1. Funding for appropriations is way down compared to their historic norms. Appropriations received about $65m for 118th Congress and (adjusting for inflation) $98 m in the 110th Congress.
2. The Appropriations subcommittees do a lot of work and there's 12 of them. They're lightly staffed for the work they do.
3. Appropriations writes the approps bills and was better able to protect their funding levels (although a 2/3s cut is still pretty severe).
I'd always thought that the 104th Congress marked the decline of Congressional spending on itself, but it appears that Gingrich and company actually markedly increased spending on Committees from where the Ds were?
I think the overall spending on committees lags from the prior Congress, so the numbers don't line up. (At least, they line up with a delay). Generally speaking, Democrats increased appropriations for the committees, which led to more money being available for the House Administration Committee and Senate Rules to distribute the following Congress in their funding resolutions. In other words, the appropriations bill is passed by October, an election happens, and then the following March the Admin & Rules Committees distribute those funds.
Once the Republicans have power, they cut the top line appropriations for the committees, which has a follow-up consequence for the second session of the current Congress as well as for the next Congress.
The rise in spending on House committees from the 104th to 111th is interesting. I am trying to discern what drove the increased expenditures. I see a jump in staff employed but only from the 110th to 111th (2008-2010): https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vitalstats_ch5_tbl5.pdf. And the leap in expenditures from the 103rd to the 104th does not align with a leap in H comm staff.
Any idea why appropriators get/ need so much more funding than other committees?
I have three thoughts on this.
1. Funding for appropriations is way down compared to their historic norms. Appropriations received about $65m for 118th Congress and (adjusting for inflation) $98 m in the 110th Congress.
2. The Appropriations subcommittees do a lot of work and there's 12 of them. They're lightly staffed for the work they do.
3. Appropriations writes the approps bills and was better able to protect their funding levels (although a 2/3s cut is still pretty severe).
Excellent article. One thing that everyone in Congress ignores is Article I, Section 8
making the majority of the things on the list as unconstitutional spending.
I’m not sure I follow you. Say more.
I'd always thought that the 104th Congress marked the decline of Congressional spending on itself, but it appears that Gingrich and company actually markedly increased spending on Committees from where the Ds were?
I think the overall spending on committees lags from the prior Congress, so the numbers don't line up. (At least, they line up with a delay). Generally speaking, Democrats increased appropriations for the committees, which led to more money being available for the House Administration Committee and Senate Rules to distribute the following Congress in their funding resolutions. In other words, the appropriations bill is passed by October, an election happens, and then the following March the Admin & Rules Committees distribute those funds.
Once the Republicans have power, they cut the top line appropriations for the committees, which has a follow-up consequence for the second session of the current Congress as well as for the next Congress.
The rise in spending on House committees from the 104th to 111th is interesting. I am trying to discern what drove the increased expenditures. I see a jump in staff employed but only from the 110th to 111th (2008-2010): https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vitalstats_ch5_tbl5.pdf. And the leap in expenditures from the 103rd to the 104th does not align with a leap in H comm staff.
Hmmm.... Very interesting!
Thanks, Kevin. I'm happy to share my spreadsheet that lets you look committee by committee if you're interested.