HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

Until the end of the Second World War, congressional personal and committee staffs were quite small. For most of the 19th century, the Congress was a part-time institution providing no personal staff to its Members, and few if any staff to its committees. The majority of the congressional staffs provided legislative and administrative services to the House and Senate as a whole. The Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate were the principal employing authorities in the two Chambers. The Architect of the Capitol, an official appointed by the President subject to Senate confirmation, was in charge of the continuing construction of the Capitol Building, and later the first House and Senate office buildings which appeared after all Representatives and Senators were granted staff in the 1890s.

The growth of the executive branch during the 1930s and during the Second World War led many in Congress to believe that their institution was too dependent upon information and evaluations done in the White House and in executive agencies. Although committee, personal, and support agency staffs grew to some degree in the two decades after the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, it was not until the 1970s that congressional staff sizes grew to their current levels. Again, it was concern within the Congress that executive branch resources had grown too strong that largely prompted the major congressional staff expansion of the 1970s.

In the past decade, congressional staff growth has slowed and, in some areas, actually declined. Current attention focuses on whether the present staffing levels need to be maintained, whether better management systems and coordination will allow for staff reductions, and on whether Congress ought to reduce its staff in a manner similar to staff reductions under way in the executive branch.

Committee Staffs

Initially committees early in the 19th century were not provided with staff assistance. Committee chairmen handled the business of their committees personally. But, by the 1830s the volume of legislative work, especially among major House and Senate committees, had grown so much that both houses authorized certain committees to employ temporary staff assistants. In 1856 the House and Senate authorized the Committees on Ways and Means and Finance to employ full time clerks. But, overall, the number of committee employees grew slowly. It was not until 1890 that the combined number of House and Senate committee staff exceeded one hundred.

Many committees were created (or continued in existence) because the committee chairman obtained both a Capitol office and a minimal amount of staffing assistance in an era when rank-and-file House and Senate members had neither a private office (House and Senate office buildings were yet to be constructed) nor authorized personal staff. By the 1890s, when Representatives and Senators were authorized personal staff, the need for retaining marginal committees ended, but many minor committees survived until they were consolidated with other panels in the mid-1940s. A comprehensive revision in committee staffing practices also occurred at this time.

The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. The Legislative Reorganization Act dramatically reduced the number of standing committees in the House and Senate. It also standardized the staffing allocation for committees and improved the professionalism of committee staff.

The Act provided that each standing committee in the House and Senate be provided with a basic grant of 10 staffing positions, 6 professional and 4 clerical staff (these basic positions have since come to be called ``statutory'' staff positions). The language of the Act required that staff in such positions be hired upon a formal vote of each committee, without regard to the political affiliation of the staff member. To attract and retain highly skilled and experienced personnel, the maximum salary levels for committee professional positions were set at a level comparable to that paid an assistant secretary in a cabinet department. The 1946 Act further stipulated that no work other than committee business could be assigned to these aides. If committees needed additional staff (for example, to provide specialized staff assistance for an investigation; hence, their common designation ``investigative staff''), they could make a request to their respective House or Senate administrative committees for supplementary staffing funds. Such requests require approval of the full House or Senate.

The Act exempted the House Appropriations Committee from these staffing provisions. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Clarence Cannon opposed what he called excessive committee staffing. Representative A.S. ``Mike'' Monroney, leader of the House delegation on the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, proposed exempting the Appropriations Committee from the staffing provisions in order to overcome Cannon's opposition. Thus, the current language in House Rules allowing the Appropriations Committee (and later, the Budget Committee) to determine their own staffing levels arose as an economy move during House floor action in 1946. In the intervening years, however, the two committees have consistently ranked in the top third of all House committees in terms of combined statutory and investigative staff.

The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. The 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act built on the committee staffing structure established in the 1946 Act, but recognized that committee staff work could not entirely be removed from the political environment of the Congress. The provisions of the 1946 Reorganization Act requiring majority approval of all staff employment and firings proved to be impractical and did not give sufficient cognizance of political realities within each committee. To that end, Act provided two additional staff positions for each committee (for a total of six professional and six clerical staff positions) but further stipulated that upon the request of a majority of the minority party members on any committee, one-third of the statutory positions would be made available to the minority to appoint to those posts such staff as they thought suitable. The Act provided for a transition process; additional temporary statutory posts would be granted to any committee to allow the minority to appoint four staff without forcing the displacement of current staff. When vacancies occurred through attrition on the majority staff, the temporary additional positions were canceled. As with the 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act, the 1970 measure continued to exempt the Appropriations Committee from these provisions; the Budget Committee was also exempted from them when it was created in 1974.

The Act authorized House and Senate committees to employ consultants, subject to contract approval by the administrative committees in each Chamber. It also authorized committees to pay tuition and other educational fees of committee staff when such educational programs were related to staffs' official duties.

Although the Act guaranteed the minority party control of one-third of committee investigative staff, this provision was, however, overturned in the House by action of the Democratic Caucus in 1971 when it was considering rule changes for the 92d Congress.

House Select Committee on Committees, 93d Congress. The House committee reorganization of 1974 (the Bolling Committee) recommended an enlargement of the statutory staffs of House committees. Over the years, House approval of supplementary, investigative staff positions for nearly all committees had become routine. Recognizing that committees consistently needed more than the baseline 12 statutory positions, the Bolling Committee recommended enlarging the statutory base to 30 positions, with one-third of the positions guaranteed to the minority upon request.

