Legislative Branch: FY2006 Appropriations

CRS Report for Congress
Legislative Branch:
FY2006 Appropriations
Updated August 30, 2005
Paul E. Dwyer
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division


Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and supplemental) by
Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also encompasses the
consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation, other spending
measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and the spending
of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing statutes.
Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission
of the President’s budget at the beginning of each annual session of Congress.
Congressional practices governing the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary
measures are rooted in the Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and
statutes, such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers each year.
It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House Committee on
Appropriations and Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch of the Senate Committee
on Appropriations. It summarizes the current legislative status of the bill, its scope, major
issues, funding levels, and related legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff
relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at
http://beta.crs.gov/cli/level_2.aspx?PRDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=

73].



Legislative Branch: FY2006 Appropriations
Summary
The President signed H.R. 2985, the FY2006 Legislative Branch Appropriations
Act, into P.L. 109-55 on August 2, 2005 (119 Stat. 565). The act provides $3.804
billion in new budget authority, a 4.49% increase of $163.61 million over current
budget authority. Going into conference, the House bill contained $2.87 billion, a
1.7% increase over the current budget, excluding funds for Senate items, which were
determined by the Senate after House consideration of the bill. The Senate bill
contained $3.83 billion, a 6.3% increase, including funds for House items.
The level of funding is less than the outlay of $3.809 billion projected by the
House Budget Committee. The difference is to be offset by the use of prior year
funds made available primarily for projects under jurisdiction of the Architect of the
Capitol. As enacted into law, H.R. 2985 contained new discretionary budget
authority of $3.804 billion, exceeding the 302(b) allocation by $85 million.
One of the more controversial issues, House language providing for continuity
of representation in the House of Representatives pursuant to an emergency situation,
was retained by conferees. The Senate bill did not contain the language.
Actions on the FY2006 bill follow last year’s approval by the Committees on
Appropriations of a virtual funding freeze. Congress eventually agreed to a 1.2%
increase, which fell below the 1.3% increase agreed to by both houses for
discretionary funds.
Among other issues that were under consideration during discussions on the
FY2006 budget were
!requests by the chairman of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees for agencies to identify further their FY2006 objectives
in an effort to reduce their requests to more closely mirror the
President’s call for a 2.1% on discretionary appropriations;
!funding for the U.S. Capitol Police budget (the House bill contained
a 0.7% decrease; the Senate bill, a 9.6% increase; and the conference
report, a 3.31% increase;
!funding for the Capitol Visitor Center (the House bill contained
$36.9 million; the Senate bill, $44.2 million, with conferees agreeing
to the Senate figure);
!language in the House bill terminating the Capitol Police mounted
horse unit, which was retained in conference; the Senate bill did not
contain the provision;
!language regarding management of the Capitol Police;
!language in both the House and Senate bill limiting the pay of a
legislative branch employee to that received by a Member of
Congress, which was dropped during conference; and,
!language in the Senate report encouraging the application of
performance standards for the legislative branch similar to those
now statutorily required by the executive branch.



Key Policy Staff
Area ofCRS
ExpertiseName DivisionTelephone and E-mail
AppropriationsBill HeniffGOV/FIN7-8646
P rocess wheni ff@crs.l o c.go v
Sandy StreeterGOV/FIN7-8653
sstreeter@crs.loc.gov
CommitteeEric PetersenGOV/FIN7-0643
Funding epet ersen@crs.l o c.go v
Franking;
Staffing
LegislativePaul DwyerGOV/FIN7-8668
Operat i ons pdwyer@crs.l o c.go v
Division abbreviations: GOV/FIN = Government and Finance



Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Introduction to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill..................1
Changes in Structure of Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill
Effective in FY2003........................................2
Activities and Programs Related to the Legislative Branch but Not
Funded in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill.............2
Elimination of House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch in
February 2005............................................3
Status of FY2006 Appropriations.....................................4
Action on the FY2006 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill ..........4
Submission of FY2006 Budget Request on February 7, 2005........4
Congressional Caps on FY2006 Legislative Branch Discretionary
Funds ...............................................5
Senate Hearings on FY2006 Budget...........................5
House Hearings on FY2006 Budget...........................6
House Markup of FY2006 Bill...............................6
House Report of the FY2006 Bill (H.R. 2985)...................6
House Passage of the House FY2006 Bill (H.R. 2985).............7
Senate Report of the FY2006 Legislative Funding Bill (H.R. 2985)...7
Senate Passage of the FY2006 Bill (H.R. 2985)..................7
Conference Action on the FY2006 Bill (H.R. 2985)...............8
Action on the FY2005 Supplemental Appropriation Bill (Capitol
Police and Architect of the Capitol Funds)(P.L. 109-13)...........8
FY2006 Legislative Branch Funding Issues.............................9
Capitol Complex Security — U.S. Capitol Police.....................9
Funding Issues............................................9
FY2005 Capitol Police Supplemental (P.L. 109-13)..............11
Capitol Complex Security — Capitol Visitor Center (CVC)...........12
House Hearing...........................................17
Committee Consideration of FY2006 CVC Funding.................18
Floor Consideration of FY2006 CVC Funding......................19
Conference Committee Report CVC Language..................20
Final Action on FY2006 CVC Appropriations..................20
Application of Performance Standards to Legislative Branch Agencies...21
Architect of the Capitol Operations...............................22
Funding Levels...........................................22
Highlights of Senate Hearing on FY2006 Budget of the AOC......22
Capitol Police Buildings and Grounds.........................23
Perimeter Security, FY2005 Supplemental (P.L. 109-13)..........24
House of Representatives.......................................24
Overall Funding..........................................24
House Committee Funding.................................24
Administrative Language...................................25
Senate ......................................................25
Overall Funding..........................................25



Other Senate Provisions....................................25
Highlights of Hearing on FY2006 Budget of the Secretary of the
Senate ..............................................26
Support Agency Funding.......................................26
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)..........................26
Library of Congress (LOC).................................26
Highlights of Senate Hearing on FY2006 Budget of the LOC......28
Congressional Research Service (CRS)........................28
Government Accountability Office (GAO).....................29
Highlights of Senate Hearing on FY2006 Budget of GAO.........30
Government Printing Office (GPO)...........................30
Other Funding...............................................31
Office of Compliance......................................31
Open World Leadership Center..............................32
John B. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and
Development ........................................32
For Additional Reading............................................39
CRS Report.................................................39
Selected Websites............................................39
List of Tables
Table 1. Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY1995 - FY2005.............4
Table 2. Status of Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY2006
(P.L. 109-55; H.R. 2985) .......................................4
Table 3. Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY2006 (P.L. 109-55;
H.R. 2985) ..................................................33
Table 4. Capitol Police Appropriations, FY2006 (P.L. 109-55; H.R. 2985)...35
Table 5. Architect of the Capitol Appropriations, FY2006 (P.L. 109-55;
H.R. 2985)..................................................35
Table 6. Senate Appropriations, FY2006 (P.L. 109-55; H.R. 2985) .........36
Table 7. House of Representatives Appropriations, FY2006 (P.L. 109-55;
H.R. 2985)..................................................37



Legislative Branch:
FY2006 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
The FY2006 legislative funding bill, H.R. 2985, was signed into P.L. 109-55 by
President Bush on August 2, 2005.
Prior to House and Senate consideration of the FY2006 funding bill, Congress
agreed to a FY2005 supplemental containing funds for salaries and expenses of the
Capitol Police and for an interim congressional off-site delivery and screening facility
and design of a permanent facility, funded within the budget of the Architect of the
Capitol.
Introduction to the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Bill
The annual legislative branch appropriations bill usually contains two titles.
Appropriations for legislative branch agencies are contained in Title I. These entities,
as they appear in the annual appropriations bill, are the Senate; House of1
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 contained funds for the John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and
Development and the Congressional Award Act.
On occasion the bill may contain a third title for out of the ordinary legislation.
For example, the pending House-passed version of the FY2006 legislative branch


1 Funded within the Joint Items account are the Joint Economic Committee; the Joint
Committee on Taxation; the Office of Attending Physician; the Capitol Guide Service and
Special Services Office; and Statements of Appropriations. The Special Services Office,
within the Capitol Guide Service, provides accessible and sign language guided tours of the
Capitol. The Statement of Appropriations account funds preparation of appropriations
statements for each calendar year. These statements contain appropriations enacted,
indefinite appropriations, authorized contracts, and a history of regular appropriations
required by law.

appropriations bill contains language providing for the continuity of congressional
representation in the event of an emergency.
Changes in Structure of Legislative Branch
Appropriations Bill Effective in FY2003
Congress changed the structure of the annual legislative branch appropriations
bill 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 authorities 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 budgets for activities considered by the
Committee on Appropriations not to directly support 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 was funded in Title I); and Government
Accountability Office, formerly named the General Accounting Office. Periodically
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
and trust funds, and for non-legislative entities.
Permanent federal funds are available as the result of previously enacted
legislation and do not require annual action.2
Permanent trust funds are monies held in accounts credited with collections
from specific sources earmarked by law for a defined purpose. Trust funds do not
appear in the annual legislative bill since they are not budget authority. They are


2 FY2006 estimated legislative branch permanent federal fund authority is $332 million,
comprised of House member pay ($93 million), Senate member pay ($22 million); House
and Senate use of foreign currencies (for use of Members traveling in foreign countries)
($25 million); and Library of Congress payments to copyright owners ($192 million).
Source is the FY2006 U.S. Budget (with figures rounded to the nearest million).

included in the U.S. Budget, prepared by the Office of Management and Budget,
either as budget receipts or offsetting collections.3
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. 4
For a more accurate picture of the legislative branch budget as contained in the
annual legislative branch appropriation bill, the total legislative branch request of
$4.412 billion in the FY2006 U.S. Budget must be adjusted. This is accomplished
by subtracting permanent federal and trust funds, non-legislative entities’ funds,
intergovernmental funds, and including offsetting receipts and intrafund transactions.
After making these adjustments, the request for entities funded in the regular annual
appropriation bill is $4.028 billion.5
Elimination of House Subcommittee on
Legislative Branch in February 2005
Prior to the 109th 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.


