While I disagree with much of what you said, I want to commend you for a very fine statement, as compared to the impudent, arrogant witness we had yesterday, the most impudent and arrogant witness I have had before any committee. In fact, he was insulting to the committee in what he said.

Mr. GROVE. I am surprised to hear that.

Mr. BAUMAN. I think I conveyed that feeling to him yesterday. I still feel that way, after rereading his testimony.

I read through your testimony, because I have used a press dispatch which says that the State Department today released a 16page report contributing the violence in Nicaragua, not to gunrunning through Panama, but to the dictatorial leadership of Anastasio Somoza's administration.

Reading further, Hodding Carter issued his own blast, for the record, in which he said the two questions should not be tied together, and said the problem arises primarily because of the forces and the political situation in Nicaragua.

Did you say anything in your statement about this 16-page report?

Mr. GROVE. No. I wonder whether that is not the statement of Ambassador Bowdler-Ambassador McGee's presentation that he released on Monday in the Organization of American States-or the Department of State released as part of Ambassador McGee's presentation. It is quite possible that that is the document referred to. It is not my testimony that is referred to.

I have been away, but it could well be that the report of the Ambassador is what is referred to, which I believe in its summary is 16 pages, could be what that is referring to.

Mr. BAUMAN. The dispatch says that Mr. Carter attacked the inviting of a high foreign dignitary to testify before a congressional committee, a procedure which he said had few precedents on Capitol Hill, and then went on to issue the 16-page report.

It appears from this story that these were conjunctive actions. I wonder what the hell is going on down there. We are holding a hearing, trying to find out what a constitutionally elected government is doing, and then it is attacked. One of the aggressors seems to be Panama, or at least in some way implicated, and your Department issues a report criticizing Nicaragua.

Have you heard of the human rights violations in Panama, in which they are literally-have you ever seen the OAS report on human rights violations in Panama? Whose side are you folks on?

Mr. GROVE. First of all, let me say that I am certainly with you. I do not know what happened in the Department, because I have been here all day today. I am sorry I cannot answer the question any better. I do not recognize the 16-page report, if it is not the-Mr. BAUMAN. I think it is unfortunate that they send you up here to testify, and not tell you that they were going to issue this report while you were present here testifying. It seems to me someone would have told you.

I assume UPI would get the story right. The State Department attacking Nicaragua at a time when that country is being undermined by Panama. That is a magnificent arrangement of events that is worthy of the Nixon administration.

I would like to know whether this is the case. Apparently Mr. Grove does not know. As usual we get this in the mail 2 weeks later.

Mr. GROVE. I will provide the committee a response to the 16page document. I am sorry I do not know what it is.

Mr. DORNAN. Do you have any time left? Were phone calls made to the Department, or downtown today-the general said he was on a telephone call out there before? I know with the weight of responsibility that you are both obviously feeling it seems to me you would be remiss if you were not in touch with your offices, and the White House is certainly watching what is going on.

May I ask a direct question? This is an open hearing, at taxpayers' expense. Have either of you called to report on what is going on?

Mr. GROVE. I have not.

General MCAULIFFE. No, sir.

Mr. DORNAN. That is surprising.

Mr. GROVE. Let me say, if I may, were there some document in preparation of 16 pages dealing with the Nicaraguan situation, in the Department of State, I would have known about it. I would have been involved in it. It would not have been done this morning between breakfast and lunch. I have not been involved in any such document, the preparation of such a document, which leads me to think there is an element of confusion.

Mr. BAUMAN. United Press International is not more given than any other journalists to incorrect stories. Mr. Hodding Carter is a well-known figure at the State Department and the statements stand for themselves. I think it is unfortunate they do not inform you when they are trying to sabotage Nicaragua when they send you up here to testify. It is inconceivable. Not that it has anything to do with the Panama Canal treaties, of course.

Mr. HUBBARD. Mr. Hansen.

Mr. HANSEN. I received that same UPI report earlier in the day so I do not think it is a misprint for the benefit of the gentleman from Maryland.

