234


aspect in the financial area is the possibility, indeed, in the minds of many, the likelihood that canal revenues will be insufficient to cover the payments to Panama, the operating and capital costs of the canal and payments due the United States. Thus, it seems clear to me that the United States, if these treaties are ratified, would assume actual and contingent financial obligations of a significant magnitude. The administration has sought to downplay this aspect of the matter. It is the duty of the Senate to make sure that the American people are fully aware of all the financial implications of the treaties.
 Having pointed out the gaps that exist in our knowledge about the financial aspects of the treaties, I nevertheless acknowledge that exact predictions of future developments in this area are difficult if not impossible to make. Treaty proponents seek to exude an aura of confidence that toll increases will be sufficient to cover all anticipated costs without engendering the self-defeating effect of forcing shippers to use alternative routes. This strikes me as a bit of whistling in the dark to buck up one's courage.
 Opponents of the treaties, on the other hand, predict direly that the deficits will be great, especially after 1984, and that the American people will be forced to foot the bill.
 Given the track record of economic projections over the past decade, it is difficult to have a high degree of confidence in the estimates pro or con on this issue. And, I certainly do not expect anyone to state specif ically what will actually be required of the United States to meet possible deficits. But, I am convinced that it is the responsibility of the Senate and the administration to point out the range of appropriation to meet possible deficits. Indeed, implementing legislation should clearly spell out the procedure by which the decision will be made to request approprations and the manner by which any moneys thus provided will be paid back. It would be intolerable for the United States to assume obligations without being fully aware of if and when it could expect repa yment.
 I believe that this brief review of yet-to-be- finalized aspects of the treaties clearly indicates that the Senate is not yet in a position to decide on the ratification question. Indeed, it is clear to me that we should not do so until we have in hand the implementing legislation to be proposed by the administration and have had a chance to examine it in detail. Even our own Congressional Budget Office has stated that:
 ..because the implementing legislation has not been submitted, a complete estimate of the budget impact of the Treaties is impracticable at this time.
 I find it difficult to understand why the administration has been unable to provide us with this legislation. It is my understanding that it promised to do so early last f all. And rightly or wrongly, the admintistration's failure leads many to presume that it is holding back information that is important to our decision. I hope that the leadership will make clear to the administration that the vote on ratification will not occur -until the Senate has had the opportunity to review the implementing legislation. It would be a mockery of the process of advice and consent to vote on the treaties, only to find subsequently that we are asked to undertake obligations we had not fully been aware of during our debate.