STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. BYRNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman and colleagues. Those who know me would never question my strong feelings of the right of self-determination for all peoples; their right to liberty and sovereignty. But truthfully, I do not think that is what we are talking about here today.

None of us, I am sure, are seeking to deny the people of Panama these basic freedoms; that is not my desire and I am sure not yours. What we are really considering here today is not the rights of the people of Panama but the rights of the United States to the Panama Canal.

There is no question in my mind that if it weren't for the United States, there would not be a Panama Canal today; further, there would not even be a Panama. I am not judging nor condoning the politics of the early 20th century, but any student of Pan-American history knows that the so-called Panama Revolution was created to split off the Panama district from Colombia for the purposes of creating the Panama Canal.

Perhaps our fathers were incorrect in their judgment to build the canal at the Isthmus of Panama instead of at Nicaragua. But, nevertheless, Panama was the site and that is the single naval site that links our east and west coast.

The American presence in the Panama Canal Zone is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of necessity-a matter of American survival. Perhaps we do need another canal because the Panama Canal is indeed becoming obsolete. If so, I would support this construction; but under no circumstances could I condone an American retreat from the Panama Canal Zone until this became a reality.

Yes, there is a lot of passion-fanning going on in Panama—a lot of "Yankee Go Home!" But, I ask you, how can we knowingly condone the cutting of this vital lifeline-under any circumstances.

Remember, we are talking about a tiny sliver of land bordering the canal. This is American territory. It must remain American territory. I, personally, offer nothing but friendship to the Panamanian people. I sincerely think they need us as badly as we need the canal. We could no more retreat from the Panama Canal Zone than we could from the American east coast.

What I want to see are sober heads and sober thoughts on this issue. There has been too much inflaming going on in Central America. The Panamanian people are our friends. I want to see them healthy, happy, prosperous and free.

But they must realize that the American people cannot, should not, and will not withdraw from this vital lifeline. Let us be friends; let us be partners; but let us also be realistic.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. EARLE CABELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

On February 4, 1971. I reintroduced a resolution to the 92d Congress setting forth our policy involving the Panama Canal.

This is the same resolution that was introduced during the 91st Congress by myself and over 100 other Members of the House.

The resolution is as follows: "Resolved by the House of Representatives, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the Government of the United States should maintain and protect its Sovereign rights and jurisdiction over said Canal Zone and Panama Canal and that the U.S. Government should in no way forfeit, cede, negotiate, or transfer any of these sovereign rights, jurisdiction, territory, or property to any other sovereign nation or to any international organization, which rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction are indispensably necessary for the protection and security of the entire Western Hemisphere including the canal and Panama."

Unfortunately, however, no action was taken during the last session. The necessity for the immediate reintroduction of this resolution became critical by the filing of the final report of the Atlantic-Pacific Interoceanic Canal Study Commission established under the terms of Public Law 88-609, authorizing the study of the feasibility of constructing a new trans-Isthmian Canal of level design.

The prime recommendation of this report is for the construction of such type canal entirely in Panamanian Territory about 10 miles west of the existing canal, regardless of the costs or consequences. This recommendation hinges upon surrender by the United States of its sovereign rights, power, and authority over the Canal Zone, would open up a Pandora's box of problems, and be against the best interests of the United States.

The implementation of this report would seriously impair the national defense posture of the United States and could well lead to complete loss, not only of control of these canals, but the loss of our accessibility to their use.

This is entirely probable when one recalls the action taken by Egypt in the seizure and closing of the Suez Canal.

The loss of the Panama Canal through abandonment of our treaty rights would destroy the mobility of our naval forces from ocean to ocean and seriously impair our over-water supply lines.

I hope that sufficient support, both from the public and from the Congress, will avert this dire mistake.

STATEMENT OF HON. DEL CLAWSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, as cosponsor of House Resolution 541, I am pleased to have this opportunity to reaffirm my strong conviction that the United States cannot afford to relinquish sovereignty over the Panama Canal and the Canal Zone at this time or in the foreseeable future, but must in fact increase security precautions in the maintenance and operation of the canal.

