Treaty of 1803, the Florida Purchase Treaty of 1819, the Gadsden Purchase Treaty of 1853, and the Alaska Purchase Treaty of 1867, the treaty of 1903 with Panama contained no provision for renegotiation and no terminal date. These were all treaties by which the United States purchased foreign territory. They were considered, therefore, to be final and unnegotiable.

Under the 1903 treaty with Panama, the position of the United States in the zone was not that of a mere concessionaire enjoying certain privileges. That was the character of the previous Hay-Herran Treaty with Colombia which never went into effect.

What can be more final and more conclusive in establishing the fact of sovereignty than a grant in perpetuity of all the rights— and I quote from the treaty of 1903-all the rights, power, and authority of sovereignty "to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power, or authority"?

When the United States paid the full purchase price of $10 million for the Canal Zone, it extinguished for all time any claim for retrocession of the territory to a former sovereign. This matter of sovereignty has to be established and has to be understood as the fundamental issue in this present case.

I don't want to take too much time, but the counterarguments are based upon very flimsy evidence. The argument has been made that in the treaty of 1936, which we concluded with Panama, the phrase territory of the Republic of Panama under the jurisdiction of the United States was inserted in one of the articles. It is argued by the State Department that the use of this phrase was intended to define the entire Canal Zone. But this is a substantial misunderstanding of the text of the treaty.

There has been no modification of articles 2 and 3 of the basic treaty of 1903 in any subsequent treaty that we have concluded with Panama. Neither the treaty of 1936 nor the treaty of 1955 made any alteration in this position of the sovereign status of the United States in the Canal Zone.

U.S. INVESTMENT NEARLY $7 BILLION

Panama has never made any investment in the Canal Zone, in the Panama Railroad or in the canal. The United States, however, not only paid Panama $10 million as a full purchase price, but it also purchased the land with all rights and titles from the private owners; and the U.S. Government now owns all the land in the Canal Zone, not only by territorial cession from Panama but by purchase of ownership in fee simple. The present total U.S. investment in the Canal Zone, the interoceanic canal, the towns, the hospitals, the water and sewage systems, the schools, other public buildings, our defense bases there-all of this amounts to nearly $7 billion. To this territory and property, Panama has absolutely no reversionary interest in justice, law, or treaty.

U.S. SOVEREIGNTY RECOGNIZED

The question of the Supreme Court decisions on the matter of sovereignty have been pretty well discussed by previous speakers. I will simply allude to the fact here, in the interest of saving time.

Panama was very grateful for the treaty of 1903 which established the fact that the canal would be built by the United States in territory adjoining the Republic of Panama and not in the Nicaraguan route. The Panamanian executive, legislature, and the courts immediately proceeded to recognize the permanent cession of the Canal Zone to the United States.

Similarly, the United States, when the question was raised before the Supreme Court in 1907, handed down an official decision that the Canal Zone was constitutionally acquired territory of the United States.

The leading case here is the case of Wilson v. Shaw in 1907.

Now, a countertheory of an inconclusive sovereignty by the United States over the Canal Zone was advanced by William Howard Taft, Secretary of War, in 1905. On a visit to the Canal Zone he exclaimed in a speech that Panama still possessed titular sovereignty over the Canal Zone.

This concept has no standing in international law, and Taft himself failed to press this concept. In 1930 when Taft was Chief Justice of the United States, he handed down the decision of the Court in the Luckenbach Steamship Company v. United States. He referred to the phrase "titular sovereignty" as applying possibly to the Canal Zone and refused to endorse it. There have been no other cases that I have been able to find where this phrase has been invoked.

I may say that the decision in Wilson v. Shaw was reaffirmed by our Supreme Court as recently as 1972 when the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a decision that had been handed down by the fifth circuit court of appeals upholding the decision in Wilson v. Shaw. In other words, the legislature of the United States, the executive, and the Supreme Court of the United States and the legislative, executive, and judicial authorities of Panama have all agreed that the action of 1903 was a cession of sovereignty from Panama to the United States. This fact, I think, must be recognized.

With contempt for the rulings of the Supreme Court and in defiance of the Congress, recent U.S. Presidents and Secretaries of State have consistently violated the prohibition against fraud and false statement in a Government matter. Their arguments are a tissue of sophistries and lies.

As I explain in my written testimony, they misread the treaty of 1936 and have tended to fall back on this theory of "titular sovereignty" which has no standing in international law.

We read in the newspapers that Panama is now demanding that we give them not only the territory of the Canal Zone and the interoceanic canal but also an immediate payment of $1 billion upon exchange of ratification of a new treaty, annual payments of $130 million for use of the Canal, and $20 million for rental of the bases. These payments will continue until the termination of the new treaty on December 31, 1999. The American people find it very difficult to understand why under a new treaty we should be committed to paying a total of some $5 billion for the use of the Canal and for rental of military bases and territory which we now own free and clear.

This explains why, when the treaty issue was debated on nationwide. television, the sponsors of "The Advocates" program received votes

from more than 12,000 U.S. citizens of whom 86 percent voted in favor of the existing treaty and only 14 percent in favor of a new treaty.

More recent public opinion polls show that the American people oppose a new treaty by majorities of five to one. In some congressional districts, support of the 1903 treaty runs as high as 93 percent. This was reflected in the 1976 elections by the defeat of President Ford, Senator Gale McGee, and other elected officeholders who failed to appreciate that the voters are determined to defend and maintain U.S. sovereign control over the Canal Zone in perpetuity.

The reconsideration of our relationship with Panama really started when Milton Eisenhower made a swing around Latin America at the request of his brother, the President, in 1958. As Eisenhower explains in his book, "The Wine is Bitter," he raised doubts as to "whether a treaty guarantee of rights in perpetuity can be sustained." He also proposed a revision of the accounting procedure by the Panama Canal Co. in order to amortize the costs of digging and constructing the canal. The United States had never been able, up to that point, to amortize the costs of the actual construction of the canal.

Under Eisenhower's suggested new accounting procedure, the Canal Zone authorities since 1965 have been trying to discount or make allowance for those construction costs. That has resulted in an apparent loss of income by the canal. The new accounting procedure, however, does not recover the enormous investment of the United States in the property in the zone.

PANAMANIAN FLAG

Milton Eisenhower was able to persuade the executive bureaucracy to recommend to President Eisenhower that he recognized the titular sovereignty of Panama over the zone by authorizing the flying of the flag of Panama alongside the flag of the United States at Shaler Triangle in the Canal Zone. This resulted in nationalistic demonstrations in Panama and led to the opening of negotiations authorized by President Johnson in 1965. Those negotiations have been continuing from 1965, with a few interruptions, to the present.

President Johnson, in his agreement with President Robles, stated that, "The discussions of a new treaty would effectively recognize Panama's sovereignty over the area of the present Canal Zone." The negotiations, every since, have been proceeding on that basis. They were confirmed and expanded in the Kissinger-Tack agreement of

1974.

These putative betrayals of national territory, initiated and sustained only by the executive bureaucracy, were not commitments by the United States. Both the Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States have officially recognized the sovereign position of the United States in the zone.

The executive, on the other hand, since the late 1950's, has either failed to recognize or has unilaterally and repeatedly repudiated this position of the U.S. Government. When Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, therefore, commented a few weeks ago in connection with the Kissinger-Tack "Statement of Principles" of February 7, 1974, he declared that, "The United States cannot renege on its commitments.”

He erred substantially. An unauthorized statement such as the Kissinger-Tack agreement certainly does not represent a commitment by the United States.

Viewed in retrospect the foregoing chain of events appears to accord with a prearranged plan to circumvent the separation of powers established by the Constitution of the United States. This is confirmed. by the recommendation of the Linowitz Commission that the executive present the Congress with a fait accompli, leaving the Senate with no alternative except to consent to a new treaty.

CIVIL RIGHTS OF U.S. CITIZENS

As a result, the United States citizens, who reside in the zone and who maintain and operate the canal, are threatened with loss of their jobs and their homes and are being betrayed by their government. They are being replaced in their jobs by Panamanians. The Foreign Minister of Panama, Gonzalez-Revilla, recently told Governor Meldrin Thompson that the homes of U.S. employees in the zone will be turned over to Panamanian workers, and their present occupants will be relegated to less desirable housing in the Republic of Panama.

Already the Panamanian National Guard is preparing to take over the places of our security officers in the Canal Zone. You will hear from one of those officers later this morning. United States control in the zone, as reported by the Governor of the Canal Zone in a secret meeting with his department heads, will be phased out in 6 months or less, not the 3 years stipulated in the draft treaty.

The zonians consequently are petitioning now for a redress of grievances and for admission to the Union as a State by joint resolution of the two houses of Congress in order to assure the protection of their rights and to mandate the President to defend those rights against invasion as provided by article IV, section 4 of the Constitution.

As mentioned earlier by Senator Hatch, early in the Eisenhower administration the Soviet Union officially challenged the validity of the Alaska Purchase of 1867. Admission of Alaska to the Union as a new State ended that controversy. U.S. citizens in the Canal Zone have concluded that now is the time to do the same for the zone. To this solution the United States is already committed by article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Enactment of a joint resolution to incorporate the Canal Zone in the Union as a new State would restrain Soviet imperialism in the Caribbean. It supports our historic policy of the Monroe Doctrine for the defense of the American hemisphere, continues the policy established by Congress in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 to admit. new States to the Union on a footing of equality with the original States, and follows the precedent of the Joint Resolution of 1845 for annexing Texas to the United States. It would preserve the constitutional and human rights of 39,200 U.S. citizens in the Canal Zone who now suffer from taxation without representation.

The negotiations over the past 12 years have been the reaction of the executive branch alone to the tantrums, blackmail demands, and riots staged by successive Panamanian Governments for nearly 20 years.

From the beginning, these negotiations have lacked the quality of diplomatic bargaining based upon give and take, for U.S. officials have furnished the Panamanians with all the arguments needed to support their case and have given away their own points. Their diplomacy has forfeited respect for the United States among the nations.

I mentioned earlier that, as a recipient of the Alberdi-Sarmiento Award, I have been concerned through the years for the improvement of inter-American relations. My creed has been the Good Neighbor policy. The policy of the Good Neighbor was stated in classic form by President Roosevelt, President Franklin Roosevelt, in 1933 when he dedicated "this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor-the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and because he does so, respects the rights of others."

Senator SCOTT. Professor Dozen, may I interrupt briefly?

We will be having a live quorum in 10 minutes. We have to be on the Senate floor to vote on a cloture resolution at 11:45.

I am very grateful for your scholarly presentation. I know of your deep interest in this matter. I know of the fact that you have written on this matter.

In view of the time element could you conclude your remarks and give us the opportunity to pose a couple of questions.

We have to be on the floor prior to 11:45.

Mr. DOZER. Certainly.

To restore good relations not only with Panama but with other nations of Latin America, the United States must, first of all, reestablish its own self-respect as a basis for winning the respect of others. This demands that we reassert our treaty rights to the Canal Zone and the Panama Canal. We must defend them as indispensable economic, geopolitical, and military assets. Then Congress will be in a position to appropriate public funds for completion of the authorized third locks in accordance with the approved terminal lake plan. This will provide for transit of larger bulk carriers urgently needed to move Alaskan oil to gulf coast and east coast refineries.

When we allow the President to surrender control over national territory and let it pass into the hands of foreign powers, we are contributing to a process of national suicide and international instability which serves the interests of those foreign powers. Persistence by a President in such a course may render him liable to impeachment. I thank you very much. I will be glad to try to answer questions. I would like to submit with my statement two articles that I have written on the subiect. One is "Panama Canal in Danger" and the other is "Panama Canal Series-Questions and Answers."

Senator ALLEN. Thank you very much, Dr. Dozer.

Those articles will be inserted in the record without objection. [The material follows:]

PANAMA CANAL IN DANGER

(By Donald Marquand Dozer, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1976) Can we save the Panama Canal?

Should we save the Panama Canal?

These questions have assumed crucial importance in the past fifteen years when persistent efforts have been made by Washington policy makers to surren