E

Mr. FULTON. Why is that?

Mr. SMITH. I am not certain why that is, sir.

Mr. FULTON. What should it be?

Mr. SMITH. I suppose the consideration of the authors of that part of the legislation was that this would tend to take the compact into the field of international relations.

Mr. FULTON. If the compact sets the agreed terms and the policies for this basin, why is it then not just administrative rather than setting foreign policy? So why couldn't the Province of Ontario and the Province of Quebec be part just as if they were States?

Mr. SMITH. I think that is entirely possible, Congressman. All I am really saying is that the legislation as drafted would not permit it. Mr. FULTON. I am going beyond that and saying yes, they might be members. I hear what you say, but I am looking for the reasons. Why are the two Provinces of Ontario and Quebec excluded if within the policy set overall on foreign policy they simply act in carrying out administratively in conjunction with the U.S. States.

Mr. SMITH. It is not a question, Mr. Fulton, that we have gone into in detail. But I can envisage some very serious problems that might arise.

Mr. FULTON. Rather than take the time would you put a statement in the record because I would like to see that.

Mr. SMITH. I would be very happy to.

(The information requested appears on p. 111.)

Mr. FULTON. I would like the emphasis placed on interested States and Provinces, if we can get it, rather than dealings between two countries. I would like to see the Lake States and Provinces work out within a level of foreign policy already set between the two countries what the administrative dealings are and how they arrive at consensus. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. O'Hara.

Mr. O'HARA. You have aroused my interest, sir. Of course, we all understand definitely that a compact between or among the States must be approved by the Congress. Do you know of any compacts in which the members in addition to being American States are States of foreign governments? Are there any such compacts?

Mr. SMITH. I know, sir, of two. There is a northeast firefighting compact which provided for membership by the Province of New Brunswick as well as certain States of the United States. It is my understanding, however, that the Province of New Brunswick has never actually become a member. There is legislation before the Senate at the moment that would grant the assent of Congress to a compact between the State of Minnesota and the Province of Manitoba. It has to do with the construction of a road through a portion of Manitoba to the northwest angle of Minnesota. That has not been approved, but if approved, it would involve a State and a Province. Those are the only two I know of, sir.

Mr. O'HARA. I wonder if you would mind preparing a statement for the record on that?

Mr. SMITH. I would be very happy to, sir.

(The material requested appears on p. 111.)

Mr. O'HARA. The first question seems to me that the State of Illnois or Michigan or any State cannot deal with a foreign government directly. Isn't that practice a little bit violative of that principle?

Mr. SMITH. I think one of the problems that would arise, Congress man, is that before a Province of Canada would enter into such a compact or before we would want to advocate it anyway, we would want to consult the National Government of Canada as to its views. The views of the Government of Canada have not been sought by us on this pending legislation.

Mr. O'HARA. Then you think that we should seek out the views of the Government of Canada.

Mr. SMITH. If the legislation is going to provide for possible membership by a province; yes, I do.

Mr. O'HARA. Then in presenting this bill to the Congress, it should be accompanied by a statement from the State Department incorporat ing the reply from the Government of Canada.

Mr. SMITH. Yes; I think that is right, sir.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. If the gentleman would yield, is it not for this very reason that the State Department has requested that restrictions be included in the legislation concerning the relations of the Commission. with Canada?

These provisions were not incorporated in the legislation as drafted back in 1958. It was then that the State Department ordered that the Great Lakes Basin compact would not enter into agreements with the Provinces of Canada, but would deal through the State Department in order to safeguard U.S. foreign policy. The gentleman is correct, we do not want Michigan or Wisconsin to enter into an agreement with any bordering Provinces of the United States without approval of the Federal Goverment. That is the reason for this language in the present bill. The current letter from the State Department does not touch on this matter because all of the present bills under consideration contain this restrictive language.

Mr. O'HARA. The question is really whether a compact approved by the Congress can contain members of the compact States that are not American States. We can say, yes, here are these States of the Great Lakes region, they are entering into a compact and we approve that. But can we say also the compact shall or may have representatives of other, and of foreign states. I do not know.

of

Mr. ZABLOCKI. If the gentleman would yield, I think that is the rea son for this legislation; that is, to approve the eight States entering into a compact. It is necessary for Congress to give its approval under the Constitution. Would the gentleman care to comment? It is a technical question.

before

Mr. SMITH. It is a highly technical question. I want to be sure there is no confusion on it. The point I was trying to make was this: If the legislation is to grant congressional assent to possible memberships in the compact by a Province or Provinces of Canada, then this is a point that the State Department would want to take giving its views on the legislation. It would want to take it up with the Government of Canada, because the constitutional relationship between Provinces and the Federal Government in Canada is not identical with our constitutional relationships.

up

Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Fulton.

Mr. FULTON. Because I have the view that the two Provinces should be included, would you then ask the Government of Canada for such a statement, please, so that the State Department will supply that to us? Mr. SMITH. I would be very happy to take it up with the Canadian Government.

Mr. FULTON. If the decision is made on behalf of the U.S. Government that in dealing with the Dominion of Canada, that it will be necessary to deal with the Dominion Federal Government itself rather than with either or both of the Provinces, then why doesn't the same condition apply on the obverse side of that coin? My point is this: If that is the policy of the State Department vis-a-vis Canada on operations on foreign policy with the Dominion of Canada, then why is the compact necessary on the U.S. side, because it will then be the Federal Government making the actual decisions anyhow. All the compact States can do in the final result means rather than having an agreement that means anything, they can only make protestations or presentations to the U.S. Department of State.

What do you say to that?

