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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–029 2003

H.R. 2205, LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH WITHIN THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION A NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICANAMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 9, 2003

Printed for the Use of the Committee on House Administration

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

BOB NEY, Ohio, Chairman

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut, 

Ranking Minority Member

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

PAUL VINOVICH, Staff Director 

GEORGE SHEVIN, Minority Staff Director

(1)

H.R. 2205, LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH WITHIN THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION A NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN AMERICAN 

HISTORY AND CULTURE

WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:40 p.m. in room 1310, 

Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Ney (chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Ney, Ehlers, Mica, Linder, Doolittle, 

Larson, and Brady. 

Staff present: Paul Vinovich, Staff Director; Jeff Janas, Clerk; 

Jennifer Hing, Assistant Clerk; Fred Hay, Counsel; George Shevlin, 

Minority Staff Director; Charles Howell, Minority Chief Counsel; 

Matt Pinkus, Minority Professional Staff; and Catherine Tran, Minority Staff Assistant. 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Good afternoon. Today the Committee on House Administration is conducting 

its first hearing to begin the consideration of H.R. 2205, which establishes within the Smithsonian Institution the National Museum 

of African American History and Culture. 

I would like to thank all of our participants in today’s hearing 

for providing us with their valuable insight on this important piece 

of legislation not only to the Nation, but I think to the world as 

people visit Washington, D.C. I would also like to give special recognition to Representative John Lewis, who has worked tirelessly 

on the legislation since 1988, as I understand it. 

Congressman Lewis is a remarkable individual with an incredible history himself. I know he will persevere and carry out all efforts. 

This will be, I think, a legacy that will make everyone proud in 

this country. I believe it is fair to say that we have made substantial progress recently. We are closer now to this addition becoming 

reality than we have ever been in 15 years. 

In 2001, President Bush signed Public Law 107–106, which created a Presidential Commission to research and evaluate issues related to the establishment of a proposed African American Museum 

and developed a plan for action to bring this issue to reality. This 

Presidential Commission should also be applauded for their diligent work and research on the proposed museum, and their hard 

2

work should prove beneficial to bringing this long-awaited concept 

to fruition. 

As is often the case around here, most, if not all, Members will 

agree on a common goal. In this case, the establishment of the museum envisioned by our sponsors is the common goal. There will be 

differences of opinion on the process and structure. This hearing 

should provide useful information that will guide us as we work 

through these differences to achieve that goal. 

The primary purpose of today’s hearing is to provide members 

with the information they will need to make sensible decisions on 

the site location of the museum, how fund-raising acquisitions will 

work and how the museum will be governed within the Smithsonian Institution. With this background, it is my hope that we can 

build a consensus to pass a strong piece of legislation that will 

have long-lasting benefits for generations to come. 

I also want to acknowledge—I acknowledged Congressman 

Lewis, but also Congressman Jack Kingston, a great supporter of 

this measure and a person who sits on the committee that has the 

purse strings which are very important in this building; and, of 

course, our delegate, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton who 

has been a tremendous—not just on this issue but other issues. 

Supporter of the great Nation’s Capital, which is our second home. 

Ohio is my first, a great State, and this is our home. 

With that, I would defer to our ranking member, Mr. Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me echo your sentiments. Also in joining our distinguished panelists, Eleanor Holmes 

Norton, Jack Kingston and, of course, John Lewis. 

Mr. Chairman, our hearing today is a demonstration of the 

power of an idea. This is an idea that is a long time coming. You 

certainly have to congratulate Mr. Lewis, as you have done, for his 

perseverance and his persistency in the manner in which he has 

approached this legislation, as you have noted, dating back to 1988. 

This idea actually was first conceived during the administration 

of Woodrow Wilson and picked up a great deal of steam in 1929, 

but then because of the events of the Depression and the subsequent war, it was not until the vision of Mr. Lewis, who is a living 

legacy and a national treasure in his own right, that he was able 

to put forth this concept and bring it to fruition. I want to commend him and Mr. Kingston. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this 

bill. 

As always with the first lady of Washington, D.C., Eleanor 

Holmes Norton, it is a pleasure to have her insight here. This is 

an important hearing for us to hear from the various panelists 

about the concerns that they have raised. But as the chairman 

points out, this is on a fast track. It is important that we move forward. We are pleased to see that the Senate has already taken action, and I am pleased to see that the committee has moved with 

all due speed to take up H.R. 2205 and bring it to the floor. 

We anxiously await the comments from our panelists. Thank you 

so much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Are there any other members that 

would like to make a statement? 

Mr. Mica. 

3

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to see that 

this legislation is being considered. This, of course, is the appropriate forum. I do have some concerns about the legislation and 

what I have reviewed. I have some concerns also about several of 

the sites that have been proposed for a potential structure. 

First of all, I would be adamantly opposed to any site on The 

Mall. I think that this would set a precedent that would be unfair 

to all the other racial and ethnic group that make up the family 

of the American community. 

I know of no other racial or ethnic group—now we have put the 

Native American museum on The Mall. And as we can see, we are 

starting to fill out The Mall. I think an additional structure on The 

Mall would be detrimental. I think we should really look at the policy that we have as to what additional structures go on The Mall. 

The question is also of fairness to other ethnic and racial groups. 

I happen to be—my mother’s side is Italian American. They have 

made incredible contributions to this country. My father’s side was 

Slovak American, and they have done the same. But at some point 

we have to be fair to all racial and ethnic groups. If we put on The 

Mall a specific building dedicated to one group, I believe that is unfair. 

I do believe that there is a tremendous rich cultural heritage, 

and contributions of African Americans should be recognized and 

done so appropriately by our leading institution, the Smithsonian. 

And I think that there are several locations where that could be 

done and I think it is the proper and appropriate role of the Smithsonian to recognize the accomplishments of both racial and ethnic 

groups. But I think we have to be very careful in, again, where we 

locate this facility and how we locate it. 

Additionally, I would like to see and have recommended before 

an additional site, in addition to those on the map considered, and 

that is the Federal Trade Commission building, which is close to 

The Mall, which has outlived its usefulness as far as the Federal 

Trade Commission. It is one of the most historic and beautiful 

buildings and it is also close to where visitors congregate. I had 

recommended that that be looked at for additional space either by 

the National Gallery or the Smithsonian or the Archives. I would 

like to see that part of any proposal possible as a location to house 

such an exhibition. 

So I think it is important that we do establish a sound policy, 

that we don’t litter The Mall with additional buildings to each and 

every one of the great groups who again have made the country it 

is today; and then step back and say, What have we done and have 

we done this fairly with a fair policy? 

With that, I raise my concerns and I look forward to hearing 

from the witnesses and more on the legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 

Linder. 

Mr. LINDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just would like to—I 

may not be able to be here long enough for the second panel. So 

I just want to recognize my friend of 25 years, Bob Wright, who did 

what I did, he started out dealing with patients and wound up 

4

dealing with issues and has had a huge success. I am happy to 

have him here and happy to see him involved. 

Welcome, Bob. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would any other members like to make a comment?

If not, with that we will proceed on to the panel. I want to welcome our distinguished colleagues. We will start with Congressman 

Lewis. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN LEWIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

those kind words. 

First, Mr. Chairman and all the members of the committee, I 

want to commend you for holding this hearing on such an important piece of legislation. H.R. 2205, the National African American 

Museum History and Culture Act. 

Thank you, Ranking Member Larson, for your commitment to 

making this bill a top priority. 

I want to thank Representative Jack Kingston from my home 

State of Georgia for his support of this legislation in the House and 

also my friend and colleague for many, many years during the 

early days of the civil rights movement when we were only 

teenyboppers; Delegate Norton from the district for your help and 

support. 

I want to thank Senator Brownback and Senator Dodd for passing the companion African American Museum legislation in the 

Senate. 

As you know, there exists no national museum located in our Nation’s Capital on the National Mall that is devoted to the documentation of African American history. That is why Representative 

Kingston and I have introduced H.R. 2205. This legislation authorizes the establishment of a National Museum of African American 

History and Culture within the Smithsonian Institution. H.R. 2205 

also directs the Smithsonian Board of Regents to designate a museum site from four specified sites, the Capitol site, monument site, 

Arts and Industries Building and the Liberty Loan Building. 

In the South, many, many years ago, I remember it very well 

when people of color could not enter through the front door of many 

homes and businesses. A national African American Museum 

should be in the front yard of the United States Capital. The National Mall and the space around it is the front door to America; 

it is a symbol of our democracy. I firmly believe that a national African American Museum should not be off the National Mall at 

some back door. 

Let us be frank and candid about the real concerns of H.R. 2205. 

Let us meet these concerns head-on. I know that there are Members who have said that if the African American Museum were located on the Capitol site, it would create a security threat to the 

Capitol. Mr. Chairman, these security concerns unfairly imply that 

a national African American Museum would pose more of a threat 

than the United States Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, 

and the Capitol Visitors Center. Cars and trucks can get closer to 

the Capitol and congressional buildings by driving down ConstituVerDate jul 14 2003 00:48 Sep 03, 2003 Jkt 089029 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A029.XXX A029
5

tion and Independence than by parking at the proposed Capitol 

site. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that Congress cannot find a 

reasonable solution to these security concerns. 

During every session of Congress for the past 15 years, I have 

introduced legislation to establish a national African American Museum. In December, 2001, a major victory was achieved with the 

passage of legislation appointing a bipartisan Presidential Commission to provide a legislative blueprint for the creation of a National 

Museum of African American History and Culture. 

After a year-long study and more than 50 national and local 

town hall meetings, the Presidential Commission submitted its report to Congress and the President. This report served as a road 

map for H.R. 2205a and S. 1157. In the final report, the Commission concluded that there are many collections available to support 

a national African American Museum and that regional African 

American museums overwhelmingly support the establishment of a 

national museum.

The Commission also strongly recommended that the museum be 

a part of the Smithsonian Institution on the National Mall. In fact, 

the Commission stated that designating a site in a timely fashion, 

was key to fund-raising efforts for a national African American Museum. 

It is my belief, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, establishing a national African American Museum is our chance to 

take an important step to heal our Nation’s racial wounds. There 

is still a lot of pain and hurt that lies deep within the American 

psyche. We cannot run from it. We cannot push it under a rug or 

in some dark corner. We must face it if America is to become a Nation that values liberty and justice for all Americans. 

Just yesterday, President Bush visited Goree Island where ships 

took Africans to America for a life of slavery. I agree with what our 

President said, ‘‘that the very people traded into slavery helped to 

set America free,’’ and that is exactly the type of legacy that a national African American Museum will honor. 

In the past few years, we have witnessed the building of the Holocaust museum and the Native American museum. I support these 

museums. But it is my belief that no other group in America has 

suffered longer under such a vicious and evil system of oppression 

than African Americans, over 300 years of slavery, years of segregation and Jim Crow laws. 

The time is long overdue to recognize the contributions African 

Americans have made to our country, including the building of the 

United States Capitol. The time is right. The time is now. We must 

let it be done on our watch and create a National Museum of African American History and Culture. 

When we began this journey, I often said that we must pace ourselves for the long haul. Well, we have paced ourselves. We have 

been patient. The Commission has submitted a thorough and complete report. The Senate has acted and passed legislation establishing a national African American Museum. Now it is time for 

the House to do its job. 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I ask for not only 

your commitment to move this bill in a timely manner, but also 

your assistance in finally bringing H.R. 2205 to the House floor beVerDate jul 14 2003 00:48 Sep 03, 2003 Jkt 089029 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A029.XXX A029
6

fore the August recess. I look forward to working with you in a bipartisan manner to make sure we pass H.R. 2205. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member and all members of this committee. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the very distinguished colleague for his 

testimony. 

[The statement of Mr. Lewis follows:]

7


Insert graphic folio 17 89029A.001
8


Insert graphic folio 16 89029A.002
9

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Kingston. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JACK KINGSTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Larson and members of the committee. It is good to be with you today. I certainly 

appreciate your holding this hearing today. 

I want to point out that while I am one of the authors of this, 

there are many, many cosponsors from both parties and of all 

races, so this does have wide support in the House. As my colleague Mr. Lewis has pointed out, it has already passed the Senate, so we really appreciate the leadership this committee has 

shown by moving it a step forward. 

Mr. Lewis, I wanted to commend him on his work. He started 

this project several years ago and had as an original cosponsor 

then Mr. J.C. Watts. I have kind of taken Mr. Watts’ slot in terms 

of my name, but I would never be able to take his slot in terms 

of my person; I am aware of that. But I am proud to be sitting up 

here with my friend John Lewis and also with Mrs. Holmes Norton. I appreciate everything that they have done. 

The idea behind this, in my opinion, is that the history of African 

Americans is our history and it is our culture. They have been here 

since the beginning and have made this country what it is. We 

need to learn about that history—the good, the bad, the tragic, and 

inspiring. We need to learn it as we learn about ourselves. I think 

that the more we know about it, the brighter our future together 

will be. 

I was somewhat, you may say, on the front line of integration to 

the degree that as a child I started at an all-white school system 

and then as I grew up, fifth grade on, it became integrated and 

more and more integrated to the extent that when I was a senior, 

there was no such thing as black schools or white schools as had 

there been when I was in first grade. But it stimulated a lot of interest to me into racial issues and racial, I guess, harmony—if not 

another word for it—because while I think Mr. Lewis and Ms. 

Holmes Norton were out there on the street making it happen, I 

was back in the classroom where it happened and got to know lots 

of black children as they got to know lots of white children. It was 

a very, very positive experience. 

Yet as we got to know each other, it was clear that the history 

books left out the chapter of black history. When I got to 10th 

grade, we came up with February as Black History Month, but 

what about the other 11? I often have mixed emotions about Black 

History Month because it implies it is only worth a month’s study. 

This is not the case at all. 

The other thing about black history in America is, we tend to 

focus on the Civil War and the southern period. But, in fact, the 

African history began in colonial times. My cousin, for example, is 

a part owner of something called the Acacia Exhibit that is loaned 

to a museum, and it is on African American artifacts such as pottery, such as handwoven baskets and bits of fabric. It was truly of 

African design because these were people who, when they were in 

America, were still speaking in their African native tongue. 

10

Most Americans don’t ever think about that period of the 1770s 

and 1780s, and prior to then as well. A museum like this will highlight it. 

When I was in school, because of the lack of historical references 

to black culture, I began reading lots of books on it, books by Richard Wright and Malcolm X, Eldridge Cleaver and Dick Gregory and 

W.E.B. DuBois. Yet one of the ones I like the most was one called 

‘‘The Learning Tree’’ by Gordon Parks. What that book did was explore racial relations without malice and without politics. 

As a school child, who again was in the classroom where the integration took place and therefore on the front line in some respects, I can say that the most racial reconciliation and progress 

I have ever seen is the kind that takes place without malice, where 

races can get to know each other and talk and talk openly. I think 

that is the type thing that Mr. Lewis and I envision in this museum—not a political platform, not a platform to point fingers, but 

a platform for understanding and therefore national racial reconciliation. 

To place it at the Nation’s Capital is certainly a very important 

thing to do, to do it now. I think it is past time to do it. 

The discussion about the site, I think, is a worthy one. It is difficult any time we start talking about where on the Mall to put 

something, but I think that this committee, this Congress, has 

within its wisdom to come up with a satisfactory conclusion to that. 

I want to go, I guess, that far in terms of a reference to it. 

I look forward to working with members of your committee and 

Members of the House. Again, thank you for having the hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. 

[The statement of Mr. Kingston follows:]

11


Insert offset folio 01 here 89029.025
12

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, 

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A 

DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Larson, members of the committee, first let 

me say, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your holding this hearing so 

promptly right after the Senate has passed its own bill, the bill before you. 

In a completely unrelated matter, Chairman Ney, I thank you for 

the courtesy you have always afforded me as the representative of 

the people who live in the city. Much of what comes before you affects these 600,000 people, and I always want to be sensitive to 

that fact and keeping this city open, as you once again said as you 

opened this hearing. 

Mr. Larson is a perfect Member to be a ranking member, and I 

appreciate all his courtesies as well. 

Your moving so promptly on this bill reminds me of the fact that, 

in one form or another, it has been around this Congress for 100 

years; so your movement on the bill now is especially appreciated. 

This bill is in virtually every sense uncontroversial. 

The best way to understand that is that, in 1929, the Congress 

of the Untied States actually appropriated $50,000 for this museum. My friends, that was in a day when lynching was still going 

on in this country. That was in a day when the schools of the Nation’s Capital were still segregated. Still, that Congress at a time 

when segregation was the law of the land was willing to say there 

ought to be an African American Museum. So I have no doubt that 

the notion of an African American Museum today in a far more enlightened America is not controversial at all in terms of where 

some controversy may lie. 

My own interest in this bill has several sources. When I came to 

Congress, I found that our good friend from the movement has 

come a session before and already had come forward to sponsor 

this bill. I have sponsored the bill ever since I came in 1991. 

I have been a member of subcommittee that also has jurisdiction 

over the bill, a subcommittee of the Transportation Committee. Indeed, as a member of that subcommittee, we have voted and actually gotten this bill out of the Congress. Out of the 103rd Congress 

we passed the museum bill. It was stopped by a Senator, who shall 

go unnamed in the Senate, and never got out of the Senate. 

I am a fourth generation Washingtonian, so I can say to you that 

for four generations my own people who came here before the Civil 

War, at least those who came here after they called for this museum, have been waiting for this museum. The people I represent, 

the 600,000 people I represent, have watched this debate for generations; they have been waiting for this museum. 

If I may say so, millions of Americans shave heard about this 

museum and have regarded it as a promise unkept. I appreciate 

that this committee has moved forward to keep its promise. This 

is not the furthest any Congress has come, before us, in getting toward a bill. 

13

Let me just say, I recognize Mr. Mica’s comments, I recognize the 

comments of many of my colleagues about the site, and I can understand those comments. They need to be aired so that they can 

be reconciled. I appreciate that. I appreciate the way that they are 

brought forward so they can be discussed. 

At another level, I regret one thing about this bill. It is no secret 

to anybody, since I involve myself in every monument that comes 

here—the people I represent consider themselves the guardians of 

the monuments of this city—that it is unwise to have discussion of 

sites in bills, not our business, we don’t know what we’re doing. We 

have been able to keep that out of the bills almost always. 

The reasons that we simply don’t involve ourselves in a discussion of sites normally is that we are talking about an overdeveloped 

Nation’s Capital. That is why we have a very extensive administrative process. If you want to build anything in this town, we take 

you through a lot of hoops and we have got to, because it is a compact city, it can never grow larger, it is the Nation’s Capital. 

So none of us, no Member of Congress, no organization on the 

globe can talk about the design, the height limit, the massing, the 

aesthetics, the traffic patterns, the street access; all of that has to 

do with where things should be placed or whether they should be 

placed at all. So we normally stay out of that, and we should stay 

out of that. That has been my position; it will always be my position. This committee and the Congress itself has not violated this 

position. 

I made it clear to the people on the Commission, you are going 

to make a completely noncontroversial piece of legislation controversial by talking about sites. 

With that said, I want to talk about the only site that I think 

Congress has any business talking about at all, because it is the 

only site controlled by the Congress and that is the site at First 

and Third Streets. 

I recognize that even that site needs a lot of discussion before 

that is done. But the other sites in our tradition we simply don’t 

speak about at all, because we have all kinds of mud on our face 

when the NCPC comes back and tells us or the Fine Arts Commission comes back and tells us that you can’t do this, that or the 

other. So I ask that that process be respected. 

And if we in fact go with the Capitol site, we are going to have 

to go through a process as well. The reason that I think it is not 

yet appropriate for that site to be in that is that only we can speak 

to that site. It would require a congressional bill itself. Now I think 

that site is appropriate for the museum. It is one of the few vacant 

sites for which a building was specifically planned and does not 

exist. If you look at the 1901 McMillan plan, there is a building 

there. That building is meant to be the counterpart of the Botanic 

Gardens; it is meant to be a twin of the Botanic Gardens. So the 

Botanic Gardens is kind of off center. Everything else in the Capitol is quite symmetrical, the House and the Senate, and the Botanic Gardens doesn’t have its mate yet. So it makes sense in 

terms of one of the most respected plans of Washington. 

It is interesting that when the Botanic Gardens was put there, 

it was called a ‘‘living museum.’’ so the African American Museum 

would face another museum as far as I’m concerned there. 

14

I must say, the one thing that would make me impatient—if you 

don’t want to build on the Capitol site, then you don’t want to build 

on the Capitol site, but the one thing that would make me impatient would be if we let security concerns decide that we are not 

going to build on lands we own where building was always contemplated. I hope that this Congress will never be reduced to that 

kind of timidity and will not offer that concession to terrorists. I 

have no doubt that the Capitol Police can protect any museum the 

way they protect the Botanic Gardens. 

Finally, let me say that there is a unique symbolic importance 

to that site. The Civil War veterans called for a monument at that 

site. They had been dishonored 50 years before that then when, despite having served, many of them as slaves in the Union Army, 

they were kept from marching with the Union Army down Pennsylvania Avenue, commemorating the victory of the Union Army; and 

they said, Goodness, we’ve got to have a monument maybe to remind people of what African Americans have meant to this country. 

Congressman Davis and I cosponsored a task force that actually 

passed the House that said that there ought to be an appropriate 

commemoration for the fact that the Capitol itself was built with 

slave labor and the labor of free blacks and, of course, others as 

well. I can think of no more appropriate way to honor the fact that 

the very Capitol where we do our business was built with slave 

labor than to have a site close by that is the site of the museum. 

Having said all that, Mr. Chairman, may I say that differences 

may arise concerning the site. That is a matter for another day. I 

just ask that we pass this bill and deal with the site matters later. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the gentlelady for her testimony. 

[The statement of Ms. Norton follows:]

15


Insert graphic folio 29 89029A.003
16


Insert graphic folio 30 89029A.004
17


Insert graphic folio 31 89029A.005
18

The CHAIRMAN. Just a comment on that. I just have a couple of 

questions, and I will yield to the rest of the members; but I don’t 

think that at the end of the day—and that is why we are having 

this hearing—that there is something in there that is going to be 

so polarized. The Senate takes its action, and this gives us a deliberation on the ability to look at the legislation, to talk about it. 

I can’t imagine at the end of the day that there is something that 

polarizes so much the two Chambers that we don’t pass it. I can’t 

imagine that happening. That is why—the purpose of this hearing 

is to task those questions. 

I appreciate all three of your testimonies. One thing I did want 

to ask, whether it is of the sponsor or the cosponsor, the Presidential Commission did evaluate five sites for the museum since 

we are talking about sites. I just wondered what the rationale is 

for the removal of the fifth site, because the legislation, as written, 

has the fifth site removed. I just wondered the rationale for not 

putting in there all five sites that the Presidential Commission had 

evaluated. 

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, the only thing that I know, to be very 

candid and very frank with you, I think it was leading members 

of the Senate that were sponsors of the legislation had some concern that the Overlook site was too far from The Mall. Members 

of the other body, some felt very strongly that this museum should 

be as close to The Mall as possible. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do any of the other members have any comments? 

The only reason I mention that, I can’t sit here and tell you that 

I have a site that is a superior site in my mind or the worst site 

in my mind. But as you look at the sites up here on the screen, 

and that is why I wanted to ask the question, it seems that the 

Commission recommended five. Then if we had the five, some people would say, one other site is too close, it should have come out. 

I wondered if that came from the Senate, because five were recommended and five were up for grabs, and I don’t know which site 

would be picked or not. I just wanted to kind of clarify where that 

came from. That helps me with that. 

The other question I would like to address of all three of our colleagues, in the Commission site, the recommendation seems to emphasize, obviously, historical and symbolic considerations. Do you 

think any of the economic development or space problems or economic development problems should be also considered in this, or 

should we look at it just from a historical perspective of sites? 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, if I can clarify that, I think each of 

these sites has enormous economic development potential for the 

District of Columbia. I have not looked at each of them in a disparate fashion in that way. I think each of them does have that potential. 

The CHAIRMAN. The one waterfront site had economic development perspective from the city; Washington, D.C., was looking at 

that site, where it is being pointed to now, had an economic development interest there. The city was trying to revitalize. That is 

why I wondered if anything was taken into consideration by the 

Commission when they looked at that, if that was part of their rationale of putting it in. 

19

I wondered if you had any comments, what you thought about 

the economic development side of considerations. 

Ms. NORTON. The Overlook site is considered a prime site. it has 

enormous potential looking down on The Mall on the one hand and 

looking toward the river on the other. I am not sure why—this notion about—while I am very sympathetic to The Mall for a museum 

and particularly given a museum for African Americans, the history of it and its 100-year promise to put it there, I am not one of 

the devotees of putting everything on The Mall. 

I think our generation will go down in infamy for having tried 

to use up The Mall, meant for perpetuity, for our own egos. So you 

will not find me easily saying something should go on The Mall. 

As it is, The Mall is overcrowded and overdeveloped. 

I can understand that this has been an outstanding matter for 

The Mall for so long, that we have allowed every other kind of museum to get there and so it would come very hard on African Americans to say you’re too late because we made you too late, so you 

can’t go to The Mall. My own sense is that you get rid of part of 

that by putting it on the Capitol, the site near the Capitol because 

that is not technically The Mall. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I have one other question and we 

will move on to other members. 

The cost for the museum has been estimated at $360 million. I 

just wondered if you were comfortable with that figure. Some of the 

museums, the Native American Indian museum had a two-thirds/

one-third split. I think this is 50/50 private sector. Each has been 

a bit different. The Holocaust was paid for totally by private funds, 

but that is not under the Smithsonian. So each have been different 

figures. I think this was estimated at $360 million. I just wondered if everybody is comfortable with trying to achieve that goal. I mention 

that in lieu of the Visitors Center, which I support fully, which I 

will take a 10-second privilege to just say that 9/11 changed what 

we did there; 9/11 caused security changes, whether a 143-day 

delay or whatever. So I am comfortable with it. 

I don’t want people passing out as they come to visit this Nation’s Capitol, or 3,000 people trying to share two rest rooms in the 

Capitol. So I am very comfortable with what we are doing. I want 

to make that clear right out front with the Visitors Center. 

And I am comfortable with spending the money personally on 

this project, too. I just wanted to see if we are comfortable that 

that figure will do it. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me say this: As you know, the bill does not 

specifically have any design money in there that would be able to 

qualify us to answer the question, but what I would like to see, as 

someone involved with the Capitol Visitors Center, is the mistakes 

that we have made on that, that they are not repeated. 

