year annuity and that has been gradually hiked up to $2.3 million. So it could be done, yes.

Mr. CURTIS. So this new treaty cannot be urged upon America as a necessary vehicle in order to update the payments in the light of world crisis and many costs that all governments must incur? Mr. ALLEN. No, it cannot be.

Mr. CURTIS. Again I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the distinguished Senator for his question. Mr. President, if I may conclude my remarks, I shall send to the desk at the conclusion of my remarks an amendment that I plan to offer to article I of the Neutrality Treaty, if we do not move to the other treaties, as I feel we should, that would make this amendment an addition, in effect, to the thought of the leadership amendment. It does not apply to the leadership amendment. At another time it will be offered doubtless to the leadership amendment. But this will just amend article I, since it is only article I that can be amended at this time, having to do with our right to defend the canal and our right to maintain troops in the Canal Zone subsequent to December 31, 1999.

It reads:

Provided that the military presence of the United States in what was the Panama Canal Zone on September 7, 1977

And that is at the time of the signing of the treaties by Torrijos and President Carter

the military presence of the United States shall be continued beyond December 31, 1999, if the President of the United States deems it necessary for the defense of the canal or the maintenance of the neutrality thereof and shall prior to December 31, 1999, so certify to the Government of Panama.

The distinguished Senator from Idaho (Mr. Church) says that the meaning of this amendment is implicit in the leadership amendment. If that be true, why not spell it out? Why not spell it out if his amendment means the same thing? But the amendment overlooks the fact that by the time his amendment is put into practice all our troops will be out. We cannot maintain a military presence there, and the only recourse that we would have under the leadership amendment is to invade the country. Under this amendment I propose to introduce, we have a right to maintain our military presence in Panama after the year 2000, if the President deems it necessary for the proper defense of the canal and maintenance of its neutrality.

So it just reserves to the President, and we have seen Presidents, present and past, who have been in favor of this Panama Canal Treaty, and I think even the Panamanians could rely upon his bona fides that he would act to retain our military presence there only if it was necessary.

But we do not know what the condition of Panama is going to be. We do not know what form of government it is going to have. We do not know whether it will be under the control of Castro or Russia. It might be an enemy country by the year 2000. Yet we are obligated, honorbound, under the treaties, to pull all of our troops out of the Canal Zone, abolish the Canal Zone now, and pull all troops out before January 1, in the year 2000.

All this amendment that I plan to offer would do would be to preserve an option, a very necessary option, in the United States, acting through the President of the United States at that time.

Mr. President, I shall ask unanimous consent that I might offer in the Record a letter to the editor from my distinguished constituent Kenneth N. K. Able, of Huntsville, a letter to the Huntsville, Ala., News, in which he comments in a most constructive fashion on the reason for the need to defeat these treaties. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Editor, Huntsville News:

[From the Huntsville (Ala.) News, Jan. 27, 1978]

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Senator Sparkman's Foreign Relations Committee has before it two proposed treaties which would have the effect of dismembering our country by giving away territory and property in the Isthmus of Panama for which our government (ie., tax-paying public) paid the French Syndicate of Ferdinand de Lesseps, the Republic of Panama, and the Government of Colombia.

Justification of this give-away, plus the granting of additional tribute to the Torrijos Syndicate of Panama, in the name of rectification of an alleged moral wrong, is a brazen test by President Carter of the credulity of a somewhat trusting American public.

There is obviously a far stronger moral case for returning the entire State of Georgia to the Cherokee Nation. Actually, if Carter's casuistic reasoning were pursued to its logical conclusion, the precedent set by these proposed Panama treaties would dispossess white and black Americans, alike, of every inch of what we have long regarded as American soil.

Other arguments to either justify or extenuate these capitulatory "treaties" seem equally preposterous. Regardless of Presidential "interpretations" and oral "understandings," could any person in full possession of his faculties actually believe that either the neutrality or the defense of the Panama Canal would be better assured by the transfer of sovereignty and ownership to a "banama republic" with an "emperor Jones" style of government?

Also, could any sane and prudent adult person really believe that we "Gringos" would thereby be more highly admired and regarded by Latin American jingoists and racists? The foregoing and other attempted justifications may be persuasive for the feeble-minded but are gross insults to the intelligence of mentally competent members of the American public.

What, then, are the real reasons for Mr. Carter's ardor in seeking to despoil our country of a legitimate and valuable asset?

And, why should our moralistic President propose to shower additional American blessings and resources upon a regime which is something less than virtuous in the recognition of "human rights," which permits political activity only by the Communist Party, which adores and consorts with the Castro-Communist regime in Cuba, which has actively engaged in the supplying of narcotics for street sale in the U.S.A., and which negotiates with the U.S.A. on the basis of threat and machete brandishing?

And, how is it that Mr. Carter has proceeded in this manner with supreme disregard of the responsibility of Congress under Article IV, Sec 3, para 2, of the Constitution he swore to defend-and with supreme contempt for the Senate, by staging a theatrical treaty-signing extravaganza to embarrass "the Hill" in its consideration of the "treaties."

Also, may it be asked, what explains the apparent functional illiteracy of the Supreme Court in connection with the above-mentioned Constitutional provision? In light of recent revelations regarding substantial financial involvements of certain large American banks with the Torrijos regime, don't you agree that responsible handling by the Foreign Relations Committee would necessarily call for the conduct of a thorough and searching inquiry into all White House instructions to the treaty negotiators and into all circumstances underlying and surrounding the negotiation of these America-despoiling "treaties"?

If we are to have "open government" and "open covenants, openly arrived at," the Committee owes no less to the American people than to investigate all these matters thoroughly and to disclose the findings without whitewash. If impeachable offenses have been committed, the corrective procedural processes should be invoked.

Sincerely,

KENNETH N. K. ABEL.

AMENDMENT NO. 33

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I send to the desk for printing and to lie on the table the amendment to which I referred in my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received and printed and, without objection, the amendment will lie on the table.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, if there are no questions by other Members of the Senate

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ALLEN. I am delighted to yield to my distinguished senior colleague, Mr. Sparkman.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I remember when we were having hearings on these treaties.

Mr. ALLEN. Yes.

Mr. SPARKMAN. My colleague, the Senator from Alabama, appeared and testified, and I thought he made a very fine impression. Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I remember at the time that he said that he felt that the treaties could be cured-he may have not used that word-with some rather simple amendments. Is that not correct?

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. I stated this, and I believe the distinguished Senator will bear me out on this, that I felt that it needed to be amended in at least five major areas and that the treaty, as so amended by the Senate, could well serve as a blueprint for future negotiations. I did not have in mind it would merely be sent to Mr. Torrijos for rubberstamping by him.

Mr. SPARKMAN. No.

Mr. ALLEN. And then that would be the treaty agreed to.

Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senator is right on the procedure that would be necessary.

Mr. ALLEN. Yes.

Mr. SPARKMAN. But, nevertheless, he indicated that he could go along with treaties of that type.

Mr. ALLEN. I could go along with it if these major amendments are adopted, to send it back for further negotiations, yes.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes.

Mr. ALLEN. And then if it came back in that form, after renegotiation, that I felt that it could be approved.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes. And as I said, I was very much impressed with the suggestions the Senator made at that time. In fact, I think I commented on it here on the floor.

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. The Senator certainly did. I appreciate it.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I commented that the Senator's testimony was helpful, that the Senator did suggest amendments, but that if those amendments could be worked out satisfactorily then the Senator felt further negotiation could be held and it might be possible to get a workable treaty.

Mr. ALLEN. Yes; that is true. But it did presuppose not ratification at this time but further renegotiation. Is that not correct? Mr. SPARKMAN. My impression was that the Senator felt that it could be successfully negotiated. I think I used the expression "could be worked out."

Mr. ALLEN. Yes; and I will say, too, that if the amendments I plan to offer are accepted then I feel that it would be approved here in the Senate, and I would start off with the amendment to which I have referred, that we maintain our military presence there in the Canal Zone if the President deems it necessary for the defense of the canal.

So I hope the distinguished Senator from Alabama, my able and distinguished colleague, will start off, then, by agreeing to my amendment and voting for it as one of the conditions precedent to our agreeing on the treaty.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Well, we will have to see about that as we proceed.

Mr. ALLEN. That is what I rather thought. I thank my distinguished colleague.

Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to my distinguished senior colleague (Mr. Sparkman) for his diligent and able work on these treaties in the Committee on Foreign Relations, and for keeping an open mind on the subject, and I appreciate the fact that he has studied this matter and has tried to come to what he considered a treaty or treaties that are in the best interests of the people of the United States.

He and I have independently reached differing conclusions with respect to the treaties, but I do pay tribute to him for his hard work, his sincerity of purpose, and his full and complete consideration of the matter before us at this time.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I thank my colleague.

Mr. ALLEN. I would like further to say that I do regret that my distinguished senior colleague, whom I respect and admire so much, and I have reached different conclusions. I would like for Alabama to speak in a loud voice, "No," with respect to these treaties.

Sometimes when the Senators from the same State differ-I see the distinguished Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings) here. I rather feel that possibly he might be at some point of difference with his senior colleague with respect to the treaties. Ordinarily where the Senators differ on a question, they do cancel their votes. In this case, however, Mr. President, that is not true. And even despite my distinguished colleague's seniority, his great experience, and his prestige as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, on the particular vote of final approval of these treaties, the vote of the junior Senator from Alabama is going to count twice as much as the vote of the distinguished senior Senator from Alabama, and the vote "No" of the junior Senator from Alabama will not only cancel out the vote of my distinguished senior colleague (Mr. Sparkman), but it will also cancel out the vote of one other proponent of the treaties.

So we find that Alabama is in fact speaking out on this subject— speaking in a weak voice, I might say, Mr. President, because of

the fact that Mr. Sparkman and I do differ, but still Alabama is able to speak out, even if in a weak voice, against these treaties. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Harry F. Byrd, Jr.). Under the previous order, the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Weicker) is recognized.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Weicker) would yield to me for the purpose of a short statement. I do not propose to undertake a full rebuttal at this time, because the Senator has been waiting patiently for the floor, but there was one remark made in the course of the debate-

Mr. WEICKER. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Idaho. I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to proceed for 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator very much for his courtesy. Mr. President many statements have been made in the past hour that must have our audience on public radio thoroughly confused if not literally hanging on the ropes. All of these statements will have to be addressed and rebutted in the course of the debate, and the confusion that exists will have to be clarified. But there was one statement that is so striking that I must reply to it at this time. It was asserted that by virtue of the neutrality provision in the treaties we somehow open the canal to warships of other nations, including enemy ships.

Mr. President, this is not just a distortion of the fact, but it is one of such alarming proportions that a reply at this time is mandatory. Under the existing treaty governing the present operation of the canal, the United States is formally obligated to respect and maintain a regime of neutrality. The provisions are written into the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, and the governing article reads as follows:

The canal shall be free and open, in time of war as in time of peace, to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations, on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any nation or its citizens or subjects in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic, or otherwise. Such conditions and charges of traffic shall be just and equitable.

From the moment the United States opened the Panama Canal for international traffic in 1914 the canal has been administered in strict accordance with the terms of the treaty I have just quoted. It has been a neutral waterway, open to the passage of all ships, including warships, of any nation. Nothing in the pending treaty changes this arrangement in any way detrimental to the United States, and to suggest that it does is contrary to fact.

From the beginning, the United States has protected its national interests by preventing any hostile ships from approaching the canal. Obviously, you do not want to stop one in the middle of the locks. That would be a rather self-defeating way to prevent an enemy vessel from transiting the canal. We stop them out at sea. We prevent them from reaching the canal.

That is what we have done from the beginning, and that is what we would continue to do under these treaties. Let there be no confusion on that score.