3 FY2006 estimated permanent trust fund authority is $38 million, comprised of Library of
Congress gift and trust fund account ($19 million); U.S. Tax Court trust fund ($1 million);
and “Other Legislative Branch Agencies” ($18 million), including U.S. Capitol Preservation
Commission trust funds ($1 million), Open World Leadership trust fund ($15 million), and
John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development trust funds ($2
million). Source is the FY2006 U.S. Budget (with figures rounded to the nearest million).
4 The FY2006 U.S. Budget contains $56 million in federal funds for non-legislative entities
under two headings: (1) “U.S. Tax Court” ($49 million); and (2) “Other Legislative Branch
Agencies, Legislative Branch Boards and Commissions” ($7 million). Figures in the
FY2006 U.S. Budget are rounded to the nearest million.
5 The figure was derived by (1) subtracting permanent federal funds (-$332 million),
permanent trust funds (-$38 million), federal funds for non-legislative entities ($-56
million), and intergovernmental funds (-$7 million), and (2) adding intrafund transactions
(+$15 million), deductions made for offsetting receipts (+$29 million in federal funds and
$+2 million in trust funds), and changes to the original estimate (+$3 million).

Table 1. Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY1995 - FY2005
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)a
Fiscal Years
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
2.378 2.184 2.203 2.288 2.581b 2.486 c 2.730 d 3.252 e 3.461 f 3.528 g 3.640 h
a. These figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and contain supplementals and
rescissions. Permanent budget authorities are not included in the annual legislative branch appropriations
bill, but rather, are automatically funded each year.
b. Includes budget authority contained in the FY1999 regular annual Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (P.L.
105-275), the FY1999 emergency supplemental appropriation (P.L. 105-277), and the FY1999
supplemental appropriation (P.L. 106-31).
c. Includes budget authority contained in the FY2000 regular annual Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (P.L.
106-57); a supplemental and a 0.38% rescission in P.L. 106-113; and supplementals in P.L. 106-246 and
P.L. 106-554.
d. This figure contains: (1) FY2001 regular annual appropriations contained in H.R. 5657, legislative branch
appropriations bill; (2) FY2001 supplemental appropriations of $118 million and a 0.22% across-the-board
rescission contained in H.R. 5666, miscellaneous appropriations bill; and (3) FY2001 supplemental
appropriations of $79.5 million contained in H.R. 2216 (P.L. 107-20). H.R. 5657 and H.R. 5666 were
incorporated by reference in P.L. 106-554, FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The first
FY2001legislative branch appropriations bill, H.R. 4516, was vetoed Oct. 30, 2000. The second legislative
branch appropriations bill, H.R. 5657, was introduced Dec. 14, 2000, and incorporated in P.L. 106-554. This
figure does not reflect any terrorism supplementals funds released pursuant to P.L. 107-38.
e. This figure contains regular annual appropriations in P.L. 107-68; transferred from the legislative branch
emergency response fund pursuant to P.L. 107-117; and FY2002 supplemental appropriations in P.L. 107-
206.
f. This figure contains regular annual appropriations in P.L. 108-7, FY2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act, and
supplemental appropriations in P.L. 108-11.
g. This figure contains regular annual appropriations in P.L. 108-83, FY2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act.
Additional FY2004 provisions which did not contain appropriations were contained in P.L. 108-199, the
FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
h. This figure contains regular annual appropriations in P.L. 108-447, Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2005
(adjusted by a 0.80% rescission also contained in P.L. 108-447), and P.L. 109-13, FY2005 Emergency
Supplemen tal.
Status of FY2006 Appropriations
Table 2. Status of Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY2006
(P.L. 109-55; H.R. 2985)
Conference Report
Committee MarkupHouseHouseSenateSenateConferenceApprovalPublic
Repo rt Passage Repo rt Passage Repo rt La wH o use Sena t e H o use Sena t e
06/20/0506/22/0506/24/0506/30/0507/26/0507/28/0507/29/05P.L. 109-55
06/16/05 06/23/05 (H.Rep t. (330-82) (S.Rep t. (unanimous (H.Rep t. (305-122) (96-4) 08/02/05
109-139) 109-89) consen t) 109-189)
Action on the FY2006 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill
Submission of FY2006 Budget Request on February 7, 2005. On
February 7, 2005, the President submitted the FY2006 U.S. Budget containing $4.028
billion in legislative branch budget authority, a 13.7% increase. A substantial part of



the increase was 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.
In response to the request, some members of the Committees on Appropriations
early on indicated the probability of a tight budget pursuant to agency revisions of their
budget priorities.
On April 13, 2005, the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Legislative
Branch, Committee on Appropriations, Senator Wayne Allard, stated that:
Clearly, in the constrained budget environment in which we will be operating, an
increase of this level (over 13%) will be difficult if not impossible to provide. So
we will be seeking to ensure that all agencies have prioritized their budget requests,
are taking steps to operate as cost-effectively as possible, and are eliminating6
wasteful or unnecessary spending.
On May 3, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative
Jerry Lewis, referred to the impossibility of providing requested funding in view of the
President’s 2.1% cap on FY2006 discretionary funding.7
Congressional Caps on FY2006 Legislative Branch Discretionary
Funds. As required by law, both houses approved separate 302(b) budget allocations
for legislative discretionary funds in FY2006. The House allocation of $3.719 billion
represents a 3.2% over the enacted FY2005 budget authority of $3.605 billion, while the
Senate’s allocation of $3.904 billion is an 8.3% increase.
As enacted into law, H.R. 2985 contained new discretionary budget authority of
$3.804 billion, exceeding the 302(b) allocation by $85 million.
Senate Hearings on FY2006 Budget. The Senate Subcommittee on
Legislative Branch, Committee on Appropriations, completed hearings on the FY2006
proposals of the Secretary of the Senate and the Architect of the Capitol (April 13,
2005), the Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Open World
Leadership Center, and Government Accountability Office (April 19), and the Senate
Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police Board (April 27). On May 11 a hearing was held
on requests of the Government Printing Office and Congressional Budget Office, and
May 17, on the Capitol Visitor Center.


6 Remarks of Chairman Wayne Allard, Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch,
Committee on Appropriations, Hearings on the FY2006 Budgets of the Secretary of thethst
Senate and Architect of the Capitol, 109 Cong., 1 sess, Apr. 13, 2005 (not yet printed).
7 Remarks of Chairman Jerry Lewis, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative
Branch Appropriations for 2006, hearings, part 2, 109th Cong., 1st sess, May 3, 2005
(Washington, GPO, 2005, p. 1.

In addition to his comments on a “constrained budget environment,” Senator
Wayne Allard, chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, considered
the schedule and budget for completion of the Capitol Visitor Center to be of primary
importance.
House Hearings on FY2006 Budget. The House Committee on
Appropriations considered the request of the AOC during a 2 ½ hour May 3 hearing,
which focused primarily on costs, completion deadlines, and space provisions of the
CVC. Approval of obligation plans by the ranking minority member of the House
Appropriations Committee, required for some work to proceed on the center, was
temporarily halted by the member until further studies and decisions are made regarding
the allocation of space in the center.
A second hearing was held by the committee May 23 on the budgets of the House
of Representatives, Government Accountability Office, Library of Congress, and
Congressional Research Service
House Markup of FY2006 Bill. On June 16, the full committee marked its
version of the FY2006 bill at a 1.7% increase over current budget authority. Accounts
are increased or reduced from current levels as follows: House of Representatives,
+1.2%; Joint items, +5.4%; Capitol Police, -0.7%; Office of Compliance, +30.0%;
Congressional Budget Office, +2.3%; Architect of the Capitol, +5.6%; Library of
Congress, +1.4%; Congressional Research Service, +3.99%; Government Printing
Office, +2.4%; Government Accountability Office, +3.3%; and Open World Leadership
Center, +4.5%.
Two amendments introduced by Chairman Jerry Lewis were adopted during
markup by voice vote:
!Manager’s amendment which authorizes a Governing Board for the
Capitol Visitors Center, reinstates funds for the Open World Leadership
Center Trust Fund, and contains other provisions.
!Amendment to insert language on continuity in representation, passed
by the House earlier this year in separate legislation, at the end of the
bill. The amendment contains rules for filling vacancies in the House
of Representatives due to extraordinary circumstances, such as those
caused by acts of terrorism.
House Report of the FY2006 Bill (H.R. 2985). The House Appropriations
Committee reported its marked version of H.R. 2985 on June 20, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-8
139), which contained $2.870 billion, a 1.7% increase. The funding figure reflects an
increase of $4.0 million over the committee’s pre-markup bill of $2.865 billion. This
$4.0 million increase reflects the addition of $14.0 million for reinstatement of the Open
World Leadership Center and a rescission of $10.0 million from the salaries and
expenses account of the Library of Congress to be used to partially fund the center.


8 The increase is based on the FY2005 funding level of $2.823 billion (excluding Senate
items).

Funds from the Library’s account were originally made available for the National
Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Fund for a copyright reengineering
project.
House Passage of the House FY2006 Bill (H.R. 2985). On June 23, the
House passed H.R. 2985 (yea and nay vote, 330-82) after voting to reduce by $5.4
million the congressional printing and binding account of the Government Printing
Office (from $88.09 million to $82.69 million). The amended House bill, as passed,
contained $2.864 billion.
During consideration of H.R. 2985, the House took the following actions:
!rejected an Obey motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on
Appropriations (recorded vote, 180-232);
!agreed to a Flake amendment to reduce the Government Printing and
Binding budget by $5.4 million in order to reduce the number of
Congressional Records printed each day (voice);
!rejected a McHenry amendment to increase funding for general
expenses of the Capitol Police (voice);
!rejected a Baird amendment to strike Title III, relating to the continuity
in representation act (recorded vote, 143-268);
!rejected a JoAnn Davis (Virginia) amendment to strike the language in
the bill which prohibited the Capitol Police from operating a mounted
horse unit and required the transfer of current horses and equipment to
the U.S. Park Police (recorded vote, 185-226); and,
!rejected a Hefley amendment to reduce the overall appropriations in the
bill by 1.0% (recorded vote, 114-294).
Senate Report of the FY2006 Legislative Funding Bill (H.R. 2985).
The Senate Committee on Appropriations marked its version of H.R. 2985 and ordered
the bill reported on June 23. As amended the committee’s bill contains $3.83 billion,
including funds for House items. The Senate mark was a 6.4% increase over the current
FY2005 budget.
The committee adopted the Allard amendment providing an additional $80,000
to the Secretary of the Senate for a feasibility study of Senate staff.
It also agreed to the Byrd move to strike from the House version of the spending
bill, Title III containing language on the continuity of representation in the House of
Representatives in event of a major emergency.
Senate Passage of the FY2006 Bill (H.R. 2985). The Senate approved
H.R. 2985 as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, after agreeing to an
amendment offered by Senator Allard (for Lott/Dodd). The amendment made $800,000
available to the Librarian of Congress to pay telecommunications expenses of the rapid



