"The canal is important to the United States, though Comment: Since World War II, the Panama Canal has had as many as 15,000 transits annually, which is much higher than pre-World War II traffic levels. Since that World War, the United States has fought two other wars - Korea and Viet Nam. Distinguished former Chiefs of Naval Operations have stated in a letter to the President that the canal is more important than ever before. (Congressional Record, June 30, 1977, pp. H6764, H6771 and S. 11344.) The assertion that surrender of U.S. sovereignty over the Canal Zone is the best way to protect the canal is difficult to understand. Such surrender would not enhance canal security but expose the canal to far greater hazards than under present treaty provisions. No wonder that Latin American leaders are reluctant to support the United States publicly when its own State Department does not. "The United States has all the rights, power and Comment: Article III of the 1903 Treaty grants to the United States Here again is the rewriting of an historical document by means of the insertion of the word "as" in the White House release before the word "if" to make it read "as if" - which of course creates an entirely different meaning. Articles II and III of the treaty give the United States supreme power in the Canal Zone and this is sovereignty. 20. The White House Memo states (p. 7) that: "Q. Militarily, does the canal have an important strategic "A. Comment: The United States does not have a two-ocean navy. Its naval forces have been reduced to pre-World War II levels with less than 500 vessels of all types, only 13 of which are the large aircraft carriers. All other vessels can transit. As to its military value, recent Commanders-in-Chief, Pacific, have stated that the Korean and Viet Nam Wars could not have been effectively conducted without U.S. control and use of its canal. Placing the canal under Panamanian sovereignty would endanger the security of transit and have the effect of requiring far larger naval forces at tremendous cost. 21. The White House Memo states (p. 8) that: "Q. Why is the canal's strategic importance now diminished?" "A. Because larger aircraft carriers cannot move through Comment: Only 13 large aircraft carriers of less than 500 vessels cannot transit. As to submarines they have to surface when entering U.S. harbors and inland waterways. The statement that they would have to surface during transit of the canal is too absurd to merit consideration. As to the use of the word "strategic," this term means one thing only and that is "advantageous geographical location." Since more vessels serving more people now transit than ever, the canal is more "strategic" than it was before World War II and no semantic twists can alter this fact. All major transportation facilities are vulnerable. The Panama Canal was successfully protected during World Wars I and II, the Korean and Viet Nam Wars, the Cuban missile crisis and the 1964 attempted mob invasion of the Canal Zone. Our armed forces on the Isthmus are prepared and able to protect it again. 20-266 - 78 - 13 "Under the proposed terms of a new treaty now being until the year 2000 to train Panama in operations Comment: Where could Panama find the human and material resources to operate the canal? They do not exist in Panama, which would have to call upon the U.S. taxpayers to pay the cost of this training and on other countries for assistance. The problem of maintenance alone is highly technical and requires enormous resources far beyond the capability of Panama. 23. The White House Memo states (p. 9) that: "Under the new treaty we clearly would have the right Comment: Defense of the canal under full sovereignty is far different from defense under treaty provisions and no amount of sophistry can alter this basic fact. What would "adequate assurances" by Panama mean? Nothing. 24. The White House Memo states (p. 9) that: "Panama's current government has been in power since 1968 and Comment: Panama has the stability of the police state. As always, there are elements in Panama ready to overthrow the present government, which is in debt to certain U.S. and other banks to the extent of some $2.77 billion. Panama has also signed on July 19, 1977, an economic pact with the U.S.S.R. which may be an opening wedge for Soviet use of Old France Field in the Canal Zone as a part of the Colon Free Zone. Would this not be a beachhead inside the Canal Zone for the further advance of Caribbean Communism? PANAMA CANAL TREATY (DISPOSITION OF UNITED STATES TERRITORY) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1977 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEPARATION OF POWERS, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m., in room 1318, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James B. Allen of Alabama (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Also present: Senator Scott of Virginia. Staff present: Quentin Crommelin, chief counsel and staff director; Dr. James McClellan, professional staff (minority); Paul Guller, editorial director; and Melinda Campbell, chief clerk. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ALLEN Senator ALLEN. The committee will please come to order. This is the fourth hearing that the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Judiciary Committee has held on the question of the Panama Canal Treaties. The main thrust of the committee's inquiry has been to determine whether article IV, section 3, paragraph 2 of the Constitution should be applicable to the Panama Canal Treaties inasmuch as they do make disposition of property belonging to the United States. This section of article IV of the Constitution gives Congress the power to dispose of and to make all the needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or property of the United States. The power granted is exclusive, so the investigation of that power has constituted the main thrust of the committee hearings. At the same time, we have felt it appropriate for the committee to study and to report upon the advisability of ratifying the proposed treaties from the standpoint of our national security and of our national economic interest. We have had a series of witnesses to express their views on the constitutional issues involved. We have had numerous witnesses who have given their views on the advisability of entering into these treatieswhether the Senate should give its advice and consent to the treaties. This morning our witness will be presented in a moment by the distinguished Senator from Virginia who is a member of the subcommittee, Senator Scott. This morning we will have before the committee Senator A. Joseph Canada, Jr., a member of the Virginia General Assembly. In addition to the constitutional question involved I understand that Senator Canada does wish to comment on the adverse economic impact that Senate consent to these treaties would have on the economy of the State of Virginia. Necessarily then adverse effects would occur in the economy of the entire Nation. So, we are delighted to have Senator Canada here before the committee. We look forward to hearing his testimony. At this time I will call on Senator Scott of Virginia, at whose suggestion this hearing is being held, to present Senator Canada. Senator SCOTT. As you know Virginia is one of our closest States. The people of Virginia are very much interested in commerce. We have large shipyards within Virginia, and we are especially pleased that one of our State senators from the Tidewater of Virginia, Senator Joe Canada of Virginia Beach who has twice been elected to the Senate from Virginia, can come here and express his views not only with regard to the proposed Panama Canal Treaties generally but the effect of such treaties or denial of access to this vital artery of commerce would have on our State and on the Nation. As you may know, Senator Canada is a candidate for the lieutenant governorship of Virginia and I believe this will be an issue that will be involved in the campaign. The citizens of Virginia will determine whether or not it is an issue that should be involved in the campaign. Senator Canada is well able to speak for himself, so I present to you Senator Joe Canada of Virginia. Senator ALLEN. I might say, Senator Scott, that I had not mentioned the fact that Senator Canada is a candidate. I want to make clear that the committee will be glad to hear from any citizen of Virginia who might also be engaged in politics even if he is in the same race. The committee is seeking views of representative citizens and a hearing on this issue would be available to any representative citizen of Virginia or any State whether he be a candidate or not. Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to present to the committee any interested person from Virginia of either political party. Senator ALLEN. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. A. JOSEPH CANADA, SENATOR OF THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Senator CANADA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers. I would like to thank very much Senator Scott for asking me to come here today. I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to you today about a matter of great economic significance to the citizens of the United States and in particular to the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia-the ratification of the Panama Canal Treaties. The treaties have become a major issue to the people of the State of Virginia. My purpose in coming here today is to alert you and the Members of the U.S. Senate to the fact that these treaties would seriously injure the economy of Virginia if they are approved. My office has been in close consultation with the major government agencies and businesses that would be affected by the ratification of the treaties as well as various business and labor leaders throughout |