Page images

creases in tolls or to have this vital artery subject to direct or indirect control by communists. Chilean officials indicated that our contemplated action in giving up the canal appeared to be contrary to the best interest of the world community and they would much prefer that we retain complete control of the canal.

In Peru, we again heard that Panama was a neighboring country and because of this they favored the transfer of the canal. However, officials indicated that their country would suffer greatly if the tolls were raised, as appears to be inevitable, if the treaties now under consideration are ratified. Contrary to some suggestions, Mr. Chairman, officials of every South American country visited indicated that there would be no repercussions from their country if the Senate failed to ratify the treaties.


Within the Canal Zone itself, we heard the strongest opposition and the greatest fear of communism. American citizens complained of violation of human rights. They spoke of lack of expertise and management ability, of the differences between salaries within the zone and the Republic of Panama. Many indicated that they would not continue to work within the Canal Zone if it came under the control of Panama. I inserted a detailed statement of the Panamanian trip in the August 4, 1977 Congressional Record, and included a statement by the heads of various civic groups within the Canal Zone. Should any Senator have any doubt about the feeling of American citizens living in the Canal Zone, he might want to refer to this statement. It concludes and these are American citizens, Mr. Chairman-and I quote:

For ourselves as U.S. citizens living and working thousands of miles from our homeland, we can say, "Pack us up tomorrow. We're ready to go." But for the sake of U.S. commerce and the U.S. national interests in general in the Western Hemisphere, we urge you to examine the proposed treaty in minute detail. We urge you to visit here for more than three days, to observe the situation with your own eyes and not to depend solely on briefings by U.S. or Panamanian Government officials. The new treaty with Panama will have long-range repercussions that coming generations will have to live with; we urge you not to ratify a new treaty solely because the State Department says that a treaty is the cure-all to problems with Panama. The Russia-Cuba axis and the American electorate are waiting to see which way the treaty goes. A hasty decision on the part of our Congressmen without giving deep and thoughtful study to the question would please the former and infuriate the latter.


Now, Mr. Chairman, on this question of Communist influence, Mr. Charles Conneely, a member of the professional staff of the Armed Services Committee, and I talked privately with a number of Latin American officials in several countries in South America. We talked with Embassy officials, with military intelligence officers, with CIA officials, with both American citizens and foreign nations about the possibility of Communist influence.

We first visited in Panama and were somewhat skeptical, or thought perhaps Americans living within the zone might tend to exaggerate the question of Communist influence. Yet, the statements that they made were verified in private conversations with the American intelligence community in various Latin American countries.

In acting upon this treaty we may well be considering not only the future control of the Canal Zone, but the future control of the Caribbean. Therefore, it would seem important to the defense of our own country and that of the free world to have the military and civilian intelligence officials, both active and retired, to testify under oath in closed session regarding Communist influence, within Panama and other nations of Latin America.

Time after time we heard the names of leading political officials in Panama identified as Communists and were told that there were strong Communist influences throughout the Panamanian Government. I call these statements to the attention of the committee because of their repetition by so many people during our South American visit and I suggest that the committee endeavor to ascertain the truthfulness or falsity of these allegations.

The committee might be interested in one question and answer made by the Governor of the Canal Zone on July 22, 1977, before our Subcommittee on the Separation of Powers.

Governor Parfitt was before our committee and he was asked a question. It was my question, Mr. Chairman. It went as follows: As one who has been in the canal, who has been in Panama for a number of years, what is your personal opinion as to Communists within the structure of the Government of Panama? I am reading from page 55 of the report of hearings before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, part 1, July 22, 1977. "Do you feel that there are or there are not Communists there?" Governor Parfitt said:

I believe the general consensus is that the Panamanian Government itself is not communist leaning. But advisers in various places within the Government are, in fact, Communists.

Senator SCOTT. This would be advisers to General Torrijos, some of his advisers are believed to be Communists?

Governor PARFITT. That is correct.

I mention the Governor's name because this is in the official record of the Committee on the Judiciary.

I believe this committee and the Senate will want to consider these factors in determining whether to advise and consent to the treaties.


My own opinion, Mr. Chairman, is that these treaties should be defeated. But I would hope that the Administration would then be encouraged to negotiate an arrangement for joint control by the United States, by Panama, and by a limited number of Latin American countries, but with ownership of the Canal Zone remaining in the United States.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will be glad to respond to any questions which you may have. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Scott.


It is apparent that you have put a great deal of time and work into your consideration of these proposed treaties, and you have presented a very strong statement.

You suggest, as others have done, that the Soviet Union would like to get a foothold in Panama and the ratification of the treaties might lend force to that desire. Meanwhile, we have been told that the Communists are the one group most opposed to the treaties. Do you have an explanation for this seemingly unusual situation?

Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Chairman of this committee, a longtime member of this committee, even before he was chairman, knows a whole lot more about Communists than I do and about their activities and their ability to tell the truth or not to tell the truth. I do not believe that the Communists want us to retain ownership and control of this canal.

I think we can go back to the statement by Admiral Moorer. I regard Admiral Moorer, even though he is an Alabamian, as someone who is among our most knowledgeable military people, as someone who has spent a lifetime and has gone from one post to another in the Navy. I think perhaps that Navy personnel are more concerned about a canal than are Air Force personnel or Army personnel. He says that there is no substitute for ownership. This is in my remarks quoting Admiral Moorer. He says that there is no substitute for ownership and sovereignty if you are going to meet a military situation.

