Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

74.753:72

POWER OF CONGRESS TO DISPOSE OF U.S. PROPERTY

95-2

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TREATY POWER AND THE
POWER OF CONGRESS TO DISPOSE OF U.S. TERRITORY AND
PROPERTY UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 2 OF THE
CONSTITUTION; AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
TREATY POWER AND THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO MAKE
APPROPRIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, OF THE
CONSTITUTION

[blocks in formation]

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES

JOHN M. MURPHY, New York, Chairman

THOMAS L. ASHLEY, Ohio
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
PAUL G. ROGERS, Florida
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
ROBERT L. LEGGETT, California
MARIO BIAGGI, New York
GLENN M. ANDERSON, California
E (KIKA) DE LA GARZA, Texas
RALPH H. METCALFE, Illinois
JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
FRED B. ROONEY, Pennsylvania
BO GINN, Georgia

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts
DAVID R. BOWEN, Mississippi
JOSHUA EILBERG, Pennsylvania
RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands
CARROLL HUBBARD, JR., Kentucky
DON BONKER, Washington

LES AUCOIN, Oregon

NORMAN E. D'AMOURS, New Hampshire JERRY M. PATTERSON, California

LEO C. ZEFERETTI, New York

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
DAVID E. BONIOR, Michigan
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

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
ERNEST J. CORRADO, Chief Counsel
FRANCES STILL, Chief Clerk

W. PATRICK MORRIS, Chief Minority Counsel

(II)

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Hansell, Herbert J., legal adviser, Department of State..

Hansen, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Idaho...

Harmon, John M., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal
Counsel, Department of Justice__

Kamenar, Paul D., Washington, D.C.

Leonard, George Stephen, attorney, Washington, D.C.--

Prepared statement..

Popeo, Daniel J., General Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation....
Powe, Prof. Scot, Georgetown University Law Center..

Rice, Prof. Charles E., University of Notre Dame Law School

Young, Hon. C. W., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Florida____

Additional material supplied—

Allen, Sen. James B.:

[subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

Panama-A Blitz on the Taxpayer..

[ocr errors][merged small][subsumed]
[blocks in formation]

Tannenbaum, Bernard:

Effects of absence of Congressional approval for implementation of
Articles VI and VII of the 1955 Treaty, by W. M. Whitman__

Excerpt from memorandum to the Committee from the Library of

Congress.

55

[blocks in formation]

Appendix A

Exhibit No. 1-Whitman, "Property of the U.S. in the Canal Zone".
Exhibit No. 2—Tannenbaum, "Disposition of U.S. Property in the
Panama Canal Zone".

Exhibit No. 3-CRS Memo to JMM dated July 19, 1977.

Exhibit No. 4-Merin Paper regarding Treaty Power dated August
4, 1977..

Exhibit No. 5- -CRS memo to JMM dated September 29, 1977.
Exhibit No. 6-CRS memo (Killian) dated December 30, 1971.
Exhibit No. 7-Whitman Paper dated November 1977...

18, 1978__

Exhibit No. 9-Letters of Comptroller General to JMM..

Exhibit No. 8-Statement of Governor Parfitt for the record, Jan.

Appendix B-Material relating to the case of State of Idaho et al., Plaintiffs v. Cyrus R. Vance, et al_--

Exhibit 1.-Complaint

Exhibit 2.-Brief for the defendants in opposition..

Page

215

215

218

222

236

244

258

262

274

280

282

283

313

POWER OF CONGRESS TO DISPOSE OF U.S. PROPERTY

TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1978

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,

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 Committee 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 fact of U.S. property ownership was also acknowledged by Ambassador Bunker in our August hearings.

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

(1)

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »