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. GREAT LAKES COMMISSION, Hon. CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI, INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BLDG., DEAR CONGRESSMAN ZABLOCKI: Thank you very much for affording the Great Lakes Commission the opportunity to review the amendments suggested by the Department of State on H.R. 937, H.R. 12294, H.R. 12299 and H.R. 12692. The suggested amendments are in accord with our previous informal discussions with personnel of the Department of State and are entirely acceptable to the Great Lakes Commission. Sincerely yours, LEONARD J. GOODSELL, (Additional comments were subsequently received from the Department of Justice on H.R. 937, which follow :) Hon. THOMAS E. MORGAN, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, Washington, D.C., October 10, 1966. Chairman, Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice on H.R. 937, a bill "Granting the consent of Congress to a Great Lakes Basin Compact, and for other purposes." Section 1 of the bill grants, subject to certain conditions, the consent of Congress under the Compact Clause (Art. I, § 10, cl. 3) of the Constitution of 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 § 1 of the bill, 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 and 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 § 2 of the bill 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 providing 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 § 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 § 2 withholds consent from paragraph B of Article II of the compact (providing that the two Canadian Provinces may become party States) and 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 § 2 attach to specified provisions of the compact have the effect of requiring the Commission to submit through the federal government and the Department of State any proposals for cooperation with the Government of Canada and any international body and recommendations to foreign governments and international bodies. Section 3 attaches a condition that there shall be a Federal Representative to the Commission with all of the rights and privileges of any other Commission members, but without the right to vote. Section 4 incorporates the customary reservation of the right of Congress to alter, amend, or repeal the consent legislation. The conditions in section 2 protect the national interests and continue to be necessary for that purpose. However, existing circumstances cast doubt on the need for section 3. While the Department of Justice favors generally Federal Representatives on interstate water compact commissions and has recommended provisions similar to section 3 with respect to previous bills consenting to the Great Lakes Basin Compact, section 3 now appears unnecessary because of the imminence of a basin commission for the Great Lakes to be constituted pursuant to Title II of the Water Resources Planning Act, Public Law 89-80. Such a basin commission would provide the needed mechanism for cooperation between the Federal Government and the Great Lakes States Accordingly, the Department of Justice has no objection to the enactment of H.R. 937 with the deletion of section 3, and regards such as preferable to H.R. 12294, H.R. 12299 and H.R. 12692 because of the questions raised by the latter bills and discussed in our letter of August 10, 1966. 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. Permission has been requested and, without objection, granted to include in the record of the hearings a statement by the Honorable Lynn E. Stalbaum, Member of Congress from Wisconsin, who is the author of H.R. 12692 in favor of the legislation; a statement by the Honorable Henry S. Reuss, Member of Congress from the State of Wisconsin, author of H.R. 12299; and a statement of the Honorable Lee H. Hamilton, Member of Congress from Indiana, who is the author of the bill, H.R. 14192. (The material referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE LYNN E. STALBAUM (FIRST DISTRICT, WISCONSIN) TO THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON H.R. 12692, GRANTING THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO A GREAT LAKES BASIN COMPACT. Mr. Chairman, I submit these remarks on behalf of my bill, H.R. 12692, and similar measures which seek the consent of Congress to the Great Lakes Basin Compact. Federal recognition of the Compact would clarify its legal status and permit it to have a delegate on the Great Lakes River Basin Commission now being organized under the Water Resources Planning Act. The new Planning Commission has been charged with the responsibility of designing a coordinated regional program to protect and develop the water resources of the Great Lakes Basin. The Commission faces a host of problems, but the most critical is pollution's inexorable infiltration of the second largest body of fresh water on this planet. The Great Lakes are already succumbing to a septic hemorrhage of pollution from municipal, industrial, and vessel wastes which millions of dollars have failed to tourniquet. More haphazardly distributed millions will do nothing more than subsidize a spectacularly expensive post-mortem-and a tragically convincing demonstration that water is a perishable resource. Either we must conclude that pollution is too powerful for man-or money— to control, or we must mobilize man and money into a concerted battle plan. To most of us, there is no choice. The second alternative must be undertaken and it must be given every possible assistance. The Great Lakes Planning Commission is the instrument which will formulate the campaign-and the Great Lakes Basin Compact could make an important contribution to its fulfillment. The Compact was created in 1955, and its existence acknowledges the interdependence of its member states and their collective dependence on the Great Lakes. Over 11 years, the Compact has amassed a rich lode of information on the problems facing the Lakes-and experience in eliciting the interstate cooperation which is their salvation, The Compact's encyclopedic expertise would give the new Planning Commission a "head start" in its race against total pollution of the Great Lakes. I urge the Committee to approve this consent legislation which will brighten the prospects for the Lakes to enjoy a healthy and useful life for many more generations of Americans. STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN HENRY S. REUSS (WISCONSIN) TO THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 12299, WHICH WOULD GRANT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO THE GREAT LAKES BASIN COMPACT Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to record my support for H.R. 12299, and the other bills which you are considering, which would grant the consent of Congress to the Great Lakes Basin Compact. The State of Winconsin became a party to the Great Lakes Basin Compact in 1955, when five of the Great Lakes states acted in unison to establish the Compact. Since then the other three Great Lakes states have joined. As a result, for more than a decade the Great Lakes Commission, established by the Compact, has been serving the Great Lakes states as adviser and consultant on water resources matters. The Great Lakes Basin contains some of the most valuable resources to be found anywhere in the world. Let me describe them briefly for you: 1. It has a population of over 29 million people-24 million U.S. citizens and 5 million Canadian citizens. 2. Its economic base includes mines, forests, farms, dairies, a score of large, modern cities, hundreds of smaller flourishing communities, primary metal production, the automobile industry, paper mills and an almost endless list of welldiversified industries. The people and industries of the basin provide 40 percent to 50 percent of the tax revenues of the United States Government. 3. The rainfall in the basin averages 30 inches annually, and the water flow through the St. Lawrence River is 160 billion gallons per day. 4. Basin waters are a tremendous source of hydro-electric power. More than six million kilowatts can be generated at Sault Ste. Marie, at Niagara, and along the St. Lawrence River. 5. The St. Lawrence Seaway is a major international and world traffic artery. In the 1966 shipping season more than 48 million tons of cargo will transit the Seaway. Interlake traffic at the Soo Locks approaches 100 million tons; at the Detroit River is more than 100 million tons; at the Welland Canal more than 50 million tons; at the Illinois waterway more than 20 million tons. 6. The commercial fishing catch is valued at almost $7 million annually. 7. If the tally were made, recreation activities, such as boating, fishing, swimming, camping, and hunting, would be found to be worth billions of dollars to the area and the nation. All of these resources depend on the prudent and sensible use of the greatest natural resource of the area-the waters and shorelines of the Great Lakes. This is the primary interest and concern of the Great Lakes Commission. The major water resources problem in the Great Lakes Basin today is to abate and control pollution. Wisconsin has 700 miles of shoreline along the Great Lakes and has within its boundaries eleven percent of the water surface of the Great Lakes. We in Wisconsin are especially concerned with the growing pollution of Lake Michigan. The Lake is particularly vulnerable because there is essentially no flow of water through it-it is estimated that it takes almost 300 years to change its water. Accordingly, any pollutant which enters the Lake will remain there almost forever. In order to assure that Lake Michigan and our other Great Lakes will not die prematurely, it is necessary to use all weapons at hand. The Great Lakes Commission is an indispensable supplement to the activities of local, state, and federal agencies. This is especially true of Lake Michigan which, not being an international lake, is not within the jurisdiction of the International Joint Commission. The Great Lakes Commission can assure effective interstate action. Mr. Chairman, federal consent should be given to the Great Lakes Compact. This bill will require no outlay of federal funds. The Administration has no objection to the bill. It is compatible with present laws and programs and fulfills the need for the interstate and basin water resources planning. Congress should give its consent in short order to the Great Lakes Basin Compact. STATEMENT OF HON. LEE H. HAMILTON (MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM INDIANA) IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 937, H.R. 14192 AND COMPANION BILLS WHICH GRANT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO THE GREAT LAKES BASIN COMPACT TO THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support H.R. 937, H.R. 14192 and companion bills. On March 31, 1966 it was my privilege to introduce H.R. 14192, one of the bills now being considered by the Committee. Indiana was one of the five original states to ratify the Great Lakes Basin Compact, and the Compact became effective in 1955 when the states of Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota, joined together and almost simultaneously passed in the respective state legislatures bills ratifying the Compact. New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio have since taken similar action so that today we have a functioning compact among the eight states. The Compact is wholly financed by the states with state commissioners serving on a voluntary basis without compensation. The Compact and Commission represent a constructive effort on the part of the states to plan together the use and conservation of the water resources and related land areas of the Great Lakes basin. The Commission has consultatory, advisory and recommendatory powers only. It has no regulatory powers and its recommendations are not binding on any of the participating member states. The member states were, and still are, concerned with the two most pressing problems in the Great Lakes region: (1) water quality management and (2) fluctuations of the water levels of the Great Lakes. There are many other problems and matters of concern in the basin (commerce and navigation; port operations; fisheries; recreational activities; promotion and development; shoreline use; wildlife; industrial development; parks; city and municipal activities; and many others), but, by and large, these matters are so closely associated with the two major problems that they must react or respond to the solutions to the major problems. In other words, water along with transportation and waste disposal will continue to be the major determinant of the development policies recommended by the Commission. I believe that one the greatest services that has been performed by the Great Lakes Commission is that of anticipating and recognizing water resources problems and insisting that these problems be assigned for study and solution to an appropriate agency or entity. The Commission has been instrumental in encouraging and stimulating much of the activity now underway on water resources use, development and conservation in the Great Lakes area. During these hearings the question has arisen as to why the Great Lakes Basin Compact needs the consent of Congress? I should like to list a few of the reasons why I believe Congressional consent is necessary: (a) The Commission provides a forum for discussion and interchange of information among the states, regional interests and the federal government. Congressional consent will provide recognition and assist in promoting the efforts of the people, the states and the region to resolve differences and solve problems on water resources matters. (b) To comply with the provisions of the Consent Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Great Lakes Basin Compact should have the consent of Congress (Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution). The Attorney-General of the United States has stated that, in his opinion, the Compact requires the consent of Congress. There is no reason why the status of the Compact should be left in doubt. (c) Congress in enacting PL. 89-80, the Water Resources Planning Act, provides for including interstate compact commissions whose compacts have been given Congressional approval on river basin planning commissions when established. If such a planning commission is established for the Great Lakes basin, I'm certain no one could or should logically exclude the Great Lakes Commission. |