The scale model of the entire Capitol, showing the appearance of the building if extended to the west in accordance with Scheme 2 which has been approved by the Commission in charge, is on display in Statuary Hall for the information of the Congress and the public.

This location is on the same level as the Senate and House Chambers, so I trust you will take the opportunity to examine the model at your convenience. With kind regards, I am.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN W. McCORMACK,

Chairman, Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol.

REACTION TO PROPOSED EXTENSION

Mr. ANDREWs. Mr. Stewart, what has been the reaction of the Members? How many have seen it? Do you know?

Mr. STEWART. To my own personal knowledge, I know of at least 20 Members that have accompanied me up there to look at it. We have had some Members who have taken the floor of the House to castigate the ones that gave permission to put it in Statuary Hall. It was done under the express permission granted by the Speaker of the House, who has charge of all areas on the House side of the Capitol, one of them being the Statuary Hall area.

May I recite just a little incident in that connection to show you the reaction of some people?

Mr. ANDREWs. I wish you would.

Mr. STEWART. I stood there some months ago; that is, probably in the first 2 weeks in January, when one of the Members, a chairman of one of your committees, and I walked over there at his suggestion to look at it. While we were there, three ladies and one man were also there looking at the model. It was amusing to hear what the man's reaction was.

Mr. ANDREWS. A Member of Congress?

Mr. STEWART. No; a visitor who had been bringing groups up to see the model. After he walked around it two or three times he turned to the ladies and said, "Anybody who wants to change that U.S. Capitol and put an addition on is a fool. It should be left just as you see it. It is beautiful."

That is the impression it made on him. The model showed the proposed extension on it. He couldn't tell the difference.

Mr. ANDREWS. He liked the model?

Mr. STEWART. Very much.

Mr. ANDREWS. He did not want it changed?

Mr. STEWART. That is right.

Mr. ANDREWS. He was under the impression the model was what you have today?

Mr. STEWART. That is right.

Mr. ANDREWS. Did you get any other public reaction through the press or otherwise?

Mr. STEWART. We have had violent public reaction by one or two of the Members of Congress who seem to think that I had no business putting the model there. As you know, this model was part of the package ordered by the Congress and it was placed in Statuary Hall at direction of the Speaker. Generally the ones who are hard to convince have not yielded very much and the ones who have been in favor of the project from the beginning are still very steadfast in their

convictions.

Mr. ANDREWS. You had three plans?

Mr. STEWART. That is right.

Mr. ANDREWS. You selected this so-called scheme 2?

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. ANDREWS. What happened to the other two plans?

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____

Expended and obligated:

$300, 000

Architect-engineer fees for preliminary plans and estimates of cost. 240, 000

Model..

Administration and miscellaneous_

Total expended and obligated as of Mar. 31, 1967---
Balance..

21, 024

33, 525

294, 549

5, 451

Mr. STEWART. I will ask Mr. Roof to speak to that.

Mr. Roof. Mr. Chairman, out of the $300,000 we let a contract with 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 have left?

you

Mr. Roof. It is difficult to pinpoint that, Mr. Chairman, from this overall financial statement. I will be glad to put in the record the 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.

ARCHITECT SELECTED

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? Mr. HENLOCK. That was a separate project. As Mr. Stewart and Mr. Campioli indicated, the Commissions in charge of that project themselves 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 FRONT EXTENSION

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 exhibition 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 conferees 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 any further 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 committee will permit the Architect to go ahead with design planning and to complete a model of Scheme 2, which was approved by the Commission for the Extension of the Capitol. The funds for this model were appropriated to the Architect last year in a supplemental appropriation bill. ***" No exception to this item in the conference report was taken by any Senator, and the Senate approved 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 work were contacted. Competitive bids were received from three firms and the lowest bid received, that of Daniel I. Hadley and Associates, Inc., was accepted and a contract for the model awarded to that company.

COST OF EXTENSION

Mr. ANDREWS. What was the estimate of extension, $34 million? Mr. CAMPIOLI. Between $34 and $35 million, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ANDREWS. Is that still valid or are you in the process of making a revised estimate?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. As far as we know it is still valid.

Mr. ANDREWS. Before you considered the work you would have to get your plans cleared with the Commission and then advertise for bids; is that the way you plan to do the work if and when the time comes? Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. You have preliminary plans on which you made this estimate of $35 million at this time?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. That is right, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. It could be more or less depending on conditions at the time the plans are submitted for competitive bid?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. Are you sure that if and when any contract is ever entered into it will be done on a competitive bid basis?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir.

78-653-67—2