Order Code RL31121
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Capitol Visitor Center:
An Overview
Updated August 12, 2005
Stephen W. Stathis
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service { The Library of Congress

---

The Capitol Visitor Center: An Overview
Summary
On June 20, 2000, congressional leaders of both parties gathered to participate
in a symbolic groundbreaking ceremony for the Capitol Visitor 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. 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 more than 200-year history, could be more than
$500 million. Altogether more than $400 million in appropriated funds are currently
available for the 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 was
hired to supervise the project, an $8 million dollar contract was awarded to relocate
utility lines, a $99,877,000 was awarded for Sequence 1 (foundation/structural work),
and a $144.2 million contract was awarded for Sequence 2 (electrical, mechanical,
plumbing, and finishing work).
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 temporarily removed
historic Olmsted landscape features from the grounds for their safeguard; and
temporary visitor screening facilities and media sites were constructed.
As construction of the center has preceded, some have expressed concern over
the estimated cost for the center, which continues to increase.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Rationale for the Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Safety and Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Visitor Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Visitor Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Functional Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Additional Space for the House and Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Planning for the Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Impetus for Final Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Cost of the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Estimated Cost of the Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Funding for the Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appropriated Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Private Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Pre-Construction Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Construction of the Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Construction Management Firm Selected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Utility Work Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Sequence 1: Foundation/Structural Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Sequence 2: Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing and Finishing Work . . . . . . 16
Bids Higher Than Expected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Reaction of Appropriators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Contract Awarded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
New Completion Schedule Eyed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Other Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
On Site Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Noise Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Temporary Visitor Screening Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Alternative Media Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Development of Exhibition Gallery and Museum Exhibits . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Action in the 104th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Action in the 105th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Three Proposals Introduced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Purpose of the Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Design and Financing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1997 Visitor Center Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

---

FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Action in the 106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Accelerated Schedule and Cost Savings Sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Role of Capitol Preservation Commission Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1999 Revalidation Study (Revalidation of 1995 Design) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Action in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Bids Solicited/Certain Construction Details Finalized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appropriations for the Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
FY2002 Legislative Branch Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
FY2001 Terrorism Emergency Supplemental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Action in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
First Session (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2003 House Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2003 GAO Cost Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
FY2004 Conferees Add Monitoring Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
FY2004 Appropriations for the Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Second Session (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Architect’s FY2005 Funding Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
FY2005 Conferees Express Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Conferees Grant Transfer Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Action in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
FY2006 Funding Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Senate Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
April 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
May, June, and July 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
House Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Committee Consideration of FY2006 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
House Appropriations Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Senate Appropriations Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Floor Consideration of FY2006 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Conference Committee Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Final Action on FY2006 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
List of Figures
Figure 1. “Birdseye” Rendering of East Front Plaza with Completed Visitor
Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Figure 2. Floor Plan of Visitor Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

---

The Capitol Visitor Center: An Overview
Introduction
The Capitol Visitor 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. 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 largest in the world-famous
structure’s more than 200-year history, could be more than $500 million.
Figure 1. “Birdseye”
Rendering of East Front Plaza
with Completed Visitor 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 covers approximately five acres (196,000 square
feet) and is larger than that of the Capitol (175,000 square feet). The square footage
of the three levels of the center (580,000 square feet) is nearly two-thirds that of the
Capitol itself (780,000 square feet). The hole contractors dug for the center was three
levels deep and the equivalent of five football fields long. During the excavation of
the site, more that 500,000 cubic yards of soil was removed, enough to fill 53,000
dump trucks.
Above ground, the former 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 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.
The center was not completed in time for the 2005 presidential inauguration of
George W. Bush as originally planned. Approximately half of the Capitol’s East
Front plaza, which forms the roof deck of the subterranean center, however, was able
to accommodate the President’s motorcade, staging activities, and a joint- military
parade during which the President reviewed the troops.
The rest of the new plaza remained inaccessible behind a construction fence
used to hide construction equipment and related materials. The major structural work
on the center was completed in December 2004. Workers are now focusing on
finishing work inside the structure, including the mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing systems.
A number of factors have pushed back the project’s completion date and
increased its cost. Unusually wet weather in 2003, the discovery of asbestos in the
part of the Capitol that is connected to the center, and an unknown century-old well
under the construction site were all unanticipated. Added expenses have been
incurred because of higher-than-expected bids; several design changes; security
upgrades following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2002; an unplanned air
filtration system; fitting out House and Senate expansion space; extra expenses
associated with working around the Capitol, such as security screening for thousands
of construction workers and thousands of construction vehicles that have entered the
construction site; and millions of dollars in outside consultant fees.
The center is not 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.2 Also, the “architectural character of the interiors” of the
center have been characterized by at least one writer as “bland at best.” The same
2 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-3
architectural critic wrote, “You automatically lose a lot when you 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.”3
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 kinds of weather 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.
Safety and Security
A further factor was an increased concern about the security and 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 visitor center were detailed in the mid-1970s, when
the Architect of the Capitol issued Toward a Master Plan for the United States
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
3 Benjamin Forgey, “Capitol Disorientation Center: Underground Visitors Facility Will
Provide Bathrooms and the Blahs,” Washington Post, Nov. 25, 2000, p. C1.

---

CRS-4
meet the changing nature of visitor expectations and their desire to witness the
Legislative Branch in action.4
The Capitol Visitor 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 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.”5
At a September 10, 2002, hearing of the Committee on House Administration,
Architect Hantman emphasized that the 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.”6
Also, the center will significantly improve the screening of delivery vehicles that
“move tons of equipment, food, and other material into and out of the Capitol every
day,” through a remote delivery vehicle screening facility that “will make it easier to
deliver goods to the Capitol and safer to accept those goods.” The structure’s design
“incorporates blast-resistant features and systems that will minimize the risk of
airborne hazards within the Capitol Visitor Center and the Capitol.”7
Visitor Education
The center’s “16,500 square foot gallery will be the only one in the country
dedicated to the history and accomplishments of the Congress and the growth of the
Capitol, it will feature a number of interesting and educational exhibits.” These will
include (1) a “10-foot tall touchable model of the Dome with cutaway interior”; (2)
“historic documents from the Library of Congress and the National Archives
chronicling legislative achievements”; (3) six alcoves devoted to the “history of the
House, the Senate, and the Capitol Square”; (4) theaters showing historic programs
4 Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Visitor Center Project Office, Mar. 2003.
5 Bob Dart, “Security Transforms D.C.: Project Offers Protection With Fine Style,” Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, July 11, 2002, p. 1B.
6 Testimony of 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, hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess.,
Sept. 10, 2002 (not published).
7 Testimony of William H. Pickle, Senate Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Congress,
Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Legislative
Branch Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2005, hearings, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., Mar. 31, 2004
(Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 87.

---

CRS-5
as well as live broadcasts of floor proceedings; (5) exhibits “covering everything
from subways to grounds-keeping; (6) a photo exhibit featuring the Capitol as a
national stage for important ceremonies;” and (7) “an interactive area” featuring
programs about Congress and the Capitol.8
Visitor Comfort
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, 26 restrooms,
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.
That would allow about 1,500 tourists to pass through the Capitol each hour, along
with an additional 700 in House and Senate galleries.9
Functional Improvements
The center has been designed to “respond to the physical limitations of the
Capitol by providing modern, efficient facilities for such functions as truck loading
and deliveries, improved connections to the Senate and House office buildings, and
improvements to vertical circulation, including new elevators.”10
8 Testimony of Alan M. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2005, hearings, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., Apr. 8, 2004
(Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 213. See also: Testimony of Amita Poole, Chief of Staff and
Project Management, Office of the Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative, Legislative Branch
Appropriations for 2005, hearings, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., May 12, 2004 (Washington: GPO,
2004), pp. 447-448.
9 Jennifer Yachnin, “Go West: Tour Operations Get a New Home: Visitors Will Enter
Capitol at West Front,” Roll Call, May 20, 2002, p. A27.
10 U.S. Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Visitor Center Fact Sheet, summer 2005,
[http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/upload/cvc_fact_sheet_2005_06.pdf].

---

CRS-6
Figure 2. Floor Plan of Visitor
Center
Additional Space for the House and Senate
Flanking each side of the center will be 85,000 square feet of additional office
space for the House and Senate. Much of this $70 million space is scheduled to be
completed late in 2006, after the center opens its doors. The space has already been
designed and construction bids solicited. The Senate space would be used for (1) an
expanded and updated recording studio, and Office of Senate Security, which handles
classified materials; (2) “climate-controlled storage facilities for the Senate gift shop
and curator’s office, both of which currently have to go off-campus to store sensitive
artwork and other items;” (3) “the Senate’s closed-captioning service, a division of
the Secretary’s office,” and (4) at least six new meeting rooms. A significant portion
of Senate’s “space will remain unoccupied to allow for future needs.” 11
11 Suzanne Nelson, “Rush for Space in CVC Already Winding Down,” Roll Call, July 8,
2004, p. 1, 22.

---

CRS-7
Plan’s for the House’s expanded space include (1) a 3,500-square-foot hearing
room, second only in size to the House Ways and Means Committee hearing room;
(2) new space of the House Intelligence Committee, which “will be equipped to
support secured briefings and provide additional conference rooms for staff;” and (3)
“additional studio space for the House Radio-TV Gallery.12
Planning for the Center
Planning for the Capitol Visitor Center began in 1991, when the Architect of the
Capitol (AOC) 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 $2.6 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.13
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 design
concepts of the center with aesthetically and functionally appropriate improvements
to the East Front Plaza.14
“The overall intent” of the visitor 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.”15
Also included in the plan were full accommodation for persons with physical or
12 Suzanne Nelson, “Rush for Space in CVC Already Winding Down,” Roll Call, July 8,
2004, pp. 1, 22.
13 United States Capitol Visitor Center: Conceptional Study Submission (Washington:
RTKL Associates Inc., June 17, 1991) in: U.S. Congress, Concept for an Underground
Visitors Center at the East Plaza of the U.S. Capitol; and the Leasing of Space by the
Architect of the Capitol in the Judiciary Office Building, hearings, 102nd Cong., 1st sess.,
Oct. 9, 1991 (Washington: GPO, 1992), p. 35; and U.S. Architect of the Capitol, United
States Capitol Visitor Center: Final Design Report to Accompany Construction Documents
(Washington: Architect of the Capitol and RTL Associates Inc., Nov. 10, 1995), p. 5. See
also U.S. General Accounting Office, Financial Audit: Capitol Preservation Fund for Years
Ended September 30, 1995 and 1994, GAO/AIMD-96-97 (Washington: July 1996), p. 10.
14 U.S. Architect of the Capitol, United States Capitol Visitor Center: Final Design Report
to Accompany Construction Documents, p. 1.
15 Ibid., p. 9. For further discussion of public facilities included in the plan, see Ibid., pp.
1, 5, 9-10, 15-17, 23, 25.

---

CRS-8
sensory impairments,16 and relocated security screening for visitors to a “point far
removed from the Capitol.” There is a recognized concern, the report 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.”17
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.”18
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.”19 Work is now completed on ringing the Capitol grounds
with metal bollards to enhance control of pedestrian and vehicle access.
Cost of the Project
Estimated Cost of the Center
The original project budget of $265 million for the Capitol Visitor 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
16 Ibid., pp. 27, 29.
17 Ibid., p. 6.
18 Carl Hulse, “Workers Set to Transform East Front of the Capitol,” New York Times, May
28, 2002, p. A17.
19 Benjamin Forgey, “Capitol Disorientation Center: Underground Visitors Facility Will
Provide Bathrooms and the Blahs,” Washington Post, Nov. 25, 2000, p. C1.

---

CRS-9
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.”20 This past summer, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that cost overruns and other
problems could increase the price tag of the CVC to “between $552 million and $559
million, significantly more than originally estimated.” While he emphasized that a
“majority of the delays and cost increases were largely outside of AOC’s control,”
David M. Walker, GAO Comptroller General, did say “[t]he weaknesses in AOC’s
schedule and contract management activities have contributed to a portion of the
delays and cost overruns.”21
Funding for the Center
Appropriated Funds. Congress initially appropriated $100 million for the
center in the FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act.22 Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
Congress, in order to meet new security demands, made available $138.5 million
pursuant to the FY2002 Terrorism Emergency Supplemental Act.23 An additional
20 Testimony of 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
published).
21 Walker summarized the cost overruns in the following manner: “Of the project’s
estimated cost increase, about $147 million are due to scope changes, such as the addition
of the House and Senate expansion spaces. About $45 million are attributed to other factors
that are partially or outside the ability of AOC to control, such as higher than expected bids
on the sequence two contract, due in part to some unexpected conditions below ground.
And about $58 million are due to factors that were somewhat more within the AOC’s ability
to control, such as delays.” Testimony of David M. Walker, Comptroller General, U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch,
Overview of the FY2006 Appropriations: Legislative Branch, hearing, 109th Cong., 1st sess.,
May 17, 2005 (not yet published). The cost figure of “between $552 million and $559
million” was also cited by GAO officials at May, June, and July 2005 hearings held by the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch. Testimony of David M.
Walker, Comptroller General, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Overview of the FY2006 Appropriations:
Legislative Branch, hearings, 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 17, 2005 (not yet published);
Testimony of Bernard L. Ungar, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government
Accountability Office, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee
on the Legislative Branch, Capitol Visitor Center, hearings, 109th Cong., 1st sess., June 14,
2005 (not yet published); and Testimony of Terrell Dorn, Assistant Director of Physical
Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Capitol Visitor
Center, hearings, 109th Cong., 1st sess., July 14, 2005 (not yet published).
22 P.L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-569-570, Oct. 21, 1998.
23 P.L. 107-38, 115 Stat. 220-221, Sept. 18, 2001. President Bush, under authority granted
him in 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
(continued...)

---

CRS-10
$70 million was provided in the FY2002 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act24 for
the “build-out of the House and Senate expansion spaces.”25
In 2003, both houses voted to make $48.622 million available to complete the
center in the FY2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act.26 In 2004, Congress,
in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, authorized the AOC to transfer
$10.6 million from other accounts to the center.27 In August 2005, an additional
$47.61 million was appropriated for the CVC. This latter figure includes $41.9
million for the center’s construction, $2.3 million for the center’s operations budget,
and $3.41 million for other costs related to the House portion of the center.28
Private Funding. Also, Congress in 1999 approved two separate pieces of
legislation aimed at raising private sector funds for the construction of the CVC. 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.
23 (...continued)
amount, $100 million was for the completion of the center, and $38.5 million was for
security enhancements, a new tunnel to the Library of Congress, vertical circulation
improvements, and new House and Senate connections to the center. U.S. 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 Visitor Center Project Office, Mar. 2003.
24 P.L. 107-68, 115 Stat. 588, Nov. 12, 2001.
25 Testimony of Alan M. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Congress, Senate,
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2005, hearings, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., Apr. 8, 2004
(Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 213. The FY2002 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act
stipulated: “That the Architect of the Capitol may not obligate any of the funds which are
made available for the Capitol Visitor Center under this act or any other Act without an
obligation plan approved by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives for House space and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate for Senate space.” P.L. 107-68, 115 Stat. 588, Nov. 12, 2001.
26 P.L. 108-83, 117 Stat. 1026, Sept. 30, 2003. This figure reflects an appropriation of
$36.839 million, reduced to $36.621 million by a rescission of 0.59%; and a transfer to the
center’s account of $12 million. The transfer was made from previously appropriated funds
available to the Capitol Police building and grounds, also funded within the Architect of the
Capitol account. P.L. 108-99, 118 Stat. 457, Jan. 23, 2004.
27 P.L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 3184, Dec. 8, 2004. See U.S. Congress, Conference Committees,
2004, House, Making Appropriations for Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and
Related Programs for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005, and for Other Purposes,
conference report to accompany H.R. 4818, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 108-792
(Washington: GPO, 2004), pp. 380, 1351.
28 The U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2005, Making Appropriations for the
Legislative Branch for Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2006, conference report to
accompany H.R. 2985, H.Rept. 109-189, 109th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 2005),
pp. 6, 15, 37; and P.L. 109-55, Aug. 2, 2005.

---

CRS-11
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 and
maintenance of the CVC. 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 CVC 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
Early in 2002, the Fund for the CVC 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
29 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, Dec. 6, 1999; and 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
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001, hearings, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., Mar. 21, 2000
(Washington: GPO, 2001), pp. 264-265; and Lauren W. Whittington, “Visitor Center Fund
Begins Final Push,” Roll Call, Aug. 9, 2000, 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 House hearing that approximately
$30 million in Capitol Preservation Commission funds were also available for construction
of the center. Testimony of Clerk of the House, Jeff Trandahl, U.S. Congress, House
(continued...)

---

CRS-12
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 CVC.34
Pre-Construction Phase
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.
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.35 Early in 2002, a
canopy misting sprinkling system was installed on each tree to protect foliage from
excessive dust.36
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
33 (...continued)
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, Jan. 10, 2002. 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 report GAO-
020587, May 2002, p. 11.
35 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; and Sylvia Moreno, “12-Ton Liberty
Tree on the Move at the Capitol,” Washington Post, Dec.16, 2001, p. C9.
36 Sarita Chourey, “Arborists Prepare Trees for the Summer Heat,” The Hill, May 1, 2002,
p. 12.

---

CRS-13
Members of Congress, including two Speakers of the House, organizations, eminent
individuals, and even states.37
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 life span. 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.38
By the time the Capitol Visitor Center is completed, it is estimated that nearly
$2 million will have been spent “on trees — moving them, felling them and planting
85 new ones on the East Front.” Tree-care contractors will remain on the site until
construction is completed.39
Construction of the Center
On June 20, 2000, members of the United States Capitol Preservation
Commission,40 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
37 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.
38 “December 2001: Project Update — Tree Preservation Activities Begin,” Architect of the
Capitol website, Aug. 11, 2005, [http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/cvc_cont_notice_12_2001.cfm].
See also Sarita Chourey, “Arborists Prepare Trees for the Summer Heat,” The Hill, May 1,
2002, p. 12.
39 Sarah Bouchard, “Taking Root,” The Hill, Oct. 2, 2003, p. 4.
40 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 November 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.

---

CRS-14
approved by the House and Senate legislative appropriations subcommittees in
November 1999 and January 2000, respectively.41
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.”42
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.”43 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.”44 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
needed for the “qualifications-based selection” process, “which eventually drew the
interest of 22 firms.”45
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 Visitor Center] needs, thus allowing
41 Testimony of AOC 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 (Washington: GPO, 2000), p. 358.
42 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.
43 Editorial, “‘People’s House’ Deserves Outside Industry Expertise,” Engineering News-
Record, vol. 248, June 17, 2002, p.84.
44 Ibid.
45 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.

---

CRS-15
selection of a contractor who will give the AOC [Architect of the Capitol] the best
value to construct the CVC.”46
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. Gilbane was also given responsibility “for historic
preservation measures, including repairs and alterations to the existing Capitol and
modifications that help facilitate the operation and meet revised codes.” In addition,
Gilbane “performed a security analysis” of the project. “To better control schedules
and costs, Gilbane broke its work into three separate packages — utility relocation,
foundation, and general conditions, including mechanical, electrical and plumbing.”
As the work progressed, “[i]ncreased site support services, including a temporary
visitor screening facility and the cataloguing, dismantling and restoring of historic
features, pushed Gilbane’s initial $7 million contract to $16 million.” 47
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
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.48
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-
46 Testimony of 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 of 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;
47 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, pp. 31-32; 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; and “Enhancing the Capitol,” Gilbane: News Magazine, vol. 21, Fall 2001, p. 11.
48 Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Visitor Center Project Office, Mar. 2003; and 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. 32.

---

CRS-16
Atlantic Division is headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia. Centex was selected by the
competitive source selection process. Centex 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.49 In May 2004, Centex
formally turned the project over to Sequence 2 contractor Manhattan Construction
Company to begin building out interior spaces and installing electrical, mechanical,
and plumbing systems.50
Sequence 2: Electrical, Mechanical,
Plumbing and Finishing Work
Bids Higher Than Expected. In March 2003, AOC Alan Hantman told the
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration that the bids for Sequence 2 of the
center, which includes the installation of electrical, mechanical, and plumbing
services, and all stone and architectural buildouts and finishes, were significantly
higher than had been originally estimated. The committee also was informed that a
Source Selection Evaluation Board, headed by GSA, was evaluating the bid
proposals for Sequence 2, which were “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.”51
Reaction of Appropriators. 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,” the appropriators wrote, “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.” They emphasized that the funds
for Sequence 2 were being obligated by the committee “with serious reservations.”52
49 “Architect of the Capitol Awards Major Construction Contract for U.S. Capitol Visitor
Center,” AOC website, June 2002, [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.
50 U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Weekly Construction Summary, May 17, 2004, p. 1,
[http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/weekly/2004/upload/May-17-21-2004.pdf]; and Gordon Wright,
“Capitol Visitor Center Project Nears Halfway Mark,” Building Design & Construction, vol.
45, June 2004, p. 7.
51 Testimony of 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, hearings, 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.
52 Letter from 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
(continued...)

