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^T^r^an^s^port^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^f^o^{r F}^Y^2002-^F^Y²⁰⁰³^h^a^v^e^been^adj^u^s^t^ed
^f^o^{r com}^p^ari^s^on^wⁱ^t^h^F^Y^{2004 an}^{d l}^a^t^e^r^fⁱ^g^u^r^es^by^s^u^bt^ractⁱⁿ^g^t^h^{e U}ⁿⁱ^t^e^{d S}^t^at^es^C^o^as^t^G^u^{ard, t}^h^e
^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^Secu^r^ity^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^,^th^{e Nati}^oⁿ^a^l^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^Saf^e^ty^B^o^ar^d^,^an^d^th^e
^A^r^ch^itectu^r^{al an}^d^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^B^a^r^r^ier^s^Co^m^p^lian^{ce B}^o^ar^d^,^an^d^b^y^ad^dⁱⁿ^g^th^{e Mar}^itim^e
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^o^n.
^{b. F}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^f^o^{r D}^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^t^h^{e T}^r^ea^sur^y^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^f^o^{r F}^Y^2002-^F^Y^{2003 h}^a^v^e^been^adj^u^s^t^ed
^f^o^{r com}^p^aris^on^w^ith^F^Y^{2004 an}^{d later f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^by^s^u^btractin^g^th^e^Bu^reau^of^A^l^coh^o^l,^T^obacco,
^an^{d Firearm}^s^{; th}^{e C}^u^s^t^om^s^Serv^{ice; th}^{e Un}^{ited St}^ates^Secret^Serv^{ice; an}^{d th}^{e L}^a^w^En^f^o^rcem^en^t
^T^r^aⁱⁿⁱ^{ng Ce}^nt^e^r^.
^{c. F}^Y^{2003 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^ref^l^ect^{a 0.65%}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^.
^{d. F}^Y^{2004 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^ref^l^ect^{a 0.59%}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^.
^{e. F}^Y^{2005 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^ref^l^ect^{a 0.83%}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^.
^f^.^F^Y^{2006 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^{are as}^en^act^{ed i}ⁿ^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^act^(P.L^.^109-¹¹⁵⁾^an^{d do n}^o^t^ref^l^ect
^a^1.0%^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^{or em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^provⁱ^d^ed^f^o^r^D^O^T^an^d
^HUD.^DOT^an^d^{HUD receiv}^e^{d em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r respon}^{se to th}^{e ef}^f^{ects of}^th^{e Gu}^lf^C^o^ast
^h^u^rrican^es^{; DOT}^’^s^{total FY2006 f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^,ⁱⁿ^clu^dⁱⁿ^g^em^erge^nc^y^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^,^w^a^s^{$63.0 billion}^;
^HUD’^s^{total FY2006 f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^,ⁱⁿ^clu^dⁱⁿ^g^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^,^w^a^s^{$45.5 billion}^.

Title I: Transportation Appropriations
Table 4. Title I: Department of Transportation Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007
⁽ⁱⁿ^m^illioⁿ^s^o^f^d^o^llar^s^{— to}^{tals m}^a^yⁿ^o^{t ad}^d⁾
^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Departm^e^{nt or Agency}^Ena^c^t^e^d^a^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^{(Selected Accounts}⁾^P^a^sse^d^Reported
^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^t^h^{e S}^ecret^ary^of^T^r^an^s^port^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^$237^$174^$151^$242^$171
^E^sseⁿ^tia^{l A}ⁱ^{r S}^e^rv^ic^e^b¹⁰⁹^—¹¹⁷¹¹⁷¹⁰⁹
^Fed^e^r^a^{l A}^v^iatioⁿ^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^(F^A^A⁾^13,711^12,774^15,154^14,251^14,482
^O^p^er^atⁱ^ons⁽^t^r^u^s^t^f^{und &}^gener^a^l
^f^und)^8,104^8,366^8,360^8,366^8,374
^Fa^{cilities &}^Eq^uⁱ^p^m^en^{t (}^F^&^E⁾⁽^t^ru^st
^f^und)^2,555^2,503^3,110^2,550^2,516
^G^r^ant^-i^n-ai^{d f}^o^r^Ai^r^por^t^s⁽^A^IP)⁽^t^r^u^s^t
^f^und)⁽^lⁱ^mⁱ^t^.^{on obl}ⁱ^g^.)^3,515^2,750^3,700^3,520^3,514
^Res^e^ar^{ch, Engi}^neerⁱ^{ng &}
^{Development (}^t^r^u^s^t^fund)¹³⁷¹³⁰¹³⁴¹³⁶¹³⁰
^F^e^deral^Hⁱ^g^h^w^ay^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^(F^H^W^A⁾^33,392^39,825^37,661^c^38,324^36,252
⁽^Lⁱ^mⁱ^t^a^tⁱ^{on on O}^b^lⁱ^gatⁱ^ons⁾^35,672^39,086^39,086^39,086^39,086
⁽^E^xem^pt^O^b^lⁱ^gatⁱ^ons⁾⁷³⁹⁷³⁹⁷³⁹⁷³⁹⁷³⁹
^Addi^tⁱ^onal^f^unds⁽^t^r^u^s^t^f^und)^2,750^—^—^—^—
^Addi^tⁱ^onal^f^unds⁽^g^ener^al^f^und)¹⁹^—^—⁴⁰²⁰
^Fed^e^r^a^{l Mo}^to^r^Car^r^ier^Saf^e^ty
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^(F^MC^S^A⁾⁴⁹⁰⁵¹⁷⁵¹⁷⁵¹⁷⁵¹⁷
^Natioⁿ^a^{l Hig}^h^w^ay^T^r^af^fⁱ^{c Saf}^e^ty
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^(N^H^T^S^A⁾⁸⁰⁶⁸¹⁵⁸²²⁸⁰⁷⁸²¹
^Fed^e^r^a^{l Railr}^o^a^d^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^(F^R^A⁾¹^,511^1,085^1,085^1,585^1,478
^Am^t^r^ak^1,294⁹⁰⁰⁹⁰⁰^d^1,400^1,294
^F^e^deral^T^r^an^sⁱ^t^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^(F^T^A⁾⁸^,504^8,846^8,932^8,846^8,975
^G^e^ner^a^l^Funds^1,594^1,583^1,670^1,583^1,712
^T^r^us^t^Funds^6,910^7,263^7,263^7,263^7,263
^{St. L}^a^w^r^en^{ce Seaw}^ay^Dev^e^lopm^en^t
^C^o^rporatⁱ^oⁿ¹⁶⁸¹⁷¹⁷¹⁶
^Mar^itim^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ⁽^M^A^R^A^D⁾³⁰⁶²²³²²⁴²⁷⁰²¹⁴
^Pⁱ^pelin^{e an}^{d Hazardou}^s^Materials^Saf^e^ty
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ¹¹⁵¹²¹¹²¹¹²¹¹³⁴
^Pi^pelⁱⁿ^{e s}^a^f^e^t^y^pr^ogr^am⁷²⁷⁶⁷⁶⁷⁶⁷⁵
^Em^er^{gency pr}^epar^ednes^s^gr^ant^s¹⁴²⁸²⁸²⁸¹⁴
^R^e^s^earch^an^{d In}ⁿ^o^v^a^tiv^{e T}^echⁿ^o^log^y
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ⁶⁸⁶⁸⁸
^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^In^s^p^{ector Gen}^e^ral⁶²⁶⁴⁶⁴⁶⁴⁶⁴
^Su^rf^{ace T}^r^an^s^portation^B^o^ard²⁵²²²⁴²⁵²⁶
^T^o^tal^,^D^e^p^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^{of T}^r^an^s^p^ortati^on^$62,316^$64,432^$64,720^$65,028^$63,143
^No^te:^Fⁱ^g^u^r^es^a^r^{e f}^r^om^t^h^{e bu}^dg^et^au^t^h^ori^t^y^t^a^bl^{e i}ⁿ^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{495, ex}^cept^“^F^Y^{2007 En}^act^ed”
^fⁱ^g^u^r^es^{are f}^r^om^{a bu}^dg^et^au^t^h^ori^t^y^t^a^bl^{e prov}ⁱ^d^{ed by}^t^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e C}^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee on}^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^.
^F^Y^{2007 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^{do n}^o^t^ref^l^ect^f^l^{oor am}^en^dm^en^t^sⁱⁿ^creasⁱⁿ^g^{or decreas}ⁱⁿ^g^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r di}^ffe^r^eⁿ^t

^prog^ram^s^{. B}^ecau^s^e^of^dif^f^e^rin^g^treatm^eⁿ^t^of^of^f^s^et^s^,^th^{e f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^f^o^{r “}^F^Y2007^R^e^qu^es^t”^w^{ill n}^o^{t alw}^a^y^s
^m^a^tch^th^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^’^{s b}^u^d^g^{et f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{es. T}^h^{e f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{es w}^ithⁱⁿ^th^{is tab}^l^{e m}^a^y^dⁱ^f^f^e^r^slig^h^tly^f^r^o^m^th^o^s^e
ⁱⁿ^th^{e tex}^t^d^u^e^to^su^p^p^l^em^en^{tal ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^{, r}^e^scissioⁿ^{s, an}^d^o^t^h^e^r^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^actioⁿ^s^{. Co}^lu^mⁿ^{s m}^a^y
ⁿ^o^{t ad}^d^d^u^{e to}^r^o^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^o^r^ex^clu^s^ioⁿ^o^f^sm^aller^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^lin^e-^item^s^.
^{a. T}^h^es^{e f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^ref^l^ect^t^h^{e 1.0%}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^onⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed i}ⁿ^P.L^.^108-^447.
^{b. T}^h^{e total com}^e^s^f^r^om^{a $50}^m^illion^a^nnua^l^a^u^t^h^o^rⁱ^z^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^fo^r^t^h^e^E^sse^ntⁱ^a^l^Aⁱ^r^Se^r^vⁱ^c^e^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^t^o
^b^e^f^uⁿ^d^ed^o^u^{t o}^f^o^v^er^f^lig^h^t^f^e^{e co}^llectioⁿ^s^an^d^an^ad^d^itioⁿ^a^{l am}^o^uⁿ^t^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iated^f^o^r^th^e
^prog^ram^.
^{c. T}^h^{e bu}^dg^{et table in}^H.R^e^pt.^109-⁴⁹⁵^gⁱ^v^e^s^aⁿ^e^{t total of}^{$34. 411 billion}^f^o^{r FHW}^A^f^o^{r FY2007in}
^th^{e b}^{ill, b}^u^{t ap}^p^ear^{s to}^d^o^u^b^l^e-^co^uⁿ^t^a^$²^.²^b^illioⁿ^r^e^scissioⁿ^o^f^coⁿ^t^r^{act au}^th^o^r^ity^{. T}^h^{e FHW}^A
ⁿ^e^{t total f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{e in}^th^{e tex}^t^of^th^{e bill is}^{$37.661billion}^{(p. 29).}
^d^.^A^m^tr^ak^’^s^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^w^a^{s in}^cr^eased^to^$¹^.²^b^illioⁿ^b^y^{a f}^l^o^o^r^am^en^d^m^en^t.
Department of Transportation Budget and Key Policy Issues
The President’s budget proposed $64.4 billion for the Department of
Transportation (DOT). This was $2.1 billion (3%) more than the $62.3 billion
enacted for FY2006, including emergency spending, and $4.3 billion (7%) more than
the amount provided in the FY2006 appropriations act (after then 1% rescission).
The major funding changes requested from the FY2006 enacted levels were an
increase of $3.5 billion (10%) in the obligation limitation for highways, reflecting the
authorized level in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59) as well as an increase due
to higher-than-projected Highway Trust Fund revenues; a decrease of $394 million
(30%) in the request for Amtrak; and a decrease of $765 million (22%) in the Federal
Aviation Administration’s Airport Improvement Program.
The Administration’s budget for DOT identified three agency-specific goals
influencing the budget request: improving aviation and surface transportation safety
through increased funding for safety programs, improving transportation mobility
through investments in additional infrastructure and through investments in
technology to increase the effective capacity of the transportation systems, and
restraining spending and managing for results by, among other initiatives,
restructuring federal intercity passenger rail policy and its provider, Amtrak, and
eliminating the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program.⁵
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $64.7 billion for DOT,
$287 million (less than 1%) more than the Administration request and $2.4 billion
(4%) above total FY2006 funding. The primary changes from the President’s request
were additional funding for the Federal Aviation Administration ($1.5 billion),
bringing the Airport Improvement Program and Facilities and Equipment Program
up to their FY2007 authorized funding levels. The committee also recommended an
increase of $100 million (7%) for the Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Grants
(New Starts) Program. The House supported the committee’s recommendations
regarding transportation funding, except that the House voted to add another $214
million (24%) for Amtrak (discussed below) and $6.7 million for the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Operations and Research Program, for the

⁵ Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, pp. 216-224.

Office of Fuel Economy to study how best to promote an increase in the corporate
average fuel economy (CAFÉ) by the auto industry.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $65.0 billion for DOT.
Compared to the Administration request, the committee recommended increased
funding for airport grants-in-aid, for the Essential Air Services program, and for
Amtrak; compared to the House bill, the committee recommended increased funding
for Amtrak and for DOT’s new headquarters building but less funding for FAA’s
facilities and equipment account and FTA’s New Starts program.
P.L. 110-5, the FY2007 Continuing Resolution, provided $63.1 billion in net
budgetary resources for DOT ($67.4 billion in appropriations, reduced by $4.2 billion
in rescissions of contract authority). This represented an increase of $3.7 billion
(6%) over FY2006 appropriations, excluding rescissions of contract authority in both
years and $2.8 billion in emergency appropriations in FY2006. The increases went
largely to the federal-aid highway program and the federal transit program, reflecting
their FY2007 authorized funding levels.
Amtrak. Amtrak is a quasi-governmental corporation that operates and
maintains rail infrastructure in the Northeast and operates passenger rail service
throughout the country. It operates at a deficit and requires federal support to
continue operations. Amtrak’s authorization expired at the end of FY2002.
Reauthorization efforts have been stalled by fundamental disagreements between
Congress and the Administration over the future shape of federal intercity passenger
rail policy.
The Administration, which has appointed all the current members of the Amtrak
Board of Directors, has sought to force changes in intercity passenger rail policy over
the past several years by requesting less funding for Amtrak than is needed to
maintain the status quo, arguing that “only a constrained budget will force Amtrak⁶
to change the way it conducts business.” Congress has responded by providing more
funding for Amtrak than requested by the Administration, while imposing conditions
on Amtrak in the appropriations bills.
The Administration requested $900 million for Amtrak for FY2007. The
Administration’s proposal received bipartisan criticism in both the House and the
Senate. The Administration has asserted in the past that it would support increased
funding for intercity passenger rail if significant reforms are enacted. Some Members
of Congress have questioned where that additional money would come from, given
the competing demands from other transportation modes and from other agencies in
the appropriations bill that funds DOT.
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $900 million for grants
to Amtrak for FY2007. The committee also recommended a number of requirements
for Amtrak, including that Amtrak be required to submit a comprehensive business
plan and a detailed plan for improving its managerial cost accounting system; to cut
system overhead expenses by 10% annually; and to achieve savings through

⁶ Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, p. 222.

operating efficiencies in its food and beverage service, and first class service,
resulting in these services breaking even by the end of FY2007.
In its consideration of H.R. 5576, the House approved (266-158) an amendment
to increase Amtrak’s FY2007 appropriation by $214 million, from $900 million to
$1.114 billion. This was $180 million less than the $1.294 billion Amtrak received
in FY2006 (after the 1.0% across-the-board rescission), and significantly less than
the $1.4 billion the DOT IG testified Amtrak needed in FY2007.⁷ The funding was
divided into two parts: $629 million for capital grants and debt service, and $485
million for efficiency incentive grants. None of the funding would go directly to
Amtrak; Amtrak would apply to the Secretary of DOT to receive grants.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $1.4 billion for
Amtrak. As with the House, this funding was divided between capital grants and
debt service ($750 million) and efficiency incentive grants for operating costs; in
both cases, Amtrak would apply to the Secretary of DOT to receive funding. The
committee asserted that this arrangement would provide increased oversight of
Amtrak. The committee also recommended several requirements for Amtrak similar
to the provisions in the House bill, such as requiring Amtrak to reduce the cost
deficits on its first-class service and food and beverage service. The committee also
included a provision forbidding Amtrak from outsourcing work to foreign countries,
and one creating a pilot program to see if a state can operate passenger rail service
at lower cost than Amtrak does now.
The FY2007 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-5) provided $1.3 billion for
Amtrak, the same amount provided in FY2006. The text of P.L. 110-5 provided that
the requirements and limitations imposed on Amtrak in its FY2006 appropriations
legislation would continue to apply throughout FY2007.
Aviation. The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) budget provides both
capital and operating funding for the nation’s air traffic control system, as well as
providing federal grants to airports for airport planning, development, and expansion
of the capacity of the nation’s air traffic infrastructure. The President’s budget
requested $12.8 billion in net funding for FY2007, $937 million less than was
enacted for FY2006. The President’s request included $18 million to hire 1,136 air
traffic controllers in FY2007. This was expected to result in a net gain of around 132
controllers after retirements expected in FY2007.
The House Committee recommended $15.2 billion for FY2007, $1.4 billion
over the level enacted for FY2006 and $2.4 billion over the Administration request.
The increases brought the FAA’s capital programs up to their FY2007 authorized
funding levels. The House supported this recommendation.

⁷ Mark R. Dayton, Senior Economist, Office of the Inspector General, United States
Department of Transportation, “Intercity Passenger Rail and Amtrak,” Testimony before the
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, March 16, 2006,
p. 1.

The House also adopted, 291-137, an amendment restricting foreign control
over the business decisions of U.S. airlines. The DOT had proposed a rule whose
stated purpose was to promote foreign investment in U.S. airlines.⁸ In response to
concerns raised about the implications of this proposed rule for national security, the
House adopted an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds provided in the
FY2007 appropriations bill to finalize or implement the proposed rule. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations also recommended a similar provision. The DOT
subsequently withdrew the proposed amendment to the rule that would have
increased the allowed degree of foreign ownership of U.S. airlines.⁹
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $14.2 billion for
FY2007. The committee recommended more funding that the Administration
requested, but less funding than the House provided; significant differences
compared with the House levels were for the Facilities and Equipment account
($2.55 billion to the House’s $3.11 billion) and the Airport Improvement Program
($3.52 billion to the House’s $3.7 billion).
The FY2007 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-5) provided $14.5 billion in net
funding for the Federal Aviation Administration for FY2007. This was $1.7 billion
(13%) more than the Administration requested and $770 million (6%) more than
enacted for FY2006.
Airport Improvement Program. The President’s budget proposed a cut to
the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), from $3.5 billion in FY2006 to $2.8 billion
for FY2007. The House provided $3.7 billion, the FY2007 authorized level; the
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $3.5 billion. As a result of P.L.

