Mr. ANDREWS. Now we will turn to page 83. This is for the extension of the Capitol. You ask for nothing further at this time on the so-called extension of the Capitol item. We gave $300,000 last fall for the preliminary planning on extending the west central portion of the building. Just what has been done and is being done? STATEMENT ON EXTENDING WEST CENTRAL FRONT Mr. STEWART. If I may, I have a short statement I would like to read for the record. Mr. ANDREWS. Very well. Mr. STEWART. At the direction of the Commission for the Extension of the U.S. Capitol and under funds provided for such purpose by the Congress, the Architect of the Capitol, in March 1964, engaged the Thompson & Lichtner Co., Inc., of Brookline, Mass., to furnish the necessary engineering services to make a survey, study, and examination of the structural condition of the west central portion of the Capitol and to make a report and recommendations as to such remedial measures as deemed necessary. This company found the west central front in a seriously deteriorated condition and recommended, as the proper solution, that permanent remedial measures be taken through extension of the west central front and construction of such extension in marble. This company, however, considered existing conditions so hazardous that they recommended that immediate emergency protective measures, in the nature of temporary shoring, should be taken. The Commission, at a meeting, July 21, 1965, authorized and directed that, by way of emergency measure, the exterior walls in the lower sections of the original wings of the west central front of the Capitol and the original west terrace walls should be immediately shored with heavy timbers and the displaced architrave on the west central front should be properly supported with heavy beams and shores. This work was promptly done. The total cost of the engineering survey, exploratory core drillings and borings, shoring work, and all other related expenses amounted to $132,966. The Architect of the Capitol was ordered by directive of the Commission, October 22, 1965, to direct the architects for the extension of the Capitol project to proceed under their contract of July 10, 1956, with the preparation of new preliminary plans and estimates of cost for the extension of the west central section of the U.S. Capitol, such extension to be in marble, at a cost of $240,000 for such services. The architects were so instructed and we expect to meet with the Commission next month, in the early part of May, and submit to them the preliminary plans, as presently developed. After these plans, in their present state, are reviewed and considered by the Commission, and either approved or ordered modified by the Commission, the architects will then prepare preliminary plans in final form and have a final model made of the extension, as proposed and approved by the Commission. It is hoped that plans, model, and estimates, in final approved form, can be readied for consideration of the appropriations committees before adjournment this year. Extension of the Capitol project appropriations, obligations and balances Obligations by objects: Extension, reconstruction, and replacement of east-central Alterations to interior of section of building formerly consti- Senate subway terminal, including 4 new elevators and esca- Improved lighting and rewiring throughout Capitol Building, including electronic clocks and legislative call system... Architectural, engineering, and consultant services... Topographic survey of Capitol site, test borings, surveys and studies, administration and miscellaneous__ Furniture and furnishings, and restaurant equipment for extended portion of building.__. Engineering and consultant services: survey, study, and examination of west-central section of Capitol. Exploratory core drillings, test pits, soil borings, west-central section of Capitol____. Engineering services for temporary shoring of west-central front.... Temporary shoring of west-central front.. Subtotal. Preliminary plans and estimates of cost for west front extension and administrative expenses - Total obligated to Apr. 1, 1966 Unobligated balance, Apr. 1, 1966. Total appropriated for project, to date.. Mr. ANDREWS. Who is to have the final say as to what plan is submitted to the Commission, or will you submit alternative plans? Mr. STEWART. We will have several schemes to submit to the Commission, so they will have various alternates. The one they select will then be developed as a model which can be put on display. Mr. ANDREWS. Is it the plan to have public hearings at any point? Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, that is a matter that will be determined by the Commission. Mr. ANDREWS. Would you urge public hearings? Do you think they ought to be held? Mr. STEWART. On this? Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. Mr. STEWART. I would defer entirely to the views of the Commission in this matter, after they have reviewed our studies, to date. Mr. ANDREWs. Who are the associate architects or the consulting architects? Mr. STEWART. They are: Roscoe Dewitt, of Dallas, Tex., and Fred Hardison, his partner; Alfred Easton Poor and Albert Swanke of New York City and Jesse N. Shelton of Atlanta, Ga. They are the associate architects. In addition, we retain as consultants, John Harbeson of Philadelphia, Paul Thiry of Seattle, Wash., and Gilmore Clarke of New York City. Mr. ANDREWS. How was the fee of $240,000 settled upon? Is that for architects only? Mr. CAMPIOLI. That fee was arrived at on the basis of an estimated cost of construction of $24 million. We took 1 percent of that cost as the amount we thought was a fair figure for the preliminary service. That was agreed to by the associate architects who were retained to do the work. If the project should proceed into construction this amount will be deducted from their overall fee for the entire project as is our practice. Mr. ANDREWS. How about your own consulting architects? Mr. CAMPIOLI. Do you refer to the advisory architects? Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. Mr. CAMPIOLI. The advisory architects are paid on a per diem plus travel expenses. Their expenses come out of the balance of $60,000, the difference between the $240,000 and the $300,000. Mr. ANDREWS. This $240,000 tentative fee-I guess it is the final fee-was based on the estimated cost of the project being $24 million, is that correct? Mr. CAMPIOLI. $24 million in construction cost. I might say if the project proceeds beyond the preliminary stage and goes into working drawings, specifications, and construction, then the contract provides for a fee based on 81⁄2 percent of construction costs, but we hope to be able to negotiate a new fee downwards with the architects; and the services for this preliminary work will be subtracted from the new overall fee in any case. Mr. ANDREWS. What would be an architect fee on a $24 million job? Mr. CAMPIOLI. On the east front, it was 8% percent. Mr. ANDREWS. What was that? Mr. CAMPIOLI. 8% percent of costs for which services are performed. OBLIGATIONS Mr. ANDREWS. How much has been disbursed or obligated? Mr. HENLOCK. Out of the $300,000? Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. Mr. HENLOCK. $247,846. Mr. ANDREWs. Break that down for us. Mr. HENLOCK. $240,000 is for the fee and $7,846 for administrative expenses, and the other miscellaneous items Mr. Campioli mentioned. That is, general administration, blueprint, and various things of that nature. Mr. ANDREWS. Who did that work? Mr. HENLOCK. We have a regular firm that does our printwork. (The information follows:) The $300,000 is allocated as follows: $240,000 for architectural and engineering fees for preparation of preliminary plans and estimates of cost; $25,000 for construction of a model of the proposed extension of the west central front of the Capitol on the basis of preliminary plans when approved by the Commission for the Extension of the U.S. Capitol; $35,000 for general administrative costs, cost of advisory architects' services, miscellaneous, and contingencies. Under the $240,000, the associate architects are required to make such surveys and studies and supervise the preparation of such models as may be necessary for the project; to prepare preliminary drawings, to consist of such plans, elevations, sections, and perspective views as may be necessary to fully describe and explain the size, character, arrangement, and essential elements and features of the proposed changes and improvements, including layouts of each floor; to make such inspections of the existing construction of the west central portion of the Capitol as necessary and to examine and study all drawings of the Capitol available in the files of the Architect of the Capitol; to prepare such measured drawings for the west central portion of the Capitol as may be necessary for the proper performance of their work; to submit to the Architect of the Capitol a report embodying a description of the proposed changes and improvements, the considerations determining the various features of the design, and estimates of cost of the project. Under the $240,000, the preliminary drawings and studies are to include alternate schemes for the extension of the west central portion of the Capitol. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROJECT Mr. ANDREWS. What sort of administrative force of your own do you have on this project? Mr. CAMPIOLI. I am acting as Mr. Stewart's representative and agent in this project. In other words, it is my duty and responsibility to follow through the various phases with the associate and advisory architects and our staff members. At present, during the preliminary planning stage, I am being assisted by one engineer and one architectural draftsman. IMPROVED LIGHTING IN THE CAPITOL Mr. ANDREWS. What about the status of the relighting of the building? How much of that is yet undone? Mr. RUBEL. I think the quickest way to explain the status of the improved lighting in the Capitol is by looking at some of these floor plans which have been marked in red to show the areas that have not been completed. In talking in terms of the overall project, it is about 80 percent completed. You might say, "Is that in floor space or is it in dollars?" I would say it is in dollars rather than floor space, because we now are getting into areas of the building that are commonly referred to as the public areas, including corridors, elevator lobbies, Statuary Hall and areas of that type that are not used as functional areas by the occupants of the building. Concerning the functional areas in the building that are not completed to date, there are two rooms on the first floor of the House wing that have not been completed and which are used as office spaces. There are three rooms on the Senate side of the Capitol that have not been completed. These rooms have not been completed because the congressional recesses are getting shorter every year. They used to be, I understand, as long as 6 months before I was here. Now it has gotten down to only 2 months in some calendar years. Mr. ANDREWS. Do you do this work only in recess? Mr. RUBEL. Yes, sir. We can work only during recess periods because the physical operations make noise and dirt and create general inconvenience and annoyance for people that have to perform their daily functions in the building. That is the main reason why this project has been in such a long period of progress. We started in 1958 and it can be said that we have had 8 years to do this work. Actually we have had about 24 months to do the work, an average of a 3-month recess every year. Coming back to this floor plan, you can see at a glance the unfinished areas, if you will neglect this relatively large area which constitutes the old Supreme Court and |