The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator for Idaho. The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. ZORINSKY (when his name was called). Madam President, I have a live pair with the Senator from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). If he were present and voting, he would vote "aye." If I were permitted to vote, I would vote "nay." Therefore, I withhold my vote. Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Gravel) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Matsunaga) are necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Chiles) are absent on official business. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Chiles) would vote "yea." The result was announced-yeas 58, nays 37, as follows: PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR, AS PREVIOUSLY RECORDED—1 Zorinsky, against. NOT VOTING-4 Bensten Chiles to. Gravel So the motion to lay amendment No. 92 on the table was agreed Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to table was agreed to. Mr. CHURCH. I move to lay that motion on the table The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. AMENDMENT NO. 91 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now recurs on the amendment by the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Allen), No. 91, which the clerk will state. The second assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alabama (Mr. Allen), for himself, Mr. Hatch and Mr. Helms, proposes and amendment numbered 91: At the end of Article I, section 3, strike the period and insert a semicolon and insert the following: “Provided, however, That all citizens of the United States who are now employees of the Panama Canal Company shall be permitted to continue their positions with the Panama Canal Commission until they reach retirement age, retiree voluntarily, or are discharged for cause.". The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama. Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, first, I ask unanimous consent that the name of the distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond) be added as a cosponsor to this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, this amendment pending before the Senate was laid aside by unanimous consent in order that the distinguished Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) might offer an amendment, which was a most important amendment. It was an amendment that would have assured that the Constitution would be followed in the matter of authorizing the disposition of property of the United States. It provided that the provisions of article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution be observed. That section provides that the Congress shall have the power to dispose of the property of the United States. It is conceded, Madam President, that the United States has title to the property in the Canal Zone. It would appear that to have that, in order properly and legally and constitutionally to dispose of this property owned by the United States of America, the provision of the Constitution should have been followed. As a matter of fact, 235 House Members, at least, share that view because they are cosponsors of a resolution that called upon the administration to submit this question-not the treaty-to submit this question of disposing of property of the United States to legislative action by Congress, meaning, of course, the Senate and the House. The Senate has chosen, by tabling this amendment, to disregard this provision of the Constitution. Madam President, I posed a question earlier today, before the vote, on the matter of the contention by the proponents of the treaty that the President of the United States can negotiate a treaty disposing of property of the United States and such disposition would take effect on the approval of that treaty by a twothirds vote of the Senate. To show how fallacious that contention would be, I posed a question which would be a necessary implication from holding that the President and the Senate can dispose of property of the United States without congressional action, with respect to property in Panama. By a necessary extension of that doctrine, any property of the United States could be given to a foreign power by treaty entered into between the President and that foreign power and approved in the form of a treaty by the Senate alone. I pointed out that on the floor of the Senate, not too long ago, a Senator stated that 97 percent of the land in his State was owned by the U.S. Government. If the President and the Senate can give away the land in the Panama Canal Zone which belongs to the United States, could not the President, in a good neighbor gesture, wanting to right the wrong that took place when the United States took over a large portion of the Western States following the war with Mexico took it over by conquest and then paid, I believe, a small amount of money in reparations for the land, at gun pointcould not the President enter into a treaty giving away 97 percent of one of our Western States, which formerly was part of Mexico, and have it submitted to the Senate for approval in the form of a treaty? Of course not. Every man, woman, and child in that State would march on Washington, and rightly so. Madam President, it is a necessary extension of this theory that the Senate, by tabling this amendment, has seen fit to adopt, if we can give away 500 square miles of U.S. property in the Panama Canal Zone, of inestimable value. A valuation of $10 billion has been placed on this property-the canal and the Canal Zone-but even that figure would not compensate for giving away this property, this tremendous asset. However, according to the administration, according to the leadership, according to the managers of the treaty, all it takes is a treaty entered into by the President, subsequent approval of that treaty by the Senate, completely disregarding the House of Representatives and its rights and prerogatives under the Constitution, opening the way for litigation with those citizens of the United States who might bring action to contest the validity of this disposition of property. I am not saying that the treaty should be submitted to the House. That is not the question. The question is the requirement of the Constitution that the disposition of property of the United States must be authorized by act of Congress. I pointed out several times the provision in the 1955 treaty with Panama, in which, on three separate occasions, where they make conveyance of property, they say "subject to the approval of Congress." But we are departing from that longtime policy, which the Constitution has recognized. They say that times have changed. The constitutional provision has not changed. I notice that someone has had a copy of Senate Resolution 97, of the last Congress, placed on the desk of each Senator. That was a resolution submitted in the last Congress by 37 Senators-enough to defeat a treaty-which stated the position of those Senators against a treaty giving away the canal and stating that if any such treaty were entered into before the property of the United States could be disposed of, there had to be express congressional action authorizing it. Eight Senators who some weeks ago voted for the Neutrality Treaty, or the Defense Treaty, were cosponsors of that resolution in the last Congress. Well, perhaps they changed their minds. Perhaps it is because it was in the administration of a President of another party. I do not know what caused them to change their minds. I am not going to mention their names. The Senators know who they are, and any Senator who wants to see if his name is on the resolution can refer to the resolution, which is on the desk of each Senator. But the names of those eight Senators were on that resolution, saying that they would not be for a treaty giving the canal away and that if such a treaty were entered into before the property could be disposed of, there had to be congressional action. In other words, article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution would have to be followed. I would have thought that all eight of those Senators would have voted for the Hatch amendment. It is understandable, Madam President, that Senators might change their minds on the advisability of giving away the canal. I can understand that. It is entirely possible and frequently happens that Senators do change their mind on an issue. But what logic is there for changing their mind on their view of a constitutional question as to what action it takes to comply with the Constitution? So these eight Senators who in 1975 said they would not be for such a treaty in 1978 voted for that treaty. I can understand that. But I cannot understand how they as attorneys, for the most partpossibly all eight-could have changed their views on their view of the constitutional issue. So the Senate has decided that article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution, giving Congress power to dispose of property of the United States does not have to be followed, that the President negotiating the treaty and the Senate giving its advice and consent to the treaty can dispose of property of the United States without an act of Congress. I say that issue should have been decided on the basis of following the Constitution, and I think that the victory of those who are pushing these treaties will be somewhat hollow if they win by force of might here in the Senate, force of an overwhelming majority in the Senate-I am hopeful not a two-thirds majority-but they can with this overwhelming majority defeat any amendments, no matter how good, no matter how much needed. They can direct the Members of the Senate monolithically to vote against amendments. So we see the leadership, we see managers of the treaty, and we see the amendments. So we see the leadership, we see the managers of the treaty, and we see the administration stonewalling against amendments no matter how good an amendment is. These Senators who have said to the House of Representatives, "We are not going to follow this Constitution, we are not going to respect your rights and your prerogatives, we are going to handle this just like we want to because we have the votes here in the Senate and we are going to direct them how to vote," can do it. But I say that their victory is going to be a hollow victory and their victory at the bar of public opinion is going to be somewhat less attractive. Public opinion is of the view that a shortcut was taken on agreeing to these treaties, that the Constitution was ignored. Are they going to have the backing of public opinion in this country for the action that the Senate seems determined to take? It disregards the necessary and desirable comity that should exist between the two bodies of Congress. It leaves the way open for litigation that would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on the treaties because if the Supreme Court says the Constitution was not followed in disposing of this property, what value is the treaty? The property, the water, and the land, in effect constitute the treaty. So if the land and the water were illegally and unconstitutionally disposed of you have no treaty. So, by tabling this amendment you leave the treaty open for a legal attack, and you leave the treaty and its validity in a state of doubt. You leave the people of the United States confused as to whether proper procedures were used. You violate rules of comity between the two Houses. Why? Why be afraid of the House of Representatives? Why be afraid of the Senate on a majority vote question, which the legislation would be? I would take a majority vote in both Houses. If you can get a two-thirds vote for the treaty in the Senate is there any doubt that you could get a majority vote in the Senate for legislation authorizing the transfer of this property? Of course not. The fact that 235 House Members, well over a majority of the Members of the House, have asked that this treaty not go into force until legislation has been enacted by Congress authorizing its disposition does not mean that all 235 of those Members of the House are going to vote against giving the canal away. That means they want their rights and their prerogatives respected, and I have not seen the Senate any less jealous of its rights and prerogatives. Time was limited on the debate on the other amendment. But I feel, even though it has been stonewalled by the leadership, by the administration, and by the managers of the treaty, the enormity of the bad judgment of the leadership in this matter should be pointed out. I believe that the treaty could be put into force and effect earlier by agreeing to this amendment, removing all question of doubt as to the legality of the process, than by stonewalling against the amendment, disregarding, as I see it, the constitutional provision. The argument has been made against other amendments. And, by the way, do you know how many amendments we adopted to these two treaties after 2 months of debate? Two. They were the leadership amendments, defective in several areas, as was pointed out here on the floor. They were adopted, because the leadership said "Adopt them," and the Senate adopted them. On all others, they have said "No." These amendments that the leadership proposed and got adopted are so good that they not only make the treaty a good treaty, or the treaties good treaties, they are so good |