SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
H.R. 20, THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
PLEASE NOTE: The following transcript is a portion of the official hearing record of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Additional material pertinent to this transcript may be found on the web site of the Committee at [http://www.house.gov/transportation]. Complete hearing records are available for review at the Committee offices and also may be purchased at the U.S. Government Printing Office.
THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1997
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development,
Committee Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:02 a.m., in room 2253, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jay Kim (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. KIM. Good morning.
The subcommittee will come to order.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'd like to welcome all the members here this morning at this meeting of the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development.
The purpose of today's hearing is to consider House Resolution 20 which would authorize the Architect of the Capitol to establish a Capitol Visitor Center under the East Plaza of the Capitol.
This proposal is not new to the subcommittee. I understand the concept of a Capitol Visitor Center dates back to 1991 when $200,000 was appropriated to pay for a conceptual design of the project. In 1993, the Capitol Preservation Commission allocated an additional $2.5 million to translate the concept into an actual design. These funds were raised through a commemorative coin sale. To date, an additional $80 million has been dedicated to this project.
In the 104th Congress, this subcommittee held a hearing on a similar bill, H.R. 1230. Congress did not act on this measure. The subcommittee is now taking up the topic of a Capitol Visitor Center in the 105th Congress with H.R. 20.
While there are many similarities between H.R. 20 and H.R. 1230, the differences remain.
I now wish to welcome our witnesses. We have a very distinguished list of witnesses today and I wish to thank all of you for your participation. We are pleased to have you before us this morning.
I especially wish to welcome Congressman Mica. I know you have pursed this project and I look forward to your testimony.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At this time, I'd like to ask our Ranking Member, Mr. Traficant, for his opening comments.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, want to welcome Congressman Mica here, a friend of mine.
There are some concerns on this side of the aisle and I'll articulate them briefly and welcome that are here too, as well.
We have concerns regarding the funding, the contemplated contracting authority and the waiver provisions in the bill. I'm also concerned with the notion that the project may need to be funded with borrowing from the Federal Financing Bank at the Treasury Department.
Having said that, placing those concerns across the record, I am in support and believe that our constituents that travel from all over America and those visitors to our great Capitol from all over the world should have a safe, comfortable environment where visitors have an opportunity, in fact, to do just that, visit their government and the greatest participatory democracy ever on this planet.
Having said that, it's an investment that we won't see and times have really changed from the great edifices that once graced the skylines where everybody wanted to be so proud to identify with some given structure; we now build it underground—and Mica is an underground type of guy.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Laughter.]
Mr. TRAFICANT. With that, Congressman, I'm, in essence, in support, and I think you've done a good job.
I may offer an amendment, I want you to know this right now, that would call for a statue or a work of art that would depict the visitors somewhere to be represented on our Capitol's grounds. It wouldn't take a lot of space but would enhance it, and a little sign to say somewhere underneath there is a visitor's center.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time.
It's good to see Ms. Norton here, one of the great members of Congress. She may have a statement being that she really looks after the Nation's Capitol.
Thank you.
Mr. KIM. Thank you.
Ms. Norton, do you have any comments?
Ms. NORTON. I thank the Ranking Member and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have special thanks to Mr. Mica, who in another subcommittee, I call Chairman Mica, which he leads so ably. I want to thank him and congratulate him for the way in which he has designed and pressed this bill.
Most of my constituents live in the District of Columbia so do not suffer the slings and arrows that your constituents do when they come and find that buses can't get near here and you can't sit on the steps of the Capitol in February. It's very quaint to see that now as the weather is nice.
I still do not understand how we accommodate visitors. I still do not understand how it gets done given the numbers. I have a program called D.C. Students in the Capitol in which I invite youngsters to come down, teachers to bring down youngsters as part of their education.
I bring them and stand them in the hall and yell so they can hear what I'm saying. It's not the best way to not only accommodate our constituents but to make them respect the body when the body has no decent place for the public to be received. That casts doubt on the body's judgment and on its priorities.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for moving this hearing and I very much want to thank Mr. Mica for his work on this legislation.
Mr. KIM. Thank you.
Now, I'd like to invite the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN L. MICA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM FLORIDA
Mr. MICA. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for your leadership on this issue.
Mr. Traficant, my good friend, I will crawl out from my cave and make my statement here.
Ms. Norton, it's so fitting that you're here because you have such a vital role to play in the future of our Nation's Capitol and representing it so ably.
This bill and this proposal, as the Chairman said, is nothing new; it's been around for a number of years. Anyone who just looks at what is going on in the Capitol with visitors just about any time of the year now sees the need for some type of facility to host their visit.
The Capitol basically has outgrown its ability to accommodate the millions of visitors who come here, most of them citizens, many from around the world, to view what really has become a symbol of liberty, a symbol as Mr. Traficant said, of representative government. It is really the most historic building that we have in the United States.
The Congress came here, as you know, it will be 200 years ago in the year 2000 and this site was specifically chosen for our Nation's Capitol, the building that we take for granted and work in every day.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over the years and history of the Capitol, most of the improvements that have been made, even the buildings that we're in, were for the benefit of the members and the representatives who serve here and represent the people. This really would be the first improvement to the Capitol in its 200-year history for the public and for the citizens that we represent. It is specifically for those folks that this improvement is proposed.
The need of the visitor center is simple and Ms. Norton referred to it a bit, that the visit should be informative, that they should have an opportunity to learn not only about the history of the building and the country, but also about the legislative process that they get a glimpse of. It should be a memorable occasion not only informative.
For many, the visit is sort of an endurance test. Let me just cite some of the problems. Our greeting them and our accommodating them do not even comply with the laws and we passed a law that said we must live under the laws that we require for everyone else.
We don't even provide basic restroom facilities, shelter during cold and heat. Again, Ms. Norton said February is not very inviting for the steps. Today is a beautiful day, a glorious day but not representative of Washington's weather, unfortunately.
There are no eating facilities to accommodate the public or the school groups that you see here. During lunchtime, as you know, many of the facilities are closed because they must accommodate staff and the members.
