CONTENTS Statements by Bartlett, Prof. Ruhl J., Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy- Ervin, Hon. Sam J., Jr., U.S. Senator from North Carolina.. Montross, George M., Detroit, Mich. Percy, Hon. Charles H., U.S. Senator from Illinois_ Insertions for the record: Text of Senate Resolution 151.. "Advise, or Just Consent?", editorial from the Philadelphia (Pa.) Page 9 317 190 225 71, 128 237 279 304 112 4 4 "The Fulbright Resolution," editorial from the Boston (Mass.) Globe, 4 "Fulbright Move Is Timely," editorial from the Los Angeles (Calif.) 4 "What Is a Commitment?", editorial from the Christian Science Mon- 5 "Lassoing the Locomotive,' editorial from the National Observer, "Who Makes Foreign Policy?", editorial from the Wall Street Journal, Letter dated August 15, 1967, from Hon. William B. Macomber, Jr., 6 8 49 Text of statements by Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, December 8 100 Text of President Johnson's news conference of August 18, 1967. 121 129 Text of President's message to Congress, August 5, 1964, regarding 135 Excerpt from Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearings, 172 Citations from the Law of Nations, by Herbert W. Briggs- 175 184 "Promotion of Peace and Stability in the Middle East," remarks by 200 Text of President Johnson's address to the Nation, August 4, 1964, 208 228 236 Watkins, March 12, 1954, enclosing the latter's remarks in the 260 Extension of remarks in the Senate of Hon. Robert A. Taft, January 268 Excerpts from "The Mandate for Change," by former President Dwight 275 Biographic sketch of Judge Albert Lévitt_ 277 Prepared statement of Judge Lévitt__ 280 Letter from Robert C. Hill, former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico and 1967.. 318 The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 4221 New Senate Office Building, Senator J. W. Fulbright (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Fulbright, Gore, McCarthy, Hickenlooper, Carlson, Mundt, Case, and Cooper. OPENING STATEMENT The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We meet today to begin a series of hearings on the state of Congress' constitutional role on the making of American foreign policy. The occasion is Senate Resolution 151 which purports to define a national commitment as an undertaking carrying in one form or another the endorsement of Congress. Our purpose which goes beyond the present resolution is to evaluate the responsibilities and current roles of Congress and of the Executive in the making of foreign policy, the changes which have taken place in the respective roles of the two branches in recent decades, the reasons for these changes, and their effects upon our constitutional system. For purposes of this evaluation, we have requested the assistance of interested Senators, our representatives of the Executive branch, and of distinguished academic persons such as today's witness. On the basis of what is learned in these hearings, it is possible that the committee will wish to confirm Senate Resolution 151 in its present form or that it will wish to amend it, abandon it, or replace it with some other legislative instrument. In this respect I believe I can speak for my colleagues in saying that the committee approaches the present inquiry with an open mind. For myself I think it well to make clear at the outset that I have certain predilections. I will, of course, be pleased if even indirectly these hearings encourage the Administration to reconsider its war policies. I am deeply concerned, however, with the constitutional question to be considered in these hearings. The fact that the war in Vietnam is related to the constitutional problem does not mean that the latter is merely a facade for pressing opposition to the war. It means only that this war, which I oppose so deeply, and events connected with it, such as the adoption of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964 and other events such as the Dominican intervention of 1965, have aroused in me an awareness of institutional problems that I probably should have had before, but in fact did not. |