110-5, the AIP received $3.5 billion, the same amount as in FY2006.

AIP funds are used to provide grants for airport planning and development, and
for projects to increase airport capacity (such as building new runways) and other
facility improvements. Some Members of Congress have expressed concern at
proposed cuts in the AIP program in the face of forecasts of renewed growth in
aviation traffic.
Essential Air Service. The President’s budget proposed a $59 million (54%)
reduction in funding for the Essential Air Service program, from $109 million
(FY2006) to $50 million. The House Committee on Appropriations recommended
$117 million. The House-passed bill provided $117 million. The Senate Committee
on Appropriations also recommended $117 million. As a result of P.L. 110-5, the
program received $109 million, the same amount as in FY2006.
This program seeks to preserve air service to small airports in rural communities
by subsidizing the cost of that service. Supporters of the Essential Air Service

⁸ Notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2005 (70
Fed. Reg. 67389); supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal
Register on May 5, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 26425). For more information, see CRS Report
RL33255, Legal Developments in International Civil Aviation, by Todd B. Tatelman.
⁹ Federal Register, vol. 71, no. 236 (December 8, 2006), 71106-71109.

program contend that preserving airline service to rural communities was part of the
deal Congress made in exchange for deregulating airline service in 1978, which was
expected to reduce air service to rural areas. Some Members of Congress expressed
concern that the proposed cut in funding for the Essential Air Service program could
lead to a reduction in the transportation connections of rural communities. Previous
budget requests from the Current Administration, as well as budget requests from
previous Administrations, have also proposed reducing funding to this program.
Surface Transportation. The President’s budget requested $39.8 billion for
federal highway programs for FY2007, an increase of $3.5 billion (10%) over the¹⁰
comparable level of $36.3 billion provided in FY2006. The budget also requested
$8.8 billion for federal transit programs for FY2007, an increase of $342 million
(4%) over the $8.5 billion provided in FY2006. These increases reflected the
authorized level of funding provided (and “guaranteed”) for surface transportation
programs by SAFETEA (P.L. 109-59), except that the request was $100 million less
than the authorized level for transit. The authorized level of FY2007 highway
funding included an increase of $842 million as a result of higher-than-expected
revenues to the Highway Trust Fund, an adjustment provided for in SAFETEA
known as Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority, or RABA.
The House approved the requested (authorized) level for highway programs —
$37.0 billion¹¹ — and added $100 million to the Capital Grants (New Starts) transit
program to bring the transit funding up to its authorized level of $8.9 billion. The
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended the same level for federal
highway programs and the requested level for transit programs (thus, $100 million
less than the House provided). The FY2007 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-5)
provided $39.8 billion for the federal highway program and $9.0 billion for the
federal transit program for FY2007. P.L. 110-5 also rescinded $3.5 billion from
unobligated balances of previously provided contract authority for federal highway
programs, resulting in a net FY2007 level of $36.3 billion for the federal highway
program.
The Administration requested $517 million (a 6% increase) for the Federal
Motor Carrier Administration (FMCSA) and $815 million (a 1% increase) for the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The House Committee
on Appropriations recommended the requested level for FMCSA and recommended
an additional $6 million to the amount requested for NHTSA. The House concurred
with these recommendations. The Senate Committee on Appropriations also
recommended the requested level for FMCSA and $8 million less than requested for
NHTSA. FMCSA received $517 million and NHTSA received $821 million for
FY2007 as a result of P.L. 110-5.

¹⁰ In addition to the $36.3 billion in funding for federal-aid highways and exempt contract
authority provided in FY2006, the DOT also received $3.5 billion in emergency relief
funding to respond to the effects of the Gulf Coast hurricanes.
¹¹ $39.1 billion in obligation limitations and $739 million in exempt obligations. A $2.2
billion rescission of contract authority brings the net total after score-keeping adjustments
down to $37.7 billion.

Maritime Administration (MARAD). The Administration requested $299
million for the Maritime Administration for FY2007, $7 million (2%) below the
$306 million enacted for FY2006. As in its FY2006 budget, the Administration did
not request any new funding for National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction
Program, and requested that $74 million Congress appropriated in FY2005 for this
program be rescinded (bringing its net request down to $223 million, assuming this
rescission). The House provided $300 million, and supported the request to rescind
the $74 million for the National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction Program. That
rescission, plus a $2 million rescission of administrative expenses for the Maritime
Guaranteed Loan Program, brought the net total funding down to $224 million.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $344 million for
MARAD, significantly above the request and the House level. The additional
funding was for subsidies for the Title IX loan program ($30 million) and a new
program to assist small shipyards ($15 million). The committee also recommended
the requested $74 million rescission for the National Defense Tanker Vessel
Construction Program (thus bringing the net total funding to $270 million). The
FY2007 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-5) provided $291 million for MARAD.
P.L. 110-5 also rescinded the $74 million in the National Defense Tanker Vessel
Construction Program, and rescinded $2 million from MARAD’s ship construction
account, resulting in a net FY2007 appropriation of $214 million.
The National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction Program is intended to
decrease the Department of Defense’s reliance on foreign-flag oil tankers by
supporting the construction of up to five privately-owned product-tanker vessels in
the United States. It would provide up to $50 million per vessel for the construction,
in U.S. shipyards, of commercial tank vessels that are capable of carrying militarily
useful petroleum products and that would be available for the military’s use in time
of war.

Title II: Department of the Treasury
Table 5. Title II: Department of the Treasury Appropriations,
FY2006 and FY2007
⁽^m^illioⁿ^s^o^f^d^o^llar^s⁾
^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Program^{or A}^ccouⁿ^t^FY²⁰⁰⁶^Ena^c^t^e^d^a^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Request^Hou^s^e^C^o^mmi^t^t^e^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^P^a^sse^d^Recom^-
^m^e^nda^tⁱ^oⁿ
^Departm^eⁿ^t^{al Of}^fⁱ^ces^$195^$224^$224^$224^$216
^Departm^eⁿ^t^-^w^{ide Sy}^s^t^em^s^an^{d C}^a^pital
^I^nve^st^m^e^nt^s²⁴³⁴³⁴³⁴³⁰
^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^In^s^p^{ector Gen}^e^ral¹⁷¹⁷¹⁷¹⁸¹⁷
^T^r^eas^u^r^y^In^s^p^{ector Gen}^e^{ral f}^o^{r T}^a^x
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ¹³²¹³⁶¹³⁶¹³⁶¹³³
^Aⁱ^r^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^Stab^ilizatioⁿ^P^r^o^g^r^a^m³^—^—^—^—
^Co^m^m^uⁿ^ity^Dev^e^lo^p^m^en^{t Fin}^aⁿ^c^{ial I}ⁿ^stitu^tioⁿ^s
^Fund⁵⁵⁸⁴⁰⁵⁵⁵⁵
^T^r^e^a^s^ur^y^B^uⁱ^l^dⁱ^{ng a}ⁿ^d^A^nne^{x Re}^p^aⁱ^r^aⁿ^d
^Resto^r^atioⁿ¹⁰^—^—^—^—
^Fin^aⁿ^c^{ial Cr}^im^{es En}^f^o^r^cem^en^{t Netw}^o^r^k⁷³⁹⁰⁸⁴⁷⁷⁷³
^Fⁱⁿ^aⁿ^cⁱ^a^l^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e²³⁴²³⁴²³⁴²³⁴²³⁵
^A^l^coh^o^{l an}^{d T}^{obacco T}^a^x^an^{d T}^r^{ade B}^u^reau⁹⁰⁶⁴⁹³⁹³⁹¹
^Bu^reau^of^t^h^{e Pu}^blⁱ^c^D^e^bt¹⁷⁵¹⁷⁸¹⁷⁸¹⁷⁸¹⁷⁶
^In^t^e^rn^al^R^e^v^eⁿ^u^e^S^e^rvⁱ^{ce, T}^o^t^a^l^10,545^b^10,592^10,487^10,656^10,597
^Pr^oces^sⁱ^{ng, As}^sⁱ^s^t^{ance and}
^M^anagem^e^nt^4,095^4,045^—^—^—
^T^a^xpayer^Ser^vⁱ^ces^—^—^2,059^2,110^2,138
^T^a^{x L}^a^w^Enf^o^r^cem^ent⁴^,678^4,762^—^—^—
^Enf^o^r^cem^ent^—^—^4,757^4,797^4,686
^Inf^o^r^m^atⁱ^{on Sys}^t^em^s¹^,583^1,602^—^—^—
^O^p^er^atⁱ^ons^Suppor^t^—^—^3,459^3,487^3,545
^Busⁱ^nes^s^Sys^t^em^s^M^oderⁿⁱ^z^atⁱ^oⁿ¹⁹⁷¹⁶⁷¹⁹⁷²⁴⁵²¹³
^Hea^lth^Iⁿ^su^r^{ance Tax C}^r^edit
^A^d^minⁱ^stra^tioⁿ²⁰¹⁵¹⁵¹⁵¹⁵
^Res^c^is^sⁱ^on⁽²⁹⁾^—^—^—^—
^T^o^{tal Appropriations}^{, Dept. of the T}^reas^u^ry^b
^$11,581^$11,606^$11,528^$11,706^$11,624
^Source:^Fig^u^r^es^{are f}^r^om^a^b^udg^{et au}^th^ority^{table prov}^{ided by}^th^{e Hou}^s^{e C}^o^m^m^{ittee on}
^A^ppropriation^s^{, ex}^{cept S}^eⁿ^a^{te C}^o^m^m^{ittee f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^are^f^r^om^{a bu}^dg^{et table in}^S^.^R^e^{pt. 109-}^{109. Becau}^s^e
^o^f^dⁱ^f^f^e^rⁱⁿ^g^tr^eatm^eⁿ^t^o^f^o^f^f^s^{ets, th}^{e to}^{tals w}^{ill n}^o^{t alw}^a^y^s^m^a^tch^th^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^’^s^t^o^t^a^{ls. T}^h^e
^fⁱ^g^u^r^{es w}^ithⁱⁿ^th^{is tab}^l^{e m}^a^y^dⁱ^f^f^e^r^slig^h^tly^f^r^o^m^th^o^s^{e in}^th^{e tex}^t^d^u^e^to^su^p^p^l^em^en^tal^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^,
^r^e^scⁱ^ssi^oⁿ^s,^aⁿ^d^o^t^he^r^fundⁱ^{ng a}^c^tⁱ^o^ns.^Co^l^u^mⁿ^{s m}^a^y^no^t^a^d^d^d^u^e^t^o^r^o^undⁱ^{ng o}^r^e^x^c^l^usi^o^{n o}^f^sm^a^l^l^e^r
^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^lin^e-^item^s^.
^{a. F}^Y^{2006 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^ref^l^ect^an^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^of^1%^.
^{b. Ex}^clu^d^es^{a res}^c^is^sⁱ^on^of^{$29 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e IR}^{S accou}ⁿ^t^.

This section examines FY2007 appropriations for the Treasury Department and
its operating bureaus. FY2007 appropriations for the largest operating bureau, the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), are examined in the following section.
The Treasury Department performs a variety of governmental functions.
Foremost among them are protecting the nation’s financial system against a host of
illicit activities (e.g., money laundering and terrorist financing), collecting tax
revenue, enforcing tax laws, managing and accounting for federal debt, administering
the federal government’s finances, regulating financial institutions, and producing
and distributing coins and currency.
At its most basic level of organization, Treasury consists of departmental offices
and operating bureaus. In general, the offices are responsible for formulating and
implementing policy initiatives and managing Treasury’s operations, while the
bureaus perform specific duties assigned to Treasury, mainly through statutory
mandates. In the past decade or so, the bureaus have accounted for more than 95%
of the agency’s funding and work force.
With one possible exception, the bureaus can be divided into those engaged in
financial management and regulation and those engaged in law enforcement. In
recent decades, the Comptroller of the Currency, U.S. Mint, Bureau of Engraving and
Printing, Financial Management Service (FMS), Bureau of Public Debt, Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI), and Office of Thrift Supervision
have undertaken tasks related to the management of the federal government’s
finances or the supervision and regulation of the U.S. financial system. By contrast,
law enforcement has been the central focus of the tasks handled by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; U.S. Secret Service; Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center; U.S. Customs Service; Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
(FinCEN); and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. Since the advent of the Department of
Homeland Security in 2002, Treasury’s direct involvement in law enforcement has
shrunk considerably. The possible exception to this simplified dichotomy is the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), whose main duties encompass both the collection
of tax revenue and the enforcement of tax laws and regulations.
Treasury Offices and Bureaus (Excluding the Internal Revenue
Service). Funding for many bureaus comes largely from annual appropriations.
Such is the case for the IRS, FMS, Bureau of Public Debt, FinCEN, Alcohol and
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), and the CDFI. But there are
some exceptions to this heavy reliance on appropriated funds. The Treasury
Franchise Fund, U.S. Mint, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision finance their
operations largely from the fees they charge for services and products they provide.
In FY2007, Treasury is receiving $11.624 billion in appropriated funds, or 0.4%
more than it received in FY2006, after allowing for a rescission of 1%. Most of these
funds are being used to finance the operations of the IRS, which is receiving $10.597
billion in FY2007. The remaining $1.027 billion is distributed among Treasury’s
other bureaus and departmental offices in the following amounts: Departmental
offices (which includes the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence — or TFI

— and the Office of Foreign Assets Control) is receiving $216 million; Department-
wide systems and capital investments, $30 million; OIG, $17 million; TIGTA, $133
million; CDFI, $55 million; FinCEN, $73 million; FMS, $235 million; Alcohol and
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (ATB), $91 million; and Bureau of the Public Debt,
$176 million.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). To help finance its operations and
multitude of spending programs, the federal government levies individual and
corporate income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes,
customs duties, and miscellaneous taxes and fees. The federal agency responsible
for administering and collecting these taxes and fees (except for customs duties) is
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In discharging this responsibility, the IRS
receives and processes tax returns, related documents, and tax payments; disburses
refunds; enforces compliance through audits and other procedures; collects
delinquent taxes; and provides a host of services to taxpayers with the aim of
enabling them to understand their rights and responsibilities under the federal tax
code and resolving problems without litigation. In FY2006, the agency collected
$2.537 trillion before refunds, the largest component of which was individual income
tax revenue of $1.236 trillion.
The IRS receives funding for its operations from three sources: appropriated
funds, user fees, and so-called reimbursables, which are payments the IRS receives
from other federal agencies and state governments for services it provides. In
FY2006, appropriated funds accounted for 98% of IRS’s operating budget, with user
fees and reimbursables each adding another 1%.
Starting in FY2007, appropriated funds are distributed among five accounts:
^!(1) taxpayer services, which provides resources for pre-filing
taxpayer assistance, filing and account services, administrative
services for IRS employees, and senior IRS management;
^!(2) enforcement, which covers the cost of compliance services,
research and statistical analysis, and administration of the earned
income tax credit;
^!(3) operations support, which addresses the improvement and
maintenance of the agency’s information and management systems;
^!(4) business systems modernization (or BSM), which provides
funds for developing new information systems for tax administration
and acquiring the hardware and software needed to integrate them
into IRS’s operations;
^!and (5) health insurance tax credit administration, which covers
the cost of administering the refundable tax credit for health
insurance established by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform
Act of 2002.

In FY2007, the IRS is receiving $10.597 billion in appropriated funds — or
0.5% more than it received in FY2006. Of this amount, $2.138 billion is designated
for taxpayer services, $4.686 for enforcement, $3.545 for operations support, $213
million for the BSM program, and $15 million for administration of the health
insurance tax credit. The IRS is one of the many federal agencies being funded in
FY2007 under a year-long continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 20) enacted in February

2007. Under the resolution, the “requirements, authorities, conditions, limitations,

and other provisions” that governed the use of FY2006 appropriations by all affected
agencies are also to govern their use of FY2007 appropriations. As a result, certain
restrictions that applied to funding for IRS operations in FY2006 also apply to the
funding for IRS operations in FY2007. Specifically, the IRS may not reorganize or
reduce its workforce in FY2007 without the consent of the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees. In addition, during FY2007, the IRS is barred from
entering the market for tax return preparation software, and from instituting
reductions in taxpayer service until TIGTA completes a report on the effects of such
reductions on taxpayer compliance.

