Appropriations for FY2000: Legislative Branch
Released: 2000-01-11T00:00:00

Most Recent Developments

On September 29, 1999, the President signed a $2.457 billion FY2000 legislative branchappropriations bill into Public Law 106-57 (113 Stat. 408). This represented a reduction of 4.8%,or $124.1 million, from the FY1999 budget of $2.581 billion. Conferees approved H.R. 1905 onAugust 4, 1999, and both houses agreed to the report the following day.

The House bill, H.R. 1905, which passed on June 10 (214-197), contained $1.862 billion, excluding funds for Senate internal activities and Senate activities of the architect of the Capitol.This appropriation was a $54.8 million decrease from the appropriation reported earlier by theHouse Appropriations Committee. The reduction was contained in an amendment agreed to by theHouse. The total legislative appropriation passed by the House was a reduction of $190 million,or 9.3%, from the FY1999 funding level of $2.052 billion, also excluding Senate items.

The Senate-passed bill, S. 1206, contained $1.679 billion, excluding funds for House internal activities and House activities of the architect of the Capitol. This was a reduction of $114 million,or 6.4%, from the FY1999 appropriation of $1.793 billion, also excluding funds for House items.

Subsequently, the FY2000 legislative budget was rescinded by 0.38% in H.R. 3194, the FY2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed into Public Law 106-113 on November 29, 1999. PublicLaw 106-113 contains a 0.38% across the board cut in all FY2000 appropriations acts, includingthe legislative branch, with flexibility in cutting some accounts. More information on the cuts willbe included in the next update of this report.

An FY1999 supplemental appropriation of $5.6 million was made available to the architect of the Capitol in P.L. 106-31 , which was signed on May 21, 1999. The act contained $3.8 million forthe "necessary expenses of a House page dormitory" and $1.8 million for life safety renovations tothe O'Neill House office building.

Introduction

Effective in FY1978, the legislative branch appropriations bill has been divided into two titles. Title I, Congressional Operations, contains budget authorities for activities directly serving Congress. Included in this title are the budgets of the House, the Senate, Joint Items (joint House and Senateactivities), the Congressional Budget Office, the Architect of the Capitol (except Library of Congressbuildings and grounds), the Congressional Research Service within the Library of Congress, andcongressional printing and binding activities of the Government Printing Office.

Title II, Related Agencies, contains budgets for activities not directly supporting Congress. Included in this title are the budgets of the Botanic Garden, Library of Congress (except theCongressional Research Service), the Library buildings and grounds within the Architect of theCapitol, the Government Printing Office (except congressional printing and binding costs), and theGeneral Accounting Office.

Periodically since FY1978, the legislative bill has contained additional titles for such purposes ascapital improvements and special one-time functions.

In FY1999, Title I budget authority was 72.8% of the total appropriation of $2.581 billion for FY1999, including supplementals . (1) Title II budget authority was 27.2% of the total appropriation. In addition, there is legislative budget authority that is not included in the annual legislative branchappropriations act or supplemental appropriations acts. It includes permanent budget authority forboth federal funds and trust funds, and other budget authority. (2)

Permanent federal funds are available as the result of previously enacted legislation and do not require annual action. (3)

Permanent trust funds are monies held in accounts that are credited with collections from specific sources earmarked by law for a defined purpose. Trust funds do not appear in the annuallegislative bill since they are not budget authority. They are included in the U.S. Budget either asbudget receipts or offsetting collections. (4)

The Budget also shows some non-legislative entities within the legislative branch budget. These entities are funded in other appropriations bills. These non-legislative entities are placedwithin the legislative budget section by the Office of Management and Budget for bookkeepingpurposes. (5)

Status

Table 1: Status of Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY2000,H.R. 1905, S. 1206

a The full Committee markup was held 6/10/99.

Developments This Year

Submission of FY2000 Budget Estimates. On February 1, 1999, President Clinton released theFY2000 budget request of $2.618 billion for legislative activities funded in thelegislative branch appropriations bill. (6) The revisedbudget estimate for the legislativebranch was $2.621 billion. (7) Legislative agencies mayrevise their budget requests atany time, and the $2.621 billion was a revision by the legislative branch of thePresident's request.

The revised request represented an increase of $ 45.7 million, or 1.8%, over the FY1999 appropriation of $2.576 billion, including the emergency supplementalappropriation of $223.7 million contained in P.L. 105-277 . When the emergencysupplemental appropriation of $223.7 million is excluded from the FY1999 budgetauthority , the FY2000 budget request of $2.621 billion was a 7.8% increase over theregular FY1999 budget of $2.352 billion.

Actions On the House Regular Annual FY2000 Legislative Funding Bill (H.R. 1905). On February 2, theHouse Subcommittee on Legislative began its hearings on the legislative budget,continuing on February 3 and 10. On May 12, 1999, the Subcommittee met andagreed (voice vote) to a FY2000 legislative branch budget of $1.917 billion,excluding funds for Senate internal activities and Senate activities of the architect ofthe Capitol. The total FY2000 budget represented a decrease of $135.2 million, or6.6%, from the FY1999 level of $2.052, also excluding Senate activities. The budgetfor Title I, in direct support of congressional operations, was a 12.8% decrease from$1.4 billion in FY1999 to $1.2 billion in FY2000.

The Subcommittee bill contained $769 million for the House (+3.9% difference from FY1999); $98.8 million for joint items (-51.8%); $2 million for the Office ofCompliance (-4.8%); $26.2 million for the Congressional Budget Office (+1.9%);$154.3 million for the Architect of the Capitol (-38.8%); $386.2 million for theLibrary of Congress (+6.2%); $107.7 million for the Government Printing Office(+3.9%); and $372.7 million for the Government Accounting Office (+3.7%).

On May 20, the Committee on Appropriations considered and ordered reported the FY2000 legislative budget (voice vote), with the Subcommittee's figures, afteradopting an amendment requiring the participation of House offices in the wasterecycling program. The amendment specified that funds collected through the saleof recycled materials were to be made available to the House child care center, asdetermined by the House Appropriations Committee. The recycling provision wassubsequently dropped from the bill during floor consideration because a point oforder against the amendment was sustained.

Another amendment offered and withdrawn during the mark up contained $1.8 million for Capitol Police information technology. The Committee's press releaseissued on May 21 noted that the bill reduced the number of FTE staff positions by 98,making a cumulative FTE reduction of 4,412, or 16%, since 1994. H.R. 1905 wasreported on May 21 ( H.Rept. 106-156 ).

On June 10, 1999, the House passed H.R. 1905 (214-197), containing $1.862 billion, excluding funds for Senate internal activities and Senate activities of thearchitect of the Capitol. The House agreed to a floor amendment that reduced the appropriation in H.R. 1905, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee, by$54.8 million. With the amendment, the House-passed appropriation was areduction of $190 million, or 9.3%, from the FY1999 funding level of $2.052 billion,also excluding Senate items.

The floor amendment made the following reductions:

$29.1 million from the House of Representatives accountsalaries and expenses, including $142,000 from House leadership offices; $28.3million from Members' representational allowances; $213,000 from the Committeeon Appropriations; and $483,000 from the heading salaries, officers, and employees;

$1.5 million from the architect of the Capitol, Capitol buildings and grounds, Capitol buildings, salaries and expenses;

$3.4 million from the architect of the Capitol, Capitol buildings and grounds, House office buildings;

$4.4 million from the architect of the Capitol, Capitol buildings and grounds, Capitol power plant;

$315,000 from the Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, salaries and expenses;

$4.1 million from the Government Printing Office, congressional printing and binding;

$685,000 from the Library of Congress, salaries and expenses;

$5.4 million from the Library of Congress, furniture and furnishings;

$4.4 million from the architect of the Capitol, library buildings and grounds, structural and mechanical care; and,

$1.5 million from the General Accounting Office, salaries and expenses.

