Senator GEORGE. I think that is right. They might come back and recommend them, but we would be fortified with that. Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Of course we are not dealing with the Point 4 plan indicated in this book. WHAT THE SENATE BILL OMITS Mr. Chairman, before we vote on the final bill I wish Dr. Wilcox would just tell us what we have left out of the bill that the House passed, so we know what we have passed over here. We left out the business section, of course. What else have we left out? Dr. WILCOX. In addition to sections 102 and 103, which have been discussed and eliminated from the committee bill, there are three other things which I think the committee ought to know about. The first is an advisory board which the business group favored very much, and which Mr. Herter hoped would be left in, which should advise and consult with the President about the program. The board was to be made up of 13 members appointed by the President, one of whom was to be the chairman, confirmed by the Senate, and the board was to be broadly representative of segments of our population interested in the program, including business, labor, agriculture, public health, and education. That section was eliminated in the redraft of the bill. Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Was that not closely related to the business sections? Was that not part of that? Senator GEORGE. Yes; that is what it was. The CHAIRMAN. The chamber of commerce-I don't object to putting that in, if you want to, and the advisory board. Senator THOMAS of Utah. I would rather start up in an experimental way and not have the advisory board in. We have enough people in our Government now. Dr. WILCOX. The second item, Mr. Chairman, is that the House bill provides for the establishment of a joint commission made up of persons named by the President and persons named by the participating countries in the program. A particular requesting country would name several people and the President would appoint several people, and this joint commission would get together and study problems relat ing to the country's requirements with respect to technical assistance to the country's resources and potentialities and to problems in connection with production and so on in that particular country. Senator THOMAS of Utah. I think they already have those things in Mr. DORT. We do not need that authority. We have it already. Dr. WILCOX. The House put that section in the bill, as I understand it. The CHAIRMAN. What else do you have? Dr. WILCOX. There is a small section relating to the termination of the program, which would permit the President to terminate the program if he determined that such support and participation no longer contributes effectively to the purpose of the title or if the program is contrary to a resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations that the continuance of such technical cooperation programs is unnecessary or undesirable, or are not consistent with the foreign policy of the United States. The CHAIRMAN. Couldn't he stop it under our bill here whenever he wanted to by just refusing to cooperate any further? Dr. WILCOX. Yes. Mr. DORT. Yes. This provision is mandatory on him in the House bill, that he must stop it. He could do it if he wanted to, of course, Dr. WILCOX. Also there is a little provision here that as a result of a concurrent resolution of both Houses he could go back and stop it. Senator THOMAS of Utah. That goes back to about 1940. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any objection to the elimination of that? We do not have to take action. DEFINITION OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Dr. WILCOX. The last section does elaborate upon the definition of technical assistance: "The term 'technical cooperation programs' means programs for the international interchange of technical knowledge and skills designed to contribute to the balance and integrated development of the economic resources and productive capacities of economically underdeveloped areas. Such activities may include, but need not be limited to, economic, engineering, medical, educational, agricultural, fishery, mineral, and fiscal surveys, demonstration, training, and similar projects that serve the purpose of promoting the development of economic resources and productive capacities of underdeveloped areas." It defines more specifically what you mean. The CHAIRMAN. Doesn't our general language include all those things? Dr. WILCOX. I should think so. The CHAIRMAN. Why name them all? Mr. DORT. It is not necessary, Senator. Senator GEORGE. I move that the chairman be authorized to report this draft on which we have been working to the Senate as a committee amendment when the bill is taken up. Senator GREEN. I second the motion. Senator HICKENLOOPER. I take it it is understood that there are some provisions here with which I am not satisfied, and I may oppose some of them. Senator GEORGE. My motion is intended to put it in the form of a committee amendment which the chairman will offer to the bill. The CHAIRMAN. That is the way we have to handle it. Senator HICKENLOOPER. I might crystallize objection to some of these things. I do not know that I will. Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I think we all reserve that right. PARLIAMENTARY SITUATION The CHAIRMAN. The motion is, then, that this bill we have gone over, this draft, be reported by the chairman as a committee amendment, and offered to the bill that is pending up there. Now the procedure in the Senate is going to be this: I think I had better tell all of you. I am sure you know, anyway. Mr. Watkins says the House passed its bill and instead of referring it down here he put it on the calendar, so the House bill is on the calendar now. Under the rules, he says we have already reported our bill and our bill is up there, and there is no use in reporting it back here. Senator GEORGE. That is all right. The CHAIRMAN. It is all right. The procedure, though, he says, is to take up the Senate bill and perfect it and get it in shape, and when we have done that we take up the House bill and substitute the Senate bill for the House bill, and it goes to conference-all after the enacting clause. It goes to conference and we iron out the differences. I want to thank all of you particularly for coming this afternoon. Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Senator Wiley asked me to record him voting in favor of the bill. Senator GEORGE. I do not think anybody is against it. The CHAIRMAN. In favor are Senators George, Thomas, Green; I have Pepper's proxy; Senator Lodge is for it. Senator GREEN. Senator McMahon wanted me to record him in favor of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wiley, Smith, Hickenlooper, and Lodge are voting for it. Dr. WILCOX. All except Fulbright and Senator Vandenberg. GUARANTEES UNDER ECA The committee wanted us to find out about the guarantees granted so far by the ECA program. According to figures Mr. Kalijarvi gave me, the informational media guarantees up to February 1950, have amounted to $6,042,627, making a total of $8,879,000 plus. Senator SMITH of New Jersey. The whole of the ECA guarantees? Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Aren't our guarantees broad enough? Dr. WILCOX. That is one of the fundamental reasons, and the other is that at home here the opportunities for investment are fairly good and the returns are good. The CHAIRMAN. They are making so much money here at home that they do not want to go abroad. We thank you very much. You have been fine. We are in the clear on this bill now. [Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] [EDITOR'S NOTE.-The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was drafted by the Ad Hoc Committee on Genocide of the U.N. Economic and Social Council in April and May, 1948. After further redrafting in the Legal Committee, it was adopted by the General Assembly on December 9. The Convention was transmitted to the Senate on June 16, 1949, and public hearings were held on January 23, 24, 25, and February 9, 1950. Discussions were continued in executive session, but no further action was taken in the 81st Congress.] WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 1950 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENOCIDE CONVENTION, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, on March 31, 1950, in the committee hearing room, U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C., at 2:30 p.m., Senator Brien McMahon, (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senator McMahon and Thomas of Utah. Also present: Philip B. Perlman, Solicitor General, Department of Justice; Jack B. Tate, Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State. STATE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Senator MCMAHON. I will place in the record the memorandum on the Genocide Convention which was prepared at my request by officials of the Department of State who have worked with the officials of the Department of Justice on the Memorandum. I would like to have it printed in the record at this point. [The memorandum referred to is as follows:] DEPARTMENT OF STATE MEMORANDUM ON THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION Argument. (1). Genocide is not a proper subject for an international convention because it is a domestic question only and consequently not a matter of true international concern. (Mr. Schweppe, pp. 262-264, 271; Mr. Ríz, pp. 287, 288, 294.) Answer. The Department of State absolutely disagrees with the opponents of the convention on this issue. Not once but twice have all states Members of the United Nations unanimously declared that genocide, the denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, is a matter of international concern, that it 1 See appendix J. (361) is a crime under international law and that states should cooperate to prevent and punish genocide. The United States delegation that voted in favor of the genocide convention was comprised of such statesmen as George C. Marshall, then Secretary of State, Ambassador Warren C. Austin, Mr. John Foster Dulles, and Ambassador Philip C. Jessup. In addition, President Truman has endorsed this view. Thus, in making this contention, these opponents of the convention are taking direct issue as to the facts with the judgment of the United States authorities directly responsible for the conduct of the foreign relations of the United States as well as with the judgment of the representatives of all the other fiftyeight governments Members of the United Nations. As a result of the mass atrocities perpetrated before and during World War II, civilized nations came to feel that such conduct should be outlawed under international law. Among the leaders in this was a very influential group within the American Bar Association, which included such jurists as Justice Jackson, Judge Denman of California, Judge Hutcheson of Texas, and Judge Parker of North Carolina, and such practitioners as Frederick R. Coudert, John W. Davis and John Foster Dulles. In March 1944, this group published under the auspices of the American Bar Association a treatise entitled "The International Law of the Future". The treatise proposed as the second principle of international law: "Each State has a legal duty to see that conditions prevailing within its own territory do not menace international peace and order, and to this end it must treat its own population in a way which will not violate the dictates of humanity and justice or shock the conscience of mankind." In explaining this proposal, the treatise goes on to state (p. 35, p. 37.) : "A State cannot be free to permit conditions to prevail within its own territory which menace international peace and order, and it cannot be free to treat any part of its population in such a way as to produce that menace. Living as a good neighbor in a Community of States, it may be called upon to place its own house in order. "The right of self-determination,' as the President of the United States of America has declared, 'does not carry with it the right of any government to commit wholesale murder or the right to make slaves of its own people.' "The enunciation of this Principle seems particularly important at the present time, when shocking efforts are being made in more than one part of the world to exterminate whole groups of human beings. It is important, also, because new situations have arisen which will require attention to be given to the future welfare of certain dependent peoples, and the world must be assured that such atrocities as the decimation of the Herreros in Southwest Africa forty years ago are not to be reepated. The dictates of humanity and justice must serve as a cornerstone of any permanent world order. They would serve to indicate a general standard of conduct to which each State has a duty to conform, and from which any departure is to be judged by the whole Community of States; but they are not to be used as an excuse for intervention by any State, acting on its own territory, in the affairs of another State." Argument (2). The genocide convention transfers criminal jurisdiction from the state governments to the federal government, without any other constitutional basis than the treaty power. Thus, the United States Constitution is being amended by the treaty power. (Mr. Schweppe, pp. 262–264; Mr. Rix, pp. 289, 290; Mr. Finch, p. 313.) Answer. The Department of State considers this interpretation of the Constitution to be erroneous. The genocide convention is an exercise of the federal power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations. Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, United States Constitution. This is one of the notable instances where criminal jurisdiction has been expressly conferred upon the federal government. This was done advisedly because the framers of the Constitution believed that this power belonged to the federal government and not to the states. (The Federalist, No. XLII.) Consequently, the genocide convention does not represent any enlargement of the present constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government and does not take away from the states any jurisdiction they otherwise have under the Constitution. The leading Supreme Court case on this constitutional provision is United States v. Arjona, 120 U.S. 479 (1887). In that case, the Court sustained the constitutionality of a federal statute to prevent and punish the counterfeiting within the United States of the notes, bonds and securiies of foreign governments. We |