[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WHAT VISITORS CAN EXPECT AT THE CAPITOL VISITORS CENTER:
TRANSPORTATION, ACCESS, SECURITY AND VISUALS
=======================================================================
(110-49)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 8, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-931 WASHINGTON : 2008
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia JOHN L. MICA, Florida
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon DON YOUNG, Alaska
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
Columbia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JERROLD NADLER, New York WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
CORRINE BROWN, Florida VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
BOB FILNER, California STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California GARY G. MILLER, California
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington Carolina
RICK LARSEN, Washington TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
JULIA CARSON, Indiana SAM GRAVES, Missouri
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri Virginia
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DORIS O. MATSUI, California TED POE, Texas
NICK LAMPSON, Texas DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio CONNIE MACK, Florida
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa York
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina Louisiana
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
JOHN J. HALL, New York MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
VACANCY
(ii)
?
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
Management
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chairwoman
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania Virginia
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota York
(Ex Officio) JOHN L. MICA, Florida
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Ayers, Stephen T., AIA, Acting Architect of the Capitol and
Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer, United States
Congress....................................................... 5
Moneme, Emeka C., Director, District of Columbia Department of
Transportation, Washington, D.C................................ 20
Morse, Chief Phillip D., Chief of Police, United States Capitol
Police, Washington, D.C., accompanied by Daniel Nichols........ 20
Purnell, Marshall E., FAIA, President, The American Institute of
Architects, Washington, D.C.................................... 32
Shepherd, Leslie L., Chief Architect, General Services
Administration, Washington, D.C................................ 32
Ungar, Bernard L., Director of Physical Infrastructure,
Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C.............. 5
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania............................. 41
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 42
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia......... 46
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Ayers, Stephen T................................................. 49
Moneme, Emeka.................................................... 56
Morse, Phillip D................................................. 61
Purnell, Marshall E.............................................. 64
Shepherd, Leslie L............................................... 70
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.004
HEARING ON WHAT VISITORS CAN EXPECT AT THE CAPITOL VISITORS CENTER:
TRANSPORTATION, ACCESS, SECURITY AND VISUALS
----------
Friday, June 8, 2007
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and
Emergency Management,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eleanor
Holmes Norton [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Ms. Norton. Good morning and welcome to all our witnesses
and visitors at today's hearing on What Visitors Can Expect at
the Capitol Visitors Center: Transportation, Access, Security
and Visuals.
This morning, the Subcommittee will hear testimony
concerning what exactly it is that visitors can expect when
they arrive at the new section of the Capitol Building that
will be known as the Capitol Visitors Center and we have
already started calling the CVC. I visited the CVC this week
and found an addition of considerable beauty and majesty in
keeping with the main Capitol Building. Estimates are that the
CVC is 90 to 95 percent complete, and opening is expected in
2008.
In addition, today we will hear about transportation
security and general access plans that are still being
developed and refined. It is good to hear about them now
because we know there is still time, given the schedule date, a
date we hope is met when the visitors center is to open.
There has been no oversight of the CVC by an authorizing
committee and none on the issues of transportation, security
and access that are of special interest to this Subcommittee
today. Because our Subcommittee deals with Federal
construction, we shared jurisdiction with other subcommittee in
the past.
Moreover, the new visitors center is a matter of
considerable interest and concern to the member who represents
the Nation's Capital. The Congress and the Nation depend on
this city to be welcoming to constituents and to visitors from
around the world. The District of Columbia is one of America's
preeminent tourist destinations, and consequently there is a
perfect synergy between what the Congress and the District of
Columbia want when tourists come to the city to visit historic
sites. As a result, I spend far more time than most members on
Federal monuments and structures here.
Our Subcommittee will have a hearing on the Smithsonian
which is passing through a particularly troubled period and on
the John F. Kennedy Center on June 15th, 2007, and I will
shortly introduce a bill for revision and expansion of the
National Mall.
The visitors center idea began to take shape long before I
came to Congress, in 1966, when the former Public Works
Committee, now the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
passed P.L. 89-790. For years, many had remarked about the
spectacle of members hosting school and other groups on the
steps of the Capitol or constituents waiting in the heat of the
summer or the cold of the winter to enter the Capitol as well
as the lack of meeting space of even space to stand comfortably
and speak to a group of constituents.
P.L. 89-790 was a simple page and a half bill that directed
a ``full and complete investigation and study of sites and
plans to provide facilities and services for visitors and
students coming to the Nation's Capitol.''
The hearing record quotes then Vice President Hubert
Humphrey who said, ``No city in the world treats its visitors
with such shabby indifference.'' I assure he was referring to
the Capital and not the District of Columbia then.
The record from May, 1966 reflects many ideas about where
to put the center including the Botanic Gardens, the west front
of the Capitol or in the vicinity of the Capitol grounds. The
record is filled with testimony brimming with enthusiasm for
the concept and the uses of a national visitors center.
The law was amended several times to accommodate the
acquisition of land, authorize certain leases and even become
the vehicle for the rehabilitation of Union Station, and that
was completed and is beautiful. That was P.L. 97-125.
The need for the current center continued to grow, but
nothing moved forward. In 1998, following the first shooting
death of Capitol police officers in the Nation's history, I
believed that finally security, not merely convenience, would
make Congress want to focus on a visitors center.
Less than a week later, I introduced H.R. 4347, the Jacob
Joseph Chestnut-John Michael Gibson United States Capitol
Visitors Center Act of 1998. The bill provided for enhanced
security within the Capitol grounds and for an appropriate
place to welcome our constituents, taking into account their
health and comfort. Included in the bill was a provision, that
I note with some irony today, requiring the Architect to
``identify alternatives for construction of the Capitol
Visitors Center that will reduce the costs of construction.''
Now, 40 years after the original proposal, we finally are
on the verge of realizing what was called in 1966 a ``building
of magnificent opportunity for education in its broadest and
most attractive sense.''
This Subcommittee is not much interested in fighting the
last war over what went wrong with the CVC construction
program. Speaking for the host city, not to mention most
members of Congress, we simply want to make sure the new
structure works. The CVC cannot live on beauty alone. Entirely
fresh thinking about transportation, access and security are
necessary.
How will the transportation plan enable visitors to arrive
at the center with minimum hassle, fresh and ready to reap the
benefits of a visit or a tour?
How will security plans balance the important goals of
maintaining an open and accessible Capitol while moving
visitors quickly into the center and ensuring the highest
security for one of the world's most strategic open facilities?
Considering the funds, design and craft that have gone into
the CVC, we are also interested in the management of the
facility by the Architect of the Capitol, charged with the
maintenance of the CVC and the main Capitol Building.
Washington is not only one of the world's most beautiful
cities; the District of Columbia is the central locus of our
democracy and those principles and ideas we cherish and others
to which we aspire.
Every year visitors come from every State in the Union and
virtually every country in the world. Individuals and groups
walk through and around the Capitol to learn firsthand how
democracy is achieved. The new CVC will itself be a learning
experience in democracy if it is run with the same grace its
beauty conveys.
I want to now ask the Ranking Member if he has an opening
statement he would like to make.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Madam Chairman. As a part of my
opening remarks, let me express my gratitude and admiration to
and for you for your tireless, passionate and, when necessary,
relentless pursuit on behalf of the citizens of Washington, DC.
Unfortunately, I don't know all the members of the
audience, but as an example, I would like to thank Chief Morse.
With the exception of Chairman, others of us who serve here are
guests in the city. Please let me extend my thanks and
gratitude to the Chief, our firefighters and all the other
wonderful servants that make up the infrastructure of
Washington, D.C. and make it such a hospital place.
Your comments are very well made. People come from all over
this Country and others with excitement and anticipation about
seeing the Capitol, and I think for the most part they leave
with enthusiasm and optimism and awe as to what the Founding
Fathers have done on their behalf.
So, on behalf of Chairman Mica who unfortunately could not
be here today and Ranking Member Graves, thank you for letting
me sit in on your Committee.
I know Ranking Member Mica has a longstanding interest in
the Capitol Visitors Center. He followed this project closely
since he first introduced legislation authorizing construction
of the visitors center in the early 1990s. In fact, this
Subcommittee held the first and only legislative hearings in
1995 and 1998 on the visitors center project prior to its
authorization.
Ranking Member has asked me to read his opening statement
for the record on the Capitol Visitors Center, and I am happy
to fill in for him today and express his views.
As the visitors center nears completion, we believe it is
important for the Committee to reassert its jurisdiction over
the project. The Capitol Visitors Center is one of the most
significant projects undertaken by the Office of the Architect
of the Capitol since the extension to the Capitol and the dome
were built more than 140 years ago. CVC is the largest addition
in the history of the Capitol Building and presents a 75
percent increase in the total size of the Capitol.
While some have been critical of the expanded costs and
timeline over the original estimates, there are clear reasons
for both increases. First, the project scope increased
dramatically after Capitol Police Officers Chestnut and Gibson
were killed in the line of duty and then again after the 9/11
and anthrax attacks. Each incident led to increases in the
project size and security measures. In fact, there have been
over 2,000 change orders since the project began.
Fortunately, the project was revised to incorporate a
number of important security and life-safety upgrades that will
protect the public against explosives, chemical and biological
attack, fire and other hazards. For example, redesigning the
project to contain rather than spread a chemical or biological
agent through the Capitol was a complicated and expensive
undertaking. These modifications to the original design account
for almost $200 million of additional costs to the 1998
authorized level.
Other changes include numerous utility upgrades and the
decision to finish the House and Senate expansion space now
instead of finishing them 10 or 15 years later. While this
decision added to the total cost, it saved tens of millions of
dollars in the long run. The old adage, you get what you pay
for, applies to the Capitol Visitors Center, and the American
people are getting far more than originally proposed and
considered necessary before the September 11th and anthrax
attacks.
With the departure of Alan Hantman, the Architect of the
Capitol, much of the visitors center senior management team
were entering a vulnerable phase of the project. CVC is an
extremely large and complicated project. It is important this
Committee follow the project closely over the next year.
Once the CVC is completed, the question will be: How do we
govern and operate the visitors center? Particularly, this
hearing was called to look at access, security and facilities
management as they related to the CVC. It is important to
determine how the House and Senate will govern the CVC in the
future so that it is administered for its original purpose, to
improve the public's experience of the Capitol and American
democracy.
Madam Chairman, I do have questions to submit for the
record and, without further adieu, again thank you Madam Chair
for holding this hearing.
Ms. Norton. I thank you, Mr. Hayes, for being such a worthy
and able acting Ranking Member today.
I know our Ranking Member had other business, and he is
very interested in this matter. Indeed, at our first hearing,
he indicated that the Subcommittee had always had jurisdiction
here, that there had not been oversight hearings, and he
indicated a special interest in this very area.
I would like to welcome the first panel.
Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Walz. We have another member here, and
I would like to ask if he has anything he would like to say at
this time.
Mr. Walz of Minnesota, thank you.
I would like then to welcome the first two witnesses on the
first panel: Stephen Ayers, the Acting Architect of the
Capitol, who had been Deputy Architect and Chief Operating
Officer, and Bernard Ungar who is the Director of Physical
Infrastructure.
You may proceed, Mr. Ayers.
TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN T. AYERS, AIA, ACTING ARCHITECT OF THE
CAPITOL AND DEPUTY ARCHITECT/CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, UNITED
STATES CONGRESS; BERNARD L. UNGAR, DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON,
DC.
Mr. Ayers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and good morning,
Congressman Hayes. Thank you for this opportunity to update you
on the progress of the Capitol Visitors Center project. We
certainly appreciate the interest you have taken in the
project, and we appreciate the fact that the Chairwoman
recently toured the CVC.
As you know, the Capitol Visitors Center project is quite
complex and has received much attention since construction
began in 2002. When you are building a 580,000 square foot
facility underground, adjacent to the United States Capitol, it
is difficult to ignore. However, when it is completed, the CVC
will provide a place for people to learn about our Capitol and
our government and the Congress, provide a secure environment
to welcome visitors and protect the Capitol Building and the
many people that work and visit here every day.
When I assumed the duties of Acting Architect in February,
construction was 88 percent complete and numerous critical path
milestones were missed monthly. One of my first actions was to
direct the project team to reevaluate the project schedule to
ensure that it was realistic and to include risk and
uncertainty.
By April, the project team had updated the master project
schedule to incorporate these risks and uncertainties,
particularly with regard to the time needed to integrate the
fire alarm, life-safety and security systems into the building
systems in general. It is important to note that since the
completion of this schedule reassessment, for the third month
in a row, all critical path activities have been met as
scheduled. This is the first time in the history of this
project that that has happened.
With construction now 95 percent compete and $4.5 million
of work put in place every month, major construction activities
will start winding down this summer. The tasks now left to do
largely involve the aesthetics and functionality of the space
such as painting and installation of carpet, lighting fixtures
and hand railings as well as the tie-in of all the building
systems.
The final and most complex challenges ahead are the
acceptance testing of the fire, security and life-safety
systems and commissioning of the sophisticated building
systems. The final testing of the fire and life-safety systems
is scheduled to begin this fall. While risks remain, our
expectation continues to be that a certificate of occupancy can
be issued in June of 2008.
With regard to the commissioning of building systems, air
balancing of all of the air handlers must be complete before
the fire marshal can commence testing of the smoke control
systems. At this time, all but one of the CVC's 23 air handling
units are available for operation. Rough balancing has been
completed in several of the public areas including the great
hall, the food service area, exhibition gallery and orientation
theaters, and final balancing will continue after the
contractor's smoke testing.
Madam Chairwoman, with regard to the day to day operation
of the CVC, when the House and Senate leadership assigned the
management of the CVC operations and administration to the
Architect of the Capitol in mid-May, we immediately stood up a
support team that has begun working to transition the CVC from
a construction project to a fully staffed and equipped visitor
services operation. With our consulting team from JM Zell
Partners, we are working on areas such as administration, food
service, gift shops, information technology and exhibits.
One of our top priorities is to recruit a Chief Executive
Officer for Visitor Services. Once this person is hired, other
staffing of CVC operations can begin. I am pleased to report
that the interview process for the CEO of Visitor Services has
begun, and we have already begun to hire staff on the facility
maintenance side in the Capitol Superintendent's Office. In
addition, the CVC food service contract was awarded, effective
May 31st of this year.
Other operational issues that we will be working with
Congressional leadership on include an advanced reservation
system, developing a CVC web site, stocking and staffing gift
shops and reaching out to the community, tour industry,
business groups with a public information campaign, just to
name a few.
As I mentioned earlier, most of the remaining work on the
construction site involves installation of finished materials
throughout the site. Light fixture installation has begun in
the great hall; carpet installation continues in the House and
Senate expansion spaces; exhibit case components are being
placed inside the exhibition hall; and millwork is nearly
complete on both levels of the Congressional auditorium.
In addition, in the House expansion space, the stone work
in the hearing room is progressing well and should be done this
month. Work in the radio and TV gallery space is expected to be
finished in July. The ongoing carpet installation in the House
Intelligence Committee space marks the near completion of that
area as well.
Outside, the 12-foot tall bronze entrance doors have been
installed in the CVC's north and south entrances. The cab
components for the exterior elevators are being installed on
the east front, and the grounds are being readied for sod and
other plantings following the installation of an irrigation
system.
Madam Chairwoman, we are committed to getting the CVC
project finished as quickly as possible. This is my top
priority and the top priority for this organization. At this
time, we are on track to meet our scheduled June 2008 date to
receive a certificate of occupancy. Nonetheless, we recognize
that the project continues to face risks and uncertainties and
are instituting additional steps to increase our focus on
meeting our scheduled completion dates. We will continue to
closely monitor the progress of the building systems
commissioning and the fire and life-safety system testing to
mitigate potential delays.
We look forward to working with Congressional leadership as
we begin staffing the operations and effectively and seamlessly
working to transition the CVC from a construction project to a
fully equipped visitor services operation.
That concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much for that testimony, Mr.
Ayers.
Mr. Ungar, I know you are here to assist Mr. Ayers. Is
there anything you would like to say concerning the project at
this time?
Mr. Ungar. Madam Chair, I would just like to echo Mr.
Ayers' statement that we are on track right now to meet our
current completion dates. I think it is going to be a challenge
for us. It is an uphill battle but so far, so good. We are
going to be focusing a lot of attention from this point forward
on meeting the schedule dates, and we have a series of actions
underway that are aimed toward that.
Ms. Norton. Both of you have mentioned completion dates. In
your testimony, Mr. Ayers, it is interesting you left out the
words, I think, June, 2008. You said we are on track to meet
our completion date, but the testimony says June, 2008. Is that
the date that you are committed to opening the Capitol Visitors
Center?
Mr. Ayers. Madam Chairwoman, that is the date we are
committed to issuing a certificate of occupancy. After we issue
that certificate of occupancy, we expect there will be two to
three months of ramp-up period and training period as the
operations team shakes out the bugs in the day to day operation
of the space which will enable an opening in September, 2008.
That opening date is really a Congressional decision, but we
think it will be available for opening in September, 2008.
Ms. Norton. I think you can depend on Congress not to delay
the date you would like it open, Mr. Ayers.
So you are saying September, 2008 is when we can expect the
center to be prepared to receive the first visitors would
Congress agree?
Mr. Ayers. Correct, yes ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Now who issues the certificate of occupancy?
Mr. Ayers. The Architect of the Capitol's fire marshal does
that.
Ms. Norton. The fire marshal for the Architect of the
Capitol, is that the fire marshal only for the Architect for
the Capitol? He works entirely in the Capitol?
Mr. Ayers. In the Capitol Complex, yes ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Your testimony indicates something of a new day
because you talk about meeting critical path schedules. You
have already done so for fire, life-safety, security systems.
By the way, Mr. Ayers, I note that you are not only an
architect but you have an MBA. I don't know if that has been
relevant in all of this. I know well of Mr. Ungar's long work
in the Federal Government on management issues and on getting
thing done. But I would like to know why the CVC is meeting
critical schedule dates now and not in the past.
Mr. Ayers. Well, I think, Madam Chairwoman, that in
November of this year, the Architect developed an action plan
to refocus efforts of the Architect staff as well as our
construction management.
Ms. Norton. Hadn't there been an action plan all along?
Mr. Ayers. No, ma'am. That action plan was developed in
November, and really I think the sustained implementation of
that action plan.
Ms. Norton. How do you build something? Pardon my
ignorance, if it is not an action plan, what is it that makes
people know they have to meet certain critical dates?
Mr. Ayers. Well, I think this event in November was a
refocus and a recommitment to schedule, and we have applied
that consistent pressure.
Ms. Norton. How was this done?
I am just trying to find out the before and after. If there
was not an action plan before, but everyone had believed that
certain things would take place on certain dates, what is the
difference between what is happening now and what happened
before?
Mr. Ayers. Bernie?
Mr. Ungar. Madam Chairwoman, let me explain a little bit, a
little history about myself because I have to wear two hats
here. Up until two weeks ago, I worked for the GAO, and I had
responsibility for helping to monitor and oversee the project.
About two weeks, I shifted hats.
Ms. Norton. Now say that again, so that is clear. You had
responsibility for?
Mr. Ungar. Assisting GAO in helping Congress monitor and
oversee.
Ms. Norton. In short, Congress put the GAO on this project
because it was so concerned about the failure to meet critical
dates. You were the head man in charge of monitoring, and they
decided that they needed the monitor to help them do it?
Mr. Ungar. Well, unfortunately, AOC ran into a little bit
of a problem. The previous project executive, who had been here
for about three years, retired. The person who was helping him
at AOC took over, and unfortunately he had some health
problems. So AOC was in a little bit of a bind.
I had been involved in this project, helping to oversee it
for a decade or almost a decade anyway, so I was asked to come
and assist Mr. Ayers and the rest of the team just recently.
But what I was going to explain was that in the history of
the project, it had been consistently experiencing a number of
schedule slippages, schedule extensions since the project
construction began for a variety of reasons. One of those
reasons Mr. Ayers alluded to was the project consistently had
in place what we would call either overly optimistic or
unrealistic schedules for a number of reasons and, at least in
GAO's view, there hadn't been sufficient emphasis on schedule
achievement.
There are a number of other factors that were involved in
resulting in some of the delays, many of which were
noncontrollable.
Ms. Norton. Isn't it true that there were stop orders when
members of Congress or others in their names asked for
additions or changes in the CVC for which the AOC would not
have been responsible?
Mr. Ungar. Somewhat; not quite exactly as you mention,
Madam Chairwoman. What happened was when the project was
originally designed, at least in the terms of the 1999 design,
efforts were starting to move forward to get the construction
documents ready. As that was happening, we had the unfortunate
incidents take place in 2001 with the 9/11 and then following
that, the anthrax. As a result of those incidents while the
construction documents and so forth were being done, Congress
did ask for a number of changes to the facility.
Ms. Norton. So were the dates changed? When Congress asked
for these changes which had not been scheduled the dates were
set, were new action plans of one kind or another put in place
to achieve those changes with a later date?
Mr. Ungar. Unfortunately, not.
What happened back in that time period, the major changes
came up. There was a target date at that point in time of
having the facility ready for the inauguration in 2005. I think
one of the biggest lessons learned. I think everybody would
agree now. It would have been much more helpful if everybody
would have stood up at that point in time and said, we are
happy to make these changes, but we can't do it in the January,
2000 timeframe.
Unfortunately, that recognition didn't happen for a long
period of time. In fact, there were a number of factors that
delayed the project, and it wasn't until Mr. Ayers came on
board as the Acting Architect that he decided that the schedule
would incorporate what we call risks and uncertainties to help
account for some of these things that have been.
Ms. Norton. In construction work today, incentive payments
are often used. Perhaps people read that I guess it was the Bay
Bridge was just opened in no time flat because of an incentive
payment. I believe incentive payments are probably being used
for the new Nationals baseball stadium. Anybody in business
figures out, particularly if you must get something done on
time, that there are ways to get it done.
Was any kind of incentive payment device every used or
considered for the CVC?
Mr. Ayers. Yes, madam Chairwoman. There are incentives
built into the CVC contract, and that has been a new concept
for us.
Ms. Norton. I take it nobody has been able to take a
payment as a result of this incentive to finish on time.
Mr. Ayers. Well, they have. Finishing on time and on
schedule is only one part of the incentive. The incentive
package is built upon quality, schedule, cost, their adherence
to small business concerns as well as their closeout. So there
are seven different incentive evaluation periods throughout the
contract.
Ms. Norton. Is that incentive to finish in September--what
is that date--2008?
Mr. Ayers. Go ahead, Bernie.
Mr. Ungar. Madam Chair, no, there is not right now. We have
a very difficult situation. The official contract completion
date was September of 2006 which is long past unfortunately,
and we are in the process now of trying to work with our major
contractor for Sequence 2 to see if we can come up with a firm
contract completion date that reflects the time periods that
Mr. Ayers spoke about.
October of 2006, we were trying to shoot for substantial
completion and final completion in June of 2008. Also, we are
considering whether an incentive would be appropriate at this
point in time, but we need to work that out.
Ms. Norton. Because it may be too late for an incentive?
Mr. Ungar. Well, it may be. We are trying to work with our
procurement team and our legal team to see whether or not at
this point in time that would be the most appropriate way to
go.
Ms. Norton. You say that there have been incentive
payments, and you say, yes, they have met something and they
have been paid.
I mean I have to ask you. Do you think that the kind of
incentive that has been used at the Nationals, albeit divided
into various parts, taking in consideration unanticipated
matters, was that kind of incentive payment used or promised up
front and would it have been useful if it was not promised up
front?
Mr. Ayers. Certainly, incentives are useful, I think.
Ms. Norton. I am talking about this Capitol Visitors Center
now. I know they are useful. I am saying on this center, was
there an overall incentive payment used such as being used in
other complicated facilities and, if not, would that have been
a useful thing to do?
Mr. Ayers. There were incentive payments used on this
particular contract.
Ms. Norton. I am asking to complete the job. You have got a
general contractor.
I am asking when you are doing the Bay Bridge and the city
says it has just got to happen or the Nationals have to open on
time because tickets are being sold, then there is an incentive
payment, and in the beginning you say, hey, fellas, here it is.
