Order Code RL30212
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2000:
Legislative Branch
Updated June 28, 1999
Paul E. Dwyer
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program
authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Legislative Branch Appropriations. It summarizes the
current legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related
legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and
related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with
active links is available to congressional staff at
[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html]
Appropriations for FY2000: Legislative Branch
Summary
On June 10, 1999, the House passed the FY2000 legislative branch
appropriations bill, H.R. 1905 (214-197), containing $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 the House Appropriations Committee. The reduction was contained in an
amendment agreed to by the House. The House–passed funding level was a reduction
of $190 million, or 9.3%, from the FY1999 funding level of $2.052 billion, also
excluding Senate items.
Earlier on June 10, the Senate Committee on Appropriations held a mark up of
its version of the legislative funding bill, and later in the day reported S. 1206 (S.
Rept. 106-75). 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.
H.R. 1905 was reported on May 21, 1999, by the House Committee on
Appropriations (H. Rept. 106-156). The bill contained $1.917 billion, excluding
funds for Senate items. This appropriation was a reduction of $135.2 million, or
6.6%, from the FY1999 level of $2.052 billion, also excluding Senate items. The
report 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.
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 for the “necessary expenses of a House page dormitory”
and $1.8 million for life safety renovations to the O’Neill House Office Building.
Among issues under consideration are –
! What additional staff and funds might be necessary to ensure that Congress’s
computers are Year–2000 compliant?
! What appropriations are needed for technology development, including
electronic document printing and continued development of a legislative
information system?
! What attention should be given to the support agencies’ staff recruitment to
replace employees who are eligible for retirement in the immediate future?
! How much should funding be increased for security enhancement for the
Capitol, other congressional buildings, and adjacent grounds?
! How much should be appropriated for the Office of the Architect of the
Capitol’s request to undertake capital improvements?
At a requested amount of $2.621 billion for FY2000, the legislative budget
comprises 0.15% of the total federal budget.
Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS Division
Tel.
Appropriations Process
James Saturno
GOV/FIN
7-2381
Appropriations Process
Sandy Streeter
GOV/FIN
7-8646
Committee Funds
Paul Rundquist
GOV/FIN
7-5846
Legislative Funds and Operations
Paul Dwyer
GOV/FIN
7-8668
Legislative Funds and Operations
Lorraine Tong
GOV/FIN
7-5846
Legislative Operations and Administration
Mildred Amer
GOV/FIN
7-8304
Legislative Staff, Mail and Operations
John Pontius
GOV/FIN
7-6733
Division abbreviations: GOV/FIN = Government and Finance
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Developments This Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Submission of FY2000 Budget Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Actions On the House Regular Annual FY2000 Legislative Funding Bill
(H.R. 1905) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Actions On the Senate Regular Annual FY2000 Legislative Funding Bill (S.
1206) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Actions on the FY1999 Emergency Supplemental Bill (H.R. 1141) . . 6
Major Issues Driving Discussions on the FY2000 Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Overall Funding Level Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Flat Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Modest Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Budget Decrease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Year–2000 Computer Reprogramming Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
General Accounting Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Additional Emergency Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Technology Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
House and Senate Legislative Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
House System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Senate System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Anticipated Expenses of Internet Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Modifications of the House Electronic Voting System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
House and Senate Committee Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
House Committee Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Senate Committee Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Joint Committee Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Joint Economic Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Joint Committee on Taxation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Abolishment of the Joint Committee on Printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Fire Safety in House Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Security Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Capitol Complex Security Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Funding for the Capitol Police Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Capitol Visitors’ Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Architect of the Capitol Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Architect of the Capitol Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Botanic Garden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Support Agency Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Congressional Budget Office Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
General Accounting Office Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Library of Congress Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Library of Congress, Except CRS (in Title II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Congressional Research Service (in Title I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Guide to Determining Legislative Budget Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
List of Figures
Figure 1. Title I and Title II of the FY1999 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (in
thousands of $ including the FY1999 emergency supplemental in P.L. 105-277
and the second FY1999 supplemental in P.L. 106-31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 2: Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY1995-FY1999 (in thousands of
current $ including the FY1999 emergency supplemental in P.L. 105-277 and the
FY1999 supplemental in P.L. 106-31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 3: Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY1995-FY1999 (in thousands of
constant $ including the FY1999 emergency supplemental in P.L. 105-277 and
the FY1999 supplemental in P.L. 106-31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 4: Appropriations for the Architect, FY1995-FY1999 (in thousands of
current $ including the FY1999 emergency supplemental
of $100 million for a Capitol visitors’ center in P.L. 105-277 and the $5.6 million
supplemental in P.L. 106-31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 5: Appropriations for the Architect, FY1995-FY1999 (in thousands of
constant $ including the FY1999 emergency supplemental
of $100 million for a Capitol visitors’ center in P.L. 105-277 and the $5.6 million
supplemental in P.L. 106-31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 6: Appropriations for CBO, FY1995–FY1999
(in thousands of current $) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 7: Appropriations for CBO, FY1995–FY1999
(in thousands of constant $) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 8: Appropriations for GAO, FY1995–FY1999
(in thousands of current $) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 9: Appropriations for GAO, FY1995-FY1999
(in thousands of constant $) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 10: Appropriations for LOC, Excluding CRS, FY1995–FY1999
(in thousands of current $) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 11: Appropriations for LOC, Excluding CRS, FY1995–FY1999
(in thousands of constant $) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 12: Appropriations for CRS, FY1995–FY1999
(in thousands of current $) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 13: Appropriations for CRS, FY1995–FY1999
(in thousands of constant $) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 14: Appropriations for GPO, FY1995–FY1999
(in thousands of current $) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Figure 15: Appropriations for GPO, FY1995–FY1999
(in thousands of constant $) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
List of Tables
Table 1: Status of Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY2000,
H.R. 1905, S. 1206 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY1995 to FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 3. Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY2000, H.R. 1905, S. 1206 . . . 32
Table 4. Senate Items, FY2000, S. 1206 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table 5. House of Representatives Items, FY2000, H.R. 1905 . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 6. Legislative Branch Budget Authority Contained in Appropriations Acts,
FY1995-FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 7. Legislative Branch Budget Authority Contained in Appropriations Acts,
FY1995-FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Appropriations for FY2000:
Legislative Branch
Most Recent Developments
On June 10, 1999, the House passed the FY2000 legislative branch
appropriations bill, H.R. 1905 (214-197), containing $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 level reported earlier by
the House Appropriations Committee, and was contained in an amendment agreed
to by the House. As passed, the $1.862 billion appropriation was a reduction of
$190 million, or 9.3%, from the FY1999 funding level of $2.052 billion, excluding
funds for Senate items.
Also, on June 10, the Senate Committee on Appropriations held a mark up of
its version of the legislative funding bill, and later in the day reported S. 1206 (S.
Rept. 106-75). 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.
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 for the “necessary expenses of a House page dormitory”
and $1.8 million for life safety renovations to the 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 Senate activities), the Congressional
Budget Office, the Office of the Architect of the Capitol (except Library of Congress
buildings and grounds), the Congressional Research Service within the Library of
Congress, and congressional 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 the Congressional Research Service), the Library buildings and
grounds within the Architect of the Capitol, the Government Printing Office (except
congressional printing and binding costs), and the General Accounting Office.
CRS-2
Periodically since FY1978, the legislative
Figure 1. Title I and Title II of the FY1999
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (in
bill has contained additional titles for thousands of $ including the FY1999 emergency
such purposes as capital improvements
supplemental in P.L. 105-277 and the second
and special one-time functions.
FY1999 supplemental in
P.L. 106-31)
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 branch appropriations
act or supplemental appropriations acts.
It includes permanent budget authority
for both 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 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.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
The
1
figure includes funds in the regular annual FY1999 Legislative Branch Appropriations
Act (P.L. 105-275), in an emergency supplemental appropriation of $223.7 million for
security enhancements, design and construction of a Capitol visitors’ center, and assistance
in Year–2000 computer conversion (P.L. 105-277), and in a second FY1999 supplemental
of $5.6 million for the architect of the Capitol (P.L. 106-31).
2 Other budget authorities are those of some non-legislative entities within the legislative
branch budget that are actually funded in other appropriations bills.
