Chairman MORGAN. The gentleman's time has expired. Any further questions? Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Van Ness, what was the position of the Great Lakes Commission in reference to the Chicago attempt to divert the water of Lake Michigan? Mr. VAN NESS. The Commission, as such, took no position in this matter because we felt that was a matter particularly between the State of Illinois and those States that wanted to join in this action against the State of Illinois. I might tell you that it is the hope of the Great Lakes Commission that through the cooperative effort these States getting both sides together and getting them to sit down across the table and talk about these things that we may ultimately come up with the final solution of this thing which has been in the courts for 40 to 50 years and has never really been completely solved. Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, sir. Mr. Collander, at the meeting of the port directors held in Chicago last week did the representatives of the city of Chicago participate in that meeting? Mr. COLLANDER. Yes, sir. Captain Manley and Mr. Max Cohn both. Mr. MURPHY. Who is the official representative; Captain Manley? Mr. COLLANDER. Yes, sir. Mr. MURPHY. He was a party to it? Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, sir. Chairman MORGAN. Any further questions? If not, thank you, Mr. Vigorito and Mr. Collander. Our next witness is Mr. James A. Fitzpatrick, chairman of the Power Authority of the State of New York. Mr. Fitzpatrick, will you introduce your two colleagues because we don't have their names on the witness list here. STATEMENT OF JAMES A. FITZPATRICK, CHAIRMAN OF POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, on my immediate left is the general counsel of the power authority, Mr. Thomas Moore, and on my right is Mr. Scott Lilly, assistant counsel. Chairman MORGAN. Thank you, sir. Mr. Fitzpatrick, you have a prepared statement and you may proceed. Mr. Farbstein. Mr. FARBSTEIN. If you please, I would like very much to advise the members of the committee that it was my great privilege to serve in the State Legislature of New York with Mr. Fitzpatrick. He was a shining light there and I am sure he will prove one here, also. The only difference between his appearance now and then was that he had more hair then. Otherwise, I think he has done quite well as chairman of this commission. Even though he is a Republican he always was and still is a very good friend of mine. I am pleased to introduce him and his members, the members of his group to the committee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman MORGAN. Thank you, Mr. Farbstein, for your eloquent remarks about the witness. Mr. Fitzpatrick, you may proceed, sir. Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Farbstein, Mrs. Kelly, members of the committee, may I first thank my former colleague for his very gracious remarks. It is a pleasure to be here with him and have this opportunity to be before you today. I would like to first thank you, sir, for scheduling this hearing today since I was involved in court last week and was unable to appear. May I say at the outset that I agree completely with the remarks that were made by Mr. Frelinghuysen and I believe that I can answer his question; I hope that I can. In the first place, may I say, sir, that we are here opposing this bill for two principal reasons; one, because we think that it is completely unnecessary, this Commission having operated very well over the past 11 years and with the full knowledge and consent of Congress, certainly; second, we are very much afraid in the event that this legislation is enacted that it will create a precedent which will be extremely harmful to the Power Authority of the State of New York which has vast interests, which extend, may I say, Mr. Chairman, into your own State where we supply all of the electric cooperatives under a recent allotment of power, into the State of Vermont and to all the areas that are affected by our interconnecting electrical grid. To answer first the question, Mr. Frelinghuysen, that you asked with respect to Canadian participation, I invite your attention to the fact that these bills do just exactly what you were afraid they will do, they withhold the consent of Congress to that provision of the compact which would allow cooperation with Governments of the United States and Canada, the party States, and any public or private agencies or bodies having interests in or jurisdiction sufficient to affect the basin or any portion thereof. I would also be interested, and I had not seen the statement until a moment ago, I read the statement of Mr. Collander and he refers to the International Association of Great Lakes Ports, and I am wondering if this association has congressional consent. I would doubt it. If it does not have it and if consent is going to be needed, in the event that there is any exchange with Canadian ports, then I respectfully submit that Mr. Collander may find that his port association needs congressional consent. I don't think it does. I think this might be the logical flow through from the argument he makes. I would like to tell you briefly, and I have a detailed statement, I know that you are busy and I don't intend to go through all of