Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Chairman, at the same time that Mr. Acheson said. "No" at the same time he said that, he said he would prefer, all things being equal, to have it in there.

Mrs. BOLTON. No; he said it would not make any difference.

Mr. FLOOD. He went further than that. He did say it was not of too great consequence. With that I concur, but he also went further when I took issue with the Senator, that since it is not offensive to him and since it was not of too great consequence, yet the situation can arise, and I have in mind the question of trusteeship which is of extreme import and might want somebody on the floor of the Senate or the House. I would like to see it in there for that reason if for no other.

Chairman BLOOM. I think the Senate referred to closing the door with reference to Members of the Congress, not the Council.

Mr. FLOOD. I am speaking of the first section of the long amendment. The Senator feels, for reasons that he stated, that it should be removed. I take issue with that and say-for exactly the same reasons that the Senator states-that it should remain.

Mr. JARMAN. I am very strong on that.

Mr. JOHNSON. There are two sides to that argument.

Mr. JONKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move we have a raising of hands on the matter.

Mr. JARMAN. I am very strong in my conviction. The Senator is very strong in his conviction.

Chairman BLOOM. Mr. Jonkman has the motion.

Mr. JONKMAN. Let us have a vote on the striking out of subsection (1). The motion is to strike out subsection 1.

Mr. WADSWORTH. Remember, gentlemen, it reads: "in lieu of." Mr. JARMAN. And remember also that that "in lieu of" is for a full-time job.

Mr. FLOOD. May I direct myself to the language "in lieu thereof"? There is no aspersion in the use of the language "in lieu thereof" directed against any Member of Congress as it is intended in this section. On the contrary, it emphasizes the temporary nature of the appointments to a trusteeship conference. It is not meant that a Member of the House is taking second place to somebody else who has a permanent job. It means that for a particular meeting of a particular trusteeship council which can be of vital importance for the same reason that we want a member of the Assembly, we want a member at that Trusteeship Council, and I think we should reserve to ourselves, since it is the same purpose, the right to say so.

Mr. BURGIN. It seems to me we have been on this for 2 days. Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, may we have a vote on this, whether subparagraph (1) is eliminated?

Chairman BLOOM. Mr. Crawford will read paragraph (1).

Mr. CRAWFORD. This is subsection 1 of the proposed amendment: *** designate any Member of the Senate or House of Representatives to act, without additional compensation, as the representative of the United States in lieu of the regular representative at any specified meeting of either such Council. Chairman BLOOM. We will take a vote now.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, before we vote on that I would like to express my position. I do not think this is as important as a representative at the Assembly; and I believe also, while there are two

schools of thought as to whether a Member of Congress should be an officer or not, I believe a Member of Congress is an officer, and I think that the elimination of section 1 would give the President the authority, if he thought it desirable, to appoint a Member of Congress just like any other officer of the Government, he being an officer of the Government, and that, therefore, I move for the amendment to eliminate

Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I express my belief? I cannot agree with my friend Luther that this is not as important as the General Assembly, because of the fact that this is a full-time, permanent job.

That is the reason he ought to do it, in lieu of another representative for a specific session.

Mr. JOHNSON. He can take a specified meeting of the session.

Mr. JARMAN. The Senator asked a question: "Is a Congressman an officer of the Government?" I do not know. I am very strongly of the opinion that the Congress should not enact legislation that would make it possible for a full-time Congressman to act as a full-time member of the Trusteeship Committee, or whatever this is, whether they get any salary or not. I am equally strong in the conviction that the Congress should not take action which would make it impossible for the President to appoint one of its Members to take the place of a regular full-time member at a specific meeting of that Council.

Chairman BLOOM. I would like to say that the Trusteeship Council is the only committee that had two members on it, and those were Captain Stassen and myself, and it was the toughest job that was held in San Francisco. If the President should decide that a Member of Congress is not an officer, or is an officer, whatever he says at the time, he is going to be guided by his own thought, so therefore I think it is better to have that in there, instead of eliminating it.

All those in favor of eliminating section (1), signify by raising hands.

[Eight hands were raised.]

Chairman BLOOM. Those opposed?

[Seven hands were raised.]

Chairman BLOOM. It is carried.

What else is there?

Mr. WADSWORTH. Is it not up to us now to report the Senate bill with these amendments?

Chairman BLOOM. Yes. Any further suggestions?

Mr. RYTER. Mr. Chairman, are we not going to adopt paragraph 2 of the suggested long amendment?

Chairman BLOOM. Yes.

Mr. RYTER. That has not been adopted yet. We have not voted on that.

Chairman BLOOM. There is a short one and a long one.

Paragraph (1), the long one, has been adopted.

Mr. RYTER. We had no vote on that adoption.

Mr. WADSWORTH. The second paragraph we have not passed judgment on yet.

Chairman BLOOM. All those in favor of the second paragraph signify by raising their hands.

