That is what I am here to tell you; and I tell you this with all the truth and sincerity there is. When they attack the United States and destroy us, the world will surrender. Never mind the canal; that is peanuts. It is the whole world. We are talking about survival. Nobody has raised that issue. It is simply playing Russian roulette by trying to maintain that the Soviet Union-and I don't mean the Communists in France or Italy-have changed their tactics or their strategy. They are our enemies, and they are preparing to destroy the United States, whom they regard, together with the Chinese, as their bitterest enemy.

EX-CONGRESSMAN FISH'S LETTER TO GEORGE MEANY

I want the American people simply to know the truth. I have tried to convey the message to my old friend, George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO, who has been one of the most consistent opponents of communism in this country and throughout the world, by the following letter. I will read it to you because I sent this letter out.

I addressed it to George Meany, 2 or 3 weeks ago. I waited for a reply but I did not expect a reply because I don't think he could have made a reply.

Here is the letter, and it went to every Senator today:

DEAR MR. MEANY: I am writing to you as one of my old friends whom I have always admired for your strong stand against the spread of world communism and for human rights. I confess that I was shocked to learn of your support of the surrender of the American canal to the Communist government of Panama. Not only is the President of Panama an avowed Marxist, but is the virtual head of the Communist People's Party-the only party that exists in Panama.

I am informed that both his father and mother were Communists. We might just as well turn the canal over to the Soviet Union. This is nothing but a blackmail scheme by the Communists in Panama to get the equivalent of $700 million from the United States along with the canal or twice the cost of the canal. I wish the other Senators were here to hear this

To me it is almost treasonable, aiding and abetting our enemies and in case of war, it would amount to treason. I hope when you have a chance to read the contents of the treaty, in which we agree not to build any other canal and in which we have no right to defend it after the year 2000, other provisions affecting adversely the interests of our own American wage earners in Panama, that you will consider, or at least not be active or use your influence for it with the Senators. Polls show that two or three to one are opposed to it everywhere, and I believe as soon as the truth is known, that it will become ten to one.

I always had the support of labor all the times I ran, for 25 years. I know something about them. I don't think Mr. Meany is going to change one vote among those people. They are intensely American, they are intensely against communism, and rightly so. So are all the people of Panama.

I have always been on the side of peace. I opposed World War II, until the attack on Pearl Harbor. I opposed the war in Vietnam and I am still opposed to war with the Soviet Union, unless attacked. For that reason I urge strengthening our nuclear defense so no nation would dare attack us.

I honestly believe that if the Senate ratified the treaty-and it won't-it would be the greatest communist victory since Yalta and start an epidemic of sequestration of American property throughout the world. And that even the NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] will lose faith in our reliability to keep our commitments to them if we surrender the American Canal to a communist government in Panama.

Mr. Kissinger started this thing. It wasn't President Carter. He just got on the so-called bandwagon.

It was Mr. Kissinger who reopened this thing, on what authority, I don't know. Certainly no Republican organization ever asked him to do it. Mr. Ford has seen the light and refuses to testify. To continue:

"Mr. Kissinger, who prevented President Ford from seeing Solzhenitsyn," who is a great friend of Meany's and was his guest—“the greatest freedom fighter in the world and opposed Ford's three defense recommendations in his last speech to Congress is now more responsible than anyone else is aiding and abetting our enemies."

And gentlemen, I am a Republican speaking to you.

VETERANS ORGANIZATIONS STAND ON TREATIES

The veterans organizations-I speak for them to a large extent. I was chairman of the committee that wrote the American Legion preamble, and that preamble is read in every post in the United States. I saw their national commander only last week in Washington and told him what should be done, and he agreed to it. They are going to send out the real truth about this communist issue themselves.

The veteran organizations-The American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars-nonpartisan organizations composed of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, have taken a very outspoken stand against the surrender of the American canal.

Why? Because it is against our own security and strengthens the power of the Communists.

I take the position openly and without any apologies to anyone, because this is a free country and I believe in the rights of all people to that freedom that does not exist in the Soviet Union, to say to this distinguished Senate committee that to turn over the canal to the communist government of Panama is aiding and abetting our enemies and verges on treason.

If it were in time of war, it would be treason.

Furthermore, I believe politically that 75 to 90 percent of the American people are unalterably opposed to the surrender of the canal to the Communists. If the treaty is adopted, Watergate would be a mere mosquito bite. If elected public officials, supposed to represent their people back home, defy them and surrender the canal, built by Theodore Roosevelt and the American people 68 years ago, and run efficiently ever since, to the Communists, that is their privilege.

There is probably not a single State that in any referendum would support this blackmail treaty, aiding and abetting our enemies. No wonder that the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and at least two-thirds of the members of the Democratic Party, which controls this administration, are bitterly opposed to the surrender of the canal.

