Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

grant of sovereignty to the U.S. was to the complete exclusions of the right to exercise any sovereignty by Panama. The language is clear. The central problem is that once sovereignty goes, the risk of precipitous expropriation looms imminent.

What really would prevent an avowed Marxist General Omar Torrijos or one of his successors, from demanding further emendations of the treaty? From demanding a quickening of the pace to full Panamanian control? From ordering U.S. forces out of the ex-U.S. Canal Zone? From closing the canal to transit of our warships, or those of our allies? From raising the tolls drastically. These are the precise demands of a vocal, radical, violent minority in Panama today. They may be the government of tomorrow. These are the questions that trouble the grass roots America and The American Legion.

At a time when sovereign U.S. territory is actually being threatened by the full-load of Marxist tools—political, psychological, military, subversive elements, blackmail and the lot; when the build-up of forces and weapons is actually in progress, the time is surely near when Washington must tell both Moscow and Havana that vital United States interests are involved in the U.S. Canal Zone. Marxist leaders should be strongly encouraged that if they must continue to fish beyond their own realms of sovereignty they do so in less sensitive waters. Secretary Kissinger has said U.S.-Soviet relationships could not take another Angola. Nor could it take one U.S. Canal Zone.

Commander Wiles' letter to President Ford (attached) makes constructive recommendations on actions which would clearly demonstrate U.S. resolve and confidence on this festering issue. Also appended to this statement is The American Legion's mandate (Resolution 173) to retain U.S. sovereignty.

The PRESIDENT

The White House, Washington, D.C.

THE AMERICAN LEGION, Washington, D.C., March 24, 1976.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Having just returned from a visit to the Panama Canal Zone, I am deeply concerned about the trend toward a gradual withdrawal of United States responsibility and interest in the Caribbean area, and especially the Canal Zone itself. I am likewise concerned about continuing advocacy by members of the Department of State to relinquish United States sovereignty in the Canal Zone which would symbolize a growing U.S. weakness and lack of national will to protect our vital interests.

I well understand the dilemma in which some of your predecessors and associates have placed the Presidency at this time. However, I see no alternative to facing the proposition that the Canal Zone is part and parcel of U.S. territory and cannot be given away, unless and until the people of the United States, and their representatives in Congress feel it is in their interest to do so. In the final analysis, it is the people who paid for the Canal and who have borne the burden of its construction, maintenance and protection for the past 72 years.

I strongly urge you, Mr. President, to re-evaluate the administration's policy on the Panama Canal with a view to finding a viable alternative to present attitudes and trends. One prospect is to resume the immediate major modernization of the Canal which would give employment, improve the earnings and standards of the entire area, and improve relations between Panama and the United States.

As you know, we have already spent more than $170.0 million on such a modernization program. More to the point, resumption of the modernization effort would meet the growing demands of Canal users at a time which the average size of vessels using the Canal is increasing, and this suggestion would square off with Canal pilots who strongly recommend such action. Moreover, such a modernization is authorized under existing treaty provisions and does not require negotiations or treaty changes.

Another suggestion which I believe has merit is the re-establishment of the Navy's Special Service Squadron which was home-based in the Canal Zone for two decades prior to World War II. This token naval force was most effective during those years and now it would symbolize a continuing U.S. interest in the area. Such a small force would not be provacative and yet it would reassure United States citizens living there as well as those within our

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN H. REURS, CHAIRMAN, NEW YORK COMMITTEE, INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF PASSENGER LINES

The International Committee of Passenger Lines (ICPL) is made up of the principal foreign-flag passenger and cruise lines operating in foreign commerce to and from the U.S., both directly and in the cruise trade. A list of the 14 members of ICPL is attached hereto. ICPL respectfully requests that this statement be made part of the record of these hearings by the House Merchant Marine Sub-Committee on Panama Canal.

We understand that the purpose of these hearings is to explore all aspects of the operations of the Panama Canal Company in the hope of resolving financial and other problems currently affecting it. It appears that, despite the intervening vicissitudes of wars, economic recessions, etc., the Canal Company's operations were financially stable from 1914 to 1973. Since then the Company has been faced with (1) sharp reduction in vessel traffic due to loss of cargo moving to the Far East, (2) the current economic recession, (3) the re-opening of the Suez Canal and (4) far-reaching changes in the previously existing governmental accounting procedures.

