Now, with that language of the letter from the Bureau of the Budget before me and with the knowledge that the various Federal agencies with the approval of the Congress, Mr. Chairman, do already have the authority to make desirable modifications in the various plans as the various projects are developed, it seemed that we were meeting what to us appeared to be a reasonable recommendation from the Bureau of the Budget and at the same time preserving presently authorized projects to the extent that the present law does preserve them anyway, by the language that was added there to which the chairman has referred and which reads as follows:

Provided, That the Commission may recommend to the affected Federal agency desirable modifications of projects and such agency with the approval of the Congress shall make desirable modifications in the plans as the various projects are developed.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Now, that is the point I want to bring up in that connection. I think I understand what this language attempts to do, but suppose we have, as we do have in many projects-suppose we have a project now under construction. Money has been appropriated and work has begun.

Now suppose that in the course of its studies the Commission decides that is not the right project or there should be considerable modification of the project and immediately, in pursuance of their authority, conferred to them in this language, if it is not a direction. to them to do so, it says that it wants to make recommendations of various modifications of the project.

Now, this says that

such agency with the approval of the Congress shall make desirable modifications in the plans as the various projects are developed.

Now, we have got a project under way, we are supposing; and in the course of construction this Commission finds that, from its viewand this takes place in the progress of the Commission's work-they say to this agency, "That is a mistake; it should be changed; this ought to be modified."

Now, what duty rests upon that agency when that recommendation is made? Is it supposed to stop its work and wait and try to get congressional approval of that modification?

If it does not, then, if it does go on with the work, we might get involved in a loss of cost if the modification is finally adopted. That is what I am trying to find out.

I approved of the language before this proviso was written into it. The Bureau of the Budget objected to the original language, and this modification is being made to meet the objection of the Bureau of the Budget. I want you to interpret, for the committee here now, how you expect this proviso will operate. How do you expect that to operate?

Mr. STAATS. That is a very reasonable question.

Senator MCCLELLAN. That is right.

Mr. STAATS. Using the example which you have given, I would assume that what would happen would be that the Commission, by unanimous agreement or by

Senator MCCLELLAN. It might not be unanimous; it does not require it to be.

Mr. STAATS. They would make their recommendation to the agency that had responsibility for the construction of that project. Now, if that agency disagrees

Senator MCCLELLAN. Well, now, what obligation devolves upon the agency when that occurs?

Mr. STAATS. As I would see, nothing, if the agency disagreed. If the agency agreed, as we assume it would if the Commission went on record favoring the modification, upon completion of the reportSenator MCCLELLAN. The way this language is written, there is an obligation placed on that agency, as I interpret it, immediately upon the recommendation being made by the Commission to the agency which becomes the duty of the agency under this law. It says, "in such agency." Now, leaving out "without the approval of Congress" for the moment, it says "agency shall make."

Senator KERR. Suppose you change the word "shall" to "may." Senator MCCLELLAN. Well, would it not strike you that it would be the duty of the agency immediately to present it to Congress and ask for modification?

Mr. STAATS. When the agency submitted its modification it would go exactly through the same procedure.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Well, that is what I want to determine; how long a delay would occur?

Mr. STAATS. I assume it would be treated in exactly the same way as any modification of an existing project.

Senator MCCLELLAN. You see, my objection is this. We wrote in this provision, just above, "shall not be altered," speaking about projects authorized, that they shall not be impeded or delayed "by reason of this act."

Now, what we were trying to do was not to oppose the objective of a commission to carry on from where we are, so to speak, and see what could be done to round out a better and more comprehensive program

Mr. STAATS. We understood.

Senator MCCLELLAN. But, we did not want to get ourselves in a position here by passing a law where we undertook to continue the momentum we have in this program, having it impeded and interfered with and delayed by any act of Congress.

Mr. STAATS. We do not have any basic disagreement with that. but what appeared to us is that the language overlooked the possibility that the commission itself might want to go on record with an agency that it favors some modification of a project, in view of the fact that its ultimate report would recommend, and if it happened, that they would recommend that at the earliest possible date, before further costs were incurred on the project.

They could do that anyway, Mr. Chairman. It is simply recog nizing that right to engage in that kind of recommendation prior to completion of its report.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Well, that is what I am trying to determine When they make the report to the agency, what is the duty and obligation of the agency, under this provision of the law? We are sup posing that the project has already started and money has already been appropriated.

Mr. STAATS. Well, the report itself has no status until approved 7 the Congress.

I would simply assume that it would simply be a recommendation to that agency which the agency could accept or reject as it felt was

proper.

Senator STENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I think at this point that I share your apprehension about this provision.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I want to say that it is not a matter of opposing surveys or any program that might enable us to do a more comprehensive or complete job in these valleys.

I want to make certain, however, that what we are doing is not going to have the effect of retarding the progress we are now making.

Mr. STAATS. We had assumed that the committee did not want to prohibit the Commission during the progress of its study, from making interim recommendations from time to time as they reached conclusions on existing projects; and that it would be to the interest of the Government that those recommendations be made known at the earliest possible time, rather than waiting for the completion of the final report. That was our point, and we were fearful that the language would constitute a prohibition from making that kind of a recommendation.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Well, that is what we wanted, because if we are going to set up this commission, and Congress has already approved certain projects and has appropriated the money for construction-if we are going to set up a commission that in effect would veto what Congress has done or hinder and delay it, I do not know whether that is a wise policy or not; and if it is wise in these valleys, it is wise throughout the Nation.

Mr. STAATS. Well, I would agree with you if that language had that effect. I think that the committee ought to assure itself that the language does not have that effect. I, personally, do not read it that way.

Senator MCCLELLAN. You do recognize that it is something that we should be certain about before we act.

Mr. STAATS. I think that all that the commission could do, either in the interim report, as this would be, or in the final report, would be to make a recommendation.

Senator STENNIS. Well, would not the agency have to act, if they are acting in the spirit of this law, to see if Congress was going to approve it?

Mr. STAATS. No, I do not think so.

Senator LONG. Suppose we take any particular reservoirs under construction, which are authorized but which may be just beginning to be constructed; or even where construction had not begun.

Now, most of these major projects are authorized as protection for flood control. Now, suppose that you have the Department of the Army recognizing the necessity for flood control; but suppose that the Department of the Interior is thinking more in terms of recreation and the Department of Agriculture in terms of irrigation and the Federal Power Commission in terms of power.

Now, the project is authorized. Suppose that this Commission goes to work in its study and suppose that they wanted to get more power, and that they could get more power by trapping the water farther back in the hills or some of these low mountains. Suppose they say, "If we do that we will not trap as much water, but we will

have more for power and more for irrigation, because we will have higher heads."

Now, when a recommendation is made that would be in direct conflict with the original purpose for which it was already authorizedwhat is the Bureau of the Budget going to do when you have conflicting recommendations from the committee, when you have conflicts? Suppose, for instance, they recommend that you do not have one dam but that you build 10 dams at 10 times the expense in the foothills in Oklahoma, let us say, so that you would have more power. Now, the agencies would vote. The Federal Power Commission would vote for more power and you would have the votes of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture and, as a result, the vote would be 4 to 1 in favor of locating the dam where you would get more power.

Does the Bureau of the Budget have any recommendation where you have such major conflict regarding the location of that dam? Senator MCCLELLAN. You answer that question, and then we are going to have to suspend.

Mr. STAATS. As I see it, the only issue we would try to bring up here is a question of whether it would be desirable to make interim recommendations, or whether you wait until completion of the final report of the Commission.

In the case you mentioned, that is the only issue.

Senator LONG. Well, if that issue were before you in one form or another, what kind of appropriation would you recommend? Would you recommend $8,000,000 or $10,000,000, or something of that kind, where you knew that issue was coming up?

Mr. STAATS. Well, it would be pretty difficult to state in advance. Senator LONG. How would you recommend a major project, where there was doubt where it would be located, because the Commission differed with the established policy?

Mr. STAATS. We do obtain now, as you know, the views of the other agencies before the President takes a position on any project. I do not believe this would be substantially different in principle to the practice followed at the present time.

Senator LONG. That is just on the authorization of the appropriation; you do not seek views after the authorization.

Mr. STAATS. If they have an interest.

Senator LONG. But, you do not have.

Mr. STAATS. Ordinarily, we do not.

Senator MCCLELLAN. It is impossible for us to conclude these hearings today as we had hoped. It looks like we may have to have at least two more days. We have been most anxious to get these concluded and to get this bill marked up, but I do not want to deny to anyone who has some legitimate matter to present or some difference of opinion about the bill, I do not want to deny anyone the opportunity

to be heard.

Today I am compelled to be on the floor because of legislative matters that I am interested in. If it is agreeable with the rest of you, with the others who are interested in this, in order to expedite it we will continue the hearings in the morning. We will now have the statement from Senator Ellender.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS TIDEWATER CHANNEL

Senator ELLENDER. I am here to urge the authorization of the New Orleans tidewater channel project. I would like to make a statement concerning this matter.

A report on Mississippi River-Gulf outlet is in response to resolutions adopted April 19, 1943 and May 5, 1943, respectively, by the Committee on Commerce of the United States Senate and by the Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House of Representatives. The report was also authorized by the River and Harbor Act approved March 2, 1945.

The existing project "Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf of Mexico," a modification of the three original projects with addition of Mississippi River between New Orleans and Head of Passes, was authorized by the River and Harbor Act approved March 2, 1945, which provides for channel dimensions listed below, at an estimated cost of $1,200,000 for new work and $250,000 annually for maintenance in addition to that previously approved.

Preparatory work was commenced during the fiscal year 1946 for improvement of the river and passes to secure project dimensions, including a 40-foot channel via Southwest Pass. Total costs under the existing project to June 30, 1946, were $46.889.210, of which $25,132,751 was for new work and $21,756,459 for maintenance. Estimated total annual cost of maintenance approved in 1945 is $1,194,000. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway from Apalachee Bay, Fla., to the vicinity of the Mexican border, Texas, crosses the Mississippi River at New Orleans. The existing project provides for a waterway 12 feet deep and 125 feet wide except between Mobile, Ala., and New Orleans where the width is 150 feet. Access from the Mississippi River to the waterway is provided through the inner harbor navigation canal lock, 640 feet long, and 75 feet wide with a depth of 31.5 feet over the sills, located at mile 92.7 on the east bank, and through Harvey lock, 425 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 12 feet deep over the sills, at mile 98.2 on the west bank.

The Mississippi River from Head of Passes to and including Baton Rouge constitutes a major world port which also serves as a transshipment terminal for shallow-draft vessels using the river, its tributaries, and connecting streams and channels including the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The area commercially tributary to the port