We would be in much the same situation they are today if when the French had left this continent they had insisted on a strip of land 5 miles on each side of the Mississippi River that would remain permanently in the ownership and title of France. That is an unacceptable position for us, and I suspect this arrangement we have had with Panama on a somewhat shaky basis over the last 70 years is one that cannot be sustained, and that is the real reason why our military people are telling us they can defend the canal better with this treaty than they can without it.

Those are the concerns that are in my mind that I hope we can explore further in this hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Glenn?

COMMENT BY SENATOR GLENN

Senator GLENN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a very short comment. I think in the mail and the media, there have been more conflicting statements about Panama and more conflicting views expressed as to what this treaty does than anything I have seen recently. I hope that these hearings this morning can start the process of helping to not only educate the Congress but the American people on the true facts, what the treaty does, the importance or nonimportance of it, either way, so that we will come up with better than just a small minority of the people either for or against and a huge block undecided. I think there is a big educational process we have to go through, and I think this starts it this morning. I hope when we come out of this, whatever the results are, the American people will either be solidly for or solidly against, so these divisions are put to rest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Stone?

Senator STONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT BY SENATOR STONE

Mr. Chairman, when I traveled through my State of Florida, I didn't have to read mail to find out that most of our citizens at this point are against the ratification of these two treaties. It will take not merely an educational process but an emotional process for our folks to be willing to accept ratification of these treaties. The people have a right to know and want to know if these treaties provide the United States a right to intervene if the openness or neutrality of the canal is threatened from without and from within.

They want to know, and they have the right to know, do these treaties provide preferential transit to the American warships when we need them to go through? They need to know what are the actual provisions of the treaties as understood not only by our side but by the Panamanians as explained to them by the Panamanian negotiators and leaders. When they know that, then I think public opinion surveys will be an accurate reflection of our people instead of this battle of the propaganda on both sides. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Stone.

Let me call on Senator Griffin.

Senator GRIFFIN. I have no statement, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Baker?

Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, we are so far down here I didn't think you could see this far.

in.

The CHAIRMAN. I can see you, but I didn't see that you had slipped

STATEMENT BY SENATOR BAKER

Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I don't disagree with any statement that has been made by any of my colleagues on the committee, so what I am about to say is not meant to join issue with any statement by any Senator. I want to say first that I have told President Carter, you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Case, who is the senior Republican on the committee, and Secretary Vance, that for the time being I have decided not to decide what I think about the treaties.

I am going to hear the testimony, and I am going to examine the situation and make up my mind in due course, and when I do make up my mind, as minority leader of the Senate, I think it is my responsibility to share that point of view and to urge its adoption by my colleagues. I am going to do that. When I make up my mind, I am going to try to win, one way or the other.

I want to say this. I don't want these hearings to start on the basis that we are ashamed of the Panama Canal. I want them to start on the basis that we need to decide what is best for the country in the future, not what we did in the past.

I happen to think that building the Panama Canal was our "Moon shot" of the first decade of this century and it ranks in importance with our putting a man on the Moon 70 years later. We took over a job that was thought to be too big for the technological ability of mankind, and where others had failed, we succeeded.

We defeated the combined threats of disease, terrain, and circumstance, and we built a canal where no one had ever succeeded before. That was a huge, magnificent American accomplishment, and all of us are proud of it. Our forebears were, and I am today.

So, I approach these hearings without any regrets or sense of shame, but by the same token, I am realistic. I know that our country cannot live in the past any more than a person can live in the past. So I intend to examine the situation in terms of what is best for the next decades, not the 70 that have followed since that great accomplishment.

I have tried to immerse myself in this thing. I am like the little boy who read in the encyclopedia about crocodiles. I know more about this than I need to know, almost, but I don't know enough to make a judgment yet. I know I am concerned about some of the language of the treaties. I know some of the language is necessarily vague and susceptible to more than one interpretation, but I know that some of the interpretations that could be made of some of the language in the treaties would not be suitable to the future purposes of the United States.

It may be that there were conversations, memoranda, and agreements or understandings that would clarify this. It may be that the testimony of this panel will clarify it. It may be that I will want to see the negotiating minutes or summaries of them, or the cable

traffic, which is a most intimate communications link between the negotiators and the White House and the State Department. It may be that I will want to see that, or even to see the Presidential review memoranda of this administration and previous administrations, both Republican and Democratic, to decide what those words mean. Because frankly, a fair reading of some of the language of the two treaties will not yield a clearcut decision on things such as neutrality, the right to intervene unilaterally or the privileged or priority transit of American vessels versus expeditious passage. I don't know what those things mean. There are so many others that I don't know about.

Mr. Chairman, I pledge to you as I have to the President that I will forbear making a decision until I have developed as much information as I can and until I can make the best judgment of which I am capable. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Clark?

STATEMENT BY SENATOR CLARK

Senator CLARK. Mr Chairman, I have no formal statement. Let me simply say that I look forward to the hearings as others do, as the opportunity to learn the facts and to hear a variety of opinions, particularly pro and con. To me, the most critical question clearly is the question of neutrality and the question of guarantees for that neutrality. Not contrary to what any other member of the committee has said, I hope that we could spend 1 day at least in these hearings looking at the historical precedents of this treaty. I don't think any nation can deny its past history or should want to. I think if we are going to look at a reassessment of the 1903 treaty and other exchanges since that period, that we ought to see those in a historical perspective.

I do not think that the determination of whether or not to go ahead with a new treaty is unrelated to the past history of the United States and Panama in this matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sarbanes?

COMMENT BY SENATOR SARBANES

Senator SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a formal statement. I just want to make this comment. I think it is extremely important as the hearings proceed that we relate the discussion to the actual texts of the treaties and any other understandings or agreements that serve to interpret. There have been any number of statements that have been made publicly, unrelated to the text of the treaties, and that is the governing instrument. I think it is very important as the hearings proceed that we relate them to the actual text and what it means, and have a full understanding of it if we are to be able to make the very important judgment as to how our national interests are served by these agreements which have been negotiated. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes.

EMOTIONAL FACTOR INVOLVED

This matter has a very strong emotional factor involved in it. I do not think there is any question about that. We have all read the various

press reports. We have received that flood of card mailings. I cannot help but feel that a mass card mailing such as that cannot very well give a picture as to the feeling of the people over the country.

Many of those, I feel, who signed those cards don't even know what the terms of the proposed treaties are. In fact, this committee doesn't know yet. We have seen suggestions in the press as to what those terms would be, but as I see it, our purpose in having this hearing today is to find out what the terms proposed for the treaties are. I think that is the reason we started out with this first panel as we did. I hope as we go along we will keep those things in mind, and try to get the real facts regarding it.

STATEMENT ISSUED BY SENATOR HUMPHREY

By the way, Senator Humphrey, who is not able to be here, has released a statement, and I am told that he would like to have it read into the record. It was issued on September 7. If there is no objection, I will comply with Senator Humphrey's wishes and read it now.

Chairman SPARKMAN [reading]: "The office of Senator Hubert H. Humphrey today released the following statement on the Panama Canal treaties, dictated by Senator Humphrey from his Waverley, Minn., home.""

The statement, which announces his support for the new treaties and pledges his active efforts in seeking Senate ratification of the docuiments, follows, and I quote:

I have followed this issue very carefully and discussed the treaties with the President by telephone. I have pledged to the President my full and active support for the treaties. An important goal of these negotiations has been the establishment of a modern and mutually acceptable treaty relationship between the United States and Panama which provides for he efficient operation of the important waterway that will continue to remain open to all of the world's shipping.

This has been the bipartisan goal for four Presidents, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter, who above all others have the responsibility for the national security of our country. The United States has lost nothing through these treaties. We have not given up anything. Clearly, no international relationship negotiated more than 70 years ago can be expected to last forever without adjustment.

In sum, the new treaties, based on partnership, give the United States the rights we need to restore the crucial ingredient of Panamanian consent and strengthens our mutual interest in a well-run and secure canal. The viability of any treaty depends on the underlying consent and shared interests of nations who are party to it.

Panama and our Latin American neighbors long have been dissatisfied with the 1903 treaty. This declining level of consent transcends any one government and now encompasses Panamanians of all strata.

There are some who claim that the proposed treaties will have an adverse effect on our security. However, the Panama Canal issue affects our relationships with other Latin American nations who view it as a test case of whether or not the United States will move into a more mature relationship with our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere.

Senate approval of the treaties will add substance and character to the good neighbor policy first enunciated by President Roosevelt.

The U.S. image and its leadership ability are under careful scrutiny around the world. Some Americans express concern that our national prestige would be diminished by the new treaties.

But in my view the case is just the opposite. The 1903 treaty is viewed abroad as one-sided and anachronistic, a holdover from a colonial era which other nations have discarded.

The ability of the United States to work through this emotion-fraught issue at home through ratification of the treaties in the Senate will be viewed abroad

by friend and foe alike as a sign that we can make necessary accommodations to a changing world.

In essence, a new treaty relationship based on the concept of partnership and similar to other agreements with our allies throughout the world offers a tool that will better protect our basic interests.

[End of statement.]

If there are no other comments before we start, we will call on Secretary of State Cyrus Vance. Mr. Secretary, we have your printed statement. That will be printed in full in the record. Would you please proceed as you see fit?

STATEMENT OF HON. CYRUS VANCE, SECRETARY OF STATE

Secretary VANCE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I and my colleagues appreciate very much the opportunity to meet with you today to discuss these vitally important treaties. Today I seek your support for new treaties governing the Panama Canal.

WHAT TREATIES DO AND ARE

First, these treaties protect and advance the national interests of both the United States and Panama.

Second, they provide for an open, neutral, secure, and efficiently operated canal for this hemisphere, and for other nations throughout the world.

Third, they will promote constructive and positive relationships between the United States and other nations in this hemisphere.

These treaties, in my judgment, will gain us respect among other nations of the world, both large and small, because of the responsible way they resolve complex and emotional issues which have been with us for most of this century.

The treaties are the culmination of 13 years' work by four American Presidents of both major political parties, and their Secretaries of State. They are the outcome of patient and skillful negotiation since 1964 by a number of dedicated political leaders, diplomats, and military men. They have been achieved because of valuable counsel and support offered by members of this committee and by representatives of American business and labor who have seen these new treaties as being in their own interest and in the larger national interest.

They are, above all, a triumph for the principle of the peaceful and constructive settlement of disputes between nations. That is a principle we seek to apply in all aspects of American foreign policy.

BASIC QUESTIONS BEING ASKED ABOUT TREATIES

It is quite proper that this committee, the Senate, and the American people should consider carefully the content and implications of these treaties, for they should not at some later time be made the subject of partisan or divisive debate. In my opinion, they should be beyond partnership.

They should now be examined in detail by this committee, and by the Nation. Basic questions are being asked, and should be asked, about them.