Input:
	Most Recent Developments

The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was enacted on December 26, 2007, provides $3.97 billion in new budget authority for the legislative branch. This total includes an across-the-board rescission of 0.25% which was applied to accounts within the legislative branch division of the act.
From the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1, until the enactment of the consolidated bill ( H.R. 2764 ), the legislative branch was funded by a series of continuing appropriations resolutions. On September 29, 2007, the President signed into law P.L. 110-92 . The law provided for continued funding for most federal activities, including the legislative branch, at FY2007 levels through November 16, 2007. P.L. 110-116 , which was enacted on November 13, continued this funding through December 14, 2007. P.L. 110-137 , enacted on December 14, 2007, and P.L. 110-149 , enacted on December 21, 2007, also provided continuing funding for the legislative branch prior to the enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act. These laws also provided gratuity payments to the survivors of a total of four deceased Members.
Prior to the consideration of the consolidated appropriations measure, both the Senate and House of Representatives considered separate legislation funding the legislative branch for FY2008. S. 1686 , the Senate version of the FY2008 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, was reported to the Senate on June 25, 2007. The bill, which proposed nearly $2.78 billion in new budget authority (not including House items), had been marked up by the Senate Committee on Appropriations on June 21. At the markup, the committee voted unanimously to report the bill without amendment.
H.R. 2771 , the House version of the FY2008 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, was introduced on June 19, 2007, following the House Committee on Appropriations markup on June 12 and the subcommittee markup on June 6. The House bill would have provided $3.1 billion in new budget authority (not including Senate items). The bill, with two amendments, passed the House on June 22 with a roll call vote of 216-176.

	Introduction to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill

Since FY2003, the annual legislative branch appropriations bill has usually contained two titles. Appropriations for legislative branch agencies are contained in Title I. These entities, as they have appeared in the annual appropriations bill, are the Senate; House of Representatives; Joint Items; Capitol Police; Office of Compliance; Congressional Budget Office; Architect of the Capitol, including the Capitol Visitor Center; Library of Congress, including the Congressional Research Service; Government Printing Office; Government Accountability Office; and Open World Leadership Program.
Title II contains general administrative provisions and, from time to time, appropriations for legislative branch entities. For example, Title II of the FY2003 Act, P.L. 108-7 , contained funds for the John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development and for the Congressional Award Act.
On occasion the bill may contain a third title for other provisions. For example, Title III of the FY2006 legislative branch appropriations act, P.L. 109-55 , contained language providing for the continuity of representation in the House of Representatives in "extraordinary circumstances."

		Changes in Structure of Legislative Branch Appropriations Effective in FY2003

Prior to enactment of the FY2003 bill, and effective in FY1978, the legislative branch appropriations bill was structured differently. Title I, Congressional Operations, contained budget authority for activities directly serving Congress. Included in this title were the budgets of the Senate; House of Representatives; Joint Items; Office of Compliance; Congressional Budget Office; Architect of the Capitol, except funds for Library of Congress buildings and grounds; Congressional Research Service, within the Library of Congress; and congressional printing and binding activities of the Government Printing Office.
Title II, Related Agencies, contained budget authority for activities considered by the Committee on Appropriations not directly supporting Congress, including those for the Botanic Garden; Library of Congress (except the Congressional Research Service, which was funded in Title I); Library of Congress buildings and grounds maintained by the Architect of the Capitol; Government Printing Office (except congressional printing and binding costs, which were funded in Title I); and Government Accountability Office, formerly named the General Accounting Office. Occasionally, from FY1978 through FY2002, the annual legislative appropriations bill contained additional titles for such purposes as capital improvements and special one-time functions.

		Activities and Programs Related to the Legislative Branch but Not Funded in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill

In addition to activities funded in the annual legislative branch appropriations bill, funds are contained in the legislative branch section of the U.S. Budget for other programs and entities. These include permanent budget authority for both federal funds and trust funds and for non-legislative entities.
Permanent federal funds and permanent trust funds are available as the result of previously enacted legislation and do not require annual action. Permanent federal funds and trust funds are included in the U.S. Budget, prepared by the Office of Management and Budget. The U.S. Budget also contains non-legislative entities within the legislative branch budget. They are funded in other appropriation bills, but are counted as legislative branch funds by the Office of Management and Budget for bookkeeping purposes.
For another picture of the legislative branch budget, the total legislative branch request of $4.8 billion in the FY2008 U.S. Budget must be adjusted. When reflecting only items contained in the annual legislative branch appropriation bill, the funding request for the legislative branch is $4.3 billion.

		Reestablishment of House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch for the 110th Congress

Prior to the 109 th Congress, the legislative branch appropriations bill was handled by the House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Committee on Appropriations. Under a House Appropriations Committee reorganization plan released on February 9, 2005, the subcommittee was abolished and its jurisdiction assumed by the full Appropriations Committee. Although changes were made in the structure of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, announced in March 2005, the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch was retained. Under a reorganization plan announced by the House Appropriations Committee on January 4, 2007, the House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch was reestablished for the 110 th Congress.

	Status of FY2008 Appropriations

		Action on the FY2008 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill

			Submission of FY2008 Budget Request on February 5, 2007

The FY2008 U.S. Budget contained a request for $4.3 billion in new budget authority for legislative branch activities, an increase of 14% from FY2007 levels. A substantial portion of the increase requested by legislative branch entities is to meet (1) mandatory expenses, which include funding for annual salary adjustments required by law and related personnel expenses, such as increased government contributions to retirement based on increased pay, and (2) expenses related to increases in the costs of goods and services due to inflation. Amendments to the request were transmitted to Congress by the President on June 8, 2007.

