means by which the State Department and those who are acting through the State Department, can reach the Congress. If we are not kept informed, we give a black eye to things quite unconsciously or quite without meaning to, to things that, if we had been kept abreast of and a little ahead of the papers, we would be ready to meet and would therefore be doing a constructive job for the whole world—the thing which after all is all that matters.

We must in some way work out these formulas by which the nations of the world can rehabilitate the world. And if there can grow out of this informal meeting today some rather more definite way by which the State Department would feel not only that it should keep us informed, but that it would want to, we would have gone a long way toward solving the difficulty that is bound to come in some measure when the war is over when these things are brought in or when the first request for funds comes.

Chairman BLOOM. Well, Mrs. Bolton, may the Chair suggest there, this is what I have in mind, and it has happened time and time again, as you folks know. If a request for an appropriation comes to the Congress it does not come to us at all. We do not know a thing about it. It goes to the Appropriations Committee and they hold their meetings, which do not in any way go into the details of the legislation, and we know nothing about it, practically, until it comes to the floor of the House. This has happened time and time again.

As you know, Mr. Acheson, there have been so many things which should originally come to this committee on which we should make recommendations to the Appropriations Committee, because when it comes out of the Appropriations Committee to the floor it is too late. This committee should be notified in advance and know what is going on and then make recommendations. If this committee approves of it, then it goes to the Appropriations Committee. But the Foreign Affairs Committee does not know about it. That is what the Chair has in mind. I think we ought to know something about it as it goes on and not after the job is completed and all agreed upon.

Mr. VORYS. Isn't this the situation, due to these watertight compartments in our Constitution, the legislative branch has nothing officially to do with it and has no duty until the request comes here for a legislative authorization or appropriation? But, due to the fact that commitments may have been made, the Legislature is then in the position where, if it is not fully familiar with what has happened, it may disapprove of this or that angle of what has happened and that it then must cause the commitment of the Executive to be repudiated.

INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS REQUIRED

Now, the only way to bridge the gap is that the Legislature, the Members of Congress, are called in and consulted with and advised at a time when they have no official connection with it during the formulation period that Mr. Bloom is talking about-not merely informing us just what you have done and giving a head start to the rest of the floor by a day or so, but if they are called in during the formulation period, when they have no official constitutional function there, you then help to bridge the gap which you are bridging this morning, by coming here and telling us about this thing from the legislative standpoint. Unless you have that sort of cutting across

these watertight channels, this thing is in danger of bogging down in the future.

Chairman BLOOM. But Mr. Vorys, you must remember when it goes to the Appropriations Committee there is nothing legislative about it at all. We have no right to inquire into the legislative angle of it at all on the floor if we are not satisfied. The only thing we can approve of is the appropriation of the amount of money, but so far as the legislative side of it is concerned, they have nothing to do with it and we have nothing to do with it when it gets to the floor.

Mr. VORYS. But under the House rules, though-that is what I was trying to inquire into I would certainly think this would require legislative authorization which would bring it to this committeeChairman BLOOM. Yes, it should.

Mr. VORYS. Before there could be appropriations for this purpose. Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is what I suggested a while ago. I think if lend-lease followed that thing, it would be a very satisfactory way of going through the House and getting support and approval both for their legislation and then an appropriation. I do not see why these things should not follow that procedure.

Chairman BLOOM. Yes, but at times there is legislation in an appropriation bill which is subject to a point of order, as you all know, but they go into it, and they would not hold a hearing on a thing of this kind except for a couple of minutes. You know what they have to do. The State Department or someone comes up asking for an appropriation and they might embody that legislative angle in their appropriation bill but they do not go into the details of it the same as this committee would. Certainly the Appropriations Committee would not have held a 5 weeks hearing on the continuation of lendlease or 4 weeks hearing on the original bill.

Mr. BURGIN. Do I understand, if they have to have an authorization, they have to come to this committee?

Chairman BLOOM. NO.

Mr. VORYS. The trouble is what Mr. Bloom is talking about-the Appropriations Committee walks in with an appropriation and a paragraph of a legislative element and says, "Now, this is very important," and the whole debate, the whole question comes up on that one point of order: Are we going to waive that point of order?

Mr. BURGIN. That has not happened much lately, has it?

Mr. VORYS. What?

Mr. BURGIN. That has not happened much lately, has it?

Mr. VoRYS. The Works Progress Administration (WPA) was conducted that way.

