A. General-Con
 (3) Senator Harry Byrd, March 6, 1978 (S 2974-78)
 Mr. HARRYKF BYRD, JRt. Mr. President, few issues of foreign policy in recent years have stirred so great a controversy as the question of ratification. of the proposed new Panama Canal treaties.
 Is the Panama Canal and the buffer zone which surrounds it important to the United States?
 Is U..S. ownership-which our country has had f or more than 70 years-important ?
 Are the defense and economic interests of the United States best served by our maintaining ownership-or by the relinquishing ownership to the Panamanians?
 At this point, I think some history is in order.
 This is not the first time a President has proposed surrendering our .sovereignty over the Panama Canal and Canal Zone.
 In 1967, President Johnson put a head of steam behind Panamai resolve to wrest the canal away from undisputed American control. Draft treaties prepared in 1967 made concessions to Panama which many Members of Congress felt were unwise.
 S o great was the congressional opposition to the proposed treaty that President Johnson never submitted the proposal to the 'Senate for consideration. I am pleased to'say that I took an active and firm role in opposition to the Johnson proposal.
 I see no fundamental differene between theJohnson proposal and the Carter proposal. Each would surrender U.S. control.
 The Congress was told in 1967 that there would be a series of antiAmnerican riots in Panama if the U.S. Government did not give the Panamamnans what they want. We are being told the same thing today.
 It is vitally important that the United States maintain a position of strength in Latin America, and the pivotal point in our defense arrangements is the Panama Canal and the Canal Zone.
 As nearly as I can determine, the basic arguments in support of approving the new treaties are these:
 First, those favoring the treaties are told, and believe, that the Panama Canal is obsolete or becoming obsolete-that we really do not need it anymore, or will not need it very long.
 That most certainly is not the case. Far from it. The canal is important to U.S. security, important to our economy-and, according to knowledgeable witnesses, will become more important in the years ahead-as I will detail later.
 Second, the argument is made that unless the new treaties are ratified violence will erupt in Panama and access to the canal will be jeopardized by acts of terrorists and radicals. This is a rehash of the same argument made more than a decade ago by Presidehit Johnson and those who supported his proposal to give away the Panama Canal.
 To determine the defense and economic interests of the United States on such a basis seems to me most unwise.
 (84)