amendment replaced the Snyder amendment in the appropriations bill. I hope Ambassador Bunker and his team of negotiators listen carefully to each word Mr. Mahon uttered that day on the floor of the House of Representatives. I shall close by further quoting the floor debate to show you the opinions of Congressman Slack, who served as the conference chairman on the appropriations measure, and who handled the bill, and Congressman Cederberg, a minority member of the conference committee. All three opposed the Snyder amendment. Let no one believe that these statements indicate anything less than a firm commitment to retain U.S. sovereignty over the Canal Zone on the part of key congressional spokesmen. Madam Chairman, I should like to read from page H9712 of the Congressional Record dated October 7, 1975: Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, I take this time as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Flynt) has done, to direct the attention of the Members to page H9663 of the Congressional Record of October 6, 1975, wherein the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) has laid out for us the conceptual agreements that have been agreed to between the negotiators. I refer particularly to the language in the first column, under paragraph C, which says: "Upon the treaty's becoming effective, the U.S. entity known as the Canal Zone Government shall immediately terminate. Paragraph D reads as follows: "All relations of a private nature shall be subject to Panamanian jurisdiction immediately after the new treaty goes into effect." Skipping a few paragraphs, it reads further as follows: "U.S. courts of law in the old Canal Zone shall cease operation 3 years after the new treaty goes into effect." Another paragraph reads as follows: "There shall be no canal area or Canal Zone." These are the things, of course, that concern those of us who are interested in preserving the integrity of the Panama Canal and Panama Canal Zone. Quite frankly, in my discussions with the members of the conference on the House side, I am of the opinion that that, too, concerns them, and that the conferees on the part of the House means by this language that they do not want that kind of conceptual agreement to put into finality. Madam Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of addressing a few questions to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon), the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Slack), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Cedar berg), of the minority, to discuss with them the words vital interest. I have been concerned, as these gentlemen know, and as I mentioned in the original discussion of this when we came back with the language a couple weeks ago, that the boys at the State Department may say that it is in our vital interest to give away the Canal Zone in 3 years and the canal in 25 years. I want the record to be clear that that is not what the conferees intended and by no stretch of the imagination can the negotiators or the State Department people ever interpret that this conference committee meant that they are protecting the vital interests of the United States if in fact they agree to the relinquisment of our rights in and to the Zone and in and to the Canal. Mr. MAHON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SNYDER. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. MAHON. Madam Speaker, I would like to say as one of the conferees and as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations that I am unalterably opposed to giving away the vital interests of the United States in the Panama Canal. When I say the vital interests, I mean the possession and the present privileges and the property and the ownership which we enjoy there. I believe that probably 90 percent of the Members of this House agree that we are opposed to giving away the Panama Canal, as we call it. We are in favor of maintaining our rights and our prerogatives and the integrity of the United States in the Panama Canal and in the Panama Canal Zone. I cannot help it if the State Department has a contorted meaning of the term, vital interest. I repudiate such an interpretation. Vital interests, insofar as this conference report is concerned, means to me the property, the title, the possession, and the rights of the United States in the Panama Canal Zone. We cannot be responsible for the kind of treaty that the State Department employees or others may propose. That is the constitutional prerogative of the Executive, and it is up to the Congress to approve or disapprove. But I think it ought to be clear to the whole world that the overwhelming majority of the Members of this House are against giving up the Panama Canal Zone. I appreciate the statement of my friend from Kentucky and his desire to make plain to all the attitude of the House on this important matter. Madam Speaker, is that clear to the gentleman? Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, that is pretty clear to me. I will ask the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Slack) if he agrees with the statement made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon). Mr. SLACK, Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, as chairman of the House conferees, let me say that I do not believe it is in the vital interests of the United States to give up the Panama Canal or the Panama Canal Zone. Is that a direct answer to the gentleman's question? Mr. SNYDER. And that is the gentleman's interpretation of the intent of the language the conferees have come back with? Mr. SLACK. That is my interpretation. Mr. CEDERBERG. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SNYDER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. CEDERBERG. Madam Speaker, I do not know how many more times I have to say this, but I will say it again. Mr. SNYDER. The gentleman can say it once more, then. Mr. CEDERBERG. Madam Speaker, I said it the first time, I said it the second time, and I said it when I was down in the well the last time, and I will repeat it: As far as I am concerned, I do not want to give away the Panama Canal. A lot of questions have come up about vital interests, and the word 'vital' has been used. Let us see what Webster's dictionary says the word 'vital' means. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Lloyd of Tennessee). The time of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Snyder) has expired. Mr. CEDERBERG. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Snyder). Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield further? Mr. SNYDER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. CEDERBERG. Madam Speaker, this is taken right out of that dictionary over there, and this is what the dictionary says the word vital means: *** of the utmost importance; essential to the continued vigor, efficiency, independence, or value of something expressed or implied * * *. Does that satisfy the gentleman from Kentucky? Mr. SNYDER. I would say that would satisfy the gentleman from Kentucky if the gentleman from Michigan would say that it is his understanding that the conferees meant the same thing that Mr. Webster did. Mr. CEDERBERG. Yes, I would say that is true. Madam Speaker, let me ask the gentleman a question. Now that we have gotten that all cleared up, is the gentleman going to vote with us today in this matter, or does the gentleman think that would be going a little too far? Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, I am going to consider it, because I think we have made great progress thus far. I feel that with this colloquy we have accomplished much for the good of our country. On February 6, 1974 I issued the following statement regarding my refusal to fly to Panama to witness the signing of the eight point agreement by Secretary Kissinger and Foreign Minister Tack. My colleague from Kentucky, the Honorable Frank Stubblefield, joined in the statement. My statement and my position today, remains unchanged, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that that statement be inserted at this point in the record. Mrs. SULLIVAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. [The statement referred to follows:] NEWS RELEASE OF CONGRESSMAN M. GENE SNYDER OF FEBRUARY 6, 1974 We have no desire to witness another surrender of United States sovereignty. A handful of leftists in Panama seem able to bluff the once mightest nation on earth into backing down on our perpetual control over the Panama Canal, which remains one of America's most strategic security links as well as a vital economic factor in our shipping and overall trade system. Our State Department has been willing to turn over complete control of this key canal to the Republic of Panama in return for nothing but emphemeral favor in Panamanian and world opinion. These striped-pants dreamers want to do this despite an unbroken history of governmental instability which has seen only four Presidents of Panama complete their constitutional term of four years in office. That country has had 59 changes of government since 1904! We have had but 12 Presidents in the same period. The American people wouldn't stand for an outright ceding of the Canal to Panama, so that State Department has the process mapped out to cover a series of piecemeal concessions. We laud the President's often stated commitment to world peace, but reality forces us to repeat the words of a great American who once said, "Peace, peace, there is no peace!' Panamanians simply cannot guarantee the security and operation of a canal we must have, in a world which has seen our enemies seize control of Cuba, a far more powerful nation only 90 miles off our coast, and well within range of our own strategic and tactical weapons systems. The President has sworn to uphold the Constitution, and having done so, his function is to safeguard the nation's defenses. We call upon President Nixon immediately to terminate the piecemeal surrender of the Panama Canal and Canal Zone to a tiny country that exists only because of the Canal's existence, and which for seventy years has been shaken with political unrest. This country has been back-pedalling all over the globe ever since the end of World War II, and I for one am fed up. We have had a no-win policy on every front, though going through suicidal motions as if to deny it! We sacrificed over 100,000 of the cream of our youth to that policy in Korea and Vietnam, rather than carry the wars we engaged in to the heart of the enemy to achieve victory with a minimal loss of life. It has not mattered whether our President was a Democrat or a Republican. The State Department has persuaded him that backing down is the best way to win friends. Unfortunately, our enemies are not so hypnotized by, or worried about, world opinion. Witness the brutal Soviet invasion of Hungary and Czechoslovakia in recent years, and the Chinese Communist military takeover of the Paracel Islands in the last few days! Mr. SNYDER. I very much appreciate, Madam Chairman, your having these hearings so that we might be able to delve into some questions in some depth with those who, in my opinion, are rendering a great disservice to this great country, which has been very good to me, and, I suspect, them. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Mrs. SULLIVAN. Thank you. Now, I would ask that Ambassador Bunker and Minister Bell come up to the witness table. Mr. SNYDER. Madam Chairman, in view of the fact that Mr. Kozak, I believe that's his name, who is legal counsel, and is referred to in the letter the captain referred to from Mr. Bell to me, is supposed to be here, and I suspect he will be needed to answer some of the questions, I wonder if he could come up, too. Mrs. SULLIVAN. We welcome you, Ambassador. I want to explain a little more clearly why we are having this meeting today. Naturally, our committee is responsible for the operation and the maintenance of the Panama Canal. When we see the employees of the Panama Canal so disturbed, that for the first time in 60 years they go on a sick-out, or an unauthorized strike. letting some 100 to 160 ships pile up waiting to go through a canal, then we have to take action. We were able to stop the first threat of a sick-out for a week, during which time I made pleas of the White House and the President's aides, as well as the Secretary and the Under Secretary of the Army, to do something to relieve the tension under which all of these employees were working. The tension has lowered their morale to the point where they did not know what to do. It only takes one or two hotheads, as you know, to start problems, and they did start them, in much and for a whole week the employees were out with expenses piling up on our shippers, with the ships lying out at sea, and I would say all this through the fault of a proposal to change the wage scale of the lowest echelon of employees in the Panama Canal Company. The employees have nothing to do with the lack of ships going through the canal, so why should they have to pay in order to lower canal expenses? I think the proposal of the Personnel Policy Board was a very uncalled-for proposal. The workers have still not been told what is going to happen to them, with respect to the proposal. They are still in a state of unrest, and if something does not happen soon, the burden of all of this is going to be right on the President of the United States. I told him that, and he knows it. This President spent 25 years here in the Congress, and when he was here, he voted as we did against these give-aways that are going on. We just have to do something soon. I do not think I have to tell you my opinion of what is going on with the treaty, because I have fought it openly, but fairly, in all these years since talks on it were begun, since right after the 1964 riots. I think we had much to do with stopping the 1967 treaty, which was bad enough. This new draft treaty is going to be worse from what we hear. Now, I want to have you give the committee and the officers of the Panama Canal Company, who are here with some of the Board Directors of the Panama Canal Company, everything that you can. possibly give us in confidence, and if you feel that you cannot, say these things in open session then we will take a vote on closing this meeting so that you can talk freely. We have never violated the conference, at least those of us who have been here over the years, and who have gone through, since 1964, the problems of the Panama Canal Zone. So if you wish, I shall ask unanimous consent that we close the hearing, if the members also wish it. STATEMENT OF HON. ELLSWORTH BUNKER, AMBASSADOR AT LARGE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE; ACCOMPANIED BY MINISTER S. MOREY BELL, DEPUTY NEGOTIATOR AND COUNTRY DIRECTOR FOR PANAMA, DEPARTMENT OF STATE; MICHAEL G. KOZAK, ESQ., ATTORNEY-ADVISER, OFFICE OF THE LEGAL ADVISER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE; LIEUTENANT GENERAL WELLBORN DOLVIN, U.S. NEGOTIATING TEAM Ambassador BUNKER. I would like it, Madam Chairman, to be closed, because we have classified testimony to give. Mr. DOWNING. Madam Chairman, this is marked confidential, on Mr. Bunker's statement, and secret on Mr. Bell's statement. May I suggest that we close the meeting? Mr. SNYDER. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, but I do have a line of questions that will deal with this letter that has been referred to earlier, and I think that it is important for those of us who believe in the cause of saving the canal, that that line of questioning for the record subsequently should be made public. I assume that under this condition in which we are going to operate, you will see that I am protected in that regard. Mrs. SULLIVAN. Yes, only the things that are confidential and secret we will keep out of the public record. Mr. SNYDER. Then I withdraw my reservation. Mrs. SULLIVAN. Without objection we will close the hearing to the press and anyone else not connected with the Panama Canal Company, and the hearing room will be cleared. Mr. LEGGETT. Pursuant to the rules of the House then I move that the Chair be given discretion to move into closed session if you deem it appropriate, both today and tomorrow. Mrs. SULLIVAN. We shall not have a meeting tomorrow, and we do not have a quorum now, and that is why the motion cannot be made at this time. That is why I asked unanimous consent. Mrs. Leggett. I think the rules require a quorum. Mrs. SULLIVAN. I realize that, and I do not wish to dismiss the witnesses to comply with rules with which I cannot comply as to the quorum. We do not have a quorum of our subcommittee present. Mr. CORRADO. We have six. Mrs. SULLIVAN. I beg your pardon. Then I am wrong. All in favor of closing the meeting signify by saying aye. [Chorus of aves.] Mrs. SULLIVAN. Those opposed signify by saying no. [No response.] Mr. LEGGETT. I request a rollcall, please, Madam Chairman. |