APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY1999: LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

CRS Report for Congress
Appropriations for FY1999:
Legislative Branch
Updated March 11, 1999
Paul E. Dwyer
Specialist in American National Government
Government Division


Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program
authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Legislative Branch Appropriations. It summarizes the
current legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related
legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and
related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with
active links is available to congressional staff at
[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html]



Appropriations for FY1999: Legislative Branch
Summary
On October 21, 1998, President Clinton signed H.R. 4112, the FY1999
Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, into P.L. 105-275. The act contains $2.350
billion, a 2.7% increase over the FY1998 appropriation of $2.288 billion. Later the
same day, the President signed into law an omnibus appropriations bill that contains
FY1999 emergency funding of $223.7 million for legislative branch activities. These
funds were made available to cover expenses associated with the Year-2000
conversion of "information technology systems" ($16.9 million), to the Capitol Police
Board for security of the Capitol complex and the Library of Congress ($106.8
million), and to the Architect of the Capitol for expenses of "planning, engineering,
design, and construction" of a Capitol Visitor Center ($100 million).
On June 5, 1998, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 2137, its
version of the FY1999 legislative branch budget (S.Rept. 105-204). On June 23, the
House Committee on Appropriations reported its version, H.R. 4112 (H.Rept. 105-
595). On June 25, the House passed H.R. 4112 (235-179), after agreeing to two
amendments, and, on July 21, the Senate passed H.R. 4112, as amended (90-9).
Conferees met and cleared the bill on September 18, and the House Appropriations
Committee issued the conference report on September 22, 1998 (H.Rept. 105-734).
The House adopted the report on September 24, by a vote of 356-65, and the Senate
adopted it the following day, by voice vote.
Among the issues considered by both houses were the –
(1)Number of additional staff and amount of funds necessary to ensure that
Congress makes its computers Year-2000 compliant;
(2)Funds for additional Capitol complex security, including construction of a
Capitol Visitor Center;
(3) Level of funding needed for capital improvements requested by the
Architect of the Capitol;
(4)Pay of the U.S. Capitol Police;
(5) Appropriations needed for technology development, including online
information, electronic document printing, and continued development of
a legislative information system; and
(6) Funding levels for the congressional support agencies, including the
Government Printing Office, the Congressional Budget Office, the Library
of Congress (including the Congressional Research Service), and the
General Accounting Office.
The legislative budget is not particularly large, only 0.15% of the total federal
budget.



Key Policy Staff
Area of ExpertiseNameCRS DivisionTel.
Appropriations ProcessJames SaturnoGOV7-2381
Appropriations ProcessSandy StreeterGOV7-8646
Committee Funds Lorraine TongGOV7-5846
Committee StaffJohn PontiusGOV7-6733
Legislative Funds and OperationsPaul DwyerGOV7-8668
Legislative Funds and Operations Lorraine TongGOV7-5846
Legislative Operations and AdministrationMildred AmerGOV7-8304
Legislative Staff, Mail and Operations John PontiusGOV7-6733
Division abbreviations: GOV = Government.



Contents
Most Recent Developments........................................1
Introduction ................................................... 2
Status ........................................................ 4
Developments This Year......................................4
Submission of the FY1999 Budget Estimates...................4
Consideration in the Senate................................5
Consideration in the House................................6
Consideration in Conference Committee.......................7
FY1998 Supplemental Appropriations Bill.....................8
FY1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations...............8
Major Issues Driving Discussions on the FY1999 Bill....................9
Statement of Chairman Walsh..................................9
Statement of Chairman Bennett.................................9
Overall Funding Level Issues..................................10
Flat Budget...........................................10
Modest Increase Proposals................................10
Budget Decrease.......................................11
Year-2000 Computer Reprogramming Issue......................11
Technology Issues..........................................13
House and Senate Legislative Information Systems.............13
House System.........................................13
Senate System.........................................14
Anticipated Expenses of Internet Use........................15
House and Senate Committee Funding...........................16
House Committee Funding................................16
Senate Committee Funding................................16
Joint Committee Issues......................................17
Abolishment of the Joint Committee on Printing................17
Security Issues.............................................17
Capitol Complex Security Plan.............................17
Funding for the Capitol Police Board........................19
Capitol Visitor Center...................................19
Architect of the Capitol Issues.................................20
Architect of the Capitol Budget............................20
Support Agency Funding.....................................21
Congressional Budget Office Budget........................21
General Accounting Office Budget..........................22
Library of Congress Budget...............................23
Library of Congress, Except CRS...........................23
Government Printing Office Budget.........................24
Major Funding Trends.......................................25
Guide to Determining Legislative Budget Trends...............25
Current Legislative Budget Trends..........................26
For Additional Reading..........................................33
CRS Reports..............................................33



List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY1999, H.R. 4112....4
Table 2. Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY1994 to FY1998..........26
Table 3. Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY1999
In H.R. 4112 (Regular Annual Appropriations, P.L. 105-275) and H.R. 4328
(Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, P.L. 105-277)............27
Table 4. Senate Items, FY1999
In H.R. 4112 (Regular Annual Appropriations, P.L. 105-275) and H.R. 4328
(Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, P.L. 105-277)............28
Table 5. House of Representatives Items, FY1999
In H.R. 4112 (Regular Annual Appropriations, P.L. 105-275) and H.R. 4328
(Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, P.L. 105-277)............29
Table 6. Legislative Branch Budget Authority Funded in
Annual Appropriations Bills, FY1994-FY1998.....................30
Table 7. Legislative Branch Budget Authority Funded in
Annual Appropriations Bills, FY1994-FY1998.....................31



Appropriations for FY1999:
Legislative Branch
Most Recent Developments
On October 21, 1998, President Clinton signed into law H.R. 4112, the FY1999
Legislative Branch Appropriations bill (P.L. 105-275). The act contains $2.350
billion, a 2.7% increase over the FY1998 appropriation of $2.288 billion.
Also on October 21, the President signed into law an omnibus consolidated and
emergency supplemental appropriations bill that contains FY1999 emergency
funding of $223.7 million for legislative branch activities. These funds were made
available to three legislative entities to cover expenses associated with the Year-2000
conversion of "information technology systems" ($16.9 million), to the Capitol
Police Board for enhanced security of the Capitol complex and the Library of
Congress ($106.8 million), and to the Architect of the Capitol for expenses of
"planning, engineering, design, and construction" of a Capitol Visitor Center ($100
million).
1
On June 25, 1998, the House passed H.R. 4112 by a vote of 235-179. The bill
provided $1.8 billion, excluding funds for Senate internal activities and Senate
activities funded in the Architect’s budget. H.R. 4112 was a 1.68% increase over the
FY1998 comparable appropriation of $1.77 billion. Earlier, on June 23, the House23
Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 4112 (H.Rept. 105-595).
On July 21, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 4112, as amended, by a vote
of 90-9. H.R. 4112, as passed by the Senate, provided $1.6 billion for FY1999,
excluding funds for House internal activities and House activities funded in the
Architect of the Capitol’s budget. This figure represented a 3.5 % increase over the


Rep. James Walsh and others, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition,1
vol. 144, June 25, 1998, pp. H5315-H5329, H5331-H5352.
This figure was derived by subtracting $461 million for FY1998 Senate internal activities and2
$52 million for Senate office buildings, under the Architect of the Capitol, from the total
FY1998 budget authority of $2.288 billion, which includes supplementals and a transfer.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations3thnd
Bill, 1999, report to accompany H.R. 4112, 105 Cong., 2 sess., H. Rept. 105-595
(Washington: GPO, 1998), 52 pp.

FY1998 comparable appropriation of $1.5 billion. Earlier, on June 5, 1998, the4
Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 2137(S.Rept. 105-204).5
Conferees met and approved a final bill on October 18, and the House
Appropriations Committee issued the conference report on October 22 (H.Rept. 105-
734). The House adopted the report on September 24, by a vote of 356-65; the
Senate adopted it the following day, by voice vote.
In April 1998, both houses passed, and President Clinton signed into law, an
FY1998 supplemental appropriations bill (P.L. 105-174; H.R. 3579) that provides
$20 million for a perimeter security plan for the Capitol, Senate office buildings, and
adjacent grounds, and $7.5 million to begin repair of the Capitol dome.
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, the Senate, Joint Items (joint House and Senate activities), the Congressional
Budget Office, the Architect of the Capitol (except Library of Congress buildings and
grounds), the Congressional Research Service within the Library of Congress, and
congressional printing and binding done by the Government Printing Office.
Title II, Related Agencies, contains budgets for activities not directly supporting
Congress. Included in this title are the budgets of the Botanic Garden, Library of
Congress (except the Congressional Research Service), the Library buildings and
grounds within the Architect of the Capitol, the Government Printing Office (except
congressional printing and binding costs), and the General Accounting Office.
Periodically since FY1978, the legislative bill has also contained additional titles for
such purposes as capital improvements and special one-time functions.
Title I budget authority was 70% of the total appropriation of $2.288 billion in
the FY1998 Legislative Branch Appropriation Act. Title II budget authority was6
30% of the total appropriation. In addition, there are legislative budget authorities
that are not included in the annual legislative branch appropriations act or


This figure was derived by subtracting $708.7 million for FY1998 House internal activities4
and $36.6 million for House office buildings, under the Architect of the Capitol, from the total
FY1998 budget authority of $2.288 billion, which includes supplementals and a transfer.
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations,5

1999, report to accompany S. 2137, 105 Cong., 2 sess., S.Rept. 105-204 (Washington:thnd


GPO, 1998), 63 pp.
The figure includes $2.249 billion appropriated in the FY1998 Legislative Branch6
Appropriations Bill, a $27.8 million FY1998 supplemental appropriation, and an $11 million
transfer to the Government Printing Office (GPO) from the GPO revolving fund.

