Mr. FASCELL. I would like to ask one question. I do not know of any pending plans concerning international operation of the canal. I can understand your reservations about that if it were to take place, but I do not know that we are entering negotiations or continuing negotiations with that purpose in mind. At least, it is news to me.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have here a Department of State letter from the Office of Interoceanic Canal Negotiations, September 1971. It says:

Negotiations between the United States and Panama began on June 29, 1971. Important issues such as duration, jurisdiction, land and water requirements, expansion of Canal capacity, and compensation are now being explored, but no agreements have been reached.

It does use the word "jurisdiction." Serving, as you do, on the Foreign Affairs Committee, you would be better advised.

Mr. FASCELL. That is the reason why you expressed that reservation? Mr. SCOTT. No. I have seen it in other places, but it may have been by people who were not knowledgeable in the field. I have no personal knowledge. It is hearsay on my part.

Mr. MORSE. I have no questions. I am grateful to Mr. Scott for coming here and helping us.

Mr. FASCELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott.

That concludes our list of witnesses for today. We had originally scheduled continuation of these hearings for 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, but because the full committee must meet then with respect to a priority matter under the rules, this subcommittee cannot meet at 10 o'clock. The witnesses who are scheduled for that time have been notified, and we will continue our hearings at 2 o'clock tomorrow afternoon in this same room.

The subcommittee stands adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 2 p.m., Thursday, September 23, 1971.)

PANAMA CANAL, 1971

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1971

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTER-AMERICAN AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 2 p.m. in room 2200, Rayburn House Oface Building, Hon. Dante B. Fascell (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. FASCELL. The subcommittee will come to order.

We continue our hearings today on several pending resolutions concerning the Panama Canal. We had previous testimony on the matter both in closed session and in open session. Yesterday we heard from several of our distinguished colleagues and today we continue in open session to hear other Members of the Congress.

Our first witness today is the distinguished Representative from the State of Missouri who has had a long, deep, and abiding interest in the whole question of the Panama Canal and United States-Panama relations, Hon. Durward G. Hall.

STATEMENT OF HON. DURWARD G. HALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It has been some 4 years since I had the opportunity to appear before this distinguished subcommittee, and you may remember at that time the proposed 1967 Canal Zone treaties were making headlines in the papers, and there was a great deal of excitement and apprehension both here and in the Republic of Panama regarding the terms of this proposed treaty. You will also recall that over 150 Members of the House of Representatives introduced resolutions in 1967 expressing "the sense of the Congress," that U.S. control and sovereignty be maintained over our Panama Canal Zone. As a result of resolutions coupled with public unrest and general public outcry, President Johnson's administration did not execute the treaties nor were they sent to the Senate for ratification.

Here today in another administration it seems that history is repeating itself, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that this subcommittee is keenly aware of the fact that treaty negotiations have once again resumed with the Republic of Panama over the status of the Canal Zone. I am also sure that this committee is aware that the chief negotiator is the same Robert Anderson who negotiated the abortive, unsuccessful and unsatisfactory proposed 1967 treaty.

68-091 0-71—5

ང

Also, I am sure this committee is aware that there are now over 100 Members of the House of Representatives who have again intro duced resolutions expressing "the sense of the House of Represents tives" of the United States to maintain sovereignty and control over our Panama Canal Zone.

I think it goes without saying that the subcommittee is wise in holding these hearings, and I feel it is time for the House of Repre sentatives to go on record expressing not only its sense, but the sens of the vast majority of American people that we maintain our con trol and our sovereignty over this strategic piece of American real

estate.

You are aware, Mr. Chairman, that although the Senate has the power of advice and consent in the making of treaties, article IV. section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution vests the power to dispose of territory and other property of the United States in the Congress which includes both the House and Senate. Thus the people of our country through their elected Representatives in the Congress have a controlling voice in the disposal of their territory and property regardless of what may be provided in any new treaty or treaties with Panama.

I do not wish to belabor this committee with a historical account of the events in Panama because I know you are well aware of these various facts. As a member of the House Committee on Armed Services, subjects of national security and hemispheric defense are paramount in my mind. The importance of the Canal Zone as a bastion of our "southern flank” and gateway from the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean cannot be overrated or overstated. Without our control of the Canal Zone, the possibility of a potentially hostile regime in Panama denying access of the transferring of our naval forces from one ocean to the other, and of our men and material from one ocean to another, ever increases. The loss of this access could destroy a link in our defense chain and could produce military and national disaster. We can ill afford to break existing links or further defensive powers which our adversaries respect.

Also intertwined with this aspect of national security, Mr. Chairman, is the equally important area of hemispheric defense. The Canal Zone under our control and jurisdiction serves as an outpost warding off the perverted ambitions of Communist takeover in Latin America. Our presence serves as a constant reminder to the "Castros" of the world, that we are determined to stop subversion and revolution in Latin America. I think there is no doubt in one's mind that Panamanian control of the canal would certainly aid and abet the forces of communism, and especially of Fidel Castro in Latin America. All one has to do is to look at the makeup of the present Panamanian Government.

General Torrijos, the dictator of Panama, has been regarded by many as just another "leftwing idealist." The truth of the matter is that since he took over the military coup in 1968 he has exiled a popular and freely elected president, installed a puppet president, suspended the constitution, discharged the Congress, and appointed a congress and judiciary composed of close friends and fellow revolutionaries. Beyond that Torrijos has been reported to be a friend and admirer of the late Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara. He has been

llaborating and conspiring with Castro, and Cuban guerrilla teams ve been training native sabotage teams in Panamanian jungles adcent to the canal.

Compounding the "felony," Russian technicians have been reported tely to have been arriving in Panama, no doubt to train Panamians a the operation of the canal, as they trained Egyptians in the manageent of the Suez Canal. So win, lose, or draw in the negotiations this etty Panamanian dictator is readying himself for some type of evenal takeover of the canal. He will no doubt first try through the negoating table method, but if that reaches an impasse or proves to no vail, I think it is safe to say that he will follow the Egyptian example n their Suez takeover.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I think it is imperaive and indeed more than timely for this subcommittee to favorably report out one of the Canal Zone "sense of the House of Representaives” resolutions that has been introduced in this session of the Congress. We owe it especially to the negotiators since they need to be armed with American public opinion via their elected Representatives in the House. Hopefully, it will give them the necessary backbone and stamina to stand firm and protect U.S. interests in the Canal Zone. Even more important it would show the American people that the House of Representatives is indeed responsive to their wishes as well as our responsibilities and that the representative process is properly functioning. It would show the American people that the House is concerned and is willing to take a strong and firm stand about maintaining our rights abroad. We owe nothing less to the negotiators and even more importantly we owe nothing less to our duty as the peoples' elected Representatives.

Mr. FASCELL. Thank you very much, Congressman Hall, for your direct and concise statement on this issue.

There are several things I would like to inquire about very briefly. One is the citation of article IV of the Constitution with respect to the need and the right of the Congress to act with respect to the ceding of territory which is sovereign territory of the United States. If that constitutional provision applies in the case of Panama, then I don't understand what the difficulty is. The Congress would have to act; there would be no ifs, ands, or buts, would there?

Mr. HALL. I think you are exactly right. I think the Congress does have to act, but how often have we recently seen the executive branch act and the Congress be put in the position of a veto in reverse after the fact, Mr. Chairman? I just don't want that to happen. I think your hearings will give the stamina to our negotiators to see that it does not happen.

Mr. FASCELL. Well, the point is that if an agreement is reached by the negotiators, it would have to be submitted to the Senate for ratification and then if it involved any ceding of sovereignty or land according to your interpretation, the Congress as a whole must legislate. We have had other testimony on this. Yesterday one of the witnesses pointed out several instances where indeed the Congress has acted. So I am frankly a little bit at a loss to understand, if that is the case, how the negotiators could do anything that this Congress and this administration would not have control over.