192


to what we have in these treaties today, because it would have given the United States greater protection, and would have solved some of the problems of international law which have been raised here.
 That is very important, and it amazes me that our present ambassadors are trying to sell us a clause that does not come close to the guarantees of the original language.
 First they try to sell us an ambiguous treaty without adequate nentralit~y provisions protecting the United States in any -way. They argued that if -we ever changed the treaties, my goodness gracious, Panama would have to have a new plebiscite. They even disagreed with my distinguished friend the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) that international law would take care of the problem.
 So President Carter and Mr. Torrijos got together and orally agreed on this new statement of principle, which is not one-fifth as eff ective, as impressive, as legal. or as clear and straightforward under international law, as what had formerly been agreed to by both sides. All we have to do is agree to this wonderful new oral agreement, which they reduced to an unsigned document, which I would submit is not worth the paper that it was not signed on. And that if we would do that, there woul d not have to be a plebiscite.
 Now, as a result of some of the forceful arguments that many of us have made all over this country, and the fears and concerns of the American people, the distinguished majority leader and the distinguished minority leader, have come forth With an amendment supported By 77 cosponsors and are going to try to amend the treaties now, something they said could not be done without a plebiscite. Or ,at least that is my understanding of it. Now they are willing to amend the treaties, and I understand the distinguished senior Senator from New York, my dear friend Mr. JAVITS, has said these amendments will not add anything to the prior treaty, that everything was implied in the prior treaty; but I understand he also is a cosponsor of these amendments.
 What I am sayingr is this: To ignore better than 300 generals and admirals who have served this country patriotically and with distinction in favor of these supportive-to-the- administration statements of our present Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other members of the Joint Chiefs, is tragic. and I think it is detrimental to this country--es-pecially A~ dmiral Moorer, who -was recently Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and incidentally knows every aspDect of the canal. I do -not mean to denigrate the Army or Air Force, but I have to admit the Navy really understands the operational aspects and im-nortance of the canal. I think, much better than any other branch. To ignore the other three former Chiefs of Naval Operations is equally trag(1ic,. To accept what the State Department has to say at face valu 11e, after all the anp)easement we have gone throug~hin the 1,n-t 30 or 40 years, while this country hias gone downhill in the eyes of almost everyone in this world., would be af serious error.
 I do not want to reflect on the present Joint Chiefs. because I believe them all to be honorable men and go od men. B3ut I do think that they should have looked at the many years of anpeasemepnt that we h ave 'rone through, the manny years of mistakes by the State Departmniit-mistakes p~rophesied by many Senators who sit in this sacred body.