Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

requirements of the applicable statutes and Department of State regulations on conflicts of interest, that those requirements had been satisfied.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Before the time runs out, will the Senator yield to me for just one inquiry?

Mr. SARBANES. Sure.

Mr. GRIFFIN. The Senator has said that the Marine Midland Bank had a 45-percent interest in a particular loan arranged by a group of banks. I do not think the figure of 45 percent of what was clear. What was the size of the loan, 45 percent of how much, that the Marine Midland Banks had outstanding to the Republic of Panama in that one loan?

Mr. SARBANES. Well, as I read this, I thought I read that paragraph, but I will read it again.

Mr. GRIFFIN. If so, I did not catch it.

Mr. SARBANES. For the benefit of the Senator from Michigan: There is a $4 million loan to the Republic of Panama, due in November, 1983. There is Marine's share in a $115 million international syndicated loan, managed by Citibank/New York InterUnion/Paris, in which Marine directly owns 45 percent, also has a loan of $2 million to the Republic of Panama.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Of how much? Forty five percent of how much; If the Senator does not have the information, I will tell him: It is 45 percent of $115 million.

Mr. SARBANES. I thought I read that for the Senator.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I am trying to get the Senator to say how much. I did not hear him say that; 45 percent of $115 million.

Mr. SARBANES (reading):

There is a $4 million loan to the Republic of Panama, due in November, 1983. There is Marine's share in a $115 million international syndicated loan, managed by Citibank/New York InterUnion/Paris, in which Marine directly owns 45 percent, also has a loan of $2 million to the Republic of Panama.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I am sorry.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I just want to go on.

Mr. GRIFFIN. So that is about $57 million.

Mr. SARBANES. That is the third time that I have read that paragraph to the Senator from Michigan, and I hope he has heard that paragraph now.

Mr. GRIFFIN. You stated that was a low level activity.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, if I may proceed, this information was submitted to the Department of State by Mr. Linowitz, who asked for a ruling with respect to whether there were any conflicts of interest, and he did that prior to this appointment:

Pursuant to these regulations, Mr. Linowitz prior to his appointment submitted to the Department a full statement of his memberships on boards of directors as well as his financial holdings. These were reviewed thoroughly by the Office of the Legal Adviser.

In the cases of two companies, Pan American World Airways, Inc., and Marine Midland Banks, Inc., Mr Linowitz furnished information from them outlining their activities and financial interests in Panama. Appended are the statements from the Presidents of these two companies.

And then the Department then went on and said, in concluding: As a result of the Department's review and the foregoing undertakings by Mr. Linowitz, the Acting Legal Adviser gave a written opinion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

Mr. SARBANES [reading]:

which concluded that the requirements of the applicable statutes and Department of State regulations on conflicts of interest had been satisfied.

[The following proceedings occurred later in the day and are printed at this point in the record by unanimous consent.]

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, earlier in the day I had an exchange with the distinguished Senator from Utah and the distinguished Senator from Michigan concerning Ambassador Linowitz and some conflict-of-interest questions which they raised, and I pointd out that material had been submitted to the State Department and examined and he had been given a legal opinion that there were no conflicts of interest before he entered on his assignment, a temporary 6-month appointment, as an ambassador to be involved in the negotiations.

In the course of that I read from a submission that was made by Marine Midland, on whose board he served, concerning their interest in Panama and, of course, the State Department ruled that the extent of their interest was at such a low level of financial transactions that there was no violation of any conflict of interest.

In reading a paragraph from that submission there was a misprint in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD which made the meaning somewhat unclear, and I want to correct that RECORD and read now the exact, correct, disclosure or submission made by Marine Midland as to its loans to Panama.

The Statement that they filed at the time when Ambassador Linowitz had requested a ruling with respect to any conflict of interest pertaining to his various holdings included the following provision:

LOANS

As a large international money center bank, the Marine conducts business throughout the world. Panama has long been a center for trade, as well as a notable financial center. Loans in Panama are a national consequence of the position of the bank and the country.

Marine_Midland, either directly from New York or through the Bahamas of Panama Branch or foreign affiliate, has a $100,000 short-term, unsecured loan available to the Hydroelectric Power Authority of Panama.

There is a $100,000 loan to the Agricultural Development Bank in Panama. There is a $4 million loan to the Republic of Panama, due in November, 1983. This is Marine's share in a $115 million international syndicated loan, managed by Citibank/New York. InterUnion/Paris, in which Marine directly owns 45 percent, also has a loan of $2 million to the Republic of Panama.

