Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

OF PROPOSED TREATIES

[From the Congressional Record, Sept. 28, 1977—$15797]

THE PANAMA CANAL TREATIES-No. 9

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, when I first initiated this series of speeches on the proposed Panama Canal Treaty and on the proposed so-called neutrality treatyand this is the ninth speech in the series-I had some concern that my speeches might tend to become redundant, inasmuch as apparently these proposed treaties will not be presented to the Senate for some months; but, Mr. President, the more I study these proposed treaties, the more defects I discover and the more I realize that I will be at no loss for topics to discuss over the coming weeks and months. I have no desire to bore the Members of the Senate with redundancy, so I will on each occasion discuss a separate aspect of the proposed treaties in a manner which I sincerely desire to be illuminating and informative rather than repetitive.

Today, Mr. President, I intend to discuss the environmental impact of the new treaty.

We hear a lot in Congress about the environmental impact, and we have environmental impact statements for almost everything. This new treaty has an environmental impact. Let us study it a little bit.

I will use as the basis for my remarks the draft environmental impact statement for the new Panama Canal Treaty prepared by the Department of State and published on August 30, 1977. That is a new publication. This proposed environmental impact statement is now open for comment, and I would encourage anyone wishing to comment thereon to correspond with the Office of Environmental Affairs in room 7820 at the offices of the Department of State here in Washington.

There is much to be learned from this draft environmental impact statement which cannot be learned from a cursory reading of the proposed treaty itself. And incidentally, Mr. President, this draft statement applies only to the proposed Panama Canal Treaty and does not apply to the proposed neutrality treaty. Presumably a draft statement on the proposed neutrality treaty will also soon be forthcoming.

As I said, Mr. President, much can be learned about the proposed canal treaty from this draft environment statement, and although obviously the Department of State is lobbying heavily and heartily for ratification of this treaty, nevertheless, the author of this draft statement should be commended for his candor in stating at least some of the more obvious environmental problems which are likely to ensue if the proposed canal treaty is ratified.

Under the heading "Unavoidable Adverse Impacts," the statement reads as follows:

"The principal unavoidable adverse impact resulting from actions under the proposed Treaty will be the loss of jobs of certain American and non-American employees of the Canal Company and the Canal Zone Government. There are also two other possible adverse impacts: increase in Canal tolls with a consequent increase in transcontinental rail traffic in the U.S. (section III B. 7.); and extensive deforestation in the Canal Zone, if protective measures are inadequate."

The environmental statement then proceeds to discuss in some 100 pages or more the details of this sobering conclusion. The statement further considers major alternatives to the proposed treaty including, "taking no action on the proposed treaty."

I do not favor that. I want to take action, up and down action, against giving advice and consent to the ratification of the treaty.

Then, it states, "postponing further action on the treaty, implementing the treaty's provisions (including those on environmental protection), and the possibility of a new treaty with stronger environmental safeguards."

Mr. President, I doubt if there is ever going to be another treaty. I believe this one will be defeated so badly that they are not going to come back with another treaty. I believe, too, that substantial amendments must be made to this treaty. Some definitely must be made in the area which forbids us to even negotiate with another nation for a sea level canal for this 23-year period without the consent of Panama. That must be changed.

Then there has to be an amendment giving us the right to determine whether the neutrality of the canal is in danger and giving us the right to send in troops. The failure to give us priority on our warships going through the canal is amended.

Once these amendments are made, Mr. President, it is treaty law that the treaty would become a nullity and would have to be renegotiated and submitted again as a treaty ab initio.

I want to see an up and down vote defeating this treaty. Before we have that up and down vote, I want to see substantial amendments offered. One amendment I am going to offer, Mr. President, and I would be willing to vote for the treaty if this amendment is made, would be to raise the annuity that Panama receives from the Panama Canal Company out of the tolls, to raise it substantially—and it is around $2.3 million now-and leave all other provisions of the present treaty in full force and effect.

That is, that we would continue to have sovereignty over the Canal Zone; that we would continue to have the power to operate and maintain the canal, and that we would continue to have the right to defend the canal.

Another thing we are certainly going to have to amend is the American presence we have there. I believe under the treaty and executive agreements, we are supposed to cut down our bases there from 14 to 4. That will have to be changed. The whole treaty will have to be redrafted by the Senate, in my judgment, which would be another way of saying it is dead because it would then have to be renegotiated.

The reservations are not going to do any good, mere reservations. That is merely a unilateral statement of how we interpret the treaty. It would not be binding on Panama, as I see it. It is not sufficient to say, "We make the reservation, that we feel the treaty means" this. That is not worth anything. We have to amend the treaty in the particulars I am talking about. Then to be absolutely safe, not only amend it but then defeat it after it has been amended as best we

can.

As I say, I would be willing to substantially raise the amount of the tolls which Panama receives, the amount of annuity payments Panama receives, because I know they need the money, possibly raising the figure tenfold. That would not shock me. We could raise it up to $25 million annually, provided all of the provisions of the present treaty remain in full force and effect. Mr. President, how much time have I remaining?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama has 5 minutes remaining.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Chair.

So, Mr. President, as far as the Office of Environmental Affairs at the Department of State is concerned this matter is still open to discussion-but, I might add, a limited amount of discussion inasmuch as the 30 days for comment will expire on September 30. In other words-the day after tomorrow, I would like to make my comments on the environmental impact of this treaty now, and I do feel after reviewing the draft environmental statement that the proposed new treaty will have adverse environmental impact sufficient to warrant rejection of the treaty in its present form unless substantially amended to include stronger environmental safeguards.

Let me get back to the subject from which I digressed a moment ago. As I stated, if this is a substantial amendment to the treaty that would vitiate and nullify the treaty because it would not be sufficient then for Panama to accept the treaty in its amended form we would have to renegotiate and submit a new treaty to the Senate. We would have to go through the same process that this present treaty has gone through or is going through.

But the value of the amendments would be that it would be a guideline, Mr. President, to what the Senate would probably accept in the subsequent negotiations between the two countries having to do with a Panama Canal Treaty. So if we amend this treaty in these substantial forms that I have suggested, even though that would nullify and hold for naught the entire treaty, it would serve

as a guideline for the negotiators to have a treaty that would be acceptable to the Senate.

In my judgment, Senators should listen carefully to the recommendations of environmental groups and consumer groups and business groups in assessing the unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed treaty in its present form on the environment, the rate of inflation, unemployment, and commerce generally. Chief among the immediate adverse environmental impacts of the proposed canal treaty will be the short-term use and deforestation of the land in the Canal Zone turned over to the Panamanians. In considering this problem, the environmental impact statement reads as follows:

"Short-term use of the forest resources in Panama involves slash and burn practices by squatters to clear fields for corn and other crops. Given population pressures and rural poverty, these subsistence crops are very important to the nutrition and welfare of the numerous squatters engaged in these practices. This is the reason for the widespread deforestation around the Canal Zone and the threat to the Zone's forests. However, within a year or two the soil is exhausted, the squatters move on to new forest areas, and erosion sets in with resultant damage to the entire ecosystem of the Canal watershed. Wildlife disappears, reforestation is difficult or impossible, and silting of the Canal may increase. Over the the longer term and in combination with droughts, the level of the lakes may even diminish to the point of limiting the operation of the Canal and the Panama City water supply. Archeological sites and artifacts exposed during cultivation may also be lost."

There is, therefore, Mr. President, apparently some considerable concern that once the zone is thrown open to the Panamanians, Panamanian farmers will rapidly deplete the natural forest resources of the zone. This concern is expressed under the heading "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources" in the following fashion:

"If the environmental protection measures in the draft treaty and the supplementary watershed management project should prove ineffective, the forests and associated ecosystem in the Canal Zone could disappear."

We are trusting an awful lot to chance, Mr. President, if even the Department of State recognizes the danger that the forests and associated ecosystem in the Canal Zone could disappear and presumably be ruined for the foreseeable future that is if, of course, this proposed treaty is in fact ratified.

Other considerations which come to light are the various laws, regulations, and policies now in force in the Canal Zone which would be supplanted by Panamanian law, regulations, and policies affecting environmental matters, if any. Among the U.S. laws which would apparently cease to operate after implementation of the treaty are the following:

1. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

2. Section 311, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA) regulating the discharge of oil and other hazardous substances into the navigable waters of the U.S.

3. Section 312, FWPCA regulating marine sanitation devices.

4. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (Ocean Dumping Act). 5. Section 4, Noise Control Act.

6. Executive Order 11514.

7. Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) where it regulates the environment.

8. Environmental Control Policy for Canal Agencies (published in Federal Register Vol. 37, No. 204, October 20, 1972).

9. Guidelines for the Preparation and Coordination of Environmental Impact Statements for Canal Agencies, dated December 15, 1972.

