176


 A treaty is only a parchment barrier, which means no barrier, to a nation'sprotection of- its vital interests against weaker nations. If in an emergency the LU.S. lacks the will to do what is necessary rather than what a treaty explicitly says the U.S. can do, then the U.S. lacks the will to do the unpleasant things itwould have to do to protect the canal after rejecting the treaties.
 Moreover, def eat of the Panama Canal treaties-whatever their merits or lack thereof-could deal a severe blow to presidential effectiveness in the conduct of f oreign policy. I do not believe the Senate should ignore the effect of these treaties on the Offlice of the President of the United States.
 I arn proud that we have a Georgian in the White House. I am not,. however, concerned primarily because the President is from Georgia or because he is a Democrat. I believe an objec,--tive analysis of mly record on f oreign policy and national security issues during the terms of' President Nixon, Ford, and Carter demonstrates that I approach thelsecritical issues for our Nation in a nonpartisan manner.
 If the Senate rejects these treaties which have been negotiated byfour Presidents-two Democrats and two P-epublicans-I believe that a dangerous erosion of executive branch effectiveness in foreign affairs would inevitably result and thus adv-ersely affect our foreignpolicy long after the Carter Presidency. IWe must. remember that the history of the past 10 years is that of increasing-ly battered presidential authority.
 I would immediately override this concern and vote against thetreaties if I felt that these treaties, or any other treaty, jeopardized our national security or endangered our economy. For reasons I haye
 aray discussed, I foresee more potential nat-ional Secur-ity pro'blemisif we reject the treaties, than if we ratify the treaties.
 F inally, the Planama Canal and neutrality treaties bring to mind Lincoln's wise counsel. Quoting former President, Lincoln:
 The true rule, he once said, in determining to embrace, or reject any thing, is not whether it have any evil in it; but whether it have more evil, than of good. There are few things wholly evil, or wholly good. Almost everything . is aninseparable compound of the two; so that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded.