179


to take military action to def end the canal strongly undermines that right and it casts a cloud over any exercise of such rights.
 Fortunately, however, Mr. President, there is an alternative. Former Deputy Defense Secretary William Clements testified before the Armed Services Committee that, as a representative of the National Security Council, he, himself, had negotiated a security clause that had been approved by the Defense Department, and by the State Department; and I call the attention of the Senate to the f act that General Torrijos, himself, approved it.
 It clearly and unambiguously spell out the rights of unilateral action in the context of all other international treaty obligations. The language is as follows:
 In the event of any threat to the neutrality or security of the Canal, the two Parties shall consult concerning joint and individual efforts to secure respect for neutrality and security of the Canal through diplomacy, conciliation, mediation, arbitration, the International Court of Justice, or other peaceful means. If such efforts would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, each Party shall take other diplomatic, economic, or military measures as such Party deems necessary, in accordance with its constitutional processes.
 Mr. President, this language says that each party shall take military measures as such party deems necessary. This phrase absolutely leaves the decision to the United States. There is no ambiguity about it being a concurrent decision; and, in my judgment, it would be a great improvement over amendment 290.
 Theref ore, I intend to submit this language as a substitute, as a means of perfecting the language offeredby the two distinguished leaders of the Senate. It is not offered in opposition to their language and intentions but to support their intentions and to effect their purpose more accurately.
 I understand the difficulty that faces both leaders. The Clements language was not made public until both leaders-the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Robert C. Byrd) and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Baker) -had announced their intentions; but, fortunately, the Armed Services Committee hearings did reveal this alternative in time for the Senate to act.
 I believe that anyone who is a supporter of amendment 20 also could be a supporter of this substitute.
 As former Deputy Secretary Clements has testified, even General Torrijos agreed to this language, so there should be no difficulty from that quarter.
 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my proposed amendment be printed at this point in the Record.
 There being no objection, the amendment was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
 In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment insert the following:
 "In the event of any threat to the neutrality or security of the Canal, the two Parties shall consult concerning joint and individual efforts to secure respect for neutrality and security of the Canal through diplomacy, conciliation, mediation, arbitr ation, the International Court of Justice, or other peaceful means. If such efforts would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, each Party shall take such other diplomatic, economic, or military measures as such Party deems necessary, in accordance with Its constitutional processes.".