LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1986 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1985. Mr. FAZIO. We will now commence hearings on the fiscal year 1986 budget for the various Legislative Branch agencies under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations. Before we begin, I would also like to identify the other Members of the Subcommittee: Dave Obey of Wisconsin, Bill Alexander of Arkansas, a new Member of the subcommittee and a very welcome addition, Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, Bob Traxler of Michigan, Lindy Boggs of Louisiana, Jerry Lewis of California, who is the ranking minority member, Sil Conte of Massachusetts, who is the ranking minority member on the full Committee, John Myers of Indiana, and John Porter of Illinois. And we have the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Jamie Whitten of Mississippi, who is also a member of the subcommittee. Obviously, we have continuity on the subcommittee from previous years. We have the pleasant prospect of working with you again, Mr. Lewis. I mean that sincerely. It has been a positive relationship that we have had and I am pleased to see that you have the same team on your side. The budget we are going to consider totals $1,450,753,000. This does not include $319,341,000 in Senate items which will be considered in the other body. With the Senate included, the total budget for the Legislative Branch would be $1,761,118,000. Of the portion of this budget which will be considered by the subcommittee, $857,405,000 is for Congressional Operations-this is an increase of $97,322,962 over the $760,082,038 current budget plan for fiscal year 1985, which includes $31,424,000 in pending supplementals. The balance of the funds requested, which total $593,348,000, support statutory and administrative activities of the Legislative Branch which are performed for the Executive Branch and for the public at large. These activities include such agencies as the Library of Congress, Copyright Royalty Tribunal, Botanic Gardens, Government Printing Office, and the General Accounting Office. The subcommittee will also consider fiscal year 1985 supplemental requests of $41,580,000. Of this amount, $19,602,000 is for increases in Wage-Board pay, and the Civilian Pay Act, and the government share of retirement and insurance contributions related to those increases for Legislative Branch employees. We also have (1) $21,978,000 requested for additional supplemental items of a program nature. RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE BUDGET REDUCTION I also want to bring up another matter. In the budget documents presented to us, there is an Executive recommendation that the Legislative budget be reduced by ten percent. While this subcommittee does not have complete jurisdiction over all of the items scored under the Legislative Branch in the President's budget-for example, Senate items, the U.S. Tax Court, the permanent fund which administers copyright royalties, and so forth-we do, as I mentioned before, have a $1.4 billion request under consideration. Our share of this ten percent recommendation, therefore, would be about $140 million. I think it is ironic that the President should make this recommendation. These Legislative budgets have already been scrutinized and reduced substantially before they were sent to the Office of Management and Budget for inclusion in the President's recommendations to the Congress and the people. For example, the House budget is much smaller than authorized. The Members' Clerk hire budget is included at only 91 percent of its authorized level-underfunded by $17 million. The committee employee budget is underfunded by 28 percent, or another $17 million. Members' allowances are underfunded by over $11 million, some 12 percent. But the President's budget wants to cut us another ten percent. There is no similar recommendation for the Office of Management and Budget, or the administrative and professional staffs of the Cabinet, or the White House staff. There is some mention that there were reductions during the course of preparing the budget estimates, just as I have described a similar process and constraints have taken place in our legislative agencies. But there is no comparable ten percent reduction recommendation for the Executive Branch in the budget document that would apply to the estimates as presented in the budget. But that is exactly what they "recommend" for the Legislative budget. Another irony here is the history of restraint we have imposed on the Legislative budget in recent years. We have kept our budget well below the growth in the Executive budget. A recent study by the Congressional Research Service, which I will include in the record at the conclusion of my remarks, illustrates that point. Since fiscal year 1982, my first year as Chairman, the annual compound rate of growth in the Legislative appropriation has been 5.5 percent. The comparable growth rate in the overall Federal budget under this Administration during the same period has been 9.37 percent. That is a 70 percent higher rate of growth than the Legislative budget. The 5.5 percent annual growth in the Legislative budget has not even kept pace with the rate of inflation. Over the same period of time, the Consumer Price Index has risen at about 11.5 percent each year. That means the costs of operating the Legislative Branch have actually declined in real terms. On the other hand, the 9.37 percent growth rate in the Federal budget has almost kept pace with price levels in the economy. Even by this comparison, then, we can say the Legislative budget is much behind the growth in the other areas in the expenditure program of the Executive Branch. CRS has calculated that, if the Federal budget had been held in check over this period as we have held the Legislative budget, the result would be that the fiscal year 1985 deficit would be down to $138 billion, instead of the currently projected $222 billion. Similar calculations for 1986 would produce a combined 19851986 deficit reduction of $96 billion. We have a similar pattern in employment growth. The Legislative staff has grown by only .01 percent per year-virtually no growth at all-while the Executive Branch growth has been .28 percent per year, about 20 times greater. Now, I realize these comparisons are strained-but they are accurate. I don't expect symmetric growth between the branches of government because we have different missions and vastly different ways of getting our jobs done, but when we talk of a ten percent reduction, we are talking about one-third of