The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The joint resolution will be passed over.

The bill (S. 2149) authorizing and directing the Secretary of Agriculture to investigate all phases of crop insurance was announced as next in order.

Mr. McNARY. I ask that that go over without prejudice. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over. The bill (S. 1414) for the prevention and removal of obstructions and burdens upon interstate commerce in cottonseed oil by regulating transactions on future exchanges, and for other purposes, was announced as next in order.

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, I have an understanding with the Senator from Texas [Mr. MAYFIELD] about this bill, and ask that it go over.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over.

CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICE POSTMASTERS

The bill (S. 1728) placing service postmasters in the classified service was announced as next in order.

Mr. BLEASE. Let that go over.

Edwards
Fess
Gerry
Glass
Goff
Gooding
So the Senate refused to proceed to the consideration of the
bill.

McMaster

Metcalf

CONVICT-MADE GOODS

Watson

The bill (S. 1910) to divest goods, wares, and merchandise manufactured, produced, or mined by convicts or prisoners of next in order. their interstate character in certain cases, was announced as

Mr. McNARY. Let that go over.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be passed over.

COLUMBIA BASIN RECLAMATION PROJECT

The bill (S. 1462) for the adoption of the Columbia Basin reclamation project, and for other purposes, was announced as

Mr. KING. Let the bill go over.

my vote.

Mr. CURTIS (when his name was called). I have a general pair with the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. ROBINSON], who is absent. I do not know how he would vote, and therefore withhold my vote.

Mr. FESS (when his name was called). I have a pair with the senior Senator from Tennessee [Mr. MCKELLAR]. Not knowing how he would vote, I withhold my vote.

Mr. ASHURST (when Mr. HAYDEN's name was called). My colleague the junior Senator from Arizona [Mr. HAYDEN] is absent on important official business. If he were present, he would vote "nay."

Mr. WARREN (when his name was called). I have a pair with the junior Senator from North Carolina [Mr. OVERMAN], who is absent. I therefore withhold my vote.

Mr. WATSON (when his name was called). I have a pair with the senior Senator from South Carolina [Mr. SMITH]. In his absence I withhold my vote. If voting, I should vote " nay.” The roll call was concluded.

Mr. COPELAND. I have a general pair with the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. METCALF], but I understand that on this question he would vote the same way I shall vote, so I will vote. I vote "nay."

Mr. JONES. I desire to announce the following general pairs:

The Senator from Delaware [Mr. DU PONT] with the Senator from Florida [Mr. TRAMMELL];

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. GOFF] with the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. GERRY];

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. MCLEAN] with the Senator from Virginia [Mr. GLASS]; and

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. STEIWER] with the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. SIMMONS].

Mr. BRATTON. I transfer my pair with the junior Senator from Indiana [Mr. ROBINSON] to the junior Senator from New Jersey [Mr. EDWARDS], and vote "yea."

The result was announced-yeas 24, nays 30, as follows:

Mr. DILL. Mr. President, I wish the Senator would let us take this bill up and consider it briefly. We have offered an amendment to the bill which takes out all of the appropriation for construction, and simply provides for the appropriation necessary to continue the studies and surveys of the project. I think with that amendment, taking out the provision of the bill for the large appropriation, there will not be serious objection to it. I wish the Senator would let us take the bill up. It is very important.

Mr. KING. Let me inquire if the amendment which it is proposed to offer does not commit the Government to the policy, and is not an authorization of it, regardless of the survey.

Mr. DILL. The proposed amendment simply commits the Government to the policy of investigating this project as a Federal project. It does not authorize the building of the project in any way. We took out the provision that did authorize that by this amendment. I do not think there can be serious objection to the bill, as it only authorizes a continuation of the studies.

Mr. KING. Will not the Senator move to take the matter up so that it can be debated without the limitation of five minutes on the length of speeches?

Mr. DILL. I am willing to, but I hope the Senator will permit the bill to be taken up without objection.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BINGHAM in the chair). The Senator from Utah is correct. If the bill is taken up without objection, speeches will be limited to five minutes, whereas if it is taken up on motion, debate will be unlimited. Mr. DILL. I move that the bill be taken up.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Washington.

