When the 1960 report of an independent inquiry under the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries was submitted, it opposed the construction of a "sea-level" project in the Canal Zone, as previously recommended in 1947, because of the possibility of massive slides involving a "long interruption to traffic" (H. Rept. No. 1960, 86th Congress, p. 5.)

In 1970, the report under Public Law 88-609, 88th Congress, as amended, recommended only a "sea-level" project in the Republic of Panama about 10 miles west of the existing canal.

The 1947 and 1970 "sea level" canal reports, costing about $6,000,000 and $23,000,000, respectively, were not the products of independent broadly based commissions subject to Senate confirmation, but of Executive appointed consultants to justify the predetermined decisions of a small professional and industrial group. The maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the Panama Canal and its indispensable protective frame of the Canal Zone are technical problems of great complexity, requiring not only a depth of expert knowledge and experience but also the strong logistical support of a great and powerful nation.

The solution of these problems, including that of major modernization, does not consist of surrendering U.S. sovereignty over the Canal Zone and, ultimately, the Canal itself to a small, weak, technologically primitive, and unstable country but the assumption by the United States of its responsibilities as the great power leader of the Free World.

As was previously indicated, the reasoned solution is two fold: (1) re-affirmation by the Congress of full U.S. sovereign control over the Canal Zone; and (2) the major modernization of the existing canal under existing treaty provisions. Measures to implement these objectives are now before the Congress and should be promptly approved.

As to the much propagandized assertion that all of the Latin American countries desire the United States to surrender its sovereign control over the Panama Canal and Canal Zone to Panama, this is plain poppycock. I know of no better summary of Latin American feeling than that by the late Dr. Mario Lazo, a distinguished Cuban lawyer and author. In his 1977 posthumously published article, when commenting on the proposed surrender, he stated: "The almost universal reaction among the educated people of Latin America who are not politicians to a promulgated Kissinger-Bunker giveaway treaty would be, at first, incredulity, then sadness and eventually ridicule and even contempt for the once greatly respected nation that had shown itself no longer to have the will to maintain its responsibilities.” (Mario Lazo, Op. cit., p. 10.)

The situation on the Isthmus is not a mere local conflict between Panama and the United States but a focal issue in the U.S.S.R. campaign for world domination by gaining control of strategic waterways. The strength of the U.S. Navy has been reduced from some 1,000 vessels a decade ago to about 460 ships today. Thus, the Canal is a more vital element now for U.S. seapower than for many years. We can surrender its sovereign control only at our peril for with the loss of sovereignty all other aspects would become irrelevant. Such giveaway would quickly transform the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico into Red lakes.

As to current efforts to polarize proponents of surrender of the Canal Zone and their opponents as liberals and conservatives, respectively, this is a monumental deception. The Canal question transcends all partisan considerations and must be resolved on the highest plane of national interest for it is a crucial issue in the current global situation, involving the security not only of the United States but also that of the entire Free World.

In these connections, I would stress the following:

The proposed new canal treaties ignore the obligations of the United States under the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty.

They disregard the rights under that treaty of the successor states of the former British Empire and other important canal users that provide a substantial portion of Panama Canal traffic.

They represent an abject surrender to threats of violence if the treaties are not ratified.

Their ratification will extend U.S.S.R. power in the strategic Caribbean-Gulf of Mexico areas and impair the influence of the United States not only in this area but also throughout the world, especially among canal user nations.

There is ample authority to deal with local problems within the framework of existing treaties without any new ones.

The present treaties are workable. The proposed treaties would saddle the United States with grave responsibility without adequate authority, which would be an entirely impossible situation and would not work.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the program that I recommend, which is derived from experience and is historically based, is simple:

1. Rejection of the pending treaties in their entirety;

2. Re-affirmation by the Congress of the historic U.S. policy for perpetual undiluted U.S. sovereign control over the Canal Zone;

3. Enactment of measures for the major modernization of the existing canal under existing treaty provisions.

4. Authorization for a Delegate in the Congress from the Canal Zone.

5. Reactivation of the preWorld War II U.Š. Navy's Special Service Squadron with home base in the Canal Zone.

As recognized by many informed Latin Americans, this program will be best for the United States, best for world commerce, best for Panama and best for other nations of Latin America that use the Canal.