While the first three factors were externally imposed, the changes in the accounting system in 1973 is an internal government problem which, on the basis of the figures available, appears to be very largely responsible for the Canal Company's current financial situation. It is perhaps not wholly coincidental that, after the institution of these new accounting procedures in 1973, the Company found it necessary to take the following steps: 1. To increase tolls across the board by 20% in 1974; 2. To embark on a thoroughgoing revision of the measurement rules on which the per-ton tolls are based; and 3. To project a further toll increase of 20-25% before the end of calendar year 1976, with a similar increase anticipated for the following year.

Vessels operated by the ICPL member lines pay approximately 70% of all tolls collected by the Canal Company from passenger vessels. It is ICPL's position that, as applied to passenger vessles, the cumulative effect of these changes in hte level of tolls and in the tonnage measurement system can only be counter-productive: They will reduce the number of such vessles transiting the aCnal, with a consequent reduction in toll revenues received by the Canal Company.

In ICPL's opinion, these conseqences could be avoided by: 1. Returning to the previous accounting system; and 2. Reinstating the rule governing the measurement of passenger vessels (35 C.F.R. Sec. 135.286), which the PCC revoked with Presidential approval on March 23, 1976 (41 F.R. 13582).

Since the accounting problem is extensively discussed in other statements presented at these hearings, ICPL's comments will be directed to Item 2, which has the most immediate and serious impact on passenger vessel operations. Briefly, the revocation of 35 C.F.R. Sec. 135.286 last month effected a farreaching change in the long-standing method of calculating tolls for passenger vessels by now including in the Panama Canal tonnage measurement certain previously exempt public rooms and other interior spaces. This revocation was part of a series of measurement rule changes proposed in 1975, estimated to produce a 7% overall increase in the Canal Company's future revenues. However, the net effect on passenger ships of these changes is to increase transit tolls by some 28-35%, or 4 to 5 times greater than the average increase.

Annexed as Exhibit A to this statement is a schedule demonstrating the severe financial impact of the toll increases and the recent measurement rule change on a typical cruise vessel. It will be noted that the cumulative toll increases account for an 87.5% rise over 1973 toll levels, which is compounded by the estimated 28-35% increase caused by the measurement rule changes. ICPL considers that this change in long-standing procedure for assessing Canal tolls for passenger ships is highly unfair and discriminatory. ICPL's members are fully prepared to bear their fair share of any toll increases actually necessary to cover the properly allocable costs in running the Panama Canal. However, if Canal tolls escalate 100% as seems likely under present projections, severely compounded by the measurement rules, the lines will have to give very serious consideration to re-routing their cruises. It should be borne in mind that, with the virtual disappearance of regular port-to-port passenger liner service through the Canal, today's passenger vessels are primarily engaged in cruises. This means that their itineraries are discretionary and can be

Although the hearings were originally scheduled to discuss the current financial situation of the Panama Canal, we would like to comment only briefly on that issue and then follow the lead of the hearings and devote the balance of this statement to the issue of labor-management relations in the Panama Canal Zone. AFSCME representatives in the Canal Zone have suggested to the Canal Administration that in consideration of formulae to increase tolls, they seek an escalator clause which would authorize the Panama Canal Company Board of Directors to increase tolls based on the increased cost of operations. If tolls are to be increased, AFSCME believes they should be increased gradually, instead of following the 1974 pattern of an increase of almost twenty percent after no increase in many years.

During the hearings, Governor Harold Parfitt, in response to a question by Subcommittee Chairman Ralph Metcalfe, outlined a series of actions he believed necessary to develop good labor-management relations in the Zone. The Governor suggested that the consultation process now in use be improved. AFSCME strongly agrees that the present consultation process is woefully inadequate and supports the institution of true collective bargaining for workers in the Canal Zone. If there had been a collective bargaining procedure in effect, the recent sickout could have been averted, for provision would have been made for joint discussions and mutually agreed upon solutions to the problems of the dual wage base rate and tropical differential.

