74.753:72 POWER OF CONGRESS TO DISPOSE OF U.S. PROPERTY 95-2 HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TREATY POWER AND THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES JOHN M. MURPHY, New York, Chairman THOMAS L. ASHLEY, Ohio GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts LES AUCOIN, Oregon NORMAN E. D'AMOURS, New Hampshire JERRY M. PATTERSON, California LEO C. ZEFERETTI, New York JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota PHILIP E. RUPPE, Michigan PAUL N. MCCLOSKEY, JR., California EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey JOEL PRITCHARD, Washington ROBERT E. BAUMAN, Maryland CARL L. PERIAN, Chief of Staff W. PATRICK MORRIS, Chief Minority Counsel (II) Hansell, Herbert J., legal adviser, Department of State.. Hansen, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of Harmon, John M., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Kamenar, Paul D., Washington, D.C. Leonard, George Stephen, attorney, Washington, D.C.-- Prepared statement.. Popeo, Daniel J., General Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation.... 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.: Supplemental statement_ Transfers of property- Panama-A Blitz on the Taxpayer.. Tannenbaum, Bernard: Effects of absence of Congressional approval for implementation of Excerpt from memorandum to the Committee from the Library of 55 Appendix A Exhibit No. 1-Whitman, "Property of the U.S. in the Canal Zone". Exhibit No. 3-CRS Memo to JMM dated July 19, 1977. Exhibit No. 4-Merin Paper regarding Treaty Power dated August Exhibit No. 5- -CRS memo to JMM dated September 29, 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) |