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORAble Baltasar CORRADA

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: My name is Baltasar Corrada, Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to the United States Congress, and Member of the House of Representatives. I am very pleased to be given the opportunity to testify today on the proposed Panama Canal Treaties. I have a short statement that I would like to read and I will then answer any questions that you may have. I have asked to be heard by the Committee because it seems to me that we Puerto Ricans are in a very unique position as citizens of the United States as well as residents of the Caribbean of hispanic heritage, to understand the significance of these treaties for our nation and for our relations with Latin America. Puerto Rico lies halfway between the U.S. mainland and the Canal. From our particular vantage point, I will share my views with you.

Although I am aware of the concern of some people about a possible threat to our national security, I do not believe that our safety is imperiled as a result of the ratification of these treaties. I would like to state from the outset that the proposed treaties have my full support as well as the endorsement of the Governor of Puerto Rico, the Honorable Carlos Romero Barcelo. Governor Romero was one of the first governors to encourage the ratification of these treaties in a speech given at the recent Southern Governors Conference held in San Antonio.

We realize and share in the strong belief that these treaties represent a fair and just resolution of a long standing and delicate dispute between our nation and the Republic of Panama. A dispute, may I add, that has become an issue in terms of our relationship with all the nations of Latin America who will judge our actions in this matter to view us as fair and open-minded or as recalcitrants who insist in perpetuating an old agreement not morally justified on the basis of today's standards for international relations.

A major question and one which I find people are most concerned about revolves around what they perceive to be a giving away of something that is rightfully ours. A close examination of the provisions of the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, particularly Articles II and III, however, will show that while the words "in perpetuity" were used in granting the United States control over the land for the purpose of the construction of the canal, and that Article III provides that "the United States would possess and exercise (as) if it were the sovereign of the territory," the United States has never asserted sovereignty in one very important characteristic inherent to a claim of full territorial jurisdiction: the citizenship of persons born within its boundaries. Children of non-U.S. nationals which are born within the boundaries of the Canal Zone are not considered U.S. citizens. I believe this to be a very important point as we have extended our citizenship to those persons born in places where we have full jurisdiction; the absence of that policy in this case shows that we never intended to assert full sovereignty over the Canal Zone.

In addition, there are two other points which we need to emphasize in order that our people will fully understand the purpose of these treaties. First, the continued protection of our national security interests are ensured by the provisions in the treaties which continue our exercise of control over the defense of the Canal until the year 2000 and guarantees the neutrality of the Canal into the 21st century and beyond. Moreover, the United States is guaranteed passage of its ships during a time of war regardless of the nature of their cargo, and the United States will continue to supervise the access to the Canal area on both the Atlantic and Pacific ends. We are thus assured that, should the need arise, the uninterrupted use of the Canal would be guaranteed.

A third main point concerns the commercial use of the Canal. In recent years our use of the Canal has declined as it is not equipped to handle the super-tankers used

today. Many people are not aware that only about 4 percent of the trade between the East and West coasts of the United States is handled through the Panama Canal today. Even so, this commercial navigability is not endangered or precluded by the ratification of the Canal Treaties; on the other hand, both the United States and Panama commit themselves to a joint study to determine the feasibility of a new sea-level canal. Such a study and possible construction, I submit, would not have been possible without an overall evaluation of the 1903 Treaty. Looking at it pragmatically, by the enactment and ratification of these treaties we are ensuring the possibility of increased use of the canal by our ships and tankers through the expansion of the existing Canal or the construction of a new one, something which would otherwise have been extremely difficult, if not impossible under the terms of the existing treaty.

