198


 dedicated, of course, and they have made a good team. It is no reflection on them to say in this sort of situation-the President of the United States being not only -the President but also the Commander in Chief of all the armed services-if the chief of one of the services cannot find himself at some ease with a major policy of the President, there is nothing left for him to do except to ask to be excused from further service.
 That is a part of the system, as I said. It is fully understood, and it has worked all these years.
 I am sure that from time to time even our finest military men have to yield in part, sometimes in great part, in their judgment. I am sure if either one of these men thought, though, that this was a great harm or could be a fatal harm to our Nation that they would have asked to have been excused.
 So I have no complaint with the Joint Chiefs. I do point out their fine work, but I do have to point out that they are part of the executive branch of the Government, and the Constitution of the United States does not put the Members of this body in the same group with the Joint Chiefs.
 The'Constitution of the United States expressly adopts this body as not only the judge, but the final judge, of the validity and the wisdom of a treaty with a foreign nation. The Constitution not only makes the individuals serving here now the final judge, but it does not include the House of Representatives, j ust as capable a body and just as cap able men.
 We are acting now in our sole responsibility as Members -of the legislative branch of the Government, as Members of the U.S. Senate. On this -we are here solely to judge the wisdom, and the propriety, and the timeliness of this particular treaty.
 Now, Mr. President, there is no guarantee that Panama will be satisfled if these treaties are merely ratified. To the contrary, I think the treaty language may generate increased friction between our governments. Certainly I do not want it to, should the treaty be approved, and I am not positive it will if the treaty is approved, but I am con> peeled to say that I think this treaty language may generate increased friction between our governments.
 Nowhere do I undertake to castigate or downgrade that fine country of Panama, cast any reflections on them or on their prerogatives. This matter is too serious a business for anything of that nature. But Panamia seems to expect that these treaties will provide a financial windfall of a kind-and I use that term in its better sense-a financial windfall of a. kind that may well not happen.
 It appears to me that we are hastily taking a. gamble, and anl unnecessary gamble, with our national security, Mr. President, not only unnecessary but with the odds too high and leaning against us.
 I would like to develop the key components of the national security ssues: First, and again., I want to dispel any doubt about the importance of the Panama Canal to our national security interests. I warn now, let no Member of this body discount too much the importance of the Panama Canal.
 I next want to dwell a moment on a common misconception that the canal is ultravulnerable, even indefensible.