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, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 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. 937. 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 These bills would grant the consent of Congress with certain limiting qualifications to the creation of a Great Lakes Commission by the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The Commission's powers include the gathering and publication of information; making recommendations with respect to the orderly and balanced development, use, and conservation of the water resources of the Great Lakes Basin; considering the means of improving fisheries and navigation; recommending legislation to the States; and cooperating with the United States Government and other public bodies. The interests of the United States are protected by the provision in Section 3 of the bills that nothing in the compact shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or powers of any department or agency of the United States or of any international commission or agency over or in the Great Lakes Basin. In addition, the bill provides that the Commission shall be solely a consultative and recommendatory agency which shall cooperate with the agencies of the United States and shall report annually to the Congress and to the President or to any official designated by the President. H.R. 937 differs from its companion bills in two respects. First, it deletes Section 3 of those bills, which provides that Congressional consent to the proposed compact shall not be construed to either limit or sanction other relations, working arrangements, or agreements of the participating States with each other or with the concerned Canadian provinces. Second, it adds a provision, in the substituted Section 3, for Presidential appointment of a Federal representative to the Commission who would have all rights and privileges of a member except the power to vote and who would report to the President and the Congress. The Department of the Army has no objection to the enactment of any of the subject bills. The Department notes that consideration is presently being given to the establishment of a "Great Lakes River Basin Commission" pursuant to Title II of the Water Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962b). If such a body is constituted and the Commission established by the subject bills is called the "Great Lakes Commission" there might be some confusion in the names of the two Commissions. It is recommended, therefore, that the body established by these bills be called the "Great Lakes States Commission." The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the Committee. Sincerely yours, Hon. THOMAS E. MORGAN, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. STANLEY R. RESOR, GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Washington, D.C., August 19, 1966. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your request for the views of this Department concerning H.R. 937, H.R. 12294, et al., bills "Granting the consent of Congress to a Great Lakes Basin Compact, and for other purposes.” All of these bills would grant the consent of Congress to any and all of the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to enter into a Great Lakes Basin Compact to establish and maintain an intergovernmental agency, designated the Great Lakes Commission, for the conservation and development of the water resources of the Great Lakes Basin. It further provides that the Povince of Ontario and the Province of Quebec may be a party to this Compact. Each party State may be represented by a maximum of five commissioners, who shall serve without compensation, with expense to be borne by the State of representation. The Compact shall be binding on each party State until renounced by act of the legislature of such State. The power of the Commission is restricted solely to that of a consultative and recommendatory agency which shall cooperate with the agencies of the United States, report annually to the Congress and to the President, make available to the Federal Government any information within its possession, and provide free access to its records for duly authorized representatives of the Government. H.R. 937 provides that a non-voting Federal representative shall be appointed by the President to serve on the Commission and shall be responsible for submitting a report in writing to the Congress and to the President. The other bills contain no such provision. The Act of July 22, 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1962, et seq.), the Water Resources Planning Act, authorizes the President to declare the establishment of river basin commissions to coordinate comprehensive river basin planning. Pursuant to this authority a Great Lakes Basin Commission is expected to be established this year. That Commission would have a Federal representative. The Department believes that the Compact to which H.R. 937, et al would give consent would be a useful complement to the Great Lakes Basin Commission to be established under the Water Resources Planning Act. However, asignment of a Federal representative to the Compact commission would be undesirable since the Compact commission would complement, not replace, the Great Lakes Basin Commission to be established under the Water Resources Planning Act and there is therefore adequate provision already being made for a Federal voice in Great Lakes Basin planning. Accordingly, this Department recommends against the enactment of H.R. 937 unless Section 3 thereof is deleted. We would have no objection to the enactment of H.R. 937, so amended, nor to the enactment of the other bills pending before your Committee which do not contain this provision. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of our report to the Congress from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, ROBERT E. GILES, General Counsel. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, Washington, D.C., August 10, 1966. Hon. THOMAS E. MORGAN, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice on identical bills H.R. 12294, H.R. 12299 and H.R. 12692, “Granting the consent of Congress to a Great Lakes Basin Compact, and for other purposes." Section 1 of the bills grants, subject to certain conditions, the consent of Congress under the Compact Clause (Art. I, section 10, cl. 3) of the Constitution to a compact between the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. All of them have now adopted the compact. See Council of State Governments, The Book of the States 1964-1965, p. 274. The compact, which is set forth in section 1 of the bills, creates The Great Lakes Commission as an agency of the compacting States. It is composed of not less than three nor more than five commissioners from each State appointed in accordance with the law of the respective State. Essentially, the compact empowers the Commission to study and make recommendations to the compacting States, the United States, the Government of Canada, and appropriate international bodies on the development, use, and conservation of the water resources of the Great Lakes Basin. The compact defines the Basin as consisting of so much as may be within the party States of Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario, St. Clair, and Superior, the St. Lawrence River, and water interconnections between the tributaries to such lakes. Under the compact the Commission's actions are not binding on the party States, but each agrees to consider the compact agency's recommendations on certain matters. A party State may renounce the compact upon six months' notice. The compact also provides that the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec may become parties thereto by taking such action as their laws and those of the