Mr. ASHURST. Mr. President, I am very glad at this juncture to give my support to this bill. I happen to be a humble member of the committee that reported it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is not debatable. Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, under what rule is it that the motion is not debatable?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under Rule VIII, under which the Senate is now operating.

Mr. BORAH. This is after 2 o'clock, is it not?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under previous decisions of the Chair, when the Senate indulges in a night session and proceeds under Rule VIII, it is assumed that 2 o'clock is somewhere in the future and not in the past.

Mr. BORAH. But it is after 2 o'clock to-day. There is no logic in that ruling.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under previous decisions of the Chair debate is not allowed on a motion to take up a bill at a night session when the Senate is operating under Rule VIII.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, if we vote in the affirmative to take the bill up, it means that it may be debated under Rule VIII without any limitation as to the length of speeches?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is correct.

The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Washington.

On a division, the motion was agreed to, and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Florida [Mr. FLETCHER], on page 1, line 7.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I would like to have the bill read before we start with the amendments.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read.
The Chief Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the lands in the eastern part of the State of Washington embraced in what is commonly known as the Columbia Basin project, or all the lands that may be embraced within the boundaries of such project, as may be finally determined by the Secretary of the Interior, be, and the same are hereby, adopted as a reclamation project to be known as the Columbia Basin reclamation project, and the appropriation of the necessary funds to determine and carry on such project is hereby authorized from funds in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated. This project shall be carried on, developed, and dealt with in every respect and pursuant to the terms and conditions of the United States reclamation act and amendments thereto, except for the appropriation provision herein made. Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. President, I understand the junior Senator from Washington [Mr. DILL] has an amendment which, to a large extent, meets my ideas, and I beg to withdraw the amendment which I offered, and will let the Senator offer his amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida withdraws his amendment. Mr. DILL. Mr. President, I offer an amendment, which previously was offered by my colleague for him and myself, beginning on page 1, line 9, to strike out the remainder of the bill which carries the appropriation; on page 1, line 9, after the word "project," to strike out the balance of the line, all of line 10, and on page 2, all of lines 1 to 6, inclusive, and to insert the following:

and the appropriation of funds to make such surveys, investigations, and studies as may be necessary to enable the Secretary of the Interior to determine the economic feasibility of this project, and the best method for prosecuting the same, is hereby authorized from funds in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing

to the amendment.

Mr. DILL. Mr. President, the bill as it would read with this amendment simply provides for the appropriation of the necessary funds to make the studies and surveys to determine the economic feasibility of this project, and no longer authorizes the appropriation for the building of the project, as it previously did. The amendment does not affect, however, the amendments already adopted regarding the States of Idaho and Montana. It refers only to that part of the bill which carries the authorization of the appropriation for construction.

We are anxious to have the appropriation in order that the work may go forward over a period of years and be done with a view to the actual construction of the project rather than by piecemeal appropriation. The Secretary of the Interior has said in his report that he approves the appropriation of funds for the studies and surveys, but he did object to the bill as it was written because of the large appropriation and it being an indeterminate amount at this time.

I shall be glad now to answer any questions.

Mr. PHIPPS. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Washington if the amendment now proposed by him, inserted at the point designated in the bill, would not still leave in the bill the language from lines 6 to 9, inclusive, "to be finally determined by the Secretary of the Interior, be, and the same are hereby, adopted as a reclamation project, to be known as the Columbia Basin reclamation project "?

Mr. DILL. That is true.

Mr. PHIPPS. The adoption of the project, it seems to me, should take place after and not before the investigation to determine the feasibility. I think the amendment as suggested by the Senator from Florida was in proper form. If the Senator from Washington prefers the language of his own amendment, I would not have any objection to that, but I do not think that the Congress at this time is ready to declare and adopt this property or this land as a reclamation project. I think the investigation should first be had.

As I said before on the floor of the Senate, I am in favor of having the necessary appropriations to determine that fact authorized and made, but I feel that if the Congress goes on

LXIX- -524

record as having adopted this as a reclamation project it is perhaps setting up false hopes in the minds of settlers, who will come into that district saying, 'We are going to move into a Government reclamation project." I think it would very likely result in a land boom that would not be justified at this time.

Mr. DILL. Settlers will not go into and live on the project with knowledge that the economic feasibility will not be determined for some years to come. There is no way for them to make a living unless they make it by pumping water or carrying water on the land.

Mr. PHIPPS. Then what is the purpose of insisting upon having it adopted as a reclamation project? Why not be satisfied with the authority to expend all the money necessary to determine whether or not it is a feasible reclamation project?

Mr. DILL. If we simply continue to appropriate money in small amounts, as we have been doing, we will continue to get piecemeal investigations and piecemeal reports. If the project is adopted as a project, it means that $250,000 or $300,000 or $400,000, which will be spent over the period of the next five or six years, will be spent consecutively with a view to determining the development of the project as a whole, and one final report will be made, and we will not be having a report on every $50,000 we appropriate.

Under the present law there is no possibility of building a feasible. reclamation project until it has been determined economically

The use of the word "adoption" does not commit the Government to building the project, but it will commit the Reclamation Bureau to investigation on the theory that it is to be built as a whole if it is to be built at all. As long as this is done we will have to spend the money as we have been in the past, and we will not be able to get a study of the project on the theory of the entire project, spending three or four hundred thousand dollars, because we will only appropriate $50,000 or $100,000 at most at a time, and we will get a piecemeal investigation.

Mr. PHIPPS. An authorization is not necessarily an appropriation. While it is true that the appropriation would be made annually in moderate amounts as the necessary work progresses, I see no objection to making the authorization if such amount as is estimated will be sufficient to determine definitely and finally whether or not it is feasible.

I am absolutely opposed to the Congress going on record as having adopted this project before it knows whether or not it to the people who would interest themselves in it, and it is feasible. I think it is misleading to the public, misleading is absolutely unnecessary to go to that expense.

I think the Senators from Washington should be satisfied to have the authorization for the money that may be necessary, no matter whether it is $100,000 or $500,000, authorized to be appropriated in the judgment of the Congress from time to time on reports from the Department of the Interior. But to say that this is adopted as a reclamation project to my mind is a very bad policy, and I hope the bill will not be supported in that form. At the proper time I shall move to strike out the necessary language to eliminate its adoption as a project.

Mr. DILL. Mr. President, I want to answer the Senator from Colorado. The Senator from Colorado speaks as though there had been no report on the feasibility of the project. There have been, reports on the feasibility of the project and they are on file as Senate documents. The project has been there must be a study of the economic conditions by which the declared feasible, but before any project can be constructed Secretary of the Interior is enabled to say it is economically feasible. The Congress has appropriated in the past funds for this investigation and the reports on file now are that the project is a feasible project. But it is such an immense project, there is so much soil involved, the carrying of the water is the biggest thing ever attempted by the Government, that consequently a great deal of study ought to be carried on and a great deal of work should be done before an actual declaration of its economic feasibility should be made.

Mr. WATSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DILL. Certainly.

Mr. WATSON. Does the Senator himself understand and intend that this measure, as he now has it formulated, does not commit the Government of the United States to the construction of this project?

Mr. DILL. It certainly does not commit the Government to the construction. That will be determined only after a report has been had from the Secretary of the Interior as to whether it is economically feasible.

Mr. PHIPPS. Then why put the cart before the horse and adopt it now? Why adopt it in advance? The Senator is well aware of the moneys that have been expended on the project.

Large amounts have been expended, not only by the Federal Government, but by the States and by individuals. I voted for the Federal appropriation. As I said, I am willing to vote for more. I am willing to authorize now any amount that may be determined upon as necessary to determine definitely and finally whether or not the project is economically feasible and practicable and desirable.

Mr. President, I feel that in approving the bill as rewritten by the Senator from Washington we are committing a blunder and incurring a moral obligation on the part of the Government of the United States to proceed with the project.

Mr. DILL. The Senator knows we have adopted other projects which were not ready to build, but which we meant to build. The adoption of the project in this language means that the studies from now on will be made with a view to the economic feasibility of the entire project and not piecemeal reports such as have been made in the past.

Lands in the United States, in the Middle West, the West, South, and North can be bought for less than it takes to put water on these lands. It seems to me the Senators ought to be satisfied to amend the bill so as to provide merely for a survey.

