e Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Morgan) can take much of credit for it, because it was his courage that took him into his n State, as well as to other States by voice over national radio, 1 helped to convince the American people that what the Senate, least two-thirds of the Senate, is attempting to do is the right ng to do.

Through the leadership of Senators like the Senator from North rolina, I think we have convinced the people that it is much ore important to the United States that we look upon ourselves a Nation which strives to that which is right. We know that we ve the greatest Nation on Earth. We know that we are the ongest on Earth. But we must use that strength in order to do at which is right and we are striving to do that which is right. Again, I congratulate and commend the Senator from North arolina for the leadership he has shown in this matter.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the -nator from Florida (Mr. Chiles) be made a cosponsor of our servation.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. I commend the Senator from North Carolina. We ve very little time and I hope he will continue after these two llcalls.

I think the great disadvantage of this debate is that discussion of mething so important as the Panama Canal Treaty has been sjointed. Here we have one of the most comprehensive, cogent atements I have heard on the subject of the Panama Canal eaties. I congratulate Senator Morgan, and I hope he will contin, because I shall have more to say on what he has said after ese two rollcalls.

Mr. MORGAN. I thank my distinguished colleague.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I merely want to join in complimentg Senator Morgan for what I think is an exceptionally fine dress. Though I was not actually in the Chamber. I was in the ajority leader's office and I listened to him over the loudspeaker. want him to know that I think he has taken an admirable stand d he has explained his position so lucidly that I am sure it will taken to heart by the people he represents in his great State. Mr. MORGAN. I thank my distinguished colleague.

Mr. President, in the 1 minute I have remaining, let me say that e founders of this great country of ours, in providing that treas should be ratified by the Senate, understood that in dealing in eign affairs, the issues would not always be easy and that, metimes, the Members of the Senate would have to take stands at might appear to be contrary to popular opinion. That is why ey provided that those of us in the Senate, who have 6-year ms, would be able to study the issues in depth. That is what Mr. adison was writing about when he wrote the 75th Federalist pers.

I think, Mr. President, that that is our responsibility in the nate. I shall try to continue my remarks after the votes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 5 p.m. having arrived, the estion is on agreeing to amendment No. 99.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Do we have the yeas and nays?

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

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

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, the leadership supports both of these reservations.

It is my understanding that the yeas and nays have not been ordered. I ask for the yeas and nays on both votes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to ordering them on both votes on one motion?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana. The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Eastland), the Senator from Maine (Mr. Hathaway), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Pell), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Ribicoff) are necessar ily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Pell), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Ribicoff) would each vote "yea."

Mr. BAKER. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Ste vens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Wallop) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Dole) is absent attending the funeral of a relative.

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

The result was announced-yeas 65, nays 27, as follows:

to.

So amendment No. 99 of the Senator from Louisiana was agreed

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now proceed to vote on reservation No. 14. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the

roll.

The second assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

[Mr. Burdick assumed the chair.]

Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Eastland), the Senator from Maine (Mr. Hathaway), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Pell), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Ribicoff) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Pell) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Ribicoff) would each vote "yea."

Mr. BAKER. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Wallop), are necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Dole) is absent to attend the funeral of a relative.

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

The result was announced-yeas 90, nays 2, as follows:

So reservation No. 14 was agreed to.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the reservation was agreed to.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Chiles). The Senator from Illinois. Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, when I returned from a visit to the Canal Zone in company with some of my colleagues in January, I said at that time I would not vote to ratify the Panama Canal Treaties as they had been signed by President Carter and General Torrijos because they were flawed in a way subsequently acknowledged by the President.

Not satisfied with the clarification that was not legally binding, the Senators and I decided, and the leadership did, that the Neutrality Treaty itself would have to be amended to provide for the United States right to defend the canal against any aggression and to guarantee that U.S. warships in time of emergency can go to the head of the line and pass through the canal.

Now that these amendments have been incorporated, I support ratification of the treaty. With these amendments I believe the treaties serve the best interests of our country.

Nevertheless, our work will not be complete when we vote on the treaty on Tuesday. There will still be the implementing legislation to consider. In the context of the implementing legislation I shall

want to pursue the concern I have already expressed about costs to the U.S. Government under this treaty.

Mr. President, there are on the floor of the Senate at this time members of the Armed Services Committee and members of the Committee on Foreign Relations who heard testimony on these treaties.

The Armed Services Committee clearly pointed out in their subsequent report that there would be a cost in excess of some $700 million to the Treasury of the United States and to the American taxpayers under the present plan.

Now, this cost is not of payments being made to Panama. They would not receive a penny. The only payments they will receive come from toll revenue. But the costs to the American taxpayer would be costs that were real costs in the form of interest income that would have to be given up and the cost of early retirement for civil servants, just to mention two items.

It is my firm belief that a significant percentage of these costs can be offset by higher tolls over the next 22 years, and I submit to my colleagues that this is a better way to deal with the costs than appropriating taxpayers' funds or just writing off canal revenues, which until now have gone to the U.S. Treasury.

Today I am providing further data on how the cost of the treaty to the American taxpayer can be reduced when the implementing legislation is considered by Congress.

Using the figures developed by the Senate Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, it is presently estimated that the cost to the Government over the life of the proposed treaty is likely to be about $700 million more than it would under the revised 1903 treaty. One large component of this total is $276 million for a civil service early retirement system for eligible employees of the canal enterprise, figured to be $9.2 million per year over 30 years. The other involves the loss of an annual interest payment to the U.S. Treasury at a current rate of about 6.3 percent on the U.S. investment in the canal now about $20 million per year. The administration intends to recommend that this annual interest payment not be continued.

I have expressed my very strong objection to this to the State Department. I think it is a case of overlooking the fact that $20 million is a lot of money, and that is a cost to the American taxpayer, if that interest income is given up. It is my strong feeling that any actual loss of revenue to the U.S. Treasury should be reviewed as a true "cost" of the revised treaties.

The United States historically has operated the Panama Canal at tremendous benefit to the public by generally setting tolls just to cover operating costs. We have in a sense been subsidizing the canal users for 64 years. In real terms, toll rates for use of the was made to reap the kind of revenues which the canal would have canal are actually lower today than they were in 1914. No attempt been perfectly capable of generating, and which could have added hundreds of millions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury.

This was done by the Panama Canal Company with the full concurrence and support of the President of the United States, the executive branch of the Government, and the Congress of the United States. It was a policy that we had adopted, and it was one