Mr. SAWYER. Yes. We have discovered some, and we assume that it was built according to the plan, and we were not-I think in 1951 we went out to measure these distances and we discovered that one was slightly less than the other, one might have been an inch and a half less than the adjacent span.

Mr. GARBER. Has there been any tilting of any of the spans?
Mr. AIRIS. There has been lateral movement.

Mr. GARBER. Lateral?

Mr. AIRIS. Lateral movement would be tilting there.

Mr. GARBER. But you haven't found any tilting, as such?

Mr. SAWYER. There might be to a very small degree.

Mr. GARBER. When were these determinations made as to lateral movement? You say from 1950 on, or something?.

Mr. SAWYER. I think 1950, 1963 and 1965.

Mr. GARBER. Did your staff do that?

Mr. SAWYER. Our staff did that.

Mr. GARBER. Do you have a report of the findings complete on that?

Mr. SAWYER. We have the report of 1950 and we have the report of 1965 concerning certain aspects of the inspection. As for the tilting, I think it is in the form of a memorandum. I believe I would have to check that. I am not too sure as to how it is represented. Mr. AIRIS. Would it be all right to supply that for the record? Mr. GARBER. I was just going to suggest that, for the committee's information, you might supply in general data that you have available and some that they can have for reference.

(Subsequently, the Highway Department submitted the longitudinal and vertical displacement data shown on the chart attached:)

LONGITUDINAL AND VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT DATA-OLD 14TH STREET BRIDGE

2 Pier No. 11 reconstructed into south abutment by Bureau of Public Roads in 1930. The above informational data prepared by T. Diachok, bridge engineer, District of Columbia Highway and Traffic Department, Bridge Design Division, May 7, 1966. Elevations are based on District of Columbia datum.

That is all.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the only reason for this hearing was to find out for our benefit, and the benefit of the District Commissioners whether they should have authority from this committee to build a bridge. Isn't that the basic reason? Mr. WHITENER. I think this is the basic reason, and there seems to be a difference of opinion about that.

Mr. MCMILLAN. I think it should be settled, and I know the Commissioners came before this committee for approval for perhaps the last three bridges, but there may be different circumstances in connection with this bridge. They may have had authority somewhere along the line somewhere. I don't know. So, that is one question I guess we should decide, and that is the reason for the meeting, and I am sure you want it settled just as it seems we do, once and for all.

General DUKE. That is true, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITENER. We went into this last week, and I am sure if you will look at the North Carolina law reports and see my experiences in the Supreme Court of North Carolina, that you will find that I have been wrong about as many times as I have been right about what the law is. However, I am convinced after looking into the legislative history of the Public Works Act and consideration of the Interstate Highway Act and the General Bridge Act of 1946, that this bridge would require authorization.

I am further of the opinion, personally, that the Senate committee has laid down the injunction that no more bridges are to be built without legislative authority first being granted. So I think you have a mixed legal and practical question here. If the position taken by General Duke and the Corporation Counsel is the correct one, the enactment of this legislation would just be an exercise in parliamentary procedure, and have no legal effect; but I am wondering, when you take into account the practical side of it, even if you could get the money from the Appropriations Committee in Congress without authorization legislation, whether the District government would want to

put itself into the position of proceeding in the event that this legislation went to the floor and was rejected there by the Congress.

In other words, if we went out there without any contention about the legality or necessity of authorization and Congress should vote down this bill, then I was wondering what the position of the District government would be in the face of that rejection of a project by the District government, even if you could get the money from the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. MCMILLAN. I want it well understood that we are not looking for more work for this committee.

General DUKE. No.

Mr. MCMILLAN. In fact, we have all we can do, and personally I am not looking for any more, but what we do here we want to do right, and I am sure that is your wish.

Mr. WHITENER. I have had three Republicans running all over my district saying that I spend all my time here on this committee, and not on the business of my own district.

General DUKE. I appreciate the time you do spend, sir.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Well, the thing is, you go downtown, and the press say we do not spend enough time on District of Columbia legislation and they tell the people in the States that we are spending too much time on District of Columbia affairs.

General DUKE. As mentioned at the outset of this hearing, the particular project, the 14th Street Bridge is really unique as an element of our interstate system here. As far as I know, it is the one element of the system that all the official planning agencies endorse. There are some groups that oppose it, but I presume for that matter that it would be almost too much to ask that anything be proposed around here that probably someone would not be opposed to.

Mr. MCMILLAN. You will find that in every State almost, not just the District of Columbia.

General DUKE. I am sure of that. But from the standpoint of the duly appointed agencies whose advice is most helpful, I think there is a unanimity of opinion for the requirement for this structure.

This is unusual.

Mr. BROYHILL. What is the effect, Mr. Chairman, of the opinion of the Comptroller General's Office? Does that have any legal bearing at all, or if they rendered a decision or an opinion to you or to Mr. McMillan, is it something that the Commissioners can disregard, or is any agency of the Government able to disregard it? What is the legal status of it? Does it have any?

General DUKE. Sir, I want to apologize, incidentally

Mr. WHITENER. The Comptroller General's Office being an arm of the Congress, and I would say this as just an offhand opinion, that his letter to the chairman of the committee, Mr. McMillan, would be advisory, not otherwise, to this legislative body of what his agency thinks the law to be.

When I look at the history of the Public Works Act of 1954, it said that it was to meet the immediate highway needs, or words to that effect. Congress used the word "immediate."

Now, if the Congress had intended that this legislation would have the effect which you gentlemen assert that it has, the use of the word "immediate" was a very foolish thing for the Congress to do; if they had meant that that would authorize in perpetuity the exercise