Capitol Hill Security: Recent Actions and Organizational Responsibilities

Capitol Hill Security: Recent Actions and Organizational Responsibilities

Order Code RL30861
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Capitol Hill Security: Recent Actions and
Organizational Responsibilities
Updated February 3, 2004
Stephen W. Stathis and Paul E.Dwyer
Specialists in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Capitol Hill Security: Recent Actions and Organizational
Responsibilities
Summary
The U.S. Capitol, which is simultaneously a national shrine, tourist attraction,
and working office building, imposes challenging security requirements. The Capitol
Police Board, established by Congress to protect the Capitol Complex, has
responsibility for reconciling the needs of safety and openness. Acting under the
direction of House and Senate Oversight and Appropriations Committees, the Board
has in recent years instituted numerous enhancements to the Capitol security system.
During the decade prior to the terrorist attacks against the United States on
September 11, 2001, a number of security enhancements to Capitol Complex security
were set in place. They were done pursuant both to studies and recommendations as
well as actions taken by the Capitol Police and other congressional entities concerned
with security and directions and authorizations contained in appropriations language.
In the aftermath of September 11, and the subsequent discovery of the anthrax
bacteria on Capitol Hill, Congress moved expeditiously to accelerate this process by
approving legislation that (1) appropriated significant additional funding for a broad
range of new security enhancements to the Capitol, Supreme Court, congressional
office buildings, Library of Congress, and for perimeter security plans; (2) increased
the size of the U.S. Capitol Police force by 27%, and started the process to combine
the police forces of the Capitol Police and the Library of Congress; and (3) furnished
new funding for the Capitol Visitors’ Center, now being constructed under the East
Front Plaza, which is intended to serve as the security screening entry for visitors to
the Capitol upon its completion. Also
! several new security related administrative entities were created to
deal with possible future terrorist attacks or disasters;
! a number of streets adjacent to the Capitol, congressional office
buildings, and the Library of Congress were closed to the public;
! security systems designed to provide better protection for those
working in and visiting the Capitol were installed;
! emergency evacuation procedures were established;
! steps were taken to safeguard and improve electronic
communications of Members and their staff;
! continuity of operations plans were drafted and emergency
relocation drills were conducted;
! a delivery screening process was established at an off-site facility,
and House postal operations were moved to an off-site location; and
! several congressional hearings were held on Capitol Hill security
and security related studies were completed.
The FY2004 appropriation for the Capitol Police is $221.1 million, contained
in P.L. 108-83, signed by the President on September 30, 2003. This appropriation
was made subject to a 0.59% rescission in P.L. 108-199, FY2004 Consolidated
Appropriation Act, signed January 23, 2004. The official revised figure will be
contained in an update of this report.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Response to Terrorism Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Funding Since September 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FY2001 Terrorism Emergency Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FY2002 Legislative Branch Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
FY2002 DOD and Terrorism Emergency Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FY2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
FY2003 Legislative Branch Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Regular Annual Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Supplemental Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
FY2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Actions Taken to Enhance Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
U.S. Capitol Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Capitol Visitors’ Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Perimeter Security Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Capitol Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
House of Representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Library of Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Other Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Emergency Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Emergency Evacuation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Electronic Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Plans for Continuity of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Delivery Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Mail Delivery and Digitalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Anthrax Contamination Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Creation of New Administrative Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Legislative Branch Emergency Preparedness Task Force . . . . . . . . . . 26
House Office of Emergency Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
House Administration Committee Security Working Group . . . . . . . . 27
House Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Program
Management Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Senate Emergency Response Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Senate Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Congressional Hearings, Surveys, and Studies on Capitol Complex
Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Committee on House Administration Security Oversight Hearing . . . 29

Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Committee on
Appropriations, on FY2003 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Committee on House Administration Hearing on Mail Delivery . . . . 30
Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
General Accounting Office Study of Law Enforcement Training
. . . 31
House and Senate Subcommittees on Legislative Branch,
Committees on Appropriations, FY2004 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Earlier U.S. Capitol Police Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Enhanced Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Specialized Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
FY1997 and FY1998 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
FY1999 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
FY2000 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
FY2001 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
List of Tables
Table 1. Appropriations and FTEs for U.S. Capitol Police, FY1997-FY2004 . . 12

Capitol Hill Security: Recent Actions and
Organizational Responsibilities
Introduction
Achieving a secure environment for the Capitol Complex, while maintaining its
historic public openness, has become increasingly challenging in recent years. Even
before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, and
the subsequent discovery of the anthrax bacteria in congressional office buildings,
several incidents that occurred during the 1990s emphasized the need for enhanced
security on Capitol Hill.
Currently, as Capitol Hill visitors observe first hand, construction of a variety
of security enhancement construction is underway. The Capitol Visitors’ Center now
being constructed under the East Front Plaza is perhaps the most dramatic among the
many security enhancements currently being planned or implemented. Other
prominent enhancements noticeable to the public include construction of perimeter
security barriers adjacent to the Capitol, House and Senate office buildings, the
Supreme Court building, and Library of Congress buildings, and an increased Capitol
Police presence around the Capitol Complex.
Primary responsibility for security on Capitol Hill has been delegated by law
to the U.S. Capitol Police force, under the direction of the Capitol Police Board
(which is composed of the Architect of the Capitol, the Sergeants at Arms of the
House and Senate, and chief of the Capitol Police, who is an ex-officio, non-voting
member).1 The Capitol Police Board has jurisdiction over the design, installation,
and maintenance of security systems for the Capitol, House and Senate office
buildings, the Library of Congress, and adjacent grounds, subject to the direction of
the Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration. Any alteration of structural, mechanical, or architectural features of
the Capitol Complex buildings that may be required for a security system must be
approved by the Architect of the Capitol.2 The House and Senate Appropriations
Committees must approve funding for these programs.
1 P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 361.
2 P.L. 104-53, 109 Stat. 537; 40 U.S.C. 212a-4j; and P.L. 104-197, 110 Stat. 2413; 40 U.S.C.
212a-4a.

CRS-2
Response to Terrorism Attacks
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks against the United States on September
11, 2001, a broad range of important security actions have been taken to enhance
security on Capitol Hill. These initiatives have included
(1) a significant increase in funding for the U.S. Capitol Police and security
enhancements, including the Capitol Visitors’ Center, which will fulfill a
number of security requirements;
(2) enhancement of protection around the Capitol, including the closure of
streets, erection of crash barriers, and additional police presence;
(3) installation of security systems designed to provide better protection for
those working in and visiting the Capitol;
(4) initiatives aimed at increasing the capability of the Capitol Police force;
(5) preparation of emergency evacuation procedures for Members and
congressional staff;
(6) creation of several new security related administrative entities; and
(7) completion of several security related studies.
Funding Since September 11
Congress has approved six different appropriation measures since the events of
September 11, 2001, that have provided funding for Capitol Hill security. These
measures include
(1) FY2001 Terrorism Emergency Supplemental Act (P.L. 107-38);
(2) FY2002 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-68);
(3) FY2002 Department of Defense and Terrorism Emergency Supplemental
(P.L. 107-117);
(4) FY2002 Supplemental Appropriations (P.L. 107-206);
(5) Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003. FY2003 Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-7);
(6) FY2003 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-11); and
(7) FY2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-83).3
FY2001 Terrorism Emergency Supplemental
On September 18, 2001, shortly after the terrorist attacks, President Bush signed
P.L. 107-38, which contained $40 billion in FY2001 emergency supplemental
appropriations approved by Congress. The Act provided that $20 billion be made
immediately available for release by the President without further congressional
action. The remaining $20 billion could only be obligated by the President subject
3 The FY2004 appropriation was made subject to a 0.59% rescission in P.L. 108-199,
FY2004 Consolidated Appropriation Act, signed by the President January 23, 2004.

CRS-3
to subsequent congressional approval in an emergency appropriations measure.4 Of
the $20 billion not requiring additional congressional approval, the President released
a total of $376.9 million for legislative branch security on September 21, September
28, and December 3, 2001, respectively.
The funds released on September 21 provided $3.3 million for “increased
security measures, including overtime compensation for the U.S. Capitol Police and
the installation of protective window film for the U.S. Capitol.”5 The September 28
funds provided $83.2 million to “support increased security measures, including
paying overtime compensation for the Capitol Police, preparing for possible future
terrorist events, and performing actions that can be taken to reduce the risk and
potential damage to life and property caused by future terrorist events.”6 The
December 3 funds provided $290.4 million for “increased security measures,
including constructing the Capitol Visitors’ Center, paying overtime compensation
for the Capitol Police, preparing for future terrorist events, and performing actions
that can be taken to reduce the risk and potential damage to life and property caused
by future terrorist events.”7
FY2002 Legislative Branch Appropriations
On November 20, 2001, President Bush signed the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, FY2002 (P.L. 107-68), which provided $126.2 million in
funding for the Capitol Police Board.8 The act further provided $70 million in
4 P.L. 107-38, 115 Stat. 220-221.
5 Office of Management and Budget, Emergency Appropriations: Amounts Previously
Appropriated Now Being Transferred by the President From the Emergency Response Fund,
Attachment to Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House, Sept. 21, 2001. See
also Office of Management and Budget, “President Bush Releases $5.1 Billion in
Emergency Funds; OMB Provides Details on Fund Allocation,” news release 2001-36, Sept.
21, 2001, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pubpress/2001-36.html].
6 Office of Management and Budget, Emergency Appropriations: Amounts Previously
Appropriated Now Being Transferred by the President From the Emergency Response Fund,
Attachment to Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House, Sept. 28, 2001. See
Office of Management and Budget, “President Bush Releases Additional $1.8 Billion in
Emergency Funds to Provide for National Security Needs,” news release 2001-40, Sept. 28,
2001, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pubpress/2001-40.html]. The legislative branch
funds were distributed as follows: Senate, $5,265,000; House of Representatives,
$1,265,000; Office of Attending Physician, $1,500,000; Capitol Police, $40,300,000;
Architect of the Capitol, $32,373,000; and Library of Congress, $2,500,000.
7 Office of Management and Budget, “President Bush Announces $699 Million in
Emergency Funds Assistance for Defense, Northern Virginia, Secret Service and Congress,”
n e w s r e l e a s e 2 0 0 1 - 6 2 , D e c . 3 , 2 0 0 1 ,
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pubpress/2001-62.pdf]. The legislative branch funds were
distributed as follows: $18,750,000 million for the Senate; $22,648,000 million for the
House; $37,950,000 million for the Capitol Police; and $211,047,000 million for the
Architect of the Capitol.
8 P.L. 107-68, 115 Stat. 575; U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, Making
(continued...)

CRS-4
additional funding for the Capitol Visitors’ Center.9 While no other security related
funding was specifically mentioned in the act, it did, however, state under the
general expenses category of the Capitol Police that funds were provided for
“security equipment and installation.”10 Also, a separate provision authorized the
Architect of the Capitol to “procure services, equipment, and construction for
security related projects in the most effective manner he determines appropriate.”11
FY2002 DOD and Terrorism Emergency Supplemental
On October 17, 2001, the President requested to obligate $256.1 million (from
a total of $20 billion in the FY2001 Terrorism Supplemental, P.L. 107-38) for
security enhancements to the Capitol Complex, the Government Printing and General
Accounting Offices, and for efforts to reduce damage to life and property by potential
future terrorist attacks.12 On December 20, 2001, Congress agreed to the President’s
request as part of a FY2002 Department of Defense and emergency supplemental
appropriations bill (P.L. 107-117). The act authorized the transfer of $256.1 million
to ensure a continuity of government; to enhance the security of offices, systems, and
employees of the legislative branch; and to respond to anthrax-related events.13
8 (...continued)
Appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2002,
and for Other Purposes, conference report to accompany H.R. 2647, 107th Cong., 1st sess.,
H.Rept. 107-259 (Washington: GPO, 2001), pp. 16-17.
9 P.L. 107-68, 115 Stat. 588.
10 P.L. 107-68, 115 Stat. 575. The accompanying conference report stated that the conferees
agreed to the following capital projects to be carried out by the Architect of the Capitol:
security project support $125,000; providing infrastructure for security installations
$200,000; and replacement of exit doors for emergency egress and security, Capitol
building, $475,000. The Act also directed the Architect to designate a position for security
management functions. U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, Making Appropriations
for the Legislative Branch for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2002, and for Other
Purposes, conference report to accompany H.R. 2647, 107th Cong. 1st sess., H.Rept. 107-259
(Washington: GPO, 2001), pp. 41-42, 44.
11 P.L.107-68, 115 Stat. 581.
12 Office of Management and Budget, “President Bush Proposes $20 Billion Emergency
Spending Measure to Provide for the Disaster Recovery and Security Needs Related to the
A t t a c k o n A m e r i c a , ” n e w s r e l e a s e 2 0 0 1 - 5 1 , O c t . 1 7 , 2 0 0 1 ,
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pubpress/2001-51.html]. See the following attachments
for details regarding the President’s proposal: Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr, Director of the Office
of Management and Budget, to President George W. Bush, Attachment to Letter from the
President to the Speaker of the House, Oct. 17, 2001.
13 P.L. 107-117; 115 Stat. 2315-2325. The Act transferred $34,500,000 to the Senate
Sergeant at Arms; $41,712,000 to the House; $31,000,000 to the Capitol Police Board;
$350,000 to the Capitol Guide Service and Special Services Office; $106,304,000 to the
Architect of the Capitol for Capitol buildings and grounds; $29,615,000 to the Library of
Congress; $4,000,000 to the Government Printing Office; $7,600,000 to the General
Accounting Office; and $1,000,000 to the Capitol Historical Society to boost tourism.
Approximately $23,000,000 was designated to meet costs incurred in responding to the
(continued...)

CRS-5
FY2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act
Signed into law in August 2002, P.L. 107-206 contained FY2002 supplemental
appropriations that provided $10 million “for emergency expenses for security
upgrades and renovations to the Supreme Court building.” The act also included
$16.1 million “for the necessary expenses of the Capitol Police, including computer
equipment and services, training, communications, uniforms, weapons, and
reimbursement to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Hazardous Substance
Superfund for additional expenses incurred for anthrax investigations and cleanup
activities.”14
FY2003 Legislative Branch Appropriations
For FY2003, Congress approved $240.2 million for Capitol Police salaries and
expenses and $63.9 million for the Architect of the Capitol for Capitol Police
buildings and grounds in regular annual and supplemental appropriation bills.
Regular Annual Appropriations. In February 2003, as part of the FY2003
consolidated appropriations resolution (P.L. 108-7), which included the FY2003
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, Congress approved a $202.5 million
appropriation for the Capitol Police.15 In addition, the Architect of the Capitol was
provided $23.8 million for the “maintenance, care, and operations of buildings and
grounds of the United States Capitol Police.”16
No other security related funding was specifically mentioned in the Act. It did,
however, state under the general expenses category of the Capitol Police, that funds
were provided for “security equipment and installation.” Also, separate provisions
authorized the Architect of the Capitol to “procure services, equipment, and
construction for security related projects in the most effective manner he determines
appropriate,” and to “accept appropriations and services from other Federal agencies
for the purpose of enhancing security for projects under his jurisdiction upon the
approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the House and the Senate.”17
13 (...continued)
threat of anthrax in the Capitol Complex; see U.S. Congress, Conference Committees,
Making Appropriations for the Department of Defense for the Fiscal Year Ending
September 30, 2002, and For Other Purposes, conference report to accompany H.R. 3338,
107th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 107-350 (Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 439.
14 P.L. 107-206, 116 Stat. 875.
15 This figure represents the FY2003 appropriation for Capitol Police salaries
($174,533,000) and Capitol Police general expenses ($27,917,000), both of which reflect
a 0.65% rescission. P.L. 108-7, Division H, Title 1, 117 Stat. 357 (which contains
appropriations language), and Division N, Title 6, Sec. 601, 117 Stat. 550 (which contains
rescission language).
16 This figure reflects a 0.65% rescission. P.L. 108-7, Division H, Title 1, 117 Stat. 372, and
Division N, Title 6, Sec. 601, 117 Stat. 550.
17 P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 357, 372, 376.

CRS-6
Supplemental Appropriations. In April 2003, Congress approved an
FY2003 supplemental appropriations bill (P.L. 108-11) that contains an additional
$37.8 million appropriation for the Capitol Police, and an additional $40.1 million
for the Architect of the Capitol for “Capitol police buildings and grounds.”18
FY2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations
For FY2004, Congress approved $221.1 million for Capitol Police salaries and
expenses, a reduction of 8.0% from the FY2003 appropriation of $240.2 million (P.L.
108-83).19 The appropriation funds 1,993 positions, including 1,592 sworn staff and
401 civilian employees. Thirty positions are authorized to be converted from sworn
to civilian positions. Conferees directed the Capitol Police to recruit 75 new
personnel that include five positions for the office of the Capitol Police Chief,
including three mid-level attorneys in the Office of General Counsel; 37 positions for
the office of the Chief Administrative Officer; and 33 other positions, including three
positions for intelligence analysts, 13 positions for the Security Services Bureau, and
17 positions, whose work was not specified by conferees.
Conferees noted “that should the Capitol Police strategic plan, and associated
staffing plan, be completed and approved by the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees, during FY2004, there is ample funding from the Emergency Response
Fund for new sworn positions.”20

A separate appropriation under the Architect of the Capitol account contains
$3.3 million for Capitol Police buildings and grounds. This represents a significant
decrease from the FY2003 appropriation of $63.9 million, which included an
FY2003 supplemental appropriation of $40 million.21
Other staff-related provisions authorized the Capitol Police to recruit and train
23 sworn officers for assignment to the Library of Congress in FY2004; restated a
requirement that the Capitol Police notify and consult with the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations on plans that “result in the redistribution,
reprogramming, or reallocation of FTE’s or funds in a manner different from that
presented in each budget year’s appropriation hearings, position reports to the
Committees, and the final approved budget;”22 and directed that Department of
18 P.L. 108-11, 117 Stat. 586.
19 This appropriation was made subject to a 0.59% rescission in P.L. 108-199, FY2004
Consolidated Appropriation Act, signed January 23, 2004. The official revised figure will
be contained in an update of this report.
20 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2004, Making Appropriations for the Legislative
Branch for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2004, and for Other Purposes, conference
report to accompany H.R. 2657, 108th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 108-279 (Washington: GPO,
2003), p. 42.
21 The FY2003 appropriation contained a regular annual appropriation of $23.9 million and
a supplemental appropriation of $40 million.
22 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2004, Making Appropriations for the Legislative
(continued...)

CRS-7
Homeland Security funds be used to pay FY2004 basic police training expenses of
the Capitol Police at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.23
Actions Taken to Enhance Security
U.S. Capitol Police
2001. In successive actions taken on September 21, September 28, and
December 3, 2001, President Bush released a combined total of $376.9 million for
legislative branch security under the FY2001 Terrorism Emergency Supplemental
Act (P.L. 107-38). The Capitol Police received $81.55 million of those funds.24
In October 2001, conferees on the FY2002 Legislative Branch Appropriations
Act approved $13.1 million for Capitol Police general expenses. This amount
included $65,000 for card readers; $2 million for “the accelerated upgrade and
installation of a new networked in-place monitoring system;” and $1.5 million for the
purchase of 40 vehicles for “canine officers to transport police dogs,” in order to
bring the Capitol Police canine unit on an “operational-parity to other federal law
enforcement agencies.”25 The conferees allowed for 79 new police positions, the
number suggested by the Capitol Police as the maximum that could be recruited and
22 (...continued)
Branch for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2004, and for Other Purposes, conference
report to accompany H.R. 2657, 108th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 108-279 (Washington: GPO,
2003), p. 42.
23 P.L. 108-83, 117 Stat. 1021.
24 This figure included $3.3 million released on Sept. 21, $40.3 million on Sept. 28, and
$37.95 million on Dec. 3, 2001. Office of Management and Budget, Emergency
Appropriations: Amounts Previously Appropriated Now Being Transferred by the President
From the Emergency Response Fund, Attachment to Letter from the President to the
Speaker of the House, Sept. 21, 2001. See also Office of Management and Budget,
“President Bush Releases $5.1 Billion in Emergency Funds”; “OMB Provides Details on
F u n d A l l o c a t i o n , ” n e w s r e l e a s e 2 0 0 1 - 3 6 , S e p t . 2 1 , 2 0 0 1 ,
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pubpress/2001-36.html]; Office of Management and
Budget, “President Bush Releases Additional $1.8 Billion in Emergency Funds to Provide
for National Security Needs,” news release 2001-40, Sept. 28, 2001,
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pubpress/2001-40.html], and Office of Management and
Budget, “President Bush Announces $699 million in Emergency Funds Assistance for
Defense, Northern Virginia, Secret Service and Congress,” news release 2001-62, Dec. 3,
2001, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pubpress/2001-62.pdf].
25 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, Making Appropriations for the Legislative
Branch for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2002, conference report to accompany
H.R. 2647, 107th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 107-259(Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 40.

