[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2205, LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH WITHIN THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
A NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN-
AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 9, 2003
__________
Printed for the Use of the Committee on House Administration
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-029 WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
BOB NEY, Ohio, Chairman
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut,
JOHN L. MICA, Florida Ranking Minority Member
JOHN LINDER, Georgia JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California California
THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
Professional Staff
Paul Vinovich, Staff Director
George Shevin, Minority Staff Director
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2003
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:40 p.m. in room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Ney
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Ney, Ehlers, Mica, Linder,
Doolittle, Larson, and Brady.
Staff present: Paul Vinovich, Staff Director; Jeff Janas,
Clerk; Jennifer Hing, Assistant Clerk; Fred Hay, Counsel;
George Shevlin, Minority Staff Director; Charles Howell,
Minority Chief Counsel; Matt Pinkus, Minority Professional
Staff; and Catherine Tran, Minority Staff Assistant.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Good
afternoon. Today the Committee on House Administration is
conducting its first hearing to begin the consideration of H.R.
2205, which establishes within the Smithsonian Institution the
National Museum of African American History and Culture.
I would like to thank all of our participants in today's
hearing for providing us with their valuable insight on this
important piece of legislation not only to the Nation, but I
think to the world as people visit Washington, D.C. I would
also like to give special recognition to Representative John
Lewis, who has worked tirelessly on the legislation since 1988,
as I understand it.
Congressman Lewis is a remarkable individual with an
incredible history himself. I know he will persevere and carry
out all efforts.
This will be, I think, a legacy that will make everyone
proud in this country. I believe it is fair to say that we have
made substantial progress recently. We are closer now to this
addition becoming reality than we have ever been in 15 years.
In 2001, President Bush signed Public Law 107-106, which
created a Presidential Commission to research and evaluate
issues related to the establishment of a proposed African
American Museum and developed a plan for action to bring this
issue to reality. This Presidential Commission should also be
applauded for their diligent work and research on the proposed
museum, and their hard work should prove beneficial to bringing
this long-awaited concept to fruition.
As is often the case around here, most, if not all, Members
will agree on a common goal. In this case, the establishment of
the museum envisioned by our sponsors is the common goal. There
will be differences of opinion on the process and structure.
This hearing should provide useful information that will guide
us as we work through these differences to achieve that goal.
The primary purpose of today's hearing is to provide
members with the information they will need to make sensible
decisions on the site location of the museum, how fund-raising
acquisitions will work and how the museum will be governed
within the Smithsonian Institution. With this background, it is
my hope that we can build a consensus to pass a strong piece of
legislation that will have long-lasting benefits for
generations to come.
I also want to acknowledge--I acknowledged Congressman
Lewis, but also Congressman Jack Kingston, a great supporter of
this measure and a person who sits on the committee that has
the purse strings which are very important in this building;
and, of course, our delegate, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes
Norton who has been a tremendous--not just on this issue but
other issues. Supporter of the great Nation's Capital, which is
our second home. Ohio is my first, a great State, and this is
our home.
With that, I would defer to our ranking member, Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me echo your
sentiments. Also in joining our distinguished panelists,
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Jack Kingston and, of course, John
Lewis.
Mr. Chairman, our hearing today is a demonstration of the
power of an idea. This is an idea that is a long time coming.
You certainly have to congratulate Mr. Lewis, as you have done,
for his perseverance and his persistency in the manner in which
he has approached this legislation, as you have noted, dating
back to 1988.
This idea actually was first conceived during the
administration of Woodrow Wilson and picked up a great deal of
steam in 1929, but then because of the events of the Depression
and the subsequent war, it was not until the vision of Mr.
Lewis, who is a living legacy and a national treasure in his
own right, that he was able to put forth this concept and bring
it to fruition. I want to commend him and Mr. Kingston. I am
proud to be a cosponsor of this bill.
As always with the first lady of Washington, D.C., Eleanor
Holmes Norton, it is a pleasure to have her insighthere. This
is an important hearing for us to hear from the various panelists about
the concerns that they have raised. But as the chairman points out,
this is on a fast track. It is important that we move forward. We are
pleased to see that the Senate has already taken action, and I am
pleased to see that the committee has moved with all due speed to take
up H.R. 2205 and bring it to the floor.
We anxiously await the comments from our panelists. Thank
you so much.
The Chairman. Thank you. Are there any other members that
would like to make a statement?
Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to see that
this legislation is being considered. This, of course, is the
appropriate forum. I do have some concerns about the
legislation and what I have reviewed. I have some concerns also
about several of the sites that have been proposed for a
potential structure.
First of all, I would be adamantly opposed to any site on
The Mall. I think that this would set a precedent that would be
unfair to all the other racial and ethnic group that make up
the family of the American community.
I know of no other racial or ethnic group--now we have put
the Native American museum on The Mall. And as we can see, we
are starting to fill out The Mall. I think an additional
structure on The Mall would be detrimental. I think we should
really look at the policy that we have as to what additional
structures go on The Mall.
The question is also of fairness to other ethnic and racial
groups. I happen to be--my mother's side is Italian American.
They have made incredible contributions to this country. My
father's side was Slovak American, and they have done the same.
But at some point we have to be fair to all racial and ethnic
groups. If we put on The Mall a specific building dedicated to
one group, I believe that is unfair.
I do believe that there is a tremendous rich cultural
heritage, and contributions of African Americans should be
recognized and done so appropriately by our leading
institution, the Smithsonian. And I think that there are
several locations where that could be done and I think it is
the proper and appropriate role of the Smithsonian to recognize
the accomplishments of both racial and ethnic groups. But I
think we have to be very careful in, again, where we locate
this facility and how we locate it.
Additionally, I would like to see and have recommended
before an additional site, in addition to those on the map
considered, and that is the Federal Trade Commission building,
which is close to The Mall, which has outlived its usefulness
as far as the Federal Trade Commission. It is one of the most
historic and beautiful buildings and it is also close to where
visitors congregate. I had recommended that that be looked at
for additional space either by the National Gallery or the
Smithsonian or the Archives. I would like to see that part of
any proposal possible as a location to house such an
exhibition.
So I think it is important that we do establish a sound
policy, that we don't litter The Mall with additional buildings
to each and every one of the great groups who again have made
the country it is today; and then step back and say, What have
we done and have we done this fairly with a fair policy?
With that, I raise my concerns and I look forward to
hearing from the witnesses and more on the legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Linder.
Mr. Linder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just would like to--
I may not be able to be here long enough for the second panel.
So I just want to recognize my friend of 25 years, Bob Wright,
who did what I did, he started out dealing with patients and
wound up dealing with issues and has had a huge success. I am
happy to have him here and happy to see him involved.
Welcome, Bob.
The Chairman. Would any other members like to make a
comment?
If not, with that we will proceed on to the panel. I want
to welcome our distinguished colleagues. We will start with
Congressman Lewis.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN LEWIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
those kind words.
First, Mr. Chairman and all the members of the committee, I
want to commend you for holding this hearing on such an
important piece of legislation. H.R. 2205, the National African
American Museum History and Culture Act.
Thank you, Ranking Member Larson, for your commitment to
making this bill a top priority.
I want to thank Representative Jack Kingston from my home
State of Georgia for his support of this legislation in the
House and also my friend and colleague for many, many years
during the early days of the civil rights movement when we were
only teenyboppers; Delegate Norton from the district for your
help and support.
I want to thank Senator Brownback and Senator Dodd for
passing the companion African American Museum legislation in
the Senate.
As you know, there exists no national museum located in our
Nation's Capital on the National Mall that is devoted to the
documentation of African American history. That is why
Representative Kingston and I have introduced H.R. 2205. This
legislation authorizes the establishment of a National Museum
of African American History and Culture within the Smithsonian
Institution. H.R. 2205 also directs the Smithsonian Board of
Regents to designate a museum site from four specified sites,
the Capitol site, monument site, Arts and Industries Building
and the Liberty Loan Building.
In the South, many, many years ago, I remember it very well
when people of color could not enter through the front door of
many homes and businesses. A national African American Museum
should be in the front yard of the United States Capital. The
National Mall and the space around it is the front door to
America; it is a symbol of our democracy. I firmly believe that
a national African American Museum should not be off the
National Mall at some back door.
Let us be frank and candid about the real concerns of H.R.
2205. Let us meet these concerns head-on. I know that there are
Members who have said that if the African American Museum were
located on the Capitol site, it would create a security threat
to the Capitol. Mr. Chairman, these security concerns unfairly
imply that a national African American Museum would pose more
of a threat than the United States Supreme Court, the Library
of Congress, and the Capitol Visitors Center. Cars and trucks
can get closer to the Capitol and congressional buildings by
driving down Constitution and Independence than by parking at
the proposed Capitol site. Frankly, I find it hard to believe
that Congress cannot find a reasonable solution to these
security concerns.
During every session of Congress for the past 15 years, I
have introduced legislation to establish a national African
American Museum. In December, 2001, a major victory was
achieved with the passage of legislation appointing a
bipartisan Presidential Commission to provide a legislative
blueprint for the creation of a National Museum of African
American History and Culture.
After a year-long study and more than 50 national and local
town hall meetings, the Presidential Commission submitted its
report to Congress and the President. This report served as a
road map for H.R. 2205a and S. 1157. In the final report, the
Commission concluded that there are many collections available
to support a national African American Museum and that regional
African American museums overwhelmingly support the
establishment of a national museum.
The Commission also strongly recommended that the museum be
a part of the Smithsonian Institution on the National Mall. In
fact, the Commission stated that designating a site in a timely
fashion, was key to fund-raising efforts for a national African
American Museum.
It is my belief, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
establishing a national African American Museum is our chance
to take an important step to heal our Nation's racial wounds.
There is still a lot of pain and hurt that lies deep within the
American psyche. We cannot run from it. We cannot push it under
a rug or in some dark corner. We must face it if America is to
become a Nation that values liberty and justice for all
Americans.
Just yesterday, President Bush visited Goree Island where
ships took Africans to America for a life of slavery. I agree
with what our President said, ``that the very people traded
into slavery helped to set America free,'' and that is exactly
the type of legacy that a national African American Museum will
honor.
In the past few years, we have witnessed the building of
the Holocaust museum and the Native American museum. I support
these museums. But it is my belief that no other group in
America has suffered longer under such a vicious and evil
system of oppression than African Americans, over 300 years of
slavery, years of segregation and Jim Crow laws.
The time is long overdue to recognize the contributions
African Americans have made to our country, including the
building of the United States Capitol. The time is right. The
time is now. We must let it be done on our watch and create a
National Museum of African American History and Culture.
When we began this journey, I often said that we must pace
ourselves for the long haul. Well, we have paced ourselves. We
have been patient. The Commission has submitted a thorough and
complete report. The Senate has acted and passed legislation
establishing a national African American Museum. Now it is time
for the House to do its job.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I ask for not
only your commitment to move this bill in a timely manner, but
also your assistance in finally bringing H.R. 2205 to the House
floor before the August recess. I look forward to working with
you in a bipartisan manner to make sure we pass H.R. 2205.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member and all members
of this committee. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the very distinguished colleague for
his testimony.
[The statement of Mr. Lewis follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.002
The Chairman. Congressman Kingston.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACK KINGSTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Larson and
members of the committee. It is good to be with you today. I
certainly appreciate your holding this hearing today.
I want to point out that while I am one of the authors of
this, there are many, many cosponsors from both parties and of
all races, so this does have wide support in the House. As my
colleague Mr. Lewis has pointed out, it has already passed the
Senate, so we really appreciate the leadership this committee
has shown by moving it a step forward.
Mr. Lewis, I wanted to commend him on his work. He started
this project several years ago and had as an original cosponsor
then Mr. J.C. Watts. I have kind of taken Mr. Watts' slot in
terms of my name, but I would never be able to take his slot in
terms of my person; I am aware of that. But I am proud to be
sitting up here with my friend John Lewis and also with Mrs.
Holmes Norton. I appreciate everything that they have done.
The idea behind this, in my opinion, is that the history of
African Americans is our history and it is our culture.They
have been here since the beginning and have made this country what it
is. We need to learn about that history--the good, the bad, the tragic,
and inspiring. We need to learn it as we learn about ourselves. I think
that the more we know about it, the brighter our future together will
be.
I was somewhat, you may say, on the front line of
integration to the degree that as a child I started at an all-
white school system and then as I grew up, fifth grade on, it
became integrated and more and more integrated to the extent
that when I was a senior, there was no such thing as black
schools or white schools as had there been when I was in first
grade. But it stimulated a lot of interest to me into racial
issues and racial, I guess, harmony--if not another word for
it--because while I think Mr. Lewis and Ms. Holmes Norton were
out there on the street making it happen, I was back in the
classroom where it happened and got to know lots of black
children as they got to know lots of white children. It was a
very, very positive experience.
Yet as we got to know each other, it was clear that the
history books left out the chapter of black history. When I got
to 10th grade, we came up with February as Black History Month,
but what about the other 11? I often have mixed emotions about
Black History Month because it implies it is only worth a
month's study. This is not the case at all.
The other thing about black history in America is, we tend
to focus on the Civil War and the southern period. But, in
fact, the African history began in colonial times. My cousin,
for example, is a part owner of something called the Acacia
Exhibit that is loaned to a museum, and it is on African
American artifacts such as pottery, such as handwoven baskets
and bits of fabric. It was truly of African design because
these were people who, when they were in America, were still
speaking in their African native tongue.
Most Americans don't ever think about that period of the
1770s and 1780s, and prior to then as well. A museum like this
will highlight it.
When I was in school, because of the lack of historical
references to black culture, I began reading lots of books on
it, books by Richard Wright and Malcolm X, Eldridge Cleaver and
Dick Gregory and W.E.B. DuBois. Yet one of the ones I like the
most was one called ``The Learning Tree'' by Gordon Parks. What
that book did was explore racial relations without malice and
without politics.
As a school child, who again was in the classroom where the
integration took place and therefore on the front line in some
respects, I can say that the most racial reconciliation and
progress I have ever seen is the kind that takes place without
malice, where races can get to know each other and talk and
talk openly. I think that is the type thing that Mr. Lewis and
I envision in this museum--not a political platform, not a
platform to point fingers, but a platform for understanding and
therefore national racial reconciliation.
To place it at the Nation's Capital is certainly a very
important thing to do, to do it now. I think it is past time to
do it.
The discussion about the site, I think, is a worthy one. It
is difficult any time we start talking about where on the Mall
to put something, but I think that this committee, this
Congress, has within its wisdom to come up with a satisfactory
conclusion to that. I want to go, I guess, that far in terms of
a reference to it.
I look forward to working with members of your committee
and Members of the House. Again, thank you for having the
hearing.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.
[The statement of Mr. Kingston follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029.025
The Chairman. The gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.
STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Larson, members of the committee, first
let me say, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your holding this
hearing so promptly right after the Senate has passed its own
bill, the bill before you.
In a completely unrelated matter, Chairman Ney, I thank you
for the courtesy you have always afforded me as the
representative of the people who live in the city. Much of what
comes before you affects these 600,000 people, and I always
want to be sensitive to that fact and keeping this city open,
as you once again said as you opened this hearing.
Mr. Larson is a perfect Member to be a ranking member, and
I appreciate all his courtesies as well.
Your moving so promptly on this bill reminds me of the fact
that, in one form or another, it has been around this Congress
for 100 years; so your movement on the bill now is especially
appreciated. This bill is in virtually every sense
uncontroversial.
The best way to understand that is that, in 1929, the
Congress of the Untied States actually appropriated $50,000 for
this museum. My friends, that was in a day when lynching was
still going on in this country. That was in a day when the
schools of the Nation's Capital were still segregated. Still,
that Congress at a time when segregation was the law of the
land was willing to say there ought to be an African American
Museum. So I have no doubt that the notion of an African
American Museum today in a far more enlightened America is not
controversial at all in terms of where some controversy may
lie.
My own interest in this bill has several sources. When I
came to Congress, I found that our good friend from the
movement has come a session before and already had come forward
to sponsor this bill. I have sponsored the bill ever since I
came in 1991.
I have been a member of subcommittee that also has
jurisdiction over the bill, a subcommittee of the
Transportation Committee. Indeed, as a member of that
subcommittee, we have voted and actually gotten this bill out
of the Congress. Out of the 103rd Congress we passed the museum
bill. It was stopped by a Senator, who shall go unnamed in the
Senate, and never got out of the Senate.
I am a fourth generation Washingtonian, so I can say to you
that for four generations my own people who came here before
the Civil War, at least those who came here after they called
for this museum, have been waiting for this museum. The people
I represent, the 600,000 people I represent, have watched this
debate for generations; they have been waiting for this museum.
If I may say so, millions of Americans shave heard about
this museum and have regarded it as a promise unkept. I
appreciate that this committee has moved forward to keep its
promise. This is not the furthest any Congress has come, before
us, in getting toward a bill.
Let me just say, I recognize Mr. Mica's comments, I
recognize the comments of many of my colleagues about the site,
and I can understand those comments. They need to be aired so
that they can be reconciled. I appreciate that. I appreciate
the way that they are brought forward so they can be discussed.
At another level, I regret one thing about this bill. It is
no secret to anybody, since I involve myself in every monument
that comes here--the people I represent consider themselves the
guardians of the monuments of this city--that it is unwise to
have discussion of sites in bills, not our business, we don't
know what we're doing. We have been able to keep that out of
the bills almost always.
The reasons that we simply don't involve ourselves in a
discussion of sites normally is that we are talking about
anoverdeveloped Nation's Capital. That is why we have a very extensive
administrative process. If you want to build anything in this town, we
take you through a lot of hoops and we have got to, because it is a
compact city, it can never grow larger, it is the Nation's Capital.
So none of us, no Member of Congress, no organization on
the globe can talk about the design, the height limit, the
massing, the aesthetics, the traffic patterns, the street
access; all of that has to do with where things should be
placed or whether they should be placed at all. So we normally
stay out of that, and we should stay out of that. That has been
my position; it will always be my position. This committee and
the Congress itself has not violated this position.
I made it clear to the people on the Commission, you are
going to make a completely noncontroversial piece of
legislation controversial by talking about sites.
With that said, I want to talk about the only site that I
think Congress has any business talking about at all, because
it is the only site controlled by the Congress and that is the
site at First and Third Streets.
I recognize that even that site needs a lot of discussion
before that is done. But the other sites in our tradition we
simply don't speak about at all, because we have all kinds of
mud on our face when the NCPC comes back and tells us or the
Fine Arts Commission comes back and tells us that you can't do
this, that or the other. So I ask that that process be
respected.
And if we in fact go with the Capitol site, we are going to
have to go through a process as well. The reason that I think
it is not yet appropriate for that site to be in that is that
only we can speak to that site. It would require a
congressional bill itself. Now I think that site is appropriate
for the museum. It is one of the few vacant sites for which a
building was specifically planned and does not exist. If you
look at the 1901 McMillan plan, there is a building there. That
building is meant to be the counterpart of the Botanic Gardens;
it is meant to be a twin of the Botanic Gardens. So the Botanic
Gardens is kind of off center. Everything else in the Capitol
is quite symmetrical, the House and the Senate, and the Botanic
Gardens doesn't have its mate yet. So it makes sense in terms
of one of the most respected plans of Washington.
It is interesting that when the Botanic Gardens was put
there, it was called a ``living museum.'' so the African
American Museum would face another museum as far as I'm
concerned there.
I must say, the one thing that would make me impatient--if
you don't want to build on the Capitol site, then you don't
want to build on the Capitol site, but the one thing that would
make me impatient would be if we let security concerns decide
that we are not going to build on lands we own where building
was always contemplated. I hope that this Congress will never
be reduced to that kind of timidity and will not offer that
concession to terrorists. I have no doubt that the Capitol
Police can protect any museum the way they protect the Botanic
Gardens.
Finally, let me say that there is a unique symbolic
importance to that site. The Civil War veterans called for a
monument at that site. They had been dishonored 50 years before
that then when, despite having served, many of them as slaves
in the Union Army, they were kept from marching with the Union
Army down Pennsylvania Avenue, commemorating the victory of the
Union Army; and they said, Goodness, we've got to have a
monument maybe to remind people of what African Americans have
meant to this country.
Congressman Davis and I cosponsored a task force that
actually passed the House that said that there ought to be an
appropriate commemoration for the fact that the Capitol itself
was built with slave labor and the labor of free blacks and, of
course, others as well. I can think of no more appropriate way
to honor the fact that the very Capitol where we do our
business was built with slave labor than to have a site close
by that is the site of the museum.
Having said all that, Mr. Chairman, may I say that
differences may arise concerning the site. That is a matter for
another day. I just ask that we pass this bill and deal with
the site matters later.
The Chairman. I want to thank the gentlelady for her
testimony.
[The statement of Ms. Norton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.005
The Chairman. Just a comment on that. I just have a couple
of questions, and I will yield to the rest of the members; but
I don't think that at the end of the day--and that is why we
are having this hearing--that there is something in there that
is going to be so polarized. The Senate takes its action, and
this gives us a deliberation on the ability to look at the
legislation, to talk about it.
I can't imagine at the end of the day that there is
something that polarizes so much the two Chambers that we don't
pass it. I can't imagine that happening. That is why--the
purpose of this hearing is to task those questions.
I appreciate all three of your testimonies. One thing I did
want to ask, whether it is of the sponsor or the cosponsor, the
Presidential Commission did evaluate five sites for the museum
since we are talking about sites. I just wondered what the
rationale is for the removal of the fifth site, because the
legislation, as written, has the fifth site removed. I just
wondered the rationale for not putting in there all five sites
that the Presidential Commission had evaluated.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman, the only thing that I know, to be
very candid and very frank with you, I think it was leading
members of the Senate that were sponsors of the legislation had
some concern that the Overlook site was too far from The Mall.
Members of the other body, some felt very strongly that this
museum should be as close to The Mall as possible.
The Chairman. Do any of the other members have any
comments?
The only reason I mention that, I can't sit here and tell
you that I have a site that is a superior site in my mind or
the worst site in my mind. But as you look at the sites up here
on the screen, and that is why I wanted to ask the question, it
seems that the Commission recommended five. Then if we had the
five, some people would say, one other site is too close, it
should have come out.
I wondered if that came from the Senate, because five were
recommended and five were up for grabs, and I don't know which
site would be picked or not. I just wanted to kind of clarify
where that came from. That helps me with that.
The other question I would like to address of all three of
our colleagues, in the Commission site, the recommendation
seems to emphasize, obviously, historical and symbolic
considerations. Do you think any of the economic development or
space problems or economic development problems should be also
considered in this, or should we look at it just from a
historical perspective of sites?
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, if I can clarify that, I think
each of these sites has enormous economic development potential
for the District of Columbia. I have not looked at each of them
in a disparate fashion in that way. I think each of them does
have that potential.
The Chairman. The one waterfront site had economic
development perspective from the city; Washington, D.C., was
looking at that site, where it is being pointed to now, had an
economic development interest there. The city was trying to
revitalize. That is why I wondered if anything was taken into
consideration by the Commission when they looked at that, if
that was part of their rationale of putting it in.
I wondered if you had any comments, what you thought about
the economic development side of considerations.
Ms. Norton. The Overlook site is considered a prime site.
it has enormous potential looking down on The Mall on the one
hand and looking toward the river on the other. I am not sure
why--this notion about--while I am very sympathetic to The Mall
for a museum and particularly given a museum for African
Americans, the history of it and its 100-year promise to put it
there, I am not one of the devotees of putting everything on
The Mall.
I think our generation will go down in infamy for having
tried to use up The Mall, meant for perpetuity, for our own
egos. So you will not find me easily saying something should go
on The Mall. As it is, The Mall is overcrowded and
overdeveloped.
I can understand that this has been an outstanding
matterfor The Mall for so long, that we have allowed every other kind
of museum to get there and so it would come very hard on African
Americans to say you're too late because we made you too late, so you
can't go to The Mall. My own sense is that you get rid of part of that
by putting it on the Capitol, the site near the Capitol because that is
not technically The Mall.
The Chairman. Thank you. I have one other question and we
will move on to other members.
The cost for the museum has been estimated at $360 million.
I just wondered if you were comfortable with that figure. Some
of the museums, the Native American Indian museum had a two-
thirds/one-third split. I think this is 50/50 private sector.
Each has been a bit different. The Holocaust was paid for
totally by private funds, but that is not under the
Smithsonian. So each have been different figures.
I think this was estimated at $360 million. I just wondered
if everybody is comfortable with trying to achieve that goal. I
mention that in lieu of the Visitors Center, which I support
fully, which I will take a 10-second privilege to just say that
9/11 changed what we did there; 9/11 caused security changes,
whether a 143-day delay or whatever. So I am comfortable with
it.
I don't want people passing out as they come to visit this
Nation's Capitol, or 3,000 people trying to share two rest
rooms in the Capitol. So I am very comfortable with what we are
doing. I want to make that clear right out front with the
Visitors Center.
And I am comfortable with spending the money personally on
this project, too. I just wanted to see if we are comfortable
that that figure will do it.
Mr. Kingston. Let me say this: As you know, the bill does
not specifically have any design money in there that would be
able to qualify us to answer the question, but what I would
like to see, as someone involved with the Capitol Visitors
Center, is the mistakes that we have made on that, that they
are not repeated.
Apparently, we made a lot of mistakes when we did the
renovation of the Botanical Gardens, yet did not make the
changes. The Capitol Visitors Center seems to have lots of
different bosses, lots of different people giving opinions and
change orders and so forth.