The Bolling plan went further, however, stipulating that the minority also be entitled to one-third of all staffing funds, both statutory and investigative. The Appropriations Committee continued to be exempt from these provisions, as was the Budget Committee when it was created later in the 103d Congress. The House approved this proposal in October 1974.

At the beginning of the next Congress, however, the House Democratic Caucus overturned the one-third staff guarantee for investigative staff and instead stipulated that the chairman and ranking minority member of each subcommittee (up to a maximum of six per standing committee) have the authority to employ one staff person each paid from committee funds. Thus, the grant of one-third of the staff positions had been converted to guaranteed control of a maximum of 16 positions per committee (assuming that the minority is able to fill the subcommittee minority positions from investigative funds). For committees with smaller staffs, the 16 minority staffing positions roughly approximated one-third of the positions; for committees with larger staffs (and several employed more than one hundred staff), the minority staffing allotment did not exceed 15 percent.

Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System, 1976-77. The Select Committee, chaired by Senator Adlai Stevenson, sought to achieve better Senate management of committee expenses and to increase the allotment of staff to the committee minority. Since passage of the 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act, the Senate had authorized additional statutory staff positions to various Senate committees, so that by 1976 some Senate committees controlled nearly two dozen statutory staff positions, while some still only had 12.

The Stevenson committee reforms also contained provisions phasing-in over 4 years a guarantee to the minority to control one-third of all committee operating funds for the employment of statutory, investigative, or clerical staff. Senate committees were directed to achieve the one-third set-aside by 1981. The goal was achieved with compliance facilitated by the shift in Senate party control as a result of [through] the November 1980 elections.

The Senate's control over committee operating costs and over implementation of the minority staff set-aside was enhanced in 1980 when the Senate agreed to S. Res. 281. That resolution abolished the distinction between statutory and investigative staff, and directed each Senate standing and select committee to draft annual operating budgets for staffing and other expenses. The Rules and Administration Committee was to review these requests, suggest funding changes if desired, and submit its recommendations for all committees' funds to the full Senate for approval. Excepted from this process was the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, which was authorized to determine its own staffing needs without obtaining the approval of the Senate or the Rules and Administration Committee.

In 1985, the Senate modified its committee funding practices still further by making the funding process biennial. Committees drafted operating budget requests covering both years of a Congress, and the Rules and Administration Committee prepared an omnibus 2-year budget resolution for all Senate standing and select committees (except for the Ethics Committee). Committees are authorized to seek supplemental funding if their estimates prove inadequate, but such requests have been rare.

Personal Staffs

Funds and authorizations for personal office staffs have rarely been contained in major reorganization proposals. For example, during its consideration of the reorganization bill in 1946, the Senate agreed to a provision creating the post of administrative assistant in the office of each Senator and Representative. The administrative assistant was to take over many of the routine management responsibilities in a congressional office, thereby freeing the Member for more substantive legislative and representational duties.

The House rejected this provision when it considered the reorganization bill, and the Senate agreed to strike it from the measure that ultimately became the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. Later that year, however, the Senate acted unilaterally and changed its staffing allowance regulations to permit the designation of an administrative assistant at a salary level commensurate with the responsibilities of the post. It was not until 1949 that the House acted to establish a comparable post.

House Clerk Hire. For most of the 19th century, Representatives were not authorized to employ personal staff from public funds. Members who had sufficient resources would often hire clerks with their own money, and it was not uncommon for Members young adult children to act as unpaid secretaries for their fathers. The House first authorized the employment of a clerk for each House Member in 1893; the clerks were employed for duration of the session and paid $6 per day. Until the completion of the Cannon House Office Building in 1909, House members who were not committee chairmen normally did not have office space and consequently could not conveniently accommodate personal staff. Authorizations for House personal staff grew to only three per member by 1940, but doubled to six in 1945, and doubled again to twelve positions per member in 1966. The current maximum number of full time staff (18) was first authorized in Fiscal Year 1975, with the current authority to employ up to four additional, part-time, shared, or temporary staff dating from Fiscal Year 1979.

The major increases in authorized House personal staff positions and the year of each change are noted in Table 1 below.

Fiscal Year 1893 1919 1940 1945 1949 1955 1956 1961 1965 1966 1969 1971 1972 1975 1979	Authorized Staff 1-2 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 18 22 b	Staff for districts over 500,000 a NA NA NA NA NA NA 10 (FY 1957) 11 12 13 14 16 0 0 0
Sources: "Chronology of House Clerk-Hire, 1893-1993," supra this report and U.S. Congress, House, Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, Legislative Branch Appropriation Bill: Fiscal Year 1994 (Subcommittee Print), Wash., USGPO, 1993, p. 31. a Distinction between districts of 500,000 or less and those of more than 500,000 lasted only from 1956 to 1972. Eighteen permanent and four non-permanent staff authorized as of 1979; no increase in number of authorized staff since then. b Four temporaries were authorized each Member in addition to 18 permanent.

Until the 1970s, House Members were limited to one office in their Districts, typically in Federal office buildings such as post offices. Changes in expense allowances in the 1970s authorized additional District office space, which could be in privately-owned commercial buildings. As local office space expanded, more Members shifted higher proportions of their staff from Washington to their various District offices. Now, nearly half of all House personal staff work in District offices, with some Members locating nearly three-quarters of their staff in the District.

The clerk-hire and expense allowances of House Members are adjusted annually, but these upward adjustments have not generally kept pace with inflation. As a result, Members have come to find that the clerk hire funds in the House are not adequate to employ the full authorized number of staff and still pay salaries which are commensurate with staff skills, and comparable to salaries paid in the executive branch and private sectors. The shift of staff to District offices has been helpful to House Members representing less urban areas where salary ranges are typically less than those required in the Washington metropolitan area.

Senate Administrative, Clerical, and Legislative Assistance Allowances. In 1884, the Senate first authorized Senators who were not committee chairmen to employ clerks during Senate sessions. Early Senate legislation did not indicate the number of such staff authorized, but starting in 1891, the Legislative Appropriations Acts itemized the number of personal staff permitted all Senators. Generally, between 30 and 40 clerks were authorized, presumably providing each non-chair Senator with one staffer.

The number of authorized staff grew slowly, with session employment being converted to annual employment in 1893, and with two staff per non-chairman Senator approved in 1910, and three staff authorized in 1914. In 1919, the Senate provided that a Senator's personal staff could become the clerks of any committee of which he assumed the chairmanship (this direct linkage between personal and committee staffs would not end until the passage of the 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act). Personal staff remained relatively stable, growing to an average of five staff per Senator only in 1940, and eight staff per Senator in 1947 (at a time when House Members were authorized six staff).

In Fiscal Year 1948, the Senate abandoned its long practice of authorizing a specific number of personal staff positions. Instead, it provided Senators with an allowance with which to hire staff without regard to the total number employed by each Senator or the Senate as a whole. The process was further refined in Fiscal Year 1951 when staffing allowances varying by state populations were first provided. Essentially, this practice is still followed today.

In 1975, the Senate agreed to S. Res. 60, a proposal supported by junior Senators who sought increased personal staff to assist them with their committee-related responsibilities. As originally crafted, Senators under S. Res. 60 were granted a fixed staffing allowance for each committee assignment (up to a maximum of three) on which the Senator did not hold a leadership position or otherwise control the appointment of committee staff. This allowance has since undergone several modifications (including making it available to all Senators regardless of leadership position).

The Senate followed the lead of the House in authorizing larger amounts of office space in State offices. Now, roughly one-third of Senate personal staffs work in State offices, reflecting a growing attention to constituency service among Senators.

Administration of the House and Senate

The Constitution grants to each house the right to choose its own officers. In the early Congresses, the House and Senate designated principal officers responsible for legislative documentation, chamber access and security, and construction and repair of the Capitol and related facilities. As the volume and complexity of congressional operations increased, the number of subordinate administrative support staff in the House and Senate increased. Additional services were provided over time, without a comprehensive review of services, facilities, and formal authority of the administrative officers.

Service supervision and financial management became the general responsibility of administrative committees in each Chamber. Under statutory authority dating to the 19th century, expenditures from the contingent fund of the House and Senate were approved by these committees and were not routinely subject to audit or open to challenge by Treasury department auditors, or more recently, by the General Accounting Office. The 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act assigned these functions to the newly established Committees on House Administration and Senate Rules and Administration, both of which were enlargements of predecessor committees on accounts. Neither the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 nor the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 addressed fragmentation of management and supervision of services.

In the 1970s, mixed congressional and private sector commissions in both the House and Senate conducted the first comprehensive studies of administrative services in their respective Chambers. The commissions proposed major reorganizations of functions, creation of new management systems, and abandonment of certain traditional services. In neither the House nor the Senate were the recommendations of these commissions formally acted upon.

Commission on the Operation of the Senate, 94th Congress. Formed at the suggestion of Senator John Culver, the eleven-member Commission was chaired by former Senator Harold Hughes and consisted of three university administrators, former State government and Federal executive branch officials, senior private sector executives, and current or former Senate management officials. The Commission recommended sweeping Senate administrative reorganization and consolidation of services and facilities.

With regard to administration of the Senate, the Commission proposed the creation of an Administrative Council (comprised of the party floor leaders, the chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, and the Secretary of the Senate) to supervise that Chamber's administrative operations [of the Senate]. A new post of Senate Administrator was proposed, to be appointed by the Administrative Council without regard to political affiliation. With minor exceptions, all administrative services of the Senate were to come under the jurisdiction of that new official, removing from the Secretary of the Senate and the Senate Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper all responsibilities not directly related to the legislative work of the Senate or the security of the Senate and the Capitol Building.

Use of space in Senate facilities was to be enhanced. First, the Administrator was to conduct a thorough audit and review of existing space allocations and then was to reassign space so that functions not essential to Chamber operations would be relocated away from the Capitol or from Senate office buildings.

The Senate took no formal action on Commission recommendations. At the initiative of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms began lengthy consultations aimed at eliminating or reducing duplication or fragmentation of services. These discussions caused some management functions to be reassigned to other entities.

House Commission on Administrative Review, 95th Congress. The House Commission, established while the Senate commission was under way, was chaired by Representative David Obey. The Commission was comprised of eight sitting House Members and seven private citizens with senior management experience in the private sector and in State and Federal agency management.

