PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 8, 1997
United States-Panama Security Act of 1997 - Bars U.S. assistance to Panama during any period in which a defense site or military installation located in Panama that was at any time part of a site or installation built or formerly operated by the United States has been conveyed by the Government of Panama to any foreign government-owned entity. Directs the President to instruct the U.S. representatives to the international financial institutions to oppose any loans or other assistance to Panama during any such period. Requires the President to report to the Congress on how Hutchison Whampoa, a Chinese firm with ties to the Chinese Government, was selected to receive a grant for management control of the Panamanian ports of Balboa and San Cristobal. Directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Congress on: (1) the extent to which the control of such ports by such firm poses a threat to U.S. security; and (2) how U.S. strategic interests with respect to the Panama Canal will continue to be protected after the Government of Panama assumes sole responsibility for the defense of the Canal and becomes the only entity entitled to have military forces, defense sites, or military installations in Panama after December 31, 1999. Requires: (1) the Director of Central Intelligence to report annually to the Congress on the intelligence activities of China against or affecting U.S. interests in Panama; and (2) the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to report to the Congress on the utility of maintaining a military presence in Panama for interdicting illegal drugs. Authorizes and directs the President to confer with the Government of Panama to renegotiate the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty and the Treaty Concerning the Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal or to negotiate a new agreement to supersede such treaties. Expresses the sense of the Congress that any negotiations should include: (1) a ban on foreign government investment in or management of the Canal and related projects; (2) the right to a continued U.S. military presence in Panama and a continued presence to interdict and eradicate illegal drug trafficking through Panama; and (3) the right to control or prohibit the use of the Canal by hostile powers, terrorist states, or criminal groups by redefining the terms of the 1977 Treaty Concerning the Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal.
People & committees
Rep. Hunter, Duncan [R-CA-52] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities.
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.
Referred to House Intelligence (Permanent)
Referred to House National Security
Referred to House Banking and Financial Services
Referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committees on Banking and Financial Services, National Security, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House International Relations
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2950 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2950 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2950 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2950 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.