Senator FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I think this record ought to show also the evidence can be obtained from the State Departmentthat Mr. Hiss' activities with the Soviet were also reported to the State Department by the FBI. The CHAIRMAN. When? Senator FERGUSON. Prior to Yalta. [63] Mr. BOHLEN. *** 3. To attempt to get as many members of the Polish group in London as possible into the reorganized government. Now here is something that I hope, since it involves an individual for whom I have a great respect, Mikolajczyk, whom I consider to be a very brave man-he went into Poland and escaped at the risk of his life later. Before Yalta I myself had an interview with him in London, and he mentioned these three possibilities, and he said he thought the central one, that is the attempt to get a new government of Poland, the reorganized one, that is to say with as many men from the West, of the three choices in the best interests of Poland. Senator FERGUSON. You mean that he didn't understand that by taking them in Mr. BOHLEN. He understood very well. Senator FERGUSON [continuing]. That they would lose the govern ment? [Whereupon, at 6:15 p.m., the committee adjourned.] DECLARATION ON CAPTIVE PEOPLES-Continued 1 TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1953 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:45 a.m. in the Foreign Relations Committee room, U.S. Capitol Building, Senator Alexander Wiley (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Wiley (chairman), Smith of New Jersey, Hickenlooper, Taft, Langer, Ferguson, Knowland, George, Green, Fulbright, Sparkman, Gillette, and Humphrey. Also present: Dr. Wilcox, Dr. Kalijarvi, Mr. Marcy, Mr. Holt, and Mr. O'Day, of the committee staff. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we have assurances that Senator Humphrey will be here and, also, Senator Langer, though he is absent at present. Senator Tobey is out of town. And Senator Hickenlooper will be here. Now, should we wait before we start discussion? Senator TAFT. Bill Langer will be here later. He has got this International Wheat Agreement coming up. Senator SMITH. Let's go ahead and discuss the matter. The CHAIRMAN. It is the desire of the committee that the meeting come to order. The matter of business before the committee is H. J. Res. 200, a proposed resolution, joining with the President of the United States in a declaration regarding the subjugation of free peoples by the Soviet Union. NOT PEACE BUT A JUST PEACE Senator FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I have got one suggestion: In the fourth line from the bottom of page 2 of the resolution, it reads: "Join with the President of the United States in proclaiming the hope that the peoples who have been subjected to the captivity of Soviet despotism shall again enjoy the right of self-determination within a framework which will sustain the peace";-I think that we ought to take the word "the" out and make it "sustain a just peace". That is the fourth line from the bottom. Senator GREEN. What page is that? Senator FERGUSON. On page 2. I may have a different copy. Senator FERGUSON. "Sustain the peace". The CHAIRMAN. You might take the resolution here, and we will work on that. 1 See notes, p. 167. 72-194-77—vol. V- -15 Senator FERGUSON. "A just peace" instead of "the peace", indicating it is the peace we have now. The CHAIRMAN. Where is that on this draft? Senator FERGUSON. It is on line 13, "which will sustain"-instead of "the peace" make it-"a just peace". I move we change the word "the" to "a" and insert "just". Senator SMITH. Is that the same suggestion that Walter Judd made in the House? Senator FERGUSON. Yes. It was within one of carrying in the House. The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute, the House hasn't taken any action. Senator FERGUSON. No, the committee of the House. The CHAIRMAN. Will you please state that again? Senator FERGUSON. "Will sustain a just peace". Take out the word "the" and insert "a" and "just". Senator TAFT. What is the objection, Homer? Senator FERGUSON. The objection to the way it is now, Bob, is to say "the peace" it could mean the peace now. I think we ought to use the word "just peace". Senator TAFT. What does it all mean anyway?"--been subjected to the captivity of Soviet despotism shall again enjoy the right of self-determination within a framework which will sustain a just peace". What is the purpose? I suppose the idea is to say that we are not going to march in with soldiers, is that it? Is that the idea why it is there? Senator FERGUSON. I think that is what he had in mind. Let them determine, and the whole condition will be such that they can determine it. The CHAIRMAN. That is a minor matter that there can be serious objection to. Does anyone have an idea on that? REPORT THE RESOLUTIONS SUBMITTED Senator GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I have this idea. There may not be very much difference between the meaning of "the peace" and "a just peace", but we are once again making changes. There are a great many others that will be suggested, and there will be additional argument why we should again modify it. The Democratic Policy Committee has expressed its approval by formal resolution of the document as is, and I doubt very much if we begin to tinker with it, whether we will be willing to pass a resolution adopting the changes which will doubtless be made. My argument isn't so much against this one change as it is against any changes. Mr. Dulles expressed the hope that it might pass as submitted. The House considered this change as well as other changes and decided on the whole it was better to adopt it as submitted. I think the effect on the world will be much better if what the President submitted could be passed unanimously by the Senate as well as by the House. The effect on the world would be much better than if we begin to debate and discuss different amendments, and one necessarily leads. to others, and in this particular case I shouldn't think it was worthwhile fighting for. (718) CONGRESS NOT A RUBBER STAMP FOR PRESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS Senator KNOWLAND. Mr. Chairman, if I might just respectfully differ with the Senator on that, it seems to me that some of us in the past, and I think properly so, have taken the position that Congress does have its responsibiilty, and if on any legislation-and I say it under a Republican administration as I would under a Democratic administration-if in the drafting of a document that they send up either as a law or a resolution, we find where it can be improved within the general confines of our policy, I think it is our obligation to make those suggestions. I certainly have never looked with favor on the theory that the Congress, once an executive sends something up here, can't dot an "i" or change a "t", improve the grammar or clarify language which is sent up to us. I don't believe that the Congress should merely rubber stamp a resolution or a piece of legislation. I don't think that we are carrying out our job as legislators or as members of this very important committee, and I respectfully suggest that if we can find within the objective that we are all seeking, in view of this speech of Mr. Vishinsky yesterday, wherein he attacked with equal vigor what he called the aggression of the TrumanAcheson administration and the Eisenhower administration, we should try to work out language here that will meet the problems Senator FERGUSON. I want to join in those remarks, because I do not feel that the legislative body either under this administration or under the past is right when they ask the Congress to adopt the language that they want to use when Congress' job is to frame it in the language that they believe represents the policy. I want to work with the executive, but I don't think that we ought to be in the position that we can't change a word or even the meaning of it, and I think this does, and a thing like this. The CHAIRMAN. I don't think that is the attitude of the executive. Senator FERGUSON. I'm sure it isn't, but I don't think the opposition ought to pass a resolution or pass in their policy committee this kind of a matter, and then ask the majority party that they must go along with that language. SEEKING UNANIMITY Senator GREEN. The point is this; that the advantage of this one phrase over the other is so slight if anything, that is it worthwhile to muddy the waters by having it go back to the House for repassage there and also require the Democratic Policy Committee, which has shown a real serious endeavor for bipartisanship in this matter-I think that we have improvements to suggest, but I resist the temptation because of the effect on the world, which is our main consideration-passing it at all doesn't accomplish anything except psychologically-is to show the unanimity with which this nation is acting. Senator TAFT. If you pass this resolution now without amending it, you will have no unanimity in the Senate. You will have a substantial number of Republican votes against it, so we are up against the same problem you are up against as far as that is concerned. |