You compete on the basis of it. You compete for the job on the
basis of it. Of course, you get it at the end if you achieve
the result promised in the contract.
That is what I am talking about. I am not talking about
bits and pieces of incentives, and I appreciate that they have
been offered. I am trying to figure out if we have a new
center, if we have gone through this, and I don't think we will
go through anything quite this large again. I am trying to
figure out what would have been the better way to do it. I am
trying to apply modern construction devices and incentives to
this job, and so I am talking about the incentive I am talking
about.
I am not talking about generic incentives.
Mr. Ungar?
Mr. Ungar. Yes, ma'am. You are right. The problem that we
had----
Ms. Norton. Please put on your GAO hat for a moment.
Mr. Ungar. I am. Yes, I will put on both hats here. It is a
little tough.
Looking back, clearly the incentive that Mr. Ayers talked
about was what they call a balanced scorecard. It involves
several different factors that we were striving, the AOC was
striving to achieve. Unfortunately, the schedule incentive was
not given sufficient emphasis in my view and the amount or the
percent of the incentive.
Ms. Norton. What was not? I am sorry.
Mr. Ungar. The way the incentive was worded, it was tied to
certain general factors about having a schedule and following
up on the schedule. It really wasn't zeroed in on a specific
completion date.
Ms. Norton. Deadline dates.
Mr. Ungar. A deadline date. Now, the problem, even if it
had been, first of all, I think it would have been better if it
had been. But even if it had been, there have been so many
changes to the project that weren't the contractor's fault. It
would have been very tough to have used that. But I think from
this point forward, if something could be worked out, it would
be much more effective.
The other aspect was the total amount of money was $1.2
million. In relation to the whole contract amount, it wasn't a
huge amount, but the contractor nevertheless tells us that as a
symbol of being able to say that yes, the contractor received
the award fee, it was an incentive.
Ms. Norton. I appreciate what you are saying. Precisely
because you are dealing within an appropriation, the incentive
might have been an interesting idea, and I understand precisely
what you are saying about the changes that occurred. But it
must be said that the Architect has been drawn and quartered,
and very little has come out into the public sphere about how
this project was structured from the beginning and about the
unanticipated changes that had to be made.
An incentive payment up front which said, okay, now. I
learned, for example, that there were things under the Capitol
nobody expected because nobody has been under there in a
zillion years. Now we have gotten this unexpected and that
unexpected.
If the Architect's Office is entirely forthcoming, does not
wait until appropriation time and if there had been oversight,
if I may so, by this Committee as there had been in the past--
this is the Committee that processed all of the convention
center plans in the past--then I think those things would have
been caught. But the poor Architect had to wait until the
appropriation time or until the appropriator set a hearing
because that was the only oversight, and of course, thank
goodness for them.
But then, of course, it was all critical time, and we
didn't quite understand whether or not this was simply
incompetence or malfeasance, indeed to hear the way it is
described on the part of the Architect of the Capitol, or if
the structuring of the job in the beginning was faulty.
Everybody was going under a capitol that nobody had been under
since the thing was built, and I don't think anybody had been
under the grounds where the visitors center is coming into.
And so, we see a lot of ``gotcha'' kind of hearings which
are very easy to do on a construction project. I say that as
the member who oversees courts and the rest. Some of that is
deserved, but I don't think it is entirely fair if one
understands what has taken place over time and who indeed asked
for the changes.
Where I fault the Architect's Office is in transparency.
You know if there is not a hearing being called, you don't have
to wait for a hearing to be called.
I remember when I was in the chair of an agency of the
Federal Government. The first thing I did was to ask for an
oversight hearing. I think if agencies of the government are in
the habit of coming forward and saying there is some
information that staff needs or that the public needs rather
than waiting for a hearing to be called, asking for a hearing,
I think we would be in better shape.
Now, I have gone down this week and I was very impressed
with what I saw. It is very elaborate. Have there been any
complaints about how elaborate it is?
Mr. Ayers. No, ma'am. I have not heard any complaints.
Ms. Norton. Well, the reason I think that there hasn't been
is that you have got to have a visitors center in keeping with
the majesty of the Capitol itself. You can't just have
something down there for people to run through on their way to
the Capitol. So I think it has been done with great taste, and
I think that a lot of the criticism will go away, albeit if
much of it deserved, once it is open.
Now, I note that the center has 580,000 square feet which
is considerably larger than my bill contemplated, I must say.
What got the center to be so large and do you think that can be
justified?
Mr. Ayers. Well, certainly, I think as you pointed out in
your opening remarks that there was a design that was already
completed in the early to mid-1990s, after the two officers
were shot in 1998. Then in 1999, the first appropriation was
received, and as part of that appropriation, there was a
revalidation study of the previous design work that led up to
that. That was the first order of business.
In that revalidation study, the Architect and our designers
worked with the Capitol Preservation Commission to update the
design, and as part of that process and in consultation with
the Capitol Preservation Commission, that is how the facility
became 580,000 square feet.
Ms. Norton. Did you plan all along to have the hearing
room, for example, and the meeting rooms, Mr. Ungar?
Mr. Ungar. Ma'am, I think the basic structure of the
facility was planned. The House and Senate expansion spaces,
the shells for that, the basic excavation and the shell for the
facility were part of the original 1999 design.
Ms. Norton. What was part? I am sorry.
Mr. Ungar. The basic 580,000 were part of the 1999 design,
and the House and Senate, the shells, the digging, the
excavation and the walls and the roof, that was part of the
basic 1999 design. That was, I believe, added in 1999.
The hearing room, as I recall, came afterward, the request
on the House side.
Ms. Norton. That was a request from the Congress.
Mr. Ungar. Yes, the hearing room, correct. I don't believe
it was originally slated to be hearing room.
Ms. Norton. I am not complaining. We don't have enough
hearing rooms. But that wasn't included in the original cost or
the original space.
Mr. Ungar. Right.
Ms. Norton. Now, the auditorium was included.
Mr. Ungar. Yes, that was in the $265 million, correct.
Ms. Norton. And the meeting rooms were all included?
Mr. Ungar. Yes.
Ms. Norton. What has been added is only the big hearing
room?
Mr. Ungar. Well, there had been some others going back from
1995, the design. The 1999 design added to the size. For
example, the exhibit hall was originally about 3,000 square
feet, and now it is roughly 16,000 square feet.
So what happened in 1999, there was an assessment or at
least a reassessment of the security aspects of the facility
and the aspects of the facility that were supposed to provide
an enhanced visitor experiences and comfort and education. So,
as a result of all of those factors, the design changed in 1999
and some things were added.
Mr. Ayers. I think the tunnel to the Library of Congress
was added, the 170,000 square feet.
Ms. Norton. The tunnel to the Library of Congress in
particular?
Mr. Ungar. Yes.
Mr. Ayers. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. As opposed to is there a tunnel to the Congress
itself? Oh, yes, I guess that is a tunnel to the Capitol.
Mr. Ayers. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Tell me about why the tunnel to the Library of
congress was added.
Mr. Ayers. That was added at the request of the Congress.
Similarly, the 170,000 square feet of expansion space on the
House and Senate side was added.
Ms. Norton. Expansion space, meaning what? I am sorry.
Mr. Ayers. Those are the meeting rooms.
Ms. Norton. The meeting rooms, all right.
Mr. Ayers. Yes.
Mr. Ungar. The House and Senate.
Mr. Ayers. The House and Senate meeting rooms.
Ms. Norton. For both sides.
Mr. Ayers. Yes.
Ms. Norton. That was added, and Congress asked for that
afterwards, and Congress asked for a tunnel to the Library of
Congress.
Mr. Ayers. Right.
Ms. Norton. Of course, tunneling is very expensive.
Mr. Ayers. Correct.
Ms. Norton. So it would be interesting, and some day
somebody is going to total up how much of the expense was due
to requests from Congress and how much of the expense was due
to the construction itself.
Mr. Ungar. We can tell you that now, Madam Chair, of the
estimated cost of the project, currently. The current estimated
cost to complete the project which has not been updated for the
last several months, but the current estimated cost by GAO is
around $592 million. That was made in November of 2006, so it
hasn't been updated. But of that cost, half was due to
Congressionally-directed scope changes.
Ms. Norton. You are saying it doubled because of?
Mr. Ungar. No, it didn't; half.
Ms. Norton. Oh, half of the cost.
Mr. Ungar. Half of the increase.
Ms. Norton. Half of the increase, okay.
Mr. Ungar. Right, and there are other factors accounting
for the remainder of it.
Ms. Norton. That deserves analysis as to what it did if
only because whatever is the next project, we will have learned
from this mammoth one.
Let me move on to two more issues. One is the Chief
Executive Officer, and the other is the all important
transportation and security issue.
Now, the reason I move to Chief Executive Officer is
because it depends now on how it operates. Members of Congress
will glorify in the building, but they will be particularly
interested in are there sufficient guides to get people through
the building, as I don't think there are today. Is there
somebody in charge who knows how to run a visitors center in
particular?
You say that you have begun interviewing. What kind of
skills are you looking for in the Chief?
This is a statutory provision that says that there shall be
a Chief Executive Officer responsible for the operation and
management of the Capitol Visitors Center. So the Congress
foresaw that you need a heavyweight to make sure this thing
runs smoothly.
Mr. Ayers. Yes, ma'am, and we are looking for someone that
has a great deal of experience in visitor service and museum
type business at the high volume level, sort of 10,000 visitors
per day, that kind of experience.
Ms. Norton. Is that what you expect for our visitors
center?
Mr. Ayers. It would be more than that.
Ms. Norton. What do you expect daily on the average for our
Capitol Visitors Center?
Mr. Ayers. It could be 15,000 a day.
Ms. Norton. It will probably attract more than usual
because it is new.
Mr. Ayers. Yes, ma'am. We do expect our ongoing attendance
to be about three million a year. I think visitors to the
Capitol today are about a million and a half a year. We expect
that with the visitors center to go to three million a year and
first year attendance to possibly be even more than that.
So in terms of the skills we are looking for, certainly
someone that has high volume visitor experience, someone that
has managed restaurants and catering business and gift shops
and retail centers.
Ms. Norton. You will have a gift shop there.
Mr. Ayers. Yes, ma'am. We will have two gift shops.
Ms. Norton. Rather than upstairs where we have that cute
little thing we have upstairs now.
Mr. Ayers. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Is that going to disappear by the way, the one
upstairs, or will there still be something upstairs?
Mr. Ayers. The one upstairs in the crypt is operated by the
Capitol Historical Society.
Ms. Norton. I see.
Mr. Ayers. That will go away.
As well, of course, we are looking for a great
communicator.
Ms. Norton. Will the Capitol Historical Society operate the
one in the visitors center?
Mr. Ayers. No, ma'am. That will be operated by the
Architect of the Capitol.
Finally, we are looking for a great communicator, someone
that can work with members and work with visitors. A visionary
leader and a motivator, I think, are some of the basic skills
of this person.
Ms. Norton. Who will make the final selection?
Mr. Ayers. The Architect of the Capitol will make the
selection. We certainly won't do that in a vacuum, and we will
coordinate with oversight and the Capitol Preservation
Commission in that final selection, but ultimately the decision
rests with the Architect.
Ms. Norton. When I visited, I saw where there will be a
restaurant and the like, and I was assured that to keep staff
from converting it into a McDonald's that there would be no
takeout because they would be running down to get takeout, and
I appreciate that. As much as we need more food service here, I
think that is appropriate.
But I had understood that you are awarding the food service
contract to Restaurant Associates. Is that true and was that
done through a competitive process?
Mr. Ayers. Yes, ma'am, that is true. We have awarded that
contract to that company.
Ms. Norton. Was it a competitive process?
Mr. Ayers. Yes, ma'am, it was competitive.
Ms. Norton. They won it based on quality as well as the
other?
Mr. Ayers. Quality.
Ms. Norton. This is a sit-down restaurant, right?
Mr. Ayers. Yes, ma'am, it is. There were extensive
proposals by several companies. Restaurant Associates offered
the best value to the Government. There was extensive food
tasting at all of our vendors, and overall they offered the
best value for the Government.