It is my hope, in working with members of your committee,
that we can come up with some processing changes inside the
Capitol that we could avoid some of the pitfalls, so that if we
go after a project, and say the project is $350 million, then
we know with certainty that is going to be what it costs, and
if it doesn't cost that, then the contractor will pay the
difference because it should be a bonded type job and there
shouldn't be change orders and so forth. That is where we, as a
Congress, have to act more like the private sector.
I know that--Mr. Mica and I have had lots of discussions
about how we can improve the CVC. Mr. Chairman, even though you
and I have spoken, nothing compared to your colleague over
there on the right.
The Chairman. I am glad we have now publicly admitted that
we have strapped the Architect of the Capitol with a bunch of
change orders that forced him to have to deal with those costs.
So we have got that settled. I think Mr. Mica will be happy
with that.
Mr. Kingston. One of the bosses.
Mr. Mica. Will the gentleman yield?
The Chairman. One second, because I am afraid once I yield
to you, I can't get you back.
On this topic, you do raise a good issue; and we should
decide what would be in there, and that way the project manager
of this will not have to run into what the Architect of the
Capitol has had to run into, of orders and a lot of bosses.
And not that the changes were bad; some of the ones you
can't control, but I just want to make sure that we are
comfortable that money is going to have to be spent here. I am
comfortable with it personally. That way we do a project, we
get things in order, and we know we are going to have tospend
some money, $300-and-some million.
I am not saying that that is not worth the value of what
this is going to bring for hundreds of years to come in this
country. I think your observations are good.
Mr. Kingston. Another footnote to that is, unlike the
Capitol Visitors Center, there are lots of folks that want to
donate to this. And so actually if you have to go back to the
well, it will probably be a lot easier to get it from the
private sector than it would be through Congress.
The Chairman. Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Just to set the record straight, we were raising
private funds, and I helped host the last private fund-raiser
for the Capitol Visitors Center on the evening of September 10
and all fund-raising private was cut off after that because of
the situation we faced nationally.
Also, just to clarify the record, it is estimated--Mr.
Chairman, to you, a question--that this would be--about $360
million is the estimate?
The Chairman. Yes, by the time it would be completed, the
estimate is $360 million.
Mr. Mica. The mere point I wanted to state for the record
is, it is about 350,000 square feet, is what I am told. The
price, about $360 million.
Just for the record, the Visitors Center is about 500,000
square feet, in the similar range of funds; just so that that
is made part of the permanent record for all those legislators
who want to see cost. And I have no problem, Mr. Lewis, Mr.
Kingston, Ms. Norton, with spending this money. I want it to be
the best museum we have ever built when we complete it, but I
just want people to understand that costs, particularly those
that go up----
Mr. Kingston. If we can hold the CVC to the same price as
the African American history museum, it would be a----
Mr. Mica. We will more than do that, Chairman Kingston.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Reclaiming my time from this great duo here,
you can see the continuation of what we are seeing on the
national nightly news tomorrow night, a program that I am sure
will be entertaining from all sides of the issue.
Mr. Kingston. I just want to know if we can crank up those
private fund-raisers again.
The Chairman. I will point out on the Visitors Center, too,
somebody had said, you would have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
they kind of liked that wing. Also, remember, you will have the
AFL-CIO. They didn't like that so much.
So I think the idea to fund taxpayers on the Visitors
Center was good. I think the idea of public support on this as
a match is good. It is appropriate.
Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Getting back to the topic at hand, let me also add
parenthetically and thank the sponsors in section 7(b) for
including an opportunity to bring the Amistad and all the
beneficial education and teaching opportunities that will
provide.
I was honored to lead the Congressional Black Caucus to my
home State of Connecticut for the christening, and the tolling
of the bell 53 times for those slaves who lost their lives. And
the great history that we share in this House of
Representatives with former President John Quincy Adams, who
was both President and served in this House, and tried this
case before the Supreme Court, is just one small bit of rich
history and again demonstrates not only the necessity, but the
great educational value and tool that this will provide the
Nation.
Mr. Lewis, in your comments--and Mr. Kingston and Ms.
Holmes Norton could also comment on this--you raised the issue
of security. That is an issue that some of the other panelists
that will follow you are going to comment on. I wanted you to
have an opportunity to more fully express your concerns with
respect to that, why you think these issues can be overcome and
how you see this moving forward.
All of our conversations, it seems lately, as it relates to
the Capitol, deal with this very delicate balance of providing
access and security at the same time.
Mr. Lewis. You know, Mr. Chairman, I don't have to tell any
of you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member, we live in a
democratic society. Despite our concern about terrorism and
violence and security, we don't want to create a police state.
We don't want to lock down the Capitol.
I remember when I came to Washington the very first time,
in May of 1961--when I was 21 years old during the freedom
rides; and then I came back again 40 years ago, on August 28,
1963, for the March on Washington, I was 23 years old--we came
up here on that morning. We met with members on the House side,
the leadership both Democratic and Republicans, and we went
over on the Senate side and the place was wide open.
I have been back many times before becoming a Member of
Congress.
I just happen to believe that you are not going to have
people marching and protesting at the national African American
museum. You have people rallying around the United States
Supreme Court, people rallying around the Congress. And we
provide security.
You see the young men and the young women working around
the Capitol building, working around the Supreme Court and all
the other Federal buildings. I think we have the ingenuity, we
have the know-how to provide the security.
I don't think--I want our Nation to be secure and the
Capitol to be secure, but having a building that will bring
balance to the Botanical Gardens on the Senate side, the
Capitol site, I think it can be protected and help secure the
Capitol when visitors come to the museum.
It should be a concern but not an overriding concern.
Ms. Norton. I would like to comment on that issue as well.
First of all, I would like to congratulate the Sergeant at
Arms, the Senate and the House and the Capitol Police for how
they have, I think, readjusted to the post-9/11 world. They
were not that way to begin with. Chairman Ney will remember
that the first instinct was an instinct more worthy of Saddam
than of this Capitol, to lock the thing down.
The mention of the tours here is a by-product of that
problem. You have got to have a staff with you. Now they want
to bring it down to eight. Pretty soon it will be laughable to
call it the People's House. And so what people have to do when,
of course, you have an event like that is to think very
seriously about their dual responsibilities, to somehow keep
things as they were, but make them change so that you are
secure.
Let me show you what a sham argument the notion of security
for this site is because that is what I am going to call it. It
is the kind you can't let the Police Board and the Capitol
Police go back to where they were.
The site we are talking about, my friends, is a site that
at the moment is so far from the Capitol that we let cars drive
through there. You come down Independence Avenue, you want to
get over to Constitution Avenue, turn left, go around one
circle, then go around the other circle.
Why do the Capitol Police let that happen when the Botanic
Gardens is right there, if you're afraid that somebody could
have a bomb? You can park your car right there with the Botanic
Gardens right there.
Why do they raise concerns now that we are talking about a
building that would be opposite to the Botanic Gardens, where
we already allow traffic to come even after 9/11, and we never
stopped any traffic there after 9/11? There is no security
argument.
You are going to hear arguments like the siting of the
Capitol. You are going to have a building there, you won't be
able to see it. That is no argument against a museum.
You have got to make security people be very specific about
what they are afraid of and then say, okay, now what are you
going to do about it? Not that we are afraid of you and
therefore we give up.
So I am impatient with talk about security that is not
oriented toward solving the problem, but toward closing it
down. I am particularly impatient with this site which, unlike
the site in front of the Capitol, which has long beenclosed,
understand that the site in back of the Capitol has not been. The
reason is that it is so far from the Capitol that nobody conceives of
it as a security risk. It is near the Botanic Gardens where thousands
and thousands of people go in, day and night. Yet it has not been
deemed a security risk. Now all of a sudden if we build on that site,
this part of the Capitol becomes a security site. Nonsense.
I don't think there are unsolvable security problems at
this site.
Mr. Kingston. I wanted to add, Mr. Larson, that in my
opinion this museum is about reconciliation. It is not going to
be a political headquarters. It is not going to be a civil
rights club. If you want to grind your political ax, take it
down the street some.
Ms. Norton. To the Capitol.
Mr. Kingston. Yeah, take it to the Capitol. Join the crowd.
Pick your number. Bring your protesting sign and join the
groups.
This is going to be for history and reconciliation. I think
it is very important to emphasize that. The Holocaust museum is
in a different situation than this, because there is more of a
political equation. There is more of a known, defined, visible
opposition group. That is not the case here. I think that this
is to going to be any kind of magnet for hate groups or oddball
citizens who want to blow somebody up. That is just not the
case.
That is why this legislation asks the Smithsonian to run
it, because we believe that they know how to put a museum of
history together and to not stir things up, but to answer
questions and bring up important histories that will bring us
together.
Mr. Larson. I thank the panelists for amplifying their
concerns. With that, I will yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Additional questions? Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I tend to agree with the panelists, Ms. Norton and I think
Mr. Lewis also; the security issue is a bogus issue. If we
can't protect the security for this facility, no matter where
it is built, there is something dramatically wrong.
And I am glad to hear Ms. Norton--I appreciate your
comments, Ms. Norton. The point I raised about site and we
don't want to get bogged down into that, is the question, the
overall question of what The Mall is going to look like in 50
years or 100 years. This is a policy question, too.
Do we devote portions of The Mall, sections of The Mall and
construct buildings all the way along The Mall in the future to
recognize different ethnic and racial groups that have
contributed or suffered or whatever in the history of the
country? And I don't want to diminish in any way what African
Americans have suffered or contributed to this great Nation.
Again, it is a policy-setting question of importance and, I
think, significance to the Congress, because the Congress
passes these bills and we site monuments and structures along
the way. It is not really a question, but I think we view this
in a similar fashion.
Ms. Norton, you had said the plan--and we do have some
issues over the Capitol site--was orginially planned in balance
with the Botanic Garden. But it is my understanding the Botanic
Garden is a structure of some 47,000 square feet, and the
proposed structure is 350,000. Would all of that be above
ground or is part of the plan to balance it as far as size of
the structure on both sides?
Ms. Norton. I don't know the answer to that question, but I
think the Commission, which is going to testify after us, may;
or some of my colleagues may know whether any of it will be
below ground.
Mr. Mica. Because you did speak to the question of a
balance of structures. That, to me, would pose at least an
aesthetic imbalance.
Ms. Norton. I think some of the Botanic Gardens is itself
below ground. So I am not sure that all of that would be space
on the surface.
Mr. Mica. Again, Mr. Lewis, I thank you for yourcomments. I
hope you see my point, though, about the long-term planning of The Mall
and how important that is.
Again, in no way to diminish any of the contributions you
have made; I take you as someone that I am very proud of. I
don't think I have a student group, if you are in sight, that I
don't point out the tremendous contributions that you have made
not only to the African American community but to the United
States and the Congress.
I hope the site policy question can be answered and then we
can do that in fairness to everybody. I hope you appreciate
that.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Additional questions? Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am the only non-African American or non-
minority Congressman in this United States Congress that
represents a minority district, so I can associate myself with
Mr. Kingston's remarks about how you grow up. I am still
growing up and still living in the city of Philadelphia with a
minority population.
I think that prejudice still exists. I think that passing
this bill and putting this museum, building this museum,
constructing this museum will speak volumes to that. It will
let the rest of the country know and the rest of the world know
how we feel.
I happen to also agree with the lady from the District of
Columbia. This is our second town, but this is her town, her
first town. She is the keeper--as she says, the people that she
represents are the keeper of these museums. Who should know
best where to put it? Who best should know that it should
definitely get built? I would respect the knowledge that you
have and the people that you represent, and telling me when I
go back to Philadelphia as quick as I can, many times, that
this is where it should be.
Mr. Lewis, I have the utmost respect for you of anyone in
this Congress. You walked the walk and you have talked the talk
and you have been there. I want to say I probably respect you
more than anyone in this Congress.
I am going to do what you want to do. I am going to pass a
bill that you want to pass and I am going to be supportive of
building it where you want to build it. You have that respect
due you.
As far as security and terror, terror only exists when you
are terrorized. That is what the word means. And security? We
are not secure where we go, anyplace we go. If anybody wants to
take a shot at us, they can certainly take a shot at us
anywhere. You walk across that street in a dark suit and 90
percent of the time you are going to be all right if you want
to do something. So I am not going to live my life in fear of
terror nor is my family.
Security--I have empathy for the police officers. My father
was a police officer. The Capitol Police and our Sergeant at
Arms, I was a Sergeant at Arms at one time. I remember when we
had a bomb scare or a scare right after 9/11 on our building;
we were running out, they were running in. They try to do the
best job to deter the terror--security. But I don't think
either is an issue.
I think this needs to get built. I am proud to be a part of
making it happen. Again, I would acquiesce to the knowledge of
my dear colleagues on where it should get built.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Are there any other members who have additional questions?
