DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL


271


 The question asked in the House was by Mr. McMillan: "Which, if any, ot
those projects you have just stated have been authorized by Congress?" And-
 "General MARaKAM. None of them.
 "Mr. McMI TAN. Have any of them been definitely rejected by Congress?
 "General MAaxHAM. None of them; no, sir. They merely represent what
under the emergency authority has been directed by the administration.
 "Mr. BoLTOw. How many of them have been before the Rivers and Harbors
Committee and been rejected?
 "General MARKHAx. None of them."
 General, so far as you know, has the Board of Army Engineers ever come
to the Appropriations Committee for an appropriation for projects not author-
ized by the Army engineers?
 General MARKHAM. They have not, sir. We have included in the present
estimates the continuation of work authorized by the President under the
relief program and assigned to us in accordance with your direction to him.
We, therefore, regard these as authorized for purposes of present expenditures
related to relief.
 I do not know of any relief projects heretofore appearing in a normal bilL
 Senator COMPAND. Well, if they are relief projects, General, I will ask why
they are not continued under the other authorization?
 General MArKHAx. It is my understanding we were instructed to put in
our annual estimate the amounts needful to carry forward the relief projects
initiated by the administration.
 Senator Corm.AnD I observe that Senator Vandenberg is here. He is a
member of the Commerce Committee, and the Commerce Committee is entitled
to have two or three members present; so, Senator Vandenberg, we are very
happy to have you here and will be very happy to have you ask any questions
or participate in the proceedings.
 Senator VANDrENMrO. Thank you, Senator.
 Senator FL~aom. Let us clear that up a little.
 You do not pretend to say that under the Work Relief Act of 1935 the
 President has no authority to designate the projects?
 General MAmKHAM. I think he had complete authority.
 Senator FlaronHm. Now, the point that Senator Copeland has raised is ex-
 pressed at page 23 of this hearing of the House committee on these projects,
 with reference to these projects.
 Mr. Bolton, who is a Republican from Ohio, I understand, says: "I want this
 point distinctly understood: That, as a member of the Appropriations Com-
 mittee of Congress, I believe we are supposed to provide funds for carrying
 out activities which have been authorized by Congress, but I think it is entirely
 wrong to suggest to this committee the appropriation of funds for activities
 which have never been authorized by Congress. I think that would be entirely
 beyond the scope of our authority."
 That is the position taken by Mr. Bolton on these five projects.
 Judge Parks, the chairman of the subcommittee handling this bill, said:
 "I think it has been held that any project that actually has been begun and
 on which money has been expended stands on the same level with projects
 authorized by Congress. Of course, that does not mean we have to do it; but,
 so far as the authorization is concerned, it is there."
 That discussion was had in the House and that is the position they took.
 Senator CAREr. It may interest the committee to know how a similar appro-
 priation was handled in the Interior bill. We had certain reclamation projects
 which had been started by the President, and in bringing out the Interior
 Department bill, an amendment was proposed by Senator Hayden, offered on
 the floor, in connection with the projects in that bill which had not been
 authorized before. Do you remember that?
 Senator FLTCHI Yes.
 Senator COPELAND. There is a question as to whether or not-
 Senator FLTrcHxa (interposing). That was authorized under the act of 1935.
 Senator COPmAND. What was the item which Senator Hayden offered?
 Senator CAREY. In connection with reclamation work.
 Senator FLTrrOHE It passed, and the general has said something about an
 appropriation for matters not actually recommended by the Chief of Engineers,
 and not having been made. Is it not quite true that in the rivers and harbors
 bill of last year, we appropriated money for projects that never had been
 approved by the engineers?