There are no meeting facilities for groups. It's almost impossible to accommodate a school group of any size.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We lack an area to display the treasures. If you haven't seen the exhibit, the treasures of the Library of Congress, we are the repository of the most incredible collection of documents and books and other memorabilia of this country that exists in the world and many of these things are rarely seen because we don't have the exhibit space.
Also, today, security has become a problem and access. If you walk out today in front of the Capitol, you see them picking up the trash in a very arcane, sometimes gross fashion. As we get into July and August, you can even smell the problem that we have in front of the Capitol. This facility would eliminate some of those things.
The other thing we've seen is a near shutdown of the Capitol and its coming. Because of capacity, we will not be able to get the number of folks in for safety and security reasons or just capacity.
The facility that's proposed, and we proposed it as all privately financed. As you know, the Capitol Historic Preservation Commission has already raised $23 million and it is in the bank. The project will cost probably $100 million or more. We think all of that can be privately financed. One of the things we may need is some gap financing so that the project does go forward in a timely fashion.
I think there can also be savings from the project in utilities which we badly need to upgrade. I think there are some tremendous savings in utilities that were in the first legislation that we could incorporate into this. We could annualize some tremendous savings.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The amount of money that would be spent for security, if we continue the current configuration and access, I think we could have tremendous savings there improving access that is so important.
In addition, one of the things I point out is the reason the facility is underground is this is the most historic symbol recognized probably in the world by men and women not only in this country but throughout the planet. Many people would be opposed if we erected something aboveground. You can see the three stories, two stories for exhibit area and visitors and one which would accommodate utility activity, emergency vehicles, storage and other facilities that we badly need.
When you look at the Capitol and you see this model, there is no change to the facade. Actually, coming in from First Street, just the two pathways, the roadways there depress down one story and you would enter, so there is no change to the beauty and the facade of the Capitol as we know it.
That's the proposal. The bill could be crafted in many ways to achieve this. The important thing is that we do authorize it now. The project will probably take 3 1/2 years to construct. Other improvements should be done as we make this change for the public.
I think each generation contributes and has contributed to this building. It's a continuum of ideas and contributions from many people and I think this will be and could be a lasting contribution.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'd like to see it authorized as soon as possible so hopefully, in conjunction with the 200th anniversary of the Congress coming to the Capitol, the project could be complete.
We've had some delays. We didn't have an architect in place. We have that individual. We have a proposal. The Senate is prepared to work and we have active support by Mr. Warner and others on the Senate side who are taking a very active supportive interest in this legislation.
Those are my opening comments and I'll be glad to answer questions.
I have a written statement, Mr. Chairman, if it could be submitted in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mica follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. KIM. Any questions from the members?
Mr. Traficant?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I want to thank Congressman Mica for his testimony.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have a number of questions for today's panel. I'd ask unanimous consent that my questions be spread across the record and be given to the panelists in written form and ask for their specific responses in written form, Mr. Chairman.
[The information received follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. KIM. Are there any other questions?
[No response.]
Mr. KIM. Thank you, Mr. Mica.
Mr. MICA. Thank you.
Mr. KIM. The next panel will be: Mr. Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol; Mr. Winston Tabb, Associate Librarian, Library of Congress; Mr. Wilson Livingood, Sergeant at Arms, House of Representatives. Would you please come forward?
Mr. Hantman?
TESTIMONY OF HON. ALAN M. HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, ACCOMPANIED BY HERB FRANKLIN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, AND BERNIE WULFF, RTKL ASSOCIATES; WINSTON TABB, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN, LIBRARY SERVICES, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS; AND WILSON LIVINGOOD, SERGEANT AT ARMS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANTMAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
I'm pleased to appear before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to endorse H.R. 20 which will permit the Architect of the Capitol to undertake the Capitol Visitor Center, a major project for the direct benefit of the American people.
This is my first appearance before this committee and I look forward to our working together in the coming years.
As you well know, most of the projects of my agency are aimed at helping the members of Congress perform their functions as efficiently as possible—new communications facilities, physical reorganizations, et cetera. Our function also includes being good conservators of our national treasures here on Capitol Hill.
The Capitol Visitor Center is proposed as a project that will enhance the security and life safety in the Capitol, facilitate communication while improving appropriate levels of support services, convenience and a positive learning experience for the millions of people who visit here each year.
The U.S. Capitol, as the seat of the legislative branch of the Government and the physical embodiment of our democratic system, is among the most recognizable structures in the world. It attracts ever increasing numbers of visitors each year, with the current volume estimated to approach some 4 million visitors. This volume will continue to grow as U.S. population and tourism from abroad expands.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, the Capitol was never designed to accommodate the current tourist load it is experiencing. As was so eloquently put by Congresswoman Holmes, by Congressman Mica, it lacks sufficient amenities such as food service, restrooms and telephones for visitors. At peak periods, long lines form on the East Plaza awaiting a guided tour and a wait of as long as a hour is not uncommon with neither shelter, nor minimal amenities provided to those awaiting entry.
Just as important, there are few facilities for making the visit to the Capitol as educational as possible. The visitor should be able to learn with the aid of audiovisual media and appropriate technology as much as they desire about the role of the Congress and the structure of American government, the identity of the visitor's Representative or Senator, the richness of the institutional history of the Congress and the art and architecture of the Capitol itself.
The Capitol Guide Service does attempt to convey much of this information in a crowded environment that is acoustically challenging. Guides must also contend with the fact that visitors have not gone through a preparatory and informative transition that could help to elevate their appreciation and understanding of the Capitol. Too often, visitors have little idea of what they are looking at, the history of the spaces they experience.
As we are speaking here, the State of Colorado is presenting a statute of Astronaut Jack Swigart to the Congress as one of the two statutes each State is permitted in the Capitol. No matter what the artistic merit of any of the hundreds of statutes and paintings in the Capitol, the meaning is lost on most visitors without an opportunity for an explanation, without time to reflect on the meaning of the accomplishments of these people we celebrate.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Two weekends ago, we spent some 31 hours moving a 14,000 pound statute, called ''The Portrait Statute,'' of suffrage leaders trying to achieve the vote for women in our country. Having that statue now comfortably ensconced in the Rotunda loses a lot of meaning if, in fact, people are not given the opportunity to learn the role that these women played in getting the vote for the better half of the population of our country at this time.
So a visitor center would allow people to be able to go to an audiovisual type facility, call up their State, be it Colorado or any other State, and see what Mr. Swigart accomplished, see what these ladies accomplished for the women's suffrage movement and be able to learn something so that when they actually got to see the statutes, it would not just be one of hundreds that they walk by without meaning.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, a conceptual design study was completed in June 1991, reviewed and approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and Senate Rules. In accordance with the authority granted in December 1993, through the Capitol Preservation Commission and their funding, we retained RTKL Associates to undertake this design responsibility.
The Capitol Preservation Commission and several congressional committees have also, for some time, desired to replace the asphalt of the East Plaza with suitable pavement, landscaping, fountains and other appropriate treatment to create a dignified pedestrian forecourt for the Capitol. The desire for improvements to the East Plaza have made planning for the Visitor Center exceptionally timely.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, security screening of visitors at present is handled within the Capitol itself. The Visitor Center would locate that function to a point several hundred feet removed from the building itself and planning activity has also been based on the need to enhance facilities for dealing with the security needs of the Capitol, which are now met in a way that detracts from the dignity of the Capitol and cannot provide for optimum treatment of security needs.
Therefore, the plan for this Visitor Center basically has a threefold purpose—one, to provide a structure located under the East Plaza with reception facilities, educational exhibits, amenities, auditoriums and other programs and support services; two, to integrate design concepts for a visitor center with the redesign of the East Plaza surface treatment in a way that is aesthetically and functionally appropriate; and three, to permit the adoption of appropriate measures to strengthen the security of the Capitol while ensuring the preservation of a perceived atmosphere of free public access.
The Honorable Bill Livingood, the Sergeant at Arms, will address the security needs in more detail shortly.
Mr. Chairman, I believe it would be helpful at this time to give a brief overview of the design itself through the use of a study model that we have brought along with several presentation boards. I'll ask that Herb Franklin, AOC Executive Officer, assist me in this respect.
As you can see from the study model, the actual structure housing the Visitor Center would not be visible. The entrance to it is inserted into the historic landscape of the grounds in a manner that not only would be nonintrusive, but would reaffirm and reinforce the original intent of designer Frederick Law Olmsted to create a ceremonial forecourt for the Capitol.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
East Capitol Street would become the processional entrance to the East Plaza as well as continue as the entrance for fire and life safety equipment.
At present, tour buses deliver large numbers of visitors to the intersection of First Street and East Capitol Street. The plan provides a clear orientation for the visitor's approach to the Capitol with visitors proceeding toward the building on either of two paths alongside of East Capitol Street as they disembark from buses or arrive by Metro or cab. This can also be seen on the site plan that Mr. Franklin can address.
The entrance design would be compatible with the existing Olmsted landscaping and would only minimally introduce needed above-ground structural elements such as elevators required to facilitate entry by disabled persons, combined with airshaft housings.
These elements are designed to create a unified composition with the preexisting fountains and lamps designed by Olmsted and would be substantially screened by landscape plantings. A gracious paved area near the bus disembarkation area at First Street allows the gathering of large numbers of people that can now be comfortably accommodated.
If we look at the cross section that Congressman Mica referred to before, he indicated that we really have a three-level structure here and as indicated, those three levels are all below ground. The top two levels would basically be the visitor levels with the lowest level primarily allocated to mechanical and ancillary spaces. A planned capacity of up to 2,000 visitors per hour will accommodate appropriate peak loads for the foreseeable future.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Connection to the Capitol at existing Room EF-100 by way of escalators rising through existing openings built during the 1960-62 extension of the East Front will allow us to be as nonintrusive to the Capitol structure itself.
If we look at the main floor plan, we can see that there are two primary auditoria presented. Mr. Franklin can point to the main entrances from the pedestrianway coming from East Capitol Street. You would then walk through a security area at the center of the structure, some 300 feet away from the Capitol building itself.
You would then have an option of proceeding to see shows in one of two auditoria which could accomplish a capacity of some 250 people per auditorium. That's 500 people approximately every 20 minutes or so, so 1500 per hour could effectively see the show.
If people decided not to see the show, they could look at exhibits in the area and then take the escalator directly into the Capitol where they would marshal for a tour guide areas themselves.
If they chose to see the show, they would then be able to exit on the lower level, which Mr. Franklin can point to now, and at the lower level, they would then encounter a cafeteria which could house some 600 people comfortably, additional exhibit areas, and other facilities that would allow them to really learn about the Capitol prior to entering into it.
To the righthand side of the scheme, you can see a 550-person auditorium which has been requested by the Library of Congress. They have many films and shows they would like to be able to present to the public which they currently don't have a venue for inside the Library of the Capitol at this point. Such an auditorium would be available also to the Congress for various meetings at the same time.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A general exhibition hall here would provide a feeling of space, allow display of large items and small exhibition areas with video kiosks. A specialized exhibition area would permit temporary and permanent displays of items from the congressional archives.
Administrative and support space is made available for the Capitol Guide Service on this lower level as is office for Special Services, administrative offices of the Visitor Center itself, and a first aid station as well.
As Congressman Mica indicated, the handling of deliveries and trash removal from the Capitol has presented a serious design challenge because all sides of the Capitol are symbolically important. None should serve functions typically relegated to the less visible back side of a typical building.
The plan here makes the loading and unloading function virtually invisible. When the central East Front of the Capitol was extended in 1960-62, a tunnel segment beneath the Senate subway was constructed in anticipation of an ultimate construction of a parking garage beneath the East Plaza.
This tunnel segment is employed in the plan as part of a service tunnel to permit service vehicles to load and unload material for both the Capitol and the Visitor Center at an underground loading dock, thus eliminating the need for trucks to enter East Plaza as it's now done and eliminating the odoriferous problems that summertime gives for garbage waiting to be picked up.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Visitor Center, as I indicated, has a 550 seat auditorium and Winston Tabb will talk about that shortly in his testimony.
The service level of the Visitor Center, which is the lowest of the three levels, also contains space to augment the Capitol's service needs, as well as those of the Visitor Center itself. Space is provided for custodial storage, for mechanical rooms, as well as mechanical, custodial and maintenance rooms required by the Visitor Center. Space for the Capitol Police is also provided in the facility there.
What we also have for the Visitor Center is the sense that we don't know what's going to happen in terms of support needs for the Capitol down the road. There is unfinished shell space provided to accommodate future needs of the Capitol without changing again the historic profile of the facility below grade. This expansion space is applicable for all three levels and can be used for functions as they come up either in support of the Visitor Center or the Capitol itself.
One of the issues we need here clearly is flexibility, flexibility to implement a physical vehicular barrier around the core area of the grounds, which includes the East Plaza, and flexibility to incorporate final plans and recommendations resulting from the current comprehensive security analysis that the Capitol Police Board is now pursuing.
One of our problems here clearly is neighborhood impact. The District of Columbia Department of Public Works has just published its Comprehensive Transportation Plan which identifies parking for tour buses as a major problem. At present, the District receives some 100,000 tour buses visiting major Federal Government attractions every year and experiences negative environmental consequences from the inappropriate roaming and idling of such buses because of inadequate parking arrangements.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In interviews with bus drivers, we find that they are aware that parking for buses is available at our Union Station, but the $5 charge is something they'd rather not spend, so they spend the dollars and the time for what they want to do and they do, in fact, pollute the atmosphere as they idle and wait for their occupants to come back from their tours.
We need a proper response to this problem, a response that is coordinated between the District and the Federal Governments. We're prepared to play an appropriate role in crafting a responsible approach to this general problem which will include a management plan for the Visitor Center plus traffic.
Currently, if you come down First Street in the morning, you will see buses backed up all the way along the street and sometimes double-parked all the way along the street. This is not a healthy situation for the community at large and it's something that needs to be addressed.
The estimated construction cost for the Visitor Center that was prepared in 1995 was estimated to be some $95 million. It included the cost of the Visitor Center shell, core, exterior improvements for the East Plaza and some allowances for interior finishes.
Because commencement of construction has been delayed beyond the date assumed by that estimate, the total construction cost will increase due to inflation and the building cost index, and changes that may result from updated security analyses.
Our current assumption is that the total cost could approximate $125 million, depending on when construction begins, on the cost estimates for security enhancements which are yet to be determined, the exhibits, other special interfaces and interior work that were not included in the original budget.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Some modifications may be necessary to the existing construction documents to incorporate new considerations for security, other programmatic needs not initially considered. Final design and detailing of interior elements have been deferred for coordination with exhibit design if, in fact the Visitor Center is approved.
Design work on the interior fit-up and exhibits should commence expeditiously, if so approved, in order to provide a complete package on a timely basis for a fully functional visitor center. This will be necessary since the critical path for a facility such as this will, in all likelihood, be determined by the content of the exhibits, the introductory film, and the interactive programs.
The wealth of information we can draw on spans the history of this country. The process of determining what to include and in what form will necessitate many meetings, much debate, soul searching and compromise since the space available will be finite. The possible content is voluminous.
Mr. Chairman, I'd welcome any questions, comments, whatever. We could spend hours talking about the visitor facility. I hope this has just been an introduction to a process that I trust will proceed and will include all the people who need to have their voices heard.
Mr. KIM. The next panelist will be Mr. Winston Tabb.
Mr. TABB. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to appear before the subcommittee to comment on the Capitol Visitor Center legislation.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As Associate Librarian of Congress, I am responsible for the acquisition, preservation, cataloging, servicing and exhibition of the Library's collections, all 112 million items, including not only service to Congress and researchers, but also through our outreach programs, to the general public.
This morning, I would like to describe briefly how the collections of the Library of Congress, your library, can be used in the Visitor Center to provide a stimulating education on the history of Congress and the story of America's democracy.
Second, I want to indicate how the Visitor Center Auditorium will allow people from across the Nation and around the world to enjoy and learn from other parts of the Library's collection.
I'm going to summarize now my written statement which I have already submitted to the subcommittee.
As Congressman Mica said, the Library's collections are particularly suited to provide material for the Visitor Center exhibition areas on the history of Congress as an institution and its role in our Nation's daily life.
The history of Congress is written by those who have served in it. The Library's manuscript collection, for example, includes the papers of more than 900 members focusing on those who served during Congress' first 150 years.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Exhibits, for example, could focus on a member who has played a key role in the history of the Congress using his or her own papers. People could view the papers of our first lawmakers such as Madison, Hamilton and Monroe or those who helped build the Nation in the 19th Century such as Lincoln, Clay, Webster and Calhoun, or those who met the challenges of this century such as Longworth, Root, Cellar and Taft.
We can also tell the story of a specific incident or an issue using the papers and portraits of members involved and other historic congressional documents. For example, our special collections include 13,000 documents from the first 14 Congresses spanning the years 1789 to 1817.
Presidential messages to Congress and legislative journals of both Houses are among those documents, as are the reports of congressional committees, communications to Congress by government officials and petitions, memorials and publications issued by congressional order.
We also have an interesting special collection of about 4,000 speeches delivered by members of Congress between 1825 and 1940. My written testimony provides additional examples of past exhibits from the Library's collections that bring to life the history of the United States Congress that can be replicated for visitors to this new center.
Mr. Chairman, I believe there is also a second important reason for making the library an integral part of the Visitor Center. The story of the United States Congress cannot be complete without dramatizing and celebrating the fact that through its library, the U.S. Congress has done more to preserve America's intellectual and cultural history than any other institution in this country.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With its unique mission to preserve the history and creativity of the American people, the Library of Congress has become the largest repository of human knowledge in the history of the world, based, in large measure, on the extraordinary copyright collections. This is an achievement that should be recognized and celebrated by every visitor to the Capitol.
The best way to show people the greatness of Congress' library is to let them see and hear some of the Library's collections. In so doing, they will recognize Congress' achievement in building the Library and at the same time, gain a memorable look at our country's history.
The Visitor Center offers a unique opportunity to share the Library's unsurpassed collections, particularly our audiovisual collections—film, video and sound recordings which are now the least accessible of our collections because our existing facilities for public viewing and listening are quite limited. That is why the Library, from the beginning, has put such importance on the auditorium and adjacent viewing and exhibition areas that are to be included in the Visitor Center.
The multipurpose performing arts facility includes not only the auditorium, but also audio and video rooms where visitors can sit at interactive, multimedia stations and relive our Nation's history through the media of radio, film, television and recorded sound.
We have a lot to offer visitors in this arena because the Library's collections include more than 250,000 feature films, over 200,000 television broadcasts, 500,000 radio programs, and 1.7 million sound recordings.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I've given only the briefest of suggestions as to the kinds of exhibitions and programs the Library can produce for our citizens at the Visitor Center. Available resources and the final design of the center will eventually determine what can actually be done, but the Library's collections do offer countless opportunities for educating the public and increasing appreciation of America's creative genius.
Our exhibition budget is stretched thin, requiring that virtually all be privately funded now, but we do appreciate this opportunity to bring to the subcommittee possible activities of this sort for the future.
I would like to emphasize one other aspect of the Visitor Center plan that is of special importance to the Library of Congress. I know that the subcommittee and the Senate Rules Committee have recognized the desirability of a tunnel under First Street between the Visitor Center and the Library's Jefferson Building. The Library strongly urges inclusion of this tunnel in the overall Visitor Center project for a number of important reasons.
First, since the Visitor Center will be the focal point of all visitors to Capitol Hill, easy access from the Visitor Center to the newly restored Jefferson Building will help ensure that visitors have easy access to their library and our exhibitions. A tunnel provides the most effective means of access from the center to the library.
Second, a tunnel is needed to transport valuable and sometimes delicate materials to and from the Visitor Center without having to subject them to the elements.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, a tunnel would require only one security checkpoint for access to all areas of the Capitol Visitor Center and the Jefferson Building, thus making security somewhat more easy and efficient.
Because of the importance we place on a tunnel to the Jefferson Building, in 1995, the Library commissioned a study by RTKL Associates, the architectural consultants for the overall project, to determine the engineering feasibility of constructing a tunnel and possible tunnel options.
That report, which was completed last year, indicated that from an engineering standpoint, the construction of a tunnel from the Visitor Center under First Street and into the Jefferson Building was indeed possible. It also detailed options for how and where the tunnel could connect to the Jefferson Building.
The Library prefers a tunnel design which allows for the easiest movement of people and materials between the center and the library. The report estimates the construction of this kind of tunnel would be approximately $5 million and in addition, it estimates that an additional $3 million or so would be needed for interior modifications to the Jefferson Building.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Congressman Mica and the Architect of the Capitol for their foresight and perseverance on this project. I want to assure the subcommittee that the Library stands ready to participate in any way we can in making your Visitor Center a memorable, educational and enjoyable experience for all those who come to our Capitol in the decades to come.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you very much.
Mr. KIM. Thank you, Mr. Tabb.
Mr. Livingood?
Mr. LIVINGOOD. Good morning.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the proposed Capitol Visitor Center.
I've had the opportunity to review various proposals and concept plans regarding this facility. Based upon this information and the executive summary prepared by the Architect of the Capitol, I believe the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center would significantly enhance several aspects of our operations.
Specifically, the center would impact three areas which fall under the jurisdiction of the Sergeant at Arms and the U.S. Capitol Police. Those are security, public safety and police operations.
Several aspects of our security operations would be enhanced. Currently, all security screening of visitors to the Capitol is conducted at each entrance of the building. This creates a situation in which individuals with weapons are actually inside the building before they are discovered by police.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With the Visitor Center, all security screening will be conducted at a central location as people enter the facility, thus creating a standoff distance from the Capitol building proper of approximately 330 feet.
In addition, the center would include areas adjacent to the metal detectors where individuals with weapons or that are questionable could be quickly removed from public view for a more thorough screening and questioning. This will allow the police to discretely handle the situation and also to ensure the safety of individuals in the immediate area.
The inclusion of a central, underground delivery center allows for closer inspection of vehicles making deliveries to the Capitol. It would also negate the need for commercial vehicles to park adjacent to the Capitol building while loading and unloading.
The elimination of the tour lines which form on the East Front Plaza would also increase our ability to provide security for protected arrivals and departures of national and foreign dignitaries. Conversely, such arrivals and departures would not require the tour line to be redirected or closed for security reasons as happens today.
From the standpoint of public safety, the creation of the center would allow the Capitol Police to better control the flow of people entering the building. This would also assist in assessing the number of people in the building at one time relative to the building's fire codes and would also address the inherent danger of overcrowding in the Capitol.
The center would serve to ease the congestion we currently experience in the hallways, the entrances and the exits and various points of interest, particularly during peak tourist season.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since the majority of the security screening equipment will be in a centralized location in the center, many of the devices currently employed at the doors to the Capitol can be reconfigured, thus providing for clear exit routes from the building. This is especially beneficial should the need arise for emergency egress from the building.
While allowing tourists and visitors to gather in the center, they will not be exposed to health risks associated with standing in extreme weather elements for long periods of time without the benefit of shelter.
Aside from the security and public safety benefits derived from the construction of the center, the operational capabilities of the Capitol Police would also be improved. The plans for the center include an area in the service level designated for use by the police. Within this area, an interagency command center could be established for use by the Capitol Police, the Architect's personnel, other law enforcement agencies and support personnel during large scale special events or emergency situations. In addition, the alarm monitoring facility and fire alarm center could possibly be relocated into this center and this space. The facility would also provide for an area out of public view where prisoners could be interviewed and processed.
The proposals included in the center will permit the public a more enjoyable and educational experience. It will also serve to enhance the security of the Capitol, the Congress and the thousands of constituents and public who visit the building each day.
With the approval of the subcommittee, I am prepared to assist the Architect's staff in the research and design of all security and public safety-related aspects of the CVC plan.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I will also be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. KIM. I do have one small question to you, Mr. Livingood. What do you mean by the prisoner could be interviewed?
Mr. LIVINGOOD. That's if you have someone at one of the magnetometers and they may have a weapon or there is something questionable in their bag as it goes through the x-ray, instead of moving them into the Capitol, you remove them to an area adjacent to the center. It's away from the Capitol.
Mr. KIM. I see. Thank you.
