Mrs. BOLTON. What page? Mr. PASVOLSKY. Page 198. Mr. ACHESON. Article 41 says [reading]: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. Mr. FLOOD. Is this what is known, Mr. Secretary, as the sanctions provision? Mr. ACHESON. Yes. Mr. EATON. And this is in accord with article 41? Mr. ACHESON. And this is in accord with article 41. It says the Security Council may call upon the members to apply the measures prescribed there. Then the President has the authority to do what we have by international treaty agreed to do. Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman. Chairman BLOOM. Mr. Kee. Mr. KEE. I take it this merely gives the President authority to apply measures which otherwise he would not have authority to apply. Mr. ACHESON. That is correct. Mr. KEE. He already has authority to apply other measures, such as severing diplomatic relations. Mr. ACHESON. Yes. Under the Constitution the President has that authority. But the interruption of economic relations and communications by rail, sea, radio, and telegraph he would not have unless the Congress gave it to him. Section 5(b) is the enforcement provision for section 5(a). It says [reading]: Any person who wilfully violates or evades or attempts to violate or evade any order, rule, or regulation issued by the President pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000 or, if a natural person, be imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both; and the officer, director, or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in such violation or evasion shall be punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both, and any property, funds, securities, papers, or other articles or documents, or any vessel, together with her tackle, apparel, furniture, and equipment, or vehicle, concerned in such violation shall be forfeited to the United States. Mrs. BOLTON. May I ask a question. Chairman BLOOM. Mrs. Bolton. Mrs. BOLTON. I am in complete ignorance. What is a natural person? Mr. ACHESON. That means an individual. Mr. JARMAN. A human being. Mr. FLOOD. Just an individual. Mr. ACHESON. A legal person may be a corporation. Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Chairman. Chairman BLOOM. Mr. Flood. Mr. FLOOD. Is there any reason in section 5(b), which is well drafted, with reference to the "officer, director, or agent of any corporation"-is there any reason why the corporation itself cannot be liable to a fine? Of course, you cannot imprison a corporation. In the phrase "any person," the first two lines in section 5 (b), do you interpret "person" to mean natural and corporate entities? Mr. ACHESON. Yes, sir. Mr. FLOOD. So that a corporation should be subject to a fine for violating any of the statutory provisions. If that is so, would it be advisable to include in the specifications of persons subject to the penal provisions of that act a statement that a corporation could be fined? Mr. ACHESON. That is not necessary, Mr. Flood. These particular provisions have been interpreted by the courts many times. Mr. FLOOD. Yes. Mr. ACHESON. They appear in a great many statutes of the United States. Mr. FLOOD. Yes. Chairman BLOOM. Proceed, Mr. Secretary. AVAILABILITY OF U.S. MILITARY POWER TO THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL Mr. ACHESON. Section 6 [reading]: The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements. Now perhaps we should read article 43 of the charter which appears on that same page 198. Article 43 provides [reads]: SECTION 1. All members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. SEC. 2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided. SEC. 3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and members or between the Security Council and groups of members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. Mr. BURGIN. Mr. Chairman, does that mean the Security Council names the number and amounts of troops and equipment we shall furnish the Security Council? Mr. ACHESON. No, it means that we must work out with the Security Council a special agreement or special agreements in which we develop the number of troops, the type of troops, the location, the degree of readiness, and so forth, and that when we have done that and when you gentlemen have approved it, then, and only then, are we bound to furnish that contingent of troops to the Security Council and the President is not authorized to furnish any more than you have approved of in that agreement. Mrs. DOUGLAS of Illinois. This then would be in the nature of a police force which the President could make available automatically, but he would be unable to go beyond that with the unlimited force which Congress would still have to pass upon for unlimited war? Mr. ACHESON. Yes, beyond the amount which you have agreed in the special agreement. The President is not given authority to furnish any additional troops, and whatever happens after that is determined by the ordinary constitutional relations between the Congress and the President. Mrs. BOLTON. Now, the determination of the amount of that force comes back to the Congress, does it? Mr. ACHESON. Yes, Mrs. Bolton. It is provided in line 12 of page 5 [reading]: The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution. Mrs. BOLTON. I just wanted to settle that one point. Mr. ACHESON. Yes. Mr. BURGIN. Well, when this was ratified there was no provision then for any force. Congress acts again. Mr. ACHESON. That is correct. Mrs. ROGERS. Then Congress can easily control the Council. Mr. ACHESON. It is entirely within the wisdom of Congress to approve or disapprove whatever special agreement the President negotiates. AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS FOR PAYMENT OF U.N.