81
as in other waterways, but this raises a whole new set of problems,
not the least of which is that the pilots would not agree to such a
change in their authority after all these years. Nor would such a
change be in the best interests of Panama Canal transit maritime
safety.
Another point, we certainly do not think that damage claims in
excess of $120,000 occurring outside the locks should be submitted
to Congress for approval as established by the 1979 act. Aside from
the fact that the U.S. Congress is not the proper forum for the
processing an adjudication of tort damage claims, the system estab-
lished does not lend itself to an expeditious resolution of these
damage claims. Indeed, the record to date shows that there is no
resolution at all following this route for these claims.
The next part of my statement is not up to date, but we have had
testimony from the Panama Canal Commission today that there
are 36 claims, 15 active and 21 more whereby they think there is
negligence on the part of the canal employees and these claims will
probably be in the pipeline pretty soon.
Up to this point, only two claims are ready for referral to the
Congress and these were sent to OMB for clearance and referral.
These two claims have languished in OMB for the last 8 months
and were finally forwarded to the Congress on November 8, 1982.
Could anyone perceive that this system is working, even if the Con-
gress was the proper forum for tort damage claims? And what will
happen to these claims when the finally reach Congress after 3 to 4
years? How rapidly will the Congress act on these claims? How will
Congress process them? Will the Congress act at all? Should Con-
gress honor such claims, where will the money come from? We are
convinced that Congress will never pay such awards from general
revenues-the taxpayers, but will tell the Commission to pay them,
which is where the claim would be satisfied if the Commission were
not exonerated from liability.
We further believe that elimination of the judicial review process
effectuated by the 1979 act is misplaced. The attention of Congress
should not be distracted from matters of national policy to analyze
routine commercial claims which are more efficiently dealt with in
the traditional forums provided by the Federal courts.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot conceive of Congress' continued blind
adherence to the system established in the 1979 act with its numer-
ous uncertainties and almost limitless delays, when it is clear
under all the established principles of tort law that the Commis-
sion should bear the responsibility for the negligence of its tort
feasor employee who is in complete control of the vessel in transit.
Meanwhile, the years since enactment in 1979 begin to mount.
Claims accumulate, and the users of the canal continue on without
redress for their legitimate tort damage claims. What will happen
in the event of a major catastrophe in the canal? We submit, Mr.
Chairman, that continuation of the present circumstances is unsat-
isfactory from every standpoint and manifestly unfair to the users
of the canal.
A final point, Mr. Chairman, having served as chief counsel on
this committee for many years, I know one of the purposes of the
committee has always been to advance the welfare of the U.S. flag
merchant marine. I know the present leadership of the committee