all the things that go with it, the planning, design, and so forth? Could you speak to that?

Mr. HANTMAN. Surely. I began to allude to that earlier, Mr. Chairman. The concept of project management and how we bring people on most appropriately. In fact, the planning group that we have requested funding for to bring on is a key component of that. Mike Turnbull has been heading up this effort of evaluating how projects are managed. The architects, engineers and construction people report directly to Mike, in fact. Did you want to talk a little about that.

Mr. TURNBULL. We have had an in-depth three-month period right now, going through the whole organization, meeting with staff and the jurisdictions that we deal with and getting feedback and asking some important questions about what people feel are important needs. We are going to be in a position where we will be making changes within the organization to implement projects in the future. I would be happy to sit down with any one of you in the future to review what those policies are.

Mr. TAYLOR. Have all the capital budget projects been completely designed and had formal cost estimates based on the designs been prepared? You know, what we had last year, and of course, 3 years before was a situation where we would have projects, Appropriations requested and they would all be out for a long period of time. We changed that procedure last year, and I expect we will follow it this year where we will look at the projects requested and then try to handle it inside this fiscal year what can be dealt with, and that is why as much information as you can provide us in that area would be helpful. Have we completed the design of those projects that we had before us when we left the end of last year?

Mr. HANTMAN. The projects we bring to you, Mr. Chairman, for construction funding have met the criteria. We took you quite seriously on that. Whatever we are giving to you to be funded that has drawings assigned to them as opposed to replacing something in kind where it is not a drawing issue, we have 100 percent design for those elements.

CANNON GARAGE

Mr. TAYLOR. How about the Cannon garage? We started out with an estimate of $3 million and then we went to $9 million. Is the $9 million based on a final design?

Mr. HANTMAN. The $9 million is based on a final design.
Mr. TAYLOR. How long will it close down the garage?

Mr. HANTMAN. We had originally proposed that the project could
be done in a way to inconvenience membershi
least. We had pro-
posed that it could be done in an election year cycle such as the
end of this year. Given the fact that the funding is not at hand,
we are requesting it for the following year. We are talking about
a seven-month period now that we would be working on the garage
itself.

Mr. TAYLOR. Where will the members and their staff park during that period of time?

Mr. HANTMAN. We have been working with Pat Lanigan in the

very closely with him to talk about the inconvenience and what alternative locations there would be.

DOME REHABILITATION

Mr. TAYLOR. How about the dome rehab? There is no money in the budget for the dome rehab. You are still using phase I funds provided in the earlier supplement, about $7.5 million. How is that project going?

Mr. HANTMAN. That project is going very well, Mr. Chairman. We expected that the original scope of work for the project will be done in the April timeframe. There are several other issues that we need to address within the $7.5 million budget which might take some of that work into the summer, but we expect to be removing all of the screening and the work that currently can be seen in the rotunda itself in that April timeframe. The work is proceeding well. We have, as you know, hazardous removal of lead based paint. That is being done in a contained area.

What we are doing as far as phase II is concerned, though as I indicated, we had four priority areas, including life safety, project management, security, all of the issues related to service to the Congress. We are proposing that we put another year between us and phase II for the second phase of the Capitol dome. Happily, during investigations in this phase, we found that the structure is basically fine. It has been built for the ages. There are no real problems relative to the basic structure, but we think that we have higher priorities, in terms as you pointed out before, in balancing workload, to say that we can put off this project because we want to work on life safety issues because there are fiscal considerations. And this is a very major element of any budget, the second phase of the Capitol dome. So we, therefore, think that another year would give us the ability to get all of our information together relative to actual cost. By that point in time we have a good sense of what that cost is going to be.

DOME REHABILITATION COST

Mr. TAYLOR. What is that cost?

Mr. HANTMAN. We are talking about for the second phase about $39 million is what we are talking about now and that is an increase over what we had talked about before and the wisdom shown by this committee in talking about a hundred percent design really reflects on that because there were some major issues that impacted the increase in our estimates at that point.

Mr. TAYLOR. You estimate about $38.8 million and that has gone up now.

Mr. HANTMAN. We are looking at approximately $48 million now for both phases.

Mr. TAYLOR. Gone up by about $10 million. Why was that extra cost needed?

Mr.

Mr. HANTMAN. Most of that cost is directly attributable to the issue of scaffolding and type of scaffolding. As you are aware, Chairman, we had to close down the Rotunda for a period of three weeks to erect the netting that we see up there right now. It's dif ficult to do that, to get a joint resolution of both Houses to do any

were to do what has been done in the past when the Apotheosis of
Washington was repaired, and prior work had been done in the Ro-
tunda itself, we would have scaffolding basically filling the Ro-
tunda. We would have to close it for 2 to 3 years. Clearly we have
several presidents, past presidents who have indicated they would
want their their families would want them to lie in state in the
Rotunda. If we have gold medal ceremonies, whether it is for Moth-
er Teresa or Rosa Parks or Bob Hope, that couldn't be done during
that period of years. We brought to the leadership of both the
House and the Senate several alternative scaffolding methods, and
what we are recommending, and which they basically said to pro-
ceed with, is a scaffolding method that would kind of mimic what
we are doing right now. It is hung from above as opposed to put-
ting scaffolding on the floor. This would allow us to have cere-
monies because clearly if a past president were to die, we wouldn't
be able to take down the scaffolding in the two- to three-day period,
and have the event there in any event. We would be looking at a
$4 to $5 million premium just for the nature of the scaffolding on
that.

