NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS WALTER B. JONES, N.C., CHAIRMAN MARIO BIAGGI, N.Y. GLEN M. ANDERSON, CALIF. MIKE LOWRY, WASH. RL HUTTO, PLA. LAN DONNELLY. MASS. ROY DYSON, MD. GENE SNYDER, KY. PAUL N. MC CLOSKEY, JR., CALIF. CHARLES F. DOUGHERTY, PA. Thank you for your letter raising certain questions about the ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977, and the appropriation of funds for the operation of the Canal. As you know, the sufficiency of the ratification of the treaty and the eligibility of Panamanian nationals to hold offices in the Panama Canal Commission have been debated at length in Congressional hearings and elsewhere. In fact, the Subcommittee on the Panama Canal will receive testimony on these subjects at the forthcoming hearings on legislation to authorize appropriations for operation of the Canal in fiscal year 1982. I am enclosing a copy of the testimony that will be submitted to the Subcommittee on Thursday, March 26. I feel that I must point out, however, that there is very little that this Committee can do in respect to either question. The Constitution commits to the President and the Senate the responsibility and authority to conduct foreign relations and the sufficiency of the ratification process followed in reference to any treaty appears to fall within that authority. While the Congress might decline to appropriate funds for operation of the Canal under the treaty, the alternatives would appear to include only discontinuance of the operation entirely or operation under the control of another country. At the present time, neither alternative is regarded as acceptable. As your letter recognizes, the real opportunity to do something about the problems you discuss rests with the President in the conduct of foreign relations. The Congress will, of course, continue to follow the subject with great interest and make whatever contribution it can to the constructive resolution of these problems. This interest was demonstrated in the oversight hearings by this subcommittee and the resulting report containing specific recommendations for strengthening the administration of the Panama Canal Act of 1979. With best wishes for you, I am 1.5. Dr. Dodge, އ Sincerely yours moll trist CARROLL HUBBARD Chairman Subcommittee on Panama Canal/ Outer Continental Shelf March 28, 1981 The Honorable Carroll Hubbard Canal/Outer Continental Shelf Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries Room 1334 Longworth House Office Bldg. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of March 23, 1981, and the observations you made about the Panama Canal Treaty and the eligibility of Panamanians to hold offices on the Parama Canal Commission. I attended the hearing held by your Subcommittee on March 26, and heard Dr. Breecher's presentation. I have known Dr. Breecher for many years, and I am in agreement with his views on these matters. with all due respect, I would like to observe that in contrast to your considerate, courteous and respectful treatment of Dr. Breecher, it was not very fair for Congressman Bowen to discount Dr. Breecher's position even before he made his statement without bothering to give any explanatory reason and then not even to stay around to either hear the presentation or ask any questions about it. The generous statement that you wanted and appreciated my views leads me to make some observations about the points you covered in your letter. While I appreciate the position your committee has with reference to jurisdiction as to the conduct of foreign relations and the sufficiency of the ratification process, I still believe that the responsibility of authorizing appropriations requires a resolution of the issues raised by Dr. Breecher. If his assertion, that authorization of any payment to Panamanian Nationals who are Directors or Administrators of the Panama Canal Commission is an outright violation of the U.S. Constitution, is valid I do not see how Congress can proceed to authorize and appropriate such funding. If Dr. Breecher's assertion is not valid, then some reasons must be cited and established to the contrary. hether the treaty has been ratified or not is secondary to this point, since the U.S. Constitution takes precedence over international laws or treaties. But, a determination of whether che treaty has been ratified is still necessary along with a resolution of problems we face if it is determined that there is no ratified treaty. While I recognize that it is the Executive Branch's and Senate's responsibility for resolution of these issues, is it appropriate for Congress to authorize funds in the interim, especially if such action violates the Constitution? The constitutional and treaty ratification issues therefore should be resolved at once, and I believe that the Congress is duty-bound to press for such resolution. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that you recognized this in September 1979, when you wrote to Senator Kennedy and requested hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee but to date there have been none. I agree that the Senate Judiciary Committee is the appropriate forum to address the issues Dr. Breecher has raised and to determine the State Department's role and responsibility for putting our government into such a situation. Therefore, I shall write to Senator Laxalt and urge him to press for such hearings, and I trust you will not mind my sharing this correspondence with him. I further respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you could write to the President and explain to him these problems and request Executive Branch action toward their solution. Mr. Chairman, your forthright, courteous, generous, and statesman-like conduct is greatly admired by me. Thank you very much for your consideration. Respectfully and sincerely yours, Herbert W Body Herbert W. Dodge NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS WALTER B. JONES, N.C., CHAIRMAN MARIO DI..001, N.Y. GLENN M. ANDERSON, CALIF. AN DONNELLY, MASS. " GENE SNYDER, KY. PAUL H. MC CLOSKEY, JR.. CALIF. Dr. Herbert W. Dodge R.D. #2, P.O. Box 287 Dear Herbert: Thank you for your March 28 letter about the issues raised by Dr. Breecher's testimony at the hearings on March 26, and in our previous correspondence. I understand your concern that the Congress has a responsi- In this situation, I believe it is proper for me to bring these questions to the attention of the President, as you suggest. Enclosed is a copy of my letter to President Reagan. Further than that, my subcommittee will continue to follow the matter in future oversight investigations. With best wishes for you, I am Sincerely yours, Canoll Hathand CARROLL HUBBARD Chairman Subcommittee on Panama Canal/ Outer Continental Shelf NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS WALTER B. JONES, N.C., CHAIRMAN MARIO BIAGGI, N.Y. GLENN M. ANDERSON, CALIF. BARA A MIKULSKI, MD. AL MUTTO, FLA. ROY DYSON, MD. MAJORITY COUNSEL LAWRENCE J. O'BRIEN, JR. MINORITY COUNSEL MICHAEL J. TOONEY The Honorable Ronald W. Reagan Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: At a recent hearing of the Subcommittee on the Panama Canal and Outer Continental Shelf of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives, testimony of Dr. Charles H. Breecher raised questions as to the constitutionality of appropriations for payment to officers of the United States who are not citizens of the United States. The officers referred to in Dr. Breecher's testimony are the Deputy Administrator, the Panama Canal Commission and four of the nine members of the supervisory Board of the Commission, all of whom are required by the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 to be citizens of Panama. А сору of Dr. Breecher's testimony is enclosed. Although the 1977 treaty limits appointments to these positions to citizens of Panama, the Panama Canal Act of 1979 (93 Stat. 452) does not include this requirement, and appropriations that would be authorized in the bill introduced by Chairman Jones (HR 5296) are for necessary expenses of the Panama Canal Commission "incurred under the Panama Canal Act of 1979." I recognize, of course, that the administration of the Panama Canal Act of 1979 as well as the expenditure of authorized appropriations is a matter for the Executive Branch, although both are matters of continuing concern to the Congress and this Subcommittee. Accordingly, it appears to be appropriate to refer the constitutional problems raised by Dr. Breecher to you for your consideration and such action as may be appropriate. With best wishes for you, I am Sincerely yours, вайне нная CARROLL HUBBARD Subcommittee on Panama Canal/ |