[From the Congressional Record-Senate, Jan. 24, 1978]

PANAMA CANAL TREATIES

Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, the Georgia House of Representatives, now in session in Atlanta, has adopted a resolution which, for myself and my colleague, Senator Nunn, I bring to the attention of the Senate, and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be print ed in the Record, as follows:

A RESOLUTION

Urging our two distinguished United States Senators to study carefully and to give the highest priority to American interests in considering the Panama Canal Treaty; and for other purposes.

Whereas, for 74 years, millions of Americans have been taught to view the Panama Canal as a symbol of United States engineering skill and ingenuity; and Whereas, for more than half a century the Isthmus of Panama has been referred to internationally as "The Bridge of the World" because of the canal linking the Atlantic and Pacific; and

Whereas, Panama has prospered economically largely as a result of the industry, trade and tourism that have been drawn to the region by the canal and the country has become a financial center; and

Whereas, there remains much confusion regarding the proposed treaty and the absence of a reconciliation of Panama's national aspirations with the United States' strategic and economic interests despite years of negotiation.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives that this body does hereby urge each of our two distinguished United States Senators to study thoroughly the matter of the Panama Canal Treaty and after said study to exercise his best wisdom and judgment in casting his individual vote in the best interests of the American people.

Be it further resolved that the Clerk of the House of Representatives is hereby authorized and directed to forward an appropriate copy of this Resolution to each of the two distinguished United States Senators from Georgia.

THE PANAMA CANAL TREATIES: A TOP PRIORITY

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, a few days ago the President outlined for us what the goals and objectives of his administration would be in the forthcoming year. I think that it is important to note that the President counted among his top priorities the passage of the Panama Canal treaties. As President Carter stated: The world is watching to see how we act on one of our most important items of business: approval of the Panama Canal treaties.

The treaties now before the Senate are the result of the work of four administrations-two Democratic and two Republican.

They guarantee that the canal will be open always for unrestricted use by the ships of the world.

Our ships have the right to go to the head of the line for priority of passage in times of need or emergency.

We retain the right to defend the canal with our own military forces if necessary to guarantee its openness and neutrality.

The treaties are to the clear advantage of ourselves, the Panamanians, and the other users of the canal.

Ratifying the Panama Canal treaties will demonstrate our good faith to the world, discourage the spread of hostile ideologies in this hemisphere, and directly contribute to the economic well being and security of the United States.

Shortly, the full Senate will begin consideration of the treaties. I look forward to the debate on these agreements as an opportunity for us to explore all of the treaties' facets to insure that they are in our Nation's best interest.

[From the Congressional Record-Senate, Jan. 25, 1978]

SUPPORT FOR PANAMA CANAL TREATIES

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I believe that the proposed treaties serve our national interests and, with certain changes, I will vote for them.

I have carefully studied and considered the Panama Canal treaties since they were submitted to the Senate last September. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I actively participated in 13 days of committee hearings on the treaties and heard testimony from over 85 witnesses. I went to Panama to have a firsthand look at the situation and to discuss the treaties with those who would be most directly affected by them.

During all this time, I kept uppermost in my mind some very important questions which critics of the treaties in Illinois had asked me; "Why do we need a replacement for the 1903 treaty? Can the canal be operated at the same high level of efficiency by Panama as it has been by the United States? What is the justification for financial payments to Panama? Could we not best protect our rights to defend the canal by preserving the arrangements we have now? By approving these treaties, would we not be playing right into the hands of the communists? Would we not be giving a helping hand to Fidel Castro?"

The Panama Canal issue is not simply one between the United States and Panama. How the United States deals with it will be significant for our future relations with all the countries of our own hemisphere.

