Appropriations for FY1998: Legislative Branch

Appropriations for FY1998: Legislative Branch

97-212 GOV
Appropriations for FY1998:
Legislative Branch
Updated December 11, 1997
(name redacted)
Specialist in American National Government
Government Division

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget resolutions,
appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and budget reconciliation
bills. The process begins with the President's budget request and is 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. In addition, the line item
veto takes effect for the first time in 1997.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress passes each year.
It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate 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.
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 FY1998: Legislative Branch
Summary
The House and Senate in recent years have devoted considerable attention to developing
a legislative branch budget that achieved greater efficiency and increased savings. Legislative
funding proposals continue to receive close scrutiny this year. While the legislative budget
is not particularly large (0.15% of the total federal budget), many Members believe that there
are places to trim expenses. To some Members there is symbolic importance in assuring the
legislative branch budget is lean at a time when policymakers are actively pursuing elimination
of the federal deficit. Efficient and cost effective government is a longstanding goal of the
Congress.
The Appropriations Committees and internal oversight committees of both chambers
continue to seek ways to save money by eliminating certain legislative activities, merging
offices with similar activities, downsizing staff, and reducing administrative costs. Majority
and minority leadership in both houses have promised to streamline their operations further
by using fewer staff when possible, eliminating certain legislative support services, and
privatizing more legislative services.
Since this report was last updated, data related to FY1998 appropriations may have
changed through supplemental appropriations or rescissions, entitlement revisions, or
scorekeeping adjustments. These changes will be reflected in a subsequent report.

Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS Division
Telephone
Appropriations Process
James Saturno
Government Division
72381
Appropriations Process
(name redacted)
Government Division
78646
Committee Funds and Staff
(name redacted)
Government Division
78651
Legislative Funds and Operations
Paul Dwyer
Government Division
78668
Legislative Funds and Operations
Lorraine Tong
Government Division
75846
Legislative Operations and
(name redacted)
Government Division
78304
Administration
Legislative Staff, Mail and Operations
John Pontius
Government Division
76733

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Developments This Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Major Issues That Drove
Discussions on the FY1998 Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Funding Level Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Flat Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Modest Increase Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Budget Decrease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Technology Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
House and Senate Legislative Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
House System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Senate System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Anticipated Expenses of Internet Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
House Legislative Resource Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Computer File Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Project 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Telecommunications Upgrade Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
House and Senate Committee Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Joint Committee on Taxation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Architect of the Capitol Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Architect of the Capitol FY1998 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Funding for Special Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Botanic Garden Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Privatization of Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Other Issues Under Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Capitol Police Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Capitol Police Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Combining Payrolls of House and Senate Capitol Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Members' Allowance Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
House Members' Representational Allowances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Drug Testing of House Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Capitol Visitors Center Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
House Financial Accounting System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Senate Consolidated Financial Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Support Agency Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Library of Congress Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Library of Congress Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Government Printing Office: Reduction in Printing Costs and Staff . . . . . . 23
General Accounting Office: Reduction of Budget, Privatization of Audits, and
Authorization for Staff to Take Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Guide to Determining Legislative Budget Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Current Legislative Budget Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
CRS Issue Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
List of Tables
TABLE 1. Status of Legislative Branch Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
TABLE 2. Legislative Branch Appropriations,
FY1993 to FY1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
TABLE 3. Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
TABLE 4. Senate Items, FY1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
TABLE 5. House of Representatives Items, FY1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
TABLE 6. Legislative Branch Budget Authority Funded
in Annual Appropriations Bills, FY1993-FY1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
TABLE 7. Legislative Branch Budget Authority Funded in
Annual Appropriations Bills, FY1993-FY1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Appropriations for FY1998: Legislative Branch
Most Recent Developments
The President signed H.R. 2209, the FY1998 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill,
into P.L. 105-55 on October 7, 1997. Both houses agreed to the conference report on
September 24, 1997. Since the bill had not been signed into law by October 1, the
beginning of FY1998, legislative branch funding for October 1 - October 7, 1997, was
governed by a continuing resolution, H.J.Res. 94, which generally funded legislative branch
programs at the FY1997 level (P.L. 105-46, signed September 30, 1997).
P.L. 105-55 provides $2.249 billion in new budget authority, an increase of 2.1% over
the FY1997 legislative branch budget authority. This budget authority represents a
compromise between the House-passed version of $2.172 billion and the Senate-passed
version of $2.284 billion. Conferees increased the House version by $77 million, or 3.5%,
1
and decreased the Senate version by $35 million, or 1.5%.
Introduction
Since the late 1970s, 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, Senate, Joint Items (joint
House and Senate activities), Congressional Budget Office, Architect of the Capitol (except
Library Buildings and Grounds), Congressional Research Service within the Library of
Congress, and congressional printing and binding within 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 Congressional Research Service), Library Buildings and Grounds within the Architect
of the Capitol, Government Printing Office (except congressional printing and binding costs),
and the General Accounting Office. Periodically since FY1978, the legislative bill has also
contained additional titles for such purposes as capital improvements and special one-time
functions.
Total budget authority in the FY1998 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act is $2.249
billion. Title I budget authority is 70% of the total, and Title II budget authority is 30%.
Additionally, there are legislative budget authorities that are not included in the regular
legislative branch appropriations annual act or subsequent supplemental appropriations acts.
These include permanent budget authorities, trust fund budget authorities, and other budget
By
1
custom, the House-passed version does not contain funding for internal Senate activities,
and vice versa. However, these House and Senate figures reflect budget authorities for the internal
activities of the other house for comparison purposes.

authorities.
2 Tables providing detailed information on the various funds in the bill as well as
a breakdown of staffing appear at the end of this report.
Although most legislative branch budget authority is contained in the annual and
supplemental legislative branch appropriations bills, additional permanent budget authorities
are also available to the legislative branch. Budget authorities appropriated permanently are
available as the result of previously enacted legislation and do not require annual action.3
Other legislative funding appears in the form of trust funds. 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 Budget either as budget receipts or offsetting
collections.4
The U.S. Budget also includes some non-legislative entities within the legislative branch
budget. These entities are funded in other appropriations bills. These non-legislative 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
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conference
Approval
Public
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
Law
House
Senate
House
Senate
Other budget authoriti
2
es are those of some non-legislative entities within the legislative branch
budget which are actually funded in other appropriations bills.
Permanent budget authorities a
3
re cited by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the
annual U.S. Budget. In FY1997, the following legislative activities were funded by permanent
budget authorities: House and Senate Member pay; use of foreign currencies; international
conferences and contingencies; and Library of Congress payments to copyright owners. Total
FY1997 permanent budget authority for the above activities was $337 million.
FY1997, total trust fund authority is $31 million. This includes Library of Congress gift and
4
trust fund accounts ($27 million); U.S. Capitol Preservation Commission trust funds ($1 million);
Architect of the Capitol gifts and donations ($2 million); and John C. Stennis Center for Public
Service Training and Development trust funds ($1 million). Source is House Appropriations
Committee.
Th
5
e FY1997 U.S. Budget included 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 were Prospective Payment Assessment Commission; Physician
Payment Review Commission; Gambling Impact Study Commission; and a subcategory for "Other
Legislative Branch Boards and Commissions." The U.S. Budget does not give information on the
budget authorities of entities in this subcategory. To obtain a more accurate picture of the legislative
budget, the budget authorities for non-legislative entities should be subtracted from the total
legislative budget authority provided in the U.S. Budget. The FY1998 U.S. Budget shows a FY1997
total legislative budget authority of $2.526 billion, including permanent budget authority, trust funds,
and non-legislative entities. After removing non-legislative entities, the total is $2.484 billion,
including permanent budget authority and trust funds. Additionally excluding permanent budget
authority and trust funds, the total is $2.129 billion. The figure of $2.129 billion is an estimate in
the U.S. Budget, hence, the figure differs from the budget authority in the FY1997 bill of $2.169
billion.