3 FY1999 total legislative branch permanent federal fund authority is $358 million. This
figure is comprised of House and Senate Member pay ($94 million); House and Senate use
of foreign currencies ($3 million); House and Senate international conferences and
contingencies ($1 million); and Library of Congress payments to copyright owners ($260
million). Sources for permanent federal funds are the FY2000 U.S. Budget and the House
Appropriations Committee. Figures in the U.S. Budget are rounded to the nearest million.
4 FY1999 total legislative branch permanent trust fund authority is $46 million. This figure
is comprised of Library of Congress gift and trust fund accounts ($41 million); Library of
Congress cooperative acquisitions revolving fund ($1 million); U.S. Capitol Preservation
Commission trust funds ($1 million); Architect of the Capitol gifts and donations ($2 million);
and the John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development trust funds ($1
million). Source for permanent trust funds is the House Committee on Appropriations.
CRS-3
entities are placed within the legislative budget section by the Office of Management
and Budget for bookkeeping purposes.5
Status
Table 1: Status of Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY2000,
H.R. 1905, S. 1206
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conference
Public
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
Law
5/21/99
6/10/99
6/10/99
6/16/99
5/12/99
__a
H. Rept.
S. Rept.
—
—
—
—
(214-197)
(95-4)
106-156
106-75
The full Committee markup was held 6/10/99.
a
Developments This Year
Submission of FY2000 Budget Estimates. On February 1, 1999, President
Clinton released the FY2000 budget request of $2.618 billion for legislative activities
funded in the legislative branch appropriations bill. The revised budget estimate for
6
the legislative branch was $2.621 billion.7 Legislative agencies may revise their
5 The FY2000 U.S. Budget includes non-legislative entities under two headings: (1) “U.S.
Tax Court” and (2) “Other Legislative Branch Agencies – Legislative Branch Boards and
Commissions.” Included in the latter category are the Gambling Impact Study Commission;
the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicine; the Medicare Payment
Advisory Commission; the Census Monitoring Board; and a subcategory for “Other
Legislative Branch Boards and Commissions.”
For a more accurate picture of the legislative branch budget in FY2000, the budget
authority for non–legislative entities should be subtracted from the total legislative budget
authority provided in the U.S. Budget. The FY2000 U.S. Budget shows an FY2000 total
legislative budget authority request of $2.977 billion, including permanent federal and
permanent trust funds, and non–legislative entities. After removing non–legislative entities
($37 million), the total is $2.940 billion, still including permanent federal funds and permanent
trust funds. Excluding permanent federal funds ($357 million) and permanent trust funds
($47 million), the total is $2.536 billion. The source for these figures is the FY2000 U.S.
Budget. The pending legislative branch budget request before the House Appropriations
Committee was $2.621 billion, which reflected a revision by the legislative branch of the
President’s request.
6Source is the FY2000 U.S. Budget. This figure is not exact because the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), which prepares the U.S. Budget, rounds to the nearest
millions of dollars. In December of each year, legislative agencies submit their budget requests
for the upcoming fiscal year to OMB. The agencies’ requests are prepared during the
previous months. Subsequently, OMB incorporates the agencies’ requests without change into
the President’s annual budget submitted to Congress early the following year.
7Source is the House Appropriations Committee.
CRS-4
budget requests at any time, and the $2.621 billion was a revision by the legislative
branch of the President’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 supplemental
appropriation of $223.7 million contained in P.L. 105-277. When the emergency
supplemental appropriation of $223.7 million is excluded from the FY1999 budget
authority, the FY2000 budget request of $2.621 billion was a 7.8% increase over the
regular FY1999 budget of $2.352 billion.
Actions On the House Regular Annual FY2000 Legislative Funding Bill
(H.R. 1905). On February 2, the House Subcommittee on Legislative began its
hearings on the legislative budget, continuing on February 3 and 10. On May 12,
1999, the Subcommittee met and agreed (voice vote) to a FY2000 legislative branch
budget of $1.917 billion, excluding funds for Senate internal activities and Senate
activities of the architect of the Capitol. The total FY2000 budget represented a
decrease of $135.2 million, or 6.6%, from the FY1999 level of $2.052, also excluding
Senate activities. The budget for 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 of
Compliance (-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 the
Library 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, after
adopting an amendment requiring the participation of House offices in the waste
recycling program. The amendment specified that funds collected through the sale of
recycled materials were to be made available to the House child care center, as
determined by the House Appropriations Committee. The recycling provision was
subsequently dropped from the bill during floor consideration because a point of order
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 release
issued 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 was
reported 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 the
architect 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 a reduction
of $190 million, or 9.3%, from the FY1999 funding level of $2.052 billion, also
excluding Senate items.
CRS-5
The floor amendment made the following reductions:
! $29.1 million from the House of Representatives account salaries and
expenses, including $142,000 from House leadership offices; $28.3 million
from Members’ representational allowances; $213,000 from the Committee on
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, as approved 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 reduced by
$4 million.
CRS-6
Actions On the Senate Regular Annual FY2000 Legislative Funding Bill (S.
1206). On March 3, the Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch began hearings
on the legislative branch budget. The subcommittee heard testimony from the
architect of the Capitol and members of the Capitol Police Board. On March 17, the
librarian of Congress, the comptroller general, and the public printer testified before
the subcommittee. The officers of the Senate and the director of the Congressional
Budget Office testified on 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
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, including the
FY1999 emergency supplemental. The $1.793 billion appropriation, which excluded
funds for House items, was a 9.5% decrease from the budget request. Funds for
Senate operations were increased by 3.0%, an increase, Chairman Robert Bennett
stated, that was 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 his budget 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 former
Members of Congress and senior congressional staff.
Actions on the FY1999 Emergency Supplemental Bill (H.R. 1141). On May
14, conferees on the FY1999 emergency supplemental bill, H.R. 1141, issued their
report, which contained funds and administrative language regarding the legislative
branch (H. Rept. 106-143). The conference was approved by the House on May 18
(269-158) and the Senate on May 20 (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 heading
salaries, officers and employees, and made available the same amount of $3.5
million for the House chief administrative officer to replace the House payroll
system;
! made available $3.8 million to the architect of the Capitol for necessary
expenses of a House page dormitory;8
8 The funds for a House page dormitory were made available under the subheading Capitol
buildings and grounds, House office buildings, House page dormitory. The architect was
authorized to transfer to the House chief administrative officer (CAO) any portion of the $3.8
million required for expenses incurred by the CAO, subject to approval of the House
Committee on Appropriations.
CRS-7
! made available $1.8 million to the architect of the Capitol for necessary
expenses for life safety renovations to the O’Neill House Office Building;
! 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 of allowances
and expenses for the office, excluding funds appropriated for official expenses
(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 emerging Russian
political leaders to the United States...to give Russian leaders from all levels
of government first hand exposure to the American free market economic
system and operation of American democratic institutions.”
9
Major Issues Driving Discussions on the FY2000 Bill
Among the main issues driving consideration of the FY2000 legislative branch
appropriations bill are the following:
! What additional staff and funds are necessary to ensure that Congress will be
Year–2000 compliant?
! What are the funding and staffing needs for technology development, including
online information, electronic document printing, and continued development
of a legislative information system?
! How can Congress assist in supporting the staff succession plans of its support
agencies, in order to replace employees eligible to retire in the immediate
future?
! What additional funds might be needed for security enhancement for the
Capitol, other congressional buildings, and adjacent grounds?
! How much should be appropriated for the Office of the Architect’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 from
legislative agencies, they are faced with three options on funding levels: to maintain
a flat budget; to provide a modest increase; or to approve a budget decrease.
Statements by subcommittee members during the February and March 1999 hearings
9 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 1999, Making Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1999, conference report to
accompany H.R. 1141, H. Rept. 106-143, 106th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1999),
p. 93.
