« ÎnapoiContinuați »
TREATIES AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1953
UNITED STATES SENATE,
Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m., in room 424, Senate Office Building, Hon. William Langer, chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Langer, Dirksen, Butler, and Kefauver.
Present also: Senators Watkins and McCarran; Wayne H. Smithey, subcommittee counsel.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.
Mr. SMITHEY. Senator, before we proceed with the list of witnesses this morning, we have received a statement of the national board of the Young Women's Christian Association for inclusion in the record. Mar that be received, sir?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, file it.
STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL BOARD OF THE YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIA
TION ON SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1
The national board of the Young Women's Christian Association is opposed to adiption of Senate Joint Resolution 1 for the following reasons:
We believe that the constitutional amendment proposed by this resolution is Dot necessary to safeguard the constitution of the United States and the conduct "f foreign relations. We believe that existing safeguards such as the following are adequate: (a) the Senate may accept or reject any treaty, it may remove
Swise articles in a treaty, it may attach reservations or understandings to a Taty; (b) the Supreme Court may declare a treaty unconstitutional; (c) any ay may require legislation to make it effective as internal law in the United tes or the Senate may add such a requirement when it give its approval; (d) lation by the Congress is often necessary to make executive agreements tire (for example, appropriation of funds) and in any event a subsequent of Congress may override such agreements. We believe that the proposed constitutional amendment is unwise, even danger-, in that it would tie the hands of our Government in carrying out its foreign Janne Buy and in promoting international cooperation. This is an unthinkable risk =>h crucial times as these.
We believe that this amendment in undesirable in that it would place limits = the power of the United States to accept certain commitments which are to
wn advantage-for example, use of international courts for peaceful settleat of disputes, protection of American citizens in cases before the International 711 of Justice, regulation of international air traffic, negotiation of reciprocal
agreements. * S the earnest hope of the national board of the Young Women's Christian - mation that this resolution will be rejected by your committee.
The CHAIRMAN. I call attention to the representatives of the Ameri1. Bar Association and to anyone else that is here in this room and interested in this matter that we are going to dispose of this month. I have been getting letters from various agencies suddenly wanting to be heard. This matter was up at the last session of Congress and testimony was taken, one delay after another, with the result that we adjourned without taking any action at all. I want the record to show I want the staff to notify any bar association or any individuals or any agency or any member of the Cabinet to have any statement that they want to file or any testimony they want to give in by the 17th day of March. Anybody who wants to be heard before that time, Mr. Smithey, we will hear him any day of the week except Sunday, at 10 o'clock in the morning. If some of the agencies cannot come in at any other time, they can come in Saturday.
I want you to set this before the subcommittee for the 24th of March for action by the subcommittee.
In the meantime from the 17th on, give each member of the subcommittee a copy of all the testimony and place it upon the agenda for final action for the meeting of the 30th day of March. Of course, that is subject to whether the full committee will act, as Senator Butler here knows, but I rather think this full committee will want to dispose of it. Is that not your idea?
Senator BUTLER. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, I want to make it plain we are not going to have any delay if we can help it. Have I made myself clear on this?
Mr. SMITHEY. You certainly have, sir.
Mr. SMITHEY. Rev. Charles F. Boss, Jr., of the Board of World Peace of the Methodist Church.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. BOSS, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF
THE BOARD OF WORLD PEACE OF THE METHODIST CHURCH
Reverend Boss. My name is Rev. Charles F. Boss, Jr., executive secretary of the Board of World Peace of the Methodist Church.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I wish to express my thanks to the committee for the opportunity of appearing as a witness. The democratic process and freedoms arising from our Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our common law, are values which we greatly cherish. Despite wide. spread repressions placed upon the freedoms in various parts of the world, we should be grateful and thankful to God and to our forefathers that the process permits its citizens and their organizations to nppear before the committees of the Congress for the purpose of expressing their views during the process of the formulation of our la ws.
I have just come from the Washington conference, composed of representatives of some 125 different organizations called together under the auspices of the American Association for the United Nations. I would like to say that there was a very high degree of umanimity in the policies and actions adopted by this conference. The conference adopted a strong statement on the Bricker resolutionI should sny in opposition to it. I shall not present this, since a delegation from the American Association for the United Nations is requesting a hearing for this purpose.
I should like to interpolate here and say that the three major branches of the churches were well represented, the Roman Catholic, the Jewish, and Protestant; that the CIO had its delegate representatire there, the American Federation of Labor had, and a very large number of other organizations, citizens organizations of various types, and the well-known organizations of the country. They came from all the States. For that reason I shall be glad to give this little report and hope that their delegation will be heard.
