Appropriations for FY1999: Legislative Branch
Released: 1999-03-11T00:00:00

Most Recent Developments

On October 21, 1998, President Clinton signed into law H.R. 4112 , the FY1999 Legislative BranchAppropriations bill ( P.L. 105-275 ). The actcontains $2.350 billion, a 2.7% increase over the FY1998 appropriation of $2.288 billion.

Also on October 21, the President signed into law an omnibus consolidated and emergency supplemental appropriations bill that contains FY1999 emergencyfunding of $223.7 million for legislative branch activities. These funds were made available to three legislativeentities to cover expenses associated with theYear-2000 conversion of "information technology systems" ($16.9 million), to the Capitol Police Board forenhanced security of the Capitol complex and theLibrary of Congress ($106.8 million), and to the Architect of the Capitol for expenses of "planning, engineering,design, and construction" of a Capitol VisitorCenter ($100 million).

On June 25, 1998, the House passed H.R. 4112 by a vote of 235-179. (1) The bill provided $1.8 billion, excluding fundsfor Senate internal activitiesand Senate activities funded in the Architect's budget. H.R. 4112 was a 1.68% increase over the FY1998comparable appropriation of $1.77billion. (2) Earlier, on June 23, the HouseCommittee on Appropriations reported H.R. 4112 ( H.Rept. 105-595 ). (3)

On July 21, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 4112 , as amended, by a vote of 90-9. H.R. 4112 , as passed by the Senate, provided$1.6 billion for FY1999, excluding funds for House internal activities and House activities funded in the Architectof the Capitol's budget. This figurerepresented a 3.5 % increase over the FY1998 comparable appropriation of $1.5 billion. (4) Earlier, on June 5, 1998, the Senate Committeeon Appropriationsreported S. 2137 ( S.Rept. 105-204 ). (5)

Conferees met and approved a final bill on October 18, and the House Appropriations Committee issued the conference report on October 22 ( H.Rept. 105-734 ).The House adopted the report on September 24, by a vote of 356-65; the Senate adopted it the following day, byvoice vote.

In April 1998, both houses passed, and President Clinton signed into law, an FY1998 supplemental appropriations bill ( P.L. 105-174 ; H.R. 3579 )that provides $20 million for a perimeter security plan for the Capitol, Senate office buildings, and adjacent grounds,and $7.5 million to begin repair of theCapitol dome.

Introduction

Since the late 1970s, the legislative branch appropriations bill has been divided into two titles. Title I,Congressional Operations, contains budget authorities foractivities directly serving Congress. Included in this title are the budgets of the House, the Senate, Joint Items (jointHouse and Senate activities), theCongressional Budget Office, the Architect of the Capitol (except Library of Congress buildings and grounds), theCongressional Research Service within theLibrary of Congress, and congressional printing and binding done by 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 ofCongress (except the Congressional Research Service), the Library buildings and grounds within the Architect ofthe Capitol, the Government Printing Office(except congressional printing and binding costs), and the General Accounting Office. Periodically since FY1978,the legislative bill has also contained additionaltitles for such purposes as capital improvements and special one-time functions.

Title I budget authority was 70% of the total appropriation of $2.288 billion in the FY1998 Legislative Branch Appropriation Act. (6) Title II budget authority was30% of the total appropriation. In addition, there are legislative budget authorities that are not included in the annuallegislative branch appropriations act orsupplemental appropriations acts. These include permanent budget authorities, trust fund budget authorities, andother budget authorities. (7)

Budget authorities appropriated permanently are available as the result of previously enacted legislation and do not require annual action. (8) Tables providingbudget authorities in recent bills appear at the end of this report.

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 appearin the annual legislative branch bill since they are not budget authority. They are included in the U.S.Budget either as budget receipts or offsetting collections. (9)

The Budget also shows some non-legislative entities within the legislative branch budget. These entities are funded in other appropriations bills. Thesenon-legislative entities are placed within the legislative budget section by the Office of Management and Budgetfor bookkeeping purposes. (10)

Status

Table 1. Status of Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY1999,H.R. 4112

a The Senate version was marked up by the full Committee on Appropriations.

Developments This Year

Submission of the FY1999 Budget Estimates. In February 1998, President Clinton submitted his FY1999budget of $2.263 billion for legislative activities funded in the legislative branch appropriations bill. This figure wassubsequently amended by individuallegislative branch agencies to $2.467 billion. (11) As amended, the request represented an increase of $218 million, or 9.7%, over the FY1998 appropriation of$2.249 billion, (12) before the FY1998 supplementaland a Government Printing Office transfer. The proposed FY1999 budget provided for an additional 122 FTEstaff positions (13) in the legislative branch (excluding the Senate). The number of FTEs would have been increased by 0.5%, from 23,045 to 23,166. (14)

Consideration in the Senate. The Senate considered H.R. 4112 on July 17, 20, and July 21, whenit was passed, as amended. As passed, the bill contained $1.6 billion, excluding funds for House internal activitiesand House activities funded in the Architect ofthe Capitol's (AOCs) budget. This figure represented a 3.5% increase over the FY1998 comparable appropriationof $1.5 billion. (15) Among other provisions, theSenate bill:

Appropriated 4.4% less than the FY1999 budget estimate, a decrease of $72.4 million. The FY1999 estimate was $1.657 billion; theFY1999 Senate bill was $1.59 billion;

Appropriated a 3.5% increase, or $53.7 million, over the FY1998 budget. The FY1998 level is $1.5 billion; the FY1999 version was $1.59billion;

Contained additional funds, mostly for employee cost-of-living pay adjustments and associated costs of those adjustments (3.1% of the total3.4% increase); (16) and,

Provided for a 1.8% increase in the Senate's housekeeping budget, from $461.1 million in FY1998 to $469.4 million inFY1999.

Five amendments were adopted by the Senate on July 20. These amendments contained language:

(1) Amending the House bill to include appropriations for Senate internal operations and Senate activities funded under the Architect of the Capitol in H.R. 4112 ;

(2) Increasing the appropriation for general expenses of the Capitol Police by $220,000 (from $6,077,000 to $6,297,000);

(3) Creating a separate appropriations subaccount for the Committee on Appropriations, under the account, "Salaries, Officers, and Employees," deletingappropriations for the committee previously contained in the account, "Contingent Expenses of the Senate,"subaccount, "Inquiries and Investigations;"

(4) Amending Title IV of the Senate bill establishing a Trade Deficit Review Commission; and,

(5) Requiring certain legislative branch officials to submit to Congress lists of activities to be performed under their jurisdictions during FY2000, including thoseactivities "not inherently governmental functions." (17)

Before passage on July 21, the Senate agreed, by a vote of 83-16, to invoke cloture, closing further debate on H.R. 4112 , as amended. Subsequently,an amendment to make reports of the Congressional Research Service available to the public on the Internet wasruled out of order as being non-germane whencloture was invoked.

Earlier, on June 4, the Senate Committee on Appropriations marked up and ordered its version reported. On June 5, the committee reported S. 2137 . (18)

Consideration in the House. On June 25, the House passed H.R. 4112 , by a vote of 235-179. (19) H.R. 4112 provided $1.8 billion, excluding funds for Senate internal activities and Senate activities fundedin the AOC's budget.

Among other provisions, the House bill:

Provided $1.8 billion, which is 1.68% over the FY1998 comparable appropriation of $1.77 billion. (20) The majority of the increase is formandatory cost-of-living pay adjustments and related costs;

Provided an actual decrease of 0.52% from the FY1998 funding level, when allowing for inflation (based on a projected Consumer PriceIndex increase of 2.2%);

Eliminated 438 FTE positions from the legislative branch;

Made possible staff cuts, in addition to the 438 FTE reduction, by authorizing staff buy-outs by the Architect of the Capitol and theGovernment Printing Office;

Was a 6.7% decrease from the FY1999 budget request; and,

Was $555.3 million below the 302(b) allocation established by the House Committee on Appropriations.

Two amendments were agreed to on the House floor:

Providing that $100,000 of the amount appropriated for the item, House Office Buildings, within the heading, "Architect of the Capitol,"subheading, "Capitol Buildings and Grounds," be made available for House waste recycling programs (voice vote);and

Mandating the establishment of an energy conservation plan by the Architect of the Capitol for all facilities administered by Congress (voicevote).

Earlier, on June 18, the House Committee on Appropriations marked up and ordered its version reported, subsequent to markup by the House Subcommittee onLegislative Branch Appropriations on June 10. The full committee reported H.R. 4112 on June 23. (21)

Three amendments were adopted in the full committee markup of June 18, none of which required new funds: They were (1) report language restating that theCongressional Budget Office be impartial and independent from political pressure (Representative David Obey);(2) language directing that Members beauthorized to make monthly payments to each employee to subsidize his/her transportation (Representative StenyHoyer); (22) and (3) report language thatencourages artwork in the Capitol to more fully represent women's contributions to society (Representative MarcyKaptur). (23)

Consideration in Conference Committee. On September 18, 1998, conferees met and agreed to $2.350 million,a 2.7% increase over FY1998's $2.288 billion. Allowing for inflation, the increase is +0.5%.

Among the agreements made in conference were:

An increase in funding of 12.2% for the U.S. Capitol Police, from $74.1 million in FY1998 to $83.1 million in FY1999. The FYl999 figureincludes funds for 1,251 FTEs and funds of $2.4 million for pay parity, including night differentials, and $1.7million for an adjustment to the longevity schedule,subject to approval by the Committee on House Oversight and the Senate Committee on Rules andAdministration;

Additional appropriations for the General Accounting Office (GAO) program changes including funds for 50 FTEs and language byconferees that they expected at least one-third of the program changes funding increase to be used "to supportinformation technology (IT) work, particularly insupport of issues related to the Year 2000 computing crisis." (24) Conferees directed that those funds in excess of those required for the additional FTEs beallocated to program contract support and directed the comptroller general to account for the use of these additionalfunds, including the number of FTEs and theamount of these additional funds used to acquire contract services; and,

Deletion of a provision in the Senate bill containing funds for a Trade Deficit Review Commission.

FY1998 Supplemental Appropriations Bill. On April 30, 1998, both houses agreed to the conference report on H.R. 3579 , an FY1998 supplemental appropriation bill, which provides $20 million for a perimeter securityplan for the Capitol building, Senateoffice buildings, and adjacent grounds, and $7.5 million to begin repairs on the Capitol dome. H.R. 3579 wassigned into law ( P.L. 105-174 ) on May1, 1998. The act also provides $270,300 for gratuities to the widows and heirs of two deceased House Members. With the supplemental appropriations, the totalappropriation for FY1998 legislative branch activities is $2.288 billion. (25)

FY1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations. On October 21, the President signed into law an omnibusconsolidated and emergency supplemental appropriations bill with $223.7 million for legislative branch activities( P.L. 105-277 ). The act contained $16.9 millionfor expenses of Year-2000 conversion of "information technology systems" with $5.5 million for the Senate, $6.4million for the House, and $5 million for theGeneral Accounting Office to use for other legislative entities, except the Senate and House. In addition, the actcontained $106.8 million for securityenhancement of the Capitol complex and the Library of Congress by the Capitol Police Board, and $100 millionfor expenses of "planning, engineering, design,and construction" of a Capitol Visitor Center.

Major Issues Driving Discussions on the FY1999 Bill

Among the main issues that drove consideration of the FY1998 supplemental and the FY1999 legislative branchappropriations bill were the following.

What additional staff and funds might be necessary to ensure that Congress makes its computers Year-2000compliant?

Should U.S. Capitol Police pay be comparable to other public sector police?

How much should funding be increased for security enhancement for the Capitol, other congressionalbuildings, and adjacent grounds?

How much should be appropriated for the Architect of the Capitol's request to undertake variousimprovements to theCapitol?

What are the appropriations needs for technology development, including online information, electronicdocument printing, and continueddevelopment of a legislative information system?

What should be the funding levels for the congressional support agencies, including the GovernmentPrinting Office, the CongressionalBudget Office, the Library of Congress (including the Congressional Research Service), and the General AccountingOffice?

The effort in recent years to trim the legislative budget also continued during consideration of the FY1999 budget in the House and Senate Subcommittees onLegislative Branch Appropriations.

Statement of Chairman Walsh

During opening remarks at hearings on the FY1999 budget, Chairman James Walsh of the House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations indicated atight budget, stating that he "fully expects reductions along the way" from the pending budget requests. (26) Chairman Walsh continued by saying that hewouldgive "careful scrutiny" to agency funding requests and expects the subcommittee to be "responsible" and "ensurethat the legislative branch contributes its fairshare to balancing the budget." (27)

Statement of Chairman Bennett

During the first day of hearings by the Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations on the FY1999 budget, Chairman Robert Bennett indicated that"while most agencies acted responsibly in submitting their FY1999 requests, cuts in the requests were likely." (28) He emphasized that one of the top priorities wasto ensure that Congress and its support agencies reprogram their computers, or purchase new ones, to meet theYear-2000 compliance deadline. (29) ChairmanBennett listed Capitol Hill security among other priorities of the Senate subcommittee.

Overall Funding Level Issues

Each spring, as members of the House and Senate Subcommittees on Legislative Branch Appropriations consider funding requests from legislative agencies, theyare faced with three primary options: to maintain a flat budget; to provide a modest increase; or to approve a budgetdecrease. Statements by subcommitteemembers during February 1998 indicated support for a possible modest increase in the FY1999 budget. (30) The bills initially approved by the House andSenatecontained modest increases over the FY1998 appropriations level. The Senate bill provided for a 3.4% increase,but when accounting for the projected inflationfor 1998, the increase was 1.2%. The House bill, although providing a 1.68% increase, was actually a decrease of0.52% when accounting for inflation.

The conference version of the FY1999 bill provides for a 2.7% increase over FY1998, from $2.288 billion to $2.359 billion. Allowing for inflation, the increaseis +0.5%.

The legislative branch budget is not particularly large. It 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. (31) A flat budget can be difficultto achieve due to a number of factors, such as ongoing and emergency maintenance and repair needs and thecontinuing effort to keep legislative branch operations current with recent technology developments.

Modest Increase Proposals. The versions of the FY1999 Legislative Branch Appropriations passed by theHouse and Senate allowed for modest increases, the option Congress also chose in FY1998. The conference versionof the FY1999 bill provides for a 2.7%increase over FY1998, from $2.288 billion to $2.350 billion. The increase is smaller when allowing for inflation,or +0.5%.

Conferees on the FY1998 legislative funding bill approved a 2.1% increase in current dollars, from $2.203 billion in FY1997 to $2.249 billion in FY1998. Allowing for inflation, the FY1998 conference figures were actually a 0.1% decrease, from $2.251 billion inFY1997 to $2.249 billion in FY1998. Conferees onthe FY1998 bill compromised with the Senate version of the FY1998 bill that provided for a 3.5% increase, and theHouse version that provided for a 0.6%reduction, both percentages based on current dollars.

Budget Decrease. Although the House passed an FY1999 legislative branch appropriations bill that contained a1.68% increase over FY1998, the bill was actually a reduction of 0.52% when accounting for inflation. As passed,the House bill contained an increase from$1.775 billion in FY1998 to $1.805 billion in FY1999. (32) Allowing for inflation, the bill contained a decrease from $1.814 billion in FY1998 to $1.805billion inFY1999. Even though the FY1999 conference version contains an increase, from $2.288 billion to $2.350 billion,the increase is small, +0.5%, when accountingfor inflation.

Congress has approved other budget decreases in recent years. In the FY1996 bill, Congress approved a budget decrease of 8.2%, from an FY1995 budget of$2.378 billion to an FY1996 budget of $2.184 billion. When accounting for inflation, the decrease was 10.8%, from$2.559 billion in FY1995 to $2.283 billion inFY1996. Although the FY1997 and FY1998 bills contained increases, when adjusted for inflation, both billscontained actual decreases in the legislative budget. The FY1997 bill contained a 0.87% increase, from $2.184 billion in FY1996 to $2.203 billion in FY1997. Whenadjusted for inflation, the FY1997 bill was a1.4% decrease, from $2.283 in FY1996 to $2.251 in FY1997. The FY1998 budget contained a 2.1% increase overthe FY1997 budget, from $2.203 billion inFY1997 to $2.249 in FY1998, prior to an FY1998 subsequent supplemental and transfer. Allowing for inflation,the change was a decrease of 0.1%, from $2.251in FY1997 to $2.249 in FY1998.

Year-2000 Computer Reprogramming Issue

Congress continued to work toward ensuring that the legislative branch and other federal agencies achieve the computer reprogramming and other changesnecessary by the Year 2000. This is necessary because most computers use a two-digit year system for purposes ofdating. The system assumes "19" to be the firsttwo digits of any year. If not reprogrammed, computers using the two-digit system would interpret the year 2000- 00 - as 1900. The result would be data errorsand possibly computer shutdowns.

Conferees included additional funding for GAO program changes including appropriations for 50 FTEs and inserted language that they expected at least one-thirdof the program funding increase to be used "to support information technology (IT) work, particularly in supportof issues related to the Year 2000 computingcrisis." (33) Conferees directed that those funds inexcess of those required for the additional FTEs be allocated to program contract support and directed thecomptroller general to account on the use of these additional funds, including the number of FTEs and the amountof the increase used to acquire contract services.

In addition, Congress made available an emergency supplemental of $16.9 million to the legislative branch for Year-2000 compliance efforts in the FY1999Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act ( P.L. 105-277 ). The act makes availablethe following amounts: $5.5 million for theSenate, under Contingent Expenses of the Senate, Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate; $6.4 millionfor the House of Representatives, under Salariesand Expenses, Salaries, Officers, and Employees; and $5 million for GAO, under Information Technology Systemsand Related Expenses. Funds transferred toGAO are to be available for transfer from GAO to "all entities of the legislative branch other than the 'Senate' and'House of Representatives' covered by theLegislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1998." Transfers by GAO are subject to approval of the House and SenateCommittees on Appropriations.

According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), it will cost the federal government, including Congress, an estimated $2.3 billion to make theadjustments necessary. This figure is considered by Representative Steve Horn, chair of the House subcommitteewith oversight responsibility for the Year-2000conversion, to be underestimated. Mr. Horn believes the figure does not include all expected labor costs forcomputer programmers. (34)

Some computer programs in the legislative branch have already encountered problems in projecting payroll data beyond 1999. The House Information ResourcesOffice and the House Inspector General estimate the cost of Year-2000 compliance in the House of Representativesalone to be somewhere between $1.2 millionand $3.6 million.

During his opening remarks at the Senate hearings on the FY1999 legislative budget, Chairman Robert Bennett stated that dealing with the Year-2000 issue was ofmajor importance to the Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations. (35) He noted that ramifications of the problem and possible solutions hadalready been discussed at five separate hearings held by the Subcommittee on Financial Services and Technology,which he also chairs. He stated that thelegislative branch needs to be as aggressive with its own compliance program as it is with these programs in theexecutive branch.

Chairman Bennett's concern is shared by others in the Senate. In April 1998, the Senate majority and minority leaders announced the creation of a specialcongressional committee to oversee Year-2000 conversion efforts in the executive and judicial branches. TheSpecial Committee on the Year 2000 TechnologyProblem, chaired by Senator Bennett, will hold hearings on the progress of federal agencies in achieving Year-2000compliance. The select committee's budget is$575,000 through February 29, 2000. Funds for the committee are included in the FY1999 bill under the Senateaccount, "Contingent Fund of the Senate,"subaccount, "Inquiries and Investigations."

In late June, the Speaker of the House also announced the establishment of a House task force on the Year-2000 problem as a counterpart to the Senate specialcommittee. The House task force consists of members of the Subcommittee on Government Management,Information, and Technology of the Committee onGovernment Reform and Oversight, and the Subcommittee on Technology of the Committee on Science.