Thank you very much. That was a fine presentation.
The next speakers will be Ms. Peggy Wood and Mr. Daniel Mobley, together. Mr. Mobley represents the Convention and Visitors Association. Ms. Wood represents The Guild of Professional Tour Guides of Washington, D.C.
Welcome. Mr. Mobley, would you like to start?
TESTIMONY OF DANIEL E. MOBLEY, CAE, PRESIDENT, DC CONVENTION AND VISITORS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC; AND PEGGY WOOD, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, THE GUILD OF PROFESSIONAL TOUR GUIDES OF WASHINGTON, DC
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MOBLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
My name is Dan Mobley and I am President of the Washington, D.C. Convention and Visitors Association. We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony this morning regarding the U.S. Capitol's preliminary plan to build a comprehensive visitor center.
I'd like to offer some brief remarks that may put this project into a broader context of the tourism industry of our Nation's Capital.
As you know, tourism, which encompasses both leisure and business travel, is the largest private sector industry in Washington, D.C. Secondly only to the Federal Government in terms of job creation, tourism contributes more than $8 billion in economic impact to the Washington region. Our organization's mission is to increase this economic impact by encouraging more overnight visitors to Washington.
As we know, the U.S. Capitol is one of the most popular sites in our city, particularly for those 1.7 million visitors who come via group tours. We also know that the new regulations imposed this spring have made it very difficult for groups to visit the U.S. Capitol. We do not wish to dwell on this serious concern raised by many of our tourism professionals.
However, the issue of improving access to this magnificent historic building is critical and relevant to today's hearings. We generally support a U.S. Visitor Center to enhance the visitor's experience to this unique building. However, we have serious concerns about placing priority on an elaborate, future facility when reality dictates that discussions be held with tourism industry leaders to review current visitation procedures and to work on reasonable alternatives to limited access now available.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also, Washington receives more than 20 million visitors each year and there is currently no funding for a comprehensive visitor center that would serve the needs of all visitors and provide information on all major sites.
In the past decade, an excellent visitor center for the Smithsonian Institution opened on the Mall; an outstanding visitor center for the White House opened on Pennsylvania Avenue. These two facilities are well done but neither meets the full needs of the thousands of visitors who want to obtain one-stop shopping information and buy tickets for tours.
We see the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center as an additional, specialized facility that would be appreciated but not truly necessary. May we suggest that the concept of a visitor center for the U.S. Capitol and the Nation's capital, be considered in future plans and that improved access for groups visiting the Capitol be considered in the very near future.
We appreciate being here today and we're happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. KIM. Thank you, Mr. Mobley.
Ms. Wood?
Ms. WOOD. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 20.
I am Peggy Wood of Alexandria, Virginia, First President of The Guild of Professional Tour Guides of Washington, D.C.
The Guild is a nonprofit organization with over 375 members. Our mandate and function is described in the written testimony before you. The Guild is in a unique position to speak to the need for and the requirements of a visitor center at the Capitol. We listen to your constituents.
We believe Washington, D.C. is one of the most diverse, culturally rich, beautiful and exciting places in the world. At the same time, we also find it is one of the most inefficient and difficult cities for tourism.
Our workday ranges from 4 to 15 hours. To be in this business, one must be passionate about Washington and be well-versed in its many facets.
In 1994, over 18.5 million visitors came to Washington; 12.4 million came for pleasure. This number is expected to grow at an accelerating rate as travel and tourism become the largest industry worldwide by the next millennium.
Based on our collective experience, virtually all tourists want to visit the Capitol. Most consider it the most important stop during their visit. These visitors are being turned away by long lines. The new system for touring may be an improvement for those who get into the building, but for the thousands who do not, there is frustration and anger. Now is the time to act.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Please understand that the problems in the Capitol stem from the limitations of the structure and the volume of people who wish to visit the Capitol and not with the Capital Guide Service or the U.S. Capitol Police, both of whom do an outstanding job.
The Capitol is a physical symbol of American democracy. It is the centerpiece of our Nation and should be accessible to whoever wishes to visit this hallowed spot.
The following are practical realities essential to the center: better provision for security clearance, ample restroom facilities, visitor amenities including seating, food service and protection from outdoor elements, educational facilities to inform visitors about how representative government works and the rich history of Congress, areas where members can meet their constituents, electronic and computer capabilities where the visitor can determine the status of congressional activities, a place where tour groups can be advised of proper protocol when they enter other areas of the Capitol, a facility where educational materials could be sold—the sale of film alone could finance the center.
But, the center cannot be viewed in isolation. How visitors get to and from the center must be addressed. Most of our clients reach the Capitol by tour bus. There are no accommodations for bus parking and the U.S. Capitol and Metropolitan Police are very aggressive about bus loading and unloading, idling, standing and parking.
The effect is that once coaches discharge their passengers, they literally travel throughout the city until such time that they pick them up. Solutions to this very serious problem will require the cooperation of local law enforcement agencies and the National Park Service.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Bus companies and organizations such as our own must be consulted, both about the need and practical solutions. It makes little sense to build a visitor center without thinking through how visitors will get there.
The most difficult issue facing the center is how to finance the construction and its operation. Past expansions of the Capitol were provided by congressional appropriations. Given the gravity of the current fiscal situation and the urgent need to balance the budget, we realize that funding for the center will probably now have to come from nongovernmental sources.
In conversations with tour groups, I hear a great willingness of people to make small, personal donations for the center's construction in a manner somewhat similar to the national campaign for the renovation of the Statute of Liberty and the Civil Rights Exhibit at the Lincoln Memorial. With an imaginative program and well-established rules, people will gladly contribute to the center's cause.
Conducting such a campaign could be an opportunity to educate people about the U.S. Capitol at a time which coincides with its bicentennial, building the center even when fiscal constraints are severe is reminiscent of President Lincoln's directive to complete the Dome, even in the midst of the Civil War.
Individuals may visit the Capitol but once in their lifetime. How they are treated and the memory of that experience will greatly influence how they view democracy in action.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, the U.S. Capitol is the symbol of our system of government and is a beacon of hope to the world, it should be showcased for all to understand an appreciate.
