mission, which the Department transmitted to the Congress on June 17, 1959, and which constitutes the major part of Senate Document No. 65 of the present Congress.

It was agreed when President López Mateos, of Mexico, visited Washington in October 1959 to call this second international structure Amistad Dam, "amistad" meaning friendship.

I have spoken of the precise location of the dam because this explains why authorizing legislation is required. The Senate understandings, which are in effect a part of the treaty of 1944, limit the authorizing effect of the treaty, so far as the major storage and flood control dams on the Rio Grande are concerned, to the three sites first mentioned, and require the prior approval of the Congress for construction of a major storage dam in any other site. Amistad Dam would be located at another site, and hence the prior approval of the Congress is necessary. The proposed legislation represents that prior approval. Thus, the Governments, the two Governments intended in the treaty of 1944 to authorize the construction of this dam, and but for this requirement regarding precise location, the treaty would have done so. Once the prior approval of the Congress is expressed, the dam can be constructed under the treaty as though it were expressly authorized by the treaty like Falcon Dam.

The need for Amistad Dam is urgent. It is needed to protect lives and safeguard property in the United States and to conserve the optimum feasible quantities of the waters of the Rio Grande for the United States and Mexico. This was vividly demonstrated in the flood of September 1958. At that time it became necessary to make releases at Falcon Dam far exceeding the capacity of the downstream channel of the river. The total value of flood damages in the United States and of losses of waters to this country in 1958, both of which the Amistad project would have prevented, amounted to approximately $47,600,000, a figure almost equal to the U.S. share of the total cost of the Amistad project.

The dam is urgently needed also to fulfill our obligations to Mexico. The treaty of 1944 obligates the United States to join with Mexico in the construction of the dam. Although the treaty does not speak of timing, the circumstances of recent floods create a sense of urgent obligation. In the flood of 1954 untold numbers of Mexican citizens lost their lives, and greater numbers lost their homes. In the 1958 floods Mexican citizens, like their American neighbors, experienced extensive property damages. The United States ought not to be in the position, in the event of another disastrous flood that will surely come, of having delayed a project that might save many Mexican as well as American lives and homes.

1959.

With these considerations in mind, the Presidents of the United States and Mexico met in Acapulco, Mexico, on February 20, "Convinced," as they announced

that it would benefit both countries further to harness the waters of the river which is their common boundary the two Presidents were in agreement as to the desirability of constructing the [so-called] Diablo Dam on the Rio Grande at a site which has been agreed upon by the International Boundary and Water Commission and they hope to conclude an agreement for the construction of the dam as rapidly as possible.

The conclusion of this agreement awaits the enactment of such a bill as that the committee is now considering. The President accordingly

urged the Congress, in his budget message on January 18, 1960, to enact such legislation promptly.

In order that each Government, and in the case of the United States particularly the Congress and its committees, might have some firm concept of what the other Government was prepared to accept in the way of a joint endeavor, the Commission concluded minute No. 207. By this minute, the Commission agreed that the second major international storage dam, if built, should be built at the location and have the general characteristics described in the minute. The committee can, therefore, by reference to this minute, observe that the Government of Mexico would probably be willing to conclude an agreement to participate in a joint international project of the nature envisaged and described in the feasibility report of the U.S. Section of the Commission.

The Department of State submitted this feasibility report to all interested agencies of the Federal Government, as well as to the Governor of Texas. Their comments, copies of which have been furnished the Congress and are printed in Senate Document No. 65, were all favorable to the project.

The Bureau of the Budget recommended that legislation to authorize the dam require appropriate repayment by local interests of irrigation and water supply costs if the project is operated for these purposes. This is a matter for the determination of the Congress, a matter in which the Department of State is not directly concerned. It is noted, however, that the Congress did not impose such a requirement in the case of Falcon Dam. The Department hopes if such a requirement is considered, the Congress will find a way to accomplish its purpose without delaying construction of the dam.