CRS-8
suggested support for a fairly flat budget for FY2000, with a slight adjustment to fund
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 FY1999
budget the one-time supplemental funding for the Capitol visitor’s center, security
enhancements, and Y2K compliancy, the increase was 4.8%, to $1.917 billion in
FY2000 from $1.823 billion in FY1999. The FY1999 and FY2000 figures exclude
funds for Senate items. When including the FY1999 supplementals in the FY1999
total, the Committee’s FY2000 budget recommendation, again with Senate items
excluded, 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 including the
FY1999 emergency supplementals, S. 1206 contained a 6.4% reduction from the
FY1999 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 additional funding requests.
10 A flat budget can be difficult to
achieve due to a number of factors, such as ongoing and emergency maintenance and
repair needs or an effort to keep 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. The
FY1999 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 of
inflation for the comparable period of time was 2.5%. Allowing for inflation, the
increase 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 in
FY1998. 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 billion in FY1998
from $2.203 billion in FY1997. Allowing for inflation, the FY1998 conference figure
was actually a 2.3% increase, to $2.345 billion in FY1998 from $2.293 billion in
FY1997 (in constant 1999 dollars).
10 Mandatory costs are those required by statute. They include such items as annual pay
adjustments and increases in the federal government’s contribution to the federal employee
retirement program.
CRS-9
Modest Increase. When including the FY1999 emergency supplemental
appropriations in P.L. 105-277, the FY1999 total appropriation allowed for a modest
increase, to $2.576 billion from $2.288 billion in FY1998, or 12.6% increase. The
emergency supplemental contained funds for security systems, a Capitol visitors’
center, and Year–2000 compliance of software and other computer changes.
Budget Decrease. Congress has also approved budget decreases in recent
years. For FY1996, Congress voted a decrease 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 1999 dollars). When including the FY1999
supplementals of 223.7 million, the FY2000 budget is a reduction of 6.6% from the
FY1999 level.
Although the FY1997 act contained an increase, when adjusted for inflation, the
FY1997 budget authority was a decrease in the legislative budget. The FY1997
increase 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).
Figure 2: Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY1995-FY1999 (in thousands of
current $ including the FY1999 emergency supplemental in P.L. 105-277 and the
FY1999 supplemental in P.L. 106-31)
CRS-10
Figure 3: Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY1995-FY1999 (in thousands of
constant $ including the FY1999 emergency supplemental in P.L. 105-277 and the
FY1999 supplemental in P.L. 106-31)
Year–2000 Computer Reprogramming Issue
Congress continues to work toward ensuring that the legislative branch and other
federal agencies achieve the software reprogramming and other computer changes
necessary to be Year–2000 (Y2K) compliant. This is necessary because most
computer software uses a two-digit year system for purposes of dating. The software
assumes “19" to be the first two digits of any year. If not reprogrammed, computers
using a two-digit system would interpret the year 2000 – 00 – as 1900. The result
would 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 concern
that the legislative branch be Y2K ready, particularly since Congress is putting
pressure on the executive branch to be in compliance. He emphasized that the
Year–2000 issue was of major importance to the Senate Subcommittee on Legislative
Branch.
11 He requested that the Capitol Police Board and the Office of the Architect
of the Capitol have their systems Y2K ready by March 31, 1999, and indicated that
further 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 to
the 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 special
congressional committee to oversee Y2K conversion efforts in the executive and
11 Testimony of the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Robert
Bennett. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative
Branch Appropriations, Legislative Appropriations for FY2000, hearing, 106th Cong., 1st
sess., March 3, 1999 (Washington: GPO, 1999), pp. 1-2.
CRS-11
judicial branches. The Special Committee on the Y2K Technology Problem, also
chaired by Senator Bennett, continues to hold hearings on the progress of federal
agencies in achieving Y2K compliance. ( Funds for the committee are included under
the Senate account, “Contingent Fund of the Senate,” in the subaccount, “Inquiries
and 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 special
committee. The House task force consists of members of the Subcommittee on
Government Management, Information, and Technology of the Committee on
Government Reform, and members of the Subcommittee on Technology of the
Committee on Science. A number of legislative offices and agencies participate in
other Y2K groups, such as the House Information Resources Y2K action team, the
legislative data standards committee – Y2K task force, and the legislative branch Y2K
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 they
would have mission–critical programs, and as many other programs as possible, Y2K
compliant. Most office and agency heads whose units were not yet mission–critical
compliant stated that they expected to be so between June and September 1999, to
allow time to test the systems. The sergeant at arms of the Senate created a
Senate–only Year 2000 Web site, which contains information on how to test PCs to
determine if they are Year–2000 compliant, how to determine which noncompliant
PCs 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 the needed computer changes to be Y2K ready.
The appropriations provided an additional 50 FTEs and language that Congress
expected at least one-third of the program funding increase to be used “to support
information technology (IT) work, particularly in support of issues related to the Year
2000 computing crisis.” Conferees
13
on the FY1999 bill directed that funds in excess
of those required for the additional FTEs be allocated to contract programming
support and directed the comptroller general to account for the use of these funds,
including the number of FTEs and the amount of the increase used to acquire contract
services.
Additional Emergency Appropriations. Congress also made available an
emergency supplemental of $16.9 million to the legislative branch for Year–2000
12Testimony of the sergeant at arms of the Senate, James Ziglar. U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch
Appropriations for FY2000, hearing, 106th Cong., 1st sess., March 24, 1999 (Washington:
GPO, 1999), p. 290.
U.S.
13
Congress, Conference Committees, 1998, Making Appropriations for the Legislative
Branch for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1999, and For Other Purposes, conference
report to accompany H.R. 4112, H. Rept. 105-734, 105th Cong., 2 sess. (Washington: GPO,
nd
1998), p. 43.
CRS-12
compliance efforts in the FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations 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 at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate;” $6.4 million for the House
of Representatives, under “Salaries and Expenses, Salaries, Officers, and Employees;”
and $5 million for GAO, under “Information Technology Systems and Related
Expenses.” Funds transferred to GAO were made available for transfer from GAO
to “all entities of the legislative branch other than the ‘Senate’ and ‘House of
Representatives’ covered by the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1998.”
Transfers by GAO were made subject to approval of the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
Technology Issues
House and Senate Legislative Information Systems. Both houses continue
to seek ways to reduce duplication of effort in tracking legislation, to upgrade
legislative tracking and document management systems, and to ensure that Congress
achieves the needed reprogramming of its computer systems by the Year 2000. To
accomplish this, both houses 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. They report,
respectively, to the House Administration Committee (formerly House Oversight) and
the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on their recommendations
regarding the electronic transfer of legislative data between the two houses and
among 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 to
develop a data retrieval system with the technical support of the Library of Congress
(LOC) and in collaboration with other legislative branch agencies, such as the
Government Printing Office (GPO). The House and Senate legislative information
14
systems are expected to reduce duplication through the consolidation of existing
legislative retrieval systems.
House System. In FY1996, the Committee on House Administration (formerly
House Oversight) directed the clerk to study methods for increasing the capacity of
the House to manage its documents electronically. The committee further directed
that subsequent proposals of the clerk relating to printing be coordinated with GPO
and all House entities requiring printing and storage of documents.
In
14
the FY1997 legislative branch appropriations bill, the Senate directed CRS and the
Library to develop a retrieval system The language was contained in an amendment that was
deleted from the legislation, but maintained in the conference report. Subsequent to passage
of the FY1997 bill, the chairman of the House Administration Committee (formerly House
Oversight) directed CRS and the Library to ensure that the retrieval system being developed
for the Senate would also meet the requirements of the House. The chairman’s directive was
contained in a letter to the CRS director dated Oct. 9, 1996.
CRS-13
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 transmitting
documents. An identical appropriation was made for the DMS in FY1998 and
FY1999. According to the clerk, the goals of the DMS are “to improve the legislative
document creation and revision process; to provide pro–active tracking, routing, and
control of legislative documents; to improve information exchange with the 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 and related
documents for current and future use, for the general public, legislative organizations,
and the House of Representatives; [and] to allow the House of Representatives to
become more independent for preparation, printing, and distribution 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 of
the DMS is costly, anticipated savings to the House in administrative and printing
costs were estimated to be about $1 million annually.16
Senate System. The FY1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act directed
the secretary of the Senate to develop a legislative information system for the
Senate. The act directed that the secretary oversee the system’s development and
17
implementation, subject to approval of the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration. Like the House, the Senate system provides 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 appropriated
for the Office of the Secretary of the Senate; it remained available until September 30,
1998. The secretary was also authorized to transfer to the development of the
legislative information system, as he determined to be necessary, funds already
appropriated to the secretary’s office for the purpose of development of the Senate
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. That act
authorized the transfer of $5 million from other Senate accounts to the account,
15Testimony of the clerk of the House, Jeff Trandahl. U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch Appropriations for
FY2000, hearings, 106 Con
th
g., 1st sess., Feb. 2, 1999 (Washington: GPO, 1999), pp. 34-35.