7/22/97
7/15/97
9/18/97
P.L. 105-
9/24/97
9/24/97
6/24/97
7/15/97a
H.Rept.
7/28/97
S.Rept.
7/16/97
H.Rept.
55
(309-106) (90-10)
105-196
105-47
105-254
10/7/97
a. Markup was held by the full Appropriations Committee.
Developments This Year
On February 6, 1997, President Clinton submitted his FY1998 budget of $2.39 billion
for legislative branch operations, an increase of 9.9% over the FY1997 level of $2.17 billion.6
In February 1997, the House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations completed
hearings on the FY1998 legislative branch budget requests. The Senate Subcommittee on
Legislative Branch Appropriations completed its hearings in June 1997.
In June 1997, both houses passed an FY1997 supplemental appropriations bill, H.R.
1871, which was signed into P.L. 105-18 on June 12, 1997.7 The Act provided $33.5 million
for emergency repair of the Botanic Garden conservatory.
On June 18, 1997, the House Appropriations Committee approved its 302b budget
allocation for FY1998 legislative branch budget authority of $2.339 billion. On June 19
8
,
1997, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its allocation for new legislative branch
budget authority of $2.439 billion.
On June 24, 1997, the House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations
completed markup of the FY1998 bill. It approved $1.712 billion in budget authority
(excluding Senate activities). This amount was 0.6% less than the FY1997 budget authority
(excluding Senate activities).
On July 15, 1997, the full Senate Appropriations Committee completed its markup of
the bill and reported S. 1019 (S.Rept. 105-47). The Committee approved $1.538 billion in
new budget authority (excluding House activities). This amount was an increase of 3.5% (or
$51.6 million) over the FY1997 budget authority (excluding House activities). With House
provisions included, new budget authority in the bill was 3.7% more than the FY1997 level.9
This figure represents requests for budge
6
t authorities of entities funded in the annual legislative
appropriations bill. This figure does not include permanent budget authority. It also does not
include budget for certain legislative related entities included in the President's budget that actually
are funded in other appropriations bills. These entities are included under legislative activities in
the U.S. Budget for administrative purposes. The President's FY1998 budget including these entities
and permanent appropriations is $2.754 billion.
For language in P.L. 105-18 tha
7
t 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. These same provisions were originally included in the prior version of the FY1997
supplemental bill, H.R. 1469, which was vetoed by the President on June 9, 1997.
Section 302B allocations are required under f
8
ederal budget law. Each year, the Appropriations
Committees are required to determine the new budget authority allocations for the upcoming fiscal
year for their subcommittees. In turn, the subcommittees are to adhere to the allocations.
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appro
9
priations, Legislative Branch Appropriations, 1998,
report to accompany S. 1019, 105th Cong., lst sess., S.Rept. 105-47 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p.
3.

On July 16, 1997, the Senate passed S. 1019 by voice vote after agreeing to one
amendment.
10 The amendment, agreed to by voice vote, made $500,000 available for a pilot
program of studies of scientific and technological issues to assist Congress.
On July 17, 1997, the full House Appropriations Committee completed its markup of
the House bill, and on July 22 reported H.R. 2209 (H.Rept. 105-196). The Committee
approved $1.711 billion in new budget authority (excluding Senate activities). This amount
was a decrease of 0.6% from the FY1997 appropriations level, excluding Senate activities.
When appropriations for Senate activities were added, new budget authority in the bill was
a 0.9% increase over the FY1997 appropriations level.11
On July 28, 1997, the House passed H.R. 2209 by a vote of 214-203.12 There were no
changes in the appropriations levels in the bill as reported. Two amendments were adopted
and two rejected. Of the two accepted, the first allowed the House Chief Administrative
Officer to donate surplus computer equipment to public schools in Washington, D.C. (voice
vote). The second required that unexpended Member office funds be applied to deficit
reduction (voice vote). Of the two amendments rejected, one reduced funds for the Joint
Taxation Committee by $283,000 for five additional staff positions (vote of 199-213). The
second reduced workyears in the Government Printing Office by 350 (170-242).
The following day, July 29, 1997, the Senate passed H.R. 2209 after striking all after
the enacting clause, except for House budget authority, and inserting the language of S.
1019.
13 There was no actual vote taken on July 29, 1997. The Senate's passage of H.R. 2209
was pursuant to an agreement made during consideration of S. 1019 on July 16.
The agreement provided that when the Senate received the House bill it would (1) strike
the language of H.R. 2209 after the enacting clause, except for appropriations to operate the
House, and insert the language of S. 1019, (2) make S. 1019 ineffective and indefinitely
postpone its consideration, (3) pass H.R. 2209 as amended, (4) insist on its amendment, and
(5) authorize the Senate Chair to appoint conferees. This agreement was made because the
Senate passed its bill before the House approved its companion measure.
On September 3, 1997, the House disagreed to the Senate amendments to H.R. 2209 and
agreed to a conference. The House rejected (202-208) a motion to instruct conferees t
14
o
agree to Senate language providing for a 4.64% budget increase for the Joint Committee on
See
10
Senator Robert Bennett, remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
143, July 16, 1997, pp. S7593-S7602.
U.S. Congr
11
ess, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill,
1998, report to accompany H.R. 2209, 105th Cong., lst sess., H.Rept. 105-196 (Washington: GPO,
1997), p. 3.
See Rep
12
resentative James Walsh, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 143, July 28, 1997, pp. H5868-H5895.
See remarks of the Senate Presiding Officer,
13
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 143, July
29, 1997, p. S8216, and p. S8222, Daily Digest summary of action.
Since t
14
he Senate passed its bill (S. 1019) before the House passed its companion measure, the
Senate agreed to make S. 1019 ineffective upon passage by the House of its companion measure.
Upon House passage of H.R. 2209, the language of S. 1019 automatically became an amendment to
H.R. 2209.

Taxation. The House provided for an 8.0% increase for the Joint Committee, which allowed
for five new professional staff members.15
On September 17, 1997, conferees began and completed consideration of H.R. 2209.
On September 19, 1997, conferees issued their report (H.Rept. 105-254) with $2.249 billion
in new budget authority. This was a 2.1% increase over FY1997. The FY1998 conference
figure represented a compromise between the House-passed version of $2.172 billion and
16
the Senate-passed version of $2.284 billion. The House version was increased by $7
17
7
million, or 3.5%, and the Senate was decreased by $35 million, or 1.5%. On September 24,
1997, both houses agreed to the conference report.
Among other changes, conferees agreed to the following provisions.
(1) $339.5 million for the General Accounting Office (GA0), a compromise on the $23.2
million difference between the House and Senate. The new GAO budget is $16 million more
than that approved by the House and $7.3 million less than the amount approved by the
Senate. The new budget is a 2.1% increase over the FY1997 budget. The increase was
provided primarily in recognition of the 25% cut in GAO's budget since FY1994.

(2) A level of funding for the Joint Committee on Taxation that allows for 2.5 new FTE
staff positions, a reduction from the 12 positions requested by the Joint Committee, a
reduction from the 5 positions approved by the House, and an increase from no new staff
positions approved by the Senate. The budget agreed to in conference was $5.8 million. The
House bill provided $5.9 million and the Senate, $5.7 million. Conferees added a provision
directing the Joint Committee to be as responsive to Members of Congress who do not serve
on the tax committees. Conferees also directed that responses to all Members be responsive
and timely and that implementation of this directive be watched by the conferees in the coming
fiscal year.
(3) $71 million for Capitol Police salaries as proposed by the House, instead of $74
million approved by the Senate. Conferees agreed to fund 1,255 FTE staff positions as
proposed by the House instead of 1,259 proposed by the Senate. Conferees agreed to House
and Senate language providing for a cost of living adjustment but voted against the Senate's
provision for parity pay for the Capitol Police of the Senate and House.
(4) A budget of $164.7 million for the Architect of the Capitol, a 17.1% increase over
the FY1997 budget. The increase reflected additional funds for capitol improvemen
18
t
projects and represented a 1.7% increase over the House-approved FY1998 budget of $162
million and a 1.7% decrease from the Senate's $167.5 million.
See Rep
15
resentative James Walsh, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 143, Sept. 3, 1997, pp. H6755-H6758.
This figure represents $1.711 billion in the House-passed bill and $460.6 million for internal
16
Senate activities. By custom, the House-passed version does not contain funding for internal Senate
activities.
This fi
17
gure represents $1.575 billion in the Senate-passed bill and $708.7 million for internal
House activities. By custom, the Senate-passed version does not contain funding for internal House
activities.
18 This figure does not include $11.6 million for buildings and grounds of the Library of
Congress.

On October 7, 1997, the President signed H.R. 2209 into P.L. 105-55. Since the bill had
not been signed by October 1, the beginning of FY1998, funding for the legislative branch was
governed during the interim by a continuing resolution that generally funded programs at the
FY1997 level (H.J.Res. 94, P.L. 105-46, September 30, 1997).
Major Issues That Drove
Discussions on the FY1998 Bill
The effort in recent years to trim the legislative budget continued during consideration
of the FY1998 funding level. Early in 1997, Representative James T. Walsh, Chairman of
the House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations, noted that cuts made in recent
years in the budget for the House of Representatives have shown that the House can reduce
its expenses and in so doing not hinder the capabilities of the House as an institution.19
Among issues that drove consideration of the FY1998 legislative branch appropriations
bill were the following:
! How much to appropriate for the Architect's request to undertake several
Capitol improvements;
! Whether legislative staff levels should be further reduced;
! Whether to agree to funds authorized for committee investigations of alleged
campaign violations by the Administration and Congress;
! What appropriation needs were for technology development, including on-line
information, electronic document printing, and a legislative information system;
! What functions of the Architect of the Capitol could be privatized;
! How much should funding be increased for security enhancement for the
Capitol and other congressional buildings;
! What the funding levels for the primary congressional support agencies should
be, including the Government Printing Office, the Congressional Budget Office,
the Library of Congress, and the General Accounting Office; and
! At what level the Joint Committee on Taxation should be funded.
Funding Level Issues
Each spring, as members of the House and Senate Subcommittees on Legislative Branch
Appropriations consider funding requests from legislative agencies, they are faced with three
primary options: to maintain a flat budget; to provide a modest increase; or to approve a
budget decrease. Statements by members of the subcommittees and the House leadership
indicated early support for a modest increase in the FY1998 budget.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branc
19
h
Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1998, hearings, part 2, 105th Cong., 2nd
sess., Feb. 1997 (Washington: GPO, 1997). p. 4.

