WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1972.

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

WITNESSES

GEORGE M. WHITE, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

MARIO E. CAMPIOLI, ASSISTANT ARCHITECT

PHILIP L. ROOF, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

CHARLES A. HENLOCK, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

WILLIAM F. RAINES, JR., ASSISTANT TO THE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

ZEAKE W. JOHNSON, JR., SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JAMES M. POWELL, CHIEF, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE

ROBERT F. BURNETT, CHIEF, TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT, U.S. SECRET SERVICE

SECURITY APPARATUS FOR CAPITOL COMPLEX

Mr. CASEY. We have a request for $3 million for the installation of security apparatus for the protection of the Capitol complex. The authorization was presented on the floor of the House yesterday, and the conference report was accepted.

Both the Architect and the Chief of the Capitol Police are present. We will let Mr. White lead off to tell us about the proposal.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a prepared statement which I would like to submit for the record, and perhaps, if that is agreeable, I will just touch on the highlights of it.

(The statement follows:)

INSTALLATION OF SECURITY APPARATUS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CAPITOL

COMPLEX, $3 MILLION

This installation is authorized by House Concurrent Resolution 550, as amended and passed by the Senate August 11, 1972, and agreed to by the House September 19, 1972. As originally passed by the House March 16, 1972, this resolution authorized the installation to be paid from the contingent fund of the House. As finally agreed to by both the House and Senate, the resolution authorizes the installation to be paid from the "Capitol Buildings" appropriation. The resolution provides that the installation be made by the Architect of the Capitol under the direction of the Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, at a limit of cost of $3 million.

The $3 million estimate provides for a three-phase security program, as follows: 1. The installation of a series of strategically located closed circuit television cameras.

2. The installation of motion detection devices to be used primarily after the buildings are closed. This equipment would notify a central control booth if an intruder should be in the building.

3. The installation of X-ray equipment to inspect the contents of parcels, briefcases, and other such media. At the present time, such items of conveyance are being opened to the embarrassment and consternation of visitors and employees. X-ray machines will be installed at strategic locations which will permit the screening officer to examine the contents of parcels, briefcases, and other such media without opening the same.

House Concurrent Resolution 550 originated with the House Administration Committee, after a careful survey and study by that committee of security needs, culminating a year's effort on the part of that committee. The Capitol Police Board (consisting of the Sergeant at Arms of the House, the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, and the Architect of the Capitol), the Chief of the Capitol Police, the Secret Service, and other agencies, were consulted and conferred with by the committee in arriving at its recommendations.

When the resolution was discussed on the floor of the House and passed by the House in March 1972, Congressman Gray, as subcommittee chairman in charge of the bill, stated that the same equipment as proposed to be used for the Capitol Building complex is now being used at the White House, unnoticed and undetected by the millions who visit there each year; that the equipment proposed to be used has been recommended by the most prominent people engaged fully in this field, including the Secret Service, the Night Vision Laboratory of the Department of the Army, the FBI, and others with great expertise in this field. He further stated that after the March 1, 1971, bombing in the Senate side of the Capitol, there were 31 bomb threats in the month of April, an average of six to 10 a month in the ensuing year; also, that the Secret Service had advised that the $3 million program recommended in the bill is the minimum that should be done in the Capitol complex in the way of security installations.

Mr. Gray also stated that the General Services Administration, which has numerous buildings under their administration, testified before his subcommittee that in 1971 they lost $12 million in man-hours through the evacuation of buildings due to bomb threats and had spent an additional $10 million in that year to "beef up" their security force; that the proposed $3 million "one-shot" expenditure proposed for the Capitol complex compares favorably to the $22 million cost incurred by the GSA in 1 year, and is deemed an economical and urgently needed investment.

The proposed system for the Capitol complex is one designed to be unobtrusive yet one which will have the capability of surveying the corridors and passageways at all hours. The motion detection system would be designed to detect movement in areas normally not patrolled. Monitoring personnel of the Capitol Police would have the capability of tracking an intruder as he moves through buildings. If the motion device signals something important is going on in “quarters A," the camera can lock in on that, and, in addition to the instant replay, that can be used as evidence.

The proposed intrusion detection system is designed to detect entry into any of the various buildings via locked doors or windows, air shafts, or other remote or isolated means, where a television camera would not be feasible.

The proposed parcel inspection system utilizes low voltage, film safe X-rays which display a picture on a television screen of the contents under examination and relate to the operator any hazards associated therewith.

The proposed installation is strongly endorsed by the Architect of the Capitol, in submitting this request for funds.

For the record, the text of House Concurrent Resolution 550, as agreed to September 19, 1972, is cited, as follows:

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 550

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Architect of the Capitol, under the direction of the Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, is authorized and directed, without regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as amended (41 U.S.C. 5), to procure and install security apparatus for the protection of the U.S. Capitol, including the procurement and installation of a video surveillance system, an intrusion detection system, and a parcel inspection

system, in the Capitol Buildings, as such term is defined in section 16(a)(1) of the act of July 31, 1946, as amended (81 Stat. 277; 40 U.S.C. 193m (a) (1). The cost of the acquisition and installation of such security apparatus, not to exceed $3 million, shall be paid from funds hereafter provided to the Architect of the Capitol under the appropriation "Capitol Buildings," for that purpose.

The term "Capitol Buildings" is defined in section 16(a)(1) of the act of July 31, 1946, as amended, as follows:

"The term 'Capitol Buildings' means the U.S. Capitol, the Senate and House Office Buildings and garages, the Capitol Power Plant, all subways and enclosed passageways connecting two or more of such structures, and the real property underlying and enclosed by any such structure."

The proposed equipment will be installed only at selected vital points deemed feasible, practical, or required.

EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED SYSTEM

Mr. WHITE. The $3 million is requested to provide for three phases in the security program.

One phase is the installation of closed circuit television cameras at strategic locations.

The second is the installation of motion or intrusion detection devices which would be primarily for use at night, so that if there were movement in the building somewhere after hours where there should not be, in the basement, for example, that movement would be capable of being detected.

The third phase is for the installation of X-ray equipment for the inspection and examination of parcels, briefcases, and so on, without having to open them up. This equipment would not be installed at all entrances but only at strategic locations. Presumably, persons entering with packages at other places would not be numerous enough to require such a device, so that they could be inspected manually as is now done. If it should be found that there was more traffic than was anticipated, the people could either be directed to one of the other locations or another installation made.

USE OF X-RAY MACHINES

Mr. CASEY. What will this X-ray machine detect? Metal, or what? Mr. WHITE. I had better not try to answer that. We have a representative from the Secret Service here, Mr. Burnett, who I am sure can answer that for you, Mr. Chairman. He is technically more competent than I am in that particular area.

Mr. BURNETT. I had a feeling that question might come up because it is topical today.

Most of the bombs that are sent through the mail are triggered either by a timing mechanism or some switch designed to go off when the package is opened. The timing mechanism type bomb should be detected readily. The switch-activated type bomb eludes X-ray a little better than do other types.

If you have been reading the newspapers or listening to the radio. you will notice the Israeli Embassy in Britain is now having a similar problem. I hesitate to say it, but I doubt seriously that X-rays would find this type. It is disturbing; isn't it?

EFFECTIVENESS OF X-RAY EQUIPMENT

Mr. CASEY. Do you think what we are considering here today would be an adequate replacement of the manual examination of briefcases, attaché cases, et cetera ?

Mr. BURNETT. I think that X-ray will illuminate areas for further study. In other words many packages come through straight and clean, and you would not have to look at them again. Öthers would deserve physical inspection. The X-ray would, I believe, show up this type of examination.

In other words, you could probably cease some 70 or 80 or maybe 90 percent of your physical package searching.

Mr. CASEY. Questions?

Mr. EVANS. These will be devices, as I understand it, used by security people in the Capitol, and I suppose also in the House and Senate Office Buildings in general, into which people coming into these various buildings would put the container they are carrying, which then would be searched by X-ray?

Mr. BURNETT. Yes, sir. That is how it is envisioned.

Mr. EVANS. What you are trying to tell us is that this will catch any such explosive device that is detectable by X-ray, but it will not do the same thing for an explosive device that an X-ray will not show up. Is that right?

Mr. BURNETT. Yes, sir; that is exactly what I am trying to say. Mr. EVANS. What appears on the X-ray that would make a person feel he should open the case or the box and examine it further?

Mr. BURNETT. A clock would disturb me a great deal in an attaché

case.

Mr. EVANS. That would show up clearly?

Mr. BURNETT. Yes.

ITEMS DIFFICULT TO DETECT

Mr. EVANS. I am talking about an instance in which nothing shows up on the X-ray.

Mr. BURNETT. There are some telltale marks. All of the explosives have attached detonators. All explosives must be detonated by one means or another. This detonation scheme is most commonly one of the very cheap and commercially available detonators made out of a copper sleeve which will show up readily on an X-ray.

Mr. EVANS. How about an old-fashioned fuse?

Mr. BURNETT. An old-fashioned fuse will not ignite the present-day explosives. The new explosives, the military and the higher civilian explosives, take a much higher order explosive to set it off.

Mr. EVANS. How about plastic?

Mr. BURNETT. The plastic explosive takes a high order explosion to in turn trigger it.

Mr. EVANS. A match?

Mr. BURNETT. A match will not ignite C-4, C-3, C-2, the standard military explosives.

Mr. EVANS. So if you wanted to get something in here without being detected, you would have to use an old-fashioned explosive device, like black powder or dynamite?

Mr. BURNETT. Black powder. Dynamite still has detonator caps. The old-fashioned dynamite

Mr. EVANS. I remember cowboy and Indian pictures where the cowboys saved themselves from the Indians by lighting a fuse to a stick of dynamite and throwing it in the ravine and having it blow up. Mr. BURNETT. They had a cap on the end of the fuse.

Mr. EVANS. They could carry that in their pocket; could they not? Mr. BURNETT. Yes, sir; they could carry it in their pocket and attach it later.

Mr. EVANS. You are not searching people with this X-ray device; are you?

Mr. BURNETT. No, sir. The proposal before you is not going to embrace all means of getting devices into these buildings.

COMPARABLE USE OF X-RAY EQUIPMENT AT WHITE HOUSE

Mr. ROUSH. Perhaps the justification here misled me somewhat. Perhaps this paragraph does not contain that of which we are speaking now, but on the second page in the second paragraph, reference is made to Congressman Gray and a statement of his that the same equipment as proposed to be used in the Capitol Building complex is now being used at the White House, unnoticed and undetected by the millions who visit there each year.

Are you saying that this equipment and its presence will be noted by those who are visiting here? Will they be aware of the search that the device is making?

Mr. CASEY. I think he is talking about the closed circuit television. Mr. ROUSH. It was not clear to me. I am sorry.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I regret that in quoting extracts from statements made on the House floor, I did not clarify that point. It is indeed not clear that it does not refer to all components; but that paragraph is not intended to refer to the package examination system at all. That paragraph refers solely to the intrusion detection and the closed circuit TV portion.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. Campioli, have you something to add?

DEVICES DISCUSSED BUT NOT PROPOSED FOR USE

Mr. CAMPIOLI. I would like to add there are pass-through devices used by some agencies, where people can walk through a doorway and be detected if they have a revolver in their pocket.

Mr. CASEY. Similar to what the airlines use.

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Possibly, that might be practical at the entrances of the Capitol where people walk through the door.

Mr. CASEY. It depends on how tight we want to get our security. Mr. BURNETT. We have not, to date, successfully developed a doorway portal explosives detector. There is work going on in that area. A weapon detector-yes, there are those on the market. We have not considered the detection of weapons in this security system.

Mr. EVANS. Is the reason for this that we have millions of people who come here visiting throughout the year, and to make even such a device as the one Mr. Campioli speaks of efficient and effective, you