Mr. WILLIAMS. The commission has recommended which route? Mr. FASCELL. What they call Route 10 which is west of the present canal.

Mr. KAZEN. We are at that time now to do something about a sea level canal because we have stopped all the work on the Panama Canal, all the improvements, as I understand it. There is no work going on down there now and they need improvements.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, are you saying then that part of the present negotiations is a right-of-way or a second canal zone for the sea level canal?

Mr. KAZEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is part of the present negotiations?

Mr. MAILLIARD. That was part of the 1964 to 1967 negotiations.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I didn't know it was part of this.

Mr. KAZEN. It is part of this.

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Morse.

Mr. MORSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Williams, for coming here and helping us with our deliberations. I was going to raise the very point that Mr. Kazen raised. It seems to me we are all concerned about not giving up anything that is not going to erode U.S. national security or our own national interests in any way, but let's assume that the resolution which you and many colleagues cosponsored were to become law. It might restrain the U.S. negotiators and thus could lead to a breakdown of the negotiations. This is a terribly hot political issue in Panama.

We might end up with a canal which won't accommodate our aircraft carriers and conceivably the Soviet Union would end up with control of the sea level canal. I don't see where that would help our security interests at all.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Actually some of the improvements that were being planned for the canal would greatly increase the canal's capacity and I think our nuclear powered aircraft carriers-and Lord knows I hope we get more of them in the very near future are not as large in size as some of the nonnuclear powered aircraft carriers. I will have to make a check on that but that is what my memory tells me. So if it comes to that point, then I think that the improvement of the present Panama Canal could be continued. At the same time there is no question that Panama does not have a very stable government. There is no question at all of this propaganda campaign against the United States as being inspired, as it is in most other places.

Mr. MAILLIARD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORSE. Yes.

Mr. MAILLIARD. On the size of the canal I think we ought to get it clear that all of the improvements that are being proposed for the present canal are for expediting transit. Nobody is proposing that we build new locks which is what we would be required to do to accommodate the super tankers and these very, very large ships that are being built because the cost of that is absolutely astronomical at today's prices. I don't believe anybody seriously belives that the present canal can be improved to admit large ships; it can be improved to speed the transit of ships.

Mr. WILLIAMS. What does the commission estimate the cost of the new canal to be?

Mr. MAILLIARD. It depends if they can build it by atomic means. Mr. FASCELL. They decided in their report that they cannot use atomic energy at this time.

Mr. MAILLIARD. At this time, but if that can be done the cost is fairly moderate but if it has to be done by conventional means it is

enormous.

Mr. FASCELL. They have a guesstimate in their report.

Mr. WILLIAMS. What is this enormous cost?

Mr. FASCELL. $2.8 billion at 1970 prices.

Mr. WILLIAMS. So how much would it cost to build new locks so that they could accommodate larger ships?

Mr. MAILLIARD. I don't know the figure but much, much more. Mr. WILLIAMS. Much, much more than three and a half billion or say four and a half billion at today's prices?

Mr. MAILLIARD. Heck, this canal cost us almost $3 billion in 1903. Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; the 9 or 10 years that it took, $2.9 billion. Mr. MAILLIARD. You have to clear it out and build it over, new locks.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not so sure that is true.

Mr. FASCELL. Are you finished, Mr. Morse?
Mr. MORSE. Yes.

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Taylor.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have no questions. I commend our colleague on his concern and his statement. It was my privilege to ride a ship through the canal back in World War II and I have been interested and felt that I knew something about it ever since. I felt it would be a definite mistake for our country to lose sovereignty there.

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is exactly the position that I take. If we are ever going to have to change the treaty, the time to make the change would be if we were forced into it. Who knows, some of it might change. They might get back to a democratic form of government in Panama or there might be another coup and maybe three colonels will take over the next time.

In the meantime, the time to give thought to any concessions we may have to make in order to get permission to build a sea-level canal, if that is what we decide we are going to do, that is the time to make the concessions. I would much rather see the concessions made in monetary terms and no loss of sovereignty either on the present canal or the canal that we may be going to build.