Title III: Department of Housing
and Urban Development
Table 6. Title III: Housing and Urban Development
Appropriations, FY2006 to FY2007
⁽^b^u^d^g^e^{t au}^th^o^r^ityⁱⁿ^$^b^illioⁿ^s⁾
^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Program^FY²⁰⁰⁶^enacted^FY²⁰⁰⁷^request^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Hou^s^e^F^Y²⁰⁰⁷^{S. Co}^m^.^enactedⁿ
^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s
^T^e^na^{nt B}^a^se^d^Re^nta^l^A^ssistaⁿ^c^e
⁽ⁱⁿ^c^l^u^des^adv^aⁿ^{ced appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ⁾^o
^(S^{ec. 8)}^$15.418^$15.920^$15.846^$15.920^$15.920
^P^r^oj^{ect B}^a^s^e^{d R}^eⁿ^t^{al A}^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce^o
^(S^ec.8)^5.037^5.676^5.476^5.676^5.976
^{Sec. 8 s}^u^pplem^en^tal^a^0.390^0.000^0.000^0.000^0.000
^Pu^blⁱ^c^h^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^capi^t^a^l^f^uⁿ^d^2.439^2.178^2.208^b^2.460^2.439
^Pu^blⁱ^c^h^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^operatⁱⁿ^g^f^uⁿ^d^3.564^3.564^3.564^3.660^3.864^o
^HOP^{E VI}⁰^.⁰⁹⁹^c^0.000^c^0.000^b^0.100^0.099
^Nativ^{e A}^m^erican^h^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^block
^g^r^an^t^s^0.624^0.626^0.626^0.626^0.624
^In^di^an^H^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^L^o^an^G^u^aran^t^e^e⁰^.004^0.006^0.004^0.006^0.006
^N^a^tⁱ^v^{e H}^a^w^aⁱⁱ^aⁿ^Bl^ock^G^r^an^t⁰^.009^0.006^0.009^0.009^0.009^o
^N^a^tⁱ^v^{e H}^a^w^aⁱⁱ^aⁿ^L^o^an^G^u^aran^t^e^e⁰^.001^0.001^0.001^0.001^0.001
^H^o^usi^ng,^p^e^r^s^oⁿ^{s w}ⁱ^t^h^A^I^D^S
^(H^O^P^WA⁾⁰^.286^0.300^0.300^0.295^0.286
^Rur^a^l^H^o^usi^{ng E}^c^oⁿ^o^mⁱ^c
^D^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t⁰^.017^0.000^0.000^0.020^0.017
^Co^m^m^uni^t^y^D^e^ve^l^o^p^m^eⁿ^t^Fund^d^e^o
⁽^Iⁿ^c^l^udⁱ^{ng CD}^B^G⁾^4.178^3.032^4.215^4.215^3.772
^C^D^{F s}^u^pplem^en^tal^a^16.700^0.000^0.000^0.000^0.000
^S^ectⁱ^oⁿ^{108 L}^o^an^G^u^aran^t^ees^0.004^0.000^0.003^0.003^0.004
^Browⁿ^fⁱ^e^l^d^s^redev^e^l^opm^en^t⁰^.010^0.000^0.000^e^0.000^0.010
^H^O^M^{E In}^v^e^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^Partⁿ^e^rs^hⁱ^ps^1.757^1.917^1.917^1.942^1.757
^H^o^m^e^l^e^s^s^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce G}^r^an^t^s^1.327^1.536^f^1.536^1.511^1.442^o
^S^e^l^f^-^h^el^{p H}^o^m^e^owⁿ^e^rs^hⁱ^p⁰^.060^0.040^0.060^0.066^0.049^o
^H^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r t}^h^{e el}^derl^y⁰^.735^0.545^0.747^0.750^0.735
^H^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r t}^h^{e di}^s^a^bl^ed^0.237^0.119^0.240^0.240^0.237
^H^o^usi^{ng Co}^unse^lⁱ^{ng A}^ssi^st^aⁿ^c^e^g^0.000^0.045^0.000^0.000^0.000
^R^eⁿ^t^al^H^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce^0.026^0.025^0.025^0.025^0.026
^R^e^s^earch^an^{d t}^echⁿ^o^l^o^g^y^0.056^0.068^0.056^0.060^0.050^o
^Fair^h^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^activ^ities⁰^.0⁴⁶⁰^.⁰⁴⁵⁰^.⁰⁴⁵⁰^.⁰⁴⁵⁰^.⁰⁴⁶
^Of^fⁱ^{ce, lead h}^{azard con}^t^rol⁰^.150^0.115^0.150^0.152^0.150
^S^a^l^a^ri^es^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es^0.573^0.590^h^0.493^h^0.594^h^0.581^p
^Workⁱⁿ^g^capi^t^a^l^f^uⁿ^d^0.195^0.220^0.000ⁱ^0.220^0.195
^M^a^nufa^c^t^ur^e^d^H^o^usi^{ng Fe}^e^s^T^r^ust^j
^Fund^0.013^0.016^0.016^0.016^0.013
^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^F^e^deral^H^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g^j
^En^t^e^rpri^s^e^Ov^ersⁱ^g^h^t^0.060^0.062^0.062^0.068^0.060

^Program^FY²⁰⁰⁶^enacted^FY²⁰⁰⁷^request^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Hou^s^e^F^Y²⁰⁰⁷^{S. Co}^m^.^FY²⁰⁰⁷^enactedⁿ
^FHA^E^x^p^e^nses^j^0.727^0.734^0.714^0.724^0.722^q
^GNMA^Ex^p^eⁿ^s^es^j^0.011^0.061^k^0.011^0.011^0.011
^In^s^p^ect^{or G}^eⁿ^e^ral⁰^.081^0.083^0.083^0.091^0.082^p
^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^S^u^bt^ot^al^wⁱ^t^h^ou^t
^s^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^37.743^37.527^38.405^39.504^39.182
^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^S^u^bt^ot^al^wⁱ^t^h
^s^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^49.633^37.527^38.405^39.504^39.182
^Re^sc^issioⁿ^s
^{Sec. 8 recaptu}^res^(res^cis^sⁱ^on⁾^l^-²^.050^-²^.000^-²^.000^-²^.000^-¹^.650^o
^H^O^P^{E V}^I^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^0.000^-⁰^.099^0.000^0.000^0.000
^Browⁿ^fⁱ^e^l^d^s^redev^e^l^opm^en^t
^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^-⁰^.010^0.000^0.000^0.000^0.000
^Ecoⁿ^o^m^{ic Dev}^e^lo^p^m^en^{t I}ⁿ^itiativ^e^m
^R^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^0.000^-⁰^.356^0.000^0.000^0.000
^R^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^s^S^u^bt^ot^al^-²^.060^-²^.455^-²^.000^-²^.000^-¹^.650
^Of^f^s^ettin^g^C^o^llection^s^an^{d R}^eceipts
^M^a^nufa^c^t^ur^e^d^H^o^usi^{ng Fe}^e^s^T^r^ust
^F^uⁿ^d^-⁰^.013^-⁰^.016^-⁰^.016^-⁰^.016^-⁰^.013
^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^F^e^deral^H^o^u^sⁱⁿ^g
^En^t^e^rpri^s^e^O^v^ersⁱ^g^h^t^-⁰^.060^-⁰^.062^-⁰^.062^-⁰^.068^-⁰^.060
^Fe^d^e^r^a^l^H^o^usi^{ng A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^oⁿ
^(F^H^A⁾^-^1.648^-⁰^.652^-⁰^.849^-⁰^.652^-⁰^.652
^G^N^M^A^-^0.368^-⁰^.224^k^-⁰^.181^-⁰^.181^-⁰^.181
^O^f^f^s^et^s^S^u^bt^ot^al^-²^.089^-⁰^.954^-¹^.108^-⁰^.917^-⁰^.906
^T^o^{tal before s}^upplem^enta^ls^$33.594^$34.118^$35.297^$36.588^$36.626
^T^o^{tal w}ⁱ^{th s}^upplem^enta^ls^$50.684^$34.118^$35.297^$36.588^$36.626
^Source:^{Prepared by}^C^R^S^bas^e^{d on}^H^.^R^.^{5576, H}^.^R^e^pt^109-^495,^S^.^R^e^pt^109-^293,^P.L^.^110-^{5, an}^d
^t^a^bl^es^pr^o^vⁱ^d^e^d^b^y^t^h^{e A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee. F}^Y^{2006 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^{are adj}^u^s^t^{ed t}^o^ref^l^ect^t^h^{e 1%}
^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^en^act^{ed i}ⁿ^P.L^.^109-^{148. F}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2006 en}^act^{ed an}^{d F}^Y^{2007 requ}^es^t
^con^t^ain^e^{d in}^{earlier v}^e^rs^ion^s^of^th^is^{table w}^e^{re bas}^e^{d on}^C^R^S^e^s^tⁱ^m^ates^{, w}^h^ich^h^a^v^e^sⁱⁿ^{ce been}
^rep^l^aced^w^ith^Ho^u^s^{e A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^{ittee estim}^ates.
^a.^P^.^L^.^109-^{148 prov}^{ided em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^pplem^en^{tal h}^u^rrican^{e recov}^e^ry^f^uⁿ^d^s^,ⁱⁿ^clu^dⁱⁿ^g^$390^m^illion
^f^o^r^th^{e Section}^{8 v}^o^u^c^h^e^{r prog}^ram^an^{d $11.5}^b^illion^f^o^{r C}^D^B^G^{. A}ⁿ^addition^a^{l $5.2 billion}^f^o^r
^C^D^BG^w^a^sⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed i}ⁿ^P.L^.^109-^{234. T}^h^es^{e s}^p^eci^al^pu^rpos^{e f}^uⁿ^d^s^w^e^{re n}^o^t^{a part}^of^t^h^{e reg}^u^l^ar
^F^Y^{2006 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^l^a^w^(P.L^{. 109-}^115).
^{b. A}^f^l^{oor am}^endm^en^{t added $30 m}^illion^{to th}^{e P}^u^{blic Hou}^sⁱⁿ^g^C^a^{pital Fu}ⁿ^d^{. Floor s}^t^atem^en^ts
ⁱⁿ^dⁱ^c^a^t^e^d^t^h^a^t^t^h^e^fundⁱ^{ng w}^a^{s i}ⁿ^t^e^nd^e^d^fo^r^t^h^e^H^O^P^E^V^I^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^;^ho^w^e^ve^r^,^no^l^a^ngua^ge^w^a^s
ⁱⁿ^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^th^{e b}^{ill d}ⁱ^r^ectin^g^th^{at th}^{e f}^uⁿ^d^{s b}^e^u^s^ed^f^o^r^HOP^{E VI}^.
^{c. T}^h^{e P}^r^es^iden^t’^s^FY2007^bu^dg^et^requ^es^ted^th^at^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^res^cⁱⁿ^d^th^{e $99 m}^illion^{it prov}^{ided f}^o^{r th}^e
^H^O^P^{E V}^I^prog^ramⁱⁿ^F^Y^2006.
^{d. T}^h^{e C}^o^m^m^uⁿ^ity^D^e^ve^l^o^p^m^en^{t Fu}ⁿ^d^accouⁿ^t^f^uⁿ^d^s^th^{e C}^D^B^G^prog^ram^an^{d oth}^e^{r related}
^com^m^uⁿ^ity^dev^e^lopm^en^{t prog}^ram^s^{. C}^D^B^G^accouⁿ^t^s^f^o^r^th^e^larg^es^t^portion^of^th^{e C}^D^{F accou}ⁿ^t^.
^{e. A}^f^l^{oor am}^en^dm^en^{t added $15 m}^illion^{to th}^{e C}^o^m^m^uⁿ^ity^Dev^e^lopm^en^{t Fu}ⁿ^d^{. Floor}^s^t^a^t^em^en^ts
ⁱⁿ^dⁱ^cated^th^{at th}^{e f}^uⁿ^d^{s w}^e^r^e^to^b^e^u^s^ed^f^o^r^B^r^o^wⁿ^f^ield^s.
^f^.^T^h^e^P^r^es^iden^t’^s^requ^es^tⁱⁿ^clu^d^ed^{$25 m}^illion^th^{at w}^o^u^l^{d be tran}^s^f^{erred to th}^{e Departm}^eⁿ^t^of^L^a^bor.
^g^.^T^hⁱ^s^prog^ramⁱ^s^t^y^pi^cal^l^y^f^u^nd^e^d^as^{a s}^e^t^-^asⁱ^d^{e w}ⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^t^h^{e H}^O^M^{E prog}^ram^.^In^F^Y^{2006, i}^t^w^a^s
^f^uⁿ^d^{ed at $42 m}^illion^w^ithⁱⁿ^th^e^H^O^M^{E accou}ⁿ^t^.^In^recen^{t y}^ears^,ⁱⁿ^clu^dⁱⁿ^g^{FY2007, th}^e
^Presⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^bu^dg^et^h^a^s^requ^es^t^e^{d t}^h^at^t^h^e^p^r^og^ram^{be f}^uⁿ^d^{ed s}^e^parat^e^l^y^f^r^om^H^O^M^{E. T}^h^e

^Hou^s^e,^Sen^a^te,^an^{d f}ⁱⁿ^a^{l en}^{acted v}^e^rs^ion^s^of^th^e^{FY2007 f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^{bill con}^tin^u^e^{d to f}^uⁿ^d^Hou^sⁱⁿ^g
^C^o^uⁿ^s^elin^g^as^{a s}^e^t-^as^{ide w}^ithⁱⁿ^th^{e HOME accou}ⁿ^t^{at $42 m}^illion^.
^{h. T}^h^{e P}^r^es^iden^t’^s^requ^es^{t as}^s^u^m^e^{d $4 m}^illionⁱⁿ^s^a^vⁱⁿ^g^s^f^r^om^{a leg}ⁱ^s^l^ativ^{e propos}^{al. Neith}^{er the}
^Ho^u^s^e-^p^a^ssed^b^{ill, th}^{e Sen}^a^{te co}^m^m^ittee-^p^a^ssed^b^{ill, o}^r^th^{e f}ⁱⁿ^a^l^eⁿ^a^c^t^e^d^b^{ill assu}^m^e^d^su^ch
^sa^vi^ngs.
^{i. T}^h^{e Hou}^s^{e A}^ppropriation^s^C^o^m^m^ittee-^pas^s^e^{d v}^e^r^sⁱ^o^{n in}^clu^d^{ed $100 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e W}^o^rkⁱⁿ^g
^C^a^pital^Fuⁿ^d^{. A}^f^l^{oor am}^en^dm^en^{t decreas}^ed^th^e^accouⁿ^t^by^$100^m^illion^{to of}^f^s^{et a $70 m}^illion
ⁱⁿ^creas^{e in}^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r ten}^aⁿ^t^-^b^as^{ed ren}^t^{al as}^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce.
^j^.^T^h^{e adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rativ^{e cos}^t^s^of^th^es^{e prog}^ram^s^{are g}^eⁿ^e^rally^{paid by}^of^f^s^ettin^g^receipts^{collected by}^th^e
^prog^ram^.^In^s^o^m^e^cas^es^{, th}^{e adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rativ^{e cos}^t^s^{are f}^u^lly^of^f^s^{et by}^{collected f}^ees^{; in}^oth^e^rs^,
^th^ey^are^partially^of^f^s^{et, an}^{d in}^oth^e^rs^{, th}^e^of^f^s^ettin^g^receipts^{are larg}^{er th}^an^th^{e adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rativ^e
^co^{sts, an}^d^th^{e ex}^{cess are u}^s^ed^to^o^f^f^s^{et th}^{e to}^{tal co}^{st o}^f^th^{e HUD b}^u^d^g^{et. See th}^e^o^f^f^s^ettin^g
^receipts^portion^of^Ta^ble⁶^.
^k^.^T^h^{e P}^r^es^iden^t’^s^bu^dg^{et docu}^m^en^tsⁱⁿ^{dicate th}^{at a n}^e^w^GNMA^propos^{al w}^o^u^l^{d cos}^t^{$43 m}^illion^,
^bu^{t its}^cos^t^s^w^o^u^l^{d be of}^f^s^{et by}^an^addition^a^{l $43 m}^illionⁱⁿ^of^f^s^ettin^g^receip^t^s^.^T^h^e^H^o^us^e,
^Sen^a^{te, an}^d^fⁱⁿ^a^{l en}^acted^b^{ills d}ⁱ^dⁿ^o^{t in}^clu^d^{e th}^{at assu}^m^p^tioⁿ^.
^{l. Each}^y^{ear, u}ⁿ^oblig^{ated balan}^ces^{are recaptu}^re^d^f^r^om^th^{e Hou}^sⁱⁿ^g^C^e^rtif^{icate Fu}ⁿ^d^{, an}^accouⁿ^t^th^at
^prev^iou^s^ly^f^uⁿ^d^ed^th^{e ten}^aⁿ^t^-^b^as^{ed an}^{d proj}^ect-^b^as^{ed Section}^{8 ren}^t^{al as}^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce prog}^ram^s^{, an}^d
^w^h^ich^{still co}ⁿ^t^ain^s^loⁿ^g^-^ter^m^Sectioⁿ⁸^coⁿ^t^r^{acts f}^uⁿ^d^edⁱⁿ^p^r^io^r^y^ear^s.
^m^.^T^h^{e Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^F^Y^{2007 bu}^dg^et^requ^es^t^e^{d t}^h^at^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^res^cⁱⁿ^{d t}^h^{e f}^u^l^l^am^ouⁿ^tⁱ^t^pr^o^vⁱ^d^e^dⁱⁿ
^FY2006^f^o^r^Econ^om^{ic Dev}^e^lopm^en^{t In}^itiativ^{e an}^{d Neig}^h^borh^{ood In}^itiativ^e^earm^a^rk^s^w^ithⁱⁿ^th^e
^C^D^{F accou}ⁿ^t^.
ⁿ^.^T^h^{e F}^Y^{2007 y}^ear-^l^on^g^con^tin^uⁱⁿ^g^res^o^lu^tion^f^uⁿ^d^ed^m^o^s^t^accouⁿ^t^s^{at th}^{eir F}^Y^{2006 en}^{acted lev}^e^l;
^h^o^w^e^v^e^{r, th}^{e C}^R^specifⁱ^{ed h}ⁱ^g^h^e^{r or lo}^w^e^{r f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^lev^e^{ls f}^o^{r som}^e^{HUD accou}ⁿ^t^s.
^{o. T}^h^{e C}^Rⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed a s}^p^ecifⁱ^{c am}^ouⁿ^t^f^o^{r th}^is^accouⁿ^t^,^w^h^ich^dif^f^e^{red f}^r^om^th^{e F}^Y^{2006 en}^{acted lev}^e^l.
^{p. T}^h^{e C}^R^appropri^a^t^e^{d s}^u^ch^s^u^m^s^as^m^a^y^{be n}^eces^s^a^ry^t^o^f^uⁿ^d^50%^of^t^h^e^cos^t^of^t^h^{e s}^t^at^u^t^ory^cos^t^-
^of^-^livⁱⁿ^g^s^a^laryⁱⁿ^creas^{e approv}^{ed f}^o^{r F}^Y^2007.^T^h^is^prov^is^ion^af^f^{ected th}^{e HUD s}^a^laries^an^d
^ex^pen^s^es^accouⁿ^t^as^w^e^{ll as}^th^{e In}^s^p^{ector Gen}^e^ral’^s^accouⁿ^t^{. T}^h^{e am}^ouⁿ^t^s^h^owⁿ^h^e^{re m}^a^y
^ch^an^g^e^if^es^tim^ates^of^th^{e cos}^t^of^th^is^prov^is^ion^ch^an^g^e^.
^q^.^Each^y^ear^{, th}^{e Co}ⁿ^g^r^essioⁿ^{al B}^u^d^g^{et Of}^fⁱ^{ce m}^a^k^e^s^an^estim^{ate o}^f^h^o^w^m^u^ch^ad^d^itioⁿ^a^{l, au}^th^o^r^ized
^coⁿ^t^r^{act au}^th^o^r^ity^FHA^w^{ill u}^s^{e. I}ⁿ^F^Y^2006,^C^B^O^e^s^tⁱ^m^a^t^e^d^{HUD w}^o^u^l^d^u^s^{e $}⁵^m^illioⁿⁱⁿ
^ad^d^itioⁿ^a^l^c^oⁿ^t^r^{act au}^th^o^r^ity^{. T}^h^{e CR d}ⁱ^dⁿ^o^{t in}^clu^d^{e th}^{at $}⁵^m^illioⁿⁱⁿ^ad^d^itioⁿ^a^{l co}ⁿ^t^r^act
^ex^pen^s^es^.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget
and Key Policy Issues¹²
The President’s FY2007 budget proposed to fund the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) at approximately $34.1 billion, just over HUD’s
$33.6 billion budget for FY2006 (not including FY2006 supplementals related to
Hurricane Katrina). Although the overall request appeared to be an increase, the
amount requested actually would have resulted in a slight decrease, with a number
of HUD programs slated for funding cuts. This seeming contradiction resulted from
a decrease in the amount of offsetting receipts available to subsidize the HUD
budget. As can be seen in Table 6, appropriations would have declined by more than
$200 million and offsetting receipts would have declined by more than $1 billion
under the President’s request.
On June 14, 2006, the House passed its version of the FY2007 Transportation,
Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Judiciary, District of
Columbia and Independent Agencies (TTHUD) Appropriations bill (H.R. 5576),

¹² For more details on the proposed HUD budget, see CRS Report RL33344, The
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): Fiscal Year 2007 Budget, by
Maggie McCarty, Libby Perl, Bruce Foote, Eugene Boyd, and Meredith Peterson.

which would have provided $35.3 billion for HUD. Floor amendments that would
have increased funding for Section 8 vouchers, lead-based paint hazard control,
HOPE VI, supportive housing for the elderly, and Brownfields redevelopment were
added to the bill. On July 27, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved
its version of H.R. 5576, which would have provided $36.6 billion for HUD.
Congress did not enact the majority of FY2007 appropriations bills before the
end of the 2006 fiscal year. In order to fund government operations until final
appropriations bills were enacted, Congress passed a series of continuing resolutions
(P.L. 109-289, P.L. 109-369, P.L. 109-383) which funded HUD programs at the
lower of the House-passed or FY2006 enacted funding level. On February 15, 2007,
President Bush signed a revised year-long continuing resolution into law (P.L. 110-
5). With some exceptions, the act funds accounts at their FY2006 levels. (For more
details on the HUD budget, see CRS Report RL33344, The Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD): Fiscal Year 2007 Budget.)
Community Development Fund and related programs. The
Community Development Fund (CDF) funds the Community Development Block
Grant program (CDBG) and the Economic Development and Neighborhood
Initiatives (EDI and NI). CDBG provides formula grant funding to states and
localities to be used for community development-related purposes; EDIs and NIs are
collections of congressionally directed projects. The CDBG formula grant would
have been funded at just under $3 billion in the Administration’s budget for FY2007,
compared to $3.7 billion in FY2006. The President proposed no new funding for
EDIs and NIs, and requested that Congress rescind the funds provided in FY2006.
The FY2007 budget would also have eliminated funding for several other community
development-related programs, including Brownfields redevelopment, Section 108
loan guarantees, and Rural Housing and Economic Development.
The House-passed bill, H.R. 5576, included about $4.2 billion for the
Community Development Fund, $1.2 billion more than the Administration request.
The funding level recommended by the House included about $3.9 billion for the
CDBG formula program, $57.4 million for Indian tribes, $250 million for Economic
Development Initiative earmarks, and $20 million for Neighborhood Initiative
earmarks. Although the bill as reported would have provided no funding for the
Brownfields Redevelopment program or Section 108 loan guarantees, funding for
both programs was provided through floor amendments ($3 million for Section 108
and $15 million for Brownfields). No funding was included for Rural Housing and
Economic Development.
The Senate committee-passed version of H.R. 5576 would have provided the
same level of funding for the Community Development Fund as the House-passed
bill, about $4.2 billion. The Senate committee recommended about $3.9 billion for
the CDBG formula program, $58 million for Indian tribes, $250 million for
Economic Development Initiative earmarks, and $30 million for Neighborhood
Initiative earmarks. The Rural Housing and Economic Development program would
have been funded at $20 million and Section 108 loan guarantees would have
received $3 million under the Senate committee-passed bill. No funding was
provided for the Brownfields Redevelopment program.

The CR provided almost $3.8 billion for the Community Development Fund,
a decrease from the FY2006 funding level of $4.2 billion. The CDBG formula
program is funded at just over $3.7 billion, about equal to the amount provided in
FY2006. Funding is also provided for the Rural Housing and Economic Development
program ($16.8 million), the Section 108 loan guarantees program ($3.7 million), and
the Brownfields Redevelopment program ($9.9 million). No funds were provided
for Economic Development Initiative or Neighborhood Initiative congressionally
designated projects.
Housing Programs for the Elderly and the Disabled. The
Administration’s budget proposed to reduce funding for the Section 202 housing for
the elderly program from $734.6 million in FY2006 to $545.5 million in FY2007, a
cut of almost 26%. However, the House-passed bill would have funded the program
at approximately $746.6 million, about $12 million more than FY2006.¹³ The Senate
committee-passed bill recommended $750 million for Section 202. The FY2007
Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 110-5) did not specify a funding
level for elderly housing, which therefore received its FY2006 level of $734.6
million for FY2007.
For the second year in a row, the Administration’s budget proposed to halve
funding for the Section 811 housing for the disabled program, to $118.8 million from
$236.6 million in FY2006. As passed by the House, H.R. 5576 would have increased¹⁴
funding to nearly $240 million. The Senate committee-passed bill would have
provided $240 million for Section 811. Under the year-long CR, Section 811 is
funded at the FY2006 level of $236.6 million for FY2007.
Public Housing/HOPE VI. Funding for the federal public housing program
comes through three main programs: the Operating Fund, the Capital Fund, and the
HOPE VI program. The first two are formula grant programs, the former to cover
the costs of the day-to-day maintenance and operation of public housing and the latter
to cover major modernization costs. HOPE VI is a competitive grant program that
funds large scale revitalization of public housing.
The President proposed $3.5 billion for the Operating Fund in FY2007 (level
with FY2006) and almost $2.2 billion for the public housing Capital Fund (an 11%
reduction from FY2006). As in FY2006, the President asked Congress to provide no
new money for the HOPE VI program for FY2007, and to rescind the funding that
Congress provided in the previous year before the Department awarded it to grantees.
The House Appropriations committee-reported bill would have funded all three
programs at the President’s request. A floor amendment (H.Amdt. 1016) offered by
Representative Artur Davis would have added $30 million to the Capital Fund,
although his floor statements indicated it was intended for the HOPE VI program.
The House-passed version of the FY2007 funding bill would not have rescinded
FY2006 HOPE VI funds. The Senate committee-passed bill would have funded the

¹³ A floor amendment (H.Amdt. 1020) added $12 million for the Section 202 program to the
$734.6 million included in the committee-reported bill.
¹⁴ A floor amendment (H.Amdt. 1020) added $3 million for the Section 811 program to the
$236.6 million included in the committee-reported bill.

Operating Fund at $3.6 billion, the Capital Fund at $2.4 billion (both increases over
FY2006) and would have funded HOPE VI at $100 million. It would not have
rescinded FY2006 funding. The CR did not contain a specific funding level for the
Capital Fund or HOPE VI, and so the accounts are funded at the FY2006 levels. The
CR funded the Operating Fund at $3.8 million, a $300 million increase over the
FY2006 level.
Title IV: The Judiciary
The Judiciary Budget and Key Policy Issues
As a co-equal branch of government, the judiciary presents its budget to the
President, who transmits it to Congress unaltered. Table 7 shows the FY2006
enacted amount, the FY2007 request, the House-passed amount, the Senate
committee-approved amount, and the FY2007 enacted amount.
Table 7. Title IV: The Judiciary Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007
⁽^m^illioⁿ^s^o^f^d^o^llar^s⁾
^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^B^udg^et^G^r^o^uping^{s a}ⁿ^Acco^unt^s^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^Hou^s^e^Reported^Ena^c^t^e^d
Supreme Court
^Salaries^an^{d Ex}^pen^s^es^$60.1^$63.4^$63.4^$63.4^$62.6
^B^uⁱ^l^dⁱ^{ng a}ⁿ^d^G^r^o^und^s^5.6^13.0^13.0^13.0^11.4
Subtotal^65.7^76.4^76.4^76.4^74.0
U.S. Court of Appeals for the^23.8^26.3^26.0^25.3^25.3
Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of International Trade^15.3^16.2^16.2^16.2^15.8
^C^o^u^r^ts^of^A^ppeals^,^Dis^t^{rict C}^o^u^r^ts^{, an}^{d Oth}^e^{r J}^u^{dicial Serv}^ices
^Salaries^an^{d Ex}^pen^s^es^a^4,330.2⁴^,691.2⁴^,560.1⁴^,587.3⁴^,480.5
^C^o^u^r^t^S^ecu^ri^t^y^368.3^410.3^400.3^397.7^378.7
^D^e^f^eⁿ^d^{er S}^e^rvⁱ^ces^709.8^803.9^750.0^761.1^776.3
^Fees^of^J^u^rors^an^d^60.7^63.1^63.1^63.1^60.9
^C^o^mmi^s^sⁱ^oⁿ^e^r^s
Subtotal^5,469.0⁵^,968.5⁵^,773.5⁵^,809.3⁵^,696.4
Administrative Office of the U.S.^69.6^75.3^73.8^74.3^72.4
Courts
Federal Judicial Center^22.1^23.8^23.5^23.4^22.9
United States Sentencing^14.3^15.7^15.5^15.3^14.6
Commission
Judicial Retirement Funds^40.6^58.3^58.3^58.3^58.3
Tot a l $5,720.3 $6,260.5 $6,063.2 $6,098.4 $5,979.7
^So^ur^ce:^{Data w}^e^r^e^p^r^o^v^id^ed^b^y^th^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tiv^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^th^{e U.S. Co}^u^r^{ts, th}^{e Ho}^u^s^e
^A^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^{ittee (}^C^ongr^es^sⁱ^on^a^l^Recor^d^{, Ju}ⁿ^e^{14, 2006, pp. H}^3969-^H^{3970), an}^{d t}^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e

^Co^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee on}^A^ppropriation^s^{report (S}^.R^{ept. 109-}^{293) accom}^p^an^yⁱⁿ^g^H.R^.^{5576. T}^h^{e F}^Y²⁰⁰⁶
^en^{acted am}^ouⁿ^tⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^{a 1% acros}^s^-^t^h^e^-^b^o^a^{rd g}^o^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^-^w^{ide res}^c^is^sⁱ^on^an^{d th}^{e s}^u^pplem^en^{tal $18}
^m^illioⁿ^coⁿ^t^ain^e^dⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.¹⁰⁹^-^{148. Th}^e^F^Y^{2007 en}^act^{ed am}^ouⁿ^t^w^a^s^provⁱ^d^{ed by}^t^h^{e H}^o^u^s^e
^A^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Su^b^c^o^m^m^{ittee o}ⁿ^Fin^aⁿ^c^ial^Ser^v^ices^an^d^Gen^e^r^a^{l Go}^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^{. Su}^b^p^a^r^t^{s m}^a^yⁿ^o^{t ad}^d
^u^p^to^to^{tals d}^u^{e to}^r^o^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
^{a. T}^h^{e Vaccin}^e^Iⁿ^j^u^r^y^C^o^m^p^en^satioⁿ^T^r^u^s^{t Fu}ⁿ^d^(ab^o^u^{t $}⁴^m^illioⁿ⁾^{is in}^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^th^{e Salaries an}^d
^Ex^pen^s^es^accouⁿ^t^.
As Table 7 shows, while the FY2007 Revised Continuing Appropriations
Resolution (P.L. 110-5) provided the same level of funding to agencies in FY2007
as they received in FY2006, unless otherwise provided in the resolution, the judiciary
was one of the entities that received an increase over its FY2006 level. The FY2007
appropriations for the judiciary would essentially maintain current on-board staffing
levels and address the immigration-related caseload.
In his January 11, 2007, letters to the Speaker of the House and the Majority and
Minority leaders in both the House and the Senate, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.,
expressed his concern about a possible year-long continuing resolution. The Chief
Justice stated that funding at the FY2006 level for FY2007 would have “a severe
impact on court operations, our judicial system, and potentially all U.S. citizens.”
Specifically, he cited the Administrative Office of the U.S. Court’s calculations that
“almost 2,400 probation and pretrial services officers and clerks’ offices staff
currently employed by the courts would be lost. This reduction of almost 12 percent
of the courts’ staff would have to be accomplished through hiring freezes, furloughs
and ultimately the firing of these dedicated employees.” He emphasized that public
safety would be at risk because the appropriate level of supervision would not be
available for felons released from prison and for defendants during the pretrial stage.
He also expressed concern that there would be no funds to pay court-appointed
private attorneys for the last 10 weeks of FY2007 to ensure the timely disposition of
criminal cases.
In his letter, the Chief Justice requested that the Judiciary not be subject to a
budget freeze, and revised the FY2007 judiciary budget request to $6.029 billion.
This was $231 million (or 3.7%) less than the original request of $6.260 billion, but
$309 million (or 5.4%) more than the FY2006 enacted amount of $5.720 billion. He
stated that the revised amount would be needed for the federal courts to fulfill their
constitutional and statutory responsibilities.
Subsequently, Congress approved $5.98 billion in FY2007 appropriations for
the judiciary (P.L. 110-5). The FY2007 enacted amount is 4.5% more than the
FY2006 appropriation of $5.72 billion.
In his 2005 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary,¹⁵ released on January 1,
2006, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., highlighted appropriations issues and their
importance in maintaining an independent judiciary that can fulfill its mission. The
Chief Justice expressed concern about the high cost of rent the judiciary pays to the

¹⁵ U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice’s “2005 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary,”
(Washington, DC: 2006). Available at [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/
year-e nd/2005year-endreport.pdf]

General Services Administration (GSA), and asked Congress for rent relief. The rent
now constitutes about 20% of the total judiciary budget. In early 2006, legislation
was introduced in both the House and Senate which would direct GSA to establish
rental fees that would not exceed the actual costs of operating and maintaining the
space it provides the judiciary. On February 8, 2006, Representative James F.
Sensenbrenner, Jr., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (for himself and
Representative Lamar S. Smith) introduced H.R. 4710, the “Judiciary Rent Reform
Act of 2006,” which was referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (and subsequently referred to the
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
Management). On February 15, 2006, then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee Arlen Specter (for himself, and Senators Patrick J. Leahy, John Cornyn,
Saxby Chambliss, Dianne Feinstein, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., James M. Talent, Daniel
K. Inouye, Richard M. Burr, and Wayne A. Allard) introduced S. 2292, a similar
measure, which was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On April 27, 2006,
the Senate committee reported S. 2292, and the bill was placed on the Senate
Calendar. No further action was taken on H.R. 4710 or S. 2292 prior to the
adjournment of the 109^th Congress.
Chief Justice Roberts also expressed concern that judicial pay has not kept pace
with inflation over the years, and attributed increasing numbers of judges leaving the
bench to this pay issue. On February 10, 2006, Senator Dianne Feinstein (for herself,
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, and Senator John F. Kerry) introduced S. 2276, the “Federal
Judicial Fairness Act of 2006,” to increase federal judges’ salaries by 16.5%. In
addition, S. 2276 would end the current linkage between congressional and judicial
salaries, which has prevented increases in judicial salaries when Congress foregoes
annual cost of living increases for its Members. S. 2276 was referred to the Senate
Judiciary Committee. On March 28, 2006, Representative Adam B. Schiff (for
himself and Representative Judy B. Biggert) introduced H.R. 5014, the “Federal
Judicial Fairness Act,” a companion bill to S. 2276, which was referred to the House
Judiciary Committee. No further action was taken on S. 2276 or H.R. 5014 prior to
the adjournment of the 109^th Congress.
Judicial security — the safe conduct of court proceedings and the security of
judges in courtrooms and off-site — continues to be an issue of concern. The Chief
Justice noted that the violence directed at judges in 2005 had shocked the nation, and
that “we must take every step to ensure that our own judges, to whom so much of the
world looks as models of independence, never face violent attack for carrying out
their duties.”
Appropriations for the judiciary — about two-tenths of 1% (0.2%) of the entire
federal budget — are divided into budget groups and accounts. The two accounts
that fund the Supreme Court (the salaries and expenses of the Supreme Court and the
expenditures for the care of its building and grounds) together make up about 1.2%
of the total judiciary budget. The structural and mechanical care of the Supreme
Court building, and care of its grounds, are the responsibility of the Architect of the
Capitol. The rest of the judiciary’s budget provides funding for the “lower” federal
courts and for related judicial services. The largest account, about 75% of the total
budget — the Salaries and Expenses account for the U.S. Courts of Appeals, District
Courts, and Other Judicial Services — covers the salaries of circuit and district

judges (including judges of the territorial courts of the United States), justices and
judges retired from office or from regular active service, judges of the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and all other officers and
employees of the federal judiciary not specifically provided for by other accounts;
and the necessary expenses of the courts. The judiciary budget does not fund three
“special courts” in the U.S. court system: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces, the U.S. Tax Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Federal courthouse construction also is not funded within the judiciary’s budget.
FY2007 Request and Appropriation. For FY2007, the judiciary requested
$6.26 billion in total appropriations, a 9.4% increase over the $5.72 billion enacted
for FY2006. The FY2007 budget request includes funding for 33,631 full-time-
equivalent (FTE) positions — an increase of 417 FTEs or 1.3% above the FY2006
estimate of 33,214 FTEs. The requested additional positions were a continuation of
efforts to restore some positions lost in previous years as well as to provide for
expected workload increases. Of the total budget request increase of $540.1 million,
$461.8 million (86%) would have funded pay adjustments and other inflation-related
increases needed to maintain current services. The remaining $78.3 million (14%)
of the $540.1 million increase was for expected workload changes and program
enhancements. TheFY2007 enacted amount (P.L. 110-5) was $5.98 billion, a 4.5%
increase over the FY2006 appropriation.
House Action. On April 4, 2006, the House Appropriations TTHUD
Subcommittee held a hearing on the Supreme Court budget request for FY2007, and
heard testimony from Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence
Thomas. Another hearing was held the following day to hear testimony on the
overall judiciary budget request from Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, United States
Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and Chair of the Budget
Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and then-Director of the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) Leonidas R. Mecham. Among
issues raised at the hearings were judicial pay, televising the Supreme Court
proceedings, rent paid to GSA, the Supreme Court building modernization project,
and workload.
On May 26, 2006, the subcommittee held a markup on the bill and approved a
total of $6.1 billion for the judiciary. By voice vote, on June 6, 2006, the House
Appropriations Committee approved the recommended $6.1 billion funding level —
a $342.8 million (6.0%) increase over the FY2006 level, but $197.3 million (3.2%)
less than the FY2007 request. Three days later, on June 9, 2006, the committee
reported H.R. 5576. On June 14, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5576 to provide the
judiciary with the same level of funding the committee had approved.
The House committee expressed concern over the judiciary’s practice of
including “one-time windfalls of offsetting collections and prior year carryover funds
in the FY2007 funding base,”and urged the judiciary to discontinue the practice in
developing its FY2008 budget submission.
Senate Action. On July 18, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies held a markup on the bill, and approved a total of $6.1 billion for

