Perhaps I am a conservative in this and other respects. I believe in preserving what is best from our past and it is a part of our historical tradition. I believe we should not remove the last remaining vestige of the original Capitol Building.

I am quite convinced we should not go ahead with this plan for other reasons. High on that list would be the fact we never really thought through the facilities and services we need. The Architect never did anything that could possibly be characterized as a thoughtful study of the services and facilities Congress needs.

There was apparently some kibitzing with a few officials and a decision was made to put Archives into that building. Why in the world Archives have to be placed in the Capitol when we have a structure for Archives, I do not understand, but there was never any kind of a survey of the kind a business would make in surveying its future growth and needs. Nothing that you could possibly dignify by the word "survey." I believe this is what we need.

I believe if we did such a survey we would find we have far more need than this extension of the west front contemplates. I believe that we should service the needs of the Members of Congress. I am a very junior Member here and it would be an arrogance on my part to tell the distinguished senior Members in terms of seniority and knowledge what the needs of the Congress are, but I certainly am convinced that they have not been adequately studied and the Architect admits he has not ever done a survey, either of the physical growth and development of the Capitol or the needs of the Members of Congress.

It seems to me elementary logic that is what we ought to do. I think if we did it, we would find our needs were far more extensive than what is contemplated in this removal of the west front, and that our needs were a little bit broader.

Mr. REIFEL. Mr. Scheuer, you are one of our colleagues who has had a very significant experience as a professional builder before coming to the Congress, and I certainly appreciate your contribution. You just are not talking out of the top of your hat because you have had actual experience in construction of buildings and remodeling and restoration. So as you come before us, you may be a junior Member of the Congress, but you are certainly not a junior Member insofar as experience in this particular field which we are discussing is concerned.

I want to express my appreciation to you for taking the interest to help make the country aware of what is going on. I thank you for your coming before the committee.

Mr. YATES. I want to endorse Mr. Reifel's commendation of Mr. Scheuer's presentation, Mr. Chairman. I think it has been a very, very good one. It raises a number of questions we have to consider in this question.

Mr. SCHEUER. May I have just one last word to raise a question that perhaps is not relevant to this particular subject?

I hope that this committee and related committees will give serious consideration to the kind of bill that Senator Randolph is introducing, that would contemplate a long-term master plan for the Capitol. These 131 urban acres are the only urban acres in the United States that have not benefited from master planning studies. Such studies are an indispensable prerequisite by any city if they want a dime of Federal funds.

I can say, as one who has developed some large Federal housing projects, that have been good examples of excellence in architecture and design, it is fun to be a developer of something that is beautiful. I think Members of Congress would get satisfaction out of developing beauty and greatness on Capitol Hill rather than the kind of building that has met with various shades of disappointment, chagrin, dismay, and horror from critics around the world.

Our Government is quite capable of doing this.

My wife is today up in Montreal, Canada, working on Expo 67 for a private firm for which she is a consultant. She telephoned me in rapture of the American building there.

Mr. YATES. I am not sure the Fine Arts Commission of Washington would approve though.

Mr. SCHEUER. It was lauded in the New York Times by Ada Lewis Huxtable, who has had such unkind things, to put it mildly, to say about what we did on Capitol Hill. Our State Department built a building at the Brussels World's Fair that every American could feel proud to the teeth at the beauty and sensitivity of that building.

The same thing with our exhibit at the Moscow Fair. Our State Department construction programs for embassies around the world have given people all over the world a feeling that we value beauty and grace and esthetics. It is a marvelous representation of the state of the arts in America.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development is just completing a magnificent building in Southwest Washington, designed by Marcel Broyer, one of America's great architects, and he was selected by a process of architectural selection.

Even on Capitol Hill, when we went to build a memorial to President Roosevelt, our former distinguished colleague, Mr. Kehoe, selected one of America's great architects on that job. We are capable of doing it and our Government is.

Mr. YATES. Are you not raising a point of contention?

What you are talking about is we have architects and we do think in terms of contemporary advances that have been made in buildings we have constructed. In other words, we are meeting the needs of the present time.

Is that not the contention of those who want to extend the west front of the Capitol?

Mr. SCHEUER. I do not think they have thought through what our needs are either at the present time or 5 or 10 years hence.

Mr. YATES. That is the answer.

Mr. SCHEUER. If we made the decision right now we had to move the west front, I would say wait a minute, if we have to move the west front, at least let's plan and think and design a project that will really meet our needs. Let's think about it.

So far nobody has thought about it.

Mr. ANDREWs. Off the record.

(Off the record.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Is it your understanding that the Commission on the Extension of the Capitol does not have jurisdiction or authority to order restoration?

Mr. SCHEUER. That is my understanding. I may well be wrong. It is a technical question.

Mr. ANDREWS. At this point in the record, I would like to insert the law on the extension of the Capitol project which is applicable here. It is Public Law 242, 84th Congress, as amended by Public Law 406, 84th Congress, as amended by Public Law 88-248, 88th Congress. (The information follows:)

LEGISLATION GOVERNING EXTENSION OF THE CAPITOL PROJECT

Extension of the Capitol: The Architect of the Capitol is hereby authorized, under the direction of a Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol, to be composed of the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the Senate, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, and the Architect of the Capitol, to provide for the extension, reconstruction, and replacement of the central portion of the United States Capitol in substantial accordance with scheme B of the architectural plan submitted by a joint commission of Congress and reported to Congress on March 3, 1905 (House Document numbered 385, Fifty-eighth Congress), but with such modifications and additions, including provisions for restaurant facilities, and such other facilities in the Capitol Grounds, together with utilities, equipment, approaches, and other appurtenant or necessary items, as may be approved by said Commission, and for such purposes there is hereby appropriated $5,000,000, to remain available until expended, and there are hereby authorized to be appropriated such additional sums as may be determined by said Commission to be required for the purposes hereof: Provided, That the Architect of the Capitol under the direction of said Commission and without regard to the provisions of section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, is authorized to enter into contracts and to make such other expenditures, including expenditures for personal and other services, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act and, prior to any appropriations being provided for extension, reconstruction, and replacement of the west central portion of the United States Capitol, to obligate such sums as may be necessary for the employment of nongovernmental engineering and other necessary services and for test borings and other necessary incidental items required to make a survey, study and examination of the structural condition of such west central portion, to make reports of findings, and to make recommendations with respect to such remedial measures as may be deemed necessary, including the feasibility of corrective measures in conjunction with extension of such west central portion.

(Off the record.)

Mr. ANDREWs. Let's hear from the architects.
Come around, gentlemen.

OPPOSITION TO EXTENSION OF WEST FRONT OF THE CAPITOL BUILDING

WITNESSES

DAVID N. YERKES, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON PUBLIC AFFAIRS, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS

FRANCIS D. LETHBRIDGE, MEMBER, AIA TASK FORCE ON WEST FRONT OF THE CAPITOL

PHILIP A. HUTCHINSON, JR., DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS

Mr. YERKES. Mr. Chairman, I will deliver a short prepared statement if I may, and then I would like to add a couple of things to it. I might call on Mr. Lethbridge here.

Mr. Chairman, my name is David N. Yerkes. I am a practicing architect in Washington and chairman of the Commission on Public Affairs of the American Institute of Architects.

With me is Francis D. Lethbridge, a Washington architect who is a member of the AIA's task force on the west front of the Capitol, and Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr., from the AIA staff.

We are here today because we are concerned about our Capitol Building, and particularly its west front. The west front is in a state of disrepair and no steps are being taken to request the necessary funds, and to take the required remedial action, to bring the west wall back into first-class condition and to prevent further deterioration.

It is apparent to anyone who has inspected the Capitol's west front that it is in poor shape. Numerous cracks are in evidence on the exterior of the building. Some of the window lintels and keystones have cracked and slipped. The foundations, at some points, are not far enough below the finish grade to escape frost damage.

We realize, of course, that the Commission on the Extension of the Capitol decided last year that the west front should be extended. We also understand that this extension would solve some of the problems of the existing wall while at the same time providing additional office space. We disagree with this decision. We believe it would be a mistake to cover up the last remaining exterior portion of the original Capitol, and we have communicated our position to the Commission.

But this is not the issue before this subcommittee. No funds have been requested either for west front repair or extension. We believe that a request for funds for an extension would be inappropriate at any time, but that steps to repair the west front should be taken promptly. We want to point out that no estimate of the cost of repairing the west front has ever been made. It seems to us that it is time to authorize a detailed study of the methods to be used in repairing the west front, and to prepare a cost estimate for this work. This process will take some time and we believe it should be started now.

We urge this subcommittee to request the Architect of the Capitol, first, to devote some portion of the $32,000 requested for "General annual repairs" to west front repair work, at least to the extent such repairs are needed to avoid further deterioration; and second, to use a portion of the $50,000 requested for "Surveys and studies" to obtain an estimate of the cost of restoring the west front in its present location, taking whatever action is necessary for safety, rehabilitation, and preservation.

Mr. Chairman, we thank you for permitting us to appear before the subcommittee. If there are any questions we shall do our best to answer them.

If I may, I would like to comment on the Thompson and Lichtner report.

Mr. ANDREWS. Could I ask you a question first?

Mr. YERKES. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. Your main objection is that to extend the west front would cover up the last remaining exterior portion of the original Capitol?

Mr. YERKES. That is true.

Mr. ANDREWS. You do admit that the condition of the west front is hazardous?

Mr. YERKES. There is no question about the fact that work needs to be done.

Mr. ANDREWS. Let me ask you this: About when was the west front foundation laid?

Mr. LETHBRIDGE. The west front was built in sections, of course. Mr. Chairman. The wings were completed earlier than the central portion which was completed about 1819. In fact, somewhat later than

that. But the foundations were laid over a period of time in the first 20 years of the 19th century.

Mr. ANDREWS. That has been a long time ago.

Mr. LETHBRIDGE. That is correct.

Mr. ANDREWS. Is it true that the original stones down there are today like they were when they were laid and the mortar probably rotted?

Mr. LETHBRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, the answer to that, the stones there today are the stones that were laid originally insofar as the foundations are concerned. It might be important to point out that the Thompson-Lichner report itself said that the walls of the west front were still in a stable condition. When one speaks of a hazardous condition, we are in fact speaking of parts of the west front.

The shoring that is done, for example, under the detailed lintel at the portico is to correct a hazardous condition, whereas the cracking and peeling of the paint and some of the other conditions we see in the west front are unsightly but not hazardous.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Back on the record.

Mr. LETHBRIDGE. There is not any question about the fact that work needs to be done, major work needs to be done, and one of the things we are concerned about is the fact that nothing is being done. Nobody can say exactly how rapid the process of deterioration is that is going on during this time when no painting or repairing is being done.

Mr. ANDREWS. Your position is that you should have restoration and a study for restoration should be made with a view to determining how much it would cost to restore the west front, but not extend the west front; is that right?

Mr. LETHBRIDGE. That is correct.

Mr. ANDREWS. I do not want to read anything that is embarrassing to the association. This is not read for the purpose of any embarrassment whatsoever. It will be in the printed record on page 18. I would like to read it and have your comment. Reading from page 18 of the proof of our current hearings:

Mr. ANDREWs. Do you have a report from the AIA

That is your organization?

Mr. YERKES. Yes.

on your plan No. 2, what is required by the law or by the Commission or just what is the situation?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. We have a report from AIA on the west front but it was not required by the Congress. The AIA elected to appoint a Task Force Committee of its own to investigate the west front.

Mr. ANDREWS. What do they say about it?

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, the AIA report is just about what we expected from the leadership of that organization. They have been against the west front project for several years now. You will recall that they were also opposed to the east front extension carried out in 1958-62. Oddly enough, however, at that time they said do not extend the east front, but instead extend the west front. Now they admit the east front has been successfully extended.

As evidence of this about-face, let me read excerpts from several documents of some years back:

"The AIA National Convention in Cleveland in July 1958, the architects who led the fight for the AIA against the east front extension with Ralph Walker, of AIA, Larrimore Rich, of AIA and Douglas Haskill, AIA. They circulated a paper at the Convention saying that practical space needs to be gained from the east front extension 'could be achieved in better measure by extending the west front and without the threatened architectural sentimental damage.'"