submitted. This Division is in receipt of a proposal offering to donate the necessary land to the United States. Mr. WOODRUM. Mr. Sheild, the clerk of the committee, calls my attention to the fact that the act authorizing the erection of the memorial calls for the tablet or marker to be erected near Ava, Ohio, on the spot where the Navy dirigible Shenandoah fell. But the Shenandoah fell in three spots. Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir; and it would seem necessary to have the original act amended directing the erection of the memorial at or near the spot where the Shenandoah fell. Mr. WOODRUM. Is that language in there? Mr. MARTIN. The language is not in the item, but I understand that Congressman Secrest who introduced the act, is cognizant of the situation. Mr. WOODRUM. The casualties occurred where the car fell. Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir. Mr. WOODRUM. And the remaining parts of the dirigible fell here and there in different spots. Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir. The spot where the car fell Mr. WOODRUM (interposing). I should think that would be the place where they want the memorial to commemorate the services rendered by the members of the crew of the dirigible. Mr. MARTIN. That is a short distance from the highway that passes through Ava. Mr. WOODRUM. That would be more definite, and a more appropriate place. Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir. They would want it, I should think, closer to the road, directly opposite the spot where the car fell. Congressman Secrest is familiar with the situation. We have had the Navy Department show us by maps where the parts fell. Mr. WOODRUM. What is the break-down of that expenditure? Mr. MARTIN. $2,500 is the amount authorized under the enabling act, requiring, however, the memorial to be located on a site to be donated. We have an offer of one donation, which brings up the controversy as to what was the exact spot where the Shenandoah fell. Mr. WOODRUM. What are you going to do with the $2,500? Mr. REYNOLDS. We will do the best we can, if that amount of money is appropriated. Mr. WOODRUM. Will it be a tablet or a marker? Mr. REYNOLDS. It may take the form of a small monument, with a commemorative tablet attached to it. Mr. TABER. Are you going to improve the ground, to fence it and landscape it? Mr. REYNOLDS. We would put a fence around it. Mr. LUDLOw. Would it be a shaft? Mr. REYNOLDS. We have not worked out the details, but probably so. It usually takes that form. PUBLIC BUILDINGS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ANNEX AND WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS Mr. WOODRUM. The next item is "Public buildings, District of Columbia." Mr. MARTIN., There are two items for the Government Printing Office, one item being included in the Budget for $1,500,000 for the continuation of construction; and one in a separate document transmitted to Congress requesting an increase in the limit of cost for the Government Printing Office. CHANGE IN LIMIT OF COST FOR GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ANNEX AND WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS Mr. WOODRUM. Admiral, we will now take up with you this change in the limit of cost of the Government Printing Office Building, amounting to approximately $3,000,000. Give us a statement in regard to this increase. Admiral PEOPLES. We must go into this somewhat in detail. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Admiral PEOPLES. The project as originally presented to the Appropriations Committee of Congress contemplated the following buildings, alterations, and facilities: (a) Warehouse on the east side of North Capitol Street. (b) The demolition of certain existing buildings and the construction of an annex to the existing 8-story building on the west side of North Capitol Street. (c) Alterations in existing buildings 1 and 2. (d) A bridge to connect buildings 1 and 2 with the new annex. (e) The construction of a tunnel under North Capitol Street, connecting the warehouse and the annex, and the construction of a railway siding connecting with the elevated tracks of the Union Terminal, crossing First Street on a trestle, and extending along the south side of the warehouse under a covered canopy. The preliminary estimates of cost were developed on the basis of cubic contents developed by the limits of land area times heights and levels established by existing buildings. The original estimates excluded any consideration of costs of moving, rental of temporary quarters, furniture, changes in existing equipment and incidental expenses in connection with old buildings. These items were estimated to cost $613,125. The act appropriating funds for this project, however, included the items of rent, moving, and furniture, and it was explained that this was done so that if there was an unobligated balance after the award of contracts for construction these items could properly be included. ORIGINAL ESTIMATE FOR ANNEX AND WAREHOUSE The original estimate as presented to the Appropriations Committee on May 20, 1935, was as follows: WAREHOUSE BUILDING The original estimate for Warehouse Building No. 4, was $1,175,000. The cost of the site was $190,052; the reservations amounted to $154,849; the contingencies amounted to $54,937, those items totaling $399,838, leaving the amount available for construction, $775,162. The low bid received on August 31, 1936, was $1,042,930, leaving the deficit, exclusive of pro rata of general expenses, of $267,768. A conference was held with the Director of Procurement, Public Printer, and certain members of the Appropriations Committee of the House, and as a result of these conferences instructions were issued to award the contract. REASONS FOR INCREASED COST OF WAREHOUSE In order to secure a satisfactory curve from the terminal tracks to serve the warehouse it was necessary to change the location of the warehouse from the north side of Jackson Street (G Place) to the south side, and to bring the tracks into the building proper rather than along the side of the building as originally contemplated. While making a much better and more economical working arrangement from the standpoint of operation, the changes nevertheless increased the cubic contents of the building from 1,900,000 feet to 3,192,000 feet, or 1,292,000 feet. The ground area of the building was increased 9,700 feet and the gross floor area 44,000 feet, affording increased storage space for rough stock, deliveries of which were averaging 10 cars per day. Studies developed the imperative need of an unloading platform and trucking space so that the increasing number of large trucks could be handled. This was effected by the purchase of added land at the corner of G Street and First Street, giving trucks ingress and egress from First Street and G. Certain economies were effected by this change. The tunnel under North Capitol Street was shortened and made more direct, and the steel trestle contemplated in the original scheme was greatly shortened and the trackage largely provided for in the building. In an effort to effect every economy possible the exterior of the building was changed from limestone to finished concrete and structural changes, reducing the sizes of the bays, were made effecting savings in construction. All changes were made in collaboration with and with the approval of the Public Printer. Mr. WOODRUM. You are discussing now the warehouse building. Admiral PEOPLES. Yes, sir. Mr. WOODRUM. What was the original estimate for the warehouse building? Admiral PEOPLES. The original estimate was $1,175,000. Mr. WOODRUM. What is it now, or what is the proposed limit of cost in this new project? Admiral PEOPLES. The warehouse was included in the original estimate. It is included in the total project. Mr. WOODRUM. But you have a break-down of it, have you not? Admiral PEOPLES. Yes, sir. Mr. WOODRUM. In other words, I gather from your statement that you have changed entirely the location and plans for the building. You have changed everything from what you originally started out to do. Admiral PEOPLES. Not the location. It has been somewhat enlarged. Mr. WOODRUM. It has been very much enlarged. Mr. MARTIN. The present figure is $1,442,768. Mr. WOODRUM. Which figure is that? Mr. MARTIN. That is the new figure on the cost of the warehouse. Mr. WOODRUM. As against what? Mr. MARTIN. As against $1,175,000 originally estimated. Mr. WOODRUM. Less than $300,000 of the increased limit of cost is chargeable to the warehouse. Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir. Mr. WOODRUM. How much of that is chargeable to increased cost of construction, and how much is chargeable to a change of plans? Mr. REYNOLDS. I would say that, roughly, one-third would be due to the increased cost of construction. Mr. WOODRUM. Admiral, what is the explanation of these changes? This is a situation that happens now so many times that I would like to know the reasons for it in this case. When you wish to do certain work, and come to Congress and ask funds for certain things that you say should be done, we should have the right to assume that studies and surveys have been made. We have the right to assume that calculations have been made, and that every contingency has been taken into account before the matter is brought here in the form of an estimate. Yet, you come now and ask for something entirely different. Originally, you asked for a certain kind of building, and we authorized it, but now the whole thing is changed. You say it is done because it has been determined that thus and so would be better, but we want to know why that was not determined in advance of the estimates. Admiral PEOPLES. In this particular case, a part of the increased cost is due to factors which nobody could foresee at the time the original estimate was prepared. As to the increase in the cost of construction, which is a very small matter Mr. WOODRUM (interposing). It was stated that it accounted for one-third of it. Admiral PEOPLES. Of course, it is possible to pad an estimate to cover every possible contingency over a period of 3 or 4 years from the time the original estimate is submitted until the work is commenced. There were a lot of things provided for that were not contemplated in the original estimate, and we have asked Mr. Giegengack to come here for the purpose of explaining those features of it. Mr. WOODRUM. That is what we would like to have. We would like to have it explained. Mr. TABER. Is not the real reason for the increase in the cost the increased size of the building by about two-fifths? Is not that the main reason? Mr. MARTIN. That is one reason. Mr. TABER. Is not that the main reason. Admiral PEOPLES. Yes, sir; that is the main reason. Mr. WOODRUM. Then, why not explain, in the first instance, the reason for increasing the size of the building? Admiral PEOPLES. I think, as we go into this explanation, that will be developed. Mr. WOODRUM. All right; go ahead. ANNEX BUILDING NO. 3 Admiral PEOPLES. We come now to Annex Building No. 3, the original estimate for which was $4,395,000. The original limit of cost was $5,885,000. That is the amount of the authorization. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. That is the amount of the authorization for everything. Admiral PEOPLES. Yes, sir; for the entire project. There has been obligated for Warehouse Building No. 4, the sum of $1,442,728, and for general expenses for the entire project the sum of $215,000, making a total of $1,657,728. That leaves available for construction the sum of $4,227,272. The estimated cost of the construction of the annex is $5,664,607, leaving an apparent deficit of $1,437,335. REASONS FOR INCREASED COST OF ANNEX BUILDING NO. 3 Now, as for the reasons for the increased cost of Annex Building No. 3, this sketch may better illustrate what I am talking about. The change on the north side of the street there [indicating] was on account of the curve in the tracks. Mr. WOODRUM. They knew about the street and the curve in the tracks before the project. Why did they wait until the project was authorized to make that sort of change? It would be simply a matter of looking at it to determine how the building should be placed in relation to the tracks or street. Admiral PEOPLES. The original plans contemplated the tracks on the north side of the building. Mr. WOODRUM. Why did they not figure on that before the project was submitted? Mr. HANSON. The railroad company was not consulted about the plan for the reason that we felt and believed, as was later developed, that they would not favor the proposition. The railroad tracks as first laid out in the plan were different from this arrangement. There are other side tracks in existence in the city of Washington on which trains are now operated. So we took that as a basis, knowing it was possible to put the tracks in that particular way, because they were actually operating that way. After the project was authorized, we went to the railroad company and talked about it, and they said, "In the future we will have heavier and different equipment. If the track is put in that way, we can serve you with certain switch engines we now have, but when we replace them it will not be so good.' Mr. WOODRUM. Did you go to them before the authorization was made? Mr. HANSON. No, sir. Mr. WOODRUM. You did not go to them until after the authorization was made. Mr. HANSON. No, sir. At the time estimates were made, it was against existing law to bring railroad tracks across First Street NE. The railroad has passenger traffic and the mail service to take care of, and the best service we could hope for would be to have cars placed once a day on our tracks. With three side tracks for our use along the side of our proposed warehouse there would be required two unloading platforms between our tracks, making a long roundabout way to get into our warehouse; or we would have to spot cars on the |