seriously consider proceeding with the Extension of the West Central Front, the Appropriations Committees did not grant funds budgeted within recent years for painting the West Front. AIA Report The Capitol Architect's staff engineer reports that the building is not out of plumb. Thus while the Capitol is experiencing some vertical settlement it is not slipping down the hill. Comment While the building may or may not be out of plumb (there is no survey to prove or disprove this fact), there are bulges in the exterior. Slippage down the hill could occur without necessarily causing the walls to go out of plumb. The following is from testimony before the Commission by the engineer retained: Speaker MCCORMACK. Are any of the walls displaced or moved from the original position? Dr. CLAIR. All the walls all around are displaced from the original position, sir. Anything from, as in the case of this one, of 3 or 4 inches, as the borings through the walls show, there is hardly a place that there is not a movement of the facing of the wall from the interior of the wall. Speaker McCORMACK. Are any parts of the wall displaced? Dr. CLAIR. All of this wall is. We found hardly a place in the whole old west front, the old Senate wing, old House wing, and the old center section, that the wall has not been displaced. Speaker McCORMACK. Is the displacement stabilized or can it be expected to progress further? Dr. CLAIR. It is not stabilized. It is progressing and that is as indicated by the fact that there is an increasing number of cracks found in our investigation which did not show in a previous study several years ago. AIA Report In short, none of the above-mentioned defects appears to indicate that danger of collapse is imminent or that correction is not practicable. Comment This statement is at variance with statement made by Dr. Clair at Hearings before the Extension of the Capitol Project Commission: Statements by Dr. Clair at Hearing Before the Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol, 89th Congress, First Session on the Condition and Proposed Extension of the West Central Front of the U.S. Capitol, June 24, 1965: The fact is that this type of construction, if you had even a minor earthquake would lead I am sure to not only falling of the exterior stone but also, with that, partial collapse of these walls. That is one of the reasons it is desirable to put another structure here that can brace this structure. Mr. FORD. Is it developing at an accelerated rate? Dr. CLAIR. Sure it is, otherwise we would not have been able to find the difference in the few years between the previous observations, which are marked on here, and our observations of cracking . . . Speaker MCCORMACK. Are there any dangerous conditions which require immediate attention? If so, what would be involved? Dr. CLAIR. Well, just to work backward on this model. To correct the condition of the foundations at the retaining walls of the terrace, they would have to be underpinned This must be done. Something must be done on this immediately, sir. Dr. CLAIR. Next week. I am not kidding. I think it is so serious something should be done at once. AIA Report Subsequent events have proved the 1957 survey unreliable. (Space Survey) Comment Like most forecasts, the 1957 survey produced the best information that could be developed at that time, but additional legislation, tremendous increase in population and jurisdictions have increased the requirements then anticipated, hence the need for greater space. While there has been no additional survey since then we have kept track of space needs and are familiar with up-to-date requirements. AIA Report It is quite possible that some of the functions now housed in the Capitol building could be moved to other new or existing buildings with no loss of efficiency. Comment The space needs made evident to us indicate that only such functions which need to be in the Capitol are presently and proposed to be placed in the Capitol. AIA Report There is obviously a limit to the amount of space which can be added to the Capitol if it is to retain any resemblance to its original form or even to the present building. Congress will presumably decide at some point not to make any more additions to the Capitol. We believe the Congress should make that decision now while the one remaining original wall can be saved as visible evidence of our heritage. Comment Such a decision, if made, should follow the Extension of the West Central Front of the Capitol. The extension will once again place the Capitol in sound structural condition and complete the revised composition of the design begun with the addition of the present Senate and House Wings and the addition of the present dome more than 100 years ago. The "one remaining original wall" when built was not as it appears today, coated with more than 35 coats of paint, cracked and patched. Cleaning and removing the paint would destroy more of the delicate carvings on column and pilaster caps, cornices, consoles, carved panels, etc. One has only to look at the glass covered portions of carvings on the old east front of the original Senate and House Wings to see the condition of the sandstone when exposed to the weather. Plans for the Capitol have been altered and added to from a time when it was not sufficiently completed for the initial occupancy (Latrobe drawing-1806). Further, additions have been made as the needs of Congress required them. The Congress meets and works in the Capitol building and surely no one is more qualified to know the needs than the Congress itself. The current need for additional space inside the Capitol proper is evidenced by the present numerous requests for space and facilities, and the severely crowding of facilities. AIA Report If the extension is carried out, the work of important early American architects and landscape architects would be lost forever-namely, Thornton, Latrobe, Bulfinch, and Olmstead. The work of these significant American architects would seem important to keep in a world in which we are losing many of our original resources in buildings and nature. Comment Was the work of the early architects lost when the East Front was extended 1958-1962? Of course not. It is there today for all to enjoy. Neither will it be lost on the West Front Extension. It will be there also in permanent construction for which the whole nation can be proud. The so-called “restoration” proposed by the AIA task force would result in replacing many, many of the present stones, so it would in the end be a replica. The proposed extension would likewise be a replica of the essential features of the architecture. AIA Report Restoration work done on historic buildings in Europe indicates that walls and columns which have deteriorated have been reinforced effectively by a sys tem of drilling diagonal holes through the masonry, inserting reinforcing rods and forcing grout under pressure into the holes. Another successful technique called "needling" involves the use of temporary steel beams to take the load off parts of the wall while other areas of the wall are being repaired. Comment Except for the exterior architectural treatment, the restoration of the walls of the structure is an engineering problem and is well presented in The Thomps and Lichtner Company, Inc., report. Should restoration be undertaken the serv ices of a most qualified and experienced engineering firm and contractor won't be required. To accomplish the job outlined above would require destroying the interior finish much of which has decorative painted treatment on walls and ceilings. If walls and ceilings are solidified through intrusion grouting rader pressure, undesirable conditions would develop such as sweating in winter on interior finished surfaces through condensation. Present voids in walls act as insulation against conduction. Solidification of walls might also result in new expansion cracks with resultant leaks. In order to needle the walls, it would be necessary to solidify the interior core of the exterior walls with the resultant damage mentioned. AIA Report If restoration is undertaken, Congressional leaders with offices located on the West Front would have to move and this certainly would be an inconvenience. But this inconvenience would occur even if the West Front was extended. Comment The latter is not a statement of fact as the Congressional leaders would not be inconvenienced except to a very minor degree as compared to the amount of inconvenience in an overall restoration. Restoration would result in vacating all the rooms on the West Central side including Statuary Hall. We constructed the East Front without moving out any Members. AIA Report Restoration Cost No estimate has been made by the Capitol Architect to determine the cost of restoring the West Wall in its present location on the grounds that restoration was not the best solution and there were too many unknowns to arrive at a reasonable estimate. The American Institute of Architects does not know what the cost of restoration would be. However, it is unlikely that the cost of restoration would approach the total cost of extension. Comment This is at variance with Dr. Clair's statement that restoration might cost anywhere from $10 million to $50 million. A member of the task force recently stated to a group at the Capitol that cost of so-called restoration could exceed the cost of the extension. It is anybody's guess as to what the cost of restoration would amount to, as such work would have to be done on a cost-plus basis, solving problems as the work progresses and the unknown conditions are revealed. There would be considerable risk attached to such an operation without any assurance that failure of the brick floor arches might not occur after the shores are removed. AIA Report Master Planning For example, most universities, towns and cities of consequence have recognized the benefit of a master plan. And Congress has insisted that comprehensive master planning be accomplished before Federal funds are granted for interstate highways, model cities and other development programs. Yet no such plan exists for Capitol Hill. Comment In recent years, a Senate Bill for providing a master plan for Capitol Hill was supported by the Architect of the Capitol, but the Bill has not been enacted. The Architect of the Capitol is in favor of a master plan and recommended that such a plan be made by the National Capitol Planning Commission and his office jointly. But, really, preparation of a master plan has little or no effect on the need to provide the Capitol with a permanent west face. AIA Report Conclusion Restore the West Front. The American Institute of Architects recommends that the West Front of the Capitol be restored and that Congress establish a permanent policy prohibiting any further major alteration to the Capitol other than that absolutely necessary for structural and safety reasons. Comment Such a policy, if made, should come after the extension of the West Front when the building will be in a sound condition. AIA Report No evidence has been produced that would make impracticable the restoration of the West Wall in its present form. The encrustations of paint should be taken off and only those parts of the original facade that are dangerously damaged or deteriorated should be removed to be replaced with the same material as that of the original walls. The more aged, eroded condition of the stone of the West Front should be considered honorable evidence of its survival as one of the earliest of our major public buildings. It is a condition that does not detract from the beauty of the building when viewed from a distance, and it is one which adds considerably to its interest and historic significance when examined close-at-hand. The American Institute of Architects believes it would be a mistake to cover up the last remaining exterior portion of the original Capitol. We strongly urge that the greatest symbol of our country be preserved. Comment The conclusion of the A.I.A. Committee is, of course, at variance with the rather extensive structural analysis of the various alternatives and