275


 The Senator from Utah does not dispute that article IV of the Honduras Treaty of 1971 transferred property without congressional authorization. The treaty is unequivocal. Article IV provides: The Government of the United States of America transfers to the Government of H-onduras as of the date this Treaty enters into force all land, buildings. equipment and other real and personal property in the Swan Islands to which it holds title, except as agreed pursuant to Article 11 of this Treaty.
 The Senator casts doubt upon this precedent by pointing out that the value of the property transferred was small and that the transfer was not opposed in the Senate. I am at a loss to understand what constitutional significance the Senator ascribes to these facts. The treaty was clearly self -executing. It clearly transferred property of the United States.
 The Senator from Utah has understandable difficulty in attempting to distinguish the clear precedent presented by the Japanese Treaty of 1972. The Senator admits, as he must, that substantial property of the United States was transferred. Article 6 of the treaty transferred both real and personal property of the United States to Japan. Under article 3 of the treaty, the United States relinquished its jurisdictional .and governmental rights over the islands, which were of indefinite duration.
 Conceding that property was transferred, the Senator from U-tah feebly suggests that it. may have been authorized by prior statute. This suggestion is groundless. The treaty, by its terms, is self-executing. It was so regarded by both the Senate and the President. The Senator nioes thaq,,tp an retained residual sovereignty overthe islands. This fact is of no irnport-anct. since, under the 1903 treaty, Panama also retained residual sovereignty over the Canal Zone.
 The Senator from Utah's analysis of prior treaty practice with Panama has been discussed earlier. It is highly selective and ignores transfers by self-executing treaties in 1986 and 1950. His suggestion that self -implementing transfers accomplished in articles VI and VII of the 1955 treaty were in fact implemented by legislation is simllv wrong. Section 102 (b) of the act i mplemrenting the treaty clearly dif ferentiated between property to be transferred pursuant to article V and the property which had already been conveyed by operation of article VI and VII1 of the treaty.
 Throughout his remar-ks, the Senator from U_7tah -has tried to support his case by attacking the report of the committee, rather than by citing( applicable authorities in support of his position. I regret that he has chosen to conduct the debate on this level. Upon examination, the statements made in the report of the Committee on Ferei f-n Relations, and the legal basis on which this treaty has been drafted, have been shown to the well founded. The attacks made on them by the Senator from Utah simply do not hold up.
 Firs,4 the argument that the disposal power of the Congress is exluisi ye of the treatymaking power is without legal basis. By proving that the disposal power may not be exercised by the States or the President alone, the Seniator proves nothing. None of the cases cited by the Senator deals with disposal of the President by and with the "advice and consent of the Senate, that is, by means of a treaty. And that is what we are talkingT about.