Half time Confidence on Panama

But opponents of the treaties still hope for a miracle

" Anyone who shifts against the Panama treaties now would look flabby back home," observed Democratic Senator Alan Cranston of California. Added Majority Leader Robert Byrd: "Now that all the Senators have taken a stand, I believe that they'll stay there. We might even pick up one or two votes."

Thus, as Congress recessed last week for a ten-day vacation, Democratic leaders were confident that they had no chance of losing their 68-to-32 Senate majority in favor of the Panama Canal treaties. The first treaty, giving the U.S. the right to defend the canal's neutrality after it is ceded to Panama, was ratified two weeks ago. The second treaty, turning over the canal to Panama by the year 2000, will be voted on no later than April 26, and perhaps as early as April 17.

Even most Senators who opposed the treaties had little hope of staging a comeback. Said Michigan Republican Robert Griffin, a leader of the antitreaty forces: "I don't know where the votes would come from. A Senator can't afford to flip after his first vote."

Nonetheless, opponents promised to continue fighting. Last week they offered four crippling amendments to the second treaty. Each was knocked down by overwhelming majorities, including an absurd proposal put forth by Wyoming Republican Malcolm Wallop. It called for return of the canal to the U.S. if either country violated the new treaties. New York Democrat Patrick Moynihan angrily called the idea "inane" and "devoid of intellectual content." Said he: "We are reducing the Senate to a playground of juvenilia, a playpen of prepubescent youth." After colleagues objected to the unusual personal attack, Moynihan apologized.

The incident underscored how frustrating--for both sides--the six-week-old debate has become. To end it, Byrd would prefer to move up the second treaty vote. But if he does, Kansas Republican Robert Dole has promised a filibuster that might prolong the debate for weeks. Worse yet, Massachusetts Republican Edward Brooke, a last-minute supporter of the neutrality treaty, which passed by only one vote more than the required two-thirds majority, has threatened to switch if proponents try any strong-arm tactics.

This week treaty opponents, led by Republican Paul Laxalt of Nevada, will step up pressure on reluctant supporters of the treaty. The possible wobblers include Brooke, Republican John Heinz of Pennsylvania and Democrats Dennis Deconcini of Arizona and Paul Hatfield of Montana. Laxalt argues that his job was made easier by the first vote. He explained: "Now we're zeroing in on only a few people." He has asked their constituents to write protest letters and sponsor antitreaty radio spots. Illinois Congressman Philip Crane, chairman of the American Conservative Union, warned that right-wing Republicans will campaign against the 15 G.O.P. Senators who voted for the first treaty if they support the second pact. Said he: "A candidate who has put himself out in front on support has written off significant constituencies." Crane added, in a comment directed at Senate Minority Leader Howard Baker Jr.: "It is the kiss of death for any presidential hopeful in the Republican Party to be supportive of these treaties."

Some targets of the treaty foes are already being criticized at home. Hatfield's office received a number of menacing phone calls on the order of: "We're going to get you for that if it's the last thing we do." He was hurt further when fellow Montana Senator John Melcher sent constituents a statement that was headed: AMERICAN PEOPLE VETO THE CANAL TREATY. Said a Hatfield aide: "That mailing didn't exactly pour oil on the troubled waters." At a Democratic dinner in Frankfort, Ky., party stalwarts applauded politely for Senator Walter Huddleston, who voted for the treaty, but gave a standing ovation to Wendell Ford, who opposed the accord. Conservatives in Arizona and Oklahoma talked of mounting a campaign to recall their Senators who favored the treaties--Deconcini and Henry Bellmon--even though there is no legal way for constituents to remove a Senator before his term ends. On the other hand, Brooke made a weekend swing through Massachusetts and got a positive reaction from voters about his support of the treaty. Said an aide: "They seemed satisfied."

To prevent overconfidence among treaty supporters, Carter urged all Cabinet members to keep trying to win more Senate votes. Indeed, top White House aides claimed that three Senators who voted against the neutrality treaty have indicated that they may support the second accord. As added insurance, treaty proponents are willing to attach minor reservations to make it more palatable to some wavering Senators. Thus, barring a major blunder by supporters, the treaty should pass with votes to spare.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.