The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Panama Canal Treaty

RICHARD VIGUERIE: The Panama Canal issue is one of those unique situations that comes along every ten, fifteen years whereby one vote in Congress can defeat or elect a man. And we are convinced, with the majority that we have out there of maybe seventy-five percent of the people supporting our position, that this is an issue that will defeat numerous Senators and Congressmen who vote to give away the Panama Canal next year.

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Robert MacNeil is off tonight.696,000plus people voted Sunday on the Panama Canal treaty. They were Panamanians, and they said by a two-to-one majority that the treaty was just fine with them. Now for the hard part: the second election. This time, in the United States, where a two-thirds majority is required, where the electorate numbers only one hundred. They`re the members of the United States Senate, and some time after the first of the year, probably in February, each is going to have to say what he thinks of the treaty. The vote is for ratification, and the campaign for it and against it has gotten fierce, with more ferocity still to come. The stakes are indeed high, for the President and his side pushing the treaty, for the conservatives on the other urging defeat. It`s their nuts-and-bolts struggle for the hearts and minds of those one hundred Senators that we want to examine tonight. First, with key operatives from both sides, and then with one of the targets of all their activity, Republican Senator Ted Stevens, the assistant minority leader of the Senate.

Headquarters for the pro-ratification forces is the White House. The effort is under the supervision of the President`s Special Assistant, Hamilton Jordan. Directly involved in both the strategy and the implementing is Deputy Presidential Assistant Landon Butler. The centerpiece of your effort, I`m sure you would agree, is President Carter himself. He set the public theme for ratification in that TV spectacular when the agreement was signed September 7 at OAS headquarters here in Washington. Let`s take a look at what he said, and then we`ll come back and talk about what`s happened since.

(September 7, 1977)

PRESIDENT CARTER: Mr. Secretary General, and distinguished leaders from throughout our own country and from throughout this hemisphere: First of all I want to express my deep thanks to the leaders who`ve come here from twenty-seven nations in our own hemisphere, twenty heads of state for this historic occasion. I`m proud to be here as part of the largest group of heads of state ever assembled in the Hall of the Americas, Mr. Secretary General. We are here to participate in the signing of treaties which will assure a peaceful and prosperous and secure future for an international waterway of great importance to us all. But the treaties do more than that. They mark the commitment of the United States to the belief that fairness, and not force, should lie at the heart of our dealings with the nations of the world.

If any agreement between two nations is to last, it must serve the best interest of both nations. The new treaties do that, and by guaranteeing the neutrality of the Panama Canal the treaties also serve the best interest of every nation that uses the canal. This agreement thus forms a new partnership to ensure that this vital waterway, so important to all of us, will continue to be well operated, safe, and open to shipping by all nations, now and in the future. This agreement has been negotiated over a period of fourteen years under four Presidents of the United States. I`m proud to see President Ford here with us tonight. (Applause from the Hall.) And I`m also glad to see Mrs. Lyndon Johnson here with us tonight. (Applause.)

Many Secretaries of State have been involved in the negotiations. Dean Rusk can`t be here; he`s endorsed the treaty. But Secretary of State William Rogers is here. We`re glad to have you, sir. (Applause.) And Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is here too. (Applause.)

This has been a bipartisan effort, and it`s extremely important for our country to stay unified in our commitment to the fairness, the symbol of equality, the mutual respect, the preservation of the security and defense of our own nation, and an exhibition of cooperation which sets a symbol that is important to us all before this assembly tonight and before the American people in the future. Thank you very much for your help and ... (Applause.)

LEHRER: Mr. Butler, strictly in a tactical way, what have you been able to do since then to maximize the use of that ceremony and that theme that the President set?

LANDON BUTLER: Well, the President in saying those things basically did three things. He pointed out that this was a bipartisan effort, that it had taken place throughout fourteen years of hard negotiations with the Panamanians. Secondly, he made the point very clearly that these treaties are going to have to withstand a great deal of scrutiny in the Senate and throughout the very rigorous Senate process, so we tossed that in the fire in that way. Finally, he underscored the point that it`s a major hemispheric event, and that our Latin American relations are at stake in many ways with these treaties. So since that time what we`ve been able to do is to build on the bipartisan support, to continue to work the process through the Senate, to provide the Senate with the information they need, and to move at the Senate`s pace as these treaties are scrutinized.

LEHRER: Let`s go back; would you not agree that that signing ceremony itself was a culmination of step number one, which was to get the heavies, particularly Republicans like President Ford and others, to endorse the treaty, is that right? That was step number one in the strategy, was it not?

BUTLER: Yes, it`s step number one, but we`re certainly continuing to build on it. And as the treaties are examined more and more carefully by the Senate and by the American people, then more and more people are beginning to endorse the treaties and to say yes, this is a good idea.

LEHRER: Is your overall strategy two-pronged? Are you going after the goal of convincing the American public that this is a good thing, and then at the same time a special strategy going at those one hundred United States Senators and convincing them too?

BUTLER: Certainly. The Senate process itself, I think, will tend to build support if it`s a good treaty, and we certainly think it is. Then the rigorous process that it goes through in the Senate -- the Foreign Relations Committee hearings, the Armed Services Committee hearings, the Senators who are actually going to Panama and examining the issue; and then probably most importantly, the Senators going home and talking to their constituents about it -- that process will not only serve the purpose of examining the treaty but I think it will tend to build support for the treaties, if they`re good treaties. But then secondly also, of course, we have to try to let the American people know what`s in the treaties and why we think they`re in the national interest.

LEHRER: Isn`t that where your campaign has been hurting thus far, at the grassroots level? It`s been said that that`s where the other side is killing you, is at the grassroots level. Would you agree with that, and if so what are you doing about it?

BUTLER: Well, I think in the early stages they have the advantage. Everybody tend to agree that there needs to be a solution in Panama. The question is, what solution. So we have to propose and explain a very detailed treaty. The opposition is able in many ways, I think, to use slogans, to simply oppose and to explain in quicker and shorter ways than we can why they`re opposed to the treaty. So we have to muster our forces a lot more and we have to be a lot more careful in the way we do it.

I think another factor is that we do have to be cautious; in many ways the opposition doesn`t have much to lose in this particular case. The administration, on the other hand, does have a lot to lose if we make a foreign policy blunder or if some of us misspeak ourselves or make a mistake -- we have to pick up the pieces. So we have to move a lot more cautiously. I think we`re building that support and it`s moving along at an appropriate pace. I think the Senate has to move at that pace also, and we really can`t move much faster than the Senate can move. We have to keep pace with the Senate.

LEHRER: Thank you, Mr. Butler. There is no central headquarters to the anti-ratification effort, not comparable to the White House, at least. But just about every conservative organization in the country with access to money, printing presses and the mailbox is involved in the drive and there is much coordination among them. One of the key players in both the work and the coordination is Paul Weyrich, Director of the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress. Mr. Weyrich, let`s look at a sampling of your side`s campaign, beginning with a piece of a TV program now being distributed by the American Conservative Union.

Rep. PHILIP CRANE, (R) Illinois: This may be the most important TV program you have ever watched. I can make that statement because at this very moment the President of the United States and a majority of U.S. Senators in Washington are preparing to ignore your express wishes and the wishes of perhaps eighty percent of the American people. The President and most Senators are determined to give away the American Canal at the Isthmus of Panama unless you demand otherwise.

NARRATOR: There is no Panama Canal. There is an American Canal at Panama.

LEHRER: Another major weapon being used by the anti-treaty conservatives besides TV, radio and newspaper advertising is direct mail. Richard Viguerie runs a major conservative mail operation just outside Washington. Working with a variety of organizations, he already has more than fifteen million names on file. The treaty issue has business booming even more, and Viguerie himself couldn`t be happier.

