he treaty process is that each of us will agree to all of the amendnents and all of the reservations or the treaty will not stand. I agree that there may be a difference of opinion among Panamanians in terms of their own interpretation of the laws, but whether an amendment has to go the plebiscite route or a reservation has to go the plebiscite route, that is not something we can dictate, obviously. Of course, the Senator is as entitled to interpret Panamanian laws as I am. I do not know whether it has to go to a plebiscite or not. My feeling is that, certainly, if an amendment is passed, a plebiscite would be required for an amendment of this kind, which is totally new.

It seems to me if that were the case, the Senator's chances of having his amendment implemented would probably be lessened, in view of the fact that it would have to stand the test of a vote of the majority of Panamanians. The reservation, assuming it did not have to go the plebiscite route-and that is not the Senator's assumption, it is my assumption-it seems to me it is certainly not going to be any problem for the Panamanian Government to accept. So if we are concerned about this cemetery, whether or not, in fact, these rights will be preserved, it seems to me, if anything, the chances are greater under a reservation than that it would be acceptable in a plebiscite. Although I frankly doubt that it would be defeated under either process, at least it would call into question the whole issue of another plebiscite.

Let me conclude by saying that I read here for the record a protocol of exchange signed at Washington on December 18, 1951, for the convention with New Zealand for the avoidance of double taxation. This was entered into force in 1951. I read the reservation only to make one point: That, in fact, this has to be done jointly. It is not just binding on one party:

The text of the said reservation was communicated by the Government of the United States of America to the Government of New Zealand. The Government of New Zealand has accepted the said reservation. Accordingly, it is understood by the two Governments that the convention aforesaid, upon entry into force in accordance with its provisions, is modified in accordance with the said reservation, so that, in effect, paragraph (4) of Article IX of the convention aforesaid is deemed to be deleted.

In other words, we cannot, in any agreement, dictate to the other party what is going to be binding on the two of us. All reservations, all amendments, must be acknowledged by both sides, or the treaty, in my judgment, would never go into effect. It would have no standing in international law.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the protocol of exchange just referred to.

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

PROTOCOL OF EXCHANGE SIGNED AT WASHINGTON ON DECEMBER 18, 1951, FOR THE CONVENTION WITH New Zealand for THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION ENTERED INTO FORCE, 1951

The undersigned, Dean Acheson, Secretary of State of the United States of America, and Carl Berendsen, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of New Zealand to the United States of America, being duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, have met for the purpose of exchanging the instruments of ratification by their respective Governments of the convention between the United States of America and New Zealand for the avoidance of double taxation and the

prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, signed at Washington on March 16, 1948, and, the respective instruments of ratification of the convention aforesaid having been compared and found to be in due form, the exchange took place this day.

As recited in the ratification on the part of the United States of America, the Senate of the United States of America, in its resolution of September 17, 1951, advising and consenting to the ratification of the convention aforesaid, expressed a certain reservation with respect thereto, as follows:

"The Government of the United States of America does not accept paragraph (4) of Article IX of the convention, relating to the profits or remuneration of public entertainers."

The text of the said reservation was communicated by the Government of the United States of America to the Government of New Zealand. The Government of New Zealand has accepted the said reservation. Accordingly, it is understood by the two Governments that the convention aforesaid, upon entry into force in accordance with its provisions, is modified in accordance with the said reservation, so that, in effect, paragraph (4) of Article IX of the convention aforesaid is deemed to be deleted.

In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Protocol of Exchange.

Done in duplicate at Washington this eighteenth day of December, 1951.
For the Government of the United States of America: Dean Acheson.

For the Government of New Zealand: Carl Berendsen.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I am sorry for having been so long in my answer.

Mr. SCHMITT. That is fine. I think it is a very important issue, because we are not only talking about the moral obligation and of the American dead, but we are talking about the issue of reservations and amendments.

I just say, knowing the New Zealand people as I do, but not knowing the constitutional processes well enough to know exactly what may have occurred, I would suspect that the reservation to the protocol just ordered printed in the Record was consistent with their constitutional processes, without any question.

The issue here is what are Panama's constitutional processes? I think, with respect to reservations, everybody right now feels very strongly there is a question about what the process is. But there is no question about the amendment process. That is exactly why I am proposing for this very critical issue, at least critical for many people, that we have an amendment so we know exactly what is required in order to protect these cemeteries and the dead contained therein.

A plebiscite is what we need. We are going to end up, I am sure, feeling very uncertain about any other process that General Torrijos may propose for agreeing to or not agreeing to the reservations that have been entered into, on this, by the U.S. Senate.