recommendations made by the independent engineering consultant, The Thompson & Lichtner Company, Inc., in their "Report on the Structural Condition of the West Central Portion of the United States Capitol," dated November 1, 1964. Further, the statement is not a fact. The reports from the engineering consultants indicate this operation would, indeed, be hazardous and costly in attempting to remove portions of the old walls in order to replace the many damaged stones now exposed and/or concealed by the encrustations of paint. Aquia Creek standstone quarries are no longer operative and replacement material to match the existing sandstone is not available and certainly not from the twenty or thirty depleted quarries which furnished stone for the Capitol and other city buildings at that time. SUMMARY COMMENT The A.I.A. report has some commendable qualities: it is brief, it is presented in a rather inoffensive manner compared to the hysterical and emotional protest from this organization several years ago against the East Front Extension; and, at least, it shows that a few members of the A.I.A. have given some thought to the West Front Project. To our mind, however, it lacks the thoroughness of the studies made by the professional architects-engineers retained by the Commission; it is in many respects too general, too vague and too “iffy." Such a report can be made and perhaps is appropriate for an organization that does not have the responsibility for the safety and maintenance of the structure and the well-being of the occupants. But the Congress cannot afford to take chances with a "maybe" program. In some ways, what the A.I.A. report does not say is more important than that which is said: They do not indicate precisely how their recommendations could be satisfactorily carried forward: They do not tell the Congress what the building will look like when the 30-odd coats of paint are removed and the voids, cracks, and eroded sections are laid bare; They do not outline the technique for removing the paint from the already crumbling and disintegrating sandstone ornamentations or from other portions of the building (we know from our experience with the East Front Panels preserved in the main corridors that it is impossible to satisfactorily remove the heavy coatings of paint from these old, decaying architectural features, especially where they have been exposed to the elements); They do not refere to the spotty appearance of the building that would be created by new stones contrasting with the old stones quarried over 160 years ago and now saturated with the vehicle of the paint; They do not say that the wall with replaced stones would crack once again from the lack of expansion and contraction provisions, which cannot be built into a wall already constructed; They do not say that many stones would have to be removed whether sound or not to accommodate the replacement of damaged projecting stones such as cornices, belt courses, etc., which are in effect cantilevered : They say little or nothing about the danger to the building and occupants that could result from their recommendations; They do not estimate the cost of their program; They do not say whether the Extension Plan 2, prepared, reviewed, and recommended by eminent members of the A.I.A., is good, bad, or even satisfactory. What a shame it would be to butcher this old building in the manner they propose. Their program, if it can be called that, in the name of restoration and/or preservation, is an open invitation to endless expense of public funds, continued admittedly poor structural conditions on this section, a scabby appearance of West Front overlooking the mall, and stifling any further space growth for Congressional operations in the Capitol. OFFICE OF ATTENDING PHYSICIAN PERSONNEL REQUESTS Mr. HENLOCK. Before we leave the "Capitol building" item may we take up one other item under the Capitol buildings. We have a letter, dated April 19, 1968, addressed to the chairman, which Mr. Stewart would like to take up now. It contains a request from Dr. Pearson, which he submitted since the submission of our budget for 1969, in which he asks that one additional nurse, grade 9, be allowed at an annual cost of $10,500. For the present fiscal year 1969, there would be only 9 months involved or $7,875. We made this request to the House Appropriations Committee. It's a case of where a Naval Laboratory technician assigned to his office for a number of years is retiring from the Navy in October of 1968. Dr. Pearson feels he is a very valauble employee and feels it would be in the interest of Congress to retain him. We are submitting this item at the Doctor's request. Senator PROXMIRE. This letter will be printed in the record at this point. (The letter follows:) HON. E. L. BARTLETT, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Since our budget was prepared last Fall, Dr. R. J. Pearson, Attending Physician to the Congress, has requested that one additional nurse position be allowed for the fiscal year 1969, in order that he may continue in service the Navy laboratory technician assigned to his office and who is due for retirement from the Navy in October, 1968. Dr. Pearson believes that it is in the interest of the Congress, to continue the policy of hiring Naval personnel upon their retirement, when he finds their perfomance has been outstanding and their services are still required. He advises further that he considers unequivocally that the present laboratory technician falls into that category. Thus it is recommended that one additional position of Nurse, Grade GS-9, at a salary rate of $9,130 plus $1,370 for overtime work, a total of $10,500, be allowed under the "Capitol Buildings" appropriation. Since the position is required to be funded for only 9 months during fiscal year 1969, the gross cost may be discounted to $7,875. A similar request was presented to the House Appropriations Committee during the hearings on the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1969. With best wishes, I am Sincerely yours, J. GEORGE STEWART, |