However, the precedent that has previously been established by the Congress itself is for the annual appropriation of funds for the interstate program over many years. The fact is that practically all elements of the Interstate System itself have already received appropriations. I think it could only indicate the previous will of Congress. And so from the standpoint of the precedents involved, I call this to your attention. Because not only will a change in that opinion represent in my judgment a change in the will of Congress, but from a practical standpoint it would pose a most difficult problem, inasmuch as we have freeway projects that have received appropriations previously. The Comptroller General in his letter states, certainly with respect to moneys that have previously been appropriated by the Congress, there is no question at all with respect to the authority to expend the moneys for that purpose. And the change of the operating procedure and the will of the Congress in the middle of its series of appropriations for any one project would pose a problem of the gravest nature. And I won't particularly point out its effect on this particular project that we are here to discuss this morning. We are all obviously anxious to resolve this matter, and to get this bridge constructed in the earliest possible time. And certainly your evaluation of the impact time waste on the construction of this project is much more authoritative than mine. But from a lay point of view, and from a municipal point of view, if we accept the premise that that bridge has not been authorized by the Congress, even though funds for its design have been previously appropriated, and if we accept the premise that a separate act of Congress specifically authorizing the bridge is now required before any further appropriation can be made, I think we must obviously follow one step further and indicate that our request for construction funds for the bridge in the fiscal 1967 budget has been erroneously submitted. I am sure we will all agree, however, that was submitted in good faith, and in complete conformity with the precedent that has been established throughout our interstate program. However, if you reach the conclusion that it has been erroneously submitted, then those funds should be withdrawn. And if one expects legislation such as this today to become law prior to a new request for funds for construction, it would just be my judgment offhand that those funds would be at least 2 years in the future in being appropriated. And therefore just this decision in itself would have the very practical effect of postponing the availability of the construction funds for, I would say, 2 years. Now, this I can only say as an engineer, and as an estimate of the practical effect of such a conclusion. I do not mean to say that the desire for this bridge should be used to circumvent any of the procedures of the Congress, or any of the parliamentary decisions, or that sort of thing. I am merely saying that the funds were requested in good faith and in complete conformity with the precedent that has been established. And if the precedent is changed, then I would suggest that this delay, this necessary delay, in the construction of the bridge should be evaluated. Now, I don't want, on the other hand, necessarily to assume that the Congress is going to grant the appropriations for the construction this year that we have requested. I can only express a hope that this will be done. Conversely, if you withdraw the request, and indicate that it has been submitted without authority, then obviously the appropriation cannot be granted. Mr. BROYHILL. You don't think there is any question, General, but what the Congress has established as precedent, whether it is legal or not as far as this particular structure is concerned. But as far as the necessity of the additional authority is concerned, the enactment of the legislation 2 or 3 years ago that provided 95 percent of the Federal funds to widen Shirley Highway to eight lanes had to be approved by the Committee on Public Works. And the State highway department then would not go along with widening it unless they could get a Federal appropriation. And that legislation has been established; I don't think there is any question about that. And certainly there is no question but what you are authorized to tear down the old 14th Street Bridge. As I said earlier, as one member had expressed, the fact is that at one time you said it could be torn down, and at another time you indicated it might be necessary, and then that it would be torn down. I don't think there is any argument but what it is necessary and desirable that it be torn down. And as far as one member of the committee is concerned, I would like to see you go ahead with the construction. But I share Mr. Whitener's apparent concern about the interpretation of your unlimited authority to go ahead with others, because I feel that if you do have it-we have spent a lot of time up here that we could spend for other things. I think it is important that we find out that, whether or not we have to legislate on these other public works projects. And this is new to me, and apparently it is new to Mr. Whitener and it is new to Mr. McMillan, that this authority exists. Although I was under the impression that you had certain authority under the Interstate Highway Act, as for instance for Route 266 and this bridge, but according to what the chairman read from the Comptroller General's letter, you do not have any authority. Is this a ruling that the Comptroller General has made? Mr. WHITENER. Let me go back here to what we were talking about. As I understand your interpretation of section 132 of title 7 of the District of Columbia Code Mr. KORMAN. If I may interrupt you, Mr. Chairman, just to get one thought in line with what Mr. Broyhill just said. I hope that it is never thought for a moment that we take the position that we do not require the approval of Congress to do this work. Our position simply is, we have got it from the Congress. Mr. BROYHILL. Under the Public Works Act? Mr. KORMAN. And these other things I cited to you. Mr. WHITENER. Let's go back to that Public Works Act of 1954. Section 132 of title 7, where the term "immediate needs" is used. I have before me the committee report of the Committee on the District. of Columbia, the House of Representatives Report No. 1358, 83d Cong. And it says this (p. 4): HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES The highway improvement program of the District of Columbia is designed to provide the most relief from traffic congestion for the least possible cost involving $111,908,000 over the next 10 years. A majority of the projects will provide the needed capacity by (1) widening existing streets; (2) widening and raising in one operation several pairs of streets; (3) building grade separations and organizing traffic flows by means of surface channelization at intersections where serious conflicts arise from overloading; and (4) constructing new highways at higher standards on such routes as are warranted by the traffic demand, including an additional crossing over the Potomac River. The program which was developed on a regional basis following an exhaustive study by highway officials of the District, Virginia, Maryland, and representatives of the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, is designed to produce progressive, systematic relief from congestion, especially in the critical downtown areas. This highway program will provide for immediate needs only. Other important projects must still be accomplished in later years if the areawide transportation problems are to be adequately solved. Virginia and Maryland are proceeding with improvement programs which will affect the flow of traffic in and out of the District. And failure to integrate District highway projects and the regional plan will result in costly congestion. FINANCING THE HIGHWAY AND BRIDGE PROGRAM During the 10-year period of construction, it is estimated that $61.5 million will be available for capital outlay from the highway fund from all sources, including Federal aid similar to highway grants to the several States, and revenue from the proposed increase in the gasoline tax, from 5 to 6 cents a gallon. A Federal loan of $50 million, repayable over a 30-year period at current interest rates, will provide the remaining fund necessary to carry out the program. And then, on page 6 of that report, it says this: The bill requires that projects in this program be authorized by Congress and funds appropriated from year to year. Now, who authorizes projects, the Appropriations Committee or the Legislative Committee? Mr. KORMAN. The general authorization comes from the Congress. Where it originates is a matter for the Congress. Now, normally I must concede that the authorization originates in this Committee rather than in the Appropriations Committee. And had it not been for what we regard as general authorization originated in this committee, we would not properly be able to go to the Appropriations Committee and ask for the funds for a particular year for the things we want to do during that year. And when I say properly, there is really nothing improper about it, except that it is subject to a point of order being raised when it is brought up on the floor. Mr. WHITENER. Now, this report, in stating the purpose of the bill, says (p. 2): The District of Columbia faces the necessity of financing an immediate needs public works program. That did not mean in 1966. It meant that in 1954 there was a needed public works program, and that that legislation was designed to meet that immediate need. That is exactly what the statute says. At most, it was not to go beyond 10 years. Mr. KORMAN. But in the Appropriation Act of 1961 we find the language I read to you earlier, where it specifically said: For construction projects as authorized by the Act of May 18, 1954, blank dollars, included expenses necessary for Federal aid to highway projects under Section 1(b) of the Federal Aid to Highways Act of 1938, a highway structure project financed wholly from the highway fund, upon the approval of plans for such structures by the Commissioners, provided further that in connection with projects to be undertaken That is Federal aid projects under the provisions of Federal Aid to Highway Act of December 20, 1944, as amended the Commissioners are authorized to enter into contracts--- and so on. Mr. WHITENER. And that very language seemed to me to indicate what they were saying was that the immediate needs of 