May I add that the responsibility of our nation-indeed, the first essential duty and the first justification for any form of government since tribal times-is to provide protection to its citizens for life and property at home and abroad. In reality, all other functions are simply extensions of this basic responsibility. This case is pertinent to your hearings because it parallels in a striking way the history of U.S.-Panama relations from the beginning-namely, from 1903 to 1978, as you will discover when you read the summary calendar comparison of events in our formal presentation. Before I go further, Mr. Chairman, may I introduce my key associates? Our Chief Counsel, Mr. Royal E. Cabell, Jr., distinguished attorney of Richmond, Virginia; Dr. E. Y. Ham, political scientist with doctorate from the University of Wisconsin; and my associate-at-large, Colonel John T. Carlton, known to many of this committee as the longtime Executive Director of the Reserve Officers Associate, recently retired from that position, and my friend of 30 years. As a matter of record, I also wish to tell you that on November 17 and 18, 1977 a copy of our full presentation including bibliography and other pertinent material was hand-delivered to each Senator and Congressman and receipts were obtained in every case. To my amazement on an issue of this magnitude, less than 10% of Senate and House members even made pro forma acknowledgement, and some of my close friends in The Congress, when queried personally, affirmed they had never seen nor heard of it. Of course, I understand, but it does suggest that staff are not tending the store and votes are being pressured before facts are known! I should also like to say that though a press release was prepared and made available through normal media channels, including all the great newspapers, the national editor of two such-one in Washington and one in San Francisco-told me that pressures were being exercised to prevent this story from being told. (As the editor of a leading textbook on journalism, I ask myself, "When did we lose a truthserving media? Of what value is the first amendment?) At this point, Mr. Chairman, may I ask that our basic "White Paper," a copy of which is before each of you, be placed in the Congressional Record after this testimony? It should also be of record that complete sets of copies of supporting documents have been deposited with the Librarian of the Senate and of the House, and in Library of the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, at Stanford University. I also ask that I may be allowed to provide additional data, if such information is desired by your committee or seems to be germane to the story of Panama and what her citizens and government have or have not done to develop her own resources in addition to subsisting on moneys and expertise from the United States. I request this consideration for a 30-day period after this hearing. Do I have your permission to provide such additions to your committee for information and consideration? In this connection, I quote from a letter received recently from a Panamanian now resident in this country. Professor Gustav Anguizola, teaching at the University of Texas in Arlington, wrote: I quote: "Panamanian courts are quite venal and this goes for the Supreme Court." He says, also; "It is interesting that in the new treaty or treaties there is no proviso for a claims commission which might do justice to your clients. I suggest to you that instead of conciliatory efforts, we try calling the shots. A good start would be to require return of this tract of land stolen from American citizens; or, at least, reimbursement to the claimants for their lost property. At compound interest-or at current value of the timber alone (something more than 715 Million Dollars)-it is quite a sum. And since the government of Panama is demanding enormous sums from us to go along with the gift of the Canal, let us stipulate that she uses some of this money to reimburse fully these American claimants. In view of these considerations, I suggest further that before any treaty or understanding with Panama is formalized, either the property be officially returned by Panama to the claimants, or reimbursement to them should be made without further delay. Our claim in 1942 was $6,747,900.00. The value of the land and its timber and other resources can now be variously_calculated, considering interest and the changed value of the currency, at from One to Two Billion Dollars U.S. Something a little over One Billion Dollars may be a reasonable claim. We are not seeking "pie in the sky," but we feel that our clients are entitled to an indemnity which rightfully should come from Panama-unless the United States feels that the raising of the issue would be damaging to international relations, as the State Department has contended over the years. If at this juncture it behooves the United States of America not to embarrass a foreign power because of the wrongful acts of its highest officials-to the point that the United States is not willing to protect the rights of its citizens to have their property, it would appear that this is a cost which should be borne by the public treasury and not by the private investors. All of the claimants are people of conservative nature; nevertheless we feel that if this is the position of our government, then these claimants should be granted an indemnity by all of the people by way of a bill for private relief. This is not a hypothetical issue. For unpaid taxes U.S. citizens go to jail. For unpaid reimbursement to American citizens someone is responsible. The United States Federal Government which was founded to protect the lives and property of its citizens has been negligent. The evidence of this miscarriage of justice to private Americans is compelling. In view of our native penchant for generosity to foreign powers, is it not meet and proper that property plainly stolen by arch chicanery from American citizens be given equal billing? After reading nine thousand clippings about the Canal treaties-pro and con-it is clear to me and to our group that money looms first and foremost in Panama's thoughts of the new treaties. Before we officially hand over to her further vast sums, with or without total control of the Canal, let us pay back a debt to some of our own people. Let us do it publicly and give the world clear proof that we still stand back of our citizens and that our American system of "freedom with responsibility" is a two-way street. [From the Congressional Record-Senate, Jan. 26, 1978] PANAMA CANAL TREATIES: A REVIEW OF THE RECORD Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it is now only a matter of days before the Panama Canal treaties reach the Senate floor for consideration. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will begin markup on the resolution of ratification on Thursday and I understand the Senate Armed Services Committee will be winding up its hearings in the next week or so. By now, many of our colleagues have expressed their position on the treaty issue, and the nature of the forthcoming Senate debate is becoming evident. SUPPORT FOR TREATY REVISIONS Little by little, the treaty modification concept has gained a following in the last few months. Some who once believed these treaties to be essentially perfect now admit to certain defects. Some who once denounced treaty revisions as impractical or unacceptable now appear resigned to accept them. In fact, in some respects, a "bandwagon" approach now appears to be underway. When the junior Senator from Kansas first proposed treaty amendments and reservations in September 1977, there was no immediate surge of interest. By mid-October, however, controversy over defense and passage provisions was strong enough to necessitate a joint statement of understanding-a tacit admission by both the Carter and Torrijos administrations that the treaties required clarification. Now, it is gratifying to note that both the Senate majority leader and minority leader have publicly endorsed treaty modifications. General Torrijos has expressed willingness to accept some Senate revisions. And 10 Members of the Senate have so far sponsored or cosponsored proposed treaty amendments. Just this morning the Senator from Kansas understands the administration has indicated a willingness to accept some modification. Many more have publicly or privately expressed willingness to vote for treaty changes. So there has been a lot of movement in that direction in the past 4 months, and it is an indication of recognition that these treaties are flawed. It is an indication that these treaties will not be ratified in the forms presented last September. Perhaps it is also an indication that many of the Members of this body are ready to assert the proper constitutional role that Congress should play in the treatymaking process. What began as a modest effort last September to reinstate active congressional involvement in the international treatymaking function has set the stage for amendments to the canal treaties, and may well have set the pace for treaty consideration in years to come. REVIEW OF EVENTS Mr. President, I will briefly review the chronology of my activities relating to the Panama Canal treaty issue, so that it may be a part of the permanent record. After a careful review of the two Panama Canal treaties which were made public on September 7, I determined that I could not support the accords in their present forms. On September 23, I introduced six amendments and two reservations in order to clarify and improve upon the treaties. My proposals address themselves to a number of issues, including defense and passage rights for the United States, the right to negotiate with any country for a new sea-level canal, extension of the transition period, reduction of toll payments to Panama, congressional approval for the transfer of U.S. property, and protection of human rights. On October 5, I appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to elaborate upon my amendments and reservations, and submitted the text of a State Department cable which demonstrated beyond a doubt that American and Panamanian negotiators were giving different interpretations to certain vital provisions in the neutrality treaty. At that time, I commented: There my be a few members who would just flatly oppose anything, but I don't know of anyone in that category I believe that if the proper changes were made, the treaties would have widespread support. Despite State Department intimidation efforts, I insisted upon the public's right to know about the dangerous ambiguities in the treaties. On October 13, I advised the Senate of allegations that Gen. Omar Torrijos and other members of his family have been involved in drug-trafficking operations in the Western Hemisphere. The following day, I submitted a freedom of information request to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration requesting specific files which I still believe may contain information on this subject. Despite my repeated efforts to obtain these files, the administration has refused to turn over the bulk of Government materials on the Torrijos drug connection. Files have been withheld on the basis of national security and sensitive foreign policy matters. I now have an appeal pending with the Department of Justice on this subject, which certainly would expose some light on the integrity of the Panamanian Government. Three days after the Carter-Torrijos statement of understanding was released, I introduced two additional amendments containing the identical language of that statement. I pointed out that "the joint statement, by itself, is not legally binding. And the joint agreement disproves the notion that renegotiation of certain treaty provisions is impossible." I have believed from the beginning that that statement should be made a part of the treaty language itself, and I am pleased that so many others are finally coming around to that point of view. During late December, Senator Paul Laxalt and myself spent 2 days in Panama familiarizing ourselves with the operation of the Panama Canal, and discussing treaty provisions with local employees, civic councils, Canal Zone Government officials, and with General Torrijos. My earlier concerns about the treaties were reaffirmed as a result of that trip. Most recently, on January 19, I introduced three additional amendments to the treaty which, in my opinion, will better protect our national interests in the area. These amendments would authorize a separate base agreement to permit U.S. retention of some military installations in Panama after the year 2000, and would prohibit the presence of any military troops or bases in Panama other than those of the United States and Panama-after ratification of the treaties. FULL DEBATE INSURED We can expect to see more treaty amendments and reservations introduced in the next few days. This is useful, for it insures that the Senate will give its most careful review to the details of the treaties. It also insures that there will be full debate on treaty provisions, along with efforts to clarify ambiguities and compensate for omissions. I look forward to continuing my longstanding efforts to insist upon substantive guarantees and protections within the treaties. I hope more of my colleagues will join me in those efforts. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeConcini). The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. TREATY CONCERNING THE PERMANENT NEUTRALITY AND OPERATION OF THE PANAMA CANAL-EXECUTIVE N, 95-1 ADMENTMENT NO. 15 (Ordered to be printed and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.) Mr. DOLE, as in executive session, submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to executive N, 95-1, the treaty concerning the permanent neutrality and operation of the Panama Canal. AMENDMENT NO. 16 (Ordered to be printed and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.) Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Garn, Mr. Helms, Mr. Laxalt, Mr. McClure, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Eastland, and Mr. Allen), as in executive session, submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them, jointly, to Executive N, 95-1, the treaty concerning the permanent neutrality and operation of the Panama Canal. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Panama Canal treaties raise a serious constitutional issue that should be resolved before the Senate turns to the consideration of the merits of these agreements. The issue is whether the President of the United States has the constitutional authority to transfer U.S. territory in the Canal Zone to the Republic of Panama by treaty alone, without the approval of both House of Congress. Representatives of the State Department and the Justice Department argue that the President may make such a treaty because he possesses concurrent authority with Congress to dispose of Ameri |