The FY 2022 appropriations omnibus was passed by both houses of Congress this past week and President Biden is expected to shortly sign the measure into law. The FY 2022 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill was rolled into the package, and it is packed with good government reforms and significant investments in Congress’s capacity to legislate, conduct oversight, serve constituents, and more. This legislation takes a giant leap forward to restoring strength to the Legislative branch through its efforts to address decades of underfunding.

We and our civil society colleagues recommended dozens of items to include as part of the bill text and committee report — see our FY 2022 Appropriations requests, FY 2022 appropriations testimony, and 2020 report on updating House Rules — many of which appropriations graciously considered and included.

As Congress turns to the FY 2023 appropriations process, this blogpost highlights some of the notable funding changes reflected in the FY 2022 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill. You can find the complete FY 22 Legislative Branch portion of the bill here and the Joint Explanatory Statement here. For resources on prior Legislative Branch Appropriations bills, go here. In a future blogpost, we will look at the report language.

You can compare final line item funding for FY 21 versus FY 22 by looking at our spreadsheet. It is somewhat confusing, as some agencies/entities are funded by more than one line on the spreadsheet. We hope to have a summary version in the near future. Here is funding by line item over the last 25 years, not including the about-to-be-enacted fiscal year.

The FY 22 Legislative Branch bill appropriates $5.925 billion towards the Legislative Branch, a $625.0 million increase over FY 2021, representing 11.8 percent increase. Roughly 40 percent of the increase will go to the Capitol Police and Architect.

Among the key funding features of this legislation include:

A 21 percent increase to personal, committee, and leadership offices in the House.
The House saw a $134.4 million (21%) increase for the Member Representational Allowance (MRA) to $774.4 million, which represents the largest MRA increase since the line item was created in 1996. The House also saw a $6 million (21%) increase in Majority and Minority Leadership funding to $34.9 million, as well as a $34.2 (21%) increase in funding for House committee operations. This funding in the House signifies a significant investment in helping to rebuild congressional capacity and staff pay.

The Senate’s SOPOEA — the Senate equivalent to the House MRA — funding level saw a slight increase by $25.3 million from $461 million in FY 21 to $486.3 million in FY 22, representing a 5.5 percent increase. The Senate historically has incorporated an automatic increase in funding for its constituent service staff based upon growth in the states, so it has done a somewhat better job increasing its funding over the years.

Paying interns more.
In the House, personal offices saw a 40 percent increase in aggregate internship funding, with a $4.4 million increase to $15.4 million. Leadership office intern funds were increased by $240.5 thousand for the Majority and $197.5 thousand for the Minority, representing 20.5 percent and 19.8 percent increases respectively. For the first time, the House funded committee interns, at a level of $2.3 million.

In the Senate, funding for internships increased by $1 million, from $6 million to $7 million, representing a 16.7 percent increase. Senate committee internships did not receive any funding.

These internship funding increases should help broaden pathways for students (and veterans) from all walks of life to experience working for Congress. We note that funding for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion doubled from $1.5 million to $3 million, which means that this newly widened pathway will make it possible for more people to get their foot on the first rung of the Congressional ladder.

Substantive increases in support offices funding.
In the House, support offices like the Clerk (+14%), Sergeant at Arms (+19%), and Whistleblower Ombuds (+25%) saw significant increases. The Clerk needs the funds to support its technology operations and ongoing modernization initiatives, and the SAA has significant security components. The Chief Administrative Office, which continues to produce great work around staff and member training, saw a 9 percent increase from $177 million in FY 21 to $193.2 million in FY 22. We also note real increases for the important but often overlooked Office of General Counsel (+5.3%), Legislative Counsel (+5.8%), and Law Revision Counsel (+3.8%).

In the Senate, the largest percentage funding increase went to the Office of the Secretary of the Senate, which had a 141.5 percent funding increase from $9.5 million in FY21 to $23 million in FY 22. The Senate Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper saw a $9.68 million increase to $98.5 million, representing a 10.9 percent increase from FY 21. Policymaking support offices, like the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Senate (10%) and Office of Senate Legal Counsel (8.5%), saw increases as well.

