have a business arrangement involved along with the gift of the canal by the United States to Panama.

I am glad to see the distinguished Senator wanting to tighten up on that business arrangement a little bit to protect the American taxpayer. And I assure the Senator amendments will be offered that would have that desired result. I am looking forward to having the very fine support of the distinguished Senator from Illinois on amendments of that sort.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. PERCY. I thank my distinguished colleague, and I will advise him ahead of time when I intent to take the floor to begin this debate. I will certainly invite members of the Armed Services Committee and Budget Committee who have had hearings on this matter and I feel that we will have a good deal of support for this principle on the floor of the Senate.

The Senator from Illinois has supported, right from the outset, amendments to these treaties that the Senator from Illinois felt absolutely essential and crucial, and I said I would not have voted for these treaties as signed by the President and General Torrijos if they were not amended in some respects. The Senator from Illinois has supported some reservations. I now indicate that I will introduce legislation to require Senate confirmation of the American appointees to the Board of the Panama Canal Commission and would welcome my distinguished colleagues' comments at that particular time in debate when we have that piece of legislation under way.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator.

The only thought that occurs to me on it is that with a U.S. commission it would seem a little bit strange to have a hybrid-type membership, five Americans and four Panamanians sitting side by side around the great big mahogany table, with five of them having been confirmed by the U.S. Senate and four being Panamanians of uncertain origin or reputation. I just hope that the Senator would be willing to extend his thinking along this line to the extent of requiring all of these members of this American commission to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. I hope the Senator will reflect on that and reach that conclusion.

Mr. PERCY. I thank my distinguished colleague.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Hodges). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LAXALT. Mr. President, one of the vital items involved in the course of these various debates involves the matter of sovereignty. We have had extended discussions concerning these matters for these several weeks. We have been debating this matter and, of course, there are conflicting opinions that have been voiced on this floor in respect to sovereignty, as to the legal effect one way or the other, as to whether it really makes any difference at all.

I would like to for the next few moments read into the Record what I considered to be one of the better discussions of the legal situation in Panama overall and, in particular, the observations of an eminent American, an exceedingly fine lawyer, and one who probably more than anybody else, from firsthand knowledge, experience the legal situation in Panama and more particularly, through extensive research, would give us the benefits of his analysis on the question of sovereignty.

I speak of Hon. Guthrie. F. Crowe, who is a retired judge and who served in that capacity for a long while in the country of Panama.

In testimony before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, which was conducted under the chairmanship of the very able Senator from Alabama (Mr. Allen) several weeks ago, Judge Crowe appeared and testified. I would like for the next several minutes to have the record indicate, even though it is contained in the report, have the record formally indicate what his observations to the committee at that time were:

Judge CROWE. I am retired and I have no secretary or staff, so my comments today will be off the cuff. I retired because of old age. I am somewhat like the old judge I heard at the judicial conference, who said that old age made him a lot more moral than the Methodist Church ever did. So I am in that position.

I am very happy to be here and to be able to present something about my experience in the Canal Zone, I was there for 25 years as judge. I was appointed for an 8-year term by President Truman, and then reappointed by President Kennedy. Then no one was appointed to take my place, so I stayed on under operation of the statute until my successor was appointed and qualified. That was not done by President Nixon nor President Ford.

I resigned as of the 30th of April after, as I say, serving 25 years.

We have a number of good lawyers who are Members of the U.S. Senate. We have had a number of good international lawyers give us varying opinions concerning the basic issue of sovereignty. But I must say that of all those I have been exposed to in one form or another during extensive debates and deliberations in this matter, I doubt if we have anybody in this entire country who has had more personal experience in connection with the legal situation in Panama than does Judge Crowe, as he has indicated here in his testimony. He has served for 25 years and served in a very distinguished manner.

Now, why do I make reference to his testimony? For two purposes: One is to give my colleagues through the Record the benefit of his views concerning sovereignty which I consider to be a vital

matter.

