« AnteriorContinuar »
LIST OF WITNESSES
Rarick, Hon. John R., a Representative in Congress from the State of
Headlines from the Panama American referred to by Mr. Flood---
whether new m or 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. M concerning a
which she would like to clarify-
the United States, respectfully urging that the administration not begin
new treaty negotiations.-
Burke, Hon. J. Herbert, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Eilberg, Hon. Joshua, a Representative in Congress from the State of
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,