this three-tiered government. An across-the-board reduction would almost certainly effect the balance of power between the Executive and the Congress. And I wonder why there was no recommendation to reduce the Judicial Branch budget at all. There is also a real question here about whether or not this socalled "Executive Recommendation" violates the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. An important provision of that law says, in part: proposed appropriations for the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch. shall be... included in the budget by the President without change." However, the Federal budget does make a change in the Legislative Branch budget in the overall total for appropriations and outlays. This "Executive Recommendation" is exactly like any other estimate in the budget—they are all recommendations to the Congress. But the statute clearly precludes such change. We even have the statement on page I-6 of the Budget Appendix that the Legislative Branch presentation has been included "without review in the amounts submitted". The "without review" is contradicted on page 8-14 of the Budget of the United States, where there is, in fact, an adjustment made in the summary budget figure for the Legislative Branch. We are not raising this issue to gain some publicity—indeed, the publicity will probably be negative. But it is important to the doctrine of separation of powers that we respect these distinctions. There would be no problem, I suppose, if there were a paragraph somewhere in these documents which made recommendations to the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch. We would be amenable to suggestions, particularly from informed sources at the Office of Management and Budget, if they have some constructive information on our operations. And, of course, the President has a right and a duty to make recommendations concerning the entire government, but this budget process is prescribed by law. The important thing is to protect the prerogatives of each branch of government-and not to slide into a practice, however well-intentioned, that will erode those prerogatives. The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, from where the statute in question is derived (Section 1105(b) of Title 31), was very carefully crafted to maintain the constitutional roles of Congress and the Executive. That is all we are asserting. We also have heard from the General Accounting on this. They also say this action is in conflict with Section 1105(b). But we will not hide behind the statute-although we do not want to see this violation to become a precedent. And we will not rest on past accomplishments of holding down growth in the Legislative budget. As we go through these hearings, we will review each request carefully and ask whether or not it is essential to the workings of the Legislature, or can be cut back. I might indicate that we will reduce the 1986 budget-just as we always do. In fact, I have written letters to each of the administrators of the various Legislative Branch agencies. I have a copy of one I sent to the Clerk of the House, Ben Guthrie, asking where we may go to find a ten percent reduction in the budget presented to us. I would hope that each Legislative agency that comes before us over the next several months will take this request seriously. I will enter it into the record at this point. [The letter follows:] Ac nch red in WILLIAM H HATCHER KENTUCKY JOSEPHP ADDABSO NEW YORK DAVID A OBEY WISCONSIN EDWARD R ROYBAL CALIFORNIA LOUIS STOKES, OHIO TOM BEVILL ALABAMA BILL CHAPPELL J. FLORIDA BILL ALEXANDER, ARKANSAS JOHN P MURTHA PENNSYLVANIA BOS TRAXLER MICHIGAN JOSEPH D EARLY, MASSACHUSETTS LINDY BARS HALE) BOGGS. LOUISIANA WILLIAM LEHMAN, FLORIDA MARTIN OLAV SABO, BONNESOTA JULIAN C DOIÓN CALIFORPRA VIC FAZIO, CALIFORNIA WG BILL) HEFNER, NORTH CAROLINA LES AUCOIN, OREGON DANIEL KALAKA, KAWAS WES WATKINS, OKLAHOMA WILLIAM K GRAY IL PENNSYLVANIA BERNARD J DWYER, NEW JERSEY BALL BONER TENNESSEE STENY HOYER, MARYLAND ВОВ САЛЯ МІСНІСАЯ ROBERT J. MRAZEK, NEW YORK RICHARD & DURBIN, ILLINOIS RONALD D. COLEMAN, TEXAS Congress of the United States Honorable Benjamin Guthrie House of Representatives U. S. House of Representatives Dear Ben: February 12, 1985 HORITY MEMBERS BAVIO O CONTE. MASSACHUSETTS JOHN T. MYERS, INDIANA CLARENCE E MILLER, OHIO LAWRENCE COUGHLIN, PENNSYLVANIA KEMP, NEW YORK JOHN EDWARD PORTER, ILLINOIS CLERK AND STAFF DIRECTOR TELEPHONE: (202) 226-2771 As you know, the President's budget for fiscal year 1986 includes a recommendation for a 10% reduction in the estimates of the legislative agencies. This, of course, is after the reductions I know many of you have already made in preparing your estimates. I believe that the action taken in the budget which reduces the overall request for the Legislative Branch is a violation of the pass-through requirement of Title 31, United States Code. However, the objective of reducing these budgets is sound and one which I support. Consequently, I am asking each agency or office which appears before the subcommittee to prepare a list of items for achieving both a 5% and a 10% reduction under the budget request. While the Committee and the Congress will ultimately decide on the merits of these reductions, I will expect each agency to comply with this request. There will be some instances where agencies have asked for larger than a 10% increase over the enacted amount and they will be asked to submit reductions at a higher rate. - We have kept the Legislative budget in check for several years in fact well below the growth in the executive budget. A recent study conducted by the Congressional Research Service illustrates that point. Since fiscal year 1982, my first year as Chairman, the annual compound rate of growth in the legislative appropriation has been 5.5%. The comparable growth rate in the overall Federal budget under this Administration during the same period of time has been 9.37%. That's a 70% higher rate of growth than the legislative budget. There has been a similar pattern in employment growth which we have done our best to hold down. During this period, we have held growth in legislative branch staff to about .01 per cent per year (virtually no growth at all), while executive employment has grown at .28 per cent per year, or 20 times greater. We are not going to rest on these past accomplishments. This again will be a tough budget year for everyone, and I know each of you will meet this challenge, just as we have met the challenge of restraint in the past. Sincerely, !!! Vic Fazio Subcommittee on Legislative Branch |