Comments
16
of the former clerk of the House, Robin Carle. U.S. Congress, House Committee
on Appropriations, House Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch Appropriations
for FY1998, hearing, 105th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 4, 1997 (unpublished). See also the clerk’s
testimony on the DMS in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee
on Legislative, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1998, hearings, part 2, 105th Cong.,
2 sess., Feb. 1997 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 43.
nd
17P.L. 104-197, 110 Stat. 2398, Sept. 16, 1996, sec. 8, FY1996 Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act.
CRS-14
“Contingent Expenses of the Senate,” under the subaccount, “Secretary of the
Senate.”
18 That money was made available through September 30, 2000. The transfer
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 Secretary of the
Senate.
The FY1999 Senate report on S. 2137 also contained language directing the
Congressional Research Service and the Library “to continue their development of the
legislative retrieval system for the Senate and provide an annual report outlining the
strategic objective of this initiative.”
19
Anticipated Expenses of Internet Use. The increased use of e-mail by
constituents and their visits to Members’ and offices’ Web sites in the House and
Senate are factors in the pending budgets. It is anticipated that Congress could face
significant expenses in meeting the 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 House
Oversight) budgeted $2.8 million to upgrade the House computer system. Of this
amount, $1.9 million was to be spent on an upgrade of the e-mail system. The
chairman of the House Administration Committee noted that the House e-mail system
was used about one million times a day during peak periods, up from a normal daily
use of 80,000 in prior years. He stated that during three days of the impeachment
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. The sergeant at arms of the Senate requested $1
20
million for a new e-mail system in his FY2000 budget. Currently, the Senate is
developing 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 was
estimated as needed to replace the voting display board above the press gallery in the
House chamber.21
For
18
language in H.R. 1871 that is relevant to the legislative branch, see Representative
Robert Livingston, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 143, June
12, 1997, p. H3766. This provision was originally included in the earlier version of the
FY1997 supplemental bill, H.R. 1469, which was vetoed by the President on June 9, 1997.
Senate report, FY1999, p. 41.
19
20Chris Carr, “Impeachment Views Swamp Hill E-Mail,” The Washington Post, Jan. 26,
1999, sec. A, p. 17.
21Testimony of the clerk of the House, Jeff Trandahl, before the House Subcommittee on
Legislative, hearings, Feb. 2, 1999, p. 37.
CRS-15
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 subheading contained $93.9 million for committees’ salaries
and expenses that were authorized by the House in a committee expense resolution,
excluding the Appropriations Committee. This appropriation was a 4.6%, or $4.1
million, increase over the FY1999 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 from the
FY2000 budget request.
The total appropriations for committees in the House–passed bill was $114.97
million, 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 Senate committees. This figure included funds for two
separate accounts: $6.5 million for the Senate Appropriations Committee, and $71.6
million for expenses of all other Senate 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 as requested, an increase of $104,000, or
3.4%, over the FY1999 appropriation of $3.1 million. During a hearing, Rep. Jim
Saxton, chairman of the joint committee, testified on staffing needs, particularly the
need to retain qualified economists. In response to a question on the committee’s
possible need to contract out, Rep. Saxton stated that “sometimes it is more effective
to contract out...where you need very specialized 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 request of $6.3 million, and an increase of $223,000, or
3.7%, over the FY1999 budget authority 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 Internal
Testimony
22
of Rep. Jim Saxton, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee. U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch
Appropriations for FY2000, hearings, 106 Cong., 1
th
st sess., Feb. 3, 1999 (Washington: GPO,
1999), p. 192.
CRS-16
Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. The remaining funds were
targeted 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 Joint
Committee to devote additional resources to the effort to develop the capability to
incorporate macroeconomic effects in Joint Committee revenue estimates for major
tax legislation.” The joint committee did not request additional funds for thi
23
s
purpose, planning to fund the positions through reclassification of existing positions
and replacement of certain departing employees with entry–level professional staff.
Abolishment of the Joint Committee on Printing. The Joint Committee on
Printing was abolished in 1998; hence the FY2000 budget does not contain a funding
request for the committee. Conferees on the FY1999 legislative branch appropriations
bill agreed to $352,000 for the committee through December 31, 1998, when the
committee was to be terminated. Matters under its jurisdiction were transferred to
the Committee on House Administration (formerly House Oversight), the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration, and the public printer. This figure included
$150,000 to be available to the Committee on House Administration only when the
legislative and oversight responsibilities of the joint committee were transferred by
law to the committee, other committees, and congressional entities.
The Senate provided $150,000 in additional funds to the Senate Committee on
Rules and Administration for costs incurred by the committee in assuming the
responsibilities of the joint committee.24 The $150,000 was included in FY1999
funding for Senate committee expenses in the Senate subaccount inquiries and
investigations within the account contingent expenses of the Senate.
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 House
inspector general faulting fire protection systems in the five House office buildings
and the House side of the Capitol. Issued December 18, 1998, the report concluded
that many systems were incomplete or inadequate. The inspector general
recommended that the Committee on House Administration oversee improvement of
fire systems by the Architect of the Capitol. In March 1999, the House
Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 1141, which contained $1.8 million for
expenses of life safety renovations to the O’Neill House Office Building. H.R. 1141,
the FY1999 emergency supplemental appropriations bill, was reported from
23Testimony of the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, Sen. Bill Roth, and vice
chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, Rep. Bill Archer. U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch
Appropriations for FY2000, hearings, 106 Cong., 1
th
st sess., Feb. 3, 1999 (Washington: GPO,
1999), p. 493.
These
24
funds are in addition to the amount authorized the committee ($1,375,472) in S.Res.
54, agreed to Feb. 13, 1997, which was increased to $1,407,254 in P.L. 105-55, Oct. 7, 1997.
CRS-17
conference with the funding provision on May 14 (H. Rept. 106-143), and agreed to
by both Houses.
Security Issues
Capitol Complex Security Plan. The Office of the Architect of the Capitol
(AOC) continues to work on the development of a perimeter security plan for the
Capitol, the Senate and House office buildings, and adjacent grounds. Congress
approved $20 million for the perimeter security 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 of the Capitol Police Board to the Capitol Police
Board, “Capitol Police,” “General Expenses,” for physical security measures
associated with the Capitol Square perimeter security plan) to remain available
until expended, subject to the review and approval by the appropriate House and
Senate authorities.
25
The appropriation for the perimeter security plan was based on recommendations
that a task force on perimeter security prepared for the U.S. Capitol Police Board.
Of the $20 million, $4 million was to go to the Capitol Police Board for the design
and installation of security systems that were to be part of the perimeter plan.
The Senate Appropriations Committee report on S. 1768 (the Senate’s version
of the supplemental bill) stated that funds provided for perimeter security of Senate
office buildings are subject to review and approval of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. It further
26
stated that funds provided for perimeter security of the “Capitol Square” are subject
27
to review and approval of the House Committee on Appropriations, Committee on
House Administration, Speaker of the House, Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration, and Senate Committee on Appropriations.
P.
25
L. 105-174, 112 Stat. 89, May 1, 1998, Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
for FY1998. See also U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Making
Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30,
1998, report to accompany H.R. 3580, 105 Cong.,
th
2nd sess., H. Rept. 105-470 (Washington:
GPO, 1998), pp. 11-12, and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Making
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from Natural Disasters, and for
Overseas Peacekeeping Efforts, for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1998, report to
accompany S. 1768, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 105-168 (Washington: GPO, 1998), p.
22.
Ibid.,
26
Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, S.Rept. 105-168.
