Precisely how that would all be worked out, I think, is not envisioned at this point because negotiations are still going forward.

Senator HATCH. Let me tell you how you can envision it. That is to do what the Constitution provides for, which is to come to the Congress and ask for legislation that gives you the right to enter into a treaty which would then be ratified and approved by the Senate. That is the only way to do it.

If you go ahead and enter into a treaty, knowing that the dictatorship down there needs the treaty to maintain any credibility, then once you do that, I think you would have Panamanian troops within the zone 1 hour after that treaty is entered into. Then we will have a serious diplomatic problem in getting them out of there, assuming that either branch of the Government, or both, do not approve the treaty.

So, we have problems. You may be causing, assuming that they do not approve the treaty, irreparable damage because we may be forced into the position of going down there and asserting our rights over the zone. The Panamanians would consider it already theirs because of the treaty. They may not understand the American constitutional requirements regarding this treaty.

One of the major reasons for having the treaty, as advanced by Mr. Linowitz, is that we want to have more stable relationships with our Latin American neighbors. One of those great arguments would have gone down the drain and we would have nothing but problems during the rest of the life of the Panama Canal.

So, this is one of the things that we are very concerned about on this subcommittee.

Mr. HANSELL. I think we recognize those concerns.

Senator HATCH. But nobody seems to be doing anything about it. They do not seem to be coming to the Congress. Do you not think they should come to the Congress?

Mr. HANSELL. Let me point out that there have been, both on the House and Senate side, extensive consultations that are still going on. One was as recent as yesterday afternoon. There would not be any final decisions made with respect to how to approach this, with respect to the kinds of problems you outlined, without careful consultation with the leadership.

Senator HATCH. With whom?

Mr. HANSELL. Leadership of the Congress.

Senator HATCH. The leadership is not the whole Congress, and sometimes it doesn't even control Congress.

Mr. HANSELL. The executive branch often faces the question who in the Congress to confer with for the purposes of consultation? Senator HATCH. It is not just the leadership.

I believe if you came to the House of Representatives right now and asked the Members to approve legislation authorizing the giveaway of the Panama Canal, you would not get a majority vote right now. That may be the reason for the approach that is being taken by the administration. If it is so, then it is probably not a proper

reason.

But let me give you a leader in the House, for instance, who has testified here who is very, very bitter about it. That is Congressman

Murphy. He is one of the leaders. He is the chairman of the most pertinent committee involving Panama Canal. He is totally against this. He may be the leader to defeat it in the end, at least in the House. He said, "We in Congress have yet to see"-this is June 30, 1977, and this is in the Congressional Record-"any material pertinent or not which is either third-hand information or speculation." He is one of the key Members of the House. He certainly is not being consulted, and has repeatedly expressed concern that his committee has been kept in the dark about this treaty.

Maybe you are going to Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Wright. Maybe you have gone to them. I have been in a meeting with the majority leader of the Senate. But I am not sure that this is being approached in the proper manner. It certainly is ignoring the fact that you seem to acknowledge, that is, that the Congress has an obligation under the Constitution and has the authority to approve the divestiture of U.S. land, such as the Panama Canal.

Mr. HANSELL. Senator, I think it is very important to emphasize and re-emphasize the desire and intent of the administration to consult carefully and extensively with the Congress. If I may, I would like to ask Mr. Beckel if he could comment a moment or two on the efforts that have been made in that regard. I think that you will find this quite impressive to the extent that it is news to you. May I ask Mr. Beckel to do that?

Senator ALLEN. Yes; that would be fine.

Mr. BECKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Hatch, the consultations with the Senate on the treaty have been extremely extensive. We have been extending invitations to appear. We have been up on the Hill with both Ambassadors briefing Senators and have extended invitations to almost 90 Senators. We have briefed over 50.

Senator HATCH. I will acknowledge that I was one of the Senators who was at one of those briefings. I appreciate that. But I did want to bring out the point I was making. I am not sure we are going about it the best way.

