distinguished Senator from Alabama is going to divide his amendment and have two votes. Is that correct? Mr. ALLEN. That is correct. Mr. SARBANES. I think we might have a vote on the first part shortly after that hour, when I take it Senator Dole would be back. Would another hour or two be adequate for considering the second part? Mr. ALLEN. One phase at 1 o'clock and another phase at 3:30, say. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate? I ask that the Sergeant at Arms help us to secure order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sergeant at Arms will do so. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I apologize. The Sergeant at Arms did not tell me precisely what he wanted, and I misunderstood his gesture. I assure the Senator that I shall not do it again. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Sergeant at Arms is pretty capable of taking care of himself. [Laughter.] Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I might also note for the record that the Sergeant at Arms is blushing. [Laughter.] Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. May I also say for the record that he is an outstanding Sergeant at Arms, and I have had the occasion many times to speak in approbation of him. Will the distinguished Senator indicate what his amendment does? Perhaps the Senator from Maryland is aware of it. Mr. ALLEN. The amendment I have at the desk is amendment No. 86. It addresses the question of whether or not the United States should agree in the treaty that we shall not have the authority to negotiate with another nation for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new canal. It also discusses and addresses the question of whether or not another nation would be allowed to build another canal in Panama. Those twin questions are addressed by the amendment. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The distinguished Senator had suggested a vote at 1 o'clock and another at 3:30. Mr. ALLEN. That is correct. Mr. SARBANES. If we had one at 12:30 and one at 3, that would give us from 10 to 12:30 on the first part-that is 21⁄2 hours-and that would give us another 21⁄2 hours on the second part of the amendment. That would make it possible to go on to another amendment after the vote at 3 o'clock. Does that sound reasonable to the Senator from Alabama? Mr. ALLEN. I have a particular requirement that is going to cause the time of 12:30 not to be appropriate. I wonder if we could set it at 1 o'clock and 3:30? Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator has some other requirement, I certainly think we should accede. I think the times he originally suggested, of 1 o'clock and 3:30, would be all right. AMENDMENT NO. 86 Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President. If the Senator will allow me, I will put that in the form of a request. Mr. ALLEN. Yes. I will call up the amendment. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 86, and I ask that it be stated in full. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alabama (Mr. Allen) proposes an amendment numbered 86: Amend Article I by adding at the end of Section 1(d) the following new Subsection: (e) It is expressly provided however, that (A) nothing contained in this treaty shall deprive the United States of the right it has under the 1903 and 1955 treaties to prevent the construction of a second canal in Panama by any nation other than the United States; and that (B) nothing contained in the treaty shall prevent the United States from negotiating with any other nation for the construction, maintenance, and operation of a transoceanic canal anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, or from constructing, maintaining, and operating any such canal. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur in relation to the first division at 1 p.m. tomorrow and that a vote occur in relation to the second and final part at 3:30 p.m. tomorrow. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, there will be no more rollcall votes today. I thank the distinguished Senator from calling up his amend ment. Mr. ALLEN. I thank the distinguished majority leader and the distinguished Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes). Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Before the Senator begins, may I ask this question: Does the Senator intend to speak on the amendment this evening? If so, can he indicate the length of time? Mr. ALLEN. I would rather have a larger audience of Senators. I will not state the number on the floor, but every seat is not filled, I say to the distinguished majority leader. [Laughter.] I would rather have a larger audience; and if it is all right with the distinguished majority leader, we might go out at this time and let me start discussing the amendment the first thing in the morning. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That will be fine. I thank the distinguished Senator. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes its consideration of the treaty tommorrow, Mr. Allen be recognized at that time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. AMENDMENTS AND DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED FOR PRINTING-PANAMA CANAL TREATY-EX. N, 95-1 AMENDMENTS NOS. 87 AND 80 AND DECLARATION NO. 2 (Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.) Mr. Goldwater submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by him to the Panama Canal Treaty, and a declaration of ratification intended to be proposed by him to the resolution of ratification of the Panamana Canal Treaty, Ex. N, 95–1. Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I submit today for printing two amendments to the Panama Canal Treaty and ratification of the treaty which, if adopted, would uphold the constitutional requirement set forth in article IV that legislation enacted by both Houses of Congress is necessary in order to transfer property belonging to the United States to a foreign power. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendments and the declaration be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the amendments and declaration were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: AMENDMENT NO. 87 At the end of article XIII, add the following: "5. The provisions of this Treaty relating to the disposal of the territory or other property belonging to the United States of America shall take effect only if the Congress of the United States of America enacts implementing legislation providing for the transfer of such territory or other property to the Republic of Panama.". AMENDMENT NO. 88 At the end of article XIII, add the following: "5. The provisions of this Treaty relating to the disposal of any real property of the United States of America which is located in the former Canal Zone and which, on the day before the date of entry into force of this Treaty, was under the jurisdiction of a Secretary of a military department of the United States of America enacts legislation providing for the transfer of such property to the Republic of Panama." DECLARATION NO. 2 Before the period at the end of the resolution of ratification, insert a comma and the following: "subject to the following declaration: That the United States Government declares that it will not deposit its instrument of ratification until after implementing legislation relating to the disposal of the territory or other property belonging to the United States has been enacted providing for the transfer of such territory