On behalf of The Guild, I appreciate this opportunity to share our views with you. My colleagues and I would be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. KIM. Thank you very much for that fine presentation.
At this time, I'd like to ask if my colleagues have any questions? The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Cooksey?
Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Could I go back and ask a question to the Architect, please?
I'm a Republican and we don't like to spend money, but has any consideration been given to making the center perhaps two floors deeper and just building a vacant space there so that you could have expansion sometime in the future? Would that be enormously expensive. Once this is set in place, if we ever wanted to expand it, we would destroy this $100 million project.
Mr. HANTMAN. That's an excellent point.
As I indicated briefly, the overall size that we're proposing to build right now is just in excess of half a million square feet; 168,000 of those square feet are on all three levels and they are undesignated as to use at this point in time. So the concept we're talking about is well in excess of 30 percent of the project being for future needs as yet undetermined, but if we wanted to build more than that, we could certainly consider that.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. COOKSEY. It just seems to me it would be very easy if you're going to dig a hole in the ground to just dig it a little bit deeper, cap it off and start from there or maybe not.
Mr. HANTMAN. That was exactly the intent of the plan, to give us that flexibility.
Mr. COOKSEY. But you're talking about building another space lateral to it and anterior to it. I'm talking about digging deeper.
Mr. HANTMAN. I'm not sure if we've examined that possibility.
Mr. COOKSEY. I'm not an architect, you know.
Mr. HANTMAN. Let me ask RTKL to respond to that, the architect who has designed this at this point.
Mr. WULFF. I'm Bernie Wulff with RTKL.
We have given very serious consideration to maximizing the amount of shell space when we were involved with Mr. White, previous the Architect of the Capitol. We determined at that time that there would be significant premium costs to go below the excavation which is approximately 50 feet below existing ground due to the water conditions on the site.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would suggest that there is reason to revisit that in the process of making sure that this facility is optimized for the use of Congress.
Mr. COOKSEY. Shell space, that's the word I did not know. So theoretically, you could go another 30 or 40 feet deep and you could get a couple more floors and that would be the shell space?
Mr. WULFF. If one were to dig the hole deeper, it's likely that you would need to go approximately another 12 to 15 feet in order to gain usable space for the various functions that would support the Capitol.
Of course, Washington is built underground in many, many areas because the height limits are restrictive. For example, the Grand Hyatt Hotel, which was one of our projects, is 75 feet into the ground. The soil conditions and water conditions in that location made it feasible.
I think that there are more costly issues because of the existing subterranean conditions on this particular site that would need to be very carefully evaluated and it might be determined that the cost for adding what might be I guess another 200,000 square feet or 150,000 per level, might be extreme.
Mr. COOKSEY. Ballpark figure, $25 million?
Mr. WULFF. Yes, I think that would be a reasonable ballpark figure.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you very much.
Mr. KIM. That's it?
Mr. COOKSEY. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. KIM. I do have some serious questions. The first part is architectural questions and then I have a financial question as well.
The architectural question is, I understand the parking is a problem and would be a problem, but is there any way you can expand this project to include perhaps underground parking? We've addressed this problem of parking half a dozen times but I don't see any solution to this.
Mr. HANTMAN. As far as this specific project is concerned, the concept that directly impacts parking would be that the parking that is currently on East Capitol Street, running from East Capitol Street towards the Capitol itself, would be eliminated and any parking that's on the East Plaza would be eliminated.
The Capitol Police Board is currently studying the entire Capitol square area with respect to the parking in general which occurs on all of the circular driveways at the Capitol at this point in time, so I think the bigger picture of parking around the Capitol needs to be addressed in the context of the overall security plan.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The possibility of providing some level of parking below grade using the same truck dock entrance would be possible; 160,000 or so square feet that we currently have unallocated could be partially allocated. I've raised the question with the Sergeant at Arms of the House and the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate and asked them to develop a minimal number of parking spots they would suggest be allocated down below grade. Whether that's 50, 100 spots, I don't know what the answer is at this point in time, but some parking could be accommodated below grade, probably not if all parking were eliminated through a security plan, all the parking that currently exists on Capitol Square.
Mr. KIM. How soon as you can have this preliminary conceptual layout to include parking?
Mr. HANTMAN. To include parking, as soon as we get what we have requested formally from the Capitol Preservation Commission that additional dollars be released from the Commission's funds, the $23–$24 million that Congressman Mica spoke of originally. Once we get agreement to release some of those private funds that have been raised through the sale of coins, we could begin to look into retaining RTKL to look at some of those issues in more depth and other issues such as the tunnel connection from the Library and perhaps the Supreme Court that have also been raised.
Refinement of the plan is clearly necessary and as soon as we get the go ahead, we'll begin to dig into those types of issues and the types of exhibits in detail that we need to develop that might impact the current shape and configuration of the spaces.
Mr. KIM. A second question is as to the ventilation system. All the utilities will be located at the lower level and you've got to have some kind of ventilation system set out. I was wondering especially about a heating exchange system.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have seen so many homeless people gathered around the steam exchanger and I was wondering whether you'd consider that problem. We don't want to see so many people gathered around. It just looks depressing.
Mr. HANTMAN. Clearly. The areas that we've identified for both vertical circulation for the physically disabled, who would need to have access down to the visitor center, is also to be closed, to have shafts congruent to them so that they can, in fact, bring air down and exchange the air that you so aptly discuss.
These would be elements that are not flush with the ground. They would be basically, if Mr. Franklin could point to them, halfway between the street and the Capitol in areas constantly patrolled by the Capitol Police. We wouldn't see that as being a security issue and a location that would be very accessible to the homeless.
Mr. KIM. next question is primarily a financing question. To whom should I address this question? Who has the money on this?
[Laughter.]
Mr. HANTMAN. There are several schemes for financing at this point in time. I think the Congress certainly is looking at alternatives and should look at alternatives that are totally private or a mix of private and public. The issue of whether or not the security end of the complex is most appropriate for public funds is one of the issues that I think needs to be examined as well.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KIM. I understand one sore topic would be to borrow money from the Federal Financing Bank that also has some scoring problem too.
I'd like to ask my counsel to explain to myself and perhaps the audience.