Chairman BLOOM. You know a lot of appropriations come out of the Appropriations Committee on matters which this committee should have had something to say, but then it is too late when it comes to that point.

Mr. Richards.

APPROPRIATION PROCEDURE CRITICIZED

Mr. RICHARDS. As I understand, Mr. Vorys, you raised the question, this committee has no constitutional function at this stage of the game, but it should be informally considered and should have informal representation on whatever comes up in this connection, in order that they

may be better able to bridge the gap. That is the thought you raised. Now, whether or not this committee has got any right, constitutional right, to consider this thing until the State Department has acted, is what I want to know about. I doubt if it has. I think that is one of the weaknesses of the setup.

Chairman BLOOM. Mr. Richards, we would have if we had some legislation proposed. But they do not do it that way. They feel it is easier to go before the Appropriations Committee and ask for an appropriation and just sidestep the Foreign Affairs Committee entirely. If there was some legislation that was proposed, it would come before this committee and we would give the authorization and in certain legislation, we would make the legislation.

Mr. RICHARDS. That is right.

Chairman BLOOM. But they do not do that, as Mr. Vorys stated. They have a little paragraph or something with an appropriation of so many millions or billions of dollars.

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION OR POLITICAL MANEUVER?

Mr. RICHARDS. I understand that. I am just talking about the Constitution as it is now.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Fulbright brought this up, when the British, the parliamentary countries and certainly those which are not democratic do not need to worry about it at all-the British may negotiate an executive agreement.

Mr. RICHARDS. That is right.

ALTERNATE PROCEDURE WITH CONGRESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT

Mr. VORYS. A man comes back and, standing on the floor of Parliament, is fully familiar with it; it represents the government, which has the parliamentary majority. Now, we do not have that machinery. However, in the case of the Arms Conference of 1921 and 1922,16 three out of the four American delegates were U.S. Senators. Therefore, they did not have to be; there was no constitutional requirement that they had to be. In fact, I think they were acting informally when they were delegates, because they could not hold an executive job. But what actually happened was that-in comes the treaty on the floor of the Senate with three Senators who say, "We know all about it. We helped write it."

Mr. RICHARDS. That is right. And we ought to be in on this thing. in an advisory capacity, even if unofficial or even if we have no vote. We certainly ought to be and it is the only way we can be informed of what is going on. The way the thing is going now, of course, that is a little different.

ROLE FOR COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

But Mr. Bloom was talking about a straight-out authorization coming to this committee to start this particular thing. Does the

16 The Washington Conference which met between Nov. 12, 1921, and Feb. 6, 1922, concluded three major agreements on the Far East and Pacific as well as a naval armaments treaty among the United States, Great Britain, Japan, France, and Italy for regulating the permissible levels of capital ships, aircraft carriers, and cruisers.

chairman contend, after this organization comes to an agreement and has made recommendations, that the matter should come here for authorization before it goes to the Appropriations Committee? Chairman BLOOM. Yes, certainly.

Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, I think you are right. But even before that, Mr. Vorys was talking about somebody sitting in.

Chairman BLOOM. You ought to sit in on it, and after that, legislation should come before this committee and you give your authorization for it and then it goes to the Appropriations Committee.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I can see there might be some trouble in Mr. Acheson's mind, if we as a committee want to sit in from the beginning on all the things the State Department has to do, because they are often on hair triggers so many times. I do not want him to have the feeling that what we are trying to say is we want to be in on everything from the beginning. I do not think that is our feeling at all. But it is very definitely our feeling that it should be routed through us in some way, and if there could be a way by which certain ones of the committee would be in on the conferences, I think it would be valuable.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Take this situation here. Here you have an agreement they have agreed on. Why isn't it proper to either approve it or disapprove it? When it comes for passage through the House they are going to ask us to support their appropriation, whatever it would be. I would not say it would not help the matter if we had some previous familiarity with it and perhaps approval, even though that is not required by the Constitution.

Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, as a matter of actual practice don't you expect the authorization of an appropriation sufficient to implement this organization and won't that authorization or question come before this committee?

Chairman BLOOM. NO.

Mr. KEE. Well, I do.

Chairman BLOOM. Oh, no. There have been so many of them. In the State Department and in all the different branches of the Government, the budget first approves it and it comes to the Appropriations Committee and you are then foreclosed. That is all there is to it. There are a lot of such situations. Now, it would not be necessary to come up here because they are not going there with legislation. They are going there for an appropriation to carry out this agreement that they have made.

[At this point there was further discussion off the record, after which the hearing was closed.]