Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
143605649
label
West Front of Capitol Extension: General, 1965-1973 (7)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
143605649
contentType
document
title
West Front of Capitol Extension: General, 1965-1973 (7)
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Special Files
subjects
United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.)
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
143605649
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1973-02-28
month
2
year
1973
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1965-05-01
month
5
year
1965
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
5589426c583887d5
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box J30, folder "West Front Extension: General,
1965-1973 (7)" of the Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers, 1948-1973 at the Gerald R.
Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box J30 of the Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers, 1948-1973 at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
COMMITTEE OF 100 ON THE FEDERAL CITY
1307 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
June 7, 1972
Alvan No to white
sent cofny 6-11-72
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
The House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Dear Representative Ford:
The structural, technical, and economic feasibility of restoring the West
Front of the United States Capitol has been established by a report from a
respected professional firm. The choice between extension or restoration
now depends upon evaluation of the relative importance of providing more
working space versus protecting the Nation's number one landmark and pre-
serving the last remaining, visible, original wall with its sweeping Olmsted
terrace.
The Committee of 100 believes that the protection and preservation of this
essential part of the Nation's cultural heritage far outweighs the need for
office space within the Capitol and recommends that there be no further ex-
pansion or modification of the Capitol. The Committee also believes that
no further construction of any kind should be undertaken on Capitol Hill un-
til a comprehensive plan has been drawn up by a qualified professional or
professionals, accepted, and put in force.
Therefore, we urge you to support the Senate provision in the Legislative
Appropriations bill (H.R. 13955), which would limit action for any extension
to preliminary planning only.
Very truly yours,
Chapser
Grosvenor Chapman, FAIA
Acting Chairman
BOB CASEY
22ND DISTRICT, TEXAS
Congress of the United States
house of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
June 1, 1972
Cogital Extensem MA
Dear Jerry:
For your information, this is the reply
I received from Senator Hollings to my
proposal.
Regards,
Bob
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Bob Casey
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS
COMMITTEES:
SOUTH CAROLINA
APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEES:
OFFICES:
LEGISLATIVE: CHAIRMAN
SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
United States Senate
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LABOR, HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
202-225-6121
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
EDERAL BUILDING, COLUMBIA, S.C.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
STATE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE AND
803-254-7636
THE JUDICIARY
May 30, 1972
ERAL BUILDING, SPARTANBURG, S.C.
COMMERCE
803-585-8271
SUBCOMMITTEES:
41 EAST BAY, CHARLESTON, S.C.
OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE: CHAIRMAN
803-723-5211
AVIATION
MERCHANT MARINE
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
SUSCOMMITTEES:
POSTAL OPERATIONS: CHAIRMAN
COMPENSATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS
The Honorable Bob Casey
Member of Congress
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
FORD if LIBRARY GERALD
Dear Mr. Casey:
I have your letter of May 24 with the proposed amendment
language. Let me first clarify points made in your letter. I do not
believe the Capitol Building Commission has made a valid decision
to extend the West Front. This was one of the main issues of the
Mansfield Amendment voted down by the Senate. It was made clear
in debate that the five conditions to be met by the Praeger Report
were met as of the time of the report and, therefore, there was no
congressional directive or authority to proceed with final plans. It
was after the passage of time and the ensuing inflation of over 14
months without a meeting that the Commission hurriedly met in
secret and determined that the conditions could not be met. Therefore,
the Senate disagrees with the first premise that a decision has been
made to extend the West Front. By way of emphasis one of your House
conferees stated emphatically that the decision had never been put to
the Congress for either extension or restoration. And obviously since
it never reached the Congress it could never have reached the
Commission.
Secondly, the concern of definitive designation as to the use of
the new space only goes to the heart of the original question whether to
restore or whether to extend. A general plan for space use should be
approved by both Houses and wherein office and committee rooms, etc.
are included in a wing, obviously the Speaker would decide for the
House wing and the Rules Committee would decide for the Senate wing.
But this is not in issue. What is in issue is whether or not additional
space is needed in the Capitol, whether it be individual offices,
restaurants or otherwise. Neither of us can tell because the question
has not been put but it is apparent from my contacts that the majority
The Honorable Bob Casey
May 30, 1972
Page Two
of the Congress or at least the Senate would desire these additional
offices and facilities for a reasonable cost at a location outside the
Capitol building.
With these observations I would adhere to the compromise
language worked out in the conference which appeared to win approval
from some of the House conferees; i.e. that the Architect proceed
with plans and estimates for both restoration and extension and
then a decision based upon the plans and estimates can be made once
and for all by both Houses. Your language forbids this. Your
language proceeds as your letter that the decision has been made for
extension and then without mention of restoration, you go off on the
tangential problem of assigning space. These of course are just my
feelings in response to your proposal and I think the Committee of
Conference should meet on the various proposals and then make the
decision.
But let me once more object as strénuously as I know how
to the procedure thus far. To increase the pay of a policeman on
the beat at the Capitol, we require in our Government a public
hearing in both bodies, plus three readings in the House and three
readings in the Senate. Here, in an attempt to disfigure a national
shrine and expend approximately $100 million at a cost per net square
foot of at least $368, we are not to have any hearings, any debate and
only one reading. In 1955 Speaker Rayburn inserted this Commission
approach in the Appropriations bill asking that the center section be
extended to include restaurant facilities in conformance with a 1905
plan. The space needs have materially changed since 1905 and
practically everyone opposes additional restaurant facilities in the
Capitol building. But when we raise these questions, the leadership
takes cover behind the leadership. We are expected to cast a vote of
confidence for the leadership rather than vote on the fundamental of
either restoration or extension. 1 resent and resist this twisting of
our responsibilities as members or Congress,
Sincerely
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Ernest F Hollings
EFH:mwh
BOB CASEY
HOME ADDRESS:
22ND DISTRICT, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
WASHINGTON ADDRESS:
Congress of the United States
2353 RAYBURN BUILDING
SUBCOMMITTEES:
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
CHAIRMAN: LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS
LABOR-HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
House of Representatives
ALAN R. ERWIN
APPROPRIATIONS
ASSISTANT
Washington, D. C.
May 24, 1972
Copital Extension
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Minority Leader of the House
H-230, The Capitol
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Jerry:
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
For your information, I attach a copy of a
letter I have written to Senator Hollings, together
with copy of the language I have submitted to him.
Sincere regards,
Bot
Bob Casey
BC/gw
Attachments
BOB CASEY
HOME ADDRESS:
22ND DISTRICT, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
WASHINGTON ADDRESS:
2353 RAYBURN BUILDING
SUBCOMMITTEES:
Congress of the United States
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
CHAIRMAN: LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS
LABOR-HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
House of Representatives
ALAN R. ERWIN
APPROPRIATIONS
ASSISTANT
Washington, D. C.
May 24, 1972
The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings
U. S. Senate
432 Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Hollings:
Since the Capitol Building Commission has made the
decision to extend the West Front and since one of your
objections to extension is the lask of definitive designa-
tion as to the use of the new space, I respectfully submit
an amendment as a substitute for the amendment which you
placed on the Legislative Appropriation Bill.
The language which you placed in the bill and the
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
alternative language which you submitted is unacceptable.
I repeat, there is no necessity for additional preliminary
plans, and I also state there is no necessity for additional
hearings on restoration.
I sincerely urge you to seriously consider the language
I attach, as I feel it would give the Senate complete con-
trol over plans for that portion of the Capitol on their
side, Also, when final plans are complete, the Congress
as a whole will say "yea" or "nay" by either appropriating
or refusing to appropriate the necessary funds for construc-
tion.
