Senator CANADA. Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why any negotiator after working 13 years would put something that outrageous in there. It is against the best interest of our Nation. Should something happen in Panama we are prohibited under the treaty without their consent from building a new waterway. It is certainly not in our best interest but only in the best interest of the recipient of the gift as Senator Scott pointed out. Senator ALLEN. That is a fine comment and clearly accurate. Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make some brief comments. Mr. Chairman, you referred to the debt that remains for the construction of the canal. As I understand it, we have had this canal in operation for almost 65 years. I believe it was completed around 1914. We have been using it. I have been told that the locks are still in almost as good condition as they were at the time that they were installed. That is due to the maintenance, to the good maintenance which has been made by the United States. In the event that we turn over the maintenance of the canal to the Panamanians, there is serious doubt in my own mind as to whether the people of Panama have the management skills or expertise or the will to maintain these locks as they have been maintained so that they can be used efficiently. I have flown over these in a helicopter on two occasions. I have seen dredging vessels that are in operation constantly dredging material from the canal. There was one large cut through the canal and it has been dredged so that it is now 500 feet in width. The ships that pass through the canal may well be 100 feet wide. But this is 500 feet. This is a channel which goes through a large cut in the mountain which is 500 feet wide. These dredging vessels work constantly down there to keep the material out of the channel so that the vessels can go through. I wonder, Senator Canada, if you would have any thoughts that you might want to share with us as to whether or not you believe that you would have any reservations about continuing the efficiency of the operation of the canal in the event the United States did turn the management over. As I understand it, immediately 6 months after the ratification of the canal, then title would pass to the country of Panama. Thereafter, gradually we would turn over management until I believe somewhere in 1989 or thereabouts, and then we would have an administrator who would be a Panamanian. That would be well before the year 2000. Even then we would have Panamanian management. Would you have an opinion as to whether or not the management skills or the expertise or the will is there or whether on the other hand the profits might be drained off for social programs or other less laudible purposes within Panama? Would you have any fear of anything like that happening? Senator CANADA. Senator Scott, I can relate to you information I received from talking with people who have lived and worked down there and other information that I have been able to find out on my own although I have never been down there. I would say this. I have some serious doubts, based on the conversations with many people who have lived and worked down there and one gentleman worked there for 27 years Senator SCOTT. We have the former Governor of the canal who lives in Virginia. Senator CANADA. Yes. They all have serious reservations about the Panamanians ability properly to maintain the canal. Look at Panama's budget for this year; 39 percent of it is for interest payments on the debts. So we see they desperately need money. I would be guessing but I would say that more than likely they will do all that they can to drain off all the money that they can. They would be reluctant to put a great deal back into maintenance I think. The banks will be pressing their demands. I think many of the other countries are also concerned about that possibility. I believe we would have serious trouble with the operation of the canal if it is turned over to them. But I do not think they have the required expertise, as you pointed out, nor the will. Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, in my personal conversations with some of the leaders of the Latin American nations they have privately expressed concern about the maintenance of the canal as well as about the tolls that would be charged. We hear of solidarity among the Latin American nations, but it is not there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator ALLEN. Senator Canada, I believe your statement was to the effect that a poll in Virginia shows 67 percent of those responding were opposed to the treaties. Senator Scott says that his mail is 96 percent against them. Your statement did not state how many were in favor of the treaty. Did the other 33 percent favor it? How were they divided as between those who expressed no opinion and didn't know, and those who were opposed? Do you know? Senator CANADA. I do not have that information. But I know that the percentage of people who were in favor of giving it away as opposed to those who had no opinion was very small. In my personal travels I have found very few people who were in favor of giving it away. Very few have said that they have not really thought about it, but most of the people I have talked to a large majority are strongly against it. They say it is another indication of our country just giving something away and giving a lot of money away for no apparent reason. They cannot see that it will do any good. On the other hand, they think it will hurt jobs in our State and in our Nation. I think the potential for job loss is the chief point that I want to express to the committee this morning. I am concerned about jobs in Virginia. Anybody in the Virginia State Senate from an area that would be affected is interested and should be interested. Senator ALLEN. Senator Canada, I think you have made a real fine statement. You have made a distinct contribution to the work of the committee and to the public good. I have no doubt that when this matter comes before the Senate on the floor-the proposed treaties are in the Foreign Relations Committee at this time but when these treaties come for discussion in the Sen ate I feel sure that good use will be made of the information that you have