Mr. SCHWENGEL. I do. Senator KERR. As passed by the House? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Right. I am a member of the Public Works Committee, and we sat through all the hearings, and the committee was impressed with the testimony and the evidence, and unanimously adopted the amendments suggested by the Congressman from Indiana and other amendments that seemed necessary after we had the hearings which involved or they thought might involve the port authority of New York. And so amendments were adopted to limit this legislation just to five bridges. Senator CASE. Did the House report make any comment upon this section relating to the White County Commission? Mr. SCHWENGEL. I do not think it specifically referred to it. The testimony, of course, did, and that is available to everybody. Senator CASE. The suggestion was made earlier, I think possibly by the chairman, that a report on the bill might point out that the provisions in the bill were without prejudice so far as the members of the commission were concerned, if the Secretary wished to reappoint them. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. Senator CASE. Was there any language like that in the House report? Mr. SCHWENGEL. It was brought out in the testimony that he would not necessarily have to reappoint the present members, but that he could. Senator CASE. But that the legislation would not be a bar to his reappointing them. Mr. SCHWENGEL. That is right. If he thought they had certain qualifications, he could reappoint them, yes. That is part of the record. Senator CASE. So there is to be no objection and no misinterpretation on the part of the House members of the Public Works Committee if the Senate committee made a report on the bill and included that in the report? Mr. SCHWENGEL. None that I know of. Senator CASE. Were you familiar with the study that was made by this committee consisting of Congressman Denton, Congressman Price, and Congressman Simpson? Mr. SCHWENGEL. I am not familiar with it in detail. This was called to our attention, and the essence of the report was revealed, yes, and I had an opportunity to counsel with some of the people who knew about this report, and I might say I was impressed with their statements. Senator CASE. You say you were impressed by it? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. I think the committee was, also, after they heard the testimony. That is the reason they adopted this amendment. Senator KERR. Further questions? Senator PROUTY. Did any members of the commission testify before the House committee? Mr. SCHWENGEL. No, they did not. None of the commissions did. They did earlier when the Muscatine Bridge Commission was before the committee. At that time the commission members agreed to the audit section that we are legislating here, and also to the terms of office as agreed to, and in the interim this problem arose of White County, and because the Department had some ideas about this and other people wanted to do something about it, why, we agreed to the amendment that you find in the bill relative to White County Bridge Commission. Senator KERR. The Senator from Delaware? Senator BOGGS. As I understand it, Congressman, you feel that the White County Bridge Commission circumstances are such that it necessarily requires this special treatment? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. Senator BOGGS. Rather than being treated as the other bridges? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes, and the committee agreed to this, too. I mean the bill passed the committee unanimously, the subcommittee and the committee. Senator BOGGS. But the general legislation, as applied to the other bridges, would it not meet the problem just as well? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Well, in the opinion of the committee, it would not, and after hearing the testimony from the Department, we were impressed with the fact that it would not. Therefore, this amendment. Senator FONG. What were the circumstances that led to the exception on this White Bridge Commission? Mr. SCHWENGEL. I do not know all of the circumstances there, sir. We do know that they have a problem. The Congressman from Indiana in whom the committee had great confidence testified on the situation. I think he was very fair in his testimony. And after hearing that, and the testimony from the Department, the committee decided that this was a desirable amendment. It was in the public interest. Senator KERR. Further questions? Thank you very much, Congressman Schwengel. Mr. Louis Stallings? STATEMENT OF LOUIS H. STALLINGS, CHAIRMAN, WHITE COUNTY BRIDGE COMMISSION Mr. STALLINGS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. I am Louis H. Stallings, chairman of the White County Bridge Commission, and with your permission I have a prepared statement that I would like to read. Senator KERR. Very well, you may do so. Mr. STALLINGS. I, Louis H. Stallings, chairman of the White County Bridge Commission, New Harmony, Ind., am appearing here today in opposition to H.R. 8921 and in favor of the principles as contained in S. 49. Having served on this commission for a period of 4 years, and very proudly so, I feel that we should be permitted to continue to carry on our work. One year ago, we met with the Indiana and Illinois State Highway Commissions and at that time attempted to make this a toll-free bridge, but due to the maintenance and repair needed to meet the State highway commissions' specifications, we found that it was not feasible to do so without continuing the charge of tolls. Senator CASE. What is the toll at the present time? Mr. STALLINGS 25 cents. Mr. STALLINGS. Yes, sir. Senator KERR. For an automobile? Mr. STALLINGS. Yes, sir. Senator KERR. Truck? Mr. STALLINGS. Forty cents? Senator KERR. Regardless of size? Mr. STALLINGS. Automobile and a pickup are 25 cents. A dual-wheel truck and a semi are 40 cents. Senator CASE. Do you have with you a statement showing the receipts and disbursements of the commission for the past year? Mr. STALLINGS. Yes, sir. Senator CASE. Will you submit that for the reference of the committee? Mr. STALLINGS. Yes, sir. May I continue with my statement? Senator KERR. Do you understand the Senator's question? Mr. STALLINGS. Yes, sir. Senator KERR. Proceed. Mr. STALLINGS. At that meeting we agreed that nothing would be done in regard to maintenance and repair to the bridge without the State highway commission's approval and consent. All matters pertaining to river maintenance in the past and present have been approved and recommended by the U.S. Army Engineers and also the firm of Hardesty & Hanover, consulting engineers of New York City. We have in our possession a final summary of operations of the White County Bridge Commission from June 13, 1941, to December 31, 1960, prepared by Gray, Hunter, Stenn & Co., certified public accountants of Chicago, Ill. I want to say that this audit is available to you, or your staff, or for any study that you wish to make, and that I will be glad to answer any questions that anybody has. In addition to this report, I also have a financial report of the White County Bridge Commission for the month of July of 1961. (The summary report referred to follows:) WHITE COUNTY BRIDGE COMMISSION SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS FROM JUNE 13, 1941 TO DECEMBER 31, 1960 WHITE COUNTY BRIDGE COMMISSION, GENTLEMEN: In accordance with your instructions, we have prepared a summary of the operations of the White County Bridge Commission for the period from June 13, 1941, to December 31, 1960, and submit herewith our report, together with the exhibits listed in the index on the preceding page. The information contained in this report has been taken from our auditors' reports for the period from June 13, 1941, to December 31, 1960. Comments pertaining to the assets and liabilities and the operations of the White County Bridge Commission are contained in the individual audit reports. The following is an application of funds for the period from June 13, 1941, to December 31, 1960: The increase in working capital is explained as follows: Funds provided: Net profit for the period from June 13, 1941, to Dec. 31, 1960 (exhibit B). Add increase in deferred income (exhibit A). Total funds provided___. Funds applied: Capitalization of certain property accounts (exhibit A)--- Total funds applied‒‒‒‒‒ Increase in working capital____ $990, 388. 61 31, 869. 85 1,022, 258. 46 54, 759. 44 945, 000. 00 999, 759.44 22, 499. 02 We wish to express our appreciation of the courteous assistance accorded our representatives during the course of the preparation of this report. Respectfully submitted. GRAY, HUNTER, STERN & Co., |