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 bill has contained additional titles for such purposes as capital improvements and special one-time functions. 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) 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 1 The 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 Markup House Senate 5/12/99 __a a House Report House Passage Senate Report Senate Conference Passage Report 5/21/99 6/10/99 6/10/99 6/16/99 H. Rept. S. Rept. (214-197) (95-4) 106-156 106-75 — Conference Report Approval House Senate Public Law — — — The full Committee markup was held 6/10/99. 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.6 The revised budget estimate for 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. 6 Source 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. 7 Source 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. 10675). 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.”13 Conferees 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 12 Testimony 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. 13 U.S. 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., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 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).14 The House and Senate legislative information 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. 14 In 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.17 The act directed that the secretary oversee the system’s development and 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, 15 Testimony of the clerk of the House, Jeff Trandahl. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY2000, hearings, 106th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 2, 1999 (Washington: GPO, 1999), pp. 34-35. 16 Comments 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., 2nd sess., Feb. 1997 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 43. 17 P.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.20 The sergeant at arms of the Senate requested $1 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 18 For 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. 19 Senate report, FY1999, p. 41. 20 Chris Carr, “Impeachment Views Swamp Hill E-Mail,” The Washington Post, Jan. 26, 1999, sec. A, p. 17. 21 Testimony 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 22 Testimony 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, 106th Cong., 1st 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.”23 The joint committee did not request additional funds for this 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 23 Testimony 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, 106th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 3, 1999 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 493. 24 These 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.26 It further stated that funds provided for perimeter security of the “Capitol Square”27 are subject 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. 25 P. 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, 105th Cong., 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. 26 Ibid., Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, S.Rept. 105-168. 27 “Capitol 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 28 Testimony of the sergeant at arms of the Senate, James W. Ziglar. U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY2000, hearings, Feb. 3, 1999 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 532. 29 Statement 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. 30 Testimony 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 32 Testimony 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, 106th Cong., 1st sess., March 24, 1999 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 222. 33 U.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. 34 Congress 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),35 cyclical 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 35 Among 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. 36 The 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.37 Deadline for completion of the renovation is September 5, 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.”38 He continued that CBO is “finding it increasingly 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. 37 Ibid. 38 Testimony 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.39 Seventy-six 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. 39 The 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.40 By 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 $) 40 Testimony 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,41 the electronic resources information project,42 the global legal information network, the 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 41 The integrated library system coordinates functions of the Library, such as acquisitions, cataloging, and research and loan services. 42 This group studies new ways of handling digital materials of the Library. 43 Statement 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.44 In this case, 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. 44 The 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. 45 These 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%.46 Budget authority for 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 a These 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) Entity Enacted FY1999 in Regular Annual Acta Total Enacted FY1999 (including Regular Annual and Emergency Supp. Acts)d FY2000 Request House Billl Senate Billn Conf. Title I: Congressional Operations Senate 469,391 474,891e 517,580 — 489,406 — House of Representatives 734,108 740,481f 785,186 739,884 — — 96,134 204,916 g 103,995 98,821 103,116 — 2,086 2,086 2,076 2,000 2,000 — 25,671 25,671 26,821 26,221 26,221 — 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 — 1,653,165 1,879,380 1,852,557 1,135,185 932,557 — 3,052 3,052 3,972 3,538 3,428 — 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 — j 2,622,101 1,862,153 1,679,010 — Joint Items Office of Compliance Congressional Budget Office Architect of the Capitol, excluding Library Buildings and Grounds Subtotal, Title I Title II: Other Legislative Agencies Botanic Garden Library of Congress, except Congressional Research Service Grand Total 2,349,480 2,581,152 Sources: House and Senate Appropriations Committees. a 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. c Includes $1 million for the congressional cemetery. 