			Congressional Caps on FY2008 Legislative Branch Discretionary Funds

As required by law, both houses are considering separate 302(b) budget allocations for legislative branch discretionary and mandatory funds in FY2008. The House has allocated $4.150 billion in total budget authority for the legislative branch, and the Senate allocation is $4.177 billion.

			Senate and House Hearings on FY2008 Budget

The House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch held budget hearings on March 1 for the Architect of the Capitol, on March 8 for the U.S. Capitol Police, on March 22 for the Library of Congress and the Open World Leadership Program, on March 27 for the Government Printing Office, on March 29 for the House of Representatives, on April 19 for the Government Accountability Office, and on April 26 for the Office of Compliance and Congressional Budget Office. Public witnesses were heard from on May 1. The subcommittee also held additional hearings during these months to conduct oversight and discuss long-range planning requirements and challenges.
The Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch held hearings on the FY2008 budget requests on March 2 for the Architect of the Capitol; on March 16 for the Government Accountability Office, the Government Printing Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Office of Compliance; on March 30 for the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper and the U.S. Capitol Police; and on May 3 for the Secretary of the Senate and the Library of Congress.

			House Appropriations Committee Markup and Report (FY2008)

The House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch held a markup on the FY2008 bill on June 6, and the full committee marked up and reported the FY2008 bill on June 12. Major issues considered at both markups included efforts to rename the Great Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center "Emancipation Hall," the future of the Open World Leadership Program, and the use of funds to renovate an FDA building proposed for use as swing space for House offices. The House Committee on Appropriations issued its report ( H.Rept. 110-198 ) on June 19, 2007.

			House Passage of the FY2008 Bill (H.R. 2771)

On June 22, the House passed H.R. 2771 by a vote of 216-176 (Roll call #548). Floor consideration followed adoption of the rule on the bill, H.Res. 502 ( H.Rept. 110-201 ), earlier that day by a vote of 222-179 (Roll call #544). The rule waived all points of order against the bill and made in order only those amendments specified in the committee report, which included
an amendment to be offered by Representative Jane Harman of California preventing the funds made available in the act from being used to purchase light bulbs unless the light bulbs have an "energy star" or "Federal Energy Management Program" designation, an amendment to be offered by Representative Jeff Flake of Arizona reducing the amount available for the Government Printing Office (GPO) Congressional Printing and Binding account by $3.2 million, and an amendment to be offered by Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio requiring an across-the-board reduction of 4% for funds appropriated in this act.
During floor consideration of the bill on June 22, the first amendment was agreed to, although some Members expressed concerns about adapting this provision to account for the historical lighting in the Capitol Complex.
The second amendment, which reduced the House committee's recommended appropriation for the Government Printing Office by $3.2 million, was agreed to with a roll call vote of 218-191. Supporters argued that this amendment would reduce the number of copies of the Congressional Record printed for Congress each day, while opponents argued this would add to the GPO budgetary shortfall and that any reduction in copies should be achieved through the authorizing committee.
The House voted against the third amendment in a roll call vote of 177-231.

			Senate Markup and Report of FY2008 Bill (S. 1686)

The Senate Appropriations Committee marked up and reported its version of the legislative branch appropriations bill on June 21. Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch during the 110 th Congress, noted that the committee's bill would provide nearly $2.8 billion in new budget authority (not including House items), a 5% increase ($138.65 million) over the FY2007 budget and $289 million below agency requests.
Both Senator Landrieu and Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado, the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, voiced their concern over using this bill to change the name of the main hall of the Capitol Visitor Center, as proposed by the House, and noted that the Senate version of the bill contains language to effectuate the merger between the U.S. Capitol Police and the Library of Congress Police.
No amendments were considered, and the committee voted 29-0 to report the bill. Senator Landrieu reported an original measure ( S. 1686 ) to the Senate on June 25, with a report ( S.Rept. 110-89 ).

		Action on FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations

While the House and Senate Appropriations Committees were considering requests for FY2008, Congress also considered bills providing supplemental appropriations for FY2007. H.R. 1591 was reported as an original measure by the House Appropriations Committee on March 20, 2007. S. 965 was introduced as an original measure by the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 22, 2007.
The House passed its bill on March 23 by a vote of 218-212. The Senate then called up the House-passed bill, inserted the text of the Senate Appropriations Committee version of the bill, amended it, and passed it March 29 by a vote of 51-47. As agreed to by the House and Senate, the legislative branch chapters of the bill included $6.4 million in new budget authority for the House of Representatives for business continuity and disaster recovery, an additional $374,000 for the Government Accountability Office, a gratuity payment to the widow of a deceased Member, and $50 million for Capitol Power Plant repairs. The President vetoed H.R. 1591 on May 1, 2007. A veto override attempt in the House failed on a 222-203 vote.
A new supplemental appropriations measure, H.R. 2206 , was introduced in the House on May 8. The House passed the bill two days later by a roll-call vote of 221—205. The Senate amended and passed the measure with an amendment by voice vote on May 17, 2007. After the House and Senate resolved their differences through amendments between the houses, the bill was signed into law by the President on May 25, 2007. In addition to the appropriations proposed in H.R. 1591 , as passed by both chambers, P.L. 110-28 contained $10 million for a radio modernization program for the U.S. Capitol Police. The measure provided two gratuity payments for the surviving spouses of two Representatives. The measure also established within the Office of the Architect of the Capitol the position of Chief Executive Officer for Visitor Services. The official, who will be appointed by the Architect and compensated at the rate of the Chief Operating Officer of the Office of the Architect, will be responsible for the operation and management of the Capitol Visitor Center.

	FY2008 Legislative Branch Funding Issues

		Capitol Complex Security—U.S. Capitol Police

			Funding Issues

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 provides $281 million for the Capitol Police, an increase of 5.8% over the $265.6 million (including supplemental appropriations) provided in FY2007. It is 6.4% less than the $299.07 million requested for FY2008. The House bill, as passed on June 22, would have provided $286 million for the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP). The House proposal was $20.4 million (7.7%) more than the FY2007 level. The Senate bill, as reported by the Committee on Appropriations, would have provided $284 million in new budget authority, an increase of nearly 7% over FY2007 funds.
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, including overtime; 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. A second appropriation relating to the Capitol Police appears within the Architect of the Capitol account for Capitol Police buildings and grounds.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $232.2 million for salaries and $48.8 million for general expenses. The total for salaries is $7.7 million more than the $224.5 million provided in the House-passed bill ( H.R. 2771 ) and $6.3 million more than the $225.9 million recommended by the Senate Committee on Appropriations ( S. 1686 ). The new budget authority for general expenses is $12.7 million less than the figure from the House bill and $9.3 million less than the Senate committee recommendation.
The Capitol Police request would have allowed for an additional 30 civilian FTEs (full-time equivalent employees), increasing the civilian level to 444 FTEs and the total department FTE level to 2,125. The House Appropriations Committee, in its report, stated that its recommendation supports a total of 1,681 sworn and 439 civilian FTEs. The Senate report stated that the level recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee would support the "current sworn staffing of 1,681 officers, and 10 new officers associated with Library of Congress police attrition" and "new positions in financial management, security service, information system and facilities management." The statement issued by Chairman Obey and inserted into the Congressional Record states that the funding provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act supports 1,702 sworn personnel and 391 civilian personnel.

			Administrative Issues

Both the House and Senate reports reference the merger of the U.S. Capitol Police and Library of Congress Police, an issue which was addressed in hearings in both chambers during consideration of the FY2008 bill. Language requiring the merger was contained in the FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution. A separate bill implementing the merger, H.R. 3690 , was introduced in the House on September 27, 2007. The House Administration Committee held a markup and ordered the bill reported on November 7, 2007. The House passed the bill on December 5, 2007, and the Senate passed the bill with an amendment on December 17, 2007. The House agreed to the Senate amendment the following day with a vote of 413-0. The legislation became P.L. 110-178 on January 7, 2008. The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act also contained language requiring the merger.

		Architect of the Capitol

The 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 Visitors 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 ten 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 FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $414.3 million in new budget authority for the Architect of the Capitol. The House-passed bill ( H.R. 2771 ) would have provided $348.38 million (not including Senate items), and the Senate bill ( S. 1686 ), as reported from the Committee on Appropriations, would have provided $352.5 million (not including House items). The Architect had requested $481.7 million.

			Capitol Visitor Center (CVC)24

The Architect's FY2008 budget request included $20.0 million for the CVC project. An additional $13.9 million was requested for Capitol Visitor Center operational costs. The requested funding was addressed in both House and Senate hearings this year. Some of the questions posed by Members of the legislative branch subcommittees have related to the final cost of the project, its estimated completion and occupancy date, and the center's daily administration after it is opened to the public. The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $20.2 million for the CVC project and $8.5 million for operational costs.

			Capitol Power Plant Utility Tunnels

The condition of the Capitol Power Plant utility tunnels, and the funds necessary to repair them, have been of interest to appropriators during the FY2006, FY2007, and FY2008 appropriations cycles. The funding for repairs follows a complaint issued February 28, 2006, by the Office of Compliance regarding health and safety violations in the tunnels. The Office of Compliance had previously issued a citation due to the condition of the tunnels on December 7, 2000. On November 16, 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) wrote a letter to the Chair and Ranking Minority Members of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, and the House Committee on Appropriations, examining the conditions of the tunnels, plans for improving conditions, and efforts to address workers' concerns. Potential hazards identified by the Office of Compliance and GAO include excessive heat, asbestos, falling concrete, lack of adequate egress, and insufficient communication systems. In May 2007, the Architect of the Capitol and the Office of Compliance announced a settlement agreement for the complaint and citations.
Steps necessary to remedy the situation, as well as the actions and roles of the Architect of the Capitol and the Office of Compliance, have been discussed at multiple hearings of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees in 2006 and 2007. Other committees have also expressed concern about the utility tunnels and allegations of unsafe working conditions. For example, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, heard testimony on tunnel safety during a March 1, 2007, hearing on the effects of asbestos.
Following the complaint by the Office of Compliance, Congress provided $27.6 million in FY2006 emergency supplemental appropriations to the Architect of the Capitol for Capitol Power Plant repairs, and an additional $50 million was provided in emergency supplemental appropriations for FY2007. The Architect of the Capitol had requested $24.77 million for FY2008. This request, which was submitted prior to the provision of funds in the May 2007 emergency supplemental appropriations act, was not supported by either the House or Senate Appropriations Committee.

			Administrative Provisions

The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act contains language establishing a statutory Office of the Inspector General for the Architect of the Capitol. Both the House-passed and the Senate-reported bills had included provisions establishing this position.
The House-passed bill also included language designating the main hall of the CVC "Emancipation Hall." Separate legislation changing the name was introduced in the Senate (S. 1679) on June 21, 2007, and in the House ( H.R. 3315 ) on August 2, 2007. The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing on the House bill on September 25, 2007. The bill was reported by the committee, before being considered in the House under suspension of the rules, where it was agreed to by a vote of 398-6 on November 13, 2007. The Senate passed its bill renaming the space by unanimous consent on November 15, 2007. H.R. 3315 passed the Senate on December 6 and became P.L. 110-139 on December 18, 2007.

