C. Defense-Con


 (3) Senator John Stennis, March 8, 1978 (S 3201-04)
 Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, first, I want to express my very warm appreciation for the opportunity to address the Senate without a time limitation, but I can assure the Senate that I do not expect to take a great deal of time.
 I will be glad to yield if someone wishes me to yield, but I would like a chance to complete my speech bef ore I yield, unless something of an urgent nature might arise.
 Mir. President, the quality and the completeness of the discussion of this very grave issue and pending question has been of the very highest order. Even though we could have had circumstances under which there could have been 'better attendance, I am one of those who know the pressure on the membership because of all the hearings that are going on now with reference to legislation, including appropriation bills. These bills become more and more demanding every year as they are considered by the respective committees. I am sure that all Members of the Senate have kept up with this debate, nevertheless, and are becoming fully informed on the subject.
 AN UNNECESSARY GAMBLE
 Mr. President, the title I have given to my f airly brief remarks today is "An Unnecessary Gamble." After more than just ordinary consideration of this matter, those words seem to be what I think the situation adds up to-that the treaties are fraught with a great deal o f uncertainty and chance, and it is unnecessary to ratify a treaty that has the content that this one has, and I will elaborate on that part of it later.
 Recently, Mr. President, I spoke at some length on the financial issues related to these Panama Canal treaties. I am concerned with the cost, and I am concerned with the potential for disagreement between our countries that will arise because of the vaguely worded and misunderstood financial provisions of the treaties. When I say "our countries," I mean, of course, Panama and the United States.
 But my gravest concern is that these treaties are an unnecessary gamble with our national security interests. I have heard all our current Joint Chiefs speak in support of the treaties, and I understand their position; but, with great deference to them, I cannot understand nor can I agree with the logic that leads them to- support the treaties. All the Joint Chiefs agree that the canal is extremely important to the national security interests of the United States. They would prefer to maintain a U.S. military presence in Panama for the indefinite future.
 Mr. President, I 'have said many times ;privately and in our committee-and perhaps publicly-that I do not know of any time when we have had a finer and a more capable-group of men for our Joint Chiefs and Chairman than we have now. They represent the four services, including the Marine Corps. They are highly competent and (197)
 36-64-79-14