VIGUERIE: I`m very excited about the Panama Canal issue for a number of reasons. I feel the Panama Canal issue is a no-lose situation for conservatives. We of course expect to win on the floor of the Senate whenever the vote should be taken, but if by chance we were to lose it it would still be a great opportunity for us to organize this silent majority out there; the silent majority has not had issues to rally around and the conservatives have not had issues to go to the people. Issues that were, so to speak, pre-sold on the evening news, that were talked about on television, front page of the newspaper -- we`ve been lacking those issues, and the left has had their issues. And Jimmy Carter has given us this issue and I sort of have mixed feelings because I wish he wouldn`t give us any issues in one sense, but then I`m afraid he`s going to give us some issues that are going to help organize the conservatives in the next few years.

It`s just a fact of life that the liberals are the dominant force in most all forms of mass communication in the country -- radio, television, newspapers, magazines -- except one: direct mail. And lately the conservatives have developed direct mail to be our method of communicating with the American people. So that if the evening news or the front page of the newspapers fail to talk about common situs being an important issue or public financing of Congressional elections, the conservatives have developed a way to communicate, to bypass the monopoly that the left has on the media. So with direct mail we can go directly to our majority out there, explain the problem to them, tell them how bad it is, communicate with their Congressmen and Senators.

The Panama Canal issue will be very, very helpful in expanding and helping the conservative movement to grow. We will be able to identify many hundreds of thousands of people that were part of the silent majority but were not involved in conservative politics before; will now be involved in conservative politics, will appear on mailing lists, will come to rallies, they will attend meetings and they will start subscribing to political publications -- they will become part of the conservative political process as a result of the Panama Canal issue, where they were never involved before. So it`ll be a great recruiting vehicle for conservatives, without question.

LEHRER: Mr. Weyrich, are you as happy as Mr. Viguerie is over the coming of the Panama Canal treaty?

PAUL WEYRICH: Oh, I think it`s a great opportunity for conservatives, particularly to get to the blue-collar vote. You will notice in all the surveys that the blue-collar voter is much more strongly opposed to the giveaway than other groups.

LEHRER: Do you see it also as a no-lose deal?

WEYRICH: Yes, I don`t see how we can lose. Of course, we`re interested from the standpoint of this country, but politically speaking I would be less than candid with you if I suggested that this isn`t a great opportunity for conservatives to elect people. If a Senator opposes the treaty, fine. If he`s going to be up for election and he`s going to favor ratification of the treaty, I think it`s going to be a major factor in his election.

LEHRER: All right. Let`s talk about the approach that you-all are taking, first of all with the general public. You`re doing advertising, direct mail, et cetera. What is your basic strategy there, to get the heat generated from back home on the Senators themselves?

WEYRICH: That is the most effective way to lobby. We have a great deal of confidence in the American people; unlike Mr. Butler here who is quoted in the New York Times as saying that the mail is terror tactics, we think that the mail is simply a reflection of the people`s attitudes. After all, if you receive a letter and it suggests that you write to your Senator and express outrage at the giveaway of the Panama Canal and you don`t feel that way, you won`t send the card. So this is simply a reflection of the people and we`re giving them a means to express themselves and a focused way to do it.

LEHRER: And you`re focusing on particular Senators who are considered wavering or considered undecided or considered key. For instance, Senator Howard Baker, the minority leader -- you-all are really putting the heat on in Tennessee, are you not?

WEYRICH: Oh, I think there are two good reasons for Senator Baker voting against the treaty. The first is the fact that he`s up for election in 1978 and the second is that he`s looking at the 1980 Presidential nomination.

LEHRER: In the direct approach that you`re using with the Senators themselves, what are you saying to them, "If you don`t vote right you`re not going to be here after the next election"? Is that what you`re using?

WEYRICH: Oh, we`re not visiting with Senators personally, and I don`t think Senators respond to threats of any kind. It`s the voters who are going to make that decision, and I think local people are making those kinds of representations to Senators. I know some conversations that have taken place between local folks and Senators to that effect, but as far as committees like ours are concerned that would be a very bad approach.

LEHRER: What would you say to those who suggest that you folks are really more interested in the recruiting aspects than you are really in the Panama Canal issue itself?

