« PreviousContinue »
Mr. ANDREWS. You had three plans?
Mr. STEWART. The Commission for the Extension of the Capitol selected scheme 2.
Mr. ANDREWS. I wish you would use a different word than "scheme.” Let us say “plan 2" if you have occasion to refer to it in the future. It sounds better than "scheme."
Mr. STEWART. I agree with you.
Mr. STEWART. The Commission discarded plans 1 and 3. They were prepared in order to show other possibilities. A recommendation was made by the associate architects as to the proper plan to follow.
Mr. ANDREWS. Is it your opinion that this plan 2 is the proper one?
Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir. I think that is the ideal plan for the west front.
Mr. ANDREWS. Is that concurred in by the members of the Buildings Commission ?
Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir, by the members of the Commission on the Extension of the Capitol.
Mr. ANDREWS. In other words, all those charged with the responsibility have settled on plan 2?
Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir.
Mr. ANDREWS. Does that plan provide for a restaurant out over the west front?
Mr. STEWART. There is a space there which is provided in case it is needed for that purpose.
FUNDS EXPENDED AND OBLIGATED Mr. ANDREWS. How much of the $300,000 has been obligated and for what? Insert some sort of a breakdown for the record. Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir. (The information follows:)
West front of Capitol - Preliminary plans and estimates of cost Appropriation...
-------- $300, oog Expended and obligated:
Architect-engineer fees for preliminary plans and estimates of cost. 240, ood Model..
21, 024 Administration and miscellaneous
33, 525 Total expended and obligated as of Mar. 31, 1967.
294, 549 Balance -
Mr. STEWART. I will ask Mr. Roof to speak to that. .
Mr. Roof. Mr. Chairman, out of the $300,000 we let a contract wit} the architects for $240,000 and in addition to that we spent $20,000 for the model. '
Mr. ANDREWS. That leaves you $40,000. How much of that do you have left?
Mr. Roof. It is difficult to pinpoint that, Mr. Chairman, from thi overall financial statement. I will be glad to put in the record thi detail.
Mr. ANDREWS. You should have about $40,000 left out of that $300,000.
Mr. Roof. It will be less. We have had some administrative expenses. I know one of our engineers has been working on the project.
Mr. ANDREWS. What company had the contract with plan 2 and the model ?
Mr. RooF. Dewitt, Poor & Shelton and their associates. Mr. STEWART. The ones originally selected for the east front extension.
Mr. ANDREWS. That is the same company that did the plans for the Library? Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir; and the east front.
Mr. ANDREWS. Were they recommended also by the Planning Commission? How did you happen to select that company?
Mr. STEWART. When they were selected originally, we called in the Fine Arts Commission here in Washington for advice at the time that our projects first started on the Capitol. The architect members of the Commission came to my office and saw the brochures of all the architects that submitted a request to be considered. They were also given the privilege of submitting other names they thought were qualified. * Mr. ANDREWS. Who was given that privilege?
Mr. STEWART. The architect members of the Fine Arts Commission here in Washington. It was from that list that the Commission on the extension of the Capitol selected the associate architects.
Mr. ANDREWS. Is there anything unusual about that same company getting all these architect contracts up here on the Hill?
Mr. STEWART. No, sir; they have not gotten all the contracts on the Hill. They are efficient and have a feel for the work.
Mr. ANDREWS. Did any other architectural firms express an interest in doing the business for the west front plans and model ?
Mr. HENLOCK. Mr. Chairman, the contract that was let in 1956 covered all architectural services of this nature required under the extension of the Capitol project legislation. That legislation, when enacted, covered the east front, west front, underground garages under the plaza, and other items that the Commission approved within the scope of the authorization act. So the architectural contracts were drawn broad enough to include all the various segments of work to be accomplished under the authorization act. At the time we did not know whether all segments would go forward at once or piecemeal over a period of years.
Mr. ANDREWS. In other words, they have a contract to do whatever is done on Capitol Hill; is that right?
Mr. HENLOCK. As far as extension of the Capitol project is concerned. Mr. ANDREWS. That did not include the Library building, did it!