Sincerely,
Bob Casey
BC/gw
Attachment
EXTENSION OF THE CAPITOL
No funds available under this appropriation shall
be used to initiate construction of said project; for any
preparation of the building site or the surrounding area for
construction; or for any vacation of the building, until
specifically approved and appropriated for by the Congress:
Provided, there shall be prepared and submitted to the Congress
plans and estimates of the cost of the extension of the West
Front of the Capitol, and provided further that the architect
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
shall prepare the plans and the proposed use of the space
provided by the extension of the West Central Front of the
Capitol under the direction of The Speaker, insofar as the House
side of such extension is concerned, and under the direction of
the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, insofar as the
Senate side of such extension is concerned; no extension shall
proceed until final approval of such plans and appropriation
of funds for such purpose by the Congress.
ARCHITECT
OF
THE
THE CAPITOL
*
1793
*
Washington, D.C. 20515
May 24, 1972
Honorable Mike Mansfield
Majority Leader
United States Senate
C
Washington, D. C.
GERELO'P FORD LIBRARY
Dear Mr. Majority Leader:
In response to your request, I submit the following information
regarding our needs for proceeding with a solution to the problem
of the West Central Front of the Capitol:
P
1. We need to proceed with working drawings and specifications
for the extension so that final estimates of cost can be
accurately determined; in preparing these drawings,
revisions will be made to the existing completed preliminary
drawings so that present thinking on the part of those
Y
concerned with the utilization of space can be incorporated
into the plans.
2. We do not need funds for construction at this time. When
funds are requested for such purposes, after the drawings
are completed and accurate cost estimates are obtained, the
Congress will, of course, have the opportunity for full
hearings.
3. We will, simultaneously and in-house, make every effort to
obtain additional corroborative cost estimates for the
restoration as previously proposed in the Praeger report, as
that a cost comparison can be made if that appears to be
appropriate in the future.
Hon. Mike Mansfield
May 24, 1972
page 2
A procedure such as I have outlined above is based upon my own
intensive investigation of the subject matter and reasoned
professional opinion, and is offered in an objective effort to
arrive at a solution that will best serve the interests of the
people of the Nation. I stand ready to be helpful in any way
that I am able.
Cordially,
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
George M. White, FAIA
Architect of the Capitol
GMW/mhh
CC: Members of the Commission for Extension of the
United States Capitol
The Speaker's Rooms
U.S. House of Representatives
Mashington, D. C. 20515
Wesh Front file
April 25, 1972
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
House Minority Leader
H-230, The Capitol
Washington, D. C.
Dear Gerry:
Thank you for sending me a copy of the letter which
you received from Wilfred J. Gregson. I think the
opposition among architects to the proposed changes to
the West Front has been exaggerated and perhaps even greatly
misrepresented. I am pleased to have this evidence of
professional support.
Sincerely,
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD s
Larl
The Speaker
CA/Vtk
cc: Mr. Wilfred J. Gregson, F.A.R.A.
Society of American Registered Architects
622 Carnegie Building
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
WEST FRONT OF THE CAPITOL
1. Statements relating to Congressman Stratton's remarks
on the floor March 16, 1972; the action of the
Commission March 8, 1972; and the restoration and
other reports.
2. Resolution of the Commission March 8, 1972, containing
the Commission's decision and the law relating to the
restoration study and the extension of the Capitol.
3. Law authorizing the extension of the central portion
of the Capitol (east and front fronts), under direction
of the Commission created therein.
4. Editorial from The Evening Star, March 10, 1972.
5. Memorandum from the Architect to the Commission,
March 6, 1972.
6. Background of George M. White, Architect of the Capitol.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
NOTES ON WEST FRONT OF THE CAPITOL
(If Congressman Stratton tries to stop planning through amendment or
other device on the Legislative Branch Appropriation Bill, 1973)
1. Stratton stated in his speech on the floor of the House, March
1972, that he had introduced three separate bills to accomplish
his objectives. These bills were referred to the Committee on
Public Works. Why is he now attempting to circumvent the
regular legislative processes through an appropriation bill?
2. The House debated the West Front problem fully on September 19,
1969, and agreed to appropriate $2,000,000 for the final planning
of the extension. Mr. Stratton's amendment to stop this was
defeated by the House (c. R. H8232, September 19, 1969).
As far as the House was concerned, we could have proceeded then,
more than 2 years ago, with the extension, which would have
saved the escalation that has resulted in the meantime--some
$10,000,000 to $15,000,000.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
It was only after the insistence of some members of the other
body that the provision for a se-called restoration study was
agreed to in conference and the extension was postponed until
the restoration study could be received and studied.
Any escalation of the cost of the extension, therefore, can be
laid at the doorstep of the restorationist. It is not the fault
of the Commission or the Architect of the Capitol.
3. The Commission composed of the Speaker, the Majority Leader and
the Minority Leader on this side; the President of the Senate,
the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader on the Senate side;
and the Architect of the Capitol, is about as representative of
the Membership of the Congress as anyone could hope for. Yet,
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) would characterize
the Commission as some kind of a monster who goes about making
arbitrary decisions. He even wants the Commission abolished.
Well, I think we can all draw our own conclusions from such
explosive oratory. If he can't have his way, then all is wrong.
4. The Commission has done precisely what the Congress mandated in
the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act of 1970. The charge
that we have done otherwise is absolute nonsense.
-2-
Five conditions were spelled out in the Legislative Branch
Appropriation Act, 1970, which restoration must meet in order to
be considered by the Commission. If all those conditions were
not met to the satisfaction of the Commission, then the law said
the Commission shall direct the preparation of final plans for
the extension as already approved by the Commission. This is
exactly what the Commission has done.
5. Before our meeting of March 8, 1972, the Commission had received
from the Architect of the Capitol the restoration report, the
Architect's comments on the report and on his effort going back
over a period of more than a year, and his professional judgments
relating to the west front problem. At the meeting, we had avail-
able the Preliminary Plans and estimates of cost for the extension,
and all the background information, including hearings, debate on
the floor, committee reports, etc., during the last several years
on this question.
Near the close of the Commission's discussion, Congressman Ford,
read aloud each of the 5 conditions specified by the law and asked
Architect White to comment on each one. The following resulted:
"(1) That through restoration, such west central front
can, without undue hazard to safety of the struc-
ture and persons, be made safe, sound, durable,
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
and beautiful for the foreseeable future;"
Mr. White stated that the wall can be made relatively safe and sound.
However, he said, there is grave doubt that it can be made durable
and beautiful except with continued and substantial maintenance.
Representative Ford then read the next condition:
"(2) That restoration can be accomplished with no more
vacation of west central front space in the building
proper (excluding the terrace structure) than would
be required by the proposed extension Plan 2".
Mr. White said that this was a true statement.
-3-
Representative Ford then read the following conditions:
"(3) That the method or methods of accomplishing
restoration can be so described or specified
as to form the basis for performance of the
restoration work by competitive, lumpsum,
fixed price construction bid or bids;
"(4) That the cost of restoration would not exceed
$15,000,000;"
Mr. White stated that conditions 3 and 4, taken together, cannot,
in his opinion, be said to be capable of attainment.
Representative Ford then read condition (5):
"That the time schedule for accomplishing the
restoration work will not exceed that hereto-
fore projected for accomplishing the Plan 2
extension work: Provided further, That after
consideration of the restoration report, if the
Commission concludes that all five of the
conditions hereinbefore specified are met, the
Commission shall then make recommendations to
the Congress on the question of whether to
GERALO, FORD LIBRARY
extend or restore the west central front of the
Capitol.'
Mr. White stated that condition (5) can be met.
Mr. White said that after a great deal of study and soul-searching,
he concluded that he should not think in terms of "preservation" or
"extension", but he should think in terms of what would best serve
the people of the Nation. The building has a tremendous meaning for
the people because it is to them a symbol of democracy and a Temple
of Liberty. He said that the great mass of the people who view the
Capitol see it as a beautiful scene and are unconcerned with the
theoretical priorities of importance of various exterior features.
