Mr. JOHNSON. Is there any other statement on the part of the other witnesses with you? Colonel PINNELL. I believe not, sir. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Colonel. Then we will turn to the next item on the agenda here, which is a matter dealing with contracts for other Federal agencies. And Mr. Lester Edelman will be the witness. STATEMENT OF LESTER EDELMAN, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FOR LEGISLATION, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS Mr. EDELMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am Lester Edelman, Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Office, Chief of Engineers. I have been designated to present the views of the Department of the Army on the proposed legislation to authorize the Chief of Engineers, under the supervision of the Secretary of the Army, to accept orders from other Federal departments and agencies for work or services of any kind that he may be in a position to supply or to render or to have performed by contract. Section 601 of the Economy Act of 1942, as amended, authorizes the issuance of requisitions by one agency or department upon another for the furnishing of supplies or services which the requisitioned agency or department is in a position to furnish. That act also permits certain enumerated agencies and departments, including the Department of the Army, to requisition supplies or services from another department or agency when such department or agency can obtain them by contract. Government departments or agencies to which this permission does not specifically extend are restricted to requisition orders which the agency requisitioned is in a position to supply or equipped to render without resort to contracts with private suppliers. However, specific statutory authority has been granted in a number of cases to Federal commissions, departments, and agencies to request other agencies to furnish services and material by contract. Thus, legislation involving NASA, the Area Redevelopment Administration, Atlantic-Pacific Interoceanic Canal Commission, the Office of Emergency Planning, and AID has included such authority. In a number of instances the Corps of Engineers has been in the position of having to advise other Federal agencies that it was unable to perform requested work for lack of authority to contract, despite having sufficient capability and in some instances actually performing similar work in the area. It is our view that it would be in the public interest, particularly in emergency situations, that the Chief of Engineers be in a position to accept such requests and to perform such services as are necessary without restriction as to contract authority. Mr. JOHNSON. Are there any questions to my right? Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question? Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Baldwin. Mr. BALDWIN. Is the Corps of Engineers in favor of this provision? MI. EDELMAN. Yes; it is. Mr. BALDWIN. To be included in the omnibus bill? Mr. EDELMAN. Yes; it is. Mr. BALDWIN. Has this been cleared likewise by the Bureau of the Budget? Mr. EDELMAN. No; it has not been cleared by the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. BALDWIN. Has it been submitted to the Bureau of the Budget for its comments? Mr. EDELMAN. No, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I have a general feeling that on a proposal of this breadth that it might be advisable to ask the Bureau of the Budget for its comments on it before this committee goes into executive session. And I think we should do so either by letter of the chairman of the committee addressed to the Budget Bureau for further comments on it, or by asking the Corps of Engineers to submit such a request to the Budget Bureau for their comments. Just so that we have some basic knowledge of whether or not there is a strong objection by the Bureau or what its position is. We may not take the Bureau's position, but I think we should get its views for consideration. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Edelman, would you furnish that information to the Bureau of the Budget? Mr. EDELMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. JOHNSON. So that we can have a report back here from the Bureau of the Budget prior to executive session here in the committee on the bill? Mr. EDELMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. JOHNSON. I might say that I think it is a very necessary one. And you cite the instance where the Forest Service made a request to the Corps of Engineers for assistance. And I know there are probably many areas in that same general disaster area that probably made the same requests. And in that particular instance I imagine that certainly I would be in favor of it, and I presume every other member of this committee would. Now, whether it would be agreeable to all agencies, that will have to be determined by the Bureau of the Budget. Are there any other questions? Mr. BALDWIN. I hope that the corps will mention to the Bureau we specifically would like their comments within the time available, by the deadline of when we go into executive session, which I understand will be in 2 weeks. Mr. JOHNSON. Two weeks. Mr. BALDWIN. Yes, sir. Mr. EDELMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. JOHNSON. Are there any other questions? We want to thank