Apparently, we made a lot of mistakes when we did the renovation of the Botanical Gardens, yet did not make the changes. The 

Capitol Visitors Center seems to have lots of different bosses, lots 

of different people giving opinions and change orders and so forth. 

It is my hope, in working with members of your committee, that 

we can come up with some processing changes inside the Capitol 

that we could avoid some of the pitfalls, so that if we go after a 

20

project, and say the project is $350 million, then we know with certainty that is going to be what it costs, and if it doesn’t cost that, 

then the contractor will pay the difference because it should be a 

bonded type job and there shouldn’t be change orders and so forth. 

That is where we, as a Congress, have to act more like the private 

sector. 

I know that—Mr. Mica and I have had lots of discussions about 

how we can improve the CVC. Mr. Chairman, even though you and 

I have spoken, nothing compared to your colleague over there on 

the right. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am glad we have now publicly admitted that 

we have strapped the Architect of the Capitol with a bunch of 

change orders that forced him to have to deal with those costs. So 

we have got that settled. I think Mr. Mica will be happy with that. 

Mr. KINGSTON. One of the bosses. 

Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman yield? 

The CHAIRMAN. One second, because I am afraid once I yield to 

you, I can’t get you back. 

On this topic, you do raise a good issue; and we should decide 

what would be in there, and that way the project manager of this 

will not have to run into what the Architect of the Capitol has had 

to run into, of orders and a lot of bosses. 

And not that the changes were bad; some of the ones you can’t 

control, but I just want to make sure that we are comfortable that 

money is going to have to be spent here. I am comfortable with it 

personally. That way we do a project, we get things in order, and 

we know we are going to have to spend some money, $300-andsome million. 

I am not saying that that is not worth the value of what this is 

going to bring for hundreds of years to come in this country. I think 

your observations are good. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Another footnote to that is, unlike the Capitol 

Visitors Center, there are lots of folks that want to donate to this. 

And so actually if you have to go back to the well, it will probably 

be a lot easier to get it from the private sector than it would be 

through Congress. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Just to set the record straight, we were raising private 

funds, and I helped host the last private fund-raiser for the Capitol 

Visitors Center on the evening of September 10 and all fund-raising private was cut off after that because of the situation we faced 

nationally. 

Also, just to clarify the record, it is estimated—Mr. Chairman, to you, a question—that this would be—about $360 million is the estimate? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, by the time it would be completed, the estimate is $360 million. 

Mr. MICA. The mere point I wanted to state for the record is, it 

is about 350,000 square feet, is what I am told. The price, about 

$360 million. 

Just for the record, the Visitors Center is about 500,000 square 

feet, in the similar range of funds; just so that that is made part 

of the permanent record for all those legislators who want to see 

cost. And I have no problem, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Kingston, Ms. Norton, 

21

with spending this money. I want it to be the best museum we 

have ever built when we complete it, but I just want people to understand that costs, particularly those that go up——

Mr. KINGSTON. If we can hold the CVC to the same price as the 

African American history museum, it would be a——

Mr. MICA. We will more than do that, Chairman Kingston. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Reclaiming my time from this great duo here, 

you can see the continuation of what we are seeing on the national 

nightly news tomorrow night, a program that I am sure will be entertaining from all sides of the issue. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I just want to know if we can crank up those private fund-raisers again. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will point out on the Visitors Center, too, somebody had said, you would have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 

they kind of liked that wing. Also, remember, you will have the 

AFL-CIO. They didn’t like that so much. 

So I think the idea to fund taxpayers on the Visitors Center was 

good. I think the idea of public support on this as a match is good. 

It is appropriate. 

Mr. Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Getting back to the topic at hand, let me also add parenthetically 

and thank the sponsors in section 7(b) for including an opportunity 

to bring the Amistad and all the beneficial education and teaching 

opportunities that will provide. 

I was honored to lead the Congressional Black Caucus to my 

home State of Connecticut for the christening, and the tolling of 

the bell 53 times for those slaves who lost their lives. And the great 

history that we share in this House of Representatives with former 

President John Quincy Adams, who was both President and served 

in this House, and tried this case before the Supreme Court, is just 

one small bit of rich history and again demonstrates not only the 

necessity, but the great educational value and tool that this will 

provide the Nation. 

Mr. Lewis, in your comments—and Mr. Kingston and Ms. 

Holmes Norton could also comment on this—you raised the issue 

of security. That is an issue that some of the other panelists that 

will follow you are going to comment on. I wanted you to have an 

opportunity to more fully express your concerns with respect to 

that, why you think these issues can be overcome and how you see 

this moving forward. 

All of our conversations, it seems lately, as it relates to the Capitol, deal with this very delicate balance of providing access and security at the same time.

Mr. LEWIS. You know, Mr. Chairman, I don’t have to tell any of 

you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member, we live in a democratic 

society. Despite our concern about terrorism and violence and security, we don’t want to create a police state. We don’t want to lock 

down the Capitol. 

I remember when I came to Washington the very first time, in 

May of 1961—when I was 21 years old during the freedom rides; 

and then I came back again 40 years ago, on August 28, 1963, for 

the March on Washington, I was 23 years old—we came up here 

22

on that morning. We met with members on the House side, the 

leadership both Democratic and Republicans, and we went over on 

the Senate side and the place was wide open. 

I have been back many times before becoming a Member of Congress. 

I just happen to believe that you are not going to have people 

marching and protesting at the national African American museum. You have people rallying around the United States Supreme 

Court, people rallying around the Congress. And we provide security. 

You see the young men and the young women working around 

the Capitol building, working around the Supreme Court and all 

the other Federal buildings. I think we have the ingenuity, we have 

the know-how to provide the security. 

I don’t think—I want our Nation to be secure and the Capitol to 

be secure, but having a building that will bring balance to the Botanical Gardens on the Senate side, the Capitol site, I think it can 

be protected and help secure the Capitol when visitors come to the 

museum. 

It should be a concern but not an overriding concern. 

Ms. NORTON. I would like to comment on that issue as well. 

First of all, I would like to congratulate the Sergeant at Arms, 

the Senate and the House and the Capitol Police for how they 

have, I think, readjusted to the post-9/11 world. They were not that 

way to begin with. Chairman Ney will remember that the first instinct was an instinct more worthy of Saddam than of this Capitol, 

to lock the thing down. 

The mention of the tours here is a by-product of that problem. 

You have got to have a staff with you. Now they want to bring it 

down to eight. Pretty soon it will be laughable to call it the People’s 

House. And so what people have to do when, of course, you have 

an event like that is to think very seriously about their dual responsibilities, to somehow keep things as they were, but make 

them change so that you are secure. 

Let me show you what a sham argument the notion of security 

for this site is because that is what I am going to call it. It is the 

kind you can’t let the Police Board and the Capitol Police go back 

to where they were. 

The site we are talking about, my friends, is a site that at the 

moment is so far from the Capitol that we let cars drive through 

there. You come down Independence Avenue, you want to get over 

to Constitution Avenue, turn left, go around one circle, then go 

around the other circle. 

Why do the Capitol Police let that happen when the Botanic Gardens is right there, if you’re afraid that somebody could have a 

bomb? You can park your car right there with the Botanic Gardens 

right there. 

Why do they raise concerns now that we are talking about a 

building that would be opposite to the Botanic Gardens, where we 

already allow traffic to come even after 9/11, and we never stopped 

any traffic there after 9/11? There is no security argument. 

You are going to hear arguments like the siting of the Capitol. 

You are going to have a building there, you won’t be able to see 

it. That is no argument against a museum. 

23

You have got to make security people be very specific about what 

they are afraid of and then say, okay, now what are you going to 

do about it? Not that we are afraid of you and therefore we give 

up. 

So I am impatient with talk about security that is not oriented 

toward solving the problem, but toward closing it down. I am particularly impatient with this site which, unlike the site in front of 

the Capitol, which has long been closed, understand that the site 

in back of the Capitol has not been. The reason is that it is so far 

from the Capitol that nobody conceives of it as a security risk. It 

is near the Botanic Gardens where thousands and thousands of 

people go in, day and night. Yet it has not been deemed a security 

risk. Now all of a sudden if we build on that site, this part of the 

Capitol becomes a security site. Nonsense. 

I don’t think there are unsolvable security problems at this site. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I wanted to add, Mr. Larson, that in my opinion 

this museum is about reconciliation. It is not going to be a political 

headquarters. It is not going to be a civil rights club. If you want 

to grind your political ax, take it down the street some. 

Ms. NORTON. To the Capitol. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Yeah, take it to the Capitol. Join the crowd. Pick 

your number. Bring your protesting sign and join the groups. 

This is going to be for history and reconciliation. I think it is 

very important to emphasize that. The Holocaust museum is in a 

different situation than this, because there is more of a political 

equation. There is more of a known, defined, visible opposition 

group. That is not the case here. I think that this is to going to 

be any kind of magnet for hate groups or oddball citizens who want 

to blow somebody up. That is just not the case. 

That is why this legislation asks the Smithsonian to run it, because we believe that they know how to put a museum of history 

together and to not stir things up, but to answer questions and 

bring up important histories that will bring us together. 

Mr. LARSON. I thank the panelists for amplifying their concerns. 

With that, I will yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Additional questions? Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I tend to agree with the panelists, Ms. Norton and I think Mr. 

Lewis also; the security issue is a bogus issue. If we can’t protect 

the security for this facility, no matter where it is built, there is 

something dramatically wrong. 

And I am glad to hear Ms. Norton—I appreciate your comments, 

Ms. Norton. The point I raised about site and we don’t want to get 

bogged down into that, is the question, the overall question of what 

The Mall is going to look like in 50 years or 100 years. This is a 

policy question, too. 

Do we devote portions of The Mall, sections of The Mall and construct buildings all the way along The Mall in the future to recognize different ethnic and racial groups that have contributed or suffered or whatever in the history of the country? And I don’t want 

to diminish in any way what African Americans have suffered or 

contributed to this great Nation. 

24

Again, it is a policy-setting question of importance and, I think, 

significance to the Congress, because the Congress passes these 

bills and we site monuments and structures along the way. It is 

not really a question, but I think we view this in a similar fashion. 

Ms. Norton, you had said the plan—and we do have some issues 

over the Capitol site—was orginially planned in balance with the 

Botanic Garden. But it is my understanding the Botanic Garden is 

a structure of some 47,000 square feet, and the proposed structure 

is 350,000. Would all of that be above ground or is part of the plan 

to balance it as far as size of the structure on both sides? 

Ms. NORTON. I don’t know the answer to that question, but I 

think the Commission, which is going to testify after us, may; or 

some of my colleagues may know whether any of it will be below 

ground. 

Mr. MICA. Because you did speak to the question of a balance of 

structures. That, to me, would pose at least an aesthetic imbalance. 

Ms. NORTON. I think some of the Botanic Gardens is itself below 

ground. So I am not sure that all of that would be space on the 

surface. 

Mr. MICA. Again, Mr. Lewis, I thank you for your comments. I 

hope you see my point, though, about the long-term planning of 

The Mall and how important that is. 

Again, in no way to diminish any of the contributions you have 

made; I take you as someone that I am very proud of. I don’t think 

I have a student group, if you are in sight, that I don’t point out 

the tremendous contributions that you have made not only to the 

African American community but to the United States and the 

Congress. 

I hope the site policy question can be answered and then we can 

do that in fairness to everybody. I hope you appreciate that. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Additional questions? Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I am the only non-African American or non-minority Congressman in this United States Congress that represents 

a minority district, so I can associate myself with Mr. Kingston’s 

remarks about how you grow up. I am still growing up and still living in the city of Philadelphia with a minority population. 

I think that prejudice still exists. I think that passing this bill 

and putting this museum, building this museum, constructing this 

museum will speak volumes to that. It will let the rest of the country know and the rest of the world know how we feel. 

I happen to also agree with the lady from the District of Columbia. This is our second town, but this is her town, her first town. 

She is the keeper—as she says, the people that she represents are 

the keeper of these museums. Who should know best where to put 

it? Who best should know that it should definitely get built? I 

would respect the knowledge that you have and the people that you 

represent, and telling me when I go back to Philadelphia as quick 

as I can, many times, that this is where it should be. 

Mr. Lewis, I have the utmost respect for you of anyone in this 

Congress. You walked the walk and you have talked the talk and 

25

you have been there. I want to say I probably respect you more 

than anyone in this Congress. 

I am going to do what you want to do. I am going to pass a bill 

that you want to pass and I am going to be supportive of building 

it where you want to build it. You have that respect due you. 

As far as security and terror, terror only exists when you are terrorized. That is what the word means. And security? We are not 

secure where we go, anyplace we go. If anybody wants to take a 

shot at us, they can certainly take a shot at us anywhere. You walk 

across that street in a dark suit and 90 percent of the time you are 

going to be all right if you want to do something. So I am not going 

to live my life in fear of terror nor is my family. 

Security—I have empathy for the police officers. My father was 

a police officer. The Capitol Police and our Sergeant at Arms, I was 

a Sergeant at Arms at one time. I remember when we had a bomb 

scare or a scare right after 9/11 on our building; we were running 

out, they were running in. They try to do the best job to deter the 

terror—security. But I don’t think either is an issue. 

I think this needs to get built. I am proud to be a part of making 

it happen. Again, I would acquiesce to the knowledge of my dear 

colleagues on where it should get built. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Are there any other members who have additional questions? 

If not, I want to thank the distinguished panel and we will move 

on to Panel 2. Thank you. 

