8


such vessels through the Canal as quickly as possible, without any impedimentt. with expedited treatment, and in case of need or emergency, to go to the head of the line of vessels, in order to transit the Canal rapidly."
 The Statement of Understanding was viewed as improving the chances for Senate approval, but several Senators, including members of the Foreign Relations Committee, indicated that it might be necessary to add the text of the document as an understanding to the treaties to accommodate continuing concern with political and military matters. Meanwhile, a full explanation of the Statement was made in Panamia before voters approved the pacts by a two-to-one margin in the plebiscite of October 23, 1977.
 Congress adjourned without taking action on the treaties; however, a steady stream of congressional visits to Panama took place toward the end of the year. Among these, three visits seemed to be especially important.
 Majority Leader Robert Byrd led a delegation of seven senators to Panama November 9-12, 1977. 13 Along with other matters, Senator Byrd particularly raised human rights concerns with General Torrijos. At the end of the visit, Torrijos promised to repeal various repressive laws and to improve human rights conditions. He also assured the visiting senators that he fully supported the October 14 Statement of Understanding.
 Early in 1978, Minority Leader Howard Baker led a three-man delegation to Pama.'4 During talks with General Torrijos, he explored the possibility of adding the lanaguage of the Statement of Understanding to the treaties as an amendment or reservation, a modification which Senator Baker felt was necessary to assure Senate approval. Torrijos reiterated his support for the Statement and indicated a willingness to consider some treaty modifications.
 Later, in mid-January, just before the beginning of the new session of Congress, seven members of the Foreig Relations Committee, led by Chairman John Sparkman, visited Panama and the Canal Zone to study conditions and to discuss possible treaty modifications with U.S. and Panamanian officials, including incorporation of the Statement of Understanding in the treaty.
 While most of the congressional visits f ocused on political matters. with the coming of the new year the center of treaty concern seemed to shift to the financial questions concerning the costs of the treaties which would be borne by the United States. These questions. previously addressed by the Panama Canal Subcommittee of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee in hearings on November 30 and December 1, 1.977, were particularly highlighted in hearings in late January 1.978 -which were conducted by the Senate Committee on Armed Services.'5
 12 weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, v. 13, October 17 1977. p. 1547. 13 U.S. Congress. Senate. Report of the Senatorial Delegation to the Republic of Panama r Senators Byrd. ITuddleston, Matsunaga, Metzenbaum. iegle, Sarbanes and Sasser], November 9-12, 1977, 95th Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Document No. 95-79, Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978.
 14 U.S. Congress. Senate. Report of Delegation Studying the Panama Canal Treaties and Other Matters of Interest to the United States in Latin America [Senators Baker. Gain and Chafeel, January 3-14. 1978. 95th Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Document No. 95-S. Wasing-ton. U.S. Government Printing Office, 197. 15 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services. Defense, Maintenance and Oneration of the, Panama Canal. Including Administration and Government of the Canal Zone. Hearings. 97;th Congress. 2nd Session, January 24, 31. and February 1, 1978. wasbingtoin. UTS. Government Printing Office, 1978. The Committee's report, 95th Congress, 2nd Session. Senate Report No. 95-633, with a title identical to that of the hearings, provided an excellent summary of the various concerns.