It seems to me the consideration we have in connection with the main Panama Canal Treaty as to whether we turn over this facility stock free, with additional payments amounting to several million dollars on top of it, the considerations relating to that transaction are far different if we have sovereignty than if we do not.

Obviously, if we are in some legal capacity short of ownership, in a tenant capacity, our legal relationship to the facility and its value and all the rest of it are far different than if we do own it. I happen to be one of the many Members of the U.S. Senate who feels that from the very outset, from the provisions of the various documents, we have purchased the 10-mile buffer zone known now

as the Canal Zone. I feel history supports that view. I feel that the law supports that view.

In addition there are other values in hearing from Judge Crowe and in making his testimony part of the Record, and that is the fact that we have thousands of Americans who presently live in the Canal Zone who, under the terms of these treaties, very quickly will be subjected to the legal jurisdiction of Panama.

So it seems to me that is is terribly vital for all of us in consideration of these overall treaties to try to determine what type of legal system we are going to be subjecting our own to in addition to the vital question of where we are in relation to the legal issue of sovereignty.

I proceed now to read further from his testimony:

I entered on duty there in August of 1952. I had a very varied experience. I learned to speak Spanish while I was there and got to know a lot of Panamanian people. I think that many of them are splendid people. I am a great admirer of many of them, and I feel that many of them are quite competent.

There have been several discussions during the course of the debates here that those of us who are opposed to these treaties are insensitive to the Panamanians; that we were something less than humanitarian in seeking to preserve our own property.

We have attempted many, many times on this floor, all of us, to indicate that that is not our wish, it is not our desire, it is not our attitude. The fact is that we do relate to the Panamanians. The fact is that we do appreciate them. The fact is that they have been reliable allies for some 75 years. The fact is that we have had a good working relationship with them, politically and otherwise. The fact is that 75 percent or more of the employees working for us in operating the canal are Panamanians-good, loyal, competent employees.

The reason why I make this observation is to indicate the statement being made here by the Federal judge, Guthrie F. Crowe, indicated that by virtue of his experience, which apparently is favorable in this regard, he has basically the same attitude and position that we have.

Going back to his testimony:

There was a good deal of discussion this morning as to whether or not they would be able to operate the canal. Of course, there are some men who have been educated in the American schools, and who have high competency. Whether or not as a nation they could operate the canal, of course, is a matter of considerable speculation.

Emphasis is on the words "as a nation."

We have never entertained any serious doubt that the Panamanians could physically manage the facility. I had some reservations before the beginning of these debates, but I am satisfied from what has been adduced here during the many discussions on the floor that there is ample expertise among the Panamanians within a period of 22 years to actually manage and operate the facilities. But that is not the issue. The issue really is whether or not as a nation, whether or not politically, they can properly operate this facility.

As my colleagues will remember, during the course of debates on the Neutrality Treaty, Senator Garn, the very able Senator from

the State of Utah, spoke at length on this subject from his experience as a former mayor and a former executive.

He expressed concern about the lack of stability on the part of the Panamanian Government, and certainly that has been the history. Since we became involved in 1903, as I remember-and I will stand corrected if I am wrong in this-there have been some 50 changes in the Panamanian Government over all that period of years. It has been stable for the last several years, that is true. Why? Because since 1968 it has been run by a dictator who runs the country with an iron hand, who took control at the point of a gun, who maintains control today at the point of a gun. It is a rigid dictatorship.

If that is the kind of stability that we want, and I do not believe it is, I think we have entered into a sad course of events in this country.

If that is the kind of stability that we want, and I do not believe it is, I think we have entered into a sad course of events in this country.

The point I want to make is that we have had a history of unstable government in Panama. We are now asked, as Senator Allen indicated before, to enter into a business arrangement. That is what the Panama Canal Treaty is all about: Whether or not it is to our business interests to turn over this facility. In any business consideration, if we are talking about entering into a partnership— and that is basically what we are going to be doing-an obvious question is, how stable is the partner?