Government of Canada may prescribe for adherence thereto. The first sentence of section 2 of the bills attaches to the grant of consent conditions preserving the jurisdiction of the United States or any international commission or agency over any portion of the Basin, and provides that nothing in the consent legislation shall be deemed to establish an international agency or to affect the exercise of any right of the United States. The second sentence of section 2 attaches conditions limiting the compact agency to consultative and recommendatory functions, requiring an annual report to Congress and the President, or his designate, and giving the United States access to the Commission's records. The third sentence of section 2 withholds consent from paragraph B of Article II of the compact (providing that the two Canadian Provinces may become party States) and from paragraphs K and M of Article VI (authorizing the Commission to recommend mutual arrangements expressed by legislation on the part of Congress and the Canadian Parliament on various matters, and to assist, upon the request of the United States, or that of the Government of Canada if a Province be a party State, in the negotiation and formulation of a treaty or other arrangement between the United States and Canada respecting the Basin). The conditions which the third and fourth sentences of section 2 attach to specified provisions of the compact have the effect of requiring the Commission to submit through the Department of State any proposals for cooperation with the Government of Canada and any international body and any recommendations to foreign governments and international bodies. Section 3 provides: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit in any way or to indicate any intention of Congress to either limit or sanction in any way other relations, working arrangements, or agreements of the participating states with each other or with the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The effect of this Act shall be limited solely to the functions and procedures of the Great Lakes Commission." As far as we are aware, no previous grant of consent to an interstate compact has included any such disclaimer as that in the first sentence of section 3 with respect to "other relations, working arrangements, or agreements" of a compacting State with a like domestic or comparable foreign political entity. Presumably the disclaimer in section 3 is intended to leave untouched whatever authority any of the compacting States may have outside the Compact Clause to cooperate with each other or with a comparable foreign political entity with respect to matters relating to the water resources of the Great Lakes Basin. The last sentence of section 3, providing that the effect of the consent legislation is limited to the functions and procedures of the Great Lakes Commission, would seem to support such an interpretation. If we are correct in our understanding of section 3, we have no objection to it. In view, however, of the apparent novelty of section 3, the Committee may wish to ascertain from the appropiate State authorities whether our understanding of section 3 accurately reflects the intention of the States involved. Subject to these comments, the Department of Justice has no objection to the enactment of this legislation. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, RAMSEY CLARK, Deputy Attorney General. Chairman MORGAN. The Chair also wants to insert in the record letters from the Honorable Philip A. Hart, U.S. Senator from Michigan; the Honorable Joseph S. Clark, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania; and Hon. Roger D. Branigin, Governor of Indiana, in favor of the legislation, and comments of the Great Lakes Commission on the State Department's suggestion. (The letters referred to follow :) Hon. THOMAS E. MORGAN, U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., September 26, 1966. Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As the chief sponsor on the Senate side of the current bill (S. 2922) to grant the consent of Congress to the Great Lakes Basin Compact, I am delighted that you are considering consent legislation. The Senate in 1958 and in 1959 passed legislation granting consent to the Commission, and I would foresee no difficulty this year should the House take affirmative action. The Great Lakes Commission which has its headquarters in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has been in existence for 11 years. It is formed by representatives of the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It concerns itself with promoting the orderly, integrated, and comprehensive development, use, and conservation of the water resources of the Great Lakes Basin. Basically the Great Lakes Commission is a deliberative, consultative and recommendatory body. None of its actions or decisions are binding on any state, and of course, none of them are binding on the federal government and/or its agencies. The sole and only purpose of the organization is to provide a permanent and continuing forum where the representatives of the Great Lakes states can come, discuss and consider the problems that face these states in connection with the best utilization of this vast and common resource, and after such deliberation make recommendations as to the solutions which are proposed. In 1962, in response to a request for his views, Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Deputy Attorney General, expressed the opinion that this agreement among the States requires Congressional consent under the compact clause. Accordingly, the Commission is again seeking enactment of consent legislation and I hope that we may soon have favorable action by the Congress. Sincerely, PHILIP A. HART. STATE OF INDIANA, Indianapolis, April 20, 1966. Hon. THOMAS E. MORGAN, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, DEAR DR. MORGAN: Mr. Lee H. Hamilton, Member of Congress from the Ninth District of Indiana, of whom we are all justly proud, has introduced H.R. 14192 which would grant the consent of Congress to the Great Lakes Basin Compact. The bill has been referred to your Committee on Foreign Affairs. The State of Indiana is one of the original five states to ratify the Great Lakes Basin Compact in 1955. Since that time the other Great Lakes states have taken similar action, and all eight now support the work of the Great Lakes Commission. I believe that the Great Lakes Commission has performed a splendid service in advising and recommending on the wise use and conservation of the waters of the Great Lakes and that the consent of Congress will add further to the effectiveness of the Commission's work in the basin. As time goes on and water uses increase, all of us realize more and more the value of this great reservoir of fresh water we have in the Great Lakes. It is my pleasure to solicit your support for H.R. 14192 and related bills, and your assistance in obtaining early and favorable Committee and Congressional action. Thank you very much for your consideration. Congressman THOMAS MORGAN, ROGER D. BRANIGIN, Chairman, Foreign Affairs Committee, DEAR DOC: A number of bills have been introduced in both the Senate and the House to grant the consent of Congress to the Great Lakes Basin Compact. The Great Lakes Basin Commission has made a major contribution to conservation and the proper development of the lakes. As you know, the Great Lakes face a major pollution and resource development problem. The work of the Basin Commission will be even more important in the future. I am a cosponsor of the Senate bill, a copy of which is enclosed. The House bills, of course, have been referred to your Committee. I would be grateful if you would give them your support. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH S. CLARK. |