By Emma Dumain
Roll Call Staff

Members of Congress nearly uniformly decry the threat of sequestration and the effect that $109 billion in automatic spending cuts next year would have on government operations, particularly the military.

But if they are unsuccessful in heading off the sequester when the House and Senate reconvene in a post-election session, lawmakers will not need to look beyond their own offices to see the effects. Because Congress did not exempt itself from the deficit-reduction mechanism written into last year's debt limit deal, funding for the legislative branch is in line for an 8.2 percent cut.

A September report to Congress from the Office of Management and Budget concluded the sequester would trim $101 million from House office salaries and expenses next year and $32 million from Senators' personnel and office expenses, based on fiscal 2012 spending levels. None of the fiscal 2013 appropriations bills have been enacted.

Sequestration would be particularly hard on House offices, where budgets for staff salaries and other operating expenses -- known as Members' Representational Allowances -- have already been reduced by 11.4 percent during the 112th Congress.

"The majority of offices said in late 2011 that, for 2012, they were going to be cutting to the bone," said Rick Shapiro, a former executive director of the Congressional Management Foundation. Now a consultant to the organization, Shapiro interviewed dozens of lawmakers and chiefs of staff last year to compile a report and manual on how House offices can prioritize in the face of further cuts.

"They're not replacing staff, they've stopped doing certain things they've done routinely, like town hall meetings. They're not allowing staff to travel back to the district, or they're limiting times a Member can go back," Shapiro said.
"What are the prospects for 2013? My guess is, this time around, a lot of offices are going to say, 'There's nothing left to cut. Now every time we cut, we're cutting services and reducing the capacity of this office.'"

The legislative branch budget, established by the smallest of the dozen annual appropriations bills, funds staff salaries and office operating expenses. It also supports the Capitol Police, the Architect of the Capitol's office and the Government Accountability Office. And then there's the Congressional Budget Office, which analyzes the budgetary impact of legislation.

Unless Congress and the president agree on an alternative to the sequester, all of those budgets would be cut by 8.2 percent, according to the OMB.

The legislative branch budget has already taken deep cuts in the past two years, with lawmakers -- particularly in the House -- using the appropriations bill as an opportunity to demonstrate their willingness to lead by example in the deficit reduction effort.

But those responsible for Congressional operations and maintenance of the Capitol complex say additional spending cuts will be difficult.

The Library of Congress urgently needs additional shelving for its vast book collection, but does not have funding for an appropriate off-site facility. The library's funding for salaries and expenses would take a $34 million hit under the sequester, based on the fiscal 2012 spending level, according to the OMB.

The Capitol Dome is deteriorating after more than a century of weather damage, but funding for that project has also fallen by the wayside.

It's not easy to quantify how life would be different on Capitol Hill for Members and aides, or for lawmakers' constituents, after a sequester. But the effects would not be good, stakeholders said.

"We're going to find out what it means," House Administration Chairman Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) said. "I've always thought the legislative branch was a pretty important function, as opposed to many different executive branch agencies, and if sequestration occurred, I think we would sustain cuts that would be felt."

"It's going to have an impact on us," agreed Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch. "The important thing to recognize is this isn't just about defense. There are an awful lot of other areas of government, Congress being one of them."

The sequester could have a very tangible effect on life on Capitol Hill if it reduces the ability of the Capitol Police force to maintain its presence and strength across the campus.

In recent years, Democrats and Republicans in both chambers have committed to, at the very least, flat-lining the police budget in recognition of security concerns. Many thought that doing so was particularly necessary in the aftermath of the 2011 shooting of then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) at a constituent event in Tucson, Ariz.

Sequestration could essentially override that prioritization. The OMB calculated that the sequester would reduce Capitol Police salary expenditures by $23 million and other expenses by $5 million.

Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Terrance Gainer said reducing current spending by more than 8 percent would not affect the force's ability to protect the Capitol and its Members, staffers and visitors. "But we might have to do different things in the long term, like closing certain doors to office buildings, which is inconvenient. But everyone will still be safe up here," Gainer said.

Inconvenience would likely be the biggest change, he predicted.

"There are a lot of services my agency provides and that will be affected [such as] ... the response time for when a computer can be fixed, finding out the availability of studios," Gainer said. "People will have to adjust to business at a different pace. The quality of services would ultimately suffer a little bit, but that's what goes along with prioritization."

Copyright CQ Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without prior written permission of CQ Roll Call.


Also on HuffPost:

Loading Slideshow...
  • Nuts Bring Buckets of Same

    Just in case anyone forgot that the House Judiciary Committee ACORN hearing was a House Judiciary Committee hearing about ACORN, <a href="">Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) helpfully brought a bucket of acorns</a> to the House Judiciary Committee. Also that day, colleague Lamar Smith praising the "turnout so early in the day" at 2:30pm, and Louie Gohmert offering up the malaprop: “From one acorn, many nuts can grow.” Like, say, Peter King.

  • Hello Kitty, Hello Revolving Debt

    Credit cards. Were it not for them, we would have to save up money in order to buy things. But do some credit cards take it too far, marketing to the youths? Byron Dorgan thought so when he saw the Hello Kitty Platinum VISA. "Does it seem to you like they’re targeting that 10-year-old, the 14-year-old." Ha! He should see the <a href="">Hello Kitty vibrator</a>.

  • "I'll See Your Baby, And Raise You Two Tweens"

    Last time out, we made mention of Representative John Shadegg's (R-Ariz.) attempt to wield a baby in order to make a point about how terrible health care reform was. We neglected to mention that Representative Pete Stark (D-Calif.) took it a step further, and attempted to bring two young children to make his own points about health care (5:25 in video), at which point the House was officially barred from trafficking in human props any further.

  • John Thune's Stackin' Dollars

    How much is too much stimulus? When it allows representatives to make junior high math analogies based on topography and astronomy, maybe. Here, Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) makes some stupid pictures of dollar stacks that extend into the sky, to the celestial firmament itself. “If you took 100 dollar bills, Mr. President," Thune said, "and stacked them on top of each other you would have a stack that goes 689 miles high.” He added, "In other words, if you took the 100 dollar bills and not stacked them on top of each other, but wrapped them side-by-side all around the earth… If you could believe this, it’d go around the earth almost 39 times." So, we cannot stimulate the economy, because of science! (1:15 in clip)

  • Gettin' High On Your Own Supply (Of A Substance That Does Not Get You High)

    Representative Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) wasn't having any of that whole "regulating tobacco" stuff. Why? Because it's "not the nicotine that kills, it's the smoke!" So, he argued, why don't we regulate lettuce, to keep people from smoking lettuce? Wouldn't that prevent a "pandemic" of cancers? This would have been a good point, were it not for the non-existence of either a massive industry geared toward curing lettuce and rolling it into cigarettes, or a target market of consumers who were even remotely interested in smoking lettuce. BUT YEAH OTHER THAT ALL THAT STUFF (and the fact that nicotine is addictive) STEVE BUYER IS A GENIUS.

  • And Now, A Poem From Ted Poe

    From Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas): <i>It came on two pages, It has withstood the ages. / The word "shall,'' is only 10 times mentioned, But enough to get one's attention. / No taxes did this law raise, To this day it continues to create much praise; / Two great religions does it claim, The "Law of the Ten Commandments'' is its name. / A current writing, 1,990 pages long, Has a socialist philosophy that is all wrong; / Difficult for the people to understand, And troubling what big government doth demand. / Over 3,445 "shalls'' it does loudly shout, New massive taxes does it proudly tout; / Written in secret by the bureaucrats, For exclusive use of the taxacrats. / The Congressional bill called "Health Care Reform," Is illusionary, the authors are still ill-informed; / Government ought not take over America's health biz. / And that's just the way it is."</i> And so, America, this is why you should have to die of easily treated medical conditions.

  • And Now, An Even Dumber Poem, From Roland Burris

    From the junior senator from Illinois: <i>"It was the night before Christmas, and all through the Senate / The right held up our health care bill, no matter what was in it / The people had voted a mandated reform / But Republicans blew off the gathering storm / We'll clog up the Senate, they cried with a grin / And in the midterm elections, we'll get voted in / They knew regular folks needed help right this second / But fundraisers, lobbyists and politics beckoned / So try as they might, Democrats could not win / Because the majority was simply too thin / Then across every state there rose such a clatter / The whole senate rushed out to see what was the matter / All sprang up from their desk and ran from the floor / Straight through the cloakroom and right out the door."</i> <a href="">There's more</a>, but you will probably want to shoot yourself in the face after you read it.

  • Chuck Grassley Goes All Aggro On The Speaker Box

    For some reason, in the course of discussing fuel efficiency standards, Senator Chuck Grassley decided he should drive his point home by shouting out Ashton Kutcher and his movie, "Dude, Where's My Car." Prior to this, Grassley went on an <a href="">extended monologue</a> about Pink Floyd's <i>Dark Side of the Moon</i> album and the shards of a broken prism and the "multishades" of light. Just straight up tripping balls, in the well of the Senate. Anyway, as you now know, this TOTALLY fixed fuel efficiency standards!

  • Sam Brownback Will Save Your Inanimate Genetic Material

    Who's looking out for your precious bodily fluids? Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, that's who. And he's enlisted the help of a young girl, named Hannah, who has the power of talking to human embryos! "<a href="">Are you going to kill me?</a>" the embryos asked Hannah, who immediately scrawled a picture of this conversation on a giant piece of posterboard, so that Sam Brownback could stop people from killing the stem cells. And then Sam Brownback went on to support a bunch of wars in the Middle East!

  • The Most Important Prop Of All

    James Inhofe (R-Batshit) hates him some gay marriage, and the gays in general. And to make his point, he carries around with him The Most Important Prop in America: a picture of his family. "As you see here, and I think this is maybe the most important prop we’ll have during the entire debate, my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I’m really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we’ve never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship." Ha! THAT HE KNOWS OF!