Contents

• Most Recent Developments
• Prior Year Funding: Figures and Tables
• Status of FY2013 Appropriations
• Submission of FY2013 Budget Request on February 13, 2012
• Senate and House Hearings on the FY2013 Budget Requests
• The Budget Control Act (BCA), the American Taxpayer Relief Act, and FY2013 Spending Levels
• House Appropriations Subcommittee and Full Committee Markups and Report
• House Rules Committee and Consideration of H.Res. 679
• House Floor Consideration of H.R. 5882
• Senate Appropriations Committee Report
• FY2013 Legislative Branch Funding Issues
• Senate
• Overall Funding
• Senate Committee Funding
• Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account
• House of Representatives
• Overall Funding
• House Committee Funding
• Members' Representational Allowance
• Support Agency Funding
• U.S. Capitol Police
• Architect of the Capitol
• Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
• Library of Congress (LOC)
• Government Accountability Office (GAO)
• Government Printing Office (GPO)
• Office of Compliance
• Open World Leadership Center
• John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development

Summary

The legislative branch appropriations bill provides funding for the Senate; House of Representatives; Joint Items; Capitol Police; Office of Compliance; Congressional Budget Office (CBO); Architect of the Capitol (AOC); Library of Congress, including the Congressional Research Service (CRS); Government Printing Office (GPO); Government Accountability Office (GAO); and Open World Leadership Center.

The legislative branch FY2013 budget request of $4.512 billion was submitted on February 13, 2012. The FY2013 request represented an increase of $205.5 million over the $4.307 billion in discretionary funding provided in the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74). The House and Senate Appropriations Committees Legislative Branch Subcommittees held hearings to consider the FY2013 legislative branch requests. Among issues that were considered during hearings were: the tight budget environment, prioritization of budget resources, and further options for potential savings or efficiencies; state and district office security; preparations and funding for the January 2013 Presidential Inauguration; deferred maintenance around the Capitol Complex, including the Capitol Dome; and the future of government printing in the digital age.

On May 18, 2012, the House legislative branch subcommittee marked up a bill that would have provided nearly $3.333 billion for FY2013, a decrease of 1.0% from FY2012 (not including Senate items). The full committee held its markup on May 31, during which four amendments were considered, and two were adopted. The bill, H.R. 5882, was reported by voice vote. The Rules Committee reported a rule for consideration of the bill, H.Res. 679, on June 6, which was agreed to the following day. On June 8, 2012, the House considered H.R. 5882, adopting five amendments and rejecting two, before passing it by recorded vote. On August 2, 2012, the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up a $4.320 billion amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5882. The substitute was ordered reported by a recorded vote of 22–8. This vote followed an amendment to the mark offered by the chairman to include $61.2 million for the Capitol Dome restoration. No further action on H.R. 5882 was taken. The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (P.L. 112-175) provided funding for the legislative branch at the FY2012 level, increased by 0.612%, through March 27, 2013. H.R. 933, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 was signed into law on March 26, 2013 (P.L. 113-6). The act funds legislative branch accounts at the FY2012 enacted level, not including some anomalies and minus an across-the-board rescission. The sequestration reductions implemented on March 1, which apply to the legislative branch, are discussed but not calculated in this report.

The legislative branch budget has decreased the past two fiscal years. The FY2012 level represented a decrease of $236.9 million (-5.2%) from the FY2011 level, which represented a $125.1 million decrease (-2.7%) from FY2010. P.L. 112-10 (enacted on April 15, 2011) provided $4.543 billion for FY2011 legislative branch operations. P.L. 111-68 (enacted on October 1, 2009) provided $4.656 billion for FY2010. The FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-212) provided an additional $12.96 million for the Capitol Police. The FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8, enacted on March 11, 2009) provided $4.402 billion. In FY2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) provided an additional $25.0 million for GAO, and the FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-32) provided $71.6 million for the Capitol Police and $2.0 million for the CBO.

---

Legislative Branch: FY2013 Appropriations

Most Recent Developments

The legislative branch budget request of $4.512 billion, which was included in the President's budget, was submitted to Congress on February 13, 2012. The requested level represents a 4.8% ($205.5 million) increase over the FY2012 enacted level.

In February and March 2012, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees' Legislative Branch Subcommittees both held hearings during which Members considered the FY2013 legislative branch requests.¹

Following House subcommittee and full committee markups on May 18 and May 31, respectively, the Appropriations Committee reported a bill that would have provided nearly $3.333 billion for FY2013, a decrease of 1.0% from FY2012 (not including Senate items). On June 8, 2012, the House considered H.R. 5882, adopting five amendments (reducing total funding by $3.113 million) and rejecting two amendments, before passing the bill by recorded vote.

On August 2, 2012, the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up and ordered reported an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5882. The substitute, which would have provided $4.320 billion in new budget authority, was ordered reported by a recorded vote of 22–8.

The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (H.J.Res. 117, P.L. 112-175) was introduced in the House on September 10, which passed it on September 13. The Senate passed it without amendment on September 22, and it was enacted on September 28, 2012. The law provided funding for the legislative branch at the FY2012 level, increased by 0.612% (Section 101(c)), until either the enactment of a subsequent appropriations law or through March 27, 2013.²

Prior Year Funding: Figures and Tables

Division G of the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74), which was enacted on December 23, 2011, provided $4.307 billion in discretionary funding for the legislative branch. This level was $236.9 million (-5.2%) below the FY2011 enacted level.

Previously, P.L. 112-10 provided $4.543 billion for legislative branch operations in FY2011. This level represented a $125.1 million decrease from the $4.668 billion provided in the FY2010 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-68) and the FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-212). The FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act provided $4.402 billion.³ In FY2009, an additional $25.0 million was provided for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.⁴ P.L. 111-32, the FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act, also contained funding for the police radio system ($71.6 million) and Congressional Budget Office ($2.0 million).⁵

Figure 1 compares legislative branch discretionary budget authority with total discretionary budget authority since FY1976. It shows the average annual proportion of total discretionary budget authority over this period is approximately 0.4%. The highest proportional full-year level, 0.48%, was in FY1995, and the lowest, 0.31%, was in FY2009. Figure 2 shows the timing of legislative branch appropriations reports, bill passage, and enactment from FY1992-FY2012. Figure 3 demonstrates the division of budget authority across the legislative branch in the most recent appropriations act. Table 1 provides additional information on legislative branch funding provided in annual and supplemental appropriations acts.

