394 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

 KEPOBTS OF VARIOUS GOVZNMENT AGENCIES ON THM CANAL
 I have been impressed by the evidence relating to this project That evidence
 shows:
 1. The following examinations of and reports on this project have been made
 by agencies of the Federal Government:
 (a) War Department, Corps of Engineers: Complete physical and economic
 surveys by a special board of survey under the direction of the Chief of Engi-
 neers, pursuant to the provisions of the River and Harbor Acts of 1927 and 1930.
 (b) Federal Administration of Public Works: An examination of the project
 with a view to determining the justification of a loan for its construction to be
 repaid out of tolls to be collected from shipping.
 (0) A board of review appointed by the President, and representing the Corps
 of Engineers and the Administration of Public Works.
 An independent study of the project and a review of the studies and reports
 of the special board of survey of the Corps of Engineers and the Administration
 of Public Works.
 (d) A special board of geologists and engineers, appointed by direction of the
 Chief of Engineers: An examination and study of the possible effects of a sea-
 level canal on the underground water supply of Florida.

 3INDINos oF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
 2. The coordinated findings of the above-named agencies are substantially as
 follows:
 (a) A sea-level canal is preferable and will have no adverse effect on the
 agriculture or underground water supply of Florida.
 (b) The cost of the project is estimated to be $142,700,000, exclusive of land
 and interest during construction. Land is being furnished by the State of
 Florida.
 (o) The canal is economically justified as a river and harbor project on a
 4-percent basis, at a cost upward of $100,000,000.
 3. The type, plans, and cost estimate have been approved by the Chief of
 Engineers.
 4. The project was recommended to the President by the board of review.
 5. The project was duly authorized by the President pursuant to the provi-
 sions of the Emergency Appropriation Act of 1935, and work is now in progress
 under the direction of the Chief of Engineers.

 STATUS OF THE PROJECT
 Since the project has been duly authorized, it is entirely appropriate as an
 item in an appropriation bill. I do not think anyone can question that. When
 this matter was discussed by the subcommittee of the House Committee on
 Appropriations, the chairman, Mr. Parks, stated:
 "I think It has been held that any project that has been actually begun and
 on which money has been expended, stands on the same level with projects
 authorized by Congress. Of course, that does not mean that we have to do it,
 but, so far as the authorization is concerned, it is there." (P. 23, pt. 2, hearings,
 War Department appropriation bill for 1987.)
 When the same question arose in the Senate, on a point of order, the Senate,
 by a majority of 10 votes, overruled the point of order and sustained the position
 that the project is duly authorized and may be properly included in an appro-
 priation measure.
 The question is, therefore, whether this item, recommended by the Chief of
Engineers, approved by the Director of the Budget, and approved and trans-
mitted to Congress by the President in accordance with due procedure, shall
be included in this deficiency bill. It would seem imperative that adequate
provision for prosecution of the work during the next fiscal year should be
made, and I trust that this committee will recognize this necessity and make
such provision in the deficiency bill.