Jr. HENLOCK. That was a separate project. As Mr. Stewart and Mr. Campioli indicated, the Commissions in charge of that project themselres nominated and selected that particular group, based, I assume, on the work they had done on the east front and also because they had
made an earlier preliminary study on a building for the Library in another location.
Mr. ANDREWS. What about the garages over there on the front of the Congressional Hotel ?
Mr. HENLOCK. Shelton & Almond of Georgia are the architectsengineers for that project.
STATEMENT ON HISTORY AND OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION ON WEST
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stewart prepared a statement on the model of the Capitol, last January, giving its history, how it was put on exhibit in Statuary Hall, what it cost, and the various facts that refute some publicity on this model. If you would like, we can put that statement in the record. Mr. ANDREWS. Let us insert it in the record at this point. (The statement follows:)
MODEL OF CAPITOL SHOWING PROPOSED WEST FRONT EXTENSION A scale model of the United States Capitol showing the proposed extension of the west central front of the Capitol and reconstruction of the west central front in marble has been on exhibit in Statuary Hall in the United States Capitol since November 21, 1966, at the direction of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, chairman of the Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol.
This model was made by Daniel I. Hadley and Associates, Inc., of Wilmington, Delaware, at a cost of $21,024, under contract let by the Architect of the Capitol at the direction of the Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol and under funds provided for such purpose in the Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1966, approved October 31, 1965. The model was completed and delivered to the United States Capitol, November 21, 1966.
Funds for the model were provided under an appropriation of $300,000 in the Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1966. This appropriation was allowed for the preparation of preliminary plans and estimates of cost for the West Front Extension and for preparation of a scale model showing such extension. Both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees were advised that the funds were requested for such specific purpose, as evidenced on pages 337 and 357 of the Hearings before the House Committee on Appropriations and on pages 381 and 385 of the Hearings before the Senate Committee on Appropriations, on the Supplemental Appropriation Bill, 1966.
The House Committee on Appropriations reported this item favorably and stated in their report "The $300,000 is for preliminary plans and estimates of cost only. A scale model based on the preliminary plans will be made and available for inspection and study". The item was included in the Supplemental Appropriation Bill as reported to the House and the Bill, carrying this item, was approved by the House by a vote of 242 yeas to 100 nays.
Whereas it is true that the item was deleted from the Bill as reported to and passed by the Senate, it was, nevertheless, restored in conference. The conference report, restoring this item, was approved by the House and Senate, October 21, 1965.
The Extension of the West Central Front of the United States Capitol was again made a matter for consideration in the subsequent Legislative Branch Appropriation Bill, 1967. Although the Bill, as passed by the House, included neither monies nor language affecting this project, the Bill, as reported to the Senate, July 25, 1966, added language designed to stop all work, studies, plans, and preparation of the scale model for which funds were provided in the Supplemental Appropriation Bill, 1966.
The prohibitive language read as follows: "Provided, That no part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be used for administrative or any other expenses in connection with the plans referred to as Schemes 1, 2 and 3 for the Extension of the West Central Front of the Capitol”.
This proviso was approved by the Senate in the Bill as passed by that body. It was, however, deleted in conference. The Conference Report, House Report 1852, 89th Congress, August 15, 1966, in recommending deletion of this proviso contained the following statement:
"There are no funds in the bill for the west front extension project, nor is there any authority to proceed with construction contracts, or even detailed plans and specifications. The work can proceed only if and when the Congress should appropriate the money for the work in a future bill.
$300,000, was, however, appropriated by the Congress last year for preparation of preliminary plans and estimates of cost, including a model, and incidental expenses looking to extension of the west central front. Most of that fund is already contracted. While the associate architects engaged for this purpose completed the first stage study and plans earlier this year, from which Schemes 1, 2 and 3 were developed, and for which a study model (of Scheme 2) was made, more time is necessarily required for perfection of plans and drawings and preparation of a full-scale model for the scheme (No. 2) selected by the special Extension Commission. At its meeting with the Architects in June, the Commission directed the Architect to get the full-scale model ready for exbition to Members of Congress and the public generally.
