You may have Democratic votes against it, but if the plea is that we make it unanimous, this isn't going to make it unanimous.

Senator GREEN. The nearer we come to unanimity, the better it is for the country.

Senator TAFT. That is my concern too. I am trying to get as unanimous a view as possible. This particular amendment I don't see much objection to, if we do it one way or the other.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I don't see any objection, but certainly don't see any real significance. If there is something real or substantial in changing this, we can argue about it.

I certainly agree with Senator Green's approach to it. Just a minor matter of words is truly a matter of taste. I am not going to be for it.

If there is some substantial change that would really influence the votes, I would be interested in hearing that, but I am not going to vote for just a change in a single word that doesn't really change the meaning.

BIPARTISANSHIP

Senator FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reply to Senator Green's remark about the fact that they have passed in their Policy Committee this matter and therefore it makes it bipartisan. I can't agree with that.

I think what you have adopted here is the philosophy of your party on these resolutions and therefore it is one party. That is the way I feel about it.

Senator TAFT. No, I don't quite agree to that. They have approved a resolution. I don't think that their approval of a resolution means that you can't consider a single word change. I can't understand that and I don't think that is a reasonable position.

I wouldn't ask the Republican Conference to do that without leaving the committee some discretion as to the wording. I don't believe your committee policy meant to endorse as is, but I can't interpret your policy committee to say "We must do it this way or we won't be for it." I think policy committees, at least in my experience on them, I have been very, very careful not to tell regular committees what they must and shall do in detail. I mean we may approve policy, but I don't think we dictate to them on the wording of their legislation.

COMMITTEE WILL BE ACCUSED OF DELAY

Senator GREEN. In view of the slight if any change in the meaning, won't it be said that the change is made simply for the purposes of delay, in the hope that other changes may be made later, or give the opportunity for other changes to be made later? Won't that rightly or wrongly be said by the press of the country or by the press of the world? "They are fighting for delay, anything to put off acting."

If we act in favor of it, concurring with the House, the thing will be over, but otherwise there is always hope on the part of some people that it may be so changed that it will never go through.

Senator TAFT. I personally oppose any change. I am just saying the policy committee I don't think undertakes to do that.

SUGGESTED CHANGE HAS NO MEANING

Senator GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, I don't think the suggested change means anything at all. If it meant anything at all, why I would discuss it. It means absolutely nothing, "a just peace". You have read the whole thing in context: "shall again enjoy the right of self-determination within the framework which will sustain the peace", that they shall again have the right to choose the form of government under which they will live, and the sovereign right of self-government shall be restored, and so forth.

I don't see that it means a thing on earth, and it is for the sake of a change, I think it is all wrong.

Let me make this statement. I don't know that I will make very many more about it. There are some Democrats who would like to see this thing very different from what it is.

You gentlemen probably would like to see it different. There are some Republicans who would like to see outright repudiation of some of these secret agreements, maybe all of them. There are some Democrats, on the contrary, who would like to see an affirmance of them. The President himself in his own appearance before the Congress said he would ask the Congress to join him in this resolution, which he and his department sent down.

It wasn't presented to me until after the others had seen it. There were some changes suggested, and some of the changes were minor, at any rate they didn't insist on some of them, and the policy committee did, the leaders did decide to go along with the President in this statement, which he had asked us to join.

It is not like an ordinary resolution that comes up here on the floor which we ourselves are formulating, framing. When the President asks us to join with him, sends over the resolution, and then when responsible heads of the party leadership, a minority it is true, said well, we will go along with this, it didn't mean that there weren't other members of the party who wouldn't have liked to have said, "Well, these agreements were all right. We want to confirm them."

You will find that sentiment on the floor of the Senate on the part of some of the Democrats, some maybe not, and I don't see that this change means a thing on earth.

What you are saying is:

Shall enjoy the right of self-determination within the framework which will sustain the peace; that they shall again have the right to choose the form of government under which they will live, and that sovereign right of selfgovernment shall be restored to them,

and so forth. If that doesn't mean a just peace, you can't spell it out. There is no virtue in just changing a word, and there is so much danger in it under the circumstances under which this resolution has been presented to us, that I would myself forego any mere desire to have any part in the resolution. There may not be any virtue in this resolution at all. Maybe the President was unwise in suggesting it. Maybe he was unwise in asking the Congress to join with him in this resolution, but he did it. He has his purpose and I am not going to say that it is unwise. I don't like resolutions. I would just as soon not pass them.

Senator FERGUSON. Will the Senator yield?
Senator GEORGE. Yes.

WOULD RESOLUTION CONFIRM THE AGREEMENTS?

Senator FERGUSON. Do you think we ought to pass this, that we would as the Senate and the House be confirming these agreements, ratifying them?

Senator GEORGE. No, no, I don't think you do, Senator. There may be an implication that you are not raising any objection to them so far as this particular resolution is concerned, but that is all it is. I don't consider it a confirmation of anything.

It seems to me that all you can say is there is an implication here that no objection is being made to them. That may be, but it is for the purpose of this particular resolution. That is all the construction I would ever put on it.

I can see that you might better this resolution in some respects. Really it doesn't read too smoothly to me, but I don't see that you change any sense of this resolution.

SELF-DETERMINATION IS THE ONLY ISSUE

Senator TAFT. I don't quite see why they have "within a framework which will sustain the peace" at all. I would leave that whole clause out. I don't quite see what it means.

Senator GEORGE. I agree it is odd language here.

Senator FERGUSON. I agree with leaving it all out, but I think if you are going to use the word "peace", you ought to express what we have in mind.

Senator GEORGE. Well, I think that does mean a just peace. We are not going to be the judges of whether they have the kind of peace they want. If they can have the government they want, if they can determine what they want, and can live in peace, why then they are doing pretty well. I don't want to tell any people just what they will have. I have hesitated all along. I have tried to avoid interference with the internal affairs of any state. I don't care how little the state is or how insignificant it is.

I think that all this can mean, that they consider this a just peace if they could do these things which this resolution says we express the hope they may again have the right to do, they would consider that a just peace, a satisfactory peace. I don't think we should interfere with it beyond expressing this hope.

I don't see, Homer, that it makes any difference about the change of a word "the peace" to "a just peace", but it does, Senator Green says, make a change.

I beg you gentlemen to bear in mind there are men on the House side of the aisle who believe these agreements were properly made. They are not willing to criticize them. They don't want to criticize them. They are willing to join with the President here, and what this resolution does is to say that you agree that these countries should have self-determination. They should decide their own fate.

You haven't done that. You have imposed your will on them. You have imposed a tyranny on them, and imperialism and I think you just have to consider there are different views on this matter.

They might not be so important to me individually. When I saw this resolution it already suggested a few changes, ones which were

not taken. I didn't see any point in the suggestion. They said, "Well, we will go along with it," so here we are.

Senator FERGUSON. I think that there are people on this side of the aisle just as firm in their opinions.

Senator GEORGE. Oh, I don't question that, but then this resolution. is nothing more than a statement that with respect to the question of self-determination you have violated the agreements; you haven't lived up to them. You have imposed your will, you have imposed a tyranny on these people, and we are now protesting.

I said before I would question whether or not it was wise to raise this issue by resolution, but it has been done. The President has done it. He has his reasons for doing it, and he has had far more experience in dealing with these people than I have had. He has had far more experience in dealing with war than any of us have, and I am willing to go along with him.

The minority party said, "Yes, we will go along, it's all right. We will stick with the President on it, because we realize that the real value is something approaching unanimity, something like a universal decision."

You are not going to have a split here on a matter that after all as I see it can't amount to too much, because I don't think you can construe this resolution but meaning one thing. Some of these agreements did provide for self-determination of these peoples and Russia has taken a contrary view and has imposed its will on them. We are protesting against that.

Now it is a fact that these agreements were made. Whether they were rightfully made or wrongfully made, with or without authority, wise or unwise, they are there and they did have lots to say about people determining as to what sort of government they would live under. That was where the emphasis was placed.

I don't see that you are doing any more than recognizing as a fact. what is a fact in this resolution.

CONSULTATIONS ON THE RESOLUTION

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I don't consider the suggestion that has been made-this was just handed to us and told to sign on the dotted line. I know many have participated, Mr. Dulles and others, and it was open to suggestions, and it was the result of discussions that the intent of the President was put to words. I share Senator George's views on the thing.

Senator GEORGE. That may be. I had nothing to do with that part of it.

Senator SMITH. On our side I was asked to come to two or three conferences on it.

Senator GEORGE. It was brought to me after the party leaders had looked it over. One or two little changes were suggested. I didn't think either one of them amounted to anything, to tell you the truth, but they did insist on one which Mr. Dulles and his people were willing to make.

Senator SMITH. I agree with Mr. Dulles' view. I spoke to him last night about this and he feels, and I think he is right, that unless you have a large measure of accord on this, you had better not pass

anything. If this should be passed by a vote of 45 to 40, it wouldn't be worth anything.

We either have to go along with this or else not do it at all.

Senator TAFT. Mr. Chairman, I think we might as well be perfectly frank on what the difficulty here is and why we are going to lose a great many Republican votes certainly and maybe some Democratic votes if the resolution is as it is.

THE REAL ISSUE IS PRESIDENTIAL POWER

We have had a political dispute. Many Republicans have outrightly said that they think the Yalta Agreement was made without authority, that it did things that could not be done by the President, that it was the cause of our present troubles.

The Democrats have taken the other position. I think the President himself in his speech said that he proposed to repudiate the Yalta Agreement, and we are all going to be accused of violating our political promises.

Now that is the fact of the matter and I don't see how we can escape it as far as that is concerned. The only thing that I am interested in is that they should not be able to come back and say, "Far from doing what you had said you would do, you have actually affirmed the Yalta Agreements by implication", and I think that is what the resolution can be said to do. I can argue the other way that it isn't that, but that is the argument that certainly I am going to make.

Now it seems to me that we ought to agree that what we are proposing to do here is something that postpones the dispute. It leaves the dispute where it was. We can go out hereafter and assert that the Yalta Agreement was as bad as we said it was before, and you can come in and say it was wonderful and the only thing that could be done at the time.

RESOLUTION ADDRESSES ITSELF TO A DIFFERENT QUESTION

I am willing to leave that out, because Mr. Dulles' purpose, as I get it, is something a little different from repudiating the Yalta Agreement. What he wants to do is in effect say to these people, "We are not acquiescing in your present situation". That is about what it comes to as I see it, so as to encourage them, just like the Formosa fleet declaration, something that will encourage them.

I am willing to do that and willing to take the burden of saying, all right, we haven't carried out what we said we would do. We are postponing that matter. We haven't got a big enough majority. We can have other reasons why we don't think it ought to be taken up and disturb the harmony of the Senate on foreign policy, but I would like to be able to answer to you that we did not deal with this. This was a different problem, and that is why I have been very anxious to get in some sort of a wording to make it perfectly clear on its face so nobody can question it, that this resolution doesn't affirm these agreements.

Senator KNOWLAND. Or repudiate them.

Senator TAFT. Or repudiate them. I don't want to imply repudiation of them so far as that is concerned.