10. Title 35, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR):

a. Chapter 1, Part 61 Health Sanitation and Quarantine (includes controls on use of pesticides, herbicides, and rodenticides).

b. Chapter 1, Part 103.21 Precautions against sparks, smoke, etc. from vessels. c. Chapter 1, Part 103.22 Vessels at Fuel Berths.

d. Chapter 1, Part 113, Subparts B, C and D: Handling Explosives, Hazardous Liquid Cargos and other Hazardous Materials (noxious chemicals, radioactive materials).

e. Chapter 1, Part 125, Sanitary Requirements: Vessel Wastes, Garbage, Bal

last.

11. Canal Zone Administration and Regulations (CZAR):

a. Chapter 5, Part 167.111: Transporting Explosives, Flammable Liquid and Liquefied Petroleum Gases.

b. Chapter 5, Part 167.85: Mufflers; prevention of noise.

12. Regulations Governing the Storage and Handling of Petroleum Products in Bulk at Canal Zone Terminals. (This document has a different primary purpose but a major environmental secondary effect.)

The above list is not exhaustive and regardless of efforts to guarantee adequate environmental safeguards under the proposed treaty, I doubt that the measure of protection now afforded by U.S. law could ever be achieved in any arrangement with the Panamanians which included supplanting U.S. legal jurisdiction with Panamanian jurisdiction.

Tab F. of the draft environmental impact statement is a study entitled, "Environmental Assessment of Proposals to Increase Tolls." You know, Mr. President, a major consideration in the proposed treaty is the increase in tolls proposed in order to cover promised payments to the near-bankrupt Government of Panama. But what effect will this increase in tolls have on commerce with the United States and on prices charged to consumers in the United States? Well, Mr. President, the effect is not going to be salutory.

The author of this study on the proposal to increase tolls, William Whitman of Kensington, Md.—and, I might add parenthetically that his study has been approved by the Canal Zone Environmental Quality Committee-Mr. Whitman's study is based on projected traffic through the Panama Canal in 1985 and assumes no increase above the rates in effect prior to July 8, 1974 except a 50 percent across-the-board increase in those rates. In fact, Mr. President, two increases have occurred since that time and a major jump in toll rates is still envisioned by the proposed treaty. Yet even discounting the two toll increases which we have already seen, Mr. Whitman finds the following unavoidable environmental effects: "A minimal increase in air pollutants over the United States; and an unquantifiable loss of employment and employment benefits in U.S. Atlantic ports." These environmental impacts are unavoidable effects of the toll increases which have already occurred and do not even take into account to any significant degree the major new increases which we are being asked to ratify in this proposed treaty.

You see, Mr. President, when these tolls go up, the inevitable effect is going to be to burden ocean-borne commerce and, as a result, to inflate the costs of basic raw materials shipped through the canal. Those materials will either be shipped at a higher cost through the Isthmus of Panama or will be transported by other means, chiefly rail, with the result both of higher prices and increased atmospheric pollution.

Lest there be any doubt that a toll increase could have a very serious adverse effect on U.S. commerce, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a table of major trade routes and tonnage carried on those routes through the Panama Canal in 1975.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table entitled "Major Trade Routes in Panama Canal Traffic" be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

[blocks in formation]

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, this table shows pretty conclusively that the United States is quite dependent on ocean-borne commerce through the Canal Zone and that the principal beneficiary of traffic through the zone is, contrary to some reports, the United States.

But let us look at the type of commerce moving through the canal. I ask unanimous consent that a table entitled "Panama Canal Traffic by Commodities" be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[blocks in formation]

Source: Annual Report. Panama Canal Company, fiscal year 1975.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, this table shows that a substantial amount of cargo moving through the canal is energy-related or bulk shipment of raw materials required in the manufacture of consumer goods here in this country. The major increases in Panama Canal tolls are bound to have a multiplier effect in raising the cost of raw materials and thereafter raising the cost of consumer goods. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a third table entitled "Effect of 50 Percent Tolls Increase on Commodity Manufacturers" be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

EFFECT OF 50-PERCENT TOLLS INCREASE ON COMMODITY MOVEMENTS THROUGH PANAMA CANAL IN 1985

[blocks in formation]

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, this table shows significant percentage reductions in the transportation of iron ore, crude petroleum, petroleum products, and coal through the Canal Zone if a 50-percent increase over pre-June 1974 tolls would be permitted. I want to emphasize, Mr. President, that a 50-percent increase over pre-June 1974 tolls has just about already occurred with the two increases put into effect to date. We can expect, therefore, reductions in energy products transiting the Isthmus of Panama if the further increases contemplated by the new Canal Zone Treaty are permitted. This at the very time when we are spending days here in the Senate working on legislation designed to solve energy problems. Let us not put any more burdens on the energy industry. Mr. President. Let us

[blocks in formation]
« PředchozíPokračovat »