al Torrijos himself may be profiting directly from drug sales, makes the matter all the more serious.

SENATE SHOULD HAVE INFORMATION

At the very least, I believe the Justice Department—and the Drug Enforcement Administration in particular-should make its findings on this matter known immediately to the appropriate Senate committee or committees, which can then decide what effect the information might have on ratification of the Panama Canal Treaties. I believe the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would certainly be entitled to take a look at this material, along with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and perhaps others.

Mr. President, I am calling upon the administration to address this serious matter immediately. I believe that President Carter should discuss these allegations with General Torrijos and request a full explanation. There is no better time for this than tomorrow. In addition, it would be useful for the President himself to examine the files in possession of the Drug Enforcement Administration, and approve their release to appropriate Senate panels for full investigation. If any portion of these allegations are found to be accurate, I hope that the necessary information will be made available to all Members of Congress, and to the American public before the Panama Canal Treaty ratification process is completed.

Mr. President, as the Senator from Kansas indicated, the list containing DEA file references contains about 44 different references. In an effort to be totally cautious, and after making investigation as to whether or not the numbers themselves were classified, and being told that perhaps they were not, but to be on the safe side, after having experienced just last week with the State Department, the Senator from Kansas will not make public the reference numbers, but the Senator from Kansas does believe it is appropriate, at the proper time, to turn these references over to the proper committee, and I would hope that, based on the information available, the files could be subpenaed or otherwise brought before the appropriate committees in Congress, perhaps in executive session, and looked into very carefully.

But it seems to me that if someone were to ask, "How does this bear on the ratification of the treaties," the Senator from Kansas might state that if these allegations were true, it would have a great bearing on the ratification of the treaties, because it involves one of the principal participants and that individual's integrity. So I would hope, based upon the statement that, come tomorrow, the President will discuss this matter, if he checks with the DEA and finds the information to be accurate, with General Torrijos. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I once again commend the Senator from Kansas for his diligence and care in pursuing aspects of this matter which is of so much interest to us. The remarks made by him today, and earlier by the distinguished Senator from Alabama, are in excess of the information available to me, but I would like to add to the record that part that I know, so that he will be seized with what I know, and can determine where to go from here.

The majority leader is present and can corroborate what I am about to say, but I see no reason for not reporting to the Senate that the Attorney General briefed us in connection with certain matters in this respect, and he briefed the chairman and the ranking Republican member of the committee in certain respects. I have suggested to the Attorney General, and it is my understanding that he agreed, that the appropriate jurisdictional committees of the Senate be briefed on such matters as might be relevant to the subject of their consideration.

Mr. President, the only reason I say this is to let the Senator from Kansas know that there has been a contact with the administration, and that it has been my insistence, and I believe that of the majority leader as well, that the Senate be informed on whatever aspects may be relevant, if any. I do not know the details of the transactions or the allegations. I cannot speak for their truthfulness. But I thought, in view of the interest and importance of the matter, the Senate ought to be kept fully informed.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, the minority leader has correctly stated the situation as to our being briefed, and we have been assured we would continue to be briefed as to any further information which comes to the attention of the Attorney General upon this matter.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I would only reiterate one part, to make sure it is entirely clear: It was at our insistence that the Department of Justice make sure that the relevant committees of the Senate be fully apprised of whatever information might be relevant to our consideration of relevant matters.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I appreciate being informed that the matter is moving along. Does that include information as to the allegation that the files may have been removed and then returned?

Mr. BAKER. No. I prefaced these remarks by saying that the Senator from Kansas had more information than I had, and it was to that that I was referring.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to say that I have full confidence in the intention of the Attorney General of the United States to bring to our attention the full relevant information, as he has done, and I have no doubt that he will continue to bring to the attention of the joint leadership and Senate committees any information that he has bearing on this matter.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the able Senator from Kansas for bringing this information to the Senate. It would be my hope that the files referred to by him, that contain such information, would be made available by the administration to the Separation of Powers Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary. I feel that these charges are too serious to be passed on lightly. I feel that this matter should be gone into carefully, and that there should be no action on the part of the administration to withhold files. I do not predict that they will, but I feel very strongly that the information in these files should be made available to the Members of the Senate.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as ranking minority member of the Separation of Powers Subcommittee, I also would like to thank the

29-400 0 - 78 - 35

distinguished Senator from Kansas for his enlightenment of the Senate, and I think the country, today.

I have had a lot of reports from various sources that the Torrijos regime has been participating for a number of years in drug trafficking. I have, for the most part, chosen to carefully watch those reports, but have not had any particular source that I was willing to rely upon, until today, to give me any indication or information that would lead to reliable or verifiable proof of such trafficking. We have held some extensive hearings in the Separation of Powers Subcommittee, and we have tried to do everything in our power to bring out a variety of matters concerning the Panama Canal on both sides. I commend the distinguished Senator, and I do believe that the administration ought to provide us with these files, ought to provide us with the appropriate people who can testify, and let us know who they are, so that we can once and for all get this matter out in the open, and determine exactly what type of regime we are dealing with, and above all, what kind of a person we are dealing with in Omar Torrijos.

The chairman of the committee is here on the floor, and I do not mean to usurp his function by making this particular request, but let me just say this, for myself personally: I feel that it is a very reasonable request, and we ought to be able to look into the matter. I think for the benefit of all Members of the Senate, and certainly for the benefit of the country as a whole. As everyone knows, this Panama Canal problem has become one of the paramount problems of our day. There are differing viewpoints and differing sides to this question, but I would like to see both sides brought out, and not just one side. I am not sure we have had enough brought out on the impact of the treaty side to keep people properly informed.

I think the people should know if there is evidence of drug trafficking, and if the evidence you have indicated can be obtained, I think we ought to see it.

I thank the Senator from Kansas for his statement on the floor of the Senate, and certainly want to give any support I can to the committee and to the American people.

[From the Congressional Record-Senate, Oct. 17, 1977]

TREATY AMENDMENTS WOULD CONFIRM JOINT

STATEMENT

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am today submitting two amendments to the "treaty concerning the permanent neutrality and operation of the Panama Canal" which is now pending before the U.S. Senate. My amendments are based upon the joint statement issued by President Carter and Panamanian Gen. Omar Torrijos last Friday concerning American defense and passage rights to be guaranteed under this treaty. The Carter-Torrijos statement was intended to reconcile differing interpretations of our rights to defend the canal and to transit the canal quickly in time of crisis. My amendments are intended to clear up the ambiguities in the treaty itself which caused those differences in interpretation. In so doing, I am using virtually the same language contained in the joint statement of October 14.

A POSITIVE STEP

I think that the joint statement issued on Friday by President Carter and General Torrijos was a step in the right direction in clearing up confusion over our defense and passage rights under the Panama Canal Treaty. This had become a source of extreme concern to myself, and to many other Members of the Senate. The Carter-Torrijos statement indicates that there is, at least, some agreement between the two heads of state about U.S. rights under the treaty. But it does not end there. The solution is not that simple.

Since the leaders of both nations have agreed upon this more specific language, it should be incorporated into the treaty itself. There is no longer any justification for leaving the treaty language ambiguous. In fact, it is essential that the treaty itself be modified to reflect the agreement.

AGREEMENT MUST BE WRITTEN INTO LAW

It is important to remember that the joint statement, by itself, is not binding. It has no legal effect. In fact, General Torrijos announced on his return to Panama that he did not sign anything while he was in Washington. So I would suggest that he may not think it is even binding at all. Neither Carter nor Torrijos will occupy positions of authority when the treaty provisions becomes significant in the year 2000, so there must be some basis in law to insure that their pledge will be honored.

It is for that reason, that I am introducing these two amendments to the treaty on permanent neutrality, containing language which is virtually identical to that in the Carter-Torrijos statement.

Because my amendments seek to incorporate the same language used in the statement, I trust that the administration will have no objections to their adoption by the Senate. For several weeks now, the administration has argued that any amendments or reservations to the Panama Canal treaties would be unacceptable because they would require renegotiation of certain portions of the treaties.

But the Carter-Torrijos agreement disproves the notion that renegotiation of certain parts of these treaties is impossible. It disproves the notion that the present proposal is necessarily "the best treaty we can get.”

In fact, improvements in both the basic treaty and the treaty on permanent neutrality are both possible and practical. I believe that Congress has a responsibility to continue to press for direct clarifications and improvements in both treaties. Certainly, the joint statement issued last Friday would never have been made if congressional pressure for clarification had not been exerted during the past several days.

Previously, I introduced amendments and reservations bearing on other aspects of these treaties as well. Each of them is based upon genuine concern about significant portions of the treaties. I do not undertake these modification efforts lightly. But I do think that this recent instance has demonstrated just how important it is that all of us in the Senate continue to carefully analyze this treaty for possible defects or omissions. And if we find them, we must seek to correct them. This is our constitutional responsibility and our duty to the American people.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendments be printed in the Record at this point.

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

AMDT. No. 7 (EXEC. 95-1)

At the end of article IV, add the following: "Each of the Parties shall, in accordance with their respective constitutional processes, defend the Canal against any threat to such regime of neutrality, and shall have the right to act against any aggression or threat directed against the Canal or against the peaceful transit of vessels through the Canal. Any United States action shall be directed at insuring that the Canal shall remain open, secure, and accessible, and such action shall not be directed against the territorial integrity or political independence of the Republic of Panama."

AMDT. No. 8 (EXEC. 95-1)

At the end of the first paragraph of article VI, add the following: "The provisions of this paragraph are for the purpose of, and shall be construed as, assuring the transit of such vessels through the Canal as quickly as possible, without any impediment, with expedited treatment, and in case of need or emergency, assuring that such vessel go to the head of the line of vessels awaiting transit of the Canal, in order to transit the Canal rapidly.".

THE PANAMA CANAL TREATIES

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, during the previous 3 weeks beginning September 26 and running through October 14, the Committee on Foreign Relations held a series of hearings on the proposed Panama Canal agreements. During that 15-day work period, the committee devoted 11 days to the consideration of these agree ments, hearing a total of 68 witnesses, including 16 executive branch witnesses, 15 witnesses from Congress, and 37 outside experts and public witnesses. Regrettably, neither President Ford nor Governor Reagan was able to accept the committee's invitation to