I happen to be a lawyer by profession. One of the first inquiries you would have when a client would come in thinking in terms of entering into a partnership is, what is his prospective partner like? How solvent is he from a financial standpoint? How stable is he? How honest is he?

During the course of this debate I was frankly quite disappointed, particularly when we had our secret hearings, when there was substantial evidence developed here that the Torrijos family and associates had been involved in extensive drug trafficking of serious drugs such as herion. There was additional evidence indicating that there is an abundant amount of corruption in Panama. Many of our colleagues not only did not pay any attention to it, but stated on this floor during the course of the session that it was irrelevant.

How in the world can entering into a partnership with an unstable partner, who admittedly has been engaging in drug trafficking, with all that that involves, possibly be irrelevant? I personally cannot believe the American people would ever subscribe to that kind of standard. I cannot believe that they would not hold the Senate to a standard of decency. That is basically what we are talking about.

We are told that we have no choice; that we take the government as we find it; that we take the dictatorship as we find it.

We are told that all the rest of them are about the same; that they all engage in one degree or another in drug trafficking; that they all are afflicted to one degree or another with corruption, so it really does not make any difference.

But does it? The distinction, in my mind at least, which is shared by many of my colleagues, is that this is not a typical foreign aid transaction. We are not being asked here, as a Government, as a Senate, to dole out millions of dollars to a given country. We are asked here, and we will be asked here in the weeks to come, to make a judgment as to whether we turn over a vital international facility to this Government of Panama.

To that extent it seems to me it is highly relevant for us to seriously examine whether or not the government in question is a stable one, is one that we can rely upon and trust to faithfully and properly manage this facility from a political standpoint after the year 2000, in our interests, in their own interests, and certainly in the interests of our various allies.

Those are questions, Mr. President, that I think are highly relevant and that we should once again probe very closely during the course of the continuing debate of this matter.

May I proceed further with the discussions of Judge Crowe? I want to bring to the attention of this committee the condition of the court at present. I think it might emanate from the fact that the Department of State is advising the President to the contrary. That is the need for a judge.

Since I resigned there has been no appointment of a judge, although there are a number of applicants. They have been using a distinguished judge from Florida, Judge Mertens, who has been sitting in criminal cases only. He has only been able to go 2 or 3 days at a time periodically.

As a consequence, the civil side of the docket has been completely unattended to. The people are suffering a great deal by reason of the fact that there is no judge there.

We have a pretty good sized court. As a matter of fact, it was the largest docket of any single judge in the Federal system under the American flag. There were about 400 criminal cases a year and 400 civil cases.

That is a rather astounding load when you consider the limited number of people there are in that particular area.

The fact that there is no judge, of course, leaves the people in considerable difficulty.

I might remark upon the Admiralty situation in the event that the Congress or the Executive with the treaty powers decide to transfer the canal to Panama. The Admiralty jurisdiction of that court is equivalent to the Admiralty jurisdiction of a district court in the United States, although it is a territorial court and the judge is not a title III judge. He comes under title IV and is only appointed for a term of years. He has equivalent Admiralty jurisdiction under the Canal Zone Code, with judges in the United States.

Panama has no Admiralty courts nor any case law concerning Admiralty. Whenever a question in Admiralty arises it is decided under what is called a Panamanian Commericial Code. This means that the Admiralty bar of the world, whose members are accustomed to appear before courts that recognize the agreements adopted by the international Admiralty conventions, would be at a disadvantage and the causes of their clients would suffer.

He has then many observations relating to the conditions of the courts. Let me proceed not to some salient portions which affect the interests of our Americans living in Panama, and the effect that turning over our court system and its jurisdiction to the Panamanian courts would have:

Americans who have lived in the zone for many years feel that American citizens who are caught and charged with crimes in Panama are dealt with more harshly than Panamanians, due to the strong feelings that have grown up over the years. There is no reason to think that this will change if and when Panama is in control of law enforcement in the zone area.