Great Lakes compact does not encroach on Federal power to handle international affairs. Let me say right here, as plainly and forcefully as I can, none of us as States, whether acting singly or collectively, want or intend to encroach upon the constitutional powers of the Federal Government. We all are aware and recognize that the Federal Government has an important interest in the Great Lakes not only in the regulation of commerce, but also in the handling of foreign affairs with Canada. Upon the formation of our present Federal Government with the adoption of the Constitution, the States delegated to the Federal Government the sole right to manage all foreign affairs. Certainly it would be foolhardy on our part as States to interfere with this power which is wholly and completely confined to the United States. Nevertheless, both as States and citizens, all of us have an interest as to how our foreign affairs are conducted, and all of us have a right to express our views, but none of us, either as a State or as an individual has the right or the power to engage in or to handle the diplomatic affairs that our Nation must conduct with other nations. So, let me lay to rest any fear that the Great Lakes Commission, which is nothing more than a consultative and recommendatory body, ever intends to usurp any of the functions of the State Department. Our record is clear that whenever we desired or felt it necessary to discuss Great Lakes problems with our Canadian neighbors and friends we have done so with the advice and consent of officials of the State Department. Now, why do we seek consent of Congress to this compact? There may be those who say that under the Constitution the consent of Congress is not necessary because this compact in no way interferes with or impinges upon the sovereignty of any of the States. or the Federal Government. There are those who say that even though congressional consent may not be constitutionally required, nevertheless it is desirable. My purpose here is to present to you just one reason why the consent of Congress not only should be sought, but should be secured. In March of 1962 the then director of the Great Lakes Commission, Mr. Marvin Fast, was appearing and giving testimony before Senator Clinton P. Anderson, chairman of the Committee on Insular and Interior Affairs, with respect to S. 2246, 87th Congress, 1st session, the Water Resources Planning Act. Senator Anderson inquired as to whether the Great Lakes compact had received congressional consent and upon being informed that it had not received such consent, requested an opinion from the Attorney General of the United States, as to whether such consent was constitutionally necessary. On May 22, 1962, the Great Lakes Commission received a communication from Senator Anderson, attaching a copy of a memoranda of opinion from Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Deputy Attorney General. After reviewing the constitutional problem, Mr. Katzenbach concludes: Such an agreement, which could result in actions of great importance relating to a major navigable waterway over which Congress has broad legislative powers, and which may affect both the substance of and the proper channels for conducting our international relations with Canada, potentially affects "substantive federal interests." Hence, in my opinion, it requires Congressional consent under the Compact clause. Since, under Virginia v. Tennessee, supra, Congressional consent may be given subsequent to the entering into of a compact, it may be that certain preliminary organizational steps could properly be taken prior to action by Congress on consent legislation. I express no opinion with respect to the lawfulness of any particular action that may have been taken to date under the Compact. Of course, all Federal officials feel an obligation to abide by the ruling of the Attorney General. In fact, the Social Security Administrator has definitely ruled that until Congress consents to this compact, he cannot recognize the employees of the Commission for social security purposes, based upon a ruling dated September 15, 1961, from Wilbur J. Cohen, Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, addressed to Hon. Charles Halleck of the House of Representatives. We earnestly feel that Congress, in consenting to this compact among the eight Great Lakes States, is at the very most saying "amen" to these eight States who have created a forum for the purpose of deliberating, consulting, and recommending to each other with respect to the many and varied problems arising out of the development and utilization of the waters of the Great Lakes. In fact, these States should be applauded for their cooperative efforts and should be encouraged to assume and discharge their common responsibilities. May I conclude my statement by urging you to give speedy and favorable attention to H.R. 9327 and companion bills? At this point I would like to call attention of the committee to references in previous hearings and they are these: Hearings before the subcommittee of the Committee of the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, S. 1416, March 26-27, 1958, at page 66. There appears on that page a letter from New York, a statement on Great Lakes Basin compact signed by Edward T. Dickinson, commissioner, New York State Department of Commerce, expressing consent-that is, expressing his State's approval of