it, but I would like to tell you a number of things that I think are important because I think there have been some not intentional but unintentional incorrect statements made before the committee. Our agency has been referred to as a private agency. Mrs. Kelly and others from New York know we are a State agency. We are a State organization. We have five trustees appointed by the Governor of New York and we have been charged with the responsibility of developing simply the Messina-St. Lawrence development, the hydroelectric development, and the Niagara development. In connection 70-234-66 with these developments we have invested approximately $1,100 million worth of private investors' money. We have raised all this money by tax-exempt bonds and we have a schedule of power development and contracts which must of necessity repay these bonds. We, therefore, are extremely interested in anything that affects the flow of water or the impounding of water or peaking of water in our operations because it is essential to us that this orderly flow continue. I think nothing has demonstrated with greater clarity the need for cooperation with Canada in this regard than has the most recent blackout, and the action taken subsequent to that time when the Northern Power Coordinating Council has been formed in which the Canadian entities are direct parties. In connection with our day-byday operation of the power authority we must of necessity deal daily with the Canadian entities. Under those two commissions there are separate bodies with which we deal, with the knowledge and consent of the International Joint Commission, on a day-by-day basis. You find, for instance, that it is necessary for us to have day-by-day, hour-by-hour differences in the regulation and availability of water which can affect our capacity to generate electricity. We, therefore, have constant dealings with the Canadians on a very workmanlike basis, which are all, we think, jeopardized should this bill become law. Why is this legislation necessary. I, for instance, have myself served as a chairman of an international commission. I was Chairman of the International Commission on the Lake Champlain Basin. I was Chairman for two terms. We dealt with the Canadians from time to time in connection with the Richlieu and representatives of the State Department were our guests. We never had any difficulty. We are very much in favor of international cooperation and have one of our trustees who is a member of the New York delegation to the Great Lakes Commission. Incidentally, that New York delegation voted unanimously against advocating that Congress give its consent to this particular legislation. We feel as I believe you have pointed out, Mr. Frelinghuysen, that there is nothing that this Commission can do in our opinion that it cannot now do if Congress gives its consent, and if Congress gives its consent there are a number of things that it cannot do which are extremely important certainly to us but also to the Commission and I should think, gentlemen, to you who represent the respective States: because if I understand the position which has just been propounded here it has been urged that you give more prestige to this Commission and you give a congressional blessing to the Commission. The other day someone suggested you should say "amen" to the Commission. I don't believe you should give blessing to something that you know has been in existence and working effectively for 11 years. I don't think if you put your imprimatur on this Commission and it becomes federally oriented you perhaps wish to have this Commission speaking as a single voice for eight States when, as it is now comprised, it can reflect the individual opinions of the States to Congress, after consultation with you the individual Members of Congress. In other words, now it is a medium for expressing the States' opinion to Congress. You don't want it, I don't believe, as an addi tional arm of Congress reporting to Congress. There are very many points that we can make here with respect to this entire matter. This Commission unquestionably now is not within the definition of a compact which requires congressional consent. The Story on the Constitution, book 3, chapter 3, says that "a compact is a contract between parties which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced." There are no obligations and rights capable of being enforced that this Commission has. Therefore, if it is not a compact it does not require or need the consent of Congress. The argument has been advanced that if this Commission were given-two arguments that I understand have been advanced-if this Commission were given congressional consent it can do two things. The first is that their employees will become entitled to social security. I can't believe that there isn't another solution to providing social security for the employees other than having the Congress of the United States place its consent on a contract which eliminates the opportunity to deal on an informal and cooperative and productive basis with Canada. Second, it is pointed out, as I understand, again, the argument was made here this morning, that if the Congress gives its consent to this legislation that in that event the Great Lakes Commission will have an opportunity to appoint