Figure 1. Legislative Branch as a Proportion of Total Discretionary Budget Authority Percentage by Fiscal Year, FY1976-FY2012

Source: Calculations by CRS with data from Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, FY2013, Table 5.4—Discretionary Budget Authority By Agency: 1976–2017; available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals. Notes: This graph does not include the FY1976 transition quarter, so all intervals represent 12 months. FY2012 is derived from the OMB "2012 Estimate." The table has some limitations, since the OMB data do not completely align with items funded in the annual and supplemental legislative branch appropriations acts. The differences may be partially traced to the definition of "legislative branch" in the OMB Public Budget Database "user's guide." Some entities regularly included with the legislative branch in many OMB budget documents, like the United States Tax Court and some Legislative Branch Boards and Commissions, are not funded through the annual legislative branch appropriations acts. Consequently, an examination of the discretionary budget authority listed in the Historical Tables reveals some differences with the reported total budget authority provided in the annual legislative branch appropriations acts. The difference in legislative branch budget authority resulting from the different definitions of the legislative branch in the OMB budget documents and in the appropriations acts, however, does not represent a large difference in the proportion of total discretionary budget authority.

Figure 2. Timing of Legislative Branch Appropriations Consideration: 1992-2012

Source: Congressional Research Service. Notes: When House and Senate action occurs on the same date, the House is shown first. The FY2010 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-68) is listed in this figure as stand-alone legislation (Division A), although it was also the vehicle for a continuing appropriations resolution (Division B).

Figure 3. FY2012 Legislative Branch Appropriations: Division of Budget Authority

Source: P.L. 112-74, calculations by the Congressional Research Service. Notes: Does not include offsetting collections or authority to spend receipts. May not add due to rounding.

Status of FY2013 Appropriations

Submission of FY2013 Budget Request on February 13, 2012

The FY2013 U.S. Budget submitted on February 13, 2012, contained a request for $4.512 billion in new budget authority for legislative branch activities, an increase of approximately 4.8% from the FY2012 enacted level.⁶

By law, the legislative branch request is submitted to the President and included in the budget without change.⁷

Senate and House Hearings on the FY2013 Budget Requests

Table 3 lists the dates of hearings of the Legislative Branch Subcommittees in 2012.

The Budget Control Act (BCA), the American Taxpayer Relief Act, and FY2013 Spending Levels

FY2013 discretionary appropriations were considered in the context of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25), which established discretionary spending limits for FY2012-FY2021. The BCA also tasked a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to develop a federal deficit reduction plan for Congress and the President to enact by January 15, 2012. Because deficit reduction legislation was not enacted by that date, an automatic spending reduction process established by the BCA was triggered; this process consists of a combination of sequestration and lower discretionary spending caps, initially scheduled to begin on January 2, 2013. The "joint committee" sequestration process for FY2013 requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to implement across-the-board spending cuts at the account and program level to achieve equal budget reductions from both defense and nondefense funding at a percentage to be determined, under terms specified in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA, Title II of P.L. 99-177, 2 U.S.C. 900-922), as amended by the BCA. For further information on the Budget Control Act, see CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed].

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA, P.L. 112-240), enacted on January 2, 2013, made a number of significant changes to the procedures in the BCA that will take place during FY2013. First, the date for the joint committee sequester to be implemented was delayed for two months, until March 1, 2013. Second, the dollar amount of the joint committee sequester was reduced by $24 billion. Third, the statutory caps on discretionary spending for FY2013 (and FY2014) were lowered. For further information on the changes to BCA procedures made by ATRA, see CRS Report R42949, The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012: Modifications to the Budget Enforcement Procedures in the Budget Control Act, by [author name scrubbed]

Pursuant to the BCA, as amended by ATRA, President Obama ordered that the joint committee sequester be implemented on March 1, 2013.⁸ The accompanying OMB report indicated a dollar amount of budget authority to be canceled in each account containing non-exempt funds.⁹ The sequester will ultimately be applied at the program, project, and activity (PPA) level within each account.¹⁰ Because the sequester was implemented at the time that a temporary continuing resolution (P.L. 112-175) was in force, the reductions were calculated on an annualized basis and will be apportioned throughout the remainder of the fiscal year.¹¹ Additionally, an OMB letter released April 4, 2013, estimated that P.L. 113-6 provides $4.277 billion in non-security FY2013 legislative branch budget authority and $8 million in security budget authority, not including $9 million in across‐the‐board rescissions, and not including sequestration reductions.¹² This report will be updated when final FY2013 funding levels for each agency or account, including the across-the-board rescission and the sequestration reductions, are available.

House Appropriations Subcommittee and Full Committee Markups and Report

On May 18, 2012, the House legislative branch subcommittee met to mark up a bill that would have provided nearly $3.333 billion for FY2013 (-1.0%), not including Senate items, which are determined by the Senate.

The full committee held its markup on May 31. Among the issues raised at the markup or in the report were district office security, plans to fund the Architect of the Capitol dome project in future years, report language regarding bulk data downloads, and the use of House funds for legal services related to the Defense of Marriage Act.

Four amendments were considered, and two were adopted:

• 1. A manager's amendment increasing the appropriation for the Botanic Garden by $140,000 and reducing the Government Printing Office revolving fund by the same amount. The amendment, which was adopted, also allows for activities in Union Square that were permissible prior to the transfer of that land to the Architect of the Capitol from the National Park Service (Section 212 of the bill).
• 2. An amendment, offered by Mr. Honda, requiring the House Inspector General to provide the House Appropriations Committee with a copy of each audit and report the office produces (Section 104 of the bill). The amendment was adopted.
• 3. An amendment, offered by Mr. Flake, related to the use of official funds for online advertising, which was not adopted.
• 4. An amendment, offered by Mr. Flake, requiring each piece of mass mail to include the aggregate cost of the mailing, which was not adopted.

The bill, H.R. 5882 (H.Rept. 112-511), was reported by voice vote.

House Rules Committee and Consideration of H.Res. 679

The House Rules Committee announced in a "Dear Colleague" letter issued on June 1, 2012, that Members wishing to offer an amendment to H.R. 5882 must submit copies of the amendment and an explanation by 4 p.m. on June 5. The committee announced that it would meet at 3 p.m. on June 6 to consider H.R. 5882. Members submitted 26 proposed amendments.¹³

The Rules Committee subsequently reported H.Res. 679, which provided for the consideration of both H.R. 436, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices, and H.R. 5882, the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. The report, H.Rept. 112-518, provided the rules for consideration of the bill as well as a summary of the seven amendments made in order.

H.Res. 679 was agreed to in the House on June 7, 2012, with a vote of 241-173 (Roll no. 359).

House Floor Consideration of H.R. 5882

On June 8, 2012, the House considered H.R. 5882. The seven amendments included in H.Rept. 112-518 were considered, and five were adopted, as follows:

• 1. H.Amdt. 1278, offered by Mr. Gosar, to reduce funding for the Botanic Garden by $1,235,000 from the House-reported level, was agreed to by recorded vote (213-193, Roll no. 371).
• 2. H.Amdt. 1279, offered by Mr. Broun, to reduce funding for the Congressional Research Service by $878,000 from the House-reported level, was agreed to by recorded vote (214-189, Roll no. 372).
• 3. H.Amdt. 1280, offered by Mr. Holt, to "adjust funding for Congressional Printing and Binding under the GPO to address the availability of pocket versions of the United States Constitution for members of the House," which was agreed to by voice vote.
• 4. H.Amdt. 1281, offered by Mr. Scalise, to reduce funding for the Open World Leadership Center by $1,000,000 from the House-reported level, was agreed to by recorded vote (204-203, Roll no. 373).
• 5. H.Amdt. 1282, offered by Mr. Moran, to prohibit the use of polystyrene products in food service facilities in the House of Representatives, which failed by recorded vote (178-229, Roll no. 374). Previously, a similar amendment was offered and rejected during consideration of the FY2012 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill in the House Appropriations Committee and on the floor (H.Amdt. 712 to H.R. 2551).
• 6. H.Amdt. 1283, offered by Mr. Harper, to limit the number of copies of the U.S. Code printed for the House of Representatives to 50 copies, which was agreed to by voice vote.
• 7. H.Amdt. 1284, offered by Mr. Flake, to prohibit funding for the purchase of paid online advertisements by Members, committees, and leadership offices, which failed by recorded vote (148-261, Roll no. 375). Previously, a similar amendment was offered and rejected during consideration of the FY2012 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill in the House Appropriations Committee and on the floor (H.Amdt. 710 to H.R. 2551).

A motion to recommit with instructions, reducing funding for the Members' Representational Allowance, failed by recorded vote (101-309, Roll no. 376), and the bill passed by recorded vote (307-102, Roll no. 377).

Senate Appropriations Committee Report

On August 2, 2012, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 5882 (S.Rept. 112-197) with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by a recorded vote of 22-8.

FY2013 Legislative Branch Funding Issues

The following sections discuss the various legislative branch accounts as well as issues discussed during the hearings on the budget requests.

Senate¹⁴

Overall Funding

The Senate requested $910.5 million for FY2013, an increase of 4.8% ($41.9 million) over the FY2012 level of $868.6 million. The Senate committee-reported version of H.R. 5882 would have provided $871.3 million, an increase of 0.3% ($2.7 million).

The FY2012 level represented a decrease of $45.6 million (-5.0%) from the $914.2 million provided in FY2011, and the FY2011 level represented a reduction of $12.0 million (-1.3%) from the FY2010 level of $926.2 million.

FY2013 requests and FY2012 funding levels for headings within the Senate account are presented in Table 5.

Senate Committee Funding

Appropriations for Senate committees are contained in two accounts:¹⁵

• The inquiries and investigations account contains funds for all Senate committees except Appropriations. The Senate requested $138.0 million for inquiries and investigations, an increase of $6.7 million (5.1%) from the $131.3 million provided in FY2012. The committee-reported bill would have provided $133.9 million, an increase of $2.6 million (2.0%). The FY2012 level was a decrease of $8.9 million (-6.4%) from the $140.2 million provided in FY2011 and FY2010.
• The Committee on Appropriations account contains funds for the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Senate requested $14.9 million, which is equal to the FY2012 enacted and FY2013 committee-reported level.

Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account

The Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account provides each Senator with funds to administer an office. It consists of an administrative and clerical assistance allowance, a legislative assistance allowance, and an official office expense allowance. The funds may be used for any category of expenses, subject to limitations on official mail.

The Senate requested $425.6 million for FY2013, an increase of $29.4 million (7.4%) from the FY2012 level of $396.2 million. The Senate-reported bill would have provided $394.2 million, a decrease of $1.98 million (-0.5%).

The FY2012 level represented a decrease of $13.0 million (-3.2%) from the FY2011 level of $409.2 million. The FY2012 decrease followed a decrease in FY2011 of $12.8 million (-3.0%) from the FY2010 level of $422.0 million.¹⁶

Highlights of the Senate Hearing on the FY2013 Budget of the Senate

At a hearing on March 22, 2012, the Senate subcommittee discussed new responsibilities for the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms related to financial disclosure forms required under the STOCK Act (S. 2038, P.L. 112-105);¹⁷ the Senate Information Services Program (SIS) operating budget; requested increases for state office security; and costs related to the January 2013 Presidential Inauguration.

House of Representatives

Overall Funding

H.R. 5882, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee, would have provided $1.226 billion for FY2013, the same level as requested for FY2013 and provided in FY2012.

The FY2012 level represented a decrease of $85.7 million (-6.5%) from the FY2011 level of $1.311 billion. The FY2011 level represented a decrease of $57.6 million (-4.2%) from the FY2010 level of $1.369 billion.

In related action, on January 6, 2011, the House agreed to H.Res. 22 (112^th Congress), which reduced the authorized amounts for the Members' Representational Allowances, House leadership offices, and all committees except the Committee on Appropriations by 5%, with a 9% reduction for the Committee on Appropriations.

FY2013 requests and FY2012 funding levels for headings in the House of Representatives account are presented in Table 6.

House Committee Funding¹⁸

Funding for House committees is contained in the appropriation heading "committee employees," which comprises two subheadings.

The first subheading contains funds for personnel and nonpersonnel expenses of House committees, except the Appropriations Committee, as authorized by the House in a committee expense resolution. H.R. 5882, as reported, would have provided the FY2012 level of $126.0 million. The House had requested $126.4 million, an increase of $399,000 (0.3%). The FY2012 level was a decrease of $8.6 million from the $134.5 million provided for FY2011. The FY2011 level was a decrease of $5.3 million from the $139.9 million provided in FY2010.

The second subheading contains funds for the personnel and nonpersonnel expenses of the Committee on Appropriations. H.R. 5882, as reported, would have provided $26.7 million for FY2013, the same level as the FY2013 request and the FY2012 enacted level. The FY2012 level was a decrease of $1.8 million from the FY2011 level of $28.5 million, which was a decrease of $2.8 million from the FY2010 level of $31.3 million.

Members' Representational Allowance¹⁹

The Members' Representational Allowance (MRA) is available to support Members in their official and representational duties. The House-passed bill would have provided $573.9 million, the same level as provided for FY2012 and contained in the FY2013 request. This level was $39.1 million less than the $613.1 million provided in FY2011. The FY2011 level was a decrease of nearly $47.0 million from the $660.0 million provided in FY2010.

Highlights of the House Hearing on the FY2013 Budget of the House of Representatives

At a hearing on March 27, 2012, the House subcommittee continued discussion from the FY2012 hearings related to district office security and expenses for legal services related to the Defense of Marriage Act, as well as reduced budgets for Member offices; subscription services; implementation of the STOCK Act, including costs related to new public filing and disclosure responsibilities of the Clerk of the House; diversity policies; constitutional authority statements required pursuant to House Rule XII and H.Res. 5; and the activities of the House Inspector General.