The Governor has been dealing wit hthe Canal Zone employees in good faith, agreeing in a March 20 Memorandum of Understanding to "initiate action immediately to commence a study, with full participation of unions of all ramifications of application of E. O. 11491, as amended, or other mutually acceptable form of collective bargaining with employees of the Panama Canal Company and Canal Zone Government" and urging that the needs of the employees be considered.

AFSCME urges that the Collective Bargaining Study Committee outlined in the above Memorandum be given as much latitude as possible to develop a meaningful and equitable form of collective bargaining for all employees in the Canal Zone.

We are troubled by a colloquy between Assistant Secretary of the Army Veysey and Representative Gene Snyder which took place on the first day of the hearings concerning the status of the February 17 proposals modifying the base rate of pay and tropical differential systems. While Governor Parfitt and Lieutenant General McAuliffe, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Southern Command, both agree on the need of modification of the February 17 proposals and agree on certain modifications, Assistant Secretary Veysey is not currently prepared to accept their recommendations. AFSCME is troubled that Veysey, the one member of the Canal Zone Civilian Personnel Policy Coordinating Board not directly involved in the day to day operations of the Zone, both chairs the Board and has veto power over the recommendations of both Governor Parfitt and Lieutenant General McAuliffe, the other two members of the Board.

AFSCME is pleased to note that Assistant Secretary Veysey believes that the Panama Canal Company and Canal Zone Government should be operated as a "show-case" of what America is like. AFSCME has always supported and continues to support equality for all in the Canal Zone. We supported the integration of schools, and housing and the declassification of security positions to provide equality for both U.S. citizen and Panamanian citzen employees of the Company/Government.

To reiterate what Vice President Mauge stated in his testimony, AFSCME believes that all workers in the Canal Zone should be paid on a single wage base. If all workers must meet one set of requirements to get a job and keep it, then all workers should be paid on one wage scale. Since the job requirements are based on U.S. Civil Service, rates of pay should be U.S. rates of pay. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees urges the Subcommittee to continue its investigations into the personnel practices of the Panama Canal Company and Canal Zone Government. The interest shown by the Subcommittee in the problems of workers in the Zone and the information brought out at these hearings have been most helpful and timely in the movement toward equality for all workers and meaningful collective bargaining for Canal Zone workers.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN H. REURS, CHAIRMAN, NEW YORK COMMITTEE, INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF PASSENGER LINES

The International Committee of Passenger Lines (ICPL) is made up of the principal foreign-flag passenger and cruise lines operating in foreign commerce to and from the U.S., both directly and in the cruise trade. A list of the 14 members of ICPL is attached hereto. ICPL respectfully requests that this statement be made part of the record of these hearings by the House Merchant Marine Sub-Committee on Panama Canal.

We understand that the purpose of these hearings is to explore all aspects of the operations of the Panama Canal Company in the hope of resolving financial and other problems currently affecting it. It appears that, despite the intervening vicissitudes of wars, economic recessions, etc., the Canal Company's operations were financially stable from 1914 to 1973. Since then the Company has been faced with (1) sharp reduction in vessel traffic due to loss of cargo moving to the Far East, (2) the current economic recession, (3) the re-opening of the Suez Canal and (4) far-reaching changes in the previously existing governmental accounting procedures.

While the first three factors were externally imposed, the changes in the accounting system in 1973 is an internal government problem which, on the basis of the figures available, appears to be very largely responsible for the Canal Company's current financial situation. It is perhaps not wholly coincidental that, after the institution of these new accounting procedures in 1973, the Company found it necessary to take the following steps: 1. To increase tolls across the board by 20% in 1974; 2. To embark on a thoroughgoing revision of the measurement rules on which the per-ton tolls are based; and 3. To project a further toll increase of 20-25% before the end of calendar year 1976, with a similar increase anticipated for the following year.

