MINORITY VIEWS We, the undersigned members of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, object to the approval of H. R. 9500 in its present form and recommend the adoption of an amendment which will define and limit the power conferred upon the Postmaster General by the provisions of this legislation. Under the provisions of section 4 of this bill the Postmaster General is authorized to award contracts by negotiation without advertising for or considering bids. This provision, making the Postmaster General a law unto himself, eliminates competition, and is nothing more than a subsidy in the interest of the aircraft industry. While we favor, and have in the past voted for, liberal appropriations and liberal legislation in the interest of the development of aeronautics, we believe this legislation is a step in the wrong direction and some limitations and safeguards should be written into the bill before it becomes a law. An amendment limiting the powers of the Postmaster General was offered by Representative Kelly and rejected by the committee. This amendment is as follows: SEC. 4. The Postmaster General is authorized to award contracts for the transportation of air mail by aircraft between such points as he may designate to the lowest responsible bidder at fixed rates per mile for definite weight spaces. one cubic foot of space being computed as the equivalent of nine pounds of air mail, such rates not to exceed $1.25 per mile: Provided, That the Postmaster General may contract with any individual, firm, or corporation not having an air-mail contract, and having maintained an air-transportation service for not less than six months prior thereto, for the carriage by aircraft of a guaranteed load of mail matter not to exceed 25 cubic feet and not more than 225 pounds, at a rate not to exceed 40 cents a mile. And he is hereby authorized to add any first-class mail matter necessary to make up the guaranteed load specified in the contract. In awarding a mail contract the Postmaster General may give proper consideration to the equities of air mail and other aircraft operators with respect to the routes which they have been operating and the territories which they have been serving. An illustration of the comparative cost of rail and air transportation of mail follows: A 640-mile run form Washington to Atlanta by rail for a 3-foot closed pouch unit of 125 cubic feet capacity would cost $28.80, and for a round trip the cost would be $57.60 between these two cities. By airplane with a maximum capacity of 125 cubic feet and at the rate of $1.25 per mile it would cost $717.25. The round trip cost would be $1,434.50. We believe the legislation was considered hastily and should be amended in the House. 6 JAS. M. MEAD. O 2d Session No. 967 FLOOD-CONTROL SURVEY OF MOUSE RIVER, N. DAK. MARCH 24, 1930.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. REID of Illinois, from the Committee on Flood Control, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 10017] The Committee on Flood Control, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 10017) to provide for a survey of the Mouse River, N. Dak., with a view to the prevention and control of its floods, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with the recommendation that it do pass. A preliminary examination of this river was authorized in the flood control act of February 12, 1929 (45 Stat. L. 1164), the report on same being contained in House Document No. 282 of the Seventy-first Congress, second session. The report on the preliminary examination recommended that a survey be made as authorized in the reported bill. The report of the Secretary of War on the bill is as follows: Hon. FRANK R. REID, Chairman Committee on Flood Control, WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, March 15, 1930. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. REID: Reference is made to your letter of the 6th instant, addressed to the Chief of Engineers, relative to House bill No. 10017, to provide for a survey of the Mouse River, N. Dak., with a view to the prevention and control of its floods. In pursuance of an act approved February 12, 1929 (45 Stat. 1164), an examination of this river was made and report thereon was transmitted to Congress with my letter of February 4, 1930, and printed as House Document No. 282, Seventy-first Congress, second session. Your attention is invited to that report in which a survey of the river as proposed by this bill is recommended. Sincerely yours, PATRICK J. HURLEY, The report of the Chief of Engineers on the preliminary examination, as contained in House Document No. 282 above referred to, is as follows: WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 4, 1930. The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I am transmitting herewith a report dated February 3, 1930, from the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, on preliminary examination of Mouse River, N. Dak., with a view to the control of its floods, authorized by the flood control act of February 12, 1929, together with accompanying papers and map Sincerely yours, PATRICK J. HURLEY, WAR DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, Subject: Preliminary examination of Mouse River, N. Dak., with a view to the control of the floods. To: The Secretary of War. 1. I submit, for transmission to Congress, my report, with accompanying papers and map, on preliminary examination of Mouse River, N. Dak., with a view to the control of its floods, authorized by the flood control act of February 12, 1929. 2. The Mouse River (called in Canada the Souris River) rises in southeastern Saskatchewan, flows southeasterly into North Dakota, and then turns again to the north, reentering the Dominion of Canada, and discharges through the Assiniboine River into the Red River of the North. The area above Minot, the point at which most of the flood damage occurs, is about 10,270 square miles, of which about 7,000 square miles is in Canada. The basin is semiarid prairie, used largely for grazing and the raising of grain by dry farming. In the flood plain spring floods sometimes prevent the sowing of grain, and these lands are largely devoted to hay. The river is not navigable and is not suitable for the development of water power. There is no organized irrigation, but a small amount of irrigation by pumping has been practiced by individual farmers. Successful crops of grain can be raised without irrigation, except in the drier years. The mean annual rainfall is only about 17 inches, and the run-off at Minot averages only 182 cubic feet per second. 3. Minot is a city of about 18,000 inhabitants and lies largely in the flood plain of the river, about 80 miles southeast of the point where the river enters the United States. Serious flood damages occur at this city from time to time. The greatest flood of record occurred in 1904. Damaging floods have been more frequent during the last 10 years than in the earlier years of the century, and local opinion ascribes this increase to the effects of drainage operations on the headwaters in the vicinity of Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan. 4. About 115,000 acres of farm land in North Dakota is subject to flooding by the Mouse River, but floods usually occur before the planting season, and the damage is small. At Minot the larger floods submerge an area from half to three-quarters of a mile in width, extending clear across the city. Local interests estimate the damage from the flood of 1927 at $1,362,500, exclusive of indirect damage. The recurrence of a flood as great as that of 1904 would cause great destruction. 5. Several investigations of the flood situation on this river have been made at various times and several plans for flood control have been suggested. These include a project for a reservoir above Minot which would store flood water and make it available for irrigation and two different plans for a flood way to carry the destructive high waters through Minot. The cost of these plans for flood control was roughly estimated at one or two million dollars. These plans were made without the aid of detailed surveys and the estimates of cost are only approximate. The district engineer estimates that a suitable survey for the determination of the best plan and the preparation of an accurate estimate of cost would require the expenditure of $15,000. Local interests desire that the Federal Government devise a plan for the solution of the flood-control problem and pay the cost of carrying out such a project. Aside from the general concern of the National Government for the conservation of its resources and the safety and prosperity of its citizens, Federal interests are involved only to the extent that this is an international stream and that some cooperation with the Dominion of Canada in the solution of the flood problem may be desirable. 6. The district engineer concludes that the United States is not justified in undertaking a flood-control project on this river, either alone or in conjunction with local interests, but that it is justified in cooperating with local interests in the preparation of adequate plans and estimates of cost. He recommends that a survey be authorized for this purpose, at an estimated cost of $15,000, subject to the condition that one-third of this amount be contributed by local interests. The division engineer concurs in the recommendation that a survey be authorized, but recommends that the United States bear the entire cost. 7. The report of the district engineer has been referred, as required by law, to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and attention is invited to its report herewith agreeing in the views of the division engineer. 8. After due consideration of the above-mentioned reports, I concur in the recommendation of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. From the information now available it appears probable that the benefits resulting from flood protection in the valley of the Mouse River would be almost entirely local. However, the solution of these problems may require some cooperation with the Dominion of Canada, and Federal participation appears to be justified to the extent of bearing the cost of the survey. I therefore report that a survey of the Mouse River, N. Dak., is deemed advisable, with a view to the control of its floods, at an estimated cost of $15,000. O LYTLE BROWN, Major General, Chief of Engineers |