The amendment also provided that:

The amount reduced under House of Representatives, House leadership offices [$142,000] be distributed among various leadership offices, asapproved by the House Appropriations Committee;

The amount to remain available under the heading architect of the Capitol, Capitol buildings and grounds, Capitol buildings, salaries and expenses,be reduced by $1.5 million;

The amount to remain available under the heading architect of the Capitol, Capitol buildings and grounds, House office buildings, be reduced by$3.4 million; and

The amount to remain available under the heading architect of the Capitol, library buildings and grounds, structural and mechanical care, be reducedby $4 million.

Actions On the Senate Regular Annual FY2000 Legislative Funding Bill (S. 1206). On March 3, theSenate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch began hearings on the legislative branchbudget. The subcommittee heard testimony from the architect of the Capitol andmembers of the Capitol Police Board. On March 17, the librarian of Congress, thecomptroller general, and the public printer testified before the subcommittee. Theofficers of the Senate and the director of the Congressional Budget Office testifiedon March 24.

On June 10, the Senate Committee on Appropriations held a mark up of its version of the FY2000 bill, and later the same day reported S. 1206 ( S.Rept. 106-75 ). S. 1206 contained $1.679 billion, excluding funds for House internal activities andHouse activities of the architect of the Capitol. This was a reduction of $114 million,or 6.4%, from the FY1999 appropriation of $1.793 billion, including the FY1999emergency supplemental. The $1.793 billion appropriation, which excluded fundsfor House items, was a 9.5% decrease from the budget request. Funds for Senateoperations were increased by 3.0%, an increase, Chairman Robert Bennett stated, thatwas less than the 4.4% annual federal pay adjustment. Savings were achieved in S.1206 by the subcommittee's decision to fund the architect's budget at 79% of hisbudget request.

The Senate passed H.R. 1905 (95-4) on June 16, after amending it to contain the language of S. 1206, as reported and subsequently amended on the floor. Two amendments were agreed to by voice vote. The first amendment modified the requirements regarding creditable service with congressional campaign committees;the second amendment provided additional restrictions on lobbying by formerMembers of Congress and senior congressional staff.

Conference Actions on the FY2000 LegislativeFunding Bill (H.R. 1509). On August 4, 1999, confereesapproved a $2.457 billion for the legislative branch budget, a reduction of 4.8%, or$124.1 million, from the FY1999 budget of $2.581 billion. Both Houses agreed tothe conference report on the following day. Among the agreements in conferencewas an addition of $21 million to the House appropriation heading, "Members'Representational Allowances," restoring part of the $28.3 million cut from theheading on the House floor during consideration of H.R. 1509.

Actions on A Rescission in FY2000 Legislative Branch Funds. During the last days of the 1999 session, Congressapproved a 0.38% across-the-board rescission in the FY2000 appropriations acts,including that for the legislative branch. The provision was contained in H.R. 3194,the FY2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was signed into Public Law106-113 on November 29, 1999. Congress provided flexibility in cutting someaccounts. More information on the rescission will be provided in the next update ofthis report.

Actions on the FY1999 Emergency Supplemental Bill (H.R. 1141). On May 14, conferees on the FY1999emergency supplemental bill, H.R. 1141, issued their report, which contained fundsand administrative language regarding the legislative branch ( H.Rept. 106-143 ). Theconference was approved by the House on May 18 (269-158) and the Senate on May20 (64-36). H.R. 1141 was signed into law on May 21, 1999 ( P.L. 106-31 ). The act-

rescinded $3.5 million in FY1999 appropriations of the House of Representatives under the account salaries and expenses, within the headingsalaries, officers and employees, and made available the same amount of $3.5 millionfor the House chief administrative officer to replace the House payrollsystem;

made available $3.8 million to the architect of the Capitol for necessary expenses of a House page dormitory; (8)

made available $1.8 million to the architect of the Capitol for necessary expenses for life safety renovations to the O'Neill House OfficeBuilding;

authorized adjustments in certain leadership allowances (effective in FY2000);

authorized each office under the heading House leadership offices to transfer any amounts appropriated for the office among the categories ofallowances and expenses for the office, excluding funds appropriated for officialexpenses (applicable in FY1999); and,

established a pilot Russian leadership program in FY1999 under the "leadership of the Librarian of Congress to bring up to 3,000 emergingRussian political leaders to the United States...to give Russian leaders from all levelsof government first hand exposure to the American free market economic system andoperation of American democratic institutions." (9)

Major Issues That Drove Discussions on the FY2000 Bill

Among the main issues that drove consideration of the FY2000 legislativebranch appropriations bill were the following:

What additional staff and funds were necessary to ensure that Congress would be Year-2000 compliant?

What were the funding and staffing needs for technologydevelopment, including online information, electronic document printing, andcontinued development of a legislative information system?

How could Congress assist in supporting the staff successionplans of its support agencies, in order to replace employees eligible to retire in theimmediate future?

What additional funds might be needed for securityenhancement for the Capitol, other congressional buildings, and adjacent grounds?

How much should be appropriated for the Office of theArchitect's request to undertake capital improvements?

Overall Funding Level Issues

Each spring, as members of the House Subcommittee on Legislative and the Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch consider funding requests fromlegislative agencies, they are faced with three options on funding levels: to maintaina flat budget; to provide a modest increase; or to approve a budget decrease. Statements by subcommittee members during the February and March 1999 hearingssuggested support for a fairly flat budget for FY2000, with a slight adjustment tofund mandatory personnel costs.

These views were reflected in the budget reported by the House Appropriations Committee on May 21, which was $1.917 billion. When excluding from the FY1999budget the one-time supplemental funding for the Capitol visitor's center, securityenhancements, and Y2K compliancy, the increase was 4.8%, to $1.917 billion inFY2000 from $1.823 billion in FY1999. The FY1999 and FY2000 figures excludefunds for Senate items. When including the FY1999 supplementals in the FY1999total, the Committee's FY2000 budget recommendation, again with Senate itemsexcluded, was a reduction of 6.6%, or $135.2 million.

The Senate's FY2000 bill, S. 1206, as reported and passed, contained a 7.0% increase, when excluding the FY1999 emergency supplementals. When includingthe FY1999 emergency supplementals, S. 1206 contained a 6.4% reduction from theFY1999 level.

The legislative branch budget is 0.15% of the total federal budget.

Flat Budget. A "flat" budget typically provides new funds for mandatory cost increases, but denies additionalfunding requests. (10) A flat budget can be difficultto achieve due to a number offactors, such as ongoing and emergency maintenance and repair needs or an effort tokeep operations current with recent technology developments.

The approach of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to the FY2000 budget (with recommended increases of 4.8% and 7%, respectively,excluding supplementals) was close to action taken on the FY1999 budget. TheFY1999 regular annual Legislative Branch Appropriations Act ( P.L. 105-275 ), without the emergency supplemental , contained a 2.8% increase over FY1998, to$2.352 billion from $2.288 billion (both figures in current dollars). The rate ofinflation for the comparable period of time was 2.5%. Allowing for inflation, theincrease was +0.3%.

When including the one-time FY1999 emergency supplemental, the FY1999 increase was higher, 12.6%, to $2.576 billion in FY1999 from $2.288 billion inFY1998. Allowing for inflation, the increase then changed to 9.9% from 0.3%.

The previous year conferees on the FY1998 legislative funding bill also approved a flat budget, or a 3.9% increase based on current dollars, to $2.288 billionin FY1998 from $2.203 billion in FY1997. Allowing for inflation, the FY1998conference figure was actually a 2.3% increase, to $2.345 billion in FY1998 from$2.293 billion in FY1997 (in constant 1999 dollars).

