229


subsequently in the hearing record, Comptroller General Staats says "under one interpretation" and deals with that interpretation. He does not identify that interpretation which he discusses as his own interpretation.
 I want to bring that to the Senator's attention.
 Mr. ALLEN. appreciate that.
 Mr. SARBANES. Because I think it is an important fact.
 Mr. ALLEN. I am sure that the Senators, then, would have no objection to a small amendment clarifying it.
 Mr. ROBERT C. BYRDu. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Maine.
 Mr. MUsKIE. I thank the majority leader.
 With regard to the response of the distinguished Senator f rom Alabama to me, he has quoted from language in the treaty imposing an obligation upon the United States to see that the canal is turned over to the Republic of Panama free of debts. I think he said any unpaid $10 million contingency payment would be a debt against the Commission. That is not what the treaty says. The treaty says:
 The unpaid balance shall be from operating surpluses in future years.
 If there are no operating surpluses, there is no debt. It is the operating surpluses that carry the burden. I do not understand how language could be clearer.
 If the Senator from Alabama were being subjected to a claim made under language similar to that being discussed which would be a charge against him personally, I doubt that he would agree with his own interpretation of this language.
 This is a charge against operating surpluses; and if there are no operating surpluses, then I pose this situation. Suppose the treaty goes into force tomorrow. There is no operating surplus until the year 2000. Then Panama takes over operation. There is no operating surplus for the next 50 years.
 I cannot accept an interpretation that suggests that in a situation which is supposed to be triggered by operating surpluses if there are no operating surpluses for the next 70 years, somehow a debt has been created. I find that incomprehensible.
 Mr. ALLEN. That is what the Panamanians insist.
 Mir. MusKIE. I think the language of this treaty speaks for itself on this point. I have read it into the Record, so that the Record is clear on this point. I have read it so that those listening to this debate throughout the country can know what the treaty says, independent of the interpretations made.
 If someone says to me. "The unpaid balance shall be paid from operating surpluses in future years," he does not say operating expenses in future years up to the year 2000. It does not say operating expenses in future years up to the year 1980. It says future years, with no limitation.
 As long as there is a future, if there is an unpaid payment under this provision, surpluses in future years -would be subject to the debt.
 Mr. ALLEN. I say to the distinguished Senator from Maine that if that be his interpretation and if that be my interpretation that is the way I would interpret it. But I am advised that the Panamanians


36-614-79-16