[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 72 (Friday, June 10, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
         AMERICA'S RELATIONSHIP WITH PANAMA AFTER THE YEAR 2000

                                 ______


                          HON. PHILIP M. CRANE

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 10, 1994

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, it hardly seems possible but, in the short 
space of 5 years, an era will come to an end. After December 31, 1999, 
the United States will no longer have any responsibility for the Panama 
Canal or its defense. Nor will Uncle Sam be entitled to maintain either 
military bases or Armed Forces in what was the Canal Zone unless some 
new understanding is reached.
  With the rise of the supertanker and the fall of communism, there are 
those who will say ``what difference does it make.'' However, 15 
percent of United States overseas trade and 5 percent of all the 
world's trade still transits the Panama Canal. Moreover, if either the 
lessons of history or a survey of current events tells us anything, it 
is that peace cannot be taken for granted.
  Terrorists, and the nations who harbor them, are just as much of a 
threat today as were the revolutionaries of yesteryear. Drugs, and the 
violence they spawn, are more of a problem now than ever. Civil unrest, 
with its capacity for mayhem, is still an everyday fact of life in 
parts of Central and South America. And the forces of communism in 
Russia could overthrow the pro-democratic government of Boris Yeltsin 
just as they did the pro-democratic government of Kerensky just over 75 
years ago. In short, the world is still a threatening place, much as we 
might like to think otherwise. And the choke points of world commerce, 
such as the Panama Canal, rank high on the list of places where the 
potential for mischief is the greatest.
  That fact alone argues persuasively for a continued United States 
military presence in Panama long after the turn of the century. But 
there are other reasons for such a presence as well, not the least of 
which are the economic benefits that would flow to Panama as a 
consequence. Currently, the presence of United States Armed Forces 
means roughly 6,000 direct jobs and $200 to $700 million a year in 
additional income for Panamanians. Absent a base lease arrangement, 
which might or might not include the Canal itself, those figures would 
shrink substantially. But with such an understanding they could be 
augmented by lease payments to the Government of Panama for use of the 
facilities covered. Also, the continued existence of the United States 
Southern Command in the area could lessen, or even eliminate 
altogether, the need for Panama to shoulder the substantial expense of 
maintaining its own military defense force.

  Logic notwithstanding, the prospects for reaching an understanding of 
this nature are only as good as the public support for it is strong in 
the United States and Panama. But, if recent public opinion surveys 
taken in both countries are any barometer, those prospects should be 
very good indeed. In Panama, polls taken over the past 2 years have 
indicated consistently that at least two thirds of the Panamanian 
people support a continued United States military presence after the 
turn of the century. And, in the United States, a nationwide survey 
conducted in mid-March by the Marketing Research Institute [MRI] 
suggests that nearly two thirds of all Americans feel that same way. 
When asked if the United States should maintain or remove our military 
bases in the Canal Zone, 65.5 percent of those responding said we 
should maintain them.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very significant finding. What it demonstrates 
is that the people of the United States and Panama are of a like mind. 
By a strong majority, they are signalling their support for an 
arrangement that would benefit both nations without compromising the 
sovereignty or interests of either. That being the case,the time has 
come for use, as representatives of the Nation that should make the 
first move, to take the next step and indicate our interest in opening 
negotiations.
  To that end, I have introduced a resolution, House Concurrent 
Resolution 17, that, if adopted, would do just that. Since it has 
attracted 83 cosponsors so far and is consistent with contemporary 
public opinion in both the United States and Panama, I would urge my 
colleagues who have not signed on to do so at their earliest 
convenience. Five years may seem like a lot of time, but with 
everything that is required to complete and implement an agreement of 
this nature, it is not a moment to soon get the process started.