470 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

 but disapproved as a toll, self-liquidating project by the Administrator of
 Public Works.
 "P. On August 30, 1935, under the provisions of the Emergency Relief Appro-
 priation Act of 1935, the President authorized the project and allocated to it
 $5,000,000.
 "Q. Two subsequent allocations of $200,000 each were made.
 "R. Work was begun on the project on September 3, 1985, and has been con-
 tinuing ever since, with an average employment of about 6,000 men on the job.
 "6. Opposition of railroads and certain shipping lines: The Atlantic Coast
 Line, the Seaboard Airline, and the Southern Railway have opposed the project
 at public hearings held by the Army engineers. Certain steamship lines have
 Indicated opposition to the project. The question at issue is not whether the
 Government will build this canal for the benefit of certain ship-operating con-
 cerns, but whether, when built, it will benefit the general public to an extent
 commensurable with its cost. That is the real question; and all attempts to
 divert the argument by citing opposition of ship operators are beside the point.
 "Ship operators realize that in the long run substantially all of the savings
 in the operation of ships made possible by the canal will have to be passed on to
 the general public in the form of lowered freight rates. They also realize that
 the canal will greatly stimulate shipping into and out of the Gulf of Mexico,
 and they fear that this will mean new competition.
 "The Corps of Engineers, the Department of Commerce, and the Public Works
 Administration have all found that the construction and operation of the canal
 will result in general public benefits to the greater part of the United States.
 These benefits are much more than sufficient to Justify the cost.
 "The Corps of Engineers, which is the highest authority on the safety and
 practicability for navigation of improved waterways, has stated that the canal
 is safe and feasible for ships to use.
 "The Bureau of Navigation, which is the highest authority on questions of
 time and distance on given courses for ships, has stated that ships using the
 canal will definitely make certain savings in time and distance.
 "In view of these facts, it is impossible to conclude that ships will not use the
 canal when it Is opened. Whether some ship-operating concerns wish to see the
 canal built is not the question we are discussing here; and all evidence of this
 kind only serves to prove that the canal will undoubtedly bring about vast
 economies to the general public."
 Mr. BoCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may desire to use to my
 colleague the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson].
 Mr. PrrzasoN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend
 my remarks in the Record and to include therein excerpts from certain reports.
 The Sr PaxB. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
 Florida?
 There was no objection.
 [Mr. Peterson of Florida addressed the House. His remarks will appear
 hereafter in the Appendix.]
 Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague the gentleman
 from New York [Mr. Bacon].
 Mr. BACON. Mr. Speaker, I do not like to take issue with my friend the
 gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Rules Committee, but I think
 the record will show that the engineers of the Public Works Administration
 have more than once reported against this canal, and I am assured that the
 Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, who have given it preliminary
 study, have not yet made any report whatever.
 I would have no objection to the Florida Canal if it came up in an orderly
 way in a rivers and harbors bill. It is part of the inland waterways, and it
 seems to me it should go through the same process as every other improvement
of our inland waterways or our harbors. It seems to me that the Board of
Engineers ought to thoroughly investigate it. It seems to me that the Board
of Engineers ought to have a hearing and make a report, and then if it comes
up in an orderly way so that the House can consider it as a definite proposition
on its merits, we can then act intelligently in the matter. As it is, however,
civilian engineers have made certain reports and most of them have been in
conflict and it now comes up in the form of an item in the relief bill. Congress
has never authorized it.
 This canal will cost $142,000,000 or $160,000,000 with interest at 4 percent.
The amount requested in this bill is only a beginning, and only a small begin-
ning. This means that future Congresses, in the ordinary course of the regular