a member to the Great Lakes River Commission under the Water Resources Planning Act. We respect fully submit that in the first place if there is a desire for interlocking directorates or interlocking exchange of information in this regard that the Governor of any one of the States may appoint members from the existing Commission. Secondly, we would like to point out that we believe that Congress has already given sufficient consent to permit the selection of a representative from this Commission to go on the Great Lakes River Basin Commission. In 1911 there was a statute passed which in effect provided that the consent of Congress of the United States is hereby given to each of the several States of the Union to enter into any agreement or compact, not in conflict with any law of the United States, with any other State or States for the purpose of conserving the forests and the water supply of the States entering into such an agreement or compact. We feel for the purpose of preserving water, which is the principal purpose for which the Great Lakes Commission was organized, we think this general consent would be sufficient at least to permit them to have a member on this other body if their membership is actually desired by Congress. Which in turn raises another interesting point because this statute which refers to membership refers to bodies to which Congress has given its consent. I don't know whether this means has given it prior to the enactment of the statute or thereafter. But in any event it raises the question whether Congress did not intend to limit membership and participation to those bodies which were of sufficient substance and dealt in sufficiently substantial decisions to qualify for membership on this Commission, if you see what I mean. In other words, did Congress intend that any group that met and had congressional consent irrespective of whether it simply investigated or actually took action should be a member of this Great Lakes Commission? I do not know. In any event here again we say that these are the only two reasons that we can really point to why this group is urging that Congress give its consent. If you look at the two bills, there is one other thing I would like to point out, with due deference to Congressman Zablocki. The Great Lakes Commission, which is the principal proponent of this bill, has in effect passed a resolution. The principal proponent of your act, Mr. Zablocki, has passed a resolution which reads as follows: Be it resolved by the Committee on Consent that the revised consent bill be approved by the Commission and presented to appropriate congressional representatives for introduction into Congress; that the Commission do everything possible to attain approval in Congress; that we include that we would oppose any substantial changes in the bill while in Congress; and if any substantial changes are made, that the bill be referred back to the Commission for further consideration. Sir, your bill had already been introduced in Congress at the time this resolution was passed. This resolution in effect recommended a revised bill which would eliminate the provision which you have in your bill for Federal participation by a representative. Therefore, this resolution would seem to directly exclude your particular bill. We have always been, particularly we who have legislative experience, somewhat dubious as as to how Congress would go about sending back to the body a piece of legislation for its approval in the event that Congress changed it. Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman. To clarify the chronology, was not this resolution passed, however, after the Congress had enacted the Water Resources Act? Mr. FITZPATRICK. I think that is true, sir. Mr. ZABLOCKI. Without going into semantics it is very necessary to take note of the words "substantial changes". Mr. FITZPATRICK. I think whether there is or is not a Federal representative is a substantial change. May I say that our trustee having been on the Commission Mr. ZABLOCKI. Then would you have no objection to the bills that were introduced that do not contain that provision? Mr. FITZPATRICK. Yes, sir. Mr. ZABLOCKI. You still have objections? Mr. FITZPATRICK. We have objections to both bills. We have objections primarily because they limit the opportunity that the commission has to deal with the Canadians on an informal basis and on a basis which is being most useful. Just one more point with respect to that, if I may, and if I am taking too much time I know you will tell me so, in the event that there is any change made in this compact, and both of these bills, all of these bills make changes in this compact, in the event that there is any change in this compact of necessity it no longer becomes the compact which was originally approved by the eight member States. It would of necessity have to go back to the States for reratification. What would happen to the Commission? The Commission would be a nullity in the interim in my opinion and it might take a number of years, since all the legislatures do not meet annually, for the States to again ratify in the event that they determine to ratify. I think to sum up, sir, and if I may I would just like to very quickly give you our main points, and then conclude and answer any questions |