CRS-8
trained during the fiscal year.26 The conference report on the FY2002 legislative
branch bill also contained administrative provisions that
! authorized the Capitol Police to purchase goods and services in
emergency situations, with the requirement that they report such
transactions, along with the reasons, to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations;
! authorized the Capitol Police to accept donations of meals and
refreshments in emergency situations;
! limited the pay for the chief administrative officer of the Capitol
Police;
! authorized the payment of certain expenditures made in connection
with the September 11 terrorist acts, and subsequent threats; and
! restored pay parity for the Capitol Police with that of the United
States Park Police and the Uniformed Division of the Secret
Service.27
2002. On January 10, 2002, the President signed the FY2002 Terrorism
Emergency Supplemental Act (P.L. 107-117), which transferred an additional $31
million to the Capitol Police.28 Other security-related provisions contained in the
FY2002 Terrorism Emergency Supplemental Act (P.L. 107-117) authorized:
! Capitol Police an additional 195 officer FTEs, and 74 civilian FTEs
to establish an office of Emergency Management and a Chem-Bio
Strike Team;
! Capitol Police to establish a student loan repayment program to aid
in recruitment and retention;
! Senate Sergeant at Arms and chief administrative officer to acquire
buildings and facilities in order to respond to an emergency situation
and to enter into a memorandum of understanding with an executive
agency in an emergency situation;
! destruction, or other means of disposition, of anthrax contaminated
mail delivered to the House by the U.S. Postal Service;
! increase in the salaries of the chief and assistant chief of the Capitol
Police;
26 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, Making Appropriations for the Legislative
Branch for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2002, conference report to accompany
H.R. 2647, 107th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 107-259 (Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 40; and U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations, 2002,
107th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 107-37 (Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 24.
27 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, Making Appropriations for the Legislative
Branch for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2002, conference report to accompany
H.R. 2647, 107th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 107-259 (Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 40; and U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations, 2002,
107th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 107-37 (Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 24.
28 P.L. 107-117, 115 Stat. 2315.

CRS-9
! Capitol Police to accept contributions of incidental items and
services in response to emergencies, and accept assistance in
emergencies from executive agencies;
! U.S. Capitol Preservation Commission to transfer funds from the
Capitol Preservation Fund to the Architect of the Capitol for
construction of the Capitol Visitors’ Center;
! Chief of Capitol Police in case of an emergency to deputize
members of the D.C. National Guard and duly sworn law
enforcement personnel;
! Chief of Capitol Police to pay recruitment and relocation bonuses,
retention allowances, lump sum incentive and merit bonuses, service
step increases for meritorious service, and additional compensation;
and
! executive departments and agencies to assist Capitol Police in the
performance of its duties by providing services (including
personnel), equipment, and facilities on a temporary and
reimbursable basis when requested by the Capitol Police Board, and
on a permanent and reimbursable basis upon the written request of
the Capitol Police Board; the Department of Defense and the Coast
Guard may provide such assistance on a temporary basis without
reimbursement when assisting the Capitol Police.29
The FY2002 Supplemental Appropriation Act (P.L. 107-206) also contained
$16.1 million “for the necessary expenses of the Capitol Police, including computer
equipment and services, training, communications, uniforms, weapons, and [to]
reimburse to the Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Substance Superfund
for additional expenses incurred for anthrax investigations and cleanup actions.”30
Conferees stipulated that $12.5 million of the $16.1 million be used for reimbursing
the Environmental Protection Agency for anthrax investigations.31
2003. On February 20, 2003, the President signed the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2003, which included the Legislative Branch Appropriations
Act, 2003 (P.L. 108-7). It contained $202.5 million in FY2003 appropriations for the
Capitol Police,32 including (1) $174.5 million for “salaries of employees of the
Capitol Police, including overtime, hazardous duty pay differential, and Government
contributions for health, retirement, Social Security, and other applicable employee
29 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, Making Appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2002, and for Other Purposes,
conference report to accompany H.R. 3338,, 107th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 107-350
(Washington: GPO, 2001), pp. 91-95, 439.
30 P.L. 107-206, 116 Stat. 875.
31 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, Making Supplemental Appropriations for Further
Recovery From and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States for the Fiscal Year
Ending September 30, 2002, and for Other Purposes, conference report to accompany H.R.
4775, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 107-593 (Washington: GPO, 2002), pp. 57, 163.
32 P.L. 108-7, Division H, Title 1, 117 Stat. 357, and Division N, Title 6, Sec. 601, 117 Stat.
550. This figure reflects a 0.65% rescission required in P.L. 108-7.

CRS-10
benefits;” and (2) $27.9 million for general expenses such as “motor vehicles,
communications and other equipment, security equipment and installation, uniforms,
weapons, supplies, materials, training, medical services, forensic services,
stenographic services, personal and professional services, the employee assistance
program, the awards program, postage communication services, travel advances,
[and] relocation of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.”33
A related provision appropriated $23.8 million for the Architect of the Capitol
to maintain, care for, and operate the buildings and grounds of the Capitol Police.34
Conferees directed the General Accounting Office to work with the Capitol Police
and the Office of the Architect of the Capitol in preparing a report “regarding the
feasibility of transferring jurisdiction of the United States Capitol Police Buildings
to the Capitol Police” for consideration by the Committees on Appropriations.35
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2003, also authorized the chief of the
Capitol Police to
! offer recruitment and relocation and recruitment bonuses;
! recruit individuals without regard to age;
! offer retention bonuses;
! establish an educational assistance programs for employees; and
! provide additional compensation for employees with speciality
assignments and proficiencies.36
Other provisions made the chief an ex-officio, non-voting member of the
Capitol Police Board, and directed the board to (1) examine its mission “and, based
on that analysis redefine the Capitol Police Board’s mission, mission-related
processes, and administrative procedures;” (2) “conduct an assessment of the
effectiveness and usefulness of its statutory functions in contributing to the Capitol
Police Board’s ability to carry out its mission and meet its goals;” and (3) submit a
“report on the result of its examination and assessment, including recommendations
for any legislation” considered “appropriate and necessary.” To facilitate its work,
Congress established the position of “Executive Assistant for the Capitol Police
Board to act as a central point of communication and enhance the overall
effectiveness of the Capitol Police Board’s administrative activities.”37
Also, the Act provided that in the “event of an emergency, as determined by the
Capitol Police Board or in a concurrent resolution of Congress,” the chief of the
Capitol Police is authorized to appoint law enforcement officers from federal, state,
and local agencies, and the armed forces (including the National Guard) to serve as
33 P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 357,
34 P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 372. This figure reflects a 0.65% rescission required in P.L. 108-7.
35 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, Making Further Continuing Appropriations for
the Fiscal Year 2003, and for Other Purposes, conference report to accompany H.J.Res. 2,
108th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 108-10 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 1228.
36 P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 357-360.
37 P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 361-362.

CRS-11
special Capitol Police officers. The Act further provided for the transfer of
employees of the Library of Congress Police force to the Capitol Police force, and
directed the chief of the Capitol Police, in consultation with the Comptroller General,
to “develop a long term strategic plan which outlines the goals and objectives of
Capitol Police.”38
In April 2003, under the FY2003 emergency supplemental appropriations bill
(P.L. 108-11), Congress approved an additional $37.8 million appropriation for the
Capitol Police, and $40 million for the Architect of the Capitol for “Capitol police
buildings and grounds.”39
According to the accompanying conference report, the latter amount of $40
million provided funding for three specific items. First, $14,140,000 was to be used,
in addition to previously appropriated funds, for construction of a new Capitol Police
headquarters. The report also included language directing the Architect of the
Capitol “to have the Naval Facilities Command serve as the primary executing
agency for this project.” Second, $10 million was allocated “for the cost of leasing
interim space, pending execution of the facilities master plan.” Third, $16 million
was appropriated for construction of a “Tactical Training Facility in Cheltenham,
Maryland, for the sole use of the United States Capitol Police.”40
The FY2004 legislative branch appropriations bill approved by Congress
contains $211.1 million and administrative provisions for Capitol Police operations
(P.L. 108-83). Among administrative provisions contained in the act are those
! authorizing any counsel providing legal assistance and
representation to the Capitol Police to appear in any federal or state
court;
! directing that hazardous materials response team members assisting
the Capitol Police be treated as members of the force in order to
receive retirement benefits comparable to those available to other
federal firefighters and law enforcement personnel;
! providing for a “more effective and efficient” transfer of Library of
Congress police to the Capitol Police force;41
38 P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 362-366, 369.
39 P.L. 108-11, 117 Stat. 586.
40 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2003, Making Emergency Wartime Supplemental
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2003, and for Other Purposes, conference report to
accompany H.R. 1559, 108th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 108-76 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp.
87-88. See also Jennifer Yachnin, “Southeast Site Picked for Police HQ,” Roll Call, May
12, 2003, pp. 3, 28. The Capitol Police are conducting analyses of the cost to expand the
police headquarters at its current site, and of staffing and other needs. See Jennifer Yachnin,
“Panels Reject Proposed Site for Police HQ,” Roll Call, Oct. 30, 2003, p. 3.
41 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2004, Making Appropriations for the Legislative
Branch for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2004, and for Other Purposes, conference
(continued...)

CRS-12
! expanding the physical boundaries within which the Capitol Police
maintain jurisdiction over traffic on and around the Capitol grounds,
specifically to regulate trucks as a security precaution; and
! directing the Capitol Police Board to make regulations regarding
“implementation, execution and maintenance” of the truck
interdiction program and to submit its regulations to the Committee
on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration for approval.
Table 1. Appropriations and FTEs for U.S. Capitol Police,
FY1997-FY2004
Appropriations
(in millions of dollars)
Fiscal
Appropriations in
Total, Regular
Year
Appropriations in
Supplemental Acts
Annual and
Regular Annual
FTEsb
and By Transfer
Supplemental
Acts
(in 2002)
Acts
1997
$72.1
$3.25
$75.35
1,256
1998
74.1
0
74.10
1,255
1999
83.1
106.8a
189.9
1,401
2000
84.9
2.1
87.0
1,511
2001
106.9
0
106.9
1,481
2002
126.2
47.1
173.3
1,570
2003
202.5
37.8
240.2
1,737
2004
211.1
—
211.1
1,993
Sources: Public laws, conference reports, and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
a. P.L. 105-277 contained $106.8 million for security enhancements and authority for the Capitol
Police Board, subject to approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, to
transfer money to the Architect of the Capitol and the Library of Congress.
b. Sources are documents of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, and tables of the
House Committee on Appropriations.
During a May 2003 Senate hearing, the Architect of the Capitol identified
several additional ongoing Capitol Police projects. Among them are
(1) new chemical explosives handling and K-9 structures at D.C. Village;
41 (...continued)
report to accompany H.R. 2657, 108th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 108-279 (Washington: GPO,
2003), pp. 42-43.

