ficiencies that can and should be addressed. The forthcoming Senate committee hearings are intended to shed some light on all of these problems. There is no question in my mind but what a number of modifications will eventually be proposed by various members of the Senate, and I may offer additional amendments or reservations myself after further analysis of the treaties has been conducted. Furthermore, the specific concerns expressed by our constituents should be fully represented at every stage of deliberation on the treaties.

NO APOLOGIES

In closing, I want to say that the people of the United States owe Panama no apologies for our involvement with the canal. The generosity of our Government in building the canal, in operating and maintaining it for 65 years, and in thereby enhancing the standard of living for Panamanians, requires no remorse on our part. Free of any implications of guilt, we should proceed to analyze these treaties in an objective and responsible manner.

But the Panamanian Government officials must know that we will never relinguish our presence in the Canal Zone because of veiled threats or direct pressures. They must know that we reserve all rights to intervene when the security of the canal is threatened, and that we expect priority passage for our ships during periods of crisis. And they must be told that we expect to see substantial progress in the area of human rights in which they rate so poorly. Above all, we do not intend to pay exorbitant amounts of money for the purpose of turning over control of the canal and Canal Zone. My amendments and reservation will effectively communicate these messages, at the same time that we consider the basic merits of the treaties themselves. We should settle for nothing less.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the texts of my amendments and reservations be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.)

Mr. DOLE. As I say, Mr. President, we have no apologies to make. The United States does not owe Panama or anyone else any apologies for our involvement with the canal. We have been generous; we have operated and maintained the canal for 65 years; and we have enhanced the standard of living of the Panamanians.

Certainly there are areas of agreement and disagreement, and it may be modifications should be made. I just suggest that the amendments and reservations offered by the Senator from Kansas be carefully considered. As indicated, there will be others, but I hope I have responsibly addressed some of the major defects in the treaty submitted to Congress.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

EXHIBIT 1

AMENDMENT No. 1. (EXEC.) 95-1

Paragraph 2(b) of article XII is amended to read as follows:

(b) During the duration of this Treaty, the United States of America may negotiate with any third State for the right to construct an interoceanic canal through such third State on any other route in the Western Hemisphere.

AMENDMENT No. 2 (EXEC.) 95–1

In article XIII, paragraph 4, strike out subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c), and insert in lieu thereof the following:

(a) An annual amount to be paid out of Canal operating revenues computed at a rate of fifteen hundredths of a United States dollar ($0.15) per Panama Canal net ton, or its equivalency, for each vessel transiting the Canal, after the entry into force of this Treaty, for which tolls are charged.

(b) An annuity of ten million United States dollars ($10,000,000) to be paid out of Canal operating revenues and as an expense of the Panama Canal Commission, except that such sum shall be reduced by the proportion which the number of days during the calendar year the Canal is not navigable bears to the calendar year.

AMENDMENT No. 3 (EXEC.) 95-1

In the second sentence of the first paragraph of article XI, strike out "for thirty calendar months" and insert in lieu thereof "until such date as is agreed upon by the members of the Panama Canal Consultative Committee, but not before January 1, 1990."

In paragraph 2 of article XI, amend subparagraph (a) to read as follows: (a) The authorities of the United States of America shall have the primary right to exercise criminal and civil jurisdiction over employees of the Panama Canal Commission who are citizens of the United States and their dependents, and members of the United States Forces and civilian component and their dependents, in the following cases:

In paragraph 2(a) (i) of article XI, strike out "offense committed" and insert in lieu thereof "act or omission".

In paragraph 2(a) (ii) of article XI, strike out "offense committed" and insert in lieu thereof "act or omission".

In the text following clause (ii) of paragraph 2(a) of article XI, strike out "offenses committed" and insert in lieu thereof "acts or omissions".

In the annex entitled "Procedures for the Cessation or Transfer of Activities Carried out by the Panama Canal Company and the Canal Zone Government and Illustrative List of the Functions that may be Performed by the Panama Canal Commission", strike out paragraph 4(b) and insert in lieu thereof the following: "(b) Upon termination of the transition period provided for under article XI of this Treaty, governmental services such as:

1. The United States of America and the Republic of Panama agree on the importance of maintaining and properly observing internationally recognized human rights, including civil and political rights, in the former Canal Zone and commit themselves to maintaining, observing, and protecting such rights during the duration of this Treaty.

