Senator GILLETTE. Mr. Chairman, I dislike to take any more of the time of the committee, because I announced my viewpoint on two occasions here very clearly. I do not support this resolution as presented here, and I gave my reasons for it, and they have been repeated here.

A PARTISAN SITUATION HAS DEVELOPED

Again, let us not try to dodge this situation. A political situation, a partistan situation, has developed here. Certain statements were made in the course of the last campaign as to the exceeding of authority on the part of officials of the United States in negotiating certain agreements, and the suggestion was made, whether intentionally or not, but so interpreted by the people, that there would be an attempted repudiation.

On this side of the party line, there are many who feel that if authority was exceeded in the negotiation of this agreement by our agents, it was justified by the circumstances, and I happen to be one who feels that is true.

Now this resolution has come up here in a form that leaves that question dangling in the air. Secretary Dulles said in this statement:

This resolution looks to the future. The past is controversial. Should past administrations have made the agreements which they made? Were they foolishly beguiled by Soviet promises? Were they too much moved by consideration of short-term expediency, so that they sacrificed basic principles? Did they exceed their power in what they attempted, for these wartime agreements were never subjected to the constitutional processes of our Government?

All of these questions have been and long will be debated.

And then he leaves that dangling in the air, that those questions are not determined, and evidence was given here that there were 40 of these agreements, not just the Yalta agreement, but 40 agreements that are concerned in the language that is presented here.

Now the language might seem innocuous, but as I stated the other day, and as the Secretary stated, it leaves that question to be debated. It leaves that question that is controversial.

Senator Taft just quoted further from this statement, that Secretary Dulles said, "It validates nothing that is invalid," and I asked him the question, does it invalidate something that is valid in these 40 compacts or pacts that were entered into? He didn't answer that question.

Again that leaves it dangling up in the air. I have taken the position, and I still take it, and regardless of what the purpose of the President is, and regardless, I will say to my Democratic friends, of the position of the Democratic Policy Committee that is persuasive with me, but it not the last word. I reserve the right to act as my conscience tells me to act.

I should like to see, if the purpose of this is to give hope to the enslaved peoples, that the language be as strong at it could be made. I am going to make a motion, if I am the only one who votes for it, to strike out all of this resolution, the whereases down to the resolved, and pass that additional language.

I would prefer to see the phrase in the first paragraph of the resolved. "Applications of any international agreements or understandings." strike out the phrase "made during the course of World War II," so that it would say that we reject any interpretation or applica

tions of any international agreements or understandings which have been perverted to bring about the subjugation of free people, and so

on.

I would prefer that, but I would vote for the language as it is, if you prefer that that be left in.

As to the language of the amendment presented by Senator Taft, if it was amended to assert that this does not constitute approval or disapproval, or the words "confirmation or repudiation" I think I could support that. I wouldn't carry my feelings to the point as to be a lone hold-out, but we are jousting with windmills when we are leaving this controversial matter here and playing politics, gentlemen.

Now I am not accusing any particular person, but every man knows that back of all this is the question of partisan feeling one way or the other.

It is of such paramount importance to the free world, it is of such paramount importance to those of us who feel so deeply and keenly the need for making progress along the line of international cooperation to change this situation, that I can't be comfortable and see the thing perverted into a discussion of a controversial matter which the Secretary himself says:

We intend to leave that undecided and in dispute, but leave the question as as to whether this language does affirm it or repudiate it also undecided.

I can't vote for a resolution that leaves that matter still undecided and hangs that on the question of such deep import.

I appreciate the statements made here that the President had summed it up in this form, but this is the legislative body not the executive department. He has requested a resolution to effectuate these certain things, and I feel that we have a perfect right to pass it in the form that appeals to the majority of us.

I will support, if the Taft amendment is changed to read, "can be construed as repudiation."

NEW LANGUAGE SUGGESTED

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Senator whether this language would suit him any better than the language presented by Senator Taft:

'Adoption of this resolution does not constitute any determination by the Congress as to legality or illegality of any provision of said agreements or understanding"?

It is legality or illegality. Wouldn't that cover the argument?
Senator GILLETTE. That language would be acceptable.

Senator SMITH. Senator Taft, would you approve of that? Just "legality" or "illegality"?

Senator TAFT. I have no objection to that. You get a little bit involved in the question then as to whether it has to be confirmed.

I had in mind "expressing the validity or the need or lack of need for legislative action under our constitutional system."

Senator SMITH. That is the same principle, isn't it?

Senator TAFT. I have no objection to your words. Either way we do. the same thing. I was interested in the Senator's proposal.

I don't know that I could support it, but if you just take the resolveds, and cut out the words "made during the course of World

War II," of course it would change the thing to be a little more innocuous than it is now, but it does express the idea.

You get the Soviet in the second paragraph. I am a little afraid that it departs so far from the President's idea, although I personally don't mind doing it.

I think that is a pretty substantial departure. I claim my amendment doesn't depart from his ideas at all. That is what he would say. He is willing to write a letter, if you want a letter from the President instead of Dulles. He is willing to write a letter saying that this is his interpretation of it, but I think it would be a little far to strike out all the whereases and make this "any kind of an agreement made anywhere."

Senator KNOWLAND. Will you read that language of yours again, Senator Smith?

Senator SMITH. [reads].

The adoption of this resolution does not constitute any determination by the Congress as to the legality or illegality of any of the provisions of said agreements or understandings.

Senator TAFT. It is perfectly satisfactory to me, too.

Senator FERGUSON. Alec, could I just ask you a question on that? Senator SMITH. Certainly.

Senator FERGUSON. The question is this. We are just then saying whether they are legal or not, but could we say it then to have affirmed and ratified what was done, notwithstanding that it was illegal?

