Abbildungen der Seite

provided last year for a study required by the IRS Reform Act. Since this is a two-year study, will these funds be removed from your budget next year?

Mr. ARCHER. The problem is the Reform Act required that a separate study be done for each Congress, and it is a continuing legal requirement. Now, the Congress can decide, because it is subject to appropriated funds, you don't want it and not appropriate the money, and thereby deny the will of the Congress in the IRS Reform Act. What I would hope is that we would take a look at the effectiveness of these studies and reports, and although I won't be around in the next Congress, that the Congress will then decide again whether they want to appropriate the money to continue it or not. But in the meantime, it is, of course, the law and they are required to do it subject to appropriated funds.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Pastor, do you have any questions?


Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Lewis?

Mr. LEWIS. No, Mr. Chairman, except by way of suggesting to Chairman Archer how much I appreciate the work that he has done, not just through this responsibility, but his work in Ways and Means in general. When one is making plans to leave this place, you can say things that you might not say other times. Mr. ARCHER. I have noticed that.

Mr. LEWIS. One of the thoughts that occurs to me as I go through this whole series of studies, if there a way the staff can come up with a reasonable mechanism for charging the individual office or agency requesting the report from Joint Tax Committee? It might not only help with your budget, it might very well cut down that 55 percent that you were describing earlier. Just a thought. I wonder how many of these are from the Senate and how many from the House.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ARCHER. Just very quickly. Our tax code has so many unseen costs. The costs of compliance with this tax code, which is not just the IRS, is not just the Joint Committee, is not just what we see as the tip of the iceberg. The cost is estimated to be $250 billion. Most of that has to be carried by the private sector. It is atrocious that we continue to keep this kind of a code, but that is an issue for another day, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for letting me just express those sentiments.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Mr. Hoyer, questions?

Mr. HOYER. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. Ms. Granger.

Ms. GRANGER. No questions.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you. We appreciate your presentation. There











Mr. TAYLOR. The subcommittee will come to order. We will now take up fiscal year 2001 budget of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol. We have Mr. Alan Hantman who is the Architect of the Capitol and several members of his staff.

Before we get you to introduce your staff, let me give you a few figures about the budget that we will take up today. The estimates we will be considering is $185.5 million and 1,403-FTEs. There are six appropriation accounts in your budget request: Capitol buildings, $60 million; Capitol grounds, $6 million; House office buildings, $53.3 million; Capitol power plant, $40.9 million; Library buildings and grounds, $20.3 million; and Botanic Garden, $4.9 million. This does not include funds for the operations of Senate office buildings. The other body will consider their own needs for office space. That is estimated at about $67 million and 609 FTEs. Please go ahead and introduce your staff, sir.

Mr. HANTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To my far right, Michael Turnbull is the Assistant Architect of the Capitol. Sitting next to him is Amita Poole, our Superintendent of the Capitol Building, and Stuart Pregnall, who is our Budget Officer, among the staff seated behind me are Herbert Franklin, Administrative Assistant, Lynne Theiss, Executive Officer and Robert Miley, Superintendent of the House Office Buildings. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members, I am pleased to present to you the fiscal year 2001 budget for the Architect of the Capitol.

We have accomplished an awful lot in the last several years, but clearly there is an awful lot more to be done. This is one of the reasons that our budget is focused on four key areas, four priorities for this year. The first is continuing the process of creating an even safer environment here in our buildings for members, for staff, and for visitors. Second is to improve customer service, and the third is to enhance the preservation, utility and security of our buildings. Undergirding all of this, is to continue to build a strong, better trained staff that supports all of our efforts. I thank you for your leadership and support as we continue to build the physical and so

cial infrastructure so necessary to serve the Congress. And we look forward to answering whatever questions you may have, Mr. Chair



Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, sir. Let's start with the Visitors' Center. There is no money in this budget for the Visitors' Center, but a great deal has been accomplished, I think, since last year. We were all lamenting the complicated approval system at that time and processes that we all urge to be streamlined. I think you agreed with us and all of us at that time. We simplified the process with an amendment to the authorization bill. How is the new process working? I know we had to go through as many committees as there are ice cubes to get the process going.

Mr. HANTMAN. I think, Mr. Chairman, with your support and this committee's support, the issue of the Capitol Visitors' Center becoming the responsibility of the Preservation Commission is really a very positive move. We have really exceeded our expectations in terms of beginning to move this project along. As you know, Mr. Chairman, some $2.8 million was appropriated from the $100 million that was allocated in the emergency supplemental appropriation after the death of the two police officers.

We have gone through a planning and revalidation phase study taking a look at the 1995 plan and all of the aspects of that plan from the spaces to the security issues, to all of the issues that really impacted the validity of that plan, including the specific site that made the most sense for the Capitol Visitors' Center. We went through extensive studies with a series of fine consultants and presented that. As you know, Mr. Chairman, you were of course part of the process, as part of the Capitol Preservation Commission, as was Mr. Hoyer, and Mr. Pastor, you were also of course part of that process as well.

I was very pleased, Mr. Chairman, by the response of the Preservation Commission. We had a thorough report. We validated the site on the east front of the Capitol. We brought up several issues that had not been discussed or studied at all in the 1995 plan, issues that relate to life safety, for instance. We made a very strong point that even if the Visitors' Center were never funded, never went on, that we needed to improve the life safety for the visitors that entered our buildings. In fact, we had a $5 to $6 million line item that the Preservation Commission approved for a new elevator on the House side, a new stair enclosed and fire-rated. The same thing was approved on the Senate side in the expansion area on the east front of the Capitol, the non-historic area.

So that will be a very helpful issue for us with the Visitors' Center, and I have great faith that that project will move ahead.


Mr. TAYLOR. What about the design work, when do you expect that to be finished and ready for bid?

Mr. HANTMAN. We are currently entering a letter of intent with the consultants for this phase of the work, the design development and then the construction document phase. The Preservation Com

these phases of the work. This letter of intent is being entered into this week, in fact, and we will be proceeding to evaluate the full contract with these consultants. So we expect the design development phase apart from review periods will take 6 months, followed by approximately 11 months for the construction document phase. In between, of course, we will be meeting with the Preservation Commission staff and members to talk about issues that need resolution and input from the Congress on these points. So the amount of time that it will take to get reviews and approvals from the Commission again is something that I cannot control.


Mr. TAYLOR. Can you lay out the latest cost estimates and maybe an idea of the construction schedule?

Mr. HANTMAN. The cost estimate presented to the Preservation Commission was in the magnitude of $233 million for all hard and soft costs for construction. In addition, we had another $32 million, I believe it was, for security costs and allowance for exhibit costs which have not yet been designed in either case.

Mr. HOYER. How much was that?

Mr. HANTMAN. Some $32 million, I believe it was. A grand total of $265 million with these allowances included is what was presented to the Preservation Commission, Mr. Chairman.

[Question from Chairman Taylor and response follow:]

« ZurückWeiter »