The Department of State recommends enactment of H.R. 8080 with those modifications that have been suggested to the committee. The Department's letter of September 11, 1959,1 mentioned these modifications and explained the reasons for them. U.S. Commissioner Hewitt, who is present, is best qualified to testify in detail concerning them. I will discuss at this time only one of the modifications recommended by the Department. H.R. 8080 would require that the dam be operated so that the amount of water now available for use by existing lawful users of the United States below Falcon Dam shall not be impaired or diminished. The Department has no quarrel with the objective of this provision.

Inasmuch, however, as the U.S. Commissioner will supervise operation of the dam for the United States, the bill implies that he must control releases in such a manner that the objective will be accomplished. The bill so interpreted would be inconsistent with the practice of the Commissioner and the position of the Department, adopted in conformity with understanding (c) of the treaty of 1944, that he not directly or indirectly alter or control the distribution of water in the United States. The Department believes that the U.S. Commissioner should be restricted to international functions to the extent practical, and that he should not be made responsible expressly or by implication for control of the distribution of U.S. waters in Texas. The U.S. Commissioner concurs in this position. The Department

See app. IV, p. 269.

has accordingly recommended a substitute for the first sentence of section 3 which will achieve the objective, it is believed, and at the same time avoid imposing a strictly domestic function upon the U.S. Commissioner. The proposed substitution does so by placing the responsibility for this control on the State of Texas, which presently controls the distribution of the U.S. share of the waters of the Rio Grande below Fort Quitman, Tex.

I also want to take advantage of this statement to make a slight modification in the substitute language proposed by the Department for insertion in section 3. It has been noted that the language as proposed by the Department would leave no leeway for the U.S. Commis sioner in responding to requests for water from the State of Texas. There might be occasions when the U.S. Commissioner as a practical matter would be unable to comply. To correct this fault, the Department recommends that after the words in part (a) of the substitute "shall be made," the words "pursuant to order by" be deleted, and the following words inserted: "whenever practicable, consistent with the requisitions of." This alteration does not change the intent of the amendment as originally presented, but is merely perfecting language.

It would seem desirable too, for the purpose of perfecting the language of section 2 of the bill, to replace the phrase "in accordance with" in the first paragraph with the phrase "consistent with." An agreement with Mexico providing for the independent development of power by each country might be reached which would be consistent with article 7 of the treaty of 1944, but which might be regarded as not altogether in accordance with it. Those who drafted the article seem to have contemplated joint international development of power, if the International Commission should so recommend. This modification, it is believed, would render the bill entirely consistent within itself, as well as remove any possibility of misunderstanding of the intent of the Congress.

The Bureau of the Budget requested the Department to bring other suggestions for modification to the committee's attention. The Department complied by furnishing the committee a copy of the Bureau of the Budget's letter to the Department of September 2, 1959.2

Permit me to close with the observation that it is somewhat unusual for the Department of State, as for this committee, I believe, to be involved in the construction of dams. The occasion arises, of course, from the international character of the project. The Department would not want the committee to conclude that the Department of State is entering into the construction business. The Department of State merely exercises foreign policy supervision over the U.S. section of the Commission, which is an integral part of the international body. The Commission, consisting of two very able engineers representing the United States and Mexico and having many capable technical advisers, will in accordance with the treaty of 1944 supervise construction of the dam. This arrangement was originally an experiment in international organization designed to satisfy a peculiar need in our relations with Mexico. So outstanding has been its success, particularly in the construction of Falcon Dam, that it can no longer

2 See app. IV, p. 271.

be regarded as an experiment. It has worked. It is today a model for study and emulation by other countries confronted by a similar need. The two countries are indeed fortunate that they have this international body to undertake the Amistad Dam project, which is still another and even greater project in international cooperation and in joint development of an international river.

The Department of State is most appreciative of the committee's evident willingness to give this bill and the Amistad Dam some measure of priority. We shall be glad for any opportunity to assist the committee in its consideration of the project. Commissioner Hewitt has testified for both the Department and the United States part of the International Commission. Departmental officials will be available to assist him and the committee in any possible respect.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SELDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Osborne.