Mr. MICA [presiding]. I would like to go ahead and ask the second panel to be seated. Let me introduce them as they take their 

seats. 

I want to welcome our panelists to the table. First, Mr. Robert 

Wright, Chairman of the Presidential Commission of the National 

Museum of African American History and Culture; also Mr. Lawrence Small, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution; and additionally, Mr. Charles Cassell, Vice President of the National Coalition to Save our Mall. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being with us. Come 

right up. Grab a seat. Make yourself at home. 

STATEMENTS OF DR. ROBERT L. WRIGHT, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION, NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN 

AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY 

CLAUDINE BROWN, VICE CHAIR, ROBERT L. WILKINS, MEMBER AND CHAIR OF SITE COMMITTEE, AND HOWARD 

DODSON, MEMBER; LAWRENCE M. SMALL, SECRETARY, THE 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION; AND CHARLES I. CASSELL, 

VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COALITION TO SAVE OUR 

MALL, ACCOMPANIED BY GEORGE H.F. OBERLANDER, 

TREASURER. 

Mr. MICA. We do try to limit the testimony if we can. 

If you have documentation or additional information you would 

like to be made part of the record, please request that through the 

Chair. 

Let us begin with Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright, thank you again for 

coming. 

26

Mr. Robert Wright is chairman of the Presidential Commission 

of the National Museum of African American History and Culture. 

Welcome, sir. You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT L. WRIGHT 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a great 

honor and a privilege to appear before you today as Chairman of 

the National Museum of African American History and Culture 

Plan for Action Presidential Commission. Our commission was 

composed of 18 distinguished individuals from across the country 

and four Members of Congress, two of which are no longer active. 

I would also like to recognize for the record, Mr. Chairman and 

members of the committee, Ms. Claudine Brown, who is our Vice 

Chairwoman, Howard Dodson, and Robert Wilkins from the Commission. 

The issue of establishing an African American Museum in Washington, D.C., is not a new idea. For nearly 100 years, going back 

to black veterans who helped save this country in the Civil War 

and the children of slaves who marched with them in Washington 

back in 1915 and the great grandchildren of slaves who launched 

a powerful campaign in the 1980s and 1990s, African Americans 

have pleaded for equal space and equal time on the National Mall. 

The work started by Union veterans and their supporters and descendants led to the 1929 legislation that authorized the construction of a national memorial building to serve as a museum and ‘‘a 

tribute to the Negro’s contributions to the achievements of America.’’ Congress failed to appropriate funds for the building and now, 

75 years later, despite the pleas of succeeding generations, the museum has still not been built. 

Our Commission’s task under Public Law 107–106 was to create 

a fund-raising plan for supporting the creation and maintenance of 

the museum through contributions by American people and the African American community. In addition, we had to create a Report 

on Issues related to the planning. The issues addressed included 

the following: 

The availability and cost of collections to be acquired and 

housed in the museum; 

The impact of the museum on regional African American 

museums across the country; 

Possible locations for the museum on or adjacent to the National Mall in Washington; 

The cost of converting the Smithsonian’s Art and Industries 

Building; and 

The governance and organizational structure from which the 

museum should operate. 

Our Commission was divided into subcommittees, each with a 

subcommittee chairperson to research the various topics that were 

specified in the legislation. Our approach was twofold: 

One, to engage consultants who had expertise in serving specific areas; and

Two, to host town hall style meetings across the country in 

lieu of a national conference to hear from museum professionals, scholars and graduate organizations in various regions 

of the United States. These meetings were designed not only 

27

to solicit input from the public, but also to publicize the movement to develop the museum. 

Our Commission held town hall meetings in Chicago; New Orleans; New York; Topeka, Kansas; Detroit; Washington; and Atlanta, 

Georgia. Additional town hall meetings were planned in Los Angeles, Dallas and Oklahoma City, but were not held because of 

logistical and budgetary concerns. 

As we conducted these town hall meetings, we received an overwhelming response with regard to stories about the African American experience that should be addressed by this museum. They included some of the following: 

A true and uncompromising interpretation of slavery; 

The conditions aboard slave ships during the Middle Passage. 

Other topics such as: 

The Tuskegee Airmen experience and their impact on the 

modern day civil rights movement and the integration of the 

military; 

The historic participation of African Americans in America’s 

wars; 

African American resistance during the slavery and Jim 

Crow periods; 

Buffalo Soldiers and their contributions to the development 

of the American West; 

The development of black businesses during the Jim Crown 

era and their evolution to the present; 

Evolution of the African American church and its contributions to the struggles for freedom; and 

Many, many, many others. 

In addition, we received comments regarding potential collections, impact on regional African American museums, possible locations, Smithsonian affiliation, governance structure and fund-raising. All of these issues were addressed and detailed in the final report that was submitted to the Congress on April 2, 2003. In this 

report, the Commission concluded the following: 

Across the board, private collectors and public institutions are 

more than willing to share their material-culture resources and are 

willing to engage the proposed national museum in discussion as 

to how this might be achieved. 

A resounding 87.5 percent of museums surveyed supported the 

establishment of a national museum in Washington, D.C. None of 

the respondents opposed the plan and only 12.5 percent expressed 

concern that the national museum would pose competition in terms 

of attendance, collections or funding. 

The Commission concluded that a site on The Mall is necessary 

to implement the mission and the program of the museum. The 

Commission recommended the Capitol site as the preferred location 

and the monument site as a suitable alternative. 

After evaluating all the options and weighing opinions of experts 

and grass-roots organizations, as reflected in town hall meetings, 

the Commission decided that the most efficient way for the museum to develop and maintain itself as a comprehensive depository 

of African American history and culture is under the umbrella of 

the Smithsonian Institution. 

28

With regard to fund-raising, the common response from African 

American interviewees was that this museum is long overdue and 

that they would support wholeheartedly, including the provision of 

unprecedented contributions, volunteer time and even the donation 

of personal papers and collections. Many of the more affluent African Americans involved in this study indicated that they would be 

prepared to give ‘‘sacrificially’’ in order to see the dream of such a 

museum finally achieved. Raising $180 million from the private sector for the new museum 

will be a difficult task and will require aggressive and creative approaches to the fund-raising process. In order to be successful, 

there are four limits that must be secured:

One, congressional authorization and initial appropriation to 

allow fund-raising and friend-raising to being concurrently 

with detailed planning; 

Two, the identification of a site; 

Three, an affiliation with the Smithsonian Institution; and 

Four, a leading gift at the level of $30 to $50 million. 

There is a unique interest, level of interest, and deep emotion 

among prospective donors and the possibility of this museum. 

There exist many committed and visionary donors across the country who are eager to give. Dan Amos, Chairman and CEO of 

AFLAC showed his commitment by pledging the first million dollars toward the establishment of the museum. 

There are many others willing to participate, but in order to 

translate that interest into fund-raising solicitations, the Congress 

must take the first and essential step toward creating a public-private partnership of unprecedented proportions. 

Fund-raising cannot begin until the Congress and the President 

act and approve the legislation. This Commission is prepared to 

support the Congress in its deliberation toward that end, and we 

urge your passage of the legislation that is before you at this time. 

Our purpose could not be more timely. Issues of race and racism 

pervade our national life, and all of us must find ways to achieve 

racial reconciliation. This museum can serve our country as preeminent vehicle toward that end. 

Just yesterday, President Bush visited Goree Island, the place 

from which so many of my ancestors began their journey to this 

country. We believe that the fund-raising effort for the new museum will afford every American with a way to help achieve racial 

reconciliation in our country. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank Congressman John Lewis for 

his inspiring leadership, vision and tenacity, and also thank the 

numerous cosponsors of the legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Wright. 

[The statement of Mr. Wright follows:]

29


Insert graphic folio 58 89029A.006
30


Insert graphic folio 59 89029A.007
31


Insert graphic folio 60 89029A.008
32


Insert graphic folio 61 89029A.009
33


Insert graphic folio 62 89029A.010
34


Insert graphic folio 63 89029A.011
35

Mr. MICA. Let me recognize now—and we will take questions 

when we have finished hearing from all of our panelists—Lawrence 

Small, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. 

Welcome back, sir, and you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE M. SMALL 

Mr. SMALL. Thank you, Mr. Mica. I want to thank Chairman Ney 

and Mr. Larson for providing this opportunity to discuss the proposal to create within the Smithsonian Institution a National Museum of African American History and Culture. 

From its creation in 1946, the Smithsonian has remained true to 

its mission, the increase and diffusion of knowledge. It has become 

not only the world’s largest provider of museum experiences that 

are supported by authoritative scholarship and science and history 

and the arts, but also an international leader in scientific research 

and exploration. With its 16 museums and galleries, several research centers and the National Zoo, the Smithsonian offers the 

world a picture of America and America a picture of the world. 

The proposed new museum under discussion would certainly add 

to that picture and offer a vital service to the public.

At their meeting in June of 2001, the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents adopted the following motion: 

‘‘The Board of Regents endorses in principle the establishment of 

a National Museum of African American History and Culture by 

legislation that safeguards the Smithsonian’s interests, including 

those relating to governance, funding and facilities.’’

First, with respect to governance, I am very pleased to see that 

the legislation now proposes a museum structure much like that of 

the other Smithsonian museums. We appreciate the work done so 

far to address the issues we have raised and believe that the majority of these have been addressed. 

With respect to facilities, the legislation requires the Board of 

Regents to choose from among four sites. When this legislation 

passes, the Regents will review the findings of the Presidential 

Commission, and they may want to conduct their own independent 

review before making a decision. 

The bill also calls for extensive consultation with representatives 

of the Presidential Commission and with various interested agencies. Ample time should be provided if these consultations are to 

be meaningful, and care should be taken to see that this aspect of 

the initiative is not rushed. 

Lastly, the funding for construction and operation of the new museum must be addressed. Simply put, the Smithsonian cannot afford to take on this new responsibility unless we are given the 

funds needed to carry it out. Analysis of our financial picture in the 

Smithsonian since 1993 shows that in our five largest museums, 

the ones that receive the greatest number of visitors, federally 

funded staffing has declined 17 percent on average over the last 10 

years. The National Academy of Public Administration concluded 

in 2001 that the Smithsonian faces a $1.5 billion backlog in our facilities maintenance program for existing facilities. 

We are scheduled to open two major new facilities in the next 

year and a half—the new National Air and Space Museum’s Steven 

F. Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles Airport that will open this DecemVerDate jul 14 2003 00:48 Sep 03, 2003 Jkt 089029 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A029.XXX A029
36

ber; and then, in September of 2004, the National Museum of the 

American Indian on The Mall. We also hope to reopen the historic 

Patent Office Building, which is home to the Smithsonian American Art Museum and the National Portrait Gallery in July of 

2006. Just these three facilities alone, which represent a combined 

investment of $750 million, will also need to be maintained, in addition to all of our other facilities. 

The Presidential Commission estimated that it would cost $360 

million to build a building similar in size to the National Museum 

of the American Indian. The Commission also estimated that it 

would cost $42 million each year to operate the museum once it is 

fully staffed. The Smithsonian cannot absorb amounts of this magnitude within its current budget. 

Finally, it is important to keep in mind that the new museum 

is being considered before its collection is identified and acquired. 

First, in establishing a new museum, a mission must be defined, 

and then the collections must be assembled to fulfill that mission. 

The Smithsonian will certainly pay careful attention to the Presidential Commission’s findings on this subject, and we will also 

have to review carefully what the creation of this new museum 

means for the Institution’s existing collections and exhibits. 

The Smithsonian would be honored to play a part in this project 

that will offer so much to visitors from across America and around 

the world. We are anxious to work with Congress to ensure the 

success of this endeavor. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Small. 

[The statement of Mr. Small follows:]

37


Insert graphic folio 68 89029a.012
38


Insert graphic folio 69 89029a.013
39


Insert graphic folio 70 89029a.014
40

Mr. MICA. We will hear now from Mr. Charles Cassell, Vice 

President of the National Coalition to Save Our Mall. 

Welcome, sir, and you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES I. CASSELL 

Mr. CASSELL. Good afternoon. Chairman Ney and members of 

the Committee on House Administration, the National Coalition to 

Save Our Mall is pleased to be invited to comment on H.R. 2205, 

which would authorize the establishment of the National Museum 

of African American History and Culture here in the Nation’s Capital. 

My name is Charles I. Cassell; I am Vice President of the Coalition. I have submitted my resume. The Coalition is a national notfor-profit education and research organization working to preserve 

the historic planned, open space area and symbolic meaning of The 

National Mall as our monument to American founding principles. 

Coalition board member George Oberlander accompanies me; President Judy Scott Feldman could not attend due to prior travel plans. 

Last October, the Coalition published its ‘‘First Annual State of 

The Mall Report,’’ which is an attached exhibit which you have, in 

which we stated:

The National Mall—the unique National Park in the heart of our Nation’s Capital—is under physical assault. The threats come from Congress, through well-intended interest groups and otherwise well-meaning citizens who wish to see more 

memorials or museums located on The Mall’s dwindling historic planned public 

space. These assaults on The Mall’s open space character threaten to change and 

undermine the historic symbolism that makes The Mall the premier democratic public space in the Nation and indeed in the world.

H.R. 2205, by designating only four potential sites for the museum, three of them directly on The Mall, could lead to the further 

degradation of The Mall’s symbolic open space. 

Please understand the Coalition enthusiastically supports the 

idea of the museum. We believe it is a worthy enterprise which is 

long overdue. We are grateful to Mr. Robert Wilkins, the chairman 

of the museum’s site selection committee, who graciously spent 

time explaining to the Coalition and to the Committee of 100 on 

the Federal City his research, study and choice of preferred site locations. 

Let me say here that I am a second-generation native of Washington, D.C., and I am old enough that I remember segregation in 

Washington, D.C. We lived in our own communities. Our professionals practiced only in the communities except in unusual circumstances. Having grown up in that environment, even as I 

served in World War II and returned to the Nation, I experienced 

the same kind of segregation and deprivation on the basis of my 

race. So I am fully sympathetic with the idea of memorializing the 

struggles that African Americans have gone through, lo, these 

many generations. 

We are opposed, however, to any new museum construction on 

the public open spaces of The National Mall, and that includes the 

grounds of the Capitol and the Washington Monument site. Of the 

three potential sites on The Mall, only the Arts and Industries site, 

which would use an existing building, is consistent with the Commemorative Works Act which I think we have to remember was enacted by Congress to protect the L’Enfant and McMillan plans and 

41

The Mall’s open public space. We would endorse the use of the Arts 

and Industries structure—Building since the building is already 

there. 

The Capitol site, the site listed in section 8(b)(1) of the bill, is not 

consistent with the McMillan plan, contrary to what the 2002 preferred site analysis structure study indicates. In the McMillan concept, any building at that site would form part of the Federal enclave and would relate directly to the Capitol building and its legislative functions. A museum and the public and tourist activities associated with it was not envisioned for that site. 

The more recent current Capitol master plan for the future 

growth and development of the Capitol grounds shows no building 

on that site and indicates, at most, a landscape element. 

The Coalition believes that the four potential sites are too few or 

limited as guidance to the Smithsonian site designation. In addition, there are other additional suitable possibilities. 

We urge the committee to insert language to allow for consideration of additional sites that either have been eliminated prematurely by the museum’s selection committee or that were not 

considered by the site selection consultants, including but not limited to the Banneker/10th Street Overlook site and a new site identified in Exhibit 2, that you have before you, across Constitution 

Avenue from the Lincoln Memorial adjacent to The Mall. Accordingly, section 8(a)(1)(B) should include a paragraph providing further suitable locations to be examined and evaluated in relation to 

those already identified. 

In addition, we are very concerned that section 8(A)(1)(d) restricts consultations to the Chair of the Commission of Fine Arts 

and the National Capital Planning Commission and not the entire 

commissions themselves. That would deny the public any role since 

there would be no public hearings or meetings to express their 

point of view on location or design. 

This is unacceptable in the Coalition’s view. A national museum 

is just that, national. The public must be given an opportunity for 

involvement. Therefore, we urge the committee to designate in the 

bill the crucial role of the reviewing agencies as established by the 

Commemorative Works Act and the other laws enacted by Congress for the review and approval of Federal public building 

projects in the Nation’s Capital. This designation should also include the public, as is customary in the review and approval process, as the Secretary has indicated. Section 8(A)(1)(d)(3) should also 

include reference to the Commemorative Works Act as I have indicated. 

In conclusion, we urge the committee to: 

One, allow for the possibility of additional alternative sites; 

and 

Two, to reaffirm the role of the review agencies and the public in site and design review. 

That concludes our formal statement, Mr. Chairman. We are prepared to respond to any questions you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Cassell follows:]

42


Insert graphic folio 76 89029A.015
43


Insert graphic folio 77 89029A.016
44

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the panel for your testimony. 

Dr. Wright, I want to ask just a few questions. How many visitors a day will you envision that would come through the museum? 

I know it is a guesstimate. 

Mr. WRIGHT. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would also 

like to defer that question to our vice chairperson, Ms. Claudine 

Brown. Ms. Brown. 

The CHAIRMAN. For the record, if you would like to state your 

name and title. 

Ms. BROWN. My name is Claudine Brown. I was the vice chairperson for the President’s Commission for the National Museum of 

African American Culture and History. 

Our projection is approximately 2 million visitors per year. 

The CHAIRMAN. You might want to remain for a second. How is 

parking contemplated, if it would be the Capitol site? 

Ms. BROWN. Actually parking is not a part of our plan. And we 

are hopeful that people will use the same means and modes of 

transportation that they use to get to other Mall museums. 

So we suggest that a number of people will probably use public 

transportation, and they will park as they may in the general vicinity of the Mall.

The CHAIRMAN. And then in the evaluation of the five sites that 

were recommended by the Commission, how does the Capitol site 

compare to the other sites with regard to proximity to a Metrorail 

station. 

Ms. BROWN. Well, we know that the site that is closest to a Metrorail station is the Arts and Industries Building, because there is 

a station just a stone’s throw from there. 

But we think that—I think that there is a station, but it is probably like about 4 blocks away from the Capitol site. 

The CHAIRMAN. One other question I have on the Capitol site, because security questions have been raised. I think some of the 

Members made good points, including Mr. Brady, on overall security of the Capitol. We try to do the best that we can do with it. 

But the Capitol site recommended by the Commission is within 

the security perimeter that surrounds the Capitol. At times access 

inside this perimeter to the perimeter can be severely restricted. 

For example, when the President visits, not to pick on the President and Vice President, but at certain times, or if there is a 

speech up on certain parts of the back front of the Capitol. 

And I just wondered, knowing that certain times there is restrictions or some security threats where we have an overall restriction 

of the Capitol proper, the Campus, was the Commission aware of 

this or did they consider it when the site was chosen, about the fact 

that there could be severe or total cutoff of access to the museum? 

Ms. BROWN. I think that the Commisison considered a number 

of factors. One was that this site is as close to the Capitol as the 

Botanic Garden site. It is certainly not as close in proximity as the 

Visitors Center. We recognize that in the Nation’s Capitol there are 

always possibilities of security, especially if the President is speaking, and that is kind of one of the realities that you live with. And 

we felt that it could be a reality in almost any of the sites that we 

looked at. 

45

The CHAIRMAN. Two other brief questions. Secretary Small indicated the collection that will be housed in the museum has yet to 

be identified and acquired. That is naturally understandable. 

Given that, how did the Commission arrive at its determination 

on the size of the museum? In other words, how do you know about 

the space you will need if we don’t know the size of the collection 

yet? 

Ms. BROWN. Well, in most museums the collection is not housed 

in the actual museum proper. But what we did look at is the program of the museum. We looked at the fact that we wanted a large 

permanent exhibition. We also knew that we wanted spaces for 

public programming and also that we would be working in conjunction with other museums around the country, and we wanted 

spaces for traveling exhibitions. 

We wanted some resource center space. So the program really determined how the space would be used. Not unlike the United 

States Holocaust Museum, we see a major part of this museum 

telling a narrative story. And in their process, they actually determined the story that they wanted to tell, and then collections were 

actually acquired after the fact. 

The CHAIRMAN. The other question would be how much of the 

proposed collections will you be gathering from other museums? 

Will they be permanent, or some of them temporary? Will that impact some of the museums? Are they willing to do that? Has there 

been any conversations with any existing museums or facilities 

that could help to enhance this museum? 

Ms. BROWN. One of our charges under the legislation was that 

we communicate specifically with other African American museums 

just to make sure that we would have a meaningful relationship 

with then. And in doing so, I would say more than 90 percent of 

those institutions were willing to lend objects and actually wanted 

to see a cultural exchange take place. 

What we are also hoping is that we can have the same kind of 

reciprocal relationship with other Smithsonian museums, not unlike some of the Smithsonian affiliates.

The bigger issue, though, is that we would like to acquire collections with an informed plan and not begin to just get collections 

because people have them. We want to know what the narrative is 

and really have curators on board, and then let them make those 

decisions. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank you for your time. 

Secretary Small, your testimony indicated that most of the concerns that were expressed about the proposed structure of this museum have been addressed in the legislation. Can you describe the 

standard structure of the Smithsonian museums and describe how 

this proposal would compare to that, and also how does it differ, 

if it does, and do you have any remaining concerns about the structure envisioned by the bill? 

Mr. SMALL. Thank you. As I indicated, as the legislation now 

stands, it is quite similar to the existing structure that we have. 

The museum would have an advisory board to help with outreach 

and fund-raising. The director of the museum would report in the 

way that we have currently in place in the Smithsonian. The budgVerDate jul 14 2003 00:48 Sep 03, 2003 Jkt 089029 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A029.XXX A029
46

et for construction and operation of the museum would be part of 

the overall Smithsonian budget. 

So I think it very much fits within the current approach that we 

would use from a governance standpoint for the museum. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think it was one of our Members on the majority side that had raised an issue of future museums, which I think 

we do have to consider future museums, because we have the Native American Museum, and our committee has the responsibility 

to consider future as well as current proposals for museums. 

Have we received any contacts from other groups, such as Hispanic Americans or Asian Americans who have expressed similar 

interest of similar museums within the Smithsonian and, if we 

have, what are we talking about with feasibility and being able to 

do it? And would we have considerations of other sites within the 

proximity of the Mall? Do you have any ideas on that? 

Mr. SMALL. We at the Smithsonian haven’t received any formal 

proposals in that regard. On the other hand, we have been involved 

in any number of public gatherings where members, for example, 

of the Hispanic Caucus have talked about a Latino museum. So, 

yes, we have heard mention of such things. But as I say, there is 

no formal process that I am aware of that is in place. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. My last question is for Mr. Cassell, 

Vice President of the Coalition to Save The Mall. Your testimony 

references the Commemorative Works Act and their relationship to 

the L’Enfant and McMillan Plans for preserving The Mall. 

Can you elaborate a little bit on the Commemorative Works Act 

and your belief that future construction violates basically the intent of Congress? 

Mr. CASSELL. Let me ask Mr. Oberlander, our expert, to respond 

to that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you identify yourself please for the record? 

Thank you. 

Mr. OBERLANDER. I am George Oberlander. I am the treasurer 

of the National Coalition to Save Our Mall. I am also a retired 

urban planner, having worked with the National Capital Planning 

Commission for 31 years as the Associate Executive Director for 

District Affairs. I am very familiar with the Commemorative Works 

Act and the planning activities in the Nation’s Capital since 1965, 

when I came to Washington. 

I have also worked with the former Architect of the Capitol on 

the Master Plan for the grounds of the Capitol. So I am familiar 

with the planning jurisdiction of the grounds of the Capitol that 

are under the Architect of the Capitol jurisdiction and the Planning 

Commission’s jurisdiction. 

The Commemorative Works Act was a way of trying to resolve 

the basic problems of preserving the historic character of the Nation’s Capital Mall area. Normally people call the Mall the area 

from the Capitol Building all the way to the Lincoln Memorial. 

However, technically the Mall starts at the foot of the Capitol 

grounds and ends at 15th Street. Then you have the Washington 

Monument Grounds, which are not technically the Mall, and then 

you have West Potomac Park, which is the area west of the Washington Monument Grounds, which most people call the Mall, but is 

47

technically West Potomac Park, according to the National Park 

Service Maps. 

The Commemorative Works Act was trying to resolve the problem, in the 1980s when this act was enacted, of the numerous memorial proposals. At that time the Vietnam Memorial was proposed, and it was placed on the National Mall. And then the Korean Memorial was proposed in an opposite location on the south 

side of the Mall. 

The Congress decided that it was necessary to establish criteria 

for where memorials might be placed in the future. It designated 

two different areas, Area 1, which is the central part of the Mall, 

the green panels between the trees and the areas to Pennsylvania 

and Maryland avenues, and Area 2, which is the broader area encompassing most of what you see on the graphics that are before 

you. 

The Act was intended to preserve the historic nature of the 

L’Enfant Plan of 1791 and the McMillan Plan of 1901, which actually placed museum buildings along the Mall whereas the L’Enfant 

Plan did not. The L’Enfant Plan places Foreign Missions, foreign 

government facilities, chanceries or embassies along the Mall, 

which never materialized. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can I ask you something on that aspect? The 

previous panel, I don’t know if you were here, panel 1, one of the 

Members testifying had stated that this was consistent with the 

McMillan Plan. Are you saying it is not? 

Mr. OBERLANDER. Well, we are saying in our testimony that we 

don’t believe it is. The interpretation of what is officially the McMillan Plan is really in the jurisdiction of the Commission of Fine 

Arts. That Commission should be asked to make the official determination. However, looking at the McMillan drawings, it did not 

have a museum building located on the preferred site. It may have 

had a similar type of Government (legislative) type of building that 

was shown on the south side of the Mall, but it did not indicate 

a museum function not a building that would be three or four or 

five stories in height. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Putting the debate aside whether it does support 

or goes against the McMillan Plan for a second, the Commission 

had looked at five sites, and the bill has four now as it is in the 

Senate. 

Any thoughts about whether there should be the five that the 

Commission originally had talked about? And, again, I don’t know 

what site would be picked. I have no idea. Any thoughts about 

that? The Commission had five evaluated. Now there is four in the 

bill as it arrives? 

Mr. OBERLANDER. Well, the testimony that Mr. Cassell gave 

while you were out of the room indicated that we would prefer all 

five be included in the bill, and in addition the—one is the 

Banneker site, which is not in the bill at the moment, which is at 

the southern end of the 10th Street overlook, near the channel and 

the Potomac River, which would be a possibility of mooring a slave 

ship in conjunction with the museum’s function as part of exhibiting that history. 

