The yeas and nays were ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Gravel), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Haskell), the Senator from Maine (Mr. Hathaway), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Huddleston), the Senator from Maine (Mr. Muskie), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sparkman), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Stennis) are necessarily absent.

Mr. STEVENS. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Baker), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Goldwater), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Griffin), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Percy), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Schweiker) are necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Mathias) is absent to attend the funeral of a former Senator.

The result was announced-yeas 50, nays 37, as follows:

Huddleston
Mathias

Muskie

Percy
Schweiker

Sparkman
Stennis

So the motion to table Mr. Wallop's amendment (No. 13) was agreed to.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. Wallop addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moynihan) The Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, when I called up that amendment, I said I fully expected it to be tabled.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend, the Senate is not in order. Senators will kindly take their seats. The Senator from Wyoming is addressing the Chamber.

The Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, when I called up that amendment I said that I was certain that it would be tabled, and I was not disappointed in that. But, Mr. President, I also said that one of the things that the proponents of this treaty are unwilling to do it to look at any amendment on the face of it. We have as pure an example of that unbridled use of power as you could imagine on this amendment. They did not raise one argument against it. There was not one word spoken against that amendment, not one. They walked in. They refused the up and down vote, had to bend the rules to achieve that and they moved to table without a single word in argument.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. WALLOP. I yield.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. How were the rules bent to achieve that? Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, if I may respond to the majority leader, the rollcall had begun.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Had there been a response?

Mr. WALLOP. There had not.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Then the rules were not bent.

Mr. WALLOP. The second name had been called and the response was about to be given when that took place.

Regardless of that point, no one is interested in what these amendments say. The proponents are not interested in any logical argument that can be brought up about anything. They are more frightened of the word "amendment" than the words in any amendment.

I think this is a good explanation to the American people of what is happening right here. The most interesting part of this situation is that it was an unprinted amendment, it was uncirculated. It was not read by the clerk in its entirety, and the proponents of the treaty did not even ask to see it. All they did was to call for the tabling of this amendment without raising one single argument. Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. WALLOP. I doubt if anyone over there had the foggiest notion of what it said until after the tabling motion. It is typical of the

way this thing is being run and it is not in behalf of the American people. It is in behalf of a power play. They are not interested in logic. They are not interested in the future of the country. They are simply interested in tabling anything.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. WALLOP. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, let us have order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER.The Senate will be in order. The Senator from Wyoming has yielded to the Senator from Massachusetts. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Wyoming for yielding.

Mr. President, I am very sensitive to what the Senator from Wyoming has said. Not only am I sensitive, but I am sympathetic to what he said. I think he makes a very strong point. I ultimately voted for the Neutrality Treaty, but I have consistently voted against every motion to table amendments, understandings, or reservations to that treaty, and I will continue to do so regarding the pending treaty. On this particular amendment I would vote no if an up-or-down vote were permitted.

I think both the administration and the proponents of these treaties are making a big mistake in not allowing any substantive amendments to be voted up or down by this body.

The only argument they have given is that if we in any way alter these treaties they will have to go back for a plebiscite in Panama. Mr. President, that is not our business. That is the Panamanians business. I do not think we ought to have these treaties, which are important to the American people, important to our country, be voted favorably upon without amendment because of the threat of a plebiscite in Panama any more than I think we ought to have these treaties acted favorably upon because of a fear of violence in Panama or elsewhere. These should not be criteria by which we make our judgments pro or con on this matter. If ever this Nation begins to make its policy, our foreign policy, based on the fear of violence anyplace around the world, we are traveling a very, very dangerous road, and we may encourage that perception by the way we argue substantive amendments and act upon them.

Obviously, the votes were here to defeat the proposal of the Senator from Wyoming. He knew that, he said that. But at least he was entitled to an up-or-down vote. And although I would have voted against his amendment I still believe he deserved an up-ordown vote.

He ought not to be subjected to a motion to table. The Senator from Kansas (Mr. Dole) has an amendment that he believes in, and has been talking about it for many hours today. But he refused to have it brought up because he knew it would be subjected to a motion to table.

I think it is not in the best interests of the proponents of these treaties to continue this practice and procedure of filing motions to table every amendment that comes on the floor. Some of them may be frivolous, to be sure. But some of them are substantive and meaningful amendments that would strengthen the treaties in the

best interests of the United States, and even assure the proponents of the passage of these treaties.

I make this statement very seriously, very somberly, and very soberly, and I make it in the best interest of this country because I think we are making a big mistake if we think that the only people concerned about the Panama treaties are a group of extreme conservatives in this Nation.

There is a large segment of the American people who are seriously concerned about it, who maybe do not have all the facts about it, and who may perceive that they are being denied facts about it if we continue to proceed as we did on the Neutrality Treaty; namely, tabling substantive amendments that come up for consideration.

So I again say to the administration and I say most respectfully to the leadership and to the floor manager of this bill, for whom I have great respect, that at least in one Senator's opinion-and I think in other as well-this is not the proper procedure to follow. It is self-defeating, and you may rue the day that you make decisions or continue this practice and this procedure.

At least give these amendments an opportunity to be heard and to be voted upon without a motion to table. So I just want to say to my distinguished colleague from Wyoming I know why he is incensed, and he is justifiably incensed, and that his feeling about this is shared by others of us in this Senate who may have even voted on the other side of the first treaty, but who conceivably might vote on the other side of this treaty.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wyoming yield for a question?

Mr. WALLOP. I will in a minute as soon as I respond to the kind remarks of my friend from Massachusetts.

My point is that I expected a motion to table. I did not want it. I had asked for an up or down vote. I had even sought to make a time arrangement to achieve that. But more than that I think the amendment was entitled at least to the dignity of a response. I think there may be aguments against it, but they were never brought up and nobody ever made any kind of a move whatsoever to argue against it but merely to table it, and I do not think it is in the interest of America, in the interest of the proponents or the opponents to willy-nilly dismiss out of hand any arguments that may have been made.

I do not say mine were the most compelling in the world. I took some time with them, and I thought the amendment out, and I did not put it on the table in a frivolous manner. I was serious about it because I do not think there is any provision for this country, in the event that Panama were to abrogate the treaty, and I brought up my amendment with all due seriousness.

So, Mr. President, I do thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I yield now to the Senator from Idaho and then to my friend from Wyoming, and then from Alaska.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I want to say to my good friend from Wyoming I appreciate fully his irritation, and I want to say further to him that it was not my intention to ignore his argument. As a matter of fact, I believe that, at all times I have been on the floor, I have responded to the arguments made on behalf of all amend

ments. I have tried to state the case against them for the treaty proponents.

I also want to say that I did not regard the Senator's amendment as frivolous. It just happened that I was called into the majority leader's office at the time the Senator was making his case for the amendment. I had anticipated that I would come back in time to respond.

The Senator's amendment was an unprinted amendment. I wanted to look at it first and to hear the Senator's argument. While I was in the majority leader's office the bells rang signifying a vote. I came back onto the floor and discovered that the Senator had called for a rollcall vote, when the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Durkin) temporarily occupied my chair. Mr. Durkin jumped to his feet, made the motion to table, which was entirely within his rights. But that was not the way I had thought the matter would go.

I came back onto the floor, and discovered we were already voting on the motion to table.

So I want the Senator to know he has my apologies. It had been my intention to respond. He is quite right, he was entitled to a response. I would be willing to give it to him now, even after the event, but I am sorry that circumstances were such that I was not on the floor at the moment that the vote was called so that I could have responded in a timely manner to the Senator.

Mr. WALLOP. I thank the Senator from Idaho. I hope that at some time should something very similar to this occur that a motion to table would not be made because it is entitled to a full airing as an idea.

Mr. CHURCH. May I just add one other thing? It has not been the monolithic rule of those of us managing the treaty to move to table every amendment. When we had the last treaty up for consideration, a number of times we did vote up or down; I believe five or six times we voted that way. I am sure we will be voting up or down during the debate on this treaty as well. But, in any event, whether we vote on the merits or vote on a motion to table, the Senator was entitled to a response. His amendment was seriously intended, and had I been on the floor he would have received that courtesy. Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Idaho yield for just a question? If the Senator from Wyoming will yield I would ask the Senator from Idaho to yield.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has the floor.

Mr. WALLOP. I yield for the purpose that a question might be directed to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. BROOKE. The distinguished Senator from Idaho is the floor manager of the treaty. Could the Senator tell me whether they have changed the strategy and that so far as the second treaty is concerned that there is not going to be an accepted procedure or strategy to enter a motion to table every amendment that is offered on the floor?

Mr. CHURCH. The Senator is correct; but there has been no change in strategy. As we had votes up or down on a number of amendments during our consideration of the Neutrality Treaty, so