I doubt from reading the treaty that a Panamanian citizen would understand that we have this right. Do you think he would? Ambassador LINOWITZ. Of course, they have heard what the Chief of State told them when he signed the treaty, and therefore I would hope that they would recognize that this is his interpretation and one that is probably authoritative for the Government. Senator PELL. Do you have any notes from the negotiating sessions relaying the Panamanian viewpoint that would reinforce your view that this is Panama's understanding as well as ours? Ambassador LINOWITZ. Certainly it was discussed in the course of the negotiation and certainly they know the interpretation we are placing upon the words. I think that a reading of the transcripts would indicate that even though it is a very delicate issue for them and one which you can understand raises many historic problems for them, they are aware of what they have undertaken to do in this arrangement. Senator PELL. I wonder if there would be any way, within the bounds of propriety, of making that portion of those transcripts available to us in the committee so that we can be satisfied that other than the Chief of State's "top of the head" statement made at the time of the signing there is some other basis for our understanding in this regard. Secretary VANCE. Let me respond, Senator Pell. We want to cooperate in every way we can with the committee. Let me take that under consideration and respond to you promptly. [At the time of publication, this matter was still under consideration within the Executive Branch.] Senator PELL. I think this is really the key issue, the gut issue, that I know bothers me and I think bothers many of my compatriots the most. Do we have this right in perpetuity under their interpretation as well as under ours? Senator CASE. Would the Senator please yield on that one point? Sentor PELL. Certainly. COMMITTEE ACCESS TO NEGOTIATING RECORDS AND TRANSCRIPTS Senator CASE. You have raised the very important question of the committee's access to negotiating records, documents, and transcripts. I would hope that on all key matters there would be no question that the committee might have access, on such basis of confidentiality, if any, as the Executive thinks necessary. But I think we should have access to those things. Secretary VANCE. As I indicated, Senator Case, we want to cooperate in every way that we possibly can with the committee. We would be happy to sit down with the committee staff, for them to identify what the various documents are, and then see what we can do about meeting your needs. Senator PELL. Thank you. LOGIC OF RETURNING PANAMA TO COLOMBIA I think it was Santayana who said that unless we learn from history, we are condemned to repeat it. I come back with the historical analogy you made in the beginning about how we acquired the canal. Under the same logic that we are returning the canal to Panama, why could you not extend that logic to say that Panama should be returned to Colombia-as a historical question? Ambassador LINOWITZ. Why shouldn't Panama be returned to Colombia? I think it may be of interest, Senator, that one of the closest advisers to General Torrijos all during the negotiations, and in fact at the moment of culmination, was the President of Colombia. So obviously, he is not asserting any such interest and believes that we ought to be concerned about Panama. CANAL SHIPPING COSTS Senator PELL. In connection with the passage of shipping-and some of us have a very strong interest in shipping and in our merchant marine-I am a little concerned with getting some of the figures straightened out. I believe, Ambassador Linowitz, you said that the shipping costs had gone up only from $1.20 to $1.29 per "Panama Canal ton" in the period of time the canal has been operating. There are other figures which indicate that 90 cents was the original figure as opposed to $1.20, that there was another raise in between, and also there was a change in definition as to what a Panama Canal ton is. Is this correct? Can you reply to this now or do you want to answer for the record? Ambassador LINOWITZ. I think the correct figures are, as I understand them-we started with $1.20 and then dropped the charge, so that it went down to 90 cents, and then, indeed, 80 cents or so. Perhaps Ambassador Bunker would like to comment on that. Ambassador BUNKER. It did start at $1.20, Senator. Then it went down to 90 cents. Then it was raised again to $1.08 and now it is $1.29, as compared to where we started at $1.20. Senator PELL. I agree with you in principle that this is like a 5-cent cigar which today costs 712 cents. That is still not too bad. But I think the figures which were presented in the statement may have left a bit of a wrong impression and should be corrected. CHANGE IN DEFINITION OF PANAMA CANAL TON Also for the record, is there a change in definition of a Panama Canal ton, of what the measurement is? I believe it is not the same thing today. Ambassador BUNKER. The Panama Canal ton is a space measurement, it is 100 cubic feet of available cargo space. There was some change in measurement, but I don't know specifically what that covered. I believe it had to do with container ships. Senator PELL. Maybe that could be submitted for the record. I think it would make the administration's presentation a little more accurate. Secretary VANCE. Surely. [The information referred to follows:] PANAMA CANAL NET TON [Supplied by Department of State] The Panama Canal Act of August 24, 1912 granted to the President broad powers with regard to the method to be used in the assessment of Canal tolls, but with the provision that they not exceed $1.25 nor be less than $0.75 per net registered ton (by the U.S. measurement system). Presidential Proclamation Number 1225 of November 12, 1912 established Canal tolls at $1.20 per net vessel ton of 100 cubic feet of earning capacity (the "Panama Canal net ton", a measure different from the net registered ton). However, on November 25, 1914, the Attorney General ruled that tolls charges which exceeded the limitation established in the Panama Canal Act were not collectible. This created a condition under which tolls charges were originally assessed on tonnage based on Panama Canal net measurement, but were limited by another and different tonnage based on United States net measurement. This was termed the "dual measurement system", and was a source of considerable administrative problems for the Canal operation in subsequent years. On August 24, 1937, the Congress approved an act "To provide for the measurement of vessels using the Panama Canal... " which had the effect of abolishing the "dual measurement system" and of basing tolls in accordance with Panama Canal rules of measurement prescribed by the President. Presidential Proclamations 2247 and 2249 of August 25 and 31, 1937 established that effective March 1, 1938, tolls would be charged at a rate of $0.90 per Panama Canal net ton for laden vessels as determined under the Panama Canal Rules of Measurement. Thus, during the period from the Canal's opening until 1938, tolls were nominally fixed at $1.20 per Panama Canal net ton, but were limited by the cumbersome dual measurement system so that actual payments by the vessels often fell below that figure. The changes of 1938 eliminated this restriction, while also lowering the basic rate charged per Panama Canal net ton. Tolls have been assessed at rates applied per Panama Canal net ton since that date. At the time of the 1938 changes, there were also some changes in the admeasurement system, ie. the definition of what spaces were included in the measurement of a ship's earning capacity. In 1976, there were some further changes in the admeasurement rules. In the latter case, the President declined to approve a change which would have included deck cargo, including containers carried above deck on container transport ships, in the measurement of a ship's Panama Canal net tonnage, but approved several other changes which increased the spaces on a ship included in its Panama Canal net tonnage for toll purposes. INCREASE IN TOLL RATES Senator PELL. According to press reports I believe Ambassador Linowitz once indicated that there would be an increase in the range of about 25 percent in toll rates to meet the monetary commitments to the Republic of Panama arising under the treaty. Is that a correct statement, or not? Ambassador LINOWITZ. I think I talked about 25 or 30 percent or something of this kind. It may be more. It depends. There are uncertainties here. The Alaskan oil may affect the toll increase, but it will be in the neighborhood of 30 percent, perhaps 35 percent. ECONOMIC COMMITMENTS TO PANAMA Senator PELL. But our basic monetary commitments to the Republic of Panama are separate from the treaty, aren't they? I thought that the economic commitments were not tied in with the treaty in any way? Secretary VANCE. There are two kinds. There is a commitment in the treaty to 30 cents per Panama Canal ton. That is right in the treaty. If you are talking about the collateral matters which deal with loans and loan guarantees, they would be separate and apart. They would cover $200 million of loans from the Export-Import Bank, $75 million of housing guarantees, and $20 million of OPIĆ guarantees. They are 96-949-774 separate and apart. But the 30 cents per Panama Canal ton is in the treaty itself. Senator PELL. Thank you. BRIEFING OF MERCHANT MARINE INDUSTRY There have been hearings and briefings of different groups in the country. Has there been any opportunity to brief the merchant marine industry, which has really a very prime interest in this treaty? Ambassador LINOWITZ. The merchant marine as such? Ambassador LINOWITZ. I haven't, have you, Mr. Bunker? Ambassador BUNKER. We have talked to the head of their organization here in Washington, Senator, and we have agreed to meet with a committee of them to go over the treaty with them. Senator PELL. You have not yet met with a committee of them, but you will? Ambassador BUNKER. Yes; we will. QUESTION FOR THE RECORD Senator PELL. I see that my time has expired. Thank you, gentlemen. The CHAIRMAN. Senator McGovern. Senator McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to give the other side its fair chance to ask questions, too. The Chairman. I'm sorry. I thought that Senator Griffin said he had no questions a while ago. Senator GRIFFIN. No; I didn't, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary and Messrs. Ambassadors, hello. MR. LINOWITZ' STATUS Mr. Linowitz, for the record let's clarify your status. You were appointed, as I understand it, for a 6-month term as negotiator with the rank of Ambassador. Ambassador LINOWITZ. Yes, sir. Senator GRIFFIN. That 6-month term expired in August? Ambassador LINOWITZ. August 10. Senator GRIFFIN. Were you reappointed? Amabassador LINOWITZ. No, sir. Senator GRIFFIN. So you appear now in a private capacity rather than as an officer of the United States. Ambassador LINOWITZ. Yes, sir, although I still serve as adviser to the delegation. Senator GRIFFIN. The appointment as negotiator for only a 6-month period did not require confirmation by the Senate. Is that correct? Ambasador LINOWITZ. That's right, sir. PANAMANIAN VOTE ON TREATIES Senator GRIFFIN. Reference has been made by Senator Javits to the fact that under the terms of the treaties, they will not become binding upon the Republic of Panama until there is a vote by the people of Panama. When will that vote take place? Ambassador LINOWITZ. I think in September. Ambassador BUNKER. October 23, Senator. Senator GRIFFIN. Who will vote and who will conduct the election? Ambassador LINOWITZ. Everyone will be entitled to vote. All citizens will be entitled to vote. The election will be conducted by the Panama Government and they have invited the United Nations to send observers to observe the plebiscite. Senator GRIFFIN. I see. The United Nations will be observers at this election? Ambassador BUNKER. Yes, sir. Ambassador LINOWITZ. Yes, sir. SUGGESTION THAT U.S. PEOPLE VOTE ON TREATY Senator GRIFFIN. It has been suggested that although the treaty does not require it, the Senate might recommend that before the Document of Ratification is deposited the American people have the right to vote also on the approval or disapproval of the treaty. What would you think of that? Secretary VANCE. It seems to me that this is an appropriate item to go before the Senate of the United States in the ordinary way that all treaties do. The representatives of the people of the United States are in the Senate of the United States. This is the constitutional process which has been followed for many, many years and we figure that this is appropriate and that the people of the United States will be adequately represented by their representatives in the U.S. Senate. Senator GRIFFIN. So you wouldn't recommend that the people have a chance to vote on this? Ambassador VANCE. No, sir, I would not recommend that. SIGNIFICANCE OF LATIN AMERICAN HEADS OF STATE AT TREATY SIGNING Senator GRIFFIN. Reference has also been made to the presence of many heads of Latin American countries at the treaty signing and what its significance may have been. I had the opportunity to visit with several heads of state at the White House dinner following the treaty signing and also at a luncheon which the Foreign Relations Committee held here in the Capitol. I was surprised, frankly, in talking to some of them to find that they had not been furnished with texts of the treaty before they got here. Is that correct? Ambassador LINOWITZ. That is probably true because we had not released the texts of the treaties until a day or two before the actual signing. PRECLUSION OF U.S. CANAL CONSTRUCTION ANYWHERE BUT PANAMA Senator GRIFFIN. I also found in talking with the heads of state of several of the countries that they not only had not had an opportunity to read the treaties that they were here to support, but they were surprised to learn that a provision had been inserted in the treaty that |