Support Agency Funding

U.S. Capitol Police

The U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) are responsible for the security of the Capitol Complex including the U.S. Capitol, the House and Senate office buildings, the U.S. Botanic Garden, and the Library of Congress buildings and adjacent grounds.

The USCP requested $373.8 million for FY2013, an increase of $33.6 million (9.9%). The House-passed version of H.R. 5882 would have provided $360.1 million, an increase of $20.0 million (5.9%). The Senate-reported bill would have provided $333.1 million, a decrease of $7.0 million
(-2.1%).

The FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act provided $340.1 million, the same level as for FY2011. Previously, the FY2010 appropriations act provided $328.3 million, and P.L. 111-212 provided an additional $12.96 million in supplemental appropriations.

The USCP FY2013 request and FY2012 funding level are presented in Table 7.

Appropriations for the police are contained in two accounts—a salaries account and a general expenses account. The salaries account contains funds for the salaries of employees; overtime pay; hazardous duty pay differential; and government contributions for employee health, retirement, Social Security, professional liability insurance, and other benefit programs. The general expenses account contains funds for expenses of vehicles; communications equipment; security equipment and its installation; dignitary protection; intelligence analysis; hazardous material response; uniforms; weapons; training programs; medical, forensic, and communications services; travel; relocation of instructors for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; and other administrative and technical support, among other expenses.

• Salaries—The Capitol Police requested $303.1 million for salaries (an increase of nearly $26 million, or 9.4%, from the FY2012 level of $277.1 million). The House-passed bill would have provided $297.1 million (an increase of nearly $20.0 million, or 7.2%). The Senate-reported bill would have continued funding at the FY2012 enacted level.
• General Expenses—The Capitol Police requested $70.6 million for general expenses (an increase of $7.6 million, or 12.1%). The House-passed bill would have provided $63.0 million (the same as provided in FY2012). The Senate-reported bill would have provided $56.0 million (a decrease of $7.0 million, or -11.1%).

The FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act continued funding for both salaries and general expenses at the FY2011 level.

Another appropriation relating to the Capitol Police appears within the Architect of the Capitol account for Capitol Police buildings and grounds. The Capitol Police had requested $30.8 million, an increase of $9.3 million (43.3%) from the FY2012 level of $21.5 million. The House-passed bill would have provided $20.9 million (a decrease of $633,000, or -2.9%). The Senate-reported bill would have provided $22.6 million (an increase of $1.1 million, or 5.1%). The FY2011 enacted level was nearly $27.0 million.

Administrative Provisions

The House-passed bill included two administrative provisions, providing authority to transfer between salaries and expenses (Section 1001) and making "available balances of expired United States Capitol Police appropriations" available for "deposit to the credit of the Employees' Compensation Fund required by section 8147(b) of title 5, United States Code" (Section 1002). The Senate-reported bill also contained these two provisions.

Highlights of the House and Senate Hearings on the FY2013 Budget of the U.S. Capitol Police

At a hearing on March 22, 2012, the Senate subcommittee discussed costs related to the January 2013 Presidential Inauguration; overtime costs; and the radio modernization project.

On February 8, 2012, the House subcommittee discussed the response to the earthquake on August 23, 2011; the transfer of Union Square and public access; the status of a discrimination lawsuit; the mission of the Capitol Police; measures to control overtime costs; inauguration planning; and district office security.

Architect of the Capitol

The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible for the maintenance, operation, development, and preservation of the United States Capitol Complex, which includes the Capitol and its grounds, House and Senate office buildings, Library of Congress buildings and grounds, Capitol power plant, Botanic Garden, Capitol Visitor Center, and Capitol Police buildings and grounds. The Architect is responsible for the Supreme Court buildings and grounds, but appropriations for their expenses are not contained in the legislative branch appropriations bill.

Overall Funding Levels

Operations of the Architect are funded in the following 10 accounts: general administration, Capitol building, Capitol grounds, Senate office buildings, House office buildings, Capitol power plant, Library buildings and grounds, Capitol Police buildings and grounds, Capitol Visitor Center, and Botanic Garden.

The Architect requested $668.2 million, an increase of $100.7 million (17.7%) from the FY2012 level of $567.5 million.

The House-reported bill would have provided $444.0 million, not including funding for the Senate office buildings, which is determined by the Senate. As stated above, H.Amdt. 1278 reduced the budget for the Botanic Garden by $1,235,000 from the House-reported level (213-193, Roll no. 371), reducing the overall level to $442.8 million, not including funding for the Senate office buildings. The Senate-reported bill would have provided $579.8 million, an increase of $12.3 million (2.2%).

The Senate Appropriations Committee, at its markup on August 2, passed an amendment to provide funding for the restoration of the Capitol Dome. The Senate report states that $61.2 million, the same as requested, was provided for phase IIA of this project.²⁰ This funding was included in the AOC "Capitol Building" account. The House-passed level for this account was $28.6 million, while the Senate-reported funding level was $91.2 million.

The FY2012 level represented a decrease of $32.9 million (-5.5%) from the FY2011 enacted level of $600.4 million (not including a rescission of $14.6 million in unobligated amounts of prior year appropriations for the Capitol Visitor Center contained in the FY2011 act). The FY2011 level represented a decrease of $1.2 million (-0.2%) from the $601.6 million provided in FY2010. In FY2010, a 21.7% increase (or $644.6 million) was requested, and a 13.6% increase was provided ($601.6 million).²¹ In FY2009, a 55.4% increase ($642.7 million) was requested, and a 28% increase ($529.6 million) was provided. The FY2008 budget authority ($413.5 million) represented a decrease of 8.1% from the $449.9 million (including supplemental appropriations) provided in FY2007.

The FY2013 request and FY2012 funding level for each of the AOC accounts are presented in Table 8.

Administrative Provision

The House-passed bill included an administrative provision making "available balances of expired Architect of the Capitol appropriations" available for "deposit to the credit of the Employees' Compensation Fund required by section 8147(b) of title 5, United States Code" (Section 1301). The Senate-reported bill also contained this provision.

Highlights of the House and Senate Hearings on the FY2013 Budget of the Architect of the Capitol

At a hearing on March 1, 2012, the Senate subcommittee discussed the Capitol Dome skirt project; the Capitol power plant and chiller capacity; potential consolidation of financial management systems; fire and life safety priorities; and improvements to Union Square, which includes the Capitol reflecting pool and the Grant Memorial.

At a hearing on February 9, 2012, the House subcommittee discussed the AOC policy on workplace harassment; maintenance of the Capitol Visitor Center; the potential for co-generation at the Capitol power plant; garage maintenance; and the occupation of Federal Office Building #8.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

CBO is a nonpartisan congressional agency created to provide objective economic and budgetary analysis to Congress. CBO cost estimates are required for any measure reported by a regular or conference committee that may vary revenues or expenditures.²²

CBO requested $44.6 million for FY2013, an $850,000 increase (1.9%) from the $43.8 million provided for FY2012. The House-passed bill would have provided $44.3 million, an increase of $493,000 (1.1%). The Senate-reported bill would have provided $44.6 million, the same as the request.

