To complement the information released by my colleague, I would like to bring to all Members' attention an Associated Press interview held with Panamanian negotiator Carlos Lopez Guevara last weekend. In the course of this interview he is quoted as saying,

It is sad to see that high officials of the United States government are affirming that these treaties give the United States the right to intervene... This Neutrality Treaty gives the United States the right to hope that Panama and all the countries in the world will respect the right of American ships to transit the canal, but that is the only right it has received.

I feel this interview is highly significant. Lopez Guevara's statements indicate the depth of conviction with which the Panamanians hold to their interpretation-and just how far that interpretation is from our own. It is obvious that a common understanding of the treaty language will have to be reached before Senate consideration of the documents can proceed any further.

At this time I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Record a translation of a story describing the AP interview with Lopez Guevara which appeared in the Monday, October 3, Spanishlanguage edition of the Miami Herald.

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

(The following is a translation of a story which ran in the Miami Spanish language media Monday, October 3. It provides details of the Panamanian negotiators' reaction to the official U.S. interpretation of the neutrality agreement.)

This weekend the (Panamanian) negotiators refuted and contradicted the interpretations given the new Panama Canal treaties by Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and the American treaty negotiators Ellsworth Bunker and Sol Linowitz in their presentation before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

'The denial was in reference to the statements made last week in the Senate by these officials on the controversial neutrality pact.

"It is sad to see that high officials of the United States government are affirming that these treaties give the United States the right to intervene," said treaty negotiator and attorney Carlos Lopez Guevara. "There is nothing in it that states this nor that could serve as a basis for American intervention."

In an interview with the Associated Press, Panamanian officials confirmed Saturday that the American officials not identified by Lopez Guevara were Vance, Bunker and Linowitz.

"This neutrality treaty gives the United States the right to hope that Panama and all the countries in the world will respect the right of American ships to transit the Canal," added the negotiator, "but that is the only right it has received." This pact is separate from the Canal treaty which establishes the transfer of control over the sea lane to Panama at the end of the century, and has become the most sensitive issue of the public debate both here and in the United States.

THE PANAMA CANAL TREATY SHOULD BE AMENDED OR WITHDRAWN

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the morning papers carry a report that the State Department is seeking clarification of Panama Canal Treaty provisions from Panamanian officials. They are looking for public reassurances that the United States will have recognized defense rights under the treaty on permanent neutrality, and that we will have the right to priority passage during periods of crisis. It seems they finally woke up to the fact that the Senate is not prepared to ratify this treaty so long as these rights are ambiguous.

ASSURANCES NOT ENOUGH

But the Senate will not settle for verbal assurance on our defense rights under the treaty. We do not want pacifiers, we want protection. The treaty is a contract. And the only way to clarify a contract is to make its language as clear and precise as possible.

I have followed the established procedure for doing this, in introducing amendments and reservations to an ambiguous treaty. However, if the State Department is unwilling to accept the idea of congressional modification, maybe they should withdraw the treaty now, renegotiate with the Panamanians, and then resubmit the document to Congress.

It is specially troubling to me to think that if the State Department cable_revealing serious disagreements between the United States and Panama over the meaning of the treaties had not been revealed, the Senate might have proceeded to ratify an agreement seriously damaging to U.S. security and economic interests. We would have done so, ignorant of vital information hidden under a State Department security blanket.

The State Department says it is maintaining a continuing dialog with Panama to seek clarification of differing interpretations of treaty provisions. While the department is looking for reassurances on U.S. rights to defend the canal and to gain priority passage through the canal, Panamanian statements to this effect will probably not be forthcoming until after the October 23 plebiscite in Panama.

I have no doubt that words of reassurance will flow fast and free after the Panamanian vote is over. But that will not explain away the understandings that top Panamanian officials attach to the treaties today. If they say one thing now, and another next month, how can we place confidence in their verbal assurances?

The proper course now is congressional modification. If the administration cannot accept this, then they should take the initiative and go back to the negotiating table now.

SWITCH IN PANAMA CANAL POSITION OF U.S. SHIPPING

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, almost unnoticed in the Panama Canal debate has been the switch from a position of "yes" to a position of "no" on the Panama Canal Treaty by the influential Liner Council of the American Institute of Merchant Shipping. Mr. W. J. Amoss, Jr., a chairman of the council and president of Lykes Brothers Steamship Co., stated recently the proposed increased toll costs embodied by the treaty spell "sheer disaster for operators east of the canal." He is speaking of trade from Eastern seaboard States such as New England States, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

Mr. Amoss explained that the higher toll costs envisioned to support payments to Panama would result in diversion of some shipping with the ultimate costs being passed on to the American

consumer.