		House of Representatives

			Overall Funding

The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $1.183 billion for the internal operations of the House. The House requested $1.24 billion, an increase of 8.5% from the FY2007 level, and the House-passed bill would have provided $1.199 billion in new budget authority.

			House Committee Funding

Funding for House committees—for which $162.4 million was provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act—is contained in the appropriation heading "committee employees," which comprises two subheadings. This level is $5.6 million more than the $156.8 million requested, and $0.4 million less than $162.8 million agreed to by the House in H.R. 2771.
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. The FY2008 request of $129.7 million, an increase of 4.2%, included funds for investigations. The House-passed bill would have provided $133 million in new budget authority for this subheading. The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $132.7 million.
The second subheading contains funds for the personnel and nonpersonnel expenses of the Committee on Appropriations, for which $27.1 million was requested, a 4.8% increase. The House-passed bill would have provided $29.8 million in new budget authority. The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $29.7 million in new budget authority.

			Members' Representational Allowance

The Members' Representational Allowance (MRA) is available to support Members in their official and representational duties. It provides for personnel, official office expenses, and official (franked) mail. A total of $610.6 million, an increase of 10% over the $554.7 million provided in FY2007, was requested for the overall MRA heading. The House-passed bill would have provided $581 million (an increase of 4.7%). The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $579.5 million (an increase of nearly 4.5%) for the MRA.

		Senate

			Overall Funding

The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $831.8 million for the Senate's internal operations, an increase of 3.5% over the prior year funding level. The Senate had requested $893.3 million, an increase of 11%.

			Senate Committee Funding

Appropriations for Senate committees are contained in two accounts:
the inquiries and investigations account , contains funds for all Senate committees except Appropriations. $138.6 million was requested (a 14.9% increase). The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $129 million, which was subsequently included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act (a 6.9% increase); and the Committee on Appropriations account, for which $14.9 million was requested (an increase of 7.5%) and $14.6 million was recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee (an increase of 5.2%). The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $14.2 million (an increase of 2%).

			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 is comprised of an administrative and clerical assistance allowance, a legislative assistance allowance, and an official office expense allowance. The funds may be interchanged by the Senator, subject to limitations on official mail. A total of $396.1 million was requested for this account (an increase of 8.4% over FY2007 funds), with $379.1 million recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee (an increase of 3.7%). The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $373.6 million (an increase of 2.2%).

		Support Agency Funding

			Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

CBO is a nonpartisan congressional agency created to provide objective economic and budgetary analyses required by law and by members of the House and Senate Committees on Budget and Committees on Appropriations, House Committee on Ways and Means, and other committees, and by Members of Congress.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $37.3 million for the Congressional Budget Office, an increase of $2.1 million (nearly 6%) over its FY2007 funding. CBO requested $37.97 million, an increase of $2.8 million (7.9%) over its FY2007 funding, most of which would meet mandatory pay and related costs. The House-passed bill contained $37.8 million, and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $38.5 million.

			Highlights of House and Senate Hearings on FY2008 Budget of the CBO

CBO Director Peter R. Orszag testified before the House legislative branch subcommittee that personnel expenses account for approximately 91% of CBO's budget. He indicated his desire to expand CBO's capacity in the area of health economics. Subsequently, the House Appropriations Committee, in its report, stated that its recommended funding would provide for one additional full-time equivalent employee (FTE) in this area; and the Senate report stated that the committee had "included $538,000 for CBO to expand its ability to assist the Congress in identifying and analyzing potential ways to address projected growth in health care spending."

			Library of Congress (LOC)

The Library of Congress provides research support for Congress through a wide range of services, from research on public policy issues to general information. Among its major programs are acquisitions, preservation, legal research for Congress and other federal entities, administration of U.S. copyright laws by the Copyright Office, research and analyses of policy issues by the Congressional Research Service, and administration of a national program to provide reading material to the blind and physically handicapped. The Library also maintains a number of collections and provides a range of services to libraries in the United States and abroad.
The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $562.5 million for the Library of Congress. The House-passed bill contained $572.5 million in new budget authority, and the Senate-reported bill proposed $576.9 million. These figures do not include additional authority to spend receipts.
The Library had requested (1) a net appropriation of $661.6 million, and (2) authority to use $41.7 million in funds generated from Library receipts. Most of the increase, $45.9 million, was requested to meet mandatory pay and price level increases to maintain current services. Also included in the request was $28.1 million in program increases. The requested funding would support a staff level of 4,244 FTEs, a net decrease of 58 FTEs from the FY2007 level of 4,302.
FY2008 new budget authorities for the Library's accounts are
salaries and expenses—The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $388.5 million. The House-passed bill would have provided $394.65 million, while $401.5 million was contained in the Senate-reported bill. $461.1 million was requested. These totals do not include authority to spend $6.35 million in receipts; Copyright Office—The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $5.3 million (not including authority to spend $44.2 million in receipts). The House-passed bill would have provided $5.6 million (not including authority to spend $44.2 million in receipts), while $4.9 million was contained in the Senate-reported bill (not including authority to spend $45.2 million in receipts). $16.2 million was requested (not including authority to spend $35.4 million in receipts); Congressional Research Service—The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $102.3 million. The House-passed bill would have provided $104.5 million, while $102.9 million was contained in the Senate-reported bill. $108.7 million was requested; and Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped—The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $66.9 million. The House-passed and Senate reported bills that would have provided approximately $67.7 million. $75.6 million was requested.
The total request included $43.9 million, to be transferred to the Architect of the Capitol, for the construction of the Library of Congress Fort Meade Logistics Center. In FY2007, $54.2 million was requested, but not provided, for this project in the Architect's Library Buildings and Grounds account.
An additional $42.8 million was contained in the Architect's FY2008 request for Library Buildings and Grounds. The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $27.5 million in new budget authority for Library Buildings and Grounds. The House-passed bill contained $31.6 million, and the Senate-reported bill recommended $28.06 million.

			Highlights of the House and Senate Hearings on FY2008 Budget of the LOC

The Library's concern over the rescission of nearly $50 million in funding in the FY2007 appropriations act was discussed at both the House and Senate hearings. Both hearings also discussed funding for the Books for the Blind program and efforts to update the technology that the "talking book" program currently uses. The House subcommittee also discussed reasons for the inclusion of the funds for the Fort Meade Logistics Center in the Library request and not that of the Architect of the Capitol. Librarian of Congress James H. Billington expressed his desire to prioritize this project.

			Congressional Research Service (CRS)

CRS works exclusively for Members and committees of Congress to support their legislative and oversight functions by providing nonpartisan and confidential research and policy analysis.
The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $102.3 million for CRS. The agency's request of $108.7 million represented a 7.85%, or $7.9 million, increase over FY2007 funds, which covers only mandatory pay and related costs and price level changes. The request did not contain funds to support program growth. The House-passed bill contained $104.5 million in new budget authority and the Senate-reported bill recommended $102.89 million.

			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. Formerly the General Accounting Office, the agency was renamed the Government Accountability Office effective July 7, 2004.
The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $499.7 million in new budget authority for the GAO, which had requested $522.8 million (figures do not include an additional $7.5 million from offsetting collections). The House-passed bill would have provided $503.3 million in new budget authority for GAO, an increase of 4.6% over FY2007 funding. The House Appropriations Committee, in its report, states that this amount would provide for 3,217 FTEs, an increase of 57 FTEs above the FY2007 levels. The Senate-reported bill recommended $510.3 million in new budget authority. The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report, stated that this amount would allow for 3,221 FTEs and recommended "$750,000 and four full-time equivalent employees to establish a permanent technology assessment function in the Government Accountability Office."

			Highlights of House and Senate Hearings on FY2008 Budget of the GAO

The issue of GAO's possible role in providing technology assessments was addressed during Senate hearings this year. In response to a question, Comptroller General David M. Walker testified before the Senate that GAO could assume this role, formerly handled by the Office of Technology Assessment, and indicated that, in his opinion, such action would be more cost-effective than establishing a new agency. Chairman Obey's statement indicated that the Consolidated Appropriations Act includes up to $2.5 million for technology assessment studies.

			Government Printing Office (GPO)

The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $124.7 million in new budget authority for the Government Printing Office. GPO had requested $181.98 million, or an increase of 49% over the $122.1 million made available for FY2007.
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. FY2008 requests for these accounts are
congressional printing and binding—The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $89.8 million. Previously, the House Appropriations Committee had recommended $87.89 million, which was reduced by $3.2 million through an amendment adopted on the Houses floor. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $95.37. $109.5 million was requested; Office of Superintendent of Documents (salaries and expenses)—The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $34.9 million. The House-passed bill would have provided $35.4 million, while $38.2 million was included in the Senate-reported bill. $45.6 million was requested; and revolving fund—The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides no additional funding for the revolving fund. The House-passed bill would have provided $2.45 million, while $5 million was recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee. $26.8 million was requested.
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.
GPO requested $26.8 million for its revolving fund to support the agency's acquisition of information technology infrastructure and security enhancements, workforce retraining and restructuring efforts, and facilities maintenance and repairs. This is an increase of $25.8 million over the $1 million provided in FY2007. Of the requested amount, $10.5 million was proposed for the completion of the development of GPO's Future Digital System, while $9.4 million would cover the replacement of a 30-year-old automated composition system. The House committee report stated that the recommended level of $2.45 million would provide funds for elevator repairs, the GPO fire alarm systems, and workforce retraining. The Senate committee report stated that the recommended level of $5 million would support "Release 2 of the 'Future Digital System' [FDSys]." The Consolidated Appropriations Act did not provide funding for the revolving fund.

			Additional Provisions

The House Committee on Appropriations, in its report, expressed its concern about possible security lapses at the GPO facilities and required a report on security staffing plans. Language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act requires GPO police officers, and not contracted security services, to be responsible for security at the D.C. passport facility.

			Highlights of House and Senate Hearings on FY2008 Budget of the GPO

Acting Public Printer William H. Turri, in his written testimony, discussed recent efforts to transform GPO's operations for the digital age.

		Other Funding

			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. The act applies business and federal government employment and workplace safety laws to Congress and certain legislative branch entities.
The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $3.3 million for the Office of Compliance, an increase of 6.5% over the $3.1 million made available in FY2007. The act also contained language authorizing an increase in the compensation for members of the board of directors and officers of the Office of Compliance. The House-passed bill ( H.R. 2771 ) would have provided $3.8 million, an increase of nearly 23%. The Senate-reported bill ( S. 1686 ) also recommended $3.8 million in new budget authority.
The Office of Compliance had requested $4.1 million. In her prepared testimony, Tamara E. Chrisler, the acting executive director, stated that $280,000 of the requested increase was related to the office's required monitoring of asbestos abatement in the Capitol Power Plant utility tunnels.
The House bill contained a provision requiring legislative agencies to reimburse the Treasury, from existing funds, for the payment of an award or settlement under the Congressional Accountability Act. Since the passage of the act in 1995, "only funds which are appropriated to an account of the Office in the Treasury of the United States for the payment of awards and settlements may be used for the payment of awards and settlements." In response to a question for the record posed during the House Appropriations Committee hearing on the budget request of the Office of Compliance, the Office provided a list of amounts paid on behalf of each legislative branch agency from this account since FY1997, and indicated that the total equals slightly less than $7.5 million. In its report, the House Appropriations Committee stated its belief that the administrative provision would "enhance accountability, encourage issues to be solved at a lower level, encourage work place fairness, and require periodic training of managers regarding their responsibility under the Congressional Accountability Act." The Senate-reported bill did not contain this provision.
The Senate-reported bill included language that would have permitted an employee of the Office of Compliance to be appointed to the positions of Executive Director or General Counsel and would have authorized an increase in the statutory pay cap for these positions. Under the law creating the office, these positions can not be held by most individuals who have held positions within the legislative branch during the previous four years. The original language would have precluded certain promotions from within the office, for example, from deputy executive director to executive director. In a statement, the office's Board of Directors indicated that "since the Board could be actively contemplating such a promotion, we have an immediate interest in changing the prohibitive section of the CAA." Support of the Board for language permitting internal promotions was voiced at the Senate budget request hearing on March 16, 2007, by Barbara Camens, who represented the Board. Separate legislation permitting individuals who have served as employees of the Office of Compliance to serve in appointed positions in the office was introduced in the House on September 18, 2007. The House agreed to that bill, H.R. 3571 , by voice vote on October 2, 2007. It passed the Senate without amendment on December 19 and became P.L. 110-164 on December 26, 2007.

			Open World Leadership Center

The center administers a program that supports democratic changes in other countries by giving their leaders opportunity 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. In 2004, Congress further extended the program's eligibility to other countries designated by the center's board of trustees, subject to congressional consideration. The center is housed in the Library and receives services from the Library through an inter-agency agreement.
Following discussion at both the subcommittee and full committee levels regarding the funding and location of this program, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $6 million for Open World. The committee report stated that an additional $6 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 had provided $13.5 million in new budget authority for Open World.
The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $8.98 million for Open World. The act also requires the center to examine options for transfer to the executive branch and report its findings to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not later than March 31, 2008.
Open World had requested $14.4 million for FY2008. The request was equal to the amount requested in FY2007 and would have represented an increase of 3.9% from the $13.86 million provided in FY2007 and FY2006.

			John B. 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. The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $429,000 for the center. The House-passed bill and the Senate-reported bill both had provided $430,000 for the center, which is equal to the FY2008 request and the same as provided in FY2007.

	For Additional Reading

		CRS Report

CRS Report RL33379, Legislative Branch: FY2007 Appropriations , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
CRS Report RL32819, Legislative Branch: FY2006 Appropriations , by [author name scrubbed].

		Selected Websites

These sites contain information on the FY2007 and FY2008 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/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml
Congressional Budget Office http://www.cbo.gov
Government Accountability Office http://www.gao.gov
Office of Management & Budget http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

Output:
From beginning of the fiscal year on October 1, 2007, until the enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act on December 26, 2007, funding for the legislative branch was provided through a series of interim continuing appropriations measures. The first, which was signed by President Bush on September 29, 2007, provided funding at FY2007 levels through November 16, 2007. Three additional continuing appropriations measures were enacted on November 13, December 14, and December 21, 2007.
Legislative branch entities requested $4.3 billion in new budget authority for FY2008. The House version of the FY2008 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, H.R. 2771, was introduced on June 19, 2007. The bill proposed $3.1 billion in new budget authority for the legislative branch for FY2008, not including Senate items. This amount reflects a 4.1% increase over the $2.98 billion (including the FY2007 supplemental but not including Senate items) approved by Congress for FY2007 and less than the 13% increase requested.
The Senate version of the FY2008 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, S. 1686, was reported to the Senate on June 25, 2007. The bill would have provided approximately $2.78 billion in new budget authority, not including House items. This amount reflects an increase of 5.2% over the nearly $2.65 billion (including the FY2007 supplemental but not including House items) approved by Congress for FY2007 and less than the 16% increase requested.
By comparison, in FY2007, overall legislative branch budget authority was increased by approximately 1.5% (including supplemental appropriations), which had followed a 4.2% increase in new budget authority for FY2006 and a 3.1% increase approved for FY2005.
Among issues that were considered during discussions on the FY2008 budget are the following:
completion of the Capitol Visitor Center and consideration of the Architect of the Capitol's request for an additional $20 million for this project; the renaming of the "Great Hall" of the Capitol Visitor Center; repair of the Capitol Power Plant tunnels and the role of the Office of Compliance in monitoring progress on this effort; funds requested to support the "Greening of the Capitol" initiative and the use of alternative fuels; the merger of the U.S. Capitol Police and the Library of Congress Police; funding for the acquisition of new technology for the "Books for the Blind" program; and the future of the Open World Leadership Program.
This report will be updated to reflect major congressional action.


Input:
	The Taepo Dong Program

The North Korean Taepo Dong program traces its origins to the No Dong medium-range ballistic missile program of the late 1980s. In the early 1990s, North Korea initiated the development of two ballistic missile programs known to the West as Taepo Dong 1 and Taepo Dong 2. The reported design objectives for the Taepo Dong 1 system were to deliver a 1,000 to 1,500 kg warhead to a range of 1,500 to 2,500 km and for the Taepo Dong 2 to deliver the same warhead to a 4,000 to 8,000 km range. Initial prototypes for both systems were probably manufactured in 1995 or 1996 with a possible initial production run for the Taepo Dong 1 initiated in early 1997 or 1998. Some analysts estimated that North Korea may have produced from one to ten Taepo Dong 1 and one or two Taepo Dong 2 prototypes by the end of 1999. These missiles are not believed to be deployed. North Korea is believed to have had extensive foreign assistance from China, Russia, Pakistan, and Iran throughout the program. Very little was known about the actual program until the August 31, 1998 launch of a Taepo Dong 1 (or Paektusan-1) from the Musudan-ri Launch Facility in North Hamgyong Province, northeast coast of North Korea.
The stated objective of this launch was to place North Korea's first satellite into orbit. Initial U.S. intelligence reports postulated that the Taepo Dong 1 SLV was only a two-stage rocket. The first stage fell into international waters 300 km east of Musudan-ri and the second stage flew over the Japanese island of Honshu and fell into the water 330 km away from the Japanese port of Hachinohe for a total distance of approximately 1,646 km. Further analysis of radar tapes reportedly revealed that the Taepo Dong 1 had a small third solid propellant stage (presumably designed to place the satellite into orbit). Some debris from this third stage was believed to have impacted as far as 4,000 km from the launch point. Some analysts believe that if the missile had functioned properly, the Taepo Dong 1 space launch vehicle (SLV) could have achieved a 3,800 to 5,900 km range. North Korean media claimed the satellite entered earth orbit.

	Potential Configurations and Ranges

In order to strike targets from North Korea, a North Korean missile would need to achieve the following ranges:
Within possible range of the Taepo Dongs are U.S. military facilities in Guam (3,500 km), Okinawa, and Japan. The Taepo Dong 1 missile (as opposed to the SLV) is believed to be a two-stage missile that uses a No Dong missile derivative as its first stage and SCUD C derivative (called the Hwasong 6) as its second stage. In this configuration, it is estimated that it could deliver a 700 - 1,000 kg warhead to a range of 2,500 km, which could put Japan and Okinawa within range. For the Taepo Dong 1 to achieve greater range its payload would have to be decreased. Some analysts speculated that a reduced-payload configuration could deliver a 200 kg warhead into the U.S. center and a 100 kg warhead to Washington D.C., albeit with poor accuracy.
Until a few years ago, the Taepo Dong 2 had not yet been flight tested. (It has also been called the Moksong 2 and the Pekdosan 2.) The Taepo Dong 2 is believed to be a two-stage missile about 35 meters long. The first stage has been said to bear close resemblance to the Chinese CSS-2 and CSS-3 first stage. The second stage is believed to be based on the No Dong missile. The two-stage variant is assessed by some to have a range potential of as much as 3,750 km with a 700 to 1,000 kg payload and, if a third stage were added, some believe that range could be extended to 4,000 to 4,300 km with a full payload. Some analysts further believe that the Taepo Dong 2 could deliver a 700 to 1,000 kg payload as far as 6,700 km. Pyongyang has yet to test the guidance system, and so the missile is believed to be inaccurate. How it might be deployed (i.e., silo or transportable) also remains undetermined, although some have suggested it is a road mobile system. In order to achieve ranges capable of striking Hawaii and targets on the U.S. mainland, some analysts believe that the Taepo Dong 2's payload would need to be reduced to 200 - 300 kg. Some believe the Taepo Dong 2 may be exported to other countries in the future.
In June 2006 the Taepo Dong 2 (or Paektusan-2) was observed being assembled and fueled at the Musudan-ri test site along the northeast coast of North Korea. At that time, some observers believed a test was imminent while others expressed caution because considerable technical uncertainty remained. On July 4, 2006, North Korea launched the Taepo Dong 2. The launch was preceded by three shorter-range ballistic missile launches, and then followed by three more. About 40 seconds into the flight, the Taepo Dong 2 failed on its own during the first stage and fell into the Sea of Japan, according to USNORTHCOM (U.S. Northern Command). Causes for the failure were studied, but details were not made public. Japanese sources reported some details of the missile launches, suggesting greater accuracy in their impact areas than other analyses. Others have suggested structural failure of the airframe, or failure of the propulsion or guidance system as the causes. The report also suggested greater Russian engineering support than indicated elsewhere. Some believe initial production of the Taepo Dong 2 may have started in 2005, and that perhaps 20 missiles were built in 2006.
In early February 2009, various reports indicated that North Korea was making test preparations for a Taepodong-2 launch by setting up radar and other monitoring equipment around a missile test site along its northeast coast. Secretary of State Clinton said any such test would "be very unhelpful in moving our relationship forward" and that it would violate a 2006 UN Security Council Resolution (Resolution 1718) demanding that North Korea "not conduct any further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile." Similarly, the South Korean government warned any missile test would "be a serious threat." In late February 2009, North Korea announced that it was preparing to launch a communications satellite, similarly to what it said about the 1998 test.

	North Korea's Military Spending25

Some experts continue to register some concern over North Korea's level of military spending in relation to its missile program. North Korea may spend as much as 40 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on the military. In 2004, U.S. Forces Korea commander, General Leon J. LaPorte, reportedly stated that North Korea's military investments are primarily in their nuclear, biological, chemical and missile programs in order to gain an "asymmetrical" advantage over U.S and South Korean forces. General LaPorte reportedly emphasized his concern over missile development and North Korea's continued development of its nuclear weapons program that could eventually lead to "weaponizing their weapons-grade materials on missiles."
North Korea's apparent willingness to devote such a large portion of its GDP to missiles and weapons of mass destruction could be cause for additional concern when viewed in the light of their alleged cooperation with other countries. Evidence suggests that North Korea has had extensive dealings with Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Syria, Yemen, and Libya on ballistic missiles and possibly even nuclear warheads. One particular concern is that Chinese warhead designs, sold to Libya by Pakistani nuclear scientist Dr. A.Q. Khan, might also be in the hands of North Korea, which could help accelerate its efforts to develop long-ranged nuclear ballistic missiles. Some suggest that North Korea's access to these countries' missile and WMD technologies might enable North Korea to advance its long-range nuclear ballistic missile program at a more accelerated rate without having to conduct extensive testing, particularly if they use proven missile designs from other countries.

	Medium or Intermediate Range Missiles

Various reports indicate that North Korea may be developing and deploying at least two new medium to intermediate-range ballistic missile systems. The Japanese Defense Ministry reportedly believes North Korea has about 200 Nodong medium-range missiles. It is not publicly known if North Korea is continuing development of a reported new version of its Taepo Dong ballistic missile, the so-called Taepo Dong X, which might achieve intercontinental ranges. The two new medium to intermediate-range missiles are believed to be based on the decommissioned Soviet R-27 submarine launched ballistic missile.
The R-27, which was allegedly acquired from Russia in the 1990s and possibly enhanced with the help of Russian missile specialists, has been called an "excellent choice" on which to base a new missile system. Its 40 year-old, liquid-fueled technology is considered within the technological and industrial capabilities of North Korea and versions of its engines are already used in North Korean SCUDs and No Dongs. Perhaps the greatest advantage of this system, according to some observers, is that the R-27 is a proven design meaning that North Korea may be able to develop and deploy these missiles without having to conduct extensive ground and flight tests.
In February 2009, South Korea's Defense Ministry reported that North Korea had deployed a new type of medium-range ballistic with a range estimated at 1,800 miles. This missile is believed to be the same type seen at a military parade in North Korea in 2007. Additional details, such as the name of this missile and how many are deployed have not yet been made public.

		Land-Based Version 36

The land-based version called Musadan or No Dong B is a medium to intermediate-range ballistic missile with an estimated range of 2,500-3,200 km. The North Korean version of this missile is 12 m long—2.4m longer than the R-27—and, although smaller than the No Dong and Taepo Dong 1, it has a greater range than these two missiles. This could put most of East Asia within its range, including U.S. military bases at Guam and Okinawa, although experts point out that the North Korean No Dong 2 missile could also reach Japan and Okinawa. Initial prototypes of the land-based version were reportedly first identified in 2000, and pre-production models and a new transporter-erector-launcher (TEL) were believed to have been completed by mid-2003. The Musadan has not been flight-tested. Although some remain uncertain whether it is deployed, others report that perhaps 15-20 Musadan have been deployed without apparent testing.
The North Koreans reportedly began constructing two new missile bases to accommodate the Musadan/No Dong B. One base is near Yangdok-gun and the other is at Sangnam-ni, previously reported as a No Dong and Taepo Dong base. North Korea reportedly constructed administrative and maintenance facilities at these two sites as well as fortified underground tunnels for storing the missiles and TELs.

		Sea-Based Version

The sea-based version of the R-27 is reportedly either a submarine or ship-mounted system with an estimated range of at least 2,500 km. Russian versions of the R-27 reportedly had both a single nuclear reentry vehicle as well as a version with three reentry vehicles, each with a 200 kiloton (KT) nuclear weapon. It is not known if North Korea possesses reentry vehicles for their versions of the R-27. In any such case, they have not been tested by North Korea There are indications that North Korea may be actively pursuing a sea-based ballistic missile capability, which also could have potential security implications for the United States.
In September 1993, the Korean People's Navy (KPN) reportedly purchased 12 decommissioned Russian Foxtrot class and Golf-II class submarines for scrap metal from a Japanese company. The Golf-IIs, which are capable of carrying three SS-N-5 SLBMs, did not have their missiles or electronic firing systems when they were sold to the North Koreans, but they did allegedly retain significant missile launch sub-systems including launch tubes and stabilization systems. Some analysts believe that this technology, in conjunction with the R-27's well-understood design, gives North Korea the capability to develop either a submarine or ship-mounted ballistic missile. Many experts postulate that North Korea does not have the capability to develop a new SLBM on its own and that none of North Korea's other ballistic missiles are easily convertible to SLBMs.
North Korea apparently integrated the Golf-IIs missile stabilization and launch technology into a new class of conventionally powered ballistic missile submarines, possibly modified versions of Golf-IIs or Romeo class Russian submarines. It is also possible, according to some observers, that North Korea might attempt to incorporate this launch technology into a merchant ship. It is not known if North Korea has sold or will sell this new system to other countries. Some analysts suggest that Iran might be an ideal candidate for such a system, as it has allegedly researched a sea-based ballistic missile capability in the past.

	Security Implications

DPRK systems potentially increase the missile threat to the United States. If the new missiles are indeed closely modified versions of the R-27, they are likely more accurate in relative terms and have greater range than other DPRK missiles. Some analysts believe that the sea-launched version could pose the greatest threat by threatening the continental United States. These experts suggest that a North Korean sea-launched missile capability could complicate intelligence collection efforts as well as present challenges for South Korean, Japanese, and U.S. ballistic missile defense systems. Others, however, are skeptical that North Korea can reach the continental United States with the new sea-based version. Anonymous U.S. government officials reportedly stated that North Korea does not presently have a submarine that is capable of transporting a missile within striking distance of the continental United States. These officials also expressed doubt that North Korea had intentions of developing a missile to hide inside a freighter to be used against targets in the United States.

Output: This report briefly reviews North Korea's ballistic missile program. In summer 2007, North Korea tested modern, short-range missiles. In February 2009, South Korea reported the DPRK had deployed a new intermediate-range missile. This report may be updated periodically. Additional information is provided by CRS Report RL33590, North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Development and Diplomacy, by [author name scrubbed].