Some House legislators are angry because they didn't get to vote on the treaties last year. Only the Senate votes on treaties.

But both Houses must pass "implementing legislation," and last week that legislation ran into heavy opposition.

Voting 200-198 Thursday, the House came within two votes of sending the implementing legislation back to committee.

President Carter didn't like it at all. He found it "very disturbing."

"They (the treaties) are the law of the land," he said Friday. "The Panama Canal Zone will become Panama territory on the first day of October 1979, no matter what the Congress does this year on implementation."

But failure to pass the legislation, he indicated, could close the canal, cut off vital oil supplies and diminish U.S. ability to defend the strategic waterway.

"Hey," says agent Kimbler, the old moonshine-still worker. "I'm just doing my job."

I do not think that there is any way that the Neutrality Treaty which was approved by the U.S. Senate prior to the Panama Canal Treaty itself can work if the Government which is going to be the eventual caretaker of the Panama Canal is going to be engaging in revolutionary and terroristic activities all over Latin America. It is time that we take a good look at what is going on, what kind of business deal we are really getting into with the Government of Panama, before we go into implementation legislation.

And on that subject, if we are to go into implementation legislation—and I think that the gentleman from New York, the gentleman from Maryland, and others on the committee have done a good job in tightening what was originally a very loose proposal for implementation-I think we need to do one more important thing and that is cut the money completely out of this bill, stop the assault on the taxpayers.

PROTECT AMERICAN TAXPAYERS AND TOLLPAYERS-ADD THE "HONESTY"
AMENDMENT TO H.R. 111

It was promised by all of the key treaty proponents in the Senate and the administration prior to the approval of the Panama Canal Treaty that the American taxpayer would suffer no liabilities and that the tollpayer would be protected. This has not yet been done, and this kind of protection must be provided.

I will be offering an amendment called the "honesty amendment," sponsored by dozens of members of a "new majority coalition"'—an amendment that is going to help those who made those promises to keep those promises.

American citizens were promised the Panama Canal transfer would cost taxpayers nothing, but H.R. 111 without the "honesty" amendment breaks that promise by allowing huge taxpayer costs and admits an effort only to "control the dole." Tollpayers (consumers) were promised protection agains huge toll increases in a transfer of the Panama Canal but H.R. 111, without the "honesty" amendment, is being loaded with many extra costs and official State Department papers now project toll increases upward of 50 percent.

H.R. 111 without the "honesty" amendment interferes with conditions of treaty payments to Panama, while leaving American taxpayers and consumers (tollpayers) saddled with the major costs of treaty implementation.

H.R. 111 without the "honesty" amendment causes U.S. taxpayers and consumers (tollpayers) to underwrite a $70 million annual windfall to Panama which can finance on an even grander scale their bootlegging of firearms and Cuba-type revolutionary activities in Latin America as recently exposed in U.S. courts. Who can justify channeling American money into bombthrowing, assassinations, kidnapings, and other acts of terrorism?

H.R. 111 without the "honesty" amendment is still a $4 billion payaway.

Mr. Chairman, the President of the United States has told this body that it is the duty of this House to pass implementing legislation "as is," without any restrictions or limitations. In short, we are told to rubber stamp the administration's bill because anything we do will either violate the treaty or damage the pitifully few rights the treaty retains for us.

I urge the Members of this House to look closely at the course of events since the President signed these treaties in September 1977.

First, the basic treaty was so dependent on the neutrality treaty that the neutrality treaty was voted on first in the Senate. Only then was the giveaway treaty considered. That priority makes sense. If the canal can be made safe by an international treaty, then the other treaty will do less damage.

Second, since Panama signed that neutrality treaty, it has been engaged in overt and covert subversion of its Latin American neighbors.

Third, the State Department has revealed that Panama has, since being taken over the Communist dictator Torrijos, a decade ago, gone downhill economically and is now so badly in debt that soon more than 70 percent of its Government revenues will go exclusively to debt service. How does the United States transfer the canal to a government which shows all the signs of being about to collapse under its own debt structure?

Since Panama, in ruining the economy of its own country and most particularly in becoming a base for leftist insurgency in Central America, has rendered the neutrality treaty questionable if not impossible of performance, are we required to turn over the canal, knowing that it is now the target of all the Central Americans whom Panama has attempted to subvert? Has not Panama already breached the treaty which was the condition precedent to the giveaway treaty? Are we bound to a treaty which the other side can no longer perform? I say we are not.

But even were we bound, we are bound only by the terms of that treaty, not by the secret deals and arrangements reached behind closed doors. We can still work our will on those terms of the treaty which are ours to flesh out and implement. It is precisely this which I and my colleagues who support me have done in the amendment to be offered in our name when the administration and the leadership finally decide to end their arm twisting and allow us to vote on implementing legislation.