Mr. FASCELL. Any other questions?

Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming and testifying and joining us in deliberations on this very vital question.

Mr. FASCELL. The subcommittee stands adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 3:19 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.)

STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS G. ABERNATHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Mr. Chairman, as my State of Mississippi is one of the great coastal States located on the Gulf of Mexico, I have long recognized the importance of the Panama Canal to both interoceanic commerce and hemispheric security, and have tried to follow events affecting the status of that vital interoceanic link.

The Panama Canal enterprise consists of two principal parts: the canal itself and the protective strip of territory known as the Canal Zone. Recent proposals to cease sovereignty over the Canal Zone to Panama are about as sensible as separating a steam locomotive from its tender, and is unthinkable to any realistic person. Instead of talking about surrending the Canal Zone, we ought to be making plans to extend it to include the entire area of the Chagres River drainage basin.

In the early part of this century, the people of our country demanded perpetual sovereignty and ownership of the Canal Zone, and got both in accordance with constitutional requirements. In the present negotiations, we are attempting to secure better treaty relationships by agreeing to give away what is U.S. territory and property under the naive assumption that such a surrender would meet Panamanian aspirations. This is nothing but expressed readiness to submit to blackmail.

While there has been much propaganda about meeting the aspirations of Panama, there are other countries involved in the canal situation: Great Britain, Colombia, and all other nations that use the canal, and we have to pay tolls. It is unrealistic to think only of Panama.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that I reflect the view of the vast majority of the people of our country when I say that they oppose any surrender of our duly acquired rights, power, and authority over the Canal Zone and Panama Canal, which, including defense, represents a net investment of some $6 billion.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER S. BARING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. Chairman and members of the Inter-American Affairs Subcommittee, I am in support of House Resolution 369 to maintain and protect the rights and jurisdiction of the United States over the Canal Zone and Panama Canal during the treaty negotiations.

(81)

I fear that the current strong arm tactics by Panama's Gen. Omar Torrijos, are fanning the fires of hatred against the United States. I also fear that sincere U.S. negotiations with Panamanian officials seem to be headed into oblivion unless voices in Panama are lowered to a tone of peaceful deliberation regarding both the United States and Panama's rights.

I am urging today that this subcommittee report favorably on House Resolution 369 and that the subcommittee further urge Congress to insist that the United States continue to strive for calm and meaningful negotiations toward an equitable agreement on the treaty, but with the United States standing pat on its rights in the Panama Canal Zone, too.

Recent reports to Congress definitely show that the new leftist regime, headed by General Torrijos, is threatening to try to dissolve any such agreement that would continue reciprocal sentiment as to rights of the United States in the Canal Zone.

In fact, there are reports indicated that Panama's revolutionary leader is openly courting both Cuba and the U.S.S.R. in an attempt to force the United States to give in to all of his regime's demands of complete sovereignty by Panama over the canal.

I say that that is a fine thank you that the United States gets for helping a neighboring foreign country with both our money and expertise in constructing and maintaining the canal which is the most profitable mainstay for revenue in the Panamanian Government accounts.

The record of the involvement by the United States in the canal shows payments over the $5 billion mark and, in addition, the United States has had a continuing financial commitment in the Canal Zone area which has resulted in at least $50 million in the form of a gratuity to the Republic of Panama for use of the canal as a shipping

passageway.

I have supported the rights of the United States in the Canal Zone in past years for both defense and economic purposes. Today, the United States contributes most of the business through the canal with traffic either originating or terminating in U.S. shipping ports.

Also, in the event of military aggression by another foreign nation against Panama, the U.S. people would help defend Panama and the Canal Zone.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. BUCHANAN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

U.S. SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE PANAMA CANAL

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs. Since the Panama Canal is of great strategic importance to the United States and to the defense and security of the entire western hemisphere, I am gratified that the subcommittee is holding hearings on this subject.

Most of us have never questioned the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the United States over the Panama Canal at the Canal Zone. This authority is firmly grounded in the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of