Increases for the legislative policy support agencies.
The Government Accountability Office saw a significant increase in funding, a $58.1 million increase to $729 million (+8.8%), although it is significantly below its historical funding levels when adjusted for inflation. Increases in funding for GAO has a high probability of leading to substantial long run savings — GAO estimates that every dollar spent on GAO has a 110-120x return on the investment.

There were increases in other legislative policy support agencies: Congressional Research Service (2.9%), Congressional Budget Office (6.4%), and Government Publishing Office (the actual amount is unclear because of how the revolving door fund works)

The Office of Congressional Workplace Rights saw no increase in funding. With the ongoing unionization push in the House, this flat funding likely will be insufficient in FY 23.

The Capitol Police Receive a Significant Funding Increase
The Capitol Police will receive an additional $87 million from $515.5 million in FY 21 to $602.5 million in FY 22, representing a 16.9 percent increase. USCP aims to use additional funding to pay for new sworn officers and civilian members, although they likely will find it hard to sustain that level of hiring. Unlikely other Legislative Branch entities, the Capitol Police are always well funded and routinely enjoy significant increases. As we have written elsewhere, the major problems at the Capitol Police lie with poor leadership, bad management, and a lack of training, something that funding cannot resolve.

The Architect of the Capitol Received a Significant Funding Increase.
The Architect of the Capitol saw an increase of $98.8 million from $675.1 million in FY 21 to $773.9 million in FY 22, representing a 14.6 percent increase. There is also an additional $16.3 million in increased funding representing a 35 percent increase, for USCP buildings, grounds, and security, which is housed under Architect funding. Funding includes $128 million to continue restoration of the Cannon House Office Building.

Today at noon the House Appropriations Committee’s Legislative Branch Subcommittee will mark up its funding bill for fiscal year 2022. This legislation constitutes a big leap towards addressing the devastating decline Members of Congress have inflicted upon the Legislative Branch over the past quarter century, including a nearly 40 percent staffing reduction at committees and legislative support agencies.

The bill includes a top line funding increase of 13.8 percent over fiscal year 2021; a 21 percent increase for personal, committee, and leadership offices; a 10.3 percent increase for the government’s watchdog, the Government Accountability Office; new funding for IT modernization initiatives; and many other important provisions. In recent historical terms, the legislation does not constitute an increase in funding to the Legislative Branch, but rather a restoration of funding levels from a decade ago. Moreover, the Legislative Branch has only grown at half the rate of the Executive Branch over the last few decades, and the lions’ share of those funds have gone towards security and infrastructure, not policymaking. This legislation begins to remediate those deficiencies.

These newly restored resources will be used to provide for better services for constituents, to support oversight work to root out waste, and to hire expert staff to help our elected representatives fulfill their Article I duty to lead in federal policymaking.

Building capacity in Congress is a sound investment. A stronger Congress can reduce opportunities for regulatory capture by lobbyists, mitigate the risk of unintended negative policy outcomes through stronger staffing, and increase accountability of the federal government through expanded and knowledgeable oversight. It also provides an opportunity to save taxpayers money: the Government Accountability Office consistently reports a savings of over $100 for each dollar of its budget and yet it has been consistently underfunded, leaving billions of dollars on the table.

This appropriations bill is a monumental break from decades of dysfunctional politicization of congressional funding, which undermined the legislative branch’s ability to fulfill its constitutional role under Article I. “Both Republicans and Democrats increasingly recognize that Congress has been unable to live up to the role envisioned for it by the Founders,” said Lincoln Network policy head Zach Graves. Adding that, “while there hasn’t always been agreement for how to fix Congress, we’ve seen a real shift in how both sides talk about Congress and a growing recognition that strengthening Congress should be an issue that everyone from across the political spectrum can agree upon.”

This new push for congressional capacity also comes after years of bipartisan coalition work by Lincoln Network, Demand Progress, the American Enterprise Institute, the Congressional Management Foundation, FreedomWorks, and other groups to reframe the conversation on Capitol Hill and educate stakeholders about this institutional challenge. “This important bill is the result of a decades’ hard work from a bipartisan cohort of reform-minded Members, working together with civil society, to strengthen Congress and create a new culture of institutionalism,” said Demand Progress policy director Daniel Schuman. Adding that, “while restored resources won’t fix all of Congress’s challenges, it will make it possible to gain traction on the remaining issues and move us closer to a healthier democracy.”