That paragraph is where the misprint occurred, and there was some question raised that Marine Midland had a 45-percent share in the $115 million international syndicate loan. That was not the case. Marine's share of the $115 million loan was $4 million only. The 45-percent figure referred to Marine Midland's ownership in InterUnion/Paris which had a $2-million loan to the Republic of Panama. So Marine Midland had an ownership interest of 45 percent in a bank which had a $2-million loan to Panama and in addition Marine Midland had a $4-million share in the $115-million syndication, and that was the extent of this loan involvement on the part of Marine Midland.

Understandably, I think because of the typographical misprint the Senator from Michigan took the view and suggested that

Marine Midland had a 45-percent interest in the $775-million syndicated loan.

That was not the case. They had $4 million which was their share in that. In other words, their share of it was about 31⁄2 percent, not 45 percent. I think that is an important fact to get on the record since the State Department, in its legal opinion, indicated "that continued membership on the board of Marine Midland Bank did not violate the applicable regulations because of the relatively low level of financial transactions of the bank with and in Panama."

I ought to point out that later on, even after obtaining this ruling, that there was no conflict of interest; Ambassador Linowitz, because of the queries some people had raised and, I think, because of the sensitivity that has always characterized his public service, and his own deep sense of integrity, went ahead and resigned from the board of Marine Midland voluntarily, although he was clearly not required to do that and, in fact, had been given a legal opinion that there was no conflict of interest.

I mention all of this again simply to underscore the outstanding service which Ambassador Linowitz has rendered this country, and to once again urge that while people may disagree with the substantive judgments of our negotiators or, in fact, with other people involved in the treaty, that we ought not to cast any aspersions on people's personal qualities in the course of carrying forward this debate.

It is important to underscore in this debate that Ambassador Linowitz has behaved throughout with a very high sense of standards and an uncompromising sense of integrity.

(This concludes proceedings which occurred later in the day.) Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of part 1 of the Allen amendment to the pending Panama Canal Treaty.

This amendment would expressly provide that nothing contained in the treaty would deprive the United States of the right to prevent the construction in Panama of a second canal by any nation other than the United States.

Many might feel that this privilege granted to the United States in the 1903 and 1955 treaties is protected by article 12, part 2, section a of the current treaty.

That section reads as follows:

The United States of America and the Republic of Panama agree on the following: (a) No new interoceanic canal shall be constructed in the territory of the Republic of Panama during the duration of this Treaty, except in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, or as the two Parties may otherwise agree.

Thus, we can see upon examination of the pending treaty that the prohibition against construction in Panama of an other canal by another State is negotiable and may be accomplished if the United States and Panama agree to it.

Mr. President, much has been said about what the United States had to give up to get an agreement from Panama that they would not allow another country to build a second canal in Panama. To keep what we already had in the original treaties it is claimed the United States had to offer a quid pro quo in the form of a provision preventing us from even negotiating to build another canal elsewhere.

The Senate must remember that the greatest giveaway of all is the treaty itself, in which we are giving the canal to Panama. One would think that after that giveaway we would not have to offer a quid pro quo to balance each provision of the treaty.

By surrendering the right to even negotiate with another country for another canal route, we not only surrender the canal, but surrender as well our leverage over Panama to keep the canal

open.

Mr. President, this is the Western Hemisphere we are dealing with in these treaties. It is our national security and our economic health involved here. We are the ones with a small Navy which has to be shifted back and forth through the canal. We are the ones who need minerals from other nations that have to be shifted through the canal.

Once we act on these treaties it is final. When we pass a law and make a mistake we can do it over. If the Senate passes this treaty then the action is final. We will have to live with it forever. Mr. President, I urge acceptance of this amendment by the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired under the previous order, the hour of 1 o'clock p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to vote on the division 1.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on division 1?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.

Mr. HELMS. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

There is not a sufficient second.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dismissed and I ask for the yeas and

nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment of the Senator from Alabama and I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can only move to table division 1.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That is what he is doing.

Mr. SARBANES. That is what I am doing. I am moving to table division 1, which is now pending for a vote at 1 o'clock, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

(Mr. Nelson assumed the chair).

Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Gravel), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. McGovern), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. McIntyre), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sparkman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Talmadge) are necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Haskell) is absent on official business.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. McIntyre) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Gravel) would each vote "yea."

Mr. STEVENS. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Curtis) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Goldwater) are necessarily absent.

The result was announced-yeas 56, nays 35, as follows:

[blocks in formation]

So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by

which the motion was agreed to.

« PředchozíPokračovat »