Chairman BLOOM. The subcommittee was appointed to suggest the resolution to be presented to this committee for consideration. Now, the resolution, instead of being presented to the committee was introduced.

Mr. RICHARDS. Who were the members of the subcommittee?

Chairman BLOOM. Mr. Wadsworth, Judge Kee, and Mr. Fulbright. Mr. KEE. Mr. Fulbright wrote the resolution. The resolution-the wording is approved all right.

Chairman BLOOM. I will read what the suggestion was to the committee and the Chair said at the time that we would get out confidential committee prints so that the committee would have something to act upon. But now we have a resolution that was introduced instead of the suggestions. The clerk will kindly read the minutes of the last meeting.

Mr. CRAWFORD [committee clerk reading]:

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose Mr. Kee and Mr. Wadsworth and Mr. Fulbright get together and draft some kind of resolution, leaving "concurrent" and all that out of it, just a resolution, and have it printed and sent around to the different members, and we will meet Friday morning if that is satisfactory?

Mr. RICHARDS. What I want to ask is, was there a resolution drafted as a result of those instructions, and what is it?

Chairman BLOOM. It is the resolution that was introduced, that is House Concurrent Resolution 24.

Mr. RICHARDS. Now, Mr. Wadsworth was a member of that committee and he does not have a bill here. I would like to hear what Mr. Wadsworth says about it.

Mr. WADSWORTH. On the resolution?

Mr. RICHARDS. On your committee's decision.

Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Fulbright and I consulted several times. I pass the background of my adherence to this resolution, which varies from the original one only in three words

Mr. JOHNSON. What are the three words?

Mr. WADSWORTH. "Law and order" is inserted. We discussed this thing at considerable length on Tuesday, wasn't it?

Chairman BLOOM. Yes.

Mr. WADSWORTH. And Mr. Kee suggested-no, Mr. Vorys suggested in the discussion that the Fulbright resolution would be strengthened if we put in the words "law and order," taking those words as I recollect it, from Mr. Kee's resolution. I believe that was the sense of the committee at the time. I heard no other suggestions from anybody else other than the Fulbright resolution might be used as a basis for committee action and in discussing it with Mr. Fulbright two or three times subsequently, I urged that those words be put in and he showed to me in writing where he proposed to put them in, and so far as I could, I approved. That is the connection. That is the only connection I have had, I mean. I still believe that the Fulbright resolution, improved as I think it has been by the insertion of those words, is an excellent declaration.

COMMITTEE'S UNANIMITY TO PREVENT FLOOR FIGHTS

I am not timid, Mr. Chairman, about what will happen in the House of Representatives if this resolution is reported by this committee.

Of course, you cannot report any resolution without having debate. It is quite probable that any resolution that we report might excite some member to offer an amendment. But if we confine our declaration of principle to about five lines of print and are unanimous in seeing that that is a full and adequate declaration of principle, I do not believe that any amendment would have the slightest chance of passage. If somebody gets up on the floor and tries to elaborate and put in something else about an international armed force or Santa Claus supporting the world and providing food for the starving and all that, they will all be beaten, every one of them, in my humble judgment, unless we lead the way and open the door by adding something to this resolution which invites further detailed treatment.

I am entirely satisfied with this resolution. It meets the approval of the State Department and the President. It certainly won't embarrass them or they would have said so. They make it perfectly clear there is nothing embarrassing to the State Department about this or to the President. And I sort of like to see a committee of the House take the bit in their teeth and do something on its own initiative and the Congress do something on its own.

MR. KEE'S AMENDMENT FAVORING U.N. ACTION

Chairman BLOOM. Would you mind an interruption? Didn't Judge Kee offer a suggestion to be included in that resolution?

Mr. KEE. No. Well, I did, to Mr. Fulbright.

Chairman BLOOM. Yes.

Mr. KEE. But the wording of the Fulbright resolution is satisfactory to me with the exception that I felt we should designate the agency which should set up this machinery.

