60
damage to the larger size ships now using the canal were greater
than estimated. That is why we raised the amount to 1 million a
month which is what we are setting aside now.
Mr. TAUZIN. Let me ask you specifically: Is that amount suffi-
cient to cover what your preliminary investigations lead you to be-
lieve may be the contingent liability of the Commission with refer-
ence to the 21 accidents for which you have not yet received
claims?
Mr. McAULIFFE. Yes. It is sufficient.
Mr. TAUZIN. Let me finally ask you. If this Congress provided a
clear statute of limitations on when claims must be submitted to
you, No. 1; second, a clear statute of limitations on when judicial
filings must be made to contest inside-the-lock decisions by the
Commission; and, third, if you had a procedure whereby you could
also settle your liability outside the locks with some judicial
review, would you not have, No. 1, a more rational system of set-
tling these claims? And No. 2, a more rational basis upon which to
assess the tolls so that the risk covered by those traversing the
canal is more equal to the contingent liability?
Mr. GIANELLI. Yes. I think the answer without question is yes,
Mr. Congressman.
Mr. TAUZIN. I thank you very much.
I thank the Chair for the time. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. HUBBARD. Congressman Bill Carney?
Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Is there any redress to the decisions that you make? Do ship-
owners have any redress to the decisions you make?
Mr. GIANELLI. The decisions for inside-the-lock cases, yes; they
have recourse to the courts.
Mr. CARNEY. Where would that be? Where would they take their
claims?
Mr. GIANELLI. I am informed that is a U.S. district court in Lou-
isiana.
Mr. CARNEY. New Orleans? What about outside the locks?
Mr. GIANELLI. Outside the locks, Mr. Carney, I think we have the
particular problem which is the subject of this hearing. That is, if
the claims over $120,000 must be decided by the Congress, it is our
understanding there is no channel for a shipowner, for example, to
appeal that decision of the Congress.
Mr. CARNEY. I am asking about the appeal below $120,000 as
well.
Mr. GIANELLI. I am informed our decision is final on those.
Mr. CARNEY. There is no appeal above or below? It doesn't
matter? It is not necessarily the cause of the Public Law of 1979,
the treaty of 1977 that makes the exclusion on 120 because Con-
gress has to review it and pass on it? It would happen anyhow,
below $120,000?
Mr. McKABNEY. No. Prior to the treaty, Mr. Carney, it would
have been possible to have those smaller claims reviewed judicially
in the U.S. District Court for the District of the Canal Zone which
was disestablished by the treaty. It is only since then that the
claims for $120,000 and less, are subject to review and payment
only by the Canal Agency.