Congress has appropriated $3,000,000 or more for a survey of all the rivers in the United States, and the Columbia River is one of them. I am sure that the senior Senator from Washington [Mr. JONES], chairman of the Committee on Commerce, will see that that river gets attention, and he will have the assistance of the able junior Senator from Washington [Mr. DILL]. I hope the Senator will amend the bill, and not, as the Senator from Colorado [Mr. PHIPPS] suggested, put the cart before the horse. I want to do anything I can to help him in any matter in which he is interested, but he is asking a thing that he ought not to call upon the Congress to do.

Mr. DILL. Mr. President, I want to say with reference to the Senator's suggestion that we are asking Congress to authorize an appropriation for the building of this project contemplating more than it would ever pay back, that we believe the

is to have it done as a project, adopted by the Government. That does not commit the Government to building the project, but it does commit the Reclamation Bureau to the study of the project as a whole.

Mr. NORBECK. Mr. President, I have no desire to delay a vote on the matter. I think the Senators from Washington are entitled to have a vote on it. I have no objection to one more investigation of the matter. I know absolutely nothing about the project except from the literature furnished by the boosters. I have never heard a knock on it anywhere along the whole line. The proponents of the bill claim for it that it has a sixmonths growing season, that it will raise staple farm products, and that it can be put in for $157 an acre. Am I correct? Mr. DILL. About that amount.

Mr. NORBECK. Our experience, where we have to agree on these reclamation projects, has been that they have cost from two to three times what the engineers have estimated them to cost. But, assuming that the figures are right, that the booster literature which has gone out is correct, it will cost more to put water on that land than we can buy Iowa land for. It will raise the same crops, because it is in a higher altitude than other sections where other projects are located. Washington is fortunate in many respects. All other reclamation projects are not so fortunate. I think they have a remarkable record, but so far as I know they are all at a lower altitude and all produce other kinds of crops than this land is intended to produce. Mr. JONES. The Senator is mistaken with reference to the altitude of these lands. Generally these are much lower than any other reclamation projects.

Mr. NORBECK. I am speaking of the reclamation projects in the State of Washington. This altitude is given at about 1,550 feet.

Mr. JONES. No; the altitude is about 350 or 400 feet up to 1,750 feet.

Mr. NORBECK. What is the altitude at Yakima? These are higher than any other projects in the State of Washington, are they not?

Mr. JONES. Oh, no. The Yakima project ranges from about 350 to 900 feet.

Mr. NORBECK. And this runs to about 1,500?

Mr. JONES. This runs from about 350 feet to about 1,500. Mr. NORBECK. But a large part of it lies in the higher altitude.

Mr. JONES. No; the Senator is mistaken. The greater part is in the lower altitude.

Mr. NORBECK. I only have the booster pamphlets for it. Mr. JONES. The Senator has not read them quite right, then.

Mr. NORBECK. I have no objection to getting a vote on the proposition providing for further investigation. I want to vote for it with my eyes open, but I do share the fear of some that it will lead to agricultural overproduction. It will take a long time to get the project under water.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, I have voted for many reclamation projects in the West. I have voted for them without any hesitation. The Senators from the West were recently telling us that they must have an appropriation of $100,000,000 to take care of surplus crops. The Government has lost $25,000,000 on these reclamation projects already.

The Senator from Georgia mentioned the fact that the West has received much money for reclamation, and it is true that it has. The South has just received great consideration at the hands of Congress, and I am glad that it has.

Mr. HARRIS. But not in the same proportion. Senators from the West can ask for $10,000,000 and get it more easily than we can get $100,000 down in my section of the country. I do not say that in any unkind spirit, but the facts will prove it. Mr. DILL. I do not want to get into an argument, but I must remind the Senator that the flood control bill carried $325,000,000, none of which will ever be repaid. I do not say that in any spirit of criticism. I am glad it was appropriated for the purpose. We are asking only $300,000 or $400,000 at most to build this project that some day the country will badly need. Twenty-five or thirty years from now this land will be badly needed. I can say to those who have any fear of overagricultural production that it will be many years before there is any production on this land, because it is such an immense project that there is no possibility of it being done within a reasonable time.

Mr. PHIPPS. Mr. President, I think I can shorten proceedings, if the Senator will allow me. May I ask if the amendment proposed by the Senator from Washington is the amendment before the Senate?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question before the Senate is the amendment proposed by the Senator from Washington. Mr. PHIPPS. Is it now in order for me to offer a substitute for the amendment?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is.

Mr. PHIPPS. I send to the desk an amendment in the form of a substitute, which I ask to have stated.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado offers an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Washington, in the form of a substitute, which will be stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 1, line 7, after the word "be," it is proposed to strike out down to and including the word "made," in line 6, page 2, and to insert in lieu thereof the following:

investigated as to feasibility and cost, including the extent of the irrigable land, with a classification of soils of that area, measurements and sources of the water supply and determination of the cost of works for storage and distribution, working out plans for settlement and farm development, and there is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to enable the Secretary of the Interior to determine the economic feasibility of this project.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. PresidentMr. DILL. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, it seems to me that we are presented with a question here that ought to be seriously considered by Senators coming from localities in the country where it is necessary, either in whole or in part, to irrigate land and which have had the benefits of the Reclamation Service. I would not want to block anything that the Senators from Washington desire; I would be willing to resolve the doubt in their favor; but I want to speak particularly to Senators who come from localities where the Reclamation Service operates.

We can not afford to ask Congress to do something involving an expenditure of the public money of the United States or of the reclamation fund that will afterwards bring discredit upon the Reclamation Service. It seems to me, Mr. President, that there is such doubt about this proposed project that before we legally adopt it as a reclamation project we ought fully to investigate it and be fully advised as to it. It is already stated that it is conceded by the engineers that it is going to cost from $150 to $157 an acre to put water on this land. That ought to make us pause and consider. It may be that it will be found on investigation that that estimate is proper and that the work should be done, but that is going, in my judgment, about the limit. It is a question of whether land in that locality will be able to pay itself out if we have to expend $157 an acre to put water on it, besides the annual cost of keeping up the project, which will amount to something in addition to that.

I should not have any objection to an investigation to see whether we should adopt this as a project, but I can not for the life of me understand why it is necessary to put in the statute the direct language that "it is hereby adopted as a reclamation project," when all concede that there is some doubt as to whether it is going to be practicable or impracticable. We go far enough, it seems to me, if we authorize an appropriation to make the necessary investigation. I believe that Senators from reclamation States ought to be careful that they do not overstep the bounds and have Congress do something out of favor to us that we may regret in the future. I myself can not understand why everything that could be expected would not be accomplished if we should withhold any action as to the formal adoption of this as a project until the neces sary investigation shall have been made.

As I understand, even the Senators from the State of Washington are unable to say now that there is going to be a favorable report when a full investigation shall have been made. Why not make the full investigation?

Mr. DILL. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Nebraska yield to the Senator from Washington? Mr. NORRIS. I yield.

Mr. DILL. The Senator from Nebraska says that we are unable to say whether there is going to be a favorable report on this project. Of course, we can not forecast the report, but we can say that every report up to this time has been favorable. As to the analysis of soil, as to the details of the report as to the economic feasibility of the project, as required by the Department of the Interior, of course, nobody can forecast that, but we have every reason to believe that the report will be favorable, and if it shall not be favorable, then, of course, the project never will be constructed. I remind the Senator, however, that projects are adopted regularly by the Government which can not be built until further investigation and the department shall declare them economically feasible.

Mr. NORRIS. That may be; I may be wrong about it; but I want to ask the Senator why can not everything be accomplished that he wants to accomplish if he will amend the bill so that we shall not formally adopt the project, but shall authorize a sufficient appropriation to make the investigation? I think I was warranted from the Senator's own language in stating that he can not now tell until all these investigations shall have been made whether the project will be feasible. I hear it said that it is going to be a very expensive proposition. Mr. DILL. There is this point, which I tried to explain a moment ago, that if the investigations are made under an adoption clause they will be made with a view to a final report; but if they be made by a piecemeal appropriation we shall only get a report at the end of each session of Congress.

Mr. NORRIS. But we can easily arrange that, it seems to me, by the language of the proposed statute. Let the bill provide, if the Senator desires, that the entire proposition shall be investigated and a complete report submitted on it, but do not bind us by law to accept this as a reclamation project until then. How would the project be injured should the bill be amended in that way? What would be the difference according to the Senator's own viewpoint? Where would the Senator begin if we did that?

Mr. DILL. The project would then be looked upon as a project as to which it was not yet determined whether it would be a Federal project or not. If this project is ever built at all, it must be built as a Federal project.

Mr. NORRIS. I am perfectly willing, as far as I am concerned, to have the Government make that full investigation, but it is conceded we are not qualified now to invite settlers up there.

Mr. DILL. We can not invite settlers onto any project until it has been declared economically feasible, even though the Government has recognized it as a Federal project.

Mr. NORRIS. What is the difference, according to the Senator's idea, whether we formally say this is a Federal project, or whether we say we will investigate now before we make that declaration? It does not hurt it any to leave it that way. If it can be determined that it is easily feasible, an investigation will bring that out. We have to have that, any

way.

Mr. DILL. I suggest to the Senator that the department engineers have already declared it a feasible project, but no action has ever been taken to recognize it as such, and if we refuse to recognize this project at all until it is recognized as economically feasible, we will be taking a different course from any we have taken with other Federal projects.

Mr. NORRIS. I understand the Senator himself to say that he does not know whether it is economically feasible or not. Mr. DILL. No; nor do we know that of some other Federal projects which have already been adopted.

Mr. NORRIS. I have not looked into all of them, but it may be that we have committed errors in the past. As much as I am in favor of irrigation-I am not afraid of irrigating any piece of land where the project is decided to be a feasible one, and will vote for it almost without limit-I do not want, for the sake of the Reclamation Service itself, to take a step that may get us into disrepute not only with the country, but with Congress. I am afraid we might lose some of the respect of the country if we should ask the Government of the United States to declare this as a feasible project, and it might be determined in the end that it is not. If there were anything to be lost, if there were any possibility of losing anything, there might be some argument in putting this in, but I have not heard one word from anybody that, to my mind, gives any excuse for making this declaration now.

Mr. PHIPPS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for the purpose of reading an extract from the report of the Secretary of the Interior on this project?

Mr. NORRIS. I am through.

Mr. PHIPPS. I do not want to take the Senator off the floor.

Mr. NORRIS. I can get the floor again if I want it.

Mr. PHIPPS. I want the Senator to hear this. This is from a copy of a letter addressed to me as chairman of the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation; and at this point I want to say that, as chairman of that committee, I feel I would be assuming an undue responsibility if I allowed this measure in its present form to become a law. In this letter the Secretary said:

I have your request for report on S. 1462, "A bill for the adoption of the Columbia Basin reclamation project, and for other purposes," for which the bill proposes to authorize the necessary funds from the General Treasury.

The importance of this project to the Nation would make advisable a complete investigation of feasibility and cost extending over several years. This should include the extent of the irrigable area with a classification of soils of that area, measurements of the water supply and determination of the cost of works for storage and distribution, working out plans for settlement and farm development. All this information would be necessary in order to make a final and safe determination of feasibility as a prerequisite to recommending authorization of the project.

I am, therefore, unable to recommend favorable consideration of the bill in its present form, but would recommend a reasonable appropriation to further and complete our investigations to determine feasibility. With that information comes this:

The last report made by a board of engineers gives the following information regarding cost, area, and engineering feasibility, which, of course, would be subject to correction as a result of more complete and recent investigations, if the department should be authorized by Congress to make a further survey:

Total area of Columbia Basin project_.
Probable total cost-

Probable per acre cost of construction.

acres__

1, 224, 000 $197, 895, 595 $157

Mr. President, I do not think any member of the committee is a stronger friend of this project than I am, but I am not convinced that the time has arrived when Congress can properly adopt it as a reclamation project. I feel that the amendment I have submitted as a substitute would meet all the requirements, fill every condition that should reasonably be expected, and would enable the people to go ahead so that this work could be carried to a conclusion, to the point, at least, where the Government could determine whether or not it was feasible.