Senator SPARKMAN. I certainly agree with that. I think you are weakening the resolution by putting it in, and I think you are taking away a lot of the propaganda effect.

Senator HUMPHREY. You say now simply we have resolved all these fine things, of course, it doesn't really mean that we believe it or it may mean that we do believe it. You somewhat take the blood out of it.

Senator TAFT. I think it helps the propaganda thing. I don't think it will have a good propaganda effect if the word goes out that the Congress has approved the Yalta Agreement. I think you are going to have a much worse propaganda effect without it than you are going to have with it.

Senator FERGUSON. If they feel like the Poles do here, you certainly will not have any good effect.

Senator GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, you had better report to the President that we can't agree on the resolution and just ask him to withdraw it. I think that would be infinitely better than to have a split. Senator SMITH. That is what we are trying to avoid.

Senator GREEN. Mr. Chairman, it seems to be perfectly obvious that the whole purpose of the resolution was to enforce the validity of certain provisions of some of the agreements and understandings; that those that relate to this subject are the subjugation of free peoples by the Soviet Union.

That is the whole purpose of it, and if you say this doesn't take any position as to that, you are undoing the whole purpose of the resolution itself.

Senator TAFT. Dulles says that isn't the purpose of the resolution. Senator HUMPHREY. Then what is the purpose, Senator Taft? Senator TAFT. The purpose is to say that as far as we are concerned, however, these people have been subjugated, and we are opposed to it. And whether it is in the agreement or isn't in the agreement-I rather like what the Senator from Iowa suggested myself. That expresses the thing affirmatively without anything.

I am afraid to do that without talking to the Secretary of State. Senator FERGUSON. Why don't we take out all the language except what we want to say in relation to these people?

THOUGHTS ON PROCEDURE

Senator KNOWLAND. Mr. Chairman, so that we might get a vote on the situation, I wonder if we could get a vote on the Smith amendment, and if that is not agreeable to the committee, then on the Gillette motion to strike out the whereases. I could frankly vote for either one of them.

Senator GREEN. Why not proceed according to ordinary parliamentary procedure and proceed to vote on amendments as they are offered?

Senator TAFT. I suggest that Homer withdraw his amendment for the purpose of this being opened.

Senator FERGUSON. I will withdraw my motion at the present time. The CHAIRMAN. There is a motion, is there?

Senator TAFT. No, he withdrew his motion.

Senator FERGUSON. So we can get a vote on the Smith amendment or the Taft amendment.

IS THERE A MIDDLE GROUND?

Senator SPARKMAN. Alec, I thought you said you had talked with Dulles last night and he expressed the hope none of this would be tacked on.

Senator SMITH. He said he didn't have any objection to some clause of this kind. He has no objections, provided it will be supported by a lot of votes. He wants to get a maximum number of votes from the main body here.

Senator SPARKMAN. It seems to me the way to get a maximum vote would be to get unanimous approval by this committee.

Senator SMITH. We are not together here. We have a view on this side, and you have a view on that side. Isn't there any middle ground we can find, which I tried to do with this, that we can leave this issue that we disagree on, whether these things are valid or not.

ACTION IN THE HOUSE

Senator SPARKMAN. My understanding is that over in the House they have had quite a difficult time, but they finally worked out an arrangement whereby the Foreign Affairs Committee reported the resolution as written without any amendment whatsoever, unanimously.

I understand from Mr. Rayburn, who is the Minority Leader now, that he is very much concerned about any amendments being put on after he managed to keep down amendments.

If I am not mistaken, the son of President Roosevelt is a member of that committee, so I imagine it was a pretty hard job to get him to come through without offering some amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. I can assure you that the present chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House, with whom I talked last night-he happened to be at a dinner given by the Secretary-is very much concerned about the situation in the House.

That is why they haven't brought it up, but he suggested what had heretofore been suggested by some of us, that we ought to get together and find some amicable way out.

He said there will be a lot of resolutions, a lot of people will not vote, there will be a lot of amendments and he is hopeful that we will do something constructive and probably show the way. I think that this does it.

SPECIFY "EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS"

I would put in front of the word "agreements" the words "executive agreements," because there it definitely states that the value of that is that it brings light to what you are talking about, instead of agreements by the United States you talk about executive agreements, which may be agreements by the United States.

Senator TAFT. "Said agreements or understandings" refers back to the agreements and understandings all the way through this. Senator GREEN. It says "said agreements."

Senator TAFT. That means everything.

Senator GREEN. That means those enumerated beforehand.

The CHAIRMAN. "Identified before as international agreements or understandings." I suggested that we put in the words "executive agreements." Put in "said executive agreements." That identifies it and clarifies it.

Senator FERGUSON. You would insert then before the word "agreements" the words "executive agreements"?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator FERGUSON. I think that makes it more clear.

Senator SPARKMAN. Were they all executive agreements?

Senator GREEN. Well, no. They spoke about agreements or understandings.

Senator SPARKMAN. Some of them were just joint statements.

The CHAIRMAN. Executive agreements and understandings. That is what you have got, "said executive agreements or executive understandings."

Senator TAFT. I suppose they were all executive agreements or executive understandings?

Senator KNOWLAND. One or the other.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no objection to the word "executive agree

ments."

Is there a motion?

Senator KNOWLAND. I so move, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. What is the meaning of the term "executive agreements"? That to my mind has a very technical and special meaning.

The CHAIRMAN. It identifies these that we referred to here.

Senator SMITH. We say here "validity" or "invalidity," of any said executive agreements.

Senator GREEN. It hasn't spoken of executive agreements before, so you can't say "said." You can strike out "said," and put in "executive." if you like.

Senator SMITH. I don't think we need the word "executive."

The CHAIRMAN. I used the descriptive phrase meaning the Executive of the United States.

Senator KNOWLAND. Alex, I wonder, under the circumstances. since it refers back earlier to the word "executive," if that point couldn't be left out.

The CHAIRMAN. It's all right with me.

Senator SMITH. That would be better.

Senator KNOWLAND. I think it would be better, and then

get into this problem. I so move, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there a second?

Senator FERGUSON. I will second it.

The CHAIRMAN. Call the roll.

VIEWS OF THE DEMOCRATIC POLICY COMMITTEE

you don't

Senator GREEN. Wait a minute. I would like to make a comment, if I may.

I stated earlier that in the interests of bipartisanship, and believing that it was our duty under all the circumstances to back up the President in his proposal, that the Democratic policy committee had voted unanimously to approve the request of the President, and I

have also been authorized to state in its behalf that if any changes are made, of course, that vote is not binding, and the matter would have to be reconsidered.

I would also like to state that I believe that the policy committee would regard any amendment as a breach in the dike that has been erected, and that it will open the way for a flood of other amendments without regard to the desirability of the amendment itself.

POLICY COMMITTEES CANNOT INSTRUCT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES

Senator KNOWLAND. Mr. Chairman, I merely want to say, and in this I fully support Senator Gillette-as chairman of the Republican policy committee, I would not think to take a position that the duly constituted legislative committees of this Congress could not in their judgment consider the facts and make amendments to proposals of legislation or resolutions which the executive department had sent down here.

I would not even consider that it was proper for a policy committee on the majority side to say you cannot even in your legislative discussions in the properly constituted legislative committees of this Congress change a "t" or dot an “i”.

I would consider it would be entirely out of place for our majority policy committee to do so, and if the policy committee on my side of the aisle tried to do so, I would resent it as a member of the legislative committee of this body, and I am not going to be bound by any such basis that we have to take it or leave it either by this executive Republican body, by the Democratic executive or by a Republican or Democratic policy committee.

Senator GREEN. Mr. Chairman, may I say to my distinguished friend that he has entirely missed the point. He is attacking windmills.

I simply say that the committee took such action of which you have been informed. There is nothing to prohibit this committee from taking any action it likes. I simply say that the endorsement which was given would not apply to any other document than the one which was endorsed. And if the chairman of the Republican policy committee feels he is at liberty to take a different position on his committee and its action, I have nothing to say about it.

He can do as he likes. He can change it all over, substitute. That is his lookout, but I think it is only fair to notify the members of this committee, since they were informed of the action of the committee, of the policy committee, to inform them that it applied only to the document which was then under consideration.

Senator TAFT. Our policy committee has never been able to get anybody to vote the way they wanted them to, anyway. I don't know what your policy committee does.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion?

REPORT THE RESOLUTION AS IT IS

Senator SPARKMAN. I don't think that the action of the Democratic policy committee-I am not on it. Senator Green and Senator George

are.

Senator GEORGE. No, I am not.

Senator SPARKMAN. Well, Senator Green is on it. I don't construe that as being any effort on the part of the policy committee to tell us how to vote or to advise us how to vote.

What it really was was an advice to the country that we propose to stand unanimously behind this thing. I think it did have a helpful effect out over the country, and I think furthermore, that if we stuck by this and stood with the President on this, it would have a helpful effect throughout the country.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, if we adopt this resolution, you can move to strike it on the floor, and that will raise the issue.

Senator SPARKMAN. Yes, and right there is where your trouble begins, your prolonged debate. If we report this resolution out as it is, it can go through with short debate.

Senator FERGUSON. Do you think this is going through with short debate?

Senator TAFT. You will have amendments offered on the floor anyway.

The CHAIRMAN. You fellows never ran away from long debate.
Senator SPARKMAN. No, sir, never did and never will.

Senator TAFT. It seems to me a perfectly proper proceeding. The President asked us to join. We say to join with him in making certain declarations. Now that is perfectly proper, but he wouldn't put this in. Why should he put it in his declaration?

But when we come to join with him in something, then we can be accused of doing something which he cannot be accused of doing, namely, approving or ratifying agreements that have never been before Congress.

It seems to be perfectly proper for us to say we join with the President. We want to make it clear that in doing so Congress is not doing anything on its own in the way of validating these agreements.

I can't see any logical reason against it. I can't see why anybody who would vote for the resolution wouldn't want this amendment, wouldn't vote for it with the amendment. I can't see the reason for it.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, unless you want to adjourn, there is this luncheon, and I was supposed to be down there. I am perfectly willing to vote. If you want to talk, I am going to suggest that you adjourn, to not vote until this afternoon.

Is there any reason why we can't take the vote now?

VIEWS OF THE SECRETARY

Senator SPARKMAN. I understood the chairman to propose a while ago that we adjourn until 3, and that during that time you would ask Senator Smith to discuss this proposal with secretary Dulles.

It seems to me it would be a pretty good idea to do that.
Senator TAFT. Dulles won't object to the language.

Senator SPARKMAN. I know, but I believe he will object to its being added to the resolution.

Senator TAFT. No, he doesn't care. He doesn't want it to lose votes, that's all.

Senator GREEN. I can say, to be perfectly consistent with the statement I made before, it could be put in the report or made as a reservation, anything of that kind, but not changing the language of the resolution itself.