“Capitol
27
Square” is the area bounded by First Street on the east, Constitution Avenue on the
north, Independence Avenue on the south, and First Street on the west.
CRS-18
With the endorsement of the Committee on House Administration on February
24, 1999, the perimeter security plan has been approved by the four oversight and
funding committees that are responsible for its implementation.
Funding for the Capitol Police Board. H.R. 1905, as reported and passed,
contained $85.2 million for the Capitol Police Board in FY2000, a reduction of $5
million from the FY2000 request 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 emergency supplemental. When including the emergency
supplemental, the FY2000 Senate bill figure 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, not
including an FY1999 emergency supplemental of $106.8 million for security
enhancements.
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 $189.9
million in FY1999.
Funds for the Capitol Police are contained in two headings Capitol police salaries
and Capitol police general expenses. For salaries, the Committee recommended $78.5
million, including $4 million for overtime, for 1,251 FTE staff positions. 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 for overtime is to be
divided equally between the House and Senate detailees. For Capitol police general
expenses, $6.7 million was recommended.
Of the requested $7.1 million increase for the Capitol Police Board, 61.3% is
to maintain newly revised longevity pay rates; newly approved differential pay for
Sunday, 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, now
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 a
comprehensive security study of the Capitol complex. The Capitol Police Board
directed the study in 1998 by a task force composed of security experts from federal
law 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 emergency
supplemental to include necessary equipment upgrades and detailing the first phase
of the security enhancements to the Capitol complex and Library of Congress
buildings and grounds. The Capitol Police Board prepared a security enhancement
CRS-19
implementation plan, now pending before the authorizing and appropriations
committees. 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 police
equipment, and new security technology.
28
Capitol Visitors’ Center. During House and Senate hearings on the FY2000
budget of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, several subcommittee members
urged the architect to move expeditiously to construct a Capitol visitors’ center. A
sponsor of earlier legislation authorizing construction of the center, Representative
John Mica, also spoke before the House subcommittee in favor of the project. He
stated that “my concern is that this project may now be delayed, unduly putting off
construction unnecessarily and costs to the project.”29
The architect indicated on February 3, 1999, that construction of the visitors’
center could begin in December 2002, with completion anticipated in 3 ½ to 4 years
at a cost of $160.
30
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 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
(P.L. 105-277). Construction of the visitors’ center, conferees reasoned, would
“provide greater security for all persons working in or visiting the United States
Capitol and a more convenient place in which to learn of the work of Congress.”
31
The conference report on H.R. 4328 stipulated that appropriated funds for the
project are to be supplemented by private funds. Currently, the clerk of the House
and the secretary of the Senate are preparing recommendations for appropriate private
fund–raising plans. In his testimony on the FY2000 budget, the secretary 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 for long–term
maintenance and education programs. The secretary added that the United States
2 Testimony of the sergeant at arms of the Senate, James W. Ziglar. U.S. Congress, House
8
Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch Appropriations
for FY2000, hearings, Feb. 3, 1999 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 532.
29Statement of Rep. John Mica. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY2000, hearings,
106th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 10, 1999 (Washington: GPO, 1999) p. 795.
30Testimony of the architect of the Capitol, Alan Hantman. U.S. Congress, House
Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch Appropriations
for FY2000, hearings, Feb. 3, 1999 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 410.
31“Conference Report on H.R. 4328, Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999,” Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 144, Oct. 19, 1998, p. 11524. See also P.L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-569-570.
CRS-20
Capitol Preservation Fund contains $26.6 million, derived from private sources, that
could be made available for a visitors’ center.
32
The FY1999 appropriation culminated nearly a decade of discussions over the
feasibility of construction of a center. Planning for a center began in 1991, when the
architect of the Capitol received approval to use previously appropriated security
enhancement funds for the center’s conceptual planning and design.
33
Presently, the architect is reviewing an existing plan for a visitors’ center
presented to Congress in 1995 and making necessary modifications, as part of “Phase
One.” Construction plans will be submitted to the authorizing and appropriations
committees 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, the FY2000 budget proposal was a 6.6%
decrease from FY1999's budget of $303.4 million.
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 for the
Capitol buildings and grounds, the Senate office buildings, the House office buildings,
and the Capitol power plant. In FY1999, Title 1 also contained the emergency
supplemental of $100 million for a Capitol visitors’ center.
34
For Title I, the House and Senate consider separate requests because the House
budget request does not include Senate office building funds (which are determined
by the Senate), and the Senate budget request does not include House office building
funds (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 are
Testimony
32
of the secretary of the Senate, Gary Sisco. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch Appropriations for
FY2000, hearings, 106 Cong.
th
, 1st sess., March 24, 1999 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 222.
33U.S. Architect of the Capitol, United States Capitol Visitor Center: Final Design Report
(Washington: U.S. Architect of the Capitol, Nov. 10, 1995), p. 5. See also U.S. Library of
Congress, Congressional Research Service, The Capitol Visitors’ Center: An Overview, by
Stephen Stathis, CRS Report 98-920 GOV (Washington: March 30, 1999), 6 pp.
3 Congress
4
provided the additional funding “for planning, engineering, design, and
construction of a Capitol visitor center.” The architect is “directed not to expend any funds
for this project without an obligation plan approved by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations which shall specify the purpose and amount of anticipated obligations.”
CRS-21
funded 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 in
Title II. A sum of $19.9 million was requested for Title II budget authority for
FY2000.
Title II also contains funds for the Botanical Garden, which are administered by
the architect. In the legislative branch appropriations bill, funds for the Botanical
Garden are contained in a separate account; for purposes of this report, they are not
included 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 of the
Russell Senate office building subway ($6 million), replacement of chillers (mechanical
units related to cooling) in the Capitol power plant ($5 million), and other 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), cyclical
35
maintenance ($73.2 million), security ($2.6 million), and an energy survey of
congressional buildings to determine energy conservation measures (dollar amount
not specified in testimony of the architect of the Capitol).36
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 FY1999
appropriation of $135.6 million, when excluding the FY1999 emergency supplemental
of $100 million for the Capitol visitors’ center and a second supplemental 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 Congress buildings and
grounds was $17.8 million. This was an increase of 40.3%, from $12.7 million.
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 FY1999
supplemental and other supplementals of $5.6 million. If supplementals are included,
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 $13.6
35Among enhancements would be the design and completion of sprinkler systems for the
O’Neill House office building, the Rayburn House office building, and the James Madison
building of the Library of Congress.
36The goal was to achieve a 20% energy reduction by 2005. Testimony of the architect of
the Capitol, Alan Hantman. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY2000,
hearings, March 3, 1999 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 30.
CRS-22
million from the architect’s total budget, excluding funds for Senate items. The
amendment reduced the architect’s budget from $150.8 million to $137.2 million, a
9% 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, excluding
House items. The Senate passed H.R. 1905, as amended, on June 16 with the
committee recommended funding level.
Figure 4: Appropriations for the Architect, FY1995-FY1999 (in thousands of
current $ including the FY1999 emergency supplemental
of $100 million for a Capitol visitors’ center in P.L. 105-277 and the $5.6 million
supplemental in P.L. 106-31)
Figure 5: Appropriations for the Architect, FY1995-FY1999 (in thousands of
constant $ including the FY1999 emergency supplemental
of $100 million for a Capitol visitors’ center in P.L. 105-277 and the $5.6 million
supplemental in P.L. 106-31)
Botanic Garden. The FY2000 request for the Botanical Garden was $3.98
million, a 30% increase from the FY1999 budget of $3.1 million. While some of the
funds requested were for the current renovation of the conservatory, most renovation
funds were made available in the FY1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act
CRS-23
(P.L. 104-197). A contract for renovation was awarded in September 1998, with the
architect authorized to award contracts for additional garden projects if additional
funds were available. Deadline for completion of the renovation is September 5
37
,
2000. Bidding on a privately funded national garden, a new addition to the Botanical
Garden, is to begin in June 1999. The national garden will be located next to the
conservatory.