Vessels operated by the ICPL member lines pay approximately 70% of all tolls collected by the Canal Company from passenger vessels. It is ICPL's position that, as applied to passenger vessles, the cumulative effect of these changes in hte level of tolls and in the tonnage measurement system can only be counter-productive: They will reduce the number of such vessles transiting the aCnal, with a consequent reduction in toll revenues received by the Canal Company.

In ICPL's opinion, these conseqences could be avoided by: 1. Returning to the previous accounting system; and 2. Reinstating the rule governing the measurement of passenger vessels (35 C.F.R. Sec. 135.286), which the PCC revoked with Presidential approval on March 23, 1976 (41 F.R. 13582).

Since the accounting problem is extensively discussed in other statements presented at these hearings, ICPL's comments will be directed to Item 2, which has the most immediate and serious impact on passenger vessel operations. Briefly, the revocation of 35 C.F.R. Sec. 135.286 last month effected a farreaching change in the long-standing method of calculating tolls for passenger vessels by now including in the Panama Canal tonnage measurement certain previously exempt public rooms and other interior spaces. This revocation was part of a series of measurement rule changes proposed in 1975, estimated to produce a 7% overall increase in the Canal Company's future revenues. However, the net effect on passenger ships of these changes is to increase transit tolls by some 28-35%, or 4 to 5 times greater than the average increase.

Annexed as Exhibit A to this statement is a schedule demonstrating the severe financial impact of the toll increases and the recent measurement rule change on a typical cruise vessel. It will be noted that the cumulative toll increases account for an 87.5% rise over 1973 toll levels, which is compounded by the estimated 28-35% increase caused by the measurement rule changes. ICPL considers that this change in long-standing procedure for assessing Canal tolls for passenger ships is highly unfair and discriminatory. ICPL's members are fully prepared to bear their fair share of any toll increases actually necessary to cover the properly allocable costs in running the Panama Canal. However, if Canal tolls escalate 100% as seems likely under present projections, severely compounded by the measurement rules, the lines will have to give very serious consideration to re-routing their cruises. It should be borne in mind that, with the virtual disappearance of regular port-to-port passenger liner service through the Canal, today's passenger vessels are primarily engaged in cruises. This means that their itineraries are discretionary and can be

adjusted to reflect changing conditions so that constantly increasing Panama Canal tolls, coupled with the revised measurement rules, will provide passenger vessel operators with every incentive to curtail or abandon transits through the Canal.

In conclusion, ICPL requests that this Sub-committee: 1. Make a careful review of present accounting procedures to determine what costs should be properly assessed against vessels transiting the Canal, and 2. Recommend that the Panama Canal Company reconsider the subject of measurement rules as applied to passenger vessels in consultation with all interested parties.

ICPL will be pleased to supply any further information which the Sub-committee may require.

EXAMPLE OF FINANCIAL IMPACT OF PANAMA CANAL TOLL INCREASES AND MEASUREMENT RULE CHANGES ON TYPICAL CRUISE VESSEL

[blocks in formation]

Members of New York Committee of the International Committee of Passenger Lines: Chandris America Lines Inc., Costa Line, Inc., Cunard Line Limited, Epirotiki Lines, Inc., Flagship Cruises Ltd., Holland America Cruises, Home Lines, Inc., Italian Line, Norwegian America Line, P & O Lines Inc., Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., Royal Viking Line, Sitmar Cruises, and Sun Line.

PREPARED STATEMENT BY JOHN J. O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE NASSAU COUNTY COMMITTEE OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSERVATIVE PARTY Gentlemen: The Conservative Party of Nassau County, in view of pertinent data and in full cognizance of the world wide ramifications, has adopted the position hereinafter outlined, with regard to renegotiating the Panama Canal Treaty.

The historical evidence leaves no room for doubt as to our rightful possession of the Canal Zone, to wit:

a. In the Treaty of 1903, the Zone was granted to the U.S., not leased. b. We paid an original sum of $10 million for the granting of sovereign control of the Canal Zone, in perpetuity.

c. We purchased all privately owned properties (even from squatters) within the Zone, at additional cost.

NOTE. As of June 30, 1974, we have paid, according to the Department of the Army, $166,362, 173 in acquiring the Zone. If we include Canal construction

« AnteriorContinuar »