What leads me to testify is my belief that the proposed amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1, is unnecessary, adds little or nothing by may of protection to the United States while, on the other hand, it would seriously hamper the treaty-making process now provided for by our Constitution. This process for 164 years—in peacetime and in wartime has proved its worth, demonstrated its flexibility, and assured the Nation of its value in protecting domestic security.
The proposed amendment, I believe, is unnecessary. Under the nipsent constitutional procedure no treaty can become the law of the United States unless it has been ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. Furthermore, the Senate cannot only reject any treaty subEtted to it, but it can attach to any such proposed treaty reservations shich the Senate may deem to be in the interests of the Nation.
Senator McCARRAX. Does that statement you have just made apIr to executive agreements ? Reverend Boss. Yes, sir. Senator McCARRAN. You know better than that. You know it does 08 apply to executive agreements because the Senate does not have Sything to do with executive agreements. What is the use of trying tell this committee that?
Reverend Boss. Treaties that are made when they become treaties fthe United StatesSenator McCARRAN. I am talking about executive agreements. Reverend Boss. Well, if you use the words "executive agreements" csde of the terms of the treaty that I have used here, then you have i diferent category.
Senator McCarran. Certainly, that is when the Bricker amendment Des into existence. Rererend Boss. Well, I shall proceed, because I still do not believe at the history of our treatymaking and agreements reveals that a stitutional amendment would necessarily improve the situation. Are these safeguards adequate? I think the answer is to be found be history of our treatymaking. I understand that there has been Tone instance in our history when a treaty negotiated by the United 2018 (i. e., with Canada) has placed limitations upon the right of a wate: this, in the case of the State of Missouri against an individual
Ad Holland. Ir present constitutional law provides the necessary flexibility,
e timing facility required by the Chief Executive, the Secretary Wate, and the Ambassadors in the making of treaties, while it pro
the essential checks upon such treaties by its requirement for Sation of a two-thirds vote of the Senate before such treaties can me the law of the land. An outstanding illustration of the Senpower in treatymaking may be cited in the failure of the United 1572-534-25
interested in this matter that we are going
In the meantime from the 17th on, committee a copy of all the testimony for final action for the meeting of the that is subject to whether the full Butler here knows, but I rather thin to dispose of it. Is that not your idea
Senator BUTLER. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, not going to have any delay if we e clear on this?
Mr. SMITHEY. You certainly have
Mr. SMITHEY. Rev. Charles F.
ll not -- world antation und and uplement
iovernment Tited States
nity. It has p every other 1. They check the fall of the
STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. BOSS
THE BOARD OF WORLD PEAC
!: may happen in l on a moment in r a change; in the
I am pointing out hovernment and the
cres, but they are not ng them. of our history we have will agreement that we
Reverend Boss. My name is I secretary of the Board of World
Mr. Chairman and members my thanks to the committee foi witness. The democratic proces laration of Independence, the our common law, are values whi spread repressions placed upon world, we should be grateful & fathers that the process permi to appear before the committe expressing their views during laws.
I have just come from the representatives of some 125 under the auspices of the A, tions. I would like to say unanimity in the policies a The conference adopted a str I should say in opposition delegation from the Ameri requesting a hearing for thi
- we have.
for an Executive at times er hand, I believe our battions with the form of gove using. There are certainly
times, when quick action has 's of security, which perhaps 1-titutional amendment which - if it is not meeting, and I cannot
have the flexibility which seems thought to this phase of the situnts would be international obligaational obligation but it would not ·xternally, not internally, until apnate? What is wrong with this of the United States? by the close operations which I think
the Committee on Foreign Affairs of in Foreign Relations of the Senate. I
the war came and met with a whole g three different parties with the view d we did so in a meeting of 31/2 hours, r of a much closer relationship which in sught to exist. But we did not believe Tent was necessary. want the inalienable rights of the people itution to be guarded by such a flimsy is a question whether it is a flimsy arrange1 years without amendment. rrangement that you can get the ear of the y of State or somebody else rather than have y in my opinion. nk the answer is a close working relationship and the executive department of the Governof the United States and there should be that hip. ppose there is not? here is not, then we should be very careful about
Congress and whom we elect to the Presidency. In the meantime the damage is done. have not noted that much damage has been done. I at the history of our country and its treatymaking at we have had a very high batting average with itiveness of our international relations. . I do not like the term "batting average" because i lose may be the 1 percent that would undo you. I · ought to put our rights on the basis of averages.
them, and we ought to protect them. -. It appears to me that the internal security of the cias been well protected. , in this last paragraph which may bring out something Jere of faith in our leaders, while
TLER. Let me break it just there. The founders of this the several States at the time of the ratification of the
did not have that faith you have in them. They put on amendments before they even ratified the Constitution,
| Boss. Of course.