Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, may I say to the distinguished Senator from Arkansas that I think he has rendered a real service in offering this resolution. I hope he will hold hearings on it.

I know of nothing that is more in need of clarification than the present state of the alleged commitment of the United States all over the world. We hear that national commitment has been made because two Presidents have made speeches outlining this policy, or perhaps two Secretaries of State, or one Vice President; or maybe they all joined in and made speeches, and that that constitutes national commitment. The commitment in many instances is one that can only be met by the blood of the young men of this Nation and the treasure of the people of this country that is collected through taxes.

As I understand it, the Senator says that the resolution does not and, indeed, cannot seek to limit the powers of the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United Staes. That is a matter outlined in the Constitution. However, there is so much loose talk of the national commitment we have, if the Senator's committee could bring to light those we consider viable and those that might be barred by the statute of limitations, or for some other reason, it would be a great service to the Congress and the Nation.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I do intend to ask the Foreign Relations Committee to hold hearings on this subject at an early date and to try to develop clearly how these commitments came about. Often we have no treaties for what are claimed to be our commitments, and there are many things which are not clear.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I am impressed with the statement of the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations: And also with this resolution. I am glad to note, also that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL], is in full agreement with the resolution, especially in that it would appear one of the most important presentations before this body since I have had the privilege of being a Member.

It is my recollection that one of the fine minds of this country, the former Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, recently wrote in one of his books that the greatest single change in the functioning of our Government was further delegation by the legislative branch of its constitutional authority to the executive branch.

As we all know, Dean Acheson is a thinker. He was an outstanding statesman. It would seem, therefore, that this resolution, prepared by two of the fine minds of the Senate is a practical effort to slow that trend.

Based on my experience as a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and also Armed Services, I am glad to see that both chairmen of these two committees, the way the world is today, are in full agreement with respect to the importance of this resolution.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I am happy now to yield to the Senator from North Carolina, and then I will be glad to yield to my colleague [Mr. McCLELLAN].

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I want to commend the able Senator from Arkansas on the presentation of this resolution. It seems to me that it compels the Senate to study anew one of the most important problems which now confronts the American people and which has confronted them for many years.

The Senate has recently manifested an interest in a restudy of the fundamental system of our Constitution which we call the separation of powers. Its interest in this field is shown by the fact that during the last session it created a special subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary; namely, the Subcommittee on the Separation of Governmental Powers.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. If the Senator from North Carolina will allow me to interject a comment; he is the distinguished head of that subcommittee and it was in the preparation of my remarks before that subcommitee and consideration of this issue in Congress that the idea of my resolution was generated. It grows out of the work the Senator's subcommittee is engaged in.

Mr. ERVIN. I should like to say for the benefit of all Senators, and the public generally, that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT] appeared before the Subcommittee on the Separation of Governmental Powers some days ago and made one of the most penetrating and illuminating statements I have ever heard on the subject of the power to conduct our foreign policy. The Sen

ator has offered to have the statement placed in the RECORD today and it merits thoughtful consideration by all Senators and the American people who are interested in constitutional government and the position in which we may find ourselves in this precarious world, now and in the future.

The Senator from Arkansas demonstrates in his statement on this occasion, and also in the statement he made before the Subcommittee on the Separation of Government Powers, that the making of foreign policy is not a prerogative which is committed solely to the executive branch of Government; that, on the contrary, it is a power which the executive branch shares with Congress in general, and the Senate in particular.

The Senator from Arkansas has rendered a real, a lasting, and a most significant service to the country in proposing the resolution which he has offered today, because it presents an opportunity for us to study again the fundamental principles of the separation of powers and the combination of powers and also to relearn something which all too often we may have forgotten; namely, that the direction of American foreign policy is a matter which belongs to Congress in general, and the Senate in particular, as well as to the President. It is a power which must be exercised in conformity with the Constitution. I believe in conformity with practical wisdom in this precarious world and that this power must be shared between the executive and legislative branches of Government.

I thank the Senator for yielding to me.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for his statement. I feel this resolution and the hearings we will have upon it complement the basic and major work which the Senator from North Carolina is doing. The resolution focuses on only one aspect of this over-all problem.

Now I am happy to yield to my colleague from Arkansas.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. I thank my colleague for yielding to me. I join with Senators here who have commended the Senator for his presentation of the resolution.

So far as I know now, I am inclined to give it my strong support, but I want to ask one or two questions to see if I can clarify what the objectives of the resolution are.

In the first place, may I ask whether the Committee on Foreign Relations has available to it now, from any source, inventory, or listing, the different commitments-using the term somewhat loosely as I think it is today applied -all over the world, commitments of human as well as material resources. Does the Foreign Relations Committee have any informaion available to it today so that it could advise the Senate where the commitments are and their extent?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. If the word "commitments" is used a little more narrowly to mean those obligations arising out of treaties or conventions in which Congress has played a part, they are certainly available.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. I am talking about obligations which are not in treaty form. In treaty form we do not need any inquiry.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. If I may say to the Senator, there are a number of obligations which have been referred to, certainly, by members of the executive branch, as commitments. But I do not think they are commitments. This is the crux of the matter. The hearings I expect to hold will be intended to develop the distinction between what are valid national commitments, or true commitments in the constitutional sense, and what are simply statements of policy that may have been made by individual officials, say, at the Honolulu conference or at any other meeting of that kind. These, I do not believe, under the Constitution, could be held to the true commitments of this country. They are merely statements of intention on the part of members of the executive branch, usually the Vice President, the Secretary of State, or the President.

