NATIONAL MARITIME UNION POSITION The National Maritime Union's position has continually been, since the beginning of the negotiations some 13 years ago, to do what we can as a labor union to look out for members and leave the treaty negotiations to those experts in that field. Therefore, my brief comment is intended to reflect only on the labor guarantees and protections that are in the treaty for all Canal Zone employees. Rather than enumerate and comment on every labor provision in the treaty, which we have been reviewing for some weeks, I shall summarize my comments by saying that is is our opinion that all of the employees employed in the Canal Zone will be adequately protected by the labor provisions in the treaty if unemployment benefits are extended to all employees in the Canal Zone that may be affected by the treaty and if the implementing legislation includes adequate open ended early optional retirement provisions for all employees. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall attempt to answer any questions that you and the committee may have pertaining to these labor guarantees. May I add also that the National Maritime Union wants to go on record to disassociate itself from my good friend, Alfred Graham, in relation to the political end of the treaty. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. TRAINING PROGRAMS TO FACILITATE PANAMANIAN OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY I would like to ask this question of the panel. Do you have any doubts that Panamanians with proper training can efficiently operate the canal after the year 2000? What training programs would you recommend to facilitate the transition to Panamanian operation? Mr. GRAHAM. I could speak for the craft work force on that-for the metal trades. We have had non-U.S. citizen employees in an apprenticeship program and have been training them since 1958. I can say that with the proper training, as they are now receiving, they will have the operational capability. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Fine. Is there any comment from the other panelists? Captain WILLIAMS. Senator Sparkman, first of all, on behalf of the Panama Canal Pilots Association I would like to disassociate myself, along with Mr. Lioeanjie, from the political statements contained in Mr. Graham's statement. They do not represent the view of the Panama Canal Pilots Association. As to your question about training Panama Canal Pilots of Panamanian nationality in sufficient numbers for them to take over the operation in the year 2000, that will be a big task. We have two Panamanian pilots at this time out of a force of approximately 200. Their performance is very, very good. But, as I mentioned in my statetment, or at least implied therein, Panama is not a maritime nation, a nation of Seafarers. By establishing the Escuela Nautica 2 or 3 years ago, Panama has demonstrated a determination to become a maritime nation in this respect. The method whereby their young men will be brought up the ladder of shipboard expertise to become eligible to become Panama Canal pilots has been determined. There are several variations, I suppose, to be utilized. Our association, of course, will take a very intense interest in that. I would like to add, also, that I discussed this question with the first Panamanian to become a pilot, Capt. Jeremiah [De Leon] the day before I came up here. He reviewed my statement and we talked about it at some length. He is very deeply concerned that there be no deterioration of professional standards by citizens of his country for future pilots, regardless of where they come from. The CHAIRMAN. I think that is understandable. Is there further comment? Mr. LIOEANJIE. I would like to comment on that also, please. This time I have to agree with Mr. Graham and Captain Williams. I do believe that there is no monopoly in intelligence, so therefore, if these people are given the chance to get the proper training, I am sure they will be able to operate the canal after the year 2000. Until about 8 or 10 years ago, the non-U.S. citizen employees, which represent 98 percent, didn't get the opportunity to get better jobs. All of the better jobs were reserved for the U.S. citizens, and the menial jobs were given to non-U.S. citizens. Today, of course, we non-U.S. citizens in positions of craftsmen. So, it is just a matter of giving them the proper training. ༅ ་ ་ ་ འ ་ ན་ ་ ་ ་ ་ ་ ི་ The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, thank you. Senator CASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION Gentleman, I wonder if you would provide the agencies that are drafting the implementing legislation with your detailed recommendations on what that legislation ought to contain. To the extent that we in this committee have jurisdiction over that legislation. I would certainly like us to