ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

letter the captain referred to from Mr. Bell to me, is supposed to be here, and I suspect he will be needed to answer some of the questions, I wonder if he could come up, too.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. We welcome you, Ambassador. I want to explain a little more clearly why we are having this meeting today.

Naturally, our committee is responsible for the operation and the maintenance of the Panama Canal. When we see the employees of the Panama Canal so disturbed, that for the first time in 60 years they go on a sick-out, or an unauthorized strike, letting some 100 to 160 ships pile up waiting to go through a canal, then we have to take action.

We were able to stop the first threat of a sick-out for a week, during which time I made pleas of the White House and the President's aides, as well as the Secretary and the Under Secretary of the Army, to do something to relieve the tension under which all of these employees were working. The tension has lowered their morale to the point where they did not know what to do. It only takes one or two hotheads, as you know, to start problems, and they did start them, in much and for a whole week the employees were out with expenses piling up on our shippers, with the ships lying out at sea, and I would say all this through the fault of a proposal to change the wage scale of the lowest echelon of employees in the Panama Canal Company.

The employees have nothing to do with the lack of ships going through the canal, so why should they have to pay in order to lower canal expenses?

I think the proposal of the Personnel Policy Board was a very uncalled-for proposal. The workers have still not been told what is going to happen to them, with respect to the proposal. They are still in a state of unrest, and if something does not happen soon, the burden of all of this is going to be right on the President of the United States. I told him that, and he knows it.

This President spent 25 years here in the Congress, and when he was here, he voted as we did against these give-aways that are going

on.

We just have to do something soon. I do not think I have to tell you my opinion of what is going on with the treaty, because I have fought it openly, but fairly, in all these years since talks on it were begun, since right after the 1964 riots.

I think we had much to do with stopping the 1967 treaty, which was bad enough. This new draft treaty is going to be worse from what we hear.

Now, I want to have you give the committee and the officers of the Panama Canal Company, who are here with some of the Board Directors of the Panama Canal Company, everything that you can possibly give us in confidence, and if you feel that you cannot, say these things in open session then we will take a vote on closing this meeting so that you can talk freely.

We have never violated the conference, at least those of us who have been here over the years, and who have gone through, since 1964, the problems of the Panama Canal Zone. So if you wish, I shall ask unanimous consent that we close the hearing, if the members also wish it.

79-367 O - 77 - 27

STATEMENT OF HON. ELLSWORTH BUNKER, AMBASSADOR AT LARGE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE; ACCOMPANIED BY MINISTER S. MOREY BELL, DEPUTY NEGOTIATOR AND COUNTRY DIRECTOR FOR PANAMA, DEPARTMENT OF STATE; MICHAEL G. KOZAK, ESQ., ATTORNEY-ADVISER, OFFICE OF THE LEGAL ADVISER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE; LIEUTENANT GENERAL WELLBORN DOLVIN, U.S. NEGOTIATING TEAM

Ambassador BUNKER. I would like it, Madam Chairman, to be closed, because we have classified testimony to give.

Mr. DOWNING. Madam Chairman, this is marked confidential, on Mr. Bunker's statement, and secret on Mr. Bell's statement. May I suggest that we close the meeting?

Mr. SNYDER. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, but I do have a line of questions that will deal with this letter that has been referred to earlier, and I think that it is important for those of us who believe in the cause of saving the canal, that that line of questioning for the record subsequently should be made public. I assume that under this condition in which we are going to operate, you will see that I am protected in that regard.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Yes, only the things that are confidential and secret we will keep out of the public record.

Mr. SNYDER. Then I withdraw my reservation.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Without objection we will close the hearing to the press and anyone else not connected with the Panama Canal Company, and the hearing room will be cleared.

Mr. LEGGETT. Pursuant to the rules of the House then I move that the Chair be given discretion to move into closed session if you deem it appropriate, both today and tomorrow.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. We shall not have a meeting tomorrow, and we do not have a quorum now, and that is why the motion cannot be made at this time. That is why I asked unanimous consent.

