PROPOSAL FOR SEA LEVEL CANAL Mr. FLOOD. Well, there is a Commission in this country and commissions in this town, there are commissions upon commissions-it has cost us $24 million so far for us to give birth to this, and I knew the day they were appointed, they would merely change the color on the last report they got blue-and two or three graphs, and a couple of charts, $5 million; it is now $24 million. They are now down in the rain jungles and the swamps of the Colombian border, searching for a site to build a canal. My own grandmother wouldn't build one down there, and they know it. They know it perfectly well. I know where the site they propose is; so do you; but they are going to file a $24 million report from the Commission. Mr. FASCELL. You mean on the Colombian side or the Terminal Lake-Third Locks plan? Mr. FLOOD. NO. They will have a record, it will have probably a green cover this time, but we will have spent the $24 million. They will espouse the Ambassador is wearing two hats-that is why I say you are sending the devil to investigate hell. He is bringing this young fellow-what's his name? I never heard of him-some youngster from the White House is going down there, 33 years old, as Ambassador, and he is going to be in charge of carrying out orders to put that canal there, at sea level. Mr. FASCELL. What do your informants tell you? Has he done anything yet? I haven't heard that anything has been done yet. Mr. FLOOD. He is about to give birth to it, yes. Mr. FASCELL. Birth to what, another canal? Mr. FLOOD. The treaties which would reduce the sovereignty in the canal, yes, and don't forget it Mr. FASCELL. You mean, it is because this Presidential Ambassador has now been appointed, the fear that he is about to negotiate Mr. FLOOD. Under Mr. Anderson, and they are about to come up through the Army Engineers with this report, and I can tell you the conclusion now, give you the Mr. FASCELL. Not for modernization? Mr. FLOOD. Oh, no, no. This is for the new canal. For modernization, they have the report, and I submit, and I would suggest you examine it, by investigation; it is the outstanding authorities in the world who are concerned about this, recommend the Terminal Lake-Third Locks system, and consider this sea level canal to be— they couldn't find a good reason. Now it is going to be built by nuclear power-fissionable material. Mr. FASCELL. I thought that had been discarded. Mr. FLOOD. Oh, everything they have drawn up has been totally discarded. The last thing was they are going to build it by fissionable material, which would kill everybody within 10 miles of the canal, so they said, "Well, that's not a good idea." ECOLOGICAL EFFECT OF SEA LEVEL CANAL Mr. FASCELL. Well, wasn't there also a tremendous environmental problem, ecological problem, with the sea-level canal? Mr. FLOOD. Oh, yes, and who in the world would be better concerned than you, Mr. Chairman, from Florida? The ecological problem is bringing in these sea snakes, which are worse than the cobra, from the Pacific, knocking out this pocket of fresh water, and infesting every beach from Virginia to Brazil. Mr. FASCELL. Well, we have some sea snakes that are doing some infesting, but they didn't come from Mr. FLOOD. They have got two legs, though, those fellows. I know them. They have got two legs. Mr. FASCELL. Are you familiar with the Kearney report, Mr. Flood? Mr. FLOOD. I have excerpts from it, yes. Mr. FASCELL. Then you are talking about the feasibility Mr. FLOOD. May I add this? About these objections. You know, the first objection about this canal was naval gunfire. "You can't build this canal because the navies of the world will destroy it with naval gunfire." Well, that was in 1905. Now when the gunfire thing didn't work out, naval gunfire, well, all of a sudden we had bombers, World War II. "Got to have a sea level canal, because the bombers will destroy the Panama Canal." Well, that didn't stand up very well. Finally, the atomic bomb. Well, of course, you can destroy any canal. If you want to destroy a sea level canal, or any, you can destroy anything you want to. No question about that. No question about that at all. There is nothing sacred from destruction, the way we are operating today in the military sense. But all of these, every year, you have these proponents of the canal come up with some weird ideas as to the danger of the existing canal, or modernizing it, or the tremendous advantage of the sea level canal. And this goes on and on and on like Tennyson's brook. It just doesn't stop. This is a discredited thing, internationally, except that there is residual remainder, the palace guard. The old guard dies, but never surrenders, and they will pop up out of any place over the sea level canal. (Representative Flood subsequently