"A full-scale model showing the entire Capitol Building-both East and West Fronts should be of great, almost inestimable visual-aid value in helping Members, the press, and the public generally to form sound opinions about the appearance of the building if extended and the effect of the particular proposals in Scheme 2 on the architectural features of the present West Front. But the
aferees understand that the full-scale model will not be ready to place on display until about mid-November.
In the circumstances, then, it would be premature, and illogical, to consider Loy farther appropriations for the West Front project at this session."
When the conference report was considered in the Senate, Senator Monroney made the following pertinent statement: "The action of the conference comsittee will permit the Architect to go ahead with design planning and to com
ate a model of Scheme 2, which was approved by the Commission for the Ex2 on of the Capitol. The funds for this model were appropriated to the Archiad last year in a supplemental appropriation bill. * * *" No exception to this
in the conference report was taken by any Senator, and the Senate ap rored the Conference Report by a vote of 61 yeas to 16 nays.
Before requesting competitive bids for the model of the proposed West Front Extension, now on exhibit in Statuary Hall, several firms specializing in this
vere contacted. Competitive bids were received from three firms and the est bid received, that of Daniel I. Hadley and Associates, Inc., was acred and a contract for the model awarded to that company.
COST OF EXTENSION
M. ANDREWS. What was the estimate of extension, $34 million?
M. ANDREWS. Is that still valid or are you in the process of making 2 revised estimate?
Mr. CAMPIOLI. As far as we know it is still valid.
M. ANDREWS. Before you considered the work you would have to get Tour plans cleared with the Commission and then advertise for bids;
that the way you plan to do the work if and when the time comes ? W. STEWART. Yes, sir. Nr. ANDREWS. You have preliminary plans on which you made this simate of $35 million at this time? Mr. CAMPIOLI. That is right, sir. Mr. AXDREWS. It could be more or less depending on conditions u the time the plans are submitted for competitive bid?
W.CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir.
Mr. STEWART. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the cost would depend on when you did it. We are in a period now of escalation of construction costs.
Mr. ANDREWS. I believe that you stated that escalation is at the rate of about 3.2 percent per year. Would that apply to this type work also?
Mr. CAMPIOLI. That estimate was in relation to the library.
Mr. ANDREWS. I understand that. Would that rate of escalation be applicable to the type work that you would call for on the west front extension?
Mr. CAMPIOLI. It would be applicable on the same basis.
Mr. ANDREWS. Does the $35 million estimate that you have to date take into account the 3.2 percentage of escalation?
Mr. CAMPIOLI. We have made an allowance for contingency funds in that estimate. Mr. ANDREWS. About how much?
Mr. CAMPIOLI. We have the additional costs, contingency and administrative costs lumped together in one figure. I do not have the breakdown on that figure.
USE OF NEW FLOOR SPACE
Mr. ANDREWS. Tell us what the 41/2 added acres of floor space would be used for. I realize that you do not know exactly but what are your interior plans designed to show? What uses ?
Mr. CAMPIOLI. The sub-subbasement level of the extension would be used for archival storage and the Capitol Police have asked for additional space which would be available if approved by the Commission.
The subbasement area would be used as a visitor access area, loading docks, storage rooms, and certain shop facilities if approved.
Mr. ANDREWS. Would you have driveways for trucks to come up ? Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir. There would be a driveway that would enter from the northwest quadrant of the Capitol Grounds and leave by the southwest quadrant of the Capitol Grounds. Mr. ANDREWS. Would that be a straight or curved driveway?
Mr. CAMPIOLI. It would be curved. It would be located in the large lawn area to the west of the terraces. We plan to have it landscaped SO it will not be too obvious.
Mr. ANDREWS. What would it be used for, trucks only?
Mr. CAMPIOLI. It would be available for access by taxicabs or anybody arriving at the Capitol, if the Extension of the Capitol Commission approves such use.
Mr. ANDREWS. What other uses? That is, the basement and the driveway. Is the cost of that driveway included in the $35 million ? Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. That is the basement-police and storage ?
Mr. CAMPIOLI. In the subbasement would be located storage, service docks, mechanical equipment rooms, service elevators, stairs, escalators and information area for visitors, if desired. The police would be in the sub-subbasement.