CRS-13
(2) a new vehicle maintenance facility at 67 K Street, S.W.;
(3) reconfiguration of existing areas within the Capitol, Senate and House
Office buildings and existing Police Headquarters; and
(4) site selection for an off-site delivery screening center to replace the P
Street warehouse currently in use.
The Office of the Architect has contracted with the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command for assistance in managing and completing these projects.42
Capitol Visitors’ Center
A 1998 incident resulting in the death of two Capitol Police officers and the
terrorist attacks of 2001 revealed the vulnerabilities of the U.S. Capitol and the need
for a new way to handle security on Capitol Hill. The urgent need for improved
security persuaded most Members of Congress of the necessity to move forward with
the Capitol Visitors’ Center now being constructed under the East Front Plaza, and
the final funds needed for its construction were appropriated. The cost of the center,
the most extensive addition to the Capitol since the Civil War, and the largest in the
world-famous structure’s 202-year history, is currently estimated at between $380
million and $395 million.43

Initially, Congress appropriated $100 million for the center in 1998, after the
killing of two U.S. Capitol Police officers stationed near a public entrance to the
Capitol in July 1998.44 Following the terrorist attacks, Congress in November 2001
appropriated an additional $70 million in the FY2002 Legislative Branch
Appropriation Act toward the center’s construction.45 A month later, the President
made available $138.5 million in additional funding. The latter funds were released
to the Architect of the Capitol as part of substantial funds drawn from the FY2001
Terrorism Emergency Supplemental Act.46
42 Testimony of Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch Appropriations
for 2004, hearings, 108th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 218-
227; see also testimony of Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch
Appropriations for 2004, hearings, 108th Cong., 1st sess., May 21, 2003 (Washington: GPO,
2003), pp. 1252-1265.
See [http://appropriations.senate.gov/subcommittees/record.cfm?id=203675].
43 See CRS Report RL31121, The Capitol Visitors’ Center: An Overview, by Stephen W.
Stathis.
44 P.L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-569-57.
45 P.L. 107-68, 115 Stat. 588.
46 P.L. 107-38, 115 Stat. 220-221; Office of Management and Budget, “President Bush
Announces $699 Million in Emergency Funds Assistance for Defense, Northern Virginia,
Secret Service and Congress,” news release 2001-62, Dec. 3, 2001; Architect of the Capitol,
Capitol Visitors’ Center Project Office, Mar. 2003.

CRS-14
Also, Congress in 1999 approved two separate pieces of legislation aimed at
raising private sector funds for the construction of the center. As a consequence of
these two acts and planned contributions of the Capitol Preservation Commission,
a total of $65 million in private funds is also available for the project.47
The center is intended to provide a secure environment for managing a large
number of visitors while protecting the Capitol building, its occupants, and guests.
In addition to serving as the security screening entry for visitors to the Capitol, the
center will provide improved accessibility for disabled persons; enhanced fire, safety,
and security systems; new facilities for routine deliveries and garbage removal;
innovative educational experiences for visitors; and other vastly improved visitor
services.
On January 31, 2000, design development work for the center was begun. A
ceremonial ground breaking for the center occurred on June 20, 2000, and in mid-
October 2000, the Capitol Preservation Commission approved the final design plan
for the center and authorized the Architect of the Capitol to prepare final construction
documentation. Since that time, a construction management firm has been hired to
supervise the project, an $8 million dollar contract has been awarded to relocate
utility lines, a $99,877,000 contact has been awarded for Sequence 1
(foundation/structural work), and a $144.2 million contract has been awarded for
Sequence 2 (the electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and finishing work) of the actual
construction of the center.
Also, a firm was retained to oversee the development of the Capitol Visitors’
Center exhibition gallery; a tree maintenance contractor was hired to help assure the
protection of trees on the East Capitol grounds; historic preservation workers have
temporarily removed historic Olmsted landscape features from the grounds for their
safeguard; and temporary visitor screening facilities and media sites were
constructed.48 It is anticipated that the construction of the center will have proceeded
to a point that it will be possible in January 2005 to accommodate the basic activities
of the next presidential inauguration. Recently, considerable concern has been
expressed over the estimated cost for the center, which continues to increase.49
47 CRS Report RL31121, The Capitol Visitors’ Center: An Overview. The FY2002
Terrorism Emergency Supplemental Act (P.L. 107-117) authorized the U.S. Capitol
Preservation Commission to transfer funds from the Capitol Preservation Fund to the
Architect of the Capitol for construction of the Capitol Visitors’ Center. P.L. 107-117, 115
Stat. 2324.
48 CRS Report RL31121, The Capitol Visitors’ Center: An Overview.
49 Suzanne Nelson, “Contractors Get Say in CVC Timing,” Roll Call, Feb. 24, 2003, p. 3.
See also testimony of Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch
Appropriations for 2004, hearings, 108th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 2003 (Washington: GPO,
2003), p. 224, 228, 234; see also testimony of Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative
Branch Appropriations for 2004, hearing, 108th Cong., 1st sess., May 21, 2003 (Washington:
GPO, 2003), p. 1264. For an overall slide presentation of the center’s plans, prepared by
(continued...)

CRS-15
Supreme Court
Prior to September 11 terrorist attacks, Congress had already been presented
proposals to enhance security at the Supreme Court. In FY1997, Congress
appropriated $150,000 for a “preliminary study on perimeter security of the Supreme
Court building and grounds. The study was prepared by outside consultants with
oversight provided by the Director of Engineering of the Architect of the Capitol.”50
An additional $500,000 was approved in FY1999 for detailed design development
and preparation of construction drawings for Supreme Court security enhancements.51
Subsequently, on September 18, 2001, the President released $1.25 million from
emergency funds contained in the FY2001 Terrorism Emergency Supplemental Act
(P.L. 107-38) for the installation of protective window film for the U.S. Supreme
Court building.52 During the past two years, additional funds appropriated for
Supreme Court security included:
(1) $30 million in an emergency supplemental act (P.L. 107-117) to improve
Supreme Court perimeter security and install the other security upgrades
needed to “address the building’s serious security deficiencies;”53
49 (...continued)
the Architect of the Capitol, see [http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/pres_overview/intro.htm].
50 U.S. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary: Budget Estimates for Fiscal
Year 1999 Congressional Submission (Washington: 1998), p. 1.27.
51 U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2000, report to
accompany S. 1217, 106th Cong., 1st sess., S. Rept. 106-76 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 106.
See also testimony of the Architect of the Capitol, Alan Hantman, U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary, and
Related Agencies, Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, and
the Judiciary for FY2000, hearings, 106th Cong. 1st sess., Mar. 10, 1999 (Washington: GPO,
1999), pp. 79, 91.
52 Office of Management and Budget, Emergency Appropriations: Amounts Previously
Appropriated Now Being Transferred by the President From the Emergency Response Fund,
Attachment to Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House, Sept. 21, 2001. See
also Office of Management and Budget, “President Bush Releases $5.1 Billion in
Emergency Funds; OMB Provides Details on Fund Allocation,” news release 2001-36, Sept.
21, 2001, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pubpress/2001-36.html].
53 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense
Appropriation Bill, 2002 and Supplemental Appropriations 2002, report to accompany H.R.
3338, 107th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 107-109 (Washington: GPO, 2002), p. 182. The funds
were approved by Congress in H.R. 3338, FY2002 Department of Defense Appropriations
and FY2002 Emergency Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-117, 115 Stat. 2295). Congress
directed that the funds be obligated from terrorism appropriations approved earlier in P.L.
107-38. See also U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2001, Making Appropriations for
the Department of Defense for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2002, and for Other
Purposes, conference report to accompany H.R. 3338, 107th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 107-
350 (Washington: GPO, 2001), pp. 67,420.

CRS-16
(2) $10 million in the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-206)
“for security upgrades and renovations of the Supreme Court building;”54
and
(3) $1.535 million in the 2003 Emergency Wartime Supplemental
Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-11) for enhancements that would provide
funding for a pay increase (to maintain parity with Capitol Police pay),
additional officers, equipment, and training for the Supreme Court police.55
Currently, the Supreme Court is developing a perimeter security plan that will
be compatible with the Capitol Square, Senate, and House perimeter plans and the
surrounding neighborhood.56
Perimeter Security Plans
Capitol Square. Early in 1997, the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration directed the Capitol Police Board to develop a perimeter security plan
for the Capitol Complex. In response, the board organized a task force that included
key staff from the offices of the Architect of the Capitol, the House and Senate
Sergeants at Arms, and the Capitol Police, as well as nationally recognized
architectural and security consultants. “The challenge” confronting the task force,
Architect Alan M. Hantman emphasized, was “to sensitively integrate a sophisticated
security program into the historic landscape of the Capitol Grounds” and its
“incomparable complex of buildings.”57
On September 25, 1997, the Architect unveiled the plan developed by the task
force, which the Capitol Police Board endorsed. It called for “improved security at
all entrances to Capitol Square through the use of a combination of high impact
vehicle barriers that are police activated at the most critical locations, or card
activated at parking related areas.” The primary elements of the plan were (1) “a
continuous string of security rated steel bollards similar to those designed for, and
installed at, the White House;” (2) “new high impact stone planter areas consistent
with the Frederick Law Olmsted walls;” and (3) an “integration of electronic and
54 P.L. 107-206, 116 Stat. 829; and U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2002, Making
Supplemental Appropriations for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks
on the United States for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30,2002, and for Other
Purposes, conference report to accompany H.R. 4775, H.Rept. 107-593, 107th Cong., 2nd
sess. (Washington: GPO, 2002), pp. 10-11.
55 P.L. 108-11, 117 Stat. 561; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,
Making Supplemental Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2003, and
for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.R. 1559, 108th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 108-55
(Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 5.
56 Conversation with Tony Donnelly, Director of Budget and Personnel, Supreme Court of
the United States, May 2003. See also Spencer S. Hsu, “High Court Asks for 2 Street
Closings; Security Proposal Irks D.C. Officials,” Washington Post, May 25, 2002, pp. B1,
B4.
57 Statement of Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee
on Rules and Administration, Capitol Complex Security, hearings, 105th Cong. 1st sess., Sept.
25, 1997 (unpublished).

CRS-17
other security systems at each entrance.”58 The continuous security perimeter would
be located largely within the original walls, as designed by Olmsted.
The Senate Rules Committee accepted the plan on November 4, 1997, and also
authorized the Architect to move forward immediately in developing perimeter
security for the area directly adjacent to the three Senate office buildings.59 In the
1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act, Congress appropriated $20
million for “the design, installation and maintenance of the Capitol Square perimeter
security plan.” The Act directed that up to $4 million be transferred to the Capitol
Police Board, upon the board’s request, for “physical security measures” associated
with the plan. The Act further required that funds made available for the Capitol
Square perimeter security plan be reviewed and approved “by the appropriate House
and Senate authorities.”60
Additional funds for Capitol Square perimeter security were contained in a
FY1999 supplemental appropriation of $106.8 million to the Capitol Police Board
for Capitol Complex security enhancements, including buildings and grounds of the
Library of Congress. The Act did not, however, indicate how much of the $106.8
million appropriation was specifically allocated for perimeter security. The Act
required that (1) the Capitol Police Board would transfer to the Architect of the
Capitol and Librarian of Congress “such portion of the funds” as they “may require
for expenses necessary to provide support for the security enhancements;” and (2) the
implementation of security enhancements would follow plans approved by the
Committee on House Administration, Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration, and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.61
A construction contract for the project was awarded on March 9, 2001.62 Now
underway, the perimeter security project is expected to be finished in conjunction
with completion of the Capitol Visitors’ Center in the fall of 2005. The project
includes “the installation of security barriers, bollards and electronic security systems
to provide a secure area within the Capitol Grounds from First Street NW/SW, First
Street NE/SE, North Drive, and South Drive.”63 The exact cost of the plan has not
been made public.64
58 Ibid.
59 Senator John Warner, “Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 143 (July 28, 1998), pp. S9115-S9118.
60 P.L. 105-174, 112 Stat. 89.
61 P.L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-570.
62 Noelle Straub, “AoC Awards Security Contract,” The Hill, Mar. 21, 2001, p. 11.
63 Testimony of Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch Appropriations
for 2002, hearings on H.R. 2647/S. 1172, Appendix C, 107th Cong. 1st sess., June 26, 2001
(Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 199.
64 Duncan Spencer, “Officials Won’t Reveal Costs of Bollards Around Capitol,” The Hill,
Mar. 5, 2003, p. 51.

CRS-18
Senate. The contract for the Senate perimeter security plan was approved by
the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the Subcommittee on
Legislative Branch, Senate Committee on Appropriations, on November 7, 2000, and
awarded the following day.65 The plan called for the “installation of security barriers,
bollards, security booths and electronic security systems to provide a secure area for
parking on C Street from New Jersey NW to Second Street NE, and on Delaware
Avenue from Constitution Avenue to D Street.”66 The purpose of the project,
according to Architect of the Capitol Alan Hantman, was “to improve both the
security and appearance of areas around the Senate office buildings.” The project,
which was completed in 2002, replaced “unsightly concrete structures — which were
intended to be temporary security measures when put into place more than a decade
ago,” with more “appropriate and effective permanent features.”67
Following September 11, a plan was also developed by the Senate Sergeant at
Arms and other security experts to provide a “similar level of protection to Senate
Office buildings,” and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration approved
that plan. According to Senate Sergeant at Arms William H. Pickle, the “Architect
of the Capitol will soon begin implementation of the enhanced security plan.” Mr.
Pickle emphasized in May 1, 2003, testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on
Legislative Branch Appropriations that
Physical security measures represent one aspect of perimeter security and the
Capitol Police force represents another. The physical security measures include
bollards and pop-up vehicle barriers. The Capitol Police force staffs the revised
access checkpoints and enforces procedures, staffs the expanded use of K9
patrols, enforces the restriction of oversized vehicles, and supports other
measures that safeguard against vehicle-borne threats. Together, the Police and
enhanced physical security measures prevent attacks from vehicles or their
contents.68
These enhancements, according to Mr. Pickle, have resulted in (1) “improved
visitor access and screening procedures for all Senate Office Buildings;” (2)
screening of “visitors outside the Capitol,” as well as the screening of visitors on
staff-led tours coming from the Senate Office Buildings;” and (3) “other, less visible,
security improvements and safety systems that significantly improve the Senate’s
65 Information provided by the Office of the Architect of the Capitol.
66 Testimony of Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch Appropriations
for 2002, hearings on H.R. 2647/S. 1172, 107th Cong., 1st sess., June 26, 2001 (Washington:
GPO, 2001), p. 198.
67 Testimony of Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch Appropriations
for 2002, hearings on H.R. 2647/S. 1172, 107th Cong., 1st sess., June 26, 2001 (Washington:
GPO, 2001), p. 202.
68 Testimony of William H. Pickle, Senate Sergeant at Arms, U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch
Appropriations for 2004, hearings, 108th Cong., 1st sess., May 1, 2003 (Washington: GPO,
2003), p. 104. [http://appropriations.senate.gov/subcommittees/record.cfm?id=203681].

CRS-19
overall security posture,” and implementation of “extensive security at the Capitol
Visitor Center project.”69
House of Representatives. On February 5, 2003, the Committee on House
Administration “approved the commencement of construction on a comprehensive
House perimeter security plan.” Committee chairman Bob Ney and ranking member
John Larson told Members of the House in a “Dear Colleague Letter” that the project
will (1) “provide a secure and tasteful alternative to the current [Jersey] barriers,” (2)
make the “House community safer,” and (3) “revitalize the Independence Ave.,
corridor by replacing dead and dying trees with new trees, while making all
appropriate arrangements to preserve existing trees.”70
An accompanying letter from Frank J. Tiscione, superintendent of House office
buildings, explained that the installation of perimeter security improvements adjacent
to the House office buildings along Independence Avenue would continue through
June 2003. The project includes the installation of “hydraulic vehicle barriers,
bollards, decorative planters, hardened police shelters, utility relocation work,
roadway and sidewalk excavation/replacement, and removal of street trees.” Also,
dead and dying trees will be removed and new trees will be planted that “are more
tolerant of urban environmental conditions such as pollution, heat, compaction and
drought.”
Other landscape improvements will include the “replacement of the existing soil
with an enriched soil mixture, installation of root paths under paved areas, and an
automatic irrigation system. These upgrades to the current subsurface conditions will
allow the new trees to grow and thrive in this difficult urban environment.” It is
anticipated that the House perimeter security project, which will ultimately
encompass the entire House office building complex, will be completed in the spring
of 2004.71
Library of Congress. On October 24, 2001, the Joint Committee on the
Library approved a perimeter security plan for the Library of Congress to be
integrated into the Capitol Complex perimeter security plan. Implementation of the
plan, currently underway, includes installation of retractable vehicle barriers at
driveways, including entrances and exits of garages; installation of concrete bollards
along sidewalks in areas without already existing granite or concrete walls;
69 Ibid.
70 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Organizational Meeting to Approve
Committee Rules and Oversight Plan, Approve the House Perimeter Security Plan, and
Make Announcements of Actions Taken Under Interim Authority, hearing, 108th Cong., 1st
sess., Feb. 5, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003), 9 pp; and Bob Ney, chairman, and John
Larson, ranking member, Committee on House Administration, “House to Commence
Perimeter Security Construction,” Dear Colleague Letter, Feb. 5, 2003. See also Suzanne
Nelson, “Police Seek to Calm Terror Concerns,” Roll Call, Feb. 10, 2003, pp. 1, 27;
Suzanne Nelson, “Jersey Barriers to Make Way For Planters, New Trees,” Roll Call, Feb.
10, 2003, p. 27.
71 Frank J. Tiscione, Superintendent, House Office Buildings, Letter to Members, officers,
and staff, House office buildings, Feb. 6, 2003.

CRS-20
replacement of police kiosks with shelters made of reinforced concrete or granite;
installation of additional lighting and security cameras; and centralized monitoring
of perimeter security cameras in a newly consolidated police command center located
in the Jefferson building.72
Funds for the Library’s perimeter security enhancements were made available
from appropriations included in the FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, which contained approximately $17 million of
Library security upgrades including perimeter security.73 The Act also transferred
“responsibility for design, installation, and maintenance of security systems to protect
the physical security of the buildings and grounds of the Library of Congress” from
the Architect of the Capitol to the Capitol Police Board. In addition, it stipulated that
any “alteration to a structural, mechanical, or architectural feature of the buildings
and grounds of the Library of Congress that is required for a security system ... may
be carried out only with the approval of the Architect of the Capitol.”74 An additional
$1.9 million was made available in FY2001.75
Other Actions
Other actions undertaken since September 11, 2001, have resulted in (1)
replacement of both Capitol emergency generators and purchase of a portable
emergency generator for more reliability during emergencies; (2) purchase of “High
Efficiency Particulate Air Filter” (HEPA) vacuums for use by cleaning employees;
and (3) installation of permanent police podiums at building entrances and tunnels
to the Capitol, building perimeter alarms, additional security cameras, and temporary
hydraulic barricades where necessary.76 Also:
! streets were closed around congressional office buildings;
! additional vehicle barriers were installed around the Capitol and
congressional office buildings;
! vehicles were deployed to block access around the Capitol and
congressional office buildings;
72 Gail Fineberg, “Security Upgrades Reflect High-Alert Status,” The Gazette (a weekly
publication for the Library of Congress staff), vol. 13, Nov. 2, 2001, pp. 4-5. See also Helen
Dalrymple, “Construction Projects Loom,” The Gazette, vol. 14, Apr. 4, 2003, pp. 1, 4-5.
73 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999, conference report to accompany H.R.
4328, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 105-825 (Washington: GPO, 1998), pp. 1530-1531; and
P.L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-570.
74 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999, conference report to accompany H.R.
4328, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 105-825 (Washington: GPO, 1998), pp. 591, 1530-
1532; and P.L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-570, 2681-571.
75 P.L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763A-123.
76 Testimony of Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Congress, Committee on
House Administration, Hearing on Security Upgrades Since September 11, 2001, hearings,
107th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 10, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 16-17.

CRS-21
! pedestrian access to garages of congressional office buildings was
curtailed;
! members of D.C. National Guard temporarily provided additional
security staffing;
! traffic regulations for the Capitol Complex were amended;
! a security design plan for the Capitol Visitors’ Center was approved;
! 210 additional Capitol Police officers were employed between
September 11, 2001, and September 10, 2002;
! an additional 25,000 escape masks were procured ;
! new mail screening procedures were developed;
! new guidelines for Capitol tours were developed;
! a new Capitol Police training center was established in Cheltenham,
Maryland, that contains a 54-person classroom, two 24-person
classrooms, offices of a Training Services Bureau, a fitness center,
a defensive tactics mat room, and a computer lab;77
! efforts were begun to determine possible terrorist threats posed by
hazardous materials transported on trains running under the Capitol
building;78
! access cards were made available to frequent visitors on official
business in the Capitol building permitting them to travel between
the House and Senate sides of the Capitol without having to exit and
reenter the Capitol building when leaving one side to go to the
other;79
! an emergency notification system (the Annunicator) was installed in
House office buildings.80
In addition, the FY2002 Terrorism Emergency Supplemental Act (P.L. 107-117)
authorized the Senate Sergeant at Arms and chief administrative officer to acquire
buildings and facilities in order to respond to an emergency situation and to enter into
a memorandum of understanding with an executive agency in an emergency
situation.81
Pursuant to a gun incident in the Cannon House Office Building on October 30,
2003, the Capitol Police took the following actions to
77 Testimony of Wilson Livingood, Sergeant at Arms of the House, U.S. Congress,
Committee on House Administration, Hearing on Security Upgrades Since September 11,
2001, hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 10, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 20-21.
78 Sarah Bouchard, “House Members Concerned About Trains Carrying Hazardous Material
- With Tracks Near Capitol, Some See Opening for Terror,” The Hill, Oct. 28, 2003, p. 3.
79 Suzanne Nelson, “Lobbyists Get Carded,” Roll Call, Oct. 29, 2003, p. 1.
80 Jennifer Yachnin, “Gun Incident Sparks Changes,” Roll Call, Nov. 3, 2003, p. 17.
81 P.L. 107-117; 115 Stat. 2315-1318.

