Comptroller General of the United States, Hon. Frank H. Weitzel, Page Letter dated December 22, 1965, to Commissioner Tobriner..... Tobriner, Hon. Walter N. President, Board of Commissioners: Letter dated January 11, 1966, to Chairman McMillan Letter dated January 19, 1966, to James T. Clark, clerk. Senate Report 333, Senate Committee on Appropriations, 89th Con- House Report 1358, House District Committee, 83d Congress.. Metropolitan Citizens Council for Rapid Transit, William B. Peer, chair- FOURTEENTH STREET HIGHWAY BRIDGE WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 1966 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Basil Whitener (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Whitener, Broyhill, and Horton. Also present: James T. Clark, clerk; Hayden S. Garber, counsel; Leonard O. Hilder, investigator; and Clayton Gasque, staff director. Mr. WHITENER. The subcommittee will come to order. We will proceed with hearings on H.R. 12119, a bill to authorize the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to reconstruct the substructure and replace the substructure of the existing 14th Street or Highway Bridge across the Potomac River. (H.R. 12119 is as follows:) [H.R. 12119, 89th Cong., 2d sess.] A BILL To authorize the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to reconstruct the substructure and to replace the superstructure of the existing Fourteenth Street or Highway Bridge across the Potomac River, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia are authorized to reconstruct the existing substructure of the Fourteenth Street or Highway Bridge across the Potomac River, including the removal, repair, and modification of existing piers, and the complete reconstruction of the bridge superstructure. SEC. 2. The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are hereby authorized to construct bridge approaches and roads connecting such bridge and approaches with streets and park roads in the District of Columbia and with roads and park roads on the Virginia side of the Potomac River: Provided, That the authorization contained in this section shall not apply to any bridge approaches and connecting roads extending beyond the boundary line between the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Virginia, as defined in section 101 of Public Law 208, Seventy-ninth Congress, approved October 31, 1945. SEC. 3. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such District of Columbia funds as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. SEC. 4. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. (A staff memorandum on the matter follows:) STAFF MEMORANDUM, APRIL 27, 1966 CHRONOLOGY (1) Congress has never delegated to the District of Columbia any general authority to construct bridges across the Potomac River. (2) Pursuant to the limitations of their authority, the District of Columbia fathers down through the years have requested and secured of the Congress specific legislative authority to build necessary bridges across the Potomac and elsewhere, and then have requested and secured of the Congress appropriations d therefor. Recent examples are the present two spans at the foot of 14th Street; namely, the Rochambeau and George Mason Memorial Bridges (built pursuant to H.R. 541, approved July 16, 1946, Public Law 79-516, 60 Stat. 566); the Anacostia River Bridge at East Capitol Street (built pursuant to H.R. 7341, approved July 2, 1950, Public Law 81-534, 64 Stat. 196); the Woodrow Wilson Bridge (built pursuant to H.R. 1980, approved August 30, 1954, Public Law 83-704, 68 Stat. 961); and the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge (built pursuant to H.R. 12356, approved June 4, 1958, Public Law 85-445, 72 Stat. 180). (3) In no single instance-excepting the building of an 11th Street bridgehave the Commissioners, prior to this date, not followed this requirement, according to information furnished the staff. (4) Hence, on June 3, 1963 (88th Cong.), Congressman Broyhill, at the request of the District of Columbia Highway Department, introduced H.R. 6744, a bill to authorize the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to reconstruct the substructure and to replace the superstructure of the existing 14th Street or Highway Bridge across the Potomac River, and for other purposes. (5) The said Highway Bridge was then closed to traffic, it having been closed after the two new bridges authorized by Congress in 1946 were built-the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge, opened in May 1950, for inbound traffic, and the George Mason Memorial Bridge opened in January 1962, for outbound traffic. (6) When closed, the Highway Bridge was carrying over 100,000 vehicles per day, it is understood. (7) The reuse of the Highway Bridge was required, the District of Columbia Highway Department urged, because of greater anticipated increase in traffic in this area resulting from (a) widening of Shirley Highway in Virginia to eight lanes, two of which to be reversible; (b) completion of the Southwest Freeway and connections thereto; and (c) other road projects within the District. זיי (8) The then (1963) District of Columbia Highway Department's estimated $14 cost of reconstructing the Highway Bridge was between $3 and $5 million, at least 90 percent of which was to be provided through Federal funds for interstate highway aid. (9) On June 1, 1963, the chairman referred H. R. 6744 to the District of Columbia Commissioners, and other agencies, for report. (10) The Commissioners drafted a report approving favorable action by Con gress on the bill, and setting forth justification therefor, including the foregoing items. This report was sent by the Commissioners to the Bureau of the Budget and for some reason never cleared the Budget and was never officially received by the House District Committee. Action on the bill was not further requested by the Commissioners, of the House District Committee during the 88th Congress. (11) On January 18, 1966, (89th Cong.), Congressman Broyhill reintroduced the legislation as H. R. 12119. The Commissioners submitted a report thereon, dated April 1, 1966, which repeated, in essence, the justifications for construction made to Congressman Broyhill in the 88th Congress, and which had been included in the Commissioners' drafted report at that time, referred to above. However, the Commissioners abandoned their recommendation of the 88th Congress that a new superstructure be constructed on the old foundations, and urged that the present bill be amended to permit the replacement of the Highway Bridge by a third bridge located on the general alinement of the old bridge and resembling the George Mason and Rochambeau Memorial Bridges. (12) Also, the Commissioners reaffirmed a startling view they had earlier expressed (in their January 11, 1966, letter to Chairman McMillan who on December 22, 1965, questioned the Commissioners' authority without specific authorizing legislation, to build any bridge); namely, their view that present laws provide them sufficient authority to undertake the construction of the new bridge, specifically, (a) the Federal Aid Highway Act (title 23, United States Code), and (b) the General Bridge Act of 1946 (title 33, United States Code). (13) Review of the legislative history of these two Federal acts discloses no provision thereof, or authority for, the District of Columbia proceeding to construct any such bridge without first having obtained legislative authorization therefor, just as any State legislature must approve necessary enabling legislation before qualifying under these acts. (14) The Comptroller General of the United States agrees with this view, as set forth in his letter of February 15, 1966, to Chairman McMillan, stating, in part: To allow District participation in the Federal-aid highway program solely under authority of its inclusion in the Federal-Aid Highway Act is to leave the basis and extent of such participation entirely within the discretion of the District of Columbia government unfettered by the control of its activities normally exercised with respect to such municipal functions by the Congress. * * * "Nor do we consider that the General Bridge Act of 1946 has any relevance. *** The act removes an impediment; it does not provide authority otherwise necessary to engage in bridge construction." (15) Unknown at the time to the House District Committee-and in complete disregard of its legislative authority on behalf of the Congress over the Districtthe District of Columbia Commissioners requested and secured from the Appropriations Committees $300,000 for plans and specifications for the proposed third 14th Street Bridge, and also thereafter requested funds (which were denied) for the destruction of the Highway Bridge and for the construction of the replacement bridge. (16) The District of Columbia Highway Department estimates that the cost of constructing the proposed new third bridge and approaches is $9 million, and $650,000 for destruction of the present old Highway Bridge, or a total of over $10 million. (17) It is for the committee's determination whether the Congress shall insist that if the need for a new bridge be established, the Commissioners shall proceed under proper legislative authorization before asking for appropriations for such bridge. Mr. WHITENER. We are delighted to have you gentlemen with us today. Before we begin, our colleague, Mr. Broyhill, from Virginia, has some remarks to make. STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL T. BROYHILL, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 10TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief statement as to the reasons why I introduced this legislation which is before us this morning. Three years ago, during the 1st session of the 88th Congress, the Director of the District of Columbia Department of Highways and Traffic asked me to introduce a bill to authorize the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to reconstruct the substructure and replace the superstructure of the existing Highway Bridge at 14th Street, across the Potomac River. This gentleman, Mr. Harold Aitken, presented this to me as a matter of considerable urgency, in view of the plans to widen the four-lane Shirley Highway into an eight-lane artery and for the construction of the Southwest Freeway, with a consequent anticipation of a heavy increase of traffic on the Rochambeau Memorial and George Mason Memorial Bridges now serving the Potomac River crossing at this point. At that time, Mr. Aitken explained to me that he had been advised that inasmuch as the construction of both the Rochambeau and the George Mason Bridges at 14th Street had been authorized by Congress within recent years, it would be legally expedient to obtain congressional authority to rebuild or replace the old Highway Bridge as well. Also, he assured me that the replacement of the superstructure upon the existing bridge piers could be accomplished at a very reasonable cost. I complied with this request, and introduced H.R. 6744 on June 3, 1963, to authorize this project and the appropriation of the necessary funds. Several months later, when it came to my attention that our committee had received no report on this bill from the District of Columbia Board of Commissioners, I contacted Mr. Aitken to inquire as to the reason for this delay. At that time, he informed me that a more recent survey and report on the condition of the piers of the old bridge indieated that while no actual serious defects in these piers existed, he had become convinced that their age made their continued use to support a new superstructure inpractical, and that the only economical procedure would be complete replacement or an entirely new bridge. In view of this advice, and of the Commissioner's evident lack of interest in the matter, we took no further action on this bill. However, D I wish to call attention at this point to the fact that the language of my bill would have permitted the "removal, repair, and modification of existing piers," so that Mr. Aitkens' second thoughts on the matter would actually have been authorized by the enactment of the legisla tion. Quite recently, it was announced in the local newspapers that the District of Columbia Highway Department is planning the construction of a new bridge at 14th Street, and that funds for this purpose will be requested for fiscal year 1967. Further, it was announced that some $200,000 for the planning of this bridge had been appropriated and was presently being used for this purpose. It is my conviction that the legality of the appropriation of funds for the construction of this bridge, in the absence of specific legislative authorization, is highly questionable. I am supported in this view by the opinion expressed by the recent Director of the District of Columbia Highway Department in 1963, which undoubtedly was based upon advice from the District of Columbia Corporation Counsel's Office at that time. Further, I am strongly of the opinion that a very careful appraisal of the condition of the existing bridge piers should be made, to determine whether they are usable in their present condition to support a new superstructure, whether they could be repaired so as to be suitable for this use, or whether it actually would be most advisable to replace them with new piers. For these reasons, I introduced H. R. 12119 last January 18, identical to the bill I introduced in the 88th Congress, which would authorize the appropriation of funds for this project, and would enable whatever treatment of the existing piers may be most expedient, including their replacement if necessary. I recognize the urgent important of another Potomac River crossing at the 14th Street corridor, with the latest survey showing a total of 129,500 vehicles per day crossing the present 2 bridges, for an increase of nearly 150 percent in the past 9 years, and the assured prospect of further rapid increase in this traffic load. It is because of my interest in this problem, and my desire to accomplish this badly needed project as rapidly and as economically as possible, that I have introduced H.R. 12119 which I believe will serve both these aims. Now, I should also like to state, Mr. Chairman-and I state this off the record, because I don't want to speak for the chairman of the full committee for the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. BROYHILL. So that really the primary purpose of this legisla tion is an abundance of assurance that we are proceeding with proper 1 |