the judiciary. Two days later, on July 20, 2006, the Senate Appropriations
Committee held a markup, and approved the $6.1 billion funding level — a $378
million (6.6%) increase over the FY2006 level, but $162.1 million (2.6%) less than
the FY2007 request. In the committee report, the committee expressed its concerns
about several issues; among them are the following:
^!Staffing: The committee recommended that the Judicial Conference
make the retention of personnel a top priority. The committee also
expressed concern about workload and staffing needs of the district
courts along the U.S. southwest border, resulting from increased
immigration funding law enforcement activities. It directed AOUSC
to provide a hiring plan (in its FY2007 financial plan) for positions
that would be funded for magistrate judges and staff, and to keep the
committee apprised as the positions are filled. It also directed
AOUSC to examine staffing formulas to ensure that they reflect
changing trends, and report to Congress
^!Courthouse construction. Noting that the self-imposed courthouse
construction moratorium would end in September 2006, the
committee urged the judiciary to carefully weigh its space needs
with concerns about the rent it pays to GSA. It also called for
adequate checks and balances to ensure that future construction
needs and requests are “subjected to the highest standards of cost-
effectiveness.” It directed AOUSC to report to the committee, no
later than 120 days after enactment of this bill, on the steps that have
been and are being taken for more efficient use of space in the
district and circuit courts. Further, it encouraged the judiciary to
continue working with GSA on fair and accurate rent charges, and
also to correct any inequities.
^!Carryover funds: The committee directed that carryover funds be
used to meet current and projected needs before enhancing any
program. The AOUSC is to submit separately in future financial
plans, for House and Senate appropriations committees’ approval,
all sources of carryover funds and their desired application.
Following are highlights of the FY2007 judiciary budget:
Supreme Court. For FY2007, the total request for the Supreme Court
(salaries and expenses plus buildings and grounds) was $76.4 million, a 16.2%
increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $65.7 million. The total request
comprised two accounts: (1) Salaries and Expenses — $63.4 million was requested,
compared with the FY2006 enacted amount of $60.1 million; and (2) Care of the
Building and Grounds — $13.0 million was requested, compared with $5.6 million
enacted for FY2006. Most of the requested increase in salaries and expenses was to
fund increases in salary and benefit costs, inflationary fixed costs, and five new
positions. The Buildings and Grounds account request increased by $7.4 million
(132.7%), including funds for the Supreme Court Building roofing system repairs,
maintenance of the building, and grounds operations, and continuation of the
building modernization project. The House approved the full amount requested for

this account. The Senate committee also approved the full amount. The FY2007
enacted amount for this account was $74.0 million, a 12.6% increase over the
FY2006 appropriation.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The FY2007 request for
this account was $26.3 million — a $2.5 million (10.6%) increase over the $23.8
million appropriated for FY2006. The request provided for pay and other
inflationary adjustments, increased health benefit costs, and increased rental costs
related to space for senior judges. The requested increase also included $926,000 for
information technology upgrades, infrastructure requirements for a disaster recovery
plan, and the implementation of courtroom technology in two of this circuit’s three
courtrooms. The House approved $26.0 million for this account — a $2.2 million
increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.3 million less than the FY2007 request. The
Senate committee recommended $25.3 million — a $1.5 million increase over the
FY2006 level, but $1.0 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted
amount was $25.3 million, a 6.3% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.
U.S. Court of International Trade. The FY2007 request was for $16.2
million — a $0.9 million (5.5%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $15.3
million that the judiciary budget submission ascribes largely to increases in pay and
benefits. The House approved the full amount requested for this account. The
Senate committee also approved the full amount. The FY2007 enacted amount was
$15.8 million, a 3.3% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services.
This budget group includes 12 of the 13 courts of appeals and 94 district judicial
courts located in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Making up about 95% of the
judiciary budget, the four accounts in the group — salaries and expenses, court
security, defender services, and fees of jurors and commissioners — fund most of the
day-to-day activities and operations of the federal circuit and district courts.
Salaries and Expenses. The FY2007 Salaries and Expenses request for this
budget group¹⁶ was $4,691.2 million — a $361.0 million (8.3%) increase over the
FY2006 level of $4,330.2 million. According to the budget request, about 99% of
this increase was required for pay increases and other adjustments needed to
maintain the courts’ current services. For example, of the $361.0 million increase
requested, $106.7 million was requested for pay and benefit adjustments for court
personnel. Another $46.9 million of the increase was for increased rent to GSA and
related costs, such as equipment.¹⁷ In addition, $42.6 million was requested for the
Judiciary Technology Fund to support existing and newly installed information
technology systems, and to continue the implementation of new information systems.
Another increase of $22.1 million was to fund 257 FTEs — additional support staff

¹⁶ The Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund (about $4 million) is included in the
Salaries and Expenses account.
¹⁷ The judiciary’s FY2007 request for rent paid to GSA is $997.8 million — a $32.4 million
(3.3%) increase over the $965.5 million FY2006 appropriation.

needed to address the courts’ anticipated workload increase during the year (as a
result of an expected increase in the number of immigration-related cases along the
southwest border with Mexico).¹⁸ Finally, according to the judiciary budget request,
to maintain the same level of services provided in FY2006, a $115.1 million increase
was needed in this account for FY2007 because of an anticipated shortfall of funds
from fee collections and carryover funds from previous years. In addition to
appropriated funds, this account receives other funds, including current year fee
collections, carryover of fee balances from the prior year, and no-year appropriation
balances. In FY2007, these non-appropriated funds were projected to total $285.9
million. The House approved $4,560.1 million for this account — a $229.9 million
increase over the FY2006 level, but $131.1 million less than the FY2007 request.
The Senate committee recommended $4,587.3 million — a $257.1 million increase
over the FY2006 level, but $103.9 million less than the FY2007 request. The
FY2007 enacted amount was $4,480.5 million, a 3.5% increase over the FY2006
appropriation.
Court Security. This account provides for protective guard services, security
systems, and equipment for courthouses and other federal facilities to ensure the
safety of judicial officers, employees, and visitors. Under this account, a major
portion of the funding is transferred to the U.S. Marshal Service for administering the
Judicial Facility Security Program to pay for court security officers. The FY2007
request was $410.3 million — a $42.1 million (11.4%) increase over the FY2006
appropriation of $368.3 million. This increase was reportedly driven by pay and
benefit adjustments and other adjustments needed to maintain current services. The
increase would also cover the costs for 34 additional court security officers expected
to be needed during FY2007. Payment to the Federal Protective Service (FPS) is also
covered under this account. The FY2007 request for FPS was $67.9 million — a
$7.4 million increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $60.5 million. In addition,
$16.8 million was requested for security systems, perimeter (outside the building)
security, and equipment for court security and for probation and pretrial service
offices. An additional $6.6 million was requested to replace VCRs with digital video
recorders. The House approved $400.3 million for this account — a $32.0 million
increase over the FY2006 level, but $10 million less than the FY2007 request. The
Senate committee recommended $397.7 million for this account — a $29.4 million
increase over the FY2006 level, but $ 12.6 million less than the FY2007 request. The
FY2007 enacted amount was $378.7 million, a 2.8% increase over the FY2006
appropriation.
Defender Services. This account funds the operations of the federal public
defender and community defender organizations, and the compensation,
reimbursement, and expenses of private practice panel attorneys appointed by the
courts to serve as defense counsel to indigent individuals accused of federal crimes.
The FY2007 request was $803.9 million — a $94.1 million (13.3%) increase over
the FY2006 appropriation of $709.8 million. The increase requested was reportedly

¹⁸ According to the judiciary, workload increases are expected from cases created by an
additional 1,500 border patrol agents, positions for whom have recently been funded. The
additional FTEs are reportedly needed for additional probation and pretrial service officers
and clerks’ office staff.

to provide for pay increases and other inflationary adjustments, and to fund workload
increases arising from Supreme Court rulings. The request also provided for the start-
up of new federal defender organizations scheduled to open in FY2007. Currently,
five judicial districts are not served by a Federal Defender Office: Alabama
(Northern), Georgia (Southern), Kentucky (Eastern), Mississippi (Northern), and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The requested funding would have
provided 80 FTEs to cope with the projected caseload increase of 5,500 cases. The
House approved $750 million for this account — a $40.2 million increase over the
FY2006 level, but $53.8 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate
committee recommended $761.1 million for this account — a $51.3 million increase
over the FY2006 level, but $42.8 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007
enacted amount was $776.3 million, a 9.4% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners. This account funds the fees and
allowances provided to grand and petit jurors, and the compensation of jury and land
commissioners. The FY2007 request was $63.1 million — a $2.4 million (3.9%)
increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $60.7 million. The increase was due
mainly to inflationary costs associated with expenses paid to jurors. The House
approved the full amount requested for this account. The Senate committee also
approved the full amount. The FY2007 enacted amount was $60.9 million, a 0.3%
increase over the FY2006 appropriation.
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC). As the central
support entity for the judiciary, the AOUSC provides a wide range of administrative,
management, program, and information technology services to the U.S. courts. The
AOUSC also provides support to the Judicial Conference of the United States, and
implements conference policies and applicable federal statutes and regulations. The
FY2007 request for this account was $75.3 million — a $5.7 million (8.3%) increase
over the FY2006 level of $69.6 million. The increase was reportedly for pay
increases and other inflationary adjustments and for the anticipated reduction in non-
appropriated funds. The AOUSC also receives non-appropriated funds from fee
collections and carryover balances to supplement its appropriation requirements. The
House approved $73.8 million for this account — a $4.2 million increase over the
FY2006 level but $1.5 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee
recommended $74.3 million for this account — a $4.7 million increase over the
FY2006 level, but $1.0 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted
amount was $72.4 million, a 4.0% increase over the FY2006 appropriation.
Federal Judicial Center. As the judiciary’s research and education entity,
the center undertakes research and evaluation of judicial operations for the Judicial
Conference committees and the courts. In addition, the center provides judges, court
staff, and others with orientation and continuing education and training. The center’s
FY2007 request was $23.8 million — a $1.7 million (7.5%) increase over the
FY2006 appropriation of $22.1 million. The increase was reportedly to fund
adjustments to pay and other expenses due to inflation, and also to restore staff to the
FY2005 level (nine additional FTEs). The House approved $23.5 million for this
account — a $1.4 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.3 million less than
the FY2007 request. The Senate committee recommended $23.4 million for this
account — a $1.3 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.4 million less than

the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted amount was $22.9 million, a 3.6%
increase over the FY2006 appropriation.
United States Sentencing Commission. The commission promulgates
sentencing policies, practices, and guidelines for the federal criminal justice system.
The FY2007 request was $15.7 million — a $1.4 million (10.4%) increase over the
FY2006 appropriation of $14.3 million. According to the budget request, the
increase would provide for pay increases and other inflationary adjustments, and five
FTE positions in the research and data collection area for one year. Supreme Court
decisions and recent legislation have reportedly increased the commission’s
workload, and the need for data collection and analytical requirements. The House
approved $15.5 million for this account — a $1.2 million increase over the FY2006
level, but $0.2 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee
recommended $ 15.3 million for this account — a $1.0 million increase over the
FY2006 level, but $0.4 million less than the FY2007 request. The FY2007 enacted
amount was $14.6 million, a 2.1% increase over FY2006 appropriation.
Judiciary Retirement Funds. This mandatory account provides for three
trust funds that finance payments to retired bankruptcy and magistrate judges, retired
Court of Federal Claims judges, and spouses and dependent children of deceased
judicial officers. The FY2007 request was for $58.3 million — a $17.7 million
(43.6%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $40.6 million. The requirements
for this account are calculated annually by an independent actuary company. The
large increase reflected a change in methodology that a new actuary company had
adopted to more accurately project future liabilities that had not been taken into
account in the past. (The new methodology included a larger population of people
who are likely to join the retirement system.) The House approved the full amount
requested for this account. The Senate committee also recommended the full
amount. The FY2007 enacted amount was $58.3 million, the full amount requested.
Administrative Provisions. Some administrative provisions continued
language that has appeared in previous years. The House-passed bill included the
following provisions, which apply to the judiciary only:
Section 401: To permit funds in the bill for salaries and expenses for the
judiciary to be available for employment of experts and consultant services
(as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109).
Section 402: To permit up to 5% of any appropriation made available for
FY2007 to be transferred between judiciary appropriations accounts —
provided that no appropriation shall be decreased by more than 5 percent
or increased by more than 10 percent by any such transfer except in certain
circumstances. In addition, the language provides that any such transfer
shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds (under sections 805 and 810
of the accompanying bill), and shall not be available for obligation or
expenditure except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that
section.

Section 403: To authorize not to exceed $11,000 to be used for official
reception and representation expenses incurred by the Judicial Conference
of the United States.
Section 404: To require a financial plan for the judiciary within 90 days
of enactment of this act.
Section 405: To amend the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-

650) (extension of a temporary federal district judgeship in Wichita,

Kansas).
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended language similar to
Sections 401-404 in the House-passed bill, but excluded Section 405 concerning a
judgeship (see above). The Senate committee recommended the following additional
provisions:
Section 405: To allow for a salary adjustment for justices and judges.
Section 406: To grant the judicial branch with the same tenant alteration
authorities as the executive branch.
Section 407: To prohibit any judge from being entitled to sole use of a
courtroom and to require courtrooms to be scheduled based on the needs of the
circuit and district courts. (Intent of the section is to address circumstances in
which courtrooms are not in full use and the sharing of courtrooms will help
reduce the overburdened judicial docket.)
P.L. 110-5, Section 113, stipulated that the departments and agencies covered
by the law, including the judiciary, should submit to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees within 30 days of enactment of the law a spending,
expenditure, or operating plan for FY2007 at a “level of detail below the account
level.”
Among the administrative and technical provisions contained in P.L. 110-5 that
apply only to the judiciary are the following:
Section 21054. Authorizes the judiciary to transfer among its accounts not to
exceed $81 million to provide flexibility to meet operating requirements, as
necessary.
Section 21056. Extends a temporary judgeship in Kansas.

Titles V (Senate) and VI (House):
Executive Office of the President and Funds
Appropriated to the President
Table 8. Titles V and VI: Executive Office of the President
(EOP) and Funds Appropriated to the President Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007
⁽ⁱⁿ^t^h^ou^s^aⁿ^d^s^of^dol^l^a^rs⁾
^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Offi^ce^FY²⁰⁰⁶^Ena^c^t^e^d^a^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^P^a^sse^d^Reported
^C^o^m^p^en^s^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^of^t^h^{e Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^$450^$450^$450^$450^$450
^T^h^{e W}^h^{ite Hou}^s^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce (W}^HO)^53,292^51,952^51,952^51,952^53,616
^(s^alaries^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es⁾
^Ex^ecu^tiv^{e R}^e^sⁱ^den^{ce, W}^h^{ite Hou}^s^e^12,312^12,041^12,041^12,041^12,398
^(operatⁱⁿ^g^ex^pen^s^es⁾
^W^h^{ite Ho}^u^s^{e Rep}^a^ir^an^d^1,683^1,600^1,600^1,600^1,683
^Resto^r^atioⁿ
^C^o^uⁿ^cⁱ^l^of^Econ^omⁱ^c^A^d^vⁱ^s^o^rs^4,000^4,002^4,002^4,002^4,032
^(C^EA⁾
^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^Polⁱ^c^y^D^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t^3,465^3,385^3,385^3,385^3,487
^(OP^D⁾
^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^S^ecu^ri^t^y^C^o^uⁿ^cⁱ^l^(N^S^C⁾⁸^,618^8,405^8,405^8,405^8,684
^P^r^iv^acy^an^d^Civ^{il L}ⁱ^b^e^r^ties^b^{— -}^{— -}^{— -}¹^,5⁰⁰^{— -}
^Ov^ersⁱ^g^h^t^B^o^ard
^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^(O^A⁾^88,429^102,417^91,393^91,393^88,643
^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d B}^u^dg^et^76,161^68,780^76,185^76,185^76,714
^(OMB)
^O^ffi^c^e^o^f^N^a^tⁱ^o^na^l^D^r^{ug Co}^nt^r^o^l^26,639^23,309^26,928^11,500^26,766
^(ONDC^P⁾
^Feder^a^l^D^r^{ug C}^ont^r^o^l^Pr^ogr^am^s^447,381^221,760^448,600^461,500^437,681
⁽^t^ot^al⁾
^—^Hⁱ^{gh I}ⁿ^t^e^nsi^t^y^D^r^ug^c
^T^r^af^fⁱ^ckⁱⁿ^g^A^r^eas^P^r^og^ram^224,730⁰^235,000^227,000^224,730
^(HIDT^A^P⁾
^—^O^t^he^r^Fe^d^e^r^a^l^D^r^{ug Co}^nt^r^o^l^192,951^212,160^194,000^214,500^192,951
^Pr^og^r^a^m^s
^—^Co^unt^e^r^d^r^{ug T}^e^c^hno^l^o^gy^29,700^9,600^19,600^20,000^20,000
^A^sse^ssm^eⁿ^{t Ce}^nte^r⁽^C^T^A^C)
^Uⁿ^an^tⁱ^cⁱ^p^at^{ed N}^eeds⁹⁹⁰^11,789^1,000^1,000⁹⁹⁰
^Un^an^{ticipated Needs}^f^o^{r Natu}^ral⁰^-^11,789⁰⁰⁰
^Disa^ste^r^{s (}^e^m^e^r^g^eⁿ^c^y⁾
^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e Vice P}^r^es^iden^t^4,410^4,352^4,352^4,352^4,432
^(s^alaries^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es⁾
^Of^fⁱ^{cial R}^e^sⁱ^den^{ce of}^th^{e Vice}³²²³¹⁷³¹⁷³¹⁷³²²
^P^r^es^iden^{t (operatin}^g^ex^pen^s^es⁾
^To^t^a^{l, EO}^P^a^{nd F}^unds^$728,152^$502,770^$730,610^$729,582^$719,898
^{Appropriated to the Pres}^ident
^S^o^urce:^Fig^u^r^es^{are f}^r^om^th^{e P}^r^es^iden^t’^s^bu^dg^{et requ}^es^{t, th}^{e Hou}^s^{e C}^o^m^m^{ittee on}^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^o^ns
^{report (H.R}^{ept. 109-}^{495), th}^{e Sen}^a^{te C}^o^m^m^{ittee on}^A^ppropriation^s^{report (S.R}^{ept. 109-}²⁹³⁾