2. The Panama Canal Consultative Committee shall report annually to the national legislatures of the two Parties on the maintaining, observing, and protecting of such rights.

3. The two Parties agree to permit unimpeded investigations of alleged violations of internationally recognized human rights, including civil and political rights, by appropriate international organizations including, but not limited to, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, and groups or persons acting under the authority of the United Nations or the Organization of American States. In article V, strike out the second sentence.

AMENDMENT No. 5 (EXEC.) 95-1

At the end of article IV, add the following: "Nothing in this Treaty may be construed to prevent the United States of America, in accordance with its constitutional processes, from intervening militarily to maintain such regime of neutrality when determined to be seriously threatened by the President of the United States of America or, through the adoption of a concurrent resolution, by the Congress of the United States of America".

AMENDMENT No. 6 (EXEC.) 95-1

Before the period at the end of the first paragraph of article VI, insert a comma and the following: "except that the Republic of Panama shall, upon request, afford privileged passage through the Canal to such vessels of the United States of America during any period in which the United States of America is at war”.

RESERVATION No. 1 (EXEC.) 95-1

Before the period at the end of the resolution of ratification, insert a comma and the following reservations:

"(1) that the Republic of Panama demonstrate, during the duration of this Treaty, significant progress toward observing the internationally recognized human rights of its citizens, including the right of free speech and the right to a fair trial; and

"(2) that the Republic of Panama permit unimpeded investigations of alleged violations of internationally recognized human rights by appropriate international organizations including, but not limited to, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jusof the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, and groups or persons acting under the authority of the United Nations or the Organization of American States".

RESERVATION No. 2 (EXEC.) 95-1

Before the period at the end of the resolution of ratification, insert a comma and the following: "and subject to the reservation that before the date of entry into force of this Treaty, the Congress has adopted appropriate legislation to transfer the Canal Zone to the Republic of Panama, in exercise of the power of Congress under article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution, relating to the disposal of territory or other property belonging to the United States".

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. CHAFEE) is recognized for not to exceed 13 minutes.

[From the Congressional Record, Sept. 23, 1977-S15510]

THE PANAMA CANAL TREATIES

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, Jr. Mr. President, the able syndicate columnist, Henry J. Taylor, a former U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland, raised some serious charges concerning Cuban intervention into Panama and the possibility of guerrilla infiltration from Costa Rica and Colombia.

I have no way of knowing if these charges are accurate, but I believe that they should be thoroughly investigated during the Senate hearings which will soon be held on the matter of the proposed Panama Canal treaties.

I ask unanimous consent that excerpts from Mr. Taylor's column be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the excerpts were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

COMMUNISTS WELCOME PANAMA CANAL TREATY

(By Henry J. Taylor)

President Carter has foolishly laid his prestige on the line for ratification of the new Panama Canal treaty. This blunder may not be as great as, say, Hitler attacking Russia, but it will do for openers.

The real question is not the surrender of U.S. control of the Canal versus Communist control. The real question is U.S. control versus Communist control. It should be debated on that basis-for this is the stark reality.

The global strategic importance of the Panama Canal in U.S. hands is selfevident. Our Joint Chiefs of Staff, beholden to President Carter, have been corralled behind the proposed treaty. But six former Chiefs of Naval Operations [the No. 1 men in our Navy] publicly oppose this give-away.

As for Latin America, a full 80 percent of Peru's and Chile's imports and exports pass through it. The dependency is equivalent along the entire Pacific side of the South American continent.

The Latin American Communists welcome President Carter's new treaty with the forebearance of a hungry shark. Fidel Castro's guerrilla fleet is moving armed fighters into Panama from La Colma, Cuba. Air deliveries are from a heavily guarded air base at San Julian, 90 miles southeast of Havana. The progaganda support is sparked from Castro's powerful Russia-built radio station on Cuba's Kay peninsula.

Costa Rica borders on Panama. Castro has installed there Havana-based Costa Rican Communist Julio Sunol. And Castro's resident agent in Panama itself is Communist Thelma King.

She won her spurs in 1964 when four U.S. soldiers were killed in the riot in our Canal Zone. Thelma King herself led the rioters into the U.S. Canal Zone and boasts of killing these U.S. soldiers.

Nicaragua except for the U.S. 10-mile-wide Zone, is the only zone of stability in the entire area. President Anastasio Somoza Debalye told me that Castro had made 22 armed attempts to invade Nicaragua.

Moreover, the Republic of Panama is directly threatened on its two frontiers by Communist guerrillas.

How can President Carter ignore the fact that Panama borders on chaotic Costa Rica and Colombia? Is it news to President Carter that imported Red guerrillas are active in nearby El Salvador? Can he forget the Red-instigated insurrections in neighboring Guatemala and Honduras?

The Republic of Panama itself is a political jungle. Demagogues' tirades light a contrived fuse under Panamanian emotions and serve to distract the Panamanians from so much that should be done.

Panama is blessed with an amazing amount of rich, arable land-as rich as Iowa's best farmland. But less than half is under cultivation. Panama's true need is for better agriculture, animal husbandry and light industry.

It's easy for nearly any politician to roar against the United States, "Yankee Imperialism," "The Yankee Dollar," etc.-and bite the only hand that feeds Panama.

[From the Congressional Record, Sept. 29, 1977-S15960]

PANAMA CANAL ISSUE

Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, we are in the process of posing questions to the Carter administration on its proposed Panama Canal Treaty. Whether or not we ratify this treaty will depend largely on how effective the President is in making his case to us and to the country. As a very useful contribution to the ongoing debate, I should like to insert in the Record an editorial by the Cleveland Press together with the very useful response written by one of my constituents, Reed I. Irvine of Silver Spring, Md. I ask unanimous consent that this article be pointed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

PANAMA CANAL ISSUE

After bloody riots in the Canal Zone that left 25 dead in 1964 and after tortuous negotiations since then, the United States and Panama at last have agreed "in principle" on the future of the Panama Canal.

In a historic and sensible step toward decolonialism, the Carter administration wishes to yield control over the waterway and the 533 square mile Canal Zone to Panama in the year 2000.

The negotiators no doubt feel they have accomplished a difficult feat, but the hardest part lies ahead: to convince the required 67 U.S. senators that it is in the national interest to ratify a new canal treaty.

While we may change our mind after word-by-word reading of the treaty— it has not yet been written-the outlined agreement seems fair to both sides and we hope the Senate approves it.

The Panamanians made major concessions: Letting the Americans run the canal for 23 more years; accepting a U.S. military presence until 2000; agreeing that U.S. forces could return after that date to defend the canal, and scaling down their annual rental demands to $50 million, which can be covered by canal tolls. Unfortunately the canal issue is an emotional one in this country and a violent debate can be expected. Ronald Reagan and other conservatives are fond of declaiming, "We bought it, we paid for it, we built it and we ought to keep it." In fact, "we built it" is about the only accurate part of the statement. We didn't buy it; Teddy Roosevelt used to admit proudly that he "took" the Canal Zone and all but blackmailed Panama into ratifying the one-sided 1903 treaty giving the United States rights there "in perpetuity."

However, it is pointless to argue about ancient history. What this country got away with in an era of imperialism is not what it should practice today. It makes more sense to argue about the canal's value, which is much exaggerated by its admirers.

Diplomatically it is a handicap. It is seen throughout Latin America as proof of "Yankee imperialism" and thus harms the nation's interests in the hemisphere. Strategically it is obsolete. Big aircraft carriers large naval vessels and modern tankers cannot fit through it. That is why this country built a two-ocean Navy. Also, the canal is indefensible; in wartime one Soviet submarine could close it with one nuclear missile.

Economically the canal is overrated. It now carries only 2 percent of this country's coast-to-coast trade. And by the year 2000 its military and economic value will be less than today's.

Americans ought to try to look at the canal through Panamanian eyes. It was stolen from them. It is an open wound dividing their country, diminishing their nationhood. It is their main natural resource-held by foreigners.

There are only 1.7 million Panamanians but they are united in their determination to regain the Canal Zone. If the Senate succumbs to demagoguery and jingoism and defeats the treaty, one can expect guerrilla warfare and sabotage of the canal.