Ms. Norton. Is there any small or disadvantaged business
component in this contract?
Mr. Ayers. No, ma'am, there is not.
Ms. Norton. What is the minority participation,
disadvantaged business participation and participation on the
construction project?
Mr. Ayers. I would have to answer that for the record. I
don't know the statistics on that.
Ms. Norton. You don't have any idea how many minority
workers have helped to build this project?
Mr. Ayers. No, ma'am, I don't.
Ms. Norton. Well, I can't believe then that you don't know.
That ought to be off the top of your head, Mr. Ayers.
Mr. Ungar?
Mr. Ungar. Ma'am, I don't know the number of actual
workers, but we can get for you the number of subcontractors.
That is a requirement of the major general contract for that
contractor to affirmatively engage minority contractors and
others.
Ms. Norton. I appreciate that. So that would include
disadvantage business contractors as well as others. Please,
within 30 days, have that information.
Mr. Wynn and I, Mr. Al Wynn and I from Maryland met
extensively with the Architect just as his work was beginning
because this is a region, a huge region with abundant black and
Hispanic construction workers. Mr. Wynn was equally interested
in the small business component. I was interested perhaps more
in the construction component if I were to put it at a slightly
higher level because that is where we were then. We were in
construction.
We haven't met since those early meetings, and so it is a
matter of some considerable importance. If I may so, it is a
matter of sentimental importance to some of us. The Capitol
itself was built with slave labor, slaves hired out by their
masters who then, of course, received the monetary benefit, by
free black labor and, of course, by white immigrants to this
city. It was, in a real sense, built with the diversity of
America as it was then.
The Subcommittee and the full Committee would be most
interested in knowing, and we need to know now what the
minority contracting and minority participation in construction
was.
I must say that when I went downstairs, I saw a fair number
of minority workers, and I was pleased to see that. That is why
I am surprised that you can come to a hearing where you knew I
was Chair without some information on that. So I would like to
have that information within 30 days.
Mr. Ungar. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Let me move to transportation and security
which, of course, are somewhat intertwined. The Sergeant at
Arms and the Chief of Police came to see me recently to brief
me on how buses are going down near the Botanic Gardens around
that circle where visitors come. No visitors would be on First
Street.
You will not find me asking for visitors on First Street.
That is totally inappropriate. First Street borders one of the
District's most graceful residential communities. We would
destroy it by making it a thoroughfare as we don't now for
these buses, but these buses lurk and they do get in that area.
You are trying to deal with a very tough situation.
What analysis has been done to determine how the
transportation can be done without seriously inconveniencing
visitors who will not be able to get right off of their bus and
go into the visitors center which fronts First Street?
Mr. Ayers. You are absolutely right. I echo that it has to
be seamless and graceful and quick. Otherwise, it just won't
work. We are working with our consultants now, a transportation
consultant, working with the Capitol Preservation Commission,
the Sergeant at Arms and the police right now, looking at all
of those alternatives.
Ms. Norton. How close are we to getting a plan?
Mr. Ayers. I think we are a month, probably two, away from
finalizing the plan.
Ms. Norton. Will there be a hearing and discussion with the
public?
Mr. Ayers. Interesting, I think, many years ago as this
project initially started, there were community meetings and
meetings with the ANCs and CHAMPS and Capitol Hill Historical
Society. I think for the last three or four years, we haven't
had that. I think it is time to do that again as we head
towards operations.
Ms. Norton. I will facilitate that, Mr. Ayers. If you would
work with me, I will facilitate that rather than have people
scream after the fact.
We find that the people who live here, and by the way there
will be people who are very much interested in government.
There are people who are in the transportation industry. There
will be people who deal with tourists and visitors to the city.
What you will find is that, at least for the residents of the
District of Columbia, they do understand the difference in
jurisdictions, that they can't dictate to the Federal
Government or the Congress of the United States.
But open and public hearings where people get an
opportunity to testify, and you have to limit them because you
will get not testimony but testimonials as they go on for a
long time, and you have to say what it is you want to hear. If
what we want to hear are suggestions, you will find that people
who live in the greater region often have suggestions that none
of us would ever have thought about. So if you would work with
me, I would arrange such a public hearing.
Mr. Ayers. I am happy to do that.
Ms. Norton. Are you working with the security officials
directly?
Is there a group that decides this matter or is security
over here and you over there, Mr. Ayers?
Mr. Ayers. Certainly, they are not disparate. You know we
have a great partnership with the Capitol Police. Chief Morse
has made that a priority for himself and his entire command
staff. I have as well. We are great partners in virtually
everything we collectively do.
Of course, I sit on the Police Board with the two Sergeants
at Arms which forces that integration of both the Architect and
the police work. So we are hand in glove in virtually
everything we do.
In terms of the transportation plan specifically, I think
ultimately that is approved, with input from the Police Board,
by the Capitol Preservation Commission.
Ms. Norton. Yes, and I do admire the fact that the Police
Board has on it the Architect and the Sergeant at Arms and, of
course, our police.
I do want to emphasize how important it is, and this
Committee will be very, very concerned and interested as to
whether or not the security plan is done in a group or off with
the security officials.
What is wrong with security in the District of Columbia is
the fact that you are all now, security officials, if my good
friends on the Capitol Police will forgive me, you were cops
before 9/11. The fact is we converted people who were safety
officials, who were safety officers into something that is far
larger and very different, and nobody has had to do the kind of
security we have to do in this Country today. This has been an
open society. We have made huge mistakes.
I have had to fight a one-woman battle just to keep the
District of Columbia open, and sometimes it gets ugly. I had to
threaten to go to the Floor of the House in order to get the
Congress open for visitors after the anthrax scare because
everybody was so timid about letting people in. The anthrax
scare wasn't even in the Capitol. Letting people in the Capitol
and finally we got it open.
But it says that the first instinct, understandably, of a
security official is to think about his mission. This Capitol
has to be open and secure. No one must feel when they go in,
the way they feel now. Only now, only recently have we been
able to get the planters in place, and it still feels like an
armed fortress frankly. You have got to feel that you are still
in the United States of America where you have an open society.
I have a bill that I have continuously introduced. I
introduced it after Pennsylvania Avenue was closed for a
commission to be appointed by the President to have, sitting
around the same table, security officials, military officials,
architects, lawyers, engineers, artists, people who live in the
great society itself and together outline a broad sense of how
security would work in an open society. I think it is most
unfair to say to police, hey, here is the security part of
this; deal with it.
The frivolous closings of Independence Avenue that I
screamed and yelled about, now I am pleased to see we no longer
stop people going to the Capitol, creating huge backlogs of
people to make sure that we are looking at something as if this
were the old German pre-Soviet breakup where you had to pass
through some check as if somehow if you saw the check was there
and you wanted to do something, you wouldn't find your way
around the checkpoint.
That was police officials trying to learn how to be
security officials, and part of it was that they were left by
themselves. The people on our side, including the Congress,
mostly elected officials who are in charge of the open society
were not at the same table with the security officials. We made
some terrible blunders, got people real mad about security.
We are maturing now about security, and I ask particularly
that any security plan be the work of the entire group, not
only the officers whose job it is to have tunnel vision. The
only way to get out of that and to have a balance with security
and openness is to have everybody at the table. Nobody is going
to compromise security for this building. What does get
compromised easily is openness to this building, and that would
be an outrage for the new visitors center.
I would like to ask about the donations. Mr. Ayers, you
mentioned $65 million in private donations for the center. Is
this program still in effect? Are they being received now? Who
administers it? What is the use of these funds, if so?
Mr. Ayers. The Capitol Preservation Fund is still in
existence. They are not actively seeking donations, but
donations can be made to the Capitol Preservation Fund, should
the Capitol Preservation Commission want to accept them. So the
fund is still operating.
Ms. Norton. Have the funds been used at all to offset the
cost the taxpayers have incurred?
Mr. Ayers. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Ungar wants to answer that question.
Mr. Ayers. Sure.
Mr. Ungar. Yes, ma'am. The first $65 million has been
transferred from the fund to the AOC and has been used in the
construction of the facility as intended.
Ms. Norton. That is our good news.
Along with the full Chairman of the Committee, I have
worked on intermodal transportation ideas for Union Station so
the buses would have some place to go. After we are finished
with you, we are going to have to find out where the buses that
can't come on First Street are supposed to then go disappear.
Then they come back. There are no special effects here.
One of the things we worked on was the air rights over
Union Station and transportation or intermodal facility that
would be there. Do you have any knowledge about the intermodal
system? Have you worked with anybody on that issue?
Mr. Ayers. We have certainly talked with the folks at Union
Station, and they do have recently finished construction in
that area for bus parking for up to 85 buses, so that is one of
the alternatives we are currently exploring in our
transportation and bus management plan. We work with them. We
know the Circulator bus routes and are working with all of
those entities to come up with the best plan.
Ms. Norton. That facility will probably require some public
funding. And so we are going to have to move, now that we have
the air rights issue settled, to how indeed we get the
facility, how it is constructed, what mix, if that is what it
is to be, of private and public funds because one of my major
concerns here is that with the increase that you testified to,
Mr. Ayers, of people coming just to see the visitors center if
nothing else, the bus traffic is going to increase. With all
your hard work to make sure that they have some place to go,
there will still be a problem.
One final question on that, you are going to leave people
off. As it now stands, you are going to leave people off down
the hill. Now if you are a race walker like me, you just regard
this as another opportunity for exercise, but besides the
elderly, there will be people with children and the rest. Are
you really prepared to handle the increase in traffic you are
about to have at that facility down on the hill where you wait
in line?
Now you are still having to wait in line to get into the
visitors center? Is that how it is going to be?
Mr. Ayers. Well, I don't think. First, I don't think the
decision to drop off people at that location has been made. On
this plan, there are a variety of alternatives. You could drop
them off at Union Station or other places and have a Circulator
bus or a shuttle bus shuttle people back and forth to the
visitors center. But that basic decision of dropping them off
on First Street West has really not been made.
Ms. Norton. The Circulator will be able to come down First
Street?
Mr. Ayers. I don't think that decision has been made yet.
Ms. Norton. Limited traffic on First Street that was not
tour buses is something that might conceivably be the best
public transportation of the kind so that you don't have more
traffic, much more traffic than you have now could be
conceivable, but one would have to see if that would in fact
also be a lot more bus traffic. But I see what you are saying.
There are a number of ways to do this.
What I have in mind, though, Mr. Ayers is that you have
many people who will not want to walk great distances, and that
is something that has to be considered not only for the elderly
or the disabled but for others as well.
Mr. Ayers. We do understand that. As I think I mentioned
earlier, as well as you, that this transportation and getting
visitors to the front door has to be seamless and graceful and
quick. We can't just drop people off six blocks away and say
you are on your own. We do understand that and are actively
working to include that.
Ms. Norton. Well, fortunately, we have a panel following
you that I think has some information to allay our concerns on
that issue.
I thank you both for the very informative testimony. I look
forward to working with you, Mr. Ayers, on the public hearing
on the transportation plan and continuing to work with you, Mr.
Ungar. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Ayers. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. May I call the next panel?
Chief Phillip Morse who is the Chief of Police for the
United States Capitol Police and Emeka Moneme who is the
Director of our own District of Columbia Department of
Transportation. Mr. Nichols is here accompanying Chief Morse.
Chief Morse, would you begin?
TESTIMONY OF CHIEF PHILLIP D. MORSE, CHIEF OF POLICE, UNITED
STATES CAPITOL POLICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. ACCOMPANIED BY DANIEL
NICHOLS; EMEKA C. MONEME, DIRECTOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, WASHINGTON, DC.
Chief Morse. Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee
today to discuss the planning and preparations United States
Capitol Police has conducted in anticipation of the opening of
the Capitol Visitors Center next year.
In 1998, after Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective John
Gibson were fatally shot in the United States Capitol by an
armed intruder, planning of the Capitol Visitors Center began
in earnest. In fact, Madam Chairwoman, you were one of the
first proponents to reinvigorate the concept of the visitors
center when you introduced H.R. 962 in 1999.
Since that time, the United States Capitol Police has
worked in partnership with the Architect of the Capitol to help
design the CVC in such a manner as to not only enhance and
enrich the visitors' experience but also enhance the security
of the United States Capitol. As the construction of the
facility progresses, it is clear that both goals will be
achieved.
The main advantage that the CVC presents from a security
perspective is the ability for the United States Capitol Police
to conduct security screening of visitors in a state of the art
facility that was designed for that purpose. As we saw in 1998,
the historic and ceremonial entrances of the Capitol were never
intended to support the security screening that is necessary in
today's threat environment. The opening of the CVC with its
entryways, custom design to support security equipment, police
officer positioning and technology to detect and contain
threats, all in a seamless, welcoming environment, will serve
to enhance the visitor experience while mitigating current and
emerging threats.
It should be noted that the U.S. Capitol Police is, in
effect, staffing what equates to a new Federal building that
has a high level security requirement to protect both the
structure and the building occupants. This requirement was
magnified in the aftermath of the September 11th, 2001
terrorist attacks. We have conducted numerous studies to
determine the requisite policing staffing that will provide
optimum law enforcement and security services.
We have also been working closely with the committees of
jurisdiction on this issue. At present, based on the current
hours of operation of the CVC and other operating assumptions
of the facility, we submitted a detailed staffing and budget
plan for consideration and approval. We are currently moving
forward to fill those police positions.
In addition, we are developing a training module for all
U.S. Capitol Police personnel that will familiarize them with
the facility, the life-safety systems and the emergency
response plans. We are also in the process of integrating the
emergency plans of the CVC with those already in place for the
Capitol since the buildings are interconnected.
While the CVC is designed to welcome visitors to the
Capitol, its opening presents a significant logistical
challenge of getting visitors to the main entrance. Prior to
CVC construction and prior to 9/11, commercial tour buses used
to offload and load visitors on the east side of the Capitol.
In peak tourist season, scores of buses would crowd the streets
throughout the Capitol Complex, causing congestion and impeding
traffic flow.
Following the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. Capitol Police took
measures to prevent large trucks from coming into close
proximity to the Capitol and the House and Senate office
buildings. This was done to prevent the introduction of a large
vehicle-borne improvised explosive device into that area and,
if detonated, would result in significant loss of life,
structural damage and disruption of the national legislative
process.
This week, in a measure aimed at enhancing security, plans
were announced to also exclude commercial buses from select
streets within the Capitol Complex. While we have a concern
with large motorcoach type buses due to their load capacity,
this policy will not affect public transit buses or sightseeing
trolleys from continuing to traverse the major thoroughfares
within the Capitol Complex.
It should be noted that this decision was not made in
isolation. As we were developing our security plans, we
conferred with the Capitol Preservation Commission and other
stakeholders so as they could begin exploring alternate methods
of moving visitors from satellite locations to the CVC.
The CPC is actively considering a number of options that
will leverage infrastructure already available near the Capitol
as well as public transportation or public transit vehicles.
One such facility is Union Station which is an intermodal
transportation hub that can support motorcoach parking. Talks
are underway with city officials to explore integrating the
Circulator bus system into the movement of people to and from
the CVC.
Once the CPC decides upon a workable plan that meets the
security criteria and visitor transport needs, recommendations
will be made to the committees of jurisdiction. We look forward
to continuing to work with the CPC, various House and Senate
committees and city officials as these plans are discussed and
implemented. In the interim and even after the CVC opens, tour
buses will be allowed to offload and load passengers on First
Street located on the west side of the Capitol just as they
have done for the past six years while the CVC has been under
construction.
Madam Chairwoman, we understand that bus traffic in the
city does not just affect the Capitol Complex. United States
Capitol Police has always been good neighbors to the
surrounding community, and it is our desire not to displace
problems into the local neighborhoods. Therefore, in order to
offer a security and law enforcement point of view on this
matter, we stand ready to work with the city officials and
other concerned entities to develop a comprehensive bus
management plan for the city that supports tourism and visitor
experience while respecting the quality of life and
environmental concerns of city residents.
We have made great strides in improving security within the
Capitol Complex while balancing the needs of the city, visitors
and the Congress. The opening of the Capitol Visitors Center
will mark the achievement of a long desired goal of creating a
facility that welcomes visitors from across the Nation and
around the world in a modern, safe and secure environment that
complements the grandeur of the United States Capitol.
That concludes my opening statement, and I would be happy
to answer any questions you have, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Nichols, is there any statement that you wanted to
make?
Mr. Nichols. No, ma'am. Should you have any questions, I
will be able to answer whatever you may be interested in. As
always, it is a pleasure to be in front of you today.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Moneme?
Mr. Moneme. Good morning, Chairwoman Norton and members of
the Subcommittee.
I am Emeka Moneme. I am the Director of the District of
Columbia Department of Transportation or better known as DDOT.
I thank you for the opportunity to share a number of the
transportation options DDOT has been developing with others to
serve the residents, workers and visitors of the District of
Columbia.
In particular, my brief remarks will focus on the
Circulator bus service for visitors of the new Capitol Visitors
Center or CVC and the District's vision for the Union Station
intermodal transportation center which is currently being
planned. I would like to run through a few of the short term
action items that we have and some of our long term visions for
the city.
Certainly, millions of families, students, children,
foreign and domestic tourists will flock to the CVC for many
years to come. As the District of Columbia's primary agency for
facilitating a safe and efficient movement of information,
goods and people throughout the District, DDOT was compelled to
begin conceptualizing transportation options for CVC visitors
as the Fall of 2008 opening date comes near.
After analyzing various possibilities, we concluded that
the most feasible transit solution was the Circulator bus. As
you are aware, the Circulator bus service was launched in 2005
and is jointly managed and operated by DDOT and WMATA Metro.
Partially funded by the District of Columbia, the Federal
Government, contributions from local business associations and
fare box revenue, it is really a model public-private
partnership.
Currently, the Circulator offers three routes: the
Georgetown to Union Station route, the Convention Center to the
Southwest Waterfront route and the Smithsonian National Gallery
of Art loop which we also call the Mall loop. Circulator
ridership has steadily increased since 2005. To date, the
Circulator has served 3.5 million riders. Last month, our fleet
served over 200,000 riders, a more than 10 percent increase
over the May, 2006 ridership totals.
Encouraged by this stellar record of service, DDOT has
developed two new Circulator route options to serve the CVC.
The first proposed route is really an extension of an existing
Circulator route. Specifically, DDOT and its partners are
planning an extension of the current Smithsonian National
Gallery of Art loop. The existing route circles the National
Mall on Constitution and Independence between Fourth Street
Northwest and 17th Street Northwest.
The extension will expand the present route eastward to
encompass the U.S. Capitol along with a proposed stop at the
main entrance of the CVC on First Street Northeast. This
expansion would offer a convenient, seamless transit option for
visitors to enjoy the CVC and the numerous sites and activities
along the National Mall.
The second proposed route, and I will direct you to the
exhibit on the easel. The second proposed route DDOT is
developing is a new Union Station-CVC-Navy Yard route that
would also service the new CVC. This new route would substitute
or augment the existing WMATA Metro Bus N22 route. The initial
stop on this line from Union Station would be the CVC. As
planned, this route would offer a direct, frequent, easily
accessible transit link between Union Station and the CVC.
We strongly believe that the success and effectiveness of
this proposed route is contingent upon the reopening of First
Street between Constitution Avenue and C Street, the portion of
First Street that runs between the Russell and Dirksen Senate
Office Buildings. As such, we look forward to continued
dialogue with the U.S. Capitol Police and the Architect of the
Capitol on this matter.
As we anticipate an immediate, steady and extremely large
number of visitors to the CVC upon its opening, I must stress
the importance of implementing these proposed transportation
solutions for the CVC visitors, particularly the transit
services connecting the CVC and Union Station which serves as
the District's primary intermodal transportation center.
A recent Roll Call editorial highlights the need to further
strategize about how we will handle tour bus traffic around the
Capitol and facilitate the movement of visitors in and out of
the CVC. By developing a number of transportation options, DDOT
can reduce the need for tour bus traffic to travel in the
vicinity of the U.S. Capitol Complex.
Now, I would like to speak to some of the broader
transportation solutions we would like for the consideration of
the Committee. Although Union Station is a functioning
transportation hub, it can become a more effective ITC or
intermodal transportation center with upgrades to the existing
facility as well as a potential expansion into the adjacent air
rights. DDOT has been discussing and planning these upgrades
for a number years.
The ITC at Union Station will include improvements such as
a new rail passenger concourse for commuter rail operations,
upgrades to the Amtrak passenger concourse, new pedestrian
connections between Union Station and H Street Northeast,
integration of commercial bus lines such as Greyhound into the
new ITC, expanded tour bus parking opportunities and an
integrated streetcar connectivity into and through the Union
Station site.
Another potential transportation option for CVC visitors is
a Union Station-CVC-Navy Yard corridor streetcar line. This
streetcar line would complement Circulator service and could
offer a direct transit link to the CVC for those traveling on
the WMATA Metrorail. This service is only in the conceptual
phase at this time, but DDOT plans to begins streetcar service
in other parts of the District in 2008, in the Fall of 2008,
and we would like to introduce this potential concept in this
corridor.
So let me end my remarks by highlighting a few critical
points. The development of the Union Station ITC will have a
significant impact on future Circulator service to the CVC.
Tour bus parking accommodations, streetcar integration and
convenient on and off boarding at Union Station will encourage
utilization of the Circulator as a preferred transit option to
the CVC.
Again, I must mention the reopening of First Street between
Constitution and C Street is crucial to the success of the
planned Union Station-CVC-Navy Yard Circulator route and, for
that matter, any direct connection to the CVC from Union
Station.
Third, continuous communication and coordination with the
Architect of the Capitol and the U.S. Capitol Police is a must
to ensure the smooth operation of transit services around the
Capitol.
Finally, securing operational and capital funding is always
challenging, and additional funding is needed to implement
these planned transit service to accommodate CVC visitors.
In conclusion, I thank you for the opportunity to share
DDOT's plans with you. We look forward to working with this
Subcommittee, the Architect of the Capitol, the U.S. Capitol
Police and others that are obviously interested in this matter.
I welcome any questions you may have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Moneme.
Chief Morse, you have just heard Mr. Moneme, and he says on
page three of his testimony that the success and effectiveness
of the proposed route is contingent upon the reopening of First
Street between Constitution Avenue and C Street that runs from
Russell and Dirksen.
Has maturation on how to secure buildings come to the point
that we can at least have public buses run along that route
just as public buses run along, behind and beside virtually
every other public building in this city?
Chief Morse. Yes. We believe that we can work with both the
city and the jurisdictions of authority to make that
recommendation and have that consideration for movement of
people to the CVC. We would certainly work the group, the
Capitol Preservation Commission, the city, the Architect of the
Capitol, the Capitol Police Board, to make that recommendation
and find a resolution to that.
Ms. Norton. That is very, very good news. I do think that
with the technology we now have and we are talking about a
public bus, that that would be a giant step forward. It is a
source of great concern about the impression that we can't
protect the Capitol, that we close a major, one of the widest
streets in the District of Columbia that was not closed for
years afterward, and then when we got this red and yellow thing
going, it was closed.
I recognize. Even though I make fun of where we were and
where we are, I recognize that everybody was learning then, and
I very much appreciate the efforts being made now to revert to
as much openness as is consistent with keeping this place
absolutely secure.
May I ask you, Chief Morse, I note improvements like the
stationing of cars and actual policemen standing on
Independence Avenue--you probably have them on Constitution as
well--as opposed to checkpoints. Am I to take that to mean that
you are to the point where you think that is sufficient rather
than these checkpoints that held up traffic in the past? In the
early days, I will call them.
Chief Morse. We have been able to recently enhance our
security operations regarding truck interdiction, and certainly
we going to improve upon that with other larger vehicles like
commercial bus traffic.
We have been able, with technology and improvements with
physical security, to be able to effect security without
impeding upon the normal traffic flow. We are clearly able to
identify threats in advance and take the appropriate action
without impeding upon normal traffic flow.
Ms. Norton. Do you think a facility at Union Station, Chief
Morse, is critical to the security of the Capitol itself?
Let me back up on that question. I indicated before that
all along Congress had in mind that there would be an
intermodal facility. You have heard Mr. Moneme describe both
short term and long term plans.
Let me just ask you both this question. Now, we know about
Circulator, and I will have a question on the buses later.
Whatever we do with the buses, where will they go now?
Let us say the visitors center were to open on time. You
leave the people off. I know the plans are being devised, but
these buses do not then disappear into the air. You heard the
testimony of the Architect that there may be a doubling of
people coming. Some of them, if we are at all fortunate, will
understand public transportation is the way to get here. But
the buses are likely to come in far greater number.
What will we do with the buses once you devise these
wonderful plans for leaving people off when there is no
facility now?
I understand there is not any now. What will we do with no
intermodal transportation facility for them to go now? What
will we do with them now?
Chief Morse. I think one of the things that was mentioned
is the overall impact of buses throughout the city and how we
can use the current transportation systems that are in place to
alleviate that and make the connectivity. Union Station is a
great intermodal hub. It has parking. It has shelter. It has
amenities that other locations in the city also provide. So it
is important as a part of this plan that we use the public
transportation systems that are currently in place to alleviate
some of the current heavy bus traffic.
Ms. Norton. Chief, I am going to insist that you answer the
question I put. The question I put is the practical question we
all face.
Yes, there will be use of public transportation. Mr. Moneme
has talked about what the city is moving ahead to do. We know
that there is a wonderful subway system. We also know, by the
way, half of the people who come here, the 20 million visitors,
are school children. Many are people brought on buses. I know
that we have plans that the buses can come to First Street. I
know that they can't come beyond the Botanical Garden area.
I want to know what happens to them after that now and what
will happen after that when there will be many more of them,
not about public transportation. I understand that is the sane
way to travel, but you can't do that if you are a kid, a school
kid coming from Pennsylvania.
So I want to know what happens to the buses. Maybe Mr.
Nichols, Chief Nichols can tell us what happens to the buses
now--that will give me some kind of clue--or maybe Mr. Moneme
can tell me what happens to the buses now.
Mr. Nichols. Well, your question actually drives to the
heart of the problem. The problem is that there is no
comprehensive plan and there hasn't been for years. What we
have seen, and you are a resident of Capitol Hill. What we have
seen is that the bus drivers and the bus companies are left to
their own devices because there isn't a comprehensive facility
that has been designated by the city.
Ms. Norton. What that means--I thank you Mr. Nichols--is we
just have to lay this out. Then it will make Congress want to
find a solution.
Mr. Nichols. Exactly, correct.
Ms. Norton. If you go down by the wonderful Mall, nobody
has the nerve to say to the buses, get out of here, because we
don't have any place for them to get. So the Mall is lined with
buses. Now, we are coming to a place where you have to say, get
out of here, and a bus driver who has never been to D.C. has to
figure out, well, where do I go?
Mr. Nichols. Correct.
Ms. Norton. If he dares come into the Capitol Hill
neighborhood, he will get chased out physically.
So now what are we going to do, I guess? What are we going
to do?
Mr. Moneme. Madam Chair, if I could, I think I could sum it
up as the good, the bad and the ugly. I think the good
situation is we have no more than six locations in the city
where we have capacity for buses. A short, quick example is
RFK. The buses can go to RFK.
Ms. Norton. Are we using RFK, Mr. Moneme?
Mr. Moneme. People are using it on occasion, not a lot of
them, not enough of them.
Ms. Norton. So there is no direction to go RFK.
Mr. Moneme. Right.
Ms. Norton. Why doesn't somebody tell somebody to go at
least to those places rather than leaving people to get a
tourist map and find where they are least likely to be chased?
Mr. Moneme. Right. Well, I think the Chief was correct in
terms of there is no structured plan or structured program as
it relates to tour buses. We have locations where we encourage
them to go, but there is nowhere that they are told to go
there.
As I was going through the list, the bad is that they do go
on the Mall where they go places we don't want them. The ugly
is they go into neighborhoods and they park on people's streets
when people leave, and that is when I began to hear about it.
So I think the points are well taken here.
We have sites we can use in the interim, and we should get
them there, but I think that the solution we do want to go to
is one place that can comprehensively hold a majority of the
buses.
Mr. Nichols. I think the other advantage is that, as the
Chief testified earlier, we want to be part of the solution
here. I think everyone has stovepiped this issue in the past,
Madam Chair, and now it is time to get beyond that.
We have reached to DDOT, and we want to work with the other
agencies that are affected by this. National Park Service
certainly has an interest in this and so do the citizens
associations. So it is a new day, and there is an answer out
there. We need to find it. Likely, Union Station will be the
answer.
Ms. Norton. I spoke earlier about the need to have
everybody in on security so people don't yell and scream to the
police when the security plan is done and so that it is, in
fact, balanced. You have at the table here, a very good and
competent District official who is working on the same thing
because this is another of those instances where you have
synergy between the Federal Government and the District of
Columbia.
I have not discerned any group or anybody who is in charge
of this matter. Because it involves both Federal matters and
D.C. matters, I wonder if we could have discussions, perhaps
after this hearing, about getting a similar group or committee
of District officials and security officials here to meet
regularly on these matters. The first thing I would ask you to
do is right now, having nothing to do with the visitors center
at the moment, to develop a plan.
Mr. Moneme says that there are at least six locations where
people go, but of course nobody knows that so they figure it
out for themselves. That happens. That is not Mr. Moneme's
fault. That happens because this is a joint Federal and D.C.
matter, and of course there hasn't been oversight. So these
things don't get out, and citizens complain, and then they are
left with nobody in charge.
If you, Mr. Morse, would meet with Mr. Moneme and within 30
days if you would submit to me the names of a group that will
take responsibility, joint responsibility for the
transportation and bus issues that exist now, that will help us
build into what we need when there is a visitors center and you
have a much more challenging task. If you would get us that
within 30 days, we are open to whatever you decide is the best
way to do it.
All we know is that certainly the actors have to be
District of Columbia officials and Capitol Police. You may say
there must also be other actors. So I am leaving that entirely
to you. I am just asking that you get those names to us and
that you meet and that the first thing you do is develop a plan
for where the buses should go, recognizing that you may not
have enough places now, but Mr. Moneme says there are at least
six places to go, ways to inform bus companies.
We know who the bus companies are who come here, and after
a while the word gets around anyway. Ways to inform them by
written materials, faxes, emails--there is a bus association
that this member works with closely, for example, because of
the District--so that we can say to people there are places to
go and so that we can talk about places that are off limits, so
it is not left to citizens. If you would do that, I think we
would advance not only visitors center transportation but the
existing transportation and security systems, problems we have
now.
Chief Morse. We will do that.
Ms. Norton. Could I ask? The Capitol Police for good and
sufficient reasons, was expanded very substantially after 9/11.
Are there enough police on board to handle the new security
requirements at the CVC?
Chief Morse. Currently, we are filling those positions to
handle that requirement. Currently, we do not have the numbers
to do that, but the Congress has gracious given us the FTE to
fill those positions, and we are currently and actively doing
that.
Ms. Norton. I looked for a huge increase. In fact, you were
increased in ways that the poor Park Police, which a huge area
to cover, didn't get. I am not here saying that should or not
should not be. That is not anything I have any information on
or business in.
But you have not yet looked at whether or not there are
sufficient police on staff now to cover the CVC or whether
there will need to be added Capitol Police?
Mr. Nichols. We did a staffing analysis based upon what we
knew the requirements of the CVC were going to be, how many
visitors were going to be coming in, how many entry and exit
points we were going to have staff, and then just general
security requirements. When we did that, we submitted that plan
to our oversight and authorizing committees.
We got the authorization to hire those officers. Obviously,
that came with a funding requirement. We are just in the last
string right now of bringing those officers on board so that we
could be able to secure that facility.
The interesting thing about the facility is it is going to
welcome the visitors, but they are going to have the ability to
linger there and enjoy the facility. So we have to have enough
officers on board if we should have an emergency evacuation of
the facility. We can safely either collectively protect
everyone there or make sure they are safely evacuated out of
that facility, and all of that was taken into our consideration
for our hiring and staffing.
Ms. Norton. That is good to hear.
Mr. Moneme, how is the Circulator paid for now upon which
you are going to be relying on rather heavily bringing people
from Union Station and elsewhere to the new CVC?
Mr. Moneme. The Circulator was structured initially to have
a Federal contribution, a District contribution, fare box
revenues, and then an association of business improvement
districts in the city would contribute.
Over the last couple of years, what we have seen is fare
box revenue hasn't been as high as we anticipated, the Federal
contributions have been pretty consistent over the last couple
years, and we have not been able to see as much contribution
from the business improvement districts. So the District has
been paying the lion's share of the operations of the
Circulator. Out of $6 million budget, we are coming up with a
balance between $4 to $3 million, more than half of it.
Ms. Norton. I was able to get an appropriation and have
worked to get one every year. But I believe that you will need
more buses, will you not?
Mr. Moneme. That is correct.
Ms. Norton. Could I ask you, Mr. Moneme, for the record,
some of the issues I have raised with you in private. Can you
guarantee me that we will have smaller buses rather than the
great big Circulators?
Mr. Moneme. I can, in fact. Actually, I believe we have an
image of one of those smaller 30-foot buses with us. In fact,
if you are on K Street later on this evening, one will be on
display for your viewing pleasure.
Ms. Norton. Well, thank you. My goodness, do you have a
picture of such a bus here?
Mr. Moneme. We do.
Ms. Norton. I can't tell from looking at it about the size,
but I will be on K Street to find out.
The Circulator was a wonderful idea, but the District,
again for good and sufficient reason, was looking to spend as
little money as possible and the best word to say for it is I
think they got these on sale. They are very large, and there
are times when there are just very few people in them. It makes
you wish for something I guess like that or for vans or
something, not vans but the smaller buses.
Are those about the size of the WMATA buses, the smaller
WMATA buses?
Mr. Moneme. Exactly, exactly. What we are going to find is
that especially for events that will be happening at the
ballpark area or really when you are looking for crush loads of
ridership from Union Station to the CVC, we will need the
bigger buses because they will be filled. But on off-peak hours
or when we don't expect high ridership, I think the smaller bus
will do just fine.
Ms. Norton. Particularly considering that the Congress is
extremely conscious these days about the destruction of the
planet at our hands, anything you can do to save the emissions
of C02 would be much appreciated.
Let me ask you, are these buses even ordered?
Mr. Moneme. They have not been. We are in the final stages
of negotiation on those.
Ms. Norton. Is anybody making hybrid buses?
These are not buses that are going to go very fast. Some
cities are in the forefront of doing what cities and the
Congress, the Federal Government should be doing. We should be
the ones coming forward with hybrid vehicles or ethanol
vehicles. I don't like that so much because the cost of corn is
going up but with alternative vehicles.
Are you investigating the possibility the way New York is
going to use hybrid cabs now that you are going to have to
invest in a whole new set of vehicles, of using environmentally
appropriate vehicles?
Mr. Moneme. We are. As part of the District's contribution
to WMATA Metro, every new bus that we are buying is essentially
a clean fuel bus.
Ms. Norton. What are you talking about in clean fuel?
Mr. Moneme. Either CNG, compressed natural gas, or the
hybrid electric buses.
Ms. Norton. I think I could more easily and I would feel
more comfortable asking for a contribution from the Federal
Government if, in fact, we were invested in state of the art
new hybrid or other alternative vehicles. I say hybrid because
I don't know why we should be using gas at all.
Mr. Moneme. Understood.
Ms. Norton. If we are using it because you have got to get
it. Even if it is clean, you have got to get it. We don't
produce enough here. While the technology is not nearly as
advanced as it would be if we would have started doing this
when we should have. The technology is there, and New York is
using it.
So before you order anything, I would like to have a
conversation with you.
Mr. Moneme. Definitely, I would love to have that
conversation.
Ms. Norton. The price does not look to be a great deal more
and when you consider the saving on gas, it seems to me that is
the calculation that has to be made. What is the life of the
vehicle? What would be the savings in gas from an alternative
vehicle?
Among the things that I would recommend that you do is to
talk to New York because they look like they are moving ahead.
There are some areas that are doing so. When we are buying
anything new, it seems to me that that is something that the
Congress ought to be looking at in any case.
I also believe that this cost now has to be shared more
than it is now shares. The Congress did its step-up, I think,
in a very good way. I had a hard time getting the first
appropriation. They didn't mind paying something for the buses.
They did mind paying for the operations. Now, there is nothing
to be said about the operations except when it comes to the
Capitol Visitors Center. It does seem to be the case has been
made there.
I want to thank you very much. You have answered my
questions. I have given you some homework, so I think I ought
to let you go. Thank you very much for very helpful testimony.
Mr. Nichols. Thanks. It was a pleasure.
Mr. Moneme. Thank you.
Chief Morse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. I want to thank our two Capitol Police leaders
especially for your extraordinary service. I do want to thank
you for the men and women who serve our Capitol. They are
always polite. They serve as long as you say they have to
serve. I have nothing but the greatest respect for the risk
they take and the service they give.
I wish that the next time you have your--what do you call
it when you call them together? Tell them that the
Congresswoman put in the record not at a time when there is an
emergency, not at time when somebody has been injured, but just
in the ordinary way in which they operate, that they are the
best of the best.
Let me also say, Chief Morse, I noted that almost from the
beginning, not from the very beginning, the Capitol Police made
a decision that was different from the decisions that were made
when they closed the streets or put the checkpoints. Since I am
in the city seven days a week, when I come to the Capitol on
Saturday or Sunday, I must come along Independence through the
New Jersey Avenue entrance. There is no one at the other
entrance. There, of course, is somebody always at the Capitol.
There is no one at the D Street entrance. I compliment you.
The reason that that occurs is because somebody, and this
was before your service, Chief Morse--Mr. Nichols may have been
here--did the kind of analysis that, as a member of the
Homeland Security Committee, I can tell you we are now
requiring the Homeland Security Administration to do, and that
is what is the risk and what would be consequences. Somebody
has figured out that al Qaeda does not like empty buildings,
that there is not a single instance of the destruction of
property where there were not always a lot of people to be
destroyed in the process.
And so, if you go to South Capitol Street, the traffic
there, if you go to D Street, if you go to any entrance except
the entrances to the Capitol and except the one entrance that
you go to get to the Senate, there is nothing there. There are
the blockades there, and of course you have police on duty who
could get there and a lot of things would happen. But that is
because we clearly have made the kind of calculations you have
to make in an open society. You don't just want to have people
sitting there to be sitting there without any sense of what the
risk would be, what the consequences would be as if you
couldn't do the kind of analysis.
I would ask that that kind of analysis be used, the kind of
analysis I see you using already on Independence Avenue,
whenever the suggestion is made that maybe you ought to close
down some part of the city.
Again, thank you for service which is the most
extraordinary service members of Congress could ask for. Thank
you, gentlemen.
Could I ask for the last panel?
Chief Morse. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. I am pleased to welcome Marshall Purnell, who
is President of the American Institute of Architects and he is
himself an architect and Leslie Shepherd who is the Chief
Architect of the General Services Administration.
What we are trying to do here is, as Congress usually does,
try to get something to compare with instead of living within
the bubble of ourselves. So we are very pleased to have you
both here.
Could I ask Mr. Shepherd to testify first?
TESTIMONY OF MARSHALL E. PURNELL, FAIA, PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN
INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, WASHINGTON, D.C.; LESLIE L. SHEPHERD,
CHIEF ARCHITECT, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON,
DC.
Mr. Shepherd. Sure. Good morning, Chair Norton. I want to
thank you for inviting me here today.
I had sort of written my comments assuming I was following
Mr. Purnell.
Ms. Norton. If you prefer that. I just do that because you
are public official, but I would be glad to have Mr. Purnell if
you prefer that. It doesn't matter to us. Do you prefer that?
Mr. Shepherd. I would prefer that. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. All right. Mr. Purnell, you are up.
Mr. Purnell. We are coordinated here.
Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, good
morning. I am Marshall Purnell, President-elect of the American
Institute of Architects and a resident of the District of
Columbia. Parenthetically, I am architect for the new
convention center, the Nationals baseball stadium and first
phase of the intermodal parking facility at Union Station.
I am honored to testify before you, Madam Chairman, and
deeply appreciative of your steadfast commitment to improving
the quality of life in the District of Columbia, a mission we
have shared for many years.
On behalf of AIA's 81,000 members and 281,000 Americans who
work for architecture firms nationwide, I would like to thank
you for inviting me to testify about what the AIA envisions as
the future role and responsibilities of the Architect of the
Capitol as they relate to both the Capitol Visitors Center and
the rest of the Capitol Complex.
As the Subcommittee knows, a congressional selection
commission is interviewing candidates, one of whom the
President will select to become the next Architect of the
Capitol. This is a major decision as the next Architect will be
in charge of the design and maintenance of the Capitol Complex
for the next decade.
When you consider the historic significance of this
complex, its role as a physical symbol of our democracy and the
important work that goes on here every day, it is clear that
the next Architect of the Capitol must possess the skills to
protect this great landmark and ensure the safety, security and
health of thousands of people who work and visit here.
Throughout its 200 year history, the U.S. Capitol has
undergone major transformations to ensure that it meets the
growing needs of Congress. At nearly every major stage of the
Capitol's physical growth, a professional architect serving as
the Architect of the Capitol led this effort, making sure our
fledgling democracy had a suitable home.
Today, the Capitol Complex must once again be transformed.
Over the next 10 years, the Architect of the Capitol will be
called upon to manage a nearly 15 million square foot campus,
to oversee major renovations to the existing historic
structures and to improve the working conditions for
legislators and their staff. The next Architect will need to
address post-9/11 security concerns, find ways to conserve
energy and mitigate the effects of global warming, and install
21st Century technology in 20th and 19th Century buildings. All
this must take place while assuring that the business of
America's legislature is not disrupted.
These are challenges that demand complex and creative
solutions, the kinds of challenges that professional architects
overcome every day. As history has shown us, Congress finds
those solutions when a professional architect is Architect of
the Capitol.
The Architect of the Capitol manages the entire Capitol
Complex including the seven congressional office buildings, the
Supreme Court, the Library of Congress and the National Botanic
Gardens. The Architect is responsible for the safety, security,
health and productivity of all occupants and the thousands of
daily visitors to these national treasures. It would not be in
the interest of the public or the taxpayers to entrust this
responsibility to someone without the formal education, on the
job training and practical experience of a licensed
professional architect.
Former Architect of the Capitol George White, a licensed
architect himself, said it best in his letter to the commission
members. Referring to the many duties of the Architect of the
Capitol, Mr. White says, ``The various necessary
characteristics and talents must be based on a foundation of
architecture.''
Mr. White led the design, construction and renovation of
many of the Capitol Complex buildings in his nearly 25 years as
Architect of the Capitol, so he knows what the job requires
better than most anyone. I respectfully request permission to
have Mr. White's letter entered into the record.
The Architect of the Capitol must understand what it takes
to maintain the integrity of these great buildings, their
priceless artifacts and their place in the District's
landscape. This often understated role of the Architect of the
Capitol is clearly stated by the inclusion of the Architect of
the Capitol as a member of a number of local planning bodies
including the D.C. Zoning Commission and the National Capital
Memorial Commission. He or she must be able to find solutions
to the Capitol's challenges that work in tandem with the city's
design and planning processes.
Only a licensed architect has the specific certified
knowledge base as well as the full experience and training to
handle such an enormous responsibility, commanding respect as
the most qualified person to decide how the Capitol Complex
will evolve.
Now, I am aware that the Federal law does not require the
Architect of the Capitol to be an architect, but neither does
our Supreme Court require its justices to be members of the
bar. To appoint an Architect of the Capitol who is not a
licensed architect is as troublesome as appointing a Supreme
Court justice who has not passed the bar. It verges on insult
to my 81,000 colleagues and negligence on the millions of
Americans who trust and depend on the Architect of the Capitol
to sustain and enhance the beauty, sanctity and security of our
Nation's Capitol Complex.
Licensing laws in all 54 United States jurisdictions
disallow anyone to even call oneself an architect without
completing licensure. This regulation ensures public safety
across our Nation and in all its territories. To this same end,
the Architect of the Capitol should be exactly that, an
architect licensed, by definition.
Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to appear
before you today. I will be happy to address any questions from
the Subcommittee.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Purnell.
Mr. Shepherd?
Mr. Shepherd. Now good afternoon, Chair Norton. My name is
Leslie Shepherd. I am the Chief Architect of the General
Services Administration, and I thank you for inviting me here
today.
I would like to comment on the statement by my esteemed AIA
colleague, Marshall Purnell. I concur; the individual
responsible for managing the Capitol Complex, the icon of
democracy, must possess outstanding skills and leadership,
managerial excellence and design excellence. Mr. Purnell has
eloquently spoken on these three points.
My desire is to amplify his testimony on areas of work from
GSA. In particular, I would like to expand on two key areas
within the broader context of design.
As a preface to these remarks, I note that GSA has a
different structure and focus than the Architect of the
Capitol. We manage and oversee programs, policies and processes
executed through our 11 regional offices. GSA's Chief Architect
does not directly design, construct or manage specific
facilities. That said, I am convinced that we have the
experience that can further illuminate the talents needed to
fulfill the responsibilities of the Architect of the Capitol.
My first point under the broader category of design
expertise would emphasize the importance of historic
preservation. The Capitol, the Library of Congress, the Supreme
Court and other facilities under the purview of the Architect
of the Capitol are among our Nation's most precious landmarks
designed over the past 200 plus years and shaped by history in
a venue established by our Founding Fathers. Given this
momentous context, as you know well, the Architect of the
Capitol must be especially wise and sensitive in the areas of
historic preservation.
At GSA, we are steward of more than 400 historic buildings
nationwide, including over 200 monumental public buildings,
several of which are national historic landmarks. Our historic
preservation architects make sure that we maintain the design
integrity of these structures and, at the same time, we
implement innovative modernization techniques that incorporate
the latest technology and building systems.
I have no doubt that the Architect of the Capitol must have
a background with similar strengths. The individual should be a
respected leader in the field with the expertise to speak
authoritatively on challenging preservation issues, and in this
regard I highlight that the Architect of the Capitol is a
permanent member of the Advisory Council of Historic
Preservation. The Architect of the Capitol must be able to make
sound and insightful judgments to successfully balance
contemporary needs and stewardship responsibilities.
Then the second point is to address the subject of
security. This is always a concern with public buildings. We
want to protect and assure the safety of users and visitors. We
want to protect the buildings themselves. We also want our
public buildings to be open and welcoming, compelling symbols
of our democratic system.
At GSA, we invest significant energy and resources to
delivering this balance. In addition, we are well aware that
successfully addressing security in historic buildings is an
even larger challenge. We have devised strategies for
installing security without compromising the design or openness
of our landmarks, including such measure as blast protection
and mitigating the risk of progressive collapse while
maintaining the original fabric of the structures under our
stewardship.
This too is a talent and expertise required by the
Architect of the Capitol.
In the Office of the Chief Architect, we have recently been
reorganized into two components, the Office of the Chief
Architect and the Office of Capital Construction Programs. The
Chief Architect and Assistant Commissioner for Capital
Construction work in partnership to ensure successful
implementation of the Capitol design and construction program
and related activities.
The Chief Architect and Assistant Commissioner for Design
and Construction Programs both report directly to the
Commissioner of PBS, who has overall responsibility for the
public building service.
It is my personal opinion that any person occupying this
position with the title, Architect of the Capitol, should also
be a registered architect. The United States Capitol, being the
foremost architectural icon of democracy and as such is best
preserved and safeguarded by a highly qualified architect.
Madam Chair, this concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Ms. Norton. Well, as you are aware from the prior
testimony, our major interest is not in the qualifications for
the Architect of the Capitol. As such, we didn't think you
could have a hearing of this kind without touching on this
issue, and we recognize there has been some back and forth
between the profession and others, and that has a lot to do
with the changing nature and function, frankly, of the Capitol.
When you add a space that is almost as much as we have here
now, you have controversy about the structure people begin to
ask, well, what kind of person. It is interesting, you both
have testified that if you are going to be called the Architect
of the Capitol, you should be an architect. That, of course,
does not say that the person who is in charge of the building
should be an architect. I don't know if you both are testifying
to that effect as well.
You can have an Architect of the Capitol who was in charge
of what architects do, and that wouldn't necessarily be the
person in charge of the Capitol structure.
Mr. Purnell. You could have someone who was in management
operations in terms of operating the facility, a facilities
manager, but he should be working under the auspices of the
Architect of the Capitol because the issues that come up are
likely to be something that the Architect could address. That
is a subset of what the architectural profession does.
Ms. Norton. Yes, rather than the other way around, you say.
Mr. Purnell. No, it doesn't work the other way around
because facilities management is not necessarily he is not
trained to handle the other issues that would come up.
Ms. Norton. I am pulling your leg a little bit because most
of the time in projects the project is not run by the architect
and the architect is not the CEO of the project. You seem to be
saying that the architect should be the CEO here if that is not
the usual role he plays in construction.
Mr. Purnell. You are right. In many instances, the
architect is not running the project in terms of at the very
top of the food chain, and every project doesn't necessarily
run smoothly with or without that structure.
But I am saying if the architect has been trained to
understand what the roles of everybody involved are and should
be and how everybody should play together, if you will.
Engineers, facilities managers are not so trained. They are
basically dealing with their particular discipline and what
they understand to be the issues.
Mr. Shepherd. I would also add if I could.
Ms. Norton. Yes, Mr. Shepherd.
Mr. Shepherd. In previous testimony, they spoke that the
fire marshal for the Architect of the Capitol would be doing
the occupancy acceptance. That is a little different than a
normal city. The Federal buildings, we do the same thing at
GSA. We have a fire marshal within GSA who does those
inspections for fire/life-safety.
The Architect is ultimately responsible for the fire/life-
safety and overall well-being. We don't generally have, in the
District of Columbia, fire marshals wouldn't come in and do
inspections. It would be the Architect of the Capitol.
Ms. Norton. That has everything to do with jurisdiction.
The Capitol is a jurisdiction of itself. You don't even have
jurisdiction. The Federal Government doesn't even have
jurisdiction over the Capitol the way it does over Federal
agencies, and that is why the District of Columbia and
everybody else can come in here because this is one of the
branches of government.
But I take your point nor am I suggesting. I think this
takes a great deal of study, study that this Committee does not
intend to give to this particular aspect of this subject but
one that raises itself when you are considering the new
facility.
I note, Mr. Shepherd, that you are an architect.
Mr. Shepherd. Yes.
Ms. Norton. But your work would seem to have little to do
with architecture or your training as an architect as such.
Does your work have more, as much to do with management of this
empire of real estate that you relate to?
Mr. Shepherd. That kind of goes to the way we have been
reorganized in our Office of the Chief Architect. I am more
involved in design review and architectural review. The
Assistant Commissioner for Capital Construction Programs is
more involved in the review of construction documents, the
bidding process, et cetera, but I am involved in the front end
review of the budget up front and review of all design work and
recommend each project for approval by the commission.
Ms. Norton. So you are doing mostly work within the ambit
of what we think of when we think of what architects do.
Mr. Shepherd. Absolutely.
Ms. Norton. Was Capital Construction under the GSA
Architect before?
Mr. Shepherd. Correct.
Ms. Norton. Why was that moved? Why was that separated?
Mr. Shepherd. Maybe it was a response. I was in this
position for two years. In the job we have at GSA, we have 195
active projects. Probably, I think about 60 of those are in
design and the balance in construction. It is just the enormity
of the workload.
I think it has worked much better since we have reorganized
a little, about six months. The Assistant Commissioner and I
meet every single morning. We talk about every project
together, but it is a collaboration and it takes the two of us
to effectively deliver the program.
Ms. Norton. What skills do each of you think the new
appointee should have to operate the new visitors center,
assuming we are talking now about the Architect of the Capitol?
What skills do you think that either the Architect of the
Capitol, whoever is appointed, should have to run this facility
and this building?
Mr. Purnell. I may speak first.
I think the person should have some experience with really
large gathering places or places of assembly, be it convention
centers or places where there are sports venues, where there
are always a number of people in attendance at any one time. To
deal with potential issues of evacuation has been stated here,
potential issues of security threats and then just the daily
operations of a mixed use facility as this will be. You are
having restaurants, shops for purchasing, in addition, meeting
rooms and spaces. It is a space that is not too unlike a modern
day convention center in terms of the complexity of the
different venues that will be happening there at any given
time.
But I wanted to just add when you say what you typically
think of an architect as doing. There are a number of
architectural firms in this Country that have hundreds and even
thousands of people with offices, multiple offices, as many as
25, 26 offices in this Country and around the world and
managing thousands of people.
Ms. Norton. Yes, but that is like saying lawyers who run a
law firm, but what you have described is not that. You
described an architect in charge of a different kind of
facility altogether.
Mr. Purnell. Well, I think when you mention the CVC is one
facility and it is a part of one complex. The Architect of the
Capitol, which is what I am focusing on and not necessarily the
person who is hired to run the CVC, admittedly, is a person
that you need to have this convention experience, people
gathering experience. That is not necessarily the Architect of
the Capitol. That person should report to the Architect of the
Capitol as I see it.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Shepherd?
Mr. Shepherd. I would concur. It is that word, operate. I
think generally an Architect is going to have very little
experience in the operation of a building. The majority aren't.
But that function of reporting to the Architect, I think that
Architect is then capable of making those broad decisions about
appropriateness.
Really, your goal is to protect this icon of the American
Capitol, and I think the Architect is in the best position to
help broker those kind of decisions that may need to be made as
things change in the operation of the building.
Ms. Norton. You both seem to believe an architect is
important to be the Architect of the Capitol. I am taking Mr.
Purnell's reference to lawyers.
Mr. Shepherd. I would also add the Surgeon General. You
would expect the Surgeon General to be a physician.
Ms. Norton. You would. Yes, you would.
Mr. Purnell rightly says that you don't have to pass the
bar to be a lawyer. I wonder if anyone would say it would be
nice to be lawyer, though, to be on the Supreme Court. You are
saying that the person should be licensed architect, and you
are saying that this lawyer should be a member of the bar.
I wonder if we could get at least some understanding
because again the notion of who reports to whom is not
something that this Subcommittee is interested in or how the
Architect of the Capitol notion should be done. The President
gets to appoint that, and the House and the Senate do have some
input into that.
But the closest analogy I can think of, frankly, does come
from my own profession of lawyers. The way we are trained is
about the worst way to run something, and some of us never lose
that, the way we are trained in due process, for example, Due
process is about stopping things from happening, slowing things
down. It is about process. The very word, process, tells you
what the problem is.
And so, lawyers can really bollux things up. It is very
important to have a general counsel, but that is what he is. He
advises you on the law.
On the other hand, you would be surprised how many lawyers
transform themselves into something else, managers. There are
lawyers who run the world. Well, Secretary Rubin was in law
school with me. He is not in a law firm. I am sure he may have
spent this much time in a law firm, but he became the Treasurer
of the United States and he was an investment banker.
There are professions where people study this. They don't
take to heart some of the worst aspects, if you want to move
on, of the profession. In our case, it is get real stuck on
process, in the case of lawyers. Often you will be reading
somebody's vitae, who is running something, and you say I will
be blessed if the person didn't go to law school.
But what is important is that the person has I say
transformed themselves. Lawyers can be big or they can be
little. Transformed themselves so that these lawyers fit
another mold and a mold that is not particularly related to the
process that is involved in being a lawyer which is very
plodding, not very much interested in moving quickly, not
management-oriented.
Can we agree? Let us assume--I am offering a hypothetical--
that the Architect of the Capitol is an architect. Can we
assume that he should be such a transformative figure who, in
fact, somehow has proven himself as a manager as well as a
captain of his profession, Mr. Purnell?
Mr. Purnell. I would consider that to be a given for this
particular position.
Architects, by the way, are trained to solve problems. We
are not trained to just design buildings. We are trained to
take ideas and thoughts and basically people's wishes and their
problems and resolve them in such a way that we hand them
something that says this is what your thoughts, your program,
all the problems that we saw along the way. This is how it
manifests itself into what you decided you wanted in terms of
building a visitors center.
We are taught that we are problem-solvers in our
architectural education. Thomas Jefferson was an architect. He
became President of the United States.
Ms. Norton. The ultimate renaissance man, though, Mr.
Purnell.
Mr. Purnell. He was more than one thing, but he was also an
architect.
Ms. Norton. You could name about a dozen other things he
was and the best of them, okay, but if you want to start there,
that is fine.
Mr. Purnell. He talked about transforming.
Ms. Norton. Harness that kind of Architect of the Capitol.
Mr. Purnell. But I consider myself a pretty good manager
when asked to manage. I have managed a firm, and I have managed
projects, the Convention Center project as one of the lead
architects on that, working with a developer. The person who
was charged with developing that project, his formal education
was that of a Master's degree in architecture from Columbia
University and myself. So I think that when asked to manage, I
can manage. I don't see my architectural background limiting in
any way, shape or form in that capacity.
Managing the construction of a project is one of the most
difficult things anyone will ever do. There are millions of
decisions to be made on any building that have been done,
whether it is the type of hinges used on the doors to where the
security checkpoints are going to be. Every decision that is
made is made by someone who is both designing and managing how
people will use that building.
Like I say, to accuse our whole profession and put our
whole profession in one box is just unfortunate because just
like the legal profession, I too know lawyers who have never
set foot in a courtroom, that are managing many different
businesses and practices be it in corporate America, private
industry or just serving as public servants. So I don't think
that architect in itself is something that should be looked at
in a very narrow perspective.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Shepherd?
Mr. Shepherd. I agree with that.
Ms. Norton. Remember my question was about whether or not
you think that the Architect of the Capitol for this position
today should have gone through the transformation such that he
can manage a large enterprise like this.
Mr. Shepherd. I absolutely believe that the person referred
to and has the title, Architect of the Capitol, should be an
architect. I think that almost goes without saying. That would
be the public's expectation is that that person has formal
training. They have that skill set. They know what to do.
I was going to also add, I report to and the Assistant
Commissioner for Capital Construction Programs reports to the
Commissioner. The last three Commissioners of GSA, Bob Peck,
Joe Moravec, David Winstead, also they are trained in design
and construction. They have design and construction
backgrounds. They know almost as much about design and
construction and a lot of architects, not with formal
background, but they are Commissioner of Public Building
Service. They are not the Chief Architect of GSA.
Ms. Norton. Well, I just think the fact that we have
discussed hypotheticals here has been useful.
Again, this Committee does not have any view on the
question except that the Architect of the Capitol ought to be
somebody who knows how to deal with this new facility and all
of its component parts, but we certainly have no view on
whether the person has to be an architect or not. I know that
that is controversial, whether the job should be bifurcated,
who should support, who should report to whom.
We know for the record that there is a commission or
committee who has been assigned the job to look at the skills
that are necessary and to report to the deciding officials in
the House and the Senate the kinds of names they think meet
that skill set. We have every confidence that they will do that
job with great confidence.
But it is useful, it seems to me, for those of us concerned
about the building itself, particularly those of us who live in
the District of Columbia and I certainly appreciate the work
that both of you have done in your respective capacities, and
those of us on this Subcommittee who are interested even more
so in transportation, security and access. Those are issues
that inevitably intrude on the jurisdiction of the Architect of
the Capitol, whoever is appointed.
Thus, we have a interest in making sure, as I am sure will
occur, that whoever gets to head this operation and whomever
the President chooses upon the recommendation of the leaders of
the Congress will be what we need for a 21st Century Architect
of the Capitol, remembering that even Thomas Jefferson, Mr.
Purnell, would probably have had to transform himself to be the
Architect of the Capitol here today.
I want to thank you both for the kind of perspectives you
brought to the hearing. To hear from you, Mr. Purnell, who has
done work managing large projects, who speaks also for the
profession and to hear from you, Mr. Shepherd, also an
architect who has worked in that capacity leading a huge real
estate enterprise through the GSA, gives us the kind of
perspective to understand what will be required and expected.
Thank you very much and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5931.037