---

CRS-17
The House 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
or activity. Finally, the appropriators “directed that the GAO 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.”53
Contract Awarded. On April 21, 2003, the AOC awarded a $144.2 million
contract for Sequence 2 of the center to the Manhattan Construction Company, based
in Tulsa, Oklahoma.54
New Completion Schedule Eyed. Earlier in the year, CVC spokesman
Tom Fontana in late February 2003 announced that the actual completion date of the
center would ultimately depend on what the Sequence 2 contractor felt was realistic.
A series of amendments added to the final phase of the project, he explained, 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
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.”55
On January 20, 2005, the western half of the East Front Plaza of the Capitol was
sufficiently complete to support presidential “inaugural activities, including
52 (...continued)
Capitol, Apr. 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.
53 Letter from 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, Apr. 14, 2003.
54 “April 25, 2003: Project Update — Architect of the Capitol Awards Sequence 2
Construction Contract for U.S. Capitol Visitor Center,” Architect of the Capitol website,
Aug. 10, 2005, [http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/cvc_proj_update_04_25-2003.cfm]. See also
“Capitol Visitor Center Contract Awarded,” Washington Post, Apr. 22, 2003, p. B3.
55 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.

---

CRS-18
motorcade access and troop reviews.”56 Two months earlier, trucks began to use the
completed truck tunnel to deliver “materials primary in support of the Sequence 2
contract. The tunnel is not expected to open to general truck traffic (in support of
Capitol operations) until 2006 when all interior support facilities, freight elevators
and connecting corridors are completed.”57 Also, preceding the inauguration, the
tower crane in the southwest quadrant was dismantled and removed; and all major
structure work by Sequence 1 contractor, Centex Construction, was completed.58
With the major structural work for the center now completed, most of the work is
now occurring below the roof deck.
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 construction vehicle entering the site 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.”59
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 visitor center site. All historic
materials that were removed have been catalogued and stored. They will be replaced
in their original locations once the new plaza is completed.60
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.61 The 154 custom windows that were installed on the
56 U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Weekly Construction Summary, Jan. 18, 2005, p. 1,
[http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/weekly/2005/upload/01-17-2005.pdf].
57 U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Weekly Construction Summary, Nov. 15, 2004, p. 1,
[http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/weekly/2004/upload/11-15-2004.pdf].
58 U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Weekly Construction Summary, Dec. 6, 2004, p. 1
[http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/weekly/2004/upload/12-06-2004.pdf], and Dec. 24, 2004, p. 1,
[http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/weekly/2004/upload/12-24-2004.pdf].
59 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.
60 U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Weekly Construction Summary, May 27, 2002,
[http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/weekly/2002/05-27-02.htm]; and Architect of the Capitol, Capitol
Visitor Center Project Office, Mar. 2003.
61 U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Weekly Construction Summary, Aug. 2002,
(continued...)

---

CRS-19
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.62
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
and south sides of the Capitol. Visitors now pass through these temporary
installations prior to entering the Capitol at the West Front. These temporary
facilities will remain in use until the Capitol Visitor Center is completed.63
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.64
Development of Exhibition Gallery and Museum Exhibits. Ralph
Applebaum & Associates (RAA), which was hired to oversee the development of the
CVC exhibition gallery, is currently 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.65
The firm presented a draft design to the commission in December 2003. Since
that time, architect Ralph Appelbaum “has described the plans personally” to House
61 (...continued)
[http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/weekly/2002/08-05-02.htm].
62 Sarah Bouchard, “Soundproof,” The Hill, Oct. 15, 2003, p. 10.
63 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.
64 U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Weekly Construction Summary, July 8, 2002,
[http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/weekly/2002/07-08-02.cfm].
65 Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Visitor Center Project Office, Mar. 2003; and Testimony
of 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.

---

CRS-20
Speaker Dennis Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and former Senate
Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Subsequently, the process of rewriting and getting
outside review has continued.66
According to Martha Sewell, exhibition project director for the Architect, the
“basic theme is to talk about representative democracy to give that feeling 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.67 The exhibition gallery construction contract was awarded on
May 2, 2005, and the gallery construction schedule has been incorporated into the
CVC master construction schedule.68
66 Suzanne Nelson, “Exhibits Nearly Set at Visitor Center,” Roll Call, May 5, 2004, p. 1, 16.
67 Suzanne Nelson, “Exhibition Space to Enliven CVC,” Roll Call, Nov. 4, 2003, pp. 1, 14.
68 Testimony of Alan M. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, in U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Capitol Visitor
Center, hearings, 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 17, 2005 and June 14, 2005 (not yet published).

---

CRS-21
Appendix A
Action in the 104th Congress
During the 104th Congress, bills were introduced in both 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” a Capitol Visitor Center, and “reconstruct the environs of the East Plaza
to enhance its attractiveness, safety, and security.”69 The House Subcommittee on
Public Buildings and Economic Development held a hearing on H.R. 1230 in June
1995.70 No further action was taken on either bill.
Action in the 105th Congress
Three Proposals Introduced
In the 105th Congress, bills were 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 Visitor 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 Visitor 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. 4347 authorized the Architect to carry out
the project, and omitted any reference to the commission. None of the three
proposals were reported by the committees to which they were referred.
Purpose of the 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).
69 H.R. 1230 (104th Cong. 1st sess.); and S. 954 (104th Cong. 1st sess.). See also: Sen. Mark
O. Hatfield, “The Capitol Visitor Center Authorization Act of 1995,” Congressional Record,
vol. 141, June 21, 1995, pp. 16794-16795.
70 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Public Buildings and Economic Development, H.R. 1230, Capitol Visitor Center, hearings,
104th Cong., 1st sess., June 22, 1995 (Washington: GPO, 1995).

---

CRS-22
Design and Financing 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. 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 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 and S. 1508) identified enhanced
Capitol security as a principal purpose of the visitor 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.71
1997 Visitor Center Hearings
On May 22, 1997, the House Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic
Development held a hearing on H.R. 20.72 Hearings were not held on S. 1508, which
was referred to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee,73 or H.R. 4347,
jointly referred to the House Committee and Transportation and Infrastructure and
House Committee on Ways and Means.74
71 H.R. 20 (105th Cong. 1st sess.); S. 1508 (105th Cong. 1st sess.); and H.R. 4347 (105th Cong.
2nd sess.). See also Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, “Introduction of the Jacob Joseph
Chestnut-John Michael Gibson Capitol Visitor Center Act of 1998,” remarks in the House,
Congressional Record, vol. 144, July 30, 1998, pp. 18314-18315; and Sen. John Warner,
remarks in the Senate, “Legislation Authorizing the Construction of a Capitol Visitors
Center,” remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 143, Nov. 9, 1997, p. 25586.
72 Rep. John L. Mica, sponsor of H.R. 20, emphasized that construction of the proposed
visitor 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, hearings, 105th Cong., 1st sess., May 22, 1997 (Washington: U.S.
GPO, 1997), p. 6.
73 In his statement introducing S. 1508, committee chairman Senator John Warner stated that
the visitor center would “have a tremendous, positive impact on the informational and
educational experience afforded visitors to the Capitol.” The “most compelling need” for
the visitor 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 Visitor Center,” remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record,
vol. 143, Nov. 9, 1997, p. 25586.
74 “Our foremost obligation,” Del. 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,
(continued...)

---

CRS-23
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, that included a $100
million appropriation to be used by the Architect “for the planning, engineering,
design, and construction” of a Capitol Visitor Center. The 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.75
Action in the 106th Congress
Accelerated Schedule and Cost Savings Sought
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 visitor 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 schedule
laid out by the Architect. A similar view was expressed during subsequent Senate
legislative branch appropriation hearings.76 A month later, Delegate Eleanor Holmes
Norton introduced H.R. 962 (106th Congress, first session), 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. H.R. 962 was referred to the House Committee on Transportation and
74 (...continued)
“Introduction of the Jacob Joseph Chestnut — John Michael Gibson Capitol Visitor Center
Act of 1998,” Congressional Record, vol. 144, July 30, 1998, pp. 18314-18315. The act
was intended to 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.
75 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 1998, 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; and P.L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-569 and 2681-570, Oct. 21, 1998.
76 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; and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Legislative Branch, Legislative Branch Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000, hearings, 106th
Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 3, 1999, pp. 227-228.