I believe that if we would give up our ownership, sovereignty, our control, all of which we plan on doing within the next 22 years or so, and if we speak of going back there to defend the canal, if we don't have the guts now to keep what is ours, will we have the stamina to go back after we leave and to reclaim or to defend this canal? There is a question in my mind that we would do that. I believe now is the time to maintain our rights, I believe that the people of Panama respect strength. I have been told that on various occasions.

I cannot account for the feeling of Communists, if in fact they feel a given way. I think that part of their doctrine is the idea of deception. I don't feel that we are talking about people who are straightforward, honest, or sincere in their beliefs. I believe they could talk one way and feel a different way. Perhaps the one time when one of them was truthful was when Khrushchev said he was going to bury us. I don't think they are going to do it, but I think he would have liked to.

The CHAIRMAN. He never did succeed while he was so carrying on, did he?

Senator SCOTT. Well, he beat his shoe on the table to emphasize his point. Maybe we need a few Americans to stand up for our country and beat their shoes on the table occasionally to emphasize our point of view, Mr. Chairman.


The CHAIRMAN. Let me say with reference to Admiral Moorer that I have known him a long time and I greatly admire him. I read statements that he, Admiral Burke, Admiral Carney and Admiral Anderson issued. I thought they were quite forthright in expressing their opinions. However, I regarded it more as a statement relating to ability to defend adequately the Panamanian territory, rather than trying to set a policy as to just what our position ought to be with reference to Panama and with reference to the canal.

Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, on that score I believe that even though the Admiral did testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee prior to the time that we knew the exact wording, he has since testified before the House Committee on International Relations. He has done this within the past 10 days since the contents of the treaties were known. He said substantially the same thing with full knowledge of the treaties and has come out completely in opposition of it as being against the security of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have been fortunate enough to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee I do have military people stop by the office from time to time. I would say that the American military is opposed to this treaty. That is why I would urge that you do obtain the views of someone other than those who are in the chain of command at the present time.

We know of the Singlaub affair. We also know, if we reflect for one moment, that after that happened there was a Defense Department directive issued on June 16, 1977, to curb disagreement by the military with the official position of the administration.

We even know that a former Secretary of Defense was dismissed from office at one time because he didn't go along with the Secretary of State.

So, it is my opinion, though, of course, reasonable people can disagree on many of these things, that someone who is on retired status does have more freedom than someone who is in the active military. I just don't believe he is as free to express his opinion, although I am not suggesting that if you ask for his personal views, as distinguished from his official views, that he will lie to you. I think that might be somewhat of a distinction-what is your personal opinion and can you give us your personal opinion?

I have talked with some of them in that vein and I have received information that would not otherwise have been made available.

The CHAIRMAN. I think a normal question with reference to that is that if we have our highest military people upon whom we must rely for planning for the defense of our country and its interest, you would not expect us just to disregard their testimony, would you?


Senator SCOTT. No; Mr. Chairman, I do not expect the committee to disregard their testimony. But I feel it should be balanced by people who can candidly, without restriction, express their views, by people who have held similar posts over the years, who are just as knowledgeable and perhaps even more so than the present occupant of a particular position. I would say that any individual who spent 30 to 40 years of his life in the military is knowledgeable and is concerned about the welfare of his country. He is not under any wraps at all. It would seem reasonable to me to obtain the views of people who are no longer in the military but who have vast knowledge about military affairs so that there would be a balance in the views that the committee receives. The CHAIRMAN. I don't know whether or not you know this, but we are having Admiral Moorer, Admiral Zumwalt, and General Taylor testify before this committee next week. We will be able to get testi

mony in our own record as to just what their thoughts are and what their recommendations are.


Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, might I add one further thing? I brought me a copy of a case of Reed v. Covert, that is, school superintendent Reed, District of Columbia v. Covert. That is a Supreme Court case that I believe is somewhat at variance with the opinion of the U.S. Attorney General with regard to the treatymaking power. Again, I realize that in a sense I am out of my environment in saying this, but this is reported in 354 United States, beginning on page 1. The Attorney General was talking about the supremacy clause of the Constitution. I am sure the chairman would remember this. It reads:

This Constitution and the laws of the United States which may be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.

Somehow the word got out that treaties were the supreme law of the land, and the Supreme Court made this statement:

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution; nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.

These debates, as well as the history that surround the adoption of the treaty provision of Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in pursuance of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objection of those who created the Constitution as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights, let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition, to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing the constitutional prohibition.

Down further, it says:

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. The Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.

I think that this case, a 1956 case, much later than the one quoted by the Attorney General, is in direct conflict with some of the statements that our distinguished Attorney General made.

I just share it with you for the information of the committee.


The CHAIRMAN. If I remember correctly, the Constitution provides that the supreme law of the land shall be the Constitution and laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, and treaties. So, it seems to place all three in the category of being the supreme law of the land, isn't that right?

Senator SCOTT. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would say that the Constitution is our basic law and our basic document. Then acts of Congress and treaties are on an equal basis with one another, but not on an equal basis with the Constitution.

« PreviousContinue »