Mr. JOHNSON. To do what, Judge?

Mr. KEE. I thought we should designate the agency it should be set up by.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. Kee approved the draft when I introduced it. There was no difference of opinion at that time, was there, Mr. Kee, on Tuesday afternoon I showed it to you? We discussed it—and you said, however, it is all right.

Mr. KEE. So far as it goes-with the amendment that I suggested. Mr. JOHNSON. "Concerted action of the United Nations," that is what it says; in other words, that the decision would be of the United Nations. Is that the idea?

Mr. KEE. Yes.

[Discussion off the record.]

COMMITTEE INITIATIVE WITH STATE DEPARTMENT COUNSEL

Mr. JOHNSON. May I say this? I think this resolution will have added force with reference to reflecting the sentiment of the American people, if the action in introducing it and reporting it comes as a voluntary act on the part of the Congress rather than as a suggestion from an executive branch of the Government, because it will show that is the way we feel about it-and the only question I had for referring it to the State Department was as to whether or not there would be any reason they thought it should not be done. I do not think

the State Department ought to be pressed to appear if they do not want to appear or make any suggestions, because I think all we want from them is what they feel about this matter, and the only reason I had was to learn if there was any reason why it might embarrass them-and then we would not want to do it. I think next Tuesday we should vote; if not, I would like to be excused.

BROAD SUPPORT BY PUBLIC AND IN HOUSE

Mrs. ROGERS. I think the country as a whole would be perfectly delighted if the Congress would go ahead and pass it without any coercion or anything from the executive department. I think we want it to go out unanimously. I have been hearing from people all over the country along this very line. They do not want a definite plan but want an expression of opinion. That is what this resolution is.

Mr. ROGERS. Do you think this would pass the House?

Mrs. ROGERS. Undoubtedly, without an amendment. I don't think you could get an amendment.

Mr. JONKMAN. Is there general objection to Mr. Kee's amendment to the Fulbright resolution?

Chairman BLOOM. That is what the Chair was going to suggest. Is there any amendment anyone wants to offer? That is what we are here for today.

PROBLEM WITH "LAW AND ORDER"

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Along those lines personally, I would prefer to have those two words out. I like the resolution as Mr. Fulbright had it, but I would like to go along with this resolution as it is for the sake of harmony if that is the will of this committee. I thought the words "law and order" implied something more than we perhaps had in the original resolution. I believe Mr. Fulbright made that suggestion; that it might imply perhaps a police force or something that would make it a little more difficult to get it by the House-than your original resolution. Am I right in that, Mr. Fulbright?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Yes. It might imply to some people that we are concerned with internal law and order of people. I did not object. I said simply it was another possibility.

UNANIMITY URGED

Mr. JOHNSON. Before I go, whatever we do let us do it unanimously. In that way we can prevent any amendments on the floor-if we have a united front. I think another reason for the State Department's reticence in this is because the Senate is considering this question and they do not want to become involved in that and look like they are shifting it over here and giving us attention. They do not want to offend the Senate because the Senate has to ratify the peace treaty. I think it is better to act as a free agent so I am in favor of voting on it next Tuesday. That is my position.

CLARIFICATION OF "LAW AND ORDER"

Mr. VORYS. Could I suggest, to cover this problem of internal trouble-I would like to move, if it would be proper, after the words.

"lasting peace," the words that Judge Kee suggests-"among the nations of the world"-be included so as to make it clear that we are thinking of international rather than domestic law and order.

Mr. RICHARDS. Well, we believe in both, don't we?

Mr. VORYS. Yes, but I mean we are not trying to set up machinery— Mr. Fulbright said that some quibbling may take place; we want to think about that. We want to test these words in every possible way. Some quibbler might say "Why, you are going to establish law in particular countries or order within a country."

Mr. KEE. That is my idea.

Mr. VORYS. If you put in the words Judge Kee suggests-"among the nations of the world"-that would answer that. Then I also would hope

CREATIVE AGENCY PROBLEM

Chairman BLOOM. Would you offer that as an amendment now?

Mr. KEE. Why not consider also inserting into the Fulbright resolution after the word "creation"-I believe I worded it differently. He expresses himself as favoring the word "creation." I said 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," because we ought to name the agency that is going to create this machinery, in my opinion.

Chairman BLOOM. Gentlemen, the amendment is before you.

Mr. WADSWORTH How would it be to leave out reference to "sovereign nations"? There is a question. Some nations pretend they are sovereign and there may be a great deal of doubt about it at the time. There may be some government still in exile. I don't know what will happen. We all know what "United Nations" means.

Mr. KEE. We know what "United Nations" means.

Mr. WADSWORTH. Yes, but "sovereign nations", I do not know what that means.

Mr. KEE. Of course, the phraseology there is changed a little bit. Chairman BLOOм. If you say "United Nations," you exclude the other nations we want to have peace with.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Wadsworth, your suggestion was just as to the word "sovereign"?

Mr. WADSWORTH. I would leave out reference to "sovereign nations" because I am not sure what they are.

Mr. VORYS. And just say "other nations willing to join?”

Mr. KEE. Just leave out the word "sovereign."

Mr. JONKMAN. Then you are giving the Axis Powers the right to join if you do not say "with the consent of other nations."

Chairman BLOOM. If you leave out the word "United Nations"Mr. JONKMAN. "And other nations willing to join"-that means Germany is eligible at any time that we make peace.

Mr. KEE. We could leave out those words "and other sovereign nations willing to join therein" and simply make it "creation through concerted action." I think we ought to name the nations that are going to create it, because if we use just Mr. Fulbright's words we are leaving the creation of it to the entire world.

Mr. VORYS. Of course, we do not attempt to answer all the questions. The good thing about the Fulbright formula is in those words "appropriate international machinery".

Mrs. ROGERS. "With adequate power."

PATERNAL AMBIGUITY

Mr. VORYS. "With adequate power." There is this about it, Judge, that so far as I am concerned, reference to "United Nations" would be perfectly proper. I do not think it is necessary, and I can conceive that we may be borrowing some trouble by attempting to tell in advance and to describe in advance who we do want in it, because we raise the whole question as to who we want out of it and that we are going to let in the named powers. And what you have done in your rephrasing of it, which I think is more important than that, is to pick up the participation of the United States and put it at the top of the resolution instead of trailing at the end. It seems to me if you simply said, following your form, that "the Congress of the United States hereby expresses itself as favoring the participation of the United States in the creation," and then just say, go right-keep it short and beg the question, if you please, of just which nations are to be in, or whether it is "united” and certain ones "in the creation of appropriate international machinery." That would be, I think, a better form than the Fulbright resolution. I see Mr. Fulbright shaking his head.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I think it is an improvement with this limitation. I agree with you, you give the opportunity for amendments to clarify what you mean by "United Nations" and all that on the floor and anything you are going to mention further than this is bound to create opportunity for some kind of misinterpretation or addition or amendment.

Mr. KEE. The question might be raised on the floor of the House as to who you expect to create this machinery.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Then the answer is, "to be determined," as in this next step we were discussing a while ago; that we are not settling all these problems with this resolution. This is giving the fundamental principle.

Mrs. ROGERS. A new bill will be introduced.

LEND-LEASE AS PRECEDENT FOR BROAD STATEMENT

Mr. VORYS. Let me say we are taking very logical and announced steps. We are following a precedent we ourselves made in the debate on the lease-lend extension. First in this committee there were some of us, myself, for instance-we wanted to, since it opened up a broad postwar field-let us go into that now. Mr. Stettinius persuaded me and I helped to persuade the House, we could not settle that now. We are going to have and our committee is going to continue jurisdiction over this and study it: "United Nations," or "other sovereign nations," or "other nations" and they are willing to join and we don't want them; can we keep them out? We say, "All of that—our committee is going to continue to