Early on the Commission recommended sweeping changes in House ethics rules which were largely accepted and implemented. Later, in September 1977, the Commission issued sweeping recommendations calling for the reassignment of management responsibilities among House officers, the non-partisan appointment of a House Administrator to supervise financial and administrative services to the House, and the appointment of a Comptroller and Auditor to manage the financial activities of the House. The Clerk of the House would remain the chief legislative administrator of the House, while the Sergeant at Arms and the House Doorkeeper retained their responsibilities over security in the House, the House office buildings, and in the Capitol complex.

The Commission's recommendations, contained in H. Res. 766 of the 95th Congress, were referred to the House Administration and Rules Committees for review of substantive provisions within each committee's legislative jurisdiction. Later, the Rules Committee reported a modified closed rule to provide for consideration of H. Res. 766, as amended by the two committees. The restrictive rule was opposed for various reasons by many House Members, and it was ultimately voted down. No further attempt was made to bring the measure before the House.

House Administrative Reform, 102d Congress. In the winter and early spring of 1992, numerous press reports appeared alleging major improprieties by the House Sergeant at Arms in his management of the House Bank, and by the Postmaster of the House in supervising services in his office. On March 25, 1992, Speaker of the House Thomas S. Foley appointed a bipartisan task force to develop a management reform proposal for the House. After 2 weeks of frequent meetings, it became clear that agreement on a management reform proposal acceptable to both parties could not be achieved. The Democratic members of the task force thereupon recommended a proposal (H. Res. 423) which drew significant components from the administrative reform plan of the Commission on Administrative Review. The administrative reform resolution passed the House on April 9, 1992.

The resolution created the position of Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services to be filled by an experienced administrator appointed each Congress by joint action of the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and Minority Leader. The Director was deliberately not considered an officer of the House so as to insulate the Director from the political pressures incident to election by the full House (required of ``officers'' of the Congress under the Constitution). The Director was to ultimately acquire management responsibilities for financial services to the House, and management responsibilities over telecommunications, office furnishings and supplies, food services, internal mail, tourist and media services, and barber/beauty/child care services, among other House services. In late September 1992, the House Administration Committee determined not to transfer the House Information System, the central computer facility of the House with more than 200 employees, to the office of the Director of Non-Legislative Services, at least for the time being.

In December 1992, the Speaker announced the appointment of retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Leonard P. Wishart III as Director. To General Wishart's office were transferred House postal operations and financial services. Other services are being transferred to the Director's office in a phased manner after consultations between the Director and the Committee on House Administration. The reform resolution established a bipartisan subcommittee on administrative oversight, and this subcommittee is charged with recommending the transfer of services and offices to the Director.

The resolution establishing the Director's office expires at the end of the 103d Congress; its provisions must be incorporated into permanent law during the 103d Congress to implement on a permanent basis the function transfers which have already occurred. The resolution also directed the appointment of an Inspector General (directed to review independently House financial transactions), but the post has not filled because the Speaker and the Majority and Minority Leaders have been unable to agree on a suitable candidate. The office of General Counsel to the House (to provide legal advice to Members and officers, and to represent the House in litigation), also created by the administrative reform resolution, is currently vacant as well.

Congressional Support Agencies

During the Progressive Era, reform movements began in the State governments to increase professionalism in government management in all branches. The legislative manifestation of this drive came with the establishment of State legislative reference and research bureaus charged with providing unbiased, non-partisan assistance to legislators, committees, and officers of the State assemblies and senates. By the end of the first decade of the 20th century, more than a dozen States had established such bureaus. The election of former State legislators to the U.S. Congress contributed to demands for the establishment of such central legislative research and audit bureaus at the national level. Chief among these former State legislators was Senator Robert M. LaFollette, Sr., of Wisconsin, the father of the chairman of the first Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. From relatively modest beginnings, the four congressional support agencies now employ nearly six thousand people and provide a comprehensive array of reference, research, evaluation, and audit services to committees, Members, and staff.

The Congressional Research Service. In 1914, the Congress established within the Library of Congress a Legislative Reference Bureau to provide background information, statutory texts, and other data on pending policy questions upon request to Members of Congress, committees, and staff. By 1935, the reference bureau was charged with preparing digests of public bills and resolutions which were compiled and published throughout each session of Congress.

The 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act upgraded the unit to the Legislative Reference Service (LRS) and made it a separate department of the Library of Congress. The Service was directed to engage in more research, rather than reference support, for the Congress. To that end, the Act created Senior Specialist positions within LRS, directing these posts to be filled by research and policy professionals having a national reputation who would be available to act as expert advisors to the committees of the Congress.

The mission of the Service was further expanded by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. Renamed the Congressional Research Service, CRS was directed to triple its staff, especially in research divisions, to maintain continuous liaison with congressional committees, and to expand the range of research services it provided to committees and Members. The Librarian of Congress appoints the Director of the Congressional Research Service upon consultation with the Joint Committee on the Library. The Director does not serve a fixed term.

The 1970 Act gave the Service greater budgetary and management autonomy from the Library of Congress, but this provision was later modified in the interests of administrative economy and efficiency. Similarly, budgetary constraints prevented CRS from formally tripling its size from its 1970 level.