Technology Issues

House and Senate Legislative Information Systems. Both houses continued to take steps to reduce duplicationof effort in tracking legislation, to upgrade legislative tracking systems, and to ensure that Congress achieves theneeded reprogramming of its computers by theYear 2000. (36) To accomplish this, both the Houseand Senate are continuing to develop information systems that create and manage legislative data files.

The House legislative information system is administered by the House Clerk. The Senate system is administered by the Secretary of the Senate. The Clerk andthe Secretary continue to exchange information on development of their own systems. They also report, respectively,to the House Oversight Committee and theSenate Committee on Rules and Administration on their recommendations regarding the electronic transfer oflegislative data between the two houses and amongall legislative entities.

In support of development of the House and Senate legislative information systems, both houses directed the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to develop adata retrieval system with the technical support of the Library of Congress (LOC) and in collaboration with otherlegislative branch agencies, such as theGovernment Printing Office (GPO). (37) The Houseand Senate legislative information systems are expected to reduce duplication through the consolidation ofexisting legislative retrieval systems.

House System. In FY1996, the Committee on House Oversight directed the Clerk to study methods forincreasing the capacity of the House to manage its documents electronically. The committee further directed thatsubsequent proposals of the Clerk relating toprinting be coordinated with the GPO and all House entities requiring printing and storage of documents.

The House requested funding for FY1999 to continue its development of a document management system (DMS) to provide a method for creating, tracking,editing, sharing, printing, and transmitting documents. The Clerk estimates that the DMS will be completed withinthe next three years. (38) The primary purpose ofthe system, according to the Clerk, is to allow the House to move from its dependency on the GPO for preparing,printing, and distributing House documents. (39)

The DMS is designed to automate document preparation (using a PC-based system for print-on-demand and for electronic transmission to GPO). Althoughdevelopment of the DMS is costly, the Clerk anticipates savings to the House of approximately $1 million annuallyin administrative and printing costs. (40)

The House report on the FY1998 legislative branch appropriations bill contained language that directed the Congressional Research Service and the Library ofCongress to:

"....devote sufficient resources to accomplish the following during FY1998:

(1) provide comparable functionality so that legacy retrieval systems can be retired by 12/31/98;

(2) improve productivity of congressional staff by making significant progress in implementing previouslyidentified high-priority functionality; and

(3) improve the accuracy, usability, and timeliness of legislative information retrieval." (41)

Senate System. The FY1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act directed the Secretary of the Senate todevelop a legislative information system for the Senate. (42) The act directed that the Secretary oversee the system's development and implementation, subjecttoapproval of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Like the House, the Senate system provides ameans for creating, tracking, editing, sharing, andtransmitting 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 remains available until September 30, 1998. The Secretary was alsoauthorized to transfer to the development ofthe legislative information system, as he determined to be necessary, funds already appropriated to the Secretary'soffice for the purpose of development of theSenate financial 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.The act authorized the transfer of $5 million from other Senate accounts to the account, "Contingent Expenses ofthe Senate," under the subaccount, "Secretary ofthe Senate." (43) The money was made availablethrough September 30, 2000. The transfer is subject to approval of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Funds for FY1999 are pending in the Senate-passed FY1999 appropriations bill that contains funds for the Officeof the Secretary of the Senate.

The FY1999 Senate report on S. 2137 also contains language that directs the Congressional Research Service and the Library "to continue theirdevelopment of the legislative retrieval system for the Senate and provide an annual report outlining the strategicobjective of this initiative." (44)

Anticipated Expenses of Internet Use. The costs of technology advancement, including increased use of theInternet, in the House and Senate are factors in the pending budgets. Throughout the United States, Internet usagemore than doubled between July 1995 andMarch 1997. (45) It is anticipated that Congresscould face significant expenses in meeting the demands of increased constituent communications via the Internet. House Internet usage increased by 800% in 1995 and 1996. (46)

Some expect, however, that some technology expenses will be offset by savings. For example, during the 105th Congress, savings to the House are estimated to bealmost $750,000, primarily for operating expenses and maintenance fees, accomplished by (1) replacement of anIBM mainframe by an IBM CMOS EnterpriseService (estimated $505,000 savings), and (2) installation of a "higher-reliability, direct-access storage system"(estimated $246,500 savings). (47)

House and Senate Committee Funding

House Committee Funding. H.R. 4112 provides $109.1 million for House committee funding inFY1999. Committee funds were authorized by the House early in 1997, when the House adopted a resolutionauthorizing committee funds essentially for the 105thCongress (calendar years 1997 and 1998). Part of these funds were provided in the FY1998 legislative branchappropriations act. (48) The FY1998 act provided$104.5 million for committee funding.

A funding resolution was reported by the Committee on House Oversight on March 17, 1997 ( H.Res. 91 ). The resolution authorized $178.3 millionfor House committees (except for the Appropriations Committee). On March 20, the rule for consideration of theresolution was defeated on the floor.

On March 21, 1997, the House agreed to an interim funding authorization through May 2, 1997 ( H.Res. 91 ). The interim measure was neededbecause the existing funding authorization was set to expire on March 31, 1997. With one exception, this interimresolution continued funding for committees atthe same level as that for committees in January through March 1997 (9% per month of the previous session's totalfunding). The measure authorized funds forthe Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for the entire 105th Congress, and provided thecommittee a budget of $20 million.

A new committee funding resolution was ordered reported by the Committee on House Oversight on April 28, 1997 ( H.Res. 129 ). The resolutionauthorized $177.8 million for committees, except Government Reform and Oversight and Appropriations, for the105th Congress. This figure was $550,740 lessthan the original funding resolution the House voted against considering on March 20. On May 1, 1997, the Houseagreed to the new resolution by a vote of262-157.

The House Committee on Appropriations was authorized and appropriated $18.3 million for FY1998. The committee is authorized and appropriated $19.4million in H.R. 4112 , the FY1999 legislative branch appropriations bill.

Senate Committee Funding. H.R. 4112 provides $66.8 million for Senate committee operations inFY1999. Senate committee funds were authorized early in 1997 by the Senate ( S.Res. 54 ). The Senatefunding resolution, adopted on February 13,1997, provided for 100% funding of the recurring 1996 level, plus cost-of-living adjustments for specific purposesand time periods. (49)

The resolution was amended on March 11 to provide an additional $4.35 million for the Committee on Governmental Affairs. (50) Funds were providedfor aspecial investigation of illegal or improper actions related to the 1996 elections. A point of debate was whether toinclude both illegal and improper activities astargets of the committee's investigation. Ultimately, both were included.

Joint Committee Issues

Abolishment of the Joint Committee on Printing. Conferees agreed to $352,000 for the Joint Committee onPrinting until December 31, 1998, when it is anticipated the joint committee will be terminated. Matters under itsjurisdiction are to be transferred to theCommittee on House Oversight, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and the public printer. Thisfigure represents $202,000, which wascontained in both the House and Senate versions, plus $150,000 to be available to the Committee on HouseOversight. The $150,000 appropriation is availableonly if the legislative and oversight responsibilities of the joint committee are transferred by law to the Committeeon House Oversight and other committees andcongressional entities. (51) In such case, the $150,000is to be transferred to the Committee on House Oversight, effective January 1, 1999.

The Senate provided $150,000 in additional funds to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration for the committee's costs in assuming responsibilities ofthe joint committee. (52) The additional funding isincluded in FY1999 funding of $66.8 million for Senate committee expenses in the Senate subaccount,"Inquiries and Investigations," within the account, "Contingent Expenses of the Senate."

Security Issues

Capitol Complex Security Plan. In his FY1999 budget proposal submitted to Congress, the Architect of theCapitol requested $20 million for a perimeter security plan for the Capitol, Senate office buildings, and adjacentgrounds. Congress then approved the funds aspart of an FY1998 supplemental appropriations bill ( H.R. 3579 ). The appropriation was included by theSenate in its version of H.R. 3579 . (53) On April 30, both houses agreed to theconference report on this bill, and it was signed into law ( P.L. 105-174 ) May 1, 1998. The relevant provision ofthe 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 of the Capitol Police Board tothe Capitol Police Board, "Capitol Police,""General Expenses," for physical security measures associated with the Capitol Square perimeter security plan) toremain available until expended, subject to thereview and approval by the appropriate House and Senate authorities.

The appropriation for the perimeter security plan was based on recommendations that a task force on perimeter security prepared for the U.S. Capitol PoliceBoard. Of the $20 million, $4 million would go to the Capitol Police Board, upon the Board's request, for expensesof design and installation of security systemsthat are part of the perimeter plan.

The report of the Senate Appropriations Committee on S. 1768 states that funds provided for perimeter security of Senate office buildings are subjectto review and approval of the Senate Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Rules andAdministration. (54) It further states that fundsprovided for perimeter security of the "Capitol Square" are subject to review and approval of the House Committeeon Appropriations, Committee on HouseOversight, Speaker of the House, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and Senate Committee onAppropriations.

A perimeter security plan for the Capitol Building and its grounds was approved by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration October 30, 1997,subsequent to its presentation by the Architect of the Capitol at a committee hearing a month earlier. The same day,the Rules Committee also approved a plan thatauthorized the Architect of the Capitol to move forward immediately in developing perimeter security for the areaimmediately adjacent to the three Senate officebuildings. The House Oversight Committee would approve any plan for the House office buildings, while the HouseAppropriations Committee would make thefinal determination of funds needed.

Funding for the Capitol Police Board. Conferees agreed to a 12.2% funding increase for the U.S. CapitolPolice, from $74.1 million in FY1998 to $83.1 million in FY1999. The conference figure contained $2.4 millionfor pay parity, including night differentials, and$1.7 million for an adjustment to the longevity schedule, pending approval by the Committee on House Oversightand the Senate Committee on Rules andAdministration. The FY1999 emergency supplemental ( P.L. 105-277 ) contained an additional $106.8 million forsecurity enhancements.

The FY1999 budget estimate for the Capitol Police Board was $84.5 million, $76.1 million for Capitol Police salaries and benefits, and $8.4 million for generalexpenses. The House version contained $76.4 million for the Board, or 3.1% more than FY1998's budget of $74.1million. The Senate version contained $80.6million, an 8.8% increase over FY1998. The Senate increase reflected, among other activities, personnel costs, and$700,000 for expenses of computer andtelecommunications functions, which in prior years were funded in the budget of the Sergeant at Arms.

Conferees agreed to a funding level allowing for 1,251 FTEs, as proposed by the Senate. The House proposed an FTE level of 1,247. Presently, the number ofauthorized FTE positions is 1,247 (596 on the House payroll and 651 on the Senate payroll).

During consideration of its bill on July 20, the Senate adopted an amendment increasing by $220,000 the appropriation for general expenses of the Capitol Police.

Capitol Visitor Center. Congress approved an emergency supplemental appropriation of $100 million to theArchitect of the Capitol "for planning, engineering, design, and construction" of a Capitol Visitor Center. Thefunding was added in conference on H.R. 4328 , FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill ( P.L. 105-277 ). The conference report stipulates thatappropriated funds for the project are to be supplemented by private funds. The estimated cost of the Capitolvisitors' center is $125 million. (55) Constructionofthe visitors' center, conferees reasoned, would "provide greater security for all persons working in or visiting theUnited States Capitol and a more convenientplace in which to learn of the work of Congress." (56)

The appropriation culminated nearly a decade of discussions over the feasibility of construction of a center. Planning for a center began in 1991, when theArchitect of the Capitol received approval to use previously appropriated security enhancement funds for the center'sconceptual planning and design. (57)

Hearings on a proposal to construct a visitor center were held by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration early in 1997. During the hearings, thecommittee chairman expressed concern over congressional encouragement of private funding at the same time thatCongress was investigating 1996 campaignfund-raising activities. (58) On September 24, 1998,the committee held hearings on Capitol complex security, including the role of the proposed visitor center.

Architect of the Capitol Issues

Architect of the Capitol Budget. The House and Senate consider separate budget requests for operations of theArchitect of the Capitol (AOC) in direct support of Congress, funded in Title I of the bill. They consider separaterequests because the House budget request doesnot include Senate office building funding (which is determined by the Senate), and the Senate considers the budgetrequest without House office building funding(which is determined by the House). The total Title I budget request, including House and Senate office buildings,was $221.9 million.

Of the $221.9 million, $87.5 million was requested for costs of 228 projects identified by the AOC for a 5-year capital improvement program. More than $34million of the $87.5 million request is for projects requested by congressional agencies, for example, the Capitolpolice and Library of Congress.

Two major expenses in the $87.5 million request were for the perimeter security project ($20 million) and for the beginning of repairs to the Capitol dome ($7.5million). (59) Subsequently, in April 1998, bothhouses approved the funds for the perimeter security project and Capitol dome repairs in H.R. 3579 , aspart of an FY1998 supplemental appropriations bill. H.R. 3579 was signed into law ( P.L. 105-174 ) May 1,1998.

