[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 15 (Wednesday, February 16, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E167]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E167]]
 INTRODUCTION OF H.R. 3673 UNITED STATES-PANAMA PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 16, 2000

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have today introduced H.R. 3673, the 
``United States-Panama Partnership Act of 2000.''
  The purpose of this legislation is to give our President authorities 
that he can use to seek an agreement with Panama to permit the United 
States to maintain a presence there sufficient to carry out 
counternarcotics and related missions.
  This legislation is virtually identical to a bill I introduced in 
1998, H.R. 4858 (105th Congress). The original cosponsors of H.R. 4858 
included Dennis Hastert, now Speaker of the House of Representatives; 
Charlie Rangel, Ranking Democratic Member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means; Chris Cox, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee; 
Bob Menendez, now Vice Chairman of the Democratic Caucus; David Dreier, 
now Chairman of the Committee on Rules; Floyd Spence, Chairman of the 
Committee on National Security; Henry Hyde, Chairman of the Committee 
on the Judiciary; Dan Burton, Chairman of the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight; and Bill McCollum, Chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  I am introducing H.R. 3673 because Panama and the United States today 
stand at a crossroads in the special relationship between our two 
peoples that dates back nearly 100 years. As the new century dawns, our 
two nations must decide whether to end that relationship, or renew and 
reinvigorate it for the 21st century. We must decide, in other words, 
whether our nations should continue to drift apart, or draw closer 
together.
  In the case of Canada and Mexico--the other two countries whose 
historical relationship with the United States most closely parallels 
Panama--there has been a collective decision to draw our nations closer 
together. This decision, embodied in the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA), was grounded in a recognition that, in today's 
world, our mutual interests are best served by increased cooperation 
and integration.
  The legislation I am introducing today offers Panama the opportunity 
to join Canada and Mexico in forging a new, more mature, mutually 
beneficial relationship with the United States. In exchange, the 
legislation asks Panama to remain our partner in the war on drugs by 
agreeing to host a U.S. presence, alone or in conjunction with other 
friendly countries, sufficient to carry out counternarcotics and 
related missions.
  In accordance with the Panama Canal Treaties of 1977, the United 
States terminated its military presence in Panama at the end of 1999, 
and Panama assumed full control of the Panama Canal and all former U.S. 
military installations.
  A 1977 protocol to the Treaties provides that the United States and 
Panama may agree to a U.S. presence in Panama after 1999. For three 
years, U.S. and Panamanian negotiators sought to reach just such an 
agreement. On September 24, 1998, however, it was announced that these 
negotiations had failed and that the U.S. military would withdraw from 
Panama as scheduled.
  This was a regrettable turn of events for both of our countries. The 
United States and Panama both benefited in many ways from the U.S. 
presence in Panama. For the United States, that presence provided a 
forward platform from which to combat narcotrafficking and interdict
  For Panama, the U.S. presence added an estimated $300 million per 
year to the local economy, fostered economic growth by contributing to 
a stable investment climate, and helped deter narcoterrorism from 
spilling over into Panama.
  In retrospect, the Clinton Administration acted precipitously in 1995 
when it rejected Panama's offer to negotiate an extension of our 
traditional presence in exchange for a package of benefits to be 
mutually agreed upon. In the wake of that decision, the effort to 
establish a Multinational Counternarcotics Center failed to gain broad 
support across Panama's political spectrum.
  My legislation returns to, and builds upon, the concept proposed by 
Panama in 1995 of permitting a U.S. presence in Panama beyond 1999 in 
exchange for a package of benefits. The legislation also accepts the 
idea first proposed by Panama of permitting counternarcotics operations 
from Panama to take under multinational auspices.
  The legislation includes four specific provisions of benefit to 
Panama.
  First, and most importantly, the bill offers to bring Panama into the 
first rank of U.S. trade partners by giving Panama the same 
preferential access to the U.S. market that Canada and Mexico currently 
enjoy. The economic value of this benefit for Panama is difficult to 
quantify today, but over time it should lead to significantly increased 
investment and employment there, which would directly benefit all 
Panamanians.
  Second, it offers a scholarship program for deserving Panamanian 
students to study in the United States.
  Third, if offers assistance in preparing for the construction of a 
new bridge across the Panama Canal.
  Fourth, it offers assistance in preparing for the construction of a 
new sewage treatment plant for Panama City.
  Taken together, these specific provisions give substance to the 
larger promise of this legislation, which is to renew and reinvigorate 
the special relationship between our two peoples as we enter the 21st 
century, provided the people of Panama decide they want to remain our 
partner.
  Under Article I, section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, this bill can 
only originate in the House of Representatives. The list of original 
cosponsors of the version of this bill that I introduced in 1998, H.R. 
4858, makes clear that, if brought to a vote on the House floor, this 
legislation would pass the House of Representatives. I am confident 
that the Senate would join the House in approving this measure, 
provided that the people of Panama indicate that they too wish to 
strengthen relations between our two countries along the lines proposed 
in the bill.
  It is my sincere hope that Panama will accept this invitation to 
reinvigorate the special relationship between our two peoples. I 
recognize, however, that the right to make this choice rests with the 
people of Panama, and naturally our nation will respect their decision.

        Summary of United States-Panama Partnership Act of 2000


                      Introduced February 16, 2000

       Offers trade and other benefits to Panama if the President 
     certifies to Congress that the United States and Panama have 
     reached an agreement permitting the United States to maintain 
     a presence at four installations in Panama (Howard Air Force 
     Base, Fort Kobbe, Rodman Naval Station, and Fort Sherman), 
     alone or in conjunction with other friendly countries, 
     sufficient to carry out necessary counternarcotics, search 
     and rescue, logistical, training, and related missions for a 
     period of not less than 15 years.
       The benefits that would be made available to Panama 
     include:
       1. NAFTA-equivalent treatment under U.S. trade laws for 
     exports from Panama.
       2. Assistance from the U.S. Trade and Development Agency 
     for design, planning, and training in connection with 
     construction of a new bridge across the Panama Canal.
       3. Assistance from the U.S. Trade and Development Agency 
     for design, planning, and training in connection with 
     construction of a new sewage treatment plant for Panama City.
       4. $2 million per year in scholarships for deserving 
     students from Panama to study in the United States.
       The NAFTA-equivalent treatment for exports from Panama 
     would be made available unilaterally by the United States 
     during a three-year transition period. Prior to the 
     conclusion of the transition period, the United States and 
     Panama would negotiate and enter into an agreement providing 
     either for Panama's accession to NAFTA, or for the 
     establishment of a bilateral free trade arrangement 
     comparable to NAFTA. Free trade benefits under this agreement 
     would be guaranteed for a period at least as long as the 
     period during which the U.S. is permitted to maintain a 
     military presence in Panama.

                          ____________________