486 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

 been and will continue to be in the future subject to process through the Corps
 of Engineers, the Rivers and Harbors Committee, and the Congress itself. But
 for the moment we are called upon to answer the question propounded by the
 President: "Shall the work which has been initiated and the funds which have
 been expended on this canal, pursuant to the act of Congress empowering the
 President to initiate it, be wasted and the project, regardless of all other con-
 siderations, rejected as a means for furnishing work relief? Or shall Con-
 gress authorize the President, first, to cause further examination to be made
 with a view to answering certain questions raised by those who have doubts
 as to its appropriateness, and, subject to the results of that further examina-
 tion, to authorize the use of the project to supply work relief by expending
 upon it a certain portion of funds appropriated in this bill for work relief-
 funds which will certainly have to be employed for work relief on some
 project or projects to be selected by the President?" I desire to make it very
 clear that this amendment does not require that the Congress accept the propo-
 sition that the worth and appropriateness of the project are demonstrated, nor
 does it mean that the Congress does not reserve to itself a decision as to
 whether the project shall be completed or at what rate the work shall go on in
 the future. A vote for concurrence in this amendment is nothing more or
 less than a vote to empower the President to study the project further and, i1
 he finds it appropriate, to use it to a limited extent and for a limited time as
 an element of the work-relief program. I feel, therefore, that all of us, whether
 we be already convinced that the canal has been demonstrated to be a needful
 and worth-while river and harbor project or whether we doubt that the case
 for the project has been proven, can go at least this far in assisting the Presi-
 dent in his endeavor to proceed with wisdom and caution in the matter.
 I realize, nevertheless, that aside from the fact that the President and the
 departments which advised him were undoubtedly entirely satisfied with the
 full justification of the canal as a river and harbor project before it was selected
 as a part of the work-relief program, it is desirable from the point of view of
 Congress that there should be sufcdent presumptive evidence before us to war-
 'rant us in concurring in this amendment. It is for this reason, and not with a
 view to asking the opponents of this measure to accept the conclusions as
 proven, that I should like to present a brief resume of that evidence.
 First, pursuant to the provisions of the regular River and Harbor Acts of Con-
 gress, the project has been subjected to more than 6 years of intensive examina-
 tion, physical survey, and study by the Corps of Engineers. The report of the
 Chief of Engineers will reach the Committee on Rivers and Harbors in due
 course. The recommendations of the Chief of Engineers to the Committee for
 Rivers and Harbors have yet to be made, and therefore no one can say what
 these will be. Because of the emergency, however, and by virtue of authority
 delegated to him by Congress, caused the evidence and data developed by
 the Corps of Engineers to be made available to himself and to other appropriate
 departments of the Government before this evidence and data could, in the
 ordinary course of procedure, reach the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.
 Congress is therefore without the benefit of advice and recommendation which
 it will eventually have from that committee when it has acted upon the project;
 and not until then is it to be supposed that Congress will determine what, if
 any, regular appropriations to this project shall be made. In the meantime,
 because of the necessities arising out of the emergency, it appears entirely
 reasonable that Congress, like the President and the departments, should avail
 themselves of that evidence to assist as a guide for temporary procedure.
 While it is contrary to the policy of the Chief of Engineers to publish the find-
 ings of boards of survey before they are submitted to Congress, and for that
 reason we have not available the details in this case, the action of the President
 in causing the survey of the Corps of Engineers to be reviewed by a special
board of Army engineers and Public Works engineers, and the findings of that
board have made known the outstanding data collected by the Army engineers
on this project. These are, I think, entirely sufiient to enable us to conclude
that a prima-face case has been made for the project The board of review
went much further than this and found the case to be complete and proven and
the project justified, and so reported to the President.
 It is unnecessary to go into details as to the findings of the Army engineers.
I think it is suficient to say that they found as follows:
 First That the canal along the route selected is feasible and practicable.
 Second. That a sea-level canal along this route would have no serious adverse
effect upon the underground-water supply of Florida.