stantly growing activities not directly related to the work of Senate and House Chambers.

There is obviously a limit to the amount of space which can be added to the Capitol if it is to retain any resemblance to its original form-or even to the present building. Congress will presumably decide at some point not to make any more additions to the Capitol. We believe the Congress should make that decision now while the one remaining original wall can be saved as visible evidence of our heritage.

IV. RESTORATION: AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK?

The West Front of the Capitol can be restored and its structural weaknesses corrected. Admittedly, it will be a job requiring skill and patience. But if the decision to restore the Capitol is made, our building technology is certainly adequate to meet the challenge. Restoration would be, however, a costly undertaking and would entail some inconvenience.

Restoration techniques

The walls and foundations of the West Front of the Capitol are structurally inferior when tested by today's standards. However, retention and repair of the existing walls is not infeasible. No authority, including the Architect of the Capitol, contends that restoration is impossible. It would, of course, be a delicate and time consuming proposition. But our technology is up to the task.

Restoration work done on historic buildings in Europe indicates that walls and columns which have deteriorated have been reinforced effectively by a system of drilling diagonal holes through the masonry, inserting reinforcing rods, and forcing grout under pressure into the holes. Another successful technique called "needling" involves the use of temporary steel beams to take the load off parts of the wall while other areas of the wall are being repaired. Similar or even more innovative methods could be applied to the West Front. Inconvenience

If restoration is undertaken, Congressional leaders with offices located on the West Front would have to move and this certainly would be an inconvenience. But this inconvenience would occur even if the West Front were extended. Cost

No estimate has been made by the Capitol Architect to determine the cost of restoring the West Wall in its present location on the grounds that restoration was not the best solution and there were too many unknows to arrive at a reasonable estimate. The American Institute of Architects does not know what the cost of restoration would be. However, it is unlikely that the cost of restoration would approach the total cost of extension. Furthermore, since no recent survey has been made to determine the space needs of Congress and no master plan has been developed for the Capitol Hill area, it is our opinion that extension of the West Front may prove much more costly, due to misdirected effort, than the immediate value of dollars spent on the extension project.

V. ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING ON CAPITOL HILL

We move from crisis to crisis under present procedures for approval and construction of Capitol Hill buildings. Unlike other parts of the Capitol City, neither the Fine Arts Commission nor the National Capitol Planning Commission has authority over Capitol Hill architecture and development. A Congressional inquiry in 1965 brought out the fact that there had been no planning for Hill development during the past eight years. And today, no long-range master plan exists to guide development of Capitol grounds and contiguous areas.

Master planning

Construction on Capitol Hill seems inextricably steeped in controversy. Much of the blame for this situation can be attributed to Congress which, apparently through indifference, has allowed procedures to develop which are not in the best interest of the Capitol Hill area.

For example, most universities, towns and cities of consequence have recog nized the benefit of a master plan. And Congress has insisted that comprehensive master planning be accomplished before Federal funds are granted for interstate highways, model cities and other development programs. Yet no such plan exists for Capitol Hill.

"Why," one Congressman recently asked "should this 131 acres known as Capitol Hill be excluded and denied the benefits of comprehensive master planning which

Congress in its wisdom . . . felt was an indispensable condition to their spending a dime of Federal funds to help any city?" Why indeed!

Congress owes it to the people of the United States to have orderly plan for the development of the Capitol grounds and contiguous areas. The cost of creating an excellent plan would be far less than the amount which will be spent unnecessarily without one.

A Commission on Architecture and Planning

The 89th Congress considered legislation to establish a Commission on Architecture and Planning. The Commission, to be composed of highly experienced professionals, would supervise the implementation of a master plan and would pass on the design of buildings on Capitol Hill. We believe the legislation has a great deal of merit. Accordingly, we strongly urge that the many members who introduced the legislation in the 89th Congress reintroduce the Commission on Architecture and Planning bill and press for its enactment.

Congress called for the establishment of a Fine Arts Commission and National Capitol Planning Commission to assure the orderly and artistic development of the Capitol City. The Capitol grounds are a part of the city and should no longer be excluded from the accepted process of examination and review. Indeed, Capitol Hill is so important as to merit its own review body.

