Mr. LODGE. It is my understanding that construction of the United Nations project will not start until next spring. Mr. MARSHALL. Yes. STRIKING SECTION 4 Mr. LODGE. Therefore, in view of the fact that we are nearing the adjournment date of this session of the 80th Congress, and in view of the fact that there is not so much question about the balance of this legislation, do you think it would be in order for us to strike section 4 from the bill and then declare our intent in another section of the bill, that it does not include the items listed in section 4? Mr. SMITH. If we strike section 4 out, then there ought to be no reference to it, I believe. Mr. LODGE. I am only referring to that in striking it out, that it may be implied in the balance of the bill. I would like to define our intent. Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Lodge's intent can be accomplished in section 3, by saying, provided that administrative supplies, et cetera, shall not be interpreted to include construction materials. DEFINITION OF TERMS Mr. LODGE. That is one way of doing it, and another way is you could have a series of definitions. You could define "United Nations" as used in the bill; you could define "administrative supplies" as used in this bill; and you could define "Federal agencies" as used in this bill, and then having listed your three definitions you would use those terms throughout the bill. That is the way it is very often done. Mr. MARSHALL. "Federal agencies" is already defined. Mr. LODGE. I understand that. I just put that in, because that would be one of the three definitions. At the outset of the bill you would define your terms. Then there is no question of what you mean. I am sure that the chairman will agree with me that we want to make his intention manifest in this section. Mr. SMITH. Yes. U.S. FINANCIAL OBLIGATION CLARIFIED Mr. KURTH. I would like to make a comment on Mr. Smith's suggestion on section 4. He asked whether or not the wording in section 4 might lead to the construction, such that the United States would underwrite this construction. I do not believe it would be possibly subject to that interpretation, because it says that the agreement of the United Nations is to pay the cost and expenses thereof either by advancement of funds or by reimbursement. Now, we would certainly want to know that the United Nations had the money in hand before we went ahead and procured any large scale procurement for them. Mr. SMITH. We certainly would hope so. Mr. KURTH. And the bill provides leeway for the U.S. agencies to refuse or not. It is permissive. We would ask them what the intent and purpose was. We would certainly, in the case of a large-scale purchase, be compelled by reason of administrative limitations alone to get the money in advance, because no one Federal agency could-even the Bureau of Federal Supply, with its limited funds of $8 million, could not go out and purchase a large amount of stock for the United Nations without getting money in advance. Mr. SMITH. Will you listen to this wording in the preamble: To authorize the Treasury Department and the United States Government Printing Office to furnish, or to procure and furnish, to the United Nations on a reimbursable basis materials, supplies and equipment required by the United Nations for administrative purposes or for the construction within the United States of facilities for the United Nations. That is pretty broad language. Mr. LODGE. It is in there, too, is it not? Mr. SMITH. Yes. Mr. KURTH. My principal point was that it is all predicated upon reimbursement or advancing of funds from the United Nations, and no one agency, notably the Bureau of Supply, would have enough funds to finance it. Mr. SMITH. I am glad to hear that, because I have had some apprehension as to the extent of our underwriting any such program, and if it is the practice of the Department to make sure that the money is available on the reimbursable basis, then you remove a considerable question in my mind. Mr. KURTH. In the present budgetary situation, I am sure that every one of them is going to make certain that they advance the funds before they actually procure the supplies. Mr. SMITH. I am encouraged by that statement of yours. PROCUREMENT PERSONNEL NEEDS Mr. LODGE. Now, assuming that the question of construction is eliminated from the preamble, and that Section 4 is eliminated, and that it is defined in the bill that you mean to exclude construction in "supplies," you nevertheless have this further question: If this construction should go ahead, you are authorized under this bill to furnish administrative supplies for that new building and that is going to be a very large building. It might run well over $500,000 to furnish desks and curtains and carpets and automobiles and all the rest of the paraphernalia and equipment, purely aside from construction supplies, for a vast structure of that nature, and therefore it seems to me that we should consider this from the point of view of the practical result, not on the basis of what has been the past experience of the United Nations-which, as I understand it, has been an estimated $500,000 a year but as I understand, at least in the first instance, after this building is constructed, there will be a tremendous outlay, and therefore in view of that background, I would like to ask Mr. Witt whether in those circumstances he still feels that he could get along with the personnel he now has? Mr. WITT. I do not think so. I think that would have to be projected to see what the volume of work is before I could answer that question. My previous answer was predicated upon past experience, that I could handle that without additional personnel. Now, if you get into the question of furnishing the building, such as the Rockefeller Foundation building, there in New York, that is an entirely different question. Mr. LODGE. Now, you see, Mr. Witt, what I am trying to get at is this: It may prove advisable to go ahead with this. Perhaps the cost of additional personnel would be absorbed by you under your surcharge system; I do not know. And perhaps in any event there would be a net gain to the taxpayer. I make no comment on that, because I do not know. I simply ask this question, because I think that that is a matter that we have to consider. LEGISLATIVE AND BUILDING TIMETABLES COMPARED Mr. MARSHALL. Sir, may I suggest one idea there, from the premise you are speaking from, that the bill as written limits its