B. History and Background-Pro


 (1) Senator Mike Gravel (and remarks by Senator Church), February 9, 1978 (S 1654-58)
 MVr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, since it first intruded on the Nation's consciousness three quarters of a century ago the Panama Canal has with dogged reg-ularity g-enerated more than its share of high emotion and partisan rancor in American politics. And unlike most other foreign policy disputes, the lines have not been drawn between those who favor a canal and those. who oppose it. Americans as a whole consistently have supported the idea of an Isthmian Canal. The controversy has always been not over what we should do, but how we should do it.
 That is again the situation today as we open debate onl the question whether the Senate should advise and consent to the ratification of the new Panama Canal -treaties.
 The U.S. public at large still holds to its -historical perception that the Panama Canal is an important commercial and defense asset for the United States and the world. But the iiew treaties now serve. to polarize the debate between those for -status quo and those for change, the protreaty forces.
 Those of us who place ourselves among the latter group, argue that a new treaty which accommodates Panamanian grievances is the. surest way of guaranteeing the United 'States 'basic interests in the continued fair, efficient, and neutral operation of the canal, the status quo position, on the other hand, emphasizes the legitimacy of U.S. rights assured in the 1903 treaty. Proponents of this position, though willing to fine tune the existing treaty, adamnitly oppose a new treaty in, accord with the principles of the one now before us. They raise, the following particular objections:
 First. The new treaty would relinquish U.S. -sovereig-ilty in the Canal Zone, thus abandoning U.S. citizens there and diminishing U.S. power and standing abroad.
 Second. The new treaty would abandon huge U.S. capital investments in the Canal Zone, which rig-htfully belong to the American people. '.ihItt prt
 Third. The new treaty would relinquish the U.S.rigtt prt
the canal to the Panamanians, whose political instability and lack of, I echnical and managerial skill make them poor candidates, to. assume the role so efficiently and impartially performed by the United States for the past 60 years.0
 Fourth. The new treaty would abandon U.S. citizens in the Canal Zone, who for generations have given their lives to the Canal's construction and operation.
 Fifth. The new treaty would threaten hemispheric defense and U.S. security, to which the canal is vital.
 (131)