WEYRICH: Well, that`s just not the case. I know that the people who are involved in this effort are involved through conviction. Now we`d be foolish not to take advantage of an opportunity. I mean, you can imagine the average liberal looking at Watergate and saying, "Well, we can`t recruit as a result of this, we can`t elect people to Congress as a result of it." I look at this in the same way that the liberals looked at Watergate in `74.

LEHRE R: All right, thank you. Now let`s go to one of the one hundred objects of all the attention, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. As minority whip he`s the Republicans` number two man in the Senate. Last year he also ran the GOP Senatorial campaign committee, among other things. Senator, until a few days ago you were considered an undecided Senator on this issue, but that`s changed now. What is your position now?

Sen. TED STEVENS: I announced I`d vote against these treaties if they were brought up this year and I would vote against them next year if they weren`t amended to take care of some of the problems that we see in them.

LEHRER: Let`s talk about the nuts and bolts now. Have you been the recipient of contacts in any form or lobbying, either at the grassroots or here in Washington, from both the pro- and the anti- side?

STEVENS: Yes, we`re getting a lot of mail. This is an issue that is generating a great deal of mail. I have a mobile office, Jim, that I take throughout the rural parts of Alaska, and when I was in that office in August and early September people came out literally by the dozens to come tell me not to approve these treaties. And I think the mail is probably running ninety to ten from my state against these treaties.

LEHRER: Do you attribute that to organized efforts like Mr. Weyrich`s, Mr. Viguerie`s and that sort of thing, or do you think it`s spontaneous, or can you tell?

STEVENS: Well, I hate to belittle Paul`s efforts and Mr. Viguerie`s, but so far we`ve seen very little from my state of the impact of organized mail. We`re seeing really voluntarism, people coming to express their points of view based on what they`ve read and heard so far. I think we will see the impact of this direct mail later.

LEHRER: Has the pro-treaty side, Mr. Butler`s and the President`s side, been completely silent in your case? Has nobody come and put the warm hand of fellowship on you or anything like that?

STEVENS: I want you to know that I had a very delightful breakfast with President Ford, whom I supported, as you probably know, and Secretary Kissinger, where they came to twist arms admittedly and openly.

LEHRER: They said, "Look, we want you to vote for this treaty, here`s why."

STEVENS: Exactly. They put it on the line, and why.

LEHRER: Has this combination of what you have received thus far had any effect on your decision to do what you just said you were going to do, which is vote for them under certain conditions?

STEVENS: Well, you know, it does bother any member of the Senate, I think, to see a process of so many administrations involved in a goal. I think your history sort of overlooked the fact that the treaty was almost finished under President Johnson, and as a matter of fact was leaked to one of the newspapers and he did not submit it to the Senate. It does seem that there is a case being made for changing the relationships with Panama. I think that case has been made. I don`t think these treaties carry out the commitment that President Carter made in the foreign policy debate with President Ford in the election last year. He stated very categorically that he would not give up control of Panama. The political issue was made in the campaign of last year; it`s not being made just now. And I agree with Viguerie, it`s an issue of substantial proportions. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg on this issue.

LEHRER: Would you go as far as Viguerie, that this is a kind of a lose vote? I mean, a person like yourself, even, who`s up for re-election next year, could actually lose based on this single vote?

STEVENS: I don`t go that far. I think in a close election, if an incumbent has gone against his constituency on a major issue like this, it could make the difference. I think there are Senators who could go against their constituency and because of everything else they`ve done could survive a vote if they decided to support the President`s request. I think the political aspects of it are that the President himself probably doesn`t have the ability to carry some of these issues now because of other matters that have come up -- western water law, the attack on the dams in the West, decisions that he made in my state that affect my state adversely would mean that I`m getting mail which says, "The President decided against us on the gas pipeline, don`t you dare support him on this Panama Canal." Those local issues affect a Senator as well as this issue does, and you put them all together and Viguerie might be right.

LEHRER: I see. Let`s put them all together for a moment here, gentlemen, beginning with you, Mr. Butler. What`s the box score now, what`s the head count? It takes sixty-seven votes in the Senate for ratification; where does it stand now?

BUTLER:I think Senator Stevens would probably agree that we don`t really know where it stands, that there are a lot of Senators who are genuinely uncommitted and are watching the treaties go through the Senate and Congressional process. I`d have to say that we feel like we`re doing reasonably well, that we`re past the Foreign Relations Committee hearings, we`re past the plebiscite in Panama. The President and General Torrijos have made some important clarifications, and I`d have to rate it a genuine toss-up right now.

LEHRER: What`s your view, Mr. Weyrich?

WEYRICH: The administration`s losing support. Senator Danforth of Missouri, who is a moderate Senator, who was one of the first Senators to endorse the treaties, has told the President that at the present time he can`t support them. I don`t think that the White House would have a chance with my friend from Alaska here if these treaties really were what the White House represented them as, because Senator Stevens is a moderate Republican and he has sort of a tradition of supporting the Presidents in a bipartisan way. And so they`re losing ground in the very moderate group that they will have to have if they`re going to ratify.

LEHRER: Do you agree with that? Is the movement for or against?

STEVENS: The movement`s against. I took a count today, because I thought you`d ask. I am the whip, and...

LEHRER: You`re in the business of counting.

STEVENS:...on both sides, and as of today I`d say that thirty two oppose or lean towards opposition, twenty-eight would support or lean in favor, and forty have not taken a position -- forty have not taken a position. But the key, really, is there`s thirty-three seats up for election next year, and of those that have announced, it`s two to one against: thirteen have announced against it and six have announced for. And fourteen have not taken a position. The interesting thing about it is that the Democrats who are up for election have basically not taken a position yet on these treaties.

LEHRER: They`re running scared, in other words.

STEVENS: No, I`ll tell you, this is not something that`s running scared on. I think really the problem is that the President and the administration went so far out ahead of the public in terms of knowledge - and I think, with due respect to the President and the Presidency, treaties are negotiated in secret. We got this treaty the night before that extravaganza you saw. When something like that hits the American public, it`s something that`s unknown. And basically, if you don`t understand it, vote against it. That`s a basic rule. It applies to us as well as John Q. Citizen. If they don`t understand you they`re not going to vote for you. If we don`t understand an issue we`re going to vote against it. And basically, if there`s not an outpouring of support forthcoming before these treaties come before the Senate, they`ll be defeated.

LEHRER: Are you going to be able to generate an outpouring of support?

BUTLER: We think so. The latest Gallup Poll, for example, shows that of the people who understand the treaties and who can answer three simple basic questions about the treaties that those people support the treaties five to four. We think that the more that these treaties are scrutinized and looked at in the context of our Latin American relationships, in the need for a readjustment of our relationship with Panama, we think they`re going to build their own support. And of course, the President will be making his case to the public as well.

LEHRER: Is time working against you, Mr. Weyrich?

WEYRICH: Oh, no, time is on our side, because next year is an election year and if I were a Senator I wouldn`t want to have to deal with this. You see, the White House position, here is Hamilton Jordan, and here is what he says about it, he`s referring now to Senators like Senator Stevens; he says, "Some of these bastards don`t have the spine not to vote their mail. If you change their mail, you change their mind." So you see, he`s very worried about the opinion of the average voter..

LEHRER: Is he right, Senator?

STEVENS:I don`t think we vote our mail by the pound. That`s where I disagree. But I do think that the process of the Senate action should reflect the viewpoint of the citizenry of the United States. And we can not afford to get so far ahead of the people that we think we`re right and they`re wrong.

LEHRER: We have ten seconds left, Senator. How important is this lobbying effort that these two gentlemen and others are involved in to get yours and the other votes? Is the most effective lobbyist going to win this?

STEVENS: No. The people are going to win this. There`s no way around that. If they want the treaties ratified, they`ll be ratified. If they don`t, they won`t be.

LEHRER: All right. Senator, thank you. Gentlemen, thank you. Robert MacNeil and I will be back tomorrow night. I`m Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.