Their money, he concluded, would be best spent by proceeding with
the extension rather than trying to save the one remaining old wall.
Mr. White was asked if he had complete jurisdiction of the building
and full responsibility for it, would he restore it or extend? He
said without hesitation that he would extend the old west central front.
6. George M. White, Architect of the Capitol: Mr. White was
highly recommended to the President for appointment in his present
position by the American Institute of Architects. He is a professional
engineer, a professional architect, as well as a member of the bar.
When he was appointed as Architect of the Capitol, he was an officer
of the AIA. His leanings were toward restoration as a result of his
association with the AIA. After studying the west front problem for
more than & year and after his experience as Architect of the Capitol,
he felt compelled in the interest of sound judgment and good planning
is
FORD
to recommend the extension, rather than the so-called restoration.
7. Mr. Stratton mentions the cost of the restoration study,
GERALD
of approximately $245,000. It should be remembered that the Congress
also spent some $266,000 for the extension study, preliminary plans
and estimates of cost, which were also before the Commission when its
decision was made and which have been before the Congress since 1967.
Every Member of the Congress was sent a copy by former Speaker McCormack.
8. Mr. Stratton says the Commission's action was wrong "no matter
what the 1970 appropriation bill may say". The gentleman is well known
as a "law and order" man. Why then would he expect the Commission to
ignore the very precise provisions of the law?
9. Mr. Stratton says the restoration report "totally demolished
all the contentions that had underlain the long pressure for the West
Front extension".
Mr. White, a professional architect and engineer, says that
is not true. He says "The structural adequacy of the west wall is,
in fact, indeterminate. As many experts will declare that it is stable
as will say that it is unstable. But even those who support the
position of stability admit to the indeterminacy of the loading compu-
tations and, therefore, say that the wall should be strengthened as an
insurance against the probability of a possible failure." Even the
restoration report recommends structural restoration.
10. Mr. Stratton seeks to prove that all five conditions are met
by the restoration study. Even those who prepared the restoration did
not believe this was true. Example:
In the transmittal letter accompanying the restoration, it is stated:
-5-
"***the restoration can be accomplished within the
general guidelines set forth by Congress as a directive
to the Commission for Extension of the Capitol."
Page IV of the report under "Findings" it is stated
"Restoration methods can be specified to form a
basis for performance of the work by competitive
lump sum construction bids.'
GERALD FORD ViBRARY
Page 15 of the report:
"A cost plus contract with an "upset price' seems more
realistic and could be obtained on a competitive basis."
Commenting on the first quotation: The Congress enacted
five specifics -- not general guidelines.
Commenting on the second quotation: No where in the report
is there an explanation of how this can be accomplished.
Just a bare statement.
Commenting on the third quotation: This is, in effect, an
admission that those responsible for the restoration
agree that a lump sum bid procedure cannot be
utilized --- they recommend a cost plus procedure for
the restoration work.
11. Mr. Stratton admits that the cost of restoration could go over
the $15,000,000 limit established by the Congress, but he attributes
this to escalation. The restoration report in explaining the cost estimates
(page 15) says: "Unit costs include an escalation factor.
12. Mr. Stratton does not like what the Commission has done. Well,
that is no surprise. And we respect his right to differ, but in so doing
he should look at all the facts, and not just those that suit his
purpose. The decision on the West Front was made and should have been
made on the facts, the evidence, and sound judgment --- not upon intemperate,
wild and misleading statements such as we have read of late in the
Congressional Record and in at least one local newspaper.
13. The decision of the Commission was a wise, thoughtful, and
reasonable decision. It was made in an atmosphere of calm study and
consideration, with each Member of the Commission taking part and expressing
his views. Still, there was a unanimous vote in favor of going ahead with
the extension.
-6-
14. Hideaways --- Mr. Stratton says there is no reason to
extend the building except to have "secret hideaways" in the
Capitol. When the East Front was extended, the House portion
was put to use for official business of the House --- there are
no hideaways in that extension. Why should he try to mislead
the public and his colleagues into thinking the West Front
extension would be given over for hideaways for House Members?
y GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
Additional Responses to Stratton's Remarks
GERALD FORD TIBRARY
1. Remarks have been made by Stratton concerning the proposed extension
transforming the Capitol into a super Howard Johnson's, inferring that the
appearance of the building would change and that the interior would provide
services of that nature. Such demagoguery obscures the facts and speaks
only to the emotions. A model of the extended building has been in Statuary
Hall for several years. Can anyone see any Howard Johnson appearance in
that design? The old plan to provide visitors' facilities in the Capitol has
long since been abandoned in favor of the new Visitor Center in Union Station.
The exterior of the extension will be a faithful continuation of the classical
design of the Capitol with which everyone is familiar. The renderings of the
Associate Architects' proposal are and have been available for everyone to see
and clearly indicate the enhancement of the magnificent appearances of the
building.
2. Remarks by Stratton and Randall regarding the Washington Post editorial
state their agreement that the editorial was "well reasoned and reach valid
conclusions." On the contrary, the editorial was intemperate, emotional,
inflammatory, and largely non-factual.
The editorial characterizes the Commission's unanimous decision as "an
arrogant maneuver of dubious legality." Even Mr. Stratton admici the
legality of the decision when he says, "It is true that the provisions of
Public Law 91-145 do not require the Commission to justify their decision or
to make any report to anybody."
- 2 -
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
The editorial criticizes the design itself, when even the American Institute
of Architects in their testimony stated that the design was not in question.
To the contrary, some of the most respected designers of classical architecture
in the Nation have viewed the proposed design as an improvement to the West
Central Front.
The editorial states that "William Thornton's softly elegant sandstone
facade is the only visible link to the Capitol's beginnings." What sandstone?
The original sandstone has been covered with layer upon layer of gray paint since
1819. Plate #1 in the Praeger report clearly shows the cracked, messy and
miserable appearance of the so-called elegant stone once the paint is removed.
The editorial says that the Olmsted terraces will be ruined. Notso. In
fact, changes to them will hardly be noticeable and, instead, they will become
more beautiful and broader in vista than they are now. Even the American
Society of Landscape Architects (and Olmsted was a Landscape Architect)
reviewed the plan and had no objection to it. The perspective of the dome will
be enhanced by the design strength of the new pediment that will be incorporated
over the extended portico.
So, it is rather obvious that the last vestige of objectivity was wrung
from the editorial policy of the Post in this instance.
- 3 -
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
3. Mr. Randall remarks that "As I recall, all the Architects of America
were against this change and all the historians were against it. " That is
a blatant exaggeration to say the very least. A substantial number of highly
respected and nationally prominent architects have testified and expressed
themselves in favor of the extension. The official position of the American
Institute of Architects is by no means representative of all of the architects
in the Institute membership, and certainly doesn't represent the unanimous
OF even the majority opinion of all of the registered architects in America.
It is also interesting to note that the Architect of the Capitol was a Vice-
President and Member of the Board of Directors of the American Institute of
Architects and he also opposed the extension until he became aware of all of
the facts involved, and he has now changed his position and supports extension.
4. Stratton remarks that the Praeger report confirms that the Capitol is
not going to collapse. Not true. The Praeger report clearly says that in their
opinion collapse is not imminent, but because of the indeterminacy of the
loading forces, no one can be certain of that, and therefore the wall should be
strengthened and repaired. The Praeger report does not say there is no danger.
5. Stratton says the report states that "We can fix it up so that the cracks
are gone." Not true. The report states clearly that the wall will continue
to crack even after their recommended procedures.
- 4 -
6. Stratton says the existing bracing is a "public relations gimmick."
Not true. The sible bracing is primarily at the portico and the Praeger
report agrees with the necessity for the bracing to prevent the collapse of
the portico. The portico is not the wall.
7. Detailed study indicates a thicket of unknowns that can never be
adequately penetrated. An attempt to restore the wall will lead to endless
maintenance and repair at no predictable cost limitation, as indicated by the
Praeger report itself in its factual portions.
FORD de LIBRARY GERALD
COMMENTS ON THE WEST FRONT OF THE CAPITOL DISCUSSION
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
There are some basic facts about which there is no substantive or actual
disagreement.
Fact No. 1: The wall must be strengthened in some way, either by an
attempt to do so in its present position or by a positive method of buttress-
ing through additional laterally placed walls that will be part of an extension.
Prior information and the Praeger report substantiate this.
Fact No. 2: The existing wall, if an extension is provided, will not be
disturbed. It will remain in place and continue to be partially exposed on the
interior as is the old East Front original wall.
Fact No. 3: The design of the extension is a virtual reproduction of the
existing appearance, is not a point of contention by architects, and, if
anything, is viewed by experts in classical architectural design as an improve-
ment and an enhancement of the basic appearance of the Capitol from the
west. This results from the original design having been related to the old,
small, low dome, rather than the existing dome which was added in 1865.
Fact No. 4: The proposed extension will reproduce the existing classical
details at all points where it can be done, as was done on the East Front, in
order to recreate the original design insofar as possible.
- 2 -
Fact No. 5: The existing terraces will be disturbed only in part and will
be extended in accordance with the extension of the wall itself, and, again
will reproduce the existing design insofar as possible.
Fact No. 6: The wall in question totals only 20% of the total exposed
existing walls of the Capitol; thus 80% of the exterior of the building will not
be disturbed in any way.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Positions
The building itself -- the Temple of Liberty - is the shrine to the
American people and a symbol of freedom and democracy throughout the world.
The dome, the wings, the steps on the East Front, the general appearance of
the building as a unified whole, form the shrine that lives in the minds of
people everywhere. The 20% of the exterior wall is not the shrine but is
being made to appear so on the part of those whose sentiment brings them to
believe that any disturbance to the building at all is a disturbance to the shrine.
History tells an opposite story. There have been 15 separate and distinct
changes to the bulk of the Capitol and countless changes and alterations,
numbering into the hundreds, on the interior of the building. (See the attached
list.) The history of the building has been one of continuous change and growth
as the Nation has changed and grown and the needs of the Congress have
similarly changed and grown.
- 3 -
At one time in the history of the Nation this single building housed the
Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, and all of the offices of all of the
Senators and all of the Congressmen. The space demands gradually forced
the removal of the Supreme Court in 1935, the Library of Congress in 1898,
and the working offices of the Senate and the House into buildings which now
form the Capitol Hill complex. There remains in the building, especially on
the House side, the dire need for space in proximity to the legislative
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
chambers for those supportive functions of the legislative process that are
a necessary part of the legislative process. Not only do the separate
branches of the legislature require supportive offices of their own, but the
legislative process has evolved an increasing number of joint conferences and
other joint Senate-House activities which are requiring increasing volumes of
space close to the legislative chambers. These space requirements are
increasing year by year.
The Praeger report contains a number of ambiguities which are resolved
in favor of strengthening the existing wall in its present location instead of
buttressing with the walls of an extension. There is no doubt that the wall
can be strengthened in some fashion in that way. The body and substance of
the report do not substantiate some of the opinions which are presented in
- 4 -
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
the form of conclusions to the report. A great many ambiguities are apparent
as one reads the details and supportive information in the report itself.
These unknowns and ambiguities can lead to a quicksand of entrapment in terms
of the final possible cost of restoring the wall in place.
A real question exists as to whether an expenditure of $20 to $30 million
to repair the wall and get no usable space in return is a valid expenditure of the
taxpayers' money. The differential between the cost of $20 to $30 million and
the cost of the extension, which is estimated at $50 to $60 million, will result
in the creation of 270, 000 gross square feet of space so that the citizens of
this Nation will receive something tangible in return for the expenditure of
their funds. We must concern ourselves primarily with what will best serve
the people of this Nation. The needs of their elected representatives to
enable them to properly conduct the legislative process will be served through
the expenditure of public funds to provide necessary space. The people will not
be served through an expenditure of 20 or 30 millions of dollars which will
result in a repaired, patched, painted wall in the Capitol of the greatest Nation
on earth.
If we were discussing the building as a whole, the people undoubtedly would
want funds to be spent for the preservation of this Shrine of Democracy. But
we are not talking here about the building as a whole. We are talking merely
- 5 -
about a piece of wall. That kind of sentiment for this living, working building,
which is part museum and visited by millions of Americans every year, and yet
is an active legislative business building, must be placed on the scales against
the tremendous need of the legislature for additional space. Our space needs
will not diminish. They will increase as the population increases. We will
need space in many ways, one of the most important of which is space in
proximity to the legislative chambers.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
The need for continued repair and maintenance to the wall, if it remains
in place as an exterior wall of the building, is indicated by the Praeger
engineering report. The report states: "If the wall voids were filled, exterior
cracking would be inhibited by transfer of stress to interior portions of the
wall. Generally, however, cracking will continue to occur as the wall adjusts
to temperature change." The report then recommends a series of control
joints which, in theory, are supposed, but not guaranteed, to control the
locations of the cracks. The report then says, "With these measures future
cracking should occur at a much reduced rate. " This is an example of numerous
places in the report where an opinion is expressed which leaves the decision-
makers to live with the result in the event that the opinion is not borne out by
future experience.
- 6 -
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
It will be noted that the report does not say future cracking will not
occur, nor does it say that future cracking will be reduced. It merely says
future cracking should occur at a much reduced rate.
The question of condensation on the interior wall is examined in only a
very cursory fashion in the report and leaves a great measure of doubt as to
the future needs for maintenance and repairs as interior plaster may become
damaged from moisture. The appendix to the recent AIA report indicates a
similar concern for this problem.
Continuous painting of the wall forever into the future is recommended
by the report, not only as a preservative method but also to cover the
blemishes that will occur in the wall as a result of the repair process that
the report recommends. The report says, "Effective grouting will require
relatively close spacing of drill holes vertically and horizontally in the upper
walls." These holes are recommended to be drilled every three feet in both
directions. "This would increase the need for the replacement stone required
to obtain an unflawed surface, possibly in excess of that available in the East
Front storage piles. For Scheme 2 this would mean either some proportion
of artificial replacement stone, or toleration of a pock-marked appearance
on a fairly regular grid. Under Scheme 1 this would be of no concern, since
patch marks would be painted over."
- 7 -
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
The report also says, "Future damage by intrusion of moisture or paint
can be controlled by the application of a stone preservative and joint sealer,
a procedure which should be applied at regular intervals."
The report thus indicates that the restoration will, at the very best,
be a patchwork process with a result that requires continuous maintenance and
painting in order for the appearance to approach the level of being satisfactory.
This is further indicated in the report by the statement that the removal
of the existing paint, some of which is an eighth of an inch in thickness,
cannot be accomplished without damage to the existing stone. "The experience
gained by the test removal of paint, performed as part of this study, indicates
that it will not be possible to completely remove the paint and paint stain
without some damage to the stone."
The report contains several gratuitous opinions of a non-engineering nature,
which indicate a bias that raises the question of credibility with regard to the
report's conclusions, especially since the broad conclusions do not appear to
follow the weight of the evidence in the body of the report.
The following quotations are examples: "Some stones are so far eroded
that they should be replaced but others, less seriously deteriorated, may be
tolerated as an expected sign of age
The Capitol is 150 years old and
should give an impression of venerable age, not a crisp newness that denies its
- 8 -
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
historical background." Neither of these are opinions in areas in which the
engineering firm holds itself out to be competent. They appear to be added
in order to rationalize some preconceived notions.
The body of the report states, "A cost plus contract with an 'upset
price' seems more realistic and could be obtained on a competitive basis."
Thus, although the report concludes that a competitive lumpsum fixed price
construction bid or bids can be obtained, it nevertheless recommends that the
work should not be accomplished on that basis.
The entire question of cost is thus left wide open. Even the AIA report
says, "It would be impossible for anyone at this stage of study to guarantee
a total restoration cost." The AIA report also says, "The Task Force
recognizes that the work could be done on a competitive, lumpsum, fixed price
construction bid or bids but we feel that competitive bidding for a fixed profit
and overhead with the work being done on a cost basis should be strongly
considered in the same way the White House restoration was accomplished."
The appendix to the AIA report makes the following statement in commenting
on the Praeger report: "There is discussion of the thermal effect of solidifica-
tion of the wall resulting from the infilling of the present cavity. This
phenomenon is not discussed in great detail other than to conclude that there is
to be predicted a 10% net increase in heat gain or heat loss in the solidified wall.
The effect of this change in the internal structure of walls of such comparatively
great mass bears closer investigation. It is probable that it will require an
- 9 -
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
interval of time, perhaps 18 months to 2 years, for the long stabilized thermal
and hydro balance within the walls to become re-established, responsive to
modifications resulting from the filling of the voids and the possible
modification in the reverse permeability or breathing property of the wall."
In further comments, the appendix to the AIA report states, "It is
difficult to accept the categorical statement that "condensation in the wall
will not occur during the summer'. The computations on Figure 22 do not
appear to indicate a recognition of the lag in change of the ambient humidity
and temperature of the internal wall volume and it is possibly questionable
whether the conclusions shown thereon are valid without further experimental
documentation."
Thus, we find that even those who support the Praeger report find serious
difficulties in accepting it in toto. If one examines the report objectively
and one recognizes the responsibility of having to face the future with the
possibilities of future difficulties and additional repairs and, thus, additional
costs, in the saving of the wall, then one must conclude that these factors
will lead the Congress into a thicket of unending difficulties with the wall
if it should decide to try to save it. That circumstance, coupled with the
dire need for space, will bring any dispassionate, reasonable man to the
conclusion that an extension to the United States Capitol will best serve the
people of this Nation.
1.
Original North Wing
Begun 1793 - completed 1800
Senate occupied from 1800 - 1859
House occupied 1800 - 1801
1804 - 1807
Supreme Court occupied 1801 - 1935
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
Library of Congress occupied 1800 - 1824
2.
2-story Senate Chamber converted to separate stories with Supreme
Court occupying lower chamber from 1810 - 1860
3.
Temporary structure at location of Statuary Hall occupied by House
from 1801 - 1804
4.
South Wing completed in 1807
Occupied by House 1807 - 1857
5.
Both North and South Wings (and 1-story wooden connecting passageway)
burned in 1814 and reconstruction was completed in 1819
6.
Central Section begun in 1818 and completed in 1829
Library of Congress occupied 2 stories of West Central Front 1824 - - 1897
Altered to provide office spaces after 1897
7.
Present Senate and House Wings begun in 1851 and completed in 1859
8.
Old low dome replaced from 1856 - 1865
9.
West Central section reconstructed following a fire in 1851
10. Terraces on North, South and West added 1884 - 1892
11. Gas explosion in old North Wing required reconstruction in 1898
12. Original wood roof construction replaced with steel and concrete in 1902
13. Cast iron and glass skylights over both Chambers from 1857 - 1949
replaced from 1949 - 1951
14. East Front extension constructed 1958 - 1962
15. Interior alterations and changes 1958 - 1972
COMMISSION FOR EXTENSION OF THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL
March 8, 1972
Whereas Public Law 91-145, approved December 12, 1969, provides:
EXTENSION OF THE CAPITOL
For an additional amount for Extension of the Capitol", $2,275,000,
to be expended under the direction of the Commission for Extension
of the United States Capitol as authorized by law: Provided, That
such portion of the foregoing appropriation as may be necessary shall
be used for emergency shoring and repairs of, and related work on,
the west central front of the Capitol: Provided further, That not to
exceed $250,000 of the foregoing appropriation shall be used for the
employment of independent nongovernmental engineering and other
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
necessary services for studying and reporting (within six months
after the date of the employment contract) on the feasibility and cost
of restoring such west central front under such terms and conditions
as the Commission may determine: Provided. however, That pending
the completion and consideration of such study and report, no further
work toward extension of such west central front shall be carried on:
Provided further, That after submission of such study and report
and consideration thereof by the Commission, the Commission shall
direct the preparation of final plans for extending such west central
front in accord with Plan 2 (which said Commission has approved),
unless such restoration study report establishes to the satisfaction of
the Commission:
(1) That through restoration, such west central front can, with-
out undue hazard to safety of the structure and persons, be made
safe, sound, durable, and beautiful for the foreseeable future;
(2) That restoration can be accomplished with no more vaca-
tion of west central front space in the building proper (excluding
the terrace structure) than would be required by the proposed
extension Plan 2;
(3) That the method or methods of accomplishing restoration
can be SO described or specified as to form the basis for perform-
ance of the restoration work by competitive, lumpsum, fixed price
construction bid or bids;
(4) That the cost of restoration would not exceed $15,000,000;
and
(5) That the time schedule for accomplishing the restoration
work will not exceed that heretofore projected for accomplishing
the Plan 2 extension work: Provided further. That after considera-
tion of the restoration study report, if the Commission concludes
that all five of the conditions hereinbefore specified are met, the
Commission shall then make recommendations to the Congress on
the question of whether to extend or restore the west central front
of the Capitol.
- 2 -
Whereas, the restoration feasibility and cost study and report of
Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, Consulting Engineers-Architects, made
pursuant to Public Law 91-145, was considered by the Commission at its
meeting of March 8, 1972, in Room EF-100 of the Capitol; and
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Whereas, the Commission established to its satisfaction that all
five of the conditions specified in Public Law 91-145, relating to
restoration, cannot be met: Now, therefore, be it resolved,
That the Architect of the Capitol is hereby directed to proceed with
the preparation of final plans for extending the west central front in
accord with Plan 2 heretofore approved by the Commission.
Carl albert
Speaker of the House of Representa-
Aprin President of L. the ams Senate
tives, Chairman
the Bojn
Majority mike Leader of the Senate
Majority Leader of the House
Harned Minority Leader R. of the Ford House Hugh Scott
Minority Leader of the Senate
Juneys Architect M. of the Milk Capitol
LEGISLATION GOVERNING EXTENSION OF THE CAPITOL PROJECT
Public Law 242, 84th Congress, as amended by Public Law 406,
84th Congress, Public Law 88-248, 88th Congress
and Public Law 91-77, 91st Congress
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
"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 majority leader of the Senate, the
majority leader 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 ex-
pended, and there are hereby authorized to be appropriated such additional
sums as may be determined by said Commission to be required for the pur-
poses hereof: Provided, That the Architect of the Capitol under the
direction of said Commission and without regard to the provisions of sec-
tion 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, is authorized to enter
-2-
into contracts and to make such other expenditures, including expenditures
for personal and other services, as may be necessary to carry out the pur-
poses 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 recommend-
ations with respect to such remedial measures as may be deemed necessary,
including the feasibility of corrective measures in conjunction with ex-
tension of such west central portion."
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
The Epening
Star
With Sunday Morning Edition
Published by THE EVENING STAR NEWSPAPER CO., Washington, D. C.
CROSBY N. BOYD, Chairman of the Board
JOHN H. KAUFFMANN, President
NEWBOLD NOYES, Editor
A-10
FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 1972
White's Right Vote
When the late J. George Stewart was
voices now are calling for White's resig-
the non-architect Architect of the Capi-
nation. But most of the steam by now
tol, that anachronism was widely blamed
has gone out of this tired old refrain,
for Stewart's persistent campaign to ex-
and it's high time. White's decision was
tend the west side of the U.S. Capitol
not, as the charge goes, a cave-in to
rather than patch up its eroded surface.
political pressures. It springs from a.
