CONTENTS LIST OF WITNESSES Wednesday, September 22, 1971 : Flood, Hon. Daniel J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Rarick, Hon. John R., a Representative in Congress from the State of Scott, Hon. William L., a Representative in Congress from the State Sullivan, Hon. Leonor K., a Representative in Congress from the State Dennis, Hon. David W., a Representative in Congress from the State of Hall, Hon. Durward G., a Representative in Congress from the State Williams, Hon. Lawrence G., a Representative in Congress from the 14 21 28 32 Memorial to the Congress—Panama Canal, sovereignty and moderniza- tion, Committee for Continued U.S. Control of the Panama Canal, 1971, submitted by Mr. Flood.. Background on Panama Canal treaty negotiations, submitted by Mr. Memorandum on 53rd annual national convention of the American Legion, Houston, Tex., August 31, September 1, 2, 1971, submitted by Mr. Headlines from the Panama American referred to by Mr. Flood - whether new major canal modernization requires a new treaty, sub- mitted by Mr. Flood-- U.S. Air Force, Retired, submitted by Mr. Rarick.. is Treason,” submitted by Mr. Rarick_- of U.S. decision to resume Panama Canal treaty negotiations, sub- mitted by Mr. Rarick. U.S. House of Representatives, submitted by Mr. Rarick.. the attached letter to Mrs. Sullivan from John C. Mundt concerning a which she would like to clarify the United States, respectfully urging that the administration not begin new treaty negotiations--- Speech made by Hon. Leonor K. Sullivan on the floor of the House on April 33 35 37 42 44 Speech to the House dated July 14, 1971 by Hon. Leonor K. Sullivan on certain news stories related to the speeches and promises of General Omar Torrijos and other officials of the Panamanian Government to the Abernethy, Hon. Thomas G., a Representative in Congress from the State Baring Hon. Walter S., a Representative in Congress from the State of Buchanan, Hon. John H., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State Burke, Hon. J. Herbert, a Representative in Congress from the State of Byrne, Hon. James A., a Representative in Congress from the State of Cabell, Hon. Earle, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas Clawson, Hon. Del, a Representative in Congress from the State of Collier, Hon. Harold R., a Representative in Congress from the State of Cranston, Hon. Alan, a U.S. Senator from the State of California.. Dowdy, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas-- Eilberg, Hon. Joshua, a Representative in Congress from the State of Fountain, Hon. L. H., a Representative in Congress from the State of North Griffin, Hon. Charles H., a Representative in Congress from the State of Haley, Hon. James A., a Representative in Congress from the State of Halpern, Hon. Seymour, a Representative in Congress from the State of Hull, Hon. W. R., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Hunt, Hon. John E., a Representative in Congress from the State of New McCollister, Hon. John Y., a Representative in Congress from the State of Mann, Hon. James R., a Representative in Congress from the State of Mathis, Hon. Dawson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Myers, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from the State of O'Neill, Hon. Thomas P., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State Robinson, Hon. J. Kenneth, a Representative in Congress from the State Rousselot, Hon. John H., a Representative in Congress from the State of Scherle, Hon. William J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Teague, Hon. Charles M., a Representative in Congress from the State of Waggonner, Hon. Joe D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Whalley, Hon. J. Irving, a Representative in Congress from the State of Young, Hon. C. W. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of A. Convention for the Construction of a Ship Canal, 1903---- B. General Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation Between the United States of America and Panama--- C. Treaty of Mutual Understanding and Cooperation.-- D. Comparison of the rights and obligations of the United States under the terms of the three basic treaties with Panama- E. Commentary by Hon. Daniel J. Flood, a Member in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, on excerpts from Senator Alan Cranston's PANAMA CANAL, 1971 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1971 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 2 p.m., in room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dante B. Fascell (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding Mr. FASCELL. The subcommittee will please come to order. The United States is presently negotiating a new treaty governing the control and operation of one of the world's most important waterways—the Panama Canal. For 57 years, the canal has provided immense economic benefits to the United States, Panama, and the entire world. In times of war and crisis, it has also given us important military flexibility. Over the years since the original treaty between the United States and Panama for construction of the canal, the United States, in response to Panamanian requests, has modified the original treaty two times by treaty. While relations between our two countries are necessarily close and generally friendly, there remains a good deal of conflict and controversy over the canal. In the belief that these problems, if left unresolved, might permanently embitter relations between our two countries and in order to provide for needed new canal capacity, President Johnson agreed to negotiate a new treaty with Panama. While draft agreements were signed, they were never submitted for ratification in either country. Last December, the Atlantic-Pacific Interoceanic Canal Study Commission recommended that the United States construct a new sea level canal in Panama 10 miles west of the present canal site. Following this recommendation, President Nixon decided to reopen talks with Panama on a new basic treaty governing U.S. canal rights. While the House of Representatives does not have a direct voice in approval of treaties, many Members of Congress feel that the canal is so vital to U.S. interests that we should not give up a single right in the Canal Zone. The breadth and depth of this concern is evidenced by the fact that 88 Members have introduced 42 House resolutions to express the sense of the House of Representatives that the U.S. maintain its sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Panama Canal Zone. The subcommittee is meeting today to consider the resolutions and to hear from our distinguished colleagues on this subject. The greatest exponent of all is our great and distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania who has made a lifelong study of this matter, (1) |
Get this book in print
0 Reviews Reviews aren't verified, but Google checks for and removes fake content when it's identified Write review |