Services provided by CRS can take various forms. Responses to congressional inquiries can be answered by telephone call or by transmitting pre-assembled information packets on major policy issues. Brief written responses or major research reports can be prepared for congressional clients, and CRS staff may be detailed to work temporarily for House or Senate committees to provide closer, continuous assistance. Testimony before congressional committees by CRS staff is not unusual, and the Service provides a continuing range of seminar programs and briefings for Members and staff on issues dealing with pending policy issues as well as on congressional structure, rules, and procedures. CRS responds to more than 600,000 client requests annually. More significantly, it produced more than 1,000 general distribution written products and 2,000 custom written products during Fiscal Year 1992, and conducts seminars, institute, or other briefing programs attended by nearly 12,000 congressional staff, in addition to nearly 4,000 in-person briefings and consultations.

In recent years, the Congressional Research Service has been charged with providing technical services and training assistance to members, administrators, and staff of the parliaments in Eastern Europe and the republics of the former Soviet Union; costs of these programs have primarily been borne through the Agency for International Development funds transferred to CRS through a House leadership task force.

The General Accounting Office. The General Accounting Office (GAO) was established as part of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. That Act gave the President the lead role in drafting and formulating a unified governmental budget with the assistance of the Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget). As part of that Act, the audit functions historically performed by the staff of the Comptroller and Assistant Comptroller of the Treasury were transferred to a new agency linked to the Congress, the General Accounting Office.

The Comptroller General who heads the GAO was authorized by the 1921 act to make recommendations for legislation ``to facilitate the prompt and accurate rendition and settlements of accounts and concerning such other matters relating to the receipt, disbursement, and application of public funds as he may think advisable.'' (42 Stat 25-26). The act further directed the Comptroller General to make special investigations and reports when ordered by either House of Congress or by any committee with jurisdiction over revenue, appropriations, and expenditures. GAO was given broad authority to ``investigate, at the seat of the government or elsewhere, all matters relating to the receipt, disbursement, and application of public funds.'' (42 Stat. 25).

Subsequent congressional reorganization measures have expanded the responsibilities and duties of GAO. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 directed the Comptroller General to make an ``expenditure analysis of each agency in the executive branch'' (60 Stat. 837). The 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act expanded GAO's assistance to congressional committees and strengthened its program evaluation responsibilities (84 Stat. 1167-1171). These duties were modified further by provisions of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 326).

The scope of GAO activities has been extended over the years by other statutes dealing with the finances and expenditures of the Federal Government. The Government Corporation Control Act of 1945, for instance, provided for GAO audit authority over mixed-ownership government corporations (59 Stat. 600-601). The Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950 directed the Comptroller General to prescribe principles and standards for accounting in executive agencies (64 Stat. 835). Later, the Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act of 1982 required each agency to establish internal accounting and administrative controls in accordance with standards prescribed by the Comptroller General (96 Stat 814). More recently, the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 gave the Comptroller General enhanced audit authority and the power to review financial audits conducted by an inspector general or an external auditor (104 Stat. 2852-2854).

The Comptroller General and Deputy Comptroller General are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate; the Comptroller General is limited to a single 15-year term. When a vacancy occurs in either office, a bipartisan congressional commission (comprised of the Speaker, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, the chairmen and ranking minority members of the House Government Operations and Senate Governmental Affairs Committees and_for consideration of nominees to the post of Deputy Comptroller_the Comptroller General) is formed to suggest the names of at least three individuals to the President. The President is not bound to appoint any of suggested individuals.

The Comptroller General or Deputy may be removed only by impeachment or by joint resolution of the Congress. In the latter case, advance notice and the opportunity for a hearing must be provided, and the removal can occur only for the following causes: permanent disability, inefficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance, felony conviction, or conduct involving moral turpitude. In the case of impeachment, the constitutional standard of ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' applies.

The General Accounting Office provides a variety of services to the Congress. First and foremost, GAO audits and evaluates Government programs and activities as directed under public law, at the request of congressional committees, subcommittees, and (when time and facilities permit) individual Members of Congress, or under the independent authority of the GAO itself. Its authority to audit government programs is not all encompassing; for example, expenditures of moneys from the contingent accounts of the House and Senate approved by the administrations committees of the Chambers may not be challenged by the GAO or any other governmental entity.

GAO is responsible for prescribing accounting principles and standards for executive agencies; advising agencies on fiscal policies and procedures; and for setting auditing and evaluation standards. The Comptroller General, along with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB, develops standardized information and data processing systems for the Federal Government.

GAO provides a variety of legal services to the Congress, including assistance in drafting legislation and in reviewing legislative proposals and providing advice to Members and committees about legal issues involving Government programs. GAO also assists in the conduct of special investigations of suspected violations of Federal criminal and civil law, typically those involving conflicts of interest, ethics, or procurement and contract fraud.

GAO can provide the above services in various forms including testimony at congressional hearings, oral briefings for individual Members, panels, and staff, assignment of staff to congressional committees, and written products. The written products vary from short letters to individual Members and panels; brief fact-finding sheets and statistics on a subject; and comprehensive reports which may also contain recommendations for corrective measures to problems uncovered by the review.

