STATEMENT OF HON ALAN CRANSTON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA*

I am pleased to have the opportunity to express my views to the Inter-American Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee on he continuing controversy over whether the United States should naintain its sovereignty over the Canal Zone.

I would first like to discuss the notion that the United States owns the Panama Canal Zone. It does not. It never has. It doesn't even have sovereignty over the Canal Zone.

By treaty agreement with the Republic of Panama in 1903, the United States "has the power and authority within the zone *** which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the sovereign of the territory."

For the past 68 years we have exercised that power and authoritycausing hard feelings, bitterness and scorn between Panamanians and other Latins on the one hand, and the Americans on the other. It led to tragic riots in 1959 and 1964, and to suspension of diplomatic relations between our two countries after the latter incident. I believe it is time to acknowledge that it is no longer to our advantage to maintain this supposedly sovereign position.

We have heard statements to the effect that we must stay supreme in the Canal Zone to protect the canal, and maintain the balance of power in the Western Hemisphere. We have heard statements to the effect that giving up our alleged sovereignty over the Canal Zone is tantamount to relinquishing control of the canal itself. If we place these statements in the context of hard facts-facts which do not get very much publicity or news analysis-we will see that this Nation has been upholding in the Canal Zone the remnants of the "big stick" policy which succeeding administrations have sought to eliminate elsewhere in the hemisphere. We have sought to eliminate this policy with Franklin Roosevelt's Good Neighbor Policy, and later with John Kennedy's Alliance for Progress. Yet we remain in the Canal Zone, waiting for the next riots to occur.

The Canal Zone is a strip approximately 50 miles long and 10 miles wide-5 miles on either side of the canal which bisects it. It was created on the presumption that the United States should have an area within the Republic of Panama over which it could have complete jurisdiction-this because of the great influx of American civilian and military personnel who were anticipated to supervise the construction and later to operate and defend the canal.

Whether or not there was any justification for insisting on a U.S.controlled zone to insure the safety and comfort of Americans who were building the canal in 1903, that justification hardly remains in 1971. There is no question as to the legality of our presence in Panama. It was fully agreed to by the Panamanian Government. For $10 million and $250,000 a year the United States was leased the Canal Zone in

Commentary by Hon. Daniel J. Flood, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, on excerpts from Senator Cranston's testimony appear on p. 170 of the appendix.

In a memorandum recently issued by the Office of Interoceanic Canal Negotiators, a part of our State Department, it is stated:

Renewal of violence in Panama possibly more extensive than in 1964 might be unavoidable if the treaty objectives considered by the Panamanian people to be reasonable and just are not substantially achieved.

The memorandum further states:

It is our intent to show Latin America and the world that the United States as a great power can develop a fair and mutually acceptable treaty relationship with a nation as small as Panama. Such a treaty must therefore be founded upon common interests and mutual benefits.

To be sure these are fine, idealistic phrases *** but I ask, how foolish can our own State Department get? Especially when our American citizens, for whom they are presumed to be working, are asked to turn over control of a canal that came into being under the terms of the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903 entered into between the United States and the Republic of Panama. This treaty clearly points out the constitutional right and authority of the United States in perpetuity to own, operate, and control the Canal Zone and canal. I admire Panama and its people but certainly we have been gracious to her and her people over the years.

It would be good and refreshing if our State Department would consider some of our own problems, including our national debt, our balance-of-payment losses, our declining dollar value, and all items caused by too much of the giveaway philosophy of the past years.

Yet with all the problems we have in our country *** we still see some in our State Department propounding this absurd scheme to give away this time a $5 billion U.S. investment, as well as a strategic East-West economic link essential to our own national security.

We are told today that the 1967 treaty has now been buried, but we should not be mislead. Ambassador Anderson and his group have issued their final report of the Interoceanic Council which will if not halted now, bring the issue back to life in a new form, but just as dangerous a form. It is now proposed that we build an entirely new canal completely within Panamanian territory, but with the Panamanian Government holding complete soverign rights over this new canal.

This is what is simply known as the old end run trick, thereby circumventing public opinion and Congressional objection. In plain language the "giveawayers" would build the new canal under a new treaty and later, I am sure, would cede the entire operation of the canal to Panama.

The American taxpayer would again be the goat, because it is estimated that the cost of $2.8 billion would be borne mainly by them.

I am informed that these plans are now quietly being discussed and that it is the State Department's hope to get the administration's approval as soon as possible, with the hope of Senate ratification by next spring.

For this reason then, I have joined with a number of our colleagues in sponsoring H. Res. 550 for a sense of Congress Resolution placing our Government on notice that it is our duty to protect our sovereign rights and our jurisdiction over the Panama Canal Zone and our operation over the Panama Canal.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the members of this committee for the opportunity you have given me to testify on this matter.

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

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