I again thank the Senator from North Carolina who did the hard questioning. I think too many of our colleagues did not read the exchange, did not read the answers. In one of the early debates on the floor which I had with the Foreign Relations Committee personally, with Senator Javits, for example, he admitted that there were going to be some costs to this. He said the record was complete and then changed this statement and said the record was replete. I remember it, because it was quite different. But they did not have all the facts. They, themselves, at the time on their hearings, believed that there should be proposed implementing legislation to review. I think they believed at that time that they would get it before ratification. The fact is we still do not have it. Therefore, the necessity of filing this reservation. Again I thank my colleague from North Carolina, and I thank my distinguished minority leader for joining with me. Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield? Mr. BROOKE. Yes. Mr. SARBANES. I do not think it was ever the expectation of members of the committee that we would have implementing legislation in the sense of having it enacted as that would mean the Congress working its own will. I supported, and I think it makes a contribution, that the administration should submit if not the absolute and final version, something that is so far along the path in terms of what their ideas are, in terms of what the implementing legislation should contain, that we are able to see the structure that they at least are anticipating. Obviously, we, the Congress, can go on, with respect to the implementing legislation, and do as we choose with it. We could completely change it. The final package of the administration has no significance in terms of being what will happen other than giving us the best reading we can obtain on what the administration's views are as to what the shape of the legislation should be. Mr. BROOKE. And which is important. Mr. SARBANES. I concede it is important. I think the last submission which has just come to us, even though there is the caveat of further final OMB clearance, in my view I receive as representing the considered judgment of the administration as to what should be in the legislation and, therefore, providing us with a basis to which to react in terms of making our own judgments as we look at it in terms of how that affects or may affect the treaty, or how we may want to change the implementing legislation. In the committee we supported the effort to obtain that submission. I do not think that was coupled with a notion that the submission would actually be passed by the Congress. After all, the Congress has wide-ranging responsibilities to deal with some matters in extended detail. Mr. BROOKE. I thank my colleague. Like many others in this body, I have not had the opportunity to commend him for the very fine job he has been doing throughout the debate. Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate the Senator's comment. Mr. BROOKE. I certainly realize that we would have the opportunity to change any proposed implementing legislation that the administration would send to the Congress. On the other hand, that is the administration's view, that is the administration's decision, that is the administration's proposal. That is what we will work on. That will be our working paper, though obviously, we will be able to amend, delete, or whatever we choose to do in both Houses of the Congress and it will end in some kind of conference on it, I am sure. Still, the caveat, to me, is a very significant one. It is subject to revision. The administration is not saying, "This is what you are really going to get in the final proposal. You might get something different from that in the final proposal." I think it is important to note this. I also would like, frankly, as I have indicated, to see us have the enactment of the implementing legislation prior to exchange of the instruments of ratification. I think that is important. But we differ on that and I do not think this is the time to engage in a lengthy debate on that subject. At any rate, I do feel compelled now to introduce this reservation. I think not only the opponents of the treaties, because I think it goes beyond that, but I hope the proponents as well as the opponents, will look carefully at the reservation and its significance, both to us and to Panama. I feel that without introducing it, I would be remiss and I think the Senate would be denied an opportunity to work its will on a very significant part of this entire issue. I thank my distinguished colleague from Maryland. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. [From the Congressional Record-Senate, Apr. 6, 1978] THE PANAMA CANAL TREATY The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of Executive N, 95th Congress, 1st session, Calendar No. 2, which will be stated by title. The second assistant legislative clerk read as follows: Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. HELMS. Is the Senator from North Carolina correct in his understanding that we are now on article I? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. UP AMENDMENT NO. 17 Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 17: In paragraph 1(b) of article I, immediately after "March 2, 1936," insert "except for the first sentence of Article X thereof,”. Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the amendment I have just sent to the desk simply lets stand, without_termination, one sentence from article X of the 1936 Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with Panama: In case of an international conflagration or the existence of any threat of aggressions which would endanger the security of the Republic of Panama or the neutrality or security of the Panama Canal, the Governments of the United States of America and the Republic of Panama will take such measures of prevention and defense as they may consider necessary for the protection of their common interests. This provision, standing alone, allows independent action by each party. Article X in its entirety consists of only two sentences. The second one, which I have not incorporated into my amendment because it refers to territory over which we will no longer have jurisdiction reads as follows: Any measures, in safeguarding such interests, which it shall appear essential to one Government to take, and which may affect the territory under the jurisdiction of the other Government, will be the subject of consultation between the two Governments. This second sentence likewise shows the right of United States to act in defense of the Canal Zone. It also indicates there will be consultation between both governments when action by one goyernment would affect the territory under the other government's control. However, letters of understanding between the two governments made it clear that in an emergency, the United States could act independently without consulting with the Government of Panama. My amendment retains this power. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have these letters printed in the record at this point in my remarks. There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: The Secretary of State to the Panamanian Minister Hon. Senor Dr. DON AUGUSTO B. BOYD, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 1, 1939. SIR: I have the honor to refer to the General Treaty signed between the United States of America and the Republic of Panama on March 2, 1936 and to the record of the proceedings of the negotiations leading to this accord. As you may recall, on several occasions during the course of the negotiations, it was found necessary to discuss and to reach a mutual understanding as to the interpretation to be placed upon certain draft provisions eventually incorporated in the signed treaty. These discussions and understandings were, after each meeting, embodied in the duly attested typewritten record of the proceedings of the treaty negotiations. It seems possible that, following the favorable report at the close of the last session of Congress by the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate on the General Treaty and accompanying Conventions, the individual members of the Senate in their consideration during the current session of Congress of the Treaty and Conventions, may ask for clarification as to the precise meaning of certain important provisions of the General Treaty which affect the security and neutrality of the Panama Canal. With a view to anticipating these inquiries, and in the hope of avoiding further delay on this account in the consideration of the General Treaty of March 2, 1936, it has seemed to my Government advisable to set forth in an exchange of notes between our two Governments the substance of some of these above-mentioned understandings as mutually reached. I should be grateful, accordingly, if you would inform me whether your Government shares the understanding of my Government upon the points which follow in subsequent paragraphs. 1. In connection with the declared willingness of both the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Panama to cooperate for the purpose of insuring the full and perpetual enjoyment of the benefits of all kinds which the Canal should afford them (Article I of the General Treaty of March 2, 1936) the word "maintenance" as applied to the Canal shall be construed as permitting expansion and new construction when these are undertaken by the Government of the United States of America in accordance with the said Treaty. 2. The holding of maneuvers or exercises by the armed forces of the United States of American in territory adjacent to the Canal Zone is an essential measure of preparedness for the protection of the neutrality of the Panama Canal, and when said maneuvers or exercises should take place, the parties shall follow the procedures set forth in the records of the proceedings of the negotiations of the General Treaty of March 2, 1936, which proceedings were held on March 2, 1936. 3. As set forth in the records of the proceedings of the negotiations of the General Treaty of March 2, 1936, which proceedings were held on March 16, 1935, in the event of an emergency so sudden as to make action of a preventive character imperative to safeguard the neutrality or security of the Panama Canal, and if by reason of such emergency it would be impossible to consult with the Government of Panama as provided in Article X of said Treaty, the Government of the United States of America need not delay action to meet this emergency pending consultation, although it will make every effort in the event that such consultation has not been effected prior to taking action to consult as soon as it may be possible with the Panamanian Government. Accept, Sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. CORDELL HULL. The Panamanian Minister to the Secretary of State [Translation] LEGATION OF PANAMA, Washington, D.C., February 1, 1939. His Excellency CORDELL HULL, MR. SECRETARY: I have the honor to refer to Your Excellency's valued communication of today's date with respect to the General Treaty signed between the Governments of the Republic of Panama and of the United States of America March 2, 1936 and to the proceedings of the meetings held by the Commissioners of Panama and of the United States of America during the negotiation which preceded the signature of the said Treaty. Your Excellency invites my attention to the fact that during the course of the negotiations and after discussion a mutual agreement was reached with regard to the interpretation to be given to certain provisions which eventually were incorporated in the Treaty. Your Excellency states that these discussions and understandings were, after each meeting, embodied in the typewritten records of the proceedings. You then give as your opinion that in view of the favorable_report presented at the close of the last session of Congress by the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate of the United States of America on the General Treaty and the various accompanying conventions, some members of the Senate, during the debates with respect to the General Treaty and the Conventions in the present session of Congress may ask for clarification as to the meaning of certain provisions of the General Treaty affecting the security and neutrality of the Panama Canal. With a view to anticipating such an eventuality, and of avoiding new delays in the consideration of the General Treaty of March 2, 1936, Your Excellency states that it seems advisable to your Government to effect an exchange of notes with my Government for the purpose of reiterating the interpretation given to certain points in the proceedings. I take pleasure in informing Your Excellency that I have been authorized by my Government to effect this exchange of notes and to clarify the points propounded by Your Excellency, and which, for greater clarity, are set forth in the English language as follows: [For text, see numbered paragraphs.] I avail myself of this occasion to renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my most distinguished consideration. AUGUSTO S. BOYD, Minister. The Secretary of State to the Panamanian Ambassador DEPARTMENT OF STATE, His Excellency Senor Dr. DoN AUGUSTO S. BOYD, EXCELLENCY: I understand from the debate in the Senate of the United States yesterday on the treaties signed with Panama, March 2, 1936, that the question was raised as to whether the Assembly of Panama had the notes and minutes of the treaty negotiations before it at the time the treaties were considered and ratified by that body. I shall thank you to advise me definitely as to whether the notes and minutes of the negotiations were before the Assembly of Panama and were thoroughly understood and considered by the Assembly in connection with its ratification of the aforesaid treaties. Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. CORDELL HULL. |