The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; 3158; Senate And The Canal

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. The great Panama Canal debate has moved to center stage ... the chamber of the United States Senate. For the one hundred members of the Senate, it means the point of no return is finally here. In a few weeks, each is going to have to vote yea or nay on the politically and emotionally charged issue. It all began today on a soft note with amendments introduced and procedural points raised, but as it moves slowly along, it will pick up steam, and eventually the heat and the bitterness that have marked the preliminary public debate leading up to this big one. That much is for sure. The end result is not for sure. That`s what makes it a good drama, a good political poker game, and good radio, because, for the first time, we can all listen in to a Senate floor debate, courtesy of National Public Radio. Tonight, an opening night look at where it all stands now, and what lies ahead. Robert MacNeil is away; Charlayne Hunter- Gault is in New York. Charlayne?

CHARLAY4E HUNTER-GAULT: Jim, the battle lines were drawn last October, when President Carter and Panamanian general, Omar Torrijos Herrera, signed the two canal treaties. It was a gala televised event, with a cast that included leaders from twenty-seven western hemisphere nations, twenty heads of state, and, in a show of bipartisan support, former President Gerald Ford, and former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. But the optimism inside the Organization of American States headquarters that night was matched by the voices of doom from conservatives who pledged an all-out effort to defeat the treaties. As part of their opposition to the Canal pacts, conservatives launched a massive mail campaign, dispatched a "truth squad" to tour in key states, and broadcast a series of anti-treaty television ads. The White House countered by sending Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and other administration officials out to create support for the treaty. Over nineteen hundred influential citizens were invited for White House briefings. Last week, the President went on T. V. for a fireside chat to get public support. For the administration, the Canal treaties mark the first major test of the President`s ability to shape foreign policy. Jim?

LEHRER: It`s going to be at least five to seven weeks before there`s a final vote on the treaties. That`s the word tonight, at least. A few days ago, the estimate was from two to five weeks. In short, it`s going to take a while, but nobody knows for sure how long a while. There is just as much uncertainty on how it`s finally going to go. Head counts vary depending on the source. AP has one; so does UPI and other news organizations. Both sides within the Senate itself also have theirs. It takes a two-thirds vote to ratify. That`s sixty-seven of the one hundred Senators. Most agree that there are roughly, say fifty-seven Senators now committed, or leaning, decided for ratification; twenty-three or so against; and about twenty uncommitted. Those undecided are the key to it, obviously, and both sides are going after them. One of those in the forefront of the pro-treaty effort is Senator Paul Sarbanes, Democrat of Maryland, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator, what`s the latest count that you and your side have now?

PAUL SARBANES: Well, we think it looks good. I think we`re now into a period where a day-by-day count is not what we`re aiming at. I mean, we`re going to go through this debate period. We`ve got amendments, which are, of course, quite important, especially the one Senator Byrd and Senator Baker will be corning in with. And we`re going to have to see how things develop. I come down very much on the idea that before this debate is over the Senate is really going to come to this issue as a matter of statesmanship, not as a matter of politics; that the fact that there`s going to be a change whether you have the treaty or don`t have the treaty is going to be borne in upon people. In other words, the choice is not between the status quo and the change in the treaty. The choice is between the change in the treaty and the change that will come in any event. And I think the provisions of the treaty, once they go under rigorous examination, are going to withstand that, and people are going to begin to perceive that this thing has been put together well to protect American interests.

LEHRER: In other words, you think it`s going to win.

SARBANES: I do.

LEHRER: All right. You know, it`s been said that most of the Senators have, in fact, already made up their minds. What they`re looking for now, is a rack to hang their hats. You mention the Baker-Byrd amendments ... Do you agree with that? That they just need a rack to hang their hats on?

SARBANES: No, I think that`s sort of too simple an approach to the decision-making process, and I think a lot of them want to work through the thing carefully. I`ve been on the committee and I`ve had a chance to spend months working through the provisions of the treaty, and I think that some members of the Senate want to go through a comparable process themselves. They want to hear the arguments pro and con and give some thought to them., But, I rest my confidence on the fact that I think the substantive provisions of the treaty are good. I think that American interests are protected, and in the end, that`s the fundamental question. That`s the question we have to answer; and I think they`re going to answer in the affirmative.