"Fire Stewart!" was the battle cry in
wealth of exposure to facts he did not
those days, the argument being that no
have a year ago, and which most of his
FORD
real architect would for a moment sup-
critics still do not have.
port such a project.
Among the things he came to realize,
Thus, upon Stewart's death in 1970,
White says, was that "the Capitol is not
his replacement predictably turned out
a museum." Indeed it is not. It is the
GERALD
LIBRARY
to be an impeccably credentialed profes-
workshop of Congress. As such, the Capi-
sional. George M. White, the new man,
tol's entire history during the past cen-
was not only a respected former vice
tury and a half has been one of constant
president of the American Institute of
change and growth, accommodating to
Architects, he had personally shared -
Congress' changing needs and parallel-
before taking on the new job - that
ing - if one chooses to look at it that
outfit's objections to any alteration in
way - the growth of the nation itself.
the dimensions of the Capitol. So what's
The marvel is that this sequence of
happened?
changes - some, in the earlier days,
Well, after more than a year's day-
involving drastic architectural modifica-
to-day exposure to the needs and reali-
tions-invariably has added to rather
ties of the Capitol, Architect White
than detracted from the allure and sym-
joined the House and Senate leadership
bolic magnificence of the beloved old
this week in voting unanimously to pro-
building, while keeping pace with Con-
ceed with an addition that will repro-
gress' urgent space requirements.
duce precisely the architectural features
That tradition was scrupulously up-
of the present worn-out west front and
held in the controversial. extension of
provide, in the process, a lot of space for
the Capitol's east front a dozen or so
some essential facilities the Capitol now
years ago. It will be, as well, by the
lacks.
project on the west which White rightly
And, also predictably, a few strident
endorsed this week.
OF
THE ARCHITECT
THE CAPITOL
41793 ±
Washington, D.C. 20515
March 6, 1972
FORD is GERALD LIBRARY
MEMORANDUM TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FOR
EXTENSION OF THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL:
The primary purpose of this meeting is the consideration by
the Commission of the January, 1971 report of the firm of Praeger-
Kavanagh-Waterbury, Consulting Engineers and Architects, relating
to the feasibility and cost of the restoration of the West Central
Front of the Capitol, as proposed in such report.
Under the prevailing statute providing for this report, the
Commission is charged with the responsibility of establishing to
its satisfaction whether the five conditions specified in the law
are met.
If the Commission determines that the five conditions are not
met, then the law provides that the Commission shall direct the
preparation of final plans for extending the West Central Front in
accord with Plan 2 which the Commission has heretofore approved.
If the Commission concludes that the five conditions are met,
then the law provides that the Commission shall make recommendations
to the Congress on the question of whether to extend or restore the
front.
Page 2
Law Relating to These Determinations:
In the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1970, (Public Law
91-145), the Congress simultaneously appropriated $2,000,000 for
preparation of final contract drawings and specifications for
carrying out Plan 2 for extension of the West Central Front of the
Capitol and $250,000 for engineering and other necessary services
for studying and reporting on the feasibility and cost of restoring
the front.
The law provided that pending the completion and consideration
of the restoration study and report, no further work toward extension
was to be undertaken.
The law also contained the following provisions which are
pertinent to your consideration today:
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
"***That after submission of such study and report
and consideration thereof by the Commission, the
Commission shall direct the preparation of final
plans for extending such west central front in
accord with Plan 2 (which said Commission has
approved), unless such restoration study report
establishes to the satisfaction of the Commission:
"(1) That through restoration, such west
central front can, without undue hazard to safety
of the structure and persons, be made safe, sound,
durable, and beautiful for the foreseeable future;
"(2) That restoration can be accomplished with
no more vacation of west central front space in the
building proper (excluding the terrace structure)
than would be required by the proposed extension
Plan 2;
"(3) That the method or methods of accomplishing
restoration can be so described or specified as to
form the basis for performance of the restoration
work by competitive, lumpsum, fixed price construc-
tion bid or bids;
Page 3
"(4) That the cost of restoration would not exceed
$15,000,000; and
"(5) That the time schedule for accomplishing the
restoration work will not exceed that heretofore
projected for accomplishing the Plan 2 extension work:
Provided further, That after consideration of the
restoration study report, if the Commission concludes
that all five of the conditions hereinbefore specified
are met, the Commission shall then make recommendations
to the Congress on the question of whether to extend
or restore the west central front of the Capitol."
Upon direction of the Commission for Extension of the United States
Capitol, after exhaustive study, the engineering contract for the
restoration study was awarded to Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, Engineers-
Architects of New York City, on July 1, 1970.
The Praeger report was received at the end of December, 1970, and
was forwarded immediately to all Members of the Commission and
released to the press and others interested.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
Statement of the Architect of the Capitol Relating to his Study
of the West Front Problem:
Early last year, as the newly appointed Architect of the Capitol,
and in anticipation that the Commission in Charge, before reaching
a conclusion on the matter, would seek my professional judgment in
assisting them to evaluate the Praeger report, I began a detailed
professional review of all available information relating to the
history and development of the West Central Front proposals.
Among the activities in which I engaged during the review are
the following:
1. A careful and diligent open-minded study of the Praeger
report.
Page 4
2. A physical examination of both the interior and the exterior
of the original west walls.
3. A careful review of testimony given over a period of many
years before various House and Senate Committees concerned with the
proposals for the extension of the West Front of the Capitol, and
before the Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol.
4. A reading and review of the record of the floor debates in
both the Senate and the House that led to the various actions of
the Congress.
5. A review of the legislation, committee reports, and other
documents on the subject.
6. Study of the Mueser, Rutledge, Wentworth & Johnston
FORD & LIBRARY CERALD
engineering report of 1957.
7. Study of the 1964 engineering report of The Thompson &
Lichtner Co., Inc.
8. A study of the various reports of the former Architect of
the Capitol, as well as reports made to him by the Associate Architects
for the Extension Project.
9. Meetings and discussions of the various past studies, and of
the Praeger report, with the staff of the Architect of the Capitol.
10. Requested and received advice and counsel from the American
Institute of Architects which responded by appointing a new Task
Force to re-examine the AIA position. We engaged in several
conferences and a written report from the Task Force was received.
Page 5
11. Asked three prominent general contractors, an officer and
members of the AGC, for their opinion with regard to estimates of
cost as outlined in the Praeger report and the feasbility of
obtaining competitive, lumpsum bids.
12. Conversed at some length with Mr. E. H. Praeger himself
in order that I might obtain verbal clarification of a number of
what I considered to be ambiguous or contradicting portions of
the written report.
13. Conferred with the Advisory Architects, Consulting
Engineers, and others.
14. Conferred with other individuals who have maintained a
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
long interest in the Capitol, including Senators, Congressmen,
and design professionals.
15. Spoke with a British stone preservation expert who
inspected the Capitol, and then read several of his papers regarding
the deterioration of stone generally and in England in particular.
16. Inspected, at no cost to the Government, several European
restoration projects.
17. Personally examined the space needs of the House of
Representatives and, to some degree, the space needs of the Senate.
Have explored all areas on the House Side of the Capitol, from the
basement through the attic, and many of the Senate areas. Several
discussions have been held with Senator Jordan about my proceeding
with a full space study of Senate facilities and he has now approved
my proceeding with that study.
Page 6
18. Examined and studied the matter of how the Congress uses
the building, how the public (visitors) also uses the building, and
further, how their respective and simultaneous needs must be
considered.