The other site that the testimony addresses is the last page of 

this document, a new site that has come about as a result of a 

48

study that the Federal Highway Administration and the Kennedy 

Center is undertaking. If you can find that graphic in our testimony, it shows a site which would be opened up as a result of 

eliminating the on-ramp which now goes onto Memorial Bridge, 

from Constitution Avenue eliminating that on-ramp and creating a 

sizable open area which has no buildings on it now. We believe this 

might be a good location, and should be examined by the Smithsonian and the sponsors of the museum as another possibility. 

This is not technically on the Mall. But it is within a stone’s 

throw of the Lincoln Memorial. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. The gentleman from Connecticut. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Did you want 

to say something, Mr. Cassell? 

Mr. CASSELL. I wanted to say something about security. May I? 

As an architect, I want to point to the fact that the government 

now is building security installations around the Monument, the 

Capitol, a variety—the Lincoln Memorial and so forth. These buildings are already in place. 

And it is assumed that the security that is provided around these 

existing buildings should be effective. For a new building, if it is 

possible to protect existing buildings, and for a new building, a part 

of the design requirements are that it must be so designed that it 

can be protected, that it can be secure. And then we have an opportunity to evaluate what the architect comes up with. 

But I don’t think that we can—since we are not looking at an existing building now, we can determine whether it is secure or not. 

I think Mrs. Norton has made the point very well about the fact 

that at this particular point, you know, there is no presumed security issue regarding the Capitol site, which we would not support 

simply because it is on the Mall. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, sir. That was enlightening. Mr. Wright, 

do you want to respond? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Is it possible we can respond to the gentleman’s 

comment on the McMillan Plan? 

Mr. LARSON. Happy to yield. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you. I would like Robert Wilkins, who headed our site subcommittee to respond to that, please. Robert. 

The CHAIRMAN. Please state your name and title for the record. 

Mr. WILKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Robert Wilkins. I was a member of the Presidential Commission and had the 

honor of chairing the site committee of that Commission. 

I prepared a written testimony which I submitted to your staff 

before the hearing and which you should have before you, and attached to that testimony are some slides to illustrate some of the 

points in the testimony and the rationale for the Commission’s decision. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection that will be entered into the 

record. 

[The information follows:]

49


Insert offset folio 02 here 89029.026
50


Insert offset folio 03 here 89029.027
51


Insert offset folio 04 here 89029.028
52


Insert offset folio 05 here 89029.029
53

Mr. WILKINS. With respect to the McMillan Plan, the McMillan 

Plan of 1901 specified very clearly that it would be appropriate to 

place a monumental building on this site. I have read the text of 

the McMillan Plan, and I am not familiar with what has been referred to the proposed use of this being for a Federal Congressional 

enclave. 

But be that as it may, I think the issue here is, is a building appropriate on the site? Whether it is a Congressional office building 

or this museum, the issue is, is a building appropriate for this site? 

And I think this answer per the McMillan Plan is clearly yes. If 

you look at every depiction of the McMillan Plan, you see that. 

Furthermore, there was a reference to the Commission of Fine 

Arts as the appropriate interpreter of the McMillan Plan. In 1927, 

the Commission of Fine Arts hired an architect by the name of 

John Parsons to do a study of that area, and Mr. Parsons’ study 

recommended that a building be placed on that very site, and he 

also recommended that the Botanic Gardens be moved from the 

center of the Mall, which is where it was located at that time to 

its present location. 

So the designer of the Botanic Gardens building intended and 

drew a plan that said that there should be a sister building on this 

site that we are talking about. That was endorsed by the Commission of Fine Arts. And Congress, in an act that was passed on 

March the 4th of 1929, approved that plan.

So Congress has already approved a plan by the Commission of 

Fine Arts that called for a building to be constructed on this site. 

So I think that should put to rest any issue of whether this is in 

line with the vision of the McMillan Plan. And all of that is explained further in my testimony. I would be happy to speak with 

you further about that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you very much. And I thank all of the panelists for their very insightful comments and would join in commending the Commission for an outstanding report, would recognize, as I believe others have, that while it may differ in some respects from Mr. Lewis’ and Mr. Kingston’s bill, the impact and the 

intent are definitely collectively the same. And again I wanted to 

commend you for that. 

I have questions for the panelists. I would like to start with Mr. 

Wright. And this is coupling on the backs of an earlier conversation 

that was raised by Mr. Kingston and Mr. Mica. The Commission’s 

final report was predicated on a 75/25 public-private funding ratio, 

75 percent appropriated funds and 25 percent private contributions. The fund-raising report provided a positive analysis about 

the prospects of success for raising the 25 percent. However, the 

Lewis-Kingston bill contains a 50/50 public-private breakdown of 

funds. Do you think the larger amount is achievable? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Well, as I state in my testimony, $180 million certainly presents a challenge. But also I feel that the potential, as 

I stated, for raising money for this particular purpose certainly is 

there. 

I think the first step obviously has to be when Congress, in your 

wisdom, should you enact the legislation, identifying a site, I think 

then the ability to raise money is greatly enhanced. 

54

There are many corporations, private citizens through our surveys and through the fund-raising surveys who have indicated a 

willingness to contribute. And I guess the bottom line answer to 

your question is, although $180 million in the legislation is a challenge, I certainly think it is achievable. 

Mr. LARSON. The Commission report recommended separate access by the new museum’s council to major donors. But under the 

Smithsonian practice, the regents decide how to allocate fund-raising priorities and donor access, and this bill does not change that. 

Can the museum fund-raise successfully within this structure? 

Ms. BROWN. My own history is that I have worked for the Smithsonian for 5 years as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Museums, 

and I recognize all of the burdens that Secretary Small has mentioned and his responsibility to the entire institution. 

But I am also aware that when a new museum is raising moneys, that they are in the position to bring aboard individuals or a 

capital campaign group that will help them in that fund-raising initiative. The fund-raising group that we used as our consultants for 

this work included Alice green Burnette, who was head of institutional advancement at the Smithsonian and worked on the Museum of the American Indian, and Dick Taft, who worked both on 

the Museum of the American Indian and the Holocaust Museum. 

And we believe that with that team in place, a team that is 

knowledgeable about Smithsonian practices and a team that also 

has had experience raising money for two national museums, that 

we would be able to reach our goals and be true to the guidelines 

and parameters of the Smithsonian. 

Mr. LARSON. I guess I should ask Secretary Small if he believes 

that the new council that will be established and their access to donors and the regents and the current Smithsonian policy would be 

compatible in this process? Again, everybody wants to make sure 

that we have the optimal opportunity to achieve and reach the anticipated $360 million goal. 

Mr. SMALL. I don’t think there is any incompatibility with the 

processes of the Smithsonian. I think the biggest issue involving 

fund-raising is that there be absolutely no question about the Federal Government’s commitment to its part of the project, both from 

the standpoint of the capital funds to build the museum and the 

commitment to provide operating funds later on. 

That is really very important. If you do not have the commitments of the government to do its share of the project in whatever 

form the legislation calls for, right up front, the ability to get private sector donors to come in, if there is any doubt about what the 

government is going to do, becomes very limited. 

Another thing that would be very helpful in this legislation is to 

make it like the legislation that was passed for the National Museum of the American Indian, which permits the use of Federal 

funds within the National Museum of the American Indian to do 

fund-raising, because without having the ability to start this and 

have money so that you can actually raise funds from the private 

sector, you have to ask private sector donors to give money to form 

a fund-raising department. There are very few private sector donors who want to do that. So that would be one change in the legislation that I think is very, very important. 

55

Mr. LARSON. Well, to follow up on that. I thank Mr. Wright for 

your comments. To follow up on that, Secretary Small, there has 

been a long-standing controversy surrounding the Smithsonian’s 

policy over how far to go in allowing the use of corporate names 

or private donors’ names in buildings, exhibits and other aspects of 

the Smithsonian activity. 

What is the current Smithsonian policy on this, and would the 

new museum be treated in the same way as others in this regard? 

Mr. SMALL. The Smithsonian’s policies have been in place for 

quite a long time now, policies passed by our Board of Regents, in 

which they have a tremendous involvement, not only from a policy 

standpoint, but also from an operational standpoint, and there are 

very, very clear guildelines as to how you recognize donors. 

Of course, in many ways donor recognition goes right back to the 

beginning of the Smithsonian, since it is in fact named for its first 

donor, James Smithson, as are museums such as the Hirshhorn 

Museum or the Sackler Gallery. So I think there is a long history 

of donor recognition, not only in the Smithsonian, but throughout 

the United States in hospitals, universities, libraries and such. And 

I think the policies have served the Smithsonian well. 

I believe this museum would be treated in precisely the same 

way that we treat our other museums, including the more recent 

national museum, the National Museum of the American Indian, 

which adheres to the exact same policies. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you. Mr. Cassell, obviously in your testimony 

you would have preferred to see sites included that aren’t in the 

final recommendation, and is it my understanding there were two 

additional sites, the Banneker site and the——

Mr. CASSELL. Your Exhibit 2 will show a second site which is 

near the Kennedy Center. 

Mr. LARSON. Right. 

Mr. CASSELL. Off the Mall and near the Rock Creek Park driveway. And if you have a look at that, you can see that it is—there 

are about six acres there. It would be a very prominent site. It 

would overlook the Mall. It would attract much attention simply 

because it is near the Kennedy Center and presumably it would be 

eloquent architecture. 

Mr. LARSON. Is that the Banneker site? 

Mr. CASSELL. No, no, no. That is—in fact, we just found that site. 

Do we have a name for the site? 

Mr. OBERLANDER. No, no yet. 

Mr. CASSELL. The Banneker site is if you are driving along Independence Avenue, you turn right and left and go down 10th Street. 

At the end of 10th Street is an overlook that looks over Maine Ave. 

and Water Street and into the river, and that is called the Benjamin Banneker site. It is isolated, but yet a structure on that site 

would be very, very prominent. 

In fact, I think that it would draw attention from the Mall to 

people who are interested not only in the meaning of the memorial 

building, but its impressiveness. If buildings are to be built on the 

Mall then they are going to have to conform to the existing Federal 

Architecture. I mean, you can’t have something that is very, very 

different adjacent to the United States Capitol. 

56

But at the overlook site, you can do something like the—well, I 

don’t know what to point to, but you know that the Kennedy Center is not similar to any other buildings in this city. So that if there 

were to be something built on either of those sites, the one that is 

near the Kennedy Center, we just discovered that, and the 10th 

Street overlook, then those buildings would be or could be very attractive. And in your requirements for that, you could build in the 

requirements for such security as we thought were necessary. 

Mr. LARSON. And in the view of the Commission, was the site 

near the Kennedy Center viable? 

Ms. BROWN. That site was never under consideration. 

Mr. OBERLANDER. May I add, the reason it wasn’t under consideration probably is it has a bridge access ramp on it right now from 

Constitution Avenue to the Roosevelt Bridge. That ramp is proposed by the Federal Highway Administration, in the redoing of all 

of the highway network in front of the Kennedy Center, to be eliminated. Thereby that site would become, when the construction 

takes place, would become available. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Congressman, our task, as specified in the legislation, was to identify a site on or near. I think that is basically what 

the legislation said. And we tried to sort of stay within these guidelines, stay within that framework. That is probably why we didn’t 

look beyond the statement on or near. 

Mr. LARSON. Well, just if I might follow up, Mr. Chairman. Just 

in—can I take it that all of the panelists are in agreement with regard that security issues can be addressed, whether in the establishment of a new building, and making sure that the architecture 

reflects that so you are building in that security or safeguarding? 

My question would be to Mr. Small again. Given the site on the 

Capitol and the overlap that perhaps would exist between the Capitol Police and Smithsonian, how do you envision that being worked 

out? 

Mr. SMALL. Congressman Larson, I think you touched on a very 

important issue for the Smithsonian. Right now, of the four sites 

that are in the legislation, one of the sites is already within the 

Smithsonian, the Arts and Industries Building. Two other sites are 

set in the legislation so that if the Board of Regents were to choose 

either the monument site, which is west of the American History 

Museum, right near the Washington Monument, or if it were to 

choose the Liberty Loan site, those two, because they are under the 

jurisdiction of the General Services Administration and the National Park Service, the administrative jurisdiction over those 

would automatically switch to the Smithsonian. 

The legislation doesn’t mention that in regard to the Capitol site. 

So as these discussions wind their way through Congress on which 

site and what should be included in this, what is very important 

for us is that it be very clear that when the site is chosen that we 

get the administrative jurisdiction for it right away so we don’t 

have all sorts of conflicting debates because that will dampen the 

ability to raise money from the private sector in a huge way. 

If people think there is a hassle as to which building it is going 

to be, which site it is going to be, who is going to have jurisdiction 

over it, it will create enormous confusion and make the museum 

very difficult to get off the ground. 

57

Mr. LARSON. I thank the panelists for their comments. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Cassell, you mentioned in your testimony that the procedure 

that is outlined, I believe, in the proposed legislation violates some 

of the existing laws and/or procedures for approval of a site on the 

Mall. Is that correct?

Mr. CASSELL. Yes. The Commemorative Works Act, which Mr. 

Oberlander has referred to—would you want to speak to that? 

Mr. OBERLANDER. Well, there are, besides the Commemorative 

Works Act. 

Mr. MICA. We also have the Commission on Fine Arts and the 

National Capital Planning Commission. And would this legislation 

supersede all of those processes? 

