314 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL toll question and self-liquidating features. That report was never acted on by the President; but the other report, the first report, dealing with the whole project as a river and harbor proposition-and that is the way it is treated now, as a river and harbor proposition-sets the cost at $173,000,000, and says it would justify an expenditure of $180,000,000. Mr. VAnmwaMe. What the Senator has stated is precisely what I under- took to show. The report from which I am now reading relates to an inquiry as to whether or not the canal could be so self-liquidating, and the conclusion was that it could not be self-liquidating on a tolls basis; even though it had revenue, it could not be self-liquidating; and I was simply asserting, in passing, that it seemed to me if it failed to be a sound business proposition on a tolls basis, and if it failed to demonstrate compensating advantages on a tolls basis, it was not likely to show any when it was operated free. However, let me continue with the chronology: What happened down yonder in the executive arm of the Government? Mr. President, the reports which had been accumulated were prepared while the specific project which is now before the Senate was pending before P. W. A. for decision; and I submit that P. W. A. had a great deal better equipment to find out whether the answer ought to be "yes" or "no" than have Senators sitting upon the floor this after- noon. What was P. W. A.'s decision? December 21, 1984, MaJ. Philip B. Flem- ing, Acting Deputy Administrator of P. W. A., recommended that the project be disapproved because it was not self-liquidating. Let us not misunderstand the phrase "self-liquidating." When the Secretary of the Interior appeared before our committee a few weeks ago I asked him, "What you mean is it was rejected because it was not a sound business proposi- tion?" And he said, "That is what I mean." Well, let us go on with the chronology. The canal was formally disapproved by Secretary Ickes on January 29, 198, whereupon Florida submitted revised plans and asked that the matter be reopened. As a result, on February 2, 1935, E. H. Foley, Jr., director of P. W. A. legal division, reported adversely upon the project. A few weeks later, April 10, 1985, the finance division of the P. W. A. reported again adversely on the project. In view of these findings, the unanimous adverse findings, of all the experts at his command, Secretary Ickes declined to reopen the case; and it stands, so far as P. W. A. and the Department of the Interior are concerned, precisely where it stood on January 29, 1965, when it was rejected as an unsound business proposition. Well, there was only one way left then, Mr. President, to make this attack upon the Public Treasury and to commit the American people to this amazing experiment at a time when the Treasury is twice empty already. That way was to go up through W. P. A. and the $4,800,000,000 law, with all its latitude and privileges and permits, and get an Executive order to start the canal in spite of the verdict of P. W. A. and in spite of its utter lack of any economic justifica- tion whatsoever when the facts are faced in cold reality. Mind you, Mr. President, it could not have been done under the Relief Act of 19N3, because when we passed the emergency relief appropriation of 1933 we bad suffient precaution or wisdom or foresight or something to write a elapse into the act requiring any project eligible for Executive allocation to have been either "authorized by Congress or recommended by the Chief of Engineers." Of course, if the President had been operating under the 1983 act, he could not have made this allocation; but, just because the Congress failed to put those few words into the 1985 act, precisely as the Senator from Missouri argued in connection with the debate upon the point of order, the back door flew open through which this project could enter and attach itself to 200,000,000 potential dollars. Mr. CLAnK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. VANDNBE ne. I yield to the Senator from Missouri. Mr. CLtAK. Let me say to the Senator that the illustration he is now using shows completely the reason for the rule in behalf of the retention of which I was arguing a little while ago, because the 1983 act was recommended by a sub- stantive committee of the Senate and constituted substantive legislation to be passed on by Congress, while the act of 1985 was reported as an appropriation bill from the Appropriations Committee rather than from the committee having jurisdiction of the substantive legislation. Mr. VAnam ame. I thank the Senator, and I am in complete agreement with his observations.