---

CRS-24
Infrastructure, the Committee on House Administration, and the House Committee
on Ways and Means. No further action was taken on the proposal.77
Role of Capitol Preservation Commission Defined
Subsequently, a Senate proposal to transfer approval authority for the center to
the 18-member, bipartisan, bicameral Capitol Preservation Commission was agreed
to in the FY2000 legislative branch appropriations bill (H.R. 1905), which was
signed into law on September 29, 1999.78
1999 Revalidation Study (Revalidation of 1995 Design)
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 revalidate 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.”79 The team
that conducted the 1999 Revalidation Study were guided by four fundamental goals
for the Capitol Visitor 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
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.80
77 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, vol. 145, Mar. 3, 1999, p. 3580.
78 P.L. 106-57, 113 Stat. 427, Aug. 29, 1999.
79 Press release of the Capitol Preservation Commission, Oct. 15, 1999, p. 1.
80 U.S. Architect of the Capitol, The Capitol Visitor Center. 1999 Revalidation Study.
Executive Summary, Oct. 1, 1999, p. 7.

---

CRS-25
On November 3, 1999, the Capitol Preservation Commission approved a 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,81 and in mid-October 2000, the
commission approved the final design plan and authorized the Architect to prepare
final construction documentation.82 The ceremonial ground breaking for the center
took place on June 20, 2000.83
Action in the 107th Congress
Bids Solicited/Certain Construction Details Finalized
In 2001, construction documents for the center were finalized and competitive
bids were solicited for the first phase of the project,84 and in 2002 the contract for
Sequence 1 was awarded.85 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;86 (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;87 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
81 Testimony of AOC 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.
82 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 Congress Daily AM, Oct. 19, 2000, p. 3.
83 Ben Pershing, “Leaders Break New Ground: Actual Visitors Center Construction to Start
in 2001,” Roll Call, June 22, 2000, pp. 1, 33.
84 Testimony of AOC 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.
85 “Architect of the Capitol Awards Major Construction Contract for U.S. Capitol Visitor
Center,” Architect of the Capitol website, June 2002, [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.
86 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.
87 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), pp. 265-
266.

---

CRS-26
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.88
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.89
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
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Congress appropriated an additional $70
million for construction of the Capitol Visitor Center. The funds were contained in
the FY2002 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, signed into law by the President
George W. Bush on November 12, 2001 (P.L. 107-68).90
FY2001 Terrorism Emergency Supplemental. 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 Visitor Center.”
Of this amount, $100 million was for the completion of the center, and $38.5 million
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.91 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” that occurred on September 11, 2001.92
88 Testimony of AOC 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.
89 Michael S. Gerber, “Tours of Capitol Set to Resume,” The Hill, 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.
90 P.L. 107-68, 115 Stat. 588, Aug. 18, 2001.
91 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; and Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Visitor Center Project
Office, Mar. 2003.
92 P.L. 107-38; 115 Stat. 220-221, Aug. 18, 2001.

---

CRS-27
Action in the 108th Congress
First Session (2003)
2003 House Hearing. During House hearings on 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.”93
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.”94
As predicted, the Senate on July 11, 2003, approved legislation appropriating
an additional $47.8 million for the CVC 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.
The obligating language was subsequently incorporated in the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-83).95
2003 GAO Cost Estimate. Earlier, 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 CVC costs.96 Tishman submitted its cost
93 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.
94 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.
95 “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; and P.L. 10-83, 117 Stat. 1026, Sept. 30, 2003.
96 Sarita Chourey, “Consultants to Evaluate CVC’s Escalating Costs,” The Hill, Mar. 26,
(continued...)

---

CRS-28
analysis in mid-May 2003. Soon thereafter, the General Accounting Office reviewed
the Tishman “methodology, assumptions, and support for the 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 AOC,” it “identified cost
adjustments to Tishman’s analysis of the base project, totaling $7 million,” that need
to be added. These adjustments, GAO Comptroller General David M. Walker
reported in a prepared statement for a July 15, 2003, House hearing, increased
“Tishman’s estimated cost at completion for the basic project from $344.3 million
to $351.3 million.”97 Walker also told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Legislative that an estimated additional $70 million might be needed to complete the
House and Senate expansion space, and $35 million for enhanced security.98
Walker went on to emphasize in his prepared statement that “[d]ue to the nature
of the 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 had 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.”99
In addition, 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 (1) “expeditiously address the current
funding gap” between the amount provided for the project and the updated estimates;
(2) “consider how best to address potential costs associated with the risks and
96 (...continued)
2003, p. 6; Sarita Chourey, “War Supplemental 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.
97 Testimony of David M. Walker, Comptroller General, U.S. Congress, House Committee
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch Appropriations for
2004, hearings, part 1, 108th Con., 1st sess., July 15, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p.
1441. See also: U.S. General Accounting Office, Capitol Visitor Center: Current Status of
Schedule and Estimated Cost, GAO-03-1014T (Washington: July 15, 2003), p. 2.
98 Testimony of David M. Walker, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2004, hearings,
pp. 1448.
99 Testimony of David M. Walker, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2004, hearings,
pp. 1441-1443; and Capitol Visitor Center: Current Status of Schedule and Estimated Cost,
pp. 2-4.

---

CRS-29
uncertainties”; (3) “determine whether to establish and fund a reserve account for any
additional” costs “that cannot be priced or estimated at the current time”; (4)
“implement controls for approving changes,” work toward achieving a “single and
standardized budget and reporting format”; and (5) “expeditiously develop a
comprehensive, integrated master project schedule.”100
Architect of the Capitol Alan M. Hantman, who also testified at the July 2003
House hearing, stated that unforeseen site conditions had significantly impacted 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, had 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. On June 9, 2003, GAO presented its findings to the Capitol Preservation
Commission.101
Despite the challenges enumerated earlier and “pending the appropriation of the
additional funds identified in the cost-to-complete funding request,” the Architect
felt, the project team was “on schedule to meet project completion milestones.”
Also, Hantman emphasized that CVC “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.”102
FY2004 Conferees Add Monitoring Mechanisms. 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
100 Testimony of David M. Walker, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2004, hearings,
pp. 1444-1446; and Capitol Visitor Center: Current Status of Schedule and Estimated Cost,
pp. 5-7.
101 Testimony of Alan M. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, House Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2004,
hearings, part 1, 108th Cong., 1st sess., July 15, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 1470.
102 Ibid., pp. 171-1472.

