Remarks by Representative Flood

Of Pennsylvania

Mr. Speaker, the story of CLARENCE CANNON is, in a strong sense, the story of parliamentary effectiveness in a democracy. CLARENCE CANNON may be said to stand out as the symbol of leadership achieved by merit. Now matter how the principle of seniority may be criticized the chemistry of command by force of personality and qualification asserts itself. In one form or another the man with the stuff rises to a position of power, and the man without it falls into his just niche determined by his own limitations.

If we review the life and career of CLARENCE CANNON in this light, the ruthless and pitiless light of the truth and the light of competitiveness among the men of superior merit with whom he worked in this Chamber, we see what it was that made CLARENCE CANNON the man of distinction, the man of power, the man of trust. He led and influenced other men and his colleagues, because he was the complete master of the field in which he operated. Men of great patriotism and distinction who were willing to accept his preeminence did so because they knew that here was a champion, a professional, and a topmost authority on the parliamentary subjects and the national issues to which he dedicated his life.

With me all that I am saying is a matter of not only objective observation, but, I confess, a matter of great emotional consideration. My sympathies are too great for me to divorce myself as a friend and a colleague, from CLARENCE CANNON, and evaluate him as if I were a historian in another century.

I did know him.

I did work with him.

I saw at close range the stature and the quality of the man and I was impressed, not as one is impressed by an episode, a vignette that illustrates the life and character of

the man, but as one is impressed by a whole multitude of characteristics. It is this proximity, this interweaving of one's own affairs and points of view with that of CLARENCE CANNON, that makes my feelings toward him, now that he is gone from us, so full of the deepest bereavement I have known since I first came to this Chamber.

When I say I worked with him and therefore knew him as a colleague and a coworker I say this in its deepest and broadest meaning. To CLARENCE CANNON the people's money was a sacred trust. An appropriation that held great popular values but was inherently unsound-was treated not from the standpoint of political gain, but from the standpoint of the national good. We toiled long hours, on broad issues and narrow, in the Committee on Appropriations. Likewise in the work of the Subcommittee on Defense, where appropriations are the very soul of the programs under decision, the insight and judgment, the knowledge and the diligence of CLARENCE CANNON, represented what I may call guidelines indispensable to the ultimate determinations of fiduciary policies. In some committees he was there even when he was not physically present and not actually a member.

We had our own independent judgments.

We, each of us in his own views, sought to arrive at a consensus, at a determination that would strengthen our country. And, invariably, we found CLARENCE CANNON like the Rock of Gibraltar, a mighty, living, parliamentary resource, an expert who was dependable and reliable. He was solid, and he provided a source of knowledgeable reassurance. This was true whether CLARENCE CANNON was actually a member of the committee, or whether the committee's work was, in some way, involved with the reach of his power and influence from his leadership role in a related committee. For myself I always had a feeling that any conference, any consultation, any suggestion that had the voice and wisdom of CLARENCE CANNON behind it, ended on a somehow higher level of decision.

There is of course another and a more human aspect to the life of this great legislator whom we mourn. Men who are as forthright as he was, as honest in their talk, as direct and as free of cant, are very apt to have strong and enduring friendships, and, occasionally, strong and relentless opposition. For me CLARENCE CANNON was the type of man who held out, on the basis of the firmest qualities of character, a friendship that I thought of as indestructible. Those of us who appreciated his true qualities as a patriot, as an educated gentleman, as a superb authority in the field of parliamentary procedure, as a former teacher of history, appreciated him mostly as a man and a friend. All of CLARENCE CANNON, as I saw him, his special gifts as a fiduciary expert, as a parliamentarian, as a master of higher politics, as a genius of political strategy, as a legislative craftsman, contributed to the greatest of all his qualities: his eminence as a human being and a friend.

We here in this Chamber who knew him intimately and worked with him, elbow to elbow, pray to high heaven that in the critical years that are ahead Providence will send to this House of Representatives, honorable, forceful, friendly, patriotic, noble men of leadership like CLARENCE CANNON.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I have been closely associated with the late Chairman CLARENCE CANNON of that committee and got to know him well.

He was one of the hardest working men I ever knew; and possessed, in outstanding degree, the indispensable requisites of the true leader-knowledge and courage.

Faced with the gravest responsibilities in the formulation of annual appropriation bills, he did not limit his interests to matters of budgetary administration but attained a deep insight into the nature of the problems of Government that will place him among the ablest men ever to serve as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Like a distinguished predecessor, Representative Martin B. Madden, after whom the Madden Dam project in the Canal Zone was named, Chairman CANNON developed an

intelligent interest in the problems of the Panama Canal. He always used the power of his responsible position to protect the vital interests of the United States in defending our treaty-based sovereignty and jurisdiction over that strategically located waterway against subversive attack.

He often stated to me that it would be as absurd to discuss surrendering the Canal Zone territory to Panama as to propose the return of the Louisiana Purchase Territory to France.

Congressman CANNON deplored the raising of the Panama flag in the Canal Zone in 1960 and foresaw the trouble to which it would lead. In an effort to clarify, make definite, and reaffirm our historic Panama Canal policy, he introduced House Concurrent Resolution 105 on March 4, 1963, and strove to secure its adoption by the House.

Unfortunately, timely action was not taken and now death has removed his guiding hand before he could succeed. The resolution, in which he was so greatly interested, is now before the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I can think of no more appropriate memorial on which to record the name of CLARENCE CANNON in the history of the United States than prompt adoption by the Congress of the Cannon resolution-House Concurrent Resolution 105-which I insert at this point:

H. CON. RES. 105

Whereas the United States, under the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903 with Panama, acquired complete and exclusive sovereignty over the Canal Zone in perpetuity for construction of the Panama Canal and its perpetual maintenance, operation, sanitation, and protection; and

Whereas all jurisdiction of the Republic of Panama over the Canal Zone ceased on exchange or ratifications of the 1903 treaty on February 26, 1904; and

Whereas since that time the United States has continuously exercised exclusive sovereignty and control over the Canal Zone and the Panama Canal; and

Whereas where responsibility is imposed there must be given for its effectuation adequate authority; and with respect to the Panama Canal the treaty of 1903 so provided; and

Whereas the United States has fully and effectively discharged all its treaty obligations with respect to the Panama Canal and the only legitimate interest that Panama can have in the sovereignty of the Canal Zone is one of reversionary character that can never become operative unless the United States should abandon the canal enterprise; and

Whereas the policy of the United States since President Hayes' message to the Congress on March 8, 1880, has been for an interoceanic canal "under American control," that is to say, under the control of the United States; and

Whereas the grant by Panama to the United States of exclusive sovereignty over the Canal Zone for the aforesaid purposes was an absolute, indispensable condition precedent to the great task undertaken by the United States in the construction and perpetual Canal, for the benefits of the entire world; and for which rights, the United States has paid the Republic of Panama the full indemnity and annuities agreed upon by the two nations; and

Where, on February 2, 1960, the House of Representatives in the Eighty-sixth Congress, by an overwhelming vote, approved House Concurrent Resolution Numbered 459, favorably reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, as follows:

"Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that any variation in the traditional interpretation of the treaties of 1903, 1936, and 1955 between the United States and the Republic of Panama, with special reference to matters concerning territorial sovereignty shall be made only pursuant to treaty.”

Whereas, because of continuing claims of sovereignty over the Canal Zone by Panama which, if granted, would liquidate United States control of the Panama Canal and Canal Zone, a further declaration by the Eighty-eighth Congress is deemed necessary and timely: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That (1) the United States, under treaty provisions, constitutionally acquired and holds, in perpetuity, exclusive sovereignty and control over the Canal Zone for the construction of the Panama Canal and its perpetual maintenance, operation, sanitation, and protection; and

(2) That there can be no just claim by the Republic of Panama for the exercise of any sovereignty of whatever character over the Canal Zone so long as the United States discharges its duties and obligations with respect to the Canal; and

(3) That the formal display of any official flag over the Canal Zone other than that of the United States is violative of law, treaty,