Despite the administration's media blitz, it is the coalation and its "honesty" amendment which performs in accord with the treaty terms. It is the coalition amendment which keeps the promises upon which the Senate relied in consenting to the treaties. We need not stand behind the door when the terms honor and truth are spoken in this Chamber. The very ones prating of our national word and honor have violated that word to our own citizens by lying about the monstrous costs of the treaty. It is they whose honor has been tarnished. We did not pull the bill. We do not fear the judgment of the Nation. We can live with our stand. Can those who so blithely dispense with the truth in order to force an odious treaty upon an unwilling and resisting Nation. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the passage of the "honesty" amendment to H.R. 111.

PROTECT U.S. TAXPAYERS AND CONSUMERS-STOP THE PAYAWAY

(Mr. Hansen asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, we can live with this rule, but I feel there was a deliberate attempt to subvert the first amendment right of free speech, and therefore, if a record vote is taken on his rule, I shall vote no in protest.

This issue is most complex and most important and should in no way be handled under restricted debate rules.

To illustrate my point, we have witnessed poorly framed treaties, first billed at no cost to the taxpayers and now ranging, by the State Department's own admission, which has been revised upwards several times, to $981 million. Admitted omissions push costs on up to some $4 billion, if we are to include those items they acknowledge are there but which they do not want to include.

The chairman of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee has also given, before the Rules Committee, an estimate of some $4 billion 280 million for cost of implementation. By my own devices, through General Accounting Office figures, Department of Defense statements, and committee hearings, I found that the price tags come to some $4 billion 111 million, as a conservative estimate. So we find that there is a tremendous cost to the American taxpayer for giving away the Panama Canal, which of course makes debate in this body and a decision by this body imperative since this is where the purse strings are controlled.

Mr. Speaker, we find a government deeply in debt, being invited to be our partner. I ask my colleagues if this is not great cause for concern that we are thinking of going into a partnership with a nation that has the worst debt structure of all of the nations of the world. This is a known fact by the admission of our own State Department's internal papers, taken from sources in the office of Panama's treasury.

How can we invite into partnership a bankrupt nation virtually in the hands of receivers without some question as to who is really going to be calling the shots for Panama.

Is it going to be the big bankers that they are very beholden to? Is it going to be the Japanese who are providing large loans to shift some of the burden from the bankers? Is it going to be the Arabs in similar fashion, who already control a monopoly on oil in one part of the world, who could then gain a tourniquet on the rest of the world's supply? Who are we really going into partnership with?

We also find a government heavily involved in Cuban-type terrorism and revolution. There has been recently exposed in the U.S. courts revolutionary activities by the Government of Panama which invite acts of reprisal that already threaten the Neutrality Treaty. There is no way the Panama Canal can be kept neutral and secure if the owner of that canal is engaging in revolutionary and terroristic acts in the Americas or even the world.

Mr. Speaker, I will be offering and amendment, if the rule is approved and debate is carried out, which will give this body the opportunity to prohibit any cost to U.S. taxpayers from treaty implementation and protect the toll payers and consumers from the burdensome rates that seem assured in the pending legislation. It will also give us an opportunity to prevent U.S. funds from being used in inciting revolution and terrorism in Latin America.

It is critical that we not be a party to bomb throwing, assassinations, kidnapings, and other acts of terrorism in Latin America. In fact, I think it is most appropriate that the treaties themselves be set-aside until we can have briefings from the CIA and firm assurances that Panama is not a mainland-based Cuba-type revolutionary operation rampantly exporting terrorism among its neighbors with the money they get from the Panama Canal.

PANAMA TREATY IMPLEMENTATION IN SERIOUS TROUBLE

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, the vote today on this rule for debate on Panama Treaty implementation legislation had immense impact on origianl plans for House consideration of this issue as stated in the following series of wire service releases for this date which I bring to the attention of my colleagues and concerned American citizens:

WASHINGTON.-The House today narrowly turned back a conservative challenge to legislation implementing and funding the treaty under which the Panama Canal will be turned over to Panama by the year 2000.

In what amounted to a preliminary test vote, the House voted 200-198 to approve the procedures under which the House will debate and amend the bill. That debate is scheduled for Tues. and Thurs. of next week.

The vote keeps the bill alive, but is a clear indication the legislation is in serious trouble and may either be defeated or amended in a hard-line fashion that would be unacceptable to President Carter.

Conservatives led by Idaho's two GOP Congressmen, George Hansen and Steve Symms, urged the House to defeat the procedures and force the Rules Committee to come back with procedures that would make it easier for a more conservative bill to pass.

The version of the bill favored by Hansen and Symms would force Panama to pay the entire costs of the treaty.

"It's time to send a message downtown (to the White House) that the United States is tired of being pushed around," said Symms.

Under the bill favored by House leaders Panama would receive payments of 30 cents for each ton that moved through the canal—about $55 million in 1st yearplus up to $30 million a year in other payments, including a "fixed annuity" of $10 million a year.

Tolls would have to be increased about 33 percent to make up for additional expenses.

The legislation also would provide for the transfer of U.S. property to Panama and would set up a Panama Canal Commission to run the canal during the transition period.

Benefits for American workers also would be established by the bill.

(By Don Phillips)

WASHINGTON.-The House today narrowly defeated a conservative challenge to legislation implementing and financing the Panama Canal Treaties and House leaders immediately delayed further action on the Bill.

In what amounted to a preliminary test vote, the House voted 200-198 to approve the procedures under which the House will debate and amend the Bill. General debate is scheduled to occur on Monday, but substantive votes have been put off for at least two weeks.

The legislation finances and implements the Treaties under which the Panama Canal will be turned over to Panama by the year 2000. It was known to be in serious trouble, but apparently is in worse trouble than House leaders throught.

"I think we have some more work to do in educating our Membership," said Rep. John Murphy, D-NY, Chairman of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and the Bill's floor manager.

Murphy blamed "deliberately inaccurate statements by the State Department" as well as gun running charges against the Panamanian Government for the defeat. He also blamed "the fallacious statements by (State Department Spokesman) Hodding Carter that there was any violation of the spirit of the Treaty in the legislation."

The charges and evidence that the Panamanian Government was providing guns to guerrillas in Nicaragua hurt "obviously a great deal," Murphy said.

Although the vote keeps the Bill alive, it is a clear indication that the legislation is in serious trouble and may either be defeated or amended in a hard-line fashion that would be unacceptable to President Carter.

(By Jim Adams)

WASHINGTON.-House leaders today withdrew from final floor action legislation that would implement the Panama Canal Treaties. The decision followed a test vote indicating substantial sentiment against the measure.

Action on the bill was postponed after the House agreed by a margin of only two votes, 200 to 198, to take up the legislation next week. Approval of the Bill would require a majority of 218 votes, if all 435 House Members were present and voting. The Bill's floor manager, Rep. John Murphy, D-N.Y., told reporters he would go ahead with general debate on the measure Monday but would delay floor votes until he believes he can win approval.

Murphy said it was Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill's idea to delay action on the Bill. Opponents of the measure urged the House to use today's vote to demonstrate unhappiness with the legislation and arouse public sentiment against it. The Bill would carry out provisions of the Treaties, approved by the Senate more than a year ago, that relinquish control of the Canal to Panama by the year 2000.

"We ought to send a message that the United States is tired of being pushed around and that we're going to stand up for what is ours," said Rep. Steve Symms, R-Idaho.

Symms said a House vote against even taking the Bill up next week “might stir things up."

[From the American Legion Bulletin]

PANAMA BATTLE SHIFTS TO THE HOUSE.

News reports indicate that the upcoming Panama Canal battle in the House of Representatives will make the Senate battle seem like a Sunday school picnic. The issue is money. Implementing legislation will cost the U.S. taxpayers and tollpayers, an estimated $4.2 billion. Another more subliminal issue is hurt pride in the House over being ignored on Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, which explicitly states the entire Congress is empowered to dispose of U.S. territory and properties-not just the U.S. Senate.

But the main obstacle to implementing the Panama Canal treaties remains the attitude of the American electorate who still regards the Senate action as contrary to U.S. national interests. This attitude of giving the Canal to Panama and paying Panama to take it, simply won't play in Peoria or anywhere else in the United States.

People remember Panama. They will continue to remember the U.S. Canal Zone in 1980 and they know the story of sacrifice, U.S. taxpayers funding, hard work and efficient management by the U.S. "Zonians" over the years. The House of Representatives tends to remain closer to the American pulse than does the Senate for House members must be reaffirmed by the people every two years instead of the six years for the Senate. The Panama Canal is vote-getting, or a loser, depending on the candidate's viewpoint. If any doubts remain on the sensitivity of the Canal issue, they need only check with the U.S. Senators who were defeated in 1978. The rumor circulates in Washington that Senators who supported the Canal treaties would just as soon not mention the word "Panama" in parlor discussions. It is not polite. The American Legion remains firm in its resolution: "That the U.S. House of Representatives be urged to continue its dynamic role as 'keeper of the nation's purse' and continue to assert its right to refuse funds which will be required by many agencies of the U.S. Government to implement the Panama Canal Treaties.'

Subtotal, Department of State..

Battle Monuments Commission.......

U.S. Treasury: Loss of depreciation Canal Zone Government assets.

5,000

12,500

900

54,360

Total

4,280,507

Note: The statistics quoted herein were provided to the U.S. House of Representatives Rules Committee by the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee chairman, John Murphy, Apr. 24, 1979.

[From the Congressional Record, Vol. 125, No. 58, Wednesday, May 9, 1979]

PANAMA'S MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR GUN TRAFFICKING BRINGS CRIMINAL CHARGES IN U.S. COURTS

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, the same people who broke the treaty between the United States and the Republic of China on Taiwan now say we must honor the new and yet unimplemented 1977 treaties with Panama.

The Carter administration apparently sees nothing immoral about breaking a treaty with our true and faithful friends in Taipei, but they persist in trying to honor a treaty with the lying and lawless regime in Panama City which calls for a $26 billion payaway of the Panama Canal.

Mr. Speaker, I today charge the Government of Panama and its President Aristides Royo with obvious and flagrant violations of the spirit and intent of the Panama Canal Treaties of 1977 and of providing a revolutionary base of operations for terrorizing and overthrowing its neighbor governments of Latin America.