Mr. BECKEL. Let me suggest to you, Senator, that the consultations that have taken place on the Senate side are beginning to take place extensively on the House side. We met this week, the Ambassadors and myself, with Congressman Metcalfe, who is chairman of the Panama Subcommittee in the House, and Congressman Wright. We have also held a substantial meeting with a number of House Members, including Congressman Murphy, whom you have mentioned. We listened to his views and he listened to ours. We intend to consult on a broad range of issues with the Democratic and Republican leadership, the committee leadership, and other Members concerned in the House and Senate.

I think before the August recess we intend to at least extend invitations to all 100 Senators. By that time we will have touched base with at least 50 Members of the House. We intend to continue throughout the fall.

So, we will have received information and briefed, I think, an unprecedented number of Congressmen on this issue.

Senator HATCH. Mr. Chairman. I would like to bring out one other point.

Senator ALLEN. Certainly.

Senator HATCH. I believe that consultation where they come in and tell us what they are going to do is one matter. But Mr. Hansell, it seems to me, has indicated that he acknowledges this is an important issue which the Constitution provides for the approval of Congress for the divestiture of property.

Although, as I understand it, in your brief you feel there is not current jurisdiction here. He has indicated that the State Department fully intends to seek the approval of the House, as well as the ratification of the Senate. Am I correct in stating that?

Mr. HANSELL. As to some aspect of the implementation program, but not necessarily the property transfer.

Senator HATCH. If you are not acknowledging that, then we are concerned about that. We are concerned about ignoring basically the constitutional mandate that the Congress has to approve the divestiture of U.S. Government property.

If we are right in that assertion, the people of America are going to be pretty irritated when in the end Congress asserts its rights and, let us assume, goes against the treaty which the Panamanians are going to call binding.

If they do that, and if the Congress goes against it, we will be in a quagmire like you have never seen before which would disrupt Latin American relations like they would never be disrupted if we had taken what we consider to be the proper approach at the outset.

Mr. BECKEL. There are a number of other scenarios short of that which could be worked out between the executive and the Congress in the treaty ratification process.

Senator HATCH. We are not talking about ratification. We are talking about the legislation enabling you to have the authority to go down there.

Mr. BECKEL. I understand what you are saying. The discussions we held in the House 2 days ago concerned that very subject-the implementing legislation including the question of transfer of land and water. We approached the House and will continue to approach the House with the understanding that we have not made a definitive decision in the executive on this matter. We will take consultation from the Congress. We intend to do so before that decision is made. That is why we are here today.

Senator HATCH. Let me make this point. Let us assume that the committee is right in its interpretation which I think most of us are starting to lean toward right now. That is that you should have had implementing legislation enabling you to go down there and negotiate a treaty to begin with. Once that is done maybe you can come back and get ratification by the Senate.

I would believe that the Congress may very well grant you the authority to go down there and negotiate. It may not. That would be the appropriate way, however. Once that is done it is a matter of ratification. I would think you would have a much better chance than if you ignore the Congress at this point, come back with the treaty which the Panamanians consider to be binding because they will never understand, it seems to me, this legal argument or at least the general population will not understand it-I do not think it will ever be explained to them.

Consequently, you will have the disruption in Latin American relations that could ensue because we did not approach it in a procedurally, proper manner. It is a constitutionally proper manner.

If we are pointing this out so there is a great interchange that causes you to do that, I think that these committee hearings will play a vital role in protecting Latin American-U.S. relations far into the future. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to have interrupted you on your questioning. I just wanted to get some of these points on the record.

Senator ALLEN. That is perfectly all right. Feel free to make inquiries at any time. That is the best way to cover the subject thoroughly.

As I understand the position of the State Department, it is that it is not necessary that there be an act of Congress, that is, there be an action by both Houses of the Congress, to transfer property belonging to the United States. That a transfer can be concluded by a treaty approved by the Senate by a two-thirds vote. Is that correct?

Mr. HANSELL. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ALLEN. But you state that even though that is correct, you have not reached a decision as to whether the House will be called into play to give its approval by giving assent to an act of Congress. Is that correct?

Mr. HANSELL. Yes.

SEWARD'S FOLLY

Senator ALLEN. Carrying your line of reasoning one step further, perhaps the purchase by the United States of Alaska from Russia, known at that time as Seward's Folly, where some $7.2 million, I believe, was paid for all of Alaska, ought to be reexamined in today's spirit of détente with Russia. If Russia should point out that this was a transaction between the czarist regime, a discredited government— and that they are not bound by it-and if thereafter the executive branch entered into a treaty with Russia returning Alaska to Russia, could that treaty on approval of the Senate be activated and approved? That is, without approval by the House?

Mr. HANSELL. That is quite hypothetical, Mr. Chairman. I do not know that I am competent to pass on all aspects of that. But one distinction, it seems to me, that we have to make at the outset is that Alaska is a State. We are talking about wholly different relationships when we are talking about territory belonging to the United States. I think I would not want to get into the nuances of that issue. Senator ALLEN. It would take action by the House, would it not? Mr. HANSELL. I will pass on that question.

Senator ALLEN. What would the situation have been prior to Alaska's statehood when Alaska was a territory?

Mr. HANSELL. These, of course, are judgment questions just as we have indicated it is a judgment question here as to how it should be done. But, if, for example, the issue were presented with regard to transfers, and if there were minor cessions of Alaskan property, or even major dispositions, that could be done by treaty-I do not know if there were any cessions of Alaskan territory, but it is conceivable that there may have been some-it would, of course, have to be done by treaty.

94-790 - 77 - 2

Senator ALLEN. While Alaska was a territory, could the reconveyance of the territory of Alaska to Russia been accomplished by a treaty?

Mr. HANSELL. As a matter of constitutional authority, with Senate approval by a two-thirds vote, I guess that could have occurred.

Senator ALLEN. Public opinion would not have approved of that, would it?

Mr. HANSELL. I am no authority on public opinion, but I guessand that is hypothetical-it would be a very difficult transaction to carry out.

Senator ALLEN. Do you not think that the public opinion might be consulted with respect to the Panama situation?

Mr. HANSELL. That is why we are having extensive consultations with the representatives of the people. We have been doing precisely that.

Senator ALLEN. As Senator Hatch has pointed out, consultation is not an act of Congress. That is far from it. You might get unanimous approval in private conversations with every Member of the House and Senate. But that still would not comply with the constitutional mandate that this has to be done by Congress by public act. You could have every Member of the House and Senate collected on the White House lawn. They might all agree to it, but that still would not be an act of Congress.

Mr. HANSELL. I was responding to your point about sampling public opinion.

Senator ALLEN. Yes. But in the last analysis the Constitution says that public opinion is to be sampled in disposing of U.S. territory not by consultations but by act of Congress.

Senator HATCH. I might just add with regard to the Senator's question on Alaska that we are going to have testimony later today from Dr. Dozer. He states in his prepared testimony, and I think it is correct, that early in the Eisenhower administration, the Soviet Union. officially challenged the validity of the Alaskan Purchase of 1867.

I think we may be establishing a dangerous precedent here. If that happens, I think this treaty would put a blot on the record of the administration rather than the great mark of distinction and honor that the people in the State Department seem to think will be bestowed upon them. I think Senator Allen, my distinguished friend and colleague, has pointed out something very important. That is, perhaps the people of the United States do not want this to happen and to have it happen in the way that it is-by ignoring Congress and the representatives of the American people, the administration will create a major political crisis in America.

Moreover, this treaty could create a tremendous long-term, if not permanent, disruption in our relationship, not only with the Republic of Panama, but a number of South American or Latin American nations. Keep in mind that we had witnesses last week who have indicated that they do not feel that the Latin American countries are really going to be that concerned if the treaty fails.

On the surface they are saying they would like to see the Panamanians control the zone, but in reality, I suspect, many are hoping