If not, I want to thank the distinguished panel and we will
move on to Panel 2. Thank you.
Mr. Mica [presiding]. I would like to go ahead and ask the
second panel to be seated. Let me introduce them as they take
their seats.
I want to welcome our panelists to the table. First, Mr.
Robert Wright, Chairman of the Presidential Commission of the
National Museum of African American History and Culture; also
Mr. Lawrence Small, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution;
and additionally, Mr. Charles Cassell, Vice President of
theNational Coalition to Save our Mall.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for being with us.
Come right up. Grab a seat. Make yourself at home.
STATEMENTS OF DR. ROBERT L. WRIGHT, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSION, NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY AND
CULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY CLAUDINE BROWN, VICE CHAIR, ROBERT L.
WILKINS, MEMBER AND CHAIR OF SITE COMMITTEE, AND HOWARD DODSON,
MEMBER; LAWRENCE M. SMALL, SECRETARY, THE SMITHSONIAN
INSTITUTION; AND CHARLES I. CASSELL, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
COALITION TO SAVE OUR MALL, ACCOMPANIED BY GEORGE H.F.
OBERLANDER, TREASURER.
Mr. Mica. We do try to limit the testimony if we can.
If you have documentation or additional information you
would like to be made part of the record, please request that
through the Chair.
Let us begin with Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright, thank you again
for coming.
Mr. Robert Wright is chairman of the Presidential
Commission of the National Museum of African American History
and Culture.
Welcome, sir. You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT L. WRIGHT
Mr. Wright. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
great honor and a privilege to appear before you today as
Chairman of the National Museum of African American History and
Culture Plan for Action Presidential Commission. Our commission
was composed of 18 distinguished individuals from across the
country and four Members of Congress, two of which are no
longer active.
I would also like to recognize for the record, Mr. Chairman
and members of the committee, Ms. Claudine Brown, who is our
Vice Chairwoman, Howard Dodson, and Robert Wilkins from the
Commission.
The issue of establishing an African American Museum in
Washington, D.C., is not a new idea. For nearly 100 years,
going back to black veterans who helped save this country in
the Civil War and the children of slaves who marched with them
in Washington back in 1915 and the great grandchildren of
slaves who launched a powerful campaign in the 1980s and 1990s,
African Americans have pleaded for equal space and equal time
on the National Mall. The work started by Union veterans and
their supporters and descendants led to the 1929 legislation
that authorized the construction of a national memorial
building to serve as a museum and ``a tribute to the Negro's
contributions to the achievements of America.'' Congress failed
to appropriate funds for the building and now, 75 years later,
despite the pleas of succeeding generations, the museum has
still not been built.
Our Commission's task under Public Law 107-106 was to
create a fund-raising plan for supporting the creation and
maintenance of the museum through contributions by American
people and the African American community. In addition, we had
to create a Report on Issues related to the planning. The
issues addressed included the following:
The availability and cost of collections to be
acquired and housed in the museum;
The impact of the museum on regional African American
museums across the country;
Possible locations for the museum on or adjacent to
the National Mall in Washington;
The cost of converting the Smithsonian's Art and
Industries Building; and
The governance and organizational structure from
which the museum should operate.
Our Commission was divided into subcommittees, each with a
subcommittee chairperson to research the various topics that
were specified in the legislation. Our approach was twofold:
One, to engage consultants who had expertise in
serving specific areas; and
Two, to host town hall style meetings across the
country in lieu of a national conference to hear from
museum professionals, scholars and graduate
organizations in various regions of the United States.
These meetings were designed not only to solicit input
from the public, but also to publicize the movement to
develop the museum.
Our Commission held town hall meetings in Chicago; New
Orleans; New York; Topeka, Kansas; Detroit; Washington; and
Atlanta, Georgia. Additional town hall meetings were planned in
Los Angeles, Dallas and Oklahoma City, but were not held
because of logistical and budgetary concerns.
As we conducted these town hall meetings, we received an
overwhelming response with regard to stories about the African
American experience that should be addressed by this museum.
They included some of the following:
A true and uncompromising interpretation of slavery;
The conditions aboard slave ships during the Middle
Passage.
Other topics such as:
The Tuskegee Airmen experience and their impact on
the modern day civil rights movement and the
integration of the military;
The historic participation of African Americans in
America's wars;
African American resistance during the slavery and
Jim Crow periods;
Buffalo Soldiers and their contributions to the
development of the American West;
The development of black businesses during the Jim
Crown era and their evolution to the present;
Evolution of the African American church and its
contributions to the struggles for freedom; and
Many, many, many others.
In addition, we received comments regarding potential
collections, impact on regional African American museums,
possible locations, Smithsonian affiliation, governance
structure and fund-raising. All of these issues were addressed
and detailed in the final report that was submitted to the
Congress on April 2, 2003. In this report, the Commission
concluded the following:
Across the board, private collectors and public
institutions are more than willing to share their material-
culture resources and are willing to engage the proposed
national museum in discussion as to how this might be achieved.
A resounding 87.5 percent of museums surveyed supported the
establishment of a national museum in Washington, D.C. None of
the respondents opposed the plan and only 12.5 percent
expressed concern that the national museum would pose
competition in terms of attendance, collections or funding.
The Commission concluded that a site on The Mall is
necessary to implement the mission and the program of the
museum. The Commission recommended the Capitol site as the
preferred location and the monument site as a suitable
alternative.
After evaluating all the options and weighing opinions of
experts and grass-roots organizations, as reflected in town
hall meetings, the Commission decided that the most efficient
way for the museum to develop and maintain itself as a
comprehensive depository of African American history and
culture is under the umbrella of the Smithsonian Institution.
With regard to fund-raising, the common response from
African American interviewees was that this museum is long
overdue and that they would support wholeheartedly, including
the provision of unprecedented contributions, volunteer time
and even the donation of personal papers and collections. Many
of the more affluent African Americans involved in this study
indicated that they would be prepared to give ``sacrificially''
in order to see the dream of such a museum finally achieved.
Raising $180 million from the private sector for the new
museum will be a difficult task and will require aggressive and
creative approaches to the fund-raising process. In order to be
successful, there are four limits that must be secured:
One, congressional authorization and initial
appropriation to allow fund-raising and friend-raising
to being concurrently with detailed planning;
Two, the identification of a site;
Three, an affiliation with the Smithsonian
Institution; and
Four, a leading gift at the level of $30 to $50
million.
There is a unique interest, level of interest, and deep
emotion among prospective donors and the possibility of this
museum. There exist many committed and visionary donors across
the country who are eager to give. Dan Amos, Chairman and CEO
of AFLAC showed his commitment by pledging the first million
dollars toward the establishment of the museum.
There are many others willing to participate, but in order
to translate that interest into fund-raising solicitations, the
Congress must take the first and essential step toward creating
a public-private partnership of unprecedented proportions.
Fund-raising cannot begin until the Congress and the
President act and approve the legislation. This Commission is
prepared to support the Congress in its deliberation toward
that end, and we urge your passage of the legislation that is
before you at this time.
Our purpose could not be more timely. Issues of race and
racism pervade our national life, and all of us must find ways
to achieve racial reconciliation. This museum can serve our
country as preeminent vehicle toward that end.
Just yesterday, President Bush visited Goree Island, the
place from which so many of my ancestors began their journey to
this country. We believe that the fund-raising effort for the
new museum will afford every American with a way to help
achieve racial reconciliation in our country.
In conclusion, I would like to thank Congressman John Lewis
for his inspiring leadership, vision and tenacity, and also
thank the numerous cosponsors of the legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Wright.
[The statement of Mr. Wright follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.011
Mr. Mica. Let me recognize now--and we will take questions
when we have finished hearing from all of our panelists--
Lawrence Small, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.
Welcome back, sir, and you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE M. SMALL
Mr. Small. Thank you, Mr. Mica. I want to thank Chairman
Ney and Mr. Larson for providing this opportunity to discuss
the proposal to create within the Smithsonian Institution a
National Museum of African American History and Culture.
From its creation in 1946, the Smithsonian has remained
true to its mission, the increase and diffusion of knowledge.
It has become not only the world's largest provider of museum
experiences that are supported by authoritative scholarship and
science and history and the arts, but also an international
leader in scientific research and exploration. With its 16
museums and galleries, several research centers and the
National Zoo, the Smithsonian offers the world a picture of
America and America a picture of the world.
The proposed new museum under discussion would certainly
add to that picture and offer a vital service to the public.
At their meeting in June of 2001, the Smithsonian's Board
of Regents adopted the following motion:
``The Board of Regents endorses in principle the
establishment of a National Museum of African American History
and Culture by legislation that safeguards the Smithsonian's
interests, including those relating to governance, funding and
facilities.''
First, with respect to governance, I am very pleased to see
that the legislation now proposes a museum structure much like
that of the other Smithsonian museums. We appreciate the work
done so far to address the issues we have raised and believe
that the majority of these have been addressed.
With respect to facilities, the legislation requires the
Board of Regents to choose from among four sites. When this
legislation passes, the Regents will review the findings of the
Presidential Commission, and they may want to conduct their own
independent review before making a decision.
The bill also calls for extensive consultation with
representatives of the Presidential Commission and with various
interested agencies. Ample time should be provided if these
consultations are to be meaningful, and care should be taken to
see that this aspect of the initiative is not rushed.
Lastly, the funding for construction and operation of the
new museum must be addressed. Simply put, the Smithsonian
cannot afford to take on this new responsibility unless we are
given the funds needed to carry it out. Analysis of our
financial picture in the Smithsonian since 1993 shows that in
our five largest museums, the ones that receive the greatest
number of visitors, federally funded staffing has declined 17
percent on average over the last 10 years. The National Academy
of Public Administration concluded in 2001 that the Smithsonian
faces a $1.5 billion backlog in our facilities maintenance
program for existing facilities.
We are scheduled to open two major new facilities in the
next year and a half--the new National Air and Space Museum's
Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles Airport that will open
this December; and then, in September of 2004, the National
Museum of the American Indian on The Mall. We also hope to
reopen the historic Patent Office Building, which is home to
the Smithsonian American Art Museum and the National Portrait
Gallery in July of 2006. Just these three facilities alone,
which represent a combined investment of $750 million, will
also need to be maintained, in addition to all of our other
facilities.
The Presidential Commission estimated that it would cost
$360 million to build a building similar in size to the
National Museum of the American Indian. The Commission also
estimated that it would cost $42 million each year to operate
the museum once it is fully staffed. The Smithsonian cannot
absorb amounts of this magnitude within its current budget.
Finally, it is important to keep in mind that the new
museum is being considered before its collection is identified
and acquired. First, in establishing a new museum, a mission
must be defined, and then the collections must be assembled to
fulfill that mission. The Smithsonian will certainly pay
careful attention to the Presidential Commission's findings on
this subject, and we will also have to review carefully what
the creation of this new museum means for the Institution's
existing collections and exhibits.
The Smithsonian would be honored to play a part in this
project that will offer so much to visitors from across America
and around the world. We are anxious to work with Congress to
ensure the success of this endeavor.
Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Small.
[The statement of Mr. Small follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.014
Mr. Mica. We will hear now from Mr. Charles Cassell, Vice
President of the National Coalition to Save Our Mall.
Welcome, sir, and you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES I. CASSELL
Mr. Cassell. Good afternoon. Chairman Ney and members of
the Committee on House Administration, the National Coalition
to Save Our Mall is pleased to be invited to comment on H.R.
2205, which would authorize the establishment of the National
Museum of African American History and Culture here in the
Nation's Capital.
My name is Charles I. Cassell; I am Vice President of the
Coalition. I have submitted my resume. The Coalition is a
national not-for-profit education and research organization
working to preserve the historic planned, open space area and
symbolic meaning of The National Mall as our monument to
American founding principles. Coalition board member George
Oberlander accompanies me; President Judy Scott Feldman could
not attend due to prior travel plans.
Last October, the Coalition published its ``First Annual
State of The Mall Report,'' which is an attached exhibit which
you have, in which we stated:
The National Mall--the unique National Park in the heart of
our Nation's Capital--is under physical assault. The threats
come from Congress, through well-intended interest groups and
otherwise well-meaning citizens who wish to see more memorials
or museums located on The Mall's dwindling historic planned
public space. These assaults on The Mall's open space character
threaten to change and undermine the historic symbolism that
makes The Mall the premier democratic public space in the
Nation and indeed in the world.
H.R. 2205, by designating only four potential sites for the
museum, three of them directly on The Mall, could lead to the
further degradation of The Mall's symbolic open space.
Please understand the Coalition enthusiastically supports
the idea of the museum. We believe it is a worthy enterprise
which is long overdue. We are grateful to Mr. Robert Wilkins,
the chairman of the museum's site selection committee, who
graciously spent time explaining to the Coalition and to the
Committee of 100 on the Federal City his research, study and
choice of preferred site locations.