supplemental appropriations acts. These include permanent budget authorities, trust
fund budget authorities, and other budget authorities. 7
Budget authorities appropriated permanently are available as the result of
previously enacted legislation and do not require annual action. Tables providing8
budget authorities in recent bills appear at the end of this report.
Trust funds are monies held in accounts that are credited with collections from
specific sources earmarked by law for a defined purpose. Trust funds do not appear
in the annual legislative branch bill since they are not budget authority. They are
included in the U.S. Budget either as budget receipts or offsetting collections.9
The Budget also shows some non-legislative entities within the legislative branch
budget. These entities are funded in other appropriations bills. These non-legislative
entities are placed within the legislative budget section by the Office of Management
and Budget for bookkeeping purposes.10


Other budget authorities are those of some non-legislative entities within the legislative7
branch budget that are actually funded in other appropriations bills.
Permanent budget authorities are cited by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in8
the annual U.S. Budget. In FY1998, the following legislative activities were funded by
permanent budget authorities: House and Senate Member pay; House and Senate use of
foreign currencies; international conferences and contingencies; and Library of Congress
payments to copyright owners. According to the House Committee on Appropriations (H.
Rept. 105-595), the FY1998 permanent budget authority for the above activities was $315
million.
FY1998 total legislative branch trust fund authority is $29 million. This figure includes9
Library of Congress gift and trust fund accounts ($23 million); Library of Congress
cooperative acquisitions revolving fund ($3 million); U.S. Capitol Preservation Commission
trust funds ($1 million); Architect of the Capitol gifts and donations ($1 million); and the John
C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development trust funds ($1 million).
Source for trust fund authorities is the House Committee on Appropriations (H.Rept. 105-

595).


The FY1999 U.S. Budget includes non-legislative entities under two headings: (1) “U.S.10
Tax Court” and (2) “Other Legislative Branch Agencies - Legislative Branch Boards and
Commissions.” Included in the latter category are the Prospective Payment Assessment
Commission; the Physician Payment Review Commission; the Gambling Impact Study
Commission; the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicine; the Medicare
Payment Advisory Commission; the Commission on the Advancement of Federal Law
Enforcement; 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 the
subcategory “Other Legislative Branch Boards and Commissions.”
For 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 FY1999 U.S. Budget shows an FY1999 total legislative budget
authority request of $2.620 billion, including permanent budget authority, trust funds, and
non-legislative entities. After removing non-legislative entities, the total is $2.617 billion,
including permanent budget authority and trust funds. Additionally excluding permanent
(continued...)

Status
Table 1. Status of Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY1999, H.R. 4112
SubcommitteeConference Report
Markup ApprovalHouse House Senate Senate Conference Public
Report Passage Report Passage Report LawHouse Senate House Senate
H.Rept.S.Rept.H.Rept.P.L. 105-6/25/98 7/21/989/24/989/25/98

6/10/986/4/98105-595105-204105-734275a(235-179)(90-9)(356-65)(voice vote)


6/23/98 6/5/98 9/22/98 10/21/98
The Senate version was marked up by the full Committee on Appropriations.a
Developments This Year
Submission of the FY1999 Budget Estimates. In February 1998, President
Clinton submitted his FY1999 budget of $2.263 billion for legislative activities funded
in the legislative branch appropriations bill. This figure was subsequently amended by
individual legislative branch agencies to $2.467 billion. As amended, the request11
represented an increase of $218 million, or 9.7%, over the FY1998 appropriation of
$2.249 billion, before the FY1998 supplemental and a Government Printing Office12
transfer. The proposed FY1999 budget provided for an additional 122 FTE staff


(...continued)10
budget authority and trust funds, the total is $2.260 billion. Since the FY1999 request was
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the request was revised by
legislative branch agencies to $2.467 billion.
Source is the FY1999 U.S. Budget and the House Committee on Appropriations for budget11
estimates, and amendments, for the legislative branch. The source for all except Senate
activities is the House Committee on Appropriations. The source for Senate operations and
activities is the FY1999 U.S. Budget. Senate activities include those for operations of the
Senate ($477 million) and Senate activities under the Architect of the Capitol ($56 million).
This figure does not include permanent appropriations or trust funds. In December of each
year, legislative agencies submit their budget requests for the upcoming fiscal year to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The agencies’ requests are prepared during the
previous months. Subsequently, OMB incorporates the agencies’ requests without change into
the President’s annual budget submitted to Congress early the following year. The legislative
agencies may revise their budget requests at any time.
The FY1999 request of $2.467 billion includes $1.934 billion for the legislative branch,12
excluding the Senate, plus $477 million for Senate operations, and $56 million for Senate
activities under the Architect of the Capitol.

positions in the legislative branch (excluding the Senate). The number of FTEs13
would have been increased by 0.5%, from 23,045 to 23,166. 14
Consideration in the Senate. The Senate considered H.R. 4112 on July 17, 20,
and July 21, when it was passed, as amended. As passed, the bill contained $1.6
billion, excluding funds for House internal activities and House activities funded in the
Architect of the Capitol’s (AOCs) budget. This figure represented a 3.5% increase15
over the FY1998 comparable appropriation of $1.5 billion. Among other
provisions, the Senate bill:
!Appropriated 4.4% less than the FY1999 budget estimate, a decrease of $72.4
million. The FY1999 estimate was $1.657 billion; the FY1999 Senate bill was
$1.59 billion;
!Appropriated a 3.5% increase, or $53.7 million, over the FY1998 budget. The
FY1998 level is $1.5 billion; the FY1999 version was $1.59 billion;
!Contained additional funds, mostly for employee cost-of-living pay adjustments
and associated costs of those adjustments (3.1% of the total 3.4% increase);16
and,
!Provided for a 1.8% increase in the Senate’s housekeeping budget, from
$461.1 million in FY1998 to $469.4 million in FY1999.
Five amendments were adopted by the Senate on July 20. These amendments
contained language:
(1) Amending the House bill to include appropriations for Senate internal
operations and Senate activities funded under the Architect of the Capitol in H.R.

4112;


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


FTEs (full-time equivalents) are an estimate of the total number of work years required by13
an agency over the course of a fiscal year. They are calculated by totaling the total number
of hours worked by all employees and then dividing that total by 2,080, the number of hours
in a work year. One FTE equals 2,080 hours. One FTE is an employee working 40 hours per
week for 52 weeks in the year.
Source is the House Committee on Appropriations.14
This figure was derived by subtracting $708.7 million for FY1998 House internal activities15
and $36.6 million for House office buildings, under the Architect of the Capitol, from the total
FY1998 budget authority of $2.277 billion. The Senate report on the FY1999 bill uses an
FY1998 budget authority of $2.277 billion. The House report uses $2.288 which includes an
$11 million transfer to the Government Printing Office (GPO) from the GPO revolving fund.
Statement of Chairman Bennett of the Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch16
Appropriations during markup by the full Senate Committee on Appropriations of the FY1999
Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, June 4, 1998.

(3) Creating a separate appropriations subaccount for the Committee on
Appropriations, under the account, “Salaries, Officers, and Employees,” deleting
appropriations for the committee previously contained in the account, “Contingent
Expenses of the Senate,” subaccount, “Inquiries and Investigations;”
(4) Amending Title IV of the Senate bill establishing a Trade Deficit Review
Commission; and,
(5) Requiring certain legislative branch officials to submit to Congress lists of
activities to be performed under their jurisdictions during FY2000, including those
activities “not inherently governmental functions.” 17
Before passage on July 21, the Senate agreed, by a vote of 83-16, to invoke
cloture, closing further debate on H.R. 4112, as amended. Subsequently, an
amendment to make reports of the Congressional Research Service available to the
public on the Internet was ruled out of order as being non-germane when cloture was
invoked.
Earlier, on June 4, the Senate Committee on Appropriations marked up and
ordered its version reported. On June 5, the committee reported S. 2137.18
Consideration in the House. On June 25, the House passed H.R. 4112, by a
vote of 235-179. H.R. 4112 provided $1.8 billion, excluding funds for Senate19
internal activities and Senate activities funded in the AOC’s budget.
Among other provisions, the House bill:
!Provided $1.8 billion, which is 1.68% over the FY1998 comparable
appropriation of $1.77 billion. The majority of the increase is for mandatory20
cost-of-living pay adjustments and related costs;
!Provided an actual decrease of 0.52% from the FY1998 funding level, when
allowing for inflation (based on a projected Consumer Price Index increase of

2.2%);


These officials are the Architect of the Capitol, Secretary of the Senate, Sergeant at Arms17
of the Senate, public printer, and director and executive director of the Botanic Garden. The
term “inherently governmental functions” is defined as “functions so intimately related to the
public interest as to require performance by Federal Government employees.” See Sen. Ted
Stevens, remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 144, July 20, 1998,
p. S8556.
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations,18thnd

1999, report to accompany S. 2137, 105 Cong., 2 sess., S.Rept. 105-204 (Washington:


GPO, 1998), 63 pp.
Representative James Walsh and others, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily19
edition, vol. 144, June 25, 1998, pp. H5315-H5329, H5331-H5352.
This figure was derived by subtracting $461 million for FY1998 Senate internal activities20
and $52 million for Senate office buildings, under the Architect of the Capitol, from the total
FY1998 budget authority of $2.288 billion, including supplementals and a transfer.

!Eliminated 438 FTE positions from the legislative branch;
!Made possible staff cuts, in addition to the 438 FTE reduction, by authorizing
staff buy-outs by the Architect of the Capitol and the Government Printing
Office;
!Was a 6.7% decrease from the FY1999 budget request; and,
!Was $555.3 million below the 302(b) allocation established by the House
Committee on Appropriations.
Two amendments were agreed to on the House floor:
!Providing that $100,000 of the amount appropriated for the item, House Office
Buildings, within the heading, “Architect of the Capitol,” subheading, “Capitol
Buildings and Grounds,” be made available for House waste recycling
programs (voice vote); and
!Mandating the establishment of an energy conservation plan by the Architect
of the Capitol for all facilities administered by Congress (voice vote).
Earlier, on June 18, the House Committee on Appropriations marked up and
ordered its version reported, subsequent to markup by the House Subcommittee on
Legislative Branch Appropriations on June 10. The full committee reported H.R.

4112 on June 23.21


Three amendments were adopted in the full committee markup of June 18, none
of which required new funds: They were (1) report language restating that the
Congressional Budget Office be impartial and independent from political pressure
(Representative David Obey); (2) language directing that Members be authorized to
make monthly payments to each employee to subsidize his/her transportation
(Representative Steny Hoyer); and (3) report language that encourages artwork in22
the Capitol to more fully represent women’s contributions to society (Representative
Marcy Kaptur).23
Consideration in Conference Committee. On September 18, 1998, conferees
met and agreed to $2.350 million, a 2.7% increase over FY1998's $2.288 billion.
Allowing for inflation, the increase is +0.5%.
Among the agreements made in conference were:


U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations21thnd
Bill, 1999, report to accompany H.R. 4112, 105 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 105-595
(Washington: GPO, 1998), 52 pp.
The provision was later struck from H.R. 4112.22
The amendment’s sponsor noted that a study by the Architect of the Capitol showed that,23
of 451 individual portraits, 14, or 3%, depict women.

!An increase in funding of 12.2% for the U.S. Capitol Police, from $74.1
million in FY1998 to $83.1 million in FY1999. The FYl999 figure includes
funds for 1,251 FTEs and funds of $2.4 million for pay parity, including night
differentials, and $1.7 million for an adjustment to the longevity schedule,
subject to approval by the Committee on House Oversight and the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration;
!Additional appropriations for the General Accounting Office (GAO) program
changes including funds for 50 FTEs and language by conferees that they
expected at least one-third of the program changes funding increase to be used
“to support information technology (IT) work, particularly in support of issues
related to the Year 2000 computing crisis.” Conferees directed that those24
funds in excess of those required for the additional FTEs be allocated to
program contract support and directed the comptroller general to account for
the use of these additional funds, including the number of FTEs and the
amount of these additional funds used to acquire contract services; and,
!Deletion of a provision in the Senate bill containing funds for a Trade Deficit
Review Commission.
FY1998 Supplemental Appropriations Bill. On April 30, 1998, both houses
agreed to the conference report on H.R. 3579, an FY1998 supplemental appropriation
bill, which provides $20 million for a perimeter security plan for the Capitol building,
Senate office buildings, and adjacent grounds, and $7.5 million to begin repairs on the
Capitol dome. H.R. 3579 was signed into law (P.L. 105-174) on May 1, 1998. The
act also provides $270,300 for gratuities to the widows and heirs of two deceased
House Members. With the supplemental appropriations, the total appropriation for25
FY1998 legislative branch activities is $2.288 billion.
FY1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations. On October 21, the
President signed into law an omnibus consolidated and emergency supplemental
appropriations bill with $223.7 million for legislative branch activities (P.L. 105-277).
The act contained $16.9 million for expenses of Year-2000 conversion of
"information technology systems" with $5.5 million for the Senate, $6.4 million for
the House, and $5 million for the General Accounting Office to use for other
legislative entities, except the Senate and House. In addition, the act contained
$106.8 million for security enhancement of the Capitol complex and the Library of
Congress by the Capitol Police Board, and $100 million for expenses of "planning,
engineering, design, and construction" of a Capitol Visitor Center.


U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 1998, Making Appropriations for the Legislative24
Branch for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1999, and For Other Purposes, conferencethnd
report to accompany H.R. 4112, H.Rept. 105-734, 105 Cong., 2 sess. (Washington: GPO,

1998), p. 43.


In addition to supplementals, this figure includes an $11 million transfer to the Government25
Printing Office from its revolving fund.

Major Issues Driving Discussions on the FY1999 Bill
Among the main issues that drove consideration of the FY1998 supplemental and
the FY1999 legislative branch appropriations bill were the following.
!What additional staff and funds might be necessary to ensure that Congress
makes its computers Year-2000 compliant?
!Should U.S. Capitol Police pay be comparable to other public sector police?
!How much should funding be increased for security enhancement for the
Capitol, other congressional buildings, and adjacent grounds?
!How much should be appropriated for the Architect of the Capitol’s request
to undertake various improvements to the Capitol?
!What are the appropriations needs for technology development, including
online information, electronic document printing, and continued development
of a legislative information system?
!What should be the funding levels for the congressional support agencies,
including the Government Printing Office, the Congressional Budget Office,
the Library of Congress (including the Congressional Research Service), and
the General Accounting Office?
The effort in recent years to trim the legislative budget also continued during
consideration of the FY1999 budget in the House and Senate Subcommittees on
Legislative Branch Appropriations.
Statement of Chairman Walsh
During opening remarks at hearings on the FY1999 budget, Chairman James
Walsh of the House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations indicated
a tight budget, stating that he “fully expects reductions along the way” from the26
pending budget requests. Chairman Walsh continued by saying that he would give
“careful scrutiny” to agency funding requests and expects the subcommittee to be
“responsible” and “ensure that the legislative branch contributes its fair share to
balancing the budget.” 27
Statement of Chairman Bennett
During the first day of hearings by the Senate Subcommittee on Legislative
Branch Appropriations on the FY1999 budget, Chairman Robert Bennett indicated
that “while most agencies acted responsibly in submitting their FY1999 requests, cuts
in the requests were likely.” He emphasized that one of the top priorities was to28
ensure that Congress and its support agencies reprogram their computers, or purchase


Remarks of Chairman James Walsh before the House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch26
Appropriations, Jan. 29, 1998.
Ibid.27
Remarks of Chairman Robert Bennett during the first day of hearings by the Senate28
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations, Feb. 26, 1998.

new ones, to meet the Year-2000 compliance deadline. Chairman Bennett listed29
Capitol Hill security among other priorities of the Senate subcommittee.
Overall Funding Level Issues
Each spring, as members of the House and Senate Subcommittees on Legislative
Branch Appropriations consider funding requests from legislative agencies, 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 subcommittee members
during February 1998 indicated support for a possible modest increase in the FY1999
budget. The bills initially approved by the House and Senate contained modest30
increases over the FY1998 appropriations level. The Senate bill provided for a 3.4%
increase, but when accounting for the projected inflation for 1998, the increase was
1.2%. The House bill, although providing a 1.68% increase, was actually a decrease
of 0.52% when accounting for inflation.
The conference version of the FY1999 bill provides for a 2.7% increase over
FY1998, from $2.288 billion to $2.359 billion. Allowing for inflation, the increase is
+0.5%.
The legislative branch budget is not particularly large. It is 0.15% of the total
federal budget.
Flat Budget. A “flat” budget typically provides new funds for mandatory cost31
increases, but denies additional funding requests. A flat budget can be difficult to
achieve due to a number of factors, such as ongoing and emergency maintenance and
repair needs and the continuing effort to keep legislative branch operations current
with recent technology developments.
Modest Increase Proposals. The versions of the FY1999 Legislative Branch
Appropriations passed by the House and Senate allowed for modest increases, the
option Congress also chose in FY1998. The conference version of the FY1999 bill
provides for a 2.7% increase over FY1998, from $2.288 billion to $2.350 billion. The
increase is smaller when allowing for inflation, or +0.5%.
Conferees on the FY1998 legislative funding bill approved a 2.1% increase in
current dollars, from $2.203 billion in FY1997 to $2.249 billion in FY1998. Allowing
for inflation, the FY1998 conference figures were actually a 0.1% decrease, from
$2.251 billion in FY1997 to $2.249 billion in FY1998. Conferees on the FY1998 bill
compromised with the Senate version of the FY1998 bill that provided for a 3.5%
increase, and the House version that provided for a 0.6% reduction, both percentages
based on current dollars.


See a discussion of the Year-2000 compliance problem below.29
The statements were made during hearings on the FY1999 legislative branch budget request.30
Mandatory costs are those mandated by statute. They include annual cost-of-living pay31
adjustments and increases in the government’s contribution to the federal employee retirement
program.

Budget Decrease. Although the House passed an FY1999 legislative branch
appropriations bill that contained a 1.68% increase over FY1998, the bill was actually
a reduction of 0.52% when accounting for inflation. As passed, the House bill
contained an increase from $1.775 billion in FY1998 to $1.805 billion in FY1999.32
Allowing for inflation, the bill contained a decrease from $1.814 billion in FY1998 to
$1.805 billion in FY1999. Even though the FY1999 conference version contains an
increase, from $2.288 billion to $2.350 billion, the increase is small, +0.5%, when
accounting for inflation.
Congress has approved other budget decreases in recent years. In the FY1996
bill, Congress approved a budget decrease of 8.2%, from an FY1995 budget of
$2.378 billion to an FY1996 budget of $2.184 billion. When accounting for inflation,
the decrease was 10.8%, from $2.559 billion in FY1995 to $2.283 billion in FY1996.
Although the FY1997 and FY1998 bills contained increases, when adjusted for
inflation, both bills contained actual decreases in the legislative budget. The FY1997
bill contained a 0.87% increase, from $2.184 billion in FY1996 to $2.203 billion in
FY1997. When adjusted for inflation, the FY1997 bill was a 1.4% decrease, from
$2.283 in FY1996 to $2.251 in FY1997. The FY1998 budget contained a 2.1%
increase over the FY1997 budget, from $2.203 billion in FY1997 to $2.249 in
FY1998, prior to an FY1998 subsequent supplemental and transfer. Allowing for
inflation, the change was a decrease of 0.1%, from $2.251 in FY1997 to $2.249 in
FY1998.
Year-2000 Computer Reprogramming Issue
Congress continued to work toward ensuring that the legislative branch and
other federal agencies achieve the computer reprogramming and other changes
necessary by the Year 2000. This is necessary because most computers use a two-
digit year system for purposes of dating. The system assumes “19" to be the first two
digits of any year. If not reprogrammed, computers using the two-digit system would
interpret the year 2000 – 00 – as 1900. The result would be data errors and possibly
computer shutdowns.
Conferees included additional funding for GAO program changes including
appropriations for 50 FTEs and inserted language that they expected at least one-
third of the program funding increase to be used “to support information technology
(IT) work, particularly in support of issues related to the Year 2000 computing33
crisis.” Conferees directed that those funds in excess of those required for the
additional FTEs be allocated to program contract support and directed the
comptroller general to account on the use of these additional funds, including the
number of FTEs and the amount of the increase used to acquire contract services.


Both the FY1998 and FY1999 figures exclude funding for Senate internal activities and32
Senate activities funded for Senate office buildings within the budget of the Architect of the
Capitol.
Conference report, FY1999, p. 43.33

In addition, Congress made available an emergency supplemental of $16.9
million to the legislative branch for Year-2000 compliance efforts in the FY1999
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-

277). The act makes available the following amounts: $5.5 million for the Senate,


under Contingent Expenses of the Senate, Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the
Senate; $6.4 million for the House of Representatives, under Salaries and Expenses,
Salaries, Officers, and Employees; and $5 million for GAO, under Information
Technology Systems and Related Expenses. Funds transferred to GAO are to be
available for transfer from GAO to "all entities of the legislative branch other than the
'Senate' and 'House of Representatives' covered by the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 1998." Transfers by GAO are subject to approval of the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), it will cost the
federal government, including Congress, an estimated $2.3 billion to make the
adjustments necessary. This figure is considered by Representative Steve Horn,
chair of the House subcommittee with oversight responsibility for the Year-2000
conversion, to be underestimated. Mr. Horn believes the figure does not include all
expected labor costs for computer programmers.34
Some computer programs in the legislative branch have already encountered
problems in projecting payroll data beyond 1999. The House Information Resources
Office and the House Inspector General estimate the cost of Year-2000 compliance
in the House of Representatives alone to be somewhere between $1.2 million and $3.6
million.
During his opening remarks at the Senate hearings on the FY1999 legislative
budget, Chairman Robert Bennett stated that dealing with the Year-2000 issue was
of major importance to the Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch
Appropriations. He noted that ramifications of the problem and possible solutions35
had already been discussed at five separate hearings held by the Subcommittee on
Financial Services and Technology, which he also chairs. He stated that the legislative
branch needs to be as aggressive with its own compliance program as it is with these
programs in the executive branch.
Chairman Bennett’s concern is shared by others in the Senate. In April 1998, the
Senate majority and minority leaders announced the creation of a special
congressional committee to oversee Year-2000 conversion efforts in the executive
and judicial branches. The Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology
Problem, chaired by Senator Bennett, will hold hearings on the progress of federal
agencies in achieving Year-2000 compliance. The select committee’s budget is
$575,000 through February 29, 2000. Funds for the committee are included in the


Source is statement of Chairman Stephen Horn during a hearing by the House Subcommittee34
on Government Management, Information, and Technology on the “Year 2000 Problem,” Feb.

25, 1997.


Remarks made by Chairman Robert Bennett during the first day of hearings by the Senate35
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations, Feb. 26, 1998.

FY1999 bill under the Senate account, “Contingent Fund of the Senate,” subaccount,
“Inquiries and Investigations.”
In late June, the Speaker of the House also announced the establishment of a
House task force on the Year-2000 problem as a counterpart to the Senate special
committee. The House task force consists of members of the Subcommittee on
Government Management, Information, and Technology of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, and the Subcommittee on Technology of the
Committee on Science.
Technology Issues
House and Senate Legislative Information Systems. Both houses continued
to take steps to reduce 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 this, both the36
House and Senate are continuing to develop information systems that create and
manage legislative data files.
The House legislative information system is administered by the House Clerk.
The Senate system is administered by the Secretary of the Senate. The Clerk and the
Secretary continue to exchange information on development of their own systems.
They also report, respectively, to the House Oversight Committee and the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration on their recommendations regarding the
electronic transfer of legislative data between the two houses and among all legislative
entities.
In support of development of the House and Senate legislative information
systems, both houses 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 Government
Printing Office (GPO). The House and Senate legislative information systems are37
expected to reduce duplication through the consolidation of existing legislative
retrieval systems.
House System. In FY1996, the Committee on House Oversight directed the
Clerk to study methods for increasing the capacity of the House to manage its
documents electronically. The committee further directed that subsequent proposals
of the Clerk relating to printing be coordinated with the GPO and all House entities
requiring printing and storage of documents.


See discussion on the need to reprogram computers by the year 2000 above.36
In the FY1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, the Senate directed CRS and the37
Library to develop a retrieval system The language was contained in an amendment that was
deleted from the legislation, but maintained in the conference report. Subsequent to passage
of the FY1997 bill, the chairman of the House 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 House requested funding for FY1999 to continue its development of a
document management system (DMS) to provide a method for creating, tracking,
editing, sharing, printing, and transmitting documents. The Clerk estimates that the
DMS will be completed within the next three years. The primary purpose of the38
system, according to the Clerk, is to allow the House to move from its dependency
on the GPO for preparing, printing, and distributing House documents.39
The DMS is designed to automate document preparation (using a PC-based
system for print-on-demand and for electronic transmission to GPO). Although
development of the DMS is costly, the Clerk anticipates savings to the House of
approximately $1 million annually in administrative and printing costs.40
The House report on the FY1998 legislative branch appropriations bill contained
language that directed the Congressional Research Service and the Library 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.” 41
Senate System. The FY1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act directed
the Secretary of the Senate to develop a legislative information system for the42
Senate. The act directed that the Secretary oversee the system’s development and
implementation, subject to approval of the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration. Like the House, the Senate system provides a means for creating,
tracking, editing, sharing, and transmitting documents.


Testimony of Robin Carle, Clerk of the House, before the House Subcommittee on38
Legislative Branch Appropriations, Jan. 29, 1998.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch39th
Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1998, hearings, part 1, 105 Cong.,st

1 sess., Jan. 1997 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 163.


Comments of the Clerk of the House before the House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch40
Appropriations, Feb. 4, 1997. See also the Clerk’s testimony on the DMS in U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations,thnd
Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1998, hearings, part 2, 105 Cong., 2 sess., Feb.

1997 (Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 43.


U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations41thst
Bill, 1998, report to accompany H.R. 2209, 105 Cong., 1 sess., H.Rept. 105-196
(Washington: GPO, 1997), p. 8.
P.L. 104-197, 110 Stat. 2398, Sept. 16, 1996, sec. 8, FY1996 Legislative Branch42
Appropriations Act.

The FY1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act funded the Senate system
by authorizing the Secretary to use unspent FY1995 monies previously appropriated
for the Office of the Secretary of the Senate; it remains available until September 30,
1998. The Secretary was also authorized to transfer to the development of the
legislative information system, as he determined to be necessary, funds already
appropriated to the Secretary’s office for the purpose of development of the Senate
financial management system.
Access to additional funding was provided in the FY1997 supplemental
appropriations bill signed into law (P.L. 105-18; H.R. 1871) June 12, 1997. The act
authorized the transfer of $5 million from other Senate accounts to the account,
“Contingent Expenses of the Senate,” under the subaccount, “Secretary of the
Senate.” The money was made available through September 30, 2000. The transfer43
is subject to approval of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Funds for FY1999
are pending in the Senate-passed FY1999 appropriations bill that contains funds for
the Office of the Secretary of the Senate.
The FY1999 Senate report on S. 2137 also contains language that directs the
Congressional Research Service and the Library “to continue their development of the
legislative retrieval system for the Senate and provide an annual report outlining the
strategic objective of this initiative.” 44
Anticipated Expenses of Internet Use. The costs of technology advancement,
including increased use of the Internet, in the House and Senate are factors in the
pending budgets. Throughout the United States, Internet usage more than doubled45
between July 1995 and March 1997. It is anticipated that Congress could face
significant expenses in meeting the demands of increased constituent communications46
via the Internet. House Internet usage increased by 800% in 1995 and 1996.
Some expect, however, that some technology expenses will be offset by savings.
For example, during the 105 Congress, savings to the House are estimated to beth
almost $750,000, primarily for operating expenses and maintenance fees,
accomplished by (1) replacement of an IBM mainframe by an IBM CMOS Enterprise


For language in H.R. 1871 that is relevant to the legislative branch, see Representative43
Robert Livingston, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 143, June
12, 1997, p. H3766. This provision was originally included in the earlier version of the
FY1997 supplemental bill, H.R. 1469, which was vetoed by the President on June 9, 1997.
Senate report, FY1999, p. 41.44
Source is telephone conversation with spokesperson for the Nielson Media Research Group.45
Testimony of Representative Vernon Ehlers on the “CyberCongress initiative” before the46
House Committee on Oversight, Feb. 11, 1997. Representative Ehlers is chairman of the
House Computer and Information Working Group of the House Oversight Committee.

