rate legislation by both houses of Congress to dispose of U.S. property in the Canal Zone, and then by unanimous consent set April 18 as the date for the final vote on the Panama Canal Treaty. Meanwhile, Panamanian opposition to the DeConcini reservation was mounting rapidly. According to news reports, Panama's Ambassador had met with White House aides on April 5 to warn that the Senate had been unaware of Panamanian dissatisfaction with the DeConcini reservation when it approved the Neutrality Treaty. It was also learned that General Torrijos had written a letter concerning the reservation to certain heads of state, explaining that he felt it was his duty to inform them of a situation "about which we have already expressed our deep concern." Panama's Foreign Ministry was circulating a letter on the same subject in the United Nations as well. With Panamanian acceptance of the Senate's reservations in doubt, the Senate leadership, working with the various parties, began to fashion a compromise that would be acceptable to Senator DeConcini and other undecided senators, while reassuring Panama that the United States had no intention of abandoning its adherence to the principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other countries. The resulting compromise, worked out as the Senate turned, on April 17, to consideration of the resolution of ratification for the Panama Canal Treaty, was the leadership reservation proposed by Senators Byrd, Baker, DeConcini, Church, Sarbanes, Sparkman, Javits, Leahy and Gravel. It provided that "any action taken by the United States of America ... shall be only for the purpose of assuring that the Canal shall remain open, neutral, secure, and accessible, and shall not have as its purpose or be interpreted as a right of intervention in the internal affairs of the Republic of Panama or interference with its political independence or sovereign integrity." It was adopted on April 18, by a vote of 73 to 27, along with a series of six reservations and six understandings approved in the final two days of debate. After 38 days of debate, the final roll call vote on the resolution of ratification for the Panama Canal Treaty was called on April 18, 1978. While the outcome was uncertain to the very end, the Senate approved the resolution by a vote of 68 to 32, one vote more than the required two-thirds, thus ending one of the longest treaty debates in U.S. history. CONTENTS II. REPRESENTATIVE STATEMENTS ON THE MAJOR THEMES (1) Senator Robert Byrd with Senators Laxalt, Hatch, 112 History and Background-Pro: (1) Senator Mike Gravel (and remarks by Senator Frank 131 History and Background-Con: (1) Senator Jesse Helms, February 9, 1978.---. 140 C. Defense-Pro: (1) Senators George McGovern and Frank Church (with (2) Senator Robert Byrd, February 27, 1978. Defense Con: 153 166 169 (1) Senator Edmund Muskie, February 28, 1978----- 206 (2) Senator Mike Gravel (in dialog with Senator Paul 218 (3) Senator Robert Byrd (in dialog with Senators Allen, 223 Economic-Con: (1) Senator Edward Brooke, February 22, 1978... 231 236 249 E. Constitutional-Pro: (1) Senator Jacob Javits, March 2, 1978- (1) Senator Barry Goldwater, February 23, 1978- F. Sea Level Canal-Pro-Con Colloquy: (1) Senators Gravel, Laxalt, Church, Curtis, Sarbanes, (2) Senators Gravel, Leahy, and Dole, April 10, 1978.... II. REPRESENTATIVE STATEMENTS ON THE MAJOR THEMES OF THE DEBATE 1 A. General-Pro (1) Senator John Sparkman, February 8, 1978 (S 1505-07) Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, first let me say I want to express my appreciation to the majority leader and to the minority leader for the very fine manner in which they have cooperated with the Committee on Foreign Relations. Of course, Senator Baker is a member of the committee himself and he participated in all of the hearings and the voting and performed a wonderful job. Senator Byrd appeared before our committee, testified forcefully, and was very helpful to us in our considerations. I have a statement that I want to present as the opening statement in this debate. Mr. President, the Committee on Foreign Relations has reported favorably the Panama Canal Treaty and the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal with recommendations to each. The committee reached its decision after long and careful consideration of the issues and the viewpoints of all concerned. I have no hesitation in recommending strongly that the Senate give its advice and consent to these treaties as reported by the committee. Prior to reaching a decision on the treaties, the Committee on Foreign Relations held 15 days of hearings and heard 92 witnesses including 17 Members of the Congress, representatives of the executive branch, shipping interests and canal users and retired military officers. These hearings were conducted with the goal of gaining as much information and as many views as possible. Every effort was made to allow individuals with different positions to present their cases. I am proud of what I think was fair and objective consideration of the real issues, the dedication and hard work exhibited by the members of the committee and the harmony with which our consideration was conducted. I do not know how such an important proceeding could have been conducted more equitably. In addition to the numerous hearings held by the committee, 10 members of the committee traveled to Panama and the canal in recent months. These committee members, and others in the Senate including our distinguished majority and minority leaders, went to Panama to gain firsthand knowledge about the canal, its future and our relations with Panama. I was in Panama last month, and I returned impressed by the basic good will of the Government and people of Panama toward the United 1 Prepared by Barry Sklar. Specialist in Latin American Affairs. Statements are taken from Congressional Record (daily edition). States. I feel that when problems that have festered for many years are resolved by the ratification of these treaties, the United States and Panama will be able to cooperate well in operating and protecting the canal in their mutual interest. Five volumes of hearings and an extensive report have been issued by the committee in connection with these treaties. I urge every Member of the Senate to review this information, but especially the committee's report. We considered and discussed the issues raised by those in opposition to the treaties, and the report details the committee's determinations on these issues and responses to them. However, I would like briefly to outline the major questions the committee examined. First, the committee considered the need for a new treaty relationship with Panama to govern the operation of the Panama Canal. The committee was convinced that the surest way to place our position in Panama and in Latin America and the canal itself in jeopardy was to cling blindly to the 1903 Treaty. The 1903 treaty was negotiated and ratified under circumstances that could be called questionable at best. The treaty was negotiated and signed for Panama by a Frenchman more interested in the wel fare of the French Canal Co., of which he was a major stockholder. than in the newly formed Republic of Panama. When the Panamanians objected to the treaty, the threat of withdrawal of the U.S. military presence left them no choice but to ratify. Since 1903, the treaty relationship and especially the U.S. control over the Canal Zone has been a constant source of conflict. As Secretary of State Hay said in a letter to Senator Spooner, the 1903 treaty is Vastly advantageous to the United States, and we must confess, with what face we can muster, not so advantageous to Panama you and I know too well how many points there are to which a Panamanian patriot could object. The objections by Panamanians have not since decreased, but, instead, have intensified. The objections have been presented to the United States on countless occasions, to international bodies and. tragically, in demonstrations resulting in the death of United States and Panamanian citizens. It is inconceivable when looking at this record that the United States can reasonably hope to cling to the 1903 treaty and also maintain the cooperative environment essential to the operation of the canal. Mr. President, I should like to interject right here that I have recently read two very interesting books on the Panama Canal. One was entitled "The Path Between the Seas." The other was "The Story of the Panama Canal." I found them both interesting. But there was one thing pointed out in these books with which I was absolutely amazed, and that was the number of treaties there have been involving the Panama Canal and its precincts. The history goes way back to the DeLesseps Co. of France and its arrangement with Colombia. There were even efforts and treaties long before that. It has been a long, long trail. The outdated Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903 not only seriously hinders an effective relationship with Panama, but it is a major problem in our long term relationships with the other Latin American and third world nations. Even nations that have been our traditional allies recognize that the 1903 Treaty has no place in the modern world. |