Let me say here that I am a second-generation native of
Washington, D.C., and I am old enough that I remember
segregation in Washington, D.C. We lived in our own
communities. Our professionals practiced only in the
communities except in unusual circumstances. Having grown up in
that environment, even as I served in World War II and returned
to the Nation, I experienced the same kind of segregation and
deprivation on the basis of my race. So I am fully sympathetic
with the idea of memorializing the struggles that African
Americans have gone through, lo, these many generations.
We are opposed, however, to any new museum construction on
the public open spaces of The National Mall, and that includes
the grounds of the Capitol and the Washington Monument site. Of
the three potential sites on The Mall, only the Arts and
Industries site, which would use an existing building, is
consistent with the Commemorative Works Act which I think we
have to remember was enacted by Congress to protect the
L'Enfant and McMillan plans and The Mall's open public space.
We would endorse the use of the Arts and Industries structure--
Building since the building is already there.
The Capitol site, the site listed in section 8(b)(1) of the
bill, is not consistent with the McMillan plan, contrary to
what the 2002 preferred site analysis structure study
indicates. In the McMillan concept, any building at that site
would form part of the Federal enclave and would relate
directly to the Capitol building and its legislative functions.
A museum and the public and tourist activities associated with
it was not envisioned for that site.
The more recent current Capitol master plan for the future
growth and development of the Capitol grounds shows nobuilding
on that site and indicates, at most, a landscape element.
The Coalition believes that the four potential sites are
too few or limited as guidance to the Smithsonian site
designation. In addition, there are other additional suitable
possibilities.
We urge the committee to insert language to allow for
consideration of additional sites that either have been
eliminated prematurely by the museum's selection committee or
that were not considered by the site selection consultants,
including but not limited to the Banneker/10th Street Overlook
site and a new site identified in Exhibit 2, that you have
before you, across Constitution Avenue from the Lincoln
Memorial adjacent to The Mall. Accordingly, section 8(a)(1)(B)
should include a paragraph providing further suitable locations
to be examined and evaluated in relation to those already
identified.
In addition, we are very concerned that section 8(A)(1)(d)
restricts consultations to the Chair of the Commission of Fine
Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission and not the
entire commissions themselves. That would deny the public any
role since there would be no public hearings or meetings to
express their point of view on location or design.
This is unacceptable in the Coalition's view. A national
museum is just that, national. The public must be given an
opportunity for involvement. Therefore, we urge the committee
to designate in the bill the crucial role of the reviewing
agencies as established by the Commemorative Works Act and the
other laws enacted by Congress for the review and approval of
Federal public building projects in the Nation's Capital. This
designation should also include the public, as is customary in
the review and approval process, as the Secretary has
indicated. Section 8(A)(1)(d)(3) should also include reference
to the Commemorative Works Act as I have indicated.
In conclusion, we urge the committee to:
One, allow for the possibility of additional
alternative sites; and
Two, to reaffirm the role of the review agencies and
the public in site and design review.
That concludes our formal statement, Mr. Chairman. We are
prepared to respond to any questions you may have.
[The statement of Mr. Cassell follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.016
The Chairman. I want to thank the panel for your testimony.
Dr. Wright, I want to ask just a few questions. How many
visitors a day will you envision that would come through the
museum? I know it is a guesstimate.
Mr. Wright. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would
also like to defer that question to our vice chairperson, Ms.
Claudine Brown. Ms. Brown.
The Chairman. For the record, if you would like to state
your name and title.
Ms. Brown. My name is Claudine Brown. I was the vice
chairperson for the President's Commission for the National
Museum of African American Culture and History.
Our projection is approximately 2 million visitors per
year.
The Chairman. You might want to remain for a second. How is
parking contemplated, if it would be the Capitol site?
Ms. Brown. Actually parking is not a part of our plan. And
we are hopeful that people will use the same means and modes of
transportation that they use to get to other Mall museums.
So we suggest that a number of people will probably use
public transportation, and they will park as they may in the
general vicinity of the Mall.
The Chairman. And then in the evaluation of the five sites
that were recommended by the Commission, how does the Capitol
site compare to the other sites with regard to proximity to a
Metrorail station.
Ms. Brown. Well, we know that the site that is closest to a
Metrorail station is the Arts and Industries Building, because
there is a station just a stone's throw from there.
But we think that--I think that there is a station, but it
is probably like about 4 blocks away from the Capitol site.
The Chairman. One other question I have on the Capitol
site, because security questions have been raised. I think some
of the Members made good points, including Mr. Brady, on
overall security of the Capitol. We try to do the best that we
can do with it.
But the Capitol site recommended by the Commission is
within the security perimeter that surrounds the Capitol. At
times access inside this perimeter to the perimeter can be
severely restricted. For example, when the President visits,
not to pick on the President and Vice President, but at certain
times, or if there is a speech up on certain parts of the back
front of the Capitol.
And I just wondered, knowing that certain times there is
restrictions or some security threats where we have an overall
restriction of the Capitol proper, the Campus, was the
Commission aware of this or did they consider it when the site
was chosen, about the fact that there could be severe or total
cutoff of access to the museum?
Ms. Brown. I think that the Commisison considered a number
of factors. One was that this site is as close to the Capitol
as the Botanic Garden site. It is certainly not as close in
proximity as the Visitors Center. We recognize that in the
Nation's Capitol there are always possibilities of security,
especially if the President is speaking, and that is kind of
one of the realities that you live with. And we felt that it
could be a reality in almost any of the sites that we looked
at.
The Chairman. Two other brief questions. Secretary Small
indicated the collection that will be housed in the museum has
yet to be identified and acquired. That is naturally
understandable.
Given that, how did the Commission arrive at its
determination on the size of the museum? In other words, how do
you know about the space you will need if we don't know the
size of the collection yet?
Ms. Brown. Well, in most museums the collection is not
housed in the actual museum proper. But what we did look at is
the program of the museum. We looked at the fact that we wanted
a large permanent exhibition. We also knew that we wanted
spaces for public programming and also that we would be working
in conjunction with other museums around the country, and we
wanted spaces for traveling exhibitions.
We wanted some resource center space. So the program really
determined how the space would be used. Not unlike the United
States Holocaust Museum, we see a major part of this museum
telling a narrative story. And in their process, they actually
determined the story that they wanted to tell, and then
collections were actually acquired after the fact.
The Chairman. The other question would be how much of the
proposed collections will you be gathering from other museums?
Will they be permanent, or some of them temporary? Will that
impact some of the museums? Are they willing to do that? Has
there been any conversations with any existing museums or
facilities that could help to enhance this museum?
Ms. Brown. One of our charges under the legislation was
that we communicate specifically with other African American
museums just to make sure that we would have a meaningful
relationship with then. And in doing so, I would say more than
90 percent of those institutions were willing to lend objects
and actually wanted to see a cultural exchange take place.
What we are also hoping is that we can have the same kind
of reciprocal relationship with other Smithsonian museums, not
unlike some of the Smithsonian affiliates.
The bigger issue, though, is that we would like to acquire
collections with an informed plan and not begin to just get
collections because people have them. We want to know what the
narrative is and really have curators on board, and then let
them make those decisions.
The Chairman. I want to thank you for your time.
Secretary Small, your testimony indicated that most of the
concerns that were expressed about the proposed structure of
this museum have been addressed in the legislation. Can you
describe the standard structure of the Smithsonian museums and
describe how this proposal would compare to that, and also how
does it differ, if it does, and do you have any remaining
concerns about the structure envisioned by the bill?
Mr. Small. Thank you. As I indicated, as the legislation
now stands, it is quite similar to the existing structure that
we have. The museum would have an advisory board to help with
outreach and fund-raising. The director of the museum would
report in the way that we have currently in place in the
Smithsonian. The budget for construction and operation of the
museum would be part of the overall Smithsonian budget.
So I think it very much fits within the current approach
that we would use from a governance standpoint for the museum.
The Chairman. I think it was one of our Members on the
majority side that had raised an issue of future museums, which
I think we do have to consider future museums, because we have
the Native American Museum, and our committee has the
responsibility to consider future as well as current proposals
for museums.
Have we received any contacts from other groups, such as
Hispanic Americans or Asian Americans who have expressed
similar interest of similar museums within the Smithsonian and,
if we have, what are we talking about with feasibility and
being able to do it? And would we have considerations of other
sites within the proximity of the Mall? Do you have any ideas
on that?
Mr. Small. We at the Smithsonian haven't received any
formal proposals in that regard. On the other hand, we have
been involved in any number of public gatherings where members,
for example, of the Hispanic Caucus have talked about a Latino
museum. So, yes, we have heard mention of such things. But as I
say, there is no formal process that I am aware of that is in
place.
The Chairman. Thank you. My last question is for Mr.
Cassell, Vice President of the Coalition to Save The Mall. Your
testimony references the Commemorative Works Act and their
relationship to the L'Enfant and McMillan Plans for preserving
The Mall.
Can you elaborate a little bit on the Commemorative Works
Act and your belief that future construction violates basically
the intent of Congress?
Mr. Cassell. Let me ask Mr. Oberlander, our expert, to
respond to that.
The Chairman. Can you identify yourself please for the
record? Thank you.
Mr. Oberlander. I am George Oberlander. I am the treasurer
of the National Coalition to Save Our Mall. I am also a retired
urban planner, having worked with the National Capital Planning
Commission for 31 years as the Associate Executive Director for
District Affairs. I am very familiar with the Commemorative
Works Act and the planning activities in the Nation's Capital
since 1965, when I came to Washington.
I have also worked with the former Architect of the Capitol
on the Master Plan for the grounds of the Capitol. So I am
familiar with the planning jurisdiction of the grounds of the
Capitol that are under the Architect of the Capitol
jurisdiction and the Planning Commission's jurisdiction.
The Commemorative Works Act was a way of trying to resolve
the basic problems of preserving the historic character of the
Nation's Capital Mall area. Normally people call the Mall the
area from the Capitol Building all the way to theLincoln
Memorial. However, technically the Mall starts at the foot of the
Capitol grounds and ends at 15th Street. Then you have the Washington
Monument Grounds, which are not technically the Mall, and then you have
West Potomac Park, which is the area west of the Washington Monument
Grounds, which most people call the Mall, but is technically West
Potomac Park, according to the National Park Service Maps.
The Commemorative Works Act was trying to resolve the
problem, in the 1980s when this act was enacted, of the
numerous memorial proposals. At that time the Vietnam Memorial
was proposed, and it was placed on the National Mall. And then
the Korean Memorial was proposed in an opposite location on the
south side of the Mall.
The Congress decided that it was necessary to establish
criteria for where memorials might be placed in the future. It
designated two different areas, Area 1, which is the central
part of the Mall, the green panels between the trees and the
areas to Pennsylvania and Maryland avenues, and Area 2, which
is the broader area encompassing most of what you see on the
graphics that are before you.
The Act was intended to preserve the historic nature of the
L'Enfant Plan of 1791 and the McMillan Plan of 1901, which
actually placed museum buildings along the Mall whereas the
L'Enfant Plan did not. The L'Enfant Plan places Foreign
Missions, foreign government facilities, chanceries or
embassies along the Mall, which never materialized.
The Chairman. Can I ask you something on that aspect? The
previous panel, I don't know if you were here, panel 1, one of
the Members testifying had stated that this was consistent with
the McMillan Plan. Are you saying it is not?
Mr. Oberlander. Well, we are saying in our testimony that
we don't believe it is. The interpretation of what is
officially the McMillan Plan is really in the jurisdiction of
the Commission of Fine Arts. That Commission should be asked to
make the official determination. However, looking at the
McMillan drawings, it did not have a museum building located on
the preferred site. It may have had a similar type of
Government (legislative) type of building that was shown on the
south side of the Mall, but it did not indicate a museum
function not a building that would be three or four or five
stories in height.
Mr. Chairman. Putting the debate aside whether it does
support or goes against the McMillan Plan for a second, the
Commission had looked at five sites, and the bill has four now
as it is in the Senate.
Any thoughts about whether there should be the five that
the Commission originally had talked about? And, again, I don't
know what site would be picked. I have no idea. Any thoughts
about that? The Commission had five evaluated. Now there is
four in the bill as it arrives?
Mr. Oberlander. Well, the testimony that Mr. Cassell gave
while you were out of the room indicated that we would prefer
all five be included in the bill, and in addition the--one is
the Banneker site, which is not in the bill at the moment,
which is at the southern end of the 10th Street overlook, near
the channel and the Potomac River, which would be a possibility
of mooring a slave ship in conjunction with the museum's
function as part of exhibiting that history.