^accom^p^an^yⁱⁿ^g^H.R^.^5576,^an^d^a^B^u^d^g^e^t^A^u^t^h^o^rⁱ^t^y^t^a^b^l^e^p^r^o^vⁱ^d^e^d^b^y^t^h^e^H^o^u^s^e^C^o^m^m^{ittee o}ⁿ
^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^h^at^s^h^ow^{s F}^Y^{2007 f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^uⁿ^d^{er P.L}^.^110-^{5, R}^e^vⁱ^s^e^{d C}^oⁿ^tⁱⁿ^uⁱⁿ^g^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s
^R^e^s^o^l^u^tⁱ^oⁿ^,^2007,^en^act^ed^on^F^e^b.^15,^{2007. T}^h^{e f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^{are rou}ⁿ^d^{ed. T}^h^{e t}^a^bl^{e i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^es^an^of^f^s^et
^of^{a res}^c^is^sⁱ^on^uⁿ^d^{er th}^{e u}ⁿ^aⁿ^{ticipated n}^eeds^accouⁿ^t^.
^{a. F}^Y^{2006 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^ref^l^ect^an^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^of^1.0%^.
^{b. F}^o^{r F}^Y^{2006 en}^act^{ed, F}^Y^{2007 bu}^dg^et^requ^es^t^,^an^{d F}^Y^{2007 H}^o^u^s^e-^pas^s^e^{d, t}^h^{e appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^r
^th^{e P}^r^iv^acy^an^{d C}ⁱ^v^{il L}ⁱ^berties^Ov^ersⁱ^g^h^t^B^o^{ard i}^sⁱⁿ^c^l^ud^{ed in}^th^{e W}^h^{ite Hou}^s^{e Of}^fⁱ^ce
^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^.
^{c. T}^h^{e F}^Y^{2007 bu}^dg^et^propos^{ed t}^o^t^r^an^s^f^{er t}^h^{e H}^I^D^T^A^P^t^o^t^h^{e D}^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^Ju^s^tⁱ^ce.
Executive Office of the President Budget
and Key Policy Issues
All but three offices in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) are funded
in the same appropriations act, entitled the Departments of Transportation, Treasury,
Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and¹⁹
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act.
The Office of Administration (OA) and the Council of Economic Advisers
(CEA) are the only accounts under the EOP (not including the federal drug control
programs) for which increased funding was requested for FY2007. The $14 million
OA increase primarily results from the movement of funds from other EOP
components to the OA for enterprise services (discussed in more detail below). The
CEA increase was 0.05%. For the Unanticipated Needs account, the budget
requested $11.789 million, which was then offset by the requested rescission of
$11.789 million from the Unanticipated Needs for Natural Disasters account. As for
the remaining accounts, except for that on Compensation of the President, which was
unchanged, decreased appropriations were requested for all other accounts under the
EOP in FY2007. The OMB and ONDCP accounts had the largest reductions —
9.7% and 12.5%, respectively — from their FY2006 appropriation levels after the
rescission. The reductions primarily resulted from the movement of funds from these
accounts to the Office of Administration for the continued centralization of enterprise
services. OMB also would have lost 11 FTEs (full-time equivalent employees).
The FY2007 budget, like the FY2006 budget, proposed to transfer the HIDTAP
to the Department of Justice and to fund the program at $207.6 million. For FY2006,
the conference committee continued to fund the program under the EOP. This
practice continues for FY2007 under P.L. 110-5, the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution.
For the sixth consecutive fiscal year, the President’s FY2007 budget proposed
to consolidate and financially realign several salaries and expenses accounts that
directly support the President into a single annual appropriation, called “The White

¹⁹ Of the three exceptions, the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality are funded in the House Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Act and the Senate Interior and Related Agencies Act. The Office of Science and
Technology Policy and the Office of the United States Trade Representative are funded
under the same appropriations act entitled Science, State, Justice, and Commerce, and
Related Agencies (House) and Commerce, Justice, and Science (Senate).

House.” This consolidated appropriation would total $184.252 million in FY2007
for the accounts proposed to be consolidated, an increase of 7.0% from the $172.249
million appropriated in FY2006 (after the 1.0% rescission).²⁰ The increase primarily
resulted from the Enterprise Services Initiative discussed below. The nine accounts
included in the consolidated appropriation would be the following:
^!Compensation of the President,
^!White House Office,
^!Executive Residence at the White House,
^!White House Repair and Restoration,
^!Office of Policy Development,
^!Office of Administration,
^!Council of Economic Advisers, and
^!National Security Council.²¹
The EOP budget submission stated that consolidation “presents the best means
for the President to realign or reallocate the resources and staff available in response
to changing needs and priorities or emergent national needs.”²² The conference
committees on the FY2002 through FY2006 appropriations acts decided to continue
with separate appropriations for the EOP accounts to facilitate congressional
oversight of their funding and operation. For FY2007, P.L. 110-5, the Revised
Continuing Appropriations Resolution, continues this practice.
The FY2007 budget requested a general provision in Title VI to continue and
expand the authority for the EOP to transfer 10% of the appropriated funds among
several accounts under the EOP. The authority would cover the following accounts
in FY2007:
^!The White House,²³
^!Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
^!Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP),
^!Special Assistance to the President and the Official Residence of the
Vice President (transfers would be subject to the approval of the
Vice President),

²⁰ P.L. 109-148, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006, at Division B, Title
III, §3801(a), required a 1.0% government-wide across-the-board rescission in discretionary
spending accounts. The FY2006 appropriation for the EOP accounts proposed to be
consolidated totaled $173.983 million before the rescission.
²¹ U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the
United States Government Fiscal Year 2007, Appendix (Washington: GPO, 2006), pp.

1039-1048. (Hereafter referred to as FY2007 Budget, Appendix.)

²² U.S. Executive Office of the President, Fiscal Year 2007 Congressional Budget
Submission (Washington: February 2006), p. EOP-11. (Hereafter cited as EOP Budget
Submission.)
²³ The accounts under the White House are Compensation of the President, White House
Office, Executive Residence at the White House, White House Repair and Restoration,
Council of Economic Advisers, Office of Policy Development, National Security Council,
and the Office of Administration.

^!Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental
Quality,
^!Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
^!Office of the United States Trade Representative.²⁴
The OMB Director (or such other officer as the President designates in writing)
would be able to, 15 days after notifying the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, transfer up to 10% of any such appropriation to any other such
appropriation. The transferred funds would be merged with, and available for, the
same time and purposes as the appropriation receiving the funds. Such transfers
could not increase an appropriation by more than 50%. According to the EOP budget
submission, the transfer authority would “allow the President to address, in a limited
way, emerging priorities and shifting demands” and would “provide the President
with flexibility and improve the efficiency of the EOP.” The authority “is not
intended to be used for new missions or programs” and the need for it “arises in part
due to the large number of small accounts at the President’s discretion, as well as the
need to be responsive to a dynamic environment.”²⁵
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005 (Section 533, Title V,
Division H) authorized transfers of up to 10% of FY2005 appropriated funds among
the accounts for the White House Office, OMB, ONDCP, and the Special Assistance
to the President and Official Residence of the Vice President. For FY2006, P.L. 109-

115, the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary,

the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
(Section 725) authorized transfers of up to 10% among the accounts for the White
House and the Special Assistance to the President and Official Residence of the Vice
President.
An enterprise services initiative was included in the FY2007 budget request to
make the administration of certain services simpler and more efficient. Services
included in the initiative would be expanded to include burn bag pickup costs,
employee transportation subsidies, and Flexible Spending Account administrative
fees. The budgets for these services in the WHO, Executive Residence at the White
House, OPD, NSC, CEA, OMB, ONDCP, Office of Science and Technology Policy,
United States Trade Representative, and the Council on Environmental Quality
would be moved into the OA. In order to “be consistent with other EOP
components,” the budgets for health unit services, space-related rent costs, and rent-
based Federal Protective Service in OMB and ONDCP also would be included in the
OA.²⁶
As reported by the House Committee on Appropriations and as passed by the
House, the FY2007 TTHUD appropriations bill continued separate appropriations for
the EOP accounts. The provision authorizing the transfer of up to 10% of funds

²⁴ FY2007 Budget, Appendix, p. 1040.
²⁵ EOP Budget Submission, p. EOP-12.
²⁶ EOP Budget Submission, p. EOP-13.

within the EOP also was continued. Notable among the appropriations for the EOP
accounts were the following.
^!An appropriation of up to $1.5 million for the Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board, an account under the White House
Office, was recommended by the House committee. Under an
amendment (No. 1025) offered by Representative Christopher Shays
and agreed to by the House by voice vote on June 13, 2006, funding
for the Board would be increased by $750,000.
^!An appropriation of $91.4 million was provided for the OA, $11
million less than the FY2007 budget request. Funding for the OMB
and ONDCP rental payments to GSA, $7.4 million and $3.6 million,
respectively, was continued under salaries and expenses for those
respective accounts.
^!An appropriation of $26.9 million was provided for ONDCP. The
increase of $3.6 million over the FY2007 budget request was
accounted for by continuing the funding for rental payments to GSA
under this account rather than transferring it to the OA.
^!An appropriation of $19.6 million was provided for the CTAC, $10
million more than the FY2007 budget request. The increase was for
the Technology Transfer Program whose termination was requested
by the Administration.
^!An appropriation of $227 million, $2.3 million above the FY2006
enacted level after the rescission, for the HIDTAP (High Intensity
Drug Trafficking Areas Program) was recommended by the House
committee. Increased funding was recommended for the
Appalachian, Central Valley, and Lake County HIDTAs (High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas). The program was continued
under the EOP, rather than under the Department of Justice as the
FY2007 budget requested. Under an amendment (No. 1026) offered
by Representative Darlene Hooley and agreed to by the House on a
348 to 76 (Roll No. 273) vote on June 13, 2006, funding for the
HIDTAP would be increased by $8 million.
^!An appropriation of $194 million was provided for Other Federal
Drug Control Programs, $18.2 million less than the FY2007 budget
request. The Drug Free Communities initiative was funded at $80
million (rather than at $79.2 million, as requested), the National
Drug Court Institute was funded at $1 million (rather than at
$990,000, as requested), the National Alliance for Model State Drug
Laws was funded at $1 million (no funding was requested), and the
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign was funded at $100
million (rather than at $120 million, as requested).
^!An appropriation of $1 million was provided for unanticipated
needs. The rescission of $11.8 million in emergency funds (from the
Unanticipated Needs for Natural Disasters Account) to offset non-

emergency appropriations, as requested in the FY2007 budget, was
not included.
The report accompanying the bill addressed several policy issues. It expressed
the Appropriations Committee’s “serious concerns about the continued forced
implementation” of the E-Gov initiative on departments and agencies. Stating its
belief that “Many aspects of this initiative are fundamentally flawed, contradict
underlying program statutory requirements and have stifled innovation by forcing
conformity to an arbitrary government standard,” the committee noted that the
FY2007 bill continued the “government-wide general provision that precludes the
use of funds” for the initiative without prior consultation with the committee.²⁷ The
provision was included as Section 938 of the House-passed bill and as Section 839
of the Senate bill as reported.
The report noted the committee’s “concern that the ONDCP has resisted
focusing its programs to fighting the alarming rise in domestic methamphetamine
production, trafficking and abuse” and stated that future funding of the office’s
priorities could not be ensured if Congress continues to be ignored. The Director of
the ONDCP was directed to include “an analysis of options and recommendations for
the future course of counterdrug technology research” in the office’s budget
submission for FY2008. The committee directed the ONDCP Director to submit a
financial plan, to be updated every six months, to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations prior to the initial obligation of funds provided for FY2007. The
first plan was due within 30 days of the act’s enactment. Any new projects and
changes in the funding of ongoing projects must receive the prior approval of the
appropriations committees.²⁸
In a statement of administration policy on H.R. 5576, OMB urged that the White
House accounts be consolidated, the authority to transfer up to 10% of budgetary
resources within EOP accounts be expanded, and the Enterprise Services initiative
be expanded, as requested in the FY2007 budget. The Administration expressed
concern about the House action to reduce funding for the National Youth Anti-Drug
Media Campaign by $20 million.²⁹
As reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 5576 continued
separate appropriations for the EOP accounts, with one exception discussed below.
The provision authorizing the transfer of up to 10% of funds within the EOP also was
continued. According to the report accompanying the bill, the committee rejected “a
single, consolidated account” because “it would undermine the ability of the
Congress to exercise adequate oversight” of the expenditure of funds. The
committee incorporated the responsibilities of the Office of Policy Development
(with its $3.4 million appropriation) into the White House Office salaries and

²⁷ H.Rept. 109-495, p. 181.
²⁸ Ibid., pp. 182 and 185.
²⁹ U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administration Policy, H.R. 5576 — Transportation, Treasury, Housing, the Judiciary, and
the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY2007, June 14, 2006, pp. 3-4. (Hereafter
referred to as Administration Policy on H.R. 5576.)

expenses account “to allow the White House to better manage its resources.”³⁰ The
committee expressed its belief that oversight of the use of the OPD funds will be
adequate under this merger. Among the committee’s directives and funding
recommendations for the EOP accounts were the following.
^!The EOP was encouraged to submit its FY2008 budget justification
within a few days of the transmittal of the President’s budget to
Congress. The justification was to include detailed budget
information for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
^!A separate appropriation of $1.5 million was provided for the
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. (The House-passed bill
funded the Board as part of the appropriation for the White House
Office.)
^!Under the Executive Residence at the White House account,
restrictions on reimbursable expenses for use of the residence,
enacted for FY2004, were continued.
^!An appropriation of $91.4 million was provided for OA, the same
amount as passed by the House, but some $11 million less than the
FY2007 budget request. The committee report stated that OA
“receives reimbursements for information management support and
general office services.”³¹
^!An appropriation of $76.2 million was provided for OMB, the same
amount as passed by the House and $7.4 million more than the
FY2007 budget request. The committee report directed the OMB
Director, assisted by appropriate federal agencies, to report to the
Senate and House Committees on Appropriations on “the
administration’s and OMB’s plans to monitor, measure, and increase
Federal agency performance and participation in energy and
environmental management.” Possible statutory obstacles to meeting
energy savings goals should be addressed in the report which must
be submitted within 120 days of the act’s enactment. “[P]roducts
and services that guarantee energy and taxpayer savings, that
measure performance, and that involve public/private partnerships”
are of particular interest to the committee.³²
^!An appropriation of $11.5 million was provided for ONDCP, $11.8
million less than the FY2007 budget request and $15.4 million less
than the House-passed funding. The committee report stated that the
appropriation had been reduced “to more closely reflect actual
performance.” Funding of $1.5 million was provided for a study of

³⁰ S.Rept. 109-293, p. 185.
³¹ Ibid., p. 188.
³² Ibid., p. 188.

ONDCP’s organization and management to be conducted by the
National Academy of Public Administration and to begin within 60
days of the act’s enactment. “Quarterly reports on travel
expenditures, summarized by office, program, and individual,
including dates and purpose of travel” were to be provided by the
ONDCP Director to the Senate and House Committees on
Appropriations.³³ The ONDCP Director was further directed to
provide quarterly staffing reports, including plans to hire additional
staff, to the Appropriations Committees. The office, position, title,
salary, and job classifications of all ONDCP staff, including
contractors, should be included in the report.
^!An appropriation of $227 million was provided for HIDTAP, $8
million less than the House-passed funding. The FY2007 budget
proposed to transfer the HIDTAP to the Department of Justice. In
providing funding for the HIDTAP, the committee report stated that
the program was an important function of ONDCP. Among the
directives for the office are these: that the ONDCP Director “take
appropriate steps to ensure that the HIDTA funds are transferred to
the appropriate drug control agencies expeditiously” and the entities
receiving the resources apply them “strictly for implementing the
strategy for each HIDTA, taking into consideration local conditions
and resource requirements” and that ONCDP “hold back all HIDTA
funds from a State” until the State or locality meets its financial
obligation.³⁴
^!An appropriation of $214.5 million was provided for other federal
drug control programs, $2.3 million more than the FY2007 budget
request and $20.5 million more than the House-passed funding. The
appropriation was allocated as shown in Table 9, below. Of the
$120 million provided for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign, $15 million was to fund continued advertising against the
use of methamphetamine. No more than 10% of the campaign’s
appropriation could be used for administrative costs. The committee
directed that $2 million of the $80 million provided to the Drug-Free
Communities Support Program was a direct grant to the Community
Anti-Drug Coalitions of America for the National Community Anti-
Drug Coalition Institute. In providing membership dues for the
World Anti-Doping Agency, “the Committee directs ONDCP to use
its voice and vote as the United States’ representative ... to ensure
that all countries’ athletes are subject to fair and equal standards and
treatment.”³⁵

³³ Ibid., p. 190.
³⁴ Ibid, p. 192.
³⁵ Ibid., p. 194.

Table 9. Senate Committee on Appropriations Funding
Recommendations for Federal Drug Control Programs
in the Executive Office of the President, FY2007
^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ
^Program^Recom^m^e^nded
⁽^I^{n t}^h^o^u^sa^{nds $}⁾
^Natioⁿ^a^{l Yo}^u^t^h^Aⁿ^ti-^Dr^u^g^$120,000
^{Media C}^a^m^p^aigⁿ
Drug-Free Communities80,000
Support Program
U.S. Anti-Doping9,000
Agency
National Drug Court1,000
Institute
National Alliance for1,000
Model State Drug Laws
Performance Measure2,000
Development
World Anti-Doping1,500
Agency
^!An appropriation of $20 million was provided for the CTAC, $10.4
million more than the FY2007 budget request and $400,000 more
than the House-passed funding. The funding was allocated as $10
million each for the demand reduction program and the Technology
Transfer Program. With regard to the former program, the
committee again directed that the FY2006 ONDCP operating plan,
which had not been received by the committee, be submitted within
30 days after the act’s enactment. The plan was to “include an
accounting of the use of the FY2006 CTAC R&D appropriated
funds and an accounting of all FY2006 funds that are unobligated
and unexpended and the rationale for inaction.” A spending plan for
FY2007 must be submitted to the committee that includes
“technology development projects that would provide researchers
with the tools to conduct more advanced ... drug addiction and
scientific studies.” Within 45 days of the act’s enactment, FY2007
“funds with expenditure project execution authority [must] be
completed and transferred to other Federal departments and
agencies.” As for the technology transfer program (TTP), the
FY2008 budget request for CTAC must include “the total number of
TTP applications received and the number awarded in the previous
year” to permit the committee to “have a true understanding of³⁶
CTAC’s ability to meet demand.”
No further action occurred on H.R. 5576. P.L. 110-5, the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution for FY2007, continues appropriations through September

30, 2007, at the levels shown in Table 8, above. Sections 21057 through 21059 of

³⁶ Ibid., p. 191.

P.L. 110-5 include requirements and directives for the appropriations for the federal
drug control programs. Among these are a provision stating that “The structure of
any of the offices or components within the Office of National Drug Control Policy
shall remain as they were on October 1, 2006, and none of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available ... may be used to implement a reorganization of offices
within the Office of National Drug Control Policy without the explicit approval” of
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.³⁷
Title VII: Independent Agencies
In addition to funding for the aforementioned Departments and agencies, a
diverse collection of 21 independent agencies receive funding through Title VII of
this appropriations bill. Table 10 lists their respective appropriations for FY2006 as
enacted, and for FY2007 as requested in the President’s Budget, passed by the House,
reported in the Senate, and ultimately enacted in P.L. 110-5. Discussion following
the table focuses on key budget and policy issues in some of the larger agencies.
Table 10. Title VII: Independent Agencies Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007
⁽ⁱⁿ^m^illioⁿ^s^o^f^d^o^llar^s⁾
^FY²⁰⁰⁶^a^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^Agency^P^a^sse^d^Reported
^A^r^ch^itectu^r^{al an}^{d T}^r^an^s^portation^$6^$6^$6^$6^$6
^B^a^rriers^C^o^m^p^lian^{ce B}^o^ard
^Co^nsum^e^r^P^r^o^d^u^c^t^Sa^fe^t^y⁶³⁶³⁶³⁶²⁶³
^C^o^mmi^s^sⁱ^oⁿ
^El^ectⁱ^oⁿ^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce C}^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on¹⁴¹⁷¹⁷¹⁷¹⁶
^F^e^deral^D^e^posⁱ^t^In^s^u^ran^c^e
^C^o^rporation^:^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^In^s^p^ector³¹²⁶²⁶²⁶³¹
^Gen^e^ral^(t^ran^s^f^e^r)
^F^e^deral^El^ectⁱ^oⁿ^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on⁵⁵⁵⁷⁵⁷⁵⁷⁵⁵
^F^e^deral^L^a^{bor R}^e^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^u^t^h^ori^t^y²⁵²⁵²⁵²⁵²⁵
^Fed^e^r^a^{l Mar}^itim^{e Co}^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ²⁰²¹²¹²¹²⁰
^G^eⁿ^e^ral^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ²¹⁷⁴⁵⁰²⁰³⁴⁶⁶³⁰³
^Mer^{it Sy}^stem^{s P}^r^o^t^ectioⁿ^B^o^ar^d³⁸³⁹³⁹³⁹³⁹
^Mo^r^rⁱ^{s K. Ud}^{all Fo}^uⁿ^d^atioⁿ⁴⁰²²⁴
^Nation^a^{l A}^r^ch^iv^es^an^{d R}^ecords³²⁶³³⁸³³⁸³⁴⁸³³¹
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ
^Natioⁿ^a^{l Cr}^ed^{it Un}^ioⁿ^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ
^Lⁱ^mⁱ^t^a^tⁱ^{on on di}^r^ect^l^oans^1,500^1,500^1,500^1,500^1,500
^C^o^{mmunity Development}⁹⁴¹⁹⁴¹⁹⁴¹⁹⁴¹⁹⁴¹
^Revol^vⁱ^{ng L}^{oan Fund}
^Natioⁿ^a^{l T}^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^Saf^e^ty⁷⁷⁸⁰⁸²⁸⁰⁷⁸

^Boa^r^d
³⁷ P.L. 110-5, February 15, 2007, 121 Stat. 8, at 55-56.

^FY²⁰⁰⁶^a^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^Agency^P^a^sse^d^Reported
^N^eⁱ^g^h^borh^{ood R}^eⁱⁿ^v^e^s^t^m^eⁿ^t¹¹⁷¹²⁰¹²⁰¹²⁰¹¹⁷
^C^o^rporatⁱ^oⁿ
^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^G^o^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^Et^hⁱ^cs¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹
^O^ffi^c^e^o^f^P^e^r^s^o^nne^l^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^18,742^19,607^{19, 580}^19,607^19,594
^(t^ot^al⁾
^Sal^arⁱ^e^s^{and Expens}^es¹²³¹¹³¹¹³¹¹³¹¹²
^Gover^{nment Payments}^for
^Annuitants^,^Employees^Health^8,393^8,780^8,780^8,780^8,780
^Ben^e^fits
^Gover^{nment Payments}^for
^Annuitants^,^{Employee Life}³⁶³⁹³⁹³⁹³⁹
^Iⁿ^su^raⁿ^c^e
^Pa^ymen^{t to}^{Civil S}^e^rvice
^Retir^{ement and Dis}^ability^10,072^10,532^10,532^10,532^10,532
^Fund
^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^S^p^eci^al^C^o^uⁿ^s^el¹⁵¹⁶¹⁶¹⁶¹⁶
^Selectiv^{e Serv}^{ice Sy}^s^t^em^b²⁵²⁴²⁴²⁴²⁵
^Uⁿⁱ^t^e^d^St^a^t^e^s^Iⁿ^t^e^r^a^ge^nc^y^Co^uncⁱ^l²²²²²
^oⁿ^Ho^m^e^le^ssne^s^s
^Uⁿⁱ^t^e^{d S}^t^at^es^Pos^t^al^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e¹¹⁶⁸⁰¹⁰⁹¹⁰⁹¹⁰⁹
^Un^{ited States}^T^a^x^C^o^u^r^t⁴⁸⁴⁷⁴⁷⁴⁷⁴⁸
^T^o^tal^,^Iⁿ^d^e^p^eⁿ^d^eⁿ^t^A^g^en^ci^es^$19,936^$20,999^$20,708^$20,984^c
^Source:^Fⁱ^g^u^r^es^{are rou}ⁿ^d^ed^an^d^com^e^f^r^om^t^h^e^Presⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^bu^dg^et^requ^es^t^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2007, H}^.^R^.⁵⁵⁷⁶
^as^pas^s^e^d^t^h^e^H^o^u^s^{e, S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee R}^e^port^(S^.R^ept^.^109-^{293), an}^{d a Bu}^dg^et
^A^u^t^h^ori^t^y^t^a^bl^{e prov}ⁱ^d^{ed by}^t^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e C}^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee on}^A^pproprⁱ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^h^at^s^h^ow^s^F^Y^{2007 f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g
^uⁿ^d^{er P.L}^.^110-^{5, R}^e^vⁱ^s^e^{d C}^oⁿ^tⁱⁿ^uⁱⁿ^g^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^R^e^s^o^l^u^tⁱ^oⁿ^,^{2007, en}^act^{ed on}^F^e^{b. 15, 2007.}
^{a. F}^Y^{2006 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^ref^l^ect^an^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^of^1.0%^.
^b^.^Selectiv^{e Ser}^v^{ice Sy}^stem^w^a^{s in}^clu^d^e^dⁱⁿ^t^h^{e Ho}^u^s^{e b}^{ill; in}^th^{e Sen}^a^{te, th}^{is ag}^en^cy^w^a^{s in}^th^e
^Militar^y^Coⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ^an^d^Veter^aⁿ^s^A^f^f^a^ir^{s ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^b^ill.
^c.^N^o^sⁱⁿ^g^l^{e t}^a^bl^{e av}^ai^l^a^bl^{e f}^r^om^t^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee s}^h^ow^s^t^h^{e en}^act^ed^F^Y²⁰⁰⁷
^t^o^t^a^l^f^o^{r t}^h^es^{e ag}^en^ci^es^;^as^of^J^a^nua^r^y^{2007 t}^h^ey^w^e^{re di}^vⁱ^{ded am}^on^g^t^w^{o appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s
^s^u^bcom^mⁱ^t^t^ees^.
Federal Election Commission (FEC). The FEC administers federal
campaign finance law, including overseeing disclosure requirements, limits on
contributions and expenditures, and the presidential election public funding system;
the FEC retains civil enforcement authority for the law.
The President’s fiscal 2007 budget proposed an appropriation of $57.1 million
for the FEC, a 5.5% increase above the fiscal 2006 appropriation of $54.2 million.
Of this amount, at least $4.7 million was proposed to be designated for internal
automated data systems and $5,000 for representational and reception expenses.
Both the House Appropriations Committee and the full House accepted the overall
amount proposed by the Administration but raised the $4.7 million minimum for
automated data systems to $6.5 million. The agency was further authorized to collect
registration fees for conferences, with such fees credited to the agency to help defray
costs of such conferences. In addition, the House committee report commended the
FEC on the implementation of its Administrative Fine Program, which allows the
agency to assess fines for reporting violations, but it expressed concern that the

program had not yet been authorized beyond December 31, 2008. The committee
urged the FEC to work with the authorizing committee to achieve permanent
authorization of the program prior to the FY2008 appropriations request. The Senate
Appropriations Committee matched the House appropriation of $57.1 million for
FY2007. The Senate Appropriations Committee report did not comment on the
Administrative Fine Program or provide additional instructions to the FEC. Despite
the proposed increase in FY2007 FEC appropriations requested in the President’s
budget and supported in the House-passed and Senate-reported legislation, The
FY2007 Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution (H.J.Res. 20/(P.L. 110-5)
extended the FY2006 FEC funding level for FY2007. FEC funding therefore
remained at $54.5 million ($55 million), as shown in Table 10.
Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). The FLRA, to the extent
feasible, continues to implement the five government-wide goals of the President’s
Management Agenda during FY2007. Under the strategic management of human
capital goal, the FLRA plans to implement cost savings measures to address
projected changes in workload resulting from the implementation of the BRAC (Base
Realignment and Closure) decisions and new personnel systems at the Departments
of Defense (DOD) and Homeland Security (DHS). The FLRA reported that its
regional workload declined by 32% between 2001 and 2004, and that this trend may
continue because of the DOD and DHS reforms. The agency also plans to streamline
and consolidate the FLRA’s training functions and implement additional workforce
flexibilities through OPM. As enacted, FLRA received $25 million for FY2007, the
same amount (rounded) as in FY2006, and as passed by the House and reported in
the Senate for FY2007.
General Services Administration (GSA). The General Services
Administration administers federal civilian procurement policies pertaining to the
construction and management of federal buildings, disposal of real and personal
property, and management of federal property and records. It is also responsible for
managing the funding and facilities for former Presidents and presidential transitions.
Typically only about 1% of GSA’s total budget is funded by direct appropriations.
As shown in Table 11, for FY2007, the President requested $52.5 million for
government-wide policy and $83 million for operating expenses; $44 million for the
Office of Inspector General; $3 million for allowances and office staff for former
Presidents; and $16.9 million to be deposited into the Federal Citizen Information
Center Fund. H.R. 5576, as reported and passed in the House, mirrored these figures.
Likewise, as reported in the Senate, the requested amounts were recommended.
The FY2007 appropriations for GSA enacted in P.L. 110-5 ultimately
authorized $52.3 million for government-wide policy and $83.2 million for operating
expenses; $52.6 million for the Office of Inspector General; $2.9 million for
allowances and office staff for former Presidents; and $14.9 million to be deposited
into the Federal Citizen Information Center Fund. In comparison with the previous
House and Senate versions, the enacted FY2007 appropriation provided $8.6 million
more for the Office of Inspector General and $2 million less for the Federal Citizen
Information Center Fund. With respect to GSA total direct appropriations, FY2007
as enacted came to $303 million, representing an increase of $86 million over the
total enacted for FY2006.

Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). Most GSA spending is financed through
the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). Rent assessments from agencies paid into the
FBF provide the principal source of its funding. Congress may also provide direct
funding into the FBF. Congress directs the GSA as to the allocation or limitation on
spending of funds from the FBF in provisions found accompanying GSA’s annual
appropriations.
Table 11. General Services Administration Appropriations,
FY2006 to FY2007
⁽ⁱⁿ^m^illioⁿ^s^o^f^d^o^llar^s⁾
^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^F^und/O^f^fⁱ^ce^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^Hou^s^e^Reported^Ena^c^t^e^d
^Fed^e^r^a^{l B}^u^ildⁱⁿ^g^s^Fuⁿ^d
^T^o^{tal L}ⁱ^m^itatioⁿ^s^oⁿ^$7,753^$8,047^$7,181^$8,065^$7,555
^A^v^ailab^ility^o^f^Rev^eⁿ^u^e^s
^Lⁱ^m^itatioⁿ^s^oⁿ^Ob^lig^atioⁿ^:⁷⁹²⁶⁹⁰²¹²⁷⁰⁸⁷⁰¹
^N^e^w^Co^nst^r^uc^tⁱ^o^{n P}^r^o^j^e^c^t^s
^Lⁱ^m^itatioⁿ^s^oⁿ^Ob^lig^atioⁿ^:⁸⁶¹⁸⁶⁶⁴⁷⁸⁸⁶⁶⁶¹⁸
^Rep^a^ir^{s an}^d^A^lter^a^tioⁿ^s
^Lⁱ^m^itatioⁿ^oⁿ^Ob^lig^atioⁿ^:
^Iⁿ^stallm^en^{t A}^c^q^u^isitioⁿ¹⁶⁸¹⁶⁴¹⁶⁴¹⁶⁴¹⁶⁴
^Pa^y^m^eⁿ^t^s
^Lⁱ^m^itatioⁿ^oⁿ^Ob^lig^atioⁿ^s^:^4,046^4,323^4,323^4,323^4,068
^R^eⁿ^t^{al of}^Space
^Lⁱ^m^itatioⁿ^oⁿ^Ob^lig^atioⁿ^s^:^1,885^2,004^2,004^2,004^2,004
^B^u^ildⁱⁿ^g^Op^er^atioⁿ^s
^Req^u^{est f}^o^r^A^d^d^itioⁿ^a^l²⁴⁵²⁴³⁹⁴
^A^m^o^unt
^Gen^e^r^a^{l A}^c^tiv^{ities A}^cco^uⁿ^t^s
^Go^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^-^w^id^{e P}^o^licy⁵²⁵³⁵³⁵³⁵²
^O^p^eratⁱⁿ^g^Ex^pen^s^es⁹⁹⁸³⁸⁰⁸³⁸³
^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^In^s^p^{ector Gen}^e^ral⁴³⁴⁴⁴⁴⁴⁴⁵³
^A^llow^aⁿ^ces^an^{d Of}^fⁱ^{ce Staf}^f³³³³³
^f^o^{r Form}^{er P}^r^es^iden^ts
^Fed^e^r^a^{l Citizen}^Iⁿ^f^o^r^m^atioⁿ¹⁵¹⁷¹⁷¹⁷¹⁵
^Ce^nt^e^r^Fund
^E^l^e^c^t^r^oⁿⁱ^c^G^o^v’t⁽^E^-G^o^v⁾^Fund³⁵³⁵³
^G^S^{A d}ⁱ^{rect ap}^p^r^op^riation^s^total^$217^$450^$203^$205^$303
^Source:^T^h^{e P}^r^es^iden^t’^s^bu^dg^{et requ}^es^{t f}^o^{r FY2007, th}^{e Hou}^s^e^C^o^m^m^ittee^on^A^ppropriation^s^report
^(H.R^{ept. 109-}^{495), th}^{e Sen}^a^{te C}^o^m^m^{ittee on}^A^ppropriation^s^report^(S.R^ept.^109-^293),^an^d^{a B}^u^dg^et

^A^u^t^h^ori^t^y^t^a^bl^{e prov}ⁱ^d^{ed by}^t^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e C}^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee on}^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^h^at^s^h^ow^s^F^Y^{2007 f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g
^uⁿ^d^{er P.L}^.^110-^{5, R}^e^vⁱ^s^e^{d C}^oⁿ^tⁱⁿ^uⁱⁿ^g^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^R^e^s^o^l^u^tⁱ^oⁿ^,^{2007, en}^act^{ed on}^F^e^{b. 15, 2007.}
For FY2007, the President had requested that an additional amount of $245
million be deposited in the FBF and that the total limitation for the FBF be set at
$8.047 billion. The President’s budget further requested that $690 million remain
available until expended for new construction projects from the FBF, and $866
million remain available until expended for repairs and alterations.
As reported and passed in the House, there would have been a total limitation
of $7.740 billion for the FBF, in FY2007, a decrease of $12 million below the
FY2006 enacted levels, and a decrease of $307 million below the President’s request.
According to the House approved language, to carry out the purposes of the FBF,
$383.9 million would remain available until expended for new construction projects,
and $866.2 million would remain available until expended for repairs and alterations.
As reported in the Senate, the Committee on Appropriations recommended a
total limitation for the FBF in FY2007 of $8.065 billion, which constituted $884
million more than allowed by the House; $708.2 million for new construction, more
than $496 million above the House passed version; and new obligational authority
of $866.2 million for repairs and alterations, nearly $388 million more than approved
by the House.
As enacted, P.L. 110-5 provided that for FY2007, an additional amount of $93.6
million be deposited in the FBF and that the total limitation for the FBF be set at
$7.555 billion. The FY2007 enacted legislation further provided that $701.1 million
remain available until expended for new construction projects from the FBF, and
$618.2 million remain available until expended for repairs and alterations.
Electronic Government Fund (E-gov Fund). Originally unveiled in
advance of the President’s proposed budget for FY2002, the E-gov Fund and its
appropriation has been a somewhat contentious matter between the President and
Congress. The President’s initial $20 million request was cut to $5 million, which
was the amount provided for FY2003 as well. Funding thereafter was held at $3
million for FY2004, FY2005, and FY2006. Created to support interagency e-gov
initiatives approved by the Director of OMB, the fund and the projects it funds have
been subject to close scrutiny by, and accountability to, congressional appropriators.
The President requested $5 million for FY2007 and Senate appropriators concurred,
but the House approved the usual $3 million, as recommended in the House
Appropriations Committee report. The final amount provided for FY2007 was $2.9
million.
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The MSPB request in the
President’s budget for increased funding for FY2007 was to cover pay raises,
performance management training for staff, and higher space rental rates.
Additionally, $495,000 of the amount requested was to relocate the San Francisco
office to a building which is fully compliant with current earthquake standards. The
MSPB continues to adjudicate appeals, but with faster processing times, under the
new personnel systems currently being implemented at DOD and DHS. The Board
also is in the process of hiring the additional staff authorized by Congress in FY2006
and needed to meet the increased demands of DOD and DHS. The FY2007

appropriations enacted for the MSPB was $39 million (rounded), $1 million more
than for FY2006.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The custodian
of the historically valuable records of the federal government since its establishment
in 1934, NARA also prescribes policy and provides both guidance and management
assistance concerning the entire life cycle of federal records. It also administers the
presidential libraries system; publishes the laws, regulations, and presidential and
other documents; assists the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), which
manages federal security classification and declassification policy; and assists the
National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC), which makes
grants nationwide to help nonprofit organizations identify, preserve, and provide
access to materials that document American history.
For FY2007, the President had requested $338 million for NARA, a modest
increase over the $326 million appropriated for the agency for FY2006. Of this
requested amount, the following distributions were specified: $289.6 million for
operating expenses, a slight increase over the $280 million appropriated for FY2006;
$45 million for the electronic records archive; $13 million for repairs and restoration;
and no requested funds for the NHPRC, which had received $7 million in FY2006.
The House approved the $345.5 million recommended by the appropriators for
NARA, which is approximately $7.5 million more than the amount requested for the
agency in the President’s budget. Of this amount, distributions were as follows:
$289.6 million for operating expenses, $45 million for the electronic records archive,
and $13 million for repairs and restoration. For the NHPRC account, $7.5 million
was recommended — $2 million for operations and the remainder for grants. A $10
million debt adjustment in committee reduced the $355.5 million allocation to $345.5
million.
The Senate approved $328 million for NARA, distributed as follows: $280.9
million for operating expenses; $38.9 million for the electronic records archive, with
$3 million of these funds designated for work with the National Oceanographic
Office at the National Center for Critical Information Processing and Storage at the
Stennis Space Center in Mississippi; and a little over $11.6 million for repairs and
restoration, with $5.5 million of this amount provided for projects at a new regional
archives and records center in Alaska and at the Kennedy and Johnson presidential
libraries. For the NHPRC account, $5 million was allocated. An almost $8.5 million
debt adjustment was also accepted.
The final amount approved for NARA, with $10 million for debt reduction, was
$331 million, allocated in the following distributions: $279 million for operating
expenses, $45 million for the electronic records archive, $9 million for repairs and
restoration, and almost $7.5 million for the NHPRC grants program.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Funding for the following
projects was included in OPM’s FY2007 request for salaries and expenses:
Enterprise Human Resources Integration ($6.9 million) and Human Resources Line
of Business ($1.4 million). A priority of the agency during 2007 is the
implementation of reforms to the position classification, pay, and performance
management systems included in the Working For America Act draft legislative

proposal submitted to Congress in July 2005 (not yet introduced). OPM also is
giving priority to the issues of recruitment, the hiring process, training, career and
professional development, dental and vision benefits, and health benefits options.
The agency’s Inspector General continues to develop a prescription drug audit
program, which includes pharmacy benefit managers, to assist in recovering
inappropriate expenses charged in previous years and negotiating more favorable
contracts.
The House bill as passed provided the same appropriation for OPM salaries and
expenses as requested by the President (albeit down $10 million from FY2006), but
the allocation of the funding was changed. An increase in funds was denied for pay
and performance modernization, and instead, the Management Services Division
account was increased. The bill did not fund an increase for the retirement systems
modernization project and therefore reduces the amount authorized to be transferred
from trust funds. The committee report accompanying the bill directed the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to continue to monitor implementation of
the retirement modernization program and update the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations by March 1, 2007, “as to OPM’s progress in converting the
agency’s paper personnel file system into a secure digital system.” It included
several directives for OPM:
^!to continue implementing and refining the new human resources
management systems at the Departments of Homeland Security and
Defense before expanding such systems to other departments and
agencies.
^!to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations an
operating plan for FY2007 signed by the OPM Director. The plan
must be submitted within 60 days of the act’s enactment. It must
include “funding levels including an identification of carryover
funds for the various offices, centers, programs, and initiatives
covered in the budget justification and supporting documents
referenced in the House and Senate appropriations reports and the
statement of the managers.”
^!to include changes — dollars requested broken out between trust
fund and general funds for specific programs or activities within
organizations, a total that includes reimbursements, and a breakout
of direct appropriation and reimbursement — in future budget
justifications.
^!to continue efforts to include “clear, detailed, and concise
information on how the programs will be funded and how they will
be measured” in the budget justification.
H.R. 5576, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, would have
provided the same appropriation for OPM salaries and expenses and for Office of
Inspector General salaries and expenses that the FY2007 budget requested and the
House passed. As requested by the President, up to $8.3 million dollars of the
funding could be used for e-Government projects. The Senate committee report also
included several directives for OPM:

^!to report to the committee within 120 days of the act’s enactment on
its human resources products and services and actions taken to
respond to the committee’s concerns that OPM is not allowing
federal agencies “the flexibility to contract as they see fit, including
contracting with private companies to provide online employment
applications and processing services, as well as choice in selecting
service providers and human resource systems.”
^!to report on progress in implementing any recommendations in the
forthcoming OPM and GSA survey and report on the child care
needs of executive, legislative, and judicial branch employees within
six months after the report is issued, and to include in the report any
further measures that may be taken. OPM is also directed “to
continue its efforts to provide information and education to agencies
and employees on promotion of the subsidy for child care expenses
for lower income employees.”³⁸
^!to continue to give GAO’s recommendations on modernization of
the retirement system — especially related to progress, costs, and
risks — careful consideration and to closely consult with GAO in
the future.
The FY2007 total appropriations for OPM as enacted was $19.594 billion, more
than the House-passed version but less than the figure in the President’s request and
the Senate-reported versions.
Office of Special Counsel (OSC). The funding recommended by the
Senate Committee on Appropriations ($16 million) was $63,000 more than the
amount requested in the FY2007 budget or in the House-passed bill ($15.937
million). The committee’s report directed the OSC to:
^!Submit its FY2008 budget justification on the first Monday in
February and to “include highly detailed data and explanatory
statements to support the appropriations requests, including tables
that detail OSC’s programs, activities and staffing levels for fiscal
years 2007 and 2008.” The agency was directed to coordinate with
the committee “well in advance on its planned budget submission.”
^!Submit to Congress, with the FY2008 budget request, “a
comprehensive strategy addressing capital needs and case processing³⁹
in order to prevent any future backlog of cases.” The agency was
also directed to provide quarterly staffing reports from the Special
Counsel to Congress.
^!Communicate with the committee 45 days prior to any
organizational change that would cause the agency’s staffing to vary
above or below these levels: 70 to 75 FTEs (headquarters), 6 to 8

³⁸ S.Rept. 109-293, p. 220.
³⁹ Ibid., p. 224.

FTEs (Detroit), 9 to 11 FTEs (Dallas), 8 to 10 FTEs (San Francisco
Bay area), and 9 to 12 FTEs (District of Columbia field office). The
OSC’s total number of FTEs should not be less than 102 or greater
than 116.
Postal Service.⁴⁰ The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is self-supporting; it
generates nearly all of its funding — over $70 billion annually — by charging users
of the mail for the costs of the services it provides. Congress does provide a regular
appropriation, however, to compensate USPS for revenue it forgoes in providing, at
congressional direction, free mailing privileges for the blind and for overseas voting.
Congress has also provided some funds in recent years for bio-terrorism detection in
the wake of the anthrax events of 2001.
Under the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of 1993, Congress is authorized to
reimburse USPS $29 million each year until 2035, for services provided below cost
to non-profit organizations at congressional direction in the 1990s, but not paid for
at the time. For the past 13 years, the Postal Service appropriation has consisted of
that amount, plus an estimate of the amount needed to pay for mail for the blind and
overseas voters for the current year.
In its FY2007 Budget, the Administration proposed an appropriation of $79.9
million, including $60.7 million for revenue forgone in FY2007 and a reconciliation
adjustment for underestimated mail volume in FY2004 of $19.2 million. The Postal
Service, which submits its own request as an independent entity, estimated that the
FY2007 amount needed for the blind and overseas voting would be $80.1 million,
or $19.4 million more than OMB requested, and asked Congress to appropriate that
amount. Both proposals would have supplemented the FY2007 amount with a $19.2
million reconciliation adjustment reflecting that actual use of the subsidy in FY2004
was underestimated by that amount. The Postal Service’s request also included a
reconciliation adjustment of $24.4 million reflecting the amount by which actual
expenditures for FY2005 exceeded the amount appropriated that year. Thus the
Postal Service’s request for FY2007 was $152.7 million: including $80.1 million for
FY2007 revenue forgone, $43.6 million as a reconciliation adjustment for two years,
and $29 million as the annual payment under the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of

1993.

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

⁴⁰ Also see CRS Report RS21025, The Postal Revenue Forgone Appropriation: Overview
and Current Issues, by Kevin Kosar.

The House bill, as reported by committee and passed by the House, adopted the
Administration’s recommendation by providing $79.9 million for the current year’s
revenue forgone, as an advance appropriation, but departed from it in once again by
approving the annual $29 million for revenue forgone in the past. The committee
report (H.Rept. 109-495) commented that the method OMB used to estimate revenue
forgone expenditures, which is to take an average of past expenses, was “inaccurate”
compared to the Postal Service’s estimate, which is based on current audits of mail
volume. The Senate Committee mirrored the action of the House, providing $108.9
million for the Postal Service Fund. Its report (S.Rept. 109-293) also “directed” the
Postal Service not to implement mail processing center consolidations in Iowa, South
Dakota, and Washington until GAO has issued a report on decision-making criteria
used in such consolidations.
Ultimately, the FY2007 Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution
provided USPS $108.9 in FY2007 appropriations, with $79.9 million in advanced
appropriations for the current year’s revenue forgone, and $29 million for revenue
forgone in the past.
Titles VIII (Senate) and IX (House):
General Provisions Government-Wide
The Transportation, Treasury, et al., Appropriations Act customarily includes
general provisions which apply either government-wide or to specific agencies or
programs. There also may be general provisions at the end of each individual title
within the appropriations act which relate only to agencies and accounts within that
specific title. The Administration’s proposed language for government-wide general
provisions was included in the FY2007 Budget, Appendix.⁴¹ Most of the provisions
continue language that has appeared under the General Provisions title for several
years. For various reasons, Congress has determined that reiterating the language is
preferable to making the provisions permanent. Presented below are some of the
government-wide general provisions that were proposed for elimination in the
FY2007 budget. Inclusion of the provisions in H.R. 5576, as passed by the House
and reported in the Senate, is noted. H.R. 5576 was not enacted
^!Section 809, which prohibits payment to political appointees who
are filling positions for which they have been nominated, but not
confirmed. Included as Section 909 of the House bill and Section

809 of the Senate bill.

^!Section 819, which prohibits the obligation or expenditure of
appropriated funds for employee training that (1) does not meet
identified needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities bearing directly
upon the performance of official duties; (2) contains elements likely
to induce high levels of emotional response or psychological stress

⁴¹ FY2007 Budget, Appendix, pp. 9-14. The 800 section numbers refer to the provisions as
they were enacted in P.L. 109-115, the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2006.

in some participants; (3) does not require prior employee notification
of the content and methods to be used in the training and written end
of course evaluation; (4) contains any methods or content associated
with religious or quasi-religious belief systems or “new age” belief
systems; or (5) is offensive to, or designed to change, participants’
personal values or lifestyle outside the workplace. Included as
Section 919 of the House bill and Section 819 of the Senate bill.
^!Section 820, which prohibits the use of appropriated funds to
implement or enforce employee non-disclosure agreements if they
do not contain whistleblower protection clauses. Included as Section

920 of the House bill and Section 820 of the Senate bill.

^!Section 823, which requires that the Committees on Appropriations
approve the release of any “non-public” information, such as mailing
or telephone lists, to any person or any organization outside the
federal government. Included as Section 923 of the House bill and
Section 823 of the Senate bill.
^!Section 834, which states that Congress recognizes the United States
Anti-Doping Agency as the official anti-doping agency for Olympic,
Pan American, and Paralympic sports in the United States. Included
as Section 934 of the House bill and Section 834 of the Senate bill.
^!Section 836, which prohibits the use of appropriated funds to
implement or enforce restrictions or limitations on the Coast Guard
Congressional Fellowship Program or to implement OPM’s
proposed regulations limiting the detail of executive branch
employees to the legislative branch. Included as Section 936 of the
House bill and Section 836 of the Senate bill.
^!Section 837, which requires agencies to report to Congress on the
amount of the acquisitions made from entities that manufacture the
articles, materials, or supplies outside the United States. Not
included in the House bill. Included as Section 845 of the Senate
bill.
^!Section 839, which requires appropriate executive department and
agency heads either to transfer funds to, or reimburse, the Federal
Aviation Administration to ensure the uninterrupted, continuous
operation of the Midway Atoll airfield. Not included in the House
bill. Included as Section 838 of the Senate bill.
^!Section 840, which provides certain requirements for conducting a
public-private competition for the performance of an activity that is
not inherently governmental for executive agencies with less than
100 full-time employees. Not included in either the House bill or
the Senate bill.
^!Section 842, which prohibits the use of funds to convert an activity
or function of an executive agency to contractor performance if more

than 10 federal employees perform the activity, unless the analysis
reveals that savings would exceed 10 percent of the most efficient
organization’s personnel-related costs for performance of the activity
or function by federal employees, or $10 million, whichever is
lesser. Included as Section 939 of the House bill and Section 840 of
the Senate bill.
^!Section 845, which precludes contravention of the Privacy Act.
Included as Section 942 of the House bill and Section 843 of the
Senate bill.
Among new government-wide general provisions proposed in H.R. 5576 were
those providing a 2.7% pay adjustment for federal civilian employees, including
those in the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense (Section 940 of the
House bill and Section 841 of the Senate bill), and prohibiting the use of funds to
send or otherwise pay for more than 50 employees from a federal department or
agency to attend a single conference outside the United States (Section 951 of the
House bill and not included in the Senate bill). This latter provision was added to the
bill by an amendment offered by Representative Scott Garrett and agreed to by the
House by voice vote on June 14, 2006. The Statement of Administration Policy on
H.R. 5576 strongly opposed the 2.7% pay adjustment, stating that it exceeds the
annual pay increase required by the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act for
federal employees and the average private sector pay adjustment.⁴²
The FY2007 Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 110-5)
provided that “the requirements, authorities, conditions, limitations, and other
provisions” of the FY2006 TTHUD appropriations act would continue in effect
through FY2007, unless expressly changed in P.L. 110-5.⁴³
Cuba Sanctions⁴⁴
Since 2000, either one or both houses have approved provisions in the annual
Treasury Department appropriations bill that would ease U.S. economic sanctions on
Cuba (especially on travel and on U.S. agricultural exports), but none of these
provisions has ever been enacted. In 2006, both the House-passed and Senate
Appropriations Committee-reported versions of the FY2007 Transportation-
Treasury-Housing appropriations bill, H.R. 5576, included a provision that would
have prevented Treasury Department funds from being used to implement a February
2005 amendment to the Cuba embargo regulations that tightened restrictions on
“payment of cash in advance” for U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba.⁴⁵ The

⁴² U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administration Policy, H.R. 5576 — Transportation, Treasury, Housing, the Judiciary, and
the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY2007, June 14, 2006, p. 4.
⁴³ Earmarks in FY2006 committee reports were expressly excluded.
⁴⁴ Prepared by Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.
⁴⁵ A similar provision was included in both the House-passed and Senate-passed versions
(continued...)

Administration’s Statement of Policy on the bill maintained that the President would
veto the bill if it contained any provision that would weaken sanctions on Cuba.
Action on H.R. 5576 was not completed by the end of the 109^th Congress, and
Treasury Department appropriations for FY2007 ultimately were funded by a series
of continuing resolutions that did not include any provision on Cuba sanctions.
In the House version of H.R. 5576, the Cuba provision was in Section 950,
which was added on June 14, 2006, when the House approved H.Amdt. 1049
(Moran, Kansas) by voice vote. On the same day, the House rejected two additional
Cuba amendments: H.Amdt 1050 (Rangel), that would have prohibited funds from
being used to implement the economic embargo of Cuba, was rejected by a vote of
183-245; H.Amdt. 1051 (Lee), that would have prohibited funds from being used to
implement the Administration’s June 2004 tightening of restrictions on educational
travel to Cuba, was rejected by a vote of 187-236. An additional Cuba amendment,
H.Amdt. 1032 (Flake), that would have prohibited the use of funds to amend
regulations relating to travel for religious activities in Cuba, was withdrawn from
consideration.
In the Senate version of the bill, the Cuba provision was in Section 846. It was
added to the bill on July 20, 2006, when the Senate Appropriations Committee
approved an amendment offered by Senator Dorgan by voice vote during the
committee’s markup of the bill. The committee subsequently reported the bill
(S.Rept. 109-293) with the Cuba provision on July 26, 2006.
Since the early 1960s, U.S. policy toward Communist Cuba under Fidel Castro
has consisted largely of efforts to isolate the island nation through comprehensive
economic sanctions, including prohibitions on U.S. financial transactions — the
Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) — that are administered by the Treasury
Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Restrictions on travel have
been a key and often contentious component of U.S. efforts to isolate the Cuban
government. The regulations have not banned travel itself, but have placed
restrictions on any financial transactions related to travel to Cuba. In June 2004, the
Bush Administration significantly tightened restrictions on travel, and there was
considerable negative reaction to the Administration’s tightening of restrictions for
family visits and educational travel.
Some U.S. commercial agricultural exports to Cuba have been allowed since
2001 under the terms of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act
of 2000 or TSRA, but with numerous restrictions and licensing requirements.
Exporters are denied access to U.S. private commercial financing or credit, and all
transactions must be conducted in cash in advance or with financing from third
countries. Since late 2001, Cuba has purchased about $1.2 billion in agricultural
products from the United States. Overall U.S. exports to Cuba amounted to about
$7 million in 2001, $146 million in 2002, $259 million in 2003, $400 million in

⁴⁵ (...continued)
of the FY2006 Transportation appropriations bill, H.R. 3058, but it was dropped in the
conference report to the bill (H.Rept. 109-307). The Administration had threatened to veto
the measure over the provision.

2004, $369 million in 2005, and $348 million in 2006, the majority in agricultural
products.⁴⁶
In February 2005, the Administration tightened U.S. economic sanctions against
Cuba by further restricting how U.S. agricultural exporters may be paid for their
sales. OFAC amended the CACR to clarify that the term “payment of cash in
advance” for U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba means that the payment is to be received
prior to the shipment of the goods. This differs from the practice of being paid before
the actual delivery of the goods, a practice that had been utilized by most U.S.
agricultural exporters to Cuba since such sales were legalized in late 2001. U.S.
agricultural exporters and some Members of Congress strongly objected that the
action constituted a new sanction that violated the intent of TSRA, and could
jeopardize millions of dollars in U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba. OFAC Director
Robert Werner maintained that the clarification “conforms to the common
understanding of the term in international trade.”⁴⁷ In July 2005, OFAC clarified
that, for “payment of cash in advance” for the commercial sale of U.S. agricultural
exports to Cuba, vessels can leave U.S. ports as soon as a foreign bank confirms
receipt of payment from Cuba. OFAC’s action would reportedly ensure that the
goods would not be vulnerable to seizure for unrelated claims while still at the U.S.
port. Supporters of overturning OFAC’s February 2005 amendment, such as the
American Farm Bureau Federation, were pleased by the clarification but indicated
that they would still work to overturn the February rule.⁴⁸
For additional information, see CRS Report RL32730, Cuba: Issues for the
109^th Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan; CRS Report RL33499, Exempting Food and
Agriculture Products from U.S. Economic Sanctions: Status and Implementation, by
Remy Jurenas; and CRS Report RL31139, Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and
Remittances, by Mark P. Sullivan.

⁴⁶ World Trade Atlas. Department of Commerce Statistics.
⁴⁷ U.S. Department of the Treasury, Testimony of Robert Werner, Director, OFAC, before
the House Committee on Agriculture, March 16, 2005.
⁴⁸ Christopher S. Rugaber, “Treasury Clarifies Cuba Farm Export Rule, and Baucus Relents
on Nominees,” International Trade Reporter, August 4, 2005.