DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 327 DOCUMENT NO. 118 (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 74TH CONG, 2D SESS, MAR. 17, 1936, PP. 39914004 AND 4005-4007), MARCH 17, 1936 WAR DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATION BILl FOR THE FISCAL YEAR END- ING JUNE 30, 1937, SEVENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION, H. R. 11035, AMENDMENT PROPOSED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR FLETCHER On March 17, 1936, the debate on the amendment to the War Department appropriations bill for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, proposed by Senator Fletcher, was continued. The following is extracted from the Congressional Record of that date: WAR DEPARTMENT APPOPRIATIONS The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 11035) making appro- priations for the military and nonmilitary activities of the War Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, and for other purposes. The Vicz PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Florida [Mr. Fletcher]. The amendment of Mr. Fletcher is as follows: On page 68, line 15, after the word "navigation", to insert the following: "and to include waterway improvements investigated by the War Department under specific authorization from Congress and subsequently undertaken pursuant to the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935", so as to make the clause read: "For the preservation and maintenance of existing river and harbor works, and for the prosecution of such projects heretofore authorized as may be most desirable in the interests of commerce and navigation, and to include water- way improvements investigated by the War Department under specific authori- zation from Congress and subsequently undertaken pursuant to the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935." And on page 69, line 23, to strike out "$138,677,899, and insert in lieu thereof "$208,677,899." Mr. FLrrCHEB Mr. President, it seems important to explain the meaning of the amendment now proposed, to throw some light on the merits of the enter- prise involved, and to correct some misunderstandings and misrepresentations, at least, that have appeared in magazine articles, on the floor, and elsewhere in the discussion of the subject. It was stated by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Vandenberg] in his pre- sentation of the matter yesterday that this is an extraordinary proceeding; that no river and harbor project has ever been treated in this way; that'there is no merit or justification for this project; that it is here without proper authori- zation, without the proper consideration by the committees of Congress, and that it appears altogether irregularly at this time. These are broad general statements, which, I contend, are not founded upon the record in this case or upon the facts, and I think I will be able to prove my contention by the record. Of course, the regular procedure in the case of river and harbor projects, the habitual practice in connection with ordinary river and harbor projects, has been to have a direction by Congress in the river and harbor bill for a survey of the project. That direction goes to the Chief of Engineers, who orders the district engineer to proceed with a survey. The district engineer reports to the division engineer; the division engineer reports to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors; that Board reports to the Chief of Engineers; the Chief of Engineers reports to the Secretary of War; and the Secretary of War re- ports to the House of Representatives, where the report is referred to the Rivers and Harbors Committee, and flnal action by Congress is taken. I concede that that is the usual and customary practice with reference to river and harbor projects. I concede that the authorization of this river and harbor project is at variance with that practice. But the legislation of 1935 is extraordinary in its character. These are ex- traordinary times We are in the midst of problems today with which we were never before confronted. In the beginning of 1933 we had 13,000.000 people, unemployed. Other conditions prevailed which bnade it necessary to enact