1954, which were going to require a 10-year period to accomplish, were the ones that they were referring to in the 1961 act. And the 1961 act was 3 years before the 10-year period envisioned by the Public Works Act transpired. Mr. KORMAN. But in the Appropriation Act of 1962, we find the language: Except as otherwise provided herein, limitations and legislative provisions contained in the District of Columbia Appropriation Act of 1961- Which is what we were just discussing shall be continued for the fiscal year 1966. So it has been reenacted. Mr. WHITENER. So you say that notwithstanding the clear language of this report, you still interpret the words "immediate needs" as applying until Gabriel blows his horn? Mr. KORMAN. Provided we come in each year and tell you what the immediate needs are, and describe them fully in detail, and get the approval of the Congress on them, yes, sir. Mr. WHITENER. You say that the House and Senate District Committees have waived any jurisdiction they had in the matter? Mr. KORMAN. I don't say they waived any jurisdiction they had, I say, sir, that they considered it, and gave us the approval. I don't say they waived a thing, sir. Mr. WHITENER. If they did, they surely didn't have the same understanding of the English language that some of us have, if you will read this report. Mr. KORMAN. When you said read the report, you mean the one you just read, or the one from last year? Mr. WHITENER. The House report which established the basic public works law under which you contend you have this broad authority. Mr. KORMAN. Frankly, sir, most respectfully, what you read from the House Report I don't think changes the situation. In the 1954 act was an authorization to borrow money to carry out a broad general program which had been outlined to the Congress. It was a public works general construction act. And it was realized that we would have to borrow in addition to the regular appropriations to handle that. And this was an authorization to carry out Mr. WHITENER. $50 million. Mr. KORMAN. Yes, sir. And that included moneys to tie in with the Federal-aid highway projects each year, so that we could go ahead with that, along with the other. I think you even read that. Mr. WHITENER. All right. Have you borrowed the $50 million? Mr. AIRIS. All except $6 or $7 million. Mr. WHITENER. So that this authorization even under your interpretation would mean that there would be about $6 or $7 million that you could borrow without furthur legislation? 62-286-666 Mr. AIRIS. It was still about $6 million. Mr. WHITENER. And is $6 million all you are going to need? General DUKE. No, sir. The additional borrowing authority is included in the revenue measure that was passed last session by the House, Mr. Chairman. And it is in the current opinion before the Senate, $35 million additional borrowing to supplement that. Mr. WHITENER. We will still have a look at that if the Senate does not go along with that. General ĎUKE. I presume that the normal procedures will hold, whatever they may be. Mr. WHITENER. Let me get off this and get onto some other thoughts. In the last year that you used that old bridge, how much traffic did it accommodate? General DUKE. I don't have the figures here. It was in the range of over a hundred thousand per day. Mr. BROYHILL. It was one-way during the last few years. Mr. AIRIS. I would be guessing. I would have to look those up. They are in our record, though, and I could easily insert it in the record. But it would be half of the two-way crossing. And I think that was running at that time around 100,000 a day, so it would be about 50,000 a day, somewhere in there. (Mr. Airis subsequently submitted the following additional statement:) The average weekday traffic volume on the "old bridge" during 1961, which was the last year of its use, was 58,668. This figure represents all southbound traffic since the northbound movement was provided for by the Rochambeau Bridge. Mr. WHITENER. Now, this project that you have under consideration, about what do you estimate it will cost? Mr. AIRIS. Well, we have a figure for the bridge alone of about $5.5 million, and including the District of Columbia abutments and all the District of Columbia work on the District of Columbia side, I think it is $9.4 million. Mr. BROYHILL. Plus the cost for the removal of the old bridge? Mr. WHITENER. And what do you figure it will cost to do that? Mr. WHITENER. If you could use the existing piers, how much would that reduce the cost of the new bridge? Mr. AIRIS. We don't think it would reduce the cost at all, sir. Mr. WHITENER. You mean you think you can take out the old piers and destroy them and build new ones without Mr. AIRIS. Well, I would have to explain that because of the settle-ments that have taken place, the deterioration, and scour, and a variety of other things in connection with the existing piers, that before we would place a new superstructure on top with additional weights to carry modern loads, those piers would have to be reconstructed, and the piling, steel piles inserted in them, and the entire pier reconstructed. And the cost of reconstructing those existing piers would be about equivalent to building new piers. Mr. WHITENER. You say that this would be true? But what engi-neering groups have you had make this study? |