"Dr. CLAIR. All of this wall is. We found hardly a place in the whole old west front, the old Senate wing, old House wing, and the old center section, that the wall has not been displaced. "Speaker MCCORMACK. Is the displacement stabilized or can it be expected to progress further? "Dr. CLAIR. It is not stabilized. It is progressing and that is as indicated by the fact that there is an increasing number of cracks found in our investigation which did not show in a previous study several years ago." AIA Report: In short, none of the above-mentioned defects appears to indicate that danger of collapse is imminent or that correction is not practicable. Comment: This statement is at variance with statement made by Dr. Clair at Hearings before the Extension of the Capitol Project Commission. "STATEMENT BY DR. CLAIR AT HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION FOR EXTENSION OF THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL, 89TH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION ON THE CONDITION AND PROPOSED EXTENSION OF THE WEST CENTRAL FRONT OF THE U.S. CAPITOL, JUNE 24, 1965: "The fact is that this type of construction, if you had even a minor earthquake would lead I am sure to not only falling of the exterior stone but also, with that. partial collapse of these walls. That is one of the reasons it is desirable to put another structure here that can brace this structure. "Mr. FORD. Is it developing at an accelerated rate? "Dr. CLAIR. Sure it is, otherwise we would not have been able to find the difference in the few years between the previous observations, which are marked on here, and our observations of cracking. . . "Speaker McCORMACK. Are there any dangerous conditions which require immediate attention? If so, what would be involved? "Dr. CLAIR. Well, just to work backward on this model. To correct the condition of the foundations at the retaining walls of the terrace, they would have be underpinned. . . "Dr. CLAIR. This must be done. Something must be done on this immediately. sir. "Speaker McCORMACK. What do you mean by "immediately"? "Dr. CLAIR. Next week. I am not kidding. I think it is so serious something should be done at once." AIA Report: Subsequent events have proved the 1957 survey unreliable. (Space Survey.) Comment: Like most forecasts, the 1957 survey produced the best information that could be developed at that time, but additional legislation, tremendous increase in population and jurisdictions have increased the requirements then anticipated, hence the need for greater space. While there has been no additional suvey since then we have kept track of space needs and are familiar with up-todate requirements. AIA Report: It is quite possible that some of the functions now housed in the Capitol building could be moved to other new or existing buildings with no loss of efficiency. Comment: The space needs made evident to us indicate that only such fune tions which need to be in the Capitol are presently and proposed to be placed in the Capitol. AIA Report: There is obviously a limit to the amount of space which can 'e 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 visie evidence of our heritage. Comment: Such a decision, if made, should follow the Extension of the West Central Front of the Capitol. The extension will once again place the Capitol in sound structural condition and complete the revised composition of the design begun with the addition of the present Senate and House Wings and the addition of the present dome more than 100 years ago. The "one remaining original wall" when built was not as it appears today, coated with more than 35 coats of paint, cracked and patched. Cleaning and removing the paint would destroy more of the delicate carvings on column and pilaster caps, cornices, consoles, carved panels, etc. One has only to look at the glass covered portions of carvings on the old east front of the original Senate and House Wings to see the condition of the sandstone when exposed to the weather. Plans for the Capitol have been altered and added to from a time when it was not sufficiently completed for the initial occupancy (Latrobe drawing-1806). Further, additions have been made as the needs of Congress required them. The Congress meets and works in the Capitol building and surely no one is more qualified to know the needs than the Congress itself. The current need for additional space inside the Capitol proper is evidenced by the present numerous requests for space and facilities, and the severely crowding of facilities. AIA Report: If the extension is carried out, the work of important early American architects and landscape architects would be lost forever-namely, Thornton, 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. Comment: Was the work of the early architects lost when the East Front was extended 1958-1962? Of course not. It is there today for all to enjoy. Neither will it be lost on the West Front Extension. It will be there also in permanent construction for which the whole nation can be proud. The so-called "restoration" proposed by the AIA task force would result in replacing many, many of the present stones, so it would in the end be a replica. The proposed extension would likewise be a replica of the essential features of the architecture. AIA Report: 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 temoprary steel beams to take the load off parts of the wall while other areas of the wall are being repaired. Comment: Except for the exterior architectural treatment, the restoration of the walls of the structure is an engineering problem and is well presented in the Thomson and Lichtner Company, Inc., report. Should restoration be undertaken the services of a most qualified and experienced engineering firm and contractor would be required. To accomplish the job outlined above would require destroying the interior finish much of which has decorative painted treatment on walls and ceilings. If walls and ceilings are solidified through intrusion grouting under pressure, undesirable conditions would develop such as sweeating in winter on interior finished surfaces through condensation. Present voids in walls act as insulation against conduction. Solidification of walls might also result in new expansion cracks with resultant leaks. In order to needle the walls, it would be neccessary to solidify the interior core of the exterior walls with the resultant damage mentioned. AIA Report: If restoration is undertaken, Congressional leaders with officers 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 was extended. Comment: The latter is not a statement of fact as the Congressional leaders would not be inconvenienced except to a very minor degree as compared to the amount of inconvenience in an overall restoration. Restoration would result in vacating all the rooms on the West Central side including Statuary Hall. We constructed the East Front without moving out any Members. AIA Report-Restoration: 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 unknowns 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. Comment: This is at variance with Dr. Clair's statement that restoration might cost anywhere from $10 million to $50 million. A member of the task force recently stated to a group at the Capitol that cost of so-called restoration could exceed the cost of the extension. It is anybody's geuss as to what the cost of restoration would amount to. as such work would have to be done on a costplus basis, solving problems as the work progresses and the unknown conditions are revealed. There would be considerable risk attached to such an operation without any assurance that failure of the brick floor arches might not occur after the shores are removed. AIA Report-Master Planning: For example, most universities, towns and cities of consequence have recognized the benefit of a master plan. And Congress has nsisted 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. Comment: In recent years, a Senate Bill for providing a master plan for Capitol Hill was supported by the Arichtect of the Capitol, but the Bill has not been enacted. The Architect of the Capitol is in favor of a master plan and recommended that such a plan be made by the National Capital Planning Commission and his office jointly. But, really, preparation of a master plan has little or no effect on the need to proivde the Capitol with a permanent west face. AIA Report.-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. Comment: Such a policy, if made, should come after the extension of the West Front when the building will be in a sound condition. AIA Report: 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. Comment: The conclusion of the A.I.A. Committee is, of course. at variance with the rather extensive structural analysis of the various alternatives and recommendations made by the independent engineering consultant, The Thomp son & Lichtner Company, Inc., in their "Report on the Structural Condition of the West Central Portion of the United States Capitol," dated November 1. 1964. Further, the statement is not a fact. The reports from the engineering consultants indicate this operation would, indeed, be hazardous and costly in attempting to remove portions of the old walls in order to replace the many damaged stones now exposed and/or concealed by the encrustations of paint. Aquia Creek sandstone quarries are no longer operative and replacement mate rial to match the existing sandstone is not available and certainly not from the twenty or thirty depleted quarries which furnished stone for the Capitol and other city buildings at that time. SUMMARY COMMENT The A.I.A. report has some commendable qualities: it is brief, it is presented in a rather inoffensive manner compared to the hysterical and emotional protest from this organization several years ago against the East Front Extension . and, at least, it shows that a few members of the A.I.A. have given some thought to the West Front Project. To our mind, however, it lacks the thoroughness of the studies made by the professional archtitects-engineers retained by the Commission; it is in many respects too general, too vague and too "iffy." Such a report can be made and perhaps is appropriate for an organization that does not have the responsibility for the safety and maintenance of the structure and the well-being of the occupants. But the Congress cannot afford to take chances with a "maybe" program. In some ways, what the A.I.A. report does not say is more important than that which is said: They do not indicate precisely how their recommendations could be satisfactorily carried forward: They do not tell the Congress what the building will look like when the 30-odd coats of paint are removed and the voids, cracks, and eroded seetions are laid bare; They do not outline the technique for removing the paint from the already crumbling and disintegrating sandstone ornamentations or frMIA other portions of the building (we know from our experience with the East Front panels preserved in the main corridors that it is impossible to satisfactorily remove the heavy coatings of paint from these old, decaying architectural features, especially where they have been exposed to the elements); They do not refer to the spotty appearance of the building that would be created by new stones contrasting with the old stones quarried over 160 years ago and now saturated with the vehicle of the paint; They do not say that the wall with replaced stones would crack once again from the lack of expansion and contraction provisions, which cannot be built into a wall already constructed; They do not say that many stones would have to be removed whether sound or not to accommodate the replacement of damaged projecting stones such as cornices, belt courses, etc., which are in effect cantilevered ; They say little or nothing about the danger to the building and occupants that could result from their recommendations; They do not estimate the cost of their program; They do not say whether the Extension Plan 2, prepared, reviewed, and recommended by eminent members of the A.I.A. is good, bad, or even satisfactory. What a shame it would be to butcher this old building in the manner they propose. Their program, if it can be called that, in the name of restoration and/or preservation, is an open invitation to endless expense of public funds, continued admittedly poor structural conditions on this section, a scabby appearance of West Front overlooking the mall, and stifling any further space growth for Congressional operations in the Capitol. Mr. YATES. Thank you. Mr. ANDREWS. That is all. JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE (The following material was submitted by the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee in connection with the budget request for 1968; see p. 348 for testimony.) JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE FULL COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE PROJECTS FOR THE YEAR 1967 Full committee Hearings on the President's Economic Report. Hearings on Economy of Mainland China. Hearings on the effect of the Vietnam war on the U.S. economy, particularly the impact of spending on investment, consumption, and prices, and the possible effect of de-escalation on the economy. A review of debt management policy and its relation to the international balance of payments. Review of the Employment Act of 1946 and operation of full employment policy, including analysis of effect on prices and wages of reducing unemployment. Subcommittee on Economy in Government Federal procurement practices-continuation of Subcommittee's previous work. The Program-Planning-Budgeting System (PPB-S) in the executive branch and the application of performance budgeting in the Department of Defense. Appraisal of the effectiveness and relative priority of government expenditure programs. Subcommittee on Economic Progress Financing municipal facilities-problems of the next decade (followup on 1966 studies). Economic education-a review of the teaching of economics in the United States pursuant to Senate Resolution 316 of the 89th Congress. Continue with study of human resources investment. The first phase-preparaation of an extensive compilation of Federal programs-has been completed. 78-653-67-51 It is proposed to develop informed opinion through experts, and if time permits, to supplement it with hearings-preferably in the field of health or education. Subcommittee on Foreign Economic Policy Review status of trade agreements and assess new directions in international trade negotiations. Subcommittee on International Exchange and Payments Review the general status of negotiations on monetary reform, and continue study of balance of payments developments. Subcommittee on Inter-American Economic Relationships Study the domestic financial institutions and channels for savings within the developing countries of Latin America, as well as the obstacles to private domestic capital accumulation. The Subcommittee will continue to watch with interest the common market and trade developments in Latin America. Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy Continuation of the study of pensions and their economic effects. Analysis of the various proposals for revenue sharing with States and localities, including the so-called Heller plan, bloc grant proposals, and others. Analysis of negative income tax, guaranteed annual income, and other proposals for income maintenance. Current tax reform issues. Subcommittee on Economic Statistics The subcommittee hopes to look into the possibilities of a truly integrated system providing genuinely comparable statistics consistent with and meshed into an over-all system of economic statistics including the Federal, State, and local governments. Subcommittee on Urban Affairs A broad study of basic economic problems of urban areas. As a first step, a compilation of expert opinions will be prepared, and possible on site hearings held. FULL COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE PROJECTS IN THE YEAR 1966 Full committee January 1966 Economic Report of the President In February the committee held 7 days of hearings on the 1966 Economic Report of the President, receiving testimony from the Council of Economic Advisers, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, academic experts, and representatives of industry, agriculture, and labor. The printed record of the hearings, in four parts, contains in the final volume invited comments from organizations representing bankers, business, labor, agriculture, and economic research groups. The 1966 Joint Economic Report The annual economic report of the committee was filed with the Congress on March 17, the March 1 deadline having been extended by unanimous consent of both Houses of the Congress. This report also contains minority and supplementary views. (H. Rept. No. 1334, 89th Cong., 2d Sess.) Twentieth anniversary of the Employment Act of 1946: An economic symposium On February 23 the committee observed the 20th anniversary of the Employment Act with a day-long symposium which brought together many of the Nation's leading economists. This symposium sought to reassess the objectives of the Act and the uses of public policy instruments to obtain its goals. The symposium produced a valuable, objective evaluation of the Act and its administration over the years, and indicated wherein performance had fallen short, as well as what might be done in the future to improve it. In conjunction with the symposium, the committee reprinted the "Employment Act of 1946, as Amended, With Related Laws and Rules of the Joint Economic Committee." This 20th anniversary edition contains a chronological listing of |