dissemination of periodicals and daily newspapers available to blind and physically
handicapped readers. The amendment did not change the total new budget authority in
the bill, since the money was made available from funds already provided for elsewhere
in the bill. H.R. 2985 was agreed to on June 30 by unanimous consent.
Conference Action on the FY2006 Bill (H.R. 2985). Conferees, who
issued their report on July 26 (H.Rept. 109-189), retained a House-passed provision in
Title III, which provides for expedited special elections to replace Members of the
House of Representatives when 100 or more of the seats in the House are vacant due to
“extraordinary circumstances.”9 Other actions by conferees are noted throughout this
report.
Action on the FY2005 Supplemental Appropriation Bill (Capitol
Police and Architect of the Capitol Funds)(P.L. 109-13)
Conferees on the FY2005 $81 billion emergency supplemental bill, H.R. 1268,
agreed to
!$11.0 million for the Capitol Police, General Expenses;
!$8.2 million for Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Grounds, to complete
Capitol Square perimeter security;
!$4.1 million for Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Police Buildings and
Grounds; 10
!$162,100 for death gratuity payment to the spouse of a deceased
Member of Congress (equal to one year’s salary); and
!$39.0 million for the House of Representatives, Salaries and Expenses,
to remain available until expended, for “House operations related to
Business Continuity/Disaster Recovery, security and digital mail, and
information system security.”11
The Senate version of the supplemental contained $23.3 million for the Capitol
Police, Salaries and Expenses, and $23 million for the Architect of the Capitol, Capitol


9 H.R. 2985 incorporated the text of H.R. 841, the Continuity of Representation Act of
2005, introduced by Representative James Sensenbrenner, passed by the House on March
3, 2005; the measure had been placed on the Senate legislative calendar, but had not been
called up for floor action.
10 U..S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2005, Making Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005, conference report tothst
accompany H.R. 1268, H.Rept. 109-72, 109 Cong., 1 sess. (Washington: GPO, 2005), pp.

42-43 (Division A, Title III (Domestic Appropriations for the War on Terror), Chapter 4,


(Legislative Branch).
11 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2005, Making Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005, conference report tothst
accompany H.R. 1268, H.Rept. 109-72, 109 Cong., 1 sess. (Washington: GPO, 2005), pp.

141 (joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference).



Police Buildings and Grounds, for construction of an off-site delivery facility.12 The
Senate passed H.R. 1268 on April 21. The House version of H.R. 1268 did not contain
a legislative branch supplemental.
Administrative provisions in the conference version of H.R. 1268:
!direct that fees for use of the House exercise facility be deposited in the
House Services Revolving Fund, under the account House of
Representatives, House Services Revolving Fund;
!provide technical corrections to provisions regarding the Library of
Congress by changing references to the chair of the Subcommittee on
Legislative Branch to the chair of the Committee on Appropriations of
the House for membership on the Joint Committee on the Library and
the Board of Trustees of the Open World Leadership Program (to
reflect the abolishment of the House Subcommittee on Legislative
Branch at the beginning of the 109th Congress); and
!eliminate the statutory requirement that the chair and ranking minority
member of the House Appropriations Committee be required to
approve the obligation of funds by the AOC for the CVC; the
amendment requires approval by the House Appropriations
Committee.13
The House approved the conference language on May 5, 2005, by a vote of 368-

58. The Senate approved the conference report on May 10 (100-0).


FY2006 Legislative Branch Funding Issues
Capitol Complex Security — U.S. Capitol Police
Funding Issues. Congress provided $249.46 million for the police, a 3.31%
increase. The House bill contained $239.7million, a reduction of 0.7% from the
FY2005 budget authority of $241.5 million, while the Senate version included $264.6
million, an increase of 9.6%. The department’s original request of $290.1 million


12 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, reportthst
to accompany H.R. 1268, 109 Cong., 1 sess., S.Rept. 109-52 (Washington: GPO, 2005),
p. 53 (Title III, Chapter 4).
13 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2005, Making Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005, conference reports tothst
accompany H.R. 1268, H.Rept. 109-72, 109 Cong., 1 sess. (Washington: GPO, 2005), pp.

66 (Division A, Title VI (General Provisions and Technical Correction).



represented a 20.2% increase; however, in May 2005 the department received $11.0
million of its request in the FY2005 supplemental (P.L. 109-13).14
Appropriations for the police are contained in two accounts:
!the salaries account, for which $230.2 million was requested, a 14.1%
increase; the House bill contained $210.4 million; the Senate bill,
$222.6 million; and the conference report, $217.46 million;
!the general expenses account, for which $59.9 million was requested,
a 109.2%increase; the House bill contained $29.4 million; the Senate
bill, $42.0 million; and the conference report, $32.0 million;
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,
communication 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. P.L. 109-55
contains $14.9 million, an increase of 50.4%. While the House bill contained a 69.9%
increase, or $16.8 million, the Senate bill contained a 1.3% increase, or $10.0 million,
or a 1.3% increase. The Architect’s request of $35 million represented an increase of
$29.2 million (502.1%), with most of the funds ($23.7 million) to remain available until
September 30, 2010.
Language inserted by conferees:
!terminates the Capitol Police mounted horse unit, transferring horses
and equipment to the U.S. Park Police;
!requires Capitol Police employees to file annual reports with the Clerk
of the House pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act;
!establishes an Office of Inspector General of the Capitol Police;
!requires the Capitol Police to file semiannual reports on disbursements;
!extends authority of the Capitol Police to fill vacancies on the Library
of Congress police force with Capitol Police officers;


14 Effective beginning in FY2003, appropriations for Capitol Police salaries and expenses
accounts in the annual legislative branch appropriation bill are contained in a stand-alone
account. Previously, the appropriation was contained within the joint items account. Also
effective in FY2003, a new account was created for Capitol Police buildings and grounds
within the Architect of the Capitol account.

!directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review Capitol
Police overtime usage;
!waives repayment of certain overtime compensation “incorrectly paid”
and “encourages the Capitol Police Board to work closely with the
Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on
Rules and Administration to address any further issues [on its authority
to provide overtime and compensatory pay to certain employees] which
may arise from [a pending opinion of GAO];15
!directs GAO to report on police management of the truck interdiction
program (the program was not repealed as proposed by the House); and
!directs the Capitol Police chief to “implement a structured internal
control program” and to submit a report outlining improvements in
internal controls by October 1, 2005.
FY2005 Capitol Police Supplemental (P.L. 109-13). Conferees on the
FY2005 $81 billion emergency supplemental bill, H.R. 1268, agreed to additional
funding for the Capitol Police of $11.0 million for the General Expenses account, and
additional funding of $4.1 million for the Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Police16
Buildings and Grounds account. The supplemental was signed into P.L. 109-13 on
May 11, 2005.
The Senate version of the supplemental contained $23.3 million for the Capitol
Police, Salaries and Expenses account, including (1) $10.0 million for Capitol Police
salaries to allow hiring of up to 50 officers “to ensure adequate coverage of all existing1718
and new posts,” and (2) $13.3 million for emergency security requirements. Some
of the funds were to be held in a reserve fund to meet future emergencies. The bill also
contained $23 million for the Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Police Buildings and
Grounds, for construction of an off-site delivery facility.19


15 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2005, Making Appropriations for the Legislative
Branch for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2006, and For Other Purposes,thst
conference report to accompany H.R. 2985, H.Rept. 109-189, 109 Cong., 1 sess.
(Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 33.
16 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2005, Making Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005, conference report tothst
accompany H.R. 1268, H.Rept. 109-72, 109 Cong., 1 sess. (Washington: GPO, 2005), pp.

42-43 (Division A, Title III (Domestic Appropriations for the War on Terror), Chapter 4,


(Legislative Branch).
17 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, reportthst
to accompany H.R. 1268, 109 Cong., 1 sess., S.Rept. 109-52 (Washington: GPO, 2005),
p. 53 (Title III, Chap. 4). See press release of the Senate Committee on Appropriations on
Apr. 6, 2005, [http://appropriations.senate.gov/hearmarkups/05SuppMark04-06-05.htm].
18 H.R. 1268 passed the Senate on April 21.
19 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, reportthst
to accompany H.R. 1268, 109 Cong., 1 sess., S.Rept. 109-52 (Washington: GPO, 2005),
p. 53 (Title III, Chapter 4).

The House version of H.R. 1268 did not contain funds for the Capitol Police.
As originally submitted by the Capitol Police, the FY2005 supplemental request
was $59.5 million, which included $36.5 million for the salaries account “to provide for
workforce staffing and overtime resources to support law enforcement, security,
emergency preparedness, screening, interdiction, and hazardous material/device
response operations.” The additional money funded “overtime, hazardous duty pay
differential, and Government contributions for health, retirement, social security,
professional liability insurance, and other applicable employee benefits.”20
The remainder of the supplemental request, $23.0 million, provided additional
funds to the Capitol Police general expenses account for “emergency expenses for the
security of the United States Capitol complex” and for “the continuance of operational
capabilities, assets, and services to support the mission of protecting the Legislative
Branch.”21
Capitol Complex Security — Capitol Visitor Center (CVC)22
FY2006 Funding Request. The legislative branch budget request submitted
for inclusion in the President’s FY2006 budget included an additional $36.9 million for
the CVC project, and $35.285 million for CVC operations costs, of which $19.991
million was to remain available until September 30, 2010. The request included the
following caveat: “That the Architect of the Capitol may not obligate any of the funds
which are made available for the Capitol Visitor Center project without an obligation
plan approved by the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and House of23
Representatives.” Also, included in FY2006 legislative branch budget request was
$9.965 million for “supplies, materials, and other costs relating to the House portion of24
Expenses for the Capitol Visitor Center ... to remain available until expended.”
Senate Hearings. The Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Senate
Committee on Appropriations, held a number of hearings during which the status of the
CVC was discussed.
April 2005. During an April 13, 2005, hearing, Architect of the Capitol Alan
M. Hantman emphasized the General Accountability Office had concluded that
approximately 75% of the increased costs of the CVC were largely beyond his control.