Modest Increase. When includingthe FY1999 emergency supplemental appropriations in P.L. 105-277 , the FY1999total appropriation allowed for a modest increase, to $2.576 billion from $2.288billion in FY1998, or 12.6% increase. The emergency supplemental contained fundsfor security systems, a Capitol visitors' center, and Year-2000 compliance ofsoftware and other computer changes.

Budget Decrease. Congress hasalso approved budget decreases in recent years. For FY1996, Congress voted adecrease of 8.2%, to an FY1996 budget of $2.184 billion from an FY1995 budget of$2.378 billion. When accounting for inflation, the decrease was more, 10.8%, to$2.326 billion in FY1996 budget from $2.606 billion in FY1995 (in constant 1999dollars). When including the FY1999 supplementals of 223.7 million, the FY2000budget is a reduction of 6.6% from the FY1999 level.

Although the FY1997 act contained an increase, when adjusted for inflation, theFY1997 budget authority was a decrease in the legislative budget. The FY1997increase was 0.9%, to $2.203 billion in FY1997 from $2.184 billion in FY1996.When adjusted for inflation, the FY1997 appropriation was a decrease of 1.4%, to$2.293 billion from $2.326 billion (in constant 1999 dollars).

Year-2000 Computer Reprogramming Issue

Congress continued to work toward ensuring that the legislative branch and other federal agencies achieve the software reprogramming and other computerchanges necessary to be Year-2000 (Y2K) compliant. This is necessary because mostcomputer software uses a two-digit year system for purposes of dating. The softwareassumes "19" to be the first two digits of any year. If not reprogrammed, computersusing a two-digit system would interpret the year 2000 - 00 - as 1900. The resultwould be data errors and possibly computer shutdowns.

During his opening remarks before the Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch on March 3, 1999, Chairman Robert Bennett once again stated his concernthat the legislative branch be Y2K ready, particularly since Congress is puttingpressure on the executive branch to be in compliance. He emphasized that theYear-2000 issue was of major importance to the Senate Subcommittee on LegislativeBranch. (11) He requested that the Capitol PoliceBoard and the Office of the Architectof the Capitol have their systems Y2K ready by March 31, 1999, and indicated thatfurther hearings would be held by the subcommittee if the deadline was not met. Later, during hearings on March 17 and 24, the chairman expressed his concerns tothe heads of other legislative branch offices and agencies.

Chairman Bennett's concerns are shared by others in Congress. In April 1998, the Senate majority and minority leaders announced the creation of a specialcongressional committee to oversee Y2K conversion efforts in the executive andjudicial branches. The Special Committee on the Y2K Technology Problem, alsochaired by Senator Bennett, continues to hold hearings on the progress of federalagencies in achieving Y2K compliance. ( Funds for the committee are included underthe Senate account, "Contingent Fund of the Senate," in the subaccount, "Inquiriesand Investigations.")

In late June 1998, the Speaker of the House announced the establishment of a House task force on the Y2K problem as a counterpart to the Senate specialcommittee. The House task force consists of members of the Subcommittee onGovernment Management, Information, and Technology of the Committee onGovernment Reform, and members of the Subcommittee on Technology of theCommittee on Science. A number of legislative offices and agencies participate inother Y2K groups, such as the House Information Resources Y2K action team, thelegislative data standards committee - Y2K task force, and the legislative branchY2K business continuity contingency planning group.

During hearings held by the House and Senate Subcommittees on Legislative Branch on the FY2000 budget, all legislative offices and agencies indicated that theywould have mission-critical programs, and as many other programs as possible, Y2Kcompliant. Most office and agency heads whose units were not yet mission-criticalcompliant stated that they expected to be so between June and September 1999, toallow time to test the systems. The sergeant at arms of the Senate created aSenate-only Year 2000 Web site, which contains information on how to test PCs todetermine if they are Year-2000 compliant, how to determine which noncompliantPCs can be upgraded to be compliant, and how to handle an upgrade. (12)

General Accounting Office. The FY1999 regular annual Legislative Branch Appropriations Act ( P.L. 105-275 )contained specific funding for the General Accounting Office (GAO) to make theneeded computer changes to be Y2K ready. The appropriations provided anadditional 50 FTEs and language that Congress expected at least one-third of theprogram funding increase to be used "to support information technology (IT) work,particularly in support of issues related to the Year 2000 computing crisis." (13) Conferees on the FY1999 bill directed that funds in excess of those required for theadditional FTEs be allocated to contract programming support and directed thecomptroller general to account for the use of these funds, including the number ofFTEs and the amount of the increase used to acquire contract services.

Additional Emergency Appropriations. Congress also made available an emergencysupplemental of $16.9 million to the legislative branch for Year-2000 complianceefforts in the FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency SupplementalAppropriations Act ( P.L. 105-277 ). The act made available the following amounts: $5.5 million for the Senate, under "Contingent Expenses of the Senate, Sergeant atArms and Doorkeeper of the Senate;" $6.4 million for the House of Representatives,under "Salaries and Expenses, Salaries, Officers, and Employees;" and $5 million forGAO, under "Information Technology Systems and Related Expenses." Fundstransferred to GAO were made available for transfer from GAO to "all entities of thelegislative branch other than the 'Senate' and 'House of Representatives' covered bythe Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1998." Transfers by GAO were madesubject to approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

Technology Issues

House and Senate Legislative Information Systems. Both houses continued to seek ways to reduce duplicationof effort in tracking legislation, to upgrade legislative tracking and documentmanagement systems, and to ensure that Congress achieves the neededreprogramming of its computer systems by the Year 2000. To accomplish this, bothhouses continued to develop information systems that create and manage legislativedata files.

The House legislative information system is administered by the House clerk. The Senate system is administered by the secretary of the Senate. They report,respectively, to the House Administration Committee (formerly House Oversight)and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on their recommendationsregarding the electronic transfer of legislative data between the two houses andamong other legislative branch entities.

In support of development of the House and Senate legislative information systems, both houses directed the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in 1996 todevelop a data retrieval system with the technical support of the Library of Congress(LOC) and in collaboration with other legislative branch agencies, such as theGovernment Printing Office (GPO). (14) The Houseand Senate legislative informationsystems are expected to reduce duplication through the consolidation of existinglegislative retrieval systems.

House System. In FY1996, the Committee on House Administration (formerly House Oversight) directed the clerkto study methods for increasing the capacity of the House to manage its documentselectronically. The committee further directed that subsequent proposals of the clerkrelating to printing be coordinated with GPO and all House entities requiring printingand storage of documents.

The clerk of the House requested $1.5 million for FY2000 to continue development of the House document management system (DMS), which would provide a method for creating, tracking, editing, sharing, printing, and transmittingdocuments. An identical appropriation was made for the DMS in FY1998 andFY1999. According to the clerk, the goals of the DMS are "to improve thelegislative document creation and revision process; to provide pro-active tracking,routing, and control of legislative documents; to improve information exchange withthe Senate and other government entities in order to facilitate the legislative process;to enable the Office of the Clerk to become the repository for House legislation andrelated documents for current and future use, for the general public, legislativeorganizations, and the House of Representatives; [and] to allow the House ofRepresentatives to become more independent for preparation, printing, anddistribution of official House of Representatives documents." (15)

The DMS is designed to automate document preparation, using a system for print-on-demand and for electronic transmission to GPO. Although development ofthe DMS is costly, anticipated savings to the House in administrative and printingcosts were estimated to be about $1 million annually. (16)

Senate System. The FY1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act directed the secretary of the Senate to developa legislative information system for the Senate. (17) The act directed that the secretaryoversee the system's development and implementation, subject to approval of theSenate Committee on Rules and Administration. Like the House, the Senate systemprovides a means for creating, tracking, editing, sharing, and transmitting documents.