Mr. HANTMAN. May I ask Herb Franklin, who actually worked with the Architect of the Capitol Office to do the Federal Judiciary Building which used that same mechanism.
Mr. KIM. Is he qualified to answer that question?
[Laughter.]
Mr. FRANKLIN. Mr. Chairman, the general assumption has been that private capital, nongovernmental sources would provide ultimately the cost of building this. The problem we run into is that under existing law, under the Antideficiency Act, the Architect of the Capitol would not legally be permitted to enter into any contract for the construction of this facility until all of the money available for the completion of the project was under his control.
What that means is if you rely on private financing for the capital costs, you'll probably need to take 3 to 4 to 5 years. I just don't know anyone who can write a check tomorrow for what is required. So over that 3-to-5 year period, of course, the costs will be escalating.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We've been searching for some way of getting some interim or what Congressman Mica referred to as gap financing, what in the private sector would be referred to as construction financing, to go forward with the project and have that repaid ultimately through the contributions that come in.
We've met with the Federal Financing Bank and they will enter into a very favorable loan which anticipates its repayment through private contributions. Unfortunately, however, from a budgetary standpoint and budget accounting standpoint, if you draw that money down from the Federal Financing Bank, that is scored as though you were appropriating the money, so you run into that Catch 22 situation that I know your committee is familiar with from your previous investigations with OMB.
So the suggestion is that the legislation indicate that financing that is drawn down from the Federal Financing Bank where private funds are anticipated to repay it should not be scored under that kind of convention.
Obviously, there would have to be a convincing financing plan that indicated how that money was going to be raised before that should take place. I'm not suggesting that we just sort of rewrite the books and not pay attention to the reality of a private financing plan, but that's one way of getting the interim financing.
Mr. KIM. I'd like to correct the scoring system set by OMB while I'm the chairman. We're going to have a hearing coming up on June 15, I believe.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The other question I have is who will operate this center after completion of construction? Who is going to operate this?
Mr. FRANKLIN. The present thinking would be that the Architect of the Capitol would operate it as part of an integral operation of the Capitol building. When we talk about operations, there are a number of things, the structural, mechanical and custodial maintenance is one thing. The administration of the facility from the standpoint of its educational message is another thing. That all, at least as we view it, would be done under the AOC umbrella either by contract or directly.
It is our opinion, on the basis of our consultant's recommendations, that if the revenue stream from the cafeteria, the gift shop and perhaps catering were available for use within the center, that it would pay for itself. That is to say, it's operations would be self-sustaining from those revenues.
Mr. KIM. Who would be liable in case someone got hurt? They're going to sue the government, they're going to sue this particular operation?
Mr. FRANKLIN. Well, it would be part of the Capitol, Mr. Chairman, so it would be under the Tort Claims Act because it still would be Federal property.
Mr. KIM. I understand that the project cost was now $125 million, which is almost a one-third increase in the last 2 years, a dramatic increase. If there's any further delay, it will be another 15 percent increase each year? That is a dramatic increase in the last 2 years. Has there been any change in architectural design?
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANTMAN. The $95 million originally discussed was basically for core and shell. That included some allowances for interior finishes but it did not take into account any funds at all to develop and plan the exhibits, any connection to the Capitol building.
Two weeks ago, a bipartisan, bicameral group of some 30 or so people visited the new museum in Arlington called The Newseum, a very fine facility. Some of the things we learned there were that the $48 million cost for the Newseum basically was split fairly evenly between exhibits and the cost of constructing the facility, which means $24 million or so was spent on the exhibits themselves and the planning thereof. Those dollars were not included at all in our $95 million. I'm not sure if it will cost us $24 million because we clearly already own, through the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian, many of the things we may wish to exhibit.
The cost, again, of completing the project, we thought it would be much more reasonable to suggest a total cost as opposed to a partial cost to this committee when we came back and talked about looking at the facility as an entity.
Mr. KIM. I'm very impressed, it's an excellent project. If you can address this additional underground parking, plus some future site without ripping up the whole structure as the gentleman from Louisiana mentioned, I am very pleased with this project. I think it is an excellent project and I'd like to proceed this project as quickly as we can. I'd like to do it while I'm the chairman. I believe it is a historic project.
The only thing of concern is the financing which we will discuss with the staff. Other than that, I am very impressed. This is a beautiful project and I think people deserve this kind of shelter. Have no other comments or questions.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'd like to thank all of you for coming this morning and for your participation in this historical project. Thank you very much.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:12 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Insert here.]
41–538CC
1997
H.R. 20, THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
(105–24)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MAY 22, 1997
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTUCTURE
BUD SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JAY KIM, California
STEPHEN HORN, California
BOB FRANKS, New Jersey
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
JACK QUINN, New York
TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
SUE W. KELLY, New York
RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
FRANK RIGGS, California
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio
JACK METCALF, Washington
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
MERRILL COOK, Utah
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota
CHARLES W. ''CHIP'' PICKERING, Jr., Mississippi
KAY GRANGER, Texas
JON D. FOX, Pennsylvania
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois
ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Ohio
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
GLENN POSHARD, Illinois
ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, Jr., Alabama
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
PAT DANNER, Missouri
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
BOB FILNER, California
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
MAX SANDLIN, Texas
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
JAY W. JOHNSON, Wisconsin
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JAY KIM, California, Chairman
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana, Vice Chairman
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia
BUD SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
(Ex Officio)
JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Ohio
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
CONTENTS
TESTIMONY
Hantman, Hon. Alan M., Architect of the Capitol, accompanied by Herb Franklin, Executive Officer, Architect of the Capitol, and Bernie Wulff, RTKL Associates
Livingood, Wilson, Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of Representatives
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from Florida
Mobley, Daniel E., CAE, President, D.C. Convention and Visitors Association, Washington, DC
Tabb, Winston, Associate Librarian, Library Services, Library of Congress
Wood, Peggy, President Emeritus, The Guild of Professional Tour Guides of Washington, DC
PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY A MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Mica, Hon. John L., of Florida
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Hantman, Hon. Alan M
Livingood, Wilson
Mobley, Daniel E
Tabb, Winston
Wood, Peggy
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Responses to questions from Rep. Traficant
(iii)