fear now felt by the American people. Fear of the effect of international ties among our people would, in time, destroy the public support essential is: foundation for constructive participation in world affairs. Such a needless can be avoided by submitting Senate Joint Resolution 1 to the States for tratification.

As a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 1, I hope that your committee at favorably upon the proposal and I ask that this statement be incortel in the record as an expression of my strong support.

STATEMENT OF BERNARD BERNSTEIN ON BEHALF OF B'NAI B'RITH, WASHINGTON, D. C.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you give your name and whom you appear

Mr. BERNSTEIN. I am Bernard Bernstein, appearing on behalf of M. Frank Goldman, who is the president of B'nai B'rith, and our quarters is here in Washington.

Mr. Chairman, I am appearing on behalf of Mr. Frank Goldman, president of B'nai B'rith. B'nai B'rith is an organization with 300,000 members throughout the United States and in addition branches abroad.

We wish to make a few remarks on the policy aspect of the problem. ented by the Bricker resolution rather than on its strictly legal constitutional aspects. We are particularly interested in two rent problems that are affected by the proposed constitutional dment, (1) the problem of protection of human rights and (2) security interests of the United States. Our comments are died to these two problems as they are affected by the Bricker ution. During the last 10 years great forward strides have been made in sening the conscience of the people of the world to a profound ern for the protection of human rights. The protection of human its is a basic concept in our way of life. Everyone is this country, atever his religious belief or political point of view, would agree that proposition. But the protection of human rights is not only od end in itself. It seems to us that it is also an important factor romoting the security interests of the United States.

We find ourselves now, and we have been for some years since the of the Second World War, in the midst of a great crisis between elves and our allies on the one hand and the Soviet power on the er hand. One of the larger aspects in that crisis is the protection the freedom of the individual. The United States has greatly thened itself in this worldwide struggle by being the champion The international protection of human rights. Beginning with the ciation in 1941 of the four freedoms by President Roosevelt, strides in the direction of protecting human rights have been - The downtrodden people of the world today know that we erious and sincere when we express our desire to help them de- their human freedom.

3ontrast Soviet communism has been demonstrating to the world, Lockery of Communist pratings about their desire to protect

freedom. The Godless character of communism makes no etion between Jew and Christian. All religious groups and all -loving people everywhere are threatened by Soviet commuThe Communist persecution of 22 million Jews residing be

hind the Iron Curtain is not solely evidence that Soviet communisr is engaging in the crime of genocide. It is evidence that Sovie Russia and its satellites are entering a new stage in preparing thei countries for war against the western way of life.

Several proposed treaties are now or may soon be awaiting actio by the Senate, about which some people in the United States have ex pressed concern and with respect to which they have wanted to expres their point of view. But there is reason to believe that the movemen for the proposed constitutional changes which we are discussing her today is an outgrowth of the fears of this group concerning the im plications of the Genocide Convention, the proposed human right covenants, and the Conventions on Freedom of Information an Transmission of News. This group fears that these proposed treatie will interfere with domestic questions within this country.

The persons so concerned have had full opportunity, and no doub will continue to have full opportunity, to express their views abou the proposed treaties before the public, before the Government, be fore the State Department, before the United Nations, and before th Congress of the United States. Those views have been so amply an effectively expressed that thus far, not one of these conventions ha been raided by the United States.

Furthermore, with respect to the proposed convention on gatherin of news the position of our own Government has changed. With re spect to the proposed human rights covenants, our Government ha misisted upon the inclusion of articles, which eliminate the issue whic has been so fully discussed in these hearings, namely, the protection o our basic relations between the Federal Government and the Stat governments.

Buai B'rith urges that proposed treaties be considered and deal with on a case-by-case basis, as has been the situation throughout ou history since the adoption of the Constitution. There is ample op portunity to debate and study each proposed treaty as the treaty being considered by the executive branch of the Government or whe the proposed treaty is submitted to the Senate for ratification.

