« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TREATY POWER AND THE
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1978
COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES
JOHN M. MURPHY, New York, Chairman
PHILIP E. RUPPE, Michigan
PAUL N. MCCLOSKEY, JR., California
GENE SNYDER, Kentucky
EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey
DAVID C. TREEN, Louisiana
JOEL PRITCHARD, Washington
DON YOUNG, Alaska
ROBERT E. BAUMAN, Maryland
NORMAN F. LENT, New York
DAVID F. EMERY, Maine
ROBERT K. DORNAN, California
THOMAS B. EVANS, JR., Delaware
PAUL S. TRIBLE, JR., Virginia
CARL L. PERIAN, Chief of Staff
FRANCES STILL, Chief Olerk
Rice, Prof. Charles E., University of Notre Dame Law School.
The Treaty That Wall Street Wrote---
Who's Who for the Canal Treaty--
Attorney General Harlan Stone Opinion.---
Pago 215 215
Exhibit No.'1—Whitman, "Property of the U.S. in the Canal Zone".-
Panama Canal Zone",
Exhibit No. 9—-Letters of Comptroller General to JMM.
236 244 258 262
282 283 313
POWER OF CONGRESS TO DISPOSE OF U.S. PROPERTY
TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1978
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10:02 a.m., in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John M. Murphy (chairman) presiding.
Present: Representatives Murphy, Bonior, and McCloskey.
Staff present: Carl L. Perian, chief of staff'; Ernest J. Corrado, chief counsel; Bernard Tannenbaum, consultant; W. Merrill Whitman, consultant; Nicholas Nonnenmacher, minority counsel; Terrence W. Modglin, profession staff; Martin Howell, counsel; Bernard Winfield, clerk; W. Patrick Morries, chief minority counsel; and Ron Losch, minority counsel.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.
Last August 17, 1 week after an agreement in principle was concluded between United States and Panamanian negotiators in Panama City, the Comınittee on Merchant_Marine and Fisheries held a hearing on the role of the House of Representatives in connection with the basic Panama Canal agreement. Because our August 17 hearing was too brief to cover all issues adequately, especially the constitutional question of property disposal, the committee resolved to have further hearings once the Panama Canal Treaties were published. Today and tomorrow, we will continue the examination of the House role pursuant to that decision.
Since August, there have emerged at least two constitutional issues involving the role of the House of Representatives in the Panama Canal Treaties. We will examine these two issues, involving the transfer of U.S. property and territory and the power of Congress to appropriate moneys, in the light of the proposed canal treaty relationship.
In order to have the right kind of in-depth examination that these topics deserve, we will take testimony from Members of Congress, representatives of the administration, and several attorneys and constitutional law experts.
The United States has a strong and undeniable property interest in the Canal Zone, a fact affirmed by the paper presented to us by the Governor of the Canal Zone in connection with these hearings. The faet of U.S. property ownership was also acknowledged by Ambassador Bunker in our August liearings.
Given the agreement on the presence of U.S. property rights, the manner of disposition of the Canal Zone and canal-related property will be a major constitutional precedent determining the procedures