the consent of Congress to the compact. At the same hearing, on page 78, there is a statement beginning on that page and extending through to page 86, a statement of Charles Schwan, Jr., Council of State Governments, the Washington representative, who appeared here for the New York State Joint Legislative Committee. He says: This committee feels very strongly that they should like to see this compact approved by the Congress and they make their point in the statement that the policymaking agencies of the government and the State of New York, the Governor on the one hand, and the legislature on the other, are clearly on record as favoring the compact. Another reference is to hearings here before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs with reference to H.R. 4314 and other bills, on July 30, 1957, and August 5, 1958. On page 97 of those hearings appears a letter from Gov. Averell Harriman to the Honorable Thomas E. Morgan, Committee on Foreign Affairs, expressing his approval of the compact and asking Congress to consent. This concludes my formal statement. Chairman MORGAN. Thank you, Mr. Olds. Mr. Whitcomb, the Great Lakes compact apparently has been in business since 1955. Why is this legislation necessary now? Mr. WHITCOMB. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to Senator Van Ness of the State of Indiana and who has been a member of the Commission. STATEMENT OF JOHN W. VAN NESS, COMMISSIONER ON THE GREAT LAKES COMMISSION Mr. VAN NESS. First I would like to say that this Commission has. no desire to, or any right to infringe upon the activities or the prerogatives of any department of the Federal Government, and since its inception has cooperated with these various departments and I refer specifically to the State Department, because that question has been raised here this morning. True, we have had relationships with Canada solely on an informal basis and after completely informing our State Department of what we were proposing to do. There is already a provision in Congressman Zablocki's bill, as well as the other bills which have been discussed here, which precludes the approval of Congress to the two Provinces of Canada entering into this compact. This is a matter that is strictly foreign affairs and over which we have no legal right to take action. This does not mean that we have not been helpful and have not accomplished certain things through our activities with Canada, because we have. We have been able to stir up interest on both sides of the border through the Great Lakes Commission on this side of the border and through our informal contacts on the other side of the border and I think there is no doubt but what some of the interest stirred up by the Great Lakes Commission resulted in the two references which the Congress has made to the International Joint Commission, one on the lake levels,. and the other on pollution. The bill protects the Federal Government from any encroachment by the Great Lakes Commission or the State members. Now, why are we asking consent? True, in the past this matter has been up. It has never been pushed very hard until this time. The main reason for this is the 1965 Water Resources Planning Act which says in effect that an interstate compact body may have membership on this if it is approved by Congress. This is good and sufficient reason for this matter to be presented to the Congress and for the request of the State for approval thereto. If this job or these problems relating to the Great Lakes are solved, it is going to take the nth degree of cooperation between Federal Government and the States. The Great Lakes Commission is in a position to further this cooperation and to help solve these problems. That, Mr. Chairman, is the main reason for asking for consent at this time. Chairman MORGAN. Thank you, Senator Van Ness. Mr. Olds, are you aware of any opposition to this legislation in the State of Michigan? Mr. OLDS. Actually, there is no opposition in the State of Michigan, sir. Chairman MORGAN. Are you or Mr. Whitcomb aware of any opposition in any of the States which have ratified the compact? Mr. WHITCOMB. There is some opposition from a private concern in the State of New York, I have been advised, but at this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record letters from the Governors of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. I would like further to introduce the "10th Anniversary Statement of the Great Lakes Commission," and further clear the record where I stated that the Governor of Illinois had specifically written that he favored the compact approval by the Congress. The letter which I have from Governor Kerner does not relate that information. However, Governor Kerner's appointee is a very active member of the committee which is now seeking consent of Congress. Chairman MORGAN. Without objection, they will be incorporated in the record, sir. Mr. WHITCOMB. Thank you. (The material referred to follows:) Mr. EDGAR D. WHITCOMB, Ann Arbor, Mich. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Springfield, Ill., December 10, 1965. DEAR MR. WHITCOMB: Thank you so very much for the report and the conclusions of the Commission with reference to the provisions of Public Law 89-80. I am delighted with the conclusions that the Commission is necessary and could work in cooperation with the objectives of the Great Lakes Commission. This has been my feeling all along. I assure you of my support. Sincerely, Col. L. J. GOODSELL, Executive Director, Great Lakes Commission, OTTO KERNER, Governor. DEAR COLONEL GOODSELL: Senate Bill 2922 sponsored by fourteen senators of the Great Lakes basin states, and House Resolutions 937, 12294 and five other H.R.'s identical to H.R. 12294 have been introduced in the Congress. All of these bills would grant the consent of Congress to the Great Lakes Basin Compact. The Great Lakes Basin Compact and its operating entity, the Great Lakes Commission, have been in existence more than a decade studying, advising and making recommendations on matters concerning the water resources of the Great Lakes basin. All of the eight Great Lakes states have ratified the Compact and are full participating members. The Great Lakes Commission has served the states well in maintaining a regional perspective. The purposes of the Compact embrace all uses of water and related land use and the Commission has been instrumental in bringing about many key actions contributing to the over-all well being of the region and its important water resources. The Commission is wholly state supported and represents a pioneer effort in the regional approach to water use and planning. Recently I became a party to a request for the establishment of a river basin commission under Title II, Public Law 89-80, the Water Resources Planning Act, which will concern itself with the planning of water resources use and development in the Great Lakes basin. It is my belief that the river basin commission will be effective in coordinating the federal agencies in their planning in the Great Lakes basin and will work to permit the states and the Great Lakes Commission to have effective voices at the planning conference table. The Great Lakes Commission will operate to complement and implement thework of the planning commission. Please be assured that I am in full accord with your efforts to obtain the consent of Congress for the Great Lakes Basin Compact, and I wish you the fullest measure of success. Sincerely, ROGER D. BRANIGIN, Governor. STATE OF MICHIGAN, Mr. FRANCIS A. PITKIN, Chairman, Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, Mich. DEAR MR. PITKIN: I am glad to have your letter relative to my initiation of proceedings for the establishment of a St. Lawrence River-Great Lakes river basin commission, and to know of the interest being taken in this matter by your Executive Committee. I conceive the respective functions of the proposed river basin commission and the Great Lakes Commission to be closely complementary and reciprocally advantageous, and can appreciate your Executive Committee's desire to accord the proposal careful attention at this stage of developments. Although concurrence in this proposal has already been received from the Governors of three other states, I do not foresee action so early as to prevent full opportunity for that attention. I should, in fact, wish the Great Lakes Commission to explore the matter thoroughly so that it may be in the best possible position to help shape the further course of proceedings in the interests of all concerned. Full coordination in water resources development planning, such as is afforded by P.L. 89-80, is particularly urgent for Michigan with its more than one-half the United States' land area, water area and shoreline of the Great Lakes and its great consequent dependence upon the continued well-being of these unparalleled resources. It is my hope that such coordination will be found equally desirable by the States that may be less uniquely dependent upon the Great Lakes than Michigan but surely no less concerned with the fullest possible realization of their potential for sustained usefulness. Sincerely, GEORGE ROMNEY. STATE OF MINNESOTA, 1966. Mr. EDGAR D. WHITCOMB, Chairman, Great Lakes Commission, DEAR MR. WHITCOMB: I have been asked whether I favor enactment of legislation pending in the Congress which would give consent to the Great Lakes Basin Compact. This is now embodied, I understand, in somewhat varying form in a number of bills and resolutions, including S. 2922 and H.R. 12294. I have no hesitancy in saying that I would like to see consent given in appropriate terms though my position is not grounded on a particular bill or proposal. The Great Lakes Commission created by the Great Lakes Basin Compact, in its more than a decade of existence, has been an effective forum for the exchange of views among the member states. As an agency of these governments, I believe it is increasingly important. Especially now, with state and federal attention focused on water resources, its future and prestige should be assured. It seems to me formal consent should not be withheld even though executive and legislative awareness of its purposes and work may be deemed tacit, defacto consent. I was one of the governors who asked for the establishment of a river basin commission under Title II, P.L. 89-90, the Water Resources Planning Act, which will plan water resource use and development. The Great Lakes Commission should, and I am sure will, complement the work of the river basin commission, giving to the latter a most significant, respected, and experienced voice in the councils of the state. You may say that I favor the consent legislation, and to the end of its enactment use this letter in appropriate way. Yours very truly, KARL F. ROLVAAG, Governor. |