VI. CONCLUSION RESTORE THE WEST FRONT

The American Institute of Architects recommends that the West Front of the Capitol be restored and that Congress establish a permanent policy prohibiting any further major alteration to the Capitol other than that absolutely necessary for structural and safety reasons.

No evidence has been produced that would make impracticable the restoration of the West Wall in its present form. The encrustations of paint should be taken off and only those parts of the original facade that are dangerously damaged or deteriorated should be removed to be replaced with the same material as that of the original walls. The more aged, eroded condition of the stone of the West Front should be considered honorable evidence of its survival as one of the earliest of our major public buildings. It is a condition that does not detract from the beauty of the building when viewed from a distance, and it is one which adds considerably to its interest and historic significance when examined close-at-hand. The American Institute of Architects believes it would be a mistake to cover up the last remaining exterior portion of the original Capitol. We strongly urge that the greatest symbol of our country be preserved.

VII. APPENDIX: AIA TASK FORCE REPORT

West front of the Capitol

The members of the AIA Task Force on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol met in Washington November 16th and 17th, 1966. They were Messrs. F. D. Lethbridge, Norman Fletcher, J. Stenhouse, L. Rossetti, architects; C. Hansen, engineer; Samuel E. Homsey, Chairman; T. R. Hollenbach and P. Hutchinson, AIA Staff.

The Task Force met in the morning of November 16, having previously studied the engineering reports individually. Carl Hansen, prominent structural engineer, discussed the reports and helped analyze the various structural problems. The afternoon of November 16th was spent at the Capitol building with Mr. Campioli, the Assistant Architect of the Capitol, and the associated architects for the extension of the Capitol project, together with certain of their engineers. The presentation of the engineering reports by the associated architects for the extension is based largely on the theory of lateral bracing against lateral thrust of the brick arches, although there was no direct evidence that lateral thrust in the present west front was causing problems. There was evidence to show that cracks were due to vertical settlement.

Even if the present facade is covered by an extension, it would appear that new underpinning of the present foundations will be necessary.

Several of the architrave stones of the portico by inspection indicated a definite sag and were shored up. Some window lintels and keystones had both cracked and slipped. The foundations at some points were reported to be well below the finish grade and at others unacceptably close. The basement wall of the center part at the SW corner in the court had also been shored. It was explained that when the grade was lowered in this court the foundations thus

exposed were veneered and it was this unbonded stone covering that had come loose from its back-up and required shoring. No cracks were in evidence on the interior, but this was explained by the fact that constant repairs kept pace with their occurrence. The explanation that visible exterior cracks were due to movement of the wall by settlement and expansion appeared reasonable: however, no visible effort had been made recently to fill these cracks in approved fashion in order to at least deter the penetration of moisture. Had this been done, it is possible that the disgraceful appearance of the exterior surface due to scaling paint might have been ameliorated.

After a study of drawings of building sections and on-site observations, none of the defects appear to indicate that danger of collapse is imminent or that correction is not practicable though it might be time consuming and relatively expensive.

It would seem, however, improbable that the cost of preservation would approach the total cost of extension. Some more research could be done by the AIA on the probable range of cost for the restoration. This could be done by getting opinions from contractors in this country experienced European contractors who have been dealing with this kind of construction-for example, Fondedile S.P.A. in Rome. Techniques used in Europe for restoring facades include one called "needling," in which steel beams are placed through the wall at intervals for scaffolding. while certain portions of the building are worked on. There is also a possibility of using temporary tie rod techniques on the inside to hold the wall in place while the outside surface is worked on. Restoration work done on historic buildings in Europe indicates that walls and columns have been reinforced effectively by a system of drilling diagonal holes, inserting reinforcing rods and forcing in grout under pressure. This method seems very promising as one of a number of techniques which can almost certainly be used to preserve the West Front with no major change in its appearance. Foundation underpinning is well within the range of familiar techniques in this country.

The inconvenience factor has been strongly developed by the associated architects. If the extension is built. the Congressional leaders using the offices on the west side will be inconvenienced at least part of the time as the building is joined on through construction, and all of the time because of lack of natural light. It is true that if a project for preservation of the present west front is carried forward, then the Congressional leaders in that area would have to move elsewhere during that time, and this certainly would be an inconvenience. However, if extra space, such as is now proposed by an extension, is an absolute necessity. separate quarters could be planned as a Phase I development of a total program, and they could move into the new quarters after it was finished, occasioning no inconvenience except for moving. In this version, Phase II would be restoring the west facade after additional space was built, In all parts of the world we see scaffolds and other protective measures used for preservation of historic monuments; they are there for years at a time. They are worth the effort and patience. They remind us of the dimension of time. We cannot go back and rebuild the past.

At a hearing before the Commission for Extension of the U.S. Capitol in 1965 some opinion was expressed that the sandstone facing used was quite inferior for use when exposed to the weather and unless painted would go to pieces. Though this stone is obviously inferior to some other stones for exterior use, so is marble. The difference is relative. The same quarry from which came the facing for the Capitol furnished the facing for the first wing of the old Patent Office. There is no serious deterioration of that surface, however, the adjoining wings of marble are badly deteriorated. There is good reason to feel that inferior construction methods-penetration of the weather to the inner core of the exterior walls and sealing of the surface with paint-contributed considerably more to deterioration than the facing material itself.

The Task Force supports a program of preservation in the purest sense of the word. First of all, every bit of exterior paint should be carefully removed and the original stone exposed. Only those stones that are structurally unsound should be replaced and these stones should be replaced with the same material as that of the original walls.

It is not felt that a restoration of the West Front for "cosmetic" reasons is either necessary or desirable. The more aged, eroded condition of the stones of the West Front should be considered honorable evidence of its survival as one of the earliest of our major public buildings. It is a condition that does not detract from the beauty of the building when viewed from a distance, and is one that adds considerably to its interest and historic significance when ex

amined close at hand. After removal of the existing layers of paint and replacement of damaged stones, it will then be possible to determine whether the wall should remain exposed or should for aesthetic or protective reasons receive a coating that will not entrap moisture as before, i.e., will allow the stone to breathe. It has been stated in support of an extension that no restoration of the existing building would be permanent. Very little is permanent, not even the proposed extension. Constant maintenance is the only safeguard against failure of any construction-just as constant vigilance is essential to the preservation of our form of government.

Were the primary objective one of preservation rather than additional space, our technology, wealth, and will would be adequate to meet the challenge.

If the extension is carried out, the work of important early American architects and landscape architects would be lost forever-namely, Thorton, Latrobe, Bulfinch, and Olmstead. The work of these significant American architects would seem important to keep in a world in which we are losing many of our original resources in buildings and nature. It seems all the more essential to hold on to this last remaining, important symbol embodied in our Capitol. Should we not follow the example of such attempts at restoration as the Adler-Sullivan Auditorium Building in Chicago and the effort given to restoring New York City Hall recently? Certainly now is the time when Americans are becoming conscious of their heritage in building and in nature.

Now is the time when Americans may be developing the self-confidence to solve their functional problems in an aggressive, growing, and modern approach, still keeping their historic monuments inviolate. These people have a right to be heard. The landmark under discussion is number one on the list-the Capitol of the United States. If this landmark is not worth the effort to save-what is? The whole problem of the extension points to the necessity for master planning on Capitol Hill. In this connection, it would seem an underground development for the east plaza side of the Capitol should be explored for the possible use of multi-level parking and visitor's facilities. The whole idea for visitors' facilities incorporating cafeteria, specialized auditoria with advanced audo-visual techniques, the use of free and flexible areas and orientation would be part of the overall program. Certainly this type of new 20th century facility can best be solved in structures and materials less inhibited by the classic framework. The matter of additional office space may be subject to some debate as to its critical necessity, but if one is to provide the most up-to-date and advanced, flexible, functional, handsome office space, one would not start with the restricting envelope of a building conceived a century and a half ago. The one advantage of proximity of offices to legislative chambers could be answered by well-designed motorized connections.

The Task Force recommends preservation, but would put a strong plea for a master plan, providing for office space, visitors' facilities and parking, all with possibilities for expansion. It would seem then that the AIA's position, if the Board follows the recommendation of the Task Force, would be very much in concert with the President's program for natural beauty, which would include preservation, and also that of the many governors' councils on the same subject. We are already identified with this movement and are not alone in defending this position. Moreover, there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people who are shocked at the prospect of extending the west front of the Capitol and who would support preservation. The fact that the east from has been more or less successfully added to should argue more strongly for the preservation of the west front as the only remaining historic facade of the Capitol.

President Johnson has said: "Among the most cherished of a nation's treasures are the monuments of its past. Each contributes to the historic texture of society. We look back with reverence to lasting reminders of a vital past. We look forward with confidence to achievements which will enhance our future with accomplishments to match our monumental past. In every part of the country citizens are rallying to save landmarks of beauty and history. The Government must also do its share to assist the local efforts."

Mr. YERKES. This task force was instructed by the president of the American Institute of Architects to approach this study with a completely objective point of view and come to the conclusion it thought was the correct one.

The AIA in the past had taken the position it was opposed to the extension of the west front.

Mr. YATES. When did it do that?
Mr. YERKES. It did that in 1964.

Mr. YATES. Of the west front or the east front?

Mr. YERKES. West front.

This goes back some distance. We felt it would be advisable from many points of view to have somebody start over again, start from scratch and take a look at this thing.

The task force came to the same conclusion that we had already come to, so that the statement of the task force is preceded by a statement signed by Charles Nes as the president of the American Institute of Architects, and we are here representing the American Institute of Architects.

COMMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL ON THE REPORT OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS

Mr. ANDREWs. We shall also insert in the record the comments of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol on the report of the American Institute of Architects on conditions of the west front of the Capitol. COMMENTS ON A REPORT ON CONDITIONS OF THE WEST FRONT OF THE CAPITOL DATED MARCH 24, 1967, ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Authority for report: The report is not required by any law, nor was it requested by the Congress, the Commission in Charge of the Project, or the Architect of the Capitol.

Who issued this report: It was issued in the name of the American Institute of Architects, Washington, D.C. It is based on recommendations of a task force appointed by the President of the A.I.A. The task force is made up of two architects from Washington, D.C.; one from Detroit; one from Delaware; and one from Massachusetts.

Basis for selection of task force: Presumably the selection was made at the discretion of the A.I.A. President. The introduction includes a statement that such task force was to be completely objective, but it is interesting that the membership of the task force included a leading opponent of the West Front Extension and no proponents.

What does the report represent: Although made in the name of the A.I.A., it represents essentially the same position taken by the A.I.A. leadership for the past several years. It has not been voted on at an A.I.A. convention by the delegates representing the various chapters. It represents the opinions of only a few members of the Institute. An architect usually without exception likes to make up his own mind rather than having it made up for him by someone else. At the last A.I.A. convention, a motion condemning the West Front Extension was tabled by the delegates over the strenuous objections of the A.I.A. leadership.

As recently as a few days ago we were advised that the Committee for Preservation of Historic Buildings, Philadelphia Chapter, American Institute of Architects, had agreed to a resolution strongly recommending that the Chapter support the proposed Extension of the West Front of the Capitol.

Direction of the A.I.A. Task Force: According to the introduction in the report, the task force was instructed to determine (1) if restoration was impractical; (2) if restoration was too expensive, and (3) whether the proposed extension plan had validity. A search of the report reveals that the task force found restoration not infeasible. On expense, it is stated, The American Institute of Architects does not know what the cost of restoration would be. Further, they make no mention of the validity of Plan 2 as recommended by the professional architectsengineers engaged on the job and as approved by the Commission in Charge.

Time devoted to preparation of report: In recent weeks, we have heard statements that the A.I.A. task force spent five months going over the Capitol from basement to attic. They came to the Capitol in mid-November 1966 and spent a portion of one day in the Architect's office and touring the interior and exterior of the building. This is in contrast to the time spent by our Engineer Consultant who explored this problem from March 13, 1964, to September 22, 1965, and the