Service (estimated $505,000 savings), and (2) installation of a “higher-reliability,
direct-access storage system” (estimated $246,500 savings). 47
House and Senate Committee Funding
House Committee Funding. H.R. 4112 provides $109.1 million for House
committee funding in FY1999. Committee funds were authorized by the House early
in 1997, when the House adopted a resolution authorizing committee funds essentiallyth
for the 105 Congress (calendar years 1997 and 1998). Part of these funds were
provided in the FY1998 legislative branch appropriations act. The FY1998 act48
provided $104.5 million for committee funding.
A funding resolution was reported by the Committee on House Oversight on
March 17, 1997 (H.Res. 91). The resolution authorized $178.3 million for House
committees (except for the Appropriations Committee). On March 20, the rule for
consideration of the resolution was defeated on the floor.
On March 21, 1997, the House agreed to an interim funding authorization
through May 2, 1997 (H.Res. 91). The interim measure was needed because the
existing 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 105 Congress, and provided theth
committee a budget of $20 million.
A new committee funding resolution was ordered reported by the Committee on
House Oversight on April 28, 1997 (H.Res. 129). The resolution authorized $177.8
million for committees, except Government Reform and Oversight and
Appropriations, for the 105 Congress. This figure was $550,740 less than theth
original funding resolution the House voted against considering on March 20. On
May 1, 1997, the House agreed to the new resolution by a vote of 262-157.
The House Committee on Appropriations was authorized and appropriated
$18.3 million for FY1998. The committee is authorized and appropriated $19.4
million in H.R. 4112, the FY1999 legislative branch appropriations bill.
Senate Committee Funding. H.R. 4112 provides $66.8 million for Senate
committee operations in FY1999. Senate committee funds were authorized early in

1997 by the Senate (S.Res. 54). The Senate funding resolution, adopted on February


Letter to the editor from Representative Vernon Ehlers, chairman of the House Computer47
and Information Working Group of the House Oversight Committee, in Roll Call, Feb. 17,

1997, p. 4.


Other appropriations will come from the FY1997 and FY1999 legislative branch48
appropriations acts. Committee funds are authorized essentially on a two-year calendar basis,
yet funded on an annual, fiscal year basis (Oct. 1 - Sept. 30).

13, 1997, provided for 100% funding of the recurring 1996 level, plus cost-of-living
adjustments for specific purposes and time periods. 49
The resolution was amended on March 11 to provide an additional $4.35 million
for the Committee on Governmental Affairs. Funds were provided for a special50
investigation of illegal or improper actions related to the 1996 elections. A point of
debate was whether to include both illegal and improper activities as targets of the
committee’s investigation. Ultimately, both were included.
Joint Committee Issues
Abolishment of the Joint Committee on Printing. Conferees agreed to
$352,000 for the Joint Committee on Printing until December 31, 1998, when it is
anticipated the joint committee will be terminated. Matters under its jurisdiction are
to be transferred to the Committee on House Oversight, the Senate Committee on
Rules and Administration, and the public printer. This figure represents $202,000,
which was contained in both the House and Senate versions, plus $150,000 to be
available to the Committee on House Oversight. The $150,000 appropriation is
available only if the legislative and oversight responsibilities of the joint committee
are transferred by law to the Committee on House Oversight and other committees51
and congressional entities. In such case, the $150,000 is to be transferred to the
Committee on House Oversight, effective January 1, 1999.
The Senate provided $150,000 in additional funds to the Senate Committee on
Rules and Administration for the committee’s costs in assuming responsibilities of the
joint committee. The additional funding is included in FY1999 funding of $66.852
million for Senate committee expenses in the Senate subaccount, “Inquiries and
Investigations,” within the account, “Contingent Expenses of the Senate.”
Security Issues
Capitol Complex Security Plan. In his FY1999 budget proposal submitted to
Congress, the Architect of the Capitol requested $20 million for a perimeter security
plan for the Capitol, Senate office buildings, and adjacent grounds. Congress then
approved the funds as part of an FY1998 supplemental appropriations bill (H.R.


U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Authorizing Biennial49
Expenditures by Committees of the Senate, report to accompany S.Res. 54, 105 Cong., 1thst
sess., S.Rept. 105-9 (Washington: GPO, 1971), p. 1.
Senator Trent Lott, remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 143,50
March 11, 1997, p. S2096.
House report, FY1999, p. 14.51
These funds are in addition to the amount authorized the committee ($1,375,472) in S.Res.52

54, agreed to Feb. 13, 1997, which was increased to $1,407,254 in P.L. 105-55, Oct. 7, 1997.



3579). The appropriation was included by the Senate in its version of H.R. 3579.53


On April 30, both houses agreed to the conference report on this bill, and it was
signed into law (P.L. 105-174) May 1, 1998. The relevant provision of the law reads:
For necessary expenses for the design, installation and maintenance of the Capitol
Square Perimeter Security Plan, $20,000,000 (of which not to exceed $4,000,000
shall be transferred upon request of the Capitol Police Board to the Capitol Police
Board, “Capitol Police,” “General Expenses,” for physical security measures
associated with the Capitol Square perimeter security plan) to remain available
until expended, subject to the review and approval by the appropriate House and54
Senate authorities.
The appropriation for the perimeter security plan was based on recommendations
that a task force on perimeter security prepared for the U.S. Capitol Police Board.
Of the $20 million, $4 million would go to the Capitol Police Board, upon the Board’s
request, for expenses of design and installation of security systems that are part of the
perimeter plan.
The report of the Senate Appropriations Committee on S. 1768 states that funds
provided for perimeter security of Senate office buildings are subject to review and
approval of the Senate Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on
Rules and Administration. It further states that funds provided for perimeter55
security of the “Capitol Square” are subject to review and approval of the House
Committee on Appropriations, Committee on House Oversight, Speaker of the
House, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and Senate Committee on
Appropriations.
A perimeter security plan for the Capitol Building and its grounds was approved
by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration October 30, 1997, subsequent
to its presentation by the Architect of the Capitol at a committee hearing a month
earlier. The same day, the Rules Committee also approved a plan that authorized the


Similar language providing $20 million for a perimeter security plan was reported to the53
House in another FY1998 supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 3580. The report language
of H.R. 3580 states that the expenditure of funds are subject to approval by the appropriate
House and Senate authorities, including the House and Senate Appropriations Committees,
Speaker of the House, Committee on House Oversight, and Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Making Supplemental
Appropriations and Rescissions for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1998, report tothnd
accompany H.R. 3580, 105 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 105-470 (Washington: GPO, 1998),
pp. 11-12.
P. L. 105-174, May 1, 1998. See also U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,54
Making Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for the Fiscal Year Ending September

30, 1998, report to accompany H.R. 3580, 105 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 105-470thnd


(Washington: GPO, 1998), pp. 11-12, and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from Natural
Disasters, and for Overseas Peacekeeping Efforts, for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30,th

1998, report to accompany S. 1768, 105 Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 105-168 (Washington:


GPO, 1998), p. 22.
Ibid., S.Rept. 105-168.55

Architect of the Capitol to move forward immediately in developing perimeter
security for the area immediately adjacent to the three Senate office buildings. The
House Oversight Committee would approve any plan for the House office buildings,
while the House Appropriations Committee would make the final determination of
funds needed.
Funding for the Capitol Police Board. Conferees agreed to a 12.2% funding
increase for the U.S. Capitol Police, from $74.1 million in FY1998 to $83.1 million
in FY1999. The conference figure contained $2.4 million for pay parity, including
night differentials, and $1.7 million for an adjustment to the longevity schedule,
pending approval by the Committee on House Oversight and the Senate Committee
on Rules and Administration. The FY1999 emergency supplemental (P.L. 105-277)
contained an additional $106.8 million for security enhancements.
The FY1999 budget estimate for the Capitol Police Board was $84.5 million,
$76.1 million for Capitol Police salaries and benefits, and $8.4 million for general
expenses. The House version contained $76.4 million for the Board, or 3.1% more
than FY1998's budget of $74.1 million. The Senate version contained $80.6 million,
an 8.8% increase over FY1998. The Senate increase reflected, among other activities,
personnel costs, and $700,000 for expenses of computer and telecommunications
functions, which in prior years were funded in the budget of the Sergeant at Arms.
Conferees agreed to a funding level allowing for 1,251 FTEs, as proposed by the
Senate. The House proposed an FTE level of 1,247. Presently, the number of
authorized FTE positions is 1,247 (596 on the House payroll and 651 on the Senate
payroll).
During consideration of its bill on July 20, the Senate adopted an amendment
increasing by $220,000 the appropriation for general expenses of the Capitol Police.
Capitol Visitor Center. Congress approved an emergency supplemental
appropriation of $100 million to the Architect of the Capitol "for planning,
engineering, design, and construction" of a Capitol Visitor Center. The funding was
added in conference on H.R. 4328, FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations bill (P.L. 105-277). The conference report stipulates
that appropriated funds for the project are to be supplemented by private funds. The
estimated cost of the Capitol visitors' center is $125 million. Construction of the56
visitors' center, conferees reasoned, would "provide greater security for all persons
working in or visiting the United States Capitol and a more convenient place in which
to learn of the work of Congress." 57
The appropriation culminated nearly a decade of discussions over the feasibility
of construction of a center. Planning for a center began in 1991, when the Architect


Source is the Capitol Preservation Commission Advisory Board.56
"Conference Report on H.R. 4328, Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency57
Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999," Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 144, Oct. 19, 1998, p. 11524.

of the Capitol received approval to use previously appropriated security enhancement
funds for the center's conceptual planning and design. 58
Hearings on a proposal to construct a visitor center were held by the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration early in 1997. During the hearings, the
committee chairman expressed concern over congressional encouragement of private
funding at the same time that Congress was investigating 1996 campaign fund-raising
activities. On September 24, 1998, the committee held hearings on Capitol complex59
security, including the role of the proposed visitor center.
Architect of the Capitol Issues
Architect of the Capitol Budget. The House and Senate consider separate
budget requests for operations of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) in direct support
of Congress, funded in Title I of the bill. They consider separate requests because the
House budget request does not include Senate office building funding (which is
determined by the Senate), and the Senate considers the budget request without
House office building funding (which is determined by the House). The total Title I
budget request, including House and Senate office buildings, was $221.9 million.
Of the $221.9 million, $87.5 million was requested for costs of 228 projects
identified by the AOC for a 5-year capital improvement program. More than $34
million of the $87.5 million request is for projects requested by congressional
agencies, for example, the Capitol police and Library of Congress.
Two major expenses in the $87.5 million request were for the perimeter security
project ($20 million) and for the beginning of repairs to the Capitol dome ($7.5
million). Subsequently, in April 1998, both houses approved the funds for the60
perimeter security project and Capitol dome repairs in H.R. 3579, as part of an
FY1998 supplemental appropriations bill. H.R. 3579 was signed into law (P.L. 105-

174) May 1, 1998.


As considered by the Senate, the AOC’s request was $178.1 million, which was
a 14.5 % increase over the FY1998 appropriation of $155.5 million. The Senate bill
provided $142.6 million, a decrease of 8.3% from FY1998. This figure did not
include appropriations for House Office Buildings of $42.1 million, as determined by
the House. Including House Office Buildings appropriations, the Senate figure would
have been $184.7 million.
Senate report language directed the AOC to complete a master design project
plan for the Capitol Police before the Senate provides funds for the design projects


U.S. Architect of the Capitol, United States Capitol Visitor Center: Final Design Report58
(Washington: U.S. Architect of the Capitol, Nov. 10, 1995), p. 5. P.L. 101-520, 104 Stat.

2282.


Statement of Chairman John Warner before the Senate Committee on Rules and59
Administration during oversight hearings on operations of legislative offices, on March 5,

1997.


Congress appropriated $1.5 million in FY1998 for a study of repairs to the dome.60

requested by the AOC. A total of $475,000 was made available to the AOC for this61
purpose. The Senate report further directed that the master plan include
consideration of the security needs of the Capitol complex, and the bill provided $1
million for security designs by the U.S. Capitol Police.
An additional $750,000 was provided to the AOC for support of the physical
security installations of the Capitol Police Board. Language also requires the AOC
to report to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the Senate
Committee on Appropriations on expenses in support of Capitol police security
upgrades.
As considered by the House, the AOC’s request was $166.1 million, an 18.6%
increase from FY1998. The House bill recommended $121.4 million, a decrease of
13.3% from FY1998. The figure did not include appropriations for Senate Office
Buildings of $53.6 million, as determined by the Senate. Including Senate Office
Buildings appropriations, the House figure would have been $175.1 million.
House report language recognized that the AOC had limited funds to deal with
a maintenance backlog and directed the AOC to use energy savings and excess
proceeds from recycling to help defray costs in eliminating the backlog. In addition,
the House report directed the House inspector general to audit the fire-protection
systems in House office buildings and the House side of the Capitol, and to report his
findings to the House Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on House
Oversight.
Conferees agreed to $184.2 million and to House report language directing the
AOC “to develop an energy savings plan that will use proceeds to fund needed62
maintenance.” Conferees also agreed to increase the appropriation for the Capitol
Power Plant by $4 million for replacement of the East plant chiller.
Conferees accepted House language appropriating $1 million to the AOC for the
Congressional Cemetery, authorizing the AOC to make a grant of $1 million to the
National Trust for Historic Preservation. This grant is to be matched by private
donations to the Association for the Preservation of Historic Congressional Cemetery
to provide for the perpetual maintenance of the cemetery.
Congress provided additional funding of $100 million to the Architect of the
Capitol "for planning, engineering, design, and construction of a Capitol visitor
center." The Architect is "directed not to expend any funds for this project without
an obligation plan approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
which shall specify the purpose and amount of anticipated obligations."
Support Agency Funding
Congressional Budget Office Budget. Both the House and Senate versions
contained an FY1999 budget of $25.7 million for the Congressional Budget Office


Senate report, FY1999, p. 30.61
Conference report, FY1999, p. 36.62

(CBO), a 3.5% increase over the FY1998 budget of $24.8 million. The proposals
were 1.0% less than the FY1999 budget request of $25.9 million.
Conferees agreed with House report language directing that, effective October
1, 1998, CBO post on the Internet CBO papers and publications that can be made
available to the public, along with an index, and language directing House Information
Resources and the Library of Congress “to work out an acceptable solution to the
computer needs of CBO.”63
House report language also required that CBO provide information to
Congress on CBO revenue estimates (generated by tax law changes and the rate of64
capital gains tax), assumptions underlying these estimates, explanations of any
discrepancies between estimates and revenues, explanations for deviations or more
than $25 billion between the estimated federal deficit or surplus and the actual budget
deficit or surplus (for last 5 years), and comparison of first year discretionary outlay
estimates and expenditures for accounts in specified budget functions, among other
information required. This information was to be submitted by August 30, 1998, or
the date the FY1999 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill conference convenes
(which was September 18, 1998), whichever was earlier.
General Accounting Office Budget. Conferees agreed to $354.3 million for
the General Accounting Office (GAO), a 4.4% increase over FY1998. The Senate
bill contained $363.3 million, a 7.0% increase over the FY1998 funding level and a

1.2% decrease from the FY1999 request. The House bill contained $354.2 million,


a 4.3% increase over FY1998 and a 3.7% decrease from the FY1999 request.
Conferees included additional funding for GAO program changes including
appropriations for 50 FTEs and inserted language that they expected at least one-third
of the program funding increase to be used “to support information technology (IT)65
work, particularly in support of issues related to the Year 2000 computing crisis.”
Conferees directed that those funds in excess of those required for the additional
FTEs be allocated to program contract support and directed the comptroller general
to account on the use of these additional funds, including the number of FTEs and the
amount of the increase used to acquire contract services.
The Senate bill contained funding for 3,300 FTEs, including funds for 75 of the
100 additional FTEs requested by GAO. The House bill recommended funds for
3,225 FTEs and stated its intention that GAO consider the use of consultants and
other experts to provide the agency with greater flexibility and to avoid an internal,
full-time staff increase.


Conference report, FY1999, p. 36.63
The report is to be submitted to the Speaker of the House, majority and minority leaders of64
the House and Senate, chairs and ranking minority members of the House Committee on Ways
and Means, House Committee on Appropriations, Senate Committee on Finance, and the
Senate Committee on Appropriations.
Conference report, FY1999, p. 43.65

Additional funds were made available to GAO in H.R. 4328, FY1999 Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277) to
assist the legislative branch in meeting the Year-2000 compliance. Conferees on the
bill agreed to $5 million to be available for transfer from GAO to "all entities of the
legislative branch other than the 'Senate' and 'House of Representatives covered by
the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1998." Transfers by GAO are subject to
approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Library of Congress Budget. The Library of Congress’s budget is included in
both titles of the legislative appropriations bill. Title I includes funds for the
Congressional Research Service (CRS), while Title II includes funds for the majority
of activities of the Library of Congress.
Congressional Research Service. Conferees agreed to $67.1 million for
FY1999. The House bill contained a 3.2% increase, to $66.7 million from an FY1998
level of $64.6 million. The Senate bill contained an increase of 5.1%, to $67.9
million. Conferees agreed to House report language directing “that the Congressional
Research Service should replace departing staff with lower level professionals to even
out grade distribution” and that CRS “not increase its full-time equivalent (FTE)
employment level above the current level.” 66
Library of Congress, Except CRS. Conferees agreed to $296.5 million for
FY1999. The House proposal for Library operations was $291.7 million, a 3.3%
increase over FY1998. The Senate’s recommendation of $298.1 million was a 5.6%
increase. Conferees agreed to Senate report language concerning FTE staff (see
below) and directed that appropriations in the bill be spent within the LOC’s current
FTE level.
The House bill funded 4,076 FTEs for all Library positions, including CRS, with
other positions financed through reimbursable and gift and trust funds. House report
language noted that the bill did not fund new staff positions and directed the Library
to fund any new positions through attrition or reprogramming.
The Senate version contained funds for 4,070 FTEs, decreasing the positions
from 4,083. The Senate bill contained funds for 8 FTEs in information technology.
Senate report language states that the Library “has, and will continue to be, a67
significant resource for the Congress in addressing the year 2000 conversion.” An
additional 10 FTEs were included for the succession plan of CRS, along with 13 FTEs
for additional security personnel, primarily to operate X-ray machines and metal
detectors at public entrances.
Conferees also agreed to Senate language “urging the Library to continue efforts68
to assist the Senate with a legislative information retrieval system;” providing $2
million to digitize materials from the LOC collections relating to “Meeting the


Conference report, FY1999, p. 30.66
Senate report, FY1999, p. 40.67
Conference report, FY1999, p. 39.68

Frontiers - Russia and Alaska;” and designating that $250,000 be used in the
commemoration of the Lewis and Clark expedition in 2003.
Conferees agreed with House report language directing the LOC to determine the
extent of its collections security problem. They further directed the LOC to develop
a plan to coordinate all aspects of the Library’s interior and exterior physical security
by January 15, 1999. The Library is directed to consult with the Architect of the
Capitol and to use the Capitol police as a source of information, and to consult with
the Capitol police on industry practices. Language in the Senate report encouraged
the Library to consult with the Capitol police on external security issues. Conference
language regarding appropriations for Library buildings and grounds, funded under the
Architect of the Capitol (AOC), directed the AOC to “obtain the concurrence of the
Capitol Police Board in the submission of budget requests regarding the physical
security of the Library’s buildings and grounds.”69
Senate language permanently authorizing the LOC’s American Folklife Center
was accepted in conference.
Additional funds were made available to the Capitol Police Board for Capitol
complex and Library of Congress security enhancements in H.R. 4328, FY1999
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-
277). The conference report on H.R. 4328 contains language "to allow the transfer
of funds to either the Architect of the Capitol or the Library of Congress, based upon
plans approved by the Committee on House Oversight of the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, and the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations."
Government Printing Office Budget. The Government Printing Office (GPO)
is funded in both Title I (for congressional printing and binding) and Title II (for other
operations of GPO). For congressional printing and binding, conferees agreed to the
House figure of $74.5 million, an 8.8% decrease over the FY1998 level of $81.7
million. The $81.7 million House FY1998 figure includes an $11 million transfer from
the GPO revolving fund. Language in the House report stated that the level of funding
recommended was based on savings due to installation of the direct-to-plate
technology and an FTE level that is about 100 positions below the present ceiling.70
The Senate bill contained $75.5 million for congressional printing and binding.
This was a 6.9% increase over the FY1998 level used in the Senate report of $70.6
million (which did not include an $11 million transfer). Conferees agreed to an
administrative provision in the House version that authorized up to $11 million to be
transferred from the GPO revolving fund in its FY1998 budget authority.
Conferees also agreed to language in the House report that directed the Clerk of
the House, in consultation with the Secretary of the Senate and the public printer, to
study the present and future printing needs of the House and Senate to ascertain the
most cost-effective printing program for House and Senate use. Conferees added