On May 21, the House Appropriations Committee recommended a FY2000
budget of $3.5 million, a 15.9% increase over FY1999. House report language
recommended that the architect conduct a study of alternative uses of the Garden’s
administrative 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 the
language 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 FY1999 level 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 to
offer the salaries and benefits needed to remain competitive in today’s tight labor
market.” He continued that CBO is “finding it increasingly
38
difficult to retain our
experienced workers” and that the agency has a problem “attracting top–flight new
employees.” Consequently, the director requested that he be given authority to make
lump–sum payments “to attract new employees and to reward outstanding
performance.”
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 reporting
the bill, the House Appropriations Committee provided authority for expenses of staff
recruitment and performance awards, limiting total expenses to 1% of total payroll,
and limiting overall compensation to the maximum salary of congressional staff.
Earlier on June 10, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1206, also
containing $26.2 million; the Senate agreed on June 16.
Ibid.
37
Testimony
38
of the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Dan Crippen. U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch
Appropriations for FY2000, hearings, Feb. 10, 1999 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 706.
CRS-24
Figure 6: Appropriations for CBO, FY1995–FY1999
(in thousands of current $)
Figure 7: Appropriations for CBO, FY1995–FY1999
(in thousands of constant $)
General Accounting Office Budget. The FY2000 budget request for the
General Accounting Office (GAO) was $387 million. This was a 7.7% increase over
the FY1999 budget of $359.3 million, which included an FY1999 emergency
supplemental of $5 million for Year–2000 computer conversion. Seventy-si
39
x
percent of the increase was requested for mandatory pay and related personnel costs.
The agency also requested funds to allow an increase in its self-initiated work, which
accounted for 4% of its workload due to downsizing since FY1994.
The
39
additional funds were made available to GAO in the FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated
and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277) to assist the legislative
branch in meeting Year–2000 compliance. Conferees on the bill agreed to $5 million 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 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act.”
Transfers by GAO were made subject to approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
CRS-25
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 staff
will reach retirement age. B
40
y that time, almost 60% of its higher grade staff will be
eligible for retirement. The FY2000 budget request would maintain the FY1999 FTE
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% increase over
the FY1999 budget of $359.3 million. On June 10, the Committee recommendation
for GAO was reduced by $1.5 million, to $371.2 million, during floor consideration
of H.R. 1905. S. 1206, as reported and passed, contained $382.3 million.
Figure 8: Appropriations for GAO, FY1995–FY1999
(in thousands of current $)
Figure 9: Appropriations for GAO, FY1995-FY1999
(in thousands of constant $)
Tes
40
timony of the comptroller general of the United States, David Walker. U.S. Congress,
Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative
Branch Appropriations for FY2000, hearing, 106th Cong., 1st sess., March 17, 1999
(Washington: GPO), p. 180.
CRS-26
Library of Congress Budget. The budget of the Library of Congress (LOC)
is included in both Title I and Title II of a legislative appropriations bill. Title I
contains funds for the Congressional Research Service (CRS); Title II contains funds
for all other activities of the Library of 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 fund
mandatory 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 automation
programs that would receive this increase are the integrated library system, th
41
e
electronic resources information project, the global legal information network, the
42
legislative information system, the national digital library program, and automation
infrastructure support. Major savings from the integrated library system, which is
scheduled to begin operation by the beginning of FY2000, were expected to be
reflected in the FY2001 budget proposal by the Library.
43
A primary concern of the librarian during his FY2000 budget testimony was
development of a staff succession program. A recent risk assessment study of the
Library’s workforce showed that 25% of the Library’s staff will be eligible to retire
in 1999. Almost 45% of the workforce will be eligible to retire in 2004. The
Librarian’s FY2000 request contains $1 million to initiate a succession plan, including
development of a recruitment program and establishment of an internal career
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 FY1999
budget of $363.6 million. The House reduced this amount to $379.8 million, a
decrease 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 Senate agreed
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 $296.5 million. The recommendation of the House
Appropriations Committee of $315.0 million was reduced by $6.1 million on the
41The integrated library system coordinates functions of the Library, such as acquisitions,
cataloging, and research and loan services.
This group studies new ways of handling digital materials of the Library.
42
Statement
43
of the librarian of Congress, James Billington. U.S. Congress, House Committee
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch Appropriations for
FY2000, hearings, Feb. 10, 1999 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 574.
CRS-27
House floor on June 10. The Senate approved $308.4 million, the level recommended
by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Figure 10: Appropriations for LOC, Excluding CRS, FY1995–FY1999
(in thousands of current $)
Figure 11: Appropriations for LOC, Excluding CRS, FY1995–FY1999
(in thousands of constant $)
Congressional Research Service (in Title I). The House Appropriations
Committee recommended an FY2000 budget of $71.3 million, the same as requested.
This was an increase of 6.2% over the FY1999 budget of $67.1 million. Almost
86.5% of the request was to fund mandatory 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 staff succession plan, requested since about half of all
CRS staff will be eligible to retire by 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.
CRS-28
Figure 12: Appropriations for CRS, FY1995–FY1999
(in thousands of current $)
Figure 13: Appropriations for CRS, FY1995–FY1999
(in thousands of constant $)
Government Printing Office Budget. The FY2000 budget request for the
Government Printing Office (GPO) was $128.5 million, a 23.8% increase over the
FY1999 level of $103.7 million. A primary reason for the increase was a new,
one–time appropriation of $15 million for the GPO revolving fund. There was no
new money for the revolving fund in FY1999. Another view of the increase is
obtained by excluding the $15 million request for the revolving fund. In this case,
44
the increase was 9.4%, to $113.5 million in FY2000 from $103.7 million in FY1999,
primarily to fund mandatory pay and related personnel costs.
44The GPO revolving fund is an account which is funded by reimbursements from sales of
publications and by appropriations. Appropriations are made for specific purposes. The three
major operations of the revolving fund are (1) preparation of electronic databases of
government publications, the procurement and production of printing, CD–ROMs, and
electronic formats; (2) public sales of government documents through the superintendent of
documents; and (3) public distribution of publications on behalf of federal government
agencies on a reimbursable basis.
CRS-29
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. The
House 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 time to
time for the GPO revolving fund, as it did in the FY2000 request. The FY2000
budget request for Title I was $82.2 million, a 10.4% increase over the FY1999
budget 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, as reported 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 $31.2
million 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.
Figure 14: Appropriations for GPO, FY1995–FY1999
(in thousands of current $)
Figure 15: Appropriations for GPO, FY1995–FY1999
(in thousands of constant $)
CRS-30
Major Funding Trends
Guide to Determining Legislative Budget Trends. Interpretation of budget
trends is determined primarily by three factors: (1) selection of current or constant
dollars to express budget authority (constant dollars reflecting the impact of inflation);
(2) selection of budget authority contained 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 authority appropriated each year. Constant-dollar data reflect the conversion
of actual budget authority into equivalent 1999 dollars. For example, Congress
appropriated budget authority of $41,793,000 for the Senate in FY1968, excluding
permanent budget authority. 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 increase
is 136.6%. The constant-dollar figure indicates budget growth after the effects of
inflation 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 total legislative budgets after
adjustment for inflation: FY1968-FY1999, +83.0%; FY1972-FY1999, +8.7%; and
FY1978-FY1999, -12.3%.45
Changes in the 1970s significantly affected the congressional budget.
Implementation by Congress of the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act increased the
budgets and staffs of congressional committees and support agencies from FY1971
through FY1978. For example, the increase in total legislative budget authority,
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 House
and Senate Budget Committees and Congressional Budget Office. Also, Congress
began to provide significant funding for its computer capabilities. This growth in the
legislative budget stabilized by FY1978 and has remained fairly level since that time.
These
45
figures are based on constant dollars and do not include permanent budget authority,
which is not included in the annual legislative branch appropriations bill but, rather, is
automatically funded annually.
CRS-31
Current Legislative Budget Trends. Between FY1978 and FY1999, the total
legislative budget, adjusted for inflation decreased by 10.9%. Budget authority for
46
direct congressional operations in Title I 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 for inflation.
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 total
legislative budget decreased by 9.4% between FY1994 and FY1998. In current
dollars, 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 current dollars)a
FY1995
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
2.378
2.184
2.203
2.288
2.581b
These
a
figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and contain supplementals and
rescissions. Permanent budget authorities are not included in the annual legislative branch appropriations bill
but, rather, are automatically funded annually.
b Includes budget authority contained in the FY1999 regular annual legislative branch appropriations act (P.L.
105-275), the FY1999 emergency supplemental appropriation in P.L. 105-277, and the FY1999 supplemental
appropriation in P.L. 106-31.
46 These figures exclude the FY1999 supplemental appropriations.
CRS-32
Table 3. Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY2000, H.R. 1905, S. 1206
(in thousands of current dollars)
Total
Enacted
Enacted
FY1999
FY1999 in
(including
FY2000
l
Senate
Entity
Regular
Regular
House Bill
n
Conf.
Request
Bill
Annual
Annual and
Acta
Emergency
Supp.
Acts)d
Title I: Congressional Operations
Senate
469,391
474,891e
517,580
—
489,406
—
House of Representatives
734,108
740,481f
785,186
739,884
—
—
Joint Items
96,134
204,916g
103,995
98,821
103,116
—
Office of Compliance
2,086
2,086
2,076
2,000
2,000
—
Congressional Budget Office
25,671
25,671
26,821
26,221
26,221
—
Architect of the Capitol, excluding
Library Buildings and Grounds
184,186
289,746h
263,430
123,742m
162,866l
—
Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress
67,124
67,124
71,255
70,940
71,244
—
Congressional Printing and Binding,
Government Printing Office
74,465
74,465
82,214
73,577
77,704
—
Subtotal, Title I
1,653,165
1,879,380
1,852,557
1,135,185
932,557
—
Title II: Other Legislative Agencies
Botanic Garden
3,052
3,052
3,972
3,538
3,428
—
Library of Congress, except
Congressional Research Service
296,516b
296,516b
312,408k
308,853
308,414
—
Congressional Cemetery and Library
Buildings and Grounds, Architect of
the Capitol
13,672c
13,672c
19,871
13,410
17,327
—
Government Printing Office, except
Congressional Printing and Binding
29,264
29,264
46,245
29,986
34,986
—
General Accounting Office
354,268
359,268i
387,048
371,181
382,298
—
Subtotal, Title II
696,772
701,772
769,544
726,968
746,453
—
Grand Total
2,349,480
2,581,152j
2,622,101
1,862,153
1,679,010
—
Sources: House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Includes budget authority contained in the FY1999 regular annual legislative branch appropriations act (P.L. 105-275).
a
b In FY1999, the Library has authority to spend $28 million in receipts.
Includes $1 million for the congressional cemetery.
c
d Includes budget authority contained in the FY1999 regular annual legislative branch appropriations act (P.L. 105-275),
the FY1999 emergency supplemental legislative branch appropriations (P.L. 105-277), and a FY1999 supplemental (P.L. 106-31).
Includes $5.5 million in emergency supplementals, sergeant at arms, for completion of Y2K compliance (P.L. 105-277).
e
fIncludes $6.373 million in emergency supplementals under chief administrative officer for completion of Y2K 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 the chief administrative officer for replacement of the House payroll system (P.L. 106-31).
Includes $106,782,000 for emergency security enhancements funded under the Capitol Police Board’s general expenses account
g
(P.L. 105-277). The total Joint Items figure also includes $2 million for the Trade Deficit Review Commission.
h This figure includes $100,000,000 for design and construction of a Capitol visitors’ center, funded under the Architect of the
CRS-33
Capitol’s Capitol buildings, salaries and expenses account (P.L. 105-277), and it includes $3.8 million for expenses of a House page dormitory
and $1.8 million for expenses of life safety renovations to the O’Neill House office building (P.L. 106-31).
iIncludes $5 million in emergency supplemental appropriations under the salaries and expenses account of the General Accounting Office
for completion of the Year–2000 computer conversion (P.L. 105-277).
jIncludes $223.655 million in emergency supplementals for FY1999 (P.L. 105-277), and $5.560 million in supplementals for FY1999 (P.L.
106-31).
k For FY2000, the Library requested authority to spend $33.1 million in receipts.
House does not consider budget authority for internal Senate activities and Senate activities funded under the architect of the Capitol.
l
m This figure does not include funds for Senate office buildings.
n Senate does not consider budget authority for internal House activities and House activities funded under the 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)
Total
Enacted
Enacted
FY1999
Senate
FY1999 in
(including
FY2000
House
Entity
e
Bill
Conf.
Regular
Regular
Request
Bill
Annual Acta
Annual and
Emergency
Supp. Act)d
Expense Allowances/Representation
86
86
86
—
86
—
Salaries, Officers, and Employees
87,233
87,233
92,506
—
89,968
—
Office of Legislative Counsel
3,753
3,753
3,901
—
3,901
—
Office of Legal Counsel
1,004
1,004
1,035
—
1,035
—
Expense Allowances for Secretary of
Senate, et al.
12
12
12
—
12
—
Contingent Expenses
Inquiries and Investigations
66,800
66,800
71,604
—
71,604
—
Senate Intl. Narcotics Control Caucus
370
370
370
—
370
—
Secretary of the Senateb
1,511
1,511
1,511
—
1,511
—
Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeperc
60,511
66,011d
79,897
—
66,261
—
Miscellaneous Items
8,655
8,655
8,655
—
8,655
—
Senators’ Official Personnel and
Office Expense Account
239,156
239,156
257,703
—
245,703
—
Official Mail Costs
300
300
300
—
300
—
Subtotal, Contingent Expenses
377,303
382,803
420,040
—
394,404
—
Total, Senate
469,391
474,891d
517,580
—
489,406
—
Source: House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Includes budget authority contained in the FY1999 regular annual Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-275).
a
b Office operations of the secretary of the Senate also are funded under “Salaries, Officers, and Employees.”
Activities of the Office of Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper are also funded under “Salaries, Officers, and Employees.”
c
d Includes $5.5 million in emergency supplementals under the Sergeant at Arms for completion of Year–2000 computer conversion (P.L.
105-277).
The Senate does not consider budget authority for internal House activities.
e
CRS-34
Table 5. House of Representatives Items, FY2000, H.R. 1905
(in thousands of current dollars)
Enacted
FY1999
Enacted
(including
FY1999 in
Regular
Regular
Annual and
House
Annual
Emergency
FY2000
Bill, As
Senate
Entity
Acta
Supp. Acts)e
Request
Passed
Billg
Conf.
Payments to Widows and Heirs of
Deceased Members of Congress
137
137
0
0
—
—
Salaries and Expensesb
House Leadership Offices
13,117
13,117
14,251
14,060
—
—
Members’ Representational Allowancesc
385,279
385,279
421,403
385,279
—
—
Committee Employeesd
Standing Committees, Special and
Select (except Appropriations)
89,743
89,743
96,570
93,878
—
—
Appropriations Committee
19,373
19,373
22,255
21,095
—
—
Subtotal, Committee Employees
109,116
109,116
118,825
114,973
—
—
Allowances and Expenses
Supplies, Materials, Administrative
Costs and Federal Tort Claims
2,575
2,575
2,655
2,741
—
—
Official Mail (Committees,
leadership, administrative and
legislative offices)
410
410
410
410
—
—
Government Contributions
132,832
132,832
132,333
131,595
—
—
Miscellaneous Items
651
651
676
676
—
—
Subtotal, Allowances and Expenses
136,468
136,468
136,074
135,422
—
—
Salaries, Officers and Employees
89,991
96,364f
94,633
90,150
—
—
Total, House
734,107
740,481f
785,186
739,884
—
—
Sources: House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Includes budget authority contained in the FY1999 regular annual Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-275).
a
b The appropriations bill has two House accounts: (1) payments to widows and heirs of deceased Members of Congress and (2) salaries and
expenses. All the entries 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) the former heading Members’ clerk
hire; (2) the former heading official mail costs; and (3) the former subheading official expenses of Members, under the heading
allowances and expenses.
d This appropriation heading was new in the FY1996 bill. The heading represents a consolidation of (1) the former 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 on Appropriations (studies and investigations).
e Includes budget authority contained in the FY1999 regular annual Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-275), the FY1999
emergency supplemental legislative branch appropriations (P.L. 105-277), and 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 the chief administrative officer for
replacement of the House payroll system (P.L. 106-31).
f Includes $6.373 million in emergency supplementals under chief administrative officer for completion of Year–2000 computer conversion
(P.L. 105-277).
