DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 273

 Now, he could not have done it under the Emergency Relief Act of 1964,
because we had sense enough to write a limitation into the Emergency Act
of 1984-and the General will correct me if I am wrong-requiring that no
allocations be made to rivers and harbors projects which lacked authorization
of Congress. In other words, when we passed the 1934 Emergency Act we were
still maintaining the traditional protection which Congress has set up to defend
the integrity of rivers and harbors projects. It was not until we came to the
act of 1935 that we let the bars down entirely-and I will take my share of
the responsibility for not having offered an amendment on the floor to con-
tinue the protective clause that was in the 1984 law. I think it was simply
overlooked.
 As a result, the 1935 Emergency Act did permit the President to start any
river and harbor project he saw fit regardless of whether it ever had an
enabling act, regardless of whether it ever had a final and conclusive report
of the Board of Rivers and Harbors Engineers; but now the question arises
as to whether that sort of indirect authority, action by proxy, is a comparable
and adequate substitute for authorization by Congress in the sense that that
term always has heretofore applied. Manifestly it does not
 From my point of view, I say it very respectfully, it seems to me an utter
perversion of logic and sanity to pretend that it is equivalent to a congressional
authorization, and here is the reason: Let us use the Florida canal as an
example, because I happen to be more familiar with that than with the others.
The President allocates $5,000,000 to the Florida canal and that is all he
allocates to the Florida canal.
 Senator FLwrum. Two other allotments of $200,000 each.
 Senator VANDtsNao. But, in round numbers, $5,000,000. That is the sum
total of the relief factor which is involved in this project. If it were more
than that, it could be continued through the relief funds. He does not do that,
beyond the $5,000,000. He leaves to Congress the necessity for providing all of
the additional funds.
 Now, whatever those additional funds may be is speculative and problemati-
cal. The minimum estimate is $142,000,000. That means in round numbers
that $5,000,000 comes out of the emergency fund under the Emergency Act of
1935, which authorized him to use money for emergency purposes, but the
other $137,000,000 minimum has got to come out of the regular revenues of
the Government, which are. not in contemplation of the 1935 Emergency Act,
and, therefore, I insist, respectfully, that the authorization of the President of
an emergency project cannot be construed as authorization by Congress of the
balance of a great public-works undertaking which traditionally has always
required the affirmative approval of Congress, based upon a conclusive and
final report by the Board of divers and Harbors Engineers.
 Now, you do not have the enabling act of Congress in this connection; you
do not have the final and conclusive report of the Board of Engineers, and you
do not have the basis for considering that you are within the traditional rule
of authorization and it seems to me that to leave that firm foundation in respect
to these considerations of rivers and harbors' projects is an utterly dangerous
precedent, without regard to the merit of the thing itself.
 Furthermore, it seems to me that when one of these projects which has been
undertaken purely as a work-relief measure and upon which $5,200,000 has been
expended purely as a work-relief expenditure, when it reaches Congress with
notification that it will take 6 or 8 years to complete and will involve a mini-
mum of $137,000,000 more out of regular revenues, the Congress has no right,
in decent respect for its responsibility for the fiscal affairs of the Government,
it has no right to rely upon that merely preliminary casual allocation by the
President to a work-relief project to justify its action in committing the
Treasury to $137,000,000 more.
 Now, I submit with great earnestness that the project, and all of the projects
 of this category, should stand on their own merits, and come to Congress in the
 usual fashion and be met by Congress in the usual way, be accompanied by an
 affirmative or adverse report, final and conclusive, from the Board of Rivers
 and Harbors Engineers and should be voted up or down by the House or Senate
 and then should be given whatever sums subsequently can be justified within
 the traditional rule.
 Now, that is my position on the matter.
 Senator FL Hwrm. Mr. Chairman, may I reply to that as briefly as I can?
 Senator CoPLAND. Yes, Senator.