Mr. President, these documents raise more questions than they answer. Perhaps the reports contained within the documents are unfounded. Perhaps the documents themselves are forgeries. But when I sent similar documents to the DEA administrator on October 21 asking for confirmation of authenticity, no response was received. This is typical of the lack of cooperation that the executive branch has demonstrated so far in my efforts simply to determine whether there is any substance to these allegations.

Mr. President, I will not release the two documents which I received yesterday. I believe it is a responsibility of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to make a full disclosure of its files in this regard, and I intend to pursue the matter until they do so. At the moment, I am of the opinion that "someone is trying to tell us something" about drug-trafficking information that is in the possession of the executive branch of our government. As a Member of Congress who is concerned both about the drug traffic coming into this country and about the pending Panama Canal treaties, I feel a responsibility to pursue the matter to its end.

I can say with certainty that the particular items which were delivered to my office on Tuesday by an unknown source were not contained within the 75 pages of sanitized documents which I received from DEA in December, in response to my "freedom of information request." If these documents are authentic, then they were willingly and knowingly withheld from me by the DEA. It is for that reason that I raise the question: Just what else does the executive branch know about the Torrijos drug-trafficking operations, and why is it being withheld from Members of Congress who seek to learn the truth of the matter?

Mr. President, when the Senator from Kansas visited Panama in December of last year he had an opportunity to visit with Gen. Omar Torrijos. General Torrijos seemed very disturbed that anything concerning drug traffic might become involved in the canal treaty debates, and I agreed with General Torrijos. I said the matter should be disposed of. It should not be an issue in the Panama Canal Treaty debate. General Torrijos indicated to this Senator that someone was playing games. He said, "Some agency, your own agency is playing games with you. I will send you the information.'

Well, so far General Torrijos has not forwarded the material, but I have written General Torrijos. I have asked for the information. The Senator from Kansas believes we should debate the treaties on the merits. We should not have side issues.

But the Senator from Kansas also believes this may not be a side issue. And how do we know if our own agencies, our own Government will not give us the information? Why does the DEA withhold information? Why does the DEA withhold information from this Senator and others who have made the requests?

What is this national security interest that must be protected? What about the rights of Americans? What about the future of the canal itself?

So far the Senator from Kansas said today as I said on this floor many weeks ago all the Senator from Kansas asks is cooperation, some spirit, some effort, some indication, just some indication that Mr. Bensinger and the Drug Enforcement Administration are will

ing to give us some assurance that there is not any involvement. The Senator from Kansas can only speak for himself, but if that is forthcoming this Senator will not raise that in the canal treaty debate, and I would hope that they are listening.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

THE PRESIDENT MISLEADS THE PEOPLE ON THE

PANAMA CANAL

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the President of the United States last night talked to the people of the United States by television and radio about the Panama Canal. He said that much of the opposition to the proposed treaties was based upon misunderstanding and misinformation. His statement is quite understandable when one contemplates the misunderstanding and misinformation disseminated by the President himself last night.

I admire the President personally, but, candidly, his statements of alleged fact were far from the truth. This Senator naturally expected that the President would strive to present his treaties in the best possible light, and that he would present favorable interpretations and conclusions. But I expected that Mr. Carter would base his statements on fact and not fiction. One is forced to the conclusion either that he was misleading the American people unintentionally, or he was misleading them intentionally. There is no alternative to those two possibilities.

Let us take just one minor statement-a minor issue really, but important in building up the myth of U.S. "guilt." Mr. Carter said that the 1903 treaty "was not signed by any Panamanian." The President was obviously referring to Philippe Bunau-Varilla, who negotiated the treaty with Secretary Hay of the United States. It is true that Bunau-Varilla was a Frenchman; but one of the first acts of the new Panamanian Government in 1903 was to issue full credentials to Bunau-Varilla as Panamanian Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. He had full powers to sign the draft, which he did. But the formal signing did not take place until December 4, 1903.

On that date, the following Panamanians placed their signatures on the treaty:

Junta members: J. A. Arango, Tomas Arias, Manuel Espinosa B. Minister of Interior: Eusebio A. Morales.

Minister of Foreign Relations: F. V. de la Espriella.

Minister of Justice: Carlos A. Mendoza.

Minister of Treasury: Manuel E. Amador.

Minister of War and Marine: Nicanor A. de Obarrio.

Subsecretary of Public Instruction: Francisco Antonio Facio. Needless to say, the 1903 treaty was reaffirmed in each of the treaties of 1936 and 1955, which were also signed by Panamanians, and ratified freely by the Panamanian constitutional process.

Nor must it be thought that the treaty was unfair to Panamanians or that the Senate would consent to it without persuasion. If the future was indeed in doubt, which is why Secretary Hay was attempting to pursuade Senators that it was "vastly advantageous to the United States and-not so advantageous to Panama." Secre

tary Hay, like President Carter after him, was merely, tailoring his words to a reluctant Senate.

But even on more substantive issues, the President shaded the truth. On the issue of national security, for example, Mr. Carter was less than forthright when he said:

Throughout the negotiations, we were determined that our national security interests would be protected * and that our military forces would have the permanent right to defend the canal if it should ever be in danger.

It is to be assumed that he would try to interpret the ambiguous defense provisions favorably; but the fact is that the negotiations backed down from the unilateral right of military intervention, the only right that would give the canal adequate protection.

In hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday of this week, former Deputy Defense Secretary William Clements testified that he had negotiated a clear-cut clause granting unilateral intervention to the United States, one that was approved by the Defense Department, the State Department, and the National Security Council.

Mr. President, in response to a question which I put to him, he stated unequivocally that General Torrijos himself had approved that clause.

The language of the clause is as follows, and I think it is important that it be in the Record:

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 Canal's neutrality and security through diplomacy, conciliation, mediation, arbitration, and 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 it deems necessary in accordance with its constitutional processes.

That is why Mr. Clements testified that he is now unalterably opposed to the Carter treaties. The most crucial issue in the whole treaty had been agreed upon by all parties concerned; yet the Carter administration backed down and accepted vague and ambiguous language.

Although the President stated last night that "the treaties are supported enthusiastically by every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," he neglected to mention that they are enthusiastically opposed by former members of the Joint Chiefs, and by the overwhelming majority of retired military officers. It was not long ago that I placed in the Record the names of 320 high-ranking retired officers who were willing to go public in opposition to these treaties.

Moreover, the "enthusiasm" which the President detected in the JCS support was noticeably absent among the JCS representatives who testified before the Senate Armed Services hearings last week. Adm. James Holloway, Chief of Naval Operations, for example, testified that it was his military judgment that it would be better for the United States to stay in Panama indefinitely with a military presence, rather than to try to go back in if there were trouble. He testified that he supported the treaties only on balance, for the sake of diplomatic considerations.

It is interesting to note, Mr. President, that not one scintilla of this information was conveyed, insofar as this Senator knows, to

the American people by the major media of this country. Why the blackout on what the Joint Chiefs actually said?

Similarly, the President's statement that "the treaties also have overwhelming support throughout Latin America" simply is not and can not be supported either by the experience of members of the Armed Services Committee who have traveled rather widely in Latin America, or by the objective situation.

I have visited the heads of state and high ranking military officials of countries which represent at least 75 percent of the population, gross national product, and geography of Latin America, and I have yet to meet one urging us to give up the canal to Panama. The distinguished Senator from Virginia (Mr. Scott) reported a similar response. And high-ranking defense experts, such as Lt. Gen. Gordon Sumner, Chairman of the Inter-American Defense Board, testified just the other day that he has yet to find a single member of the Board, other than Panama and the United States, who favors the treaties. The economic arguments alone are enough to sway their decisions, for the canal, proportionately, is far more important to the health of their economies than to ours. Perhaps that is why the two biggest Latin American nations, Brazil and Mexico, did not send their Presidents to the signing ceremony, Guatamala has broken diplomatic relations with Panama, because Torrijos has promised aid to the terrorists in Belize. And in 1975, Panama had to call off a scheduled meeting in Panama City of all Latin Presidents because so many of the leaders refused to come and dignify Torrijos' association with Fidel Castro. So where is all the love and affection for Torrijos? Where is all the pressure for the United States to surrender our sovereign rights in the Canal Zone?

But perhaps the most interesting falsehood-and I regret to use that word-that Mr. Carter perpetrated last night was his denial that we own the Canal Zone. He said:

We do not own the Panama Canal Zone-we have never had sovereignty over it. We have only had the right to use it.

The Canal Zone cannot be compared with United States territory. We bought Alaska from the Russians and no one has ever doubted that we own it. The Canal Zone has always been Panamanian territory. The U.S. Supreme Court and previous American Presidents have repeatedly acknowledged the sovereignty of Panama over the Canal Zone.

The fact is that no previous President of the United States has ever acknowledged Panamanian sovereignty. It is my intention to develop these facts at greater length on this floor at a more appropriate time; but suffice it to say the U.S. Supreme Court has declare many times that the Canal Zone is a U.S. possession and U.S. territory. In fact, it was the U.S. Supreme Court that actually compared our title to the zone to our title to Alaska, in Wilson against Shaw, 1907:

It is hypercritical to contend that the title of the United States is imperfect, and that the terriory described does not belong to this Nation, because of the omission of some of the technical terms used in the ordinary conveyances of real estate The fact that there may possibly be in the future some dispute as to the exact boundary on either side is immaterial. Such disputes not infrequently attend conveyances of real estate or cessions of territory. Alaska was ceded to us 40 years ago, but the boundary between it and the English possessions was not settled until within the last 2 or 3 years. Yet no one ever doubted the title of this Republic to Alaska.

It is incredible that President Carter should choose Alaska as the basis of a comparison coming to the opposite conclusion.

In fact, we do own the Canal Zone. I have referred on this floor on other occasions to the statements of Mr. J. V. Luitweiller, of my State, who was the Secretary of the Claims Commission which settled all the property transfers when we took over the zone. Moreover, Miss Doris McClellan, clerk of the U.S. District Court in Balboa, and daughter of the late distinguished Senator from Arkansas, whom we all revered, has assured me personally that microfilms of the deeds, both warranty and quit-claim are on file at the district court, and that the deeds themselves are in storage in Suitland, Md.

We are giving away U.S. property-property that belongs to the U.S. taxpayers. It is an act of enormous constitutional significance, because of article IV, section 3 of the Constitution. Is it possible that the President is attempting to evade the consequences of article IV by denying that the Canal Zone is, indeed, U.S. property? I hope that he is not.

Yet at the same time, he is denying that we are paying Panama to take the canal. He says that under the new treaties payments to Panama will come from tolls paid by ships which use the canal. The fact is that under the Constitution, those tolls are paid into the U.S. Treasury and belong to the taxpayers. In addition, as the Armed Services Committee hearings have brought out so dramatically in the past few days, there will be enormous deficits which will have to be made up by the taxpayers of the United States, either directly or in the form of interest foregone.

Mr. President, I am prepared to debate the treaties on the basis of fact. Men of good will can agree or disagree on implications of the treaties, or on the probable outcome of a given situation. But give us facts, Mr. President, facts that we can all agree on. If the debate on these treaties is to be meaningful, it must remain on a high level, and it must be solidly grounded in fact. I hope that the President of the United States hereafter will be more discerning in presenting the facts of the case.

Thank you, 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.

NATIONAL BLACK CAUCUS RESOLUTIONS ON THE
PANAMA CANAL TREATY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to introduce into the Congressional Record resolutions on the Panama Canal treaty adopted by the National Black Caucus of Local Elected Officials (NBC/LEO) and the National Black Caucus of State Legislators (NBC/SL).

The NBC/LEO, founded in December 1970, represents more than 2,000 black local elected officals in the United States. NBC/LEO