instance, we all agree-assuming that you do on going to heaven. We all agree on that. That's all right. But supposing you have a resolution, "we want to go to heaven," and want to find the best means of getting there. We all agree that there is a heaven and we want to go there. That's all. But the minute you come to that machinery for getting there that is what the world has been fighting for all these years, it seems to me. That is all we can accomplish right here. If it is worthwhile, we should go ahead.

Mrs. BOLTON. So many people have forgotten about heaven it would be well to remind them.

Mr. JONKMAN. I think the illustration explains somewhat what I

mean.

DANGER SEEN IN FLOOR DEBATE, OPEN HEARINGS, PUBLICITY

Chairman BLOOM. Supposing someone should offer a certain kind of resolution on the floor and says, "This is all right, what you have here, but I suggest a resolution or an amendment saying so and so." Now you throw this wide open to debate, and you would not recognize it after you got through on the floor. There is the thing you have to be careful of. That is the thought in our mind; that is the thought you can read into this letter from Sumner Welles. Of course, they will not suggest anything because they are working on practically the same thing you are. But if you take this on the floor and throw it open for debate-and the Senate has stopped, the Senate is not hearing anything anymore; they have different resolutions over in the Senate and they realize the trouble they have gotten into with 96 people against 435 over here-the thought in my mind is we should be very careful not to put this committee and the administration into a position where we are going to have a certain resolution passed by the Congress with amendments to it that might be very embarrassing. Mr. JONKMAN. That is very true, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BLOOM. If you take this UNRRA news release-we have had something also with reference to our food conference." We have certain bills Mr. Fish has had one, House Joint Resolution 936 he wants to hold hearings on. It is all right to hold hearings on the different resolutions; I have no objection to that. Mr. [Herbert] Hoover wants to come down. But the only thing we are afraid of is it might do something to embarrass the State Department or the administration, really, in what they are trying to do today.

Mr. JONKMAN. That is very true, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BLOOM. I think, Mr. Fulbright, I am going to make this statement I want you to listen to it. Mr. Fulbright asked me about holding hearings before the committee in executive session on these resolutions, his resolution included. That it was merely an exploratory

Chairman Bloom is likely referring to the State Department's secret Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policy, which was then working on various draft plans for an international postwar organization. Members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs who became involved in this effort, beginning in January 1943, were Congressmen Bloom, Johnson, and Eaton. Department of State, Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 19391945." (Publication No. 3580; Washington, 1950), pp. 74-75.

Forty-four nations were represented at the U.N. Food and Agriculture Conference at Hot Springs, Va., in late May and early June 1943, which was widely featured as the U.N.'s first formal meeting.

Congressman Fish introduced H.J. Res. 93 on Mar. 10, 1943. Its text is given in appendix II, p. 274.

meeting that we were to hold, to find out what is the best thing to donow, it isn't so much the resolution. Judge Kee has been after me since January to hold hearings on his resolution, House Joint Resolution 70, and always with the same thought, but if we throw this open and bring it out on the floor, we are going to have debates and amendments offered that might be very embarrassing to this committee, or it is going to be reported back to the committee for hearings to be held and all that, you know. Do we want to hold hearings? Whom are you going to call?

AGAINST RAISING FALSE HOPES

Mr. JONKMAN. That is the question I am raising. I say it is unnecessary and it is useless to evolve the objects. We do not want to do that. Everybody is in favor of lasting peace. Anybody that is not is crazy. So we don't have to say we favor lasting peace. But when we pass this resolution, we evolve some kind of faith it can be established in some way or other, but we don't even say a word about it.

Mr. RICHARDS. It does say by international cooperation. That is the whole thing.

Mr. KEE. By establishing "international machinery."

Mr. RICHARDS. Well, it brings out the basis on which it can be established-by international cooperation. As a matter of fact, that is all there is in it.

Mr. VORYS. There is this in it. The important word in there is "participation.”

Mr. RICHARDS. That is right.

TO COUNTER ISOLATIONIST BACKLASH

Mr. VORYS. The discussions on how we are going to participate may cause other countries to think and maybe stimulate people in our country to say, "Well, we are not going to participate." What is attempted in this resolution is to make the simplest statement possible that this country is going to participate in the creation of the machinery for international cooperation-with the United States participating. There are those in this country who say, "Well, we are not going to participate."

Mr. RICHARDS. That is right.

Mr. VORYS. There are those who may be sincere isolationists and who are cynical isolationists who may say, "You think we should?" or "Do you think we will? But whatever the situation develops, we are not going to participate." This resolution is an attempt to in agreement that-that there should be a declaration by Congress that we favor our participation in some international organization to prevent another war. And I think that is important for two reasons. One is for the reason already mentioned and that is for our own decision here at home, and the other is for the assurance that it may have upon our allies abroad. They are a little suspicious of us and afraid we may, to use an ordinary expression, run out on them when the war is over and not try to prevent another war. That fear and that suspicion ought to be allayed because I believe it is calculated to hurt us with

these other countries, and I think the most assuring thing that could be given them would be to pass a resolution that we favor participation of our government with other governments to prevent another

war.

CAMPAIGN NOW TO PREVENT POSTWAR ISOLATIONISM

Now, I think this. I have been apprehensive and I have been very fearful of what is going to happen when this war ends. I am afraid and I can visualize the effect. They will say, "Get our boys home. They have been gone a long time. Let us not mix up with Europe anymore.' That always has its appeal. It is an appeal hard to answer because the question of getting the boys home and ending this thing up has a very powerful effect. Folks begin to write. Nationalism is always easier to promote than internationalism. It is always easier to convince a man he should stay in his own country and ought to attend to his own business and not mix up with other countries. It is dangerous.

There is going to be very great danger after this war is over that we do not go on the rocks with reference to the future creation of some future machinery to prevent another war. I think that is a real danger. I think that the way to prevent that danger is to create and crystallize the sentiment of our own people and the best time to do it is now, not after the war is over, because then we view it as it then stands. Now find out, to demonstrate what, let us say, all of us here think is the case, and that is that these people are wrong that this country is going to participate in the creation of the thing, and that is a great step if you can get that done.

Mr. KEE. Will you yield right there?

Mr. VORYS. Yes.

ENFORCEMENT POWER

Mr. KEE. I think the other most important words in this are the words "with adequate power." This pledges us to the idea that this machinery shall have adequate power to preserve law and order, and that is a question that is a disputed question, too, among the people— whether or not it means force back of the machinery.

Mr. VORYS. It means something.

Mr. KEE. It means force back of the machinery.

Mr. JONKMAN. I would like to develop that. I think that is just what we are developing. We have the same objectives. In the first place we believe lasting peace can be obtained, and we are willing to participate in it. Those are two things we say in this bill. What else do we say? I would like to get just what we are saying in this bill.

Mr. KEE. We are saying first the creation of machinery.
Mr. VORYS. "Adequate-

Mr. KEE. No; machinery to maintain international peace and machinery with adequate power to maintain it.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I beg the committee's pardon-I don't guess I should participate but I was not able to attend the last meeting and I was delayed this morning. I have two delegations from my district having important matters and I am giving them my attention. But this is a question I have, like the rest of you, been thinking a lot about.

71-567-76

TO BOLSTER AMERICA'S ALLIES

It is a hard question to determine. I first find myself feeling one way and then another way, but I am of the opinion and I think I am; probably while we are engaged in it we can discuss the problem, without being swayed by the early close of the war-the reason and the motive and the overpowering argument that we should do it.

