484 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

 any economic advantage for any habi having a speed of upward of 12 knots.
 Let me say to you further that the people in Florida, the orange-grove people,
 the farmers, the truck farmer, and all that class of people are In desperate
 fear that if this proposition goes through their soil will be destroyed. Cham-
 bers of commerce from all over the southern part of Florida have sent commu-
 nications here. The farmers have begn here opposing it, and I do not believe
 it has any justification whatever. I, do not believe we should vote for any
 project for any other reason than that it can be justified on economic grounds.
 There Is absolutely no reason why we should go ahead with this proposition.
 The only support of it is a local political support. An eminent geologist from
 Columbia University, Dr. Henry 8. Sharp, has stated that all of the geologists
 unite in predicting that the canal will cause damage to the water supply. The
 United States Geological Survey itself has said, to summarize: There appears
 to be no reasonable doubt that serious adverse effects will be produced upon the
 important underground water supplies of the Ocala limestone territory.
 Mr. Speaker, I hope this Congress will vote down this proposition.
 [Here the gavel fell.]
 Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maine
 [Mr. Brewster].
 (Mr. Brewster asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
 remarks.)
 Mr. BEWBTer. Mr. Speaker, it is with some diffidence I enter upon the dis-
 cussion of so contentious a subject, particularly after the reference of my
 colleague the gentleman from New York, who intimates that all of the opposition
 to this subject has come from this side of the aisle. So it is a pleasure to stand
 up as perhaps a lone voice to suggest that at least the issue should be clarified.
 From the discussions of my colleague from New York on this side I should
 understand that the Congress and this House was about to determine whether
 or not any money should be allowed to be expended upon the Florida canal.
 If my reading of the legislation we are considering is correct, such is very far
 from being the case. If I am incorrect I shall be glad to be corrected.
 It is my understanding that if thel amendment we are now considering is
 stricken out there will be nothing in this legislation to prevent in any way the
 President from going forward with tle completion of this canal if he should
 determine that to be desirable. It seems rather like Alice in Wonderland that
 so much heat should be generated on 4 subject about which so much confusion
 now exists. The Senate amendment simply provides that the President shall
 carry on none of these projects unless he shall make available funds sufficient
 to complete them. While it is very uncertain he will do that, still the authority
 remains.
 Mr. TABm. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield at that point?
 Mr. Bauwesm. Yes.
 Mr. Tamn That applies, not to this project but to other projects where the
 P. W. A. makes the allotments.
 Mr. BarWSerTa I disagree with the interpretation of the gentleman, but I do
 not think time will permit a complete general understanding; each Member will
 be obliged to determine the matter for himself. The language of the amendment
 seems to be very clear:
 "No Federal project shall be undertaken or prosecuted with funds provided
 for in this appropriation unless and until an amount sufficient for its com-
 pletion has been allocated and irrevocably set aside for its completion."
 The Passamaquoddy project was also being considered in connection there-
 with. I think it is well that the situation should be understood in order that
 there may be no misinterpretation of the effect of our action. The purpose of
 this amendment requested by the administration is simply that if a competent
 and impartial board should determine that the things claimed regarding this
 project are correct the President may then go forward not with the allocation
 of the $14,000,000 which may be needed to complete it, but with the allocation
 of $10,000,000. The only thing here proposed is that if the President should
 determine that the use of $10,000,000 for Florida "crackers" to dig sand is more
 useful in affording relief labor than to permit them to learn eurythmic dancing,
 or to build dog pounds, or to teach bridge, then the President might so proceed.
 From my knowledge of Florida, I think it is infinitely more preferable, and
 I would be glad if any member of this committee will advise whether Pot
 only every one of those proposals but every one of the boondoggling experi-
 ments about which we have heard so much, are not authorized within the
legislation now being enacted? The only thing we forbid is that you shall not