Conference report, FY1999, p. 41.69
House report, FY1999, p. 23.70

language requesting the Secretary of the Senate to work with the Clerk of the House
on the project.
Funding for GPO in Title II of the bill is $29.3 million, the House figure, for
activities of the Office of the Superintendent of Documents. The Senate
recommended $29.6 million. Title II also contains funding from time to time for the
GPO revolving fund. Conferees agreed to language in Title II directing GPO to
complete assessments, plan for their implementation, and complete action necessary
to make the agency Year-2000 compliant during FY1999.
Major Funding Trends71
Guide to Determining Legislative Budget Trends. Interpretation of budget
trends is determined primarily by three factors: (1) selection of current or constant
dollars to express budget authority (constant dollars reflecting the impact of inflation);
(2) selection of budget authority contained in annual appropriations bills, with or
without permanent budget authority (permanent budget authority not requiring annual
approval by Congress); and (3) selection of fiscal years to be compared.
Current-dollar data reflect actual budget authority appropriated each year.
Constant-dollar data reflect the conversion of actual budget authority into equivalent
1998 dollars. For example, Congress appropriated budget authority of $41,793,000
for the Senate in FY1968, excluding permanent budget authority. Converted into 1998
dollars, $41,793,000 is $196,955,517.
When reviewing the 30-year growth of the Senate budget from FY1968-FY1998
in current dollars, the increase amounts to 1003.0%. In constant dollars, the increase
is 134.1%. The constant-dollar figure indicates budget growth after the effects of
inflation are neutralized.
Differences also appear based on the choice of fiscal years used to compare
budget authority. For example, a comparison of budget growth between FY1968 and
FY1998 shows the following changes in total legislative budgets after adjustment for
inflation: FY1968-FY1998, +83.0%; FY1972-FY1998, +8.7%; and FY1978-FY1998,72
-12.3%.
Changes in the 1970s significantly affected Congress’s budget. Implementation
by Congress of the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act increased the budgets and
staffs of congressional committees and support agencies from FY1971 through
FY1978. For example, the increase in total legislative budget authority, adjusted for
inflation, from FY1969 (pre-1970 Reorganization Act) through FY1973 (a year of
significant implementation of the 1970 Reorganization Act) was 64.5%.


The budget authority for FY1998 excludes supplementals and a transfer.71
These figures are based on constant dollars and do not include permanent budget authority,72
which is not included in the annual legislative branch appropriations bill but, rather, is
automatically funded annually.

The legislative budget during the 1970s also reflected implementation of the 1974
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which created the House and
Senate Budget Committees and 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.
Current Legislative Budget Trends. Between FY1978 and FY1998, the total
legislative budget, when adjusted for inflation, decreased by 12.3%. Budget authority
for direct congressional operations in Title I decreased by 6.0% over this time.
Throughout the 12 years following FY1978 (FY1979-FY1990), legislative budget
funding remained lower than the FY1978 budget authority, when adjusted for inflation.
The first increase over the FY1978 budget occurred in FY1991, a 1.1% increase from
the FY1978 level. Funding increased again in FY1992 and FY1995 but decreased in
FY1993, FY1994, FY1996, and FY1997. The change between FY1994 and FY1998
was a decrease of 9.4% in total legislative budget authority. Using current dollars, the
change between FY1994 and FY1998 was an increase of 0.3%.
Table 2. Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY1994 to FY1998
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)a
FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998
2.271 2.378 2.184 2.203 2.288
These figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflecta
supplementals and rescissions. Permanent budget authorities are not included in the annual
legislative branch appropriations bill but, rather, are automatically funded annually.



Table 3. Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY1999
In H.R. 4112 (Regular Annual Appropriations, P.L. 105-275) and H.R. 4328 (Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations, P.L. 105-277)
(in thousands of current dollars)
Total
FY1999
EntityHouse Bill(H.R. 4112FY1998FY1999SenateConf. onEnactedRequestBillH.R. 4112
and
H.R. 4328)
Title I: Congressional Operations
Senate461,055 476,728 —f 469,391469,391474,891j
House of Representatives709,008a765,588 734,108 734,108 734,108740,481k
Joint Items86,711 97,695 89,070 93,181 96,134204,916l
Office of Compliance2,479 2,286 2,086 2,2862,0862,086
Congressional Budget Office24,797 25,938 25,671 25,671 25,67125,671
Architect of the Capitol, excluding
Library Buildings and Grounds192,156b221,898 121,434g 184,701 184,186284,186m
Congressional Research Service,
Lib. of Congress64,603 68,461 66,688 67,877 67,12467,124
Congressional Printing and
Binding, Government Printing
Office81,669c 84,00074,465 75,500 74,46574,465
Subtotal, Title I1,622,478 1,742,5941,113,522g 1,652,716 1,653,1651,873,820
Title II: Other Legislative Agencies
Botanic Garden 3,016 3,235 3,032 3,180 3,0523,052
Library of Congress, except
Congressional Research Service282,309d 300,871291,701 298,129 296,516n296,516n
Congressional Cemetery and
Library Buildings and Grounds,
Architect of the Capitol11,573 16,139 12,933h 12,566 13,672h13,672h
Government Printing Office,
except Congressional Printing and
Binding29,077 36,200e 29,264 29,600 29,26429,264
General Accounting Office339,499 367,728 354,238 363,298 354,268359,268o
Subtotal, Title II665,474 724,173 691,168 706,773 696,772701,772
Title IV: Trade Deficit Review
Commission 1,000 (2,000)p
Grand Total2,287,952 2,466,7671,804,690i 2,361,4802,349,9372,575,592q
Sources: Source for columns two through six is Rep. James Walsh, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 144, Sept.
24, 1998, pp. H8549-H8552. In his remarks, Rep. Walsh inserted a table containing FY1998 and FY1999 request, House bill, Senate bill,
and conference figures. The FY1998 figure includes a supplemental in P.L. 105-174, May 1, 1998, and a transfer of $11 million. Title III
contains general provisions and does not contain new budget authority. Source for column seven is the House Appropriations Committee.
aIncludes an FY1998 supplemental of $270,300 for payments to widows and heirs of deceased Members.
bIncludes an FY1998 supplemental of $7.5 million to begin Capitol dome repairs, and $20 million for a Capitol perimeter security plan,
with $4 million of the $20 million transferable to the Capitol Police Board, upon the board’s request.
cIncludes an $11 million transfer to the Government Printing Office from its revolving fund.
dIn addition, the Library of Congress had authority in FY1998 to spend $30.3 million in receipts.
e Includes $6 million for the Government Printing Office revolving fund.
fThe House column in the Congressional Record table on the FY1999 bill does not include $459.4 million for Senate internal activities.



g.The House column in the Congressional Record table on the FY1999 conference does not include budget authority of $53.6 million for
Senate Office Buildings funded under the Architect of the Capitol.
h Includes $1 million for the congressional cemetery.
I The House figures in the Congressional Record table on the FY1999 conference do not include budget authorities for internal Senate
operations or Senate Office Buildings, funded under the Architect of the Capitol.
j Includes $5.5 million in emergency supplementals under the Sergeant at Arms for completion of Year–2000 computer conversion.
k Includes $6.373 million in emergency supplementals under Chief Administration Officer for completion of Year–2000 computer conversion.
l Includes $106.78 million for emergency supplementals for security enhancements under the Capitol Police Board, General Expenses. The
total Joint Items figure also includes $2 million for the Trade Deficit Review Commission.
m Includes $100 million in emergency supplementals under the Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Buildings, Salaries and Expenses, and for
design and construction of a Capitol Visitors' Center.
n In FY1999, the Library has authority to spend $28 million in receipts.
o Includes $5 million in emergency supplementals under Salaries and Expenses for completion of the Year–2000 computer conversion.
p Funded under Joint Items for FY1999..
q Includes $223.655 million in emergency supplementals for FY1999.
Table 4. Senate Items, FY1999
In H.R. 4112 (Regular Annual Appropriations, P.L. 105-275) and H.R. 4328 (Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations, P.L. 105-277)
(in thousands of current dollars)
Total 1999
EntityFY1998FY1999HouseSenateConf. on(H.R. 4112 EnactedRequestBillaBillH.R. 4112and
H.R. 4328)
Expense Allowances/Representation868686 8686
Salaries, Officers, and Employees77,25479,746 87,233 87,23387,233
Office of Legislative Counsel3,6053,753 3,753 3,7533,753
Office of Legal Counsel9661,0041,004 1,0041,004
Expense Allowances for Secretary of
Senate, et al.1212 12 1212
Contingent Expenses
Inquiries and Investigations75,60074,64966,800 66,80066,800
Senate Intl. Narcotics Control Caucus370370370 370370
Secretary of the Senateb1,5111,511 1,511 1,5111,511
Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeperc64,83363,511 60,511 60,51166,011d
Miscellaneous Items7,9057,905 8,655 8,6558,655
Senators’ Official Personnel and Office
Expense Account228,600243,881239,156 239,156239,156
Stationery (revolving fund)130 0 00
Official Mail Costs300300 300300300
Subtotal, Contingent Expenses379,132392,127377,303377,303377,303
Total, Senate461,055476,728469,391469,391474,891d
Source: Source for columns two through six is Rep. James Walsh, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 144, Sept.
24, 1998, pp. H8549-H8552. In his remarks, Rep. Walsh inserted a table containing FY1998 and FY1999 request, House bill, Senate
bill, and conference figures. Source for column seven is the House Appropriations Committee.
aThe Senate does not consider budget authority for internal House operations.
bOffice operations of the Secretary of the Senate also are funded under “Salaries, Officers, and Employees.”
cActivities of the Office of Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper are also funded under “Salaries, Officers, and Employees.”
d Includes emergency supplementals of $5.5 million for completion of the Year–2000 computer conversion for the Sergeant at Arms.