19. Spent untold hours in review of the various data and in
the reading of articles by many persons concerned with preservation,
planning, the history of the Capitol, and in the re-examination of
the Praeger report.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Professional Judgments of the Architect:
After these many months of study and investigation, I am prepared
to offer the following professional judgments, which for the purposes
of this brief presentation have been necessarily simplified:
1. The structural adequacy of the west wall is, in fact,
indeterminate. As many experts will declare that it is stable as
will say that it is unstable. But even those who support the
position of stability admit to the indeterminacy of the loading
computations, and, therefore, say that the wall should be strengthened
as an insurance against the probability of a possible failure. Thus,
although there appears to be no imminent danger of an immediate
collapse, there may well be concentrations of forces that have
accumulated through structural and other changes over the years and
that could, under certain circumstances, be triggered and released.
There appears, then, to be no basic disagreement regarding the need to
strengthen, and thus stabilize the wall in some fashion. Further,
there appears to be no disagreement that this goal may be achieved in
Page 7
at least two ways, one of which is through restoration, or a
strengthening of the wall in situ, and another of which is through
an extension of the building itself, which will, in effect, buttress
and thus strengthen the wall.
2. There appears to be no disagreement with regard to the
exterior appearance of the proposed extension, nor any disagreement
with regard to the total appearance of the Capitol that would result.
3. That human characteristic which manifests itself in our
desire to save and preserve at least some of our heritage, whether it
be personal, national, or international, finds a high degree of
intensity in some, and it may then be expressed in the feeling that
GERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
preservation is a primary goal in and of itself. I submit that the
intensity with which that desire exists in the spectrum of people's
feelings must, in this instance, be weighed against some of the
physical needs of the Congress that must be met. If the Congress,
for example, were to commission the design of a new legislative
complex, the designers would undoubtedly need to assist in the writing
of a program which would describe the physical needs of the Congress
in the transaction of its daily business. The configuration of the
building or buildings would arise from a study of these needs. In
this existing legislative building, viz., the Capitol, these needs
have changed and expanded over the years, and, indeed, are
continuing to do so. It is apparent that complex problems such as
these are not generally capable of simple solutions. Recognizing
that it may thus be an oversimplification to so state, it is
Page 8
nevertheless my opinion that the Congress must weigh the sentiment
of preservation against its physical needs, taking into account the
various alternative methods of providing needed space in close
proximity to the legislative chambers.
4. The argument can be made that the fact that the West Front
contains the last remaining exposed original wall, is indicative of
the past life and hence the growth of this living, working symbol
of democracy and freedom that is the Capitol. Sometime, of course,
acceleration in the growth of our Nation may diminish and perhaps that
point is already in sight. It has therefore been suggested that the
existing physical outline of the Capitol be considered inviolate at
its present location. Somewhere that position must surely be taken,
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
but it appears that it is not necessarily valid to presume that it
cannot be taken at some other location, such as, for example, that
of the proposed extension.
5. The final cost of the proposed restoration appears to be
indeterminate. Most experts feel that the cost will certainly be
more than $15,000,000, notwithstanding the written statement in the
Praeger report. The requirements of items 3 and 4 of Public Law 91-
145, previously quoted, indicated that a lumpsum contract for
restoration of not more than $15,000,000 must be capable of being
obtained. I interpret these two items, taken together, as meaning
that the Congress has set a fixed, limited, i.e., maximum, cost of
$15,000,000 as one of the criteria for the feasibility of restoration.
Experience in the construction of buildings indicates that a lumpsum
Page 9
contract, in and of itself, is not an assurance that the designated
sum will indeed be the final cost. It is my considered professional
opinion, based upon my recent investigations as outlined above, that
the restoration, as proposed, cannot be accomplished for a total
final cost of $15,000,000. In that connection, it is important to
recognize that even though the cost per square foot of an extension
might appear to be high because of the particular kind of
construction that would be necessary, any expenditure for restoration,
because no space would be added, would result in what mathematically
results in an infinite cost per square foot.
It is, further, worthy of note that there is no disagreement
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
among the advocates of the various positions that restoration work
generally, and the West Front of the Capitol in particular, should,
because of its specialized nature, be accomplished through the
medium of a cost plus a fixed fee contract rather than through a
lumpsum agreement obtained on a competitive bid basis.
Although the specifics of the other three provisions of Public Law
91-145 can generally be said to be capable of being met, with the
obvious possibility for disagreement regarding what is "safe, sound,
durable, and beautiful for the foreseeable future", I believe that it
would be inappropriate to presume that the cost limitation can or
could be met.
Summary:
Summarizing, then, I submit the following judgments: (a) although
it is relatively stable, the west wall needs repair and strengthening;
Page 10
(b) the restoration method of strengthening the wall cannot be
accomplished for a guaranteed cost limit of $15,000,000; (c) the
Congress must weigh and decide upon the relative importance and
the appropriate methods of providing for its space needs in the
Capitol, as compared with the admittedly highly desirable goal of
preserving the exposed physical wall.
Additional information will be available at the meeting of
the Commission.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
George M. White
Architect of the Capitol
GEORGE M. WHITE
Born in Cleveland, Ohio, November 1, 1920. Four children: Stephanie 19,
Jocelyn 18, Geoffrey 17, and Pamela 14. Holds the degrees of Master of
Science and Bachelor of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (1941). Master of Business Administration from the Graduate
School of Business of Harvard University (1948); Bachelor of Laws from
Case Western Reserve (1959). He is a Registered Architect in Ohio, a
Registered Professional Engineer in Ohio and Massachusetts, a member
of the Ohio Bar, and certified by the National Council of Architectural
Registration Boards, and the National Council of State Boards of Engi-
neering Examiners.
A former electronics design engineer and assistant division manager,
Electronics Dept., General Electric Company (1946), he has practiced as
an architect and as a consulting engineer since 1948.
Former member of the Faculty in Physics and in Architecture at Case
Western Reserve University.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
A Fellow of the American Institute of Architects, he is a former A.I.A.
Vice President and Board Member; Member and former Chairman of the
A.I.A. Documents Board and Insurance Committee; Chairman of A.I.A.
Task Forces on Structure, on Professional Liability Insurance, and on
Labor Liaison; member of the National Panel of Arbitrators of the
American Arbitration Association, the National Society of Professional
Engineers, the American Bar Association, and the Bar of the Supreme
Court of the United States. Awarded the Gold Medal of the Architect's
Society of Ohio.
Author of numerous articles on Professional Liability, Professional
Corporations, and Construction Law.
President, Director, and Trustee of several real estate development
organizations; President of Whitecliff Inc., a 100 bed extended care
facility; Chairman of the Board of Merriman Holbrook, Inc., a marine
hardware manufacturer.
Appointed Architect of the Capitol in January 1971.
August 1971
The Speaker's Rooms
H.S. house of Representatives
Washington,D.q.
March 9, 1972
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Minority Leader
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Representative Ford:
Enclosed are copies of the agreement reached
yesterday by the Commission for Extension of
the United States Capitol which the Speaker
thought you might like to have for your files.
Sincerely,
While
MICHAEL L. REED
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
Legislative Assistant
Enclosures
MLR/ckh
COMMISSION FOR EXTENSION OF THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL
March 8, 1972
Whereas Public Law 91-145, approved December 12, 1969, provides:
EXTENSION OF THE CAPITOL
For an additional amount for Extension of the Capitol", $2,275,000,
to be expended under the direction of the Commission for Extension
of the United States Capitol as authorized by law: Provided, That
such portion of the foregoing appropriation as may be necessary shall
be used for emergency shoring and repairs of, and related work on,
the west central front of the Capitol: Provided further, That not to
exceed $250,000 of the foregoing appropriation shall be used for the
employment of independent nongovernmental engineering and other
necessary services for studying and reporting (within six months
after the date of the employment contract) on the feasibility and cost
of restoring such west central front under such terms and conditions
as the Commission may determine: Provided, however, That pending
the completion and consideration of such study and report, no further
work toward extension of such west central front shall be carried on:
Provided further, That after submission of such study and report
and consideration thereof by the Commission, the Commission shall
direct the preparation of final plans for extending such west central
front in accord with Plan 2 (which said Commission has approved),
unless such restoration study report establishes to the satisfaction of
the Commission:
(1) That through restoration, such west central front can, with-
out undue hazard to safety of the structure and persons, be made
safe, sound, durable, and beautiful for the foreseeable future;
(2) That restoration can be accomplished with no more vaca-
tion of west central front space in the building proper (excluding
the terrace structure) than would be required by the proposed
extension Plan 2;
(3) That the method or methods of accomplishing restoration
can be SO described or specified as to form the basis for perform-
ance of the restoration work by competitive, lumpsum, fixed price
construction bid or bids;
(4) That the cost of restoration would not exceed $15,000,000;
and
(5) That the time schedule for accomplishing the restoration
work will not exceed that heretofore projected for accomplishing
the Plan 2 extension work: Provided further. That after considera-
tion of the restoration study report, if the Commission concludes
that all five of the conditions hereinbefore specified are met, the
Commission shall then make recommendations to the Congress on
the question of whether to extend or restore the west central front
of the Capitol.