Mr. OBERLANDER. Well, the legislation mentions only consultation with the chairman of each of those two commissions. 

Mr. MICA. So that wouldn’t go through the normal approval process for siting? 

Mr. OBERLANDER. That is correct, Senator—sir. 

Mr. MICA. I love that. Go ahead. 

Mr. OBERLANDER. But the National Capital Planning Act of 

1952——

Mr. MICA. So what it is doing is having Congress mandate another structure or monument? 

Mr. OBERLANDER. Right. In our opinion that would be the case, 

yes. 

Mr. MICA. And your group definitely testified that we should concur with the different processes to see that it does fit, conform, and 

is sited according to the laws and other requirements and procedures that we require for building? 

Mr. CASSELL. I think we are required to do that, are we not? 

Mr. MICA. Well, you haven’t been around here long enough. We 

pass the laws and we can do anything we want. 

Mr. CASSELL. Oh, yes. There was the World War II Memorial. 

That is right. 

Mr. MICA. Exactly. And now did the Native American Indian 

project go through all of these hoops? It did? 

Mr. OBERLANDER. Yes, sir, it did. 

Mr. MICA. That gives me great fright too, because I am not sure 

about that one. 

Mr. OBERLANDER. That was the only formally designated site on 

the National Mall that asked for another museum building to compliment the building of the addition to the National Gallery on the 

north side. 

Mr. MICA. It went through all of the processes? 

Mr. SMALL. I believe it did so voluntarily, though, Congressman. 

I don’t know that it is required for those buildings. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Mica, can we respond to that? 

Mr. MICA. Go right ahead. Yes. 

Mr. WILKINS. Thank you, Mr. Mica. I wanted to again, as chair 

of the site committee for the Commission we studied these issues 

very carefully, the legal issues involved, and as a lawyer, I am very 

sensitive to those issues. But we should be clear about a couple of 

58

things, because I think that there is some clarification needed here. 

The Commemorative Works Act does not apply to museums, it applies to monuments and memorials, and so there is nothing about 

this legislation that would violate the Commemorative Works Act, 

because the Commemorative Works Act doesn’t apply to museums. 

Mr. MICA. What about the National Capital Planning Commission procedures? 

Mr. WILKINS. There is no set procedures or laws that I am aware 

of that govern the siting of museums. Congress has done it any 

number of ways over the years. For the Hirshhorn Museum, for the 

Air and Space Museum, for the Museum of the American Indian, 

Congress designated the specific site where those museums would 

be located. 

There was no procedure where you went through the National 

Capitol Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts or anyone else. For the Holocaust Museum, Congress specified that the 

site would be designated by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the National Capitol Planning Commission. 

Mr. MICA. I think that is one of the points that I tried to raise 

here today, is what is our policy and procedure, and this does set 

a precedent. Now, the Native American is an exception. Of course 

the Native Americans were here before African Americans or all of 

the rest of us who came, and maybe that is a legitimate exception, 

but we are carving out for one particular group. Everything else 

that I know of relates to all Americans. The Smithsonian activities 

along the Mall are all Americans. I don’t consider the Holocaust on 

the Mall itself. It is close by. 

But that is, again, and I think that is a Federal policy question 

and procedures that we need to adopt, because if we do this for this 

particular museum and it ends up on the Mall, we have set a 

precedent for the future, whether it is a monument or a building. 

Mr. WILKINS. I guess my point is that precedent exists, because 

Congress designated again for the Air and Space Museum——

Mr. MICA. That was for every—it doesn’t pick out any one group, 

not American natural history—all of the activities along the Mall 

relate to all Americans. The only exception to that is Native Americans, and they certainly have a unique place as far as being the 

possessors of this land before any of us got here. 

And again I want to set out in fairness that we treat everyone 

equal in this process. But the ultimate goal should be that at the 

end of what we establish as policy, that we don’t end up with a 

Mall that is a helter-skelter of buildings and monuments and whatever you have, that Congress by committee creates a disaster for 

generations. We have gotten this far, 200 years, we have done some 

damage. I am hoping that we can do good in the future in an orderly fashion. And again, no offense to anybody. 

Finally, Mr. Small, you said you have more than a billion dollar 

backlog and all of that. Congress can still authorize these projects. 

The Native American Indian Museum has operational costs which 

are estimated at what annually? 

Mr. SMALL. When it is up and running, in the $30 million plus 

range per year. 

59

Mr. MICA. Okay, And probably this museum, which is based on 

similar square foot exhibition space and activity space would be 

somewhat similar? 

Mr. SMALL. On the assumption that the plans and the collections 

and all of the other needs came out to be similar, yes. 

Mr. MICA. So Congress will have to appropriate not only capital 

money, but also operational money. And for the record, you would 

estimate it would be in the what range? 

Mr. SMALL. $35 to $40 million range. And the answer is unquestionably yes. 

Mr. MICA. Just for the record. Thank you. 

Mr. CASSELL. May I say something? 

Mr. MICA. If you wanted to respond to something. 

Mr. CASSELL. Yes, regarding fairness. You mentioned that there 

are many ethnic groups in this country, and if they all wanted representation on a particular location, we would have a helter-skelter. There is something very special about Native Americans and 

something very special about African Americans. 

I think Congressman Lewis mentioned the fact of healing. That 

healing means that something has happened that we would like to 

compensate for, and that only applies to the Native Americans and 

to African Americans. It was a long time before this came about. 

As has been mentioned, 100 years ago is the first time this was 

mentioned. 

It wasn’t something special for a special ethnic group, it was to 

recognize the existence, the participation in developing this Nation, 

the struggles that they have gone through. 

Mr. MICA. I appreciate that. I don’t want to interrupt you, and 

I agree with all of that. I would even agree that taking that existing structure that is there and renovating it that is on the Mall, 

I have no problem with that. I have cited that one of the finest 

buildings I have seen, which I got a study done a couple of years 

ago, the FTC building, which is waiting for an occupant, is one of 

the most prominent locations.

But we are talking about constructing another building and setting Federal policy for the future. And in fairness for all Americans, and maybe we want to divide it up now, and, you know, I 

want my Italian American part on—I don’t deserve as much as the 

African Americans, and then the Slovak, we could do a little sliver 

along the site. And I have got—my wife has some Irish and 

English. And certainly all of the other groups that would want representation, Japanese Americans, et cetera. But again, you see 

where we are setting policy and precedent. And I just want it done 

right and fairly. And certainly the African Americans should have 

as prominent a location as anyone who is recognized and we create 

this structure for and structures for others. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I want to thank all of the witnesses 

for your testimony. And with that we will move on to the third and 

last panel. I want to welcome our third and final panel to the table. 

Joining us is Jeff Trandahl, Clerk of the House of Representatives, Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, Robert Howe, Assistant Chief of the United States Capitol Police. In addition Robert 

Greeley, Director of the Security and Services Bureau of the United 

60

States Capitol Police is also here today and is able to answer questions. 

I want to thank all of the individuals that have come here today. 

And again we are starting with the Clerk of the House, Mr. 

Trandahl. 

STATEMENTS OF JEFF TRANDAHL, CLERK, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; ALAN HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL; ROBERT HOWE, ASSISTANT CHIEF, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT GREELEY, DIRECTOR, SECURITY SERVICES BUREAU, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE 

STATEMENT OF JEFF TRANDAHL 

Mr. TRANDAHL. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Larson and members of the 

committee, I appreciate having the opportunity to appear today to 

provide observations relative to H.R. 2005, a bill to establish within 

the Smithsonian Institution, the National Museum of African 

American History and Culture. 

I have been asked to comment on the precedents for using Capitol properties for such endeavors per my position on the House 

Commission on Fine Arts. 

As the committee is aware, four sites and also the Arts and Industries Building in the Smithsonian Institution have been evaluated for construction of a 350,000 gross square foot facility. The report outlined a strong preference that a new museum be located on 

the National Mall. Two particular sites were identified—the Capitol site and the Monument site. 

For reference, the new facility, as planned, would be approximately the size of the American Indian Museum that is currently 

under construction on Independence Avenue Southwest. 

The Capitol site is located along the north side of the reflecting 

pool. The Monument site is located on the National Mall near the 

American History Museum and the Washington Monument. 

Regarding the Capitol site location: in reviewing the history of 

the construction of buildings and monuments on the Capitol 

grounds, I have not been able to identify a comparable situation 

when Congress has been asked to either transfer or hold properties 

that would allow for the construction of a non-congressional building or buildings. 

However, examples of smaller land transfers between the Architect of the Capitol and Federal agencies have occurred to allow for 

the construction of monuments and for other purposes. These examples are smaller in scope and are not in areas of high prominence like the Capitol site identified in this report. A current example of such an exchange of property occurred between the Architect 

of the Capitol and the National Park Service under Public Law 

104–333 to allow for the construction of the Japanese American Patriotism Memorial on new Jersey Avenue Northwest. 

Clearly, actions to release this parcel, due to its size and prominence, or to allow for the construction of any non-Congressional 

building on Congressional grounds would be precedent setting. If 

allowed, it could open Congress to other similar requests and other 

parts of the Capitol grounds could become vulnerable. 

61

Thus, it is my belief that the ability of Congress to determine or 

to meet its future needs on the existing Capitol grounds could be 

threatened and/or limited. In addition, it is important to note that 

this parcel has already been designated under Public Law 107–68 

as a site for the Congressional Award Youth Park. 

The Commission’s report has evaluated this concern and has recommended ways to meet both objectives. Further study would be 

advisable prior to reaching that conclusion. Clearly the construction of any building brings controversy and criticism. I am confident that, under the stewardship of this committee and the sponsors of the legislation this museum will finally become a reality. 

The question of the day remains to be where to locate it. I am 

not here to advocate for any location, but I have to ask the Members to pause, prior to allowing any non-Congressional building to 

be constructed on existing Capitol grounds. 

Significant changes have occurred throughout the Capitol complex these last several years, and I believe any loss of area or loss 

of control of area could be detrimental to those efforts. 

I appreciate you allowing me the opportunity to appear. 

[The statement of Mr. Trandahl follows:]

62


Insert graphic folio 113 89029A.017
63


Insert graphic folio 114 89029A.018
64


Insert graphic folio 115 89029A.019
65


Insert graphic folio 116 89029A.020
66

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And now we will move on to the Architect of the Capitol. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN HANTMAN 

Mr. HANTMAN. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Larson, committee members. As Architect of the Capitol, I am often called upon to provide technical assistance and recommendations with regard to proposed projects in and around the 

Capitol complex. 

In order to have meaning, such recommendations need to be 

based on a foundation of information that has been developed and 

evaluated in the context of the current and projected needs of the 

Congress. 

In this context, issues associated with potential development and 

changes throughout the Capitol complex, such as the requested use 

of Square 575 for the National Museum of African American History and Culture, continue to be raised with no clear guidelines to 

inform the Congress’ decision-making process by reflecting the comprehensive and integrated evaluation of all issues. 

Therefore, there is an urgent need to address relevant issues 

with respect to the entire Capitol complex. Congress recognized 

this in fiscal year 2002. And in response to its request for a longterm plan, my office is currently proceeding with the development 

of a new Capitol complex master plan. 

Following is a brief discussion of this process and the issues that 

need to be addressed for all parts of the Capitol grounds. As the 

first step in the process, the National Academy of Sciences was retained to conduct a workshop in September of 2002 by constituting 

a panel of experts in planning, engineering, architecture, landscape 

architecture, transportation, historic preservation and related disciplines. 

Based on the NAS report, funding in the amount of $4.2 million 

has been requested in the 2004 budget. Our budget language regarding this states: This project provides funding to plan and execute a Capitol complex master plan. The existing master plan is 22 

years old and does not address facility requirements brought about 

by the Congressional Accountability Act, nor does it relate to the 

present security environment. There is insufficient global input to 

fully address all necessary decision factors. Therefore, a new master plan for the Capitol complex needs to be developed. 

Now, the nature of this master plan process, which would include 

the entire Capitol complex as well as Square 575, will look at the 

following as defined by the Academy of Sciences: The process 

should be inclusive and participatory in that stakeholders must 

have input to facility requirements. The historic context must be 

respected and enhanced. The recommendations should be vetted 

with an expert advisory panel before a recommended plan is finalized. 

The plan should be comprehensive and state of the art, utilizing 

advanced technologies and data bases to support decision-making. 

This includes safety and fire compliance, planning for physical security needs, the preservation of historic facilities, and planning for 

complex-wide utilities distribution systems. 

67

The plan should be based on a consensus driven vision for the 

entire complex, the District, and the region, especially focusing on 

urban design, including integration with surrounding areas and 

District plans; land use, including development concepts, landscape 

and open spaces, and circulation and transportation systems integrated with local and regional systems. 

In anticipation of receiving the master plan funding in 2004, 

work continues on developing the scope of work, with a request for 

proposals expected to be issued in October of this year upon receipt 

of funding. 

Going forward, when any potential use or physical development 

is considered anywhere within the Capitol complex, it is expected 

that the master plan will facilitate an objective evaluation of possible sites, including Square 575, and how they could be used and 

appropriately developed. 

Square 575 specifically is a unique site that cannot be considered 

in isolation. It is a transition site between Capitol Hill and the Nation’s Mall and needs to be studied in that context. 