Table 5. House of Representatives Items, FY1999
In H.R. 4112 (Regular Annual Appropriations, P.L. 105-275) and H.R. 4328 (Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations, P.L. 105-277)
(in thousands of current dollars)
Total 1999
(H.R. 4112
FY1998FY1999HouseSenateConf. onand
EntityEnactedRequestBillBilleH.R. 4112H.R. 4328)
Payments to Widows and Heirs of
Deceased Members of Congress270a134136.7 137 137
Salaries and Expensesb
House Leadership Offices12,293 12,689 13,117 13,11713,117
Members’ Representational
Allowancesc379,789 412,964 385,279 385,279385,279
Committee Employeesd
Standing Committees, Special and
Select (except Appropriations)86,268 90,60889,743 89,74389743
Appropriations Committee18,276 19,731 19,373 19,37319,373
Subtotal, Committee Employees104,544 110,339 109,116 109,116109,116
Allowances and Expenses
Supplies, Materials, Administrative
Costs and Federal Tort Claims2,225 2,7062,575 2,5752,575
Official Mail (Committees,
leadership, administrative and
legislative offices)500 500 410 410410
Government Contributions124,390 132,949 132,832 132,832132,832
Miscellaneous Items641 651 651 651651
Subtotal, Allowances and Expenses127,756 136,806 136,468 136,468136,468
Salaries, Officers and Employees84,356 92,656 89,991 89,99196,364f
Total, House709,008 765,588 734,108 734,107740,481f
Sources: Source for columns two through six is Rep. James Walsh, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
144, Sept. 24, 1998, pp. H8549-H8552. In his remarks, Rep. Walsh inserted a table containing FY1998 and FY1999 request, House
bill, Senate bill, and conference figures. Source for column seven is the House Appropriations Committee.
aThis figure represents an FY1998 supplemental appropriation (P.L. 105-174).
bThe appropriations bill has two House accounts: (1) Payments to Widows and Heirs of Deceased Members of Congress and (2)
Salaries and Expenses. All the entries that follow Salaries and Expenses fall under that House account, Salaries and
Expenses.
cThis appropriation heading was new in the FY1996 bill. The heading represents a consolidation of (1) the former heading
Members’ Clerk Hire; (2) the former heading Official Mail Costs; and (3) the former subheading Official Expenses of
Members, under the heading Allowances and Expenses.
dThis 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).
eThe House does not consider budget authority for internal Senate operations.
F Includes $6.373 million in emergency supplementals for the Chief Administrative Officer for completion of Year–2000 computer
conversion.



Table 6. Legislative Branch Budget Authority Funded in
Annual Appropriations Bills, FY1994-FY1998
(Does not include permanent budget authority; in thousands of current dollars)
FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998
Title I: Congressional Operationsa
Senate444,365460,581426,919 441,208 461,055
House of Representativesb686,452728,736670,561 684,098 709,008
Joint Itemsb78,75085,48981,839 88,581 86,711
Office of Compliance002,500 2,609 2,479
Office of Technology Assessment21,31521,3206,115 0 0
Congressional Budget Office22,31723,00124,288 24,532 24,797
Arch. of the Capitol, ex. Library150,223157,190142,970 140,674192,156
Buildings and Grounds
Congressional Research Service,56,71860,08460,084 62,641 64,603
Library of Congress
Cong. Printing and Binding,88,40484,72483,770 81,669 81,669
Government Printing Office
Total, Title Ib1,548,5441,621,1251,499,0461,526,0121,622,478
Title II: Other Agenciesa
Botanic Garden3,0083,2303,053 36,402 3,016
Library of Congress, ex. CRS249,813262,866264,616 269,117 282,309
Library Bldgs. and Grnds.,9,97412,48312,428 9,753 11,573
Architect of the Capitol
Copyright Royalty Tribunal12800 0 0
Govt. Print. Off., ex.
Congressional Printing and29,08231,60730,307 29,077 29,077
Binding
General Accounting Office430,165446,743374,406 332,520 339,499
Total, Title II722,170756,929684,810 676,869 665,474
Grand Total b,c2,270,7142,378,0542,183,856 2,202,8812,287,952
See notes at end of Table 7.



Table 7. Legislative Branch Budget Authority Funded in
Annual Appropriations Bills, FY1994-FY1998
(Does not include permanent budget authority; in thousands of constant 1998 dollars)
FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998
Title I: Congressional Operationsa
Senate 491,740 495,638 446,238 450,829 461,055
House of Representativesb759,637784,204700,905699,016709,008
Joint Itemsb87,14691,99685,54290,51386,711
Office of Compliance002,6132,6662,479
Office of Technology Assessment23,58722,9436,39200
Congressional Budget Office24,69624,75225,38725,06724,797
Arch. of the Capitol, ex. Library Buildings166,239169,155149,440143,742192,156
and Grounds
Congressional Research Service, Library62,76564,65762,80364,00764,603
of Congress
Cong. Printing and Binding, Government97,82991,17387,56183,45081,669
Printing Office
TOTAL, Title I b1,713,6381,744,5181,566,8801,559,2901,622,478
Title II: Other Agencies a
Botanic Garden3,3293,4763,19137,1963,016
Library of Congress, ex. CRS276,446282,874276,590274,986282,309
Library Bldgs. and Grnds., Architect of11,03713,43312,9909,96611,573
the Capitol
Copyright Royalty Tribunal1420000
Govt. Print. Off., ex. Congressional32,18334,01331,67829,71129,077
Printing and Binding
General Accounting Office476,026480,747391,349339,771339,499
Total, Title II799,163814,543715,799691,629665,474
Grand Total b,c2,512,8012,559,0612,282,6792,250,9192,287,952
Sources: Budget authorities for FY1994-FY1998 are from the House Appropriations Committee. FY1995 budget authorities
reflect rescissions and a supplemental contained in P.L. 104-19, 109 Stat. 219-221, July 27, 1995, FY1995 Supplemental and
Rescissions Act (H.R. 1944). FY1996 budget authorities reflect rescissions contained in P.L. 104-28, Sept. 28, 1996, FY1997
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 3610). FY1998 budget authorities represent supplementals contained in P.L.
105-174, May 1, 1998, and an $11 million transfer to the Government Printing Office (GPO) from the GPO revolving fund.
Note: FY1994 budget authority reflects rescissions contained in P.L. 103-211, Feb. 12, 1994, FY1994 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 3759).
Excludes permanent appropriations are (in current dollars, in thousands): FY1994, $329,000; FY1995, $343,000; FY1996,
$302,000; FY1997, $325,000; and FY1998, $333,000. Source is the U.S. Budget.
Excludes trust funds are (in current dollars, in thousands): FY1994, $6,000; FY1995, $16,000; FY1996, $31,000; FY1997,
$29,000. Source is the U.S. Budget.
Formula for conversion to constant dollars is as follows: 1998 Consumer Price Index (CPI) number divided by each year’s CPI
number multiplied by that year’s budget authority. The CPI index numbers used were 148.2 (1994), 152.4 (1995), 156.9
(1996), 160.5 (1997), and 164.0 (1998 est.). These numbers were provided by the Congressional Budget Office.



aPrior to FY1978, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act contained numerous titles. Effective in FY1978, Congress
restructured the legislative bill so that it would “more adequately reflect actual costs of operating the U.S. Congress than
has been true in the past years” (H.Rept. 95-450, FY1978 Legislative Appropriations). As a result, the act was divided
into two titles. Title I, Congressional Operations, was established to contain appropriations for the actual operation of
Congress. Title II, Related Agencies, was established to contain the budgets for activities not considered as providing
direct support to Congress.
Periodically, the act has contained additional titles for such purposes as 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.
bFY1996 figures reflect rescissions in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY1997 (P.L. 104-208, Sept. 28, 1996).
Provisions applicable to legislative branch budget authority in P.L. 104-208 appear in Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 142, Sept. 28, 1996, pp. H11778-H11779.
cGrand totals reflect computer rounding and as a result may differ slightly from totals obtained by adding Titles I and II in this
table.



For Additional Reading
CRS Reports
CRS Report 97-212. Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY1998, by Paul Dwyer.
CRS Report 96-201. Legislative Branch Budget Authority, FY1968-FY1996, by Paul Dwyer and
Lorraine Tong.
CRS Report 97-112. Legislative Branch Employment, 1960-1997, by Paul Dwyer and John
Pontius.
CRS Report 98-123. Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for FY1998, coordinated by
Larry Nowels.
Selected World Wide Web Sites
House Committee on Appropriations
[http://www.house.gov/appropriations]
Senate Committee on Appropriations
[http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/]
CRS Appropriations Products Guide
[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html#la]
Congressional Budget Office
[http://www.cbo.gov]
General Accounting Office
[http://www.gao.gov]
Office of Management & Budget
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/html/ombhome.html]