4


 After a treaty has been signed, the President transmits a copy of the treaty to the Senate along with) his message and a report by the Secret ry of State which explains the provisions and justifications for the treaty. Upon receipt by the Senate, the English text of the treaty, together with the accompanying papers, is ordered to be printed in a Senate document and the matter is referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
 After conducting hearings, the Committee on F oreign Relations submits a written report on the treaty to the Senate which is printed in a numbered executive report. When treaties are reported from the Committee, they are placed on an executive calendar, which differs f rom the legislative calendar, and they are taken up in order when the Senate goes into executive session.
 While Senate Rule 37 requires the Senate acting "as in the Committee of the Whole" to first consider amendments to a treaty article by article, and then to report to the Senate for further consideration, after which the resolution of ratification and any reservations are to be considered, the common practice since the 1940's has been to adopt by unanimous consent a procedure whereby treaties are considered to have passed through the various parlimentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolution of ratification. When the Panama Canal treaties were considered, however, unanimous consent was not granted, so the treaties were consi dered article by article in the Committee of the Whole procedure, after which reservations to the resolution of ratification were considered.
 Whether in the Committee of the Whole or in the Senate, a simple majority vote is required for adoption of an amendment to the treaty or adoption of a reservation to the resolution of ratification. Only the final vote to agree to the resolution of ratification as amended, or a motion to postpone indefinitely, requires a two-thirds vote of those present.
 These in brief are the Senate's procedures for consideration of treaties. Since the debate on the Panama Canal treaties was conducted in conformity with these rules, rather than the more customary simplified procedures, they are important to an understanding of that debate.
 B. BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE

 When the Carter Administration took office., negotiations to modernize the United States-Panama relationship-based on the 1903, 1936 and 1955 treaties-had taken place intermittently for more than a decade under the three previous Presidents. During this period, the United States had pledged twice, in December 1964 and again in February 1974, to conclude an entirely new treaty with Panama with a fixed expiration date which would end the "in perpetuity" concept of the 1903 Treaty. Negotiations had not been concluded, however, in part because of perceived congressional and public opposition in the United States.
 In early 1977, President Carter determined to pursue negotiations vigorously and Sol Linowitz was designated, along -with Ellsworth Bunker, to negotiate the new pacts. After inconclusive talks in February and a breakthrough in May, based on Panama'ls-willingness to accept a U.S. defense role after the termination of a new treaty and