79
Mr. HUBBARD. We will next call on Ernest Corrado.
STATEMENT OF ERNEST CORRADO
Mr. CORRADO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will read part of my
statement and leave out part of it and make a few extemporaneous
remarks at the end, if I may.
Mr. HUBBARD. Thank you, Ernie. Let me say the statements of
each of you will be included in full in the record. We appreciate
your considering us in limiting your remarks to a summary.
Mr. CORRADO. Thank you very much, sir.
I am the vice president of the American Institute of Merchant
Shipping, which is a national trade association consisting of 30
member companies which own or operate almost 12 million dead-
weight tons of U.S. flag bulk shipping operating mostly in the U.S.
domestic commerce.
Many of our members use the Panama Canal frequently in their
trades, so we are happy to have been invited here today to com-
ment on this matter of extreme importance to our membership.
Also, we are encouraged that the subcommittee is holding these
hearings and we regard it as a sign that the subcommittee and full
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee intend moving expedi-
tiously to solve this vexing problem involving damage to vessels oc-
curring outside the locks during transits of the canal.
As has been set out in correspondence between AIMS and this
subcommittee (and full committee) over the past year, we are op-
posed to the two provisions of the Panama Canal Act of 1979 (22
U.S.C. 3601, et seq.): First, the requirement that any decision of the
Commission awarding $120,000 or more to claimants be forwarded
to Congress for approval; and, second, the requirement that claims
for damage arising outside of the locks be submitted to the Panama
Canal with no right of judicial review of the Commission's decision.
There seems to be some confusion on this matter in the previous
comments to testimony. There is no right of judicial review, either
under or above $120,000 for accidents outside the locks. That is, of
course, part of our complaint. You can't have liability imposed on
an entity by the negligence of a Canal Commission employee and
then not have judicial review, too. There are two wrongs there.
The users of the canal are adamantly opposed to this limitation
amount system and would like to return to the system which exist-
ed prior to the 1979 Panama Canal Act which implemented the
treaties, whereby the present Commission's predecessor corpora-
tion, the Panama Canal Company, had unlimited authority to
settle outside-the-locks claims, and judicial review of such claims
was available under the Canal Zone Code and in the Federal dis-
trict court in the Canal Zone.
Those, of course, are now gone.
In the interests of saving time, Mr. Chairman I will not burden
the record or waste time by going into the law, regulations, Execu-
tive orders, and other documents beginning with the Panama
Canal Act of 1912 and extending to the act of 1950. You have this
record and also all the individuals on your staff are well versed in
these documents.