Mr. EATON. Well, many crimes are committed in the name of the Constitution. Mr. WADSWORTH. Charlie, would you like it better if, on page 2 of this committee print, on line 4, the word “may” were changed to "shall"? Mr. EATON. That is what I thought when I read it. Mr. WADSWORTH. Now, let us see: we use the word "shall” in connection with the appointment of the deputy to the Security Council, and we use the word "shall" here elsewhere. Mr. JOHNSON. I do not know why we had it optional in one and mandatory in the other. Why was that? Mr. MORGAN. The bill was originally written that way; and just why, I do not know. Mr. WADSWORTH. That was written in the Department. Chairman BLOOM. The original draft had it that way, did it not Mr. Morgan? Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. Chairman BLOOM. So the original draft came up that way from the Department? Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move that we amend our proposed amendment as follows: Referring to the committee print, page 3, line 4, strike out the word "may," and insert the word "shall.” Chairman BLOOM. You have heard the motion? Mr. JARMAN. In other words, if I may discuss this, Mr. Chairman- Mr. JARMAN. This would make it mandatory to appoint five? Mr. WADSWORTH. No more than five. It says, "not to exceed five.” Chairman BLOOM. The Charter says that each nation shall have not more than five delegates to the General Assembly. Now, they can appoint three, or four, or one, if they want to, but not more than five? But there is to be one vote to each nation? Mr. JOHNSON. The Assembly is just as important as the Security Council. Chairman BLOOM. More important. Mr. JARMAN. By changing it to "shall" you require the President to follow the Charter, whereas, as it is now, he "may" do it. Is that it? Chairman BLOOM. Yes, sir. Mrs. BOLTON. May I second Mr. Wadsworth's motion? Chairman BLOOM. Yes. It has been moved and seconded that on page 3, line 4, the word "may" shall be stricken out, and the word "shall" inserted. All those in favor signify by saying "Aye." [Thereupon the motion was put to a vote and unanimously carried.] Mr. WADSWORTH. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the same amendment in the next one of our committee proposals is not necessary. On page 4, line 7, of the new print: except that the President may, without the advice and consent of the Senate, designate any officer of the United States to act. That is discretionary. Mr. KEE. The same thing obtains in section (d), page 3: may also appoint from time to time such other persons as he may deem necessary to represent the United States in the organizations and agencies of the United Nations at such salaries. Mr. WADSWORTH. That is discretionary. Chairman BLOOM. Any further suggestions or amendments? Chairman BLOOM. Yes, Mr. Morgan. Mr. MORGAN. Just a verbal change: On page 3, line 14, I think it would read more smoothly if "such," the third word in the line, were changed to "the." Chairman BLOOM. If there is no objection, the word "such" will be changed to "the." Without objection, it is so ordered. PASSAGE OF S. 1580, AS AMENDED Mr. JOHNSON. If there is no further suggestion, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Senate bill, S. 1580, as amended, be favorably reported, and that the Chair be instructed to use all means to expedite consideration. Mr. EATON. Seconded. [Thereupon, the motion was put to a vote and unanimously car ried.] Mr. WADSWORTH. The report-has it been drafted? Chairman BLOOM. It will be ready about 11 o'clock. The Chair would like to suggest that you use the Senate report and then make whatever changes are necessary according to the amendments made here. Mr. WADSWORTH, You should call attention to the amendments. Use the Senate report and call attention to our amendments. Chairman BLOOм. Yes, Senator, use the same report and call attention to the amendments that the committee made. Is that satisfactory? Mr. WADSWORTH. Yes. [Discussion off the record, after which the committee discussed several matters not related to S. 1580.] [Whereupon the hearing was adjourned.] tee to parallel the Senate action in such a way that this subcommittee is simply not the bottleneck. I would suggest for your consideration that we have a hearing on the Procurement Act and then in consultation with Mr. Crawford schedule the time that we can hear the rest of the story on the headquarters agreement and then the immunities agreement, so that this subcommittee will be in a position to enable the full committee to act as soon as the actions on those two matters are referred to the House following the completion of action by the Senate. Mr. SMITH. Now, my only observation at this point is this: That I doubt if these matters can be placed on the consent calendar and be acted on. Mr. CRAWFORD [committee clerk]. Dr. Eaton spoke about this this morning, Mr. Smith, in connection with a number of bills that are now pending before the committee, some of which have not had action completed in subcommittees. His thought is that on all of the bills that can be finished within the short time remaining, he preferred to have the bottleneck on the floor rather than in the committee, although he understands perfectly well there will be very little likelihood of the Inter-American Military bill going through the House, for instance. I believe he hopes it would be possible for the House to take favorable action on the World Health Organization.5 The picture as he sees it this morning is rather favorable for a number of the-I would not say less important, but the shorter and smaller business, such as the International Organizations Purchases Act. Mr. SMITH. That is the Procurement Act? Mr. MARSHALL. The Procurement Act, yes. LEGISLATIVE STRATEGY Mr. CRAWFORD. That has been revised so thoroughly by your subcommittee that it has very little in common with the original bill, and I think the full committee might be pretty well satisfied with it and want to report it out. Then, too, there is this thought in Dr. Eaton's mind, that in the last and closing days of the session, sometimes the legislative dam breaks and a number of things go through. Mr. SMITH. There is no doubt about that. If I had some special legislation I wanted, I would stick around here until the last 48 hours, when the resistance is nil. Mr. CRAWFORD. It is very slight, yes. So, if you see fit, as chairman of Subcommittee No. 6, to pass on several of these to the full committee, there is a pretty good chance, I think, through the committee, that they might get on the calendar, anyway. Then, of course, if the House Hearings of Subcommittee No. 6 on the United Nations Headquarters Agreement. S.J. Res. 144, and on the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, S.J. Res. 136 are listed in appendix VI, p. 316. For committee consideration of the measures, see elsewhere in this section. 5 The Inter-American Military Cooperation Act, H.R. 3836, 80th Congress, was considered by the Committee on Foreign Affairs on June 18, and July 10, 1947. See volume VI of this series. The U.S.'s relation to the World Health Organization had recently been considered by the committee. See "United States Membership in the World Health Organization." Hearings before Subcommittee No. 5, National and International Movements, 80th Cong., 1st sess., on H.J. Res. 161, June 13-July 3, 1947 (Washington, 1947). is sometimes unable to take action on them they will be ready for the House at the next part of the session. That will make it easy not only for the full committee, but also for the various subcommittees, to have the slate wiped clean of these bills. Mr. MARSHALL. May I make this observation, particularly in connection with the headquarters agreement: If that does not go through Congress at this session-and I am reserving judgment on whether it should-if it does not go through, there is going to be a great deal of editorial attention paid to the fact that it did not go through and that somewhere in Congress there was a bottleneck in the completion of arrangements with the United Nations. If it is possible to get the action completed in the subcommittee and the full committee, then in the event of such failure to act on the part of the House-assuming that the Senate will, as Mr. Vandenberg's men have indicated, have taken it up and acted on it by the end of this week-it is desirable that the burden be on the House rather than on the committee and rather than on the subcommittee, and that is the main reason I have in mind in calling attention to the desirability of having the subcommittee complete hearings at the earliest possible time. AVOIDING THE BLAME Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes. Later on, when these questions are gone into, if there is any criticism at all of failure to act, it would be better to have the criticisms directed at the House rather than of the subcommittee or the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I should think. Mr. SMITH. Who have we here this morning now to testify on H.R. 4010? Mr. MARSHALL. We have a group of individuals from the State Department and from the Federal Purchases Division of the Treasury Department, and I have taken the liberty of passing on to them as of last week our two proposed alternatives for their comments, so that we could be talking about the same thing this morning. SEPARATION OF HEADQUARTERS AND PROCUREMENT AGREEMENTS Mr. LODGE. May I ask you this: What would you think of our making a matter of this kind part of the headquarters agreement? Then, since the headquarters is in the United States-since, therefore, we are more affected in that connection by the United Nations than any other nation would it not be appropriate to make the purchase of administrative supplies part of the agreement between the United States and the United Nations, and if not, why not? Mr. MARSHALL. There is no objection from a legal standpoint, except if you make it part of the headquarters agreement, you make it a permanent thing. The headquarters agreement is a permanent establishment. I think it is well for Congress to observe a time limitation • For information on the Senate's action with respect to the United Nations Headquarters Agreement, see appendix VI, p. 316. Apparent reference to H.R. 3891, introduced by Congressman Smith on June 18, 1947 and H.R. 4010, introduced by Mr. Smith on June 27, 1947. Information on the two bills appears in appendix V, p. 310. on this bill, as has been done here, by making it effective until the end of the current fiscal year, and then be able from time to time to reexamine it, and make it, so far as the effect of what Congress does, a limited and unilateral arrangement, which Congress can recall at any time, whereas if it goes into the headquarters agreement, it is a permanent obligation on the part of the United States. The headquarters agreement is a set of reciprocal obligations entered into by the United States and the United Nations. This bill includes no obligations on the U.S. Government whatever. It can at any time simply say, "We do not want to buy you any more paper, or procure any more paper for you, because it is inconvenient for us to do it." LIMITS TO AMERICAN COMMITMENT AND AMERICAN RESOURCES Mr. LODGE. I think that is a very valid and penetrating argument in answer to my questions. However, I would like to point out, and this is a matter of balance, there would be certain advantages to putting it in a legal agreement; to wit, that it should be pointed out that we should not furnish more than our share of these administrative supplies, in so far as these supplies are obtainable elsewhere. Now, what I am interested in is raw materials. I understand Europe needs our aid, but there are certain things which are just as easy to procure in Europe. I mean, Sweden has loads of lumber, and there are other countries which have lumber, and we are running terribly short of that sort of thing and it is just about time that Americans live with the idea that American resources are not infinite. ESTIMATED PURCHASES Now, from this legislation will flow an estimated $500,000 worth of purchases of administrative supplies from Government agencies, for years, as I understand it. Mr. MARSHALL. The source on that may be my own information given to you, which an outside guess based upon the idea that administrative supplies bought in the last part of last year under the law in effect amounted to roughly $500,000. Again, I think it is a point which the testimony might well bring out, rather than rely on the point about the $500,000 in my mind. As I wanted to make clear then, I have only an outsider's guess. LIMIT UNITED NATIONS PURCHASES IN UNITED STATES? Mr. LODGE. We have a lack of newsprint-a shortage of newsprint in this country, which is seriously handicapping some of our newspapers, and I think there should be an incentive created under this legislation for the United Nations to seek some of these supplies outside of the United States. That is the only point I make. Now, how that can be worked out, I do not know. I can see that there are great difficulties, in that this is not in agreement with the United Nations. However, there might be some way for us to say, you can purchase so much from Government agencies, although I |