scope in time to the fiscal year 1948. I think that we can take judicial note, let us say, that the building is not going to be constructed in such a hurry that you are going to be supplying window curtains, and so forth, by July 1, 1948, in the calendar year, and therefore the whole question of the relationship to the furnishing of this very huge structure, which is still in the preliminary blueprint stage, is a question which can be deferred for reconsideration at a future session of Congress. Mr. LODGE. This act is limited to July 1, 1948? Mr. MARSHALL. That is right. COST DISTRIBUTION Mr. KURTH. I think some of the costs would be absorbed by the surcharge system but the surcharge system is applied generally and not specifically so therefore we would have to add additional people, and then, of course, that would fall equally-the additional cost would fall equally on all projects. Mr. LODGE. May I suggest, Mr. Kurth, that you and Mr. Witt provide this committee with the statement that I have already asked for, and that you include in that some reference to the matter that I have just brought up--if it is only to state that because of the fact that this legislation expires on July 1, 1948, and because of the fact that by that time the United Nations construction will not have been completed, that you think it is safe to assume that the actual expenditures of the United Nations in connection with administrative supplies will be so and so, such and such a figure-and then append an estimate of what you consider to be the net gain to the taxpayers-taking into consideration on the one hand the savings to the United Nations and consequent saving to the American contribution to the United Nations, and on the other hand the estimated additional cost to the Federal agencies, if any-and draw up an estimated balance sheet, so to speak, giving the net saving to the taxpayer. EARLY LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL I ask that because if we can go on the floor and show that this will involve a net saving, I will venture to say that its chances of passage will be excellent. Mr. MARSHALL. May I suggest one other thought there in connection with the prospective action on this bill, that note should be taken in hearings of the fact that the General Assembly is to meet, I believe, in September, and that will involve a considerable stepping up of the need of administrative supplies for a period of the fall and winter months, by the United Nations, and it is therefore desirable from the standpoint of effecting a saving that action be taken at this session of Congress. REPORT REQUESTED Mr. LODGE. I think that is a good point and I would like to ask you, Mr. Marshall, if you will be so kind as to make this liaison with these gentlemen with a view to drafting a report which will contain references to the matters which have been brought up at these hearings, particularly with respect to the budgetary aspects of this question? 21 Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, I will. Mr. LODGE. As I say, it may be that if the estimate is far short of what will actually transpire, that Mr. Witt will be able to absorb the increases of personnel within his surcharge system. I would not know about that. That will be entirely up to him, and that would be a question entirely which he could decide and not I. I do not know enough about accounting procedure. In any event, I think the various possibilities should be envisaged and referred to in the report in order that the Congress can have a comprehensive idea of what this legislation might involve. Mr. MARSHALL. We will do that. APPRAISAL OF HEARING; ADJOURNMENT Mr. LODGE. Would any of you other gentlemen like to contribute anything to this hearing? Mr. KAPLAN. I think Mr. Kurth and Mr. Witt have very ably replied to your searching questions. Mr. LODGE. That is a diplomatic comment, Mr. Kaplan. Thank you very much, gentlemen, and it has been a very interesting hearing and I thank you for your information. I take it, Mr. Marshall, you will keep in touch with these gentlemen, and we can hope to take action on this bill. Mr. KURTH. This will be a matter of administrative convenience, and these people are constantly appealing to us for help, and we are without means to help them. Indirectly it does involve some saving. Mr. LODGE. You see, the advantage of a hearing of this kind is that in the end you will end up with information which will facilitate passage, and I think it is important to get those things on the record. Mr. KURTH. I agree with you 100 percent. Mr. LODGE. Thank you very much. Mr. SMITH. The committee will adjourn. [Thereupon at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.] 21 See the final committee report on this legislation, House Report No. 952, 80th Congress, printed in appendix V, p. 311. United Nations Headquarters Agreement 23 COMMENTARY In consequence of the U.N. decision to locate its permanent seat in New York City, Congress was called upon to define and regulate the U.S. relations to the world organization not only as one member among many, but specifically as permanent host government as well. The latter problem was the more readily resolved, by terms of the U.N. Headquarters Agreement, which Senate Joint Resolution 144, 80th Congress, 1st session, approved as Public Law 357, 80th Congress, authorized the President to accept for the United States.' Ironically, however, the U.S. host role complicated approval of the more general Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, which had been approved unanimously by the General Assembly on February 13, 1946, for over 20 years. Senate Joint Resolution 136, 80th Congress, 1st session, to authorize acceptance of the convention, died in Congress in 1947-48, and an attempt to revive it in the 81st Congress, in 1949, also failed, until it was finally reintroduced and approved, with reservations, as a treaty by the Senate in the 91st Congress in 1970.* THE UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS AGREEMENT The U.N. Charter, approved in June 1945 in San Francisco, gave the prerogative of selecting a permanent headquarters site for the United Nations to the organization's General Assembly. Toward the end of the year there was 1 See legislative history for S.J. Res. 144, 80th Cong., 1st sess., which appears in appendix VI, footnote 1, p. 316. See legislative history for S.J. Res. 136, 80th Cong., 1st sess., which appears in appendix VI, footnote 6, p. 336. |