CRS-22
! create a new “emergency communications post” to distribute timely
messages during future similar incidents through the annunciator and
Black Berry e-mail systems;82
! review security procedures and test and calibrate screening
equipment in the Capitol Complex immediately following the
October incident;.83
! revise its screening procedures immediately to require individuals to
wait until items they are carrying are processed through x-ray
machines and before walking through magnetometers, which detect
the presence of metallic objects;84 and
! reposition officers assigned to security checkpoints, detail additional
officers to checkpoints, designate an officer at each checkpoint to
provide instructions on how to proceed through a checkpoint, and
establish a “training relief squad” to replace officers to undergo
training for two hours daily. 85
The Committee on House Administration also initiated a review of security
immediately following the incident.
Emergency Planning
In addition, a number of actions have been taken to better prepare the Capitol
Complex for responses to future emergencies. These preparations have focused on
the following areas:
Emergency Evacuation Procedures. Since the 2001 terrorist attacks,
congressional administrators have (1) developed intelligence cooperation with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police, and
other government agencies;86 (2) developed emergency evacuation procedures for
Members and staff and designated evacuation assembly areas away from the Capitol;
(3) updated preparedness plans for the Capitol and congressional office buildings; (4)
distributed emergency preparation guidelines to offices; (5) distributed emergency
evacuation brochures; (6) identified emergency personnel; (7) conducted multiple
evacuation drills; and (8) practiced procedures for relocating Senate operations to an
off-site legislative chamber, congressional offices, and a briefing center.87
82 Jennifer Yachnin, “Ney Criticizes Security Change,” Roll Call, Nov. 4, 2003, p. 1.
83 Jennifer Yachnin, “Gun Incident Sparks Changes,” Roll Call, Nov. 3, 2003, pp. 3, 17.
84 Jennifer Yachnin, “Ney Criticizes Security Change,” Roll Call, Nov. 4, 2003, p. 1.
85 Sarah Bouchard, “Security Steps Mean Long Delays,” The Hill, Nov. 4, 2003, p. 8.
86 Conversations with staff of the Sergeant at Arms of the House, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and the Secret Service, various dates.
87 See testimonies of Jeff Trandahl, Clerk of the House, Wilson Livingood, Sergeant at
Arms of the House, James M. Eagen III, Chief Administrative Officer of the House, and
Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Congress, Committee on House
Administration, Hearing on Security Upgrades Since September 11, 2001, hearings, 107th
(continued...)

CRS-23
Electronic Communications. The ability of Congress to conduct its
business electronically, by email, webcast, or telephone, from multiple locations in
an emergency was examined by the Committee on House Administration during a
hearing on May 1, 2002. Among issues considered were (1) establishment of a two-
way, secure, and reliable backup communications system; (2) development of an
Internet and satellite-based communications system; (3) implementation of
alternative meetings locations, to support a “virtual Congress” to support both
continued participation by Members in committee meetings outside Washington, DC
and the continued administration of Congress; (4) ensuring the public’s ability to
follow congressional activities from an alternate site; (5) providing for remote voting
through a secure computer system; (6) and examining the constitutional issues
presented by the prospect of an e-Congress.88 At the time of this writing,
congressional entities have enhanced communications by
! developing a communications strategy for the Capitol Hill Complex;
! upgrading early response and communications abilities;
! installing a public address system in the Capitol building;
! distributing BlackBerries89 to all Members, and developing the
ability to monitor the BlackBerry system to identify any issues
related to message delivery;
! equipping tunnels between House office buildings and the Capitol
with wireless phone signals to ensure the ability to maintain use of
BlackBerries;90
! equipping the House Emergency Communication Center with the
capability to notify Members through BlackBerries of emergencies;
! integrating the House Emergency Communication Center with
House Information Resources (HIR);
! approving funding and staffing needed to maintain critical House
information systems and support the House Emergency
Communication Center 24 hours a day, seven days a week;
! establishing emergency telecommunications services accounts for
Members;
! upgrading the Member paging system through installation of primary
and back-up support;
! developing a means to combine pagers and BlackBerries into one
system for ease of use by Senators and staff;
87 (...continued)
Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 10, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 13-14 (Trandahl), pp. 20-21
(Livingood), pp. 9-11 (Eagen), and pp. 16-17 (Hantman).
88 Testimonies of Rep. Jim Langevin, Rep. David Dreier, Donald Wolfensberger, former
chief of staff for the House Rules Committee, and Norman J. Ornstein, American Enterprise
Institute, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Administration, Hearing on E-Congress -
Using Technology to Conduct Congressional Operations in Emergency Situations, hearings,
107th Cong., 2nd sess., May 1, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2003), 47 pp.
89 BlackBerries are secure, handheld, mobile, wireless communicators providing access to
phones, email and the Web.
90 Suzanne Nelson, “House Wiring Tunnels For Mobile Phone Service,” Roll Call, Sept. 2,
2003, p. 3.

CRS-24
! upgrading the House telephone system, telephone exchange, and
voice mail system back up;
! expanding dial-in and broadband remote access services;
! developing an in-bound electronic fax system to reduce paper mail;
! completing the initial stages of a digital mail pilot program;
! establishing an alternative off-site computer facility;
! upgrading the capability to prevent cyberattacks
! implementing a “diverse Internet connection ... to remove single
points of failure;” and
! implementing a new “automated call-out system” for use in
operation of the Child Care Center to allow timely transmission of
information on events to staff and parents.91
Plans for Continuity of Operations. Congress took the following steps
to ensure that the legislative branch will be able to function without interruption
during emergencies:
! created a Continuity of Congress Working Group;
! established an off-site House chamber for emergency use;
! developed the House infrastructure to allow for the conduct of floor
proceedings at the off-site location;
! enhanced the ability of the House to provide interim office
operations to displaced Members and committees, including the
assignment of alternative House offices, establishment of interim
computer network and telephone connections, pre-configuration of
notebook computers and printers, and their placement in storage for
immediate availability to Members and staff;
! established an interim alternative site for operations of the House
Legislative Information Management System (LIMS) and staff
payroll systems;
! made provision for video conferencing facilities in the House
Member briefing center; and
! conducted “House Office Recovery Team” (HORT) drills for
emergency relocation of Members and staff.92
Delivery Screening. Congress established a delivery screening process at an
off-site mail facility and began construction of a package processing facility. Also,
91 Testimony of Alfonso Lenhardt, Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch
Appropriations for 2003, hearing, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., May 1, 2002 (Washington: GPO,
2002), p. 203; and testimony of James M. Eagen III, Chief Administrative Officer of the
House, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Hearing on Security Upgrades
Since September 11, 2001, hearing, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 10, 2002 (Washington: GPO,
2003), pp. 9-11.
92 Testimonies of Jeff Trandahl, Clerk of the House, and James M. Eagen III, chief
administrative officer of the House, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration,
Oversight Hearings on Security Upgrades Since September 11, 2001, hearings, 107th Cong.,
2nd sess., Sept. 10, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 13-14 (Trandahl), pp. 9-11 (Eagen).

CRS-25
Congress began development of a permanent off-site Capitol Police screening system
for all deliveries to the Capitol, House and Senate office buildings, Supreme Court,
and general deliveries to the Library of Congress.93 Five million dollars in initial
funding for an off-site delivery screening center was including the Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution of 2003 (P.L. 108-7).94
Beginning in October 2003, courier-delivered packages for Senate and House
offices are processed at the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site, located in a
trailer near the Capitol. Due to security concerns, courier-delivered packages had
been banned by both houses on October 16, 2001. Under the new system, packages
will be processed through x-ray machines and tested for chemicals and other
substances, and a photograph will be taken of each courier. If packages sent to the
Senate are accepted, they are then delivered to Senate offices; accepted House
packages, however, must be sent to a second facility for further testing before they
can be delivered. This latter facility is maintained by Pitney Bowes.95
Mail Delivery and Digitalization. Responding to delays in mail processing
following the discovery of anthrax spores on and in mail delivered to congressional
offices, the Committee on House Administration held an oversight hearing in May
2002, to address security and safety issues in the House mail processing system. At
the hearing, James Eagen, chief administrative officer of the House, told the
Committee that the House had moved its postal operations to an off-site mail
processing facility in Capitol Heights, Maryland, primarily to protect congressional
employees.
Future plans, he explained, include development of more expeditious methods
to identify contaminants, enhancement of automation for the package delivery
process, and possible use of a digital mail system, in which incoming mail would be
received and opened at an off-site facility, digitally copied with a scanner, and
electronically forwarded to House offices within 24 hours of receipt.96 A month
earlier, Eagen told another committee that his office was investigating digitization
93 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative,
Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2003, hearings, part 2, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Apr. 25,
2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002), pp. 436, 437.
94 P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 372; and U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2003, Making
Further Continuing Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2003, and for Other Purposes,
conference report to accompany H.J.Res. 2, 108th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 108-10
(Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 1228.
95 Jennifer Yachnin, “House to End Ban on Carrier Deliveries,” Roll Call, Oct. 14, 2003, p.
3; and Brody Mullins, Bree Hocking, and Jennifer Yachnin, “Speedy Delivery,” Roll Call,
Oct. 22, 2003, p. 3.
96 Testimony of James Eagen, Chief Administrative Officer of the House, U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Administration, Oversight Hearing on Congressional Mail Delivery,
hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., May 8, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 6; testimony of
James Eagen, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Legislative, Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY2004, hearing, 108th Cong., 1st sess
April 9, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 88-89, 102-104.

CRS-26
of House mail, in order to allow for the electronic transfer of mail to congressional
offices, for both security and economic reasons.97
Anthrax Contamination Removal. Congress responded to the detection of
anthrax spores in congressional offices and positive tests to exposure by staff and
Members by (1) conducting environmental security sweeps of the Capitol and
congressional office buildings; (2) closing the Capitol and several congressional
office buildings; (3) sealing rooms in other congressional office buildings; (4)
employing environmental remediation to complete the removal of the evidence of
anthrax spores; and (5) using a powerful disinfecting gas — chlorine dioxide — to
remove dangerous anthrax spores from the contaminated offices in the Hart Senate
Office Building.98
Creation of New Administrative Entities
Faced with the need to adequately respond to terrorist and other threats, a
number of administrative entities were created following September 11. Among
them were the Legislative Branch Emergency Preparedness Task Force, the House
Office of Emergency Planning, the House Administration Committee Security
Working Group, the House Business Continuity and Disaster and Recovery Program
Management Office, the Senate Emergency Response Team, and the Senate Office
of Security and Emergency Preparedness.
Legislative Branch Emergency Preparedness Task Force. Shortly
after the terrorist attacks, a Legislative Branch Emergency Preparedness Task Force
was created to develop plans for communications and security upgrades, and
emergency evacuation arrangements for the Capitol complex, the Supreme Court, and
the Library of Congress. Members of the task force included congressional leaders
and officers, members of the appropriations committees, and representatives of the
Capitol Police, Department of Defense (DOD), and Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA).99
The task force first dealt with immediate steps necessary to enhance Capitol Hill
security. One of its first tasks was to develop procedures for Members and staff to
follow during an emergency, including the designation of off-site assembly locations
for Members and staff, and establishment of briefing centers for Members to obtain
97 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative,
Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2003, hearings, part 2, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Apr. 24,
2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002), pp. 83-84.
98 U.S. General Accounting Office, Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident: EPA’s Cleanup Was
Successful; Opportunities Exist to Enhance Contract Oversight, GAO/ 03-686, June 4, 2000.
99 “House Security Procedures,” a staff briefing by the Capitol Police and the Committee
on House Administration, 345 Cannon House Office Building, Sept. 19, 2001.

CRS-27
and transmit information as developments occur.100 The task force has issued a
report, but it is not available to the public, due to its sensitive nature.
House Office of Emergency Planning. In 2002, a new House Office of
Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations was established to assist House
officers in coordinating responses to emergencies, including preparations for, and
recoveries from, emergencies.101 The director of the office reports to the Speaker and
the House minority leader and is supervised by the House Continuity of Operations
Board, comprised of the House clerk, sergeant at arms, and chief administrative
officer.
Among its actions thus far, the office has created a House Officer Recovery
Team. During September 2002 hearings on House emergency preparedness, the
House clerk stated that the Chamber “for the first time now has a core professional
group dedicated to ensuring the continuity of House operations.”102 Although no
specific funding was contained in the legislation authorizing the office, the House
later established a new account for the office, containing $6 million, in the FY2003
legislative branch appropriations bill.
House Administration Committee Security Working Group.
Immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Committee on House
Administration created a working group that included House officers, the Architect
of the Capitol, and representatives from the Committee on House Administration,
and the House Appropriations Committee’s Legislative Subcommittee, to study
Capitol Hill security and recommend upgrades.103
On September 10, 2002, the findings of the working group were discussed at
a House Administration Committee oversight hearing on Capitol Hill security,
emergency preparedness, disaster recovery, and infrastructure upgrades since the
terrorist attacks. At the opening of the hearing, Chairman Robert Ney stated that the
Committee’s oversight role encompassed “physical security, information security,
and emergency preparedness for the House and Capitol complex, as well as the
oversight and coordination of the House Officers as they perform their duties related
to these issues.”104
100 Testimony of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, Alfonso E. Lenhardt, U.S. Congress, Senate,
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch
Appropriations for FY2003, hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., May 1, 2002, p. 200.
101 P.L. 107-117, 115 Stat. 2318, Jan. 10, 2002; Department of Defense and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from the Response to Terrorist Attacks on the
United States Act, 2002.
102 Testimony of the Clerk of the House, Jeff Trandahl, U.S. Congress, House Committee
on Administration, Hearings on Security Upgrades Since September 11, 2001, hearings,
107th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 10, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 14.
103 Lauren W. Whittington, “More Street Closings Eyed,” Roll Call, Sept. 24, 2001, p. 22.
104 Written testimony of the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, Robert
Ney, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Administration, Oversight Hearings on Capitol
(continued...)

CRS-28
During his opening comments, the chairman expressed particular concern over
the “unique security challenges” posed by underground parking facilities in House
office buildings, and the committee’s plan to direct House officers to review parking
and security and to submit a plan addressing issues.
House Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Program
Management Office. Immediately after September 11, House leadership and
officers identified 27 actions that needed to be taken to assure the continuity of
congressional operations and recovery from a disaster if one should occur. Following
the discovery of anthrax in the Capitol complex in October, the House established the
House Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Program Management Office,
which assisted the House in restructuring the 27 actions into 19 specific projects
classified into three categories: continuity of operations, communications, and
technology.105 The office currently monitors the operations, costs, and progress of
the 19 projects.
Senate Emergency Response Team. In 2002, the Secretary of the Senate
and Senate Sergeant at Arms were designated to serve as coordinators of the Senate’s
response to emergencies, including security threats. The two officials are responsible
for ensuring the continuity of Senate activities during emergencies. In carrying out
this responsibility, they have established an alternative meeting place for the Senate,
and are currently developing the means to ensure maintenance of the Senate’s major
systems.106
During her testimony on the FY2003 Senate budget, Secretary of the Senate Jeri
Thompson noted that the two officers have worked together to determine the
necessary steps to maintain Senate operations, including the ability to conduct floor
proceedings. To accomplish this goal, they have conducted an inventory of Senate
space that might be used in emergencies, made appropriate plans for use of the space,
established security plans for Senators, developed a comprehensive plan guaranteeing
that the Senate could continue to meet, and ensured the ability to provide financial
management during an emergency.107
104 (...continued)
Security, Emergency Preparedness and Infrastructure Upgrades Since September 11, 2001,
submitted for hearings held Sept. 10, 2002 (not yet published).
105 Testimony of the Chief Administrative Officer of the House, James Eagen, U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Administration, Hearing on Security Upgrades Since
September 11, 2001, hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 10, 2002 (Washington: GPO,
2003), p. 10-11.
106 Testimony of the Secretary of the Senate, Jeri Thompson, U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch
Appropriations for 2003, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Apr. 17, 2002 (Washington: 2002), p. 84;
testimony of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, Alfonso Lenhardt, U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch
Appropriations for 2003, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Apr. 17, 2002 (Washington: 2002), pp. 199-
200.
107 Testimony of the Secretary of the Senate, Jeri Thompson, U.S. Congress, Senate
(continued...)

CRS-29
Senate Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness. The Senate
Sergeant at Arms established within his office a Senate Office of Emergency
Preparedness as the “permanent management structure to oversee and integrate
security and emergency preparedness planning, policies, and programs within the
Senate.”108 The office, which works with the Office of Secretary of the Senate, is
overseen by a newly created Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Security and Emergency
Preparedness.
The office is responsible for Senate continuity of operations planning, and
training, as well as coordinating such activities with the House, Capitol Police, and
other legislative branch agencies. It also serves as the Senate’s primary incident
response management team, which falls under the direction of the Senate leadership.
Congressional Hearings, Surveys, and Studies on Capitol
Complex Security
During the past two years, several congressional committees conducted
hearings, both open and closed (for security reasons), on security in general and the
needs of the Capitol Police force. Among hearings held were the following:
Committee on House Administration Security Oversight Hearing.
On September 10, 2002, the Committee on House Administration held an oversight
hearing on Capitol security and emergency preparedness and disaster recovery.
Although congressional hearings on Capitol complex security funding in FY2003
were held in closed session, the House Clerk, Sergeant at Arms, chief administrative
officer, assistant chief of the Capitol Police, and the Architect of the Capitol
addressed actions they had taken since September.109
Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Committee on
Appropriations, on FY2003 Budget. During his testimony before the Senate
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, the Senate Sergeant at Arms discussed actions
taken by Senate officials since 2001, including110
107 (...continued)
Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2003, 107th Cong., 2nd
sess., Apr. 17, 2002 (Washington: 2002), p. 84.
108 Testimony of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, Alfonso Lenhardt, U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch
Appropriations for 2003, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., May 1, 2002, pp. 201, 203.
109 See testimonies of the Clerk of the House, Jeff Trandahl, the Sergeant at Arms of the
House, Wilson Livingood, the Chief Administrative Officer of the House, James M. Eagen
III, , and the Architect of the Capitol, Alan Hantman, U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Administration, Hearing on Security Upgrades Since September 11, 2001, hearings, 107th
Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 10, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 13-14 (Trandahl), pp. 20-21
(Livingood), pp. 9-11 (Eagen), and pp. 16-17 (Hantman).
110 Testimony of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, Alfonso Lenhardt, U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch
(continued...)

CRS-30
! practice of procedures for relocating Senate operations to an off-site
chamber, and off-site congressional offices and briefing center;
! development of intelligence cooperation with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, District of Columbia Metropolitan Police, and other
government agencies;
! upgrade of the Senate pager system;
! distribution of BlackBerries to Senators;
! development of means to combine pagers and BlackBerries into one
system for ease of use by Senators and staff;
! development of a communications strategy for the Hill;
! upgrade of early response and communications abilities;
! development of “concentric circles of security” to enable movement
by Senators and staff to areas away from the Capitol during threats;
! establishment of an alternative off-site computer facility; and
! upgrade of means to prevent cyberattacks.
Committee on House Administration Hearing on Mail Delivery.
Subsequent to delays in mail processing following the discovery of anthrax-tainted
mail in the Hart Senate Office Building in October 2001, the House Committee on
Administration held an oversight hearing May 8, 2002, to address security and safety
issues in the House mail processing system. The chief administrative officer of the
House addressed actions taken and future plans. He stated that House postal
operations had been moved from House office buildings to an off-site mail
processing facility in Maryland, primarily to protect House office building
employees. Future plans included the development of more expeditious methods to
identify contaminants, enhancement of automation for the package delivery process,
and possible use of a digital mail system, in which incoming mail would be received
and opened at an off-site facility, digitally copied with a scanner, and electronically
forwarded to House offices within 24 hours of receipt.111
Surveys. Among surveys conducted after the 2001 attacks were those by the
Capitol Police and Office of Compliance.
U.S. Capitol Police Security Survey. In the aftermath of the terrorist
attacks and the first-ever evacuation of the Capitol and surrounding congressional
office buildings on September 11, 2001, the Capitol Police directed the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) to conduct a comprehensive security survey of the
Capitol complex. In December 2001, the DTRA issued an internal report that
provided Congress with “a road map to enhance security and address vulnerabilities.”
110 (...continued)
Appropriations for 2003, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., May 1, 2002, p. 203.
111 Written testimony of the Chief Administrative Officer of the House, James Eagen, U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Administration, Oversight Hearing on Congressional Mail
Delivery in the U.S. House of Representatives, submitted for hearings held May 8, 2002.

CRS-31
The document included information gathered earlier in a security survey by the
Capitol Police and the U.S. Secret Service.112
Office of Compliance Survey. As required by law,113 the Office of
Compliance issued a report to Congress on November 19, 2002, containing its
findings on the status of safety and security measures taken on Capitol Hill since
1996, especially since September 11, 2001.114 Among its findings, the office
concluded that additional improvements were needed to adequately respond to
biological and chemical attacks, and stressed the need for fire protection, alarm, and
emergency communications systems upgrades. The report summarized the safety and
health problems identified by inspectors, and acknowledged the improvements made
by the Capitol Hill police and other legislative branch entities since September 11.

General Accounting Office Study of Law Enforcement Training . In
response to a March 1, 2003, request from Representatives Ernest Istook and Jack
Kingston, the General Accounting Office (GAO) examined the operations of the
consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), which serves 75
agencies.115 Participating legislative branch agencies currently include the Capitol
Police, Government Printing Office, and Library of Congress. GAO was directed to
study the impact of increased training demands, ability of the center to coordinate and
schedule training, and “whether oversight and governance structures provide the
guidance it needs to address its capacity and planning challenges.”116
In its July 24, 2003, report, GAO recommended that the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security enhance the ability of FLETC to train personnel,
periodically review the administration and operations of FLETC facilities, improve
the FLETC “acquisition process for an automatic scheduling system,” and strengthen
oversight of the Board of Directors of FLETC.117
House and Senate Subcommittees on Legislative Branch,
Committees on Appropriations, FY2004 Funding. Among issues considered
by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations were
112 Written testimony of the Sergeant at Arms of the House, Wilson Livingood, U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Administration, Oversight Hearings on Capitol Security,
Emergency Preparedness and Infrastructure Upgrades Since September 11, 2001, submitted
for hearings held Sept. 10, 2002.
113 P.L. 104-1, 109 Stat. 18, Sec. 215e.
114 The office is required to submit periodic reports to Congress, at least once a year.
115 Representatives Istook and Kingston were later joined in the request by members of the
Subcommittee on Homeland Security, House Appropriations Committee. Training for the
Capitol Police is provided primarily at two of FLETC’s four primary facilities: Glynco,
Georgia, and Cheltenham, Maryland. The two other primary facilities are located in Aresia,
New Mexico, and Charleston, South Carolina.
116 U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: Capacity
Planning and Management Oversight Need Improvement, GAO-03-736, July 24, 2003.
117 Ibid., introductory page (no page number).

CRS-32
! funding for construction and furnishing of the Capitol Visitors’
Center;
! additional security enhancements within and around the Capitol
complex;
! the level of additional appropriations for activities of the Capitol
Police;
! the number of additional sworn and civilian Capitol Police
personnel;
! requests of the Capitol Police to expand their physical jurisdiction,
establish a mounted police unit, authorize officers to carry guns
(other than those used for official duty) when off-duty, and expand
the law enforcement duties of officers outside the physical
jurisdiction of the Capitol Police, including Members’ home districts
and states; and
! approval of request for $61.0 million for an alternative computer
facility to be shared by all legislative branch agencies.
Earlier U.S. Capitol Police Enhancements
During the decade prior to the terrorist attacks, a number of security
enhancements to Capitol complex security were set in place, pursuant both to studies
and recommendations and actions taken by the Capitol Police and other
congressional entities concerned with security, and directions and authorizations
contained in appropriations language.
For some time, the Capitol Police force has had the capability to deal with a
wide array of challenges, including armed intruders, bomb threats, and chemical and
biological warfare. Metal detectors, X-ray machines, other state-of-the-art security
and surveillance systems, and uniformed officers are located at the entrances of all
19 buildings comprising the Capitol Hill complex. Inside the Capitol, security
cameras and motion detectors monitor the movement of people. Uniformed and
plain-clothes officers are stationed in the House and Senate chambers, and
throughout the building. All trucks making deliveries to the Capitol must first go to
a central delivery site where the contents are unloaded and subjected to X-ray,
weapons, and K-9 inspections before being delivered. K-9 units also perform
random sweeps for explosives in adjacent streets and parking garages.
The professionalism of the Capitol Police force was recognized in November
2002 , when the force was granted accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation
for Law Enforcement Agencies after three years of assessment. The police force was
the first full-service federal law enforcement agency to receive accreditation from the
commission.118
118 Suzanne Nelson and Diwata Fonte, “Morning Business- High Honors,” Roll Call, Nov.
21, 2002, p. 3.

CRS-33
Enhanced Capabilities. Among the ways in which the Capitol Police force,
with the concurrence of Congress and the Capitol Police Board, enhanced its
capabilities and professionalism were by
! increasing the training opportunities available to members of the
force;
! creating a physical security division charged with the development
and implementation of an integrated security plan for the entire
Capitol complex;
! strengthening its ability to deter, interdict, and respond to acts of
violence through partnership with other U.S. intelligence and
security agencies;
! developing a chemical/biological incident response capability;119
! updating intrusion alarms and installing new security equipment;120
and
! creating the position of chief administrative officer of the Capitol
Police force to oversee financial management, budgeting,
information technology, and human resources.121
Specialized Units. The Capitol Police force has also established several
specialized units that deal with particular types of security threats, address
organizational concerns, and assure appropriate responses to new kinds of perceived
threats.122 Each specialized unit, except for the hazardous devices unit, also works
on collateral assignments, including street patrols. These units include the

! first responder unit, the first to arrive when there is an emergency;
! mountain bike unit, used for increased mobility across the Capitol
grounds when a situation requires quick access to a site;
! containment and emergency response unit, used for counter-
terrorism, hostage rescues, dignitary protection, and
chemical/biological warfare situations;
! hostage negotiations unit, with primary responsibility for all hostage
negotiations, frequently assisted by the containment and emergency
response unit;
! civil disturbance unit, responsible for monitoring large
demonstrations when the potential for significant public disturbances
exists; and
! hazardous devices unit, acts as the bomb squad on Capitol Hill,
conducts off-site explosives security for Members, maintains a K-9
explosives response functions.
119 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative
Branch, Legislative Branch Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1998, hearings, 105th Cong., 1st
sess., May 20, 1997 (Washington: GPO, 1997), pp. 46-50, 71-75.
120 Unpublished transcript of U.S. Congress, House Committee on Administration, Business
Meeting, June 28, 2000.
121 The appointment of the first chief administrative officer was effective Feb. 12, 2001.
122 Information provided by the Capitol Police.

CRS-34
FY1997 and FY1998 Funding. The FY1997 appropriation for the Capitol
Police was $72.1 million.123 The Capitol Police also received $3.25 million for the
“design and installation of security systems for the Capitol buildings and grounds,”
and the Architect was provided $250,000 for “architectural and engineering services
related to the design and installation” of those systems.124 The FY1998 funding level
for the Capitol Police was $74.1 million.125
FY1999 Funding. The FY1999 funding bill contained $83.1 million for the
Capitol Police.126 The bill also contained a directive of the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch that the Architect of the Capitol study the
facility needs of the Capitol Police and propose a master plan to address the force’s
requirements.127 Specifically, the subcommittee directed that the master plan consider
“police needs for a communication, command and control facility, an offsite
delivery/screening facility, USCP training facility, chemical and explosive storage
facility, vehicle maintenance facility, and K-9 facility.”
Both houses agreed to the Senate provision appropriating $475,000 to the
Architect to develop the plan in the FY1999 bill. On February 1, 2000, the Architect
presented a master plan that primarily addressed the Capitol Police training facility,
the vehicle maintenance facility, and the off-site delivery center.128
In late 1999, the Architect released his Capitol Police facility master plan
identifying five projects that needed to be developed in the immediate future: off-site
delivery facility, vehicle maintenance facility, training facility, command and
communications center, and hazardous explosive storage facility.129 The plan
remains under consideration pending further review by the appropriations committees
and other oversight committees.
Additional FY1999 funds were contained in the FY1999 Omnibus
Appropriations Act, which contained FY1999 supplemental funds of $106.8 million
for the Capitol Police to make “security enhancements to the Capitol complex,
including the buildings and grounds of the Library of Congress.”130 The conference
123 P.L. 104-197; 110 Stat. 2402-2403.
124 P.L. 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-510-511.
125 P.L. 105-55; 111 Stat. 1185-1186.
126 P.L. 105-275; 112 Stat. 2430. The FY1999 act included funding for 1,251 positions.
127 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations,
1999, report to accompany S. 2137, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 105-204 (Washington:
GPO, 1998), p. 30.
128 Legislative Branch Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001, hearings, 106th Cong., 2nd sess.,
Feb. 1, 2000, p. 516.
129 Information provided by the Capitol Police.
130 P.L. 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-570. The enhancements were subject to approval by the
Committee on House Administration, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The supplemental funds resulted from (1)
(continued...)

CRS-35
report on the legislation identified 22 specific categories of priority security needs.131
Subsequently, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees reviewed and
approved plans for the use of the funds primarily for personnel and physical security
needs.132
The FY1999 omnibus appropriations act also transferred responsibility for the
design, installation, and maintenance of the Library of Congress security system to
the Capitol Police Force from the Architect of the Capitol.133
FY2000 Funding. In FY2000, the Capitol Police received a regular
appropriation of $84.9 million,134 and an emergency supplemental of $2.1 million for
security enhancements. The supplemental included $228,000 for card readers at four
Capitol entrances, and $1.9 million for completion of a closed circuit television
system and access control improvements at the Library of Congress.135
FY2001 Funding. The FY2001 police appropriations was $106.9 million, an
increase of 22.3% over FY2000.136 Conferees on the FY2001 bill noted that 1,481
FTEs were funded, but that the FTE level was limited to 1,402, until a Capitol Police
study of posting requirements had been completed. Conferees directed that sufficient
resources be allocated to ensure implementation of the “two officers per door” policy,
and established a Capitol Police Office of Administration headed by a chief
administrative officer to “carry out responsibilities for budgeting, financial
130 (...continued)
a broad review of the Capitol Police security program by security experts from federal law
enforcement and intelligence agencies and the private sector; (2) hearings and discussions
with congressional leaders as well as the committees of jurisdiction; and (3) a personnel
audit of Capitol Police security operations by a private firm.
131 U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999, conference report to accompany H.R.
4328, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 105-825 (Washington: GPO, 1998), pp. 1530-1531.
The conference agreement included funds for 260 additional Capitol Police personnel over
a two-year period, and $12 million for overtime pay.
132 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative,
Legislative Branch Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001, hearings, 106th Cong., 2nd sess.,
Feb. 1, 2000 (Washington: GPO, 2000), p. 390.
133 P.L. 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-570.
134 P.L. 106-57; 113 Stat. 417, as rescinded by 0.38% in P.L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-303,
Appendix E.
135 The FY2000 supplemental appropriation was contained in P.L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763,
FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which incorporates by reference the provisions
of H.R. 5657, FY2001 legislative branch appropriations bill, and FY2000 supplemental
appropriations. H.R. 5657 was introduced on December 14, 2000, following the President’s
veto of H.R. 4516, the first version of the FY2001 legislative branch appropriations bill, on
Oct. 30, 2000. See also U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, Making Appropriations
for the Legislative Branch for the Fiscal Year 2001, conference report to accompany H.R.
4516, 106th Cong. 2nd sess., H.Rept. 106-796 (Washington: GPO, 2000), p. 48.
136 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 2002, H.Rept. 107-169, p. 13.

CRS-36
management, information technology, and human resource management, as specified
in authorizing legislation.”137
137 Making Appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the Fiscal Year 2001, H.Rept. 106-
796, p. 39.