20 U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Letters to the President and Speaker of
the House of Representatives from the director of OMB, Mar. 2, 2005, containing a request
from the legislative branch for a Capitol Police FY2005 supplemental appropriation
[ h t t p : / / www.whi t e house.go v/ omb/ budget / a me ndment s / s uppl ement a l _3_2_05.pdf ] .
21 Ibid.
22 This section on the Capitol Visitor Center was contributed by Stephen W. Stathis,
Specialist in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
23 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2006: Appendix (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 127.
24 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2006: Appendix, (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 17.

He went on to innumerate several factors that had increased the cost of the center.25
Together, Hantman explained, these unanticipated aspects of the project, as well as a
number of others identified early, have prompted the GAO to now project that the cost
of the CVC could reach $515 million.26
May, June, and July 2005. On May 17, June 14, and July 14, 2005, the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, chaired by Senator
Wayne Allard, held hearings on the progress of the Capitol Visitor Center. Chairman
Allard has indicated that he intends to continue to hold monthly hearings on the center.
Much of the focus of all three oversight hearings thus far held by the subcommittee has
been reports by GAO on the progress of the project. GAO’s work on the center was
performed in response to requests from the Capitol Preservation Commission and as
directed by the conference report of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.Rept. 105-825) and the conference report on the27
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2004 (H.Rept. 108-279)
May 2005. At the May 2005 hearing, David M. Walker, GAO Comptroller
General, told the subcommittee that cost overruns and other problems could increase the
price tag of the CVC to “between $552 million and $559 million, significantly more
than originally estimated.” While he emphasized that a “majority of the delays and cost
increases were largely outside of AOC’s control,” he did say “[t]he weaknesses in


25 Among the factors cited by Hantman were costs associated with completing the House and
Senate expansion spaces, which were originally envisioned as unfinished “shell space,” and
nearly two dozen design changes have resulted in major renovations of the Capitol’s air
conditioning, heating, and ventilation systems, as well as security enhancements mandated
by Congress following the 2001 terrorists attacks. In addition, there has been: a significant
increase in the cost of building materials, which was 22% in just the past year; a reduction
in competitive bidding because there are so many other projects under construction in the
District of Columbia, and contractors bidding on a phase of the center must factor in the
added hassle and loss of time prompted by security checks of workers as well as vehicles
entering the site; a Buy America requirement that precluded the option of bidding for
stonework on the international market at a savings of approximately $10 million; and a
commitment to using better-quality materials when cheaper materials might have been
appropriate for another project. Testimony of Alan M. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol,
in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative
Branch, Overview of the FY2006 Budget for the Secretary of the Senate and the Architectthst
of the Capitol, hearing, 109 Cong., 1 sess., Apr. 13, 2005 (not yet published).
26 Testimony of Alan M. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, in U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Overview of the
FY2006 Appropriations: Budget for the Secretary of the Senate and Architect of the Capitol,thst
hearings, 109 Cong., 1 sess., Apr. 13, 2005 (not yet published). See also Jennifer
Yachnin, “CVC’s Last Stages May Go Into 2007,” Roll Call, Apr. 14, 2005, pp. 3, 15.
27 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 1998, Making Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999, conference report tothnd
accompany H.R. 4328, 105 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 105-825 (Washington: GPO, 1998),
pp. 1529; and U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, 2003, Making Appropriations for the
Legislative Branch for Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2004, and For Other Purposes,thst
conference report to accompany H.R. 2657, 108 Cong., 1 sess., H.Rept. 108-279
(Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 48-49.

AOC’s schedule and contract management activities have contributed to a portion of the
delays and cost overruns.”28
Also, GAO’s “analysis of the CVC worker safety data shows that injury and
illness rate for 2003 was about 50 percent higher for the CVC than for comparable
construction sites and that the rate for 2004 was about 30 percent higher than 2003.”29
Walker continued by stressing that “a number of [AOC] monthly reports to Congress,
in our view, have not fully and fairly reflected the project’s construction schedules and
costs and in some cases have not included accurate worker safety data. This has led to
certain expectation gaps within Congress.” While the “AOC’s current scheduled
completion date for the CVC is now September 2005,” GAO concluded, “that given
past problems and future risks and uncertainties that the completion date may be delayed
until sometime between December 2006 and March 2007.”30
To “help prevent further schedule delays, control cost growth and enhance
worker safety,” GAO reasoned, the “AOC urgently needs to give priority attention to
managing the project’s construction schedules and contracts, including those contract
provisions that address worker safety.” Such “actions are imperative if further cost
growth, schedule delays, and worker safety problems are to be avoided. AOC also
needs to see that it reports accurate information to Congress on the project.”
Additionally, “decisions by the Congress will have to be made regarding the additional
funding needed to complete construction and to address any related risk and
uncertainties that may arise.”31
AOC Alan M. Hantman, in response to questions from subcommittee members,
stated that he felt the CVC could be completed by September 2006, except for the
extension space. Hantman’s projection was supported by Bob Hixon, CVC project


28 Walker summarized the cost overruns in the following manner: “Of the project’s
estimated cost increase, about $147 million is due to scope changes, such as the addition of
the House and Senate expansion spaces. About $45 million are attributed to other factors
that are partially or outside the ability of AOC to control, such as higher than expected bids
on the sequence two contract, due in part to some unexpected conditions below ground.
And about $58 million are due to factors that were somewhat more within the AOC's ability
to control, such as delays.” Testimony of David M. Walker, Comptroller General,
Government Accountability Office, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Overview of the FY2006 Appropriations:thst
Legislative Branch, hearing, 109 Cong., 1 sess., May 17, 2005 (not yet published). See
also Susan Crabtree, “Senators Criticize Pace, Price of Visitor Center Work; GAO Eyes
2007 Opening,” CQ Today, May 18, 2005, p. 4; and Jennifer Yachnin, “”Walker Predicts
Higher Cost, Delays for CVC,” Roll Call, May 18, 2005, pp. 3, 24.
29 Testimony of David M. Walker, Overview of the FY2006 Appropriations: Legislative
Branch, hearing, May 17, 2005.
30 Testimony of David M. Walker, Overview of the FY2006 Appropriations: Legislative
Branch, hearing, May 17, 2005.
31 Testimony of David M. Walker, Comptroller General, Government Accountability Office,
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislativeth
Branch, Overview of the FY2006 Appropriations: Legislative Branch, hearing, 109 Cong.,st

1 sess., May 17, 2005 (not yet published).



director. Hantman also indicated that the “completion date for the expansion space
contractually is March 18, 2007.” Both Walker and Hixon told the subcommittee that
CVC contractors had taken a number of actions to promote and manage site safety.32
June 2005. Senate appropriators learned in June 2005 that Manhattan
Construction Co., the Sequence 2 contractor for the CVC, had met only three of the 11
“significant milestones” scheduled for completion by that date. Despite these setbacks,
AOC Hantman told the Senate Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch that he still
expected the center to be completed by September 2006. CVC project manager Bob
Hixon also felt that while the project was slightly off schedule, the Architect was
determined to complete the center on schedule. It would, however, Hantman
acknowledged at the hearing, cost additional money to get the project back on schedule.
Hantman did not provide an estimate of the additional funding needed to meet the
scheduled completion date.33
Bernard Ungar, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues at the Government
Accountability Office, was less optimistic in his prepared testimony. Ungar told the
Senate Subcommittee the Legislative Branch that “largely because of past problems and
risks and uncertainties that face the [Capitol Visitor Center] project, we continue to
believe that the project is more likely to be completed in the December 2006 to March
2007 time frame than in September 2006, as shown in AOC’s schedule.” While the
“AOC and its construction management contractor have,” Ungar emphasized,
“continued their efforts to address two of the areas we identified during the
Subcommittee’s May 17 CVC hearing as requiring priority attention,” the Architect “has
not yet developed risk mitigation plans or, as the Subcommittee requested, prepared a
master schedule that integrates the major steps needed to complete construction with the
steps needed to prepare for operations.” He was concerned that the “stacking of
activities toward the end” will prevent them from finishing the project on time.34


32 Testimony of David M. Walker, Comptroller General, Government Accountability Office;
Alan M. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol; and Bob Hixon, CVC project manager, U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch,thst
Overview of the FY2006 Appropriations: Legislative Branch, hearing, 109 Cong., 1 sess.,
May 17, 2005 (not yet published).
33 Testimonies of Bernard L. Ungar, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government
Accountability Office; Alan M. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol; and Bob Hixon, Capitol
Visitor Center project manager, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations,thst
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Capitol Visitor Center, hearing, 109 Cong., 1
sess., June 14, 2005 (not yet published). See also Jackie Kucinich, “GAO: 8 CVC Deadlines
Missed,” The Hill, June 15, 2005, p. 4; and Jennifer Yachnin, “Agencies Split Over CVC
Progress,” Roll Call, June 15, 2005, p. 6.
34 Testimony of Bernard L. Ungar, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government
Accountability Office, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee
on the Legislative Branch, June 14, 2005; and U.S. Government Accountability Office,
(continued...)

“Until recently,” Ungar explained, “AOC did not have funding to continue
contractual support it had been receiving to help plan and prepare for CVC operations.”
As a consequence, GAO continues “to believe ... that the project’s estimated cost at
completion will be between $522 million and $559 million, and that, as we indicated
during the May 17 hearing, AOC will likely need as much as $37 million more than it
has requested to cover risks and uncertainties to complete the project.” It was GAO’s
belief, “that most of these additional funds will be needed in fiscal years 2006 and 2007,
although exactly how much will be needed at any one time is not clear.” GAO
recommended that in the fall of 2005, “AOC update its estimate of the cost to complete
the project.”35
July 2005. Several new challenges Senate appropriators were told at a July 14,
2005 hearing, could further delay completion of the Capitol Visitor Center, and result
in increased expenditures as well. Because of current problems, “past problems,
remaining risks and uncertainties, and the number of activities that are not being
completed on time,” Terrell Dorn, GAO Assistant Director for Physical Infrastructure
Issues, explained, “we continue to believe that the project is more likely to be completed
in the December 2006 to March 2007 time frame than in September 2006.”36
Dorn indicated “AOC and its construction management contractor [had]
continued their efforts” to respond to two recommendations GAO “made to improve the
project’s management—having a realistic, acceptable schedule and aggressively
monitoring and managing adherence to that schedule.” Further improvement, however,
still needed to be made. Dorn also reiterated GAO’s belief “that the project’s estimated
cost at completion will be between $522 million and $559 million,” and “AOC will
likely need as much as $37 million more than it has requested to cover risks and37


uncertainties to complete the project.”
34 (...continued)
Capitol Visitor Center: Effective Schedule Management and Updated Cost Information Are
Needed, GAO-05-811T (Washington: June 14, 2005), pp. 1-2.
35 Testimony of Bernard L. Ungar, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government
Accountability Office, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee
on the Legislative Branch, June 14, 2005. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Capitol
Visitor Center: Effective Schedule Management and Updated Cost Information Are Needed,
GAO-05-811T (Washington: June 14, 2005), p. 2.
36 Testimony of Terrell Dorn, Assistant Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, July 14, 2005 (not yet published). See also: U.S.
Government Accountability Office, Capitol Visitor Center: Update on Status of Project’s
Schedule and Costs, GAO-05-910T (Washington: July 14, 2005), p. 2.
37 Testimony of Terrell Dorn, Assistant Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, July 14, 2005 (not yet published). See also U.S.
(continued...)