I note that the Bureau of the Budget, in its letter of September 2 to the Secretary of State, which is on page 151 of Senate Document 65, stated it would reserve comment on the Department's proposed amendment to section 3, saying that it had requested the views of the Department of Justice.

Do you know whether or not those views have been obtained and, if so, whether they were received by the Department of State?

Mr. OSBORNE. They were received very late last week. They made only the comment that if the first perfecting amendment that I have suggested here were introduced into the bill, they would find the bill satisfactory. So this perfecting amendment meets

Mr. SELDEN. If the perfecting amendment that you have suggested is included in the bill, then your original amendment to section 3 is satisfactory with the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. OSBORNE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. FASCELL. No questions.

Mr. FISHER. I would observe as far as the author of the bill is concerned, I can think of no objection that would be made to the suggested amendment as that has been described.

Mr. SELDEN. Is that also true as far as the suggested amendment is concerned?

Mr. FISHER. I haven't studied that, but I think so.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Kilgore.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. Chairman, in the first place, I think the statement is a very fine statement. The amendment which modifies it, I take it, would modify the authority of State with respect to the release of waters and is one I am not sure that I understand the full import of. I wonder if you would tell me right where it appears again so I can write it in here?

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Kilgore, if you have a copy of the committee print, you will find the suggested amendments have been written in in italic. You may be able to follow it better if you will refer to the committee print.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. Osborne, do you have any idea what would be the nature of a request which would not be practicable or practical?

Mr. OSBORNE. It is at least theoretically possible that the State of Texas might ask for more water than there was available in the dam for release for irrigation purposes.

Mr. KILGORE. Is that the only contingency that you are seeking to approach here?

Mr. OSBORNE. To be perfectly honest, it is not directed to any particular contingency. This is the only one I could think of. The problem here is that the Commissioner has responsibilities regarding the release of water for various purposes, hydroelectric power, flood control, irrigation. As it appears in this original print, it would appear that he would have to release water on every occasion when the State of Texas asked him to. Obviously you couldn't require him to release water when it isn't practicable to do so.

If that wasn't specifically stated in the draft-that is the only contingency that I have thought of. Maybe you know of others.

Mr. KILGORE. I know of no others. I was thinking if that is the only one, perhaps it could be approached with more clarity by making the limitation whenever available or whenever water was available, so there would be no possibility that some years hence there could be an interpretation that the limitation is broader than is now intended.

Mr. OSBORNE. The only difficulty is that we don't know what will happen in the future. The Commissioner, as far as release of water for irrigation purposes is concerned, is obviously going to follow the desires and needs of Texas. If we bind him too much in this respect, events might arise that we can't now anticipate.

Mr. KILGORE. Do you know whether or not such events have arisen with respect to the operation of Falcon?

Mr. OSBORNE. I don't believe they have.

Mr. KILGORE. The question occurs to me, the treaty limitation which in the first part of your statement you make reference to, the limitation on the authority of the United States and the recognition of the vesting of that authority by treaty in the State of Texas, is it not possible that the limitation you are now suggesting may be inconsistent with the original treaty provision and with your objection to the language of the bill which seeks to place some U.S. control over what the treaty recognizes as a purely State authority?

Mr. OSBORNE. I don't believe so. What we are talking about here, it seems to me, is more mechanics than substance. The mechanics of how the Commission may release at given times and so forth is something that we can't anticipate 50 years hence.

However, the intent of both the bill and the treaty is that Texas shall make the distributions of the water and there is no question whatsoever about that.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want to belabor the point at this time. I think perhaps it might be well to note that I don't think that the courts have ever indicated there should be a construction placed upon language which would require an officer to do something which cannot be done, which is inconsistent with matters of practicality as to life and safety, and I would prefer to have an opportunity to discuss this further with the committee.

Mr. FASCELL. That raises a question. I haven't seen the treaty provision. If it involves the use of water that would be available and the determination of the discretion on the Commissioner as to whether it is to release it on demand to the State of Texas, I think it is something that we should get straightened out right away. It either must or need not.