In 1997, the House and Senate agreed to slightly differing levels. On July 28, 1997, the
House passed H.R. 2209 providing for a decrease of 0.6%, excluding Senate funds. Earlier,
on July 16, 1997, the Senate passed its version of the FY1998 bill with a 3.5% increase over
FY1997, excluding House activities.
Flat Budget. A flat budget typically provides new funds for mandatory cost increases,
but denies any additional funding requests. A flat budget is usually difficult to achieve due
to a number of factors. Among the factors affecting consideration of the FY1998 bill were
the following:
(1)
the leadership's continued interest in increasing the electronic capabilities of
the House and Senate;
(2)
increases in House and Senate committee funds; and
(3)
anticipated costs associated with repairs to the Capitol complex buildings.
Earlier in 1997, the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch
Appropriations stated his desire to hold the FY1998 budget as close to the FY1997 level as
possible. Chairman Walsh also stated that he was open to modifications if increases were
20
found necessary to maintain the smooth operation of Congress.
On the Senate side, concern too was expressed that an FY1998 funding level be
approved that would enable Congress to operate efficiently. It was also emphasized that
Congress was already working at a reduced funding level. During the Senate hearings, Senator
Robert Bennett, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations,
commented that Congress had achieved significant reductions in its budget, particularly in
committee staff. He adde
21
d that the Subcommittee would need to exert care in looking at the
needs of the legislative branch. Senator Byron Dorgan, another member of the Subcommittee,
stated at the same hearing that he did not believe most people realized that the legislative
branch had already been significantly downsized.22
Modest Increase Proposals. By mid-summer, actions in the Senate and House
indicated the likelihood of a modest increase. The Senate version of the FY1998 bill provided
for new budget authority of $1.538 billion, excluding House activities. This represented an
increase of 3.5%, or $51.6 million, above the FY1997 level. The House Appropriations
Committee approved a reduction of 0.6%. As the bill was sent to conference, many observers
felt it possible that the conferees would settle for a slight increase, which they did in approving
a 2.1% increase.
Earlier indications of support for a modest increase were the FY1998 Section 302b
allocations of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The House Appropriations
23
Committee approved its allocations on June 18, 1997, allowing for an FY1998 new legislative
Ibid.
20
Source is remarks of the chairman during a hearing held by the Senate Subcommittee o
21
n
Legislative Branch Appropriations on May 4, 1997, on the FY1998 legislative branch budget.
Ibid.
22
Section 302B allocations are required under fe
23
deral budget law. Each year, the Appropriations
Committees are required to determine the new budget authority allocations for the upcoming fiscal
year for their subcommittees. In turn, the subcommittees are to adhere to the allocations.

branch budget authority of $2.339 billion. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved
24
$2.439 billion for its FY1998 new legislative branch budget authority on June 19, 1997.25
The House allocation allowed for a 6.2% increase over the FY1997 budget authority of
$2.203 billion. The Senate allocation allowed for a 10.7% increase.26
Another indication of support for a modest increase in the FY1998 legislative budget
was the FY1998 budget request that Congress submitted to the President and was in turn
presented by him in the U.S. Budget for FY1998. Usually, the U.S. Budget estimates are
higher than the budgets Congress actually approves. Excluding Senate activities, the FY1998
House budget request for legislative branch activities was $1.855 billion. Excluding Senate
activities, the FY1997 budget authority was $1.722 billion. The FY1998 request was a
27
n
increase of $133 million, or 7.7% over the FY1997 appropriation for all legislative
activities.28
Although the increase was almost 8%, the FY1998 request was actually a decrease from
the FY1995 appropriation level. The FY1998 request of $1.855 billion was almost 1% less
than the FY1995 appropriation level for legislative branch activities, again excluding those
of the Senate, of $1.869 billion.29
Including Senate activities, estimates in the FY1998 U.S. Budget reflected an increase
in the total legislative budget of 8.4% over the FY1997 appropriation. The FY1997 funding
level was $2.203 billion; the FY1998 estimate was $2.387 billion. Both figures excluded
permanent budget authority and trust funds.
Budget Decrease. The decrease of 0.6% approved by the House on July 28, reflected
an earlier trend toward a decreased legislative budget. Although a decrease in the total
FY1998 bill seemed unlikely with the Senate's 3.5% increase, both houses did approve a
reduction for FY1997. The FY1997 legislative branch appropriations approved in the regular
annual act provided for a budget of $2.165 billion; the FY1996 budget was $2.187 billion.
This was a decrease of $22 million, or 1.0%.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,
24
Report of the Subdivision of Budget
Totals for Fiscal Year 1998, 105th Cong., lst sess., H.Rept. 105-15 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 2.
U.S. Congress,
25
Senate Committee on Appropriations, Allocation to Subcommittees of Budget
Totals from the Concurrent Resolution for Fiscal Year 1998, 105th Cong., lst sess., S.Rept. 105-31
(Washington: GPO, 1997). p. 4.
26 As of September 19, the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations had reached a
tentative agreement to increase the FY1998 legislative branch 302B allocation by $4 million.
27 Senate activities are funded in two places in the legislative branch appropriations bill: the
Senate heading for operations of the Senate and the Architect of the Capitol heading for Senate office
buildings and grounds.
This figure was determined by subtracting Senate activities of $441 million for Senat
28
e
operations and $40 million for Senate activities under the Architect of the Capitol from the total
FY1997 legislative branch appropriation of $2.203 billion.
The figu
29
re $1.869 billion was determined by subtracting Senate activities of $461 million for
Senate operations and $48 million for Senate activities under the Architect of the Capitol from total
FY1995 legislative branch appropriations of $2.378 billion.

Technology Funding
House and Senate Legislative Information Systems. Both houses continued to
take steps to reduce duplication of effort in tracking legislation, to upgrade legislative tracking
systems, and to ensure that Congress achieves the needed reprogramming of its computers by
the year 2000. To accomplish most of this,
30
the House and Senate continued to develop their
legislative information systems that create and manage legislative data files. Earlier, both
houses had directed the Congressional Research Service (CRS) 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 General Printing Office (GPO).31
The House legislative information system is to be administered by the House Clerk, and
the Senate system by the Secretary of the Senate. Both the Clerk and the Secretary continue
to exchange information on developments of their own systems. In 1997, they reported to the
House Oversight Committee and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration their
recommendations regarding the electronic transfer of legislative data. Among other issues,
their recommendations included transferals between the two houses and among all legislative
entities.
The House and Senate legislative information systems are expected to reduce duplication
through consolidation of existing legislative data services and to support the transition. The
systems will be designed to complement the GPO Access Service, which was created by the
1993 GPO Information Enhancement Act.32
House System. Beginning with FY1996, the House Oversight Committee and the
House Clerk have worked jointly in developing the House legislative information system and
continue to do so. In FY1996, the Committee directed the Clerk of the House to study
methods for increasing electronic printing of House documents. The Committee further
directed that subsequent proposals of the Clerk be coordinated with the GPO and all House
entities requiring printing and storage of documents.
In testimony on February 4, 1997, the Clerk addressed progress on her plans drawn in
response to these directives. In her FY1998 budget proposal, the Clerk requested a new
House appropriations subheading for a proposed Document Management System (DMS).
The DMS was to be funded in the subheading Document Management System under the
heading Allowances and Expenses under the account Salaries and Expenses (of the House).
The primary purpose of the new subheading would be to assist in maintaining
accountability of the system's costs. The proposed DMS, she explained, would provide a
document management system for creating, tracking, editing, sharing, printing, and
transmitting documents. The primary purpose of the System, the Clerk emphasized, was to
See discussion on the need to reprogram computers by the year 2000 later in this section.
30
The Senate directed CRS and the Library to develop a retrieval system in the FY199
31
7
Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. The language was contained in an amendment that was
dropped in the Act, but maintained in the conference report. Subsequent to passage of the FY1997
bill, the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee directed CRS and the Library to ensure that
the retrieval system being developed for the Senate also meets the requirements of the House. The
chairman's directive was contained in a letter to the CRS Director dated Oct. 9, 1996.
The Government Printing Office went online
32
in June 1994, providing bill texts, contents of the
Congressional Record, and copies of federal regulations, among other documents.

allow the House to move from its dependency on the GPO for preparing, printing, and
distributing House documents.33
The DMS would also allow simultaneous electronic transmission of floor debates,
committee hearings, and other legislative activities. Although development of the DMS would
be costly, the Clerk anticipated that the electronic transfer of data will provide savings of
about $1 million a year to the House. According to the Clerk, House
34
Rules would need to
be amended to enable development of the DMS.35
In anticipation of the development of the DMS, the House report on the FY1998 bill
contained language that directed the Congressional Research Service and the Library of
Congress to "devote sufficient resources to accomplish the following during FY1998: (1)
provide comparable functionality so that legacy retrieval systems can be retired by 12/31/98;
(2) improve productivity of congressional staff by making significant progress in
implementing previously identified high-priority functionality; and (3) improve the accuracy,
usability, and timeliness of legislative information retrieval."
36
Senate System. In 1997 the Secretary of the Senate continued work begun in 1996 on
the development and implementation of the Senate's legislative information service. The
Secretary of the Senate was directed to develop a legislative information system for the Senate
in the FY1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. The Act directed that the Secretary
37
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.
Earlier, in FY1995, the Library of Congress (LOC) was requested by the House
Committee on Appropriations to analyze duplication of legislative information systems
supporting Congress including those of the Senate and House. Pursuant to the Library's
findings, the Committee directed LOC to prepare a plan for consolidating these overlapping
services. Both the analysis and plan were developed by the CRS with the Library's support.
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 (and to remain available until September 30, 1998). The
Secretary was also authorized to transfer, as he determines necessary, funds already
appropriated to his office for the purpose of development of the Senate financial management
system to the development of the legislative information system.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branc
33
h
Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1998, hearings, part 1, 105th Cong., 1st sess.,
January 1997 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 163.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branc
34
h
Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1998, hearings, part 2, 105th Cong., 2nd
sess., Feb. 1997 (Washington: GPO, 1997). p. 43.
Ibid.
35
U.S. Congr
36
ess, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill,
1998, report to accompany H.R. 2209, 105th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 105-196 (Washington: GPO,
1997). p. 8.
P.L. 104-197, 110 Stat. 2398, Sept. 16, 1996, sec. 8,
37
FY1996 Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act.

Access to additional funding was provided in the FY1997 supplemental appropriations
bill (H.R. 1871), signed into law (P.L. 105-18) on June 12, 1997. The act authorized the
transfer of $5 million from other Senate accounts to the account Contingent Expenses of the
Senate, and subaccount Secretary of the Senate. The money is available through September
38
30, 2000. The transfer is subject to approval of the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
Anticipated Expenses of Internet Use. Technology advancement in the House and
Senate and related costs were significant factors in pending congressional budgets. These
costs will continue to play a role in budget considerations as more and more offices and
committees join the Internet and expand their usage of it. For example, House Internet usage
increased by 800% in 1995 and 1996.39 Throughout the United States, Internet usage has
more than doubled since July 1995. It is anticipated that Congress will face significan
40
t
expenses in expanding its technological capacity to meet the demands of increased constituent
communications via the Internet.
It is expected that eventually, however, most expenses will be offset by savings. It is
estimated that during the 105th Congress, savings will be almost $750,000 for (1) replacement
of the IBM mainframe by an IBM CMOS Enterprise Service (estimated $505,000 savings),
and (2) installation of a higher-reliability, direct-access storage system (estimated $246,500
savings).41
House Legislative Resource Center. The Clerk restructured the House Legislative
Resource Center, which opened in its new office in early 1997. Four offices handling
legislative House archives were merged with the creation of the Center -- Office of Records
and Registration, House Library, Historian, and Document Room. The Clerk stated in
testimony before the House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations that the new
Center would enable a reduction in staff of 22 FTE positions. A
42
principal task of Center
staff is to develop simultaneous electronic relay of floor debates, committee hearings, and
other activities. A major issue was what types of information should be maintained for use
by the House only and not be made available to the public.
Computer File Security. The House continued to be faced with security problems
related to unauthorized access to Members' computer files. One of its first steps was to
employ a security officer in House Information Resources (HIR). Staff of HIR are funded in
the budget of the Chief Administrative Officer. The Inspector General also remained involved
in addressing these problems.
For language in
38
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 prior version of the FY1997 supplemental bill,
H.R. 1469, which was vetoed by the President on June 9, 1997.
Testimony of Repre
39
sentative Vernon Ehlers on the CyberCongress initiative before the House
Committee on Oversight on Feb. 11, 1997. Representative Ehlers is chairman of the House
Computer and Information Working Group of the House Oversight Committee.
Source is telephone conversatio
40
n with spokesperson for the Nielson Media Research Group on
March 12, 1997.
Letter to the editor from Repre
41
sentative Vernon Ehlers, Chairman of the House Computer and
Information Working Group of the House Oversight Committee, in Roll Call, Feb. 17, 1997, p. 4.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branc
42
h
Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1998, hearings, part 2, 105th Cong., 2nd
sess., Feb. 1997 (Washington: GPO, 1997). p. 43.

Project 2000. At issue is the cost for reprogramming computer systems by the year
2000. This is necessary because most computers use a two-digit year system for purposes of
dating. The system assumes 1 and 9 are the first two digits of the year. If not reprogrammed,
computers using the two digit system will think the year 2000 - 00 - actually is 1900. The
result would be data errors and possibly computer shutdowns. According to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), it will cost the federal government, including Congress, an
estimated $2.3 billion to make these adjustments. This figure is considered by the chairman
of the House subcommittee with oversight responsibility, Representative Stephen Horn, to be
low since he believes it does not include all expected labor costs for computer programmers.43
Telecommunications Upgrade Issue. The FY1998 House budget includes $3.3
million for new digital switches, new terminal equipment, and purchase and installation of new
digital telephones. This system will allow teleconferencing and video conferencing available
for communications with individuals and organizations in Members' congressional districts
and elsewhere.
House and Senate Committee Funding
Both houses recently adopted resolutions authorizing committee funds essentially for the
105th Congress (calendar years 1997 and 1998). Part of the appropriations for these funds
is provided in the FY1998 legislative appropriations bill.44
The Senate resolution, adopted on February 13, 1997, provided for a 100% funding of
the recurring 1996 level, plus cost of living adjustments for specific purposes and time
periods. The resolution was amended on March 11 to provide an additional $4.35 million
45
for the Committee on Governmental Affairs. Funds were prov
46
ided for a special investigation
of illegal or improper actions related to the 1996 elections. A point of debate was whether to
include both illegal and improper activities in the committee's investigation. Ultimately, both
were included.
The House Oversight Committee reported on March 17, 1997, a funding resolution
authorizing $178.3 million for House committees (except for the Appropriations Committee).
This was a 13% increase over the 104th Congress funding level of $157.3 million. On March
20, the rule for consideration of the resolution was defeated on the floor primarily by those
opposed to (1) the 13% increase; (2) the relatively large budget for the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight to use in part for an investigation of campaign fund-
raising by the White House; and (3) the inclusion of a special reserve fund for use by any
committee with unanticipated expenses in the 105th Congress.
Source is statement of Representative Stephen Horn during a hearing by the Hous
43
e
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology on the "Year 2000
Problem," Feb. 25, 1997. Representative Horn is chairman of the subcommittee.
Other appropriations
44
will come from the FY1997 and FY1999 legislative appropriations acts.
This is because committee funds are authorized essentially on a two-year calendar basis, yet funded
on an annual, fiscal year basis (Oct. 1 - Sept. 30).
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration,
45
Authorizing Biennial
Expenditures by Committees of the Senate, report to accompany S.Res. 54, 105th Cong., lst sess.,
S.Rept. 105-9 (Washington: GPO, 1971), p. 1.
Senato
46
r Trent Lott, remarks in Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 143, March
11, 1997, p. S2096.

On March 21, 1997, the House agreed to an interim funding authorization through May
2, 1997. The interim measure was needed since the current funding authorization was set to
expire on March 31, 1997. With one exception, this interim resolution continued funding for
committees at the same level as that for committees in January through March 1997 (9% per
month of the previous session's total funding). The measure authorized funds for the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for the entire 105th Congress. It provided
the committee a budget of $20 million, including a one-year authorization of $3.8 million for
a special investigation. The resolution also established a special reserve fund of $7.9 million
for the 105th Congress.47
A new committee funding resolution was ordered reported by the Committee on House
Oversight on April 28, 1997. The resolution authorized $177.8 million for committees, except
Government Reform and Oversight and Appropriations, for the 105th Congress. This figure
was $550,740 less than the original funding resolution the House voted against considering
on March 20. It represented a 13% increase over previous funding. On May 1, 1997, the
House agreed to the new resolution by a vote of 262-157.
Joint Committee on Taxation
Conferees agreed to a funding level for the Joint Committee on Taxation that allowed
for 2.5 new FTE staff positions, a reduction from the twelve positions requested by the Joint
Committee, a reduction from the five positions approved by the House, and an increase over
the status quo position approved by the Senate. The budget agreed to in conference was $5.8
million. The House bill provided $5.9 million and the Senate, $5.7 million. Conferees added
a provision directing the Joint Committee to be as responsive to Members of Congress who
do not serve on the tax committees as to those Members who do serve on the committees.
Further, conferees directed that responses to all Members be responsive as well as timely and
that implementation of this directive be watched by the conferees in the coming fiscal year.
Architect of the Capitol Issues
Architect of the Capitol FY1998 Budget. The Architect's FY1998 budget request
was $201.3 million, a 32% increase over the FY1997 funding level. The request contained
a five-year capitol budget that included $147.3 million for operating costs and almost $54
million for capitol expenditures. The $54 million capitol expenditure request covered 205
basically maintenance projects included in a five-year capitol plan.
Funding for Special Projects. Included in the Architect's five-year capitol project
plan budget was $3 million to repair the Capitol dome. On June 24, 1997, the House
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations approved $1.5 million specifically for
repairs to the dome.
Almost half of the Architect's FY1998 budget request for special projects was for
technological purposes and compliance with regulations primarily mandated by laws made
applicable to Congress, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. Among the technology
issues still involved is the adequacy of the current wiring systems in handling the growing
number of Internet users, the need to reconfigure offices so they can accommodate new
computer terminals as well as other necessary pieces of equipment, and how to replace out-of-
On June 8, 1997, the House Oversight Committee for the first time authorized use of thes
47
e
funds. The Committee approved $1.4 million for use of the Committee on Education and Workforce
for oversight hearings on the American labor force.

date electronic systems for which replacement parts are difficult to locate. Among the issues
regarding compliance with regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act are accessibility
to and within buildings of the Capitol complex.
On September 18, 1997, conferees on H.R. 2209 agreed to increase the Architect of the
Capitol's budget by 17.1% over the FY1997 budget to $164.7 million. The increase reflects
48
additional funds for capitol improvement projects and represents a 1.7% increase over the
House-approved FY1998 budget of $162 million and a 1.7% decrease from the Senate's
$167.5 million.
Botanic Garden Budget. Congress approved $33.5 million for emergency repair and
renovation of the conservatory of the Botanic Garden in the FY1997 supplemental bill (H.R.
1871). The bill was signed into law (P.L. 105-18) on June 12, 1997. Early in 1997, th
49
e
Architect requested $35 million for such repairs in his testimony before the Appropriations
Committees.
Privatization of Functions. During hearings on his FY1998 budget, the Architect
stated that he would consider privatization of some services under his jurisdiction if feasible.50
He indicated that he would continue to review recommendations contained in a recent study
on privatization of services in the Architect's Office by the firm of Arthur Anderson.51
Other Issues Under Consideration. Other issues considered included the following:
(1)
consolidation of the Architect's trade shops;
(2)
consideration of the impact on retirement benefits of employees who
have been dismissed due to privatization; and
(3)
consideration of a proposal to employ one superintendent to oversee
both the House and Senate.52
Capitol Police Issues
Capitol Police Budget. The FY1998 budget request of the Capitol Police was $79.3
million, a 9.0% increase over the FY1997 funding level. The additional amount requested was
48 This figure does not include $11.6 million for buildings and grounds of the Library of
Congress.
For language in
49
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 prior version of the FY1997 supplemental bill,
H.R. 1469, which was vetoed by the President on June 9, 1997.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branc
50
h
Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1998, hearings, part 2, 105th Cong., 2nd
sess., Feb. 1997 (Washington: GPO, 1997). p. 638.
51 During consideration of the FY1996 bill, the House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch
Appropriations directed the acting Architect to initiate a move to privatize House custodial and
maintenance services, to begin the process for privatization of the Ford Office Building, and to
initiate a study for privatization of the Capitol Power Plant. In hearings on the FY1997 bill, the
subcommittee reviewed the final plans for privatization of the Ford Building and continued to
express its interest in privatizing more functions of the Architect's Office, including maintenance
of all other House Office Buildings.
Presently, each House has its own superintendent.
52

to be spent on enhancing technology for the police force and increasing the pay of its members
to make it comparable to other law enforcement agencies.53
On September 18, 1997, conferees agreed to $71 million for salaries of the Capitol
Police as proposed by the House, instead of $74 million approved by the Senate. Conferees
agreed to fund 1,255 FTE staff positions as proposed by the House instead of 1,259 proposed
by the Senate. Conferees agreed to House and Senate language providing for a cost of living
adjustment but voted against the Senate's provision for parity pay for the Capitol Police of the
Senate and House.
Combining Payrolls of House and Senate Capitol Police. Both the House and
Senate Sergeants at Arms requested that the separate House and Senate police payrolls be
combined into one. Represent
54
ative James Walsh, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on
Legislative Branch Appropriations, supported the proposal to transfer both payrolls to the
National Finance Center, which is responsible for much of the government's payroll services.55
Security. Both the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms requested additional funds for
security enhancement in FY1998. The Sergeants at Arms have jurisdiction over members of
the Capitol Police Force. In 1997, the House Sergeant at Arms continued to implement the
recommendations contained in a House security study undertaken by the Capitol Police, the
House Sergeant at Arms, and the Secret Service.
Senate security remains a major issue with the Senate Sergeant at Arms and the
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Senate securit
56
y
enhancement actions include, among others, removal of out-of-date equipment, installation of
wireless alarms in the Senate, and installation of closed-circuit security cameras.
Members' Allowance Issues
House Members' Representational Allowances. The House Chief Administrative
Officer requested an increase of $42 million over the FY1997 funding level for the Members'
Representational Allowances. This adjustment was to meet increased expenses of annual pay
adjustments, associated mandatory personnel costs, increased material costs, increased rental
rates in district officers, and other additional expenses due to price changes. The House
adopted an amendment to H.R. 2209 on July 28, 1997, requiring that unspent funds
appropriated for Members' Representational Allowances be applied to payment of the deficit.
This language was the same as that contained in the FY1997 Act.57
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branc
53
h
Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1998, hearings, part 2, 105th Cong., 2nd
sess., Feb. 1997 (Washington: GPO, 1997). pp. 197-199.
Ibid., pp. 197-206.
54
Ibid., p. 223.
55
Statements made by the Senate Sergeant at Arms and chairman of the Senate Subcommittee
56
on Legislative Branch Appropriations during hearings on operations of the Senate Sergeant at Arms
Office on March 5, 1997.
57 See Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 142, July 10, 1996, p. H7188-H7190. The
FY1996 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act contains a provision added on the House floor
directing that all unused funds in the Members' Representational Allowance be used solely for
payment of the deficit. The provision is applicable to FY1996 funds only. Normally, unspent money
(continued...)