The FY2012 level represented a decrease of 6.4% from the FY2011 level of $46.8 million. CBO received $45.2 million for FY2010; $44.1 million was provided in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8), and $2.0 million, to remain available through FY2010, was provided in the FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-32).

Administrative Provisions

CBO requested two administrative provisions for FY2013. The requested provisions would

• 1. allow CBO's appropriation to be used to pay the compensation of certain employees with non-immigrant visas, a provision also requested in FY2012, and
• 2. allow CBO to accept the use of voluntary student services as part of an agency program established for the purpose of providing educational experiences for the student.

The House-passed bill contained the voluntary student services provision. The Senate-reported bill did not contain either provision.

Highlights of the House and Senate Hearings on the FY2013 Budget of CBO

At the House hearing on February 7, 2012, the subcommittee discussed zero-based budgeting; CBO's scorekeeping unit; proposed legislation which would require dynamic scoring; and proposals to move to biennial budgeting.

At a hearing on March 15, 2012, the Senate subcommittee discussed CBO's staffing plan and resources, including deferred IT purchases and upgrades.

Library of Congress (LOC)

The Library of Congress serves simultaneously as Congress's parliamentary library and the de facto national library of the United States. Its broader services to the nation include the acquisition, maintenance, and preservation of a collection of more than 147 million items²³ in a wide range of traditional and new media; service to the general public and scholarly and library communities; administration of U.S. copyright laws by its Copyright Office; and administration of a national program to provide reading material to the blind and physically handicapped. Its direct services to Congress include the provision of legal research and law-related services by the Law Library of Congress, and a broad range of activities by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), including in-depth and nonpartisan public policy research, analysis, and legislative assistance for Members and committees and their staff; congressional staff training; information and statistics retrieval; and continuing legal education for Members of both chambers and congressional staff.

The Library requested $603.6 million for FY2013, an increase of $16.2 million (2.8%) from the FY2012 level of $587.3 million. The House-reported bill would have provided $592.6 million, an increase of $5.3 million (0.9%). H.Amdt. 1279, which reduced funding for the Congressional Research Service by $878,000, reduced this overall level to $591.8 million (0.8%). The Senate-reported bill would have provided $592.2 million, an increase of $4.9 million (0.8%).

The FY2012 level represented a decrease of $41.3 million (-6.6%) from the FY2011 level of $628.7 million. The FY2011 level represented a decrease of $14.7 million (-2.3%) from the $643.3 million provided in FY2010. The FY2010 level represented an increase of 6.0% over the FY2009 level of $607.1 million,²⁴ and the FY2009 level represented an increase of approximately 7.8% over the $563.0 million provided in the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act. These figures do not include additional authority to spend receipts.²⁵

The FY2013 budget contains the following headings:

• Salaries and expenses—The Library requested $423.7 million (not including $6.35 million in authority to spend receipts), an increase of $9.96 million (2.4%) from the FY2012 level of $413.7 million (not including $6.35 million in authority to spend receipts). The House-passed bill would have provided $415.7 million (an increase of $1.9 million, or 0.5%). The Senate-reported bill would have provided $415.9 million (an increase of $2.2 million, or 0.5%). The FY2012 level represented a decrease of $18.0 million (-4.2%) from the FY2011 level of $431.8 million. The FY2011 level was an $8.0 million decrease (-1.8%) from the $439.8 million provided for FY2010.
• Copyright Office—The Library requested $19.2 million for the copyright office, an increase of $3.0 million (18.7%) from the $16.1 million provided in the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The House-passed bill would have provided $18.5 million (an increase of $2.4 million, or 14.8%). The Senate-reported bill would have provided $18.3 million (an increase of $2.2 million, or 13.4%). The FY2012 level represented a decrease of $1.7 million (-9.5%). The FY2011 level of $17.8 million was a decrease of $3.0 million (-14.6%) from the $20.9 million provided for FY2010. These levels do not include authority to spend receipts.
• Congressional Research Service—The FY2013 request contained $109.2 million for CRS, an increase of $2.4 million (2.3%), from the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act level of $106.8 million. The House-reported bill would have provided $107.7 million (an increase of $878,000, or 0.8%).²⁶ H.Amdt. 1279, which was agreed to by recorded vote (214-189, Roll no. 372), reduced funding for the Congressional Research Service by $878,000. The Senate-reported bill would have provided $107.3 million (an increase of $534,000, or 0.5%). The FY2012 level represented a decrease of $4.2 million (-3.8%) from the FY2011 level of $111.0 million. The FY2011 level was a decrease of $1.5 million (-1.3%) from the $112.5 million provided for FY2010.
• Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped—The Library requested $51.5 million, an increase of $848,000 (1.7%) from the $50.7 million provided in the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The House-passed bill would have provided $50.8 million (an increase of $101,000, or 0.2%). The Senate-reported bill would have maintained the FY2012 level. The FY2012 level represented a decrease of $17.4 million (-25.5%) from the $68.0 million provided for FY2011. The FY2011 level was a decrease of $2.1 million (-3.0%) from the $70.2 million provided for FY2010.

The Architect's budget also contains funds for the Library buildings and grounds. The House-passed bill would have provided $30.7 million (a decrease of $16.2 million, or -34.6%). The Senate-reported bill would have provided $30.96 million (a decrease of $15.9 million, or -33.9%). The FY2013 request includes $53.6 million (an increase of $6.7 million, or 14.3%). The FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act provided $46.9 million, an increase of $1.2 million (2.6%) from the $45.7 million provided for FY2011. The FY2011 level represented a 0.2% reduction (-$92,000) from the $45.8 million provided for Library buildings and grounds in FY2010.

Administrative Provisions

The Library requested two administrative provisions, which were included in the House-passed bill, related to authority to obligate funds for reimbursable and revolving fund activities and providing permanent transfer authority. The Senate-reported bill contained these provisions, as well as additional provisions amending the revolving fund and gift statutes, and changing the terminology used in determining eligibility for the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped from "physically handicapped" to "persons with disabilities," although, according to the Senate report, the services from the program "will continue to be limited to blind and physically handicapped residents of the United States who are unable to read normal printed material."²⁷

Highlights of the House and Senate Hearings on the FY2013 Budget of the Library of Congress

At a hearing on February 7, 2012, the House subcommittee examined zero-based budgeting efforts; inflationary costs; the Library's Twitter archive; General Services Administration (GSA) rental costs; the Veterans' Oral History Project and the Civil Rights Oral History Project; the copyright small claims court project; and the Library's overseas operations, including the operation of the Cairo office during the "Arab Spring."

At a hearing on March 1, 2012, the Senate subcommittee discussed the consequences of budget cuts in FY2011 and FY2012 and prioritization of the budget for FY2013; the buyout conducted in the first quarter of FY2012 and the departure of 186 staff; and the Library's request for the Ft. Meade storage module.

Government Accountability Office (GAO)

GAO works for Congress by responding to requests for studies of federal government programs and expenditures. GAO may also initiate its own work.²⁸ Formerly the General Accounting Office, the agency was renamed the Government Accountability Office effective July 7, 2004.

GAO requested $526.2 million for FY2013, an increase of $14.9 million (2.9%) over the $511.3 million provided in FY2012.The House-passed bill would have provided $519.8 million (an increase of $8.5 million, or 1.7%). The Senate-reported bill would have provided $513.8 (an increase of $2.5 million, or 0.5%). The FY2012 level represented a decrease of $34.96 million (-6.4%) from the $546.3 million provided for FY2011. The FY2011 level was a decrease of $10.6 million (-1.9%) from the $556.9 million GAO received in FY2010. GAO received $531.0 million in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act and an additional $25.0 million in P.L. 111-5 to cover responsibilities under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. These levels do not include offsetting collections.²⁹

Administrative Provision

The House-passed bill included an administrative provision making "available balances of expired Government Accountability Office appropriations" available for "deposit to the credit of the Employees' Compensation Fund required by section 8147(b) of title 5, United States Code" (Section 1501). The Senate-reported bill also contained this provision.

Highlights of House and Senate Hearings on the FY2013 Budget of the GAO

At the House hearing on February 7, 2012, the subcommittee discussed issues including zero-based budgeting; prioritization of items in the FY2013 budget request; the buyout program conducted in 2011; the GAO student loan repayment program; prioritization of congressional requests; GAO's reports on high-risk and duplicative programs; diversity; and GAO's training program.

The Senate subcommittee met on March 15, 2012, and discussed GAO's staffing requests; the potential of a consolidation of financial management systems; zero-based budgeting; and costs for audits related to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

Government Printing Office (GPO)³⁰

The House-passed bill would have provided $122.5 million, a decrease of $3.7 million (-3.0%). The Senate-reported bill would have provided $126.2 million, the same as requested by GPO and the same level provided in FY2012. This level represents a decrease of $8.9 million (-6.6%) from the $135.1 million provided for FY2011, which was a decrease of $12.4 million (-8.4%) from the $147.5 million for FY2010. The FY2010 level represented an increase of $6.9 million (4.9%) over the $140.6 million provided in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The FY2009 level represented an increase of $15.9 million (12.7%) over the $124.7 million provided in the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act.

GPO's budget authority is contained in three accounts: (1) congressional printing and binding, (2) Office of Superintendent of Documents (salaries and expenses), and (3) the revolving fund.

• Congressional printing and binding—The House-passed and Senate-reported bill would have provided $83.6 million, a decrease of $7.1 million (-7.8%). This level, which was requested by GPO, represents a decrease of $7.1 million (-7.8%) from the FY2012 level of $90.7 million. The FY2012 level represented a decrease of $2.9 million (-3.1%) from the $93.6 million provided for FY2011. The FY2010 appropriations act provided $93.8 million.
• Office of Superintendent of Documents (salaries and expenses)—The House-passed and Senate-reported bill would have provided $34.7 million, a decrease of $272,000 (-0.8%). This level, which was requested by GPO, represents a decrease of $272,000 (-0.8%) from the FY2012 level of $35.0 million. The FY2012 level was a decrease of $4.8 million (-12.1%) from the $39.8 million provided for FY2011. The FY2010 appropriations act provided $40.9 million.
• Revolving fund—The revolving fund supports the operation and maintenance of the Government Printing Office.³¹ The House-passed bill would have provided $4.1 million, an increase of $3.6 million from the FY2012 level of $500,000. The Senate-reported bill would have provided the GPO-requested level of $7.8 million, an increase of $7.3 million. Previously, the FY2011 act provided $1.66 million, and the FY2010 act provided $12.8 million for the revolving fund.

The congressional printing and binding account pays for expenses of printing and binding required for congressional use, and for statutorily authorized printing, binding, and distribution of government publications for specified recipients at no charge. Included within these publications are the Congressional Record; Congressional Directory; Senate and House Journals; memorial addresses of Members; nominations; U.S. Code and supplements; serial sets; publications printed without a document or report number, for example, laws and treaties; envelopes provided to Members of Congress for the mailing of documents; House and Senate business and committee calendars; bills, resolutions, and amendments; committee reports and prints; committee hearings; and other documents.

The Office of Superintendent of Documents account funds the mailing of government documents for Members of Congress and federal agencies, as statutorily authorized; the compilation of catalogs and indexes of government publications; and the cataloging, indexing, and distribution of government publications to the Federal Depository and International Exchange libraries, and to other individuals and entities, as authorized by law.

Highlights of House and Senate Hearings on the FY2013 Budget of the Government Printing Office

The House subcommittee met on February 7, 2012, to discuss GPO's FY2013 budget request. Among the items addressed were a survey of congressional offices to determine preferred Congressional Record distribution levels, which reduced the number of copies by 400; the use of XML; diversity and training opportunities; and the future of printing in a digital era.

The Senate subcommittee held its FY2013 budget request hearing on March 15, 2012. The subcommittee discussed GPO's experience with zero-based budgeting and its staffing level following the implementation of a buyout program in 2011.

Office of Compliance

The Office of Compliance is an independent and nonpartisan agency within the legislative branch. It was established to administer and enforce the Congressional Accountability Act, which was enacted in 1995.³² The act applies various employment and workplace safety laws to Congress and certain legislative branch entities.³³

The House-passed and Senate-reported bills would have provided $3.8 million, equivalent to the FY2012 enacted level. The Office of Compliance had requested $4.2 million, an increase of $389,000 (10.2%).

The FY2012 level represented a decrease of $260,000 (-6.4%) from the $4.08 million provided in P.L. 112-10 for FY2011. The FY2011 level represented a decrease of $300,000 (-6.9%) from the $4.4 million provided in FY2010. The FY2010 level represented an increase of 7.5% from the $4.1 million provided in the FY2009 Omnibus, which was an increase of 21.8% over the FY2008 level of $3.3 million.

Administrative Provision

The House-passed bill also contained an administrative provision related to awards and settlements under the Congressional Accountability Act. The Senate-reported bill did not contain this provision.

Highlights of the Senate Hearing on the FY2013 Budget of the Office of Compliance

The Senate held a hearing on the FY2013 budget request on March 1, 2012. The subcommittee discussed consequences of reduced funding, including reduced staff and training, and collaboration with the Architect of the Capitol.

Open World Leadership Center

The Open World Leadership Center administers a program that supports democratic changes in other countries by inviting their leaders to observe democracy and free enterprise in the United States. The first program was authorized by Congress in 1999 to support the relationship between Russia and the United States. The program encouraged young federal and local Russian leaders to visit the United States and observe its government and society.