LEHRER: Are there any particular issues that you feel could swing enough votes to have this thing decided in your favor? Any particular issue that you`ve got to get over? You talk about the treaties as a whole, everybody`s going to think they`re great, and then they`re going to vote...

SARBANES: I don`t know, because I think different members place different weights on various aspects of the treaty. I do think that the incorporation of the statement made by the President and Torrijos in mid-October into the treaty, with regard to our rights to take any action that`s necessary to maintain the neutrality of the Canal and also the right of our ships to go to the head of the line, if that`s necessary, was important. Considerable dispute, obviously, had arisen over that aspect of the treaty. I think that`s been settled. Now, what other issues may arise will depend. Different people emphasize different things when you talk to them. To some extent, that may reflect the particular interest of the region from which they come.

LEHRER: Looking at it right now, Senator, finally, do you, from the audience standpoint, or the public standpoint, do you anticipate any major new issues coming up during this debate, or is it merely going to be a rehash or a restatement of positions that are already particularly well known, going in?

SARBANES: Well, I think I can say that I don`t anticipate any major new issue, without, at the same time, acceding to the idea that it`s just going to be a rehash or a restatement. I think you`re going to get a careful exposition of the arguments, pro and con. But I think most of the major issues have been touched on, one way or another, and have appeared in the press, and have been put forward to some extent by proponents and opponents. None of them have been as fully developed as I expect them to be over the coming weeks, obviously.

LEHRER: All right. Thank you, Senator. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Now for a different point of view. Helping lead the fight to defeat the treaties is Senator Jake Garn, Republican from Utah. He is a member of the Senate Arms Services Committee. Senator Garn, can you tell us what kind of head count you have right now?

JAKE GARN: Well, I think the one that we`ve heard already is as good as anyone`s: twenty-three opposed, fifty-seven in favor, and the rest undecided. But taking a head count at this point, I think is very much like looking at the November elections of who`s ahead and who isn`t. That`s as of today. There will be considerable debate and discussion over a period of weeks, as has already been mentioned, and I think there will be some minds changed, one way or another. Unfortunately, I do think that eventually the treaties will pass, with the amendments offered by Senator Byrd and Senator Baker. I`m a co-sponsor. Even as an opponent, I`m a co-sponsor of those amendments because I do believe that they improve the treaty. But I don`t think, particularly from the standpoint of a member of the Arms Services Committee -- we also held hearings, although we do not have jurisdiction over the treaty -- we held hearings on the defense and the economic aspects of the treaty... if a vote were held in Arms Services, the treaties never would have reached the floor. I`m sure they would have been defeated in committee, by at least two to one. But, I feel to support those amendments because it does make the treaty better, even though it doesn`t make it enough better for me to support the treaty.

HUNTER-GAULT: O.K. So, it makes it better, so that your opposition is not as strenuous as it once was, nor is the rest of the conservative opposition. Is that not right?

GARN: No, I don`t think that`s true. I think, all along...and I told Senator Baker, who I traveled to Panama with, and met with Torrijos for a day and a half ...I told him at the time that I would support those amendments. This was several weeks ago. And most of my conservative colleagues have felt the same way; that feeling that the politics of the situation are such that we probably will have a treaty; that it`s our obligation to make it as strong as possible, even though we would still probably vote against. I certainly will. Byrd-Baker is not sufficient enough change in the defense area for me to be able to vote for the treaty.

HUNTER-GAULT: O.K. Other than the defense area, where does the main concern of the opposition seem to be right now? Has the strategy changed in any way?

GARN: I think the main concern comes, first of all, in operational control of the Canal. And let me give you a quick example. If I could write a treaty -- and I am in favor of a new treaty; I don`t think we should stick with the old 1903 -- but would write a treaty that would give vast amounts of the Panama Canal Zone back to Panama, so they could expand their free zone and Colon, and expand Panama City, and make use of much of the land, because there`s a lot that simply is not necessary to the operation and the defense of the Canal. But I would want to maintain operational control, in perpetuity, of the Canal, and be allowed to maintain military personnel and bases, so that we could guarantee the neutrality of that Canal beyond the year 2000. I think that`s where we`re going to have our major strength. I would disagree with my distinguished colleague on why the outcome will be the way it is, and I certainly don`t say this in a partisan way, at all, because if we had a two-to-one Republican majority in the Congress and a Republican president, you would see a certain amount of party loyalty. I would submit to you, that it is at least my opinion, that if Gerald Ford was still president and had submitted exactly the same treaty, word for word, that it wouldn`t receive a majority of votes in the United States Senate, let alone sixty-seven. And that would happen if it were reversed, and it`s partially not only party loyalty and party solidarity, but it`s also partially the power of the incumbency, which any president, Republican or Democrat has used and can use.