I certainly hope that the hearings will draw this distinction between a true commitment in which the honor of our country is involved and a simple statement of policy which is, in a sense, a statement of intention on something which may happen at a later date, which with the cooperation of Congress and its approval might then create a commitment. But, when we get into this latter field, we have all degrees of incipient commitments. Perhaps the statement made at Honolulu with regard to the so-called Asian or Johnson doctrine is the beginning of a commitment. If we do not do something about it, if we do not try and clarify and restrict it, we may find that it is soon viewed as a com

80-847-72- -25

mitment--that is one of the principal points. I have in mind. I would not call such a statement a commitment yet. But if we do not do anything and allow it to be reiterated time and again that it is a commitment, the first thing we know, it will be accepted at a national commitment without congressional consent.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. In other words, by silence, by inaction, we acquiesce in it.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is correct.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. And therefore it becomes a commitment, and we let the world believe that we are officially committed.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I am not talking only about this administration. Going back to the days of Truman administration on through the Eisenhower administration on through the Eisenhower administration, there are instances which I shall cite a little later-in which a statement was made in a conference, or even in a press conference, and now, 10 years later, it is referred to as our commitment.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Is there any source now where the information is available to the Senator's committee or to the Congress containing such commitments, even though we may term them as loose commitments, which can be identified for our guidance?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. We have a great deal of information but one cannot be sure; members of the executive may consider even some press conference statements as commitments, which I do not. The staff has done some work on this subject already. I will refer to some instances later.

I am not trying to be evasive. This is a question of definition. We clearly have commitments in some instances where legislation was involved. But there is a gradation. I would dispute some as being commitments. They were simply statements. While I know about some of them, there may be others that I do not know about. I think we can put them together.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. The point I am making is, if today we asked for that information, from what source would we ask it, and would it be available to us?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I think so, but with that reservation as to what is a commitment. Some of those statements would be so vague that I would not include them in the list, but I think they are available.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. The committee will hold hearings and I suppose it will provide a study as to what is needed. I woule hope and would assume that one of the objectives would be as follows. I give this as an illustration. Of course, a commitment of human resources is far more serious, but let us assume someone goes to a country and makes a speech that we pledge all sorts of things. That may be a commitment of one branch of the Government, but is that a commitment that is binding on the Government without the advise and consent of the Senate?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I do not think so, unless it is in pursuance of a treaty. I assume, from the illustration, it is not. That is one of the things we plan to clarify for the future.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. I commend the Senator, because I think this is an area where all of us get confused. At times, I am at a loss to know what I should do or what our obligation is. There may be some actions of which we may not have approved, but if the Government is committed, we want to follow it and uphole its hand. That is a problem we have in our so-called foreign relations and international affairs. I hope the Senator's committee can study it and help to clarify it.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. We will try to to that.

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr. President, I want to commend the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, for a resolution which will have more far-reaching consequences and important consequences than anything that will probably be considered in this session of Congress.

Starting after World War II, we seem to have embarked on an entirely new foreign policy. The executive department took ove almost completely the handling of foreign policies and commitments. These commitments are so huge now that I do not think any Member of the Senate really knows what all we are committed to. The dangerous part of it is that the commitments are far beyond our capabilities. We are just not big enough or powerful enough and

we do not have the manpower or financial resources to police the whole world, which we are attempting to do now. We are now engaging in large-scale warfare without a declaration of war. Many people do not know why we are doing it. I receive many letters from constituents who say, "Why don't you do something about all our foreign commitments?" In recent years it is difficult to answer, because the executive department has taken most of the authority of Congress in this field.

I commend the Senator for trying to get back to the Congress some of the powers that rightfully belong to it.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I thank the Senator for his comments. I hope the hearings will clarify the situation.

Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. MORTON. I commend the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I think a resolution of this kind, coming from one who has had the experience he has had in this general area and in his position of leadership in the Senate, will be considered in great detail. I was impressed by a comment which the Senator made as follows:

We in government life frequently err by refusing to define our terms and by falling back on cliches which really have not been examined in years. In the field of foreign policy certain phrases reasonably descriptive of the world situation, two decades ago are being used almost ritualistically without reappraisal of their relevance to current conditions

And so forth.

This is a point that I think needs some emphasis. Today, in the technological age in which we find ourselves, with the tremendous revolution in transportation,communication, and everything else that has taken place in a quarter of a century, obviously some statement that some President or Secretary of State made 25 years ago may not fit the needs of today.

