Congress

The $9 billion liability across the street from the Capitol

Published

4 months ago

June 4, 2026

There’s a 2.4-million-square-foot ticking time bomb on Capitol Hill, and lawmakers are dithering over how to deal with it as anxieties rise over the massive costs and disruptions involved.

The Rayburn House Office Building has never undergone a full renovation since it opened in 1965, and as plans for a massive revamp of Congress’s largest office complex keep getting pushed off, key systems are routinely failing and expensive piecemeal repairs are weighing on the legislative branch budget.

Architect of the Capitol Thomas Austin has been warning lawmakers about the risk of “catastrophic system failures” in the hulking Rayburn building — home to nearly 200 member offices, committee hearing rooms, secure information facilities, a police firing range and some 1,600 parking spaces.

“As these facilities age and kind of reach this tipping point, we start having an increasing number of failures as all these systems age out and we start having series of failures on top of each other,” he told the House Administration Committee at a hearing Wednesday.

Austin’s agency is estimating a total overhaul of the building could approach $9 billion and require more than a decade of work — the largest project ever undertaken by the Architect of the Capitol and nearly an order of magnitude bigger than any previous renovation project on Blue Light News.

House Administration Chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) called the cost estimate “eye-popping” as Austin laid out the case for the project. The price tag far outstrips even the cost of the newest NFL stadiums.

The topline number is only one reason why lawmakers involved at this early stage are growing nervous. The renovation would require much of the building to be vacated, and officials insist it can’t be done wing by wing. That’s how the Cannon House Office Building down the block was recently renovated in a nearly $1 billion project that took nearly a decade and upended congressional operations.

Among other things, redoing Rayburn means finding — or building — space for scores of member offices and committees to set up shop. The working timelines for the project are so long — approaching 20 years — that many lawmakers simply assume they won’t be around to enjoy the finished project, or even a groundbreaking.

House appropriators so far are wary of providing the cash needed even for the early planning stages.

Austin has only been in the job for a year, but his agency has a long track record of construction projects going over budget. The Cannon renovation went nearly $200 million over its estimated cost, and the post-9/11 construction of the Capitol Visitors’ Center ultimately cost double what was planned.

“We’re not going to go blow $8 or $10 billion of taxpayer money without our own proper understanding of the evidence and making our own conclusion,” Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), a member of the appropriations subcommittee which oversees funding for the legislative branch, , said in a Wednesday interview. ”We won’t be a rubber stamp for the AOC.”

The staggering price tag is driven by a host of factors, including that Rayburn is nearly three times the size of Cannon and there is a need for vast remediation of toxic materials. Austin told lawmakers Wednesday that the postwar era of Rayburn’s initial construction “was kind of that sweet spot where we’re using both asbestos and lead in our buildings.”

But the costs of waiting are also substantial. In the past year 16 major water leaks impacted member offices, committee offices, storage areas and hallways — each costing millions of dollars to remedy. In some cases, the leaks displaced lawmakers and staff for months.

“We all know that the longer you put off those repairs that you need to deal with at your home or your business or anywhere, the more expensive they get and then more profound those problems become,” New York Rep. Joe Morelle, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, said Wednesday. “Unless Congress acts, we will continue pouring millions of taxpayer dollars into temporary fixes instead of addressing the underlying problem.”

Austin told the panel he was sensitive to the cost concerns but said the five-phase approach to the Cannon renovation was “inefficient and disruptive” and should not be replicated with Rayburn. He also said it should be harder to change renovation plans once the project gets underway, something that plagued the Cannon project.

“We have to use every little bit of experience from Cannon to make sure that the same — I won’t say disaster, but the same cost overruns — don’t occur with Rayburn,” Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.) warned Austin at Wednesday’s hearing.

The Architect of the Capitol’s proposal for displaced Rayburn occupants involves building a new permanent structure that could be used for “swing space” then for other purposes once the renovation is complete.

Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee provided some funding for planning of the Rayburn renewal project but not for design of “swing space” that will be critical for the project to move forward.