Established at the Library of Congress as the Center for Russian Leadership Development in 2000, the center was renamed the Open World Leadership Center in 2003, when the program was expanded to include specified additional countries.³⁴ In 2004, Congress further extended the program's eligibility to other countries designated by the center's board of trustees, subject to congressional consideration.³⁵ The center is housed in the Library and receives services from the Library through an inter-agency agreement.

The House-reported bill would have provided $1.0 million, a decrease of $9.0 million (-90.0%), from the $10.0 million provided in FY2012 and requested for FY2013. The House report states that this funding level would "cover the cost associated with the shutdown" and directed that "the program termination is to be finalized within one year of enactment of the Legislative Branch fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill."³⁶ H.Amdt. 1281, agreed to by recorded vote (204-203, Roll no. 373), eliminated this funding.

The Senate-reported bill would have provided $10.0 million.

The FY2012 level was $1.38 million (-12.1%) less than the $11.38 million provided in FY2011 (P.L. 112-10). The FY2011 level represented a decrease of $623,000 (-5.2%) from the $12.00 million provided for FY2010, and the FY2010 level represented a decrease of $1.90 million (-13.7%) from the $13.90 million provided in the FY2009 Omnibus. The FY2009 level was a $4.92 million increase (54.8%) over the $8.98 million provided in FY2008, which was a decrease of $4.88 million (-35.2%) from the $13.86 million provided in FY2007 and FY2006.

Ongoing Discussion of Location of Open World

The location and future of Open World, as well as its inclusion in the legislative branch budget, have been a topic of discussion at appropriations hearings in recent fiscal years.

At the Senate FY2013 budget request hearing on March 1, 2012, the subcommittee discussed potential options for increasing private funding, including the hire of a development professional.

Previously, the House-passed FY2012 bill (H.R. 2551) would have provided $1.0 million, a decrease of 91.2% from the FY2011 level of $11.38 million. The House report stated, "The program has some strong champions on the Committee, but with reductions being made to most every program within the Federal budget the Committee has elected to shut down the program and recommends $1,000,000 for shutdown expenses."³⁷ The Senate-reported bill, in contrast, would have provided $10.0 million (-12.1% below the FY2011 level). The Senate report stated that "despite the fiscal constraints of the budget this program is necessary for the promotion of democratic principles in countries with historically oppressive rule."³⁸ The Consolidated Appropriations Act provided the Senate-reported level of $10.0 million.

Additionally, the FY2010 House Appropriations Committee report stated that "the Legislative Branch Subcommittee has been clear that it expects the Open World program to become financially independent of funding in this bill as soon as possible."³⁹ This sentiment was also expressed in the conference report, which stated,

The conferees are fully supportive of expanded efforts of the Open World Center to raise private funding and expect this effort to reduce the requirements for funding from the Legislative Branch appropriations bill in future years. The Committees look forward to a report of progress being made by the Center's fundraising program prior to hearings on its fiscal year 2011 budget request.⁴⁰

The location within the legislative branch was discussed during a hearing on the FY2009 budget. Ambassador John O'Keefe, the executive director of Open World, testified that the program may attract different participants if associated with the executive branch rather than the Library of Congress, which may be seen as more neutral and nonpartisan.⁴¹ The FY2009 explanatory statement directed the Open World Leadership Center Board of Trustees to work with the State Department and the judiciary to establish a shared funding mechanism.⁴²

The subcommittees also had discussed this issue during the FY2008 appropriations cycle,⁴³ and language was included in the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act requiring Open World to prepare a report by March 31, 2008, on "potential options for transfer of the Open World Leadership Center to a department or agency in the executive branch, establishment of the Center as an independent agency in the executive branch, or other appropriate options."⁴⁴ In 2004, GAO issued a report on the Open World program, examining program participation, purpose, and accountability.⁴⁵

John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development

The center was created by Congress in 1988 to encourage public service by congressional staff through training and development programs.⁴⁶ The House-passed bill did not provide funding for the Stennis Center. The House report also states:

The fiscal year 2012 Conference Agreement (H.Rept. 112-331) directed that future budget requests from the John C. Stennis Center be accompanied by an appropriately detailed budget justification as requested in H.Rept. 112-148. The Committee did not receive such justification and therefore has not provided the requested funding.⁴⁷

The Senate-reported bill would have provided the requested level of $430,000, which is the same level provided in FY2012.

Previously, P.L. 112-10 provided $429,140 for FY2011 (including the 0.2% rescission), and $430,000 was provided in FY2010 and FY2009.

The following tables provide additional information on the FY2012 enacted, FY2013 requested, House-passed, and Senate-reported levels for the legislative branch overall, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Capitol Police, and the Architect of the Capitol.

Appendix. Fiscal Year Information and Resources

Selected Websites

These sites contain information on the FY2013 legislative branch appropriations requests and legislation, and the appropriations process:

House Committee on Appropriations
http://appropriations.house.gov/

Senate Committee on Appropriations
http://appropriations.senate.gov/

CRS Appropriations Products Guide
http://www.crs.gov/Pages/AppropriationsStatusTable.aspx?source=QuickLinks

Congressional Budget Office
http://www.cbo.gov

Government Accountability Office
http://www.gao.gov

Office of Management and Budget
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

Acknowledgments

Amber Wilhelm, graphics specialist, assisted in the preparation of the figures.