have those recommendations, also, but, in general. I think it would be better for you to get the suggestions to the agencies before the legislation is drafted. I would appreciate it if you would do that. NECESSITY FOR THIRD LANE OF LOCKS, SEA LEVEL CANAL On a broader question than just the matter of employee relationships and status, I would like to have your comments as from people on the ground about the necessity for a third lane of locks or a sea-level canal, and whether Panama is the place that such a canal, if any, ought to be built. Why don't we start with Mr. Graham. Mr. GRAHAM. We have always advocated the third locks project. The thrust of most conversations, when it comes to criticizing the Panama Canal, seems to be the size of the supership. The United States does not even have ports big enough to handle them. But if you take into consideration the sea-level problems with respect to constructing a sea-level canal that would handle a ship that drafts 80 feet, it would be quite a task and very, very expensive. I believe that the third locks project would be the most satisfactory method, both from the cost and engineering viewpoints. I believe that it should be built in Panama-absolutely. Senator CASE. Would your colleagues comment on that, please? Captain WILLIAMS. Yes, Senator. I confess I did not come prepared to give expert testimony on a sea-level canal. If you were to give me a diagram of such a canal, I could tell you how to get a ship through it. But not having any at my disposal, any thing I could say would be pretty inadequate. Senator, before I go on to your question, I would like to clarify something that Mr. Graham just suggested by his statement. SUPERTANKER TRANSIT THROUGH PRESENT CANAL There was testimony here about 3 weeks ago, I believe by the Assistant Secretary for Transportation, a Mr. Scott. My understanding of that testimony is that it was very erroneous and I think it should be corrected. I will do so at this time. I believe he stated that the largest container ships in the world, specifically the Tokyo Bay class, which have a draft of 80 feet, cannot transit the canal. That is simply not true. The Tokyo Bay did transit the canal, and her sister ships did, on many, many occasions. I meant to bring a photograph of her on her maiden trip through the canal, which is very impressive. I will send it to the committee when I get home. Senator CASE. Did you take her through the canal? Captain WILLIAMS. Funny you should ask that. [General laughter.] Yes, Senator, I was one of the four pilots on board on her maiden transit in 1972. To elaborate further, her maximum draft is in the neighborhood of 39 or 40 feet, not 80 feet. Also for the record, the largest container ships of the world, all of them, can transit the Panama Canal as it is presently configured, even the biggest ones. Senator CASE. Aren't they built that way for that purpose? Senator CASE. Isn't it probably a good idea that we don't worry too much about how big possible ships might be made, but keep our ideas of what a good size is and prevent the further proliferation of these monstrous things that, to my mind, present great dangers of bad effects on the oceans as well as on the harbors they are supposed to deal with? Captain WILLIAMS. I agree with that. The number of big supertankers of the 200,000-, 300,000-, and 400,000-ton category that the world can even utilize is limited. The big ones simply cannot use any of the ports in the United States. They have to off-load, for instance, in the Gulf of Mexico, out of sight of land into smaller tankers for transshipment into the ports of Texas and Louisiana. The third locks project, if it were to be developed, would enhance the capability of the Panama Canal to transit the largest aircraft carriers and bigger tankers than can presently be moved through. I agree with Mr. Graham that Panama certainly is the logical place to build a sea-level canal, and, of course, to improve the present water way. Senator CASE. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Lioeanjie, do you have any elaboration on that? Mr. LIOEANJIE. No, Senator, I am not an expert on that. But I agree with Captain Williams that if a sea-level canal were to be built, it should be built in Panama. The third locks arrangement, however, would be much cheaper than a new sea-level canal. Senator CASE. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Senator McGovern. Senator MCGOVERN. Captain Williams, I would like to follow up on your comments to Senator Case. CLASSES OF SHIPS PRESENTLY UNABLE TO TRANSIT CANAL What are the classes of ships, both civilian and military, that cannot go through the existing canal? I thought I understood you to say that even the big superships can go through. Would you elaborate on that a bit, please? Captain WILLIAMS. There are many that cannot go through. However, in proportion to the total numbers of merchant marine and naval ships of the world, that number is of course very small. The specific categories, I think, would be limited to the following: Approximately 14 ships of the U.S. Navy, the big attack carriers, with the angled deck, are too big to transit the canal; the helicopter carriers which are built just to barely fit through do go through. All other Navy ships can go through. Regarding container ships, every container ship that has ever been built in the world can go through the Panama Canal. These are the ships that carry the [truck] trailers. As to the commercial vessels that cannot, however, there are several hundred, I suppose, large tankers and bulk carriers that cannot go through the Panama Canal. The dimension of the locks and the draft limitations of the waterway preclude this. Senator SARBANES. George, would you yield to me? Senator McGOVERN. Yes. Senator SARBANES. Captain, I would like to correct as quickly as I could what is obviously a misunderstanding about Mr. Scott's testimony when he was here. He showed us a picture of the Tokyo Bay going through the locks. Captain WILLIAMS. Oh, then I won't have to send you one. Senator SARBANES. I recollected that. I have his testimony before me and I will read it to you to be fair to him. "TOKYO BAY" SHIP TRANSIT THROUGH CANAL This chart shows you the maximum size a ship can be and still transit the canal. The locks are 110 feet wide and can accommodate a maximum of a 40-foot draft. So, a ship a maximum of 975 feet long and 106 feet wide with 40 feet of draft can barely make it through. You have ships going through now, like the Tokyo Bay, which is the second largest ship ever to transit the canal. The Tokyo Bay has a beam of 105 feet. It is 950 feet long and has 59,000 dead weight tons and can have a draft of as much as 80 feet. Now, in that picture you see, the Tokyo Bay is going through in ballast. He then showed us a picture of the Tokyo Bay while going through the Panama Canal in one of the locks. It is riding very high. It has 22 feet between each side of it and the lock walls. Senator Church then said; That particular ship could not transit the canal if it were full? Mr. SCOTT. That is correct. If it were fully laden it could not, but it can with a partial load. Then I asked: At the time that ship was built, was it built to get the maximum size and still be able to transit the canal? Mr. Scorт. I cannot tell you that with certainty, sir, because I don't know the facts, but I suspect it was. They have a class of ships which are called "Panama ships" which are built exactly for that purpose. As I understood what you just said, you understood him to say that the Tokyo Bay could not go through, is that right? Captain WILLIAMS. Yes. Senator SARBANES. In fact, in his presentation he did show us a picture of the Tokyo Bay going through the locks. Captain WILLIAMS. In light of what you just read to me I am going to have to correct partially what I have stated in regard to his testimony. The fact that he said they can go through I stand corrected on. I will surmise that the photo he showed you was a photograph of the ship in the lock, sort of a head-on photograph. Senator SARBANES. Yes. It showed the ship with very little room on either side. Captain WILLIAMS. Yes. I am almost completely certain that that photograph was taken on her maiden transit, and she was loaded, she was not in ballast. She wasn't fully loaded, and her full-load draft is in the neighborhood of 40 feet, not 80 feet. Senator SARBANES. So then, that part of it you think is erroneous, where he says that it could not go through fully laden. Captain WILLIAMS. Absolutely. Senator SARBANES. Thank you. SHIP DRAFT IN BALLAST AND FULLY LADEN Senator CASE. What is the difference between the draft of a ship like that one in ballast and fully laden? Captain WILLIAMS. Senator Case, the draft of ballast and loaded, those terms really do not apply very well to a container ship. They very seldom are totally empty of cargo, unless they are on some sort of delivery trip, as when they are newly constructed. I have never seen a container ship go through the canal which did not have some revenue cargo on board. On the day that picture was taken, on the Tokyo Bay's maiden trip, she was carrying a load of perhaps twothirds of her capacity and her mean draft was around 31 feet. I imagine it was limited for the purpose of that initial transit to give the pilots a chance to ascertain some of her handling qualities under less difficult circumstances than a greater draft would provide. Then, as the ships began to arrive in greater numbers and began to be handled on a routine basis, their draft went up to very close to 40 feet, and in some cases right at 40 feet. Senator CASE. I'm sorry to have interrupted, Senator. You can have all of the time I will have. |