The other site that the testimony addresses is the last
page of this document, a new site that has come about as a
result of a study that the Federal Highway Administration and
the Kennedy Center is undertaking. If you can find that graphic
in our testimony, it shows a site which would be opened up as a
result of eliminating the on-ramp which now goes onto Memorial
Bridge, from Constitution Avenue eliminating that on-ramp and
creating a sizable open area which has no buildings on it now.
We believe this might be a good location, and should be
examined by the Smithsonian and the sponsors of the museum as
another possibility.
This is not technically on the Mall. But it is within a
stone's throw of the Lincoln Memorial.
Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
Connecticut.
Mr. Larson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Did youwant
to say something, Mr. Cassell?
Mr. Cassell. I wanted to say something about security. May
I? As an architect, I want to point to the fact that the
government now is building security installations around the
Monument, the Capitol, a variety--the Lincoln Memorial and so
forth. These buildings are already in place.
And it is assumed that the security that is provided around
these existing buildings should be effective. For a new
building, if it is possible to protect existing buildings, and
for a new building, a part of the design requirements are that
it must be so designed that it can be protected, that it can be
secure. And then we have an opportunity to evaluate what the
architect comes up with.
But I don't think that we can--since we are not looking at
an existing building now, we can determine whether it is secure
or not. I think Mrs. Norton has made the point very well about
the fact that at this particular point, you know, there is no
presumed security issue regarding the Capitol site, which we
would not support simply because it is on the Mall.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Larson. Thank you, sir. That was enlightening. Mr.
Wright, do you want to respond?
Mr. Wright. Is it possible we can respond to the
gentleman's comment on the McMillan Plan?
Mr. Larson. Happy to yield.
Mr. Wright. Thank you. I would like Robert Wilkins, who
headed our site subcommittee to respond to that, please.
Robert.
The Chairman. Please state your name and title for the
record.
Mr. Wilkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Robert
Wilkins. I was a member of the Presidential Commission and had
the honor of chairing the site committee of that Commission.
I prepared a written testimony which I submitted to your
staff before the hearing and which you should have before you,
and attached to that testimony are some slides to illustrate
some of the points in the testimony and the rationale for the
Commission's decision.
The Chairman. Without objection that will be entered into
the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029.029
Mr. Wilkins. With respect to the McMillan Plan, the
McMillan Plan of 1901 specified very clearly that it would be
appropriate to place a monumental building on this site. I have
read the text of the McMillan Plan, and I am not familiar with
what has been referred to the proposed use of this being for a
Federal Congressional enclave.
But be that as it may, I think the issue here is, is a
building appropriate on the site? Whether it is a Congressional
office building or this museum, the issue is, is a building
appropriate for this site? And I think this answer per the
McMillan Plan is clearly yes. If you look at every depiction of
the McMillan Plan, you see that.
Furthermore, there was a reference to the Commission of
Fine Arts as the appropriate interpreter of the McMillan Plan.
In 1927, the Commission of Fine Arts hired an architect by the
name of John Parsons to do a study of that area, and Mr.
Parsons' study recommended that a building be placed on that
very site, and he also recommended that the Botanic Gardens be
moved from the center of the Mall, which is where it was
located at that time to its present location.
So the designer of the Botanic Gardens building intended
and drew a plan that said that there should be a sister
building on this site that we are talking about. That was
endorsed by the Commission of Fine Arts. And Congress, in an
act that was passed on March the 4th of 1929, approved that
plan.
So Congress has already approved a plan by the Commission
of Fine Arts that called for a building to be constructed on
this site. So I think that should put to rest any issue of
whether this is in line with the vision of the McMillan Plan.
And all of that is explained further in my testimony. I would
be happy to speak with you further about that.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson. Thank you very much. And I thank all of the
panelists for their very insightful comments and would join in
commending the Commission for an outstanding report, would
recognize, as I believe others have, that while it may differ
in some respects from Mr. Lewis' and Mr. Kingston's bill, the
impact and the intent are definitely collectively the same. And
again I wanted to commend you for that.
I have questions for the panelists. I would like to start
with Mr. Wright. And this is coupling on the backs of an
earlier conversation that was raised by Mr. Kingston and Mr.
Mica. The Commission's final report was predicated on a 75/25
public-private funding ratio, 75 percent appropriated funds and
25 percent private contributions. The fund-raising report
provided a positive analysis about the prospects of success for
raising the 25 percent. However, the Lewis-Kingston bill
contains a 50/50 public-private breakdown of funds. Do you
think the larger amount is achievable?
Mr. Wright. Well, as I state in my testimony, $180 million
certainly presents a challenge. But also I feel that the
potential, as I stated, for raising money for this particular
purpose certainly is there.
I think the first step obviously has to be when Congress,
in your wisdom, should you enact the legislation, identifying a
site, I think then the ability to raise money is greatly
enhanced.
There are many corporations, private citizens through our
surveys and through the fund-raising surveys who have indicated
a willingness to contribute. And I guess the bottom line answer
to your question is, although $180 million in the legislation
is a challenge, I certainly think it is achievable.
Mr. Larson. The Commission report recommended separate
access by the new museum's council to major donors. But under
the Smithsonian practice, the regents decide how to allocate
fund-raising priorities and donor access, and this bill does
not change that. Can the museum fund-raise successfully within
this structure?
Ms. Brown. My own history is that I have worked for the
Smithsonian for 5 years as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Museums, and I recognize all of the burdens that Secretary
Small has mentioned and his responsibility to the entire
institution.
But I am also aware that when a new museum is raising
moneys, that they are in the position to bring aboard
individuals or a capital campaign group that will help them in
that fund-raising initiative. The fund-raising group that we
used as our consultants for this work included Alice green
Burnette, who was head of institutional advancement at the
Smithsonian and worked on the Museum of the American Indian,
and Dick Taft, who worked both on the Museum of the American
Indian and the Holocaust Museum.
And we believe that with that team in place, a team that is
knowledgeable about Smithsonian practices and a team that also
has had experience raising money for two national museums, that
we would be able to reach our goals and be true to the
guidelines and parameters of the Smithsonian.
Mr. Larson. I guess I should ask Secretary Small if he
believes that the new council that will be established and
their access to donors and the regents and the current
Smithsonian policy would be compatible in this process? Again,
everybody wants to make sure that we have the optimal
opportunity to achieve and reach the anticipated $360 million
goal.
Mr. Small. I don't think there is any incompatibility with
the processes of the Smithsonian. I think the biggest issue
involving fund-raising is that there be absolutely no question
about the Federal Government's commitment to itspart of the
project, both from the standpoint of the capital funds to build the
museum and the commitment to provide operating funds later on.
That is really very important. If you do not have the
commitments of the government to do its share of the project in
whatever form the legislation calls for, right up front, the
ability to get private sector donors to come in, if there is
any doubt about what the government is going to do, becomes
very limited.
Another thing that would be very helpful in this
legislation is to make it like the legislation that was passed
for the National Museum of the American Indian, which permits
the use of Federal funds within the National Museum of the
American Indian to do fund-raising, because without having the
ability to start this and have money so that you can actually
raise funds from the private sector, you have to ask private
sector donors to give money to form a fund-raising department.
There are very few private sector donors who want to do that.
So that would be one change in the legislation that I think is
very, very important.
Mr. Larson. Well, to follow up on that. I thank Mr. Wright
for your comments. To follow up on that, Secretary Small, there
has been a long-standing controversy surrounding the
Smithsonian's policy over how far to go in allowing the use of
corporate names or private donors' names in buildings, exhibits
and other aspects of the Smithsonian activity.
What is the current Smithsonian policy on this, and would
the new museum be treated in the same way as others in this
regard?
Mr. Small. The Smithsonian's policies have been in place
for quite a long time now, policies passed by our Board of
Regents, in which they have a tremendous involvement, not only
from a policy standpoint, but also from an operational
standpoint, and there are very, very clear guildelines as to
how you recognize donors.
Of course, in many ways donor recognition goes right back
to the beginning of the Smithsonian, since it is in fact named
for its first donor, James Smithson, as are museums such as the
Hirshhorn Museum or the Sackler Gallery. So I think there is a
long history of donor recognition, not only in the Smithsonian,
but throughout the United States in hospitals, universities,
libraries and such. And I think the policies have served the
Smithsonian well.
I believe this museum would be treated in precisely the
same way that we treat our other museums, including the more
recent national museum, the National Museum of the American
Indian, which adheres to the exact same policies.
Mr. Larson. Thank you. Mr. Cassell, obviously in your
testimony you would have preferred to see sites included that
aren't in the final recommendation, and is it my understanding
there were two additional sites, the Banneker site and the----
Mr. Cassell. Your Exhibit 2 will show a second site which
is near the Kennedy Center.
Mr. Larson. Right.
Mr. Cassell. Off the Mall and near the Rock Creek Park
driveway. And if you have a look at that, you can see that it
is--there are about six acres there. It would be a very
prominent site. It would overlook the Mall. It would attract
much attention simply because it is near the Kennedy Center and
presumably it would be eloquent architecture.
Mr. Larson. Is that the Banneker site?
Mr. Cassell. No, no, no. That is--in fact, we just found
that site. Do we have a name for the site?
Mr. Oberlander. No, no yet.
Mr. Cassell. The Banneker site is if you are driving along
Independence Avenue, you turn right and left and go down 10th
Street. At the end of 10th Street is an overlook that looks
over Maine Ave. and Water Street and into the river, and that
is called the Benjamin Banneker site. It is isolated, but yet a
structure on that site would be very, very prominent.
In fact, I think that it would draw attention from the Mall
to people who are interested not only in the meaning ofthe
memorial building, but its impressiveness. If buildings are to be built
on the Mall then they are going to have to conform to the existing
Federal Architecture. I mean, you can't have something that is very,
very different adjacent to the United States Capitol.
But at the overlook site, you can do something like the--
well, I don't know what to point to, but you know that the
Kennedy Center is not similar to any other buildings in this
city. So that if there were to be something built on either of
those sites, the one that is near the Kennedy Center, we just
discovered that, and the 10th Street overlook, then those
buildings would be or could be very attractive. And in your
requirements for that, you could build in the requirements for
such security as we thought were necessary.
Mr. Larson. And in the view of the Commission, was the site
near the Kennedy Center viable?
Ms. Brown. That site was never under consideration.
Mr. Oberlander. May I add, the reason it wasn't under
consideration probably is it has a bridge access ramp on it
right now from Constitution Avenue to the Roosevelt Bridge.
That ramp is proposed by the Federal Highway Administration, in
the redoing of all of the highway network in front of the
Kennedy Center, to be eliminated. Thereby that site would
become, when the construction takes place, would become
available.
Mr. Wright. Congressman, our task, as specified in the
legislation, was to identify a site on or near. I think that is
basically what the legislation said. And we tried to sort of
stay within these guidelines, stay within that framework. That
is probably why we didn't look beyond the statement on or near.
Mr. Larson. Well, just if I might follow up, Mr. Chairman.
Just in--can I take it that all of the panelists are in
agreement with regard that security issues can be addressed,
whether in the establishment of a new building, and making sure
that the architecture reflects that so you are building in that
security or safeguarding?
My question would be to Mr. Small again. Given the site on
the Capitol and the overlap that perhaps would exist between
the Capitol Police and Smithsonian, how do you envision that
being worked out?
Mr. Small. Congressman Larson, I think you touched on a
very important issue for the Smithsonian. Right now, of the
four sites that are in the legislation, one of the sites is
already within the Smithsonian, the Arts and Industries
Building. Two other sites are set in the legislation so that if
the Board of Regents were to choose either the monument site,
which is west of the American History Museum, right near the
Washington Monument, or if it were to choose the Liberty Loan
site, those two, because they are under the jurisdiction of the
General Services Administration and the National Park Service,
the administrative jurisdiction over those would automatically
switch to the Smithsonian.
The legislation doesn't mention that in regard to the
Capitol site. So as these discussions wind their way through
Congress on which site and what should be included in this,
what is very important for us is that it be very clear that
when the site is chosen that we get the administrative
jurisdiction for it right away so we don't have all sorts of
conflicting debates because that will dampen the ability to
raise money from the private sector in a huge way.
If people think there is a hassle as to which building it
is going to be, which site it is going to be, who is going to
have jurisdiction over it, it will create enormous confusion
and make the museum very difficult to get off the ground.
Mr. Larson. I thank the panelists for their comments.
Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cassell, you mentioned in your testimony that the
procedure that is outlined, I believe, in the proposed
legislation violates some of the existing laws and/or
procedures for approval of a site on the Mall. Is that correct?
Mr. Cassell. Yes. The Commemorative Works Act, which Mr.
Oberlander has referred to--would you want to speak to that?
Mr. Oberlander. Well, there are, besides the Commemorative
Works Act.
Mr. Mica. We also have the Commission on Fine Arts and the
National Capital Planning Commission. And would this
legislation supersede all of those processes?
Mr. Oberlander. Well, the legislation mentions only
consultation with the chairman of each of those two
commissions.
Mr. Mica. So that wouldn't go through the normal approval
process for siting?
Mr. Oberlander. That is correct, Senator--sir.
Mr. Mica. I love that. Go ahead.
Mr. Oberlander. But the National Capital Planning Act of
1952----
Mr. Mica. So what it is doing is having Congress mandate
another structure or monument?
Mr. Oberlander. Right. In our opinion that would be the
case, yes.
Mr. Mica. And your group definitely testified that we
should concur with the different processes to see that it does
fit, conform, and is sited according to the laws and other
requirements and procedures that we require for building?
Mr. Cassell. I think we are required to do that, are we
not?
Mr. Mica. Well, you haven't been around here long enough.
We pass the laws and we can do anything we want.
Mr. Cassell. Oh, yes. There was the World War II Memorial.
That is right.
Mr. Mica. Exactly. And now did the Native American Indian
project go through all of these hoops? It did?
Mr. Oberlander. Yes, sir, it did.
Mr. Mica. That gives me great fright too, because I am not
sure about that one.
Mr. Oberlander. That was the only formally designated site
on the National Mall that asked for another museum building to
compliment the building of the addition to the National Gallery
on the north side.
Mr. Mica. It went through all of the processes?
Mr. Small. I believe it did so voluntarily, though,
Congressman. I don't know that it is required for those
buildings.
Mr. Mica. Okay.
Mr. Wright. Mr. Mica, can we respond to that?
Mr. Mica. Go right ahead. Yes.
Mr. Wilkins. Thank you, Mr. Mica. I wanted to again, as
chair of the site committee for the Commission we studied these
issues very carefully, the legal issues involved, and as a
lawyer, I am very sensitive to those issues. But we should be
clear about a couple of things, because I think that there is
some clarification needed here. The Commemorative Works Act
does not apply to museums, it applies to monuments and
memorials, and so there is nothing about this legislation that
would violate the Commemorative Works Act, because the
Commemorative Works Act doesn't apply to museums.
Mr. Mica. What about the National Capital Planning
Commission procedures?
Mr. Wilkins. There is no set procedures or laws that I am
aware of that govern the siting of museums. Congress has done
it any number of ways over the years. For the Hirshhorn Museum,
for the Air and Space Museum, for the Museum of the American
Indian, Congress designated the specific site where those
museums would be located.
There was no procedure where you went through the National
Capitol Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts or
anyone else. For the Holocaust Museum, Congress specified that
the site would be designated by the Secretary of the Interior
in consultation with the National Capitol Planning Commission.
Mr. Mica. I think that is one of the points that I tried to
raise here today, is what is our policy and procedure, andthis
does set a precedent. Now, the Native American is an exception. Of
course the Native Americans were here before African Americans or all
of the rest of us who came, and maybe that is a legitimate exception,
but we are carving out for one particular group. Everything else that I
know of relates to all Americans. The Smithsonian activities along the
Mall are all Americans. I don't consider the Holocaust on the Mall
itself. It is close by.
But that is, again, and I think that is a Federal policy
question and procedures that we need to adopt, because if we do
this for this particular museum and it ends up on the Mall, we
have set a precedent for the future, whether it is a monument
or a building.
Mr. Wilkins. I guess my point is that precedent exists,
because Congress designated again for the Air and Space
Museum----
Mr. Mica. That was for every--it doesn't pick out any one
group, not American natural history--all of the activities
along the Mall relate to all Americans. The only exception to
that is Native Americans, and they certainly have a unique
place as far as being the possessors of this land before any of
us got here.
And again I want to set out in fairness that we treat
everyone equal in this process. But the ultimate goal should be
that at the end of what we establish as policy, that we don't
end up with a Mall that is a helter-skelter of buildings and
monuments and whatever you have, that Congress by committee
creates a disaster for generations. We have gotten this far,
200 years, we have done some damage. I am hoping that we can do
good in the future in an orderly fashion. And again, no offense
to anybody.
Finally, Mr. Small, you said you have more than a billion
dollar backlog and all of that. Congress can still authorize
these projects. The Native American Indian Museum has
operational costs which are estimated at what annually?
Mr. Small. When it is up and running, in the $30 million
plus range per year.
Mr. Mica. Okay, And probably this museum, which is based on
similar square foot exhibition space and activity space would
be somewhat similar?
Mr. Small. On the assumption that the plans and the
collections and all of the other needs came out to be similar,
yes.
Mr. Mica. So Congress will have to appropriate not only
capital money, but also operational money. And for the record,
you would estimate it would be in the what range?
Mr. Small. $35 to $40 million range. And the answer is
unquestionably yes.
Mr. Mica. Just for the record. Thank you.
Mr. Cassell. May I say something?
Mr. Mica. If you wanted to respond to something.
Mr. Cassell. Yes, regarding fairness. You mentioned that
there are many ethnic groups in this country, and if they all
wanted representation on a particular location, we would have a
helter-skelter. There is something very special about Native
Americans and something very special about African Americans.
I think Congressman Lewis mentioned the fact of healing.
That healing means that something has happened that we would
like to compensate for, and that only applies to the Native
Americans and to African Americans. It was a long time before
this came about. As has been mentioned, 100 years ago is the
first time this was mentioned.
It wasn't something special for a special ethnic group, it
was to recognize the existence, the participation in developing
this Nation, the struggles that they have gone through.
Mr. Mica. I appreciate that. I don't want to interrupt you,
and I agree with all of that. I would even agree that taking
that existing structure that is there and renovating it that is
on the Mall, I have no problem with that. I have cited that one
of the finest buildings I have seen, which I got a study done a
couple of years ago, the FTC building, which is waiting for an
occupant, is one of the most prominent locations.
But we are talking about constructing another building and
setting Federal policy for the future. And in fairness for all
Americans, and maybe we want to divide it up now, and, you
know, I want my Italian American part on--I don't deserve as
much as the African Americans, and then the Slovak, we could do
a little sliver along the site. And I have got--my wife has
some Irish and English. And certainly all of the other groups
that would want representation, Japanese Americans, et cetera.
But again, you see where we are setting policy and precedent.
And I just want it done right and fairly. And certainly the
African Americans should have as prominent a location as anyone
who is recognized and we create this structure for and
structures for others.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. I want to thank all of the
witnesses for your testimony. And with that we will move on to
the third and last panel. I want to welcome our third and final
panel to the table.
Joining us is Jeff Trandahl, Clerk of the House of
Representatives, Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, Robert
Howe, Assistant Chief of the United States Capitol Police. In
addition Robert Greeley, Director of the Security and Services
Bureau of the United States Capitol Police is also here today
and is able to answer questions.
I want to thank all of the individuals that have come here
today. And again we are starting with the Clerk of the House,
Mr. Trandahl.
STATEMENTS OF JEFF TRANDAHL, CLERK, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES;
ALAN HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL; ROBERT HOWE, ASSISTANT
CHIEF, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT GREELEY,
DIRECTOR, SECURITY SERVICES BUREAU, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE
STATEMENT OF JEFF TRANDAHL
Mr. Trandahl. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Larson and members of the
committee, I appreciate having the opportunity to appear today
to provide observations relative to H.R. 2005, a bill to
establish within the Smithsonian Institution, the National
Museum of African American History and Culture.
I have been asked to comment on the precedents for using
Capitol properties for such endeavors per my position on the
House Commission on Fine Arts.
As the committee is aware, four sites and also the Arts and
Industries Building in the Smithsonian Institution have been
evaluated for construction of a 350,000 gross square foot
facility. The report outlined a strong preference that a new
museum be located on the National Mall. Two particular sites
were identified--the Capitol site and the Monument site.
For reference, the new facility, as planned, would be
approximately the size of the American Indian Museum that is
currently under construction on Independence Avenue Southwest.
The Capitol site is located along the north side of the
reflecting pool. The Monument site is located on the National
Mall near the American History Museum and the Washington
Monument.
Regarding the Capitol site location: in reviewing the
history of the construction of buildings and monuments on the
Capitol grounds, I have not been able to identify a comparable
situation when Congress has been asked to either transfer or
hold properties that would allow for the construction of a non-
congressional building or buildings.
However, examples of smaller land transfers between the
Architect of the Capitol and Federal agencies have occurred to
allow for the construction of monuments and for other purposes.
These examples are smaller in scope and are not in areas of
high prominence like the Capitol site identified in this
report. A current example of such an exchange of property
occurred between the Architect of the Capitol and the National
Park Service under Public Law 104-333 to allow for the
construction of the Japanese American Patriotism Memorial on
new Jersey Avenue Northwest.
Clearly, actions to release this parcel, due to its sizeand
prominence, or to allow for the construction of any non-Congressional
building on Congressional grounds would be precedent setting. If
allowed, it could open Congress to other similar requests and other
parts of the Capitol grounds could become vulnerable.
Thus, it is my belief that the ability of Congress to
determine or to meet its future needs on the existing Capitol
grounds could be threatened and/or limited. In addition, it is
important to note that this parcel has already been designated
under Public Law 107-68 as a site for the Congressional Award
Youth Park.
The Commission's report has evaluated this concern and has
recommended ways to meet both objectives. Further study would
be advisable prior to reaching that conclusion. Clearly the
construction of any building brings controversy and criticism.
I am confident that, under the stewardship of this committee
and the sponsors of the legislation this museum will finally
become a reality.
The question of the day remains to be where to locate it. I
am not here to advocate for any location, but I have to ask the
Members to pause, prior to allowing any non-Congressional
building to be constructed on existing Capitol grounds.
Significant changes have occurred throughout the Capitol
complex these last several years, and I believe any loss of
area or loss of control of area could be detrimental to those
efforts.
I appreciate you allowing me the opportunity to appear.
[The statement of Mr. Trandahl follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.020
The Chairman. Thank you. And now we will move on to the
Architect of the Capitol.
STATEMENT OF ALAN HANTMAN
Mr. Hantman. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Larson, committee members. As Architect of the
Capitol, I am often called upon to provide technical assistance
and recommendations with regard to proposed projects in and
around the Capitol complex.
In order to have meaning, such recommendations need to be
based on a foundation of information that has been developed
and evaluated in the context of the current and projected needs
of the Congress.
In this context, issues associated with potential
development and changes throughout the Capitol complex, such as
the requested use of Square 575 for the National Museum of
African American History and Culture, continue to be raised
with no clear guidelines to inform the Congress' decision-
making process by reflecting the comprehensive and integrated
evaluation of all issues.
Therefore, there is an urgent need to address relevant
issues with respect to the entire Capitol complex. Congress
recognized this in fiscal year 2002. And in response to its
request for a long-term plan, my office is currently proceeding
with the development of a new Capitol complex master plan.
Following is a brief discussion of this process and the
issues that need to be addressed for all parts of the Capitol
grounds. As the first step in the process, the National Academy
of Sciences was retained to conduct a workshop in September of
2002 by constituting a panel of experts in planning,
engineering, architecture, landscape architecture,
transportation, historic preservation and related disciplines.
Based on the NAS report, funding in the amount of $4.2
million has been requested in the 2004 budget. Our budget
language regarding this states: This project provides funding
to plan and execute a Capitol complex master plan. The existing
master plan is 22 years old and does not address facility
requirements brought about by the Congressional Accountability
Act, nor does it relate to the present security environment.
There is insufficient global input to fully address all
necessary decision factors. Therefore, a new master plan for
the Capitol complex needs to be developed.
Now, the nature of this master plan process, which would
include the entire Capitol complex as well as Square 575, will
look at the following as defined by the Academy ofSciences: The
process should be inclusive and participatory in that stakeholders must
have input to facility requirements. The historic context must be
respected and enhanced. The recommendations should be vetted with an
expert advisory panel before a recommended plan is finalized.
The plan should be comprehensive and state of the art,
utilizing advanced technologies and data bases to support
decision-making. This includes safety and fire compliance,
planning for physical security needs, the preservation of
historic facilities, and planning for complex-wide utilities
distribution systems.
The plan should be based on a consensus driven vision for
the entire complex, the District, and the region, especially
focusing on urban design, including integration with
surrounding areas and District plans; land use, including
development concepts, landscape and open spaces, and
circulation and transportation systems integrated with local
and regional systems.
In anticipation of receiving the master plan funding in
2004, work continues on developing the scope of work, with a
request for proposals expected to be issued in October of this
year upon receipt of funding.
Going forward, when any potential use or physical
development is considered anywhere within the Capitol complex,
it is expected that the master plan will facilitate an
objective evaluation of possible sites, including Square 575,
and how they could be used and appropriately developed.
Square 575 specifically is a unique site that cannot be
considered in isolation. It is a transition site between
Capitol Hill and the Nation's Mall and needs to be studied in
that context.