I would also submit that there is a major difference between the Randolph reservation and the amendment that I have offered. The Randolph reservation only goes to the issue of having negotiations. It does not require an agreement. Whereas, the amendment to the treaty itself that I am proposing will require, because it is part of the treaty, the reaching of an agreement. That agreement, of course, will result when and if the Panamanians, through a plebiscite, ratify the changes to the treaties that we feel are necessary here in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, I think that it is clear that this amendment, and the issue raised about the differences between reservations and amendments, not only goes to the heart of the problem with the

emeteries, but goes to the heart of the problem of the treaties in their entirety.

The reservations offered by Senator DeConcini were thought to have been, a few weeks ago, binding on Panama as well as on the United States. However, we have seen considerable disagreement arise as to whether that is so.

I, personally, because of the constitutional issue in Panama and the question of international law on the differences between reservations and amendments, never felt that we could be assured that reservations to these treaties would be binding on the Government of Panama. In particular, even if one head of state agreed to a reservation, without going through the constitutional process in Panama, it would be subject to being denied or revoked by any future head of state. I think the people of this country, certainly many Members of this body, would feel much better if the reservations and the amendments to this treaty were submitted to the Panamanian people according to their constitutional processes before these treaties enter into force. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not remind my colleagues that I think the bilateral treaty process is out of date and that we should not be entering into these treaties for much more fundamental reasons than just the questions before us here today. But that is not the issue. The issue is the treaty before us and how we can have a good treaty, a treaty that will protect legitimate U.S. interests as well as hemispheric interests.

I think it is very important that on the particular issue of cemeteries, as well as many other issues, that we amend the treaties rather than depending on reservations which, I repeat, under international law as I understand it, bind only one country until the constitutional processes of the other country have, in fact, accepted such a reservation. Whereas, an amendment binds both parties, or the treaty is not in force.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and, if there are no further comments, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. We remind the Senator that there is no agreement for division of time.

Mr. SCHMITT. I thank the Chair.

I was under the impression that the time was divided equally, but I will still 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. CLARK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

RECESS UNTIL 1:25 P.M.

Mr CLARK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 1:25 p.m. today, at which time the Senator from New Mexico will be recognized for 21⁄2 minutes to summarize his arguments on the pending amendment; that there then be 22 minutes for the managers of the treaties; that in accordance with the previous unanimous-consent agreemtn, there be a vote in relation to the pending amendment at 1:30 p.m.; and

that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Allen) then be recognized to call up his amendment.

There being no objection, at 12:54 p.m. the Senate recessed until 1:25 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Ribicoff).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, we are scheduled to vote on amendment No. 97 at 1:30. Before that vote, I would just say once again that this amendment, the so-called cemeteries amendment, would change the body of the treaty so that the cemeteries in the Canal Zone, specifically Mt. Hope and Corozal, would be dealt with by treaty rather than by some future and uncertain negotiations. Amendment No. 97 would amend four articles of the treaty so that this would be accomplished, and also so that the provisions added by the amendment would be in force in perpetuity.

I think, Mr. President, that the technical aspects of these amendments are not as critical, though I would submit they are properly drafted, as the moral aspects of the amendment, which represents a continued moral commitment by the Government of the United States and its people to those individuals who, in the past, in their service either in the Armed Forces or in the civil portions of the Government, have assisted in the operation and defense of the canal.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inouye). The Senator's time has expired.

Mr. SARBANES. I yield the Senator 30 seconds of my time to complete his statement.

Mr. SCHMITT. I appreciate the Senator's courtesy. I have completed my statement, but I certainly would urge my colleagues to put into the form of an amendment the resolution of the issue of the cemeteries in the Canal Zone. A reservation is not sufficient, in my mind; a reservation binds only the United States to the treaties. An amendment would, when properly ratified by the Panamanian people, bind both parties.

I thank the Senator from Maryland for his courtesy.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This matter was dealt with fully and, in fact, in great detail by the reservation added to the permanent Neutrality Treaty, which passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 1. That reservation sketched out in great detail how we would proceed. It was a reservation which ran to some 21⁄2 pages, and addressed the matter fully. It was carefully worked out in terms of dealing with this problem, both in terms of people who wish to bring back the remains of their loved ones to this country, where the Government undertook to pay for it, and in terms of requiring administration by the American Battle Monuments Commission, which is a commission which handles comparable arrangements all over the world, with respect to our honored dead and their burial in foreign lands.

It is our view, of course, that that reservation, which has permanent application, more than adequately deals with the problem and is, in fact, a better and more constructive way in which to do so. The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a ficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of e Senator from New Mexico and I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a fficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the otion of the Senator from Maryland. The yeas and nays have en ordered and the clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota Mr. Abourezk), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator om Iowa (Mr. Culver), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Eagleton), he Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Long), the Senator from Alabama Mr. Sparkman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Talmadge) are ecessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from owa (Mr. Culver) would vote "yea."

Mr. STEVENS. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Baker), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Bartlett), the Senator rom Öregon (Mr. Packwood), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Percy) are necessarily absent.

The result was announced-yeas 55, nays 34, as follows: