[From the Congressional Record, Senate, Feb. 20, 1957]

PROMOTION OF PEACE AND STABILITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have been privileged to attend the hearings on the pending resolution, both the open hearings and the closed hearings. As a result of what I heard, I am unable to vote for the Middle East resolution for two reasons.

First, I cannot reconcile a vote for the Middle East resolution with a proper regard for the resources of American taxpayers and the lives of American boys. Second, I cannot reconcile a vote for the Middle East resolution with a proper observance of the responsibility devolving upon the Congress under the Constitution of the United States.

Members of the Congress were astounded, a few days before the present session of Congress convened, by matters released to the press-leaked deliberately, I say to the effect that a great, new, bold doctrine for the Middle East had been evolved by John Foster Dulles, and that it would be necessary for Congress to put that doctrine into immediate effect because of the great emergency existing in the Middle East. Some of the press dispatches even went so far as to suggest that any Member of Congress who dared to exercise his own intelligence, and determine for himself whether this new doctrine was wise or foolish, would be lending aid to the Communists.

I do not know whether the releases to the press were intended to accomplish such a purpose, but they were certainly calculated to place the Members of Congress over a barrel and make them adopt the new brain child of John Foster Dulles, regardless of whether they thought it wise or foolish.

We might as well realize the facts of government along with the facts of life: While the doctrine is called the Eisenhower doctrine, it is the brain child of the present occupant of the office of the Secretary of State.

When we got into the hearings we made some discoveries that were totally inconsistent with the releases which had been given to the press. We found, for example, that the Middle East resolution announcing the new doctrine was not, in fact, directed toward the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. We found that out because the Secretary of State himself testified that there was nothing to indicate that Soviet Russia was preparing to make any armed attack upon any of the nations of the Middle East. We found that out because Admiral Radford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified in substance, that there was nothing to indicate that Soviet Russia was about to make any armed attack on any nation of the Middle East. We further discovered, Mr. President, from the testimony produced before the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, that there is, in fact, no basis for the assertion that there was an emergency demanding that Congress should immediately swallow the Middle East resolution, lock, stock, and barrel, without investigating it and studying it.

The resolution has two alleged objectives. One is to authorize the President of the United States to use the Armed Forces of the United States in the Middle East.

I thought, from what I read in the press, that it was necessary for us to send our Armed Forces immediately to the Middle East to garrison the Middle East. So I asked the Secretary of State if it was planned, under the resolution, to station ground forces of the United States in the Middle East, and the Secretary of State replied, in substance, that there was no plan to station ground forces of the United States in the Middle East.

He went so far as to suggest that the Navy was in the Mediterranean, and that the Navy might take care of the situation. I thereupon observed, in substance, that I could not visualize the Navy sailing around on the sands of Arabia. Then the Secretary of State said that if any emergency should arise requiring the use of ground forces of the United States in the Middle East, the troops would be brought in from some other places on the face of the earth. It strikes me that if we are to have time to bring in American ground forces from some far distance corner of the earth in case some emergency should arise demanding their use in the Middle East, we might have time to let Congress, which is sitting here in Washington, and which will be here until July, August, or September, act on this matter in an orthodox, and constitutional manner.

Then the Secretary of State said, "It is necessary that the Congress release immediately from all restrictions $200 million of President's appropriation so that it can be spent in the Middle East." I think every member of each of the two

committees tried to find out from the Secretary of State how he wanted to spend that $200 million. He told them that he did not have any plans as to how it was to be spent. I do not know how other Members of the Senate may feel; as to this, I cannot forbear observing, however, that when any official or private individual comes to me and tells me that there is a great emergency which requires him to have some amount of money which he can spend in a footloose and fancyfree manner, that he does not know how he is going to spend it, he fails to satisfy my intelligence that he needs the money.

So I say that the evidence before the two committees which considered this resolution wholly failed to establish that there was any reason which would justify the Congress in passing the resolution as an emergency measure as the original press report suggested it should be passed, either from a military standpoint or from a financial standpoint.

I have alluded to the fact that the testimony of the Secretary of State himself, and the testimony of Admiral Radford, establishes beyond any question that this resolution is not directed at Soviet Russia. I think every intelligent being knows that if Soviet Russia were to make an armed invasion of the Middle East, that act would be the signal for the beginning of the third world war without any resolution of any character being passed by the Congress.

The truth is, Mr. President, that the testimony offered in support of the resolution makes it so plain that he who runs may read and not err in so doing, that this is a resolution advocated by the Secretary of State for the purpose of making the United States a policeman for the countries of the Middle East. We have had in our foreign policy in that area appeasement. We have had in our foreign policy in that area foreign aid. This resolution would not, on the one hand, put an end to appeasement, or, on the other hand, accomplish anything worth while in the foreign aid field that is not authorized by acts of Congress which appropriated approximately $750 million for use in this area of the world during the present fiscal year.

There is no necessity for untying these funds. According to the evidence the Secretary of State already has $95 million which he can spend in a footloose and fancy-free manner in that area of the world, and he does not even know how he wants to spend the $95 million he now has.

I have said that I could not reconcile a vote for this resolution with a proper regard for the resources of American taxpayers and the lives of American boys. On this point, let me say that the Senate might as well realize what it is doing if it passes this resolution. It is appointing the present Secretary of State as its unlimited agent in the Middle East.

I have known another person who wanted somewhat similar unlimited power. In my hometown in North Carolina, there used to be two gentlemen who trafficked in mules. One of them was named Bob Goodson and the other was named Vance Powell.

Occasionally they would engage in a joint venture in the buying and selling of mules. On one occasion, Vance Powell came into my law office and said, "Six months ago I went over to Tennessee and bought some mules for the joint account of Bob Goodson and myself, and Bob Goodson has never ceased to complain about the traits of some of the mules I bought on that occasion."

He stated further, "Bob Goodson came to see me yesterday and wanted me to go back to Tennessee and buy some more mules for him and myself. I told him I was not going to do it unless I could get a paper fixed up to protect me against him in the future. So I have come to you to draw me a paper which says these things, according to law; that Vance Powell is going to Tennessee and buy some mules for the joint account of himself and Bob Goodson; that Vance Powell is going to do as he pleases in buying those mules, and is going to exercise his own judgment in all respects; and that when he gets back to North Carolina with those mules, there is not going to be any 'hereafter' about any of them from Bob Goodson."

The Secretary of State is trying to get the Congress to pass a resolution appointing him as its unlimited agent, to do what he pleases according to his own judgment, in the Middle East. If the Congress passes this resolution, it will have no right to have any "hereafter" about it, because it will be authorizing in advance everything which the secretary of State does.

I have witnessed the activities of the Secretary of State in the Middle East. I have noted the fact that at the time he became Secretary of State, England, our ally, which has a peculiar interest in the Middle East so far as the Suez Canal is concerned, by reason of its mercantile activities, had 85,000 troops in the Mid

dle East guarding the Suez Canal and keeping it open for the commerce of the world.

The Egyptians did not like that. They desired to seize the canal in violation of their agreement that the Suez Canal would remain in the custody of the Suez Canal Company until 1968. The Egyptians advised our Secretary of State that they did not like the English. To appease the Egyptians, the Secretary pressured the English into removing their troops from the Suez Canal, leaving it defenseless A few days after the last contingent of British troops was withdrawn exactly 13 days, as I understand-Colonel Nasser seized the Suez Canal. All of us are familiar with the subsequent events.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, does the Senator desire to yield at this point, or does he wish first to conclude his remarks?

Mr. ERVIN. I would prefer to finish my remarks; then I shall be very glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from Arkansas.

We are all familiar with the subsequent events, and I shall not detail them. They wound up with the United States voting with Soviet Russia in the United Nations against two of our most faithful allies, England and France.

I asked the Secretary of State, during the hearings, if we had not voted with the Soviet Union against two of our allies, and he said, "No; the Soviet Union voted with us." I remarked that that was a difference without a distinction, because the fact is, regardless of whose resolution it was, the United States and Russia voted for the resolution, which was, in substance, a verbal chastisement of our principal allies.

I do not know how the other Members of the Senate may feel about this matter. However, having observed the conduct of affairs in the Middle East by the present Secretary of State, and having observed the disastrous consequences of his conduct of such affairs, I do not have sufficient confidence in the soundness of his judgment to be willing to underwrite his future action in that area of the world with the resources of American taxpayers and the lives of American boys.