Mrs. LEGGETT. I think the rules require a quorum.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. I realize that, and I do not wish to dismiss the witnesses to comply with rules with which I cannot comply as to the quorum.

We do not have a quorum of our subcommittee present.

Mr. CORRADO. We have six.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. I beg your pardon. Then I am wrong.

All in favor of closing the meeting signify by saying aye. [Chorus of ayes.]

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Those opposed signify by saying no.

[No response.]

Mr. LEGGETT. I request a rollcall, please, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. SULLIVAN. Call the roll, Frances.

[blocks in formation]

Miss STILL. Mr. Downing?
Mr. DOWNING. Ave.
Miss STILL. Mr. Murphy?
[No response.]

Miss STILL. Mr. Biaggi?

[No response.]

Miss STILL. Mr. Bowen?

Mr. BOWEN. Aye.

Miss STILL. Mr. Hubbard?

Mr. HUBBARD. Aye.

Miss STILL. Mr. Snyder?

Mr. SNYDER. Ave.

Miss STILL. Mr. Ruppe?

Mr. RUPPE. Aye.

Miss STILL. Mr. Rinaldo?

[No response.]

Miss STILL. There are seven voting aye. That is a quorum.
Mrs. SULLIVAN. What was the vote?

Miss STILL. Seven.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. It is unanimous.

The public will be excused.

[Whereupon at 10:45 a.m. the subcommittee proceeded into executive session.]

The subcommittee convened in secret session at 10:58 a.m., in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Leonor K. Sullivan, chairman of the full Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, presiding:

EXPLANATORY NOTE OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE

AND FISHERIES

The verbatim transcript of the closed session has been deleted in its entirety. However, pursuant to an agreement between the committee, subcommittee, and the witnesses of the Department of State, a generalized summary of the questions asked of the Department of State by Mr. Snyder, as well as a brief summary of the discussions between Mr. Snyder and the witnesses of the Department, are presented in the following paragraphs.

Mr. Snyder issued a press release on April 13, which included a portion of his exchange with Ambassador Bunker regarding authorization for the treaty negotiations with the Republic of Panama. Mr. Snyder based his action on a specific unanimous consent authorization, which appears at page 30 of the original transcript of the open hearings of April 8, 1976 and upon the following excerpts from the transcript of the closed session:

1. Following insertion of certain correspondence into the record regarding the 1936 treaty, the following exchange occurred :

Mr. MURPHY. Will that be in confidential also?

Mr. SNYDER. Public.

Mr. MURPHY. I would like it in the public record.

Mr. SNYDER. I would like all my questions to be on the record unless they specifically want them off, and they can say so.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. All right.

2. At the conclusion of the closed session, in her summary of the subjects covered in the entire closed session, the presiding and Full Committee Chairman (Mrs. Sullivan) made the following remarks: Mrs. SULLIVAN. But I appreciate your answers. I know we have held you a long time. The testimony that you have given, the answers that you have given, except those that Mr. Snyder has asked he does not think are in that category of confidential or secret, will not be printed or made public, and thank you for coming in.

On April 12, 1976, one day prior to issuance of his press release, Mr. Snyder sought and received from the Full Committee and presiding Chairman, Mrs. Sullivan, further confirmation as to his right to make public the material contained in the release. This confirmation was expressed in accord with the questioning period during which Mr. Snyder had made his unanimous consent request and received no objection thereto.

The Department of State takes the view that the authorization given Mr. Snyder by unanimous consent at page 30 of the original transcript of open hearings of April 8 and the excerpts cited above, taken together, constitute authorization only for the release of Mr. Snyder's questioning concerning the legal interpretation of the 1936 treaty. Thereafter, on April 14, the Department protested to the committee Mr. Snyder's release on April 13 of additional material.