Lincoln Network and Demand Progress enthusiastically support these efforts to restore funding to Congress, congratulate members of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Committee for their leadership, and look forward to consideration and passage of the legislation.

Further reading:

• “First Reactions to the Draft House Leg Branch Approps Bill,” First Branch Forecast
• “The Undermining of Congress,” by Daniel Schuman, Demand Progress Report
• “Rebuilding Congress’ Policy Capacity,” by Zach Graves, The Federalist Society
• “The Decline Of Congressional Expertise Explained In 10 Charts,” by Daniel Schuman and Zach Graves, Techdirt
• “Want to Shrink Government? Invest in Making Congress Smarter,” by Kevin Kosar and Zach Graves, RealClearPolicy

Written by Daniel Schuman and Zach Graves

The House Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee today released its draft appropriations bill accompanied by a press release. The subcommittee markup is tomorrow, and we won’t know what it in the committee report until the full committee markup on Tuesday. We reviewed the legislation and compared the proposed funding to the enacted levels from last Congress. (If your interested in the documents from prior Congresses, we have compiled them here.)

At first glance, this looks like a very, very good proposal. Congratulations to Chair Ryan, members of the Leg Branch Approps subcommittee, Chair DeLauro, and all the members and staff from both sides of the aisle that have worked long and hard to restore the Legislative branch’s strength.

Appropriators have proposed $4.802 billion, which is a $589.1 million increase over FY 2021, or a 13.8 percentage increase. Roughly 40% of the increase will go to the Capitol Police and Architect. We note that this proposal does not include the costs for the Senate, and we will not know their numbers until they do their own markup later this year and then the chambers reconcile the numbers.

Among the major funding features of this legislation:

• A 21% increase in funding to personal, committee, and leadership offices, which will go a long way to help restore staff funding levels to where they were in 2010. This should make significant inroads in addressing Congress’s brain drain and making it possible for staff to afford staying on the hill instead of decamping to lobbying shops.
  
• A 20% increase in internship funding, including funding for committee interns, which should help broaden pathways for students (and veterans) from all walks of life to experience working for Congress. Also the doubling of funding for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion means that this newly widened pathway will make it possible for more people to get their foot on the first rung of the Congressional ladder.
  
• Real increases in funding for the support offices, like the Clerk (+14%), Sergeant at Arms (+19%), and Whistleblower Ombuds (+25%). The Clerk needed the funds to support its technology modernization, and the SAA has significant security components. We also note real increases for the important but often over-looked Office of General Counsel (+5.3%), Legislative Counsel (+5.8%), and Law Revision Counsel (+3.8%). The General Counsel is often busy protecting the prerogatives of the House; Leg Counsel drafts the bills and is overwhelmed; and Law Revision Counsel codifies the law. There’s also another $2 million for technology modernization under the CAO, which is very nice.
  
• Increases for the legislative support agencies, like CRS (+5%), CBO (+6.4%), OCWR (+6.7%), GAO (+10%), and GPO (the actual amount is unclear because of how the revolving door fund works).
  
• The Capitol Police will receive an additional 15%, or $88 million, which will pay for hundreds of new sworn officers and “civilians,” not counting the additional +35% of $16 million for USCP buildings, grounds, and security. There’s also language that would have the costs of basic training be paid for out of Homeland Security funding for use of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; I don’t know if this is new, but we know that training is a major cost for the USCP and could provide significant additional value to Congress.
  
• Without the Senate side we cannot see how much the Architect will increase. The press statement suggests a $152.8 million over FY 2021, to $603.9 million, which looks like a +34% increase. This doesn’t include whatever comes in the security supplemental.

There are also some policy changes in the bill.

• We are glad to see that confederate statues would be removed from public view and put into storage within 45 days. (This was in last years’ bill as well, but had been blocked by the Senate).
  
• DACA recipients would become eligible to work for Congress.
  
• It looks like the Capitol Police Chief and the Architect or Deputy Architect of the Capitol would have their pay raised beyond that available to congressional staffers or Members of Congress, somewhere in the SES level. The Capitol Police Chief, for example, would be paid at an SES level II, which looks to be around $199,300.
  