---

CRS-30
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.”103
FY2004 Appropriations for the Center. 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 might be needed to complete the House and Senate
expansion space in the center and to provide enhanced security.104
Ultimately, conferees agreed to provide $48.839 million in additional funding
for the CVC, funded under the Architect of the Capitol Account. The appropriation
was 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.”105 After a
rescission of 0.59%, the final appropriation was for $48.622 million.106
On September 30, 2003, President Bush signed into law the FY2004 legislative
branch appropriations bill, which contained the additional funding. Of this amount,
$1.039 million of the amount approved by the conferees was marked for operational
costs. Of the amount provided $48.550 million was no-year money.107 In its report,
the Senate Appropriations Committee emphasized that its recommendation for
additional funds “was based on the General Accounting Office’s review of the
project and its assessment of a cost-to-complete estimate prepared by a third party
with expertise in construction cost analysis.”108
103 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2003, 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.
104 Testimonies of David M. Walker, Comptroller General, and Alan M. Hantman, Architect
of the Capitol, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2004, hearings, pp. 1448, 1450-1452.
105 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 was $36.839 million, subsequently
reduced to $36.622 million by a recission. Conferees authorized an additional $12.0 million
to be transferred to the center’s appropriation from previously appropriated funds made
available for Capitol Police buildings and grounds, also funded under the Architect of the
Capitol account. P.L. 108-83; 117 Stat. 1026.
106 P.L. 108-199, 118 Stat. 457, Jan. 23, 2004.
107 P.L. 108-83, 117 Stat. 1026, Aug. 30, 2003; and U.S. Congress, Conference Committees,
2003, 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.
108 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-31
Second Session (2004)
Architect’s FY2005 Funding Request . Just months after Congress added
nearly $49 million to the CVC budget, significant delays in the project raised concern
that the price tag of the project would be subjected to even additional increases.
Project spokesman Tom Fontana announced later in January 2004, that unusually wet
weather as well as unforeseen site conditions and frequent design changes over the
past year had pushed back the project’s completion date to the spring of 2006.
Although Fontana said that no additional funding would be necessary, and the AOC
had not requested more money for the project, Representative Jack Kingston,
chairman of the House Legislative Subcommittee felt costs would increase.109
Subsequently, at a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Legislative Branch
hearing on April 8, 2004, AOC Alan M. Hantman requested $14.5 million in new
funding “for the preparation of the opening of the Capitol Visitor Center.” The figure
included $6.3 million for equipment and supplies, for custodial services, and to
“support, operate, and maintain the structural, architectural, and utilities
infrastructures,” and $8.2 million “to cover that transitional stand-up costs for the
operations, administration, and management supporting guide services, visitor
services, food services, and gift shop services.” In addition, the Architect requested
“35 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) in preparation for the opening” of the center. The
staff positions included 18 FTEs “facility maintenance,” 16 FTEs “for project and
operations support necessary for an orderly startup (tour guide services, restaurant
management and gift shops,” and one FTE “to support the Office of Attending
Physician.” Hantman made an identical request when he testified at a House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Legislative hearing on May 12, 2004.110
The Legislative Branch Appropriations bill reported by the Senate
Appropriations Committee in July 2004, included $7.6 million for transitional start-
up operation costs.111 No start-up funds, however, were included in the House
Appropriations Committee bill. The accompanying House report stressed that the
“Committee wants it understood that the Architect of the Capitol has no higher
priority than to ensure, without a doubt, to the Committee and Congress the
109 Sarah Bouchard, “CVC Plans Fall Behind Schedule,” The Hill, Jan. 27, 2004, p.1; Sarah
Bouchard, “Key Members Fear Another Jump in CVC Costs,” The Hill, Feb. 3, 2004, p. 4;
Susan Nelson, CVC Opening Delayed,” Roll Call, Jan. 27, 2004, pp. 1, 17; and Christopher
Lee, “Capitol Center’s Opening Delayed Till ‘06,” Washington Post, Jan, 28, 2004, p. A19.
110 Testimony of Alan M. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Appropriations for
Fiscal Year 2005, Legislative Branch, hearings, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., April 8, 2004
(Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 211; Testimony of Alan M. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol,
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative,
Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2005, hearing 108th Cong., 2nd sess., May 12, 2004
(Washington: GPO, 2004), pp. 420-421.
111 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations,
2005, report to accompany S. 2666, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 108-307 (Washington:
GPO, 2004), p. 28.

---

CRS-32
completion of the [Capitol Visitor Center] without delay and in a fiscally responsible
manner.”112
FY2005 Conferees Express Concern. When the House and Senate
conferees reported the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447), which
included the FY2005 Legislative Branch appropriations bill, they expressed distress
“with the Architect’s ongoing inability to provide the Committees with accurate cost
estimates and delivery schedules on this very important and high-profile project.
Since the commencement of the project, the Committees have made every effort to
work with the Architect and staff through these issues, and yet, continue to receive
notifications of schedule delays, unforeseen requirements, and escalating costs of the
Capitol Visitor Center.”113
Conferees Grant Transfer Authority. House and Senate conferees, in
discussing the Architect’s request, expressed distress with his “ongoing inability to
provide the Committees with accurate cost estimates and delivery schedules on this
very important and high-profile project. Since the commencement of the project, the
Committees have made every effort to work with the Architect and staff through
these issues, and yet, continue to receive notifications of schedule delays, unforeseen
requirements, and escalating costs of the Capitol Visitor Center.” Appropriators did,
however, authorize Hantman to transfer $10.6 million from the Capitol Building
account to the center. This authority was subsequently approved by the House and
Senate, and included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 (P.L. 108-447),
which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 8, 2004.114
Action in the 109th Congress
FY2006 Funding Request
The legislative branch budget request submitted for inclusion in the President’s
FY2006 budget included an additional $36.9 million for the CVC project, and
$35.285 million for CVC operations costs, of which $19.991 million was to remain
available until September 30, 2010. The request included the following caveat: “That
the Architect of the Capitol may not obligate any of the funds which are made
available for the Capitol Visitor Center project without an obligation plan approved
112 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations
Bill, 2005, report to accompany H.R. 4755, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., H.. Rept. 108-577
(Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 23.
113 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2004, Making Appropriations for Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs for the Fiscal Year Ending September
30, 2005, and for Other Purposes, conference report to accompany H.R. 4818, 108th Cong.,
2nd sess., H.Rept. 108-792 (Washington: GPO, 2004), pp.1351.
114 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2004, Making Appropriations for Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs for the Fiscal Year Ending September
30, 2005, and for Other Purposes, conference report to accompany H.R. 4818, 108th Cong.,
2nd sess., H.Rept. 108-792 (Washington: GPO, 2004), pp.1351, 380; and P.L. 108-447, 118
Stat. 3184, Dec. 8, 2004.