Both the committee and/or its individual members and the witnesses from the Department of State have agreed to the release of the summary which follows without prejudice to their positions with respect to the scope of the authorization for disclosure of information. contained in the closed session.

In accordance with the agreement between the committee and witnesses of the Department of State, the following generalized summary of Mr. Snyder's questions during the closed session is presented:

1. At one point in the closed session Mr. Snyder engages in a brief colloquy with Minister Bell on the subject of political alignment in the Republic of Panama with respect to the treaty objectives of General Torrijos. Following that brief exchange, Mr. Snyder and the witnesses discuss the 1936 treaty and its relationship to sovereignty. Mr. Snyder asks for copies of legal briefs supporting the State Department interpretation of that treaty.

2. At another point in the closed session, Mr. Snyder has another exchange with the witnesses on the interpretation of particular sections of the 1936 U.S.-Panama Treaty.

3. At still another point Mr. Snyder inserts in the record of the hearing a document prepared by the American Law Division of the Library of Congress on the question of the status of the Canal Zone in international law (contained in documents on the 1936 Treaty which follows). Following the request for insertion of the document, Mr. Snyder and Ambassador Bunker engage in a colloquy as to authorization for the negotiations, and the manner in which that authorization was transmitted.

Following the colloquy cited above, the ranking minority member asks that copies of documents authorizing negotiation be submitted for the record of the hearing.

After the unanimous consent request for the documents and discussion of the request, the questioning period of the ranking minority member shifts to the questions of bureaucratic politics with respect to the negotiations, the stability of the governmental system in Panama, the basic rationale for the negotiations, the cost of the negotiations, and public opinion with respect to the treaty talks.

EXCHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE ON 1936 TREATY

During the closed session meeting of the Subcommittee on the Panama Canal, permission was received for the publication of the exchange of correspondence between the ranking minority member of the subcommittee and the Department of State with respect to the interpretation of article III of the 1936 treaty between the United States and the Republic of Panama. The exchange of correspondence follows:

MR. MOREY BELL,

EXCHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE ON 1936 TREATY

NOVEMBER 14, 1975.

Deputy Negotiator, Panama Canal Sector, Department of State,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. BELL: At the Republican Conference briefing yesterday, in answer to a question by my assistant as to why the State Department could say the Canal Zone is Panamanian territory-especially in view of the 1907 Supreme Court decision in Wilson v. Shaw-you said it is because of the terms of the 1936 treaty which is the law of the land, and that the State Department has legal opinions to this effect.

I am not aware of any language in the 1936 treaty, nor is anyone else of my acquaintance, which could provide a basis for opinions you referred to, that would repudiate the perpetual grants to the U.S.A. by Panama of territorial sovereignty over the Canal Zone, or overturn the above-mentioned decision which specifically stated:

"It is hypercritical to contend that the title of the United States is imperfect, and that the territory described does not belong to this Nation..."

On the contrary, in my opinion, Article II of the 1936 Treaty serves to reinforce that original grant.

Because the State Department's rejection of U.S. sovereignty over the Canal Zone is central to the new treaty it proposes, and to the Congressional debates over that treaty which recently have taken place, and will continue to rage, it is vital that you promptly furnish me with a copy of the legal opinion or opinions to which you referred yesterday.

I will be most grateful for your immediate attention and compliance with this request.

Sincerely yours,

GENE SNYDER.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., December 12, 1975.

HON. GENE SNYDER,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SNYDER: Thank you for your letter of November 14 regarding my recent briefing of the Republican Conference on the Status of the Panama Canal Treaty Negotiations.

As you note, folowing my remarks your assistant and I had an interesting discussion concerning the legal status of the Canal Zone. The Office of the Legal Adviser has provided the following information in response to the questions concerning that subject which are raised in your letter.

Article II of the 1903 Treaty grants to the United States "the use, occupation and control" of the Canal Zone, and Article III authorizes the United States

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »