the old Senate Chamber. If these two spaces are eventually restored, the overall project will be accomplished under separate funds. The lighting will be included in that separate project.

This is the plan of the first floor of the Capitol and you can see there is a relatively small amount of work left to be completed on this floor. I am referring in particular to the lobby at the east entrance of the House wing and the lobby at the east entrance of the Senate wing. Both should be rewired and new fixtures should be installed.

On the second floor, again neglecting the old Senate Chamber and Supreme Court areas, there are two rooms on the Senate side that have never been made available to get that work done. Now referring to the House wing, here is the Speaker's lobby, which is a very important and ornate part of this building. There are oil paintings along the north wall which are very poorly illuminated. The wiring in this area probably was installed at the turn of the century. It is in very bad physical condition. Also, these three corridors surrounding the House Chamber have grotesque chandeliers of a very old vintage. They are not esthetically appropriate and they do not produce very much light. The wiring to these fixtures is deteriorated and should be replaced.

Mr. ANDREWS. What kind of current do you use throughout the Capitol?

Mr. RUBEL. Standard 60-cycle alternating current.

Mr. ANDREWS. How long have you had that?

Mr. RUBEL. The overall conversion program was accomplished over a period of 12 years. The work in the Capitol Building itself was started in 1960. It was completed in 1962.

Mr. ANDREWS. So the whole Capitol and all the buildings up here now use a.c. current?

Mr. RUBEL. Yes, sir; the Capitol was the last building to be converted.

Referring again to the floor plans, on the second floor there is this handsome corridor just south of the Senate Chamber. It has old-type chandeliers that are not compatible with the handsome architectural character of this corridor. Again, referring to the third-floor plan, no work has been performed in the corridors around the House Chamber or the corridors around the Senate Chamber.

Mr. ANDREWS. That is where you need it most.

Mr. RUBEL. Yes, sir. Unfortunately, those are the most expensive areas to renovate. They should have high-class chandeliers of appropriate designs so that people that come here from all over the country to see their Capitol will see something that creates national pride. Appropriate chandeliers for a building of this type obviously cannot be commercial products, but should be custom-built products costing anywhere from $2,000 to $15,000 depending on what the esthetic requirements are for the particular area in which such chandeliers are to be installed.

Mr. ANDREWS. Is there any money in this budget for that lighting program.

Mr. RUBEL. We have used up the allocation that was appropriated in 1956.

Mr. HENLOCK. These so-called public areas were not intended to be included under the original program. In other words, the primary purpose was for improvement of office and utility lighting areas originally.

Mr. RUBEL. That is right. It was considered more important to eliminate all safety hazards that might be inherent in the old wiring system, and to improve the lighting conditions in the functional

areas.

Mr. ANDREWS. Do you feel that the wiring throughout the building today is safe?

Mr. RUBEL. It is the best type of wiring available. The rewiring that has been done in this building is far superior to the conventional systems used in commercial buildings. There are a few buildings in Europe, like the Louvre in Paris and perhaps St. Peters in Rome, where they had the same problem of rewiring old buildings that were originally wired in an inadequate fashion according to presentday standards. The Capitol has been rewired with a product known as mineral insulated cable. It consists of a copper tube with internal wires, all prefabricated by the manufacturer. Its external appearance is identical to that of a small copper pipe. Inside the copper tube there are two, three, or four electrical conductors, depending on how many are needed for the circuits. The individual conductors are insulated from each other by a magnesium hydroxide material which is originally in the form of a plastic material later hardened. It is a difficult product to manufacture. This product, in my opinion, will last indefinitely. There are no fibrous or rubber insulating materials or cotton braids to deteriorate. It is a permanent product made of inorganic materials.

Mr. ANDREWs. Very well.

Mr. RUBEL. If I may go on just a little further and if it is agreeable, Mr. Chairman, I have made a study of these unfinished areas which, of course, I would like to see finished before I leave the Capitol, but that is incidental. You asked at yesterday's meeting if our estimates were "firm" estimates. You can readily appreciate that in the rewiring of spaces that are faced with marble on the four walls, such as the so-called Marble Room in the Senate wing, it is very difficult to arrive at a firm estimate of the cost of rewiring a room of such unconventional construction. That is the problem we are faced with in all of these public areas. It is impossible to determine, in advance of doing the work, how many man-hours will be consumed or how much material will be required. In anticipation of your interest I have prepared what I do not like to call an estimate-it is more of a"guesstimate" to complete this unfinished work and make the appearance of the Capitol artistic, interesting, and in character with our Nation's technological accomplishments.