I have always been impressed by what a magnificent technological achievement the building of the canal was for our country. But on my recent trip I also got a vivid picture of how the Canal Zone cuts a deep gash right through and divides the sovereign territory of Panama, and how a Panamanian traveling through the Zone from north to south is treated like a stranger in his own country. He is under the jurisdiction of the laws of another country. If he is involved in a traffic accident, he is tried in a foreign court, under a code of laws which is foreign to him. I tried to imagine what it would be like to have a similar situation in Illinois, with a foreign country encamped in a prime piece of territory, cutting a 10-mile wide strip from the western limits of Springfield to the eastern limits of Decatur, thus including both cities and all the land in between. I believe it is as natural for the Panamanians to want to exercise sovereignty over all of their country as it was for colonial Americans to want to exercise sovereignty in all of this country. If we can come to a new arrangement which would take this factor into account and at the same time absolutely preserve our ability to defend the canal and protect our interest in keeping it running efficiently, it would seem a sound and wise thing to do. We will surely enhance our position internationally by demonstrating that we have the strength and flexibility to adapt to change, while making clear that we have no intention of abandoning our right to intervene against any aggression against the canal.

Not even the treaty opponents I questioned during the hearings believed it is possible to hold on to the old 1903 treaty without making substantial changes. I am convinced that the best interests

29-400 0 - 78 - 55

of the two nations can be served by adopting new treaties now with terms that are clear and beneficial to both. Presidents Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter all believed that a new treaty with Panama was needed.

The first treaty-the one which is in effect until the year 2000stipulates that the United States has the right and primary responsibility to defend the canal. The United States retains the right to maintain troops and use all land and water areas and installations necessary for the operation, maintenance, and defense of the canal. The United States will also set the tolls and establish and enforce the rules of operation.

The second treaty, the so-called Neutrality Treaty, goes into effect in the year 2000. It is intended to guarantee the canal's permanent neutrality, and to assure each country's right to defend the canal. In this treaty also, Panama agrees not to allow the stationing of any foreign troops on its territory.

During the course of the hearings I stated my strong concern that some parts of this treaty were so vague that they could be interpreted differently by the United States and Panama and could lead to misunderstandings in the future that might be disastrous. These provisions concerned our unilateral right to move troops in to defend the canal, and the right of U.S. warships to go to the head of the line in case of emergency. These provisions were clarified in a statement subsequently issued by President Carter and General Torrijos. However, the statement was not signed, and its legal effect is in question. I believe that to be really meaningful, the statement must be made a formal and binding part of the treaties. I am cosponsoring two Dole amendments which would do exactly this. I could not support the treaties otherwise. With these changes, however, I believe our interests would be well protected. There still remains the question of whether we would not avoid all this concern about defense rights if we just stayed with the present treaty. I have concluded that we will be better off under the new treaties properly amended. With regard to an external threat, there is no doubt that the United States can and will do what is necessary to meet it, and we are fully authorized to do so under the treaties. However, internal threats are another thing, given how strongly Panamanians feel about exercising full sovereignty. And in this desire they are supported by nations all over the world.

I have seen the dense jungle surrounding most of the 51 miles of the Canal Zone from which a saboteur, perhaps aided by a canal employee willing to look the other way, could emerge and put the canal out of commission with one small weapon. This is only one form that a hostile action could take. I have questioned treaty opponents about the likely consequences in Panama if these treaties are rejected, and have asked whether they were ready and willing to deal with the resulting situation. I found that not one of them had fully addressed this problem.

Several years ago we had a similar situation with Okinawa. I visited there and concluded that it would be extremely difficult to maintain a secure base in a hostile surrounding environment. We negotiated a transition with Japan and thereby greatly enhanced our ability to protect our long-term interests. Gen. D. P. McAuliffe,

Commander in Chief of the U.S. Southern Command, with whom I visited in Panama, has stated:

My judgment of our capability to keep the Canal open and in use for our country and for the countries of the free world will be enhanced, by the provisions of the Treaty. It really goes to the heart of having a friendly environment around the Canal in which to operate, and we can do all of our defense tasks better in a friendly rather than hostile environment.

Under the present treaty, Panama has no real stake in the canal. The annuity she now gets is compensation for giving us property and base rights, and is not contingent on whether canal operations are disrupted. Under the new treaties, Panama will have a real interest in keeping the canal open and running properly. The benefits that Panama gets will depend on the canal traffic. Her source of revenues will dry up if the canal is closed. Therefore, the new arrangements encourage the kind of environment which is our best insurance against internal threats.

With regard to payments to Panama, the treaty provides that this money will come from tolls paid by the many countries which use the canal, and will not come from the U.S. Treasury. This means that from now until the end of the century, while we will continue to have bases in Panama, the users of the canal will be footing the bill through tolls.

The financial benefits accruing to Panama will depend on the volume of canal traffic. The more efficiently the canal is run, the more traffic it will attract and the more toll revenues it will bring

in.

How efficiently can we expect the Panamanians to operate the canal? Right now almost 80 percent of the canal work force is nonUnited States, with Americans generally holding the most technologically complex jobs. Under the new treaty, Panama will have 22 years in which to learn from the Americans how to continue the high level of efficiency which has characterized canal operations from the beginning. In Panama I was told by American oil company executives that within a period of just 5 years Panamanians had been able to take over the complete operation of refineries with highly sophisticated and complex technology.

Finally, much has been made of the Communist threat in Panama, and whether by ratifying the treaties we will be playing into the hands of Fidel Castro and the Soviet Union. When I asked Secretary of Defense Harold Brown about this, his response was that,

If I were Castro and I wanted to expand my influence and decrease that of the United States, I would certainly do all I could to prevent ratification of these treaties.

It should also be noted that Panama does not even have diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China, and that it declared war on Japan the afternoon of Sunday, December 7, 1941, even before the United States did. In all the years under the 1903 treaty, Panama has never breached a single provision despite its patent unfairness.

It is significant that some of the most vocal support for the treaties has come from democratic regimes in Latin America such as Colombia, Costa Rica, and Venezuela. Surely, if the treaties

were a means of furthering Communist intentions in the world, it would not be in the interest of these countries to support them. After considering all these issues carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the new treaties will serve our interests better than attempting to cling to the old treaty. Certain changes which I have outlined must be made, but assuming that they are, I believe the new treaties will offer arrangements which are fair and beneficial to both our nations.

The Panama Canal is a glorious monument to American knowhow and determination. After all these years the canal has not outgrown its usefulness. But the treaty with the country whose territory is bisected by the waterway has become outmoded. We owe it to ourselves to adopt new treaties which will satisfy the interests of our two nations and assure that the Panama Canal will continue to serve all the countries which have come to depend on it.

PANAMA CANAL TREATIES GAIN SUPPORT IN
CALIFORNIA

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, Tuesday's Los Angeles Times published a poll-conducted by the California poll-which indicates a notable shift in Californians' opinion on the Panama Canal treaties.

Last October, the California poll's survey to determine people's views on the Panama Canal treaties showed that 49 percent of the people interviewed were opposed to the treaties while 35 percent were in favor. However, when people were questioned earlier this month on whether they favored ratification, 46 percent were opposed compared to 41 percent in favor. I think that this 6-percent increase in support for the treaties is very significant. As the Gallup poll taken last fall indicated, the more people know about the treaties, the more likely they were inclined to favor them. The recent California poll reaffirms this statement. As the American people gain a fuller understanding of these treaties, more and more come to believe that the agreements are in our Nation's best interest and support for them continues to grow.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the report on the poll be printed in the Record.

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

CANAL TREATIES GAIN SUPPORT IN STATE POLL

(By Mervin D. Field)

Public opposition in California to the proposed Panama Canal treaties is eroding. Last October The California Poll found that public disapproval of the treaties outweighed approval by a margin of 49 percent to 35 percent. This month, the gap has narrowed to just five percentage points, 46 percent against to 41 percent approval.

Republicans as a group are much stronger in their opposition than are Democrats. Telephone interviews of 1,003 Californians were conducted during the period Jan. 7-18. The sample included 399 persons who said they were registered Democrats, 261 who said they were Republicans and 343 who gave other political affiliations. This is the question asked: “As you may have heard, the Panama Canal treaties call for the gradual transfer of control over the canal to the country of Panama by