279


 Thus, to call Indian communities foreign nations in the sense of foreign countries, not within the limits of the United States, is stretching" pretty far f or a precedent.
 Even if there were some kind of precedent in these treaties, they would no longer be valid because both H-ouses of Congress acted more than a century ago to repudiate the use of treaties in dealing with Indians. In the 1860's Cong-ress thoroughly debated the practice of transferring public lands to Indians by treaties and emphatically decided that thereafter no soil of this country would be sold or givenl up without the approval of both H-ouses of Congress.
 Congress did not simply express this policy in a sense of the Congress resolution, but it spelled it out plainly in two statutes enacted into law-the act of March 129, 1867, and the act of March 3, 1871. Thus, the Indian treaties and cases are not valid precedents to be relied upon today in determining the role of Congress in disposing of the Panama Canal.
 In fact, Mr. President, I think we can discard case law as the basis for our decision of this question. I think both sides of the issue wi'll agree that there is no Supreme Court case squarely deciding a contest between the House of Representatives and the treatymaking power. But that is exactly the situation we are facing today.
 There are presently more than a majority of the Members of the House of iRepresentatives-219, to be exact-who have joined in sponsoring a resolution declaring that any transfer of p roperty in thle Panama Canal Zone must receive the specific authorization of an act of Congress passed by both IHouses.
 In these circumstances, Mr. President, I believe we should do more than just argue from uncertain judicial and historical precedents that are not really on point. In my opinion, the answer to the question does not lie in court cases, but is to be found in the Constitution itself and in the intent of the framers.
 On this basis, I am convinced the framers meant for both Houses of Congress to act before public land or territory could be transferred to a foreign country.
 I believe they framers deliberately wrote article IV into the Constitution as one of the checks and balances of Government so that there must be consideration by both the Senate and the House of Representatives before Federal land or property can be conveyed to another power.
 This is a matter that closely touches all the people. The transfer of the canal and Canal Zone assets, whose replacement value is nearly $10 billion and whose operation is closely linked to the economy and security of our Nation, is a subject of the gravest importance. It is undoubtedly the kind of public action which the framers did not want taken until it had received the most extensive and thorough deliberation.
 Mr. President, I am amazed that in this day and age, when everyoM' Is worrying about what is called the Imperial Presidency, mn' colleagues do not refer back to the original purpose of the framers who wanted to place a check on major actions of the Government ltt may harm the country.