or other property to the Republic of Panama. AMENDMENT NO. 89 (Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.) Mr. BARTLETT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the Panama Canal Treaty, Ex. N, 95-1. Mr. BARTLETT Mr. President, I submit an amendment, No. 89, in the nature of a substitute, revising the Panama Canal Treaty as a lease agreement between the United States and Panama. After many years of public discussion and official negotiation, during four administrations, after weeks of debate here in the Senate, concluding the ratification of the Treaty of Neutrality, the treaty ratification process now advances to the very heart of the Panama Canal issue. Article I of the Panama Canal Treaty terminates all previous treaties between the United States and the Republic of Panama, redefines the rights and responsibilities which are delegated to the United States and Panama of the management, operation, and defense of the canal, and affirms the goal of uninterrupted, efficient operation of the canal. In a sense, however, the real essence of this article, and of the entire treaty issue, is the recognition of Panama as territorial sovereign over the canal and Canal Zone. Both in Panama and the United States, the debate over the present treaty is virtually as old as the treaty itself. The focus of this debate has been the matter of Sovereignty, a circumstance which has regrettably made discussion of the treaty far more emotional and complex than it might have been, had the new agreement conformed to the treaty precedent the United States had established a half century earlier. The United States and Colombia, Panama's former sovereign, had long enjoyed a mutually beneficial commercial arrangement under the Bidlack-Malarino Treaty of 1846. The treaty, while guaranteeing Colombia's sovereignty over the Isthmus of Panama, granted the United States The right of way or transit across the Isthmus of Panama upon any modes of communication that now exist or that way be, hereafter, constructed. With the treaty, the United States acquired the right to preserve the neutrality of transportation routes across the isthmus. Thus, America's Panama Canal policy was truly formulated 65 years before the canal became a reality. In the exercise of that policy, the United States built the highly successful Panama railroad across the isthmus. It was also in the legitimate exercise of that policy that the United States deployed military forces and warships to Panama on occasions when transportation across the isthmus was jeopardized. These principles were reaffirmed on January 22, 1903, when U.S. Secretary of State John Hay signed a treaty with Colombian Minister Tomas Herran. The Hay-Herran Treaty, while granting the United States the right to construct a canal across the isthumus, acknowledged Colombian sovereignty of the Canal Zone. The treaty established U.S. jurisdiction and control over the canal and Canal Zone by leasing the property to the United States for a period of 100 years. The lease was to be renewable indefinitely at the option of the United States. This precedent was followed again by Secretary of State John Hay in treaty negotiations with the new Republic of Panama. The treaty originally drafted by Hay appropriately avoided the question of sovereignty and proposed instead a simple 100-year lease of the Canal Zone by the United States, renewable indefinitely by our country. Under Hay's proposal, it is quite possible that the matter of renegotiation of the treaty might never have arisen until the year 2003. Fortunately, in the opinion of the Senate and the Roosevelt administration, the Hay proposal was substantially revised by Panama's own Envoy, Phillipe Bunau-Varilla. Rather than simply leasing the Canal Zone, the revised treaty granted the United States "sovereign rights" over the Canal Zone "in perpetuity." Thus, the new treaty was undermined from the beginning, as John Hay would later confess in a letter to Senator John C. Spooner of Wisconsin, champion of a Panamanian route versus a Nicaraguan route for the canal. Hay described the new treaty as "very satisfactory, vastly advantageous to the United States, and we must confess, with what face we can muster, not so advantageous to Panama ** You and I know too well how many points treaty to which a Panamanian patriot could there are in this object." In negotiating a new treaty with the Republic of Panama, the United States should have been guided by the precedents which existed before the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty. We might have also been guided by another international agreement, negotiated, ironically, in the same year as the Panama Canal Treaty. The agree ment, entered into force February 23, 1903, renewed in 1934, and remaining in effect indefinitely, provides for the lease to the United States by the Republic of Cuba of an area of land and water known as Guantanamo Bay. The treaty is entitled "Lease of Lands for Coaling and Naval Stations," and, while its provisions are not precisely analogous to the issue of the Panama Canal, the language of Article III of the agreement is indeed relevant to our current dilemma. Article III states: While on the one hand the United States recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the above described areas of land and water, on the other hand the Republic of Cuba consents that during the period of the occupation by the United States of said areas under the terms of this agreement the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas. It is extremely important to note the manner in which the separate concepts of sovereignty and jurisdiction and control were addressed in this agreement. For this distinction is perhaps the primary reason the Guantanamo Bay lease remains in effect and undisputed today. Likewise, the absence of such a distinction is a principal defect, not only of the 1903 Panama Canal Treaty, but the proposed new treaty before us. Mr. President, as I outlined in detail in a statement of February 23, 1978, the weight of evidence before the Senate affirms once again that the Panama Canal is vital to America's economic and national security interests, and that these interests will be secured only by continued U.S. administration and control of the Panama Canal. It is clear that "America's Panama Canal policy," formulated a half century before the canal was constructed, remains valid today, I believe the course we must take to preserve that policy is equally clear. The necessary revisions in the 1903 treaty between the United States and Panama will be achieved most appropriately and effectively through a lease agreement-an agreement similar in principle to those in force or proposed by the United States prior to the 1903 treaty, and to the existing treaty covering Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Such an agreement would surely have appealed to the Republic of Panama. Within the framework of an international lease, every reasonable demand of Panama could be met. First, the complex and emotional issue of sovereignty could finally be resolved in Panama's favor. At the same time, more tangible concessions could be made to address the justified resentment Panamanians have held for the U.S. presence, not only as a sovereign power, but a superior one in their own country. Duel economic, social, and legal standards would, and should, be dissolved. Other appropriate concessions could include: A substantial reduction of the land and water area of the Panama Canal Zone. |