Mr. SMITH. I am not entirely clear, sir, exactly what the question is. Mr. FULTON. You are saying that the U.S. Department of State in relation to Canada deals with the Federal Government of the Dominion of Canada, and deals with them alone and does not have anything to do with the various Provinces. If that is the case, what does this compact do among American States, since it puts in the hands of the U.S. State Department the full negotiations, so that all this compact between States means is that it is a method of either protesting to the U.S. State Department or making presentations to the State Department because the final result is that the U.S. State Department and the Foreign Office of the Dominion of Canada make up their minds what it is and that is it.

Mr. SMITH. Only, I think, sir, insofar as questions of international relations are concerned.

There are a great many other problems, I understand, the States would be working on among themselves that do not involve directly the interests of Canada.

Mr. FULTON. There is nothing that can be done in the Great Lakes Basin that will in any way affect foreign relations that the U.S. State Department is not engaged in directly.

Mr. SMITH. That is right, sir.

Mr. FULTON. I do not see how with the international dividing line going down the middle of the lakes in many cases you can have any action by the States on the U.S. side without affecting foreign policy and the Dominion of Canada. It would be so small that the effect of this compact would be limited on that theory to merely presentation and protest to the U.S. State Department.

Mr. SMITH. I think the language of the bill envisages cooperation certainly with the Government of Canada. We think there are times when we could facilitate this. Our policy is not to be an impediment to a solution of problems but rather to facilitate solutions.

Mr. FULTON. Why can't each U.S. State individually approach the State Department and do just as well as having membership in a com

pact that looks binding ahead of time, but requires, according to State Department policy, individual and detailed approval each time any problem comes up.

Mr. SMITH. I wonder, sir, if that is not a question that ought to be addressed to the members of the compact rather than to me.

Mr. FULTON. You are representing the State Department and we are discussing State Department policies. I would say the people who are making presentments should have these positions clear in their minds. That is all.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Zablocki.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Is my understanding correct that although the Province of Ontario and Province of Quebec are named in the Great Lakes compact with the agreement of eight of the States, section 2 and the new section 3 I have mentioned are intended to limit the extent of the participation in the Great Lakes Basin compact of the Provinces from Canada?

Mr. SMITH. I think that is correct, sir, although neither Ontario nor Quebec is now a member.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Of the Commission?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct; yes, sir.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Could they be members if this legislation is passed!

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR DOWNEY, ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF THE
LEGAL ADVISER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Downey.

Mr. DOWNEY. Sir, with respect to section 2, this legislation expressly withholds the consent of Congress to that provision in the compact which would make it possible for the two Provinces to become members of this compact. Therefore, if this legislation is passed as it is in this form the two Provinces may not become parties to the compact.

Nevertheless, in the other sections or in that same section 2 of the bill, there is express provision for cooperation between the Commis sion as a whole and the Government of Canada or its political subdivisions, which would include the Provinces. It is certainly envisaged that there will be strong cooperation on questions dealing with the Great Lakes between the States and the Provinces on the condition, however, that it has prior approval of the State Department, merely to be sure that, in any particular mode of cooperation or endeavor between the two entities, it would not otherwise interfere with our relations with the Government of Canada.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Is my understanding correct that the Province of Ontario and the Province of Quebec have met with representatives of the States?

Mr. DOWNEY. There may have been informal meetings between them as individuals. But, under the legislation as it is now, it is impossible without the further consent of Congress for the two Provinces to become formal parties to this compact.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. And that is the purpose of (b) under article II? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Fulton.

Mr. FULTON. As an attorney, I like to get definitions of words that have rosey tints and beautiful hopes. What technically does the word "cooperation" mean? What actions can be taken under the word "cooperation," or is it simply a friendly touching of fingertips across the Great Lakes by the various States in the Commission and the two Provinces of Canada?

Mr. SMITH. I will try to answer that, sir.

Mr. FULTON. Put a statement in the record.

Thank you, that is all. We will save time that way.
(The material requested appears on p. 111.)

Chairman MORGAN. Are there any further questions? If not, thank you, Mr. Smith and Mr. Downey.

The Chair wants to insert in the record, if there are no objections, at this time the reports from the Departments of State, the Army, Justice and Commerce on the bills before the committee concerning the Great Lakes Basin compact.

(The reports referred to follow :)

Hon. THOMAS E. MORGAN,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, July 15, 1966.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of March 1 in which you requested the Department's comments on H.R. 937, H.R. 12294, H.R. 12299, and H.R. 12692, granting the consent of Congress to a Great Lakes Basin Compact. In Section 2 of H.R. 937, we suggest that the second and third conditions under which consent is granted to paragraph L of Article VI of the compact be amended to express the role of the Department as stated in the first condition, and to delete the reference to only the United States Section of an international commission. These conditions would then be as follows:

"(2) cooperation with an international commission or agency having jurisdiction in the basin shall be extended only through or with the approval of the Department of State; and (3) proposals to any such international commission or agency shall be submitted only through the Department of State."

The letter "J", should be inserted between "B" and "and" in the last sentence of Section 2 of this bill to cover paragraph J of Article VI of the compact. With these amendments, the Department would have no objection from a foreign relations viewpoint to H.R. 937.

The other three bills which you enclosed (H.R. 12294, H.R. 12299 and H.R. 12692) are identical. We suggest that the second and third conditions with respect to paragraph L of Article VI of the compact, in Section 2 of each of these bills, be amended in the same manner as set out above concerning H.R. 1937. With that amendment the Department would have no objection from a foreign relations viewpoint to these three identical bills.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

DOUGLAS MACARTHUR II,

Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
Washington, D.C., August 5, 1966.

Hon. THOMAS E. MORGAN,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of the Department of the Army with respect to H.R. 937, H.R. 12294, H.R. 12299 and H.R. 12692, 89th Congress, bills "Granting the consent of Congress to a Great Lakes Basin compact, and for other purposes."

70-234-66