Mussolini Style

The Senate plans a palace

Originally, back in 1972, it was to cost a mere $47.9 million. So far, $85 million has been appropriated (and $16 million spent). Earlier this month, the Senate voted to impose a ceiling of $135 million on the project. But opponents claim that the eventual cost will be $200 million. That would make the Senate's new palace the most expensive Government office building ever created.

There is nothing yet to show for all the expense except for a nine-story welded-steel skeleton. But the plans for the Philip A. Hart Senate Office Building (the Senate's third such building) call for:

>Suites for 50 Senators, with two bathrooms per suite, 16-ft. ceilings and teak and cherry wood paneling. (The paneling alone will cost $1.5 million.)

>A two-story "multimedia" room large enough for simultaneous committee hearings at both ends. There are special TV anchorman booths and a special elevator for electronic equipment.

>A new gymnasium, twice the size of the gyms in the nearby Dirksen and Russell Senate office buildings. According to Senator William Proxmire, the Dirksen gym is used regularly by only four Senators, and "stands idle all day long."

>A senatorial tennis court atop an adjoining wing.

>A rooftop restaurant seating 100 for Senators, their guests and top aides.

>An atrium with a large sculpture by Alexander Calder.

On August 4, Freshman Republican John Chafee of Rhode Island called on his Senate colleagues to vote down any further appropriations for the project. Said he: "That Mussolini-style building is an outrage." The Senate defeated his proposal by a vote of 49 to 25. Aside from the attractions of extravagance and the power of bureaucratic inertia, supporters of the building argued that it was required because of the threefold increase in the Senate staff since the last Senate offices were constructed 20 years ago. This increase, they said, was due largely to the Senate's efforts to build up its own staff in order to keep abreast of the actions of the Executive Branch.

Last week the House of Representatives suddenly intervened. It was routinely considering an appropriations bill for $7.17 billion in construction projects (including another $54 million for the Senate office building) when an obscure Idaho Republican, Steven D. Symms, took the floor. Defying the ancient Washington tradition known as comity, by which each House takes care of its own business, Symms declared that the time had come to stop the project.

He demanded a roll-call vote on this proposal, and to the dismay of congressional leaders the measure carried by a solid 245 to 153. "There's an election coming up," explained Wisconsin Democrat Les Aspin. "People are trying to cut spending and there's been a lot of bad publicity about that building."

What did the Senate have to say about that? Nothing official, but Majority Leader Robert Byrd was described by a Senate aide as "on fire." Said Byrd himself: "When we get into the business of tit for tat, it could go from bad to worse." The House leadership tried to sound reassuring. One Congressman said scornfully that "the bed welters among us are notoriously bothered right now." An aide to Speaker Tip O'Neill predicted that the matter would soon be added to some new piece of legislation and that the vote would be reversed. If that happens, construction of the great marble building can continue unimpeded. -

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.