That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman MORGAN. I just want to say to the committee, this is no new issue. Legislation on this subject passed the U.S. Senate in 1958 and in 1959. The Committee on Foreign Affairs reported a bill giving consent to the compact in 1958. We held hearings on this legislation in 1957 and 1958. There were objections from certain members of the committee, and the bill never came before the House.

This matter has been around for a good many years. This is not a new issue. In defense of the committee, I want to say that the committee has been very busy this year. As you know, we were in session nearly every day on the foreign aid bill until the middle of July. Since the middle of July the committee has acted on a dozen bills-including the Peace Corps. The committee has been busy. This is the only opportunity the Chair has had to schedule a hearing. It also happens that the Great Lakes people are in town this week on some other business, and we thought this would be the ideal time to hear their testimony at this time.

Mr. O'HARA. I think it is an admirable arrangement.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Hamilton.

Mr. HAMILTON. I want to express my appreciation to the chairman for scheduling the hearings at this time.

Although I have no questions of the witnesses, I do want to say to my friends from Indiana, Mr. Whitcomb and Senator Van Ness, that I personally appreciate their work on the Great Lakes Basin compact and their support of this bill and their concern with the problems of the Great Lakes and for their very competent testimony today. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Fulton.

Mr. FULTON. I would like to compliment the chairman, too, for having these hearings when we are all very busy in this particular session. As a matter of fact, we have extended hearings on the foreign aid program as well as other legislation. So it has meant a great difficulty in scheduling some of these other bills that are important as well. There has been a dispute among the States as to whether this Great Lakes Basin compact should be entered into. Are there any disputes now left?

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Fulton, I think that is all in the record. Mr. FULTON. Are there any disputes that you disagree among yourselves now?

Mr. WHITCOMB. There is an objection from the State of New York which will be brought before this committee on October 4-not from the State of New York, but from the New York Power Authority.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to further say that the alternative to regional compacts and studies of this nature is complete Federal intervention. It would appear that the States within the region are very well able to handle these matters and with Congressman O'Hara's objection to regional compacts, it seems to me, to repeat what I said, that the alternative is to let the Federal Government do it.

It seems it might better be done by the States working together. Mr. FULTON. Our State government in Pennsylvania is asking favorable action on the bill, is it not?

Mr. WHITCOMB. Yes.

Mr. FULTON. I am for the bill.

Chairman MORGAN. Thank you, gentlemen.

We have one more witness, Mr. Rufus Z. Smith, Country Director, Canada Department of State. He has with him Mr. Arthur Downey, Assistant Legal Adviser, European Affairs, Department of State. Mr. Smith, you may proceed. I understand that you have no prepared statement. We have a letter here from the Assistant Secretary of State, Congressional Relations, Mr. Douglas MacArthur. I understand you have some comments relating to the State Department's position on this matter.

STATEMENT OF RUFUS Z. SMITH, DIRECTOR FOR RELATIONS WITH CANADA, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That is correct, I have no prepared statement, but I do want to invite the attention of the committee to the letter from Mr. MacArthur, dated July 15. (See p. 45.) It proposed certain editorial changes in the text of the bill with a view to assuring the role of the Department of State in our international relations, and specifically in our relations with Canada. If those editorial suggestions could be taken account of, we would have no objection to the bill. I think perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I might make one further comment on a point that has come up for discussion several times this morning. It has to do with the question of possible membership by the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec in the compact itself. As we read the language of the bill, and I think this is true not only of Congressman Zablocki's bill, but of the other versions as well. Section 2 of the proposed legislation specifically withholds the assent of the Congress to that portion of the compact, namely, paragraph (b) of article II and to paragraphs (k) and (m) of article VI, which have to do with possible membership by the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

That is all I have, sir; I will be happy to try to answer any questions that the committee might have.

Chairman MORGAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I have read the letter from the Secretary very thoroughly and I agree that these changes should be made in the bill. I have no further questions.

Mr. Zablocki.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the suggestions of the Department of State and I will attempt to incorporate them as amendments to my bill when it is being considered in the markup session.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Fulton.

Mr. FULTON. Would you explain a little further your comment on article II, subsection (b)?

Mr. SMITH. Article II of the compact, paragraph (b) provides that the Province of Ontario and the Province of Quebec or either of them

Mr. FULTON. I understand that. Will you explain your position more clearly?

Mr. SMITH. I was simply pointing out, Congressman, that the text of the legislation would withhold the assent of the Congress to that paragraph.

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 Illinois 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, Congressman, 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 incorporating 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 of that. But can we say also the compact shall or may have representatives of other, and of foreign states. I do not know.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. If the gentleman would yield, I think that is the reason 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.

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 up before 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.

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