Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 105 (Thursday, July 28, 2005)

[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.

____________________