you, Mr. Edelman. Mr. EDELMAN. Yes, sir. (Letter from Senator William Proxmire follows:) JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, August 3, 1965. Hon. JOHN BLATNIK, Chairman, Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, DEAR JOHN: I wish to thank you and your subcommittee for allowing me to present my reasons for supporting the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway deicing study. Since shipping first became important on the Great Lakes the potential benefits of year-round navigation have been abundantly apparent. Raw materials and manufactured goods could be transported during every month of the year. Stockpiles would not have to be built up during the summer months for use during the winter months. Seasonal unemployment would be reduced or eliminated in the many industries which rely on Great Lakes water transportation. Higher costs associated with land transport during the winter would be avoided. The opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway increased the potential benefits enormously. Great Lakes ports have become international ports joined by ocean freight and passenger lines to seaports on every continent. Benefits accrue not merely to the Great Lakes States and to the Midwest, but to the entire Nation through cheaper and easier transportation. Yet, with the coming of winter, the vital artery to the heart of the continent is choked shut. The Great Lakes ports are abruptly isolated. Their harbors become idle. Commerce and industry must find other, more expensive means of transport or else remain inactive until summer comes. In this age of science and progress, when the United States sends satellites into space and launches probes to distant planets, it is unthinkable that a thin sheet of ice should continue to stand in the way of year-round shipping on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. It is essential that comprehensive studies be conducted of all possible means to make year-round navigation a reality. Even an inroad of a week or two or a month in the present long ice blockade would be of great benefit. Certainly many problems must be solved before success is achieved. However, as the Senate Committee on Public Works stated in 1963, "any new information which ultimately leads to a further understanding of the control of our water resources would be of national benefit," and "if no work is continued in this area there never will be a chance of making a technological breakthrough." It was my privilege in the 88th Congress to introduce a bill providing for such a study. The then Senator Humphrey, of Minnesota and Senator Nelson, my able colleague from Wisconsin, joined with me as cosponsors. My bill was passed by the Senate on June 25, 1963. Similar bills were introduced in the House by a number of Representatives, including you. Although the House Public Works Committee reported favorably on the proposal, no action was taken by the House. Early in this Congress I again introduced a bill having the same purpose. A number of my Senate colleagues, from both parties, joined with me as cosponsors. Under the guidance of the distinguished and forward-looking senior Senator from Michigan, Mr. McNamara, the substance of the bill was included in the omnibus rivers and harbors bill, S. 2300. The Senate passed the bill on July 27. Several House bills embodying the proposal are now before your subcommittee. I know you and your colleagues will give the proposal the thorough consideration which it deserves. I am confident that after committee consideration the House of Representatives will join with the Senate in authorizing this first step toward year-round navigation on the Great Lakes and through the St. Lawrence Seaway. Sincerely, WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Mr. JOHNSON. The last item on the agenda here is to hear from witnesses on the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses. Colonel Lang? STATEMENT OF COL. EDMUND H. LANG, RESIDENT MEMBER, BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS AND SECRETARY, AMERICAN SECTION, PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NAVIGATION CONGRESSES (PIANC), ACCOMPANIED BY MISS CAROLINE A. ANTONY, STAFF REPRESENTATIVE Colonel LANG. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Colonel Lang, resident member of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and secretary of the American Section of the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses. I will be I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you. assisted by Miss Carol Antony from the staff of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. She is the person most familiar with PIANC records. I would like also to submit a summary report upon this proposed change in authorization. Congress appropriated funds on June 28, 1902, for support of the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses. In 1934, it transferred the earlier continuing appropriation to the "Rivers and harbors" appropriation for the purpose of obtaining an annual review. Section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1948 authorized an increase in PIANC funds from $3,000 to $5,000 a year. Of this, $1,500 is an annual subsidy towards expenses of the General Secretariat in Brussels. PIANC has for its objective the promotion of progress in inland and oceangoing navigation. It holds international navigation congresses at 4-year intervals and publishes technical bulletins and documents in as many as six languages. Membership of the Association comprises governments, corporations, and individuals. Governments, such as the United States, may be represented by a maximum of 10 delegates. Membership of the American Section consists of 66 corporations and 709 individuals; 123 Americans attended the Stockholm Congress. The $5,000 annual authorization was sufficient prior to the time when a change in procedures required PIANC to fund the overseas travel of official U.S. delegates and of individuals charged with special missions. These latter include the expenses of a reporter-general to a congress and of members of technical committees. The proposed amendment will authorize the Chief of Engineers to make available $10,000 per year, which is believed to be the bare minimum needed to support U.S. official representation at a congress held in Europe. If a congress is held in Asia, additional authorization must be requested. U.S. official representatives to PIANC receive no compensation for their services, but the law provides for payment of their expenses. Funds authorized have not permitted the payment of expenses for all. A number of those with Government agencies having a direct interest in work undertaken by PIANC have had their expenses paid by the agency. Others have been forced to meet their expenses from private funds. PIANC activities mean must to the United States in that they often affect technical features of our navigation projects. They provide a first indication of problem areas, and of a need for change. They provide an opportunity to learn of advantageous developments elsewhere along with the benefit of critical discussion by outstanding experts. The record shows a close relationship between PIANC publications and the technical treatment of navigation works built afterward. The Chief of Engineers and the Department of the Army recommend the legislation. The Bureau of the Budget offers no objection. Sir, this concludes my statement. Mr. JOHNSON. Are there any questions on my right? Any questions on my left? Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Baldwin. Mr. BALDWIN. I would like to ask one question of Colonel Lang. Colonel Lang, I notice that included in the studies made by this organization are problems relating to the construction of superships. Colonel LANG. Yes, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. Now, we have the situation here in the United States of ships being built by a number of foreign countries, such as Japan, with draft of 50 feet or more, and those ships, when they first come into our harbors, are lucky to even get in the main harbor, let alone into any dock area. And I have been recently concerned about the seeming lack of any organized plan by the various nations toward coordination in the type of draft depth involved in the ships being constructed. Now, I realize we cannot prevent any private company or private shipbuilder from building a draft to 100 feet if he wants to, but yet he should be interested in the views of the countries involved, because he is not going to be able to use that ship very effectively unless there is cooperation on the part of the countries involved to keeping in mind depths of berths and channels. And I would like to ask to what extent have you actually been able to resolve this problem on any kind of a coordinated kind of a program or plan? Colonel LANG. Sir, this is a very interesting question, for several reasons. The matter of depths has been considered at past congresses and are in the record. Prior to the Congress in Stockholm, which finished last month, a letter was sent to the executive offices in Brussels asking that the subject be considered in view of Mr. Fallon's speech raising the question about the tremendous cost of deepening channels, the fact that we have many ports in the United States, and that deepwater ports along the east and the gulf coasts are all manmade. Only Portland, Maine could accommodate the Great Eastern, which drew 30 feet when she was built. In General Wilson's report to the Secretary of State upon the meeting of the Permanent International Commission and the XXI International Navigation Congress he includes a brief discussion of this topic. While nothing could be resolved about limiting depths, I think it important to present the information obtained as a result of PIANC contacts. The topic was considered both by a special committee and then as the unscheduled part of a subject discussed in the Stockholm Congress. I might say that the topic was recognized as being of much interest to the United States, but there was a general belief by representatives present from other nations that it was a subject wherein international agreement was neither necessary nor desirable. General Wilson's report summarizes the results of the discussion on the floor of the Navigation Congress: The subject of limiting the depths of harbors and ports due to the increasing drafts of superships was discussed in conjunction with section II, subject 2. The official views will be sent to the American section by letter from the Executive Committee. In general, the Congress doubted that PIANC is the proper organization to attempt establishment of a limitation on harbor depths when sub |