Colonel DALL. Yes. I suggest you study who formed the United Nations and you would find out Mr. Nix. Í have made studies, Colonel, and I am doing what you did a moment ago. I am restricting myself to certain things. I want to say this, however, that if your organization takes the position that they would stand for closing down the United Nations, if other countries did not contribute, then I think it is a very, very bad position. Colonel DALL. Mr. Nix, you have just given me the opportunity to reply that I hoped you would do. I lived through the formative chapters of the League of Nations. You did, too. Some of the people in this room have not. We saw that humanity was groping for something better than war between A and B irrespective of what forces started those wars. We have lived through the formation of the United Nations which was largely developed subsequently by people who are interested in the Soviet development. If you are familiar with the architecture of the United Nations, you ought to know who wrote that: Alger Hiss, Vishinsky, Molotov, and a few others. I can say the architecture from where we sit here is definitely from across the seas. We don't sit up here as intelligent citizens and regard the periphery of our intelligence as prescribed by the United Nations. If our intellects can't create something better than that, I don't feel we are alert citizens. Mr. Nix. Colonel, I have just a second or so. I might say this: Alger Hiss has been accused of many things in this country. I can't by the widest stretch of my imagination believe him guilty of all the charges laid to him. I take it that he is guilty of what the courts convicted him of. I can't assume that he did nothing that was good and constructive. Colonel DALL. That is assumption on our part, and I didn't open that up. Mr. Nix. It is assumption on your part when you imply that because he was convicted of something he of necessity is guilty of a variety of other charges not placed against him. Colonel DALL. I certainly don't want him to be the architect of something I have to contribute unlimited money for. Mr. BURLESON. Any further questions for the Colonel? If not, thank you very much, Colonel. It is a pleasure to have you. Thank all of you again. If there is nothing further, the committee will stand adjourned. (Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee was adjourned.) (The following statement has been submitted by Mr. Barry for inclusion in the record at this point :) STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HON. ROBERT R. BARRY DRAFTERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER It cannot be said that any one person or group of individuals "wrote❞ the charter because of the continuing negotiations until the final version was approved by the Conference on June 25, 1945, and signed the following day. The Charter of the United Nations was based on the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals drafted during the summer and fall of 1944. After examination by United Na tions governments and various international gatherings, 40 countries submitted amendments to the proposals, numbering an estimated 1,200 items. The actual text of the charter was negotiated by 50 participating governments during the San Francisco Conference on International Organization from April 25 to June 26, 1945. The U.S. delegation and the Department of State advisers who attended the Conference follow: Delegates: Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., Secretary of State; Chairman Tom Connally, U.S. Senate Arthur H. Vandenberg, U.S. Senate Sol Bloom, House of Representatives Charles A. Eaton, House of Representatives Comdr. Harold E. Stassen, U.S.N.R. Dean Virginia C. Gildersleeve Department of State Advisers: James Clement Dunn, Assistant Secretary of State Green H. Hackworth, legal adviser Leo Pasvolsky, special assistant to the Secretary of State for International Organization and Security Affairs Isiah Bowman, special adviser to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish Armstrong, special adviser to the Secretary of State John Foster Dulles Charles W. Taussig, chairman, U.S. section, Anglo-American Caribbean Avra M. Warren, director, Office of American Republic Affairs Harley A. Notter, Office of Special Political Affairs Leroy D. Stinebower, deputy director, Office of International Trade Policy There were, in addition, numerous advisers from other departments of the U.S. Government, technical experts, administrative and press personnel and consultants representing 42 national organizations which had been invited by the United States to send representatives. Alger Hiss was Secretary General of the Conference and, therefore, in charge of the International Secretariat which served the various meetings. He had no role in choosing members of the Secretariat, as these personnel were selected and loaned by individual participating governments. His role was entirely administrative. He also played no role in determining U.S. positions during the negotiations at the Conference. At the time he was appointed Secretary General of the Conference, Mr. Hiss was Director of the Office of Special Political Affairs, which had the responsibility under the special assistant to the Secretary of State for Political Affairs and a committee composed of distinguished citizens both from the Government and the public, of determining our position on the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals and on the amendments and additions to them submitted by the 50 participating governments. PURCHASE OF UNITED NATIONS BONDS THURSDAY, JULY 19, 1962 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:45 a.m. in room G-3, U.S. Capitol, Hon. Clement J. Zablocki presiding. Mr. ZABLOCKI (presiding). The committee will please come to order. We are meeting this morning to continue the hearing on S. 2768, relating to the purchase of United Nations bonds. We are privileged to have two Members of Congress and Mr. Clark M. Eichelberger who will testify on this legislation. We will begin with the Honorable Robert W. Kastenmeier, my colleague from the State of Wisconsin. STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to thank the Foreign Affairs Committee for this opportunity to testify today in favor of the proposal to authorize the appropriation of up to $100 million for use as a loan to assist in the financing of the United Nations peace and security operations. Many well informed and capable men have spoken before the committee on this proposal. I do not want to duplicate their testimony nor do I want to waste the committee's time covering similar material. I want to say only that I believe the United Nations is one of our most valuable instruments of international cooperation. Though it has many faults, it is the one international tool we have for moderating conflict and avoiding the war which none of us wants. In recent months there has been great discussion as to the support of the United Nations among the public. Frankly, I view the bill you are considering today in the broadest sense as a measure to support the United Nations generally; $100 million is important but equally important is the fact that this instrument is a way to record the support of the Congress for the United Nations in these troubled times. For this reason I do not hesitate to bring to your attention a proposal which must be regarded in exactly the same light. It is a proposal in connection with the United Nations financing which would allow individual citizens to help defer expenses of loans to the United Nations. Just as the basic bill would record the support of Congress, the proposal I would like to have you consider would record and facilitate the support of individual Americans throughout the country. Originally my proposal was that the Treasury be authorized to issue special peace bonds in denominations of $25, $50, $100, $500, and $1,000. The bonds would have been earmarked orginally only for use in financing loans to the United Nations. They would bear a 2-percent interest rate and individuals would be limited in that they could purchase only up to $10,000 of the bonds. As you can see this proposal is aimed at giving the man of moderate income a chance to buy special U.N. bonds to defer the cost of financing to the United Nations. The peace bonds are bonds for the man in the street. They allow him to demonstrate his support for the United Nations and they give him a stake in a positive instrument of peace. My proposal, H.R. 12383, has been introduced in the other body, where it had the cosponsorship of Senators Clark, Hart, Humphrey, Oren Long, Smith, Harrison Williams, and Stephen Young. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week held most favorable hearings on the proposal. My proposal was similar to the one introduced earlier by Congressman Kowalski. I do not think the idea needs more elaboration before the committee today. Frankly, it is a commonsense proposal which needs only the action of the committee and the Congress to put it into practice. It is, I submit, a mere authorization for activity which should be encouraged and obviously should be supported. The bill, I would only need point out, has the full and solid support of the State Department and the Treasury Department. I believe the committee has a report to this effect. I want to say at this point that, though I have written the bill as an amendment to the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, and I believe this is the most appropriate legislation which might be amended, I certainly have no wish to press this point. If the committee feels that another act might be amended instead of this one, I would certainly defer to the committee's judgment. In addition to saving money, I would hope my bill would allow an opportunity for those who would like some way to make their views known in support of the United Nations. Frankly, there is little that the individual citizen can do today to make an effective demonstration in matters of international relations. However, the State Department has received thousands of letters from interested people offering direct contributions for the United Nations. To date they have turned these donations back, though there is presently some question whether or not they might begin to accept these donations under the foreign aid bill. It may interest the committee to know the United Nations has received donations of almost $1 million. Individuals in the United States have donated more than $150,000. If individuals are encouraged to participate in financial support in a formal way, I am sure that much more money could be raised. The British people, for example, contributed some $650,000 in a drive to help the United Nations eliminate disease and starvation in the Congo. I frankly would prefer that my fellow citizens rather than directly contribute to the United Nations would contribute to such a cause through their own Government. My bill provides just such a vehicle. I believe there is much support in this country for the United Nations. A recent Gallup poll showed 83 percent of the people think it "very important" that we make "the United Nations a success." My own poll in the Second District of Wisconsin showed that 57.7 percent agreed with the President's proposal originally to support the United Nations by purchasing $100 million in bonds. These indexes of public support, I believe, would be enhanced and dramatized if the citizens were allowed to purchase peace bonds for the United Nations. As you will note, these bonds bear a 2-percent interest rate, substantially lower than the interest rate that is normally given on savings bonds. For this reason not only would they save taxpayers' money, but they would be an excellent index to the measure of support in the public. I would like to say only one final word. In the Senate Foreign Relations Committee there was some discussion as to the exact interpretation of the language of this bill. My own interpretation is that any funds received through the sale of peace bonds be used for any United Nations operations, the support of which is already authorized by the Congress. However, there have been other interpretations as to a possible reading of this legislation. In order to clarify the matter I have for insertion in the record three possible formulations which the committee might like to consider when taking up the matter. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Treasury Department be placed in the record at this point. Mr. ZABLOCKI. Without objection that will be done. (The letter referred to follows:) TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Hon. ROBERT W. KASTEN MEIER, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. FISCAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C. July 18, 1962. DEAR MR. KASTEN MEIER: This is in response to Mr. Alperovitz' informal request today. Subsection (c) of section 9 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as it would be added to H.R. 12383, would provide as follows: "(c) Amounts realized by the Secretary of the Treasury from the sale of peace bonds shall be deposited in a special fund in the Treasury, and shall be available for use by the President in support of the activities of the United Nations." At the hearings on S. 2818, the question was raised whether, if this language were enacted, the President could spend the proceeds from peace bonds in support of activities of the United Nations without further action by the Congress. This in turn depends upon whether the language makes an appropriation. As I stated at the hearing on S. 2818, without a clear indication of a different congressional intent, the Treasury would regard the language as not making an appropriation. It does not use normal appropriating language and it is being initiated through a committee other than an appropriation committee. On the other hand, the language would have meaning other than as appropriation language: it would authorize appropriations in support of United Nations activities which might otherwise be unauthorized. (I am not informed to what extent appropriations for United Nations activities are presently authorized.) In short, it would mean that appropriation language this broad would not be subject to a point of order on the floor of the Senate or House. (Again, I am not informed whether present substantive authorizations are broad enough to achieve this same result.) If the Congress wished some other result it could, of course, obtain it by making its intent to that effect clear. While nothing I say here should be construed as a recommendation one way or the other on the policy to be followed, as a technical matter the Congress might indicate in a number of ways its intent that it wished to make the proceeds of peace bonds available without further action. One of these ways would be to substitute for the words "shall be available" the words "are hereby appropriated." On the other hand, if the Congress, in addition to not wishing to make the proceeds available without further action, wished to limit the authorization which the present language or subsection (c) |