little bit more detail, not going into the plans or the full plans of a settlement we are not here discussing, of course, the same question that is involved in the meeting that the State Department is speaking of here in the press release to be called to adjust matters of relief after the war-but we are discussing the question of permanent peace here, of machinery to establish and maintain permanent peace. Now, Mr. Fulbright's resolution merely says that the Congress expresses itself as favoring the creation of appropriate international machinery. It does not designate the parties or the agencies who are expected to create that machinery. That is one thing that I object to.

And one other thing. It says, for the maintenance of lasting peace. Of course, we should presume that would imply we want to maintain lasting peace throughout the world, but I should think if we are going to adopt his resolution we should state in there the agencies we expect to create this machinery and where we expect to maintain lasting peace. In other words, we want it maintained among the nations of the world.

MR. KEE'S AMENDED VERSION OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 200

Now, if we consider adopting this very brief resolution of Mr. Fulbright I would want to amend it at least in a few particulars before we do adopt it. I would amend it by merely this correction: Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring—

that is, if you have a concurrent resolution; I think it should be a joint resolution

that the Congress of the United States hereby expresses itself as favoring the participation of the United States in the creation through concerted action of the United Nations and other sovereign nations willing to join therein, of appropriate international machinery with adequate power to prevent future aggression and to maintain law, order, and lasting peace among the nations of the world.

That takes care of the two points I suggest that we specifically state in there that this agency is to be created by the United Nations together with such other sovereign nations who may be willing to join in the covenant and its object is to maintain law, order and lasting peace. Where? Among the nations of the world.

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 70

But I still think we should have a resolution setting up the purpose, and that we should in that resolution suggest, as I have in House Joint Resolution No. 70 3

Chairman BLOOM. Is that your resolution, Judge Kee?

Mr. KEE. Yes. We should suggest the manner in which we are to do this to maintain this peace, that we should have agreements between the United Nations and other sovereign nations willing to join the covenant and that those agreements should contain or provide (1) for the use of political, judicial and arbitral [means] or other agencies sufficiently empowered to decide controversies between nations upon the petition of any signatory to such agreement or of a sovereign

Congressman Kee introduced H.J. Res. 70 on Jan. 25, 1943. The text of the resolution is given in appendix II, p. 273.

member of the community of nations, and (2) for appropriate measures to prevent any threatened breach of world peace through the refusal of any nation to submit its controversy to such agency and its resort instead to measures of violence and war.

Those are the principles, at least-probably the sole objectives of any organization to maintain international peace. And they are the only two suggestions we make and we leave entirely by that resolution the manner in which this organization to preserve international peace is to be formed, except that we provide it shall be formed just as it would in the amended Fulbright resolution, if we amended it the way I suggest: That it shall be formed by the United Nations and such other sovereign nations who are willing to join the covenant, and leaving [to them] the manner in which we should set up this machinery throughout the world or set up this machinery to maintain peace throughout the world as to how it should be formed. In other words, the manner in which it should be formed is a matter for the representatives of the various nations. Of course, Mr. Fulbright's resolution adopts the principle, we should have the machinery-and that principle alone. Now, it is only a question of just how far the Congress would go and I think it should go at least as far as I have suggested in the resolution I have introduced.

Chairman BLOOм. What is the date of your resolution, Judge? Mr. KEE. January, I introduced my resolution on January 25, I think it was. Now, my resolution could be amended. I suggested in my resolution that it is the sense of Congress that it is imperative this action be taken now. If that would not be satisfactory it could be amended. And also I suggested in my resolution that the President enter into these agreements. That could be amended if we do not want to delegate to the President the right to enter into the agreement, and we can say "our government" could enter into the agreement or "this nation" should enter into the agreements with other members of the United Nations and sovereign nations. Of course, those are more or less minor amendments, but I believe we should go at least a little bit farther than the Fulbright resolution. All in all the Fulbright resolution is satisfactory to me with the changes I have suggested, if that is as far as the committee desires to go.

Mr. JOHNSON. What change do you have in the language there? Do you have the Fulbright resolution?

Mr. KEE. Yes, No. 24. I suggest this change in the Fulbright resolution, if we should decide to adopt it

Mrs. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

Chairman BLOOM. Yes.

PASSAGE IN THE HOUSE QUESTIONABLE

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you think, Judge Kee, we could get your resolution through the House as a practical matter? I was wondering, with the ebbs and flows, don't you know?

Mr. KEE. Possibly not as it is worded right now because I think, to be perfectly frank, I think the fact that my resolution advises the President to enter into these agreements would cause a very serious debate, if not the defeat of the resolution, under the present status

and opinion of the House. But the resolution is subject to amendment in the committee so we could eliminate that objection.

Chairman BLOOM. Do you think, Judge Kee, you could get any resolution of this kind through the House without a debate and without amendments?

Mr. KEE. No; I doubt it. I think we probably would have a debate in the House on this resolution.

BROAD PRINCIPLE: AN ADVANTAGE NOW?

Mr. VoRYS. Don't you think there is the advantage in the Fulbright resolution, that is, the Fulbright idea of making or boiling down the statement of principle to a broad principle?

Mr. KEE. You say an advantage?

Mr. VORYS. The advantage would be if we did that and went very carefully to make sure that it said what we meant and did not say anything else, that if we could get something that, for instance, this committee could back it unanimously and then maybe take steps to check carefully with, say, the House leadership and individual members and point out to them what we have run into here-that is, that any attempt to elaborate before we set the principle would get us into trouble or show a division that may not exist on principle-it seems to me we might have a chance of getting something through without very much amendment and with a very substantial support, which would be a very valuable thing, it seems to me, along this stage of the world's affairs.

NEED TO GENERATE PUBLIC OPINION

Mr. KEE. I think we precipitate a discussion with any resolution we present. My view is on a subject of this importance and of such grave public interest-everybody is interested in this question right now-I think this committee should hold public hearings and get witnesses before us, and then we get the opinions of the people of the country and have public opinion back of it before we attempt to do this.

Mr. VORYS. Could I make this comment on that, Judge? The difficulty is to know and decide how to get going. Now, it was my hope that if we would adopt and act and get started through the legislative mill a broad statement of principle that was the best we could get, and that we would do that as we are attempting it here without calling any witnesses and doing the best we can ourselves to make a brief comprehensive statement, that we will deliberately try to make broad enough that we think it would secure adoption, and then as soon as we have acted on that start in with public hearings to see how far we could go on the next step, which might be like you say, or maybe even more detailed, but the next step that we would figure out would be a good one, and by that time certainly have public hearings and expect to have a good deal of discussion.

Mr. KEE. Pardon me, but you mean by that, we would go into the detailed plan of the machinery that we were setting up? Of course, that opens up a wide field. I did not mean that we would have hearings on the plan but hearings upon this general principle of establishing world machinery or a court or an arbitral body or a body with judicial

powers-and talking about force, I think the question of the force that is going to be used is an important question that the people have to decide on.

Chairman BLOOM. Would you permit me there to ask a question? Mr. KEE. Certainly.

Chairman BLOOM. Is it your suggestion, Mr. Vorys, we should report out a resolution and then hold hearings?

FULBRIGHT PRINCIPLE FIRST, DETAILED RESOLUTIONS LATER

Mr. VORYS. It would be my suggestion that we would get together on the Fulbright resolution, which comes so close-which I think comes so close to what we all have in mind and we all believe that is the overwhelming ideal and principle of our people. We vote that out and at the proper time if, as, and when we find that it would receive a similar reception on the floor, we would get it through the House, and right at that time or some other time we start to hold hearings on the Kee resolution, and on the other resolutions.

Chairman BLOOM. After it has passed the House?

Mr. VORYS. We then have made a picture frame that we have enacted and we find out if it is adopted. We find out, that is, the finding and then we start to work out what the picture is going to look like in more detail. It seems to me we may have a number of different resolutions concurrent, joint, or whatever-that we might enact. But the first thing to do is to find out to what extent we are agreed in this committee in principle and then to test the House to see to what extent they are agreed that far, and right at the time it is enacted, right in this committee and in the House we say, "Now, this is not the whole story; this is just the beginning. We now expect to study and attempt to formulate and discuss as best we can the steps taken, for instance, under the Fulbright resolution." It would take later legislative enactments and certainly later executive action to create or even suggest appropriate international machinery.

Mr. KEE. Will the gentleman yield right there?
Mr. VORYS. Yes.

TIMING IS CRITICAL

Mr. KEE. Don't you think that the time at which we are going to undertake these proceedings is a very important element?-that is, whether or not we are going to attempt preliminary agreements, that is, agreements preliminary to taking these steps to form this machinery, before the close of the war or after. In my opinion we should take these steps before the war ends.

COMMITTEE CAN LIGHT THE WAY

Mr. VORYS. It happens to be my opinion too. There would be—as you know, there are great divergencies on that. But what you were talking about the other day was not something such as you are mentioning, which goes over a period of a year or so, but whether it would not be enormously helpful that between now and the much looked for recess in July there could be an expression from at least this committee, by let us hope unanimous vote. That would be some official group

in the U.S. Government lighting somewhere on an immediate statement of the broad principles for which the United States stands. So that-it would be completely impossible to enact, even for this committee to pass an anything that would go into any details whatsoever between now and the recess, but it might be possible, I hope it would be, for this committee to make a formal statement, brief and broad such as the Fulbright resolution contemplates, and do it now.

Chairman BLOOM. Mr. Vorys, isn't that procedure rather novel, if you should go on the floor and say, "As soon as this Concurrent Resolution 24 is passed by the House, then we expect to have hearings and find out what we should do"? Don't you think if we are going to hold hearings at all on any resolution, we should hold the hearings before, instead of after, reporting it out?

Mrs. BOLTON. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. VORYS. Yes.

Mrs. BOLTON. Aren't we confusing the two things? Aren't they quite different? Isn't the Fulbright resolution an effort to have merely the declaration from the Congress of its sense that it should study these things at some time-that it wants to do something? It is not at all the purpose of it to set up anything. It is merely, I think you said it firstthis is the committee saying it wants to. And then it would be the Congress saying it wanted to .But the form it would take-we are not asking the people particularly what they want, we are asking the Congress what they want. Is that what you had in mind?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is my expression of fundamental policy. This other will go on and will, of course, apply. That is a thing that would be timed at a rather later date. It is not inconsistent at all with the procedure.

BROAD STATEMENT LACKS LEGISLATIVE FORCE

Mr. VORYS. For one thing-I cannot think of an example now, I cannot think of a precise example, but this would be a common practice, that a committee would report to the House and the House would take action along a broad general line. This has no legislative force. Mr. KEE. None whatever.

Mr. VORYS. Judge, I still think as you do. I hope that you would still consider putting it in the form of a joint resolution, but it has no legislative force and, therefore, to carry out the principles that are stated, there would be required future legislation; but unless and until the House and unless and until we will say-this committee knows that the House agrees with its statement of broad principle and that the Senate agrees, then it would be somewhat futile to attempt to evolve the legislation to carry out that principle. I have talked too much, excuse me, but that would be my idea.

COMMITMENT ALONE IS INSUFFICIENT

Mr. JONKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think Mrs. Bolton has hit the nail on the head. We must analyze the Fulbright resolution and see what plane we are seeking to attach to that. When we reach that plane-as we are all trying to do here-from there we will look further; and it seems to me that all the Fulbright bill does is to agree or to complete an agreement that lasting peace can be obtained. For illustration, for