furnished the committee. So, we commend you for your statement and for your interest in this most important question. We commend you on your concern for the people of Virginia and those whose jobs would be in danger. We thank you very much. Senator CANADA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Scott. Senator ALLEN. We are hopeful that we will have another meeting of the committee tomorrow or early next week. We hope to have before us Mr. McCullough, author of the tremendous work entitled "The Path Between the Seas," having to do with the Panama Canal, and also Mr. Bendetsen, past Chairman of the Board of the Panama Canal Company. We hope to have both of these witnesses Friday and if not at that time then at another time convenient to all. Our committee is open to any representative citizen who wishes to give us the benefit of their views. We stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair. [Whereupon, at 10 o'clock, the subcommittee adjourned.] PANAMA CANAL TREATY FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1977 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEPARATION OF POWERS, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in room 1114, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James B. Allen of Alabama. (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senator Hatch of Utah. Also present: Senator Laxalt of Nevada. Staff present: Quentin Crommelin, chief counsel and staff director; Paul Guller, editorial director; Melinda Campbell, chief clerk; and Deirdre Houchins, minority clerk. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ALLEN Senator ALLEN. The subcommittee will please come to order. The Subcommittee on Separation of Powers convenes today to continue its investigation of certain constitutional issues involved in the negotiations conducted by the executive branch for the transfer of U.S. territory and property in the Isthmus of Panama to the Republic of Panama. Also subject to the investigation of the committee are financial arrangements apparently concluded outside the context of the proposed Panama Canal Treaties. These extrinsic financial arrangements appear to violate the doctrine of separation of powers inasmuch as they deny to the Senate the right to give advice and consent to all aspects of the new proposed treaty arrangements with Panama. Clearly these separately consummated financial deals are properly a part of the proposed treaties, and the committee is seeking to ascertain the best recommendation to the Senate with respect to these extrinsic multimillion dollar financial agreements concluded by the executive department and the Government of Panama. So the committee in conducting its review of these two major constitutional issues, has been privileged to hear from a variety of knowledgeable witnesses, both in the relevant areas of constitutional law and with respect to the factual backdrop against which these constitutional matters must be resolved. Today the committee is especially honored to hear the testimony of two highly distinguished individuals, both of whom have particular knowledge regarding certain aspects of the proposed canal treaties. 20-266 - 78 - 15 I might say that Mr. Bendetsen was supposed to be our first witness this morning. His statement is quite comprehensive and we will therefore first call on Mr. Torrens to testify inasmuch as his testimony is shorter. I might say that under the rules of the Senate, we have a period of 2 hours from the time the Senate went in to conduct our hearing. Inasmuch as we went in at 9 o'clock this morning in the Senate, we have only until 11 o'clock to conclude our testimony. Čapt. K. C. Torrens is National President of the Council of American Master Mariners, Inc. and is, therefore, the recognized national spokesman for the captains of vessels belonging to the U.S. merchant fleet. Captain Torrens' remarks will be important to the committee and to the Senate inasmuch as his remarks will represent the views of a highly skilled and highly responsible group of American citizens who will be immediately and very directly affected should the Senate consent to ratification of these proposed treaties. So at this time, Captain Torrens, we would be happy to receive your testimony. We are glad to have you with us. TESTIMONY OF CAPT. K. C. TORRENS, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF AMERICAN MASTER MARINERS, INC. Captain TORRENS. Thank you, Senator Allen. Mr. Chairman, the Council of American Master Mariners, Inc., is a professional nonprofit association of shipmasters who now command, or have commanded American flag oceangoing vessels. The stated objectives of the council are to render a public service by voicing, as the need arises, the opinion of distinguished master mariners concerning professional subjects of a common interest to them and of concern to the maritime industry. It is a recognized obligation of the council to take such action as deemed appropriate, to promote the prosperity of the American merchant marine and to endeavor to make it of maximum benefit to the Nation. Throughout the course of world history seamen in general, and master mariners in particular, have contributed immeasurably to the development of science, culture, and civilization. The great discoveries, lines of communications and commerce of the world have been developed by seamen and by commercial interests who were led, counseled, and directed by master mariners. We, therefore, feel it appropriate to present our views concerning the Panama Canal and the future of this vital waterway. The main concern of the Council of American Master Mariners is that the Panama Canal be available as an unhindered waterway to all commercial shipping, as has been the policy and practice since the United States opened the canal. Under the existing treaties, the canal has been successfully operated as a service to international maritime traffic on a nonprofit and nondiscriminatory basis. We believe in the concept of a freely available international waterway and oppose any changes that would promote the creation of a profit-producing tollgate concept. The proposed treaties do not appear to improve in any way the stability or effectiveness of the canal but do raise serious questions as to the future of the waterway. |