I do not know whether the Congress ever took any action upon the Monroe Doctrine, whose genesis was the fact that the Russians were looking at the west coast of South America and this continent with some degree of interest. Here today we have a situation in one of our Latin American neighbors, Cuba, in which she is exporting revolution to our friends in Latin America. This brings on an entirely different situation. Yet, are we going to be hidebound and say we are committed to protecting Cuba against any enemy whomsoever? This is one example-extreme, it is true.

The General Assembly of the United Nations had 45 members at its inception just some 22 years ago. Today it has more than doubled. Did the people who drew up the United Nations Charter or Treaty envisage the fact that it would go up by 120 percent in membership; that the whole continent of Africa, then for the most part colonial, would have a multipliticy of free, young governments, with all their problems; that south Asia would no longer be colonial, but would be in the status in which we find it today?

Referring briefly to the Senator's colloquy with his senior collegaue as to what is a commitment, I do not know, but I know that in my short time here I have been importuned by both Democratic and Republican administrations with, "Well, whether you like it or not, we have got to do it. We are committed. We said we are going to do it." So it comes about after "church is out," really. What can we do but acquiesce in it, in the way it is presented to us— "the honor of the United Sates is involved here"?

I commend the Senator from Arkansas. I know he will have productive hearings on this matter.

I agree with his comment of the great work being done by the senior Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], because I think this problem goes beyond the foreign field. The Senator from Arkansas has restricted this resolution to this particular area, the need for which to me is so abundantly clear that we will act on it soon.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I thank the Senator for his comments.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. MORSE. I rise to commend the Senator from Arkansas and highly pledge my support of the resolution. I also join in the commendation of the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN] for the great work he is doing in conducting the hearings on the important issue of constitutional law involving the separation of powers doctrine.

80-847-72-26

I testified before his committee, as did the Senator from Arkansas. Senator ERVIN told me, a minute or two ago, that he inserted my testimony in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD today. My testimony was limited for the most part to the major thrust of the objective of the resolution which the Senator from Arkansas has submitted today. To me it means that, at long last, some action is being taken in the Senate of the United States to exercise its constitutional duties and protect its constitutional prerogatives.

The Senator from Arkansas and other Senators have heard me, for many years, deplore what I consider to be the surrender of the constitutional prerogatives and he constitutional duties of the U.S. Senate in this area of separation of powers. In the field of constitutionalism, I have always been ultraconservative, because one cannot be anything else, in my judgment, and carry out the constitutional responsibilities of a Senator.

What we have permitted to happen, by way of de facto action, is for the executive branch of the Government to amend the Constitution of the United States by violations of its constitutional responsibilities. Nobody is to blame for that but Congress, particularly the Senate. If we want government by men instead of government by constitutional law, the way to get it is to do what the Senate has done for many, many years. To try to get the Senate to stop doing it has been a challenge that has confronted some of us.

When we have voted against a Formosa resolution, when we have voted against a Middle East resolution, when we have voted against a Tonkin Bay resolution, when we have refused to give to a President of the United States unchecked power, the Senate knows what has descended upon our political heads. But all we have been doing is pleading for the following of the check and balance system of the Constitution.

If the Senator from Arkansas will permit me, I should like to read a few paragraphs from one of the greatest constitutional lawyers who has sat in this body since I have been a Member-a constitutitnal lawyer whom I followed, when he was in the Senate, on the major positions he took on constitutional law.

Over the weekend, I read again a little book published by Senator Robert A. Taft in 1951, entitled "A Foreign Policy for Americans."

He, interestingly enough, throughout his great record in the Senate, took exactly the same position the Senator from Arkansas is taking in this resolution. He took exactly the same position I have argued for here on the floor of the Senate time and time again and which I taught in the law school classroom before I came to the Senate. I would have the RECORD show some of the very sound constitutional law teachings of the late Senator Taft as they relate directly and indirectly to the resolution of the Senator from Arkansas. If the Senator will permit me, I ask the Senate to listen to some of his paragraphs. Mr. FULBRIGHT. I am happy to yield for that purpose.

Mr. MORSE. I think it is a very fitting supplement to the Senator's argument in support of the resolution. I speak only for myself and make my own interpretation of what Senator Taft wrote. But make your own. Answer, if you can, his statement quoted on page 22:

"I think it is fair to say that the State Department has adopted an attitude of hostility toward Congress and an unwillingness to submit any matter to Congress if it thinks it can possibly carry it through without such submission. It shows a complete distrust of the opinion of the people, unless carefully nursed by State Department propaganda."

In that passage Senator Taft was talking about secret diplomacy. He was talking about those "commitments" to which the Senator from Arkansas refers in his resolution. The Senator from Arkansas has sat with me in meetings of the Committee on Foreign Relations when State Department representatives have come before the committee and said, "You can't let us down now. It was so hard to negotiate this commitment, it was so difficult to get them to agree. Now, if you let us down and do not go along with this commitment, you are going to do great injury to American diplomacy."

Let me say I believe great restrictions should be placed on the street diplomacy of the State Department. The secret diplomacy of the State Department violates the cardinal principle of making available to the people the facts that involve their lives in the field of foreign policy. It conceals from them knowledge to which the public is entitled. That, in part, I respectfully submit, is what is beind the resolution of the Senator from Arkansas.