The House does not consider budget authority for internal Senate activities.
g
CRS-35
Table 6. Legislative Branch Budget Authority Contained in Appropriations Acts, FY1995-
FY1999
(Does not include permanent budget authority; in thousands of current dollars)
Total
Enacted
Enacted
FY1999
FY1999 in
(including
FY1995
F Y1996
FY1997
FY1998
Regular
Regular
Annual
Annual and
Actd
Emergency
Supp. Acts)g
Title I: Congressional Operationsa
Senate
460,581
426,919
441,208
461,055
469,391
474,891h
House of Representativesb
728,736
670,561
684,098
709,008
734,108
740,481i
Joint Itemsb
85,489
81,839
88,581
86,711
98,134
204,916j
Office of Compliance
0
2,500
2,609
2,479
2,086
2,086
Office of Technology Assessment
21,320
6,115
0
0
0
0
Congressional Budget Office
23,001
24,288
24,532
24,797
25,671
25,671
Architect of the Capitol, except
157,190
142,970
140,674
192,156
184,186
289,746k
Library Buildings and Grounds
Congressional Research Service,
60,084
60,084
62,641
64,603
67,124
67,124
Library of Congress
Congressional Printing and
Binding, Government Printing
84,724
83,770
81,669
81,669
74,465
74,465
Office
Total, Title Ib
1,621,125
1,499,046
1,526,012
1,622,478
1,653,165
1,879,380
Title II: Other Agenciesa
Botanic Garden
3,230
3,053
36,402
3,016
3,052
3,052
Library of Congress, except CRS
262,866
264,616
269,117
282,309
296,516e
296,516l
Library Buildings and Grounds,
12,483
12,428
9,753
11,573
13,672f
13,672f
Architect of the Capitol
Government Printing Office,
except Congressional Printing and
31,607
30,307
29,077
29,077
29,264
29,264
Binding
General Accounting Office
446,743
374,406
332,520
339,499
354,268
359,268m
Total, Title II
756,929
684,810
676,869
665,474
696,772
701,772
Grand Total b,c
2,378,054
2,183,856
2,202,881
2,287,952
2,351,937
2,581,152n
See notes at end of Table 7.
CRS-36
Table 7. Legislative Branch Budget Authority Contained in Appropriations Acts, FY1995-
FY1999
(Does not include permanent budget authority; in thousands of constant 1999 dollars)
Total Enacted
Enacted
FY1999
FY1999 in
(including
FY1995
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
Regular
Regular
Annual
Annual and
Actd
Emergency
Supp. Acts)g
Title I: Congressional Operationsa
Senate
504,797
454,669
459,298
472,581
469,391
474,891h
House of Representativesb
798,695
714,147
712,146
726,733
734,108
740,481i
Joint Itemsb
93,696
87,159
92,213
88,879
98,134
204,916j
Office of Compliance
0
2,663
2,716
2,541
2,086
2,086
Office of Technology
23,367
6,512
0
0
0
0
Assessment
Congressional Budget Office
25,209
25,867
25,538
25,417
25,671
25,671
Arch. of the Capitol, except
172,280
152,263
146,442
196,960
184,186
289,746k
Library Buildings and Grounds
Congressional Research Service,
65,852
63,989
65,209
66,218
67,124
67,124
Library of Congress
Congressional Printing and
Binding, Government Printing
92,858
89,215
85,017
83,711
74,465
74,465
Office
TOTAL, Title I b
1,776,753
1,596,484
1,588,578
1,663,040
1,653,165
1,879,380
Title II: Other Agencies a
Botanic Garden
3,540
3,251
37,894
3,091
3,052
3,052
Library of Congress, except
288,101
281,816
280,151
289,367
296,516e
296,516l
CRS
Library Buildings and Grounds,
13,681
13,236
10,153
11,862
13,672f
13,672f
Architect of the Capitol
Government Printing Office,
except Congressional Printing
34,641
32,277
30,269
29,804
29,264
29,264
and Binding
General Accounting Office
489,630
398,742
346,153
347,986
354,268
359,268m
Total, Title II
829,594
729,323
704,621
682,111
696,772
701,772
Grand Total b,c
2,606,347
2,325,807
2,293,199
2,345,151
2,351,937
2,581,152n
Sources: Budget authorities for FY1994–FY1999 are from the House Appropriations Committee. FY1995 budget authorities reflect
rescissions and a supplemental contained in P.L. 104-19, 109 Stat. 219-221, July 27, 1995, FY1995 Supplemental and Rescissions Act (H.R.
1944). FY1996 budget authorities reflect rescissions contained in P.L. 104-208, Sept. 28, 1996, FY1997 Omnibus Consolidated
Appropriations Act (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 GPO revolving fund. FY1999 budget authorities in column 7 contain
emergency supplemental appropriations in P.L. 105-277, and supplemental appropriations in P.L. 106-31. Totals reflect rounding.
CRS-37
Note: FY1994 budget authority reflects rescissions contained in P.L. 103-211, Feb. 12, 1994, FY1994 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act (H.R. 3759). FY1999 contains $223.7 million in emergency supplemental appropriations (P.L. 105-277), and $3.8
million for expenses of a House page dormitory and $1.8 million for expenses of life safety renovations to the O’Neill House Office
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 numbers used were 152.4 (1995), 156.9 (1996), 160.5 (1997), 163.0
(1998), and 167.1 (1999 est.). Source for FY1995-1998 index figures is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Source for FY1999 estimate
is 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 it would “more adequately reflect actual costs of operating the U.S. Congress than has been true in the past
years” (H.Rept. 95-450, FY1978 Legislative Appropriations). As a result, the act was divided into two titles. Title I, Congressional
Operations, was established 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 to Congress.
Periodically, the act has contained additional titles for such purposes as capital improvements and special one-time functions, which
are not shown as separate entities on these tables. One such example is 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
authority within 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 totals obtained by adding Titles I and II in this table.
d Includes budget authority contained in the FY1999 regular annual Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-275).
In FY1999, the Library has authority to spend $28 million in receipts.
e
f Includes $1 million for the congressional cemetery.
g Includes budget authority contained in the FY1999 regular annual Legislative Branch Appropriations 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).
Includes $5.5 million in emergency supple
h
mentals under the sergeant at arms for completion of Year–2000 computer conversion (P.L. 105-
277).
Includes $6.373 million in emergency supplementals under the chief admin
i
istrative officer for completion of Year–2000 computer conversion
(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 $3.5 million for the chief administrative officer for replacement of the House payroll system (P.L. 106-31).
Includes $106,782,000 for e
j
mergency security enhancements funded under the Capitol Police Board’s general expenses account (P.L. 105-
277). The total Joint Items figure also includes $2 million for the Trade Deficit Review Commission.
k This figure includes $100,000,000 for design and construction of a Capitol visitors’ center, funded under the architect of the Capitol’s
Capitol buildings, salaries and expenses account (P.L. 105-277), and includes $3.8 million for expenses of a House page dormitory
and $1.8 million for expenses of life safety renovations to the O’Neill House Office Building (P.L. 106-31).
In FY2000, the Library would have authority to spend $33.1 million in receipts.
l
Includes $5 m
m
illion in emergency supplemental appropriations under the salaries and expenses account of 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 $5.560 million in emergency supplementals for
FY1999 (P.L. 106-31).
CRS-38
For Additional Reading
CRS Reports
CRS Report 98-212. Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY1998, by Paul
Dwyer.
CRS Report 96-201. Legislative Branch Budget Authority, FY1968-FY1996, by Paul
Dwyer and Lorraine Tong. (to be updated – summer 1999)
CRS Report 97-112. Legislative Branch Employment, 1960-1997, by Paul Dwyer
and John Pontius. (to be updated – spring 1999)
CRS Report RL30083. Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for FY1999,
coordinated by Larry Nowels.
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]