We stand ready to serve the needs of the Congress in
whatever capacity it believes appropriate and answer any
questions you might have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Hantman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.022
The Chairman. Thank you. And Assistant Chief Howe.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT HOWE
Mr. Howe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If it serves your needs,
I will abbreviate my opening remarks and submit the balance of
my statement for the record.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear to testify before
the committee on the potential impact of the museum on the U.S.
Capitol Police.
The proposed museum will be a multi-story 350,000 square
foot structure, and will be of similar stature as the National
Museum of the American Indian currently under construction. The
museum will have operations that will require logistical
support for a protected staff of 300 persons, large collection
areas, dining and a museum store, and I believe testimony today
was approximately 2 million visitors a year.
While there are a number of security-related issues
attendant to this project, they should not be viewed as an
impediment to any decision regarding the proposed site.
As addressed in my written testimony, the proposed museum,
like any large facility, will have an impact on the operations
of the Capitol Police. Given appropriate resources, we can
properly protect both the Capitol and the new museum, while
minimizing any impact.
Mr. Chairman, I will submit the balance of my written
testimony for the record. I thank you for your time, and we
will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The statement of Mr. Howe follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 89029A.024
The Chairman. Thank you. As I understand, Mr. Greeley is
available for questions.
Mr. Howe. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I will be brief, because I think we are going
to have a series of votes.
For the Clerk of the House, you mentioned the proposed
Capitol site has already been designated as a Congressional
Award Youth Park. What type of park would that be, and where
are we at in terms of establishing or making that happen?
Mr. Trandahl. In the 107th Congress, Congress acted to
create an award park on that parcel. It is currently still in
the design phase at the Architect of the Capitol's level. The
exact design and scope of the project is really yet to be
determined. However, it did identify the purpose of the
memorial and the location of the memorial.
The Chairman. Thank you. And for our Assistant Chief, do
you have any idea how many additional resources you would need
to secure the complex if the museum was built on the Capitol
site? And would you envision policing the interior of the
museum, or exterior, or both? And if it were just exterior,
would you have concerns about that?
Mr. Howe. Mr. Chairman, it is a bit too early for us to
tell precise numbers as to what it would take to police the
site. I think our vision would be that the Smithsonian police
would provide the security for the interior of the building. We
would patrol the exterior of the building. I don't have any
concerns about that. We have a number of other similar
operations going on throughout the grounds, the Supreme Court,
the Library of Congress, the Thurgood Marshall Building, Union
Station, where we work with public and private entities, and
work very well and provide very good security in all of these
contexts.
The Chairman. This question would be, I would think, for
the Architect or for the Capitol Police. Understanding there
will be a need for parking or bus drop-off for tourists and
there will be a need for delivery trucks to make stops at the
museum, how will that work with the typical screening process
if we apply what we do screening-wise on Capitol grounds to
that building?
Mr. Howe. What we have discussed preliminarily is adding
this building to our delivery screening process and process
their deliveries through our screening center before they
arrive on site.
Parking and traffic around the structure are going to be
major concerns. The Senate has Pennsylvania Avenue pretty well
parked full, and they will have to make arrangements on that
street. Constitution Avenue, as you know, has no parking. So
that is one of the issues that will have to be addressed. But
it is addressable.
The Chairman. Would you need additional personnel to do it?
Mr. Howe. There would be a requirement for added patrols
around the building to handle the parking and traffic issues,
things of that nature.
The Chairman. And if a Capitol complex wide evacuation was
ordered, would we be able to accommodate and secure the
visitors and the staff of the museum?
Mr. Howe. We would have to incorporate them into our
overall plan.
The Chairman. Last series of questions I have would be for
our Architect of the Capitol. From the perspective of your
office, what are the top issues that we are looking at with the
creation of a museum on the Capitol grounds? Of course it would
make it convenient; you could go from the Visitors Center over
to the other one. I want to commend you publicly for your
diligence on that.
Mr. Hantman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my testimony I
basically indicated that we really need to be able to give the
Congress a matrix for them to be able to make informed
decisions from, and I think Congressman Mica was going in that
direction. How does Congress make decisions based on properties
along the Mall, other museums.
I think we need that same type of flexibility to have a
real basis of information that the Congress can look at,
evaluate, and we can make recommendations based on that sothat
informed decisions can be made by the Congress.
There was a master plan done back in 1981. That master plan
talked about the uses of land in the Capitol complex. And for
Site 575, it showed that it was in the landscaping area, to be
an open formal landscape plan. I think the gentleman from the
Society to Save the mall also talked about the National Capital
Planning Commission legacy Plan of 2000, which did not show any
activity on that location.
And of course there is another plan; the National Capital
Planning Commission has the Memorials and Museums Master Plan
in December of 2001, which has not been formally adopted by the
Congress, but it does show that there is a reserve for not
using museums or memorials within that reserve, and they do say
that on the grounds of the Capitol the Commemorative Zone Map
recognizes the Capitol grounds are inappropriate locations for
the construction of monuments or memorials.
What we need to do, I think, is really talk to all of the
agencies in our surrounding community. We need to talk to the
National Capital Planning Commission, we need to talk to the
Park Service. We need to talk with the Fine Arts Commission,
with the D.C. Government, and talk about transportation issues,
other areas and elements that impact all of Capitol Hill,
including Site 575.
So it really comes down to a master plan, examining all of
the issues, bringing on some of the experts that would look at
the future growth of the Capitol, analyze the current needs and
how it would impact that.
The Chairman. I am going to make this brief, and I will put
the rest in the record of questions I have, because I think
there will be a vote. What about our infrastructure? You know,
very briefly, would our current infrastructure have to be
enhanced, the running of power, as we are dealing with the
Visitors Center, chilled water, et cetera? Would that come from
the Capitol complex or would that be separate?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, I don't know the loads and the
requirements of a facility of 350,000 square feet. I would have
to check also in terms of where our utility lines currently run
relative to that specific site. But as you know, we are
modernizing our chilled water area. We are upgrading a lot of
our utility tunnels.
And also I understand that the Smithsonian is taking a look
at upgrading their utilities as well and looking at a
centralized plant to serve all of their museums. We would have
to get together and take a look at what was the most
appropriate way to serve a structure like this.
The Chairman. So is our current infrastructure as it sits,
if we had to supply it, is it adequate?
Mr. Hantman. I wouldn't think so, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson. Well, thank you very much. Thank you all very
much for your testimony. Along those lines, first from the
standpoint, obviously the legislation is silent on the
selection of a site. Now, we have heard testimony today, I
guess it would--I would have preferred to have seen all sites
included. But there is nothing within this legislation or
nothing that I have heard before the committee today that
should prevent this legislation from moving forward in terms of
site selection.
It is, however, my understanding that if any other site
other than the Capitol site is chosen, the Smithsonian moves
specifically in that area. Am I correct in assuming that if the
Capitol site were chosen, that it would require additional
legislation to address the concerns that the Architect and the
Clerk raised?
Mr. Hantman. My understanding, sir, is that the property
would most likely be transferred to the Smithsonian, and that
would take certain legislation to accomplish that.
Mr. Larson. Well, with respect to a number of the issues
that you raised, specifically about the matrix for the Capitol,
would that also require legislation there?
Mr. Hantman. I am not sure about your question, Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson. You had indicated that, you know, dating back
to 1981, that there was a proposal for the Capitol grounds. The
Clerk enumerated about the youth playground, et cetera.
It was my concern as to whether or not, you know, that
violates a specific--that would require a statutory change.
That is my question.
Mr. Hantman. Well, the master plan for the U.S. Capitol was
never formally accepted by the Congress. If we are going
through a master planning process now, Mr. Larson, I would
assume that we would go through a process that would be vetted
well and that the Congress would accept it as guidelines for
them. But in terms of legislation, I think clearly there would
have to be legislation relative to the use of that site.
Mr. Trandahl. The only example that I can give you where we
did a similar release or transfer of land, is that Japanese
Patriotism Memorial that was built on New Jersey Avenue. It
took a specific act of Congress in order to allow for that land
transfer to happen. You are basically faced with two scenarios
if you choose the Capitol site. You are either going to retain
control of the property as part of the Capitol grounds and
build a noncongressional structure on it or you are faced with
releasing the grounds out of the Capitol grounds site and then
a noncongressional building would
be----
Mr. Larson. And that would require additional legislation?
Mr. Trandahl. Either way you are going to need legislation
in order to address the issue. Then there are secondary
questions regarding how you administer in either of those
situations, which are achievable; they are just commissioned.
Mr. Larson. I was glad to hear you say that. If that were
the course that goes down and if in the ultimate process,
though, these are achievable ends, if that site were selected,
depending upon what scenario you would choose, either keeping
it within the context of the Congress or ceding that spot over
to the Smithsonian?
Mr. Trandahl. Yes, you could do it either way. However, I
have to say, you have limited assets up here at the Capitol.
The points I was making are, one, you have already designated
that a memorial would be build there and, two, you have
something that can only be given away, in essence, once. I
think the Capitol and the Congress need to be careful and weigh
very heavily a decision to enter into any release of land
around the building. That is my only point to make.
Mr. Larson. But if the release was such and let's say for
instance that the decision was made to keep it within the
Capitol, under the control of the Capitol, then all security
issues with respect to the Capitol police would dissipate in
terms of having to deal with the Smithsonian and you might be
able to accommodate these concerns.
Mr. Howe. I think not necessarily, Mr. Larson. Look at the
current configuration of the Smithsonian on the Mall and the
Smithsonian provides the security for the interior buildings.
The Park Police actually police the exterior of the buildings
on the Mall and deal with the traffic problems and things of
that nature around the buildings. I would think it would be
very similar here under either scenario that you come up with,
whether you transfer the land to the Smithsonian or whether it
is retained as Capitol grounds.
Mr. Larson. I thank you for your testimony. Do you have any
other questions. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman. One thing I would like to ascertain as quick
as we can is a little bit more detail estimate from the Capitol
police, and you don't have to call the number, on a few things,
because I want to make sure. I am not saying this should be the
site. I want to make sure if it is we know fully what we are
getting into. How many anticipated officers we would need if
there is an evacuation of the complex, how do we do it, because
they are on Capitol property if it remains within the Capitol,
we basically lease it or, you know for free or however that
would work. As a result of that and if somebody come to the
Capitol or there is additional security concerns or somebody
comes and does some type of threat to the Capitol, do we then
put every single person through a screener there in the
proximity of that? Do buses come in? I think we just need to
know what we are getting into dollarwise because I wouldn't
want to get into it and now somebody comes back within X amount
of years here and says oh, by the way, we now need an
additional amount of people or security devices or we should
have put proper security in in the first place because it is on
the grounds of the Capitol which is a more imminent threat. I
think if we can work with you soon just to get some ideas so we
know what we are into. The final two questions I would have
very quickly is one for the architect, would youanticipate
there would be substantial modifications to the Capitol grounds in
order to facilitate the ability of buses and cars to be able to drop
off visitors at the proposed museum?
Mr. Hantman. I think, Mr. Chairman, what we really need to
do is in light of the Capitol Visitors Center as well as any
potential museums adjacent to the site is take a look at the
traffic flow throughout the area. We have met with the D.C.
government, the Department of Transportation, with the tour
guide folks, and they are all interested in trying to come up
with a universal solution that solves problems for everybody.
That needs to be worked out in great detail but clearly if we
are talking about another 2 million people coming on an annual
basis to be added to several million people at the Capitol
already, that becomes an issue that needs to be discussed with
all interested parties.
The Chairman. My last question, I think, Mr. Mica asked
this of the previous panel. One, if the African American Museum
would be 350,000 square feet in size, Botanical Gardens 47,000
square feet, any ideas of the perspective of the balance of the
two on property across from each other or any proposed layout
issues that are there?
Mr. Hantman. There were only two small sketches basically
in the proposed, the report that I have seen thus far and it
basically tries to put all of this space on the eastern side of
the site because there is a tunnel going under the site.
Potentially there could be gardens on top of the tunnel
portion. But this site also has a high water table, so there is
an issue of how much you can really put below ground and how
much would be then above ground. The Botanical Gardens
basically just has mechanical space at the new addition to the
rear on Independence Avenue that is below ground. All the rest
of it sits on the top.
The Chairman. I think also there are some other security
issues in relationship to the Botanical Gardens. The private
venue will share with the sponsors of this bill and the Capitol
Hill police that we also need to look at understanding some
sensitive security issues down the road. We will work with you
quickly, I should add, to do that.
If there are no further questions, I want to thank our
ranking member and the members of both sides of the aisle that
were here today. I also want to thank Congressman Larson and
his staff as well as again the other members' staff. I ask
unanimous consent that members and witnesses have 7 legislative
days to submit material into the record and for those
statements and materials to be entered in the appropriate place
in the record. Without objection, the material will be so
entered. I also ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized
to make technical and conforming changes on all matters
considered by the committee at today's hearing. Without
objection, so ordered.
Having completed our business, that will concluded the
hearing. We are adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]