Any Senator, naturally, has the right to vote any way he wants and to give his reasons. I am not here for the purpose of trying to prevent anv Republican or Democrat from committing political suicide.

I am not here even in behalf of my own party, for if I were, I would remain silent and hope that the treaty be adopted and that would bring back the Republican Party in the biggest landslide ever known in this Nation.

But, I am here as an American who loves his country and wants to see its nuclear defense weapons strengthened immediately so no nation would ever dare attack and destroy the United States.

QUOTE FROM MAX EASTMAN STATEMENT

In conclusion, I quote a statement from Max Eastman, a former proCommunist radical, a socialist, who said this-and I agree with him:

One thing, one thing only can save freedom and democracy, and that is what we represent, Democrats and Republicans of this country, our Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and government by consent of the people.

One thing, one thing only can save freedom and democracy, and that is a clear and bold understanding. Freedom and democracy must have from its leaders incisive and uncompromising exposures of the barbaric nature of the communist society and the devious methods of the communist attack. The closer our military and economic cooperation may be, the more pitiless must these exposures be. You cannot save democracy by shutting your eyes to the horrors of dictatorship. You cannot stop the night from falling by turning the lamps down.

QUOTE FROM PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT

In case any supporter of President Carter, when a candidate for office 1 year ago pledged never to surrender "actual control of the canal", should take exception to any criticism made today of the President or members of his administration, let me quote what former President Theodore Roosevelt said:

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else, but it is even more important to tell the truth— pleasant or unpleasant—about him than anyone else.

President Theodore Roosevelt, I conclude, was the most courageous and popular President in the last 100 years, and if he had lived 1 year longer, he would have been nominated by acclamation for President by the Republican Party and would have been overwhelmingly elected in 1920. Everybody agrees with that, I guess.

He was the sponsor for the building of the canal and as a great admirer and supporter of T. R., having left the Republican Party to be elected three terms on the Progressive or Bull Moose ticket to the assembly, I knew him politically and personally, probably better than anyone alive today, except his own family.

The very attempt to undo what he considered one of the most constructive acts in his great career is like impeaching him or sticking a dagger in his back in his grave at Oyster Bay.

I would be derelict to the memory of this great American President if I did not raise my voice to defend his honor, integrity, and patriotism.

I thank you very much for listening to me. I have the greatest esteem for the Members of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, and I think all will come out well.

Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Congressman Fish.

We are very pleased to have had the opportunity of having you before the committee today. I understand that you indicated that you have mailed your statement to the Members of the Senate.

Mr. FISH. That's right. I mailed it to every Senator.

Senator SARBANES. So, it will be available to them. We will, of course, particularly bring it to the attention of our colleagues on this committee so that they will have the benefit of it. We will call it to their particular attention.

Senator Case, did you want to add anything?

Senator CASE. Nothing more, Mr. Chairman, except that it is very good to have Congressman Fish here.

Senator SARBANES. Thank you, again, sir.

Mr. FISH. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of appearing before you.

Senator SARBANES. This committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

[Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene on Friday, October 14, 1977.]

Senator JOHN SPARKMAN,
Foreign Relations Committee,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: As an American citizen of the Canal Zone, a pilot and a member of the civic council, I request permission to testify before your committee Monday, October 10, 1977. Please confirm my request.

Capt. LEONARD BELL,
Jacksonville, Fla.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN LEONARD E. BELL

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Leonard Bell. I am employed by the Panama Canal Company as a pilot and have been for almost 10 years. During this time I have transited from ocean to ocean over 1,000 vessels and have piloted in canal waters a total of over 2,000 vessels. With this in mind I feel qualified to answer most practical questions on the operation of the canal, third locks and the sea level canal; which I will endeavor to do at the conclu sion of this statement. During my 10 years as a resident of the Canal Zone. I have been very active in civic council work and presently serve on the Board of Governors of the Margarita Civic Council. I also built and own a small weekend cottage in the Republic of Panama close to the town of Porto Bello and have formed many strong and lasting friendships with the good people of Panama Since the signing of the Kissinger-Tack Agreements of Principles in February 1974, I have researched at great lengths the U.S. position in the Canal Zone. I will not at this time elaborate on all the facts of ownership, etc., but will sum up my findings in this regard, by saying that the U.S. flag flies over territory of the U.S.; our title to which is just as secure as that of Florida, or Texas of Alaska. Consequently anyone in our government who claims that we are not the sovereign, either has not done his homework as an American or is lying to the American people in hopes of plundering U.S. territory and property, thas transferring it from the rightful owners to the New World Order. This is the same group that set up and controls the United Nations and is working at break-neck speed to make the United Nations the head of its world government Our Constitution, under this New World Order, will be replaced by the UN Charter and the U.N. Doctrine on human rights and our Constitutional Republic which guarantees to all Americans their God-given rights, will give up its sovereignty and be replaced by the U.N. Charter which establishes an un-Godly socialist dictatorship which will enslave all people of the world. This worl government U.N. Charter was approved by a voice vote by the U.S. Senate 1945 and yet there was no written copy on the floor of the Senate prior to the

vote.

Gentlemen, preposterous treaties like these before you for ratification are r the results of efforts by stupid men; they are the result of acts by determined men, men who are determined to rule the world. Our Government, as well as many other governments of the world, has been mainpulated for the past few decades by what was known in the early 1900s as the money trust. The organiza tion's name in the U.S. is the Council of Foreign Relations. An off-shoot of the Council of Foreign Relations is the tri-lateral commission which both Mr Linowitz and President Carter are members. The Council of Foreign Relations headed by David Rockeller, created the United Nations and set up the programs that are carried out by that organization.

When we became a member in the U.N., we became a State of the World Government, subject and subservient to the will of the C.F.R. The U.N. is law and is covertly recognized as such by both the Executive and Judicial Branches of our Government. Those C.F.R. members of Congress also know the U.N. is law. Unfortunately many others in Congress think it is a harmless forum. Who caused U.S. troops to fight in Vietnam? Not the Congress. Who caused U.S. troops to fight in Korea? Not the Congress. Is it possible that our President at that time did it because the UN ordered him to do it? We fought as a U.N. mercenary army, sacrificed the youth of our nation, over 100,000 dead and hundreds of thousands wounded. Not to mention the great theft of individuals' property to finance these wars.

These treaties that are before you today for consideration must be read very carefully and it would seem that in addition to the fatal flaws, many of the flaws, such as what Senator Dole uncovered about defense are attributable to basic laws of sovereignty and any other would conflict with the U.N. Charter, which will prevail until we get out of the United Nations.

As an American I must say that these treaties, as the product of U.S. negotiators, are a disgrace; and, as the product of U.S. Government, I am revolted by the effect that the U.N. Charter has had, and is having over our land. You, as a Congress, have been completely by-passed under charter, and I implore each and every one of you to do the following:

1. Repeal and reject these treaties;

2. Get our country out of the United Nations; and

3. Make the Canal Zone, Puerto Rico and Guam states, so that we as a country will truly secure for ourselves and our posterity freedom as guaranteed in our U.S. Constitution.

In rejecting these treaties I feel that certain things about the government of Panama must be made public so you may better understand its oppressive and greedy nature. I offer the following:

1. The recently exposed denial of guarantee of defense, security and priority for American military vessels in time of peace or war by the Panamanian government is not new to those living in the Canal Zone; this is heard day and night on Panamanian radio and TV.

It started on the very first day of the Treaty signing when Panamanians were told by the media that they didn't care what the U.S. had to tell its people in order to sell them on the Treaty. That in no way would Panama play second fiddle to the U.S. but would take over on gaining sovereignty, also that only the government of Panama would decide what country or cooperation would build a sea level canal.

I was the pilot aboard the S.S. Pennsylvania Sun and the S.S. Cove Trader during the month of September, 1977. These were two of the first American vessels to carry Alaskan oil to the energy hungry east coast. The captain showed me a letter from his company advising him to prepare to take his vessel 200 miles off the coast of Panama for loading, as Panama was going to impose their 5 percent sales tax on all oil loaded in Panamanian waters. This letter was cancelled when the vessel arrived in Balboa, apparently the State Department told Panama to cool it as this would jeopardize the Treaty if the American people found out about it. But even with this warning, Panama could not resist more plunder of the American people; so very quietly, on a very low key, two Panamanian customs men boarded these vessels as they sailed through Balboa Basin, these customs men stayed with the vessel during the entire loading operation, required the vessel to take on Panamanian crew and cargo declarations and charged the vessel for every barrel of oil loaded. I do not know the amount of the charge.

The captains of these vessels have been led to believe this operation will continue for at least 5 years, yet Exxon at this time is preparing the rightaway for a pipeline from Bocas Del Toro on the Atlantic to Porto Armuelles on the Pacific. This pipeline not counting payment to Panama will save the oil companies $15.0 million per year and will cost the Panama Canal approximately $9.0 million in lost revenue.

I have been informed by oilmen working in Panama that this pipeline would have been built many months ago except that the State Department wanted to use the size of these super-tankers as a point in their attempt to further misrepresent the true value of the canal to the American people, and to try and convince them that a sea levil canal must be built. I have 3 points to make here: