Order Code RL31121
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Capitol Visitors’ Center: An Overview
Updated November 7, 2003
Stephen W. Stathis
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

The Capitol Visitors’ Center: An Overview
Summary
On June 20, 2000, congressional leaders of both parties gathered to participate
in a symbolic groundbreaking ceremony for the Capitol Visitors’ Center (CVC).
Now being constructed under the East Front Plaza, the center has been designed to
enhance the security, educational experience, and comfort of those visiting the U.S.
Capitol when it is completed in 2005. The decision to build a subterranean facility
largely invisible from an exterior perspective was made so the structure would not
compete with, or detract from, the appearance and historical architectural integrity
of the Capitol. The project’s designers sought to integrate the new structure with the
landscape of the East Capitol Grounds and ultimately recreate the park-like setting
intended by landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. in his historic 1874
design for the site.
The cost of the center, the most extensive addition to the Capitol since the Civil
War, and the largest in the structure’s 202-year history, is estimated at between $380
million and $395 million. Altogether $357.3 million in appropriated funds are
available for project. An additional $65 million has been raised for construction of
the center through private donations and the sale of commemorative coins.
In March 1999, the Architect of the Capitol was authorized $2.8 million to
revalidate a 1995 design study of the project. To simplify the approval process for
the design and construction phases, Congress transferred that authority to the Capitol
Preservation Commission in September 1999.
Three months later, a revised
conceptional design for the center was approved by the commission. A design and
engineering obligation plan was approved by the House and Senate legislative
appropriations subcommittees in November 1999 and January 2000, respectively.
On January 31, 2000, design development work for the center was begun, and
in mid-October 2000, the Capitol Preservation Commission approved the final design
plan for the center and authorized the Architect of the Capitol to prepare final
construction documentation. Since that time, a construction management firm has
been hired to supervise the project, an $8 million dollar contract has been awarded
to relocate utility lines, and a $99,877,000 contact has been awarded for Sequence
1 (foundation/structural work) and a $144.2 million contract has been awarded for
Sequence 2 (the electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and finishing work) of the actual
construction of the center.
Also, a firm was retained to oversee the development of the CVC exhibition
gallery; a tree maintenance contractor was hired to help assure the protection of trees
on the East Capitol grounds; historic preservation workmen have temporarily
removed historic Olmsted landscape features from the grounds for their safeguard;
and temporary visitor screening facilities and media sites were constructed.
It is anticipated that the construction of the center will be close enough to
completion by January 2005 to accommodate the basic activities of the next
presidential inauguration. Recently, considerable concern has been expressed over
the estimated cost for the center, which continues to increase.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Rationale For The Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Concern About Cost Overruns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Planning for the Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Cost of the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Impetus for Final Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Pre-Construction Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Tree Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Construction of the Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Construction Management Firm Selected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Utility Work Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Sequence 1: Foundation/Structural Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Sequence 2: Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing
and Finishing Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Other Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
On Site Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Noise Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Temporary Visitor Screening Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Alternative Media Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Development of Exhibition Gallery and Museum Exhibits . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Action in the 104th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Action in the 105th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Purpose of Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Design and Construction Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Financing the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1997 Visitors’ Center Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Action in the 106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
H.R. 962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Role of Capitol Preservation Commission Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1999 Revalidation Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

---

Action in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Preparation for Soliciting Bids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Construction Details and Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appropriations for the Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
FY2002 Legislative Branch Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
FY2001 Terrorism Emergency Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

---

The Capitol Visitors’ Center: An Overview
Introduction
The Capitol Visitors’ Center (CVC), now being constructed under the East Front
Plaza, is intended to enhance the security, educational experience, and comfort of
those visiting the U.S. Capitol when it is completed in 2005. The decision to build
a subterranean facility largely invisible from an exterior perspective was made so the
structure would not compete with, or detract from, the appearance and historical
architectural integrity of the Capitol. The project’s designers have sought to integrate
the new structure with the landscape of the East Capitol Grounds and ultimately
recreate the park-like setting intended by landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted,
Sr. in his historic 1874 design for the site.1 The cost of the center, the most extensive
addition to the Capitol since the Civil War, and the largest in the world-famous
structure’s 202-year history, is estimated at between $380 million and $395 million.
Figure 1. “Birdseye” Rendering of East Front Plaza with Completed
Visitors’ Center
1 Jennifer Yachnin, “Sticking to the Plan: CVC Officials Use Original Olmsted Landscaping
Blueprint,” Roll Call, Sept. 9, 2002, pp. B52-B53.

---

CRS-2
The footprint of the new center will cover approximately five acres (196,000
square feet) and be larger than that of the Capitol (175,000 square feet). The square
footage of the three levels of the center (580,000 square feet) will be nearly two-
thirds that of the Capitol itself (780,000 square feet).
In July 2002, workers began digging the hole for the center, which, when
completed, will be three levels deep and the equivalent of five football fields long.
More that 500,000 cubic yards of soil will be removed, enough to fill 50,000 dump
trucks, before the project is completed.
Above ground, the existing asphalt parking lot located adjacent to the East Front
of the Capitol will be replaced by a plaza of broad lawns, granite paving stones, stone
benches, reflecting pools, and tulip poplar trees. When the center is finished, visitors
will enter the center through doorways located at the bottom of two gently
descending pathways centered on the East facade beneath two large fountains that
were part of the original Olmsted design. Visitors will also be able to access the
center by a broad stairway or an elevator.
Rationale For The Center
The main structures of the U.S. Capitol were completed by 1863, at a time when
the population of the United States was little more than 32 million, and mass popular
tourism had yet to emerge. Although the building and its facilities have been
constantly updated and modernized since that time, the structure has remained
essentially unchanged since the era of the Civil War. Almost unique in its multiple
functions as national monument and museum, tourist attraction, and working office
building, by the turn of the 21st century, the Capitol welcomed as many as 3.5 million
visitors per year, while simultaneously serving a larger Congress and its staff as the
seat of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States. By the late 20th
century, visitors from across the nation and around the world waited at the building’s
entrances in all weathers to be guided through the Capitol’s historic chambers.
Despite ongoing efforts, contemporary interpretative spaces to enhance the
educational value of the visitor’s experience were in short supply, and modern rest,
comfort, and dining facilities for visitors were extremely limited.
A further factor was a increased concern about security and the safety of the
Capitol itself as well as those who work in or visit it. Almost alone among the
parliaments of the world, the U.S. Capitol has consistently remained “the people’s
house,” open to all visitors, surrounded and enhanced by grounds designed by
Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr., the father of American landscape architecture. As the
20th century drew to a close, concerns about security were dramatized by an
increasing incidence of attacks on civilian targets, especially those possessing historic
or symbolic value, by terrorist groups and rogue states. All these developments
contributed to the eventual decision that the need for a facility for visitors to the U.S.
Capitol had passed from desirability to necessity.
The arguments favoring a visitors’ center were detailed in the mid-1970s, when
the Architect of the Capitol issued Toward a Master Plan for the United States

---

CRS-3
Capitol, which recommended construction of a building to improve security and
accommodate the increasing number of visitors to the U.S. Capitol. It was deemed
necessary not only to meet the physical needs of visitors to the Capitol, but also to
meet the changing nature of visitors’ expectations and their desire to witness the
Legislative Branch in action.2
The center is intended to provide a secure environment for managing a large
number of visitors while protecting the Capitol building, its occupants, and guests.
It will also offer visitors new educational opportunities through exhibits, displays of
historical documents, and documentary presentations; and more accessible resources
and amenities. “The Capitol,” Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol recently
observed, “has continually evolved for more than 200 years to meet the needs of
Congress as the nation as grown.” The center, Hantman feels, “will meet the needs
of the millions of visitors who come to the Capitol each year and have not been
properly accommodated in the past.”3
At a September 10, 2002, hearing of the Committee on House Administration,
Architect Hantman emphasized that the Capitol Visitors’ Center (CVC) “will greatly
improve the ability of the Capitol Police and the Capitol Guide Service to regulate
and respectively manage the large flow of visitors to the Capitol, which will improve
both security and safety. Further, the CVC also will facilitate evacuation out of the
Capitol Building if necessary.”4
In addition to serving as the security screening entry for visitors to the Capitol,
the center will provide improved accessibility for disabled persons; enhanced fire,
safety, and security systems; new facilities for routine deliveries and garbage
removal; additional educational experiences for visitors; and improved visitor
services. Once inside the center, visitors will be able to view the Capitol through two
40- by 60-foot skylights. The center will house a 600-person cafeteria, a pair of 250-
seat theaters where visitors will watch a short orientation film on the Capitol, a 450-
seat auditorium, a 17,000 square foot exhibition hall, gift shops, information desks,
a first aid center, restrooms, and two constituent meeting rooms where lawmakers
can greet large groups. All of these amenities are currently in short supply at a
building that hosted three million people in 2000. Nearly one-third of the center will
contain congressional briefing and conference rooms. The project also includes
modifications within the East Front Extension of the Capitol that will significantly
upgrade accessibility and vertical circulation.
Planners in locating the center adjacent to, and connected with, the Capitol also
sought to improve the aesthetics as well as the functionality of the Capitol. It has
been projected that the center will “accommodate up to 5,000 visitors at any time.
2 Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Visitors’ Center Project Office, Mar. 2003.
3 Bob Dart, “Security Transforms D.C.: Project Offers Protection With Fine Style,” Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, July 11, 2002, p. 1B.
4 Testimony by Alan M. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Congress, Committee on
House Administration, Oversight Hearing on Capitol Security, Emergency Preparedness
and Infrastructure Upgrades Since September 11, 2001, hearing, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept.
10, 2002 (not yet published).

---

CRS-4
That would allow about 1,500 tourists to pass through the Capitol each hour, along
with an additional 700 in House and Senate galleries.5
Figure 2. Floor Plan of Visitors’ Center
The center is not, however, without its detractors. Opponents have expressed
concern over its cost, the destruction or relocation of dozens of trees on the East
Front grounds of the Capitol, a design that destroys the visual and spatial
relationships of the East Lawn, the disruption caused by such a large project, and the
loss of parking spaces at the base of the Capitol.6 Also, the “architectural character
of the interiors” of the center have been characterized by at least one writer as “bland
at best.” The same architectural critic wrote, “You automatically lose a lot when you
5 Jennifer Yachnin, “Go West: Tour Operations Get a New Home: Visitors Will Enter
Capitol at West Front,” Roll Call, May 20, 2002, p. A27.
6 Carl Hulse, “Workers Set to Transform East Front of the Capitol,” New York Times, May
28, 2002, p. A17; Jennifer Yachnin, “Sticking to the Plan: CVC Officials Use Original
Olmsted Landscape Blueprint,” Roll Call, Sept. 9, 2002, p. B-52.

---

CRS-5
go underground — natural light, fresh air and a sense of orientation that impresses
all of your senses with the three-dimensional reality of a particular place at a
particular time.” Finally, he asserts that no matter how well an underground building
is designed, a “certain sense of sameness and unreality pervades.”7
Concern About Cost Overruns
On June 18, 2003, Representative Jack Kingston, chairman of the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Legislative indicated that the project is “likely to
cost about $45 million more than originally expected, based in part on an audit about
to be released by the General Accounting Office.”8
At a July 15, 2003, hearing, it was reported that the General Accounting Office
(GAO) estimated that the “base project”9 cost of the Visitors’ Center had increased
by 16%, from $303.5 million to $351.3 million, and additional overruns were likely.
The new total was $47.8 million more than has been appropriated to that point, and
$7 million more than the general contractor, Tishman Construction Corp., estimated
in a report on cost overruns in May 2003. “Due to the nature of uncertainties still
surrounding the projects estimated cost to complete and the limitation of information
available” at the time GAO concluded its study, “there will likely be events occurring
that could further materially affect this project’s cost at completion.”10 Also, an
estimated additional $70 million may be needed to complete the House and Senate
expansion space, and an additional $35 million may be needed for enhanced security.
These latter two items could raise the total to $465 million.”11
7 Benjamin Forgey, “Capitol Disorientation Center: Underground Visitors Facility Will
Provide Bathrooms and the Blahs,” Washington Post, Nov. 25, 2000, p. C1.
8 Suzanne Nelson, “CVC May Need $45M Infusion, Roll Call, June 19, 2003, p. 1.
9 “The base project includes a finished visitor shell and core, an extended loading dock
service tunnel, exterior finishes, improvements to the East Plaza, construction of the
unfinished House and Senate expansion space, exhibits, technical security systems, and
connecting tunnel to the Library of Congress.” It “does not include other items funded by
other sources, such as finishing the House and Senate expansion space and certain security-
related enhancements.” Prepared Statement of David M. Walker, Comptroller General of
the United States, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative,
Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2004, hearing, part 1, 108th Cong., 1st sess., July 15,
2003 (Washington: U.S. GPO, 2003), pp. 1441, note 1; and U.S. General Accounting Office,
Capitol Visitor Center: Current Status of Schedule and Estimated Cost, GAO-03-1014T
(Washington: July 15, 2003), p. 2, note 1.
10 Testimony of David M. Walker, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2004, hearing, pp.
1437, 1441-1442; and Capitol Visitor Center: Current Status of Schedule and Estimated
Cost, pp. 2-3.
11 Testimony of David M. Walker, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2004, hearing,
p. 1448. In June 2003, incorrect reports stated that GAO estimated “it would cost at least
$421.3 million” to finish the center. See “Visitor Center’s Cost Estimate Up 13 Percent,
May Go Higher,” CQ Today, June 25, 2003, p. 18; Suzanne Nelson, “House Faces
‘Disconnect’ Over CVC Funding,” Roll Call, June 26, 2003, pp. 1, 30.

---

CRS-6
During hearings, and markup of the FY2004 legislative branch appropriations
bill on June 24, 2003, concern was expressed by several members of the House
Appropriations Committee about the rising construction costs and management of
the project. Similar concerns were expressed in the committee’s July 1 report on the
bill. The committee was particularly “troubled by the lack of timely communication,
receipt of conflicting information, and inadequate and inaccurate reporting on the
project and [it’s] financial status.” As a consequence, the committee had “serious
reservations about providing additional funding under the control of the Architect [of
the Capitol] given the track record of the Architect’s organization and inability to
manage.”
To address these issues, the committee told the Architect that he
“personally, must take immediate action to remedy this situation,” and ensure the
completion of the center “without delay and in a fiscally responsible manner.”12
Some members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Legislative
anticipated that the Senate would include additional funding for the center in its
legislative branch bill, and at that point the issue might well be revisited. House
supporters attribute the center’s rising costs “to unforeseen circumstances —
including tasks added to the original mandate — and typical difficulties in estimating
the final costs of major projects.”13
As predicted, the Senate on July 11, 2003, approved legislation appropriating
an additional $47.8 million for the Capitol Visitors’ Center project. The Senate
language stipulated that the Architect of the Capitol “could not obligate any of the
funds,” however, without an obligation plan approved by the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees.14
At the House Legislative Subcommittee hearing on July 15, 2003, Comptroller
General of the United States, David M. Walker, in prepared testimony, addressed
four areas of concern regarding the center’s construction that the General Accounting
Office had been asked to monitor. These include “(1) management of the project,
(2) the estimated cost for the project, (3) the status of the project’s schedule, and (4)
actions that Congress and the AOC [Architect of the Capitol] should consider taking
to address funding gaps and other current project issues and risks.”15
12 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations
Bill, 2004, report to accompany H.R. 2657, 108th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 108-186
(Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 15. See also Jonathan Allen and Gayle S. Putrich, “Architect,
Capitol Police Get Thumbs Down on Requests for Big Spending Hikes,” CQ Today, June
20, 2003, p. 6.
13 Jonathan Allen and Gayle S. Putrich, “Architect, Capitol Police Get Thumbs Down on
Requests for Big Spending Hikes,” CQ Today, June 20, 2003, p. 6.
14 “Legislative Branch Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2004 (Capitol Visitor Center),” remarks
in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149, July 11, 2003, pp. S9272,
S9275.
15 Testimony of David M. Walker, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2004, hearing, pp.
1440-1446; and Capitol Visitor Center: Current Status of Schedule and Estimated Cost, pp.
1-7. Earlier, on June 20, 2003, Walker sent a seven page letter to Congress summarizing the
GAO analysis. See Christopher Lee, “Visitor Center Over Budget, Running Late; Costs Up
(continued...)

---

CRS-7
Although the Architect of the Capitol had taken several “positive steps” to
ensure effective management of the project, Walker emphasized, a number of other
actions were still needed to further strengthen the project’s management including
“developing risk mitigation strategies and improving tracking and reporting.” He
continued by explaining that the “risks and uncertainties “ associated with the project
“could potentially raise the estimated cost at completion of the base project to
between $380 million and $395 million.” While “these potential additional costs of
between $30 million and $45 million do not need to be added to the base project
budget at this time ... a number of actions need to be taken to mitigate known risks,”
and “there is a continual need for the AOC to align customer expectations with the
project’s scope, quality, and cost considerations.”16
Also, Walker stressed the need for the Architect to develop a “fully integrated
schedule” for all of the center’s “projects, activities, and long-lead-time
procurements,” and “develop a plan to mitigate risk factors.” In addition, he
encouraged the Architect and Congress to “expeditiously address the current funding
gap” between the amount provided for the project and the updated estimates,
“consider how best to address potential costs associated with the risks and
uncertainties,” “determine whether to establish and fund a reserve account for any
additional” costs “that cannot be priced or estimated at the current time,” “implement
controls for approving changes,” work toward achieving a “single and standardized
budget and reporting format,” and “expeditiously develop a comprehensive,
integrated master project schedule.”17
Architect of the Capitol Alan M. Hantman, who also testified at the House
hearing on the Capitol Visitors’ Center, stated that unforseen site conditions have had
a significant impact on the cost of the project. “These costs, when combined with the
higher award amount for the Sequence 2 contract, prompted the AOC to request a
review of the overall cost-to-complete.” Also, Hantman said, “it is already evident
that the expected cost of a number of line items in the [project cost] estimate, such
as utility relocation, tree preservation, temporary visitor screening facilities, and
historic preservation, will be exceeded.” These issues, he explained, in April 2003
prompted a “full and independent review of the cost-to-complete all the remaining
work related” to the center, and in mid-May the independent cost-to-complete report
was turned over to GAO. GAO presented its findings to the Capitol Preservation
Commission on June 9, 2003.18
Despite the challenges enumerated earlier and “pending the appropriation of the
additional funds identified in the cost-to-complete funding request,” the Architect
15 (...continued)
16 Percent and Delay Is Months, GAO Report Says,” Washington Post, July 9, 2003, p. A25.
16 Capitol Visitor Center: Current Status of Schedule and Estimated Cost, pp. 2-4.
17 Capitol Visitor Center: Current Status of Schedule and Estimated Cost, pp. 5-7.
18 Testimony by Alan M. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, Testimony of David M. Walker,
Comptroller General of the United States, House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2004, hearing, part 1,
108th Cong., 1st sess., July 15, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 1470.

---

CRS-8
felt, the project team was “on schedule to meet project completion milestones.”
Also, Hantman emphasized that Capitol Visitors’ Center “communications
initiatives, most specifically, efforts to keep Members and Staff informed about the
project, have increased in response to the tremendous demand for CVC
information.”19
While FY2004 legislative branch appropriations bill conferees ultimately
recommended nearly $49 million in additional funding for the center, they included
several mechanisms designed to facilitate monitoring the project’s expenditures.
These included (1) directing GAO “to perform quarterly performance reviews of the
project so that the Congress is kept abreast of important issues such as cost and
scheduling;” (2) limiting to $10 million the total of federal funds that can be
obligated or expended for the tunnel connecting the center with the Library of
Congress; (3) prohibiting the Architect of the Capitol from obligating funds for the
tunnel until an obligation plan has been approved by the chairs and ranking members
of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations; and (4) urging those
responsible for exhibits in the center to consult with the Library of Congress “to
ensure that the exhibit presents history of the Congress as well as the role of the
Congress in the preservation of the cultural and artistic heritage of the American
people.”20
Planning for the Center
Planning for the Capitol Visitors’ Center began in 1991, when the Architect of
the Capitol received funds from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
to develop a design concept, which was subsequently approved by the Appropriations
Committees and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. In 1993, the
United States Capitol Preservation Commission allocated $2.5 million to translate
the concept into a formal design, which was prepared by RTKL Associates Inc. In
November 1995, the Architect published a report reflecting RTKL’s work.21
The Architect’s 1995 report emphasized that the center had three main purposes:
(1) enhance the visitor experience by providing a structure, located under the east
front plaza of the Capitol, which would afford improved visitor orientation, other
related
programs, and support services; (2) strengthen Capitol security while
ensuring the preservation of an atmosphere of public access; and (3) integrate the
19 Ibid., pp. 171-1472.
20 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2004, Making Appropriations for the Legislative
Branch for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2004, and for Other Purposes, conference
report to accompany H.R. 2657, 108th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 108-279 (Washington: GPO,
2003), pp. 48-49.
21 U.S. Architect of the Capitol, United States Capitol Visitor Center: Final Design Report,
Nov. 10, 1995, p. 5.

---

CRS-9
design concepts of the center with aesthetically and functionally appropriate
improvements to the East Front Plaza.22
“The overall intent” of the visitors’ center, the Architect explained in the 1995,
“is to create a ‘visitor-friendly’ environment by providing educational opportunities
with a wide range of choices, together with amenities such as adequate rest rooms,
eating facilities, telephones, and ample weather — protected queuing space, now
regarded as expectations of an increasingly well-traveled and sophisticated public.”23
Also included in the plan were full accommodation for persons with physical or
sensory impairments.24
One important element of the plan was that it relocated security screening for
visitors to a “point far removed from the Capitol.” There is a recognized concern,
the Architect emphasized, “to enhance facilities for dealing with the security needs
of the Capitol, which are now addressed in a way that detracts from the dignity of the
Capitol and cannot provide the optimum treatment of security needs.”25
Cost of the Project
The original project budget of $265 million for the Capitol Visitors’s Center,
Architect of the Capitol Alan Hantman told a March 2003 House hearing, was
established in 1999. “At that time,” Hantman said, “the budget provided for the core
CVC facilities, including the Great Hall, orientation theaters, exhibition gallery,
cafeteria, gift shops, mechanical rooms, unfinished shell space for the future needs
of the House and Senate, and the truck service tunnel.” Following the terrorist
attacks of September 11, “new security requirements, pedestrian tunnels, et cetera,
prompted the appropriation of $38.5 million in additional funds,” which were made
available by the President through the FY2002 Terrorism Emergency Supplement
Act (P.L. 107-38). An addition $70 million was provided in the FY2002 Legislative
Branch Appropriation Act (P.L. 107-68), for the “design and buildout for the House
and Senate shell space.” These additions, Hantman explained, had resulted in the
budget for the project being increased to $373.5 million.”26
Altogether $357.3 million in appropriated funds are available for the center’s
construction. This includes $100 million in the FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations
Act (P.L. 105-277), $138.5 million provided by the President from the FY2001
Terrorism Emergency Supplemental Act (P.L. 107-38), $70 million in the FY2002
22 Ibid., p. 1.
23 Ibid., p. 9. For discussion of public facilities included in the plan, see ibid., pp. 1, 5, 9-10,
15-17, 23, 25.
24 Ibid., pp. 27, 29.
25 Ibid., p.6.
26 Testimony by Alan M. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration, Oversight of the Operations of the Secretary of the
Senate, and Architect of the Capitol, hearing, 108th Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 19, 2003 (not yet
published).

---

CRS-10
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-68), and $48.839 million in the
FY2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-83). By law, the Architect
of the Capitol is required to prepare an obligation plan, which must be approved by
the chairmen and ranking minority members of the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations before he can obligate any appropriated funds.27
Also, Congress in 1999 approved two separate pieces of legislation aimed at
raising private sector funds for the construction of the Capitol Visitors’ Center. As
a consequence of these two acts and planned contributions of the Capitol
Preservation Commission, a total $65 million in private funds is available for the
project.
First, Congress authorized a public commemorative coin issue in observance of
the 200th anniversary of the first meeting of Congress in the U.S. Capitol in the
District of Columbia. The coins were issued in gold, platinum, and silver, and
proceeds from the sale of the coins, less expenses, were deposited with the U.S.
Capitol Preservation Commission for the specific purpose of construction,
maintenance, and preservation of the Capitol Visitors’ Center.28
A total of
$3,527,542 was raised from the sale of the 200th anniversary commemorative coins.29
Second, conferees included language in the conference report on the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1999 (P.L.
105-277) stipulating that appropriated funds for the Capitol Visitors’ Center had to
“be supplemented by private funds.”30 Early in 2000, the Capitol Preservation
Commission responded to this requirement by directing the Clerk of the House and
the Secretary of the Senate to develop jointly a fund-raising plan for the center. That
February, the commission approved the plan for “accepting the unsolicited offer and
agreement of the Pew Charitable Trusts to establish a nonprofit 501(c)(3) foundation
to solicit and receive private funds for the sole purpose of donating such funds for the
visitor center project.”31
27 P.L. 107-68; 115 Stat. 588.
28 The United States Capitol Visitor Center Commemorative Coin Act authorized three
coins: a five dollar gold coin (to be sold for $35), a silver dollar (to be sold for $10), and a
clad half dollar (made of a composite material, to be sold for $3). P.L. 106-126; 113 Stat.
1644-1647.
29 Stacy Andersen, spokesperson for the Congressional Liaison Office, U.S. Mint, Mar. 6,
2003.
30 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 1999, Making Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999, conference report to
accompany H.R. 4328, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 105-825 (Washington: GPO, 1998),
p. 590.
31 The foundation was “an independent, nongovernment entity, and a written agreement
establishe[d] a clear working relationship between the 501(c)(3) entity and the
Commission.” Fund raising was done in accordance with commission-approved guidelines.
The commission “retain[ed] control over the planning, design, engineering, and
construction.” Testimony of Secretary of the Senate Gary Sisco, U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch
(continued...)

---

CRS-11
Early in 2002, the Fund for the Capitol Visitors’ Center announced that it had
reached its $39 million fund-raising goal, and all of the money would be turned over
to the Capitol Preservation Commission.32 The remaining private sector funds
available for construction of the center had been contributed to the commission at an
earlier date.33 In January 2002, the Capitol Preservation Commission was authorized
by law to transfer funds from its Capitol Preservation Fund to the Architect of the
Capitol for use in the planning, engineering, design, or construction of the Capitol
Visitors’ Center.34 In late March 2003, it was announced that the Architect of the
Capitol had hired Tishman Construction Corporation, a financial consulting firm, to
evaluate the Capitol Visitors’ Center costs.35
Tishman submitted their cost analysis in mid-May 2003. Subsequently, in June
2003, the General Accounting Office reviewed the Tishman methodology,
assumptions, and support for analysis ... including contingencies, scope items not
included in the estimates, and “risks and uncertainties.” GAO also “conducted a
supplemental analysis to identify potential future costs due to additional risks and
uncertainties not included” in the Tishman estimate. While GAO “found that
Tishman’s analysis was generally reasonable given the scope and assumptions
provided by the Architect of the Capitol,” it “identified cost adjustments to
Tishman’s analysis of the base project, totaling $7 million,” that need to be added.
31 (...continued)
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001, hearings, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., Mar. 21, 2000
(Washington: GPO, 2001), pp. 264-265; Lauren W. Whittington, “Visitor Center Fund
Begins Final Push,” Roll Call, Aug. 9, 2001, pp. 1, 17.
32 Lauren W. Whittington, “Visitor Center Fund to Close Its Doors,” Roll Call, vol. 48, Feb.
14, 2002, p. 3; and Christine Cube, “Capitol Visitor Center Fund Reaches $39M Goal,”
Washington Business Journal, Feb. 22, 2002, p. 9.
33 In June 2001, Clerk of the House, Jeff Trandahl told a Senate hearing that approximately
$30 million in Capitol Preservation Commission funds were also available for construction
of the center. Testimony of Jeff Trandahl, U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2002,
hearings, 107th Cong., 1st sess., June 27, 2001 (Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 263.
34 P.L. 107-117, Title IX, Chap. 9, Sec. 913; 115 Stat. 2324. The Capitol Preservation Fund
was established in 1988 within the U.S. Treasury to finance the improvement, preservation,
and acquisition activities of the Capitol Preservation Commission. P.L. 100-696,Title VIII;
102 Stat. 4608-4609; 40 U.S.C. 188a(a). The Capitol Preservation Fund “consists of assets
derived from deposits of charitable contributions, surcharge proceeds from the Secretary of
the Treasury arising from the sale of commemorative coins, and interest earned on the
invested portions of the Capitol Preservation Fund.” U.S. General Accounting Office,
Financial Audit: Capitol Preservation Fund’s Fiscal Years 2001 and 2000 Financial
Statements, GAO-020587, May 2002, p. 11.
35 Sarita Chourey, “Consultants to Evaluate CVC’s Escalating Costs,” The Hill, Mar. 26,
2003, p. 6; Sarita Chourey, “War Supplement has No Money for CVC Overruns,” The Hill,
Apr. 9, 2003, p. 14; and Susan Ferrechio and Allison Stevens, “Architect of the Capitol
Hires Consultant to Review Cost Estimates for Visitor Center,” CQ Today, May 9, 2003,
p. 12.

---

CRS-12
These adjustment, GAO reported, increased Tishman’s estimated cost of completion
for the basic project from $344.3 million to $351.3 million.36
Also, GAO stated that “[d]ue to the nature of uncertainties still surrounding the
project’s estimated cost to complete and the limitations of information available,”
there would “likely be events occurring in the future that could further materially
affect the project’s cost at completion.” These “additional risks and uncertainties,”
GAO determined, “could potentially raise the estimated cost at competition of the
base project to between $380 million and $395 million.” While “these potential
additional costs of between $30 million to $45 million do not [now] need to be added
to the base project budget,” GAO cautioned that “a number of actions need[ed] to be
taken to mitigate known risks,” and “there is a continual need of the AOC to align
customer expectations with the project’s scope, quality, and cost considerations.”37
On July 15, 2003, David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States,
and Alan M. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, both told the House Subcommittee
on Legislative that as much as an additional $100 million may be needed to complete
the House and Senate expansion space in the center and for enhanced security.38
Ultimately, conferees agreed to a $48.839 million additional appropriation for
the Capitol Visitors’ Center, funded under the Architect of the Capitol account. The
appropriation is similar to the amount considered necessary to complete construction
of the center, based upon a GAO review and “assessment of a cost-to-complete
estimate prepared by a third party with expertise in construction cost analysis.”39
On September 30, 2003, President Bush signed into law the FY2004 legislative
branch appropriations bill, which contained $48.839 million in additional funding
for the Capitol Visitors’ Center. Of this amount, $1.039 million is marked for
operational costs, and $48.550 million is no-year money.40 The new appropriation
“is based on the General Account Office’s review of the project and its assessment
36 Testimony of David M. Walker, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2004, hearings,
p. 1441; and Capitol Visitor Center: Current Status of Schedule and Estimated Cost, p. 2.
37 Testimony of David M. Walker, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2004, hearings,
pp. 1441-1442; and Capitol Visitor Center: Current Status of Schedule and Estimated Cost,
pp. 2-3.
38 Testimony of David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, and Alan M.
Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2004, hearings,
pp. 1448, 1450-1452.
39 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations,
2004, report to accompany S. 1383, 108th Cong., 1st sess., S. Rept. 108-88 (Washington:
GPO, 2003), p. 35. The actual appropriation for FY2004 is $36.839 million, since conferees
authorized $12.0 million to be transferred to the center’ appropriation from previously
appropriated funds made available for Capitol Police buildings and grounds which is also
funded under the Architect of the Capitol account. P.L. 108-83; 117 Stat. 1026.
40 P.L. 108-83; 117 Stat. 1026; and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Legislative Branch Appropriations, 2004, report to accompany S. 1383, 108th Cong., 1st
sess., S. Rept. 108-88 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 35.

---

CRS-13
of a cost-to-complete estimate prepared by a third party with expertise in construction
cost analysis.”41
Impetus for Final Approval
For more than three decades, Congress has discussed construction of a center,
separate from the Capitol building, to welcome and screen the millions of visitors
each year that visit what Capitol architect Benjamin Henry Latrobe called “the Hall
of the People.” Not until after a gunman with a history of mental illness killed two
U.S. Capitol Police officers stationed near a public entrance to the Capitol in July
1998, however, did the idea gain momentum. That “crime convinced lawmakers that
they needed better control of access, and provided justification for the spending that
some legislators had worried would be considered extravagant. Within months $100
million was appropriated for the center.”42
The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks at the Pentagon and in New York, and
the subsequent discovery of anthrax in congressional office buildings highlighted
concerns regarding the potential vulnerabilities of the Capitol and the need for
improved security on Capitol Hill. These developments influenced congressional
discussions concerning the necessity of spending money on the center, and the final
funds needed for its construction were made available.
As Washington Post
architectural critic Benjamin Forgey observed, “The Capitol undeniably is a magnet
for terrorists and deranged individuals. Prudence dictates that the building be made
as secure as possible, while remaining open and accessible to the public.” “It is clear
that the Capitol Visitor Center as designed,”Forgey explained, “will improve both
convenience and security.”43 Work is now being completed on ringing the Capitol
grounds with metal bollards to enhance control of pedestrian and vehicle access.
Pre-Construction Phase
Tree Preservation
A major concern of the pre-construction phase was the potential for damage to
plantings on the East Front grounds of the Capitol. Many of the trees were part of
Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr.’s 1874 plan, while others were memorial or
commemorative plantings.
41 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2004, Making Appropriations for the Legislative
Branch for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2004, and for Other Purposes, conference
report to accompany H.R. 2657, 108th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 108-279 (Washington: GPO,
2003), p. 49.
42 Carl Hulse, “Workers Set to Transform East Front of the Capitol,” New York Times, May
28, 2002, p. A17.
43 Benjamin Forgey, “Capitol Disorientation Center: Underground Visitors Facility Will
Provide Bathrooms and the Blahs,” Washington Post, Nov. 25, 2000, p. C1.

---

CRS-14
In October 2001, several months before the actual excavation for the footprint
of the center began, the Davey Tree Expert Company, a tree maintenance contractor,
was hired to ensure that the more 300 trees on the East Capitol grounds were
protected, pruned, mulched, and monitored during the construction.
Also, a
subcontractor, Houston-based National Shade L.P., specialists in large tree
transplanting, was engaged to assist in that phase of the work.44 Early in 2002, a
canopy misting sprinkling system was installed on each tree to protect foliage from
excessive dust.45
Several months prior to the awarding of the tree preservation contract,
considerable concern was expressed in the media regarding the preservation of the
memorial trees located on the East Front, which had been sponsored by Members of
Congress to commemorate and honor former First Lady Patricia Nixon, Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., former Members of Congress, including two Speakers of the House,
organizations, eminent individuals, and even states.46
Although a number of the East Front’s 346 trees have been temporarily removed
while the center is under construction, “only 14 of the 85 special memorial trees have
been affected by the project.” Six memorial trees were removed and replaced, and
eight were moved elsewhere on the Capitol grounds.” To assure that these memorial
trees will be replaced,
Arborists have obtained cuttings from all 14 trees in order to replant those that
are lost in other locations on the Capitol grounds. If these efforts fail, the usual
procedure to replace a memorial tree that dies a natural death will be
followed——an excellent, robust specimen, usually of the same species, will
become the replacement memorial tree. In regard to non-memorial trees, most
of those affected are tulip poplars along East Capitol Street, and many of these
are near the end of their natural lifespan. These trees will be replaced with 15-to-
20-foot tulip poplars in a manner that restores the original intention of landscape
architect Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. Overall, there will be more trees replaced
on the Capitol Grounds than are lost during construction.47
By the time the Capitol Visitors’ Center is completed, it is estimated that nearly
$2 million will have been spent “on trees — moving them, felling them and planting
44 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative,
Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2003, hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Apr. 25, 2002
(Washington: GPO, 2002), p. 381; Karen Hosler, “‘Seedling’ of Md. Liberty Tree Moved,”
Baltimore Sun, Dec. 18, 2001, p. 3A; Carl Hulse, “Workers Set to Transform East Front of
the Capitol,” New York Times, May 28, 2002, p. A17; Sylvia Moreno, “12-Ton Liberty Tree
on the Move at the Capitol,” Washington Post, Dec.16, 2001, p. C9.
45 Sarita Chourey, “Arborists Prepare Trees for the Summer Heat,” The Hill, May 1, 2002,
p. 12.
46 For a complete list of memorial trees see U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2002,
hearings, 107th Cong., 1st sess., June 27, 2001 (Washington: GPO, 2001), pp. 370-371.
47 “Capitol Visitor Center Tree Preservation Activities Begin,” Architect of the Capitol Web
site, Dec. 2001, [http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/cvc_updates_0112_1.htm].
See also Sarita
Chourey, “Arborists Prepare Trees for the Summer Heat,” The Hill, May 1, 2002, p. 12.

---

CRS-15
85 new ones on the East Front.” Tree-care contractors will remain on the site until
construction is completed.48
Construction of the Center
On June 20, 2000, members of the United States Capitol Preservation
Commission,49 the 18-member bipartisan, bicameral, board of congressional leaders
responsible for the design and construction of the center, gathered on the East Front
Plaza of the Capitol for a symbolic groundbreaking ceremony for the center. In
November 1999, prior to the groundbreaking, the commission approved a revised
conceptional design for the center, and a design and engineering obligation plan was
approved by the House and Senate legislative appropriations subcommittees in
November 1999 and January 2000, respectively.
On January 31, 2000, design development work for the center was begun, and
in mid-October 2000, the Capitol Preservation Commission approved the final design
plan for the center and authorized the Architect of the Capitol to prepare final
construction documentation. Also, the General Accounting Office was assigned to
be a permanent consultant for the project, and a “team of GAO officials has
periodically briefed the staff of the [Capitol] Preservation Commission on the
construction schedule and cost of the project since 1999.”50
Construction Management Firm Selected
“For two centuries, Congress has handled its own construction tasks mostly
internally, with limited assistance only when absolutely needed from private sector
firms.”51 The Architect of the Capitol and his staff of 2,000, however, have never
undertaken anything involving the size and complexity of the center, or a project that
needs to be constructed so quickly. “To their credit, congressional facility managers
recognized this, and sought out advice from federal construction peers and experts
in the private sector.”52 They turned to the U.S. General Services Administration
(GSA), Army Corps of Engineers, and the Construction Management Association of
America for advice.
Ultimately, the decision was made to have an outside
construction management firm supervise a Capitol construction project for the first
time. At the request of the Architect’s office, GSA developed the documentation
48 Sarah Bouchard, “Taking Root,” The Hill, Oct. 2, 2003, p. 4.
49 The United States Capitol Preservation Commission was established under Title VIII of
P.L. 100-696 (102 Stat. 4608-4609; 40 U.S.C. 188a(a)) in Nov. 1988 for the purpose of
providing for the improvements in, preservation of, and acquisitions (including works of fine
art and other property display ) for the United States Capitol. It is comprised of 18 Members
representing both houses of Congress.
50 Peter Brand and Sarita Chourey, “Two Firms Squaring Off in Bid for Contract to Build
Final Phase of Capitol Visitor Center,” The Hill, Feb. 5, 2003, p. 3.
51 Editorial, “‘People’s House’ Deserves Outside Industry Expertise,” Engineering News-
Record, June 17, 2002, vol. 248, p.84.
52 Ibid.

---

CRS-16
needed for the “qualifications-based selection” process, “which eventually drew the
interest of 22 firms.”53
The “best value, source selection process” used to select the construction
management firm “evaluates proposals with predefined criteria, which mandates
more than consideration of price alone, and is used by GSA, Department of Defense
(DoD) and others.” The source selection “process provides a standard to differentiate
and rank competitors by analyzing past performance and technical management
abilities to solve the specific CVC [Capitol Visitors’ Center] needs, thus allowing
selection of a contractor who will give the AOC [Architect of the Capitol] the best
value to construct the CVC.”54
In January 2001, Gilbane Building Company, a Providence, Rhode Island
construction management firm, was selected to monitor and inspect the general
construction process of the center. “Increased site support services, including a
temporary visitors’ screening facility and the cataloguing, dismantling and restoring
of historic features, pushed Gilbane’s initial $7 million contract to $16 million.”
Gilbane “also performed a security analysis.” “To better control schedules and costs,
Gilbane broke work into three separate packages — utility relocation, foundation,
and general conditions, including mechanical, electrical and plumbing.”55 Also,
Gilbane is “responsible for historic preservation measures, including repairs and
alterations to the existing Capitol and modifications that help facilitate the operation
and meet revised codes.”56
Utility Work Contract
In November 2001, the William V. Walsh Construction Company of Rockville,
Maryland was awarded an $8 million contract to relocate the utility lines, which had
been installed at various times during the last 100 years, prior to beginning
construction of the center. Due to the fact that many of the utility lines were poorly
or inaccurately documented on available drawings, relocating them proved to be a
delicate and, by far, the most difficult pre-construction task.
As it became
increasingly apparent that existing drawings were potentially unreliable, much of the
utility work was shifted to nights or on weekends, and to extent possible, work was
53 Debra K. Rubin and William J. Angelo, “Historic Expansion of U.S. Capitol Showcases
Its Historic Use of CM,” Engineering News-Record, vol. 248, June 17, 2002, p. 31.
54 Testimony by Alan M. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch
Appropriations for 2003, hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Apr. 25, 2002 (Washington: GPO,
2002), p. 381; and Testimony by Alan M. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Congress,
Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations,
Legislative Branch Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003, hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess.,
Apr. 17, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002), pp. 172-173.
55 Rubin and Angelo, “Historic Expansion of U.S. Capitol Showcases Its Historic Use of
CM,” pp. 31-32. See also Y. Melanie Nayer, “Building on a Reputation: Gilbane Co.
Tackles the Massive Project of Making the Capitol More User-Friendly,” Providence
[Rhode Island] Journal, June 1, 2002, p. B1.
56 “Enhancing the Capitol,” Gilbane: News Magazine, vol. 21, fall 2001, p. 11.

---

CRS-17
executed around the legislative calendar in an effort to minimize disruption to the
Capitol and its occupants. During the fall of 2002, the relocation of utilities was
completed and the project’s footprint was ready for excavation.57
Sequence 1: Foundation/Structural Work
On June 12, 2002, the Architect of the Capitol awarded a $99,877,000 contract
for Sequence 1 of the center to Centex Construction Company, Inc., whose Mid-
Atlantic Division is headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia. Centrex was selected by the
competitive source selection process. Centrex was one of four bidders to pursue the
job. Sequence 1 covers site demolition, excavation of soil, construction of the
foundation and walls, installation of load-bearing elements, and portions of site
utility work, and completion of the roof plate for the center.58 It is anticipated that
Sequence 1 will be completed by August 2004.
Sequence 2: Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing
and Finishing Work
On April 21, 2003, the Architect of the Capitol awarded a $144.2 million
contract for Sequence 2 of the center to the Manhattan Construction Company, based
in Tulsa, Oklahoma.59
Sequence 2 will include the installation of electrical,
mechanical, and plumbing systems of the interior and exterior — which will overlap
the first sequence; interior construction of exhibits, visitor comfort, food service, two
orientation theaters, an auditorium, gift shops, security, connections to existing
buildings, hardscraping and landscaping at the plaza level. Work on the final phase
of the center is expected to begin at the end of 2003.60
CVC spokesman Tom Fontana indicated in late February 2003 that the actual
completion date, however, would ultimately depend on what the contractor felt was
realistic. A series of amendments were added to the final phase of the project that had
“loosened some of the timing requirements, which could mean a new schedule would
need to be presented to the House and Senate leadership for approval when the
contractor is selected.” According to Fontana, “the oral presentations that were made
by the contractors” caused construction authorities to conclude that the contractor
finally selected would need “a little more flexibility and a little more room to be
57 Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Visitors’ Center Project Office, Mar. 2003; Rubin and
Angelo, “Historic Expansion of U.S. Capitol Showcases Its Historic Use of CM,” p. 32.
58 “Architect of the Capitol Awards Major Construction Contract for U.S. Capitol Visitor
C e n t e r , ”
A r c h i t e c t
o f
t h e
C a p i t o l
W e b
s i t e ,
J u n e
2 0 0 2 ,
[http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/sequence_1_contract.htm]. See also Suzanne Nelson, “Centex’s
$100 M Bid Wins CVC Contract,” Roll Call, June 17, 2002, p. 3.
59 “Architect of the Capitol Awards Sequence 2 Construction Contract for U.S. Capitol
Visitor
Center,”
Architect
of
the
Capitol
Web
site,
Apr.
2003,
[http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/sequence_2_contract.htm].
See also “Capitol Visitor Center
Contract Awarded,” Washington Post, Apr. 22, 2003, p. B3.
60 Brand and Chourey, “Two Firms Squaring Off in Bid for Contract to Build Final Phase
of Capitol Visitor Center,” p. 3.

---

CRS-18
creative in how they can meet our requirements.” Fontana did, however, emphasize
that the East Front Plaza would be “substantially complete” for the basic activities
of the 2005 presidential inauguration such as motorcades and staging areas for the
media, and would be able to “accommodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic.”61
In March 2003, congressional appropriators learned that the bids for Sequence
2 were significantly higher than the $120 million Architect Hantman initially
estimated the phase would cost. Also, a Source Selection Evaluation Board, headed
by the GSA was asked to evaluate the bid proposals for Sequence 2. Architect of the
Capitol Alan Hantman told the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration that
the bids for Sequence 2 came “in approximately 10 to 15 percent above the
government estimate, a range that is considered acceptable and reasonable per GSA
and Department of Defense governmental standards.”62
As a consequence of the increased cost of Sequence 2, House Appropriations
Committee Chairman C.W. Bill Young and Ranking Minority Committee Member
David R. Obey sent a letter to Architect Hantman on April 14, 2003, stating that they
believed he had ignored the prerogatives of the committee and exceeded budget
guidelines for the center. “We now find ourselves,” they continued, “in a situation
that if we do not allow the contract for Sequence 2 to be executed by April 21, 2003,
it would have significant monetary and scheduling implications.”
The funds for
Sequence 2, they continued were being obligated by the committee “with serious
reservations.”63
The appropriators also required the Architect to fulfill the following four
conditions in exchange for the funds: (1) provide the committee a monthly financial
report that shows he has not varied from the obligation plan he submitted to the
committee on April 4, 2003; (2) assure that individual line items in the report follow
the format and obligation plans submitted to the committee and that contingencies
be managed within the appropriate account; (3) include in the report an assessment
of the current status of the project and notify the committee “of any issues that cause
the project to exceed it’s budget, schedule, or diminish quality as specified”; and (4)
submit to the committee a “reprogramming request” for “any deviation from the
existing obligating plan that exceeds either $500,000 or 10% of a particular program
61 Suzanne Nelson, “Contractors Get Say in CVC Timing,” Roll Call, Feb. 24, 2003, p. 3.
See also Editorial, “Uh-oh,” Roll Call, Feb. 26, 2003, p. 4.
62 Testimony by Alan M. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration, Oversight of the Operations of the Secretary of the
Senate, Architect of the Capitol, hearing, 108th Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 19, 2003 (not yet
published). See also Suzanne Nelson, “CVC Bids High,” Roll Call, Mar. 10, 2003, p. 18.
and Susan Ferrechio, “Bids for the Next Stage of Visitor Center Coming in 10-15 Percent
Higher Than Expected,” CQ Today, Mar. 20, 2003, p. 15.
63 Rep. C.W. Bill Young, Chairman and Rep. David R. Obey, Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Appropriations to Alan M. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, April
14, 2003. See also Susan Ferrechio, “Appropriators Set Conditions for Capitol Visitor
Center Funds,” CQ Weekly, Apr. 26, 2003, pp. 1002-1003; Carl Hulse, “At the Capitol, A
Big Dig’s Cost Draws Criticism,” New York Times, Apr. 14, 2003, p. A20; and Susan
Nelson, “CVC Contract Sparks Criticism,” Roll Call, Apr. 28, 2003, pp. 1, 18.

---

CRS-19
or activity. Finally, the appropriators “directed that the GAO [General Accounting
Office] continue to review these monthly reports and bring to the attention of the
Committee any comments and concerns that may impact on the cost, timeliness or
quality of the project.”64
Other Activities
On Site Security. Security at the construction site is extensive. An eight-foot
fence has been built around the construction site, and all construction personnel have
undergone background security checks and are screened daily as they enter the site.
Also, each dump truck is examined as it passes through the gates. The U.S. “Capitol
Police, including canine units, patrol the site. Photographs and site plans must be
cleared through the police, who suppress photos or descriptions considered too
revealing, such as those disclosing the location of security trailers, new utility lines
or evacuation tunnels.”65
Historic Preservation. In March 2002, workmen began removing the
historic Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. landscape features, including the fountains,
lampposts and retaining walls on the East Front Plaza, and the Trolley Stop canopy
structure, to clear the area for excavation of the visitors’ center site. All historic
materials that are removed will be catalogued, stored, and replaced in their original
locations once the new plaza has been completed.66
Noise Reduction. During the Summer of 2002, soundproof windows were
installed on the east side of the Capitol, to keep the disruptions to Congress at a
minimum, and augering drills are being used instead of pile drivers to reduce the
noise generated by the project.67 The 154 custom windows that were installed on the
East Front weigh 600 pounds each and are half an inch thick. Because the original
windows could not be removed, the new ones were placed over the existing
windows. The acoustic windows, which cost $350,000, will be removed once
construction is finished.68
Temporary Visitor Screening Facilities. In May 2002, Capitol tour
operations were shifted from the East Front Visitor Screening Facility, which was
closed and dismantled, to new Temporary Visitor Screening Facilities on the north
64 Young and Obey to Hantman, Apr. 14, 2003.
65 Steven Partick, “A New Capitol Visitor Center is Beginning to Take Shape on the East
Lawn,” CQ Today, Jan. 27, 2003, p. 9. See also Lauren W. Whittington, “Visitor Center
Crews to Get Background Checks,” Roll Call, Mar. 4, 2002, p. 8.
66 “Historic Preservation,” United States Capitol Visitor Center Weekly Construction
Summary,
M a y
2 7 ,
2 0 0 2 ,
A r c h i t e c t
o f
t h e
C api t ol
Web
si t e,
[http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/weekly/2002/05-27-02.htm]; Architect of the Capitol, Capitol
Visitors’ Center Project Office, Mar. 2003.
67 “East Front Plaza Work,” United States Capitol Visitor Center Weekly Construction
Summary,
Architect
of
the
Capitol
Web
site,
July
8,
2002,
Aug.
2002,
[http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/weekly/2002/07-08-02.htm].
68 Sarah Bouchard, “Soundproof,” The Hill, Oct. 15, 2003, p. 10.

---

CRS-20
and south sides of the Capitol.
Visitors will pass through these temporary
installations prior to entering the Capitol at the West Front. These temporary
facilities will remain in use until the Capitol Visitors’ Center is completed.69
Alternative Media Sites. In July 2002, construction of the center also
required the temporary closure of both the House and Senate media sites on the East
Front plaza. Temporary alternate sites were established for the Senate in Upper
Senate Park opposite the Russell Senate Office Building, and for the House media
on the northwest terrace of the Cannon House Office Building.70
Development of Exhibition Gallery and Museum Exhibits. Ralph
Applebaum & Associates (RAA), which has been hired to oversee the development
of the CVC exhibition gallery, is refining the gallery design based on ongoing
communication and input from the Capitol Preservation Commission. The content
specifications for gallery exhibits are being refined by the Exhibit Content Working
Group (consisting of the House and Senate historians, Library of Congress officials,
and the curator and historian for the U.S. Capitol), based on discussions with the
commission.
RAA has developed a mission statement, educational goals, and overarching
concepts for the gallery, and has completed revisions to the floor plan. Once these
details are approved by the commission, the design of the exhibition, and plans for
a new film touching on important people and events in the history of Congress and
the nation, will be prepared for final review prior to solicitation of bids.71
It is anticipated that RAA will present a final design to the commission in
December 2003. According to Marty Sewell, exhibition project director, “The basic
theme is to talk about representative democracy to give that felling of belonging and
involvement.” The exhibition gallery is being designed “to give the public a real idea
of how Congress works,” and to show how it is different from the executive branch.72
69 Jennifer Yachnin, “Go West: Tour Operations Get a New Home: Visitors Will Enter
Capitol at West Front,” Roll Call, May 20, 2002, p. A-27.
70 “Alternate Media Sites,” United States Capitol Visitor Center Weekly Construction
Summary, July 8, 2002, [http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/weekly/2002/07-08-02.htm].
71 Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Visitor Center Project Office, Mar. 2003; and Testimony
by Jeri Thompson, Secretary of the Senate, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch Appropriations
for Fiscal Year 2003, hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Apr. 17, 2002 (Washington: GPO,
2002), p. 139.
72 Susanne Nelson, “Exhibition Space to Enliven CVC,” Roll Call, Nov. 4, 2003, pp. 1, 14.

---

CRS-21
Appendix A
Action in the 104th Congress
During the 104th Congress, bills were introduced in the House (H.R. 1230) and
Senate (S. 954) authorizing the Architect of the Capitol, under the direction of the
U.S. Capitol Preservation Commission, to “plan, construct, equip, administer, and
maintain” the proposed visitors’ center, and “reconstruct the environs of the East
Plaza to enhance its attractiveness, safety, and security.” The House Subcommittee
on Public Buildings and Economic Development held a hearing on H.R. 1230 in June
1995.73 No further action was taken on the bill in the 104th Congress. Hearings were
not held on S. 954, which had been referred to the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Action in the 105th Congress
In the 105th Congress bills, were once again introduced in both the House (H.R.
20, H.R. 4347) and Senate (S. 1508) authorizing the Architect to plan, construct, and
equip a Capitol visitors’ center under the East Front Plaza of the Capitol, and to
reconstruct the plaza. H.R. 20 and S. 1508 authorized the Architect of the Capitol,
under the direction of the United States Capitol Preservation Commission, to plan,
construct, equip, and maintain a Capitol visitors’ center, and to reconstruct the East
Plaza of the Capitol to enhance its attractiveness, safety, and security. Both H.R. 20
and S. 1508 contained amendments to the 1988 act establishing the United States
Capitol Preservation Commission. H.R. 20 amended the 1988 act to establish a
three-member special committee to provide the Architect of the Capitol with all
necessary oversight and direction in carrying out the provisions of the “Capitol
Visitor Center Authorization Act of 1997.” S. 1508 amended the 1988 act to broaden
its order to carry out the functions assigned by the “Capitol Visitor Center
Authorization Act of 1997.” H.R. 4347 authorized the Architect to carry out the
project, but omitted any reference to the commission. None of the three proposals
ever received a floor vote.
Purpose of Proposals
The stated purposes of the three bills were similar in some respects, but differed
in others. The bills called for a center that would
! provide reception and information facilities, educational materials and
exhibits, and a gift shop for Capitol visitors (H.R. 20, S.1508);
! ensure the health and comfort of visitors to the Capitol (H.R. 4347);
! enhance security of the Capitol (S. 1508); and
! enhance security at the perimeter of the Capitol grounds (H.R. 4347).
73 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Public Buildings and Economic Development, H.R. 1230, Capitol Visitor Center, hearing,
104th Cong., 1st sess., June 22, 1995 (Washington: GPO, 1995).

---

CRS-22
Design and Construction Requirements
All three bills required that the center’s design be substantially in accord with
the Architect’s final design report of November 10, 1995. In addition, H.R. 4347
required the Architect to submit a report to the House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration containing
the plans and designs for carrying out the project. Both H.R. 20 and S. 1508 required
that the project meet design standards applicable under nationally recognized
building codes. The project was not to be subject to federal or state law relating to
taxes, building codes, permits, or inspections. H.R. 20 and S. 1508 also authorized
the Architect of the Capitol to (1) establish competitive procedures for the
construction work needed to complete the project by use of prequalification
standards; and (2) award contracts on the basis of contractor qualification as well as
price. H.R. 4347 contained no such provisions.
Financing the Project
The three bills each offered a different approach to financing the project. H.R.
20 directed the Architect to develop and submit, subject to the approval of the United
States Capitol Preservation Commission, a financing plan “that will enable
construction of the project to be completed without appropriation of funds.” S.1508
directed the commission to develop a “detailed plan for financing the project at the
lowest net cost to the Government.” H.R. 4347 authorized the appropriation of “such
sums as may be necessary” to complete the project, but required the Architect of the
Capitol to “identify alternatives” for reducing construction costs.
Security
Two of the three bills (H.R. 4347, S. 1508) identified enhanced Capitol security
as a principal purpose of the visitors’ center. The third (H.R. 20) did not. S. 1508
also made the Capitol Police Board responsible for the design, installation, and
maintenance of security systems in the center, and mandated that the U.S. Capitol
Police conduct a study to assess the security cost savings and other benefits resulting
from the construction and operation of the center.
1997 Visitors’ Center Hearings
On May 22, 1997, the House Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic
Development held a hearing on H.R. 20.74 Hearings were not held on S. 1508, which
74 Rep. John L. Mica, sponsor of H.R. 20, emphasized that construction of the proposed
visitors’ center, “is an important part of opening up government and the Capitol so that all
may enjoy its many contributions.” U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development, H.R. 20, The
Capitol Visitor Center, hearing, 105th Cong., 1st sess., May 22, 1997 (Washington: U.S.
GPO, 1997), pp. 6-7,14-15, 44.

---

CRS-23
was referred to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee,75 or H.R. 4347,
jointly referred to the House Committee and Transportation and Infrastructure and
House Committee on Ways and Means.76
FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act
Following the tragic violence at the Capitol on July 24, 1998, that left two U.S.
Capitol Police officers mortally wounded, the question of Capitol security was thrust
to the forefront of public consciousness. During the third week of October 1998, a
conference agreement was reached on H.R. 4328, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1999. Included in the act was
a $100 million appropriation to be used by the Architect “for the planning,
engineering, design, and construction” of a Capitol visitors’ center. The visitors’
center, conferees reasoned, “would provide greater security for all persons working
in or visiting the United States Capitol” and “enhance the educational experience of
those who have come to learn about the Capitol building and Congress.” President
William J. Clinton signed H.R. 4328 into P.L. 105-277 on October 21, 1998. The
Act stipulated that funds for the project had to be supplemented by private funds and
each milestone in the project must be approved by the appropriate authorizing and
appropriations committees.77
Action in the 106th Congress
During FY2000 House legislative branch funding hearings on February 3, 1999,
concern was raised about the Architect of the Capitol’s projected schedule for
construction of the visitors’ center. Representative John L. Mica urged that the
process not be further delayed and Subcommittee Chairman Charles Taylor and
Ranking Minority Member Ed Pastor indicated they would work to accelerate the
75 In his statement introducing the bill, committee chairman John Warner stated that the
visitors’ center would “have a tremendous, positive impact on the informational and
educational experience afforded visitors to the Capitol.” The “most compelling need” for
the visitors’ center, he maintained, was the requirement for “enhanced security for the entire
Capitol building and environs.” Sen. John Warner, “Legislation Authorizing the
Construction of a Capitol Visitors Center,” remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 143, Nov. 9, 1997, p. S12309.
76 “Our foremost obligation,” Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton told House colleagues in
introducing H.R. 4347, “is to protect all who visit or work here and to spare no legitimate
consideration in protecting the United States Capitol.” Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton,
“Introduction of the Jacob Joseph Chestnut — John Michael Gibson Capitol Visitor Center
Act of 1988,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 144, July 30, 1998, p. E1475. The
Act memorialized Jacob Joseph Chestnut and John Michael Gibson of the U.S. Capitol
Police for their selfless acts of heroism on July 24, 1998, when they were killed in the line
of duty while confronting an armed gunman who had entered the Capitol.
77
U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal 1999, conference report to accompany H.R. 4328,
105th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 105-825 (Washington: GPO, 1998), p. 590; P.L. 105-277;
112 Stat. 2681-569-2681-570.

