U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–931 PDF 2007

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

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chairwoman 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III)

(V)

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

vi


35931.001
vii


35931.002
viii


35931.003
ix


35931.004
(1)

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 

2

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 

3

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. 

4

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. 

5

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. 

6

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 sysVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:18 Feb 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35931 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
7

tems 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. 

8

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 

9

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 SeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:18 Feb 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35931 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
10

quence 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 suffiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:18 Feb 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35931 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
11

cient 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. 

12

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. 

13

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? 

14

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. 

15

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. 

16

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 

17

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 

18

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. 

19

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 someVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:18 Feb 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35931 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
20

thing 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 

21

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. 

22

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 transporVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:18 Feb 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35931 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
23

tation 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 

24

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 

25

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? 

26

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 

27

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 

28

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 

29

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. 

30

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. 

31

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. 

32

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 

33

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. 

34

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. 

35

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. 

36

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. 

37

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. 

38

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? 

39

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. 

40

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.]

41


35931.005
42


35931.006
43


35931.007
44


35931.008
45


35931.009
46


35931.010
47


35931.011
48


35931.012
49


35931.013
50


35931.014
51


35931.015
52


35931.016
53


35931.017
54


35931.018
55


35931.019
56


35931.020
57


35931.021
58


35931.022
59


35931.023
60


35931.024
61


35931.025
62


35931.026
63


35931.027
64


35931.028
65


35931.029
66


35931.030
67


35931.031
68


35931.032
69


35931.033
70


35931.034
71


35931.035
72


35931.036
73

Æ


35931.037