I think I can safely say it would cost not less than $400,000 and not more than $500,000 to complete this project. Assuming funds are made available eventually, the big question is when do we do this work. Will it be mandatory to do it at night on an overtime basis? Will we be permitted to do part of it while the Congress is in session? Those are unanswered questions.

Mr. ANDREWS. Very well. Questions now on the extension of the Capitol? Mr. Langen.

SHORING UP OF THE WEST FRONT

Mr. LANGEN. I notice from the statement about the shoring up of the west side of the building, in so doing did that leave it in pretty good condition now in the interim or what was the result of that shoring?

Mr. CAMPIOL. We anticipate that the wood shoring will be of benefit for at least 5 years. Although the timbers have been painted and protected they do not have an unlimited life. It is anticipated that this shoring will last long enough to protect the building until such time as the extension project work advances and replaces the need for that shoring.

Mr. LANGEN. Anyhow it has strengthened these weak points as I recall that were pointed out a year ago to the point that there is no immediate concern no longer there.

Mr. CAMPIOL. That is right, sir.

WEST FRONT PLANS

Mr. LANGEN. Are you aware of the plans for the extension of the west front? I know you mentioned possibly several alternative plans. Are they somewhat in line with what we discussed last year in terms of space provided or have there been any changes in that at all?

Mr. STEWART. There has been some desire on the part of the Commission that we make additional studies. What the final result will be I do not know. We have made studies of every suggestion made by members of the Commission, so we will be able to discuss several alternate schemes when we have our next meeting. I am thinking now of areas set aside for certain activities, layouts for storage, and demand for space for other specific uses.

Mr. LANGEN. The paper here indicates that there are possibilities of this being completed this year or during this session.

Is that what is meant here?

Mr. STEWART. Yes, insofar as the preliminary plans and estimates, of costs are concerned. However as to performing the actual construction work, which may follow, we are confronted with quite some problems in order to keep the building in operation. If the construction project goes ahead, it means that occupants of part of the terraced areas will have to be moved to temporary quarters.

We recognize the fact that we have people working in the central part of the building on the west side and they will have to be protected during the work on the extension.

Mr. LANGEN. I can appreciate that.

Mr. STEWART. Noise is another factor. We will try to eliminate that as much as possible. Mr. Langen, you mentioned about alternate schemes. They were gotten up to show the range of what could be done. One scheme amounts substantially to a faithful reproduction of the present west front extended. The next alternate is the same treatment with a pediment over the central portico to break the long, flat line of the west side of the building. Other alternates include widening of the central portico and carrying the central extension farther west.

Mr. LANGEN. Is it the general idea that when these plans are completed that west wall carries the same architectural resemblance as the original Capitol, or are there plans for substantial changes?

I hear people complain that it will change the appearance of the whole building. They seem to think it is not a proper architectural design that does justice to the old building. Are we going to ruin the historical architectural value?

Mr. STEWART. Let me say this, that the west section of the Capitol-the west side of the Capitol rather-was designed to take the Bulfinch Dome which was a low wooden dome. When the present large dome was added just about a hundred years ago, that changed entirely the architectural esthetic look and balance of the west side. That imbalance has existed now for about a hundred years. We naturally want to strengthen the west side architecturally. In the different schemes we are preparing, that has been our aim, to see what we can do and place the west front in architectural balance. Of necessity, you are bound to have a change, if Congress needs the extra space. But not to the extent that it will not be very attractive and be architecturally strengthened.

Mr. LANGEN. It would seem to me there are two rather pronounced objectives. No. 1, is that you strengthen the building so that its durability for the future is secure. Secondly, in so doing you take care of a part of the space problem that we know prevails around here. Those seem to be the two big objectives. I would hope that these objectives might be met as well as to preserve the architectural beauty. That is all Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ANDREWs. Mr. Reifel.

RENOVATION OF OLD SENATE AND SUPREME COURT CHAMBERS

Mr. REIFEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is there any relationship in time of renovation or remodeling of the two Chambers, the old Senate and the Supreme Court, with the rebuilding of the west side?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. It was suggested by this committee last year that this work be deferred and be done concurrently with the west front. Mr. REIFEL. What position has the Commission taken?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. I do not believe that matter has been put to their attention yet.

Mr. REIFEL. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

63-051-66- 5