Drug Testing of House Employees
The House Committee on Oversight considered a proposal to adopt a House regulation
authorizing Members to pay drug testing expenses from their official office expense funds.
The funds are collectively referred to as the Members' Representational Allowances.
Presently, Members must pay the expense with their personal funds. The costs, however,
presumably would not be significant.
Capitol Visitors Center Funding
Pending before Congress was construction of a proposed Capitol Visitors Center at an
estimated cost of $125 million. The Visitors Center would be located on three levels beneath
the Capitol's East Front Plaza. The source of funding is expected to be private donations and
the Capitol Preservation Fund, which is administered by the Capitol Preservation
Commission. To complete this project, Congress might find it necessary to appropriate
federal funds until private funding is available. If used, federal funds most likely will be made
available in the legislative branch act. Thus far, $23 million appears to be available from the
Capitol Preservation Fund. Oversight hearings were held by the Senate Committee on Rules
and Administration. During the course of the hearings, the committee chairman expressed
concern with congressional encouragement of private funding while Congress was
investigating 1996 campaign fundraising activities.58
House Financial Accounting System
The House Chief Administrative Officer requested $60 million for his office, an 8.1%
increase over FY1997. The primary expenditure was for personnel costs, including funding
for 37 new FTE positions. Of these, 25 FTEs were to be full-time employees of the House
Finance Office who would work with the new Federal Finance System, which was installed
in the House in 1996.
Senate Consolidated Financial Management System
The Secretary of the Senate requested funds to develop a consolidated financial
management system for the Senate. His goal was to develop a paperless on-line system of
purchase orders, voucher information, and supporting documentation that could be scanned.
Support Agency Issues
Library of Congress Budget. The Librarian of Congress requested $387.6 million
for FY1998, a 7.2% increase over FY1997. Most of the increase was for mandatory pay
increases ($10.7 million) and automation projects ($6.1 million). The FY1998 House bill
provided $342.3 million; the Senate bill, $351.4 million. The Library also proposed to
increase staff by 37 positions to counter the large numbers of retirements expected within the
(...continued)
57
remains available for expenditure for three years, including the year for which originally
appropriated. At the end of three years, this unused money simply reverts within the Treasury from
the House account to the "General Fund" of the Treasury.
Statements of Chairman John Warner before the Senate Committee on Rules an
58
d
Administration during oversight hearings on operations of legislative offices, on Mar. 5, 1997.

next few years. The estimated cost of the staff succession program was $1.9 million i
59
n
FY1998.
Library of Congress Security. The Library currently is developing a comprehensive
Security Management Plan to determine what is needed to enhance the Library's present
security system. The plan will include recommendations on appropriations and personnel
needed by the Library to implement the new system.
Government Printing Office: Reduction in Printing Costs and Staff. The
Government Printing Office (GPO) requested $114.5 million for FY1998, a 3.4% increase
over FY1997. Most of the increase was for funds for Title I congressional printing and
binding.
The major issue continued to be ways by which the agency could reduce its printing
costs. Among proposals to accomplish this were (1) privatization of printing production,60
(2) competitive bidding, resulting in an estimated saving of 30% in annual printing costs; (3)
61
contracting of printing orders of less than $1,000; and
62
(4) reimbursement by federal agencies
to GPO for printing costs.63
The FY1998 House bill provided $99.9 million, while the Senate bill appropriated
$111.3 million. On July 28, 1997, the House rejected an amendment to reduce GPO's FTE
staff level by 350 (vote of 170-242).
A major effort of GPO continued to be the development of electronic data bases and
electronic distribution of data for the House and Senate. In 1997, approximately 50% of all
congressional documents were in electronic format. To improve this figure, the Hous
64
e
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations requested the Public Printer to assist the
House Clerk in development of the Document Management System (DMS).
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branc
59
h
Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1998, hearings, part 2, 105th Cong., 2nd
sess., Feb. 1997 (Washington: GPO, 1997). p. 542. In CRS alone, 52% of the staff will be eligible
to retire in 2006.
Privatization proposals will be developed with the Joint Committee on Printing.
60
This
61
proposal was an assumption in the House versions of the FY1996 and FY1997 Budget
Resolutions. See the House Budget Committee's Chairman's Mark of May 10, 1995, of the FY1996
Budget Resolution, and U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Budget, Concurrent Resolution on
the Budget - Fiscal Year 1997, report to accompany H.Con.Res. 178, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept.
104-575 (Washington: GPO, 1996), p. 143.
This proposal was contained in th
62
e House version of the FY1997 Budget Resolution. See U.S.
Congress, House Committee on the Budget, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget - Fiscal Year
1997, report to accompany H.Con.Res. 178, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 104-575 (Washington:
GPO, 1996), p. 253. The proposal also requires that federal agencies use credit cards for purchases
of printing jobs costing less than $1,000.

63 Although this proposal was passed by the House in its version of the FY1996 legislative bill,
the Senate disagreed stating that this proposal which would change 44 U.S.C. should be considered
instead by the Joint Printing Committee.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branc
64
h
Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1998, hearings, part 2, 105th Cong., 2nd
sess., Feb. 1997 (Washington: GPO, 1997). p. 419.

Approximately 80% of government printing is contracted. Labor costs to the
Government Printing Office (GPO) in calendar year 1996 were estimated to be 50% greater
than comparable private printer costs. In the FY1997 Act, Congress reduced the GPO staff
65
level by 100 FTE positions to approximately 3,600, at an estimated savings of $5 million.
General Accounting Office: Reduction of Budget, Privatization of Audits, and
Authorization for Staff to Take Testimony. The Senate and House bills contained
differing budget authorities for GAO. On July 16, 1997, the Senate passed its version of the
FY1998 bill, S. 1019, providing $346.8 million, a $14.2 million over FY1997's level of
$332.5 million. This 4.6% increase in funding supported a staff level of 3,500 FTEs.
66
The House passed its version, H.R. 2209, on July 28, 1997, with provision for $323.5
million, a reduction of $9 million in new budget authority. The House made a total of $330.9
million available to GAO by authorizing GAO to use $7.4 million in FY1998 in offsetting
receipts. This level of funding was to allow GAO to increase its staff level by 85 FTEs above
the projected FY1997 FTE staff level.
GAO's budget request was $361.4 million, an 8.7% increase over its FY1997 budget.
In the last two fiscal years, however, GAO's budget and staff level has been reduced
considerably. In calendar year 1995, in response to the congressional downsizing trend, the
Comptroller General proposed a 25% reduction over the next two fiscal years (15% in
FY1996 and 10% in FY1997).67
The Comptroller's 1995 proposal was accepted by the House and Senate Subcommittees
on Legislative Branch Appropriations. The actual FY1996 cut was 16.2%, a reduction from
$446.7 million in FY1995 to $374.4 million in FY1996. The House and Senate versions of
the FY1997 bill completed the 25% reduction. The Senate Budget Committee estimated that
the reduction saves approximately $250 million through FY2002.
Staff was also reduced. Since 1990, GAO staff has been reduced by approximately
35%. As
68
a result of the cuts, GAO most likely will continue the trend of contracting with
65 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Budget, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget --
Fiscal Year 1997, report to accompany H.Con.Res. 178, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 104-575
(Washington: GPO, 1996), p. 143.
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
66
Legislative Branch Appropriations,
1998, report to accompany S. 1019, 105th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 105-47 (Washington: GPO,
1997), p. 45.
67 Continued reduction of GAO's budget was an assumption in both the House and Senate
versions of the FY1997 Budget Resolution. See U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Budget,
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget - Fiscal Year 1997, report to accompany H.Con.Res. 178,
104th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 104-575 (Washington: GPO, 1996), p. 250, and U.S. Congress,
Senate Committee on the Budget, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, 1997, report to accompany
S.Con.Res. 57, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 104-271 (Washington: GPO, 1996), p. 58.
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee
68
on the Budget, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, 1997,
report to accompany S.Con.Res. 57, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 104-271 (Washington: GPO,
1996), p. 58.

private audit firms to conduct audits. Additionally, t
69
o stay within budget, GAO plans to rely
more on video-conferencing in lieu of on-site interviews.70
Conferees agreed to a $339.5 million budget for GAO, a compromise on a $23.2 million
difference between the House and Senate. The new GAO budget is $16 million more than that
approved by the House and $7.3 million less than the amount approved by the Senate. The
new budget is a 2.1% increase over FY1997 and reflects recognition of recent cuts.
Major Funding Trends
Guide to Determining Legislative Budget Trends. Interpretation of budget trends
is determined primarily by three factors: selection of current or constant dollars to express
budget authority (constant dollars reflecting the impact of inflation); 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 selection of
fiscal years to be compared.
Current dollar data reflect actual budget authority appropriated each year. Constant
dollar data reflect the conversion of actual budget authority into equivalent 1997 dollars. For
example, Congress appropriated budget authority of $41,793,000 for the Senate in FY1968,
excluding permanent budget authority. Converted into 1997 dollars, $41,793,000 is
$194,433,526.
When comparing the growth of the Senate budget from FY1968-FY1997 in current
dollars, the increase amounts to 955.7%. In constant dollars, the increase is 126.9%. The
constant dollar figure indicates a budget growth after adjustment for inflation.
Differences also appear based on the choice of fiscal years used to compare budget
authority. For example, a comparison of budget growth between FY1968 and FY1997 shows
the following changes in total legislative budgets after adjustment for inflation: FY1968-
FY1997, 85%; FY1972-FY1997, 9.9%; and FY1978-FY1997, -11.3%.71
Changes in the 1970s significantly affected Congress' budget. Implementation by
Congress of the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act increased both the budgets and staffs
of congressional committees and support agencies. Costs of the 1970 act are reflected in
increased budgets for Congress from FY1971 through FY1978. For example, the increase
in total legislative budget authority from FY1969 (pre-1970 Reorganization Act) through
FY1973 (a year of significant implementation of the 1970 Reorganization Act) was 64.5%.
The legislative budget during the 1970s reflected implementation of the 1974
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which created the House and Senate
Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office. Significant funding also began for
development of House and Senate computer capabilities. This growth in the legislative budget
stabilized by FY1978 and has remained fairly level since that time.
For example, GAO contracted with Booz-Allen and Hamilton for the Library's recent audit,
69
with Price Waterhouse for the audits of the House of Representatives, and with other major auditing
firms for other legislative branch audits.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branc
70
h
Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1998, hearings, part 2, 105th Cong., 2nd
sess., Feb. 1997 (Washington: GPO, 1997). p. 362.
These figures are based on constant dollars without permanent budget authority.
71

Current Legislative Budget Trends. Between FY1978 and FY1997, total legislative
budget authority, when adjusted for inflation, decreased by 11.3%. Budget authority for
direct congressional operations in Title I decreased by 7% over this time.
Throughout the 12 years following FY1978 (FY1979-FY1990), total legislative budget
authority remained lower than the FY1978 budget authority. The first increase over the
FY1978 legislative budget occurred in FY1991, a 1.1% increase, using constant dollars.
Budget authority increased again in FY1992 and FY1995 but decreased in FY1993, FY1994,
FY1996, and FY1997. The change between FY1992 and FY1997 was a decrease of 14.3%
in total legislative budget authority and a decrease of 12.7% in direct congressional operations
contained in Title I.
TABLE 2. Legislative Branch Appropriations,
FY1993 to FY1997
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)a
FY1993
FY1994
FY1995
FY1996
FY1997
2.275
2.271
2.378
2.184
2.203
a.
These figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect rescissions.
The FY1997 figure includes a supplemental of $33.6 million (P.L. 105-18, signed into law on June 12,
1997).

TABLE 3. Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY1998
(in thousands of current dollars)
FY1997
FY1998
Entity
Enacted
Request
House Bill
Senate Bill
Conf.
Title I: Congressional Operations
Senate
441,208
487,850
--g
460,622
461,055
House of Representatives
684,098a
752,383
708,738
--i
708,738
Joint Items
88,581b
92,306
86,802
91,904
86,711
Office of Compliance
2,609
2,600
2,479
2,600
2,479
Congressional Budget Office
24,532
24,995
24,797
24,995
24,797
Architect of the Capitol,
excluding Library Buildings
and Grounds
140,674c
173,877g
111,031g
130,324i
164,656
Congressional Research
Service, Lib. of Congress
62,641
66,830
64,603
65,134
64,603
Congressional Printing and
Binding, Government Printing
Office
81,669
84,025
70,652
82,269
70,652
Subtotal, Title I
1,526,012
1,684,866
1,069,102g
857,848i
1,583,691
Title II: Other Legislative Agencies
Botanic Garden
36,402d
11,662
1,771
3,228
3,016
Library of Congress, except
Congressional Research
Service
269,117e
290,376
277,687
286,224
281,821 j
Library Buildings and
Grounds, Architect of the
Capitol
9,753
15,755
10,073
14,699
11,573
Government Printing Office,
except Congressional Printing
and Binding
29,077
30,477
29,264
29,077
29,077
General Accounting Office
332,520
361,424
323,520
346,751
339,499
Subtotal, Title II
676,869
709,694
642,315
679,979
664,986
Grand Total
2,202,881f
2,394,539
1,711,417h
1,537,827g
2,248,677
Source: Source for FY1997 enacted and FY1998 pending, except for Senate items, is U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 1998, a report to accompany H.R. 2209, 105th
Congress, 1st session, H.Rept. 105-196 (Washington: GPO, 1997), 50 pp., Representative James Walsh, remarks in
the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 143, July 28, 1997, pp. H5868-H5895, and House Committee
on Appropriations for FY1998 conference. FY1997 figures include provisions in H.R. 3610, Omnibus Consolidated
Appropriations Bill in Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 142, September 28, 1996, p. H11778-H11779; and
provisions in H.R. 1871, Supplemental Appropriations Bill in Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 142, p.
H3779. Source for FY1998 budget request for non-Senate items is the House Appropriations Committee. Source for
FY1998 budget request for the Senate and FY1998 pending for Senate items is U.S. Congress, Senate Committee
on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations, 1998, a report to accompany S. 1019, 105th Congress, 1st
session, S.Rept. 105-47 (Washington: GPO, 1997), 59 pp.
a. This figure reflects an additional appropriation of $133,600 for a gratuity payment to the spouse of a deceased
Representative (P.L. 105-18, signed June 12, 1997, FY1997 Supplemental Appropriations Act).
b. This figure reflects an additional FY1997 appropriation of $3.250 million in the Omnibus Consolidated
Appropriations Act, FY1997 (P.L. 104-208, signed Sept. 30, 1996).
c. This figure reflects an additional FY1997 appropriation of $900,000 in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations
Act, FY1997 (P.L. 104-208, signed Sept. 30, 1996).
d. This figure reflects an additional appropriation of $33.5 million for repair and renovation of the conservatory of
the Botanic Garden (P.L. 105-18, signed June 12, 1997, FY1997 Supplemental Appropriations Act).

e. n addition, the Library has authority in FY1997 to spend $30,138,000 in receipts from the Copyright Office and
f. This
reflects an additional FY1997 appropriation of $4.150 million in the Omnibus Consolidated
ppropriations Act, FY1997 (P.L. 104-208, signed Sept. 30, 1996). It also reflects an additional $33.6 million in
g. Senate budget authority is not included in the House bill as reported.
i. House budget authority is not included in the Senate bill as reported.
In addition, the Library has authority in FY1998 to spend $30,295,000 in receipts from the Copyright Office d
the Cataloging Distribution Service.

TABLE 4. Senate Items, FY1998
(in thousands of current dollars)
FY1997
FY1998
House
Senate
Entity
Enacted
Request
Billa
Bill
Conf.
Expense Allowances/Representation
86
86d
--
86
86
Salaries, Officers, and Employees
74,615
79,523
--
77,254
77,254
Office of Legislative Counsel
3,447
3,635
--
3,605
3,605
Office of Legal Counsel
936
966d
--
966
966
Expense Allowances for Secretary of
Senate, et al.
12
12d
--
12
12
Contingent Expenses
Senate Policy Committees
0
0
--
0
0
Inquiries and Investigations
69,561
75,300
--
75,600
75,600
Senate Intl. Narcotics Control Caucus
305
--
--
370
370
Secretary of the Senateb
1,511
1,511
--
1,511
1,511
Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeperc
65,931
78,163
--
64,400
64,833
Miscellaneous Items
6,791
7,905
--
7,905
7,905
Senators' Official Personnel and Office
228,60
Expense Account
208,000
231,736
--
228,600
0
Office of Fair Employment Practices
0
0
--
0
0
Settlements and Awards Reserve
0
0
--
0
0
Stationery (revolving fund)
13
13
--
13
13
Official Mail Costs
10,000
9,000
--
300e
300
379,13
Subtotal, Contingent Expenses
362,112
403,628
--
378,699
2
461,05
Total, Senate
441,208
487,850
--
460,622
5
Source: Source for FY1997 appropriations enacted for the Senate and FY1998 budget request for the Senate and
FY1998 pending for Senate items is U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch
Appropriations, 1998, a report to accompany S. 1019, 105th Congress, 1st session, S.Rept. 105-47 (Washington:
GPO, 1997), 59 pp., and House Appropriations Committee for conference.
a. The House does not consider budget authority for internal Senate operations.
b. Office operations of the Secretary of the Senate also are funded under "Salaries, Officers and Employees" above.
c. Activities of the Office of Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper are also funded under "Salaries, Officers and
Employees" above.
d. Budget authority was not provided by the Office of Management and Budget in the FY1998 U.S. Budget.
e. Most of this appropriation was transferred to "Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expenses Account."

TABLE 5. House of Representatives Items, FY1998
(in thousands of current dollars)
FY1997
FY1998
Senate
Entity
Enacted
Request
House Bill
Bill
Conf.
Payments to Widows and Heirs of
Deceased Members of Congress
267a
113
0
--
0
Salaries and Expensesb
House Leadership Offices
11,592
11,916
12,293
--
12,293
Members' Representational Allowancesc
363,313
405,450
379,789
--
379,789
Committee Employeesd
Standing Committees, Special and Select
(except Appropriations)
80,222
90,310
86,268
--
86,268
Appropriations Committee
17,580
18,276
18,276
--
18,276
Subtotal, Committee Employees
97,802
108,586
104,544
--
104,544
Allowances and Expenses
Supplies, Materials, Administrative
Costs and Fed. Tort Claims
2,374
2,977
2,225
--
2,225
Reemployed Annuitants Reimbursements
71
71
0
--
0
Official Mail (Committee's, leadership,
administrative and legislative offices)
1,000
1,000
500
--
500
Government Contributions
120,779
128,451
124,390
--
124,390
Miscellaneous Items
641
662
641
--
641
Subtotal, Allowances and Expenses
124,865
134,661
127,756
--
127,756
Salaries, Officers and Employees
86,259
91,770
84,356
--
84,356
Total, House
684,098e
752,383
708,738
--
708,738
Source: Source for FY1997 enacted, FY1998 request, and FY1998 pending is U.S. Congress, House Appropriations
Committee, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 1998, a report to accompany H.R. 2209, 105th Congress, 1st Session,
H.Rept. 105-196 (Washington: GPO, 1997), 50 pp. and Representative James Walsh, remarks in the House, Congressional
Record, daily edition, vol. 143, July 28, 1997, pp. H5868-H5895. FY1997 figures include provisions in H.R. 3610, Omnibus
Consolidated Appropriations Bill in Congressional Record, daily edition, September 28, 1996, p. H11778-H11779 and
provisions in H.R. 1871, Supplemental Appropriations Bill in Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 142, p. H3779.
a.
This figure reflects an additional appropriation of $133,600 for a gratuity payment to the spouse of a deceased
Representative (P.L. 105-18, signed June 12, 1997, FY1997 Supplemental Appropriations Act).
b.
The appropriations bill has two House accounts: (1) Payments to Widows and Heirs of Deceased Members of
Congress and (2) Salaries and Expenses. All the following entries for the House fall under the 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 sub-heading 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.
The total House figure reflects an additional appropriation of $133,600 for a gratuity payment to the spouse of a
deceased Representative (P.L. 105-18, signed June 12, 1997, FY1997 Supplemental Appropriations Act).

For Additional Reading
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Issue Brief 97029. Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for FY1997,
coordinated by Steve Daggett.
CRS Reports
CRS Report 93-595. Clerk Hire Authorizations for Senators and Representatives, 1884-
1993, by Frederick Pauls and Paul Dwyer.
CRS Report 96-595. Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY1997, by Paul Dwyer.
CRS Report 96-201. Legislative Branch Budget Authority, FY1968-FY1996, by Paul
Dwyer, Lorraine Tong, David Huckabee, and Taeku Lee.
CRS Report 97-112. Legislative Branch Employment, 1960-1997, by Paul Dwyer, John
Pontius, and Faye Bullock.

Appendix
TABLE 6. Legislative Branch Budget Authority Funded
in Annual Appropriations Bills, FY1993-FY1997
(Does not include Permanent Budget Authority --
Thousands of Current Dollars)
FY1993
FY1994
FY1995
FY1996
FY1997
Title I: Congressional Operationsa
Senate
445,000
444,365
460,581
426,919
441,208
House of Representativesb
672,000
686,452
728,736
670,561
684,098
Joint Itemsb
80,000
78,750
85,489
81,839
88,581
Office of Compliance
0
0
0
2,500
2,609
Office of Technology Assessment
21,000
21,315
21,320
6,115
0
Congressional Budget Office
23,000
22,317
23,001
24,288
24,532
Arch. of the Capitol, ex. Library Buildings
155,000
150,223
157,190
142,970
140,674
and Grounds
Congressional Research Service, Library
57,000
56,718
60,084
60,084
62,641
of Congress
Cong. Printing and Binding, Government
90,000
88,404
84,724
83,770
81,669
Printing Office
International Conferences: House and
0
0
0
0
0
Senate
Total, Title Ib
1,543,000
1,548,544
1,621,125
1,499,046
1,526,012
Title II: Other Agenciesa
Botanic Garden
5,000
3,008
3,230
3,053
36,402
Library of Congress, ex. CRS
253,000
249,813
262,866
264,616
269,117
Library Bldgs. and Grnds., Architect of the
10,000
9,974
12,483
12,428
9,753
Capitol
Copyright Royalty Tribunal
*
128
0
0
0
Govt. Print. Off., ex. Congressional
29,000
29,082
31,607
30,307
29,077
Printing and Binding
General Accounting Office
435,000
430,165
446,743
374,406
332,520
Total, Title II
732,000
722,170
756,929
684,810
676,869
Grand Totalb, c
2,275,000
2,270,714
2,378,054
2,183,856
2,202,881
See notes at end of Table 7.

TABLE 7. Legislative Branch Budget Authority Funded in
Annual Appropriations Bills, FY1993-FY1997
(Does not include Permanent Budget Authority --
Thousands of Constant Dollars)
FY1993
FY1994
FY1995
FY1996
FY1997
Title I: Congressional Operationsa
Senate
498,585
485,443
489,292
440,243
441,208
House of Representativesb
752,919
749,909
774,162
691,489
684,098
Joint Itemsb
89,633
86,030
90,818
84,393
88,581
Office of Compliance
0
0
0
2,578
2,609
Office of Technology Assessment
23,529
23,285
22,649
6,306
0
Congressional Budget Office
25,770
24,380
24,435
25,046
24,532
Arch. of the Capitol, ex. Library
173,664
164,110
166,989
147,432
140,674
Buildings and Grounds
Congressional Research Service, Library
63,864
61,961
63,829
61,959
62,641
of Congress
Cong. Printing and Binding, Government
100,837
96,576
90,005
86,384
81,669
Printing Office
International Conferences: House and
0
0
0
0
0
Senate
TOTAL, Title Ib
1,728,801
1,691,694
1,722,179
1,545,830
1,526,012
Title II: Other Agenciesa
Botanic Garden
5,602
3,286
3,431
3,148
36,402
Library of Congress, ex. CRS
283,465
272,906
279,252
272,875
269,117
Library Bldgs. and Grnds., Architect of
11,204
10,896
13,261
12,816
9,753
the Capitol
Copyright Royalty Tribunal
0
140
0
0
0
Govt. Print. Off., ex. Congressional
32,492
31,770
33,577
31,253
29,077
Printing and Binding
General Accounting Office
487,381
469,931
474,591
386,091
332,520
Total, Title II
820,144
788,929
804,112
706,183
676,869
Grand Totalb, c
2,548,945
2,480,623
2,526,291
2,252,013
2,202,881
Sources: Source for FY1993 is U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Federal Budget, Appendix section, "Federal
Programs By Agency and Account." Budget authorities for FY1994, FY1995, and FY1996 are from the House Appropriations
Committee. FY1995 budget authorities were adjusted by CRS to 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 were
adjusted by CRS to reflect rescissions contained in P.L. 104-28, Sept. 28, 1996, FY1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations
Act (H.R. 3610). Total legislative budget authority for each year was derived by adding all entities from the Budget that
correspond to entities in Titles I and II of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. Entities found in the Budget but not found
in the Act include trust funds, commissions, public enterprise funds, and other non-legislative branch entities (i.e. The U.S. Tax
Court). These entities were excluded from these tables. The Budget also includes permanent appropriations (not found in the
Act).
Budget authorities for FY1997 are from the House Appropriations Committee printed in the Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 142, Aug. 1, 1996, p. H9711-H9714, table titled, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 1997 (H.R. 3754);
provisions applying to legislative branch authority in H.R. 3610, Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations bill in Congressional

Record, daily edition, vol. 142, Sept. 28, 1996, p. H11778-H11779; and provisions applying to legislative branch budget
authority in H.R. 1871, Supplemental Appropriations Bill in Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 142, p. H3779.
FY1994 budget authority reflects rescissions contained in P.L. 103-211, Feb. 12, 1994, FY1994 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act (H.R. 3759).
Excluded permanent appropriations were (in current dollars, in thousands), FY1993, $323,000; FY1994, $329,000;
FY1995, $343,000; FY1996, $302,000; and FY1997, $309,000.
Excluded trust funds were (in current dollars, in thousands), FY1993, $11,000; FY1994, $6,000; FY1995, $16,000;
FY1996, $31,000.
For FY1993, budget authority figure is shown by OMB in millions of dollars. An asterisk indicates an appropriation of
$500 thousand or less. Beginning with FY1991, OMB began using asterisks for appropriations of $500 thousand or less in the
annual U.S. Budget. Budget authorities for FY1994, FY1995, and FY1996 are from House Appropriations Committee.
Formula for conversion to constant dollars is as follows: 1997 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 144.5 (1993), 148.2 (1994), 152.4
(1995), 157.0 (1996), and 161.9 (1997). These numbers were provided by the Congressional Budget Office.
a. Prior to FY1978, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act contained numerous titles. Effective FY1978, Congress restructured
the legislative bill to "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 capitol 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 affected 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,
H.R. 3610). Provisions applicable to legislative branch budget authority in P.L. 104-208 appear in Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 142, Sept. 28, 1996, p. 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.

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to al Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentional y made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.