-RELATED EXPENSES Section 7 is highly technical and has to do with general fiscal arrangements. It provides [reading]: There is hereby authorized to be appropriated annually to the Department of State, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary for the payment by the United States of its share of the expenses of the United Nations as apportioned by the General Assembly in accordance with article 17 of the Charter, and for all necessary salaries and expenses of the representatives provided for in section 2 hereof, and of their appropriate staffs, including personal services in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, without regard to the civil-service and classification laws; travel expenses without regard to the Standardized Government Travel Regulations, as amended, the Subsistence Expense Act of 1926, as amended, and section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1933, and, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of State may prescribe, travel expenses of families and transportation of effects of United States representatives and other personnel in going to and returning from their post of duty; allowances for living quarters, including heat, fuel, and light, as authorized by the Act approved June 26, 1930; cost of living allowance under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of State may prescribe; communication services; stenographic reporting, translating, and other services, by contract, if deemed necessary, without regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5); local transportation; equipment; transportation of things; rent of offices; printing and binding; official entertainment; stationery; purchase of newspapers, periodicals, books, and documents; and such other expenses as may be authorized by the Secretary of State. All of those words have been worked out by drafting officers of the House and Senate. I could not pretend to explain to you why so much language is necessary, but the drafting officers think it is. Mrs. BOLTON. Can you give us an explanation of the "transportation of things"? I was brought up to believe that one was not allowed to use such generalized term. Mr. ACHESON. Mrs. Bolton, I cannot tell that. Mrs. BOLTON. We could get that from the drafting office to know exactly what is meant by things. Mr. ACHESON. I presume it has been used in other statutes and construed by the Comptroller General, and that is why it is used here. Mr. JARMAN. I was wondering what the difference is between local transportation and transportation of things. MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AS U.S. REPRESENTATIVES TO THE UNITED NATIONS Mr. EATON. Under the [Senate] amendment it would seem that Members of the House and Senate are actually excluded from representing this Nation in this new world organization. Is that the intent of this legislation? Mr. ACHESON. I am sure that is not the intent, and I am sure the Senate did not have that in mind. Mr. EATON. Is that not the effect of it? Mr. ACHESON. That might be the effect of it. Mrs. DOUGLAS of Illinois. Could we have that question again? Mr. EATON. My question is that under the terms of the act it would seem to exclude from representation in this world organization Members of the House and Senate, which is certainly not a reasonable idea, because if we are fit to represent our Nation in this organization, we certainly ought to be fit to represent our Nation in the world organization, provided that the President so desires. Mr. ACHESON. I say again that that is not the intent or the desire of the executive branch of the Government, and I am sure it was not the intent or desire of the Senate when it made these amendments. I think that is a matter which was done by oversight. Mr. EATON. Well, has the executive branch influence enough with the Senate to get them to rectify their ways? Mr. JOHNSON. They cannot change the bill now. We must do that. Mr. EATON. Or must we do that? Mr. ACHESON. The matter is now in the hands of Congress. Mr. EATON. Now in the hands of the House of Representatives, and we need some very careful study and sound advice to work out a program here, a statement that will make it possible for Members of the House and Senate to take this position if the President so desires. Mr. JOHNSON. The bill as originally drawn was designed to provide for such representation. Mr. Secretary, is that right? Mr. ACHESON. That is my understanding. Mr. JOHNSON. And if the language should be used in the section of the bill which you called special attention to, the inhibition would be removed. Mr. JONKMAN. Do you not think we cannot change that without changing the Constitution? At one time such an inhibition was logical. Mr. JOHNSON. If you do not create an office, the inhibition is not there. Mr. JONKMAN. That is true. It is not another office. Mr. JOHNSON. It did not create an office-they were simply delegates to the conference-when Dr. Eaton and Mr. Bloom went to San Francisco. They were representatives of their country, but that was not an office. And the bill as changed by the Senate requires compensation and creates an office. Mrs. ROGERS. I suppose the executive department feels it would be helpful to have Members of Congress there if they want to get a measure and help get it through. Mr. ACHESON. That is right. Mr. EATON. Well, the only way a Member of Congress can serve is to resign his position. Mrs. ROGERS. Is it not true that the Supreme Court justices sit on cases that they are responsible for? Mrs. BOLTON. We cannot hear the question. Mrs. ROGERS. I think at one time the Supreme Court justices did not sit on matters that they were responsible for when they were in Congress. Mrs. BOLTON. I think that is true. Mrs. ROGERS. I was told the other day that now they do. Mr. KEE. Mr. Secretary Mrs. BOLTON. May we hear, Judge Kee? CLARIFICATION OF SECURITY COUNCIL POLICE POWER AND U.S. OBLIGATIONS Mr. KEE. Certainly. I would like to clear up a question that is in my mind in respect to section 6 that authorizes the President to negotiate special agreements with reference to providing troops and so forth, and the types and numbers of the armed forces to be providedand then it seems in the nature of an exception, it says: The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of such Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein. Now, if I understand that correctly Chairman BLOOM. Just a moment, please. Mr. KEE. The President has negotiated this agreement with the Council, as I understand this, without consulting or submitting the matter to Congress. If it becomes necessary in the course of an emergency, he can proceed to supply the forces agreed upon before submitting the agreement to Congress for action. Is that correct? Mr. ACHESON. This is an important question of Judge Kee, and may I state his question and my answer so that it will be quite clear here: The judge asks whether the language beginning on line 19 of page 5, which says *** the President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of the Charter, means that the President may provide these forces prior to the time when any special agreement has been approved by the Congress. The answer to that question is no, that the President may not do that; that such special agreement-refer to the special agreement |