HUNTER-GAULT: Thank you. We`ll pursue that a little more. Jim?

LEHRER: All right. A lot of people are going to be watching and listening as Senators Garn and Sarbanes and their Senate colleagues play out the Panama Canal drama. One man who`ll be doing; it for a living, is Adam Clymer, of the New York Times. Mr. Clymer has also been covering most of the Panama Canal preliminaries for the Times. What is the Times-Clymer assessment as this debate begins, as to who`s ahead and what the likely outcome is going to be?

ADAM CLYMER: I think it`s pretty close. I think it`s on the order of fifty- seven or fifty-eight who`ve made up their minds and are willing to say so, if you can get them in a corner; although it`s not always the same fifty- seven or fifty-eight. I`ve seen assorted counts with somebody leaning one way, and leaning the other way in the next guy`s count. And so, I`m not focusing a great deal on saying there are fifty-eight. I`ll quote Senators from time to time. My guess is that it`s close; that if either side does pretty well among those who are really uncommitted, and I`d guess that`s down to maybe seven or eight...

LEHRER: That are really, legitimately uncommitted...

CLYMER: That really have not made up their mind what they`re going to do. If either side does very well with them, then they could win. I`m not sure Senator Garn`s pessimism from his side is entirely correct at this point.

LEHRER: You think his side could still pull it out, in other words, keep ratification from coming on?

CLYMER: I think it could. If I had to say which way it would come out, my guess is that they`re more likely to be approved than rejected.

LEHRER: Let me ask you this, Adam. You say there are seven or eight there that are really uncommitted. Is it possible to characterize these seven or eight in any general way? I mean, are they conservatives, or are they Republicans who are worried about party backlash, or are they Democrats worried about pressure from the White House, or are they all different kinds?

CLYMER: I think they`re all different kinds. And I think anyone except a Senator who`s decided not to seek re-election, is going to be concerned about losing votes if he supports this treaty. That doesn`t mean these are the only people who are against it. Senator Griffin, who`s announced his retirement, is at least the nominal floor leader of the opposition. I don`t think it`s a political plus to be for the treaties, certainly not for anyone who`s up for election this year. Conceivably later, but they`re scattered...various kinds of people, and they`ve got different kinds of things that worry them about the treaties, as Senator Sarbanes said.

LEHRER: Well, to come back to these seven or eight, you said that it could depend on how well each side does their thing between now and voting time. From the administration`s point of view, the Sarbanes pro-treaty point of view, what tools are in their arsenal to get to these seven or eight, and maybe some others who are on the fence at this point?

CLYMER: I think, probably, the one really effective weapon that the administration has had has been getting people down to the White House and getting the President to talk to them, because it`s been my impression that just sitting alone, he`s been persuasive. I`m not sure that the sort of ballyhooed effort, getting nineteen hundred or two thousand community leaders in, and get somebody or other to lean on a Senator and poke around listening to rumors on both sides...and I haven`t heard a faintly plausible tale about a campaign contributor getting someone to vote one way or the other.

LEHRER: What about the tools that the Garn anti-forces have?

CLYMER: Well, I don`t want to exclude from either side, the logic of their arguments, but aside from whatever intellectual merit either of them can bring to bear on that fellow they bump into in a corner in the Capitol, I think probably the strongest single weapon for the people who are opposed to the treaties, is public opinion and the numbers and just a demonstration that the country is really not committed to these treaties at this point.

LEHRER: All right. Thank you, Adam. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: The nitty-gritty politicking over the text of the treaties began, in earnest, two weeks ago. That`s when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a preliminary meeting called the "mark-up session," to review the two Canal treaties. One exchange involves three supporters of the treaties who talked about tactics. They discussed whether the Carter- Torrijos agreement should be added as an amendment to the treaties.

