Speech to the House dated July 14, 1971 by Hon. Leonor K. Sullivan on STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY Abernethy, Hon. Thomas G., a Representative in Congress from the State Baring Hon. Walter S., a Representative in Congress from the State of Page 47 81 81 Buchanan, Hon. John H., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 'A Burke, Hon. J. Herbert, a Representative in Congress from the State of Byrne, Hon. James A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 85 87 Cabell, Hon. Earle, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas Collier, Hon. Harold R., a Representative in Congress from the State of Cranston, Hon. Alan, a U.S. Senator from the State of California_ 89 95 98 98 Fountain, Hon. L. H., a Representative in Congress from the State of North 100 Griffin, Hon. Charles H., a Representative in Congress from the State of 104 Haley, Hon. James A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 105 Halpern, Hon. Seymour, a Representative in Congress from the State of 105 Hull, Hon. W. R., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 107 Hunt, Hon. John E., a Representative in Congress from the State of New 108 McCollister, Hon. John Y., a Representative in Congress from the State of 110 Mann, Hon. James R., a Representative in Congress from the State of 111 Mathis, Hon. Dawson, a Representative in Congress from the State of 112 Myers, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from the State of 113 O'Neill, Hon. Thomas P., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 114 Robinson, Hon. J. Kenneth, a Representative in Congress from the State 116 Rousselot, Hon. John H., a Representative in Congress from the State of 117 Scherle, Hon. William J., a Representative in Congress from the State of 124 Teague, Hon. Charles M., a Representative in Congress from the State of 125 Waggonner, Hon. Joe D., a Representative in Congress from the State of 127 Whalley, Hon. J. Irving, a Representative in Congress from the State of 128 Young, Hon. C. W. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 129 APPENDIX A. Convention for the Construction of a Ship Canal, 1903_- C. Treaty of Mutual Understanding and Cooperation.. Page 131 139 149 162 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 statement submitted for the record_ 170 PANAMA CANAL, 1971 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1971 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTER-AMERICAN 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) Hon. Dan Flood, who frightens me by the length of the tome that is in front of him. Without objection, we will include it in the record, because I know from personal experience over a long number of years he does not need that or anything else to talk. (Mr. Flood's prepared statement and attachments follow:) STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL J. FLOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. Chairman, as a former member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs with assignment to the Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs when first coming to the Congress, I am happy to be with you again on the vital interoceanic canal question-a subject of world importance destined to receive much attention in the future. BASIS FOR DEEP INTERESTS IN INTEROCEANIC CANAL PROBLEMS For many years I have been studying Panama Canal history and problems and made numerous addresses in and out of the Congress on this complex matter. The deeper that I have delved into it the more I have been impressed with the vision and wisdom of those great leaders, who, in the early part of the century formulated our Isthmian Canal policies. They were Rear Admiral John G. Walker, John Bassett Moore, Secretary of State John Hay, Secretary of War William Howard Taft, John F. Stevens, George W. Goethals, and above all, President Theodore Roosevelt. Because many of my colleagues and others have asked me what is the explanation for my long time interest in interoceanic canal problems. I wish to say that during my boyhood in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, ex-President Roosevelt used to be an occasional house guest in my grandfather's home. He spent many hours describing how the Canal Zone was acquired and his problems in launching the construction of the Panama Canal, which he viewed as comparable in geo-political significance with the Louisiana Purchase. Thus he became my youthful ideal and created a lifetime interest on my part in Isthmian Canal policy questions for which I have always been grateful. CANAL ZONE AND PANAMA CANAL INSEPARABLE The Panama Canal enterprise consists of two inseparable parts: (1) the Canal itself, and (2) its absolutely necessary protective frame of the Canal Zone territory. The two great canal issues now before the nation are: (1) the transcendent key issue of retaining United States undiluted sovereignty over the Canal Zone and (2) the important project of modernizing the existing Panama Canal by the construction of a third set of larger locks for larger vessels adapted to include the principles of the strongly supported Terminal Lake Plan, which was developed in the Panama Canal organization as the result of World War II experience. All other issues, however important, are irrelevant and should not be allowed to confuse or further delay proper consideration of the two pertinent ones. Unfortunately, the handling of the two principal issues has been greatly complicated by radical Panamanian attacks on U.S. sovereignty over the Canal Zone and the exhumation of the corpse of the old controversy over types of canalhigh level lake lock versus sea level tidal lock. Because of the prime importance of the question of sovereignty, a knowledge of the history of its evolution is essential for reaching wise decisions. EXCLUSIVE U.S. CONTROL IN PERPETUITY BASED ON HISTORY The present status of the Canal Zone territory traces back to the 1901 HayPauncefote Treaty between the United States and Great Britain that ended balf a century of conflict over canal routes. In line with that agreement, the United States made the long range commitment to construct and operate an Isthmian canal under its exclusive control in accordance with the rules set forth in the 1888 Convention of Constantinople for the operation of the Suez Canal. At the same time that the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty was being negotiated, our government was conducting a major investigation by an Isthmian Canal Com |