“I think there’s a lot of questions about that, and members don’t feel like they signed off,” House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said in an interview. “I expect to not be in Congress by the time this happens so I’m not terribly worried about it.”

As for where that new building may sit, Austin said he is waiting for its eventual users to weigh in.

“We’ll put it where Congress tells us to put it,” he told the panel Wednesday. “We’re still waiting for Congress’s decision and consensus guidance on that.”

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) made clear Austin shouldn’t hold his breath, saying it “may happen in the next month, maybe the next 250 years, before we get to it.”

Congress

Centrist Dem’s Supreme Court plan boosts momentum for revamp

Published

3 hours ago

October 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democratic efforts to revamp the Supreme Court gained momentum Thursday as an influential center-left think tank released a plan to limit justices’ terms and misconduct.

Third Way’s proposal, shared first with Blue Light News, highlights growing unity across the ideological spectrum in the Democratic Party for significant changes to the high court as Americans’ trust in the institution hovers at historic lows.

The group says it also wants to inject ideas to overhaul the court — including legislation to set an 18-year term limit and an enforceable ethics code — into the party’s conversations leading up to the 2028 presidential race.

“This is one of those things that we think can and should be a part of the 2028 discussion, and those folks who are running should be asked about whether they would champion Supreme Court reform,” Lanae Erickson, a senior vice president at Third Way, said in an interview.

Key Democratic groups have increasingly been coalescing around ideas to overhaul the court’s structure and policing in light of accusations of growing partisanship and corruption among justices. In June, a number of key Democratic House caucus leaders, including the Congressional Progressive Caucus, released their own resolution calling for term limits for justices and a code of ethics.

“We think that the center left has been remiss in not being forward enough on reform proposals that would make our system work better for people, which is why some folks have gone to the further left,” Erickson said.

Third Way cited public opinion polling from both the Brennan Center for Justice and FOX News indicating more than 70 percent of respondents favored term limits for justices. An 18-year cycle would ensure the appointment of two justices every presidential term.

The group also wants legislation to hold justices accountable for ethics violations. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said last month he supports “dramatic reform” on the Supreme Court starting with an ethics code so justices don’t act “above the law.”

The court in 2023 adopted its own formal ethics code for the first time in history, but that policy largely lacks some of the teeth that advocates have proposed.

One idea supported by some Democrats that Third Way is not endorsing: upping the number of justices on the bench. Erickson said that idea seems more like “a mutually assured destruction path,” as parties could go back and forth adding more justices.

The path forward for any court-focused legislation in Congress in the near future, however, is very slim without majorities in both chambers and control of the White House — something Third Way acknowledged.

Still, the group’s recommendations are meant “to show that the center left can also be bold and be addressing systemic problems to appeal to voters and their level of anxiety and anger about what’s happening right now,” Erickson said.

Congress

Capitol agenda: Dems skip DC with wind in their sails

Published

3 hours ago

October 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Senate wrapped up its work late Wednesday night, and lawmakers in both chambers won’t be back until after midterm voters pass judgment.

And Chuck Schumer is growing increasingly confident they’ll hand the Senate to Democrats

“Here’s how I’d sum up the election: Can enormous amounts of Republican money beat a Democratic enormous advantage in much better candidates and a much better political climate?” the minority leader said in an interview in his office Wednesday.

“I think we win,” he added.

Schumer’s optimism — saying Democrats’ have the “wind in their sails” — reflects his members’ growing bullishness as they head home for a final sprint to convince voters to give them back the majority. The Senate recessed Wednesday night after confirming President Donald Trump’s Labor secretary, but Democrats stayed united in a string of politically tricky votes before leaving.

“It certainly feels like it’s going to be a wave election, and not for good reasons,” Sen. Chris Murphy said. “This president’s domestic and foreign policy has gone off the rails.”

There’s division among Democratic party strategists on whether to spend these final weeks focusing on the states viewed as most likely to flip — like Alaska, Ohio or Iowa — or put resources into so-called reach states like Mississippi, South Carolina or Florida.

Schumer declined to weigh in, but said that Democrats would do “whatever it takes to win” and that he expects to spend the next five weeks fundraising.

“We have lots of different paths to victory, and we’re not going to turn any of them down,” he said.

Also hanging over the midterm elections are questions about Schumer’s future — but the New York Democrat said that he is “running for re-election for leader. Period.”

Republicans, meanwhile, are still hopeful that they can hold onto their majority even if it’s narrower. Much of the midterms map runs through states that Trump won previously.

“Of course we are,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said about keeping control of the chamber as he left the building Wednesday. “Thank you for asking.”

What else we’re watching:

— PERMITTING DEAL FACES HOUSE BUZZSAW — The Senate’s newly announced bipartisan permitting reform package is set to hit a wall in the House, where key lawmakers aren’t rushing to endorse it. House Natural Resources ranking member Jared Huffman warned Wednesday most House Democrats will not support the Senate’s permitting legislation as written, urging lawmakers to resume negotiations after the midterm elections when they are “likely to have a far better negotiating position.” And House Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie, a key GOP negotiator, has yet to take a position on the Senate deal.

—RASKIN WANTS TRUMP AD PROBE — House Judiciary’s top Democrat is demanding federal inquiries into the amount of taxpayer money that was used by the Trump administration for a TV ad blitz endorsing the president ahead of the midterms. Rep. Jamie Raskin, who is poised to lead the panel if Democrats flip the chamber, and Rep. George Whitesides, wrote to the Government Accountability Office Wednesday asking them to investigate the “source, accounts and total amount of taxpayer funds used” to produce and distribute the ads. The pair of lawmakers also asked the Office of Special Counsel to investigate whether the ads “constitute a violation of the Hatch Act” and to “determine who should be held accountable.”

Nico Portuondo and Chris Marquette contributed to this report.

Congress

Raskin leads calls for federal investigation into Trump PSA’s

Published

3 hours ago

October 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee is demanding federal inquiries into the amount of taxpayer money used to furnish a television ad blitz propping up President Donald Trump ahead of the midterms.

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who is poised to lead the panel if Democrats win the majority in November, joined California Democratic Rep. George Whitesides in sending a letter to the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Special Counsel. It asks the GAO to investigate the “source, accounts, and total amount of taxpayer funds used by the Executive Office of the President to produce and distribute this advertisement across major television markets and official White House social media channels.”

The lawmakers also ask the Office of Special Counsel to investigate whether the ads “paid for by millions of dollars of taxpayer funds, constitute a violation of the Hatch Act, and determine who should be held accountable.”

The ads, which so far have run during NFL games and flagship Sunday news shows, depict Trump in a powerful and effective light, with glimpses of him posing for the camera, denigrating the free press and denouncing communism. Each includes the phrase, “paid for by the U.S. government.”

“These ads constitute an illegal use of taxpayer funds, perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that they are virtually identical to the ones Donald Trump used during his 2024 presidential campaign, and in fact use the same footage and the same inept ideological messaging,” Raskin and Whitesides contend.

Other congressional Democrats have also reached out to the administration in recent days to express outrage and ask basic questions about how the ads were derived and funded.

Sens. Patty Murray of Washington and Chris Murphy of Connecticut — the top Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee and the appropriations subcommittee on Homeland Security, respectively — have written to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin regarding reports that the agency has redirected $20 million in funding originally intended for Customs and Border Protection to “bankroll the obscene political ads.”

A White House spokesperson called the TV spots “public service announcements” and said they are designed to remind “Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad. The ad is educational and unapologetically patriotic. We should be proud of our country.”

A spokesperson for DHS said the agency “follows all applicable rules for contracting decisions and keeps all decision makers informed” and that “all contracting decisions are made in accordance with applicable law.”

The Office of the Special Counsel confirmed it received the letter and declined comment.

A spokesperson for GAO did not respond to a request for comment.