7
An option that probably will be advocated by several witnesses at
the hearing is to return to the scheme in place from 1951 to 1979.
That is, allow the Commission to pay all claims without limit. This
option could promote faster settlements, although at the expense of
keeping the Commission involved as an insurer and maintaining higher
tolls. Also, the main reason for allowing the Panama Canal Company to
settle all claims from 1951 to 1979 was its corporate structure.
Congress felt it should have the same rights and responsibilities as
other corporations. Now, of course, control of the canal once again
rests with a federal agency, not a corporation. The corporate
rationale, therefore, no longer applies.
It is also possible to leave the claims structure as presently
constituted, but raise the monetary threshold for claims that are
required to be sent to Congress. The House report on the bill that
became the 1979 Act includes a letter from the then Governor of the
Canal Zone which indicates that, based on the consumer price index,
the $60,000 cut-off established in 1940 would be over $300,000 in
1978, owing to inflation. H. Rep. No. 98, Part I, 96th Cong. 1st
Sess. 100-01 (1979).With the high cost of vessel repair nowadays, the
$120,000 limit on the Commission's power to settle outside-the-locks
claims may be unreasonably low. If Congress wishes to retain the
power to approve large outside-the-locks claims, it can still do so,
but perhaps a higher threshold amount is in order.
Another option centers on the vessel pilots who guide ships
through the canal. These pilots are Commission employees and have
final authority over the movement of each ship they command. Since
the Commission pilot has the final word, legal liability for vessel
damage rests with him and, hence, with the Commission. If the pilots'
status were changed to an advisory role, then the ship's master would
retain final authority over the vessel's movement and would be
primarily liable for any damages. This option would probably be
difficult to implement with respect to inside-the-locks damage but
could be feasible for outside-the-locks damage.
A final option is to place a limitation on the time in which
claims may be filed. In 1979, the Senate version of what became the
Act contained a two-year statute of limitations for the filing of
claims, with any legal actions on those claims r quired to be fiAed
within one year of the Commission's final dispos tion of the claim.
See S. Rep. No. 255, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 20-21(1979). Obviously, if
a claim may not be filed after a certain time, the Commission need not
carry a reserve for that claim indefinitely. Once the filing time for
the claim expires, the money set aside to pay that claim can be
dedicated to other purposes, including the payment of other claims,
which helps keep down tolls.
One general consideration concerning all the options should be
kpet in mind. Whatever course Congress takes may serve as a precedent
for how Panama will manage the canal after the year 2000. Obviously,
however, Panama will not be bound after 2000 by the way the United
States operates the canal until then.