During the next several months, Dorn emphasized, AOC will likely face
“competing demands for funds that can be used for either CVC construction or
operations.” Given this reality, “it will be important for AOC to ensure that the
available funds are optimally used.” Also, GAO was “concerned that AOC may incur
costs to open the facility to the public in September 2006 that it would not incur if it
postponed the opening until after the construction work is more or fully complete—that
is, in March 2007, according to AOC’s estimates.”38
House Hearing. While much of the attention at the 2005 Senate hearings
focused the overall construction and cost of the Capitol Visitor Center, a considerable
portion of the discussion at a May 3, 2005, House Appropriations Committee hearing
focused on the specifics of the unfinished House office space in the center.
Representative David Obey of Wisconsin, ranking minority member of the committee,
expressed concern “that the space we’re getting seems to be almost all show and very
little workspace.” He questioned “that mix,” and asked whether the House was “getting
the space” it needed, and “even at this late date, isn’t there any way that we can get more
usable space.” As he “saw it,” the House was “getting only one room that is a public
hearing room.”39 Other House Members expressed concerns over the escalating cost of
the center, which the Architect of the Capitol Hantman testified is expected to reach
$517 million by the time the structure is completed.40
Although the Architect of the Capitol at several points during the hearing stated
that the current plans had been reviewed and received approval from the House Office
Building Commission, which includes the Speaker, House majority, and House minority
leader, Representative Obey made it clear he intended to oppose the project unless
changes were made.41 By virtue of a provision included in FY2002 Legislative Branch


37 (...continued)
Government Accountability Office, Capitol Visitor Center: Update on Status of Project’s
Schedule and Costs, GAO-05-910T (Washington: July 14, 2005), p. 2.
38 Testimony of Terrell Dorn, Assistant Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, July 14, 2005 (not yet published). See also: U.S.
Government Accountability Office, Capitol Visitor Center: Update on Status of Project’s
Schedule and Costs, GAO-05-910T (Washington: July 14, 2005), pp. 2-3.
39 Testimony of Rep. David R. Obey, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,
FY2006 Appropriations: Legislative Branch, hearing, 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 3, 2005
(not yet published). See also Jennifer Yachnin, “Obey Blocking CVC Plan,” Roll Call, May
4, 2005, pp. 1, 15; and Jackie Kachinic, “AOC Questioned on the House Expansion,” The
Hill, May 4, 2005, p. 4.
40 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, FY2006 Appropriations: Legislative
Branch, hearing, 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 3, 2005 (not yet published).
41 Testimony of Rep. David R. Obey, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,
(continued...)

Appropriations Act, Representative Obey could have blocked this phase of the project.
As enacted, PL. 107-68 prohibited the Architect of the Capitol from obligating funds for
the House expansion space within the center without the approval of the chair and
ranking minority member of the House Appropriations Committee. 42
In subsequent action, the House on May 5, and the Senate on May 10, approved
language in the conference report on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, that struck the “chair
and ranking minority member” requirement in the FY2002 Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act. That language was included in PL. 109-13, which was signed into
law on May 11, 2005.43
Committee Consideration of FY2006 CVC Funding
House Appropriations Committee. On June 16, 2005, the House
Committee on Appropriations marked up and ordered reported its version of the
FY2006 legislative branch funding bill. On a voice vote, the panel approved a draft
spending bill that provided $36.9 million for the CVC project. The House figure was


41 (...continued)
FY2006 Appropriations: Legislative Branch, hearing, 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 3, 2005
(not yet published).
42 The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2002 stipulated: “That the Architect of the
Capitol may not obligate any of the funds which are made available for the Capitol Visitor
Center under this Act or any other Act without an obligation plan approved by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives for House space and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate for
Senate space.” P.L. 107-68; 115 Stat. 588, Nov. 12, 2001.
43 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2005, Making Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005, conference report tothst
accompany H.R. 1268, H.Rept. 109-72, 109 Cong., 1 sess. (Washington: GPO, 2005), p.
66 (Division A, Title VI, General Provisions and Technical Corrections, Sec. 6049). The
House agreed to the conference report on May 5, 2005, by a 368 to 58 vote. “Conference
Report on H.R. 1268, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global
War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act, 2005,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
151, May 5, 2005, pp. H2997-H3027. The Senate agreed to the conference report on May

10, 2005, by a 100 to 0 vote. “Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense,


the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act, 2005—Conference Report,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, May 10, 2005, pp. S4806-S4849; and PL.
109-13 (Division A, Title VI, General Provisions and Technical Correction, Sec. 6049). See
also Jennifer Yachnin, “Obey Loses Veto Authority Over Visitor Center,” Roll Call, May

9, 2005, pp. 3, 20.



considerably less than the $72.2 million requested by the AOC, and did not provide any
of the $35.285 million originally requested by the Architect for the center’s operations.44
The House Appropriations Committee also included in the draft bill, $3.41
million in FY2006 for the House portion of expenses related to the CVC. This figure
represented a $6.555 million reduction from the requested amount of $9.965 million.
These funds were to used for “carpeting, furnishings, wiring, and audio/visual
requirements.” In addition, the House bill contained a provision (Section 1203)
establishing a “‘Capitol Visitor Center Governing Board’ to address the issue of daily
operations of the Visitor Center.”45
Senate Appropriations Committee. On June 24, 2005, the Senate
Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2006 legislative branch funding
bill. The approved language provided $41.9 million for the CVC project, excluding
Visitor Center operations. Senate appropriators in their report on H.R. 2985
emphasized that because the GAO felt the “amount requested by the Architect [$36.9
million] is unlikely to be sufficient to complete the CAC,” the committee added $5
million “to the budget based on GAO’s recommendation.” Also, since the schedule
September 2006 opening of center was “likely to be delayed well beyond the time frame
on which budget estimates for operations were predicted,” Senate appropriators reduced
the budget for Visitor Center operations from the requested $35.3 million to $2.3
million.46 The Senate version of H.R. 2985 did not contain the House provision for a
“Capitol Visitor Center Governing Board.”
Floor Consideration of FY2006 CVC Funding
House. By a 330 to 82 vote, the House passed H.R. 2985, the FY2006
legislative branch bill on June 22, 2005. The House version of the spending bill, as
approved, provided $36.9 million for the CVC project budget, and $3.41 million for the


44 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations
Bill, 2006, report to accompany H.R. 2985, 109th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 109-139
(Washington: GPO, 2005), pp. 20-21, 40. The original request of $35.285 million was
subsequently revised by the Architect to $24.355 million. Ibid., p. 20.
45 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations
Bill, 2006, report to accompany H.R. 2985, 109th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 109-139
(Washington: GPO, 2005), pp. 9, 20, 40; and U.S. Office of Management and Budget,
Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2006: Appendix, “Detailed Budget
Estimates—Legislative Branch” (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 17.
46 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations,

2006, report to accompany H.R. 2985, 109th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 109-89 (Washington:


GPO, 2005), pp. 33-34. The original request of $35.285 million for CVC operations was
subsequently revised by the Architect to $24.355 million. U.S. Congress, House Committee
on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 2006, report to accompany H.R.thst

2985, 109 Cong., 1 sess., H.Rept. 109-139 (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 20.



House portion of expenses related to the center. The bill approved by the House also
contained a provision (Section 1203) establishing a “Capitol Visitor Center Governing
Board” that would be responsible for “establishing the policies which govern the
operations of the center, consistent with applicable law.”47
Senate. On June 30, 2005, the Senate amended and passed H.R. 2985 by
Unanimous Consent, and then insisted on its amendments and requested a conference
with the House.48 The Senate version of H.R. 2985 called for $41.9 million for the CVC
project, and $2.3 million for center operating costs. The Senate language also
authorized the Architect of the Capitol to appoint an Executive Director of the Capitol49
Visitor Center.
Conference Committee Report CVC Language. A little less than a
month later, House and Senate conferees on July 26, 2005, in their report on H.R. 2985,
recommended an appropriation of “$44.2 million for the Capitol Visitor Center, as
proposed by the Senate, instead of $36.9 million as proposed by the House.” This figure
included $41.9 million for the center project, and $2.3 million for the center’s operations
budget. The report also called for $3.4 million for and $3.41 million for other costs
related to the House portion of expenses for the center. Conferees deleted the House
language establishing a “Capitol Visitor Center Governing Board” to handle the center’s
daily activities was deleted by conferees, as well as the Senate language authorizing the
Architect of the Capitol to appoint an executive director for the center.50
Final Action on FY2006 CVC Appropriations. On July 28, 2005, the
House by a vote of 305 to 122 concurred with the conference report FY2006
appropriation figures for the Capitol Visitor Center. The Senate followed suit on July

29, 2005, by a 96 to 4 margin. H.R. 2985, then became P.L. 109-55 on August 2, 2005,51


with President Bush’s signature.


47 “Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2985, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,

2006,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, June 22, 2005, pp. H4936-H4937,


H4947, H4949.
48 “Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2006,” Congressional Record, daily edition, v.

151, June 30, 2005, pp. S7739-S7749.


49 “Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2006,” Congressional Record, daily edition, v.

151, June 30, 2005, pp. S7745-S7746.


50 The U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2005, Making Appropriations for the
Legislative Branch for Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2006, conference report tothst
accompany H.R. 2985, H.Rept. 109-189, 109 Cong., 1 sess. (Washington: GPO, 2005),
p. 37. See also Ibid., pp. 6, 15.
51 “Conference Report on H.R. 2985, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2006,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, July 28, 2005, pp. H7023-H7031;
“Legislative Branch Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2006—Conference Report,”
(continued...)

Application of Performance Standards to
Legislative Branch Agencies
During hearings on the FY2006 legislative budget, Senator Wayne Allard,
chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, expressed his desire to
apply performance standards to legislative branch entities, similar to those required of
executive branch agencies.52 He expressed his desire for some action to be taken by
agencies before his consideration of the FY2007 budget in early 2006.
Consequently, Senate report language on the FY2006 legislative funding bill
reaffirms the Senate Appropriations Committee’s support of the application to some
degree of executive branch performance standards to legislative branch agencies.
Language in the general statement section of the report reads:
The Committee supports the applicability of many Government Performance
and Results Act [GPRA] principles to the Legislative Branch. GPRA
encourages greater efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in Federal
spending, and requires agencies to set goals and use performance measures for
management and budgeting. While most Legislative Branch agencies have
developed strategic plans, several agencies have not effectively dealt with
major management problems and lack reliable data to verify and validate
performance. While Legislative Branch agencies are not required to comply
with GPRA, the Committee believes the spirit and intent of the Results Act
should be applied to theses agencies. The Committee intends to monitor
agencies’ progress in developing and implementing meaningful performance
measure, describing how such measures will be verified and validated, linking
performance measures to day-to-day activities, and coordinating across “sister”
agencies. The Committee directs all legislative branch agencies to submit53


their plans for achieving this goal within 90 days of enactment of this Act.
51 (...continued)
Congressional Record, daily edition, v. 151, July 29, 2005, pp. S9334-S9335, S9373; and
P.L. 109-55, 119 Stat. ; Aug. 2, 2005.
52 Remarks of the Chairman Wayne Allard, Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch,
Committee on Appropriations, Hearings on the FY2006 Budgets of the Library of Congress,
Congressional Research Service, Open World Leadership Center, and the Governmentthst
Accountability Office, 109 Cong., 1 sess, Apr. 19, 2005 (not yet printed).
53 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations,

2006, report to accompany H.R. 2985, 109th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 109-89 (Washington:


GPO, 2005), p. 3.

Architect of the Capitol Operations
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.
Funding Levels. Conferees agreed to an 18.3% increase ($66.3 million) in
the AOC’s operations, compared with the proposed 44.8% increase. The Architect
requested $506.5 million in new budget authority, an increase of $156.6 million from54
the FY2005 budget authority of $349.9 million. His request contained $72.2 million
in new budget authority for the CVC, which was not authorized new budget authority55
in FY2005.
The $66.3 million increase is due primarily to fund construction of book storage
modules for the Library of congress ($40.7 million) and the operating and project
budgets of the CVC ($44.2 million). Five accounts of the AOC were reduced from
FY2005 levels.
Earlier, the House approved a 5.6% increase for AOC operations, providing
$317.3 million, excluding funds for Senate office buildings which are determined by the
Senate. The Senate subsequently approved $427.2 million, an 18.9% increase,
including appropriations for both Senate and House office buildings.
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 Visitors Center, and Botanic Garden.
Highlights of Senate Hearing on FY2006 Budget of the AOC. During
his testimony, the AOC, Alan Hantman, stated that his request funded not only regular
operations and renovation projects, with an emphasis on security, but also a number of
major projects. Among these projects are the CVC, construction of Library of Congress
storage modules, construction of a Capitol Police off-site delivery center, upgrades of


54 This request reflects that submitted to the President before a FY2005 supplemental was
signed into law (P.L. 109-13).
55 Although Congress did not appropriate funds for the CVC in FY2005, it authorized the
transfer of $10.6 million to the CVC account.

fire and life safety services, completion of fire egress renovations, and installation of
perimeter security measures.56
When questioned about the priority of projects within his request, Hantman
responded that this year, for the first time, his operations are subject to a capitol
improvements process (CIP) in which projects are ranked on issues of fire and life
safety, physical security, historic preservation, mission impact, and expenses. If cuts
had to be made, Hantman said, he would start at the bottom of the ranking. Chairman
Allard then asked the Architect to provide his list of rankings and to give thought ahead
of time to making cuts.57
Capitol Police Buildings and Grounds. This AOC account received a
FY2005 supplemental appropriation in addition to new FY2006 money.
FY2005 Supplemental Appropriation for Off-Site Delivery Facility
(P.L. 109-13). Conferees on the FY2005 $81 billion emergency supplemental bill,
H.R. 1268, agreed to $4.1 million for Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Police Buildings
and Grounds account, for the design of an off-site delivery facility.58
The Senate version of H.R. 1268 contained $23 million for Capitol Police59
Buildings and Grounds, but did not contain funds for Capitol Grounds. The Senate
passed H.R. 1268 on April 21. The House version of H.R. 1268 did not contain a
legislative branch supplemental.
The $23 million was requested by the Capitol Police Board on February 7, 2005,
for construction of an off-site delivery facility. Committee report language reads:60


56 Testimony of the Architect of the Capitol, Alan Hantman, Senate Subcommittee on
Legislative Branch, Committee on Appropriations, Hearings on the FY2006 Budgets of thethst
Secretary of the Senate and Architect of the Capitol, 109 Cong., 1 sess, Apr. 13, 2005 (not
yet printed).
57 Ibid.
58 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2005, Making Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005, conference report tothst
accompany H.R. 1268, H.Rept. 109-72, 109 Cong., 1 sess. (Washington: GPO, 2005), pp.

42-43 (Division A, Title III (Domestic Appropriations for the War on Terror), Chapter 4,


(Legislative Branch).
59 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, reportthst
to accompany H.R. 1268, 109 Cong., 1 sess., S.Rept. 109-52 (Washington: GPO, 2005),
p. 53 (Title III, Chapter 4).
60 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, report
(continued...)

The Committee believes this project is a very high priority and expects the
Architect to move expeditiously to complete this facility in a timely manner.
The Committee notes that this project has been a top priority for USCP since
1999. It has become an urgent requirement owing to construction of the new
baseball stadium which will force USCP to relocate this facility within the
year.
FY2006 Appropriation. Conferees agreed to $14.9 million for expenses
associated with Capitol Police facilities, representing an increase of 50.4% over the
current budget. The new budget authority contains $9.8 million for the operating budget
and $5.0 million for the purchase of a vehicle maintenance facility.
The conference agreement is in lieu of the House proposal of $16.8 million (an
increase of 69.9% over the current level (which included a $4.1 million FY2005
supplemental) and the Senate proposal of $10.0 million, a 1.3% increase. Senate
appropriators indicated their funding decision reflected an elimination of construction
funding for an off-site screening facility, until a design study was completed, and the
cost to lease space for the Capitol Police was revised.61
Perimeter Security, FY2005 Supplemental (P.L. 109-13). The Architect
of the Capitol received a FY2005 supplemental of $8.2 million for the capitol grounds
account to complete Capitol Square perimeter security.62
House of Representatives
Overall Funding. For its internal operations, the House requested $1.128
billion, an increase of 4.5%, when counting the FY2005 supplemental. As passed by
the House and Senate, the House operations funding level is $1.1 billion, an increase of

1.2%.


House Committee Funding. Funding for House committees, for which
$143.6 million was requested, is contained in the appropriation heading “committee
employees” that comprises two subheadings.


60 (...continued)
to accompany H.R. 1268, 109th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 109-52 (Washington: GPO, 2005),
p. 53 (Title III, Chap. 4).
61 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations,

2006, report to accompany H.R. 2985, 109th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 109-89 (Washington:


GPO, 2005), p. 32.
62 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2005, Making Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005, conference report tothst
accompany H.R. 1268, H.Rept. 109-72, 109 Cong., 1 sess. (Washington: GPO, 2005), pp.

42-43 (Division A, Title III (Domestic Appropriations for the War on Terror), Chapter 4,


(Legislative Branch).

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 FY2006 request of $117.9 million (an increase
of 3.9%) was agreed to by the House and conferees.
The second subheading contains funds for the personnel and nonpersonnel
expenses of the Committee on Appropriations, for which $25.7 million was requested
( a 3.9% increase) and approved by the House and conferees.
Administrative Language. The House continues language requiring that any
unspent FY2005 funds appropriated for Members’ representation allowances (for staff
and office operations) be used for deficit reduction.
Senate
Overall Funding. Although the Senate requested $823.1 million for its
internal operations, an increase of $102.9 million (14.3 %) over the prior year’s funding
level of $720.2 million, the Senate Committee on Appropriations approved a 9.1%
increase.
Among offices and activities, other than committees, receiving increases are
those for
!official personnel and office expenses of individual Senators, including
funds for mandatory increases (9.2%);
!salaries of officers and their employees (9.1%); and
!Sergeant at Arms operations, including security and an upgrade of the
Senate telecommunications system (11.7%).
Senate Committee Funding. Appropriations for Senate committees are
contained in two accounts:
!the inquiries and investigations account, containing funds for all Senate
committees except Appropriations, for which $119.6 million was made
available, an 8.8% increase, the same as requested; and
! the Committee on Appropriations account, for which $13.8 million
was approved, an increase of 3.4%, also the same as requested.
Other Senate Provisions. P.L. 109-55 contains the following Senate-passed
provisions, which
!provide $80,000 to the Secretary of the Senate for a study of Senate
employment trends, and the pay, hiring, and benefits practices of
Senators; and



!eliminate statutory language approved in 1865 requiring Senators to
submit excuses for absences from the Senate.
Highlights of Hearing on FY2006 Budget of the Secretary of the
Senate. On April 13, the Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch held a hearing
on the request of the Secretary of the Senate, Emily Reynolds, for $23 million, a 7.0%
increase. Chairman Allard, in his opening remarks, noted the adjustment primarily met
pay and inflation-related increases and some upgrades. The Secretary testified the
request represented $21 million for salaries and related expenses and $1.9 million for
operational costs.
Among activities addressed during her testimony were operations of the
legislative department; implementation of a Financial Management Information System
in the financial office; the role of the Senate Library in putting its complete catalog of
158,000 items on the Senate’s Webster Intranet; and the ability of the Legislative
Information Systems (LIS) staff to produce 75% of this year’s bills and resolutions as
XML documents.
Support Agency Funding
Congressional Budget Office (CBO). CBO is a nonpartisan congressional
agency created to provide objective economic and budgetary analyses requested 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.
Conferees agreed to the House-approved funding level of $35.45 million, a 2.3%
increase, less than the level approved by the Senate, $35.85 million, or 3.5% over
current funding.
CBO requested $35.9 million, an increase of $1.2 million (3.5%), most of which
was to meet mandatory pay and related costs. These expenses account for
approximately 90% of CBO’s budget. The agency requested $1.59 million for
mandatory pay and related costs and $81,000 for price-level changes, but with the two
requests combined to be offset by $70,000 in recurring costs and $388,000 in changes
in programs, projects, and activities changes.63
The FY2006 request supported a staff of 235 FTEs, the same level as FY2005.
Report language did not indicate the staff level supported.
Library of Congress (LOC). LOC provides research support for Congress
through a wide range of services, from research on public policy issues to general


63 The $388,000 offset includes a $354,000 reduction in information technology accounts.

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.
Congress approved a new appropriation of $560.57 million and authority to
spend an additional $42.3 million derived from off-setting collections. The new
appropriation reflects a rescission of $6.86 million, from $567.42 million approved by
conferees,64 and represents a 2.8% increase over current funding. The new appropriation
is 4.0% less than the agency’s request, greater than the new appropriation of $542.95
million approved by the House, which was a decrease of 0.4% (due to a rescission of
$15.5 million in the bill), and less than the $579.6 million mark in the Senate bill, which
represented an increase of 6.3%.
The Library requested (1) a net appropriation of $590.8 million, an increase of
$45.4 million (8.3%); and (2) authority to use funds generated from receipts received
by the Library of $37.0 million.65 Its FY2006 budget request supported a staff level of
4,365 FTEs, an increase of 74 FTEs from the FY2005 level of 4,291, for collections
acquisition and preservation, security, information technology, and management of
facilities.
FY2006 new budget authorities for the Library’s accounts are
!salaries and expenses – $389.4 million (and authority to spend an
additional $6.35 million in receipts);
!Copyright Office – $22.66 million (and authority to spend an additional
$35.95 million in receipts);
!Congressional Research Service – $101.92 million; and
!Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped – $54.45 million.
The total funding approved in conference for the above four accounts was
$567.42 million, subject to the $6.86 million rescission.
The FY2006 budget also provides for
!a staff level of 4,302 FTEs, a net increase of 11 FTEs;
!statutory authority for the Office of Inspector General in the Library;


64 The rescission was made from funds made available for the National Digital Information
Infrastructure and Preservation Program for the multi-year Copyright Reengineering Project.
65 An example of receipts are fees paid to the LOC for copyright registration.

!funding of $15.2 million for the National Audio-Visual Conservation
Center to operate and staff the center’s new digital preservation system;
and
!authorization and funding of $5.86 million for the Digital Collections
and Educational Curricula Program.
An additional $40.7 million for construction of storage modules at Fort Meade,
MD, is contained in the budget of the Architect of the Capitol in the Library Buildings
and Grounds account.
Highlights of Senate Hearing on FY2006 Budget of the LOC. In
response to a question from Chairman Allard on the Library’s budget priorities,
Librarian of Congress, James Billington, referred to the continuation of acquisition and
preservation of materials, maintenance of basic services, and construction of storage
projects, including the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center in Culpepper,
Virginia, and book modules at Ft. Meade, MD. The Ft. Meade facility construction66
request of $41 million is contained in the request of the Architect of the Capitol.
Chairman Allard also questioned the Librarian’s $4 million request to hire 45
new Library police officers, even though a merger of Library police with the Capitol
Police was pending. The Deputy Librarian, Donald Scott, explained the merger had
experienced delays and in the meantime the Library faced a growing police shortage.
The Library, he said, did not have authority to hire additional officers. The Librarian
continues to maintain that he needs to be allowed to retain control over collections
security subsequent to the pending merger.
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.
Conferees agreed to a budget of $100.92 million, a 4.99% increase over current
funding, in lieu of $99.95 million contained in the House bill and $101.8 million in the
Senate version. The agency’s request of $105.3 million represented an increase of $9.2
million (9.5%) over FY2005 budget authority of $96.1 million. Fifty-six percent of the
requested $9.2 million increase ($5.1 million) was required to meet mandatory pay and
related pay costs, such as the annual cost-of-living increase for staff and related
adjustments in employer-paid benefits, as well as inflationary adjustments for annual
price level increases supporting the acquisition of goods and services used in the day-to-
day business operations of the Service. This portion of the funding request was the
agency’s top priority, since personnel expenses account for 88% of its budget.


66 Remarks of the Librarian of Congress, James Billington, Senate Subcommittee on
Legislative Branch, Committee on Appropriations, Hearings on the FY2006 Budgets of the
Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Open World Leadership Center, andthst
the Government Accountability Office, 109 Cong., 1 sess, Apr. 19, 2005 (not yet printed).

The remainder of the $9.2 million increase ($4.6 million) was to fund two
requests. First, CRS was seeking a one-time budget base adjustment of $3.6 million to
enable the agency to regain and sustain its authorized staff level of 729 FTEs. Without
the $3.6 million adjustment, the agency will be limited to about 700 FTE positions for
FY2005 and subsequent years. This request was based on budget shortfalls due to the
lack of adequate funds over the past ten years to meet fully mandatory pay; the rising
costs of employer-paid retirement benefits due to a growing proportion of the workforce
participating in the more expensive FERS; and the cumulative impact of a number of
rescissions.
Second, CRS requested $1.0 million to counter the rising cost of research
material and to expand its collection of electronic research materials, including (1) an
expansion of currently acquired material to all CRS desktops; (2) the addition of a
number of electronic products, such as PIERS, which provides statistics on exports and
imports and cargo shipments (to enhance container security analysis); (3) an addition
of prescription drug pricing proprietary databases; and (4) the use of Bloomberg LP,
which provides financial data and analysis. Both houses agreed to $500,000 for
increased research expenses, in lieu of the $1.0 million request.
Conferees retained House language that in effect reopens the agency’s
involvement in assisting parliaments of emerging nations. Senate language had
directed CRS to determine resources required to meet this role.
Senate report language directs CRS to work with the Secretary of the Senate on
the feasibility of studying Senate salaries.
Government Accountability Office (GAO). The nonpartisan GAO works
for Congress by responding to requests for studies of federal government programs and
expenditures. The agency also conducts audits and evaluations of executive branch
programs at the request of the executive branch. Formerly the General Accounting
Office, the agency was renamed the Government Accountability Office effective July

7, 2004.


Conferees agreed to a direct appropriation of $482.40 million, the same level of
funding approved by the House, and less than the $484.38 million passed by the Senate.
The conference figure represents an increase of 3.3% over the FY2005 level. Both bills
contained $7.2 million in offsetting collections from rents received for space in GAO
buildings and reimbursements from financial audits of government corporations. Both
house also funded a staff level of 3,215 FTEs.
The agency’s request contained (1) a direct appropriation of $486.4 million,
which reflects an increase of $19.2 million (4.1%) from its FY2005 budget authority of
$467.2 million, and (2) authority to use $7.2 million from offsetting collections derived
from rent income and reimbursable audit work.



GAO’s total budget request, with offsetting collection authority included, was
$493.6 million, an increase of $19.0 million from $474.6 million made available in
FY2005. The additional money primarily was to pay for mandatory pay costs ($20.8
million), since GAO’s salary and related costs are 80% of its budget. The remainder of
the request included $1.4 million to meet price level increases; provided $899,000 for
controllable costs (for example, recruiting and transit subsidy costs, among others); and
allowed for an offset of -$4.1 million from non-recurring FY2005 costs.
Highlights of Senate Hearing on FY2006 Budget of GAO. In response
to a question on the agency’s ability to meet expectations with increasing mandates and
a flat staff level, the Comptroller General, David Walker, responded that the agency will
continue its responsibility to committees, subcommittees, and leadership, while limiting
its work in response to non-leadership requests. Walker also noted that GAO’s funding
requests for the current and three most recent years primarily assisted the agency in67
keeping up with inflation.
In another response to Chairman Allard’s expressed desire to apply performance
standards to the legislative branch, Walker noted the agency voluntarily complies with
the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), which applies to executive
branch departments and agencies.
Government Printing Office (GPO). As passed by the House, H.R. 2985
contains $117.1 million for the Government Printing Office, and as passed by the
Senate, $126.9 million. The conference agreement contains $123.4 million, a 3.04%
increase.
The agency’s FY2006 request contained $131.1 million, up 9.5% ($11.3
million) from FY2005. 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. The conference-approved budget authorities
and changes from the FY2005 funding levels are
!Congressional printing and binding — $88.1 million, the same as the
current funding level and less than the $92.3 million request;
!Office of Superintendent of Documents (salaries and expenses) —
$33.3 million, an increase of 5.2% and less than the request of $33.8
million;


67 Remarks of the Comptroller General, David Walker, Government Accountability Office,
Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Committee on Appropriations, Hearings on
the FY2006 Budgets of the Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Openthst
World Leadership Center, and the Government Accountability Office, 109 Cong., 1 sess,
Apr. 19, 2005 (not yet printed).

!Revolving Fund - $2.0 million; funds were not made available to the
fund for FY2005.
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;
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 other individuals and entities, as
authorized by law.
GPO’S revolving fund request of $5.0 million funds the agency’s transition to
a digital system by defining workforce needs, assessing current workforce capabilities,
identifying the agency’s needs, and establishing training programs to meet those needs.
The House approved $1.2 million in funding for workforce retraining. The Senate
funded the requested $5.0 million for workforce development.
Other Funding
Office of Compliance. The Office of Compliance is an independent and
nonpartisan agency within the legislative branch, established to administer and enforce68
the Congressional Accountability Act enacted in 1995 (P.L. 104-1, 109 Stat. 3). The
act applies business and federal government employment and workplace safety laws to69


Congress and certain legislative branch entities.
68 The act applies twelve civil rights, labor, and workplace safety laws to Congress and
certain legislative branch agencies. These laws include 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.
69 Among the Office’s activities are administration of a dispute resolution process;
(continued...)

The FY2006 budget request for operations of the Office of Compliance was
$2.64 million, a decrease of $221,000 (9%) from last year’s appropriation of $2.42
million. Conferees agreed to $3.1 million, as contained in both the House and Senate
versions of the bill.
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 United
States. The program encouraged young federal and local Russian leaders to visit the
United States and observe its government and society.
A permanent center, named the Center for Russian Leadership Development,
was established at the Library of Congress in 2000, and renamed the Open World
Leadership Center in 2003, when the program was expanded to include eleven other
countries and three Baltic republics. 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.
For its FY2006 operations budget, the center requested $14.0 million, a change
of $608,000 (+4.6%) from $13.4 million made available for FY2005. Both the House
and the Senate Committees on Appropriations approved the requested amount.
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. Senate
language providing $430,000 was agreed to by conferees.


69 (...continued)
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.

CRS-33
Table 3. Legislative Branch Appropriations, FY2006 (P.L. 109-55; H.R. 2985)
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2006 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006
EntityFY2005 Enacted (with .8%rescission/ supp)aRequest House Bill Senate BillConference
itle 1: Legislative Branch Appropriations
enate$720,194$823,048 d785,549785,549
ouse of Representatives1,079,3541,127,8171,092,4071,092,407g1,100,907
nt Items18,88719,73019,90019,73019,730
b 241,469 290,139 239,695 264,600 249,456
iki/CRS-RL32819itol Police
g/wffice of Compliance2,4023,1123,1123,1123,112
s.orongressional Budget Office34,64035,85335,45035,85335,450
leak e h
rchitect of the Capitol 362,200506,480317,282 427,212 428,478
://wikiibrary of Congress, Including CRS 545,362590,795542,950579,562560,566
http
ongressional Research Service, Lib. of Cong.(96,118)(105,289)(99,952)(101,755)(100,916)
ongressional Printing Office 119,787131,120117,227126,927123,427
ernment Accountability Office467,205486,383482,395484,383482,395
World Leadership Centerc13,39214,00014,00014,00014,000
tennis Center for Public Service000430430
enate Emergency Funds (P.L. 109-13, sec. 6050)35,0000000
le II: General Provisions 00000
otal Legislative Branch (Titles I and II)3,639,8924,028,177 2,864,418f 3,833,765i3,803,500



CRS-34
House Committee on Appropriations (Rep. Jerry Lewis, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, July 28, 2005, pp. H7023-H7028).
Y2005 funds are contained in P.L. 108-447, Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2005, and P.L. 100-13, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, FY2005.
his account was effective with the FY2003 Legislative Branch Appropriation Act. Previously, Capitol Police funds were contained under the joint items account.
he center was named the Russian Leadership Program prior to FY2004. Appropriations represent payments to the center’s trust fund.
he House does not consider appropriations for internal Senate operations.
he House does not consider appropriations for Senate office buildings contained in the budget of the Architect of the Capitol.
is figure does contain funds for internal Senate operations, which are funded in a separate account, or for Senate office buildings, which are contained in the budget of the Architect
of the Capitol. The Senate determines funding levels of these two accounts.
lthough the Senate does not consider appropriations for internal House operations, the House budget, as passed by the House, is counted in the Senate bill.
lthough the Senate does not consider appropriations for House office buildings, which are contained in the budget of the Architect of the Capitol, the House figure, as passed
iki/CRS-RL32819y the House, is counted in the Senate bill. The Senate does not consider appropriations for House Office buildings.lthough the Senate does not consider funds for internal House operations, which are funded in a separate account, or for House office buildings, which are contained in the budget
g/wof the Architect of the Capitol, these funds are counted in the Senate bill. The House determines the funding levels of these two accounts.


s.or
leak
://wiki
http

Table 4. Capitol Police Appropriations, FY2006 (P.L. 109-55; H.R. 2985)
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2005 Enacted
(w ith FY2006 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006
Accounts .8%rescission/Request House BillSenate Bill Conference
supp) a
Salaries, Capitol Police201,812$230,191210,350222,600217,456
General Expenses39,65759,94829,34542,00032,000
Total, Capitol Police241,469290,139239,695264,600249,456
Source: House Committee on Appropriations (Rep. Jerry Lewis, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 151, July 28, 2005, pp. H7023-H7028).
a. FY2005 funds are contained in P.L. 108-447, Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2005, and P.L. 109-13, Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations, FY2005.

Table 5. Architect of the Capitol Appropriations, FY2006 (P.L. 109-55;
H.R. 2985)
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2005
AccountsEnacted (with.8%rescission/FY2006RequestFY2006 House BillFY2006Senate Bill FY2006Conference
supp) a
Architect of the Capitol
General administration $79,70476,98277,00276,52276,812
Capitol building 28,62627,10522,09725,38023,352
Capitol Grounds15,1187,8017,7237,0617,511
Senate office buildings61,58665,564 b67,00467,004
House office buildings64,83068,69859,616 59,616d59,616
Capitol power plant56,37959,25558,58558,81758,685
Library buildings and grounds39,77683,31831,31870,94868,763
Capitol Police buildings and9,90634,95916,83010,03114,902
grounds
Botanic garden6,27510,6137,2117,6337,633
Capitol Visitor Center072,18536,90044,20044,200
Project0(36,900)(36,900)(41,900)(41,900)
Operations0(35,285)(0)(2,300)(2,300)
Total, Architect of the Capitol 362,200506,480 317,282 c 427,212e428,478
Source: House Committee on Appropriations (Rep. Jerry Lewis, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151,
July 28, 2005, pp. H7023-H7028).
a. FY2005 funds are contained in P.L. 108-447, Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2005., and P.L. 109-13, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations, FY2005.
b. The House does not consider appropriations for Senate office buildings.
c. This figure does not consider appropriations for Senate office buildings.
d. Although the Senate does not consider the appropriation for House office buildings, the appropriation is counted in the Senate bill.
The House determines the level of funding.
e. Although the Senate does not consider the appropriation for House office buildings, the appropriation is counted in the Senate bill.
The House determines the level of funding.



CRS-36
Table 6. Senate Appropriations, FY2006 (P.L. 109-55; H.R. 2985)
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2005 Enacted
FY2006FY2006 HouseFY2006 SenateFY2006
Accountsa (w ith.8%rescission/ Request B ill B ill Conference
supp) a
Expense Allowances and Representation225225 225225
Salaries, Officers, and Employees134,840148,163147,120147,120
Office of Legislative Counsel5,1525,437 5,4375,437
iki/CRS-RL32819Office of Legal Counsel1,2651,306 1,3061,306
g/wExpense Allowances for Secretary of Senate, et al.24242424
s.orContingent Expenses (subtotal)578,688667,893 631,437631,437
leakInquiries and Investigations110,000119,637 119,637119,637
://wikiSenate Intl. Narcotics Caucus520520 520520c
httpSecretary of the Senate1,7001,900 1,9801,980d
Sergeant at Arms/Doorkeeper127,182162,225 142,000142,000
Miscellaneous Items18,32618,326 17,00017,000
Senators Official Personnel and Office
Expense Account320,660364,985 350,000350,000
Official Mail Costs300300300300
Total, Senate720,194823,048 785,549785,549
Source: House Committee on Appropriations (Rep. Jerry Lewis, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, July 28, 2005, pp. H7023-H7028).
a. The Senate account contains seven appropriations headings, which are highlighted in bold.
b. FY2005 funds are contained in P.L. 108-447, Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2005, and P.L. 109-13, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, FY2005.
c. Office operations of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate are also funded underSalaries, Officers, and Employees.”
d. Activities of the Office of Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper are also funded under “Salaries, Officers, and Employees.”



CRS-37
Table 7. House of Representatives Appropriations, FY2006 (P.L. 109-55; H.R. 2985)
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2005 Enacted
FY2006FY2006 HouseFY2006 SenateFY2006
Accountsa(with.8%rescission/RequestBill Bill Conference
supp) a
Payments — Heirs of Deceased Members of Congress162 0000
Salaries and Expenses, Total1,079,3541,127,8171,092,4071,092,4071,100,907
House Leadership Offices 18,67819,84419,84419,84419,844
iki/CRS-RL32819 Members’ Representationalc
g/w Allowances525,195564,536538,109538,109542,109
s.or Committee Employees (subtotal)d138,225143,581143,581143,581143,581
leak Standing Committees, Special and Select, except
://wiki Appropriations113,499117,913117,913117,913117,913
http Appropriations Committee24,72625,66825,66825,66825,668
Salaries, Officers, and Employees (subtotal)187,744170,177167,749167,749172,249
Office of the Clerk20,53421,91121,91121,91121,911
Office of the Sergeant at Arms5,8796,2846,2846,2846,284
Office of Chief Administrative Officer143,645119,804116,971116,971121,471
Office of Inspector General3,9863,9913,9913,9913,991
Office for Emergency Planning, Preparedness,
and Operations1,0005,0005,0005,0005,000
Office of General Counsel962962962962962
Office of the Chaplain155161161161161



CRS-38
FY2005 Enacted
FY2006FY2006 HouseFY2006 SenateFY2006
Accountsa(with.8%rescission/RequestBill Bill Conference
supp) a
Office of the Parliamentarian1,6731,7671,7671,7671,767
Office of the Law Revision Counsel 2,3462,4532,4532,4532,453
Office of the Legislative Counsel6,7216,9636,9636,9636,963
Office of Interparliamentary Affairs687720720720720
Other Authorized Employees: Technical
Assistants, Office of Attending Physician156161161161161
iki/CRS-RL32819 Office of Historian00405405405
g/w Allowances and Expenses (subtotal) 209,350229,679223,124223,124223,124
s.or Supplies, Materials, Administrative Costs and
leak Federal Tort Claims4,3504,1794,1794,1794,179
://wiki Official Mail for committees, leadership, administrative and legislative offices410410410410410
http Government Contributions203,900214,422214,422214,422214,422
Capitol Visitor Center09,9653,4103,4103,410
Miscellaneous Items690703703703703
House of Representatives, Total1,079,3541,127,8171,092,4071,092,4071,100,907
Sources: House Committee on Appropriations (Rep. Jerry Lewis, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, July 28, 2005, pp. H7023-H7028).
a. The appropriations bill contains two House accounts: (1) payments to widows and heirs of deceased Members of Congress and (2) salaries and expenses.
b. FY2005 funds are contained in P.L. 108-447, Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2005, and P.L. 109-13, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, FY2005.
c. This appropriation heading was new in the FY1996 bill. The heading represents a consolidation of: (1) the former heading Members’ clerk hire; (2) the former heading official
mail costs; and (3) the former subheading official expenses of Members, under the heading allowances and expenses.
d. This appropriation heading was new in the FY1996 bill. The heading represents a consolidation of: (1) the former heading committee employees; (2) the former heading standing
committees, special and select; (3) the former heading Committee on Budget (studies); and (4) the former heading Committee on Appropriations (studies and investigations).



For Additional Reading
CRS Report
CRS Report RL32312. Appropriations for FY2005: Legislative Branch, by Paul
Dwyer.
Selected Websites
These sites contain information on the FY2004 and FY2005 legislative branch
appropriations requests and legislation, and the appropriations process.
House Committee on Appropriations
[ http://appropriations.house.gov/]
Senate Committee on Appropriations
[http://appropriations.senat e.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/]