PROPAGANDA URGED; PUBLIC HEARINGS OPPOSED

I think we ought to do it. I do not think there has been enough talk about that, to be candid. I think the Government has not done enough of that over the air and from constituted agencies and authorities. I think it ought to be done. I think it ought to be attacked. I think the Office of War Information ought to be doing some educational work upon this very question, of the mistakes that we must profit by to prevent another war. I think that is most important. I have so expressed myself on numerous occasions and in other places. The question of whether or not you should have a hearing or not is one that I doubt the necessity of it. Here is the only thing I am apprehensive of. If we have a hearing before this committee, the opponents of it would be the ones who would be most vocal and most persistent and would be the ones who would want to be heard the most, and then when the hearings go out in the papers, they want to carry the abnormal. The press always indicates the views that are different and out of harmony with the rest of the world. It is no news when a man says he favors this thing. When a man says he does not favor it, that makes headlines and then they play it up and the impression might go abroad and in our own country and among our Allies that this represents the sentiment of the people. I doubt the wisdom of any hearing on any resolution we should adopt.

STATE DEPARTMENT'S WISHES

Chairman BLOOM. Would you mind an interruption? Don't you think the State Department should be consulted first before reporting out a resolution of this kind?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I don't know. I should think-I was reading Mr. Welles' letter there a while ago. Have you any other communications from the State Department?

Chairman BLOOM. No, we just got this yesterday and sent it up to the State Department last night asking for a report.

Mr. JOHNSON. You haven't had a report on it? That letter was dated a little while ago.

Chairman BLOOM. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. I think probably it might be wise to have the State Department to say whether they would think it would help or hurt or not-whether we should take this action and their view about it. I don't see how it could hurt. I think in a delicate matter of this kind we ought to at least see if they see any harm in it.

Mr. VORYS. Will the gentleman yield right there?
Mr. JOHNSON. Sure.

COOPERATION WITH STATE DEPARTMENT: OVERT OR COVERT?

Mr. VORYS. Here is the view some of us take on consultation with the State Department on such a resolution: (1), we would not want to do anything that would embarass the State Department or the Government.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. VORYS. (2) That if the view of the State Department and of the President is such as is expressed in the letter to Mr. Fulbright by Mr. Welles-that they are in full sympathy with the broad principle and do not wish to have the buck passed to them of determining and deciding what the precise language should be-that we should accord with their wishes; that if they wish to make suggestions as to the text, we should accord with their wishes.

It seems to me that it is perfectly clear that what the President and the State Department want is to have the Congress go ahead itself, and they do not want to be put in the position of sponsoring something so that there will be those on the floor and in the country who will say, "This is just something that the President and the State Department is putting through-or putting over-on Congress and the people." Mr. KEE. That is my opinion too.

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the gentleman yield right there?

Mr. VORYS. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. I can see the merit of that suggestion but here is what strikes me: the State Department might not like to put in writing anything for this reason to which you referred, but couldn't you get the same results by having a committee just talk informally with the Secretary of State without any letters or anything of that kind and ask the views of the State Department as to whether or not the adoption of a resolution of this kind, declaring a matter of policy, would in any way embarrass our Government at this time?

Mr. WADSWORTH. There is the letter to Mr. Fulbright.

Mr. JOHNSON. That letter is dated April 13. I do not know whether conditions have changed.

Mr. WADSWORTH. It is the same resolution.

Mrs. ROGERS. Will the gentleman yield? Couldn't the first paragraph be read to us again?

Mr. WADSWORTH. I beg your pardon?

Mrs. ROGERS. Couldn't it be read again so we can all hear it together? Mr. FULBRIGHT [reading]:

I have discussed the matter with Secretary Hull and he has asked me to let you know that both the President and he are in full accord with the principles contained in your resolution and in any other resolutions of the same character, especially those now pending in the Senate.

Mr. JOHNSON. I think to bring it up to date you could just inquire whether or not the letter still reflects their sentiments. Some new developments may have happened since; that is the way they felt about it.

MANDATE TO SUBCOMMITTEE IGNORED?

Mr. RICHARDS. I was not here last Tuesday and I want to backtrack a little bit. As I understand it a subcommittee was appointed, is that right? What were the instructions to the subcommittee?