The Office of Technology Assessment. The Technology Assessment Act of 1972 was the result of 6 years of hearings by various House and Senate committees about the quality of scientific information provided by the executive branch to the Congress. In the belief that congressional resources were inadequate to review the political and policy impact of scientific developments, and that the executive often presented Congress with biased or incomplete information on these issues, the Act created a congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). The statute directed OTA to look into ``physical, biological, economic, social and political effects'' as they related to ``technological applications.''

The Director of OTA is appointed and removed by the Technology Assessment Board (TAB), which is comprised of six Representatives and six Senators equally divided between majority and minority parties. The House provides the chairman in even-numbered Congresses, with the senior minority party Senator serving as vice chairman. In odd-numbered Congresses, the TAB leadership pattern reverses with the Senate chairing, and a senior minority Representative acting as vice chairman. TAB reviews requests for OTA assessments, and approves committee requests for major reports and otherwise supervises the work of the Director in managing OTA workload. The Office of Technology Assessment is the only support agency to be directed by such a management board. It is also the only support agency to be housed entirely in leased, privately-owned office space.

Major OTA assessments are undertaken only after written requests from a committee are submitted to the OTA director and preliminary estimates of staffing costs and project completion times have been presented to the requesting committee for its concurrences. If the TAB ultimately approves the undertaking, OTA staff (in consultation and collaboration with outside contractors) undertake the assessment. OTA relies to a greater degree than any of the other support agencies on the work of contract consultants. Substantial reviews of assessment methodologies and findings are undertaken both by inside staff and by outside peer reviewers and advisory panels. The final product is ultimately approved by the TAB before it is released to the requesting committee.

Not all OTA projects involve such extensive planning, consultation, and preparation. The Director is authorized by the TAB to commit OTA resources on his or her own initiative for follow up studies based on earlier assessments, or in smaller scale research projects. But, for any major commitment of staff and resources generally in excess of one staff-year, the Director obtains approval from the TAB before committing OTA resources to the project.

OTA's staff are housed entirely in leased, privately-owned office space. There have been complaints that the failure to provide space to OTA in congressional facilities diverts funds to office rentals that might otherwise be used in financing additional permanent staff, temporary contract staff, or expansion of other needed facilities. However, to reassign more than two hundred permanent staff, plus an unpredictable number of contractors employed for specific assessments, could require the relocation of substantial numbers of congressional staff from congressional office space to other outlying facilities.

The Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was established pursuant to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 297). The Office formally came into existence with the designation of Alice Rivlin as the first Director of the Congressional Budget Office. Under the 1974 Act, the Director is appointed for a 4-year term upon the joint recommendation of the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate; the Director may be removed unilaterally by the adoption of a resolution to that effect by either House.

The mission of CBO is to provide the Congress with objective, timely, non-partisan analyses, information, and estimates required for the congressional budget process. The primary responsibility of CBO is to assist the House and Senate Budget Committees in their work on budget resolutions and reconciliation measures. This assistance can include, among other forms of aid, estimates of program costs and cost savings, cross-walks (the process of allocating spending authority set in budget resolutions to the appropriate committees), and providing evaluations of economic conditions incidental to revenue and expenditure estimates.

For the other committees of the House and Senate, CBO's primary function is to provide cost estimates of reported legislation. The Budget Act requires committees to include in any written legislative report a 5-year estimate of costs associated with the proposed legislation. Although committees are free to obtain such estimates from other sources, CBO remains the primary source for such estimates.

CBO will assist committees and Members with requests for assistance on other budget-process related inquiries, to the extent that time and other higher priority statutory demands permit. It is not unusual for CBO to inform congressional requesters that the Office will be unable to respond quickly to an inquiry because of their existing workload, or because of Budget Act timetables; in some cases, requesters are encouraged to seek assistance from other congressional support agencies when CBO cannot provide suitable assistance.

The Current Staffing and Administrative Environment

House Personal Staff and Expense Allowance. Each Member receives a ``clerk-hire'' allowance of $557,400 annually. Each may hire up to 18 full-time staff and 4 part-time staff (designated in payroll records as those working less than 40 hours per week, staff shared by two or more Members, or staff on extended maternity or sick leave). Allowances are adjusted for inflation annually by order of the Speaker. Since 1979, the clerk hire allowance has risen by 81 percent while the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has risen by 98 percent. (Historical data on personal, committee, and administrative staff employment in the Congress is contained in Table 2 at the end of this chapter.) The year 1979 is taken as the baseline because by that year, staffing changes authorized under the various reforms of the 1970s had largely been implemented.)

Each Member is authorized an expense allowance based on three factors: mileage between their district and Washington, DC; the rate charged by the GSA for prime office space in their districts, and the cost of long-distance telephone service between Washington and the District. For Members close to Washington (who would therefore get an artificially low allowance) there is a minimum amount not related to distance or office cost. The average allowance is roughly $178,000 annually, and this average has increased by 104 percent since 1979. House Members may use the allowance only to travel between Washington and their Districts, or to travel within their Districts (unlike Senators). House regulations allow Members to pay membership dues from their expense allowance (unlike the Senate); this regulation has helped to support informal groups and caucuses formed primarily by House Members.

Senate Personal Staffing and Expense Allowances. Since 1991, the previously separate Senate allowances for staffing and for official expenses have been combined into a consolidated account, ``Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account.'' The formula for annual adjustments in the consolidated allowance is based loosely on the previously separate allowances for ``administrative and clerical assistance,'' ``legislative assistance'' (the modified S. Res. 60 allowance), and the ``official expenses allowance.'' The consolidation allows each Senator to determine for himself or herself the relative proportion of expense funds that they will devote to staff salaries and to official expenses, such as official travel, telecommunications services, State office expenses, and other matters. Thus, although the allowance provides funds to acquire an amount of rental office space which varies according to State population, a Senator may opt to rent a smaller amount of space, and thus free up funds to employ more staff or to pay current staff higher salaries.

Since Fiscal Year 1992, the amount appropriated by the Senate for the personnel and office expenses account has remained at $185.8 million, providing an ``average'' Senator with salary and expense funds of approximately $1.85 million annually.

Allowance Transferability. The trend in House and Senate allowance regulations has been to give Members of both Chambers greater flexibility in using funds. Representatives may transfer a limited amount of funds between their staffing and expense allowances as circumstances require. The maximum transferable is $50,000 annually either way. The new Senate consolidated staffing and expense allowance gives Senators maximum discretion in the allocation of their funds among staff salaries and official expense costs. In addition, since the House and Senate have established franking allowances, funds from staff or expense money may be transferred to the franking allowance, and from the franking allowance to the personal and expense allowance.

Committee Staffing and Funding. Generally, House standing committees (and Select Intelligence) receive a rule-guaranteed authorization for thirty ``statutory'' staff. One-third of these positions are controlled by the minority.

Funds to hire additional staff are provided from ``inquiries and investigations'' funding resolutions recommended annually by the House Administration Committee, subject to House approval. Each subcommittee chairman and ranking member (for up to six subcommittees per committee) can appoint one staff member each paid from statutory or investigative funds.

In general, the minority controls no more than 20 percent of committee investigative funds. The House Administration Committee report on committee investigative funding for 1989 contained advisory language suggesting that the minority should control at least 20 percent of committee investigative staff positions with an ultimate goal of providing one-third of the investigative positions to the minority. However, Democratic Caucus rules adopted in the 102d Congress now instruct Democratic committee chairmen to refrain from drafting an investigative funds budget giving the minority control over more than 20 percent of a committees' investigative funds. Under House Rules, a committee may vote to establish a non-partisan staff, in lieu of the majority/minority staff provisions outlined above.

Associate Committee Staffing. Four House committees (Appropriations, Budget, Rules, and Ways and Means) permit committee members to appoint ``personal committee staff'' paid from committee funds. These staff are housed in Member offices, and are ultimately accountable to the appointing member. Many members appointing such staff name their administrative assistant or other senior staff to the post and also keep them on their personal payrolls at token salaries. The Appropriations and Budget Committees provide such funds for associate staff at their own discretion, and upon the request of the appointing committee member regardless of party. The Rules Committee can fund such staff for its members through the statutory funds it has automatically under House Rules, or through annual investigative funding. Appropriations Committee members get two associate staff positions each; Budget and Rules committees members, 1 each.

In the 103d Congress, the House Ways and Means Committee took its first formal steps toward providing associate staff positions for its committee members. For several Congresses, the Ways and Means Committee had sought unsuccessfully to get its investigative budget increased sufficiently to allow each committee member to employ one staff member full-time from committee funds; but, the House Administration Committee had consistently blocked such requests. In 1993, the Ways and Means Committee voted to allow each committee member to place one personal staff member on the committee payroll at a maximum salary of $11,000 annually; however, these aides are also paid salaries T1from personal office clerk hire funds.

Appropriations for House and Senate Committee Operations. House appropriations for its committees are contained in several line items in the House section of the annual Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. Total House appropriations for committee operations for Fiscal Year 1994 are $131.1 million, a reduction of $2.8 million since Fiscal Year 1992. Traditionally, the House does not appropriate an amount high enough to equal the salaries and expenses House committees are authorized to incur.

In the Senate, all Senate staff and operations funds are provided in one biennial funding resolution recommended by the Senate Rules and Administration Committee. Since 1981, the Senate has guaranteed the minority control of one-third of committee operating funds, minus costs of staff determined by the chair and ranking member to be non-partisan.

Appropriations for Senate committees for Fiscal Year 1994 are $77 million, an amount unchanged since Fiscal Year 1992. Appropriations for joint committees are $11 million. (Historical data on Legislative Branch Appropriations are presented in Table 3 at the end of this chapter, showing appropriations for various legislative branch functions both in current and in constant dollars).

The Working Environment of Congressional Staff

Employees of the House and Senate generally are not career employees; they are appointed by a Member of Congress, a committee, or an officer of the Congress and can be removed from their posts generally without cause. The administrative officers of the House and Senate have begun to take steps to end purely patronage employment in positions under their control, but attempts to establish a formal personnel system with fixed hours of work, predictable salary ranges for positions, and reasonable guarantees of continued employment regardless of political circumstances are viewed with caution. It is argued that, as a political institution, congressional employment cannot and should not be totally separated from political considerations. The House Administrative Reform Resolution of 1992 gives the Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services authority to establish a personnel system removed from politics for employees under his office's jurisdiction, but such a system remains in the planning stages.

The personal staffs of Representatives and Senators are a key entry point for young professionals. The larger number of personal staff positions in the House and the greater number of House offices in which to find a position make the House a more attractive entry point for young staff. As younger staff seek and find better paid positions in other congressional offices, newer staff replace them.

Senate salaries for comparable positions tend to be higher than House staff salaries. The salary difference is greatest in positions having greater responsibilities: the salaries of Senate administrative assistants are 10 percent higher on average than those of House administrative assistants; average salaries of Senate legislative directors, press secretaries, and legislative assistants are more than 40 percent higher than their House counterparts. Among lower salaried staff, including computer operators, caseworkers, secretaries, and receptionists, the salary differences are negligible.

The variations might be explained by several factors. Senior Senate personal staff have broader responsibilities than their House counterparts. A Senate administrative assistant supervises, on average, a staff of 40 as compared with 15 for a House administrative assistant. House legislative directors rarely supervise more than four legislative assistants and correspondents, while a Senate counterpart could easily supervise ten or more such staff. Senior House personal staff can readily move to a subcommittee staff position controlled by their employing Member when he or she assumes a leadership post on a panel; in addition, nearly one-third of the House serves on committees providing ``associate staff'' positions. Personal staff then can move to higher paid committee staff positions, freeing up personal staff positions than are likely to be filled by less senior and less highly paid successors. The consolidation of Senate allowances permits Senators to devote a higher percentage of their official funds to staff salaries than can House Members who can transfer only a limited amount of money from their expense allowances to their clerk hire accounts.

In general, committee staffs are older, more experienced, and more highly paid than personal staffs, except at the highest levels of responsibility, where salaries between experienced administrative assistants or legislative directors tend to be more comparable.

Each of the congressional support agencies has their own personnel system based to varying degrees on civil service practices in the executive branch. Employment in such agencies is permanent. Moreover, the agencies seek to encourage staff retention by providing employees with substantially greater salary flexibility than is generally found in personnel systems in the executive branch. As a consequence, the highest educational levels, the highest staff tenure, and the highest average staff salaries tend to be found in the support agencies. Since many of the support agencies experienced substantial growth during the 1970s, many of their employees will become eligible for retirement early in the next decade. While substantial experience may be lost to the agencies then, the departure of senior staff will make any staff reductions mandated by Congress easier to implement, and will also provide broader professional opportunities for younger staff.

Staff of the support agencies are generally among the most stable and most highly educated staff on Capitol Hill. The non-partisan work environment and employment regulations insulating these staff from shifts in partisan control of the Congress contributed to high seniority levels and commensurately high staff salaries.

Each of the agencies provides substantial assistance to the congressional community, subject to statutory guidelines set for each. The Congressional Research Service handled more than 600,000 requests from Members, committees, and staff of the Congress during Fiscal Year 1992; nearly half of those requests required the preparation of original reports, memoranda, or information packages. The General Accounting Office received nearly 1,200 requests from committee leaders or congressional officers during Fiscal Year 1992 (and more than 200 requests from individual Members) for the preparation of original reports and program evaluations. An additional 106 assignments were undertaken as a result of statutory mandates. As of May 1993, the Office of Technology Assessment had 58 reports and assessments under way at various stages of production. The Congressional Budget Office produced more than 1,600 products during Fiscal Year 1992, nearly 80 percent of which were bill cost estimates required pursuant to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

Jurisdiction over Congressional Staff and Management Operations. The Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration exercise general legislative authority over measures relating to congressional staff and services of the Congress. Both committees may adjust the personal and expense allowances of their Members based on inflation-related cost changes and other changes in costs and materials. An expansion or contraction of an allowance, or changes in the purposes for which an allowance may be used, must be approved by the full House or Senate, typically by resolution.

Most congressional operations are permanently authorized, unlike most executive branch programs and operations. Committee legislative jurisdiction over the support agencies is fragmented in both Chambers. The Administration Committees share responsibility for the support agencies with several other committees in each Chamber. The Administration Committees, through the Joint Committee on the Library, supervise the Congressional Research Service and they also supervise the Congressional Budget Office, a function they share with the House and Senate Budget Committees. The House Government Operations Committee and Senate Governmental Affairs Committee have authority over the General Accounting Office, but the administration committees also have oversight responsibilities for GAO. The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee have primary legislative authority over the Congressional Budget Office. Typically, each support agency prepares its own annual budget request, and the House and Senate Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittees consider the request directly, without the need for a formal periodic reauthorization by the Congress.

The internal administrative entities of the House and Senate each prepare their annual budget request, and submit it to the Office of Management and Budget for inclusion in the President's Budget via the chief financial officer of the House and Senate. In the Senate, that coordinating responsibility falls to the Secretary of the Senate; in the House, the duty still remains with the Clerk of the House. Beginning with Fiscal Year 1994, it will be transferred to the Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services.

In the absence of regular reauthorization measures for congressional services and for congressional agencies, it is not uncommon as well for the Appropriations Subcommittees to include language in their appropriations bills making certain House or Senate resolutions concerning allowances or management services permanent law despite rules in both the House and Senate banning the inclusion of legislative provisions on appropriations bills. Most recently, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1994 contains legislative provisions directing the budgetary officers of the House and Senate as well as other organizations funded in the legislative bill to reduce their overall staffing levels by 4 percent and administrative costs by 14 percent (both cuts to be achieved after accounting for inflation) by Fiscal Year 1997.