---

CRS-24
schedule laid out by the Architect.78 A similar view was expressed during subsequent
Senate legislative branch appropriation hearings.79
H.R. 962
On March 3, 1999, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced H.R. 962, a bill
similar to her 105th Congress proposal, which contained guidelines for administering
the project, including requirements that the Architect identify construction
alternatives to achieve cost savings.80
Role of Capitol Preservation Commission Defined
Subsequently, a Senate proposal to transfer approval authority for the center to
the 18-member, bipartisan, bicameral United States Capitol Preservation
Commission was agreed to in the FY2000 legislative branch appropriations bill (H.R.
1905), which was signed into law on September 29, 1999.81
1999 Revalidation Study
Earlier, during the spring of 1999, congressional leaders “asked the Architect
of the Capitol to review the initial site selection and design of the U.S. Capitol
Visitor Center.” In March 1999, the Architect received approval to use $2.8 million
in funds appropriated for the project to re-validate the 1995 design study. On
October 15, 1999, the Architect briefed the Capitol Preservation Commission, which
had recently been given primary oversight of the project, “on the results of his review
of the 1995 design study and sought the Commission’s approval to proceed to the
detailed pre-construction design and engineering phase of the project.”82 The team
that conducted the 1999 Revalidation Study were guided by four fundamental goals
for the Capitol Visitors’ Center:
Security. The Visitor Center must provide a secure public environment to
welcome and manage a large number of visitors and to protect the Capitol
Building, its occupants, and guests in an atmosphere of free and open access.
Visitor Education. The Visitor Center must establish and present a body of
information and accessible resources on the workings and history of the
78 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative,
Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2000, hearings, part 2, 106th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 3,
1999, p. 409;
79 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative
Branch, Legislative Branch Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000, hearing, 106th Cong., 1st
sess., Mar. 3, 1999, pp. 227-228.
80 Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, “Introduction of the Jacob Joseph Chestnut-John Michael
Gibson Capitol Visitor Center Act of 1999,” extension of remarks in the House,
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 145, Mar. 3, 1999, p. E323.
81 P.L. 106-57; 113 Stat. 427.
82 Press release of the Capitol Preservation Commission, Oct. 15, 1999, p. 1.

---

CRS-25
Congress, the legislative process, and the mechanics of our representative
democracy.
Visitor Comfort. The Visitor Center must provide the amenities, comfort, and
convenience for visitors appropriate to the world’s most recognizable symbol of
representative democracy and one of the nation’s most visited tourist attractions.
Functional Improvements. The Visitor Center must respond to the physical
limitations of the Capitol by providing modern, efficient facilities for such
functions as truck loading and deliveries, constituent assembly rooms, and
improved connection to the Senate and House office buildings.83
On November 3, 1999, the Capitol Preservation Commission approved the
revised conceptional design for the center. A design and engineering obligation plan
was approved by the House and Senate legislative appropriations subcommittees in
November 1999 and January 2000, respectively. On January 31, 2000, design
development work for the center was begun,84 and in mid-October 2000, the
commission approved the final design plan and authorized the Architect to prepare
final construction documentation.85 The ceremonial ground breaking for the center
took place on June 20, 2000.86
Action in the 107th Congress
Preparation for Soliciting Bids
In 2001, construction documents for the center were finalized and competitive
bids were solicited for the first phase of the project,87 and in 2002 the contract for
Sequence 1 was awarded.88
83 U.S. Architect of the Capitol, The Capitol Visitor Center. 1999 Revalidation Study.
Executive Summary, Oct. 1, 1999, p. 7.
84 Testimony of the Architect of the Capitol, Alan Hantman, U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch
Appropriations for 2001, hearings, part 2, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 1, 2000, p. 358.
85 Lauren W. Whittington, “Design Plan Gets Unanimous Nod,” Roll Call, Oct. 19, 2000,
pp. 1, 28; and “Commission OKs Final Design for Capitol Visitor Center,” National
Journal’s CongressDaily AM, Oct. 19, 2000, p. 3.
86 Ben Pershing, “Leaders Break New Ground: Actual Visitors Center Construction to Start
in 2001,” Roll Call, June 22, 2000, pp. 1, 33.
87 Testimony of the Architect of the Capitol, Alan Hantman, U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002, hearings, 107th Cong., 1st sess., June 26, 2001
(Washington: GPO, 2001), pp. 238-239, 246.
88 “Architect of the Capitol Awards Major Construction Contract for U.S. Capitol Visitor
C e n t e r , ”
A r c h i t e c t
o f
t h e
C a p i t o l
W e b
s i t e ,
J u n e
2 0 0 2 ,
[http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/sequence_1_contract.htm]. See also Suzanne Nelson, “Centex’s
(continued...)

---

CRS-26
Construction Details and Other Considerations
Also in 2001, work was begun or finalized on three other important construction
details: (1) the Architect of the Capitol and the Sergeant at Arms of the House met
to begin security planning for the center;89 (2) the Clerk of the House told the House
Subcommittee on Legislative (Appropriations) that penalty clauses would be built
into the center’s construction contracts for failure to meet specified completion
dates;90 and (3) the Architect completed a study on the effects of construction on trees
on the east front lawn of the Capitol. Much of the Architect’s report focused on how
the construction would affect the memorial trees located on the east front which have
been sponsored by Members of Congress.91
Construction of the Capitol Visitors’ Center, the Architect explained at a June
2001 House hearing, would also substantially improve the East Front Plaza of the
Capitol. “The asphalt parking lot will be replaced by a gracious granite plaza
offering places to sit and reflecting pools; more trees will be planted than removed
as part of the project; pedestrians will no longer be forced to compete with cars and
trucks to enter the Capitol;” and many of the views of the Capitol will be restored to
the 1874 vision of Frederick Law Olmsted.92
Early preparation work for the center started on December 3, 2001, when
workers began removing the first of the memorial trees that will have to be relocated
before the center can be built.93
Appropriations for the Center
FY2002 Legislative Branch Appropriations. In the aftermath of the first-
ever evacuation of the Capitol and surrounding office buildings following the
88 (...continued)
$100 M Bid Wins CVC Contract,” Roll Call, June 17, 2002, p. 3.
89 Testimony of the Sergeant at Arms of the House, Wilson Livingood, U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch
Appropriations for 2002, hearings, part 2, 107th Cong., 1st sess., June 27, 2001 (Washington:
GPO, 2001), p. 231.
90 Testimony of the Clerk of the House, Jeff Trandahl, U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2002,
hearings, part 2, 107th Cong., 1st sess., June 27, 2001 (Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 263.
91 Testimony of the Architect of the Capitol, Alan Hantman, U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act for 2002, hearings, part 2, 107th Cong., 1st sess, June 27, 2001
(Washington: GPO, 2001), pp. 367-371. For current information on the memorial trees see
pages 4-5 of this report.
92 Hantman, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for 2002, House hearings, p. 369.
93 Michael S. Gerber, “Tours of Capitol Set to Resume,” The Hill, vol. 8 , Dec. 5, 2001, p.
3. See also Sylvia Moreno, “12-Ton Liberty Tree on the Move at Capitol,” Washington
Post, Dec. 16, 2001, C1, C9; and Steven Patrick, “Capitol Visitor Center Trimming Trees,
Not Costs,” CQ Daily Monitor, Dec. 13, 2001, p. 13.

---

CRS-27
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Congress appropriated an additional $70
million for construction of the Capitol Visitors’ Center. The funds are contained in
the FY2002 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, signed into law by the President
on November 12, 2001 (P.L. 107-68).94
FY2001 Terrorism Emergency Supplemental. Also, on December 3,
2001, President Bush, under authority granted him in the FY2001 Emergency
Supplement Act (P.L. 107-38), authorized the transfer of $290.4 million to the
legislative branch for “increased security measures, including constructing the
Capitol Visitors Center.” Of this amount, $100 million was for the completion of the
center, and $38.5 million was for security enhancements and included funds for a
new tunnel to the Library of Congress, vertical circulation improvements within the
East Front Extension, and new connections to the center from the House and
Senate.95 These funds were drawn from the $20 billion made available to the
President following the terrorist attacks for “disaster assistance, for anti-terrorism
initiatives, and for the assistance in the recovery from the tragedy.”
94 P.L. 107-68, 15 Stat. 588.
95
Office of Management and Budget, President Bush Announces $699 Million in
Emergency Funds Assistance for Defense, Northern Virginia, Secret Service and Congress,
news release, Dec. 3, 2001; Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Visitors’ Center Project Office,
Mar. 2003.

---