65 masterpiece ttiat is the Panama Canal. I do not think there is reason to be ashamed or to apologize. The canal has been good for the United States-and good f or Panama-and good f or the world. On the other hand, f or other positive reasons-and because times and circumstances do chane-I am willing to recognize, as one Senator, that a major revision in our treaty relationship with the Republic of Panama is in order-that it could serve the interests of both countries. My problem, as a lawyer and as a Senator, is that after carefully studying the text of these treaties, and the accompanying documents, I could come to no conclusion other than that they are fatally flawedthat they are -riddled with amabiguities-that the security interests of the United States are not adequately protected-and that the defects are so serious and basic that they cannot be remedied by trying to rewrite the treaties here on the Senate floor. Being the lone dissenter on the Foreigni Relations Comm-ittee-and for that reason alone-I find myself thrust into the role of floor manager for the opposition. I wish to make it clear, however, that mny views-and what I say-will not necessarily reflect the views of other Senators who oppose these treaties. Each of them will, of course, speak for himself as this debate proceeds. Although I believe these treaties should not be ratified, there is a course open to the Senate other than outright rejection, and strongly urge the Senate to consider it. Let me explain by first underscoring the fact that I recognize the importance of maintainingc close and f riendly relations with the people of Panama and -with the people of other nations in our hemisphere. I am conscious of, and concerned about, the impact that outright rejection by the Senate could have upon those relations. Under the Constitution, the Senate's role is one of "advice and consent." Instead of consenting to these treaties, I believe it would be a wiser course for the Senate to exercise only its "advice" authority. In other words, without rejecting the treaties outright, the Senate, after examining these treaties in detail, ought to advise the President to send the negotiators back to the drawing boards with instructions to persist until more acceptable treaties can be fashioned. Despite all of his knowledge about the history of the canal, or perhaps because of it, David McCullough, the distinguished author of "The Path Between the Seas" acknowledged before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he had experienced great difficulty in reaching a personal decision about the merit of these treaties. Although he finally decided, on balance, to support the treaties, when he appeared before the committee he made this profound and perceptive point: .. If we say "yes" to these [treaties] in a grudging way... [because w e think] we have painted ourselves into a corner and we have to get out ... [that would be] unfortunate .. [and] just as wrong, and in some ways a greater mistake than to say "no" in the spirit of saying "no" because [it should be] done rightbecause we don't want to have to come back in 15 or 20 years and have to do it all over again. So, it would be my h-ope, Mr. President, that the Senate will consider and act in that spirit with respect to the treaties now before us. In other words, I concur with those of my colleagues who believe and who will argue in the weeks to come that rejection of these treaties