After such debate, we should not doubt the continued ability of th President and the Senate to make sound decisions on any propose treaty. On the other hand if, instead of continuing this old practic our country enacts the proposed constitutional amendment, the worl will probably think we do not really mean to support the internationa approach for the protection of human rights or the international ap proach to the solution of many vital problems facing our country an the rest of the world today.

The Bricker resolution, if adopted as an amendment to the Cor stitution, will not only undermine the United Nations but will so ti our country's hands in the conduct of international affairs as t threaten our security.

We urge that the Senate Judiciary Committee consider, among th other points that have been made, whether the enactment of the pro posed constitutional amendment would be interpreted by the world a a new form of isolation and a significant retreat from our responsibil ties as the greatest world power and as the leader of the world's co lective security program against aggression. Such a result would b seriously detrimental to our security interests in what may be a long continuing crisis.

For these reasons, as well as for many other reasons which have been presented in the hearings before the Senate Judiciary Commitee and which it is unnecessary to repeat, B'nai B'rith urges that State Joint Resolution 1 not be adopted.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions, Senator Watkins?
Senator WATKINS. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Smith?
Senator SMITH. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bricker?
Senator BRICKER. No questions.

Senator DIRKSEN. I just want to make one observation, Mr. Bern-
Sr.n, that I would yield to no one in my desire to protect human
ts, and I want to be awfully sure that the human rights of the
American people are protected.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. So are we in B'nai B'rith.

Senator BRICKER. May I make one comment?
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator BRICKER. Since Mr. Bernstein has talked in general terms this, I might say that this is the one country in the world that looks on your rights and mine as something beyond the power of Govent, inalienable, God-given, declared in the Declaration, and sein the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

This amendment is directly pointed toward the preservation of those s against any international agreements. The covenant of hua rights to which you refer, which has vague language, does pree limitations on those rights. Those limitations are enforceable the laws of the country. It would transfer our individual rights the spiritual realm to the power of our Government or some rational forum.

People who should be most interested in those rights, the preservaof them inviolate, are the individual citizens who benefit from , and as Mr. Rix so well said yesterday, that is the last bulwark protection for minorities any place in the world. All other counthe rights of people are given by government and can be taken ay by government. We do not intend, if I can personally help vent it, and I think the 63 other Senators that joined in this Lot intend, to have those inalienable God-given rights dragged to the level of the totalitarian communistic and socialistic gov-rents of the world. That is the purpose of this.

I think you have entirely misjudged the purpose and failed to -ze the effects of it.

M. BERNSTEIN. May I comment on that? Senator Bricker, I am → B'nai B'rith and I personally agree with you 100 percent that in -United States the rights of the individual are protected, and the ts of minorities are protected to a degree and in a manner that snowhere else in the world. I would like, however, to make two with respect to your comment, Senator Bricker.

the first place, with respect to the proposed human rights covewhich are being considered by the United Nations, there is an provision, and it is as express as language can be, and if it is ciently express, I am sure there would be every intention to it more express that nothing in the proposed covenant is ined to derogate in any way, shape, or form one iota from the con

stitutional rights which any person now has in this country unde the Constitution.

Secondly, and I think this is probably our main point, if the pro posed covenant on human rights or any other covenant coming ou of the United Nations, and Senator Dirksen expressed his concer this morning about the great number of conventions and treaties tha are being considered by the United Nations, but the mere considera tion of them makes them in no sense the word of law of the Unite States; in no sense, moral or legal or otherwise.

The Executive and the Senate have the opportunity of dealing wit the proposed treaties, to say "yea" or "nay." If they do not like th treaty, they may reject it, or if they like most of the treaty and no some of the treaty to insert reservation. All we ask, all we sugges is that in the kind of world that we live in today where internationa problems are even more difficult of solution than they have been in th many years of our history, and we ought to continue to have conf dence in the Presidency, in the Senate of the United States, and i the democratic principles that we have been following in this countr for well over 160 years to insure that treaties that are ratified ar treaties that will protect the rights of Americans in this country an that will protect American security.

Senator BRICKER. If the men who met in Philadelphia had ha that philosophy, we would not have had the protection. If the Firs Congress had felt as you now feel, we would never have had the Bi of Rights. They did not trust Congress; they did not trust anybod to deal with this inviolate, God-given human right, and I do not trus the President of the United States or the United States Senate t enter into a field that is to my mind sacred, the right of the individua citizen, which is beyond the power and reach of the Governmen These treaties, the human-rights treaties, I especially would them within the grasp of government, maybe not our own, but mayl an international government.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Only permit me to say that B'nai B'rith and certainly believe in the Bill of Rights..

Senator BRICKER. If you supported the philosophy you have e pressed here, there would have been no Bill of Rights; that was th argument in the Consitutional Convention.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Our position is that our view would be quite co sistent with our originally having supported the Bill of Rights. Senator BRICKER. If you do not mind, I believe that is quite co trary to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution because they truste nobody with these sacred rights.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. But none of these conventions affect the Bill Rights.

Senator BRICKER. Have you read the Covenant on Human Rights Mr. BERNSTEIN. Yes, sir.

Senator BRICKER. Do you know that it places a restriction on fre dom of speech, worship, and the press? According to the will government they can be penalized for violating the restriction placed there by the Government or by the Congress or by the Preside in time of emergency.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. I suggest, Senator, that there is an express sectio preserving all the constitutional privileges exactly as they exist und our Constitution.

Senator BRICKER. Which mean no more than paragraph 7 of sec2 of the United Nations Treaty, being violated every day by the Tited Nations subcommittees. It is the subtance you have to look to, sot a few pretty words and one clause.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. BERNSTEIN. Thank you, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Reverend Scott present?

STATEMENT OF REV. DeLOSS M. SCOTT, PASTOR OF THE NATIONAL TABERNACLE OF WASHINGTON, D. C., AND PRESIDENT OF THE POTOMAC VALLEY FELLOWSHIP OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL OF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES

Reverend SCOTT. My name is Rev. DeLoss M. Scott, pastor of the National Tabernacle of Washington, D. C., and president of the Pomac Valley Fellowship of the American Council of Christian Jurches. I am not present to speak on my own behalf but rather behalf of Rev. Claude Bunzel, executive secretary of the American foneil of Christian Churches of California. Reverend Mr. Bunzel Ts extended an invitation to appear as a witness on this hearing, but se of the great distance involved is unable to attend in person. Acordingly, having been vested with authority to appear on behalf Reverend Mr. Bunzel, I express my appreciation of this portunity.

Told in my hand a copy of a message delivered by Mr. Bunzel to ninth annual State convention convened at Pasadena, Calif., on Veber 6, 1952. It is not my intent to read this rather lengthy age in full, but to draw attention to certain excerpts which have irect bearing on this assembly and the matter at hand, although, less the message in its entirety would be valuable for the record. I: CHAIRMAN. It will be inserted in the record. The information referred to is as follows:)

THE U. N. AND THE CHURCH-A GLIMPSE INTO THE FUTURE

Hessage delivered by the Reverend Claude Bunzel, executive secretary of the American Council of Christian Churches of California, at its ninth annual Stare convention, Pasadena, Calif., November 6, 1952

the San Francisco Conference of the United Nations Organization was - on April 25, 1945, the meeting was opened with a minute of silence. Lute of silence, however, was one of the loudest noises ever heard. It - a shout heard 'round the world, announcing that God Almighty had been t of His universe. From that time on, it has been possible to think of the - Nations as a practical fulfillment of the Second Psalm. Listen to these **s and you will perceive what is meant: "Why do the heathen (or nations)

d the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themand the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His ted, saying, 'Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords s'" (verses 1-3).

3- re this message is over, it is hoped you will agree that, in contrast to the oral standards and true individual liberty presented in the Bible, the cs are raging, and the people are imagining a vain thing, when they expect ***te complex problems of our time through the medium of an organization United Nations.

et is, The U. N. and the Church: A Glimpse Into the Future. Lest any ink we are out of our realm in dealing with such a subject, we remind that John Witherspoon, a Presbyterian minister educated in Scotland, was the signers of our Declaration of Independence. Not only did John