CONSTITUTIONAL QUALITY OF COMMITMENTS

Let me emphasize the constitutional quality of these commitments. By their nature, they set only the boundaries within which the United States will act. They cannot and do not spell out the precise action which the United States would take in a variety of contingencies. That is left for further decision by the President and the Congress. In short, none of these incur automatic response. But they do make clear our pledge to take actions we regard as appropriate in the light of all the circumstances our view that we are not indifferent to the actions of others which disturb the peace of the world and threaten the security of the United States.

Congress has been a full partner, as well, in the great national effort to accelerate the pace of economic and social progress elsewhere in the world:

We have participated in global and regional organizations like the various agencies of the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the International Development Association, and others.

We have revised our trade policies and we have supported regional economic planning, common markets, and other forms of development. We have sent our young people abroad in the Peace Corps, our food abroad under the Public Law 480 program, and our technical, financial, and development assistance abroad in the AID program.

In all of these actions, the various committees of Congress and the Congress as a whole have participated fully in a variety of ways. In each, there has been express approval and authorization for executive action.

Frequently, in adopting legislation related to the conduct of foreign affairs, the Congress makes findings and declarations of policy, which express its views on broad policy issues and offer guidance to the executive branch.

On several occasions the Congress has adopted joint or concurrent resolutions declaring U.S. defense and foreign policy in relation to particular troubled areas of the world.

The Congress also has a key role in international agreements. In the case of treaties, the Senate's advice and consent is required. In the case of legislation to implement treaty commitments, or to authorize subsequent executive agreements, both Houses give approval.

FORMAL AND INFORMAL CONSULTATION BETWEEN THE TWO BRANCHES

Finally, there is the central fiscal power. In the exercise of its annual appropriations functions, the Congress reviews and debates the foreign policies of the administration.

Beyond these formal methods of congressional participation in foreign policy, there is the process of informal consultation between the Executive and the Congress. There are literally thousands of contacts each year between officers of the Executive branch and Members of Congress.

Not only do the Secretary and other high officials of the Department

of State consult regularly and frequently with congressional leaders and committees; the President has often conducted such consultations personally and extensively.

THE IMPORTANCE OF COORDINATE ACTION

As I noted at the outset, the drafters of the Constitution recognized that the voice of the United States in foreign affairs was that of the President. Throughout our history the focus has always been upon the Presidency, and it is difficult to imagine how it could be otherwise. Jefferson put it succinctly: "The transaction of business with foreign nations is Executive altogether."

I think it is fair to say, as virtually every commentator has in fact said throughout our history, that under our constitutional system the source of an effective foreign policy is Presidential power. His is the sole authority to communicate formally with foreign nations; to negotiate treaties; to command the armed forces of the United States. His is a responsibility born of the need for speed and decisiveness in an emergency. His is the responsibility for controlling and directing all the external aspects of the Nation's power. To him flow all of the vast intelligence and information connected with national security. The President, of necessity, has a preeminent responsibility in this field.

But to say this is not to denigrate the role of Congress. Whatever the powers of the President to act alone on his own authority-and I doubt that any President has ever acted to the full limits of that authority-there can be no question that he acts most effectively when he acts with the support and authority of the Congress.

And so it is that every President seeks in various ways-formal and informal-the support of Congress for the policies which the United States pursues in its foreign relations.

CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS

In part, the Constitution compels such support. It gives the President the responsibilities for leadership. It also gives the Congress specific powers which can on the one hand frustrate and distort and on the other hand support and implement.

Obviously, then, there are great advantages to the Nation in the conduct of its foreign policy when circumstances permit the President and the Congress to act together. The commitments of this Nation to the United Nations Charter and to our allies are more than a matter of constitutional process. It is essential that these basic commitments should be clear, both to our friends and to our potential adversaries. Fitfulness of policy and unpredictability of action make for serious international instability, disorder, and danger.

In short, our safety and our success depend in large measure on the confidence of other nations that they can rely on our conduct and our

assurances.

It is, therefore, as important that the Congress fill its constitutional role as it is that the President fill his. The Congress is and must be a participant in formulating the broad outlines of our foreign policy,

in supporting those fundamental and enduring commitments on which the conduct of day-to-day diplomacy depend.

But to say this is not to say that the Congress can or should seek to substitute itself for the President or even to share in those decisions which are his to make.

As I have said, the Constitution relies not on express delineation to set the powers of the Executive and the Congress in this field, but depends instead on the practical interaction between the two branches. Today, these considerations require that the President fill the preeminent role:

He alone has the support of the administrative machinery required to deal with the sheer volume of our foreign affairs problems.

He alone is the focus of diplomatic communications, intelligence sources and other information that are the tools for the conduct of foreign affairs.

He alone can act, when necessary, with the speed and decisiveness required to protect our national security.

CONCLUSION

I see no need to revise the experience of our history, or to seek to alter the boundaries of Presidential or congressional prerogative regarding foreign affairs. The need, as always, is to make the constitutional scheme and the experience of history continue to work.

"For myself," President Johnson has observed, "I believe that this is the way our system was intended to function-not with Presidents and Congresses locked in battle with each other-but locked arm in arm instead, battling for the people that we serve together." Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE OPPOSES ENACTMENT OF SENATE RESOLUTION 151

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. It is not clear to me from your statement and I wonder if you could make it more precise: Does the Department support or oppose the enactment of Senate Resolution 151?

Mr. KATZENBACH. I could not support the resolution, Mr. Chairman, because it seems to me that, if I understand it correctly, perhaps I do not, if I understand it correctly, it seems to me that it tries to do precisely what the Founding Fathers of this country declined to do in writing the Constitution, in that it purports to take a position, through a Senate resolution, on matters that it seems to me have worked out successfully, in terms of distribution of functions between the Executive branch and the Congress. And it seems to me that it could be interpreted to seek to join the Congress with the President on those matters which I think the President, in his capacity of conducting foreign relations of the United States has the constitutional authority to do. So, in short, I see no need for it. I find it confusing, and I doubt that even in our almost 200 years we have achieved the wisdom to resolve these problems which our forefathers, in drafting the Constitution, decided that they would leave to the Congress and the President in

83-230-67- -6

their wisdom, in their political experience, in their responsibility, in their judgment and in their joint responsibilites to work out for themselves.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, in short, you oppose its enactment?

Mr. KATZENBACH. That is correct. I thought I made that clear, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. No, it wasn't very clear. I confess it was not very clear; I wanted to try to make it clear. You are opposed then to the Senate acting upon this resolution or one similar to it?

Mr. KATZENBACH. I would of course have to see some other resolution.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes, that is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a good starting point. It joins the issue in any case. There are a few statements that maybe we should examine a little more closely.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS BELIEVED SATISFACTORY

One thing I might observe generally. Your feeling that the Constitution has worked so well leaves the implication that our present condition, especially in the realm of foreign relations, is very satisfactory. Is that your position?

Mr. KATZENBACH. I believe the relationships between the Congress and the President have never been better than they have been in this remarkable period in the postwar world. Throughout that period the Congress has given magnificent support to the proposals of the President. It has participated on a large scale in foreign relations where we have become of necessity more involved in the affairs of the world. The Congress has become more involved in these.

Right today, Mr. Chairman, as you know the Congress is once again debating and passing in the Senate of the United States a most important aspect of our foreign policy in the aid legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. And you feel that this reflects a satisfactory relationship and that we are enjoying now a successful era in our foreign relations?

Mr. KATZENBACH. In terms of relationships between the Congress and the President. I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is true that there are various aspects of foreign policy that one or another Senator disagrees with or a Congressman disagrees with. He can speak his mind on this. But when he speaks in that respect, he is speaking as an individual, albeit an important individual politically.

I think in terms of relations between the institution of the Congress and the institution of the Presidency, these matters have worked throughout our history and throughout the past 20 or 25 years exceptionally and unusually well.

DISSATISFACTION WITH CONDUCT OF FOREIGN POLICY

The CHAIRMAN. I may misapprehend the current situation. I was under the impression that there is considerable dissatisfaction in the country and in Congress with our present international relations.

Mr. KATZENBACH. Mr. Chairman, I think it is easy to confuse two points. Yes, there is criticism as there has often been criticism in the country and in the Congress of particular aspects of foreign policy. I happen to think that the Congress supports the foreign policy of the United States, as difficult as have been some of the decisions which have had to be made with respect to that foreign policy.

'I do not think this is true in many aspects. There are people opposed to the aid program. There are people opposed to the stationing of the troops in Europe. There are people opposed to what is going on in Vietnam. There are critical people both in the House and Senate and in the country as large; but in those programs in which the Congress has participated, they have supported the President, and I think we have worked well.

Certainly it has been my feeling and experience since I have been in this job that we have worked well with the Congress.

CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION OF WAR

The CHAIRMAN. Let us see if we can develop a few of the specific points. You make a statement that in speaking of the President

His is a responsibility borne of the need for speed and decisiveness in an emergency. His is the responsibility of controlling and directing all the external aspects of the Nation's power.

How do you fit this in with the constitutional provision as to the declaration of war by the Congress?

Yesterday we had one of the Nation's leading authorities, Professor Bartlett before us. He interprets the Constitution as meaning that the Congress has the exclusive power to initiate war. He used the word "initiate" rather than "declare" but "to declare" are the words of the Constitution. He feels this has been eroded by practice, particularly beginning about the turn of the century. Do you agree with his interpretation as to the meaning of the Constitution on the question of declaration of war?

Mr. KATZENBACH. I believe that the Constitution makes it very clear that a declaration of war is the function of Congress. I believe our history has been that the wars we have declared have been declared at the initiative and instance of the Executive.

The function of the Congress is one to declare. It is not one to wage, not one to conduct, but one simply to declare. That is the function of Congress as expressed in the Constitution.

The CHAIRMAN. To declare the war and to authorize the war, I guess. Mr. KATZENBACH. To declare it.

The CHAIRMAN. Not to conduct it.

Mr. KATZENBACH. That is true.

CONDUCT OF FOREIGN POLICY DIFFERENT FROM FORMULATION

The CHAIRMAN. You refer to the President as "the voice of policy." Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I gathered from the discussion yesterday, citing Jefferson and others who were involved in the creation of the Constitution, Jefferson referred to the Presidential power as the power to "transact the business." That refers to the conduct of the policies, but