furnished the following statement :) AUGUST 3, 1970. BATTLE OF THE LEVELS-A SUCCESSION OF BUGBEARS- -BY HONORABLE DANIEL J. FLOOD The story of the modern "battle of the levels", is merely a continuation of ageold arguments over type of canal. In 1905-06, it was the alleged danger from naval gunfire used by sea level advocates, who were overcome by the knowledge and vision of John F. Stevens backed by President Theodore Roosevelt. In 1939. it was the alleged danger of enemy bombing, which led to the Third Locks Project failure. In 1945, it was fear of the atomic bomb that resulted in the abortive 1945-48 investigation under Public Law 280, 79th Congress, which recommended only a “sea level” canal on the basis of its alleged greater security. This recommendation failed to receive the approval of President Truman because of the clarification in the Defense Department of the fallacies in the application of the security and national defense factors in the statute. In 1964, it was the danger of sabotage from "two sticks of dynamite" that led to the present inquiry. Now, in 1970. it is the danger of "guerrilla warfare". From the foregoing the pattern is clear; change the bugbears of justification when earlier arguments prove ineffective. The defense needs of the Panama Canal are for the existing canal and not for some hypothetical waterway that may be constructed in the indefinite future. Moreover, the defense of the Canal, like that of the major ports and rail systems of the United States depends not upon passive features of design, but the combined power of the Armed Forces of the United States. MODERNIZATION OF PANAMA CANAL Mr. FASCELL. We have had testimony before this committee that indicates that studies which have been made with respect to both economic feasibility and engineering feasibility indicate that the present canal could be modernized to take us to the year 2000, in very good shape. Mr. FLOOD. Well, of course, a sea level canal would cost you $3 billion. You have got $157 million in the present canal now as developed by the Third Locks Project and enlargement of Gaillard Cut. In a very short period of time, the terminal lake proposal can be done, at a minimal figure, or as fast as your need to meet the demands for transit. I tell you that 40,200 annually-and it will be a long, long generation, and a century, before you will have 40,200 ships. And the existing canal, modernized, can do that. Now don't let them tell you about, "Well, look at the big ships that are being built that can't go through the canal." For every big ship in the year 1985 that can't go through the canal, but goes around the Cape, there will be 300 that will go through it. Besides, those super vessels are built for the purpose of avoiding going through any canal and paying tolls. USE OF RAIL LINE IN CANAL ZONE Mr. FASCELL. I have ridden that train in the Canal Zone-or is that outside and I have a hard time accepting your statement that it is a vital transportation link. Mr. FLOOD. Oh, no, vital in this sense: Nothing concomitant with the canal and I am not speaking about the seat you ride in, like an amusement park. I don't mean that at all. I mean that mere railroad, where it is, with the two terminal controls, and we had to stop them. Now, in that treaty we gave them their terminals of the Pacific and the Atlantic, the terminal buildings, the stations, we call them, in this country. And for people who can't even keep the sewage and the garbage clean in their streets, to run a canal, they made a mess of the two buildings that we shouldn't have given them in the first place. Thank God, the Congress saved the railroad. Mr. FASCELL. Yes, but I don't understand how the train and the tracks help us. Mr. FLOOD. Well, the tracks, any tracks, anything that will carry anything through an isthmus will help you-a new road, a new railroad, anything like this. But we have Mr. FASCELL. You mean for carrying supplies? Is that what you are getting at? You see, I am a little bit lost as to what the value of that train is. Mr. FLOOD. Well, primarily, it is a defense structure, primarily, although originally it was the transport of the old miners from one side to the other, originally. Mr. FASCELL. But it is your view that the train is still a vital link in the operation of the Canal? Mr. FLOOD. I say this, that anything we have there existing today which will help us in transport, including the outrageous sums we pay to the aristos who own the cement companies for the lousy cement they give us to build those roads, and put the money in Swiss banks, which they did with the $36,300,000 we gave them-I bet you the best drink in town that three-fourths of that is in a Swiss bank now. That has been going on for 40 years. I don't think you can't change these people by just making a treaty. You can't change this, these 16 families. But that is not-that is the Panamanians. Mr. FASCELL. That is not the issue. I am just trying to find out what is the use of the railroad. Mr. FLOOD. Any railroad is important for transport of anything, whether it is the narrowest gage or a double track. That is important but its greatest value is its ready availability in event of interruption of transit that may be caused by slides when it would become a major transcontinental railroad overnight. Mr. FASCELL. I think I would go along, generally, with that. But, as I remember this railroad, all it has are a few passenger cars. Mr. FLOOD. This isn't for the transportation of passengers. This was an adjunct of the canal. Any railroad-for instance Mr. FASCELL. You mean it has freight cars? Mr. FLOOD. Yes, indeed. In the town that I come from, I have more railroads going into my city of Wilkes-Barre than any place in the United States, to haul coal. But you couldn't go a hundred miles, because there were no passenger trains. They came in there, these great railroads, to haul coal. Now, the fact that you put a few passenger cars on the Lehigh Valley or the Pennsylvania, a few passenger trains between New York and Buffalo, that was just to satisfy the peasants. These seats that you and I are on are certainly not the purpose of a railroad at the Panama Canal across the Isthmus. That is just a convenience. It helps the tourist from the Gray Line go from one place to another. That is about all that does. PROTECTION AND DEFENSE OF PANAMA CANAL Mr. FASCELL. If the Panama Canal can be adequately protected from other U.S. bases in the Caribbean, that would be an operational decision which would be satisfactory, don't you think? Mr. FLOOD. Well, of course, that is true of any canal. Mr. FASCELL. I am thinking particularly about the issue of the U.S. Southern Command. Mr. FLOOD. Yes, I was thinking of that, too. But here is some language that I would want you to read. You can't read my handwriting, because even I have a time. "Moreover, the defense of the canal"-and we are talking about mere defense, the defense of the canal-"like that of major ports, major rail systems, of the United States, depends not upon passive features of design, but the combined forces of the entire Armed Forces of the United States." That is true. Of course, that is true. Anybody that blinks at the canal, from the East or West, ignites the defense of the Western Hemisphere. And that means the Armed Forces of the United States. The same thing would be true of the Port of New York or of San Francisco. It wouldn't be one command. Mr. FASCELL. We have had testimony in this committee in closed session with respect to the security of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, and the Panama Canal, and Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Chairman, I am on the Defense Appropriations Committee. Mr. FASCELL. Right, and I just wanted to be clear. In other words, you would prefer to keep the Southern Command, but Mr. FLOOD. Oh, yes, Mr. FASCELL (Continuing). But admit that a canal could be adequately protected from other places. Mr. FLOOD. It could be protected. The canal could never be adequately protected unless the entire Armed Forces of the United States that would be an act of war. This wouldn't be a guerrilla action. This wouldn't be South Vietnam. South Vietnam would be a little gas on the stomach compared to anybody touching that ditch. SOVEREIGNTY PROVISIONS OF 1903 TREATY Mr. FASCELL. I just want to get this in the record, Mr. Flood, so there won't be any confusion about the question of sovereignty and why the issue was raised. And I am not making a case for it or against it. Article II of the 1903 treaty says: The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of the zone of land and land under water for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, and protection of said Canal. Mr. FLOOD. I know it like the Lord's Prayer. The Republic of Panama grants to the United States all of the rights, power and authority within the zone mentioned and described in article II of this agreement and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and water mentioned and described in said article II, which the United States would possess― And here is where we get into difficulty and exercise if it were the sovereign of the territory within which said lands and waters are located- et cetera. Those two passages read in conjunction have given rise to a difference of opinion. Mr. FLOOD. That is correct. This is semantics. Mr. FASCELL. On the other hand, the treaty has been interpreted to mean a perpetual grant of the land itself; on the land, on the Panamanian side Mr. FLOOD. You have stated the question. It is semantics. |