office. I had made an engagement to see them and extend some courtesies.

I want to congratulate you on your very clear and your very able view on this question, in all of which I most heartily concur.

Senator McMahon, will you take over? There is only one other

witness.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Secretary, I assure you I shall not infringe very much longer upon your time either.

PROCEDURE IN THE EVENT OF AN ATTACK

I wanted to ask you a question, the substance of which has been presented to several witnesses on the stand, and that is this: Suppose that this treaty shall be ratified, shall come into effect, and that we will say 6 weeks after it has come into effect Russia should send into Norway an attacking force of 500,000 troops, and that at the time the troops were so sent into Norway the Congress of the United States should not be in session. Would you, Mr. Secretary, be of the opinion that the President of the United States, by virtue of his being Commander in Chief of the armed forces, would have the legal right to determine what, if any, military action should be taken by our country prior to the assembling of Congress, by reason of the attack so made by Russia, and in view of the obligations under the treaty?

Mr. PATTERSON. I would expect the President to immediately summon Congress into special session, and I would expect Congress at that time to make the necessary declaration of war..

Senator DONNELL. So that you would consider that in the eventuality that I have mentioned the most probable result would be a declaration of war by Congress?

Mr. PATTERSON. I would.

Senator DONNELL. And that means by both Houses of Congress?

Mr. PATTERSON. It is their prerogative. But it would be my expectation, after the signature to the North Atlantic Pact and the ratification of it, that that would be up to the Congress.

Senator DONNELL. So that the signing of the pact and the ratification of it, to quote your words, among the provisions of it being that "the parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all"-you say that such signing and ratification of the pact would, in your judgment, plus the circumstances of attack by the 500,000 soldiers, produce inevitably, I assume you in effect judge, a declaration of war by Congress?

Mr. PATTERSON. I would expect Congress to take that action; yes, sir.

PRESIDENTIAL POWERS

Senator DONNELL. Now, Mr. Secretary, suppose, however, that the Congress could not be assembled, we will say, within 2 or 3 days, and that in the meantime the President should be advised by the Secretary of Defense or his other military advisers that in order to prevent Russia from obtaining such tremendous advantage as might result in her being able to conquer the European nations attacked-that and the others-it was of the utmost importance that he should immediately

dispatch bombers in great numbers from the United States of America before he waited for Congress to come together; is there any doubt in your mind as to his power to do that?

Mr. PATTERSON. I think he could easily dispatch them; yes, sir. Senator DONNELL. You have no doubt as to his power to do So, in compliance with the obligations of the United States under the pact? Mr. PATTERSON. But Congress still has the power to declare war, and he has not.

Senator DONNELL. I think that is precisely correct. But you do think that the necessary, or at least the most probable, effect of the facts that I have recited would be that Congress would feel it would be obligatory upon it to declare war and would do so. Is that right? Mr. PATTERSON. In the case you put; yes.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PACT

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Secretary, in your concluding paragraph you say, "After the pact has been ratified, the Atlantic Union Committee proposes that the Senate examine the project for Atlantic union as a means of implementing the pact by a firmer union of the people who are free and are honestly devoted to the cause of world peace." You consider, therefore, as I understand, that this Atlantic union of free countries of the world, which would include the United States, would, as you say, be a project, as I understand it, to be used "as a means of implementing the pact." Is that right?

Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, sir.

Senator DONNELL. Do you have in mind what additional implementation would be needed for this pact, other than what is already set forth in it, in the North Atlantic Treaty?

Mr. PATTERSON. No. You can have the North Atlantic Pact and means of implementing or exercising it and still not have an Atlantic union. That is true.

Senator DONNELL. As a matter of fact, article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty reads:

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this treaty, the parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

That section would certainly provide adequate powers for the implementation of the treaty, would it not?

Mr. PATTERSON. That is right. The idea of the Atlantic union is an extension rather than an implementation of the pact. I do not think my language was very good in that particular.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Secretary, in regard to the Atlantic Union Committee, Mr. Justice Roberts kindly gave us the list of the members of the council. You have a council, I believe, of possibly 150 or 200 members, something like that; is that correct?

Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, sir.

Senator DONNELL. I think he said to us that the membership has not as yet been formed; that is to say, no great number of people have become members. Am I correct in that?

Mr. PATTERSON. It is still in process of formation.

Senator DONNELL. So that at the present time how many persons, substantially, would you say compose the Atlantic Union Committee for which you today appear, in all of its branches, committees, councils, or just ordinary members? How many persons?

Mr. PATTERSON. I would not have any idea.

Senator DONNELL. Would you say, Mr. Secretary, it would be as many as 250?

Mr. PATTERSON. Whatever number Justice Roberts says would suit me. He knows much more about it than I do.

Senator DONNELL. Have you been particularly active in the affairs of the committee, Mr. Secretary?

Mr. PATTERSON. Well, as active as I could be, but I have a living to make.

Senator DONNELL. How many times has this committee met since it was organized?

Mr. PATTERSON. It has met a good many times, but I have not been to many meetings.

Senator DONNELL. And it was organized, if I am not mistaken, about 8 weeks ago?

Mr. PATTERSON. Sometime in March, I believe.

Senator DONNELL. And of its membership today, about what proportion of it is in New York, do you know?

Mr. PATTERSON. I have no idea.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you and the committee for the courtesy of permitting me to interrogate you.

PRESIDENTIAL POWERS

Senator MCMAHON. Mr. Secretary, this treaty does not add or subtract from the President's constitutional powers, does it?

Mr. PATTERSON. No, sir.

Senator MCMAHON. As I understand this proposed Atlantic union, and I must confess I understand it in a most limited way at the present time, it is your objective to explore what could be done to bring about closer union among the free countries. That is the basic thought, is it not?

Mr. PATTERSON. Yes.

Senator MCMAHON. Senator Donnell asked you many questions about a specific blueprint, and you said that, of course, you could not give it. I suppose that blueprint would come out of the discussion between selected representatives of free countries, if that meeting

were held?

Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, sir. That is quite a distance off.

Senator MCMAHON. And that is quite a distance off?

Of course, when the framers of the Federal Constitution met, it was for the purpose of framing the charter which we know as the Constitution of the United States, and in that Constitution the States granted certain powers to the Federal Government, reserving all other powers to themselves. I suppose you have something of that nature in mind?

Mr. PATTERSON. The same approach.

90614-49-pt. 2 19

Senator MCMAHON. I just wanted to clear that up for the record. Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Patterson. It is good to see you again.

We have Mrs. Dana C. Backus, the interim chairman of the Women's Action Committee for Lasting Peace. Mrs. Backus, you may go right ahead.

STATEMENT OF MRS. DANA C. BACKUS, INTERIM NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, WOMEN'S ACTION COMMITTEE FOR LASTING PEACE

Mrs. BACKUS. It may seem strange to some that an organization of women dedicated to the cause of lasting peace should be urging the ratification of a military pact, even though that pact is of a purely defensive nature.

Because our hearts are set on lasting peace, it would be nice if we could join the ranks of those who feel that the way for this country to achieve peace is to say that we won't fight and that we will disarm. The difficulty with that isolationist-pacifist approach is that it won't work unless every nation agrees to it and puts it into practice. The other approach to lasting peace, of course, is through collective consultation to settle disputes and collective action to prevent or stop aggression.

Last fall, when the North Atlantic Defense Pact was still only a rumor as far as the public was concerned, the Women's Action Committee for Lasting Peace adopted the following policy as part of its legislative program for the coming year.

Grant security guaranties and military aid to western Europe on terms that would be in accord with article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

The stated purpose of our organization is—

to unite American women to work for full participation by the United States in the United Nations and related efforts to build a world of peace and justice under law.

THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE PACT

When the North Atlantic Defense Pact was published, we analyzed it from the point of view of these two statements. We consider that both the letter and the spirit of the pact are in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.

I need scarcely quote the text of the pact to the members of the Foreign Relations Commitee but, just to show that I have read it too, I would like to bring out these points. The signers of the pact not only give a general pledge to abide by the principles and purposes of the Charter, they commit themselves to carrying out certain specific procedures called for under the articles of the Charter. I refer particularly to the following passage in the pact:

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures will be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measure necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

We are convinced that the North Atlantic Pact is a well-considered and useful document. However, no treaty can of itself keep the peace. The effectiveness of the pact must be based on action, not on words alone. There are two aspects of the implementation of the pact which

the people of the United States must consider. One is a decision which this country must make now for itself; the other depends on continuous consultation among all the signatories of the pact.

IMPLEMENTATION OF PACT

The first step which this country must take is to prove that we mean what we say in the pact by supplying our colleagues, as well as ourselves, with the physical means of carrying out the defense pact. Defense without weapons is an empty word. If an armed attack should occur in Europe and our friends were not adequately armed, we would either have to forget the pact or let the armed forces of the United States do the job of stopping aggression. Military aid provided now will enable the nations of Europe to help defend themselves in case of

emergency.

The second aspect of implementing the pact involves the practical interpretation of its provisions. What constitutes an armed attack? What measures will be necessary to counter that particular attack? Above all, what will be the practical day-to-day relationship between the pact and the UN?

The pact itself provides for integration with the United Nations. In practice the nations who join the pact may either use article 9 as the basis of a separate little club for conferring outside the UN, or it can carry out the stated intent of the pact, which is to supplement and strengthen the United Nations. We urge that the latter course be followed.

We

Our organization does not consider that the North Atlantic Defense Pact is the sole or even the primary solution of the security problem. The settlement of disputes through negotiation, conciliation, and arbitration will always be the world's best hope for lasting peace. have watched with interest and hope the slow but steady progress of the United Nations in developing practical techniques and achieving practical results in this field.

UNITED NATIONS AND THE PACT

Peace, however, depends not only on cooperation alone but on security against those who refuse to cooperate. For this reason the Women's Action Committee for Lasting Peace has always urged prompt agreement concerning armed forces to be made available to the Security Council; we have greeted with enthusiasm the proposal for a United Nations guard force; and we have studied various proposals for developing security commitments under article 51 of the Charter.

To tie in the implementation of the Atlantic Pact to the obligations under the Charter, we suggest action under article 43 of the Charter. The group of UN members in the Atlantic Pact might well offer to the Security Council to make available a mobile task force. Then, on the initiative of the Security Council, were it so minded, a special agreement for armed forces for the United Nations could be negotiated. If a veto were to intervene, the mobile force could be made available for use under General Assembly resolutions calling for its use for which the larger Atlantic Pact members have voted affirmation. We feel that in view of the current lack of unity between East and