Mr. JONKMAN. That takes in the whole amendment?

Chairman BLOOM. Outside of section 1. Eliminating section 1, that is the idea.

All those in favor raise their hands.

[All hands raised.]

Chairman BLOOM. Those opposed raise their hands.

[No hands were raised.]

Chairman BLOOM. It is carried unanimously.

Mrs. BOLTON. Do we meet tomorrow morning, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman BLOOM. Yes.

Then we will have a committee print of the bill.

Mr. MORGAN. Let me ask one thing about this committee print: It seems to me that you have two ways of reporting this bill: you can report it with two amendments; namely, an amendment of subsection 2(c) and an amendment to subsection 2(d), or after the enactment clause.

Mrs. BOLTON. I think we should report it with the amendments. Chairman BLOOM. Thank you very much.

We will resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

[Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned to reconvene Wednesday, December 12, 1945, at 10 a.m.]

PARTICIPATION BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION

(S. 1580, 79th Cong., 1st Sess.)

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1945

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., Hon. Sol Bloom (chairman) presiding.

Chairman BLOOM. The committee will come to order for further consideration of S. 1580. You have before you the committee print, which came in with the amendments suggested yesterday.

Your pleasure?

Mr. JOHNSON. The amendments seem to be drafted about in line with the declaration of policy voted on by the committee yesterday, it seems to me. I see no objection, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KEE. I think they are in line with what we determined yesterday. Chairman BLOOM. There was one suggestion that Mr. Morgan made: He said it might be contemplated by the President to appoint an Assistant Secretary of State or other officer as a delegate to the General Assembly, and it should be mentioned in here that he should serve without salary; but I do not think that is going to be done. I do not think such an appointment will be made.

Mr. KEE. That is supposed to be a permanent job?
Chairman BLOOM. No; that is temporary.

Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, the delegate to the Security Council is placed in a position of great importance. The impression that this legislation, as proposed, makes on me is that while the representative of our country to the Security Council is clothed with dignity and position, as he ought to be, the appointments to the Assembly seem to be of a milk-and-water arrangement. But what is that for? It is the salvation of the whole UNO. That is of immense importance. That is the only check on the Security Council. That has the authority to set up the commissions for trusteeship and economic and social matters. And the language here seems to be that the appointment to that body of the Assembly is such that the President may, if he feels like it, appoint so-and-so for specified meetings. And if he happens to appoint a Member of Congress, of course, under the Constitution he is to go without a salary. I do not suppose we can change it, but that is the impression made on me.

Mr. JOHNSON. The Constitution is responsible for the provisions, I think.

Mr. EATON. Well, many crimes are committed in the name of the Constitution.

Mr. WADSWORTH. Charlie, would you like it better if, on page 2 of this committee print, on line 4, the word "may" were changed to "shall"?

Mr. EATON. That is what I thought when I read it.

Mr. WADSWORTH. Now, let us see: we use the word "shall" in connection with the appointment of the deputy to the Security Council, and we use the word "shall" here elsewhere.

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not know why we had it optional in one and mandatory in the other. Why was that?

Mr. MORGAN. The bill was originally written that way; and just why, I do not know.

Mr. WADSWORTH. That was written in the Department.

Chairman BLOOM. The original draft had it that way, did it not Mr. Morgan?

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir.

Chairman BLOOM. So the original draft came up that way from the Department?

Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move that we amend our proposed amendment as follows: Referring to the committee print, page 3, line 4, strike out the word "may," and insert the word "shall." Chairman BLOOM. You have heard the motion?

Mr. JARMAN. In other words, if I may discuss this, Mr. Chairman-
Chairman BLOOM. Certainly.

Mr. JARMAN. This would make it mandatory to appoint five?
Mr. WADSWORTH. No more than five. It says, "not to exceed five."
Mr. JARMAN. In other words, he could appoint four or five?
Mr. WADSWORTH. Yes, sir. But he must appoint.

Chairman BLOOM. The Charter says that each nation shall have not more than five delegates to the General Assembly. Now, they can appoint three, or four, or one, if they want to, but not more than five? But there is to be one vote to each nation?

Mr. JOHNSON. The Assembly is just as important as the Security Council.

Chairman BLOOM. More important.

Mr. JARMAN. By changing it to "shall" you require the President to follow the Charter, whereas, as it is now, he "may" do it. Is that it? Chairman BLOOM. Yes, sir.

Mrs. BOLTON. May I second Mr. Wadsworth's motion?

Chairman BLOOM. Yes.

It has been moved and seconded that on page 3, line 4, the word "may" shall be stricken out, and the word "shall" inserted. All those in favor signify by saying "Aye."

[Thereupon the motion was put to a vote and unanimously carried.] Mr. WADSWORTH. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the same amendment in the next one of our committee proposals is not necessary. On page 4, line 7, of the new print:

except that the President may, without the advice and consent of the Senate, designate any officer of the United States to act.

That is discretionary.