The situation with reference to Communist activity in this hemisphere is certainly no less threatening than in the past when we have taken a strong position on canal sovereignty. From a base in Cuba the Communists continue to export subversive agents and propaganda, progressively extending their influence in government after govern

דיו.

ment in Latin America. In view of the increasingly leftist orientation of the Government of Panama and official support by the Soviet Union of the objectives of the Government of Panama in the current negotiations with the United States, the policy decisions involved are so basic and so vital to U.S. security as to seem almost ridiculous when stated in the form of questions ** *** just how close can we afford to allow Soviet-trained guerrillas to operate in relation to U.S. territory in yet another Latin American nation? What are the advantages which will accrue to the United States if we relinquish this vital international waterway constructed by the United States to a government aligned with the Soviet Union? Surely it does not require a master diplomat or military tactician to answer these questions.

The hard-line attitude of the present Government of Panama with advance indications they will settle for no less than complete abdication of U.S. jurisdiction means that already our negotiators are standing on less ground than in previous talks, unless we make it clear that this is not an acceptable basis for talks.

To relinquish this area of immediate influence voluntarily in the hope of somehow appeasing the revolutionary agitators in Panama would, in my opinion, have the directly opposite effect. It would be an open invitation to the Communists to further test us in our back yard with more and more outrageous demands. As we strive to maintain a favorable position in world commerce and a prudent defense posture, it would be disastrous to permit this ocean-to-ocean lane to fall into potentially, if not already, hostile hands.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD R. COLLIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to you and to the Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs for this opportunity to testify in support of House Resolution 163, which I introduced on January 29. This measure expresses:

The policy of the House of Representatives and the desire of the people of the United States that the United States maintain its sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Panama Canal Zone.

and resolves-

That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the Government of the United States maintain and protect its sovereign rights and jurisdiction over said canal and that the U.S. Government in no way forfeit, cede, negotiate, or transfer any of these sovereign rights or jurisdiction to any other sovereign nation or to any international organization.

At this point I want to pay tribute to our esteemed and persistent colleague from Pennsylvania, Representative Daniel J. Flood, who has, for a decade and a half, been warning the American people about the potentially dangerous situation in the Canal Zone and the Republic of Panama. At times he has been a voice crying in the wilderness, but today more than 100 Members of the House have placed their names on resolutions such as the one that I am sponsoring, thus eloquently indicating their concern over the proposed treaty.

While it is true that, under the Constitution of the United States, "The President *** shall have Power, by and with the Advice and

STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS G. ABERNATHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Mr. Chairman, as my State of Mississippi is one of the great coastal States located on the Gulf of Mexico, I have long recognized the importance of the Panama Canal to both interoceanic commerce and hemispheric security, and have tried to follow events affecting the status of that vital interoceanic link.

The Panama Canal enterprise consists of two principal parts: the canal itself and the protective strip of territory known as the Canal Zone. Recent proposals to cease sovereignty over the Canal Zone to Panama are about as sensible as separating a steam locomotive from its tender, and is unthinkable to any realistic person. Instead of talking about surrending the Canal Zone, we ought to be making plans to extend it to include the entire area of the Chagres River drainage basin. In the early part of this century, the people of our country demanded perpetual sovereignty and ownership of the Canal Zone, and got both in accordance with constitutional requirements. In the present negotiations, we are attempting to secure better treaty relationships by agreeing to give away what is U.S. territory and property under the naive assumption that such a surrender would meet Panamanian aspirations. This is nothing but expressed readiness to submit to blackmail.

While there has been much propaganda about meeting the aspirations of Panama, there are other countries involved in the canal situation: Great Britain, Colombia, and all other nations that use the canal, and we have to pay tolls. It is unrealistic to think only of Panama.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that I reflect the view of the vast majority of the people of our country when I say that they oppose any surrender of our duly acquired rights, power, and authority over the Canal Zone and Panama Canal, which, including defense, represents a net investment of some $6 billion.

Thank you.

STATEMENT.OF HON. WALTER S. BARING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. Chairman and members of the Inter-American Affairs Subcommittee, I am in support of House Resolution 369 to maintain and protect the rights and jurisdiction of the United States over the Canal Zone and Panama Canal during the treaty negotiations.