of the judgment of the District government in the construction of bridges, I think they would have said so.

The report of the House Committee on the District of Columbia indicates that at the time that legislation was enacted, that the District government had come here and laid on the table a 10-year plan and had said, "These are our immediate needs in the highway construction field."

Based upon that representation, Congress said that to meet these immediate needs, these immediate needs which you have now laid on the table, we are hereby authorizing you to proceed.

You gentlemen take the position that that is not the correct view, because you say, as I understand it, that at any time in the future that we have immediate needs, Congress has said that we have the authority to go forward.

That just does not seem to add up.

And then on top of that, you have the Senate committee saying that in the future, if you are going to do this sort of thing, we want you to have legislative authority to do it from the legislative committee.

That is the situation and we, as lawyers, or as public officials, can have our opinion about the legal status, but I don't know how we can say that either one of our opinions is the opinion which will prevail.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Chairman, will you yield? Don't you think we should ask for a thorough review of the Public Works Act of 1954 and also the Reorganization Act? Those two acts have caused more confusion as to the authority of this committee and the House. It seems to me that we should amend those acts or abolish this committee, one or the other.

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Korman, do you share Mr. Whitener's opinion as to the effect of a Comptroller General's opinion?

Mr. KORMAN. Mr. Broyhill, I expressed last week the opinion that I did not agree with the Comptroller General. At that time Mr. Whitener, the chairman, had read to me part of the letter from the Comptroller General, just the first part of it. Since then I have seen the entire letter and I find some things in there which seem to me to strengthen the position I took before this committee. For one thing, while it is true that there was written into the report on the Senate side in the appropriations act of fiscal 1966, that several members of the committee over there expressed concern about the absence of effective legislative control over the District of Columbia highway program, and directed that all future budget estimates for the District of Columbia highway program to be presented on the basis only of prior authorization by the respective District legislative committees, the Comptroller General pointed out, in fact he says-it is a matter of note that the managers on the part of the House, when the appropriation bill went to conference, disagreed with that sentence that was put in there by some of the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. So we see that, even back there, there was disagreement at the time of the last appropriations act as to that particular provision, and unusually enough, it was the House that disagreed with the provision and not the Senate.

So that, if this is true, and I have only just seen this, the House Members then took the position that there was no need to come back

to the Congress for authorizing legislation because obviously it was there. Now, if you go on in the Comptroller General's letter to the chairman, you find this after saying what was read by Chairman Whitener last time, he says:

Having said all this, however, we must recognize that the District of Columbia government has for years been presenting its highway and bridge construction plans to the full attention of the Congress in connection with obtaining the necessary funds for financing the various projects involved. Plans regarding the 14th Street Bridge have been so presented. And it is our understanding that these projects do not go forward except as the necessary funds are provided by the Congress. Thus, as a practical matter, the Congress as a whole does maintain legislative control over the extent to which the District of Columbia engages in highway and bridge construction activities. Subsequent to our previous letter to you

That is, to Chairman McMillan

on this subject, the Senate Committee on Appropriations

Made that comment that Chairman Whitener mentioned, and then he goes on to say that the House managers did not agree to it.

And the letter goes on and says this, which to me is very persuasive: In view of the manner in which the District of Columbia highway and bridge programs have consistently been presented to and acted upon by the Congress over the years and particularly in light of the apparent disagreement within the Congress itself as to the manner in which such programs should be presented, we would not have any basis, notwithstanding the views expressed above, for concluding that the District is without authority to proceed with its plans for the 14th Street Bridge to the extent that funds are provided therefor.

So you have the Comptroller General saying he has no basis on which to base any disagreement, and he concludes with this paragraph:

In the final analysis, the controversy which apparently exists within the Congress on this subject would seem to be one peculiarly within the province of the Congress itself to resolve, and the basis upon which the Congress has proceeded in the matter thus far leaves no room for this office to question the propriety of actions taken by the District of Columbia.

Now, this means that the propriety of the actions taken by the District of Columbia over a period of years since 1954, and we have been proceeding right along actually since 1938 when the Congress first said that we should go into the Federal-aid highway program, and has carried along all the various enactments since that time.

Mr. BROYHILL. In view of the fact that you feel that the Comptroller General's ruling sustains your position, of course this makes my question superfluous now, but if that is the correct interpretation of his ruling, and it would certainly seem to be, as far as I understand it, what is the effect of the Comptroller General's ruling, does it have the effect of admonishing you, as part of the executive branch of Government, to proceed?

Mr. KORMAN. No, sir; I don't feel that it does at all.

In fact, I feel that it specifically says that what we have done up to now has been all right, and what we do in the future

Mr. BROYHILL. Suppose it was to the contrary? Do they have jurisdiction over you in interpreting the law as not giving you the authority if they so interpreted it, to restrict you from this

Mr. KORMAN. As I understand the position of the Comptroller General with regard to the District of Columbia-on matters of this type

Mr. BROYHILL. My question now becomes hypothetical.

Mr. KORMAN. Yes. On matters of this sort I don't feel that we are bound by his decisions. However, when it comes to a question of our spending money on accounts which he audits, and he does come in and audits us regularly, if he feels that we have done anything improper, he has the right to disallow our accounts, and we have to dig into our pockets and make it up. And so we have to be very careful that we do not go outside the law in any area where he reviews our accounts. We, however, have a great respect for the opinions of the Comptroller General, and if he expresses a view, we generally follow it. But I don't think technically we are bound by it in the same sense we would be bound by the decision of a court.

As a matter of fact, just to point out something to you, very recently we had a discussion of some length with the Department of State concerning taxation of certain property purchased by foreign governments. The question really had to do with the proration of annual real estate taxes. I agreed with counsel for the State Department to submit the matter to the Comptroller General, because he reviews our accounts, and to abide by his decision. And he wrote us his view on the thing and he said he found that there was great merit on both sides, but he believed that the treaty arrangements that were worked out by the United States with foreign nations took a superior position in our scheme of law and that if the State Department in working out those treaties had agreed with the foreign nations that they should be liable to no tax at all, that we were forced to prorate our annual taxes on property, even though the law seemed to say otherwise. And so we abided by it and we have done that. I took it to the Commissioners and they approved it.

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, may I make one further observation here?

I don't think it was developed during the hearings that there was any question, and certainly no objection has been expressed to the construction of another facility in the area of the 14th Street Bridge.

The Commissioners, General Duke, have withheld construction of this crossing pending the committee's action on this legislation, in courtesy to the committee, since they felt legally that they had the authority to proceed. As expressed last week, the primary purpose of the legislation was the fact that some members of the committee had expressed concern as to whether it was feasible to go ahead and tear down the piers or to utilize the piers, in view of the fact that there had been some inconsistency of information that had been made available to the committee.

Now, maybe that purpose has now been served. I am wondering, and I don't know whether this is a question I should propound to the chairman or not, or whether he cares to express himself on it, but whether or not we take any further action here, can we indicate that we are not objecting to the Commissioners' proceeding, and will not consider it an affront to the committee if they did proceed. I would not want any doubt or ambiguity here to delay the construction of the bridge, and if Mr. Korman is strong in his feelings that they have the authority to proceed, whether we like it or not, I would like to avoid any further delay, if at all possible, and yet I would support the committee in any action trying to clarify any doubt as far as its authority is concerned.

But if we are coming to the conclusion of these hearings, I was wondering what the chairman would have in mind as to future action. Mr. WHITENER. I don't think you can brush aside serious questions quite so glibly. I think there is a real serious question, and I don't want to engage in an argument with Mr. Korman.

The letter of the Comptroller General rejects completely the basis stated by the Corporation Counsel for the alleged authority to proceed without authorization. The Comptroller General in substance said that in the opinion of the Comptroller General the legal position of the District of Columbia was an erroneous one, but that confusion was in existence in the Congress as to the law and that perhaps it was up to the Congress to resolve those differences which occur in the minds of Members of Congress as to the legal situation. So I don't think that it is quite correct to say that the letter of the Comptroller General in any measure supports the legal position taken by the District government.

We have a little history about this issue that the staff has brought to my attention in connection with the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge. The District Commissioners first raised the claim that they possessed authority to erect a bridge without specific enabling legislation by the Congress, by the original act [H.R. 1980, approved August 30, 1954, 68 Stat. 961]. A bridge had been authorized across the Potomac River south of Theodore Roosevelt Island. Having decided in 1956 to build the bridge slightly north of this point, across Theodore Roosevelt Island, the District Commissioners claim they were free to utilize existing appropriations for the bridge to start construction. The Comptroller General rejected this view, holding that "Appropriations to carry out enabling or authorized laws must be expended in strict accord with the original authorization, both as to the amount of the funds to be expended and the nature of the work authorized."

While recognizing that "Congress has full power to amend the original authorizing act or to direct that an appropriation shall be used for purposes additional to or entirely foreign to those specified in the original authorization act," he found that the appropriations act subsequent to 1954 authorizing legislation contain an express provision concerning the construction of the bridge across the Potomac. River, and including nothing which may be considered as authorizing or directing the construction of the bridge across the Potomac River in the vicinity of Constitution Avenue at a location other than the location prescribed in Public Law 704, Opinion D-125,404, Comptroller General of the United States, August 31, 1956.

We have differences of legal opinion and I don't think that we can just wish away the law. It may be the most desirable thing in the world to build this bridge tomorrow, but I think there is a serious question as to the legal authority, and I think the Comptroller General has rejected the legal reasoning of the Corporation Counsel and the Commissioners, as stated in their letter, and has said nothing in its letter which would indicate that the law is any different from what we have stated here, what I understand it to be. But of course we all recognize that if notwithstanding the lack of authority you can go to the Appropriations Committee and get written into an appropriations act authority to do this, and the money to do it, and nobody makes a point of order about legislating it in the appropriation bill, that you are on solid ground.

How do you accomplish that if one Member of the House should raise the point of order, and the Parliamentarian and presiding officers would determine that that point of order was well taken?

This is not building bridges, this is exercising parliamentary procedure.

General DUKE. Mr. Chairman, would you cite the date of that act which authorized the bridge south of Constitution Avenue?

Mr. BROYHILL. 1954; that was a special act. Also the Jones Point Bridge

Mr. WHITENER. 68 Stat. 961.

Mr. KORMAN. 1964?

Mr. WHITENER. This opinion was rendered in 1956, by the Comptroller General's Office.

Mr. KORMAN. I have not researched the matter that you spoke about concerning the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge, and I would want to do that before I took a strong position one way or another. But that I can recognize a distinction between what the Comptroller General was speaking there and the general situation we have been discussing heretofore. In the case of the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge, the Congress, by this act of 1954, authorized the construction of a bridge at a specific location, and when the Congress has spoken I agree right down the line with the Comptroller General that we cannot step out of line one iota what you have said is correct, and if you passed a specific act saying the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge shall be at a fixed place, we have no authority to move it upstream without going back to you for that authority.

I do not disagree on this score, but that is a vastly different thing from what I see the situation to be with regard to the 14th Street Bridge, which is simply an extension of the Federal-aid highway program.

Mr. WHITENER. The Comptroller General does not agree with you. Mr. KORMAN. I don't see that he takes the position in this letter, Mr. Chairman, but how

Mr. WHITENER. We have an expression down home, "Just flatfootedly."

If

Mr. KORMAN. However that might be, let me say this to you: we are not authorized to build this bridge, then we have not been authorized to proceed with any of the Federal-aid highway programs that have been constructed all the way along since 1954, probably before that; but we have built all of those and we have come to the Congress each year and said, "This is our immediate need for this year," taking the language that was used in the 1954 act, and we have described what our immediate needs have been fully and completely, as to what we expect to build in that particular fiscal year, and we have asked for appropriations for it.

Now, I make the point, and I think rightly so, that if there is an attempt to put affirmative legislation in an appropriation bill, it is not technically correct, and it is subject to a point of order.

Mr. WHITENER. That is what our folks have done every time you have gotten authority from the Appropriations Committee, they have legislated in an appropriation bill in every case where you say you have been able to do so.

Let me point this out. After the Theodore Roosevelt situation, bills introduced by the late Senator Case, in the 85th Congress, would