Moreover, the Panama Canal Zone is not a colony. It is inhabited by many thousands of Americans. True, it is not contiguous to the United States, as it is to Panama. Is contiguity then the criterion? Well then, how about Alaska, contiguous to Canada and close to Siberia. Should we hand Alaska over to Canada or perhaps to Russia? Alaska is a state as is Hawaii. Yes-and we could conceivably make a state out of the Panama Canal Zone.

It is declared that the Latin Americans resent the North American presence in the Canal Zone. Yet there are many others who fear Russian control of the canal by means of their control of Fidel Castro's Cuba and Castro's power and influence over Gen. Omar Torrijos Herrera, the current, temporary, unelected, left-wing, military dictator of Panama. And there are many others around the world who fear that the Panamanians, in spite of their threats and promises, will not run the canal as efficiently as we do. We run it very well indeed.

Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Bolivia, Uruguay, Paraguay and Ecuador have antiCommunist Governments and fear Communist infiltration of the Canal Zone. Many in these countries would dread our relinquishing control of it.

The principal argument advanced in favor of the treaties is that, as General Torrijos has warned us, if they are not ratified by the Senate there will be trouble in Panama-demonstrations, riots, bombs, guerrilla activity—and that therefore we must agree to the treaties as an act of appeasement—a mini-Munich, if you will— but, in effect, a shotgun arrangement.

We got tired of the Vietnam War, we refused to help in Angola, and so now it is proposed that 217 million Americans should cave in and run away before the ominous threat of 1.5 million people in Panama. This is the worst possible reason for ratification of the treaties, for it portrays us Americans as a supine pack of cowards, a paper tiger who will give in at the slightest threat of combat. It is succumbing to blackmail.

This is the argument that would cause us to lose face and friends and confidence in many parts of the world, particularly in South America, where our sanctimonious sermonizing about human rights has made us unpopular.

Certainly the treaties can properly be revised. However, let us recognize that in the mortal struggle in which we are inextricably involved, for the United States to surrender control of the canal will, in this jungle world, present the enemy with an advantage. While in some ways the canal may be obsolete, in unfriendly hands it could present a difficult and dangerous problem for the United States, especially in the event of a showdown.

The overriding question is this: Is it in the interests of our national security, is it in the best interest of the United States as leader of the non-Communist world to lessen our control of this vital waterway and rampart at a time when Russian imperialism, heavily and increasingly armed, is very much on the march? The national interest must be the determining factor. We should be governed by geopolitical considerations. If we move out, will the enemy eventually move in?

[From the Congressional Record-Senate, Feb. 2, 1978]

THE PANAMA CANAL TREATIES: A MISSING COMPONENT Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I thank the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. President, on Tuesday, January 31, Mr. Herbert J. Hansell, legal advisor to the Department of State, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Hansell testified that if the proposed new treaties are ratified by the Senate, implementing legislation will need to be enacted.

The implementing legislation will contain crucial interpretations of the treaty language with regard to the appropriations process, pension costs, labor contracts, toll structure, employment practices, accounting procedures, commercial organization, jurisdiction of U.S. courts and law enforcement, and other important detailincluding direct costs to the taxpayers.

Just how important is the implementing legislation?

Yesterday that question was put to the Governor of the Canal Zone, Maj. Gen. H. R. Parfitt, when he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Governor Parfitt replied that it would be most helpful to the Senate in its consideration of the proposed new treaties.

Elmer Staats, Comptroller General of the United States, told the Armed Services Committee that if he were a Senator, he would want to have available the implementing legislation before voting on the treaties.

But the most definitive statement was made by Mr. Hansell in his testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee on September 29, 1977.

I quote from Mr. Hansell's testimony, he being the legal advisor to the State Department:

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to report to this committee on the proposed legislation to implement these treaties that is being prepared for submission to Congress in the near future. That legislation, of course, will be an essential component of the overall program of implementation of the treaties.

For emphasis I repeat again Mr. Hansell's statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

That legislation, of course, will be an essential component of the overall program of implementation of the treaties.

Yet, that "essential component" has not been submitted to the Congress.

Mr. Hansell told the Foreign Relations Committee on September 29, that:

We hope to have a complete draft available for submission to both Houses of Congress within several weeks. We have been at work on it for some period of time. Certainly well before the end of October we expect to have it to you.

But October has come and gone, November has come and gone, December has come and gone, January has come and gone-and still the implementing legislation is not available to the Congress. Under questioning Tuesday, Mr. Hansell could not tell the committee when such legislation might be available.

The point that I raise with the Senate and the point which I hope the leadership would consider before calling up the Panama Canal treaties is that legislation considered by the State Department "an essential component" in implementing the treaties-and promised to the Congress last October-is not available.

The fact that the legislation was promised to the Congress in October but is not yet available in February suggests to me that it is, indeed, "an essential component" and must, indeed, have wide ramifications and much complexity. Perhaps as a matter of strate the administration wishes to withhold this "essential" component for fear of weakening support for the treaties.

But would it be fair, wise or appropriate to require the Senate to debate the proposed new treaties without the Senate having available the "essential component" of legislation that would be required if the treaties are ratified?

To determine whether the treaties are sound and should be enacted requires that all of the facts be available. Yet, the implementing legislation, essential to carrying out the purposes of the treaties, is not available for consideration by the Senate.

I urge delay in calling up the proposed Panama Canal Treaties until the implementing legislation is available for considerationwhich legislation the Governor of the Canal Zone said would be helpful to the Senate and would shed light on the matter; and which legislation the State Department terms "an essential component" in implementing the treaties.

In conclusion, I emphasize, too, that the State Department on September 29, 1977 promised the Senate Foreign Relations Committee "a complete draft (would be) available for submission to both Houses of Congress in several weeks."

I have no desire merely to delay consideration of the treaties ; I do feel it important to have "essential" components available when the debate begins.

I should think, Mr. President, that the proponents-even more, perhaps, than the opponents-would want this information available to avoid potential serious misunderstanding with Panama and possible difficulties with the House of Representatives in obtaining enactment of implementing legislation.

In ending, I ask this question: How can the treaties be properly debated when essential components are missing?

I thank the distinguished majority leader for yielding to me.

SENATE RESOLUTION 268-PROVIDING FOR RADIO COVERAGE OF SENATE PROCEEDINGS DURING CONSIDERATION OF THE PANAMA CANAL TREATIES

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, for the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Pell), on behalf of the Committee on Rules and Administration, I send to the desk a resolution, together with the committee report thereon, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hart). The resolution will be stated by title.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 268) providing for radio and television coverage of proceedings of the Senate during consideration of the Panama Canal Treaties.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate consideration of the resolution?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution, which had been reported from the Committee on Rules and Administration with amendments.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask that the clerk read the amendments. They are very brief.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

On page 1, line 3, strike “and television coverage (including and making of videotapes)" and insert "coverage (including radio broadcast recordings)";

On page 2, beginning with line 1, strike through and including line 6, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

SEC. 2. Under such terms and conditions as the Committee on Rules and Administration may prescribe

(1) radio coverage of proceedings in the Senate chamber provided for in the first section shall be made available to public and commercial radio broadcasting stations and networks; and

(2) recordings shall be made available to such stations and networks, to Members of the Senate, and to such other organizations and persons as the Committee may authorize.

On page 2, line 7, strike "and television coverage" and insert "coverage and recordings";

The amendments were agreed to.

The resolution, as amended, was agreed to, as follows:

Resolved. That the Committee on Rules and Administration be and is hereby authorized and directed to provide for radio coverage (including radio broadcast recordings) of proceedings in the Senate Chamber during consideration of the Panama Canal Treaty and the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, both signed at Washington, District of Columbia, on September 7, 1977. Such coverage shall be provided for continuously at all times while the Senate is considering the treaties, except for any time when a meeting with closed doors is ordered.

SEC. 2. Under such terms and conditions as the Committee on Rules and Administration may prescribe

(1) radio coverage of proceedings in the Senate Chamber provided for in the first section shall be made available to public and commercial radio broadcasting stations and networks; and

(2) recordings shall be made available to such stations and networks, to Members of the Senate, and to such other organizations and persons as the Committee may authorize.

SEC. 3. The radio coverage and recordings of proceedings in the Senate Chamber under this resolution shall be carried out in such manner as the Committee on Rules and Administration shall prescribe.

Amend the title so as to read: "Resolution providing for radio coverage of proceedings of the Senate during consideration of the Panama Canal Treaties.'

The title was amended so as to read.

Resolution providing for radio coverage of proceedings of the Senate during consideration of the Panama Canal Treaties.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, does the amendment to the title strike out the words with reference to television?

to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

I move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was agreed

Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, nearly 4 months ago I advised the Senate of certain allegations I had received of direct involvement by Gen. Omar Torrijos and other members of his regime in drug trafficking in the United States and elsewhere. On October 13, suggested that these charges, if true, could prove relevant to the Panama Canal Treaty issue. I feel now, as I did then, that the credibility and the personal integrity of General Torrijos and his colleagues will bear upon their reliability as Panama's guarantors of the new treaties.

Furthermore, since ratification of these proposed Panama Canal Treaties will definitely strengthen the political and financial status of the Torrijos regime, I maintain that it is important for us to know in advance if we will be bolstering a corrupt government which facilitates transport of illegal drugs to our own shores.

EFFORTS TO SECURE INFORMATION

Mr. President, I think that any Member of Congress who became aware of such allegations would feel a responsibility to call for full disclosure of relevant materials. This is what I have attempted to do during the last 15 weeks, only to find those efforts frustrated by bureaucratic roadblocks. Two full months after filing a "freedom of information request" on October 14, I received 75 pages of highly censored material from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. I was advised that additional DEA files, as well as the deleted portions of the files I received, could not be provided because it could "jeopardize" national security or U.S. foreign policy interests. In late December, I filed an appeal with the Department of Justice, which is currently reviewing the case.

NEW MATERIALS SURFACE

Despite the cloak of secrecy that the executive branch has wrapped around its files on the alleged Torrijos drug connection, the matter will not simply go away. To the contrary, materials relating to the allegations have continued to surface in recent months through unofficial channels.

The latest development that I am aware of occurred on Tuesday of this week, when two copies of Drug Enforcement Administration files were delivered to my office in a plain white envelope by an unknown source. The documents appear to be authentic photostatic copies of DEA and Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs files. Both contain agent reports which refer by name to Gen. Omar Torrijos or members of his immediate family, and implicate them in narcotics traffic going through Panama.