As considered by the Senate, the AOC's request was $178.1 million, which was a 14.5 % increase over the FY1998 appropriation of $155.5 million. The Senatebill provided $142.6 million, a decrease of 8.3% from FY1998. This figure did not include appropriations for HouseOffice Buildings of $42.1 million, asdetermined by the House. Including House Office Buildings appropriations, the Senate figure would have been$184.7 million.

Senate report language directed the AOC to complete a master design project plan for the Capitol Police before the Senate provides funds for the design projectsrequested by the AOC. (60) A total of $475,000 wasmade available to the AOC for this purpose. The Senate report further directed that the master plan includeconsideration of the security needs of the Capitol complex, and the bill provided $1 million for security designs bythe U.S. Capitol Police.

An additional $750,000 was provided to the AOC for support of the physical security installations of the Capitol Police Board. Language also requires the AOCto report to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the Senate Committee on Appropriations onexpenses in support of Capitol police securityupgrades.

As considered by the House, the AOC's request was $166.1 million, an 18.6% increase from FY1998. The House bill recommended $121.4 million, a decrease of13.3% from FY1998. The figure did not include appropriations for Senate Office Buildings of $53.6 million, asdetermined by the Senate. Including SenateOffice Buildings appropriations, the House figure would have been $175.1 million.

House report language recognized that the AOC had limited funds to deal with a maintenance backlog and directed the AOC to use energy savings and excessproceeds from recycling to help defray costs in eliminating the backlog. In addition, the House report directed theHouse inspector general to audit thefire-protection systems in House office buildings and the House side of the Capitol, and to report his findings to theHouse Committee on Appropriations and theCommittee on House Oversight.

Conferees agreed to $184.2 million and to House report language directing the AOC "to develop an energy savings plan that will use proceeds to fund neededmaintenance." (61) Conferees also agreed to increasethe appropriation for the Capitol Power Plant by $4 million for replacement of the East plant chiller.

Conferees accepted House language appropriating $1 million to the AOC for the Congressional Cemetery, authorizing the AOC to make a grant of $1 million tothe National Trust for Historic Preservation. This grant is to be matched by private donations to the Associationfor the Preservation of Historic CongressionalCemetery to provide for the perpetual maintenance of the cemetery.

Congress provided additional funding of $100 million to the Architect of the Capitol "for planning, engineering, design, and construction of a Capitol visitorcenter." The Architect is "directed not to expend any funds for this project without an obligation plan approved bythe House and Senate Committees onAppropriations which shall specify the purpose and amount of anticipated obligations."

Support Agency Funding

Congressional Budget Office Budget. Both the House and Senate versions contained an FY1999 budget of$25.7 million for the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a 3.5% increase over the FY1998 budget of $24.8million. The proposals were 1.0% less than theFY1999 budget request of $25.9 million.

Conferees agreed with House report language directing that, effective October 1, 1998, CBO post on the Internet CBO papers and publications that can be madeavailable to the public, along with an index, and language directing House Information Resources and the Libraryof Congress "to work out an acceptable solutionto the computer needs of CBO." (62)

House report language also required that CBO provide information to Congress (63) on CBO revenue estimates (generated by tax law changes and the rate ofcapitalgains tax), assumptions underlying these estimates, explanations of any discrepancies between estimates andrevenues, explanations for deviations or more than$25 billion between the estimated federal deficit or surplus and the actual budget deficit or surplus (for last 5 years),and comparison of first year discretionaryoutlay estimates and expenditures for accounts in specified budget functions, among other information required. This information was to be submitted by August30, 1998, or the date the FY1999 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill conference convenes (which wasSeptember 18, 1998), whichever was earlier.

General Accounting Office Budget. Conferees agreed to $354.3 million for the General Accounting Office(GAO), a 4.4% increase over FY1998. The Senate bill contained $363.3 million, a 7.0% increase over the FY1998funding level and a 1.2% decrease from theFY1999 request. The House bill contained $354.2 million, a 4.3% increase over FY1998 and a 3.7% decrease fromthe FY1999 request.

Conferees included additional funding for GAO program changes including appropriations for 50 FTEs and inserted language that they expected at least one-thirdof the program funding increase to be used "to support information technology (IT) work, particularly in supportof issues related to the Year 2000 computingcrisis." (64) Conferees directed that those funds inexcess of those required for the additional FTEs be allocated to program contract support and directed thecomptroller general to account on the use of these additional funds, including the number of FTEs and the amountof the increase used to acquire contract services.

The Senate bill contained funding for 3,300 FTEs, including funds for 75 of the 100 additional FTEs requested by GAO. The House bill recommended funds for3,225 FTEs and stated its intention that GAO consider the use of consultants and other experts to provide the agencywith greater flexibility and to avoid aninternal, full-time staff increase.

Additional funds were made available to GAO in H.R. 4328 , FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act ( P.L.105-277 ) to assist the legislative branch in meeting the Year-2000 compliance. Conferees on the bill agreed to $5million to be available for transfer from GAO to"all entities of the legislative branch other than the 'Senate' and 'House of Representatives covered by the LegislativeBranch Appropriations Act, 1998." Transfersby GAO are subject to approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

Library of Congress Budget. The Library of Congress's budget is included in both titles of the legislativeappropriations bill. Title I includes funds for the Congressional Research Service (CRS), while Title II includesfunds for the majority of activities of the Libraryof Congress.

Congressional Research Service. Conferees agreed to $67.1 million for FY1999. The House bill contained a 3.2%increase, to $66.7 million from an FY1998 level of $64.6 million. The Senate bill contained an increase of 5.1%,to $67.9 million. Conferees agreed to Housereport language directing "that the Congressional Research Service should replace departing staff with lower levelprofessionals to even out grade distribution"and that CRS "not increase its full-time equivalent (FTE) employment level above the current level." (65)

Library of Congress, Except CRS. Conferees agreed to $296.5 million for FY1999. The House proposal forLibrary operations was $291.7 million, a 3.3% increase over FY1998. The Senate's recommendation of $298.1million was a 5.6% increase. Conferees agreed toSenate report language concerning FTE staff (see below) and directed that appropriations in the bill be spent withinthe LOC's current FTE level.

The House bill funded 4,076 FTEs for all Library positions, including CRS, with other positions financed through reimbursable and gift and trust funds. Housereport language noted that the bill did not fund new staff positions and directed the Library to fund any newpositions through attrition or reprogramming.

The Senate version contained funds for 4,070 FTEs, decreasing the positions from 4,083. The Senate bill contained funds for 8 FTEs in information technology.Senate report language states that the Library "has, and will continue to be, a significant resource for the Congressin addressing the year 2000 conversion." (66) Anadditional 10 FTEs were included for the succession plan of CRS, along with 13 FTEs for additional securitypersonnel, primarily to operate X-ray machines andmetal detectors at public entrances.

Conferees also agreed to Senate language "urging the Library to continue efforts to assist the Senate with a legislative information retrieval system;" (67) providing$2 million to digitize materials from the LOC collections relating to "Meeting the Frontiers - Russia and Alaska;"and designating that $250,000 be used in thecommemoration of the Lewis and Clark expedition in 2003.

Conferees agreed with House report language directing the LOC to determine the extent of its collections security problem. They further directed the LOC todevelop a plan to coordinate all aspects of the Library's interior and exterior physical security by January 15, 1999. The Library is directed to consult with theArchitect of the Capitol and to use the Capitol police as a source of information, and to consult with the Capitolpolice on industry practices. Language in theSenate report encouraged the Library to consult with the Capitol police on external security issues. Conferencelanguage regarding appropriations for Librarybuildings and grounds, funded under the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), directed the AOC to "obtain theconcurrence of the Capitol Police Board in thesubmission of budget requests regarding the physical security of the Library's buildings and grounds." (68)

Senate language permanently authorizing the LOC's American Folklife Center was accepted in conference.

Additional funds were made available to the Capitol Police Board for Capitol complex and Library of Congress security enhancements in H.R. 4328 ,FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act ( P.L. 105-277 ). The conferencereport on H.R. 4328 containslanguage "to allow the transfer of funds to either the Architect of the Capitol or the Library of Congress, based uponplans approved by the Committee on HouseOversight of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, and theHouse and Senate Committees on Appropriations."

Government Printing Office Budget. The Government Printing Office (GPO) is funded in both Title I (forcongressional printing and binding) and Title II (for other operations of GPO). For congressional printing andbinding, conferees agreed to the House figure of$74.5 million, an 8.8% decrease over the FY1998 level of $81.7 million. The $81.7 million House FY1998 figureincludes an $11 million transfer from the GPOrevolving fund. Language in the House report stated that the level of funding recommended was based on savingsdue to installation of the direct-to-platetechnology and an FTE level that is about 100 positions below the present ceiling. (69)

The Senate bill contained $75.5 million for congressional printing and binding. This was a 6.9% increase overthe FY1998 level used in the Senate report of$70.6 million (which did not include an $11 million transfer). Conferees agreed to an administrative provision inthe House version that authorized up to $11million to be transferred from the GPO revolving fund in its FY1998 budget authority.

Conferees also agreed to language in the House report that directed the Clerk of the House, in consultation with the Secretary of the Senate and the public printer,to study the present and future printing needs of the House and Senate to ascertain the most cost-effective printingprogram for House and Senate use. Confereesadded language requesting the Secretary of the Senate to work with the Clerk of the House on the project.

Funding for GPO in Title II of the bill is $29.3 million, the House figure, for activities of the Office of the Superintendent of Documents. The Senate recommended $29.6 million. Title II also contains funding from time to time for the GPO revolving fund. Conferees agreed to language in Title II directing GPOto complete assessments, plan for their implementation, and complete action necessary to make the agencyYear-2000 compliant during FY1999.

Major Funding Trends

(70)

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 theimpact of inflation); (2) selection of budgetauthority contained in annual appropriations bills, with or without permanent budget authority (permanent budgetauthority not requiring annual approval byCongress); and (3) selection of fiscal years to be compared.

Current-dollar data reflect actual budget authority appropriated each year. Constant-dollar data reflect the conversion of actual budget authority into equivalent1998 dollars. For example, Congress appropriated budget authority of $41,793,000 for the Senate in FY1968,excluding permanent budget authority. Convertedinto 1998 dollars, $41,793,000 is $196,955,517.

When reviewing the 30-year growth of the Senate budget from FY1968-FY1998 in current dollars, the increase amounts to 1003.0%. In constant dollars, theincrease is 134.1%. The constant-dollar figure indicates budget growth after the effects of inflation are neutralized.

Differences also appear based on the choice of fiscal years used to compare budget authority. For example, a comparison of budget growth between FY1968 andFY1998 shows the following changes in total legislative budgets after adjustment for inflation: FY1968-FY1998, +83.0%; FY1972-FY1998, +8.7%; andFY1978-FY1998, -12.3%. (71)

Changes in the 1970s significantly affected Congress's budget. Implementation by Congress of the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act increased the budgetsand staffs of congressional committees and support agencies from FY1971 through FY1978. For example, theincrease in total legislative budget authority,adjusted for inflation, from FY1969 (pre-1970 Reorganization Act) through FY1973 (a year of significantimplementation of the 1970 Reorganization Act) was64.5%.

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 the Congressional Budget Office. Significant funding also began fordevelopment of House and Senate computer capabilities. This growth in the legislative budget stabilized by FY1978 and has remained fairly level since that time.

Current Legislative Budget Trends. Between FY1978 and FY1998, the total legislative budget, when adjustedfor inflation, decreased by 12.3%. Budget authority for direct congressional operations in Title I decreased by 6.0%over this time.

Throughout the 12 years following FY1978 (FY1979-FY1990), legislative budget funding 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. Funding increased again in FY1992 andFY1995 but decreased in FY1993, FY1994, FY1996, and FY1997. The change between FY1994 and FY1998 wasa decrease of 9.4% in total legislative budgetauthority. Using current dollars, the change between FY1994 and FY1998 was an increase of 0.3%.

Table 2. Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY1994 to FY1998 (budget authority in billions of currentdollars) a

a These figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect supplementals and rescissions. Permanent budget authorities are notincluded in the annual legislative branch appropriations bill but, rather, are automatically funded annually.

Table 3. Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY1999 In H.R.4112 (Regular Annual Appropriations, P.L.105-275) and H.R. 4328 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, P.L. 105-277) (in thousandsof current dollars)

Sources: Source for columns two through six is Rep. James Walsh, remarks in the House, Congressional Record , daily edition, vol. 144, Sept. 24, 1998, pp.H8549-H8552. In his remarks, Rep. Walsh inserted a table containing FY1998 and FY1999 request, House bill,Senate bill, and conference figures. The FY1998figure includes a supplemental in P.L. 105-174 , May 1, 1998, and a transfer of $11 million. Title III contains generalprovisions and does not contain new budgetauthority. Source for column seven is the House Appropriations Committee.

aIncludes an FY1998 supplemental of $270,300 for payments to widows and heirs of deceased Members.

b Includes an FY1998 supplemental of $7.5 million to begin Capitol dome repairs, and $20 million for aCapitol perimeter security plan, with $4 million of the$20 million transferable to the Capitol Police Board, upon the board's request.

c Includes an $11 million transfer to the Government Printing Office from its revolving fund.

dIn addition, the Library of Congress had authority in FY1998 to spend $30.3 million in receipts.

e Includes $6 million for the Government Printing Office revolving fund.

f The House column in the Congressional Record table on the FY1999 bill does not include $459.4million for Senate internal activities.

g.The House column in the Congressional Record table on the FY1999 conference does not includebudget authority of $53.6 million for Senate Office Buildingsfunded under the Architect of the Capitol.

h Includes $1 million for the congressional cemetery.

I The House figures in the Congressional Record table on the FY1999 conference do not includebudget authorities for internal Senate operations or Senate OfficeBuildings, funded under the Architect of the Capitol.

j Includes $5.5 million in emergency supplementals under the Sergeant at Arms for completion of Year-2000computer conversion.

k Includes $6.373 million in emergency supplementals under Chief Administration Officer for completion ofYear-2000 computer conversion.

l Includes $106.78 million for emergency supplementals for security enhancements under the Capitol PoliceBoard, General Expenses. The total Joint Items figurealso includes $2 million for the Trade Deficit Review Commission.

m Includes $100 million in emergency supplementals under the Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Buildings,Salaries and Expenses, and for design andconstruction of a Capitol Visitors' Center.

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

o Includes $5 million in emergency supplementals under Salaries and Expenses for completion of the Year-2000computer conversion.

p Funded under Joint Items for FY1999..

q Includes $223.655 million in emergency supplementals for FY1999.

Table 4. Senate Items, FY1999 In H.R. 4112 (Regular Annual Appropriations, P.L. 105-275) andH.R. 4328 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, P.L. 105-277) (in thousands of currentdollars)

Source: Source for columns two through six is Rep. James Walsh, remarks in the House, Congressional Record , daily edition, vol. 144, Sept. 24, 1998, pp.H8549-H8552. In his remarks, Rep. Walsh inserted a table containing FY1998 and FY1999 request, House bill,Senate bill, and conference figures. Source forcolumn seven is the House Appropriations Committee.

a The Senate does not consider budget authority for internal House operations.

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 emergency supplementals of $5.5 million for completion of the Year-2000 computer conversion forthe Sergeant at Arms.

Table 5. House of Representatives Items, FY1999 In H.R.4112 (Regular Annual Appropriations, P.L.105-275) and H.R. 4328 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, P.L. 105-277) (in thousandsof current dollars)

Sources : Source for columns two through six is Rep. James Walsh, remarks in the House, Congressional Record , daily edition, vol. 144, Sept. 24, 1998, pp.H8549-H8552. In his remarks, Rep. Walsh inserted a table containing FY1998 and FY1999 request, House bill,Senate bill, and conference figures. Source forcolumn seven is the House Appropriations Committee.

a This figure represents an FY1998 supplemental appropriation ( P.L. 105-174 ).

b The appropriations bill has two House accounts: (1) Payments to Widows and Heirs of Deceased Membersof Congress and (2) Salaries and Expenses. All theentries that follow Salaries and Expenses fall under that House account, Salaries and Expenses.

c This appropriation heading was new in the FY1996 bill. The heading represents a consolidation of (1) theformer heading Members' Clerk Hire; (2) the formerheading Official Mail Costs; and (3) the former subheading Official Expenses of Members, under the headingAllowances and Expenses.

d This appropriation heading was new in the FY1996 bill. The heading represents a consolidation of (1) theformer heading Committee Employees; (2) theformer 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 The House does not consider budget authority for internal Senate operations. F Includes $6.373 million inemergency supplementals for the ChiefAdministrative Officer for completion of Year-2000 computer conversion.

Table 6. Legislative Branch Budget Authority Funded in Annual Appropriations Bills, FY1994-FY1998 (Does not include permanent budget authority; in thousands of current dollars)

See notes at end of Table 7.

Table 7. Legislative Branch Budget Authority Funded in Annual Appropriations Bills, FY1994-FY1998 (Does not include permanent budget authority; in thousands of constant 1998 dollars)

Sources: Budget authorities for FY1994-FY1998 are from the House Appropriations Committee. FY1995 budget authorities reflect rescissions and asupplemental contained in P.L. 104-19 , 109 Stat. 219-221, July 27, 1995, FY1995 Supplemental and RescissionsAct ( H.R. 1944 ). FY1996 budgetauthorities reflect rescissions contained in P.L. 104-28 , Sept. 28, 1996, FY1997 Omnibus ConsolidatedAppropriations Act ( H.R. 3610 ). FY1998budget authorities represent supplementals contained in P.L. 105-174 , May 1, 1998, and an $11 million transfer tothe Government Printing Office (GPO) fromthe GPO revolving fund.

Note: FY1994 budget authority reflects rescissions contained in P.L. 103-211 , Feb. 12, 1994, FY1994 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act( H.R. 3759 ).

Excludes permanent appropriations are (in current dollars, in thousands): FY1994, $329,000; FY1995, $343,000; FY1996, $302,000; FY1997, $325,000; andFY1998, $333,000. Source is the U.S. Budget .

Excludes trust funds are (in current dollars, in thousands): FY1994, $6,000; FY1995, $16,000; FY1996,$31,000; FY1997, $29,000. Source is the U.S. Budget.

Formula for conversion to constant dollars is as follows: 1998 Consumer Price Index (CPI) number dividedby each year's CPI number multiplied by that year'sbudget authority. The CPI index numbers used were 148.2 (1994), 152.4 (1995), 156.9 (1996), 160.5 (1997), and164.0 (1998 est.). These numbers wereprovided by the Congressional Budget Office.

a Prior to FY1978, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act contained numerous titles. Effective in FY1978,Congress restructured the legislative bill so that itwould "more adequately reflect actual costs of operating 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, was establishedto contain appropriations for the actualoperation of Congress. Title II, Related Agencies, was established to contain the budgets for activities notconsidered as providing direct support to Congress.

Periodically, the act has contained additional titles for such purposes as Capitol improvements and specialone-time functions, which are not shown as separateentities on these tables. One such example is the initial funding of $48 million for the newly established FederalEmployee Retirement System (FERS) as part ofthe FY1987 Supplemental Appropriations Act. OMB included this budget authority within the affected individuallegislative 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 tolegislative 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 totals obtained by adding TitlesI and II in this table.

For Additional Reading

CRS Reports

CRS Report 97-212(pdf) . Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY1998 , by Paul Dwyer.

CRS Report 96-201. Legislative Branch Budget Authority, FY1968-FY1996 , by Paul Dwyer and Lorraine Tong.

CRS Report 97-112. Legislative Branch Employment, 1960-1997 , by Paul Dwyer and John Pontius.

CRS Report 98-123. Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for FY1998, coordinated by [author name scrubbed].

Selected World Wide Web Sites

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#la

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