• There are new provisions on how the Library of Congress takes gifts, particularly gifts of securities.
  
• The Open World Leadership Center will become the Congressional Office of International Leadership.

I would expect that we will see many more policy changes in the committee report language, which won’t become available until 24 hours before the full committee markup.

What’s next?

• Subcommittee markup tomorrow Thursday, July 24th
• Full Committee markup scheduled for Tuesday, June 29th.

Here is our spreadsheet comparing FY 2021 and FY 2022. It’s a working document and subject to change. Here are the Leg branch line items over the last quarter century.

Tracking House appropriations markups can be more art than science. We’ve compiled this timeline to help everyone follow along.

Meeting notice

• Must be provided three legislative days in advance. House Rule XI(g)(2)(3)(A)(ii), Committee Rule 4(d)(3). An announcement of the meeting must be publicly “promptly” in the Daily Digest and made publicly available in electronic form. House Rule XI(g)(2)(3)(C). Notice to members is satisfied when the matter is made publicly available at the electronic repository operated by the clerk, i.e., docs.house.gov. House Rule XXIX(3).

Public access to the proceedings

• Markups must be held in open session, with the press and public able to attend, unless a majority of members present hold a roll call vote to close the proceedings for a limited number of reasons. House Rule XI(2)(g)(1), Committee Rule 4(d)(1), Committee Rule 5(e).

Subcommittee markups

• Draft bill text, resolutions, and reports must be available to committee members (but not the public) at least 3 calendar days in advance of the date it is expected to be considered (although this language can be waived) — Committee Rule 6(j).
• Draft bill text must be publicly available at least 24 hours in advance of the proceedings — House Rule XI(g)(4), Committee Rule 4(d)(4). (In practice, this is a literal 24 hours, so bill text may become available online on the Sunday before a Monday markup.)
• Amendment text, if adopted, must be made available within 24 hours of adoption; if withdrawn or otherwise not adopted, must be made available within 48 hours — House Rule XI(e)(6), Committee Rule 4(e)(1).
• Record votes at the markup must be publicly available in electronic form within 48 hours of the vote — House Rule XI(e)(1)(B). This includes a description of the amendment/motion/etc. and how members voted.
• The draft committee report is not required to be made publicly available prior to its adoption by the full committee. However, as a matter of practice, the draft committee report is made publicly available 24 hours prior to the full committee markup.

Full committee markup

• Draft bill text, resolutions, and reports must be available to committee members (but not the public) at least 3 calendar days in advance of the date it is expected to be considered (although this language can be waived) — Committee Rule 6(j).
• Draft bill text must be publicly available at least 24 hours in advance of the proceedings — House Rule XI(g)(4), Committee Rule 4(d)(4). Note that if the subcommittee bill text was not amended, it will be the draft full committee text. (Although it can still be amended by the full committee.)
• The draft committee report, as mentioned above, is not required to be made publicly available prior to its adoption by the full committee. However, as a matter of practice, the draft committee report is made publicly available prior to the full committee markup, usually at the same time as the draft bill text.
• Amendment text, if adopted, must be made available within 24 hours of adoption; if withdrawn or otherwise not adopted, must be made available within 48 hours — House Rule XI(e)(6), Committee Rule 4(f). For the last two years, largely driven by the COVID pandemic, House Appropriators have distributed amendments to press as they are offered.
• Record votes at the markup must be publicly available in electronic form within 48 hours of the vote — House Rule XI(e)(1)(B), Committee Rule 4(e)(1). This includes a description of the amendment/motion/etc. and how members voted.

Final bill text

• There is no deadline by which the final bill text and committee report must be made publicly available after adoption by the committee. Rather, it is the duty of the Chair to file the bill and report “promptly.” Committee Rule (6)(a)(1). They become available after they are filed with the House of Representatives (being filed in the House (which occurs after the submission of minority, dissenting, additional, and supplemental views). Members who give notice they wish to file dissenting, additional, or supplemental views are entitled to two additional calendar days to file those views. Rule XI(2)(l), Committee Rule 6(i)(1).