He stated that shippers simply could not handle another 25 percent increase in canal tolls on top of the 45-percent increases added in the past 3 years.

Mr. President, this is an important statement and deserves attention by the Congress. I ask unanimous consent that an article entitled "Canal Toll Plan Sours Lykes Chief" which appeared in the September 20, 1977, issue of the Journal of Commerce be printed in the Record.

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

CANAL TOLL PLAN SOURS LYKES CHIEF SUPPORT FOR PACT DROPPED BECAUSE OF TOLL INCREASE

(By Anita Schrodt)

NEW ORLEANS. A major U.S. steamship official has withdrawn his earlier endorsement of the new Panama Canal Treaty and is now opposing it after learning a 25 to 30 per cent toll increase is expected to be imposed immediately under the new treaty. W. J. Amoss, Jr., president of Lykes Bros. Steamship Co. here, expressed his opposition to the treaty at a meeting here recently with Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce Anne Wexler. "I told her she could expect massive commercial resistance to passing the cost of diplomacy to canal users," Mr. Amoss told The Journal of Commerce.

Mr. Amoss made it clear he spoke not only as Lykes president but also as chairman of the Liner Council of the American Institute of Merchant Shipping and as chairman of the new Council for American-Flag Shipping (CASO), which the AIMS Liner Council is forming independently.

Last Tuesday, based on an AIMS study which projected the treaty could be implemented without increasing canal tolls, Mr. Amoss publicly expressed his support of the treaty. However, upon receiving new communication from AIMS' Washington staff on Wednesday, Mr. Amoss reassessed his position.

COULD BE TOLERATED

"We have learned that negotiators, using as a basis a 1969 study by Stanford Research, informed the governor of the Panama Canal Co. that an immediate toll rate increase of 25 per cent could be tolerated and would be invoked as soon as the new Panama Canal Commission contemplated by the treaty was established, Mr. Amoss said. Further, the letter from AIMS President James Reynolds also informed Mr. Amoss of Sept. 8 testimony before the House International Relations Committee by Sol Linowitz, one of the treaty negotiators, that an increase of 25 to 30 per cent in tolls would probably be necessary to meet the costs of the new treaty.

"Commercial interests that use the canal, having already had a 45 percent increase in tolls in the last three years, topped off with rearrangements of methods of billing that resulted in further increases, simply cannot accept another increase in tolls," he said.

RECENT DEVELOPMENT

"The projection that another increase could be tolerated completely ignored recent developments brought by intermodalism and mini-landbridge," Mr. Amoss said, pointing out cargo now has an alternative route. "I told her it spelled sheer disaster for operators east of the canal and going westbound through the canal," he said, adding that "commercial interests would oppose adoption of the treaty if it would mean an increase in tolls to implement it."

The treaty requires 30 cents on the dollar per canal net ton (with the current rate at $1.29 per canal net ton) be paid to Panama; that $10 million annual for services go to Panama and another $10 million annually go to the Canal Commission. Further, once those payments and the operating costs of the canal company are deducted, any excess yields in tolls up to $10 million are to be paid to Panama annually.

TWO VITAL FACTORS

Mr. Amoss said the AIMS study upon which he based his original support of the treaty could only guess at two vital factors-the operating costs of the canal compa

ny and the impact of Alaskan oil ships transitting the canal. "Apparently, the negotiators were more informed on these issues," he said. Lykes has already found it cheaper to divert three ships this year on their outbound New Orleans-Singapore voyage from the traditional canal transit to the Suez Canal and around Cape Horn. According to Mr. Amoss, the New Orleans-Singapore run via Panama totals 11,933 miles; via Suez, 11,517 miles; and via the Cape of Good Hope, 12,921 miles, or about 2 and one-quarter days longer than through Panama.

"The only drawback to the Suez is the war risk insurance feature, which is an additional expense. But it still turned out to cheaper," Mr. Amoss said. "Such a diversion away from the canal is not yet economically feasible on Far East runs which include northern ports such as Hong Kong or Tokyo,” he said.

114 TRANSITS

Last year, Lykes made 114 transits through the Panama Canal. Currently, it is costing Lykes about $14,500 one-way through the canal with its Gulf Pacer class ships which serve the Far East trade. Mr. Amoss projected the cost for a one-way transit for a barge-carrying Seabee, comparable in size to a LASH barge ship or containership, would be about $30,000.

Panama Canal tolls went up 19.5 per cent in 1974 and another 19.7 per cent in 1976. In addition, in 1974, additional ship space was judged to be susceptible to perton revenues. According to Mr. Amoss, that increase represented about a 5 per cent increase in tolls. “If you put it all together, the increase really comes to a total 52 per cent right now, compared to 1973," he said.

"The Panama Canal net ton is a space measurement approximately equal to about 100 cubic feet of enclosed ship space," he added.

Also at the meeting with Ms. Wexler Friday were Capt. J. W. Clark, president of Delta Steamship Co.; Edward S. Reed, director of the Port of New Orleans; C. M. Keeney, president of Equitable Shipyards (which moves its products through the canal); Charles Richardson, vice president of the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association in the Gulf; and C. Buck Hammond, president of Unit Rig Inc. of Tulsa, manufacturer of mining machinery.

COMMERCIAL ASPECTS

"We all expressed our concern about the commercial aspects of increasing tolls and said we hoped some arrangement could be made whereby there would not be a toll increase," Capt. Clark told The Journal of Commerce.

Although Delta does not presently transit the canal, it has in the past and is presently negotiating to purchase Prudential Lines U.S. West Coast-South American service which does use the canal. Mr. Reed, who said the board of commissioners of the port would formally consider the treaty at a meeting Thursday, said he was concerned that the treaty contained no indication of controls over rates and charges of the canal.

Noting that much of the U.S. grain is exported through the New Orleans area and much through the canal, with competitive pricing, he added: "Since grain exports are the U.S.'s best source of balance of payments loans, I think it is incumbent upon the Federal Government to closely scrutinize the possible effects of canal toll increases on the farm commodities exported from the U.S."

ANOTHER PANAMANIAN NEGOTIATOR DENIES U.S.
INTERVENTION RIGHTS UNDER TREATY

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, another Panamanian Treaty negotiator has spoken out to deny any U.S._rights of military intervention under the proposed Treaty on Permanent Neutrality for the Panama Canal.

According to the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, Panamanian negotiator Diogenes de la Rosa said in Venezuela on October 6 that the United States will not have the right to intervene militarily in Panama when control of the canal passes to the Panamanians after 1999. Whether or not his comments are directed at U.S. rights to intervene militarily on behalf of the canal's

neutrality is unclear from this report. However, the negotiator's remarks would certainly raise a question on that point.

As such, it is still another in a series of public statements by Panamanian officials that focuses doubt on just what our rights under section IV of the Permanent Neutrality Treaty are supposed to be, and just how they are to be correctly interpreted. It is still another reason why language in this provision must be clarified, in order to assure our right to protect the canal.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the television report, monitored in Panama City, be printed in the Record.

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

PANAMANIAN NEGOTIATOR DENIES U.S. RIGHT TO INTERVENTION

The United States will not have the right to intervene militarily in Panama when control of the canal passes to the Panamanians in the year 2000, negotiator Diogenes de la Rosa said in Caracas today. He recognized that there is always the possibility, with or without the treaty, of unilateral action.

De la Rosa said in a news conference that there is nothing in the treaties that gives the United States the right to intervene in Panama. De la Rosa also said that a broad debate has opened in Panama to publicize the treaty so that the Panamanian people can vote in the 23 October plebiscite. Although de la Rosa believes there will be a majority vote in favor of the treaty, he would predict the numerical results of the plebiscite. He indicated that the new treaty has provoked criticism and opposition among some Panamanian sectors. He described this as healthy and

necessary.

De la Rosa accused conservative U.S. groups of exploiting the U.S. people's ignorance of the Panama Canal in order to create opposition to the new treaty.

De la Rosa said that if the treaty is not ratified by the United States, Panama will have to seek new diplomatic alternatives for the solution of the problem. He explained that those new alternatives could be the unilateral denunciation of the 1903 treaty or to take the issue to the United Nations because the current treaty violates norms of international law and the UN charter. De la Rosa said that the other alternatives that we could implement will be determined by circumstances. De la Rosa ruled out that the United States in the future will neglect the proper maintenance of the canal and that the equipment might have deteriorated when Panama takes over control of the waterway in the year 2000. He said that this would go against the U.S. national interest because even then its ships would be the ones that would use the waterway the most.

De la Rosa praised Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez, describing him as the Latin American ruler who has given greatest and fullest support to Panama's efforts to reach an acceptable treaty.

BRING ESCOBAR TO THE UNITED STATES; LET'S SEE

WHO STANDS WHERE

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Department of State has announced that Ambassadors Sol Linowitz and Ellsworth Bunker are reopening talks with Panamanian officials in an attempt to clarify the dangerously ambiguous sections of the Panama Canal treaties.

This procedure will be of little value. We will still end up with a document that will be open to different interpretations. The present interpretations are so diametrically opposed that one side or the other will have to make a compromise that would be fatal to its credibility, or they will have to agree upon another layer of ambiguity. As we have already seen in the past few days, such ambiguities lead to further misunderstandings, not to peace and comity.