Footnotes

1.	The House hearings are available through the Government Printing Office (GPO) at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg73545/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg73545.pdf. The Senate hearings are not yet available on GPO's website, although submitted testimony is available at http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/.
2.	For additional information on continuing resolutions generally, see CRS Report R42782, FY2013 Continuing Resolutions: Analysis of Components and Congressional Action, by [author name scrubbed].
3.	Table 4 presents information on the FY2012 appropriation and FY2013 budget request for the legislative branch.
4.	P.L. 111-5, February 17, 2009, 123 Stat. 191.
5.	U.S. Congress, conference committee, Making Supplemental Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2009, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.R. 2346, 111th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 111-151 (Washington: GPO, 2009), p. 117.
6.	Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, FY2013, Table 33-1, "Federal Programs by Agency and Account" (Washington: GPO, 2012), pp. 2-16; and Office of Management and Budget, Appendix, Budget of the United States Government, FY2013 (Washington: GPO, 2012), pp. 17-49.
7.	Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1105, "Estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for the legislative branch and the judicial branch to be included in each budget ... shall be submitted to the President ... and included in the budget by the President without change." Division C of the FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74) added language to 31 U.S.C. 1107 relating to budget amendments, stating: "The President shall transmit promptly to Congress without change, proposed deficiency and supplemental appropriations submitted to the President by the legislative branch and the judicial branch."
8.	White House, President Obama, Sequestration Order for Fiscal Year 2013 Pursuant to Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, As Amended, March 1, 2013, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/2013sequestration-order-rel.pdf.
9.	Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration for Fiscal Year 2013, March 1, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf.
10.	Ibid., pp. 11, 13.
11.	Ibid, p. 5. For general information on continuing resolutions, see CRS Report R42647, Continuing Resolutions: Overview of Components and Recent Practices, by [author name scrubbed].
12.	Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/7_day_after/bea_report_hr933_04-04-13.pdf, Table 10 (CBO Estimates Compared to OMB Estimates for Division F of P.L. 113‐6 Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 Title VI ‐‐ Legislative Branch), Table 13 (OMB Estimates for Section 3004 of Division G of P.L. 113‐6 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013), and Table 14 (Enacted Appropriations as of April 4, 2013).
13.	These amendments are available at http://rules.house.gov/Legislation/legislationDetails.aspx?NewsID=849.
14.	In keeping with tradition, H.R. 5882, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee, does not include Senate items.
15.	For additional information on committee funding, see CRS Report R40424, Senate Committee Expenditures Resolutions, 113th Congress, and Funding Authorizations Since 1999, by Matthew Eric Glassman.
16.	The numbers above are for the SOPOEA for all Senators. The FY2011 act (P.L. 112-10) also contained language relating to the individual allowances for each Senator, stating, "each Senator's official personnel and office expense allowance (including the allowance for administrative and clerical assistance, the salaries allowance for legislative assistance to Senators, as authorized by the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1978 (P.L. 95-94), and the office expense allowance for each Senator's office for each State) in effect immediately before the date of enactment of this section shall be reduced by 5 percent." In addition to the overall account level, the Senate reports accompanying the legislative branch bill generally provide preliminary information on the allocation for Senators from each state. For example, see U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations, 2013, report to accompany H.R. 5882,112th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 112-197 (Washington: GPO, 2012), pp. 20-21.
17.	The Congressional Budget Office cost estimate of this legislation, issued January 31, 2012, is available at http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/s2038.pdf. It states: "Based on information from Congressional staff, CBO estimates that implementing the financial disclosure system required under S. 2038 would cost $4 million over the 2012-2013 period primarily for new computer hardware and software and additional labor. In addition, maintaining the new system would cost $1 million annually, CBO estimates."
18.	For additional information on committee funding, CRS Report RL32794, House Committee Funding Requests and Authorizations, 104th-113th Congresses, by Matthew Eric Glassman.
19.	For additional information, see CRS Report R40962, Members' Representational Allowance: History and Usage, by [author name scrubbed].
20.	U.S. Congress, Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY2013, S.Rept. 112-197, report to accompany H.R. 5882 (Washington: GPO, 2012), pp. 4, 28.
21.	Under the Capitol Visitor Center Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-437), funding for the Capitol Guide Service was transferred to the Architect of the Capitol.
22.	The Congressional Budget Office is required to use estimates provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation for all revenue legislation (Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, P.L. 99-177, §273, 99 Stat.1098, December 12, 1985; 2 U.S.C. §621 (et seq.)).
23.	Figure obtained from the Annual Report of the Librarian of Congress for Fiscal Year 2010, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 2011. Available at http://www.loc.gov/about/reports/.
24.	This percentage is not adjusted for non-recurring costs, including the transfer of the Library of Congress Police to the Capitol Police.
25.	An example of receipts are fees paid to the LOC for copyright registration.
26.	The House report also notes that the retention of $1.0 million provided in FY2012 for contract services would result in an actual increase of "$1,878,000, over the fiscal year 2012 enacted level" (U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, FY2013 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, H.Rept. 112-511, report to accompany H.R. 5882 (Washington: GPO, 2012), p. 16).
27.	Ibid., p. 38.
28.	GAO's guidelines for initiating studies are contained in U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO's Congressional Protocols, GAO-04-310G (Washington: GAO, 2004). Posted on the website of the Government Accountability Office at http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/d04310g.pdf.
29.	Offsetting collections include funds derived from reimbursable audits and rental of space in the GAO building.
30.	For additional information on GPO, see CRS Report R40897, Congressional Printing: Background and Issues for Congress, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
31.	For additional information, see CRS Report R40939, Legislative Branch Revolving Funds, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
32.	P.L. 104-1, 109 Stat. 3, January 23, 1995. The act, as amended, applies 12 civil rights, labor, and workplace safety laws to Congress and certain legislative branch agencies. These laws are the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Employee Polygraph Protection Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, Federal Services Labor-Management Relations Act, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Rehabilitation Act of 1970, Veterans' employment and reemployment rights at Chapter 43 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code, Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act, and Veterans Employment Opportunities Act.
33.	Among the office's activities are administration of a dispute resolution process, investigation and enforcement of occupational safety and health and disability provisions of the act, investigation of labor relations and enforcement of applicable provisions, and development of educational programs regarding the act's provisions.
34.	P.L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-120, December 21, 2000; P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 382, February 20, 2003. According to the 2003 act, the additional countries include "any country specified in §3 of the FREEDOM Support Act (22 U.S.C. 5801)," and "Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania." The countries specified in 22 U.S.C. 5801 are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
35.	P.L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 3192, December 8, 2004.
36.	U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, FY2013 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, H.Rept. 112-511, report to accompany H.R. 5882 (Washington: GPO, 2012), p. 42.
37.	U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, FY2012 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, report to accompany H.R. 2551, H.Rept. 112-148 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 28.
38.	U.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, FY2012 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, report to accompany H.R. 2551, S.Rept. 112-80 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 45.
39.	U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 2010, H.Rept. 111-160, (Washington: GPO, 2009), p. 29.
40.	U.S. Congress, Legislative Branch Appropriations, 2010, H.Rept. 111-265, conference report to accompany H.R. 2918 (Washington: GPO, 2009), p. 42.
41.	Testimony of Ambassador John O'Keefe, executive director, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2009, hearings, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., March 12, 2008 (Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 359-420.
42.	Congressional Record, February 23, 2009, p. H2398.
43.	In H.R. 2771 (110th Cong.), the House-passed version of the FY2008 appropriations bill, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $6.0 million for Open World. The committee report stated that an additional $6.0 million would be provided for transfer to the program in the FY2008 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriation. The House-passed bill, which retained the committee-recommended funding level, also contained an administrative provision transferring the Open World Leadership Center to the Department of State effective October 1, 2008. The Senate-reported bill (S. 1686, 110th Cong.) would have provided $13.5 million in new budget authority for Open World.
44.	P.L. 110-161, 121 Stat. 2251, December 26, 2007.
45.	Available at http://gao.gov/assets/250/241737.pdf.
46.	2 U.S.C. 1105. See also http://www.stennis.gov/.
47.	U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, FY2013 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, H.Rept. 112-511, report to accompany H.R. 5882 (Washington: GPO, 2012), p. 20.