We are also looking at humidity control systems which have never been designed before up in the dome to avoid some of the water runoff and condensation that occurs on steel. So that costs more than the ballpark figure prior to its design.

So once again, coming back to the whole design issue, those design documents are virtually finished. They will be finished in another month or so waiting for the final results at the close of the work in April, so we will give you a final number when we come back to you for appropriations in the year 2002.

[Question from Chairman Taylor and response follows:]

Question. For the record, please provide a more detailed description of why the dome estimate has gone up by $10 million since last year?

Response. the production of construction documents for phase 2 of the work began early in 1999 and continue through 1999 leading to the final submission by the consultant team at year end. Prior to that time, the cost estimate was based upon conceptual thinking in many areas of this unique project. As the concepts were converted to actual design options, leading to decisions and detailed design solutions, the overall cost estimate increased. The most prominent elements of the increase are as follows:

Scaffolding options were determined and designed. Both the exterior scaffolding scheme and the two options for interior scaffolding-a traditional system rising from the Rotunda floor and an elaborate structural shell constructed well above the Rotunda floor-were considerably more expensive than earlier anticipated. Also, in order to preserve an open Rotunda suitable for ceremonial events, the Congressional Leadership selected the more expensive of the interior scaffolding schemes.

Both the updated air conditioning system for the Rotunda and the new dehumidification system for the interstitial space between inner and outer shells of the dome were more fully defined and priced. The earlier cost estimates on these systems were too low.

A substantial increase in the number of cast iron defects identified and documented resulted from the paint removal and survey process in phase 1, now approximately 65% complete. Earlier estimates and extrapolations were inadequate. Phase 1 work will be completed in May 2000 and all cast iron defects will have been identified. As a result, there may be further adjustments in the final project cost that will be submitted with the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

The unit cost estimates for estimates for lead-based paint removal and repainting in phase 1 were deemed too low based upon the bids received. Consequently, these unit costs were raised during 1999 in the cost estimates for phase 2.

The cost of the District of Columbia lead permit fee for phase 2 was inadvertently

As a result of the one year delay in seeking funding for phase 2-fiscal year 2002 instead of the originally planned fiscal year 2001-the total cost of the project was further escalated.

U.S. CAPITOL POLICE PROJECTS

Mr. TAYLOR. You started several police projects; off-site delivery system, training facility, and vehicle maintenance. All total, these projects are estimated to cost over $30 million. Has every project been designed?

Mr. HANTMAN. All of the funding that we are requesting at this point in time is for design funding and land acquisition for these projects. So no detailed design has been done. In concept, the magnitude of space needs for training, for off-site inspection, for all of these issues have been determined through a study, but there is no design to key into anything but a magnitude of potential cost at this point.

Mr. TAYLOR. We already have facilities for each of these uses. Why do you assign them 1A priorities?

Mr. HANTMAN. As a member of the Capitol Police Board, I work very closely with the Sergeant at Arms of the House, Sergeant at Arms of the Senate and Chief Abrecht and the entire police force. We created a multidisciplinary interjurisdictional task force to do this study, and perhaps the Chief would be better able to respond to that than I am at this point.

Chief ABRECHT. There are basically three major projects that are sought for design on this our training academy, the off-site delivery center, and the vehicle maintenance facility. Truthfully, we have no training facility at the present time. We operate out of two transformed office spaces in the Ford Office Building. They call it a training academy. It is truly ludicrous for a police agency of over a thousand officers. We have no training facility worthy of the

name.

We are also using some space out at Anacostia at the naval air station which we have obtained for a short term while we do the buildup.

So we essentially have nothing near the sort of training facility that would be required for a police force of this size. We have no facilities for doing any type of scenario training where you actually teach the officer how he would actually-essentially classroom space is all that we have. We have no space where you can mimic where we could build, for instance, an entrance to the Capitol and show an officer how to position himself, how to screen someone. None of those facilities is available. So the training facility is justwe are in dire need of a proper training academy for a police force the size of this agency.

The vehicle maintenance facility is a metal shed that is rodent infested, insect infested, has one bay and is essentially falling down. The insulation falls down from the ceiling onto the mechanics on a regular basis; and, as we have been told by the Architect, it is essentially irreparable. It needs to be replaced.

The off-site delivery facility is an old warehouse, a meat-packing plant if I remember correctly, that is also way past its prime. It can't be expanded. It is not owned. It is leased. So you would have

cal year

e projete

e deliver

tal, thes

y proje

at th

or thes

hem

ra

e is m

COST

work

nt at

orce

o do

are

liv

very limits by bringing the House side on board for screening the House freight which was direly needed and a wonderful addition to the House security.

We no longer allow semitrailers full of what we don't know into the loading bays in, for instance, the Rayburn Building. To do that we have strained this facility way past its capacity.

Those are basically the issues with the three facilities that we are seeking most rapidly to replace.

U.S. CAPITOL POLICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE

Mr. TAYLOR. Have you considered privatization for vehicle maintenance?

Chief ABRECHT. We are. We are looking at the possibility of moving some of our fleet to a lease status. We are continuing to discuss that. That is a possibility.

Mr. TAYLOR. How many vehicles do we have? I assume this is motorcycles and cars?

Chief ABRECHT. We have over a hundred vehicles if you count the motorcycles.

Mr. TAYLOR. Could you provide for the record a detail of the total number of vehicles, motorcycles, and 4-wheel drivetrucks?

Chief ABRECHT. I would be glad to get it for you. I don't have it off the top of my head, I am sorry to say.

[The information follows:]

e