C. Defense-Con


 (2) Senator Orrin Hatch, February 23, 1978 (S 2106-08)
 I would like to take a few minutes, however, at this point in the debate to mention a few things that I think are quite important.
 I particularly enjoyed the interesting, if not volatile, recitation of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina of some of the military interpretations that he has and his sterling defense of the present members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On the other hand, I have to be very concerned that the American people understand that there are, as I understand it, well over 300, as many as 379 retired generals and admirals who are totally against these treaties because they have read them and they have studied them. They understand the military and security implications of these treaties as well as the present leaders of the Joint Chiefs of Staff .
 I do not think anybody really should impugn the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because I believe they be ieve what they have said. As a matter of fact, some of the things that most of them have said' before the Senate Armed Services Committee come down to basically, "We wish we could stay in Panama, we wish we could keep the status quo, we wish we could maintain our 17 or more military bases and air force bases down there, our refueling facilities, and all of the other things that means so much to the defense of this country and to the security of all of this hemisphere."
 But in this imperfect world some of them have said, I1 think, in those term-s, this is about the best we can do. Their understanding is based upon in formation given to them from, I understand, the State Department, the Ambassadors, the administration, and others, and they have accepted these statements.
 But I would like to call to the attention of the American people, Mr. President, and of course all of my distinguished colleagues here that four former Chiefs of Naval Operation, Admirals Carey, Andersonl, Burke, and Admiral Moorer have all come out strongly opposed to these treaties.
 ,Admiral Moorer is very significant because he was, as I think everybody knows, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff prior to General Brown, from 1970 to 1974. He has made a number of eloquent statements before various Senate and House committees in this matter, and I think has laid bare many of the weaknesses and erroneous assumptions about these particular treaties.
 On the Panama Canal's importance to the U.S. defense interest, Admiral Moorer stated:
 There is no feasible war plan for the United States, taking into account our reduced forces and extended commitments, that does not assume that the Panama Canal will be available for full-time priority use. The only alternative that would permit the meeting of time scales of current war plans based on the threat in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would be a major buildup of naval combat forces overall, together with a very large expansion of supply and communica(189)