but it was a referendum in every State in the Union. I have been informed that the farm organizations in America, realizing that this was a problem whose ultimate solution meant cheaper freight rates and affected the farming interest of the country, are a unit in expressing the opinion that it is a Federal responsibility. I have been informed by the chairman of the House committee that wherever the patriotic organizations of the American Legion has spoken, they have taken the same position.

Mr. Chairman, I know something of the Mississippi River. I have been from its source to its mouth. I have been up and down the river. I have been up and down the Missouri River. It is a subject that I have studied for 25 years. The greatest flood in the history of our country, displacing from their homes some 700,000 people, wiping out millions of dollars of property, destroying railroads and highways and property of every description, has left in the minds of the American people, I am sure, a sympathetic attitude toward this question.

Down in the lower reaches of the valley where the suffering is greatest it is impossible for the people in that portion of the valley to contribute money to this enterprise. Constitutions of the States would have to be changed and amended before the States could act.

In some sections of the country where people do not understand this problem, they seem to fear that some particular lands would be benefited by Government control. That is not so. Take the case

in Missouri; the Jadwin report proposes this. We have a levee which has held back the flood waters of the river, it did hold them back and always did hold them back except in this flood, and then one section of the levee broke-a section upon which the Government was working. The waters came down from Montana; they came down from Dakota; they came down from Ohio. All the water on the western slopes of the Alleghenies, the waters from the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains, all the waters from the Great Lakes, drained into the Mississippi River and created this flood. No single State can handle the problem; no portion of a State can handle the problem. Louisiana might do its full duty, and if Arkansas, or Tennessee, or Kentucky, or Missouri failed to do their duty, all the work that Louisiana could do would be lost. I will not take the time of this committee to show you the value of the contributions that valley makes to the welfare of the United States. Personally, I have some fixed convictions as to the form of machinery that should be employed, but I waive suggestion at this time, leaving the question to the united judgment, of course, of this committee; but on one subject my mind is perfectly clear. These floods do not originate in the States that suffer from them. No State, no group of States, can control the situation. No combination of States meeting together can solve the problem. It can only be lone by the agency of the United States Government.

I find that in my own State there is a unanimity of opinion that I have rarely seen equaled. Republican papers, Democratic papers, Democrats and Republicans and Independents, and every evidence of organized life favors full Government responsibility; and I am most concerned, Mr. Chairman, in writing into our laws certain

fundamentals and certain conclusions, and one of those conclusions is full Government responsibility.

As to legislation, I believe that the lower reaches of the Mississippi Valley that suffer from the floods should be given first consideration in engineering talent and in Government support; but I hope that in any legislation that is passed there will be a promise for the future, a promise for Illinois, a promise for Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas, and Minnesota and Wisconsin, that when we build for flood ways we build for navigation at the same time. The two are inseparable. They can not be separated.

Discussing the matter legally, I am entirely satisfied and am prepared to contend that the authority of the Federal Government over this question comes through the commerce clause in the Constitution. It rests upon navigation. I do not propose to press at this time the question of navigation. I think we should write a bill that will give quick relief, a bill that will fix the Federal authority, but a bill at the same time which will hold out promise to the gentleman from Dakota and the gentleman from Iowa and the men in the valley, in the Senate and House of the United States, that at some future time when the bigger problem is settled the needs of bank stabilization will be cared for.

Mr. Chairman, the bill that I have presented I realize is too comprehensive. I knew it was at the time I introduced it. The bill which I will present to the Senate to-day is merely for the purpose of discussion and is to be taken from or added to, or torn to pieces, or thrown out of the window. It seemed to me to be a sort of composite of the four or five bills now before this committee.

Mr. Chairman, that is all that I care to say at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you not give to the committee the fundamental outline of the bill that you have referred to?

Senator HAWES. The fundamental outline of the bill that I will introduce to-day, or the other one?

The CHAIRMAN. The one that you expect to put in to-day.

Senator HAWES. The fundamental outline of that bill is to retain in the Mississippi River Commission some civil participation. It provides for a commission composed of three civil engineers, three Army engineers, and three men of executive ability, experienced business men. It directs this commission to solve the problem of the lower stretches of the valley; not in detail, but by restriction of and controlling the flood level at New Orleans to 19 feet, at the Arkansas River, and at Cairo. It leaves the actual work of construction to the Army engineers; the handling of all moneys, the handling of all engineering skill, the disbursement of all moneys, remains with the Army. This bill does not interfere with the barge line.

The CHAIRMAN. First, before you start on that, let me ask you, does this bill authorize this commission that you have referred to, to adopt the plan for the control of water-that is, the plan of the work to be put in to control the flood, and leave the execution of that to the Army engineers?

Senator HAWES. It does.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the outline of it?

Senator HAWES. Yes.

85907-28-PT 1—4

Senator FLETCHER. Does it commit the Government to any particular scheme, that is to spillways, or anything of that sort?

Senator HAWES. It does not, Senator, except that it commits the Government to controlling the flood waters at a station at New Orleans at 19 feet. That leaves a wide latitude for the commission to decide whether that shall be done by a spillway, whether it shall be done by dikes, or revetments, or whether it shall be done by reservoirs. The theory that I had in this bill was this, that we have been legislating in a rather careless way of trying to permit certain sections of the river, or certain special projects, to write those projects into law, without taking the great vision of the valley and the necessities of the valley; so that the vision is given to a commission, with one instruction, and that is that the flood waters at the doors. of New Orleans shall no exceed 19 feet.

Senator FLETCHER. Does it provide for a continuation of the levees, or does it make any reference to levees?

Senator HAWES. It provides that it shall become a Government project in its entirety.

I want to say, of course, Mr. Chairman, you will hear from the Army engineers and the Mississippi River Commission as to whether the phraseology used in the bill, by fixing the flow of the water at New Orleans, is the correct figure; whether it is feasible or practical. I make no claim to any engineering ability or knowledge.

Senator HARRIS. I did not understand your reference to barge lines.

Senator HAWES. I was about to say, Mr. Chairman, that this bill particularly eliminates all control over the so-called barge lines. It eliminates all control over the commission appointed to investigate power sites and power dams. It eliminates the upper Mississippi River conservation reservation. It eliminates all of those projects which are now under way, partially completed, or that have been provided for by Congress, and confines it solely to flood control and navigation.

Senator RANSDELL. May I ask, what would be the jurisdiction of the commission?

Mr. HAWES. Sir?

Senator RANSDELL. How far would your jurisdiction extend to the tributaries, let us say? Would you confine it to the main river, or would you let it go up the tributaries?

Senator HAWES. That, of course, is a subject that is embarrassing, and I have introduced my bill in the broadest sense, that it applies to the Mississippi River and its tributaries. There may be qualifications of navigable tributaries, or there may be qualifications of other tributaries that contribute to the cost of flood control; but I have put it in in its broadest sense, because we find, gentlemen, that it is not the Mississippi River itself that goes on a rampage, it is the Missouri River, the Ohio River, the St. Francis River, the Arkansas River, and many other rivers that create the trouble.

Senator JOHNSON. Of necessity, Senator, if you have a mode of flood control, you must control the tributaries, must you not? Senator HAWES. That is the cause of the floods.

Senator JOHNSON. Let me ask you about the jurisdiction, as Senator Ransdell did, of the commission. Has this commission the absolute power of determining the mode of flood control?

Senator HAWES. It has the absolute power, senator, subject to the qualification that the water shall be kept at the 19-foot level at New Orleans. But that leaves the discretion to them to solve the problem by spillways or any other measures they may desire, acting in conjunction with the United States Army engineers.

Senator WILLIS. Before you conclude I want to ask you a question. Senator HAWES. Yes.

Senator WILLIS. You well know the practice that is followed here in matters of navigation, to have a report from the Army engineers, and then Congress adopts that project-a very definite project. As I understand, the plan in your proposed bill is quite different from that. Here we have a report from the Army engineers; but as I understand your plan, you are not proposing to adopt this as a complete project, but you are proposing to create a commission to exercise the power that has heretofore been exercised by Congress; am I correct in that?