I would like to ask you, General McAuliffe, and before I do, I would like to say I would like to thank you for you have indeed been a fine host. You have been very open about getting me around to see what I wanted to see, and I guess in closed briefings and so forth, you have been very candid, more candid than you are able to be here today.

I would like to ask you some background questions.

Are you a lawyer?

General MCAULIFFE. A lawyer?

Mr. HANSEN. Yes.

General MCAULIFFE. No, sir.

Mr. HANSEN. Have you a crystal ball?

General MCAULIFFE. No, sir.

Mr. HANSEN. Have you talked to the President personally?
General MCAULIFFE. Yes; I have.

Mr. HANSEN. Regarding his intentions in case the treaties are not implemented?

General MCAULIFFE. No, sir, I have not.

Mr. HANSEN. I guess I would like to know how you can predict with such certainty what will happen when there is so many constitutional lawyers who say the House of Representatives is a free agent. We have the right to implement the treaties or not to implement them to some degree that we feel. You can sit here like other people have tried to do and tell us we are held hostage to a course certain and designed by the President and the Senate of the United States? Are you trying to tell us that is what we are married to? That we have no options?

General MCAULIFFE. I do not have a crystal ball, but I believe I have a pretty good feeling as to how many people feel in Panama and I might add some of the other countries of Latin America. This represents my judgment of a very likely occurrence.

Mr. HANSEN. I would like to ask the general if you feel that catering to one case of blackmail will get us off later? For instance, if we pass it by the Panamanians, later does this mean that this marriage we are asking for is going to be better tomorrow or the next day from the excesses that we go to?

General MCAULIFFE. I do believe that we will have a better cooperation from the Panamanians on the operation and security of the canal.

Mr. HANSEN. I would like to interrupt you.

How can you have-I hope it would be better because right now you do not even seem to know as the commander of the Southern Command what is going on in your own bailiwick as far as gunrunning is concerned or a number of other things that are happening, and more than that, I do not see any indignation on your part or the part of the gentleman from the State Department about what is going on as stated by the Congressman from Maryland a minute ago. Instead, we seem to be holding to the fact that Nicaragua is having difficulty controlling its internal affairs. But no one talks about people manufacturing contraband and selling it illegally in the United States and outside the United States and so forth.

I get very tired of us comparing Panama to Nicaragua. Nicaragua is not at stake. We are talking about Panama whose behavior is related to the treaties.

I would like to suggest to the gentleman from Mississippi, who seems to be concerned about what would happen if we do not pass the treaties, that if Panama has violated the treaties, and I think you have to read the treaty which states that there is an obligation on the part of Panama to maintain itself so there is no retaliation. And Panama obviously is behaving so there would be retaliation, how in the world can you as long as there is behavior like this, say you are not going to have trouble in Panama?

We could lose the zone. Not only that, but we would have to confront Panama and all the enemies of Panama instigating or dumping bombs in the canal. It seems you are not asking for one problem but a whole host of problems.

Have you given that some thought?

General MCAULIFFE. I have given it a lot of thought, Mr. Congressman, and I believe that to have Panama as a partner and a responsible partner in running that canal is going to be beneficial and going to help keep that canal open.

Mr. HANSEN. You say responsible. Is this responsible, gunrunning, subverting governments of other nations?

General MCAULIFFE. If those charges are true and proved, then obviously some action has to be taken.

Mr. HANSEN. I would like to stop you right there. I am sorry to interrupt you, but we have a clock to play with.

I would like to ask you, you said something about this may be individual actions by people in Panama. Do you consider these individuals when it is in U.S. court records that state there were orders given by the Panamanian Government to them that these gunrunnings should occur? This is in the court records. It is stated by people who have been part of the Panamanian operation. We have had a witness of equal ranking to you, General, retired, sitting here saying that he has knowledge of the intent of General Torrijos that he was going to blow this thing up. We know that Wittgreen, and I do not care what anybody says, when these guys are engaged in front operations for their governments, you cannot say it is not part of the responsibility of the Government of Panama. And you can sit there and say it is an individual action. I do not understand.

It seems you have been sitting too close to the State Department. Do you care to defend yourself? I will let you do this.

General MCAULIFFE. I will just have to say that I believe that the allegations of the Panamanian complicity, government complicity, that can be drawn from those indictments have yet to be proved and certainly not yet proved in a court of law.

Mr. HANSEN. This is not a court of law.

General MCAULIFFE. I understand that, sir. And I do not want to say anything here that might otherwise react adversely on that case. But let me say again that it is not as though I am ignoring those rumors and allegations. It is not as though I am not expressing in the appropriate channels my own concern about these kinds of things and the indicators that seem to be coming our way. But it is to say that when I have seen Panama working with us in a common cause as Panama would be in the case of carrying out the treaty obligations in running that canal, and you can say it is in their interest as much as it is in ours to run that canal efficiently and safely, then I say they will do it and I am willing to bank on that.

Mr. HANSEN. I would like to say this, that the thinking that everyone has been predicating on is-if they are not implemented, based on the fact that supposedly the treaties will go into effect and the United States were to say that there has been action which has been taken by Panama which has made the treaties impossible to go into force, which this is what we are developing right here about the gunrunning, the possibility of allowing the treaties to go into force, if the United States wants to renounce the treaties on the basis that Panama has broken them, then we are not obligated-the law goes on. You can defend the Canal Zone. You can keep the zone. All things remain equal.

Is this not correct?

General MCAULIFFE. I do not think after October 1 things are in any way going to be the same as▬▬

Mr. HANSEN. If we declare the treaties null and void because Panama has violated everything going on before-because the treaties do not supersede anything. Is that not correct?

General MCAULIFFE. No, sir. Because there would be no violation of the treaty before it goes into effect, and once it goes into effect, the old treaty is automatically canceled-

Mr. HANSEN. But if the conditions for a treaty to go into effect are so violated that it-will not allow them to go into effect, such things as the neutrality and we decide those cannot go into effect, then things would remain as they are.

Is that not correct?

That would be a political decision by this country. We have been putting the burden on the United States all along, that we have to be the honorable ones. Where is the honor that we demand from Panama?

Mr. HUBBARD. Let me please ask these remaining few questions and then I will ask if other members or visiting Congressmen have a last few questions. We will try to expedite this. We have only one more witness following these two gentlemen who have been so patient and willing to try to answer our questions.

Let me ask you both this. Do you have any information as to whether the Tri-Continental Conference held in Havana, Cuba, in 1966 set the blueprint for takeovers in Latin America and elsewhere?

Mr. GROVE. I am sorry, I will have to provide an answer to that question.

[The information follows:]

TRI-CONTINENTAL CONFERENCE

The "Tri-Continental Conference", held in Havana in 1966, was made up of delegations from Communist governments, Communist parties and other leftist movements from various countries and several "national liberation movements". Various resolutions calling for struggle against "reactionary" governments were passed at that Conference, but there is little evidence to suggest serious efforts were made to translate these into action. Indeed, it was subsequent to the Congress that Cuba began to shift away from export of revolution as a policy and armed struggle as a tactic, except in a few select countries such as Nicaragua where the governments are considered to be so repressive and unpopular that Cuba would not be interested in diplomatic relations.

Mr. HUBBARD. Did you or the State Department-you have no information as to the Tri-Continental Conference?

Mr. GROVE. Without having personal knowledge of that, I would not attempt to answer. I will be glad to take the question and provide an answer to you.

Mr. HUBBARD. Would you?

The question was again, General McAuliffe

General MCAULIFFE. I cannot answer it.

Mr. HUBBARD. If the State Department would provide an answer to that.

Do you have any information as to whether the Tri-Continental Conference held in Havana, Cuba, in 1976, set the blueprint for future takeovers of governments in Latin America and elsewhere? Second, is it not correct that the so-called People's Solidarity Movement, headquartered in Havana, Cuba, is an important tie with the Sandinista front?