Mr. DENTON. You can put it that way. Of course, they are all discharged.

Senator COOPER. But upon what basis are you asking that they should be discharged?

Mr. DENTON. What I am saying is this. I am not saying that they be discharged. I am saying that there has been this misconduct by these bridge commissioners.

Of course, there are two new men but there is still Clippinger in, who is the real culprit. There is a lawsuit pending and I am afraid, if you pass this act, it would prejudice the Government's lawsuit.

Then the other thing is, I think, they have not shown due diligence to put this bridge in shape. For that reason, I think the Secretary of Commerce should have a free hand in selecting people.

Senator COOPER. I know you are very familiar with this subject and, of course, I am not. I raise this question, though. By making a distinction between the White County Bridge Commission and all other bridge commissions, we are passing judgment on the basis of some investigation that these men ought to be discharged and fired. Your view is you think it is better to do that, to take that action, or to permit the findings of the audit to be submitted to the Secretary of Commerce and then, after he has reviewed the audit, for him to determine whether or not they should be fired?

Mr. DENTON. They have been submitted to him. He asked the Department of Justice to bring a lawsuit and he makes the same recommendation I do.

Senator CoOPER. Sir?

Mr. DENTON. They have been submitted to him. He has asked the Attorney General to bring a lawsuit which he has done against them, and the Secretary of Commerce makes the same recommendation I do.

Senator COOPER. We are, in effect, determining the guilt of these people?

Mr. DENTON. No.

Senator COOPER. Without any investigation?

Mr. DENTON. You are not determining any guilt at all.

Senator COOPER. What?

Mr. DENTON. You are just saying that the Secretary of Commerce is not limited to selecting these people who are now in, in-now under this act you would discharge everybody.

Senator COOPER. I would say, not knowing anything about the investigation, that it may be justified. But it seems to me it is the clear intent of this bill to make a distinction between the White County Bridge Commission and all other commissions.

Senator KERR. There is that clear distinction. The Department of Commerce has been before us this morning recommending this amendment. The Department of Commerce, as I understand it, is bringing a suit through the Justice Department against some of these commissioners for money which they said was improperly used.

Now, as I understand the Congressman's amendment, he does not find anybody guilty of anything.

Mr. DENTON. That is right.

Senator KERR. He just says that those now in office, their office should terminate within 90 days.

Mr. DENTON. That is right.

Senator KERR. And at that time the Secretary shall appoint three new commissioners.

Mr. DENTON. That is right.

Senator KERR. And we can make it abundantly clear in the report, or we can amend this and ask for a conference, that we do that without prejudicing the right of the Secretary to reappoint one or more of the present commissioners, if he sees fit.

Mr. DENTON. Or course, I am hopeful there would not be any question of appointing anybody.

Senator COOPER. We do not have to make a finding as to any wrongdoing without any evidence before us.

Mr. DENTON. I do not think you have to do that.

Senator PROUTY. Mr. Chairman, I think the inference is very clear here that we should adopt the House bill.

Mr. DENTON. I think with this background there certainly ought to be a distinction there.

Senator KERR. Are there further questions?

The Senator from Montana?

Senator METCALF. Mr. Denton, I wonder if you would read the amendment adopted or suggested by the Commerce Department that the Secretary of Commerce be permitted to appoint anyone.

Mr. DENTON. That is the Department of Commerce recommendation. But because of this particular situation that the Government has in this controversy, they think especially in this case that should be the rule.

Senator METCALF. But if it were made uniform that the members of all the commissions, their terms expired in 90 days, and the Secretary of Commerce was free to appoint anyone or reappoint the members of the commission, as he chose, there would not be this inference of guilt as far as the White County Bridge was concerned.

Mr. DENTON. Of course, that is right. Of course, there are only really three bridges involved here, and from what I understand it to be, they do not have that same problem on the two Mississippi bridges and they do not care how that stands. I understand they are perfectly satisfied with this one amendment I propose on the bill.

I do not think you want to prejudice the Government's suit.
Senator KERR. The Senator from South Dakota?

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, part of our trouble apparently goes back to the original law. I regret to say that this law was passed while I was a Member of the House of Representatives but I was not a member of the Public Works Committee.

The basic act of 1941 says:

The Commission shall consist of Julius C. Kern, Jennings F. Marlin, and J. Madison Pomeroy

all of Pomeroy, Ill. I do not know what circumstances led to the specification of individual names.

Senator KERR. Two of those are now dead, are they not?

Mr. DENTON. Two are now dead. Of course, that is what I say, Senator. I doubt very much if the legislative branch of Government can usurp the appointive power from the executive. That is neither here nor there.

Senator CASE. That was back in 1941.

Whatever was used as the justification, I do not know, but personally I do not think that is a proper function of the legislative body, to legislate people into office by name.

Mr. DENTON. I have very serious doubt if anybody is

Senator CASE. We did this, I am told, in the Muscatine Bridge in the 84th Congress.

Can you or can any member of the staff advise whether or not this is a practice which grows out of taking over some existing commission and it gives recognition to a commission created by the States? Mr. DENTON. I think I can tell you that.

Senator CASE. There is this saving feature in the act of the 84th Congress:

That there a term was specified for the members of the commission, certain ones to serve 3 years, certain ones four and five, and, thereafter, a term of 5 years, which is better legislation, I think.

Mr. DENTON. There was an article about this investigation in Look magazine.

Senator CASE. The clerk also calls my attention to Public Law 242 of the 82d Congress, in which the authority was created with certain holders of office, the county judge, for example, the county clerk, the secretary of a certain parish. That, of course, gets away from the personal element involved.