Lastly, we must remember that Ambassadors Bunker and Linowitz are men of vast experience dedicated to the achievement of a mutually equitable treaty. If people would read and analyze the provisions of these treaties, the notion that this is a one-sided deal, beneficial to the other party at the detriment of our interest, would be dispelled. Our interests and security have been and will continue to be protected by the ratification of these treaties.

This brings me, Mr. Chairman, to what I consider to be a significant consequence of these treaties; our enhance reputation in the world munity, particularly amongst our neighbors in Latin America. The 1903 Treaty has long been considered a blot in our international reputation. While one can understand and sympathize with the pressing need in the United States during the early 1900's for a route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, one cannot help but be critical of the 1903 Treaty. It seems inconceivable that a fair and equitable treaty could be worked out within days of the proclamation of the new Republic of Panama. It is not surprising that the Panamanians later resented the terms of the treaty. The 1964 riots exacerbated an already smoldering situation and determined without question that a solution had to be reached in order to avoid a major crisis. It was impossible to maintain the status quo but it would have been foolish to undertake any precipitous agreements. The fact that the negotiations spread over a fourteen year period under Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter attest to the thorough deliberations that took place. We can be justly proud and sure that the ratification of these treaties will result in a better appreciation and support of our intentions in the

area.

Mr. Chairman, the United States has traditionally been the defender of the interests and rights of other people. Here we are putting our words to action by correcting a situation which concerns our friends and allies and offered grounds for criticism to our enemies. We had entered into a treaty where the two parties had not been equal in the fullest sense of the word; we can remedy that situation by the ratification of these treaties and I urge the Senate to act favorably on these treaties. Thank you.

THE PANAMA CANAL TREATIES

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, earlier today I testified before the Foreign Relations Committee on the provisions of the pending treaties that would give the Panama Canal Zone to the Republic of Panama. During my testimony opposing these treaties, I raised the point that Panamanian officials are putting a different interpretation on some of the treaty provisions from those interpretations expressed by U.S. officials who support the treaties.

I have now been handed a wire from the American Embassy in Panama to the U.S. Secretary of State. It was obtained by Senator Robert Dole and corroborates my statement this morning about Panamanian interpretations of the treaties differing from those expressed by proponents in this country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a news release on this matter by Senator Dole and the wire to the Secretary of State be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the news release was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

DOLE: "CONFIDENTIAL" CABLE PROVES PANAMA CANAL TREATY FLAWED

WASHINGTON, D.C.-Senator Bob Dole today released the text of a Confidential State Department cable which he said proves "beyond a doubt" that U.S. and Panamanian officials have far different interpretations of key defense provisions in the proposed Panama Canal Treaties. Dole has requested comments from Secretary of State Cyprus Vance on the contents of the cable, which the Senator received a copy of on Monday of this week. "This document demonstrates beyond a doubt the vast differences in interpretation of the most important part of these treaties-that portion which bears directly on our vital national defense interests," Dole said. Senator Dole, who is due to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday morning, said that the Senate "must clarify our defense rights by Amendment, not by weak 'understandings' that have no legal and binding effect. Senator Dole is the only Senator to have introduced Amendments and Reservations to change the language of the Canal Treaties proposed by President Carter. The State Department cable was received from the American Embassy in Panama last Thursday, September 29, and described Panamanian negotiators as "disturbed" over testimony by Secretary of State Vance and U.S. Ambassadors Ellsworth Bunker and Sol Linowitz before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week. One Panamanian negotiator confirmed that the U.S. would have no military intervention rights under the Treaty, and there would be no "preferential passage" for U.S. warships through the Panama Canal. Secretary Vance, along with several other Administration witnesses, indicated in his testimony last week that such American rights were "understood" within the language of the Treaties.

Senator Dole said it is "essential” that the United States retain unilateral authority to step in and defend the Canal militarily at any time it is threatened. He said it is also essential to have clear-cut rights to priority passage through the Canal during wartime. Senator Dole has already introduced Amendments to the Treaties which would guarantee both rights to the United States permanently.

