'203


 Now, it seems unfortunate that our negotiators apparently linked two separable issues-the operation or ownership of the canal and the U.S. military presence in Panama. Who operates the canal is not all-important as long as it is available to all on an equitable basis; however, to agree to terminate U.S. military presence in Panama 22 years in advance is to gamble unnecessarily with a vital link in our national security chain.
 CONCLUSION
 Mr. President, the most disturbing statement I have heard from a military leader came when our committee was told that we ought to support the treaties because the treaties would "appease our allies." We cannot afford to gamble with our national security to appease Panama-that is irrational-or to appease others with whom we are f riendly.
 Many of us who today oppose these particular hastily drafted treaties are in complete agreement with the general concepts behind them. 1, for one, would support an arrangement which shared the canal with the Panamanians under a plan to insure continuity of operations-provided that, the United States maintained a long-term military presence and the right to insure the availability of the canal which is so vital to our national security interests.
 It is unfortunate that some feel so unalterably bound to these documents. The foundation for a sound treaty exists. There is no sufficient reason to gamble with our national security with this one-sided treaty. We should go back to the negotiating table and repair these serious flaws.
 If this treaty should be approved, then we will be taking a step that is in contradiction to other major policies that we are maintaining in other parts of the world. We would be taking a step here by paying up, giving up, and getting out, with a strong chance that we would be told later to stay out.
 Elsewhere, we are attempting to strengthen our position. In Western Europe, concerning the milita-ry posture of NATO, which is close to 30-yasod we are shoring up further by added appropriations, which will be before the Senate soon, for appreciable increases in firepower and other phases of military strength. In the Middle East, we have continued definite concern and posit ive programs on several fronts. I know of no one in this body who expects an early termination of affairs there. Definitely, we do not think that our problem, nor their problems, are resolved; nor do we think of withdrawing, either. HNow far would a resolution progress, should there be one, calling for withdrawal from the Middle East?
 In the vast Pacific area, I do not know of any plan or serious thought that advocates withdrawal, just an adjustment, in Korea.
 This is so noticeable to me as I am fresh from the hearing rooms this year. Concerning major parts of our 1979 budget items, there is money for the world areas and problems heretofore mentioned, problems vital to them and of concern to us. Only in the Panama area, an area so vital to us, are we receding and getting out. I believe it is being clone too hastily and is a grave mistake.