This report that was made by the committee of the House of Representatives in 1956. Has any other action flowed from that?

Mr. DENTON. Yes. The Government brought a suit for $70,000 against Roy Clippinger, the manager, and the commission. That suit is pending.

Senator CASE. That report was signed by yourself and Congressman Price and Congressman Sid Simpson.

Mr. DENTON. That is right. It was a unanimous report.

Senator CASE. I have no further questions.

Senator KERR. Thank you very much, Congressman.
Congressman Shipley, of Illinois?

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE E. SHIPLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. SHIPLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for giving me an opportunity to appear here today. I do have a brief statement that I would like to read to you.

Senator KERR Very well.

Mr. SHIPLEY. First, let me say that I am not opposed to general legislation of this type, and if the respective States can operate these bridges and put them on a toll-free basis, I believe this would be good.

I also favor the annual audit of the bridge commissions created in this act and believe that this is good legislation. However, I am here today in behalf of the White County Bridge Commission because I feel that H.R. 8921, which was passed on the Consent Calendar in the House September 18, is discriminatory in that it spells out specifically a different set of regulations for the White County Bridge Commission as stated in the bill on page 4, section 2, subsection (b) (2),

beginning on line 3 and ending on line 8, after the word "enactment," which reads as follows:

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of office of each person who is a member of the White County Bridge Commission, created by the Act approved April 12, 1941 (55 Stat. 140), on the date of enactment of this Act shall expire on the ninetieth day after such date of enactment.

Whereas, in H.R. 8921, as stated in the bill on page 3, section 2(a), line 4 through line 8:

Each person who is a member, on the date of enactment of this Act, of a bridge commission or authority created by Act of Congress shall continue in office until the expiration of his present term, except as provided under subsection (b) of this section.

This, I believe, is discriminatory toward the White County Bridge Commission, which joins my district in Illinois with Indiana, because the other four federally created bridge commissions or authorities, Arkansas-Mississippi Bridge Commission, City of Clinton Bridge Commission, Sabine Lake Bridge and Causeway Authority, and the Muscatine Bridge Commission, will not suffer the complete change in membership of their commissions as imposed upon the White County Bridge Commission.

To keep my statement short and to the point, it is evident that this bill is not treating all five federally created bridge commissions equally because it singles out one bridge commission in plain words saying that this specified commission will eliminate all members of the commission within 90 days after enactment of this act. However, the other four federally created bridge commissions included in this legislation will have a right as stated in section 2, subsection (b) (1), page 3, beginning on line 12 with the word "the" and ending on page 3, line 21, after the word "years," reading, as follows:

"On or before the expiration of ninety days after the date of this Act, reappoint not more than one-third of the persons who are members of such bridge commission or authority on the date of enactment of this Act as members of such bridge commission or authority for a term of two years from the date of reappointment, reappoint not more than one-third of the members of such bridge commission or authority for a term of four years, and reappoint the remaining members for a term of six years.

I did not object to this bill in the House when it was being considered on the Consent Calendar because the committee report on this bill did not say anything in regard to one bridge or any bridges receiving preferential treatment and I offer you this committee print as evidence because I am sure that the Senators act like we do in the House when we have so many bills introduced that we must rely upon the committee report to digest this bill and give us the facts therein. It is impossible to read all and define all bills.

However, on investigating the House bill, I find that there is an entire page devoted to the discrimination of the White County Bridge Commission and I feel, also, that this is evident discrimination. I honestly and sincerely hope that the committee will see fit to treat the other four federally created bridge commissions or authorities the same as the White County Bridge Commission. If not, it would

be no more than fair, as I see it, to treat the White County Bridge Commission the same as the other four are being treated, and not discriminate against one or the other.

I am by no means an expert on this type of legislation, nor do I claim to be. I am a new Member of Congress, serving my second term. I possibly do not know all the facts in regard to investigations and so on that have been stated here today in regard to the White County Bridge Commission. However, looking at this legislation from a commonsense point of view, it is clearly and plainly unfair and unjust.

I hope that the committee will see fit to amend the bill to take into consideration the fact that I do not think this was the intent of the people in the Government which originally set up this Government that we have to legislate someone in and out of office.

It may be deserving, I do not know, but I do not think this is the American way to do things.

I do not approve of it, and, as far as answering questions to the committee in regard to the White County Bridge situation, I am unable to. I am serving my second term in Congress. I am not familiar with the circumstances behind it.

Senator CASE. Have you read this report of the investigation of the House committee dated April 25, 1956?

Mr. SHIPLEY. No, sir; I have not.

Senator CASE. I have never seen it before this morning that I recall. I am a little surprised in reading the report that something has not happened to the White County Bridge Commission before this. Mr. SHIPLEY. I am not familiar with the report, Senator.

Senator KERR. Thank you very much, Mr. Shipley.

Mr. SHIPLEY. Thank you.

Senator KERR. Congressman Schwengel, of Iowa.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRED SCHWENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am glad to have this opportunity to come here and testify in behalf of my bill and explain to you that this bill is before us because of a need that was called to my attention when we passed the Muscatine Bridge bill several years ago, earlier referred to.

This bill, as you will recall, at least some of you will recall, was made necessary because an emergency situation was created when they had an accident on the bridge and a section of it caved in.

Senator KERR. Which bridge do you refer to?

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I am talking about the Muscatine Bridge.
Senator KERR. All right.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. And at that time it was called to my attention that there was a need for an audit section or that section of the law to be amended, and I agreed that if they would help me and get this bill passed, I would help get

Senator KERR. Do you favor the bill before the committee?