Senator HAWES. You are very largely correct, Senator. As I understand it, the method to-day of handling the river is the result of haphazard growth. As I understand it, the Secretary of War instructs the Mississippi River Commission, or he suggests to the Chief Engineer, to bring in a project of a certain character, with a certain limitation. After they have brought that project in, if the Secretary of War approves of it, he sends it to Congress. If he does not approve it, it does not go to Congress. So the whole vision of the river is a vision of the Secretary of War.

If I may be permitted to say, it seems to me that the Congress of the United States should have the vision, should decide what work should be done, and tell the engineers to do it. Unfortunately, this is what happens. These splendid engineers of ours are put up on the river for a while, four years, if you please, and then they are taken away and others take their places. They do not come in contact with Congress direct, there is an intermediary; and it seems to me that this great commission which will spend from $400,000,000 to $775,000,000 should have its contact direct with Congress, and look through the eyes of Congress and not look through the eyes of the Secretary of War, no matter how great the Secretary of War may be. Senator WILLIS. Right there, let me ask you another question for verification. That is what I understand about your plan. We here have a definite plan, recommended by the Army engineers. You correctly state, in my opinion, that that should be subject to whatever wisdom or vision the Congress may have; yet, as I understand your plan, you are proposing that Congress shall abdicate that vision and turn it over to a commission. What I am wondering is, why should not the Congress pass upon the plan instead of undertaking-of course, it can not delegate its power, in a way, but instead of passing over to a commission this thing.

Senator HAWES. In the first place, Senator, we have the Chief of Engineers presenting one plan, and we have the Mississippi River Commission presenting another plan, and I would say, in my opinion, the Mississippi River Commission in ability is equal to the Chief of

Engineers. There is a great difference of opinion on the plan. There is a great difference of opinion on the cost. This commission is instructed to do a certain thing by Congress.

Senator JOHNSON. Can you tell me the difference in the cost of the two plans; I do not mean exactly?

Senator HAWES. I think I can tell you almost exactly, Senator. The Jadwin plan involves the expenditure, to the best of my recollection, of $297,000,000; but when you add to that what I think will be the action of Congress, the 20 per cent which he charges to the States, and when you add to that the cost of spillways, the Jadwin plan will exceed $400,000,000.

The Mississippi River Commission has presented two reports. According to my recollection, the first one, an uncompleted project, is some $407,000,000. The completed project is $775,000,000.

Senator Willis, you asked me, I think, the most important question, and the one which will arouse more discussion than any other. Either we have to leave a final discretion with a limitation in the hands of a commission, or we will have to write in, as we have in the old rivers and harbors bill, every pet project proposed upon the river, with the constant result of trading votes for this project to get votes for another project, and the loss of vision of a completed enterprise. But the plan does describe what is to be done, so that engineers will understand what that means; and of course, as this testimony goes on, and different engineers can tell you whether I am correct in my assumption.

Senator WILLIS. In your judgment, is there danger of delay in having yet a third commission? We have here a report from the engineers, and, you say, two reports from the Mississippi River Commission. As I understand your plan, you are going to have another commission pass upon these two reports, to report to Congress. Is there danger of delay in that proceeding?

Senator HAWES. I do not think there will be the slightest delay or the slightest danger of delay, because the two reports that you speak of will be immediately placed before the commission, which has civil engineers and Army engineers upon it, and the work is to be done by Army engineers. All the data that is now before Congress would immediately be placed in the hands of the commission, and it ought not to delay it. You give them the option of choosing between the Jadwin plan and the Mississippi River Commission plan, but it should not cause delay.

Senator FLETCHER. Would it be possible for Congress to specify precisely what had to be done in order to accomplish the main object in a bill, or in legislation, or do you think that the only feasible thing to do is to require a certain situation at the mouth of the river, 19 feet, and leave all the details to this commission?

Senator HAWES. I think it is almost impossible to get a meeting of inds in the House, or in the Senate. Take my own problem. The adwin report is the most murderous engineering thing I have ever read in my life. We are satisfied with our own conditions, but because the levees on the Missouri side of the river raise the water, we are asked to pay 20 per cent of the cost of lowering this levee, and then pay 20 per cent of the cost to build a levee 5 miles back.