88


 Clearly, by surrendering control of the Canal Zone and agreeing to remove all U.S. troops from Panama, the United States would be increasing the vulnerability of the Panama Canal.
 Mr. MCGOVERN. Will the Senator yield?
 Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, Jr. I would like to finish my statement, if I could, then I would be glad to yield to the distinguished Senator f rom South Dakota.
 Mr. MCGOVERN. All right.
 Mr. HARRpY F. BYRD, JRz. Mr. President, not only would these treaties relinquish U.S. control over the canal, but they also would place control in the hands of a weak and unstable government which has already acknowledged that it plans to milk the canal financially to cure its economic ills.
 For example, Panama's Planning and Economic Policy Minister, Nicolas Ardito Barletta, in an August 19, 1977, speech concerning the proposed treaties, said that the economic terms of the treaties provide for "~ * the real possibility of accelerating Panama's general development and provid (e) an important answer to the important needs four people * In another statement Minister Barletta was even more direct. He said: "This treaty will create a perfect situation for a lasting [economic] boom."
 Panama's economy has been growing steadily worse in recent years despite the substantial boost to the economy resulting from the canal and despite continuing U.S. foreign aid. Panama's economic growth rate has sunk from 8 percent when General Torrijos seized power in 1968 to less than 1 percent in 1977.
 The country's indebtedness has grown from $167 million when General Torrijos took power to approximately $1.5 billion at present and it is estimated that debt service alone will consume 39 percent of Panama's budget this year. Panama now has the highest debt per capita of any nation in the world.
 In short, Panama's economy is a shambles, and the Torrijos regime is hoping to have the United States save it from its own financial mismanagement.
 Panama also has experienced considerable political instability. The present regime took power in a coup in 1968, and an assassination and other takeovers marked periods preceding Gen. Omar Torrij os' taking power.
 These facts are cause for real concern over Panama's ability to operate and efficiently maintain the canal in the yqars ahead.
 Another serious objection I have to these treaties is that they will prove to be very costly to the American people.
 The administration has contended that the treaties -will not result in costs to the American taxpayer, but this is clearly not the case.
 In addition to the value of the actual facilities and land to be given to Panama, now valued by the Panama Canal Company at almost $10 billion (in terms of replacement value), there are other direct and indirect costs which will require appropriated funds.
 These include military base relocations, early retirement costs for canal employees, the loss of interest payments to the U.S. Treasury and more.