in the Senate and the adoption of a simple majority vote in both Houses as the procedure for authorizing and approving all international agreements, other than those exclusively within the powers of the President. It is but another of the tragic ironies of our time that we must today seriously debate proposals that approach the opposite extreme in fractionalizing and weakening our national power among other nation-states. THE COOPERATIVE LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Senator PAT MCCARRAN, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. Chicago 4, Ill., May 21, 1952. DEAR SENATOR: I enclose herewith copy of the statement which I have requested to have printed in the record of hearings on Senate Joint Resolution 130. I am sending it to you personally, however, in the earnest hope that you may find time to read it in connection with the very important decision which your committee faces, with respect to this far-reaching proposal for amendment of the Constitution. Sincerely yours, JERRY VOORHIS, Executive Secretary. STATEMENT OF JERRY VOORHIS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE COOPERATIVE LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES, CONCERNING SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 130 Mr. Chairman and Senators, Senate Joint Resolution 130 should not be approved by this committee. If by chance this resolution were to be favorably reported by the committee and passed by the Senate and the House, and if it should be ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three-fourths of the States, the result in our opinion would be exceedingly harmful, if not disastrous, to the central aims and purposes of this Nation in its relations with other free nations of the world. Even the action of your committees in favorably reporting the bill would in our opinion spread consternation among other free nations which have been depending upon the United States' leadership in the world-wide struggle against Communist aggression. Passage of the resolution would mean that action by our Executive in entering into any kind of agreement with other countries for the advancement of the democratic rights of people or the suppression of evil influences would be of dubious effect so far as this country is concerned. No one certainly would question the importance and desirability of the constitutional powers of the Senate so far as ratification of treaties is concerned. But Senate Joint Resolution 130 goes far beyond that point. It would dangerously curtail the historic and basic function of the Chief Executive in the field of dealings with other countries and would certainly jeopardize the influence of the United States in the world today. American leadership among the free nations depends upon convincing all other nations that we will stand with them and keep our word once given. Just what the background for the introduction of this resolution may have been we do not profess to know, but almost certainly that background must involve some of the actions taken with other nations through the United Nations organization. It is precisely in the United Nations that our best hope for curbing Communist aggression without the disaster of world war III must be found, but if it is to be found there the United States must be in a position to push for the strengthening of the United Nations in every appropriate way and to agree with other nations on necessary measures to be taken. It goes without saying that as our situation now stands no agreement or treaty which would violate the provisions of that Constitution can possibly be binding upon the United States in any case. Hence the resolution would appear to be quite unnecessary from this point of view. As we understand it under the terms of Resolution 130 agreements entered into by our Government with other governments would automatically expire 1 year after the term of office for which the President making the agreement has been elected unless extended by positive action on the part of the Congress. The passage of such a provision would throw a cloud of doubt around any agreement our Government might make, even those which are obviously in the direct interest of the people of the United States. TREATIES AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS It seems altogether clear that the passage of Senate Joint Resolution 130 at this very critical period in the affairs of the world would be a serious and possibly fatal mistake. It seems to me altogether possible that the amendment could be interpreted as requiring that almost every interchange of correspondence between the responsible heads of the United States Government and the corresponding officials of other countries would have to be submitted to Congress. An attempt of this kind to change fundamental constitutional provisions and practices which have been in effect since the beginning of this Nation's history should at the very least be subject to far more discussion and consideration than is possible in these very brief hearings. We earnestly plead with the committee not to approve Senate Joint Resolution 130. FRIENDS GENERAL CONFERENCE, To Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: The Committee on Peace and World Understanding of the Friends General Conference, which comprises six yearly meetings of the Religious Society of Friends, submits to you the following statement in reference to Senate Joint Resolution 130, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the making of treaties and executive agreements, introduced by Senator John W. Bricker and others: This proposed amendment would be, if enacted, a very serious step backward in the development of the theory of a division of powers among the three branches of Government contained in our Constitution. It would seriously limit the influence of our country in essential areas of cooperation with other governments. When this proposal was first introduced, the author referred to the proposed Covenant on Human Rights. The Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations after having drafted a Declaration of Human Rights is now working If this proposed amendment were to become operaon the draft of a covenant. tive, the United States would be placed in a very bad light before the eyes of the world, because it could not sign a covenant based largely on the inspiration of our own first 10 amendments-our own Bill of Rights. This proposed amendment is clearly a backward step, and, one wonder, how far back? It has The Declaration of Human Rights sets forth ideals toward which peoples should strive. It has already made a major impact on human affairs. helped shape the pattern of the new Constitutions of Costa Rica El Salvador, Haiti, Indonesia, and Syria and it is a vital part of the United Nations aims and program for developing the rights and freedoms asserted often in the charter. The world which we hope for should have support from the United States in its steps toward greater freedom. The proposed Covenant of Human Rights in its present form, article 18, paragraph 2, provides that "Nothing in this covenant may be interpreted as limiting or derogating from any of the rights and freedoms which may be guaranteed under the laws of any contracting state or any convention to which it is a party." The present draft also provides that the covenant shall not be self-executing. It will require implementing legislation. Article 1, paragraph 2, asked that "each state undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of this covenant, to adopt within a reasonable time such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in this covenant." It would seem that the representatives of governments drafting this profound covenant had taken ample care to protect the constitutional processes of the member governments of the United Nations. At the San Francisco conference and since in the United Nations the United States has supported the principles of international cooperation and a willingness, we would hope, to abide by majority decisions. In working out the program of the North Atlantic Treaty it has been suggested that the nations of Europe take steps to federate, which entails an abridgement of national sovereignty in the interest of common efforts for the general security. Three governments of Europe have already done so. An urgent challenge presents itself to our generation. Can we, the peoples of this country, live with the largeness of mind, with the sense of world awareness, 22984-52--28 with the global conscience, with the spirit of world cooperation that will usher in the world envisaged in the United Nations Charter? This understanding we urge upon your committee and through you to the Senate of the United States. Therefore we urge the rejection of this proposal. ESTHER HOLMES JONES, Chairman, Peace and World Understanding Committee. COMMISSION on World PEACE OF THE METHODIST CHURCH, Hon. PAT MCCARRAN, DEAR SENATOR MCCARRAN: In view of my inability to be in Washington to testify today at the invitation of Senator McCarran, I am enclosing a copy of the testimony which I am sending with the request for its inclusion in the minutes of the committee. Sincerely yours, CHARLES F. Boss, Jr. STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY CHARLES F. Boss, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE BOARD OF WORLD PEACE OF THE METHODIST CHURCH Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Dr. Charles F. Boss, Jr. I am the executive secretary of the Board of World Peace of the Methodist Church. We are concerned about the Senate Joint Resolution No. 130 because of its implications on the future relations of the United States to the United Nations, and the possible effects which this may have upon the peace of the world. When one reads the list of names of the Senators who signed this resolution it creates a mood of careful thought in view of the names of men who have served their country with distinction. No superficial or easy answer would be adequate in endeavoring to speak upon a resolution which such a group has introduced. I question, nevertheless, whether or not the proposed legislation, aimed rightly at the maintenance of deliberative consideration of international affairs by the United States Senate and House of Representatives, and at the prevention of unwarranted and injudicious exercise of too great authority on the part of the executive branch of Government, may not, nevertheless, unduly delay if not prevent the enactment of treaties and international executive agreements which may be essential to the best interests of the United States. If so, such complications would not serve the best interests of the international community. The exercise of those treaty-making functions which now are authorized under the Constitution of the United States, under a due sense of executive moral responsibility to the Nation, should be sufficient. It is necessary in assessing possible outcomes in a change in the Constitution, such as is proposed, to consider the growing and imperative necessity of a larger exercise of international responsibility, a more rapid codification of interna tional law, and the entering into multilateral treaties involving many nations, and, in some cases, all of the United Nations. In a day when statesmen generally view the possibility of a general disruption of international relations, eventuating in a world war fought with weapons of immense mass destruction, we might well guard against changes in the Constitution of the United States of a nature to limit or hamstring essential international treaties requiring for success the exercise of American moral, political, and financial leadership. Such United States' leadership is imperative in moving step by step without war, toward a more stable world. It should be recognized that such stability cannot for too long rest upon the exercise of power in vast armies, or depend upon political decisions necessitating the widespread exercise of military might. Such stability we must agree, and the stability we seek, rests upon respect for the rights of persons and the free exercise of powers of the sovereign States, their growing sense of the necessity of cooperation under international law, and the exchange of ideas and cultures, which will enable change to occur without violence and the consequent loss of values involved. We take the position, therefore, that the Nation must elect leadership that has a due sense of moral responsibility to its own people and their interests, conceived in relation to the general interest of mankind among the family of nations, and that no undue delays and restrictions should be placed upon important and essential treaties which, however slowly, are bringing about the gradual widening of areas of agreement among the nations, especially through the United Nations in such fields as food relief, health, growth in literacy, economic well-being, the constructive and dignifying employment of men, etc. It is of the utmost importance that in our great desire to conserve the values inherent in our American life and conception of freedom and democracy, that we do not act upon unwarranted fears, but rather upon faith in our ability, our leadership, and in the rightness of our sharing in the family of nations those values which mankind everywhere is seeking. What are the fears which seem to lie behind the proposed legislation? First, the fear that some President of the United States will exercise unwarranted authority under the present Constitution to enter into executive agreements or treaties which may not prove to be to the best interests of the United States. It should be quite apparent that no executive agreement can nullify Federal law, and furthermore, Congress can override executive agreements by its legislation. It also can refuse to implement executive agreements or treaties by refusing to make the necessary appropriation of funds. Second, it appears to be thought necessary to provide a further check upon the exercise of the present constitutional treaty-making rights of the Chief Executive by requiring further congressional action. However, the Senate does have responsibility now with regard to the ratification of treaties, and Congress as a whole now through legislative action or by refusal to grant appropriations can prevent the execution of such treaties. Third, there is fear on the part of some that the ratification by the United States of such proposals as are or will be embodied in the United Nations Covenant of Human Rights, would give power to international organization the right of enforcing laws for which such covenant or covenants seem to call, thus depriving individual states or nations of their own sovereignty in such matters. We oppose the enactment of the proposed constitutional amendment because: First, any defect in the proposed Covenant of Human Rights which would be to the detriment of the United States could be dealt with when the covenant is presented for discussion and adoption by the United States. Two, the covenant itself protects the rights of each nation involved by specifically stating: "Nothing in this covenant may be interpreted as limiting or derogating from any of the rights or freedoms which may be guaranteed under the laws of any contracting state or any conventions to which it is a party" (Art. 18, Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Seventh Session, page 22). Fourth, there is the motive of persons whom we would consider to be shortsighted. They would have the United States refrain from involvement in international commitments, such, for example, as might become effective through the United Nations. Rather, they would have the United States refrain from delegating international authority in such areas as seemed for the best interests of the whole community of nations, including the United States. However, we believe that there will come times when our national sovereignty may be best exercised by delegating within certain limitations responsibility to international bodies, when there is a possibility of treaties, properly ratified by the Senate following executive action, which would make for increasing good will, economic well-being, and peace of the world. It is because we believe the proposed legislation would infringe upon the rightful development and growth of a world of international cooperation, authority, and law, under which universal disarmament (the objective of which the United States, along with other nations, is seeking in and through the Disarmament Commission of the United Nations) may become a fact-a reality. Likewise, in the ratification of a covenant on human rights or on genocide, the subsequent laws under which it would operate within the United States, would be subject to laws to be administered by the proper authorities, under the Constitution of the United States, and such laws to be brought under the executive and judicial branches, as any other laws of similar character. For the foregoing reasons, I am opposing the enactment of the Senate Joint Resolution No. 130. We are in agreement, however, that the exercise of the right of the President of the United States to enter into executive agreements should be with a high sense of responsibility, and be executive agreements only when it becomes essential to the interests of the United States, in its wider international setting and cannot be accomplished due to lack of time, or because of secrecy required, or other factor which makes it impossible to normally enter into a treaty, requiring ratification by the United States Senate. It does not appear that a constitu tional amendment is required to achieve this end. This could hamstring the President in important agreements making for the best interests of the United States and fail to stop an irresponsible Executive. We believe that the present constitutional provision still remains a satisfactory solution of the several dilemmas faced in the making of international treaties, namely: "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (art. II, sec. 2, par. 2, clause 1). Senator HENDRICKSON. The committee stands in recess. (Whereupon, at 4:50 p. m. the committee was recessed, subject to call of the chairman.) |