The FY1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act funded the Senate system by authorizing the secretary to use unspent FY1995 monies previously appropriatedfor the Office of the Secretary of the Senate; it remained available until September30, 1998. The secretary was also authorized to transfer to the development of thelegislative information system, as he determined to be necessary, funds alreadyappropriated to the secretary's office for the purpose of development of the Senatefinancial management system.

Access to additional funding was provided in the FY1997 supplemental appropriations bill signed into law ( P.L. 105-18 ; H.R. 1871 ) June 12,1997. That act authorized the transfer of $5 million from other Senate accounts to theaccount, "Contingent Expenses of the Senate," under the subaccount, "Secretary ofthe Senate." (18) That money was made availablethrough September 30, 2000. Thetransfer was made subject to approval of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Funds for FY2000 are pending in the proposed budget for the Office of the Secretaryof the Senate.

The FY1999 Senate report on S. 2137 also contained language directing the Congressional Research Service and the Library "to continue theirdevelopment of the legislative retrieval system for the Senate and provide an annualreport outlining the strategic objective of this initiative." (19)

Anticipated Expenses of Internet Use. The increased use of e-mail by constituents and their visits toMembers' and offices' Web sites in the House and Senate are factors in the pendingbudgets. It is anticipated that Congress could face significant expenses in meetingthe demands of increased constituent communications via the Internet.

As a consequence of the volume of e-mail received in the House during the impeachment hearings, the Committee on House Administration (formerly HouseOversight) budgeted $2.8 million to upgrade the House computer system. Of thisamount, $1.9 million was to be spent on an upgrade of the e-mail system. Thechairman of the House Administration Committee noted that the House e-mailsystem was used about one million times a day during peak periods, up from anormal daily use of 80,000 in prior years. He stated that during three days of theimpeachment hearings the House Web site was visited 11 million times.

The Senate faced similar increases in e-mail during its impeachment trial, when daily e-mail use tripled at its peak. (20) The sergeantat arms of the Senate requested $1million for a new e-mail system in his FY2000 budget. Currently, the Senate isdeveloping requirements for a new system.

Modifications of the House Electronic Voting System

The FY2000 budget request of the clerk of the House contained funds for further upgrades to the House electronic voting system. Between $500,000 to $600,000 wasestimated as needed to replace the voting display board above the press gallery in theHouse chamber. (21)

House and Senate Committee Funding

House Committee Funding. As passed by the House, H.R. 1905, the FY2000 legislative funding bill, contained$114.97 million for House committees, under the heading committee employees. The heading included funds within two separate subheadings. The first subheadingcontained $93.9 million for committees' salaries and expenses that were authorizedby the House in a committee expense resolution, excluding the AppropriationsCommittee. This appropriation was a 4.6%, or $4.1 million, increase over theFY1999 level of $89.7 million, and $2.7 million below the FY2000 budget request.

The second contained $21.1 million for the salaries and expenses and studies and investigation activities of the Committee on Appropriations. This was an 8.9%,or $1.7 million, increase over FY1999, and a 5.2%, or $1.2 million, reduction fromthe FY2000 budget request.

The total appropriations for committees in the House-passed bill was $114.97million, a 5.4%, or $5.9 million, increase over the FY1999 level of $109.1 million.

Senate Committee Funding. As reported and passed, S. 1206 contained $78.1 million for operations of Senatecommittees. This figure included funds for two separate accounts: $6.5 million forthe Senate Appropriations Committee, and $71.6 million for expenses of all otherSenate committees. The total funding level of $78.1 million was an increase of 7.2%,or $5.3 million, over the FY1999 funding level of $72.9 million.

Joint Committee Issues

Joint Economic Committee. Both H.R. 1905 and S. 1206, as reported and passed, contained $3.2 million, the same asrequested, an increase of $104,000, or 3.4%, over the FY1999 appropriation of $3.1million. During a hearing, Rep. Jim Saxton, chairman of the joint committee,testified on staffing needs, particularly the need to retain qualified economists. Inresponse to a question on the committee's possible need to contract out, Rep. Saxtonstated that "sometimes it is more effective to contract out...where you need veryspecialized expertise...to do a specific study over a relatively short period of time." (22)

Joint Committee on Taxation. H.R. 1905 contained $6.2 million, a reduction of $68,000 from the FY2000 requestof $6.3 million, and an increase of $223,000, or 3.7%, over the FY1999 budgetauthority of $6.0 million. S. 1206, as reported and passed, contained $6.5 million,an 8.2% increase.

According to the budget request, most of the increase was for personnel expenses, including those relating to new responsibilities required by the InternalRevenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. The remaining funds weretargeted primarily for technology upgrades.

The committee requested an increase of 1.5 FTE positions for FY2000 to hire economists to assist in the preparation of revenue estimates and to "allow the JointCommittee to devote additional resources to the effort to develop the capability toincorporate macroeconomic effects in Joint Committee revenue estimates for majortax legislation." (23) The joint committee did notrequest additional funds for thispurpose, planning to fund the positions through reclassification of existing positionsand replacement of certain departing employees with entry-level professional staff.

Fire Safety in House Offices

Fire safety in congressional buildings was an issue discussed during House hearings on the FY2000 budget. Discussions were prompted by a report of the Houseinspector general faulting fire protection systems in the five House office buildingsand the House side of the Capitol. Issued December 18, 1998, the report concludedthat many systems were incomplete or inadequate. The inspector generalrecommended that the Committee on House Administration oversee improvementof fire systems by the Architect of the Capitol. In March 1999, the HouseAppropriations Committee reported H.R. 1141, which contained $1.8 million forexpenses of life safety renovations to the O'Neill House Office Building. H.R. 1141,the FY1999 emergency supplemental appropriations bill, was reported fromconference with the funding provision on May 14 ( H.Rept. 106-143 ), and agreed toby both Houses.

Security Issues

Capitol Complex Security Plan. The Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) continues to work on thedevelopment of a perimeter security plan for the Capitol, the Senate and House officebuildings, and adjacent grounds. Congress approved $20 million for the perimetersecurity plan as part of an FY1998 supplemental appropriations bill ( P.L. 105-174 ; H.R. 3579 ). The relevant provision of the law reads:

For necessary expenses for the design, installation and maintenance of the Capitol Square Perimeter Security Plan,$20,000,000 (of which not to exceed $4,000,000 shall be transferred upon request ofthe Capitol Police Board to the Capitol Police Board, "Capitol Police," "GeneralExpenses," for physical security measures associated with the Capitol Squareperimeter security plan) to remain available until expended, subject to the review andapproval by the appropriate House and Senate authorities. (24)

The appropriation for the perimeter security plan was based on recommendations that a task force on perimeter security prepared for the U.S. CapitolPolice Board. Of the $20 million, $4 million was to go to the Capitol Police Boardfor the design and installation of security systems that were to be part of theperimeter plan.

The Senate Appropriations Committee report on S. 1768 (the Senate's version of the supplemental bill) stated that funds provided for perimetersecurity of Senate office buildings are subject to review and approval of the SenateCommittee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Rules andAdministration. (25) It further stated that fundsprovided for perimeter security of the"Capitol Square" (26) are subject to review andapproval of the House Committee onAppropriations, Committee on House Administration, Speaker of the House, SenateCommittee on Rules and Administration, and Senate Committee on Appropriations.

With the endorsement of the Committee on House Administration on February 24, 1999, the perimeter security plan has been approved by the four oversight andfunding committees that are responsible for its implementation.

