[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21939-21940]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO BOUNDARY CHANGE BETWEEN GEORGIA AND SOUTH 
                                CAROLINA

  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 62) to grant the consent of Congress to the 
boundary change between Georgia and South Carolina
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 62

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CONSENT OF CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--The consent of Congress is given to the 
     establishment of the boundary between the States of Georgia 
     and South Carolina.
       (b) New Boundary.--The boundary referred to in subsection 
     (a) is the boundary--
       (1) agreed to by the State of Georgia in Act Number 1044 
     (S.B. No. 572) approved by the Governor on April 5, 1994, and 
     agreed to by the State of South Carolina in Act Number 375 
     (S.B. No. 1315) approved by the Governor on May 29, 1996;
       (2) agreed to by the State of Georgia in Act Number 1044 
     (S.B. No. 572) approved by the Governor on April 5, 1994, and 
     agreed to by the State of South Carolina in an Act approved 
     by its Governor not later than 5 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this joint resolution;
       (3) agreed to by the State of South Carolina in Act Number 
     375 (S.B. No. 1315) approved by the Governor on May 29, 1996, 
     and agreed to by the State of Georgia in an Act approved by 
     its Governor not later than 5 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this joint resolution; or
       (4) agreed to by the States of Georgia and South Carolina 
     in Acts approved by each of their Governors not later than 5 
     years after the date of enactment of this joint resolution.
       (c) Compact.--The Acts referred to in subsection (b) are 
     recognized by Congress as an interstate compact pursuant to 
     section 10 of article I of the United States Constitution.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 62.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just as in the previous matter, we are given the duty and 
responsibility now of giving our stamp of approval to the States of 
Georgia and South Carolina to an agreement that they have reached 
relative to a boundary problem that has existed for a long time between 
those two States. This goes back, as I understand it, historically to 
the Beaufort Convention of 1787, even before the Constitution as we now 
know it came into existence.
  But, in any event, whatever the nature of those disputes were, we 
have come to a point now where, in seeking the approval of the 
Congress, those two States are conforming to the constitutional process 
and we find no impediment at all in granting consent by the Congress to 
those two States for the proposition which they have brought to us.
  More fully will be discussed, I am certain, this whole set of 
circumstances by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).
  Ms. DANNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 62. With this 
legislation, we fulfill our constitutional obligation to review and 
grant our consent to compacts between States.
  I will not belabor the details of this matter. They will be more 
fully stated by my colleague from Georgia.
  The States of Georgia and South Carolina have worked out their border 
dispute to their mutual satisfaction, and it deserves our support.
  The bill was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary by unanimous 
consent, and I am aware of no opposition.
  I urge the adoption of this measure.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to my 
colleagues on House Joint Resolution 62, a resolution to ratify an 
interstate compact that corrects a long-standing border dispute between 
the States of Georgia and South Carolina.
  It is not every day that Congress deals with borders between States. 
Sometimes it seems that borders are some of the only constants in the 
changing social and political landscape of America.
  Nevertheless, Georgia and South Carolina come to Congress today to 
settle a dispute that has gone as high as the United States Supreme 
Court concerning their common border where the Savannah River meets the 
sea.
  The issue at hand is essentially a product of time and geography. The 
original line between the States was set in 1787 at the Beaufort 
Convention. Much of the interior of the two States had not been 
surveyed, and officials had not even dreamed of the precise coordinate 
systems of today.
  Therefore, the delegates to the Convention used the natural landmarks 
they have available and set the boundary as the northern branch of the 
Savannah River, reserving all islands to Georgia. This line has stood 
in question for 140 years until 1922, when the Supreme Court clarified 
the line in a case between Georgia and South Carolina involving the 
stage of the river that should be used to determine the boundary.
  In this decision, the Court stated that where there were islands in 
the Savannah River, the boundary would fall at the midpoint between the 
island's bank and the South Carolina bank at normal stage. Where there

[[Page 21940]]

were no islands, the border would fall at the midpoint between the two 
banks at normal stage.
  In the years following this decision, the obvious question arose 
concerning whether islands that had formed since the Beaufort 
Convention automatically belong to Georgia or to the State in whose 
territory the islands would have fallen at the time of the Convention.
  Dredging performed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the Savannah 
River and additional questions involving the mouth of the river further 
complicated the border dispute.
  The expansion of the Port of Savannah and the economic interests in 
the region began to be disrupted by the confusion.

                              {time}  1630

  Finally, Madam Speaker, in 1990 the Supreme Court decided the issue 
by assigning the particular set of islands in dispute, the Barnwell 
Islands, to South Carolina. Further, the Court found that the Beaufort 
Convention did not control the islands formed in the river since its 
ratification. The Court directed the States to draw up new boundary 
agreements based on these principles. The two States have worked with 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, using the best 
mapping and surveying equipment available to set a boundary that is in 
keeping with the Court's findings.
  It is this new agreement that we bring before the House today. H.J. 
Res. 62 ratifies the boundary agreed upon by both States and codified 
into law by both State legislatures. The line runs roughly along the 
center of Savannah River and incorporates the findings of the Supreme 
Court in its latest decision. I understand that there are some 
discrepancies between the authorizing bills from the two States, but I 
believe that this resolution will allow Congress to approve the 
agreement while giving the States the flexibility to make any final 
corrections that may be necessary.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for 
his hard work on this legislation and the gentlewoman from Missouri 
(Ms. Danner). This joint resolution satisfies the Constitution's 
requirement that Congress ratify all interstate compacts. I hope that 
the House will look favorably on our States' efforts to legally clarify 
our borders using today's sophisticated mapping technology, and I 
appreciate this opportunity to address the Nation that uniquely affects 
the people of my State.
  Ms. DANNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing, I would like to add my personal appreciation, vote of 
thanks, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas). As my 
colleagues know, a number of people are not involved, and this 
legislation is perhaps not terribly important to great numbers of 
people, millions of people, but to those people to whom this does apply 
this is a very important piece of legislation, and I want to express 
publicly my appreciation to the chairman of the committee for all he 
has done to bring this bill forward in such a timely manner; and we are 
deeply appreciative, and we thank you so much.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume 
only to allow the Record to reflect that we also appreciate the efforts 
of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking minority 
member on our committee, who helped to shepherd this whole issue to 
both the hearing stage in our subcommittee and to the point where we 
now seek the final approval of the Congress of the compact in question, 
and also to David Lachman and to other staff members, some of whom are 
better known than others to us, but nevertheless to whom we are all 
grateful.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 62.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the joint resolution was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________