[It is necessary for the United States to be committed so that when we ring the bell here, when we push the button, a bell rings over there, and the United States comes in defense of the Panama Canal. *

I repeat, we push the button, the bell rings, and the United States is obligated to come to our defense.

The continued existence after the October 14 Joint Statement, of confusing and divergent interpretations of the provisions of article IV by citizens, public and private, in Panama and the United States, underlines the fundamental inadequacy of the language which already exists in that article. Clearly, the addition of the language of the Joint Statement as provided by amendment No. 20 makes some fundamental changes in the treaty, changes which I believe will require that the Neutrality Treaty be resubmitted by the Government of Panama to the people of Panama in accordance with article 274 of their Constitution. But these changes alone are not sufficient to justify consent to ratification of the Neutrality Treaty if it retains the language now in article IV. It is that language which must be changed.

Fortunately for the Members of the Senate, language exists which would correct the weaknesses now in article IV-language which is consistent with the joint statement of October. This is the language which was revealed in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee by the Honorable William P. Clements, Jr., former Deputy Secretary of Defense. Mr. Clements was intimately involved in determining our Panama Canal negotiating policy and would have been a supporter of these treaties had he not discovered that key provisions of article IV had been changed during negotiations. The original language read:

In the event of any threat to the neutrality or security of the Canal, the Parties shall consult concerning joint and individual efforts to secure respect for the neutrality and security of the Canal through diplomacy, conciliation, mediation, arbitration, the International Court of Justice, or other peaceful means. If such efforts would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, each Party shall take such other diplomatic, economic or military measures as such Party deems necessary in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Mr. President, I send to the desk for printing an amendment which would substitute this language for article IV as it now exists. The advantage of this language is that it answers the questions that I have raised without undermining the position of the United States or the Government of Panama and is, I believe, consistent with and compatible with the joint statement of October 14, 1977, issued by President Carter and General Torrijos. It also has the advantage of having been approved, according to Secretary Clements, by representatives of the Government of Panama and the United States. This amendment is consistent with the highest objectives of this treaty and will prevent dangerous and painful confusion and confrontation with the Government of Panama in the future.

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS-EX. N, 95-1

AMENDMENTS NOS. 10 AND 11

At the request of Mr. Dole, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Tower) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 10 and amendment No. 11 intended to be proposed to the Panama Canal Treaty.

AMENDMENT NO. 12

At the request of Mr. Dole, the Senator from Texas, (Mr. Tower) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Garn) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 12 intended to be proposed to the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal.

AMENDMENT NO. 16

At the request of Mr. Hatch, the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Goldwater) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Scott) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 16 intended to be proposed to the Panama Canal Treaty.

RESERVATIONS SUBMITTED FOR PRINTING

PANAMA CANAL TREATIES-EX. N, 95-1

RESERVATION NO. 3

(Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)

Mr. Bartlett submitted an understanding to be proposed by him to the resolution of ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty, Executive N, 95-1.

RESERVATION NO. 4

(Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)

Mr. Bartlett submitted an understanding to be proposed by him to the resolution of ratification of the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, Executive N, 95-1.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, for some time, the Senate has been involved in extended debate over the Panama Canal Treaty and the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal. The length of the debate reflects not only he importance of the Panama Canal to the United States, Panama, and the world, but also concern over divergent interpretations of its provisions. Clearly, there is major dissatisfaction in the Senate with the treaties as they were negotiated. The Senate will inevitably make changes and add reservations to these treaties in order to secure the neutral and efficient operation of the Panama Canal and to maximize the possibility of good relations with Panama and the world.

Over three-fourths of the Members of the Senate have joined with the majority and minority leaders in support of two amend

ments to the Treaty of Neutrality. Given the testimony received by the Armed Services Committee concerning ambiguous and inadequate economic provisions of the Panama Canal Treaty, it is likely that both treaties will contain altered language prior to the Senate's consent to ratification. Although the process of making these changes is consistent with American constitutional procedures, the resulting treaty documents will be different from the documents recently subjected to approval by a plebiscite of the people of Panama.

I would remind my colleagues in the Senate that the fate of the Panama Canal is as important to the people of Panama as it is to the people of the United States. For that reason, article 274 of the Constitution of Panama provides very specifically for exceptionally careful ratification procedures for any treaty dealing with the Panama Canal. Article 274 reads as follows:

Treaties which may be signed by the Executive Organ with respect to the Panama Canal, its adjacent zone, and the protection of the said Canal, and for the construction of a new Canal at sea level or of a third set of locks, shall be submitted to a national plebiscite.

Many Panamanians have expressed their view that the original 1903 Panama Canal Treaty was negotiated in a less-than-straightforward manner, and this unusually specific provision for ratification of treaties dealing with the Panama Canal was undoubtedly designed to allay fears that a new treaty might also be negotiated in a cloud of confusion. This is not an unreasonable fear.

Mr. President, the citizens of Panama, like the citizens of the United States, are aware that a treaty is an agreement which is, in many ways, like a business contract. They understand that each side puts forth offers which are either accepted or rejected by the other side. The agreement is consummated when both parties agree to the same terms and express that agreement in language acceptable to both. Essentially, the same procedure applies to treaties. By altering the treaty language as originally negotiated and as approved in Panama by plebiscite, the Senate is, in effect, rejecting an offer from Panama while at the same time countering with an offer of its own. Were the Government of Panama not to resubmit the treaties as amended to a plebiscite of the people of Panama, its action would seemingly constitute a rejection of the new offer from the United States.

Clearly, to give the proposed Panama Canal Treaties their maximum legitimacy, they must be submitted along with all changes to the people of Panama in accordance with article 274 of the Panamanian Constitution of 1972. Failure to take this step would leave the treaties vulnerable to refutation by subsequent governments of Panama, or for that matter the United States, and might reduce the binding effects of the treaties under international law. In my opinion, such a loophole could work to the advantage of Panama in the future.

Although the Government of Panama is undoubtedly a dictatorship, the rule of law has not completely ceased in Panama. Article 274 of their constitution clearly requires a plebescite prior to ratification of any treaty dealing with the Panama Canal and the present Government of Panama has already acted once in accordance with that provision. Certainly, when confronted with a changed

document, the right of the present Government to rule would be seriously called into question if the new language were not submitted to a plebescite.

I believe that the seriousness of this issue can be illustrated by two questions. Do you believe that Panama would accept a treaty that had not been ratified by the U.S. Senate in accordance with our Constitution, when such ratification is required by the language of the treaty itself? And would you, as an elected representative of the American people, give your consent to ratification of a treaty whose language had been changed subsequent to first consideration of the document? I think that the answer to both of those questions is no.

It would be a crime and an injustice to the people of the United States if the Senate were to ignore its treaty responsibilities, and it would be an injustice to the people of Panama, about whose human rights and democracy we have been greatly concerned, not to expect that the treaties as amended would be resubmitted to a plebescite of the people of Panama.

Mr. President, in order to strengthen respect for international law and the constitutional procedures of Panama and the United States, I am sending to the desk one reservation to the Panama Canal Treaty and one reservation to the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the reservations were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

RESERVATION No. 3

Before the period at the end of the resolution of ratification, insert a comma and the following: "subject to the reservation that before the date of the exchange of the instruments of ratification the President shall have determined that the Republic of Panama has ratified the Treaty, as amended, in accordance with its constitutional processes, including the process required by the provisions of Article 274 of the Constitution of the Republic of Panama".

RESERVATION No. 4

Before the period at the end of the resolution of ratification, insert a comma and the following: "subject to the reservation that before the date of the exchange of the instruments of ratification the President shall have determined that the Republic of Panama has ratified the Treaty, as amended, in accordance with its constitutional processes, including the process required by the provisions of Article 274 of the Constitution of the Republic of Panama".

PANAMANIAN POLICE UNDER PROPOSED PANAMA

CANAL TREATY

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, the State Department recently responded to some questions which have arisen regarding the authority of United States and Panamanian police under the proposed Panama Canal Treaty.

The State Department's letter brings out a number of important points and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter be printed in the RECORD.

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

Hon. CLIFFORD P. CASE,
U.S. Senate.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., February 8, 1978.

DEAR SENATOR CASE: We understand that you have requested further information concerning certain aspects of the police authority of the United States under the proposed Panama Canal Treaty.

Under the new Treaty and its related implementing agreements, Panama would assume general police responsibility in the former Canal Zone, but the U.S. would retain significant enforcement responsibility.

For the duration of the Treaty, the U.S. military forces will control access to and exercise police functions within all U.S. defense sites. They would have full power to arrest persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are suspected of violating U.S. law. Moreover, they would be empowered to detain persons not subject to U.S. jurisdiction who are suspected of committing offenses against applicable laws or regulations, pending their formal arrest. Formal arrests of such persons would be made by Panamanian police authorities, and it is contemplated that Panamanian police liaison officers will be assigned to the U.S. military police headquarters on defense sites to facilitate such cooperation. A similar system will apply within military areas of coordination, although in these areas joint USPanamanian police patrols will in general be used, which will further facilitate the prompt, formal arrest of suspected offenders. Such joint patrols may also be utilized in other areas by mutual agreement.

Within the Canal operating areas, housing areas, and the Ports of Balboa and Cristobal, the U.S. will retain police authority for a period of 30 months from the entry into force of the Treaty. Joint patrols will be utilized in these areas, and a system of detention and arrest similar to that applicable on military areas of coordination will obtain.

After the 30-month period, Panama will assume police functions in these areas, but the U.S. will retain authority to use armed watchmen to guard all important installations related to the management, operation and maintenance of the Canal. These watchmen will have authority to detain suspects pending their formal arrest by the Panamanian police. It should be noted that all installations owned or used by United States Government agencies, including the Panama Canal Commission, will be inviolable, and therefore Panama's police may not function within them without the consent of the United States authorities.

We understand that you have also inquired concerning the procedures for apprehending persons present in Panama who have been indicted in U.S. courts for serious crimes against U.S. law. Under the present treaty arrangements, such persons found in the Canal Zone may be apprehended by the U.S. authorities; the Canal Zone is treated as an organized territory under U.S. law for purposes of extradition to United States State courts. Such persons found in Panama are subject to arrest and extradition by the Panamanian authorities pursuant to the United States-Panama Extradition Treaty of May 25, 1904. Under the new Treaty, U.S. general jurisdiction over the Canal Zone would terminate, but the treaty procedures for extradition now applicable in the rest of Panama would continue to apply throughout that country.

I hope the foregoing information will be of use to you. We would be pleased to provide any further information you may desire.

Sincerely,

HERBERT J. HANSELL,

Legal Adviser.

THE PANAMA BUG-OUT

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, every day we hear more opinions from more people about the Panama Canal. Most of these come from people who regard themselves as experts but who have never seen the canal nor read the proposed treaties which would give it away at a huge cost to the American taxpayer. I suggest that what is important is what the treaties say rather than what self-styled experts say about them. Recently Mr. Jenkin Lloyd Jones wrote a highly edifying article for the Los Angeles Times syndicate con