Funding for the Capitol Police Board. H.R. 1905, as reported and passed, contained $85.2 millionfor the Capitol Police Board in FY2000, a reduction of $5 million from the FY2000request of $90.2 million. S. 1206, as reported and passed, contained $88.7 million,a 6.8% increase of $5.6 million, not including the FY1999 $106.8 million emergencysupplemental. When including the emergency supplemental, the FY2000 Senate billfigure was a $101.2 million reduction, or 53.3%, from the FY1999 appropriation of$189.9 million.

The total Capitol Police Board appropriation in H.R. 1905 of $85.2 million was a 2.5% increase of $2.0 million over the FY1999 funding level of $83.1 million, notincluding an FY1999 emergency supplemental of $106.8 million for securityenhancements.

When including the FY1999 supplemental of $106.8 million in the FY1999 Capitol Police Board total funding level, the FY2000 House bill figure was a 55.1%,or $104.7 million reduction from FY1999, to $85.2 million in FY2000 from $189.9million in FY1999.

Funds for the Capitol Police are contained in two headings Capitol police salaries and Capitol police general expenses. For salaries, the Committeerecommended $78.5 million, including $4 million for overtime, for 1,251 FTE staffpositions. Of this amount, $37.7 million is for 596 FTEs on the House payroll and$40.8 million for 655 FTEs on the Senate payroll. The $4 million recommended forovertime is to be divided equally between the House and Senate detailees. ForCapitol police general expenses, $6.7 million was recommended.

Of the requested $7.1 million increase for the Capitol Police Board, 61.3% was to maintain newly revised longevity pay rates; newly approved differential pay forSunday, holiday, and evening shifts; and costs of other pay and personnel benefits. The remainder of the increase was for replacement of physical security systems,vehicles, and police equipment. The FY2000 recommended FTE staff request,contained in the House bill, was 1,251, the same number authorized to be funded for FY1999.

The FY1999 emergency supplemental for the Capitol Police Board was provided as a result of recommendations for security upgrades made pursuant to acomprehensive security study of the Capitol complex. The Capitol Police Boarddirected the study in 1998 by a task force composed of security experts from federallaw enforcement agencies and the private sector.

Language in the FY1999 emergency supplemental appropriation directed the Capitol Police Board to prepare an implementation plan for use of the emergencysupplemental to include necessary equipment upgrades and detailing the first phaseof the security enhancements to the Capitol complex and Library of Congressbuildings and grounds. The Capitol Police Board prepared a security enhancementimplementation plan, now pending before the authorizing and appropriationscommittees. Parts of the plan have already been approved.

The Capitol Police Board has designated portions of the FY1999 emergency supplemental appropriation for 260 additional police personnel, upgraded policeequipment, and new security technology. (27)

Capitol Visitors' Center. During House and Senate hearings on the FY2000 budget of the Office of the Architect ofthe Capitol, several subcommittee members urged the architect to moveexpeditiously to construct a Capitol visitors' center. A sponsor of earlier legislationauthorizing construction of the center, Representative John Mica, also spoke beforethe House subcommittee in favor of the project. He stated that "my concern is thatthis project may now be delayed, unduly putting off construction unnecessarily andcosts to the project." (28)

The architect indicated on February 3, 1999, that construction of the visitors'center could begin in December 2002, with completion anticipated in 3 ï¿½ to 4 yearsat a cost of $160. (29)

Last year, Congress agreed to an FY1999 emergency supplemental appropriation of $100 million to the architect "for planning, engineering, design, and construction"of a Capitol visitors' center. The funding was added in conference on H.R. 4328 , the FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated and EmergencySupplemental Appropriations Act ( P.L. 105-277 ). Construction of the visitors'center, conferees reasoned, would "provide greater security for all persons workingin or visiting the United States Capitol and a more convenient place in which to learnof the work of Congress." (30)

The conference report on H.R. 4328 stipulated that appropriatedfunds for the project are to be supplemented by private funds. Currently, the clerkof the House and the secretary of the Senate are preparing recommendations forappropriate private fund-raising plans. In his testimony on the FY2000 budget, thesecretary of the Senate stated these offices are seeking $70 million in private funds. Funds raised that exceeded the estimated cost of $159 million would be used forlong-term maintenance and education programs. The secretary added that the UnitedStates Capitol Preservation Fund contains $26.6 million, derived from privatesources, that could be made available for a visitors' center. (31)

The FY1999 appropriation culminated nearly a decade of discussions over thefeasibility of construction of a center. Planning for a center began in 1991, when thearchitect of the Capitol received approval to use previously appropriated securityenhancement funds for the center's conceptual planning and design. (32)

Presently, the architect is reviewing an existing plan for a visitors' center presented to Congress in 1995 and making necessary modifications, as part of "PhaseOne." Construction plans will be submitted to the authorizing and appropriationscommittees in "Phase Two."

Architect of the Capitol Issues

Architect of the Capitol Budget. The FY2000 budget proposal for activities of the architect of the Capitol (AOC) was $283.3 million, a 43.2% increase over the FY1999 budget of $197.9 million, excluding the FY1999 emergency supplemental of $100 million for a Capitol visitors'center and the supplementals in P.L. 106-31 ). When including the supplementals , theFY2000 budget proposal was a 6.6% decrease from FY1999's budget of $303.4million.

The Office of the Architect of the Capitol's budget is contained in two places in a legislative branch appropriations bill, in Titles I and II. Title I contains funds forthe Capitol buildings and grounds, the Senate office buildings, the House officebuildings, and the Capitol power plant. In FY1999, Title 1 also contained theemergency supplemental of $100 million for a Capitol visitors' center. (33)

For Title I, the House and Senate consider separate requests because the House budget request does not include Senate office building funds (which are determinedby the Senate), and the Senate budget request does not include House office buildingfunds (determined by the House). For FY2000, the total Title I budget request,including funds for House and Senate office buildings, was $263.4 million.

Title II contains funds for the architect to maintain the buildings and grounds of the Library of Congress (LOC). From time to time, other projects of the architect arefunded in Title II. For example, the FY1999 regular annual act ( P.L. 105-275 )contained a one-time appropriation of $1 million for the congressional cemetery inTitle II. A sum of $19.9 million was requested for Title II budget authority forFY2000.

Title II also contains funds for the Botanical Garden, which are administered by the architect. In the legislative branch appropriations bill, funds for the BotanicalGarden are contained in a separate account; for purposes of this report, they are notincluded within funding of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol.

The architect's proposed increase in Title I was due primarily to the costs of capital projects, which included cyclical maintenance, repairs to the Capitol dome($28 million), renovation of the Dirksen Senate office building ($18 million),renovation of the Cannon House office building garage ($9 million), renovation ofthe Russell Senate office building subway ($6 million), replacement of chillers(mechanical units related to cooling) in the Capitol power plant ($5 million), andother projects.

The budget request for Title I also contained funds for pay and related personnel expenses ($64 million), enhanced fire and life safety systems ($16 million), (34) cyclicalmaintenance ($73.2 million), security ($2.6 million), and an energy survey ofcongressional buildings to determine energy conservation measures (dollar amountnot specified in testimony of the architect of the Capitol). (35)

As reported by the House Appropriations Committee, H.R. 1905 contained $133.0 million in Title I, not including appropriations for Senate office buildings. The appropriation was a reduction of 1.9%, or $2.3 million, from the FY1999appropriation of $135.6 million, when excluding the FY1999 emergencysupplemental of $100 million for the Capitol visitors' center and a secondsupplemental of $5.6 million for other projects. When including the supplementals,the Committee recommendation was a 43.6% reduction from the FY1999 budget of$235.6 million. As reported, the architect's budget in Title II for Library of Congressbuildings and grounds was $17.8 million. This was an increase of 40.3%, from $12.7million.

The architect's total budget in H.R. 1905, excluding Senate items, was $150.8 million. This represented a 1.2% increase, when excluding the $100 million FY1999supplemental and other supplementals of $5.6 million . If supplementals areincluded, the architect's total budget for FY2000 represents a 39.3% decrease, to$150.8 million in FY2000 from $248.3 million in FY1999, excluding Senate items.

During floor consideration of H.R. 1905, the House agreed to an amendment that reduced the bill's budget authority by $54.8 million, including a reduction $13.6million from the architect's total budget, excluding funds for Senate items. Theamendment reduced the architect's budget from $150.8 million to $137.2 million, a9% decrease.

Earlier on June 10, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1206 which contained $180.2 million for the architect in both titles of the bill, excludingHouse items. The Senate passed H.R. 1905, as amended, on June 16 with thecommittee recommended funding level.

Botanic Garden. The FY2000request for the Botanical Garden was $3.98 million, a 30% increase from the FY1999budget of $3.1 million. While some of the funds requested were for the currentrenovation of the conservatory, most renovation funds were made available in theFY1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act ( P.L. 104-197 ). A contract forrenovation was awarded in September 1998, with the architect authorized to awardcontracts for additional garden projects if additional funds were available. (36) Deadlinefor completion of the renovation is September 5, 2000. Bidding on a privatelyfunded national garden, a new addition to the Botanical Garden, is to begin in June1999. The national garden will be located next to the conservatory.

On May 21, the House Appropriations Committee recommended a FY2000 budgetof $3.5 million, a 15.9% increase over FY1999. House report languagerecommended that the architect conduct a study of alternative uses of the Garden'sadministrative building to ascertain the costs of renovation for any alternative use. The House agreed to the amount on June 10, when it passed H.R. 1905. On June 16,the Senate approved $3.4 million when it passed H.R. 1905, amended to contain thelanguage of S. 1206, as amended.

Support Agency Funding

Congressional Budget Office Budget. The FY2000 request for the Congressional Budget Office(CBO) was $26.8 million, an increase of $1.15 million, or 4.5%, over the FY1999level of $25.7 million. The request was to fund an authorized FTE staff level of 232,the same as FY1999.

In speaking before the Appropriations subcommittees, the CBO director expressed a primary concern for staff retention, particularly the agency's "ability tooffer the salaries and benefits needed to remain competitive in today's tight labormarket." (37) He continued that CBO is "findingit increasingly difficult to retain ourexperienced workers" and that the agency has a problem "attracting top-flight newemployees." Consequently, the director requested that he be given authority to makelump-sum payments "to attract new employees and to reward outstandingperformance."

On June 10, the House passed H.R. 1905, which contained $26.2 million for CBO, a 2.1% increase over the FY1999 appropriation of $25.7 million. In reportingthe bill, the House Appropriations Committee provided authority for expenses ofstaff recruitment and performance awards, limiting total expenses to 1% of totalpayroll, and limiting overall compensation to the maximum salary of congressionalstaff.

Earlier on June 10, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1206, also containing $26.2 million; the Senate agreed on June 16.

General Accounting Office Budget. The FY2000 budget request for the General AccountingOffice (GAO) was $387 million. This was a 7.7% increase over the FY1999 budgetof $359.3 million, which included an FY1999 emergency supplemental of $5 millionfor Year-2000 computer conversion . (38) Seventy-six percent of the increase wasrequested for mandatory pay and related personnel costs. The agency also requestedfunds to allow an increase in its self-initiated work, which accounted for 4% of itsworkload due to downsizing since FY1994.

GAO requested $2.5 million to permit the agency to administer performance awards in order to retain staff. By 2004, GAO estimates that 33% of its current staffwill reach retirement age. (39) By that time, almost60% of its higher grade staff willbe eligible for retirement. The FY2000 budget request would maintain the FY1999FTE position level of 3,275.

The House Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2000 legislative funding bill on May 21, with $372.7 million for GAO, a 3.7% increaseover the FY1999 budget of $359.3 million. On June 10, the Committeerecommendation for GAO was reduced by $1.5 million, to $371.2 million, duringfloor consideration of H.R. 1905. S. 1206, as reported and passed, contained $382.3million.

Library of Congress Budget. The budget of the Library of Congress (LOC) is included in both Title I and Title II ofa legislative appropriations bill. Title I contains funds for the CongressionalResearch Service (CRS); Title II contains funds for all other activities of the Libraryof Congress.

The FY2000 budget request for activities of the Library of Congress in both titles was $383.7 million, a 5.5% increase of $20 million over the FY1999 budget of$363.6 million. Of this increase, $16.6 million, or 83%, was requested to fundmandatory pay and related personnel costs, and price increases.

Most of the remaining $3.4 million increase was to support technological expansion, primarily information acquisition and preservation. Among automationprograms that would receive this increase are the integrated library system, (40) theelectronic resources information project, (41) theglobal legal information network, thelegislative information system, the national digital library program, and automationinfrastructure support. Major savings from the integrated library system, which isscheduled to begin operation by the beginning of FY2000, were expected to bereflected in the FY2001 budget proposal by the Library. (42)

A primary concern of the librarian during his FY2000 budget testimony was development of a staff succession program. A recent risk assessment study of theLibrary's workforce showed that 25% of the Library's staff will be eligible to retirein 1999. Almost 45% of the workforce will be eligible to retire in 2004. TheLibrarian's FY2000 request contains $1 million to initiate a succession plan,including development of a recruitment program and establishment of an internalcareer enhancement plan.

On May 21, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 1905 with an appropriation of $386.2 million for the LOC, an increase of 6.2% over the FY1999budget of $363.6 million. The House reduced this amount to $379.8 million, adecrease of $6.4 million, $315,000 in Title I and $6.1 million in Title II.

The Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1206 on June 10, with an appropriation of $379.7 million for LOC activities in both titles, and the Senateagreed on June 16.

Library of Congress, Except CRS (in Title II). For most Library activities, the House-passed bill contained$308.9 million, a 4.2%, or $12.3 million, increase over the FY1999 level of $296.5million. The recommendation of the House Appropriations Committee of $315.0million was reduced by $6.1 million on the House floor on June 10. The Senateapproved $308.4 million, the level recommended by the Senate AppropriationsCommittee.

Congressional Research Service (in Title I). The House Appropriations Committee recommended an FY2000budget of $71.3 million, the same as requested. This was an increase of 6.2% overthe FY1999 budget of $67.1 million. Almost 86.5% of the request was to fundmandatory pay and related personnel costs, and increases in prices due to inflation. The remaining $559,052 was to implement the second year of a multi-year staffsuccession plan, requested since about half of all CRS staff will be eligible to retireby 2006. The budget was reduced on the House floor by $315,000, to $70.9 million. S. 1206, as reported and passed, contained $71.2 million.

Government Printing Office Budget. The FY2000 budget request for the Government PrintingOffice (GPO) was $128.5 million, a 23.8% increase over the FY1999 level of $103.7million. A primary reason for the increase was a new, one-time appropriation of $15million for the GPO revolving fund. There was no new money for the revolving fundin FY1999. Another view of the increase is obtained by excluding the $15 millionrequest for the revolving fund. (43) In this case, theincrease was 9.4%, to $113.5million in FY2000 from $103.7 million in FY1999, primarily to fund mandatory payand related personnel costs.

The House Appropriations Committee reported a total budget of $107.7 million, an increase of 3.8%, or $4.0 million, over FY1999's level of $103.7 million. TheHouse reduced the reported level by $4.1 million, to $103.6 million, on June 10.

GPO is funded in Title I, for congressional printing and binding, and Title II, for the office of superintendent of documents. Title II also contains funding from timeto time for the GPO revolving fund, as it did in the FY2000 request. The FY2000budget request for Title I was $82.2 million, a 10.4% increase over the FY1999budget of $74.5 million. H.R. 1905, as passed, contained $73.6 million, an$888,000, or 1.2%, decrease from the FY1999 level of $74.5 million. S. 1206, asreported and passed, contained $77.7 million, a 4.3% increase.

The FY2000 budget request for Title II was $46.2 million (including $15 million for the revolving fund), a 58% increase over FY1999's budget of $29.3 million. Excluding the $15 million revolving fund request, the increase was 6.8%, to $31.2million in FY2000 from $29.3 million in FY1999. As passed, H.R. 1905 contained$30 million, a 2.5%, or $722,000, increase over FY1999; it did not contain funds for the GPO revolving fund. S. 1206, as reported and passed, contained $35.0 million,a 20.0% increase, and contained $5 million for the GPO revolving fund.

Major Funding Trends

Guide to Determining Legislative Budget Trends. Interpretation of budget trends is determined primarily bythree factors: (1) selection of current or constant dollars to express budget authority(constant dollars reflecting the impact of inflation); (2) selection of budget authoritycontained in annual appropriations bills, with or without permanent budget authority(permanent budget authority not requiring annual approval by Congress); and (3)selection of fiscal years to be compared.

Selection of Current or Constant Dollars. Current-dollar data reflect actual budget authorityappropriated each year. Constant-dollar data reflect the conversion of actual budgetauthority into equivalent 1999 dollars. For example, Congress appropriated budgetauthority of $41,793,000 for the Senate in FY1968, excluding permanent budgetauthority. Converted into 1999 dollars, $41,793,000 is $200,678,457.

When reviewing the 30-year growth of the Senate budget from FY1968-FY1999 in current dollars, the increase amounts to 1036.3%. In constant dollars, the increaseis 136.6%. The constant-dollar figure indicates budget growth after the effects ofinflation are neutralized.

Selection of Fiscal Years. Differences also appear based on choice of fiscal years used to compare budgets. For example,a comparison of budget growth, FY1968 and FY1999, shows these changes in totallegislative budgets after adjustment for inflation: FY1968-FY1999, +83.0%;FY1972-FY1999, +8.7%; and FY1978-FY1999, -12.3%. (44)

Changes in the 1970s significantly affected the congressional budget. Implementation by Congress of the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act increasedthe budgets and staffs of congressional committees and support agencies fromFY1971 through FY1978. For example, the increase in total legislative budgetauthority, adjusted for inflation, from FY1969 (pre-1970 Reorganization Act)through FY1973 (a year of significant implementation of the 1970 Act) was 64.5%.

The legislative budget during the 1970s also reflected implementation of the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which created the Houseand Senate Budget Committees and Congressional Budget Office. Also, Congressbegan to provide significant funding for its computer capabilities. This growth in thelegislative budget stabilized by FY1978 and has remained fairly level since that time.

Current Legislative Budget Trends. Between FY1978 and FY1999, the total legislative budget, adjusted for inflationdecreased by 10.9%. (45) Budget authority for directcongressional operations in TitleI decreased by 5.2% over this time.

Throughout the 12 years following FY1978 (FY1979-FY1990), the legislative budget remained lower than the FY1978 budget authority, when adjusted forinflation. The first increase over the FY1978 budget occurred in FY1991, a 1.1%increase from the FY1978 level.

Compared to the FY1978 budget, funding increased again in FY1992 and FY1995 and decreased in FY1993, FY1994, FY1996, and FY1997. The totallegislative budget decreased by 9.4% between FY1994 and FY1998. In currentdollars, the change between FY1994 and FY1998 was an increase of 0.3%.

Table 2. Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY1995 to FY1999 (budget authority in billions of currentdollars) a

a These figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and contain supplementals and rescissions. Permanent budget authorities are not includedin the annual legislative branch appropriations bill but, rather, are automaticallyfunded annually.

b Includes budget authority contained in the FY1999 regular annual legislative branchappropriations act ( P.L. 105-275 ), the FY1999 emergency supplementalappropriation in P.L. 105-277 , and the FY1999 supplemental appropriation in P.L.106-31 .

Table 3. Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY2000, H.R. 1905, S. 1206 (in thousands of current dollars)

Sources: House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

a Includes budget authority contained in the FY1999 regular annual legislative branch appropriations act( P.L. 105-275 ).

b In FY1999, the Library has authority to spend $28 million in receipts.

c Includes $1 million for the congressional cemetery.

d Includesbudget authority contained in the FY1999 regular annual legislative branchappropriations act( P.L. 105-275 ),

the FY1999 emergency supplemental legislative branch appropriations ( P.L. 105-277 ), and a FY1999supplemental ( P.L. 106-31 ).

e Includes $5.5 million in emergency supplementals, sergeant at arms, for completion of Y2Kcompliance( P.L. 105-277 ).

f Includes $6.373 million in emergency supplementals under chief administrative officer forcompletion ofY2K compliance ( P.L. 105-277 ), and includes a rescission of $3.5 million from the House heading salaries,officers, and employees and a supplemental appropriation of the same amount, $3.5 million, for thechief administrative officer for replacement of the House payroll system ( P.L. 106-31 ).

g Includes $106,782,000 for emergency security enhancements funded under the Capitol PoliceBoard'sgeneral expenses account

( P.L. 105-277 ). The total Joint Items figure also includes $2 million for the Trade Deficit ReviewCommission.

h This figure includes $100,000,000 for design and construction of a Capitol visitors' center,funded underthe Architect of the

Capitol's Capitol buildings, salaries and expenses account ( P.L. 105-277 ), and it includes $3.8 million forexpenses of a House page dormitory and $1.8 million for expenses of life safety renovations to the O'NeillHouse office building ( P.L. 106-31 ).

i Includes $5 million in emergency supplemental appropriations under the salaries and expensesaccount ofthe General Accounting Office for completion of the Year-2000 computer conversion ( P.L. 105-277 ).

j Includes $223.655 million in emergency supplementals for FY1999 ( P.L. 105-277 ), and $5.560million in supplementals for FY1999 ( P.L. 106-31 ).

k For FY2000, the Library requested authority to spend $33.1 million in receipts.

l House does not consider budget authority for internal Senate activities and Senate activitiesfunded underthe architect of the Capitol.

m This figure does not include funds for Senate office buildings.

n Senate does not consider budget authority for internal House activities and House activitiesfunded underthe architect of the Capitol.

o This figure does not include funds for House office buildings.

Table 4. Senate Items, FY2000, S. 1206 (in thousands of current dollars)

Source: House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

a Includes budget authority contained in the FY1999 regular annual Legislative Branch Appropriations Act( P.L. 105-275 ).

b Office operations of the secretary of the Senate also are funded under "Salaries, Officers,and Employees."

c Activities of the Office of Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper are also funded under"Salaries, Officers, and Employees."

d Includes $5.5 million in emergency supplementals under the Sergeant at Arms for completionofYear-2000 computer conversion (P.L. 105-277).

e The Senate does not consider budget authority for internal House activities.

Table 5. House of Representatives Items, FY2000, H.R. 1905 (in thousands of current dollars)

Sources : House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

a Includes budget authority contained in the FY1999 regular annual Legislative Branch Appropriations Act( P.L. 105-275 ).

b The appropriations bill has two House accounts: (1) payments to widows and heirs ofdeceased Membersof Congress and (2) salaries and expenses. All the entries that follow salaries and expenses fall underthat House account salaries and expenses.

c This appropriation heading was new in the FY1996 bill. The heading represents aconsolidation of (1) theformer heading Members' clerk hire; (2) the former heading official mail costs; and (3) the formersubheading official expenses of Members, under the heading allowances and expenses.

d This appropriation heading was new in the FY1996 bill. The heading represents aconsolidation of (1) theformer heading committee employees; (2) the former heading standing committees, special and select;(3) the former heading Committee on Budget (studies); and (4) the former heading Committee onAppropriations (studies and investigations).

e Includes budget authority contained in the FY1999 regular annual Legislative BranchAppropriations Act( P.L. 105-275 ), the FY1999 emergency supplemental legislative branch appropriations ( P.L. 105-277 ), anda rescission of $3.5 million from the House heading salaries, officers, and employees and a supplementalappropriation of the same amount, $3.5 million, for the chief administrative officer for replacementof the House payroll system ( P.L. 106-31 ).

f Includes $6.373 million in emergency supplementals under chief administrative officer forcompletion ofYear-2000 computer conversion ( P.L. 105-277 ).

g The House does not consider budget authority for internal Senate activities.

Table 6. Legislative Branch Budget Authority Contained in Appropriations Acts, FY1995-FY1999 (Does not include permanent budget authority;in thousands of current dollars)

See notes at end of Table 7.

Table 7. Legislative Branch Budget Authority Contained in Appropriations Acts, FY1995-FY1999 (Does not include permanent budget authority;in thousands of constant 1999 dollars)

Sources: Budget authorities for FY1994-FY1999 are from the House Appropriations Committee. FY1995budget authorities reflect rescissions and a supplemental contained in P.L. 104-19 , 109 Stat. 219-221, July27, 1995, FY1995 Supplemental and Rescissions Act ( H.R. 1944 ). FY1996 budget authoritiesreflect rescissions contained in P.L. 104-208 , Sept. 28, 1996, FY1997 Omnibus Consolidated AppropriationsAct ( H.R. 3610 ). FY1998 budget authorities represent supplementals contained in P.L.105-174 , May 1, 1998, and an $11 million transfer to the Government Printing Office (GPO) from the GPOrevolving fund. FY1999 budget authorities in column 7 contain emergency supplemental appropriationsin P.L. 105-277 , and supplemental appropriations in P.L. 106-31 . Totals reflect rounding.

Note: FY1994 budget authority reflects rescissions contained in P.L. 103-211 , Feb. 12, 1994, FY1994Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act ( H.R. 3759 ). FY1999 contains $223.7million in emergency supplemental appropriations ( P.L. 105-277 ), and $3.8 million for expenses ofa House page dormitory and $1.8 million for expenses of life safety renovations to the O'Neill HouseOffice Building ( P.L. 106-31 ). The FY1999 appropriation also contains a recission of $3.5 million,and a supplemental for the same amount in P.L. 106-31 .

Excludes permanent federal funds (in current dollars, in thousands): FY1994, $329,000; FY1995,$343,000; FY1996, $302,000; FY1997, $325,000; FY1998, $333,000; and FY1999, $358,000. Source is the U.S. Budget and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

Excludes permanent trust funds (in current dollars, in thousands): FY1994, $6,000; FY1995, $16,000; FY1996, $31,000; FY1997, $29,000; FY1998, $29,999; and FY1999, $47. Source is the U.S. Budget and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

Formula for conversion to constant dollars is as follows: 1999 Consumer Price Index (CPI) number divided by each year's CPI number multiplied by that year's budget authority. The CPI index numbersused were 152.4 (1995), 156.9 (1996), 160.5 (1997), 163.0 (1998), and 167.1 (1999 est.). Source forFY1995-1998 index figures is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Source for FY1999 estimate is theCongressional Budget Office.

a Prior to FY1978, the legislative branch appropriations act contained numerous titles.Effective in FY1978,Congress restructured the legislative bill so that it would "more adequately reflect actual costs ofoperating the U.S. Congress than has been true in the past years" (H.Rept. 95-450, FY1978 LegislativeAppropriations). As a result, the act was divided into two titles. Title I, Congressional Operations, wasestablished to contain appropriations for the actual operation of Congress. Title II, Related Agencies,was established to contain the budgets for activities not considered as providing direct support toCongress.

Periodically, the act has contained additional titles for such purposes as capital improvements andspecial one-time functions, which are not shown as separate entities on these tables. One such exampleis the initial funding of $48 million for the newly established Federal Employee Retirement System(FERS) as part of the FY1987 Supplemental Appropriations Act. OMB included this budget authoritywithin the relevant individual legislative branch accounts for that year.

b FY1996 figures reflect rescissions in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act,FY1997 ( P.L.104-208 , Sept. 28, 1996). Provisions applicable to legislative branch budget authority in P.L. 104-208 appear in Congressional Record , daily edition, vol. 142, Sept. 28, 1996, pp. H11778-H11779.

c Grand totals reflect computer rounding and as a result may differ slightly from totalsobtained by addingTitles I and II in this table.

d Includes budget authority contained in the FY1999 regular annual Legislative BranchAppropriations Act( P.L. 105-275 ).

e In FY1999, the Library has authority to spend $28 million in receipts.

f Includes $1 million for the congressional cemetery.

g Includesbudget authority contained in the FY1999 regular annual Legislative BranchAppropriations Act( P.L. 105-275 ), the FY1999 emergency supplemental legislative branch appropriations ( P.L. 105-277 ),and a FY1999 supplemental appropriation ( P.L. 106-31 ).

h Includes $5.5 million in emergency supplementals under the sergeant at arms forcompletion of Year-2000computer conversion ( P.L. 105-277 ).

i Includes $6.373 million in emergency supplementals under the chief administrativeofficer for completionof Year-2000 computer conversion ( P.L. 105-277 ), and includes a rescission of $3.5 million from theHouse heading salaries, officers, and employees and a supplemental appropriation of $3.5 million forthe chief administrative officer for replacement of the House payroll system ( P.L. 106-31 ).

j Includes $106,782,000 for emergency security enhancements funded under the CapitolPolice Board'sgeneral expenses account ( P.L. 105-277 ). The total Joint Items figure also includes $2 million for theTrade Deficit Review Commission.

k This figure includes $100,000,000 for design and construction of a Capitol visitors' center,funded underthe architect of the Capitol's Capitol buildings, salaries and expenses account ( P.L. 105-277 ), andincludes $3.8 million for expenses of a House page dormitory and $1.8 million for expenses of lifesafety renovations to the O'Neill House Office Building ( P.L. 106-31 ).

l In FY2000, the Library would have authority to spend $33.1 million in receipts.

m Includes $5 million in emergency supplemental appropriations under the salaries and expensesaccountof the General Accounting Office for completion of the Year-2000 computer conversion ( P.L. 105-277 ).

n Includes $223.655 million in emergency supplementals for FY1999 ( P.L. 105-277 ), and $5.560millionin emergency supplementals for FY1999 ( P.L. 106-31 ).

For Additional Reading

CRS Reports

CRS Report 98-212 . Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY1999 , by Paul Dwyer.

CRS Report RL30083(pdf) . Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for FY1999 , coordinated by [author name scrubbed].

Selected World Wide Web Sites

These sites contain information on the FY2000 legislative branch appropriations request and legislation, and the appropriations process.

House Committee on Appropriations http://www.house.gov/appropriations

Senate Committee on Appropriations http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/

CRS Appropriations Products Guide http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html

Congressional Budget Office http://www.cbo.gov

General Accounting Office http://www.gao.gov

Office of Management & Budget http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/html/ombhome.html