IV
103D CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. CON. RES. 2
Expressing the sense of the Congress that the President or the Congress
should abrogate the Panama Canal Treaties of 1977 and the Neutrality
Treaty and the Congress should repeal the Panama Canal Act of 1979.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JANUARY 5, 1993
Mr. CRANE submitted the following bill; which was referred jointly to the
Committees on Foreign Affairs and Merchant Marine and Fisheries
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the Congress that the President
or the Congress should abrogate the Panama Canal
Treaties of 1977 and the Neutrality Treaty and the
Congress should repeal the Panama Canal Act of 1979.
Whereas the Panama Canal is a vital strategic asset of the
United States;
Whereas Article 163 of the 1972 Constitution of the Republic
of Panama provides that ‘‘The President alone . . .
[shall] conduct foreign relations . . . . and enter into
international treaties and agreements . . .’’;
Whereas the Panama Canal Treaties of 1977 were signed by
General Omar Torrijos Herrera, the head of Panama’s
Defense Forces, who was neither the President of Pan-
ama nor a duly elected official of the Government of Pan-
HCON 2 IH
ama, and not by Demetro B. Lukas, the President of
Panama, as required by the Constitution of Panama;
Whereas this violation of Panama’s Constitution regarding
competence to conclude treaties renders the Panama
Canal Treaties of 1977 invalid under international law,
including Article 46 of the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties, to which the United States conforms,
and therefore subject to termination by the Republic of
Panama at any time;
Whereas the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality
and Operation of the Panama Canal is also subject to re-
pudiation by the Republic of Panama because six modi-
fications to the Treaty contained in the resolution of rati-
fication of the United States Senate, including the
DeConcini Reservation asserting the unilateral right of
the United States to intervene to protect the Panama
Canal, were never submitted to a national plebiscite, as
required in Article 274 of the Constitution of Panama;
Whereas Panama’s instruments of ratification concerning the
Neutrality Treaty, which contain counter-reservations de-
nying the right of the United States to intervene unilater-
ally in order to protect the Panama Canal, were never
submitted to the United States Senate for approval, in
violation of established procedures for the ratification of
treaties under the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas the Neutrality Treaty confers no explicit legal right
upon the United States either to maintain defense forces
in Panama or to enter Panama to defend the Panama
Canal against an external or internal threat after the
year 1999;
HCON 2 IH
Whereas both the United States and the Republic of Panama
are signatories to the charters of the United Nations and
the Organization of American States, which guarantee
the territorial inviolability of an independent State and
therefore prohibit unilateral intervention or entry upon
the sovereign territory of another country without its per-
mission;
Whereas the Neutrality Treaty limits the right of the United
States to defend the Panama Canal on the high seas,
without express permission to enter Panamanian terri-
tory, and therefore fails to provide adequate protection
for the national security of the United States;
Whereas the Neutrality Treaty does not prohibit the Republic
of Panama from entering into an agreement with a third
country, including Cuba or Nicaragua, for the joint or ex-
clusive operation and control of the Panama Canal;
Whereas Article III of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977,
providing for the operation of the Panama Canal through
1999, stipulates that four of the nine members of the
Board of the Panama Canal Commission must be citizens
of Panama who are proposed by the Panamanian Govern-
ment for appointment and are subject to removal by the
Panamanian Government;
Whereas these provisions in the Panama Canal Treaty re-
garding the appointment and removal by Panama of the
Panamanian members of the Board improperly restrict
the President’s appointment and removal powers under
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United
States and are inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s
ruling in Buckley vs. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), holding
that all such members of a United States Federal agency