Sen. FRANK CHURCH: As an amendment to the treaty, as an added article that becomes part of the treaty ... It can be added in two parts to Article 4 and Article 6, where I think the provisions logically would have been put, had they been inserted in the original text; or it can be included as Article 9. In either case, Mr. Chairman, if the Senate approves these recommended amendments, the text of the treaty itself will have been altered, and, therefore, it will be necessary for both governments to execute the treaty, as amended, again.

Sen. JACOB JAVITS: If I were running the show my way, I would certainly add another plebiscite on, wherever you put it, on four, or at the end. Not that Torrijos thinks he needs it, and not that we think he needs it, but, nonetheless, this is a long-term proposition, and we want it absolutely iron bound. And if the people have agreed once, the likelihood is that they`ll agree again. And if they don`t, we better know it now. We re not fooling ourselves, or making some quickie deal.

Sen. HOWARD BAKER: I would not try to tell the Panamanian government how they must respond to these amendments. All I want to say, and all I did say, in Panama, was my personal requirements as a Senator, one Senator, is that there must be Senate action, not just an executive agreement; and two, it must be concurred in by the Panamanian government according to their constitutional forms. They expressed gratuitously, that that would not require another plebiscite; but that`s their judgment; that`s their call, and not mine.

LEHRER: All right. Gentlemen, let`s talk about, first of all, the politics of this. You first, Senator Sarbanes. You heard what Adam Clymer said, that there`s no question that those Senators who are up for re-election, and the question about the effect that the vote on this particular issue could have on their re-election is important. How important have you found that to be among the uncommitted and those who are wavering?

SARBANES: I think they all are aware of that. Of course, I think that, as this treaty comes to be better understood across the country, the support for it will reflect that. And some of the polls that have been done have indicated that, depending upon the kind of question you ask. I`m very frank to say to you, I think this is one of those votes that I think is not easily pressured. I disagree with Senator Garn in the sense that it`s a party vote, or the President can get your vote, or something. I think people realize they`re going to be held accountable for this vote, and, therefore, they have to think it through, and they have to know why they`re voting and be prepared to defend it. Now, once they make a judgment, whichever way it goes, they are also going to be held accountable down the path. In other words, there are going to be consequences whichever way you vote, and you`re going to have to be able to live with those consequences. And I think members are going to come to appreciate that, and once they perceive that, I think the strengths of the treaty are going to be pretty important.

LEHRER: Senator Garn, what`s your judgment of how important a tool that is for you. I mean, the idea, as Adam said, that the polls are still opposed to the treaty, etc., and you can look a colleague in the eye and say, hey fella, you could go down the tubes if you don`t go with us on this. Is that an important tool for you?

GARN: Obviously, it is, because the American people have been overwhelmingly upset. In my relatively brief three years in the Senate, I have never seen an issue that has generated so much mail, and so overwhelmingly on one side of an issue. But, I think what`s going to happen is, that the treaties would not have a chance of passing with that kind of public input and pressure as they are currently written. So, what is being done with the amendments, that we`ve already talked about... this gives them a hat to hang on, to go home to their constituents and be able to say, the treaty was bad; you were right, my voters, but we made it better, we fixed it, and that`s why I was able to vote for it. And this is where, although I say they help the treaties, this is where I depart and say they don`t help it nearly enough. And the American people will be mistaken, in my opinion, if they swallow that bait, and think that the treaties, which have some really, very fatal flaws in the defense, in the economic areas ... swallow that bait, and let their senators get away with it. I make one more quick comment, that really does concern me. We`re constantly told that if the American people knew the terms of the treaty, then they`d be more in favor. And as I`ve gone around the country with the `truth squad," I`ve found just the opposite. They`re appalled. I`ve had testimony here by the Comptroller General and the governor of the Canal Zone on the economics of what we`re doing. And they`re aghast. They say, you`re kidding. So, I respectfully disagree with my colleague there, too. This treaty is a bad treaty, and I think even those who are in favor of giving up sovereignty...leaving that issue aside completely ... this was badly negotiated and is heavily weighted in favor of Panama, to the disadvantage of the United States, and should be defeated on that basis alone; and negotiate a new treaty.

