DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 361

 Mr. ADAMS. Mr. President, I wish to make a few comments on the brief
suggestion of the junior Senator from Missouri [Mr. Truman] made in sup-
port of the motion to reconsider. It seems to me-I am only speaking my
own opinion-that there is an error in his logic.
 The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Truman] says that if we are to allow one
of the projects to go through, we should therefore approve the others. My
understanding of the position which the Senate took in its vote the other day
Is that it was a flat stand that the Congress of the United States should not
be bound by an allocation by the President of funds for the construction of
a project. In other words, the Senate took the position that the authorization
of a project was a legislative act; that while the President had full and com-
plete authority to expend upon any type of project he saw fit the relief money
put in his hands, the expenditure of that money did not and does not commit
the Congress to a continuation of the project. It seemed to me the purpose of
the vote was to take the position that Congress had reserved to itself the
right to select the projects which it would authorize.
 The argument which seems to be made is that if Congress has refused to
authorize one project, it must refuse to authorize all other projects; or if it
has authorized one project, it must authorize the others. That to my mind
is a direct repudiation of the premise upon which the Senate acted. That
premise was that Congress should do the selecting. In this case Congress saw
fit to say that one project was not approved, but that other projects were
approved. I cannot concur in an argument which denies to Congress the right
to make the selection, and which says to us, "If you say that one project
does not meet the approval of the Congress, therefore you cannot approve
others."
 The junior Senator from Missouri, who makes the motion, was not present
 during the argument the other day, but the argument is made by those who
 favor the motion who were opposed to the Florida ship canal, that the Senate
 having agreed with them, had no right subsequently to approve another project.
 It seems to me that the result of the view of the Senator from Missouri is
 that, having made a mistake in voting in favor of the three projects, the Senate
 should reconsider that and make a mistake upon all the projects; in other
 words, instead of being from that standpoint 50 percent wrong, we should
 complete the situation and be 100 percent wrong.
 The argument which was made by the senior Senator from Missouri [Mr.
 Clark] was to me unanswerable. He discussed the Florida ship canal He said
 a great principle was Involved-that if we should recognize the right of the
 executive to make an appropriation for partial construction, to obligate the
 Congress to complete the project--i it were held that that constituted an
 authorization, we would obligate Congress, by a slight appropriation of a few
 thousand dollars, to great constructions running into the billions.
 Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
 Mr. ADAMS, Certainly.
 Mr. CLARK. The Senator will agree with me that precisely the same great
 question and principle is involved in all five projects which was carried in the
 original Fletcher amendment.
 Mr. ADAMs. The Senator has not changed his view, I suppose, that the prin-
 ciple involved in the Florida ship-canal project was wrong.
 Mr. CLARK. Not in the least degree, and I say it was extremely bad.
 Mr. ADAMS. Then may I ask the Senator, having decided correctly in refer-
 ence to the Florida ship canal, why should a motion to reconsider as to the case
 where we decided correctly be made rather than as to the case where we decided
 wrongly?
 Mr. CLArK. Because the five projects, as I see the matter, are on the same
 footing. I wish again to call to the attention of the Senate exactly what they
 are doing when they agree to the other three projects and send the bill to
 conference with those projects included. Moreover, I think that, so far as the
 question between the two Houses is concerned, those who believe in the principle
 which I advocated here on last Monday against all five projects are in a better
 position to win in the long run with all five projects included than with two of
 them out.
 Mr. ADAMS. I was such a thorough convert to the views of the Senator from
 Missouri that I voted with him against the Florida ship canal, and I voted with
 him on the point of order, though his position was in conflict with the practices
 of the Committee on Appropriations, because I felt he was suggesting a sound