We stand ready to serve the needs of the Congress in whatever 

capacity it believes appropriate and answer any questions you 

might have. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Hantman follows:]

68


Insert graphic folio 121 89029A.021
69


Insert graphic folio 122 89029A.022
70

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And Assistant Chief Howe. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT HOWE 

Mr. HOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If it serves your needs, I 

will abbreviate my opening remarks and submit the balance of my 

statement for the record. 

I thank you for the opportunity to appear to testify before the 

committee on the potential impact of the museum on the U.S. Capitol Police. 

The proposed museum will be a multi-story 350,000 square foot 

structure, and will be of similar stature as the National Museum 

of the American Indian currently under construction. The museum 

will have operations that will require logistical support for a protected staff of 300 persons, large collection areas, dining and a museum store, and I believe testimony today was approximately 2 million visitors a year. 

While there are a number of security-related issues attendant to 

this project, they should not be viewed as an impediment to any 

decision regarding the proposed site. 

As addressed in my written testimony, the proposed museum, 

like any large facility, will have an impact on the operations of the 

Capitol Police. Given appropriate resources, we can properly protect both the Capitol and the new museum, while minimizing any 

impact. 

Mr. Chairman, I will submit the balance of my written testimony 

for the record. I thank you for your time, and we will be happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Howe follows:]

71


Insert graphic folio 125 89029A.023
72


Insert graphic folio 126 89029A.024
73

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. As I understand, Mr. Greeley is 

available for questions. 

Mr. HOWE. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will be brief, because I think we are going to 

have a series of votes. 

For the Clerk of the House, you mentioned the proposed Capitol 

site has already been designated as a Congressional Award Youth 

Park. What type of park would that be, and where are we at in 

terms of establishing or making that happen? 

Mr. TRANDAHL. In the 107th Congress, Congress acted to create 

an award park on that parcel. It is currently still in the design 

phase at the Architect of the Capitol’s level. The exact design and 

scope of the project is really yet to be determined. However, it did 

identify the purpose of the memorial and the location of the memorial. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And for our Assistant Chief, do you 

have any idea how many additional resources you would need to 

secure the complex if the museum was built on the Capitol site? 

And would you envision policing the interior of the museum, or exterior, or both? And if it were just exterior, would you have concerns about that? 

Mr. HOWE. Mr. Chairman, it is a bit too early for us to tell precise numbers as to what it would take to police the site. I think 

our vision would be that the Smithsonian police would provide the 

security for the interior of the building. We would patrol the exterior of the building. I don’t have any concerns about that. We have 

a number of other similar operations going on throughout the 

grounds, the Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, the 

Thurgood Marshall Building, Union Station, where we work with 

public and private entities, and work very well and provide very 

good security in all of these contexts. 

The CHAIRMAN. This question would be, I would think, for the 

Architect or for the Capitol Police. Understanding there will be a 

need for parking or bus drop-off for tourists and there will be a 

need for delivery trucks to make stops at the museum, how will 

that work with the typical screening process if we apply what we 

do screening-wise on Capitol grounds to that building? 

Mr. HOWE. What we have discussed preliminarily is adding this 

building to our delivery screening process and process their deliveries through our screening center before they arrive on site. 

Parking and traffic around the structure are going to be major 

concerns. The Senate has Pennsylvania Avenue pretty well parked 

full, and they will have to make arrangements on that street. Constitution Avenue, as you know, has no parking. So that is one of 

the issues that will have to be addressed. But it is addressable. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you need additional personnel to do it? 

Mr. HOWE. There would be a requirement for added patrols 

around the building to handle the parking and traffic issues, things 

of that nature. 

The CHAIRMAN. And if a Capitol complex wide evacuation was ordered, would we be able to accommodate and secure the visitors 

and the staff of the museum? 

Mr. HOWE. We would have to incorporate them into our overall 

plan. 

74

The CHAIRMAN. Last series of questions I have would be for our 

Architect of the Capitol. From the perspective of your office, what 

are the top issues that we are looking at with the creation of a museum on the Capitol grounds? Of course it would make it convenient; you could go from the Visitors Center over to the other one. 

I want to commend you publicly for your diligence on that. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my testimony I basically indicated that we really need to be able to give the Congress 

a matrix for them to be able to make informed decisions from, and 

I think Congressman Mica was going in that direction. How does 

Congress make decisions based on properties along the Mall, other 

museums. 

I think we need that same type of flexibility to have a real basis 

of information that the Congress can look at, evaluate, and we can 

make recommendations based on that so that informed decisions 

can be made by the Congress. 

There was a master plan done back in 1981. That master plan 

talked about the uses of land in the Capitol complex. And for Site 

575, it showed that it was in the landscaping area, to be an open 

formal landscape plan. I think the gentleman from the Society to 

Save the mall also talked about the National Capital Planning 

Commission legacy Plan of 2000, which did not show any activity 

on that location. 

And of course there is another plan; the National Capital Planning Commission has the Memorials and Museums Master Plan in 

December of 2001, which has not been formally adopted by the 

Congress, but it does show that there is a reserve for not using museums or memorials within that reserve, and they do say that on 

the grounds of the Capitol the Commemorative Zone Map recognizes the Capitol grounds are inappropriate locations for the construction of monuments or memorials. 

What we need to do, I think, is really talk to all of the agencies 

in our surrounding community. We need to talk to the National 

Capital Planning Commission, we need to talk to the Park Service. 

We need to talk with the Fine Arts Commission, with the D.C. 

Government, and talk about transportation issues, other areas and 

elements that impact all of Capitol Hill, including Site 575. 

So it really comes down to a master plan, examining all of the 

issues, bringing on some of the experts that would look at the future growth of the Capitol, analyze the current needs and how it 

would impact that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to make this brief, and I will put the 

rest in the record of questions I have, because I think there will 

be a vote. What about our infrastructure? You know, very briefly, 

would our current infrastructure have to be enhanced, the running 

of power, as we are dealing with the Visitors Center, chilled water, 

et cetera? Would that come from the Capitol complex or would that 

be separate? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know the loads and the requirements of a facility of 350,000 square feet. I would have to 

check also in terms of where our utility lines currently run relative 

to that specific site. But as you know, we are modernizing our 

chilled water area. We are upgrading a lot of our utility tunnels. 

75

And also I understand that the Smithsonian is taking a look at 

upgrading their utilities as well and looking at a centralized plant 

to serve all of their museums. We would have to get together and 

take a look at what was the most appropriate way to serve a structure like this. 

The CHAIRMAN. So is our current infrastructure as it sits, if we 

had to supply it, is it adequate? 

Mr. HANTMAN. I wouldn’t think so, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. Well, thank you very much. Thank you all very 

much for your testimony. Along those lines, first from the standpoint, obviously the legislation is silent on the selection of a site. 

Now, we have heard testimony today, I guess it would—I would 

have preferred to have seen all sites included. But there is nothing 

within this legislation or nothing that I have heard before the committee today that should prevent this legislation from moving forward in terms of site selection. 

It is, however, my understanding that if any other site other 

than the Capitol site is chosen, the Smithsonian moves specifically 

in that area. Am I correct in assuming that if the Capitol site were 

chosen, that it would require additional legislation to address the 

concerns that the Architect and the Clerk raised? 

Mr. HANTMAN. My understanding, sir, is that the property would 

most likely be transferred to the Smithsonian, and that would take 

certain legislation to accomplish that. 

Mr. LARSON. Well, with respect to a number of the issues that 

you raised, specifically about the matrix for the Capitol, would that 

also require legislation there? 

Mr. HANTMAN. I am not sure about your question, Mr. Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. You had indicated that, you know, dating back to 

1981, that there was a proposal for the Capitol grounds. The Clerk 

enumerated about the youth playground, et cetera. 

It was my concern as to whether or not, you know, that violates 

a specific—that would require a statutory change. That is my question. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Well, the master plan for the U.S. Capitol was 

never formally accepted by the Congress. If we are going through 

a master planning process now, Mr. Larson, I would assume that 

we would go through a process that would be vetted well and that 

the Congress would accept it as guidelines for them. But in terms 

of legislation, I think clearly there would have to be legislation relative to the use of that site.

Mr. TRANDAHL. The only example that I can give you where we 

did a similar release or transfer of land, is that Japanese Patriotism Memorial that was built on New Jersey Avenue. It took a specific act of Congress in order to allow for that land transfer to happen. You are basically faced with two scenarios if you choose the 

Capitol site. You are either going to retain control of the property 

as part of the Capitol grounds and build a noncongressional structure on it or you are faced with releasing the grounds out of the 

Capitol grounds site and then a noncongressional building would

be——

Mr. LARSON. And that would require additional legislation? 

76

Mr. TRANDAHL. Either way you are going to need legislation in 

order to address the issue. Then there are secondary questions regarding how you administer in either of those situations, which are 

achievable; they are just commissioned. 

Mr. LARSON. I was glad to hear you say that. If that were the 

course that goes down and if in the ultimate process, though, these 

are achievable ends, if that site were selected, depending upon 

what scenario you would choose, either keeping it within the context of the Congress or ceding that spot over to the Smithsonian? 

Mr. TRANDAHL. Yes, you could do it either way. However, I have 

to say, you have limited assets up here at the Capitol. The points 

I was making are, one, you have already designated that a memorial would be build there and, two, you have something that can 

only be given away, in essence, once. I think the Capitol and the 

Congress need to be careful and weigh very heavily a decision to 

enter into any release of land around the building. That is my only 

point to make. 

Mr. LARSON. But if the release was such and let’s say for instance that the decision was made to keep it within the Capitol, 

under the control of the Capitol, then all security issues with respect to the Capitol police would dissipate in terms of having to 

deal with the Smithsonian and you might be able to accommodate 

these concerns. 

Mr. HOWE. I think not necessarily, Mr. Larson. Look at the current configuration of the Smithsonian on the Mall and the Smithsonian provides the security for the interior buildings. The Park Police actually police the exterior of the buildings on the Mall and 

deal with the traffic problems and things of that nature around the 

buildings. I would think it would be very similar here under either 

scenario that you come up with, whether you transfer the land to 

the Smithsonian or whether it is retained as Capitol grounds. 

Mr. LARSON. I thank you for your testimony. Do you have any 

other questions. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. One thing I would like to ascertain as quick as 

we can is a little bit more detail estimate from the Capitol police, 

and you don’t have to call the number, on a few things, because 

I want to make sure. I am not saying this should be the site. I 

want to make sure if it is we know fully what we are getting into. 

How many anticipated officers we would need if there is an evacuation of the complex, how do we do it, because they are on Capitol 

property if it remains within the Capitol, we basically lease it or, 

you know for free or however that would work. As a result of that 

and if somebody come to the Capitol or there is additional security 

concerns or somebody comes and does some type of threat to the 

Capitol, do we then put every single person through a screener 

there in the proximity of that? Do buses come in? I think we just 

need to know what we are getting into dollarwise because I 

wouldn’t want to get into it and now somebody comes back within 

X amount of years here and says oh, by the way, we now need an 

additional amount of people or security devices or we should have 

put proper security in in the first place because it is on the grounds 

of the Capitol which is a more imminent threat. I think if we can 

work with you soon just to get some ideas so we know what we are 

into. The final two questions I would have very quickly is one for 

77

the architect, would you anticipate there would be substantial 

modifications to the Capitol grounds in order to facilitate the ability of buses and cars to be able to drop off visitors at the proposed 

museum? 

Mr. HANTMAN. I think, Mr. Chairman, what we really need to do 

is in light of the Capitol Visitors Center as well as any potential 

museums adjacent to the site is take a look at the traffic flow 

throughout the area. We have met with the D.C. government, the 

Department of Transportation, with the tour guide folks, and they 

are all interested in trying to come up with a universal solution 

that solves problems for everybody. That needs to be worked out 

in great detail but clearly if we are talking about another 2 million 

people coming on an annual basis to be added to several million 

people at the Capitol already, that becomes an issue that needs to 

be discussed with all interested parties. 

The CHAIRMAN. My last question, I think, Mr. Mica asked this 

of the previous panel. One, if the African American Museum would 

be 350,000 square feet in size, Botanical Gardens 47,000 square 

feet, any ideas of the perspective of the balance of the two on property across from each other or any proposed layout issues that are 

there? 

Mr. HANTMAN. There were only two small sketches basically in 

the proposed, the report that I have seen thus far and it basically 

tries to put all of this space on the eastern side of the site because 

there is a tunnel going under the site. Potentially there could be 

gardens on top of the tunnel portion. But this site also has a high 

water table, so there is an issue of how much you can really put 

below ground and how much would be then above ground. The Botanical Gardens basically just has mechanical space at the new addition to the rear on Independence Avenue that is below ground. 

All the rest of it sits on the top. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think also there are some other security issues 

in relationship to the Botanical Gardens. The private venue will 

share with the sponsors of this bill and the Capitol Hill police that 

we also need to look at understanding some sensitive security 

issues down the road. We will work with you quickly, I should add, 

to do that. 

If there are no further questions, I want to thank our ranking 

member and the members of both sides of the aisle that were here 

today. I also want to thank Congressman Larson and his staff as 

well as again the other members’ staff. I ask unanimous consent 

that members and witnesses have 7 legislative days to submit material into the record and for those statements and materials to be 

entered in the appropriate place in the record. Without objection, 

the material will be so entered. I also ask unanimous consent that 

staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes on 

all matters considered by the committee at today’s hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 

Having completed our business, that will concluded the hearing. 

We are adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Æ