---

CRS-33
by the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives.”115
Also included in the FY2006 legislative branch budget request was $9.965 million
for “supplies, materials, and other costs relating to the House portion of expenses for
the Capitol Visitor Center ... to remain available until expended.”116
Senate Hearings
April 2005. During an April 13, 2005, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
on the Legislative Branch hearing, AOC Alan M. Hantman emphasized the GAO had
concluded that approximately 75% of the increased costs of the CVC were largely
beyond his control. Hantman went on to enumerate several factors that had increased
the cost of the center.117 Together, Hantman explained, these unanticipated aspects
of the project, as well as a number of others identified early, have prompted the GAO
to now project that the cost of the CVC could reach $515 million.118
May, June, and July 2005. On May 17, June 14, and July 14, 2005, the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, chaired by Senator
Wayne Allard, held a series of hearings on the progress of the Capitol Visitor Center.
Chairman Allard has indicated that he intends to continue to hold monthly hearings
on the center. Much of the focus of the three oversight hearings thus far held by the
subcommittee has been Government Accountability Office reports on the progress
of the project. GAO’s work is being performed in response to requests from the
Capitol Preservation Commission and to directives in the conference report on the
115 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2006: Appendix (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 127.
116 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2006: Appendix (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 17.
117 Among the factors cited by Hantman were costs associated with completing the House
and Senate expansion spaces, which were originally envisioned as unfinished “shell space;”
nearly two dozen design changes that had resulted in major renovations of the Capitol’s air
conditioning, heating, and ventilation systems; and security enhancements mandated by
Congress following the 2001 terrorists attacks. In addition, there had been (1) a significant
increase in the cost of building materials, which was 22% in the past year; (2) a reduction
in competitive bidding because so many other projects were under construction in the
District of Columbia; (3) a need for prospective contractors bidding on a phase of the project
to factor in the added hassle and loss of time prompted by security checks of workers as well
as vehicles entering the site; (4) a Buy America requirement that precluded the option of
bidding for stonework on the international market at a savings of approximately $10 million;
and (5) a commitment to using better-quality materials when cheaper materials might have
been appropriate for another project. Testimony of AOC Alan M. Hantman, in U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch,
Overview of the FY2006 Appropriations Budget for the Secretary of the Senate and the
Architect of the Capitol, hearings, 109th Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 13, 2005 (not yet published).
118 Testimony of AOC Alan M. Hantman, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Overview of the FY2006
Appropriations: Appropriations Budget for the Secretary of the Senate and the Architect of
the Capitol, hearings, 109th Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 13, 2005 (not yet published). See also
Jennifer Yachnin, “CVC’s Last Stages May Go Into 2007,” Roll Call, Apr. 14, 2005, pp. 3,
15.

---

CRS-34
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, FY1999
(H.Rept. 105-825) and the conference report on the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 2004 (H.Rept. 108-279).119
At all three hearings, GAO emphasized that cost overruns and other problems
could increase the price tag of the CVC to “between $552 million and $559 million,”
and given past problems and future risks and uncertainties, the CVC would probably
not be completed until sometime between December 2006 and March 2007.120
During the latter two hearings GAO indicated that the AOC would likely need as
much as $37 million more than it had requested to cover risks and uncertainties to
complete the project.121
Also, GAO pointed out during the hearings that while a majority of the delays
and cost increases associated with the construction of the center were beyond AOC’s
control, “ weaknesses in AOC’s schedule and contract management activities have
contributed to a portion of the delays and cost overruns.... To help prevent further
schedule delays, control cost growth and enhance worker safety,” GAO reasoned that
the “AOC urgently needs to give priority attention to managing the project’s
construction schedules and contracts, including those contract provisions that address
119 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 1998, 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),
pp. 1529; and U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2003, Making Appropriations for
the Legislative Branch for 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.
120 Testimony of David M. Walker, Comptroller General, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Overview of the FY2006
Appropriations: Legislative Branch, hearings, 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 17, 2005 (not yet
published); Testimony of Bernard Ungar, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues,
Government Accountability Office, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Capitol Visitor Center, hearings, 109th Cong., 1st
sess., June 14, 2005 (not yet published); and Testimony of Terrell Dorn, Assistant Director
of Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office, U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Capitol Visitor
Center, hearings, 109th Cong., 1st sess., July 14, 2005 (not yet published). See also: U.S.
Government Accountability Office, Capitol Visitor Center: Priority Attention Needed to
Manage Schedules and Contracts, GAO report GAO-05-714T (Washington: May 17, 2005),
p. 2; U.S. Government Accountability Office, Capitol Visitor Center: Effective Schedule
Management and Updated Cost Information Are Needed, GAO report GAO-05-811T
(Washington: June 14, 2005), p. 2; and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Capitol
Visitor Center: Update on Status of Project’s Schedule and Costs, GAO-05-910T
(Washington: July 14, 2005), p. 2.
121 Testimony of Bernard Ungar, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government
Accountability Office, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee
on the Legislative Branch, Capitol Visitor Center, hearings, 109th Cong., 1st sess., June 14,
2005 (not yet published); and Testimony of Terrell Dorn, Assistant Director of Physical
Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Capitol Visitor Center,
hearings, 109th Cong., 1st sess., July 14, 2005 (not yet published).

---

CRS-35
worker safety.” Such “actions are imperative if further cost growth, schedule delays,
and worker safety problems are to be avoided. AOC also needs to see that it reports
accurate information to Congress on the project.” Additionally, “decisions by the
Congress will have to be made regarding the additional funding needed to complete
construction and to address any related risk and uncertainties that may arise.”122
“During the next several months,” GAO concluded, the “AOC is likely to face
“competing demands for funds that can be used for either CVC construction or
operations.” Given this reality, “it will be important for AOC to ensure that the
available funds are optimally used.” Additionally, GAO was “concerned that AOC
may incur costs to open the facility to the public in September 2006 that it would not
incur if it postponed the opening until after the construction work is more or fully
complete — that is, in March 2007, according to AOC’s estimates.”123
Despite the concerns expressed by GAO, AOC Alan M. Hantman, told the
subcommittee that he felt the CVC could be completed by September 2006, except
for the expansion space, which is to be completed by March 18, 2007. Hantman’s
projection was supported by Bob Hixon, CVC project director. Both Hantman and
Hixon also told the subcommittee that CVC contractors had taken a number of
actions to promote and manage site safety.124
House Hearing
While much of the attention at the 2005 Senate hearings focused on the overall
construction and cost of the CVC, a considerable portion of the discussion at a May
3, 2005, House Appropriations Committee hearing focused on the specifics of the
unfinished House office space in the center. Representative David Obey of
Wisconsin, ranking minority member of the committee, expressed concern “that the
space we’re getting seems to be almost all show and very little workspace.” He
questioned “that mix,” and asked whether the House was “getting the space” it
needed, and “even at this late date, isn’t there any way that we can get more usable
space.” As he “saw it,” the House was “getting only one room that is a public
hearing room.”125 Other House Members expressed concerns over the escalating cost
122 Testimony of David M. Walker, Comptroller General, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Overview of the FY2006
Appropriations: Legislative Branch, hearings, 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 17, 2005 (not yet
published).
123 Testimony of Terrell Dorn, Assistant Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues,
Government Accountability Office, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, Capitol Visitor Center, hearings, 109th Cong., 1st
sess., July 14, 2005 (not yet published).
124 Testimony of Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol; and Bob Hixon, CVC project
manager, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the
Legislative Branch, Overview of the FY2006 Appropriations: Legislative Branch, hearing,
109th Cong., 1st sess., May 17, 2005 (not yet published).
125 Testimony of Rep. David R. Obey, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,
Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY2006, hearings, 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 3, 2005,
(continued...)

---

CRS-36
of the center, which AOC Hantman testified is expected to reach $517 million by the
time the structure is completed.126
Although the AOC at several points during the hearing stated that the current
plans had been reviewed and received the approval of the House Office Building
Commission, which includes the Speaker, House majority, and House minority
leader, Representative Obey made it clear that he intended to oppose the project
unless changes were made.127 By virtue of a provision included in FY2002
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, Representative Obey could have blocked this
phase of the project. As enacted, P.L. 107-68 prohibited the AOC from obligating
funds for the House or House expansion space within the center without the approval
of the chair and ranking minority member of the House Appropriations Committee.128
In subsequent action, the House on May 5, and the Senate on May 10, 2005,
approved language in the conference report on the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief,
2005, that struck the “chair and ranking minority member” requirement in the
FY2002 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. That language was included in PL.
109-13, which was signed into law on May 11, 2005.129
125 (...continued)
p. 3. See also: Jennifer Yachnin, “Obey Blocking CVC Plan,” Roll Call, May 4, 2005, pp.
1, 15; and Jackie Kachinic, “AOC Questioned on the House Expansion,” The Hill, May 4,
2005, 4.
126 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations
for 2006, hearings, 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 3, 2005, p. 39.
127 Testimony of Rep. David R. Obey, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,
Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2006, hearings, 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 3, 2005,
p. 47.
128 The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2002 stipulated: “That the Architect of the
Capitol may not obligate any of the funds which are made available for the Capitol Visitor
Center under this act or any other Act without an obligation plan approved by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives for House space and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate for
Senate space.” P.L. 107-68; 115 Stat. 588, Nov. 12, 2001.
129 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2005, Making Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005, conference report to
accompany H.R. 1268, H.Rept. 109-72, 109th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 2005), p.
66 (Division A, Title VI, General Provisions and Technical Corrections, Sec. 6049). PL.
109-13, 119 Stat. 295, May 11, 2005. The House agreed to the conference report on May
5, 2005, by a 368 to 58 vote. “Conference Report on H.R. 1268, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act, 2005,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, May 5, 2005, pp. H2997-H3027. The Senate
agreed to the conference report on May 10, 2005, by a 100 to 0 vote. “Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami
Relief Act, 2005 — Conference Report,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151,
May 10, 2005, pp. S4806-S4849. See also Jennifer Yachnin, “Obey Loses Veto Authority
Over Visitor Center,” Roll Call, May 9, 2005, pp. 3, 20.

---

CRS-37
Committee Consideration of FY2006 Funding
House Appropriations Committee. On June 16, 2005, the House
Committee on Appropriations marked up and ordered reported its version of the
FY2006 legislative branch funding bill. On a voice vote, the panel approved a draft
spending bill that provided $36.9 million for the CVC project. The House figure was
considerably less than the $72.2 million requested by the AOC, and did not provide
any of the $35.285 million originally requested by the Architect for the center’s
operations.130
The House Appropriations Committee also included in its draft bill $3.41
million in FY2006 for the House portion of expenses related to the CVC. This figure
represented a $6.555 million reduction from the requested amount of $9.965 million.
These funds were to used for “carpeting, furnishings, wiring, and audio/visual
requirements.” In addition, the House bill contained a provision establishing a
“‘Capitol Visitor Center Governing Board’ to address the issue of daily operations
of the Visitor Center.”131
Senate Appropriations Committee. On June 24, 2005, the Senate
Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2006 legislative branch
funding bill. The approved language provided $41.9 million for the CVC project,
excluding center operations. Senate appropriators reporting H.R. 2985 emphasized
that because the Government Accountability Office felt the “amount requested by the
Architect [$36.9 million] is unlikely to be sufficient to complete the CAC,” the
committee had added $5 million “to the budget based on GAO’s recommendation.”
Also, since the scheduled September 2006 opening of center was “likely to be
delayed well beyond the time frame on which budget estimates for operations were
predicted,” Senate appropriators reduced the budget for center operations from the
requested $35.3 million to $2.3 million. The Senate version of H.R. 2985 did not
contain the House provision for a Capitol Visitor Center Governing Board, but did
include a provision authorizing the Architect of the Capitol to appoint an Executive
Director of the Capitol Visitor Center.132
130 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations
Bill, 2006, report to accompany H.R. 2985, 109th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 109-139
(Washington: GPO, 2005), pp. 20-21, 40. The original request of $35.285 million was
subsequently revised by the Architect to $24.355 million. Ibid., p. 20.
131 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations
Bill, 2006, report to accompany H.R. 2985, 109th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 109-139
(Washington: GPO, 2005), pp. 9, 20, 40; and U.S. Office of Management and Budget,
Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2006: Appendix, “Detailed Budget
Estimates — Legislative Branch” (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 17.
132 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations,
2006, report to accompany H.R. 2985, 109th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 109-89 (Washington:
GPO, 2005), pp. 33-34. The original request of $35.285 million for CVC operations was
subsequently revised by the Architect to $24.355 million. U.S. Congress, House Committee
on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 2006, report to accompany H.R.
2985, 109th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 109-139 (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 20.

---

CRS-38
Floor Consideration of FY2006 Funding
House. The House passed H.R. 2985, the FY2006 legislative branch bill on
June 22, 2005, by a 330 to 82 vote. The House version of the spending bill, like the
House Appropriations Committee report, provided $36.9 million for the CVC project
budget, and $3.41 million for the House portion of expenses related to the center.
The bill approved by the House also contained the provision establishing a Capitol
Visitor Center Governing Board that would be responsible for “establishing the
policies which govern the operations of the center, consistent with applicable law.”133
Senate. On June 30, 2005, the Senate amended and passed H.R. 2985 by
unanimous consent, and then insisted on its amendments and requested a conference
with the House.134 The Senate version of H.R. 2985, like the Senate Appropriations
Committee report, called for $41.9 million for the CVC project and $2.3 million for
center operating costs. The Senate language also authorized the AOC to appoint an
Executive Director of the Capitol Visitor Center.135
Conference Committee Report
A little less than a month later, on July 26, 2005, House and Senate conferees,
in reporting H.R. 2985, recommended an appropriation of “$44.2 million for the
Capitol Visitor Center, as proposed by the Senate, instead of $36.9 million as
proposed by the House.” This figure included $41.9 million for the center project,
and $2.3 million for the center’s operations budget. The report also called for $3.4
million “for other costs related to the House portion of expenses for the center.”
Conferees deleted the House language establishing a Capitol Visitor Center
Governing Board to handle the center’s daily activities as well as the Senate language
authorizing the AOC to appoint an executive director for the center.136
Final Action on FY2006 Appropriations
On July 28, 2005, the House by a vote of 305 to 122 concurred with the conferee
figures for the Capitol Visitor Center. The Senate followed suit on July 29, 2005, by
133 “Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2985, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,
2006,” Congressional Record, daily edition, v. 151, June 22, 2005, pp. H4936-H4937,
H4947, H4949.
134 “Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2006,” Congressional Record, daily edition, v.
151, June 30, 2005, pp. S7739-S7749.
135 “Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2006,” Congressional Record, daily edition, v.
151, June 30, 2005, pp. S7745-S7746.
136 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2005, Making Appropriations for the Legislative
Branch for Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2006, conference report to accompany H.R.
2985, H.Rept. 109-189, 109th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 37. See also
Ibid., pp. 6, 15.

---

CRS-39
a 96 to 4 margin. H.R. 2985 became P.L. 109-55 on August 2, 2005, with President
George W. Bush’s signature.137
137 “Conference Report on H.R. 2985, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2006,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, July 28, 2005, pp. H7023-H7031;
“Legislative Branch Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2006 — Conference Report,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, v. 151, July 29, 2005, pp. S9334-S9335, S9373; and
P.L. 109-55, 119 Stat. 565, Aug. 2, 2005.

---