GERALOR FORD LIBRARI
- 2 -
Whereas, the restoration feasibility and cost study and report of
Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury. Consulting Engineers-Architects, made
pursuant to Public Law 91-145, was considered by the Commission at its
meeting of March 8, 1972, in Room EF-100 of the Capitol; and
Whereas, the Commission established to its satisfaction that all
five of the conditions specified in Public Law 91-145, relating to
restoration, cannot be met: Now, therefore, be it resolved,
That the Architect of the Capitol is hereby directed to proceed with
the preparation of final plans for extending the west central front in
accord with Plan 2 heretofore approved by the Commission.
Carl albert
Speaker of the House of Representa-
Aprin President of L. the Senate am
tives, Chairman
the Majority Leader Bojn of the house
Majority hike Leader manufull of the Senate
Herned Minority Leader R. of the Ford House Hugh Scott
Minority Leader of the Senate
Samps Architect M. of the Milk Capitol
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
COMMISSION FOR EXTENSION OF THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL
March 8, 1972
Whereas Public Law 91-145, approved December 12, 1969, provides:
EXTENSION OF THE CAPITOL
For an additional amount for Extension of the Capitol", $2,275,000,
to be expended under the direction of the Commission for Extension
of the United States Capitol as authorized by law: Provided, That
such portion of the foregoing appropriation as may be necessary shall
be used for emergency shoring and repairs of, and related work on,
the west central front of the Capitol: Provided further, That not to
exceed $250,000 of the foregoing appropriation shall be used for the
employment of independent nongovernmental engineering and other
necessary services for studying and reporting (within six months
after the date of the employment contract) on the feasibility and cost
of restoring such west central front under such terms and conditions
as the Commission may determine: Provided, however, That pending
the completion and consideration of such study and report, no further
work toward extension of such west central front shall be carried on:
Provided further, That after submission of such study and report
and consideration thereof by the Commission, the Commission shall
direct the preparation of final plans for extending such west central
front in accord with Plan 2 (which said Commission has approved),
unless such restoration study report establishes to the satisfaction of
the Commission:
(1) That through restoration, such west central front can, with-
out undue hazard to safety of the structure and persons, be made
safe, sound, durable, and beautiful for the foreseeable future;
(2) That restoration can be accomplished with no more vaca-
tion of west central front space in the building proper (excluding
the terrace structure) than would be required by the proposed
extension Plan 2;
(3) That the method or methods of accomplishing restoration
can be SO described or specified as to form the basis for perform-
ance of the restoration work by competitive, lumpsum, fixed price
construction bid or bids;
(4) That the cost of restoration would not exceed $15,000,000;
and
(5) That the time schedule for accomplishing the restoration
work will not exceed that heretofore projected for accomplishing
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
the Plan 2 extension work Provided further. That after considera-
tion of the restoration study report, if the Commission concludes
that all five of the conditions hereinbefore specified are met, the
Commission shall then make recommendations to the Congress on
the question of whether to extend or restore the west central front
of the Capitol.
- 2 -
Whereas, the restoration feasibility and cost study and report of
Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, Consulting Engineers-Architects, made
pursuant to Public Law 91-145, was considered by the Commission at its
meeting of March 8, 1972, in Room EF-100 of the Capitol; and
Whereas, the Commission established to its satisfaction that all
five of the conditions specified in Public Law 91-145, relating to
restoration, cannot be met: Now, therefore, be it resolved,
That the Architect of the Capitol is hereby directed to proceed with
the preparation of final plans for extending the west central front in
accord with Plan 2 heretofore approved by the Commission.
Carl albert
Speaker of the House of Representa-
Aprin President of L. the Senate am
tives, Chairman
the Majority Leader Bogn of the House
Majority hike Leader manufied of the Senate
Herned Minority Leader R. of the Ford House Hugh Scott
Minority Leader of the Senate
Sanys Architect M. of the Milk Capitol
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
COMMISSION FOR EXTENSION OF THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL
March 8, 1972
Whereas Public Law 91-145, approved December 12, 1969, provides:
EXTENSION OF THE CAPITOL
For an additional amount for Extension of the Capitol", $2,275,000,
to be expended under the direction of the Commission for Extension
of the United States Capitol as authorized by law: Provided, That
such portion of the foregoing appropriation as may be necessary shall
be used for emergency shoring and repairs of, and related work on,
the west central front of the Capitol: Provided further, That not to
exceed $250,000 of the foregoing appropriation shall be used for the
employment of independent nongovernmental engineering and other
necessary services for studying and reporting (within six months
after the date of the employment contract) on the feasibility and cost
of restoring such west central front under such terms and conditions
as the Commission may determine: Provided. however, That pending
the completion and consideration of such study and report, no further
work toward extension of such west central front shall be carried on:
Provided further, That after submission of such study and report
and consideration thereof by the Commission, the Commission shall
direct the preparation of final plans for extending such west central
front in accord with Plan 2 (which said Commission has approved),
unless such restoration study report establishes to the satisfaction of
the Commission:
(1) That through restoration, such west central front can, with-
out undue hazard to safety of the structure and persons, be made
safe, sound, durable, and beautiful for the foreseeable future;
(2) That restoration can be accomplished with no more vaca-
tion of west central front space in the building proper (excluding
the terrace structure) than would be required by the proposed
extension Plan 2;
(3) That the method or methods of accomplishing restoration
can be so described or specified as to form the basis for perform-
ance of the restoration work by competitive, lumpsum, fixed price
construction bid or bids;
(4) That the cost of restoration would not exceed $15,000,000;
FORD
and
(5) That the time schedule for accomplishing the restoration
work will not exceed that heretofore projected for accomplishing
GERALD
the Plan 2 extension work Provided further. That after considera-
LIBRARY
tion of the restoration study report, if the Commission concludes
that all five of the conditions hereinbefore specified are met, the
the question of whether to extend or restore the west central front
Commission shall then make recommendations to the Congress on
of the Capitol.
- 2 -
Whereas, the restoration feasibility and cost study and report of
Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, Consulting Engineers-Architects, made
pursuant to Public Law 91-145, was considered by the Commission at its
meeting of March 8, 1972, in Room EF-100 of the Capitol; and
Whereas, the Commission established to its satisfaction that all
five of the conditions specified in Public Law 91-145, relating to
restoration, cannot be met: Now, therefore, be it resolved,
That the Architect of the Capitol is hereby directed to proceed with
the preparation of final plans for extending the west central front in
accord with Plan 2 heretofore approved by the Commission.
Carl albert
Speaker of the House of Representa-
Aprin President of L. the Senate am
tives, Chairman
Ave Majority Leader Bojn of the House
Majority hike Leader manifield of the Senate
Herned Minority Leader R. of the Ford House Hugh Scott
Minority Leader of the Senate
Sangs Architect M. of the Milk Capitol
FORD if LIBRARY GERALD