H.R. 9010 (119th)Bill Overview

Making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027, and for other purposes.

domestic policy
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
May 22, 2026
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 580.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

This bill is the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2027, allocating funds for the House of Representatives, Capitol Police, Library of Congress, Government Publishing Office, Government Accountability Office, Congressional Budget Office, Architect of the Capitol, and other legislative branch entities. It specifies dollar amounts for salaries, operations, capital projects, and accounts, and includes policy riders restricting certain procurements (notably from specified Chinese-linked entities), capping some member vehicle lease reimbursements, pausing a Congressional COLA for 2027, requiring in-person workplace training for Members under public ethical investigation, and other administrative conditions and limitations.

Why people may split

Security spending scale: liberal reservations vs conservative support

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified appropriations measure that clearly allocates funds, integrates with existing statutes, and includes targeted operational restrictions and conditions.

This bill is the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2027, allocating funds for the House of Representatives, Capitol Police, Library of Congress, Government Publishing Office, Government Accountability Office, Congressional Budget Office, Architect of the Capitol, and other legislative branch entities.

It specifies dollar amounts for salaries, operations, capital projects, and accounts, and includes policy riders restricting certain procurements (notably from specified Chinese-linked entities), capping some member vehicle lease reimbursements, pausing a Congressional COLA for 2027, requiring in-person workplace training for Members under public ethical investigation, and other administrative conditions and limitations.

Passage60/100

Routine annual Legislative Branch funding has a modestly high chance, but nontechnical policy riders raise likelihood of negotiation or modification before final enactment.

CredibilityAligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified appropriations measure that clearly allocates funds, integrates with existing statutes, and includes targeted operational restrictions and conditions.

Contention30/100

Security spending scale: liberal reservations vs conservative support

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Likely helpedLikely burdened

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitMaintains legislative branch funding, supporting staff and contractor employment across congressional operations.
  • Potential benefitIncreases Capitol Police and security funding, potentially strengthening protection for Members and visitors.
  • Potential benefitProvides funds for CBO technical upgrades, improving transparency and availability of budget models and data.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenProcurement bans narrow vendor choices, which may increase acquisition costs or complicate replacements.
  • Potential burdenRequiring in-person workplace-misconduct training for investigated Members could create scheduling burdens and complian…
  • Potential burdenCapping vehicle lease payments at $1,000 per month limits Member flexibility and could shift costs.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Security spending scale: liberal reservations vs conservative support
Progressive65%

Likely supportive of funding for libraries, CBO, GAO, and intern programs, while cautious about expanded security spending and procurement restrictions that could impede access or services.

Will view some riders (e.g., procurement bans) as defensible on national security grounds but want protections for civil liberties and labor.

May be concerned that austerity riders (no COLA, vehicle lease caps) are symbolic rather than substantive savings.

Split reaction
Centrist75%

Generally favorable: funds key legislative functions, oversight, and security while including fiscally sensible riders.

Sees procurement restrictions as appropriate risk-management but wants clear implementation guidance.

Balances support for member services with modest cost controls like lease caps and COLA pause.

Leans supportive
Conservative85%

Likely supportive overall: funds security, oversight, and core operations while advancing priorities on China-related procurement limits, fiscal restraint measures, and limits on contractor incentives.

Views vehicle lease cap and COLA freeze as prudent.

May push for even tighter spending or more explicit anti-China language.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood60/100

Routine annual Legislative Branch funding has a modestly high chance, but nontechnical policy riders raise likelihood of negotiation or modification before final enactment.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
52%
Complexitymedium
Why this could stall
  • Whether controversial riders will be retained in final negotiations
  • How Senate amendment process will change funding or riders
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Security spending scale: liberal reservations vs conservative support

Routine annual Legislative Branch funding has a modestly high chance, but nontechnical policy riders raise likelihood of negotiation or mod…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified appropriations measure that clearly allocates funds, integrates with existing statutes, and includes targeted operational restrictions and conditi…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis