80


introduced on September 23. The "understanding" was a step in th& right direction, but only a first step.
 It seems clear that the joint statement of understanding -was a direct result of legitimate concerns raised by the State Department cable I presented to the committee on October 5. When Ambassador Sot Linowitz appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on October 19, he admitted thatHad the issue not been raised here, sir, wve don't think it would have been necessary to have this statement of understanding.
 'With all due humility, I do believe the State Department cable was the catalyst for action by both the committee and the President to clarify our defense and passage. rights under the neutrality treaty. Despite criticism leveled at this Senator for releasing the cabe-classifted for "limited distribution"-I have never doubted that my decision was in the national interest. I believe, in retrospect, that it has served the Senate well in its consideration of the canal treaties.

 THE AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
 I do want to commend the members of the Foreign Relations Commi-ittee for having the good judgment and the foresight to endorse the proposal that the Carter-Torrijos understanding be made a part of the treaty itself. There has been a tremendous reversal in opinion on this point since I introduced treaty amendments Nos. 7 -and 8 to that effect on October 17, just 3 days after the statement of -understanding was issued. :Senator Ernest Hollings introduced a similar proposal as amendment No. 9, and 'Senator Lloyd Bentsen followed suit with amendments Nos. 13 and 14 last month.
 For months following the issuance of thie Carter-Torrijos statemenit, the administration resisted and belittled my contention that clarifications and guarantees need to be written into the treaties themselves. A letter from the State Department to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee last December maintained that anl amendment of articles IV and VI of the Neutrality 'Treaty "is unnecessary f romn a l egal standpoint, and extremely undesirable in terms of maintaining the overall agreement on the treaties reached with Panama-such a step would, moreover, seriously complicate the ratification process." That was the State Department's opinion in December of last year. Due to the persistence of this Senator and others, the administration reversed its positionl 6 weeks later and agreed to the treaty amendment now recommended by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
 The Senate leadership now supports that amendment as well1, and I guess 'with 77, 78, or 85 cosponsors, one could say chances for approval appear good. But the effort to approve these treaties does not end there.
 The Senator -from ]Kansas remembers when it was indicated that he was obstructing the treaty process by offering amendments numbered 7 and 8. I do not hear that now, when those amendments have become amendmdients numbered 20 and 21 by the leadership. I do not think we Should characterize any other amendments that are offered by this Senator or any other Senator as obstructions until we have bad a, fll debate. The American people understand that those of us who have amendments are concerned about our national interests, are conerned