In other remarks prepared for the Committee, Dole said defects and omissions in the Treaties must be corrected by Amendment or Reservation, both of which would be legally binding, rather than by Understanding or Declaration, which have only an interpretive purpose for the party that makes them.

Dole described in detail his six Amendments and two Reservations which, in addition to those described above, would cut U.S. payments to Panama in half; guarantee the U.S. right to construct a new interoceanic canal anyplace in the Western hemisphere; extend the transition period for transfer of U.S. jurisdiction over the Canal Zone; insist on human rights observance in Panama for U.S. and Panamanian citizens; and give the House of Representatives a right to act on the Treaty proposals.

STATE DEPARTMENT CABLE

Subject: negotiator's concern over hearings:

1. The political counselor called Carlos Lopez Guevara on another matter this morning and found him disturbed over some of the testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee-particularly the first day. Two matters seemed to trouble him most:

A. Interpretation of the expeditious-passage clause that U.S. war vessels get "preferential" treatment or that they may go to the head of the line". Lopez Guevara said that Royo and Escobar tentatively accepted preferential treatment for us and Panamanian war vessels, but in a later session this was specifically rejected by Panama and the word "expeditiously" was substituted. B. Assertions that the treaty gives the U.S. any right to "intervene" in Panama. He said that Article IV means nothing more than what it says. "Intervention is simply forbidden by international law," he said. "Panama cannot agree to the right of the U.S. to intervene.' He urged that U.S. officials stop using the term "intervention" in describing its rights under the treaty. He also expressed the view that those testifying before the committee on Monday had made too much of General Torrijos' statement that Panama was under the umbrella of the Pentagon. "The general was stating a fact, not giving the U.S. any right to intervene." He said he had no way of knowing what Torrijos thought of the testimony, but he, Lopez, personally was disturbed with many of our interpretations. He promised to "set the record straight" in a speech he is to make tonight.

2. The political counselor pointed out some statements which Panamanian negotiators had made which do not accord with our understanding of the neutrality agreement. He said that, on balance, the positions on neutrality given by Escobar and Boyd, while not identical with our interpretation, were moderate in the Panamanian context. However, certain statements taken by themselves and out of the

overall context, have proved difficult to explain to skeptical Senators. He pointed out that most of the difficulties in the Senate so far have come from uncommitted Senators such as Baker and Stone, rather than hardline treaty opponents. He suggested that it might be useful if the Panamanians would establish a standard position, rather than speak extemporaneously on this delicate question.

3. Lopez Guevara said he understood the difficulties which U.S. negotiators face and asked for copies of some of the offending remarks. However, he cautioned that, no matter how necessary in the American process, there were some things that no Panamanian Government could accept.

4. Comment: As the negotiators are aware, Lopez Guevara, though a moderate and reasonable man, is relatively inflexible on some questions. As he pointed out, he was at the head of those who did not accept the concept of priority passage for U.S. war vessels. He is considered a technician within the government, but he is influential. As we talk with other negotiators and officials who are campaigning for the treaty here, we will urge caution on any statement concerning U.S. rights under the neutrality treaty. But we are likely to be faced with increasing irritation over-and perhaps public disavowals of our interpretations. Any assertion which deems to claim a right to intervene in Panama's domestic affairs is almost sure to be challenged here.-Gonzalez

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. THURMOND. I am pleased to yield to the able Senator from Virginia.

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, I have seen the wire to which the distinguished Senator from South Carolina refers. It is a wire from the American Embassy in Panama to our State Department.

It is a very significant statement. I am glad the Senator has put it in the Record. Earlier today, I inserted in the Record the testimony given by the Senator from South Carolina before the Foreign Relations Committee today. In that testimony, the Senator from South Carolina brought out many facts which I think are very important for the Senate to know.

Mr. THURMOND. I thank the distinguished and able senior Senator from Virginia.