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). e Includes $5.5 million in emergency supplementals, sergeant at arms, for completion of Y2K compliance (P.L. 105-277). f Includes $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). g Includes $106,782,000 for emergency 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. h This figure includes $100,000,000 for design and construction of a Capitol visitors’ center, funded under the Architect of the b 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). i Includes $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). j Includes $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. l House does not consider budget authority for internal Senate activities and Senate activities funded under the architect of the Capitol. m This figure does not include funds for Senate office buildings. n Senate does not consider budget authority for internal House activities and House 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) Entity Expense Allowances/Representation Enacted FY1999 in Regular Annual Acta Total Enacted FY1999 (including Regular Annual and Emergency Supp. Act)d FY2000 Request House Bille Senate Bill Conf. 86 86 86 — 86 — 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 — 12 12 12 — 12 — 66,800 66,800 71,604 — 71,604 — 370 370 370 — 370 — 1,511 1,511 1,511 — 1,511 — 60,511 66,011d 79,897 — 66,261 — 8,655 8,655 8,655 — 8,655 — 239,156 239,156 257,703 — 245,703 — 300 300 300 — 300 — 377,303 382,803 420,040 — 394,404 — 469,391 d 517,580 — 489,406 — Salaries, Officers, and Employees Expense Allowances for Secretary of Senate, et al. Contingent Expenses Inquiries and Investigations Senate Intl. Narcotics Control Caucus Secretary of the Senateb Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeperc Miscellaneous Items Senators’ Official Personnel and Office Expense Account Official Mail Costs Subtotal, Contingent Expenses Total, Senate 474,891 Source: House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Includes budget authority contained in the FY1999 regular annual Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-275). b Office operations of the secretary of the Senate also are funded under “Salaries, Officers, and Employees.” c Activities of the Office of Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper are also funded under “Salaries, Officers, and Employees.” d Includes $5.5 million in emergency supplementals under the Sergeant at Arms for completion of Year–2000 computer conversion (P.L. 105-277). e The Senate does not consider budget authority for internal House activities. a CRS-34 Table 5. House of Representatives Items, FY2000, H.R. 1905 (in thousands of current dollars) Enacted FY1999 in Regular Annual Acta Entity Payments to Widows and Heirs of Deceased Members of Congress Enacted FY1999 (including Regular Annual and Emergency Supp. Acts)e House Bill, As Passed FY2000 Request Senate Billg Conf. 137 137 0 0 — — 13,117 13,117 14,251 14,060 — — 385,279 385,279 421,403 385,279 — — 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 — — 109,116 109,116 118,825 114,973 — — 2,575 2,575 2,655 2,741 — — 410 410 410 410 — — 132,832 132,832 132,333 131,595 — — 651 651 676 676 — — 136,468 136,468 136,074 135,422 — — 89,991 96,364f 94,633 90,150 — — 734,107 740,481f 785,186 739,884 — — Salaries and Expenses b House Leadership Offices Members’ Representational Allowances c d Committee Employees Subtotal, Committee Employees Allowances and Expenses Supplies, Materials, Administrative Costs and Federal Tort Claims Official Mail (Committees, leadership, administrative and legislative offices) Government Contributions Miscellaneous Items Subtotal, Allowances and Expenses Salaries, Officers and Employees Total, House Sources: House and Senate Appropriations Committees. a Includes budget authority contained in the FY1999 regular annual Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-275). 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). g The House does not consider budget authority for internal Senate activities. b CRS-35 Table 6. Legislative Branch Budget Authority Contained in Appropriations Acts, FY1995FY1999 (Does not include permanent budget authority; in thousands of current dollars) FY1995 F Y1996 FY1997 FY1998 Enacted FY1999 in Regular Annual Actd Total Enacted FY1999 (including Regular Annual and 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 85,489 81,839 88,581 86,711 98,134 204,916j 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 Library Buildings and Grounds 157,190 142,970 140,674 192,156 184,186 289,746k Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress 60,084 60,084 62,641 64,603 67,124 67,124 Congressional Printing and Binding, Government Printing Office 84,724 83,770 81,669 81,669 74,465 74,465 1,621,125 1,499,046 1,526,012 1,622,478 1,653,165 1,879,380 3,230 3,053 36,402 3,016 3,052 3,052 e 296,516l Joint Itemsb Office of Compliance Total, Title Ib Title II: Other Agenciesa Botanic Garden Library of Congress, except CRS 262,866 264,616 269,117 282,309 296,516 Library Buildings and Grounds, Architect of the Capitol 12,483 12,428 9,753 11,573 13,672f 13,672f Government Printing Office, except Congressional Printing and Binding 31,607 30,307 29,077 29,077 29,264 29,264 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 2,378,054 2,183,856 2,202,881 2,287,952 2,351,937 2,581,152n Grand Total b,c See notes at end of Table 7. CRS-36 Table 7. Legislative Branch Budget Authority Contained in Appropriations Acts, FY1995FY1999 (Does not include permanent budget authority; in thousands of constant 1999 dollars) FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 Enacted FY1999 in Regular Annual Actd Total Enacted FY1999 (including Regular Annual and 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 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 Assessment 23,367 6,512 0 0 0 0 Congressional Budget Office 25,209 25,867 25,538 25,417 25,671 25,671 172,280 152,263 146,442 196,960 184,186 289,746k Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress 65,852 63,989 65,209 66,218 67,124 67,124 Congressional Printing and Binding, Government Printing Office 92,858 89,215 85,017 83,711 74,465 74,465 1,776,753 1,596,484 1,588,578 1,663,040 1,653,165 1,879,380 Joint Itemsb Arch. of the Capitol, except Library Buildings and Grounds TOTAL, Title I b Title II: Other Agencies a Botanic Garden 3,540 3,251 37,894 3,091 3,052 3,052 288,101 281,816 280,151 289,367 296,516e 296,516l Library Buildings and Grounds, Architect of the Capitol 13,681 13,236 10,153 11,862 13,672f 13,672f Government Printing Office, except Congressional Printing and Binding 34,641 32,277 30,269 29,804 29,264 29,264 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 2,325,807 2,293,199 2,345,151 2,351,937 2,581,152n Library of Congress, except CRS Grand Total b,c 2,606,347 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). e In FY1999, the Library has authority to spend $28 million in receipts. 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). h Includes $5.5 million in emergency supplementals under the sergeant at arms for completion of Year–2000 computer conversion (P.L. 105277). i Includes $6.373 million in emergency supplementals under the chief administrative 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). j Includes $106,782,000 for emergency security enhancements funded under the Capitol Police Board’s general expenses account (P.L. 105277). 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). l In FY2000, the Library would have authority to spend $33.1 million in receipts. m Includes $5 million in emergency supplemental appropriations under the salaries and 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]