I said that a vote for the resolution cannot be reconciled with a proper regard for the resources of American taxpayers. It is proposed in the resolution to initiate for the Middle East a new policy, under which the executive branch of the Government, acting through the International Cooperation Administration of the State Department, shall have the right to expend the money of the American taxpayers at its uncontrolled whim and caprice.

I have been struck during recent days by the fact that the Federal income tax is rather burdensome. My church's catechism says that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. The Federal taxing laws take issue with that statement of the catechism, because they attempt to make the payment of income taxes the chief end of man.

Persons in our lowest brackets are now paying Federal income tax at the rate of $20 out of every $100 of their income above a very limited exemption.

Yet we are asked to adopt a resolution which will commit us to the policy of extracting money from the pockets of our hard-pressed taxpayers for the benefit of nations of the Middle East whose rulers are receiving oil royalties aggregating hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

I believe that before it passes this resolution the Senate should investigate the possibility of having these oil royalties devoted to the use of the people of the countries of the Middle East.

Mr. President, there is another reason why passage of the joint resolution would not be consistent with a proper regard for the resources of American taxpayers and the lives of American boys.

There are in Europe 15 nations, having a combined total population in excess of 270 million, lying outside the Iron Curtain. These 15 nations are directly dependent upon the continued flow of oil from the Middle East for their economic welfare. The Secretary of State himself. during the course of the hearings, went so far as to describe the continued flow of Middle East oil as the economic lifeline of these nations.

Yet, notwithstanding the fact that these 15 nations of Europe are primarily dependent upon this oil for their economic salvation, the resolution puts the burden on the American taxpayers to insure the continued flow of this oil to those 15 European nations, whose combined population is largely in excess of that of the United States, without calling on them for the expenditure of a single penny to accomplish this task.

More than that, Mr. President, the joint resolution contemplates that Congress will underwrite the continued flow of this oil to these 15 nations having a

combined population of more than 270 million, with the lives of all American boys of military age, without calling on the 15 nations of 270 million persons for a single one of their sons.

No one has given me a single sensible reason why the United States should be called on to pledge the resources of our taxpayers and the lives of our sons to continue the flow of oil to these 15 nations, which are not asked to do anything whatever in regard to the matter.

If Uncle Sam is unwise enough to assume the burdens which this resolution would impose upon him, it will not be long before some of the NATO countries will be tempted to say, "If Uncle Sam can carry burdens like those without our assistance, he can assume the entire responsibility of guarding us against any menace from the Soviet Union."

If we want to do something constructive in the Middle East, Mr. President, we do not have to assume the entire burden ourselves. We do not have to adopt the go-it-alone policy envisaged by this resolution. There are in that area now four nations-Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan-which have signed the Baghdad Pact to come to each other's mutual assistance in case of an attack by Russia. These four nations seal off the Russian border from the remainder of the Middle East. Not only are these four nations signatories to the Baghdad Pact, but the United Kingdom, as well, is a party to it. The five signatories have a combined population in excess of 170 millions. Yet, instead of allying ourselves with those 170 million to secure the Middle East against Soviet aggression, we are asked to pledge that if necessary Uncle Sam will go it alone in defending that area of the world.

I asked the Secretary of State why he did not recommend that we become a signatory to the Baghdad Pact, and he said it would involve us in Arab politics. When he was asked how he would spend the money which he would be authorized to spend under this resolution, he said he had no plans for it, but he did suggest one expenditure he could make, and that was that he might use some of it to strengthen the security forces of the nations of the Middle East against internal uprisings.

Mr. President, I submit that if the United States is going to attempt to maintain the status quo in the countries of the Middle East insofar as their present governments are concerned, Uncle Sam will be sticking his nose into Arab politics with a vengeance.

So much for the proposition that a vote for the Middle East resolution cannot be reconciled with a proper regard for the resources of American taxpayers and the lives of American boys.

I now wish to discuss my second proposition; namely, that a vote for the resolution cannot be reconciled with a proper regard for the function of Congress under the Constitution.

We lawyers are accustomed to use the axiom "Out of the facts, the law arises." By that we mean that we cannot tell what the law is until we know what the facts are.

This is true with respect to the war powers of the President and the Congress under the Constitution. As I have pointed out, all of the evidence produced before the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees of the Senate concerning Senate Joint Resolution 19 left me with the abiding conviction that this resolution is not, in fact, directed against Russia. As I have further pointed out, world war III would automatically begin if Russia were to make an unprovoked armed invasion of the Middle East regardless of whether this resolution is passed or defeated.

The evidence presented to the committees discloses beyond all doubt that this resolution is directed against the countries of the Middle East. Under it, the United States is appointing itself a policeman for the Middle East to make the countries of that area stay at peace. This is the object of the resolution and any pretense that it is directed at anything else is not supported by the evidence we had before us.

There are two kinds of warfare-defensive warfare and offensive warfare. The only real protection the American people have on either the national or the international level is the protection afforded them by the Constitution of the United States. For this reason, I am unwilling to do anything which will, in effect, alter the Constitution of the United States without the consent of the Congress and the States-the only agencies authorized to amend it.

I do not claim to be an expert on the subject of the war powers of the President or of the Congress.

I have nevertheless given a lot of study to it. Such study has led me to the abiding conclusion that the power of the President as commander in chief of the Army and Navy under the Constitution when not acting by congressional authority is wholly defensive in nature, and that by virtue of its constitutional right to declare war, Congress and Congress alone has the power to authorize the employment of the Armed Forces of the United States in offensive warfare. When this resolution is read in the light of the evidence presented before the committees, it clearly appears that the resolution is designed to permit the President to send the American forces into action on behalf of a Middle East country which is attacked by another Middle East country in case he decides that the latter country is controlled by international communism. This being true, the resolution is designed to permit the President to commit the Armed Forces of the United States to offensive warfare. We would delude ourselves, indeed, if we should say in such case that the United States were fighting in its own selfdefense. An attack upon one Middle East country by another would not, in fact, imperil the national security of the United States.

For these reasons, I am unable to support any of the proposed amendments to the resolution declaring, in substance, that the President would have the right to engage in offensive warfare under these circumstances without authorization from Congress.

I have equal difficulty with the resolution in its original form. It undertakes to give congressional authorization to the President to engage in offensive warfare against some undesignated nation in the Middle East in case such undesignated nation attacks another Middle East country and the President finds that such undesignated nation is controlled by international communism. When the people of the United States adopted the Constitution vesting in Congress alone the power to authorize offensive warfare, they contemplated that the Members of the Senate and the Members of the House of Representatives should determine, in the exercise of their own judgments, whether sufficient justification exists for committing the Armed Forces of the United States to offensive warfare before they authorize the waging of such warfare. They did not intend that the Members of the Senate and the Members of the House should abdicate their constitutional power and responsibility by delegating to the President the power to engage in offensive warfare at some subsequent time against some other nation to be selected by the President.

Mr. President, it has been suggested by some that this resolution is similar to the resolution regarding Formosa. The fact is that the distinction between this resolution and the resolution relating to Formosa is as wide, as broad, and as deep as is the gulf which yawns between Lazarus in Abraham's bosom and Dives in hell.

In the case of the Formosa Resolution, we knew who the enemy was. The enemy was Red China, which had committed aggression against us in Korea. We also knew that the armed forces of Red China were being massed on the mainland of China, and that they were firing on some of the islands, especially Matsu and Quemoy. We also knew that Red China had threatened to conquer Formosa, which was plainly within the line of our Pacific defenses. So in that case we knew who the enemy was. We knew that the enemy was preparing to make an invasion of Formosa, and we knew that Formosa was in the line of our Pacific defenses.

In this instance we do not know against whom a war is likely to be waged. We do not know whether there will be any justification for an offensive war. As a matter of fact, the Secretary of State himself testified that there is not now a single country in the Middle East which is controlled by international communism.

So Congress is asked to pass a resolution authorizing the President to commit the Armed Forces of this Nation to offensive warfare at some future time against some nation not yet identified. In other words, we are asked to delegate to the President our constitutional responsibility of determining whether there will be any justification for offensive warfare in the Middle East at some undesignated time in the future. More than this, we are asked to delegate to the President our constitutional power to determine the identity of the nation against which the offensive warfare is to be waged. We are asked to do that at a time when Congress is in session, and when, from all prospects now apparent to us, Congress will be in session for months and months to come.

Holding these views, as I do, I am not willing to abdicate my function as a Member of the Senate and to let the President not only determine the sufficiency