170


 I am also dissatisfied with article V of the Neutrality Treaty, which prohibits the United States from retaining any military installations in Panama beyond the year 1999. In my view, a small but select U.S. military presence in Panama beyond 1999 would be highly desirable for both of our nations and for all who use the canal. I do not believe that our negotiators were as tough on this issue as they could have been. I believe we could have negotiated treaties which would have provided U.S. base rights in Panama beyond 1999 while at the same time accommodating Panama's commercial and nationalistic interests with respect to f uture control and operation of the canal.
 Accordingly, I have sponsored a change in the treaties specifyingthat the United States and Panama in the future could, by mutual consent, begin negotiations for an extension of a U.S. military presence in the Canal Zone beyond the year 1999. 1 have been assured by both the leadership of the Senate and the executive branch that this significant change is now acceptable, and I will be introducing that later today. To me this is a very important improvement. While U.S. base rights will not be guaranteed after the year 1999, this change permits such rights to be negotiated by the parties. I believe that a maturing relationship based on a true partnership in the canal will chanvfe public opinion in Panama prior to the year 2000, and that the Panamanian people will see the great advantage of a small but meaningf ul U.S. military presence to assist them in protecting the canal.
 The second treaty we will consider provides that the United States will not negotiate with any other nation for a sea-level canal between now and the year 2000. I have also joined several other Senators in sponsoring changes which would allow the United States to negotite with countries other than Panama for possible future construction of a sea-level canal. Even though a sea-level canal may not prove to be economically feasible, I do not believe we should limit our flexibility in this regard. I am hopeful that this change will also be accepted by the Senate.
 Mr. President, some have suggested that the treaties should be ratified on the basis of Latin American opinion or our image in the Third World. While this is a factor, I do not believe it should be a decisive factor. International opinion is fickle, transitory, and often uninformed. It should not take precedence over our own national security interests.
 Some have suggested that the treaties should be ratified on the basis of President Teddy Roosevelt's alleged colonial transgressions. I do not agree. Panama owes its very existence to President Teddy Roosevelt. As conservative columnist George Will-who supports 'the treaties-has pointed out, the way to restore Panama to its precolonial status is "not to cede control of the canal to Panama but to cede Panama to Colombia, from which Panama seceded."
 T do not have any illusions about General Torrijos and the nature of this regime. Nor, for that matter, do I assume that the treaties will not cost the American taxpayer. I1 have carefully studied the testimony before the Armed Services Committee by U.S. Comptroller General Elmer B. Starts, Canal Zone Governor,'H.R. Parfitt, and Frank A. Nicoiai. executive vice president of American Management Systems, Inc. Additional revenue for Panama will come from increased tolls'