Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the need for appropriate accountability and congressional oversight of public buildings and facilities projects.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 12, 2009
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that: (1) the Administrator of General Services should not proceed with any public building or facility project for which a prospectus has been submitted pursuant to provisions requiring congressional approval of an appropriation to construct, alter, or acquire any public building in excess of $1,500,000, to lease any space at an average annual rental in excess of $1,500,000 for public purposes, or to alter any building under lease by the federal government for a public purpose if the cost will exceed $ 750,000, unless the project has been approved and the project cost does not exceed the estimated maximum cost approved by more than 10%; and (2) in the case of a project that may not be subject to those requirements but that otherwise meets those funding thresholds and criteria, the Administrator should submit to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure a detailed plan of the project, including an estimate of the number of jobs the project will create, prior to taking actions in furtherance of the project.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.Res.163 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.Res.163 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.Res.163 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.Res.163 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.