LEHRER: Let`s talk Senate politics for a moment, Senate strategy, and what`s actually going to happen. Do you all fear a filibuster from the anti-treaty forces? Is that a possibility?

SARBANES: Well, I don`t. Jake would know the answer to that better than I do. I mean, you need two-thirds to pass a treaty; you need sixty-seven votes. That`s more votes than you need to cut off a filibuster; you need only sixty. So, in a sense, you can bring that to a close with fewer votes than is necessary in order to vote on the merits of the treaty itself.

LEHRER: Is that part of the strategy, down the line, Senator?

GARN: Absolutely not. At least, in my opinion. And I would certainly encourage all of my colleagues who are opposed not to, not only because of the number situation, requiring more votes for ratification, but simply that I think the American people would be disgusted. And that would turn them against us. And we must have an honest debate and come to a final conclusion when that honest debate is finished, and not play games with a filibuster. I would not support one.

LEHRER: What`s your reading of that, Adam, as to whether delay for delay`s sake is going to become an important factor?

CLYMER: I don`t know. The Senate can take an awfully long time to do something without filibustering. And when Senator Allen talked today about dozens of amendments, I would take him seriously. Few people don`t take Jim Allen seriously when he talks about what kind of a thing he`s going to do. I would be surprised if there was no intention of prolonging things by opponents, in part, because they think they`ve got a case and they think, why give up ... we might still make it; so-and so hasn`t signed in blood that he`s going to vote for it. I think they`re going to be on the losing side of a lot of votes, but they`re going to remain hopeful of succeeding. I don`t think there`s going to be a filibuster in the sense that there was on natural gas last fall, but it`s going to take a long time.

LEHRER: All right. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Let`s pursue, for a few minutes, the administration`s role in this. Senator Sarbanes, do you feel that the administration has, perhaps, in this, conquered the criticism that there were a bunch of neophytes in the White House who didn`t know how to maneuver on Capitol Hill? Do you think this indicates that they`ve been more successful?

SARBANES: I think that`s too early to tell. This is one of those things where if you pass it, then everything you did was right, and if you don`t, everything you did was wrong. And like so many other political battles, the judgments will all be made after the fact. If, in fact, the treaty`s passed, then everyone will go back and everything that was done along the way will have been close to a stroke of genius. If they don`t, even if it`s by the narrowest of margins, then everything that was done along the way was a terrible mistake. See? I don`t know how you can take that reading. I think that the basic strength of the administration`s position runs to the merits of the treaties themselves. In other words, I don`t think you could begin to be as close to advise and consent two-thirds of the Senate with respect to these treaties, given the emotional attitudes in the country about the Panama Canal issue -- emotions which I understand -- if the substance of the treaties were not as good as they are, in terms of protecting American interests.

HU14TER-GAULT: Senator Garn, do you agree with that?

GARN: I think both the Carter and the Ford administrations have made mistakes in this whole process because they did not consult sufficiently along the way. We do have three distinct branches of government, and I think both administrations ignored the Senate. We were simply told, here is a treaty; we want you to take it just the way we have written it. That is not the duty of the United States Senate. We are a separate branch of government; we are supposed to be a check and a balance; and we are supposed to advise and consent. Interestingly enough, we do not ratify the treaties. We use that term, ratification, but the Senate, literally, does not ratify it. That`s a separate document used by the President after we complete our advise and consent. I think that`s what we`re trying to do: advise,-and then see if we consent. To tell us to take it all in one lump sum, I think is ignoring our Constitutional duties.

HUNTER-GAULT: Let`s move to another point. Jim?

LEHRER: Gentlemen, we`ve only got a few seconds left to assess what each one of you thinks. Senator Garn, to use Adam`s word, you`re pessimistic; you think that it is going to be passed, is that right?

GARN: I think it is,-the way I said. And our best hope is that, in the next four or five weeks, we, as the opposition, can bring out the facts to the American people, and that pressure will return on the Senate, and turn it around for us.

LEHRER: Well, we have to leave it at that. Gentlemen, thank you very much. Good night, Charlayne. I`m Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.