[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 105 (Thursday, July 28, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H7023-H7030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2985, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2006

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report 
on the bill (H.R. 2985), making appropriations for the Legislative 
Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 396, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement see proceedings of the House of 
July 26, 2005 at Page H6628.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
might consume. I do not expect that we will use very much of our time, 
Mr. Speaker.
  The conference report I bring forth today to fund the legislative 
branch involves those activities providing some $3 billion, 800 
million, an increase of 4.5 percent over the year 2005.
  Mr. Speaker, the adjustments upward almost entirely represent 
increased expenditures for our police services and security around the 
Capitol campus, and, beyond that, expenses that are directly related to 
the development of the Congressional Visitors Center.
  Otherwise the bill is absolutely flat in terms of spending over 2005-
2006. It is a very, very lean bill. I urge the Members to support the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record:

[[Page H7024]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY05.006



[[Page H7025]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY05.007



[[Page H7026]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY05.008



[[Page H7027]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY05.009



[[Page H7028]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY05.010



[[Page H7029]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I would once again 
like to express my profound misgivings about supporting this bill this 
afternoon.
  Obviously this Chamber has basic expenses, and they have to be paid 
for, but I want to suggest that I think that the visitors center, which 
is now being constructed on the east side of the Capitol, is a project 
which, while it might be desirable, has been managed in such an 
outlandish fashion that I think before it is done, it is going to bring 
great embarrassment to this institution.
  The fact is that that center started out costing around $90 million. 
Before it is finished, it is now going to cost a good $600 million. It 
was supposed to be open by 2005. We are going to be lucky if it will be 
open and fully operational, if we ignore the nice word games that we 
have been presented by the Architect's office; in fact, we will be 
lucky if this is fully operational by the year 2007.
  In my view, this project has been mismanaged as badly as the entire 
Federal budget has been mismanaged. That hole that we used to have out 
here, I think, was symbolic of the hole in logic that has dominated the 
administration of this entire project.
  I have two principal objections to that visitors center. Number one, 
I think it is far too expensive. And, secondly, I object to the 
misallocation of space in that project.
  Now, I have seen three different stories that have purportedly 
reported on my objections to the center. And each of those stories 
leaves the impression that my major concern is simply that Congress did 
not have enough room. That is not my point at all.
  My point is that when you have such a huge addition of space to the 
Capitol, that space should be allocated in an intelligent way, in a way 
which makes Congress more efficient, in a way which gives Congress more 
working space as opposed to propaganda space.
  We are going to have a lot of money lavished on a media center. We 
are going to have all of the creature comforts that you can imagine for 
any of the reporters who cover Members of Congress in that media 
center. But there will be very little done to make this Congress more 
able to sit down in a timely fashion in conference and work out our 
differences.
  So I think a tremendous amount of space has been wasted. And I think 
a tremendous amount of taxpayers' dollars have been wasted. And the 
reason I am voting against this is because I think this is the last 
chance that any of us will have to ask the leadership of this House and 
the Architect's office to at least review the way space is being 
allocated, at least review the way taxpayer dollars are being expended.
  We are going to have, when this project is over, we will have a 
project which is cosmetically beautiful, no question about that. There 
will be lots of Taj Mahal marble show space, but there will be very 
little working space that will be added.

                              {time}  1715

  I think that if we are not getting the biggest bang from the buck we 
ought to be getting out of a project like this. I do believe that not 
only is the cost of this project out of control, I think the heating 
center project which is also ongoing is also going to wind up 
embarrassing this institution significantly.
  So I intend to vote ``no.'' I am not going to particularly try to ask 
anyone to vote any which way, but I intend to vote ``no'' because I 
think this visitor center represents a missed opportunity and a 
spectacular case of mismanagement and wasting of taxpayer funds.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is by way of suggesting to my colleagues in the body 
that my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), is raising 
serious questions regarding the visitor center, and because of that 
focus he has not spent a lot of time today talking about the 
fundamentals of this bill that relate to supporting the institution, 
the work of the legislative branch, an effort which is fundamental to 
our being successful as a legislative branch.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I share together great 
concern about making sure that work goes forward and goes forward 
successfully. We are partners. In connection with this, I, frankly, 
today would like to predict at least that somewhere out there before we 
leave the Congress, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I 
together will walk with our brides through this visitors centers and 
have different kinds of observations. We will enjoy much of the Taj, 
but in the meantime it will be a fabulous addition to the Congress, the 
largest addition that has been made in our lifetime at any rate, my 
public affairs lifetime.
  I am very proud of the work of this subcommittee, the work they have 
done to carry forward the effort of the legislative branch.
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would not mind, I would like to take 
just a moment to ask my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
LaHood), to kind of introduce your piece of that because the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and he share similar interests regarding the 
real work of the legislative branch.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this is a good bill. It 
is a bill that every Member should support. It is a bill that takes 
care of all the things that get done around here. Every day there is a 
Record printed of every word that is spoken in the House. Every day 
there are Clerks that show up here that help the Members. Every day 
there are people here that take care of the security of the Capitol. 
Every day there are people here to make sure that we can come and do 
our work and this bill takes care of all of that.
  That is why it is a bill that is absolutely critical to every Member 
of this institution. It is a bill that I think highlights some of the 
important things that have gone on and will go on around here in terms 
of opportunities to enhance the facilities, one of the most beautiful, 
magnificent buildings in the world, and the one across the street, the 
Library of Congress, is also accounted for, and the staff that work 
there and provide the kind of resources, the people that do the 
research that help us write the bills around here and all of that 
staff.
  There is also in this bill the opportunity not only to enhance a 
visitors center, which may not be perfect but one that is sorely 
needed, but there are also provisions in this bill to account for what 
happens if some sort of national calamity would fall upon the United 
States Capitol, the idea of continuity and how we should succeed 
ourselves around here. I think that is an important part of it.
  I hope during our deliberations next year we can consider some sort 
of governance board for the visitors center to account for maybe a 
little bit more opportunity to look at how it should be run and how it 
should be operated. But this is a good bill.
  This is the bill that says to all of the people that make this 
institution work, we are grateful to you. This is the bill that says to 
all the people who help us get our jobs done, we thank you for what you 
do. And this is a bill that deserves the support of every Member of the 
Chamber.
  I encourage all Members to vote ``aye'' on the legislative branch 
bill so that we can continue to keep the operations of the United 
States Capitol, the House of Representatives, the United States Senate, 
and all the workings of this great institution going.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) 
for reminding me that I forgot to mention the continuity issue as well. 
Again, I find myself in the minority.
  This is a very important question. What we are talking about here is 
very simply, what would happen if a large number of Members of Congress 
were obliterated in some kind of terrorist attack and we were left in a 
crisis situation? And we have very simply a choice that needs to be 
made. We have a choice between an operation which would allow the 
executive branch to essentially operate almost any way it sees fits 
with perhaps only a handful of

[[Page H7030]]

surviving Members for a 45-day period until we can have special 
elections to replace Members of Congress who might have been killed in 
such an attack; or we could follow a different model under which we 
would have this Congress populated for a temporary period by persons 
who are appointed under a previously prescribed procedure until we 
could have a special election so that we would again have elected 
representatives for each of the 435 districts in this House.
  I much prefer the latter. I do not think it is a good idea, as this 
bill does, to, in effect, create a situation in which we would have 
one-man rule for 45 days. We could have literally only a handful of 
Members of Congress who had survived an attack, and I do not think 
under those circumstances that we want to be ruled by a President 
without any kind of checks and balances whatsoever.
  So there is an honest, intellectual difference of opinion on this 
question. And I think we are going down the wrong road. I think that by 
choosing the model that was chosen, what is happening is that we are in 
fact choosing form over substance. It is indeed important to have 
persons who represent each of our districts be elected representatives. 
But if the Member from an individual district is blown away in a 
terrorist attack, it is in my judgment, better that that district be 
represented on a temporary basis by an appointed person rather than 
having them represented by no one at all for that period.
  So that is why I think that this House in its haste to find a 
solution is going down the wrong road.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LaHOOD. I wonder if the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
would, since I gave him a friendly reminder, would be willing to vote 
for the bill now as a result from the fact now that you could now 
expound on this for another 5 minutes?
  Mr. OBEY. No, I do not think so. I think there is always room in this 
place for protest votes, and this is one occasion when I intend to 
exercise it; but I thank the gentleman for his efforts.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this. We did have a very 
spirited debate on this issue of continuity. We really did. I do not 
know if there were 5 or 6 or 7 hours, but the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Baird) had his chance to present his bill and have a vote on it. 
And, frankly, not very many Members voted for it. And we did have a 
good debate about it, but I think ultimately the Speaker decided that 
we have to get on with this issue and this was the place to put it.
  It may not be the best place, but it is in this bill because I think 
the Speaker felt an obligation that we have to deal with this issue at 
some point. It may not be perfect, but we did have a very good debate 
about it, and I think that is why it is included in the bill.
  I thank the chairman for allowing me to explain that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). Without objection, 
the previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objecton.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________