Senator GILLETTE. I don't believe that could be construed

VALIDITY A MORE APPROPRIATE CONCEPT THAN LEGALITY

Senator TAFT. I think the word "invalid" or "validity" is better that "legality."

Senator SMITH. "Validity" or "invalidity"?

Senator TAFT. Yes.

Senator GILLETTE. That would include the question of legality. Senator FERGUSON. Yes.

Senator TAFT. I want to look toward the constitutional situation. The CHAIRMAN. This third one then would be "Resolved further, that"-and then you say?

Senator SMITH. [reads].

The adoption of this resolution does not constitute any determination by the Congress as to the validity or invalidity of any provisions of said agreements or understandings.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hickenlooper has a question.

LIMITING THE SCOPE OF THE RESOLUTION

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I was just going to say that on the last meeting on this it appears to me the matter could be taken care of by fixing up that first whereas in accordance with the suggestion I made so that it would read:

"Whereas, during World War II representatives of the United States during the course of conferences entered into various international agreements or understandings"-and then-"which provided for the freedom and self-determination of other people."

You limit it right down to what the subject of this thing is, take out the loose language of that first whereas, and then if you want to add this on, it would be perfectly all right.

I couldn't get much support for my suggestion as I thought I might get, so I have advanced it, and I am not necessarily making the motion, but I still think it answers the question.

Senator TAFT. Talking to the House people, the House people took the position that they thought that implied that the Yalta Agreement did

Senator HICKENLOOPER. They took the position they thought it. was affirmation of the agreements.

Senator TAFT. They thought it made it worse than it is.

Senator SPARKMAN. It seems to me it is subject to this criticism: That it limits it to those countries in Europe and omits China, whereas this resolution would cover the Chinese situation.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. It just says "providing for the freedom and self-determination of." It limits it right down to the theory of freedom and self-determination, which is all I read in the letter of transmittal, all I read in the whereases and the resolution.

Senator KNOWLAND. I am impressed, Mr. Chairman, by both Senator Gillette's statement and by the suggestion of Senator Smith.

It seems to me the problem that we have, all being reasonable people here, is that while it may go farther than some of us would like and may not go as far as some of us would like, that this would more nearly come to meet the problem which has been raised. As far as I am concerned, I would be willing to support the resolution with this amendment suggested by Senator Smith.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. What is the suggestion?

Senator SMITH. I am having it typed now.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I know what yours is, but I mean Senator Gillette's suggestion.

Senator SPARKMAN. He would strike out the whereases.

Senator KNOWLAND. Strike out the whereases or leave the whereas and have some language along the line-I think he mentioned Senator Taft's amendment, but that was before you made your modified suggestion here on the determination of the validity or invalidity.

Senator GILLETTE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say with reference to this, if the whereases are left in-I would prefer they be out—this amendment that Senator Smith has suggested would be acceptable, because it clearly states that we are not affirming these agreements and also it is stating that we are not repudiating them.

I don't want language that by implication or innuendo leaves that question open as the Secretary said it would be, that we are either affirming it or that we are repudiating it. I don't want either horn of that dilemma.

WOULD THIS APPROACH RESTRICT THE SECRETARY OR PRESIDENT?

Senator HUMPHREY. Doesn't that have the approach of somewhat restricting the Secretary of State and the President in foreign policy?

Now here the President feels that he would like to be able to use what part of the agreements that he apparently can use for good use, and at other times not to use them because he feels they have been violated.

Senator KNOWLAND. He can still do it.

Senator HUMPHREY. Yes, but doesn't it make it possible for theopposition to say, "Well, these resolutions by official act of Congress are just up in the air?"

Senator KNOWLAND. No, because they didn't purport to be executive agreements with the approval of the Congress. They just purported to be executive agreements. We are not casting any reflection on their validity or their invalidity. Now that is, as I understand it, the situation.

The CHAIRMAN. Might I suggest this to both sides: that we recess until 3 o'clock this afternoon. In the meantime, while that is done, Senator Smith, who has drawn this, can take the matter up with the Secretary of State.

Senator TAFT. As far as the language is concerned, they wouldn't have any objection there.

WE WANT MAXIMUM SUPPORT

Senator HUMPHREY. We want maximum support. Are you sure of how much support you will get?

Senator TAFT. Anybody that is for this without this ought to be for it with it, because after all, it is implied. The only question I see is whether it should be put in the resolution or in the report.

Senator HUMPHREY. And vice versa, if it is implied, why spell it out?

Senator TAFT. I know, you can argue both ways.

Senator HUMPHREY. It makes a good heated argument for us on both sides.

Senator TAFT. It is a lot easier for me to answer the objections to it if it is in the resolution.

Senator KNOWLAND. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, since we have gone this far, why we don't finish this situation up.

The CHAIRMAN. That would be the third resolved, Senator Smith. What do you want to do, gentlemen?

Senator KNOWLAND. Mr. Chairman, since we have been here all morning on the thing, I wonder if we couldn't get the thing done. The CHAIRMAN. Do you so move, Senator Smith?

Senator SMITH. I would like to hear some comments from my friends on the other side. Senator George has given us his views on some of these things.

THIS AMENDMENT WOULD NEGATE THE RESOLUTION

Wouldn't this meet the objection you have, Senator George, as tothe words "affirm or approval or disapproval"? Wouldn't this take care of that?

Senator GEORGE. I don't think so, Senator. You say: "The adoption of this resolution does not constitute any determination by the Congress as to the validity or invalidity of any of the provisions of said agreements or understandings."

I think if we have an agreement or understanding anywhere, anyplace, anytime, that these countries would have the right of selfdetermination, they have the right to set up their own government, I think then you are negating your whole resolution by this resolve.