These have included developing a set of maps, historical in nature, to accompany the volumes which appeared in the large History of the Western Hemisphere project that the Commission undertook on Rockefeller Foundation funds. We utilized information provided by the Commission to add bibliographical apparatus to the English translations of this material, which were done under the general supervision of the Hispanic Foundation. These three volumes have proven especially useful to college and university teachers in the United States, as they are essentially outlines of courses, with the appropriate bibliographical information and comment on the various themes and topics by distinguished scholars drawn from various parts of the Western Hemisphere. We believe that this project, now completed by the Commission, has been beneficial, not only to the Government directly, but to the university community in the United States. 4. We also find that the several committees and sub-committees of the Commission are extremely helpful in providing the Hispanic Foundation with required information on publications within their countries, so that they may be acquired for the Library of Congress, thus be available for use by Congress, other Government agencies, and the general public interested in research. Many of the personal contacts made by Hispanic Foundation staff at special meetings of these committees and Consultations have continued to benefit our various programs and responsibilities within the Library. 5. Finally, although it has been reported earlier, I should like to stress the mportance to the Hispanic Foundation of the various bibliographical publications developed and issued by the Commission on History. These are an important source of information for the Handbook of Latin American Studies, which is compiled within the Hispanic Foundation, as the standard bibliographical coverage of that area in the social sciences and the humanities. HOWARD F. CLINE, Director, Hispanic Foundation, Library of Congress. Dr. GERLACH. The breakdown of the budget. How far do you mean? Mr. SELDEN. I would like to have the last year's budget for the record. Dr. GERLACH. Yes, sir. (See p. 27). Mr. SELDEN. I gather from your statement, Doctor, that this increase of assessment was due primarily to U.S. pressure to create an effective work program. Am I correct in that assumption? Dr. GERLACH. I believe it did result primarily from U.S. pressure to convert to an active program; yes, sir. Mr. SELDEN. Did you, as our representative, go on record with the Institute that you could not commit our Government to an increased assessment since there was no legislative authority for you to do so? Dr. GERLACH. That is precisely what happened. Mr. SELDEN. Then how could we be in arrears? Dr. GERLACH. An international organization takes a vote. If you have a vote of 18 to 1, in the viewpoint of the international organization we are in arrears. Mr. SELDEN. Did you make our position very clear at the meeting? Dr. GERLACH. Very clear. Mr. SELDEN. I think it might be good to put a copy of the minutes of that meeting in the record so that it can be shown that the United States was on record as not being able to commit itself to this assessment until the Congress had acted on it. Dr. GERLACH. That was made very clear and fully understood by the other delegates. (The information follows:) THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, HON. ARMISTEAD I. SELDEN, House of Representatives, DEAR MR. SELDEN: As requested by the Sub-Committee on Inter-American Affairs at the Hearings on May 18, 1966, concerning S.J. Resolution 108, I am enclosing an English translation of the pertinent minutes of the closing session of the Special Assembly of the Pan American Institute of Geography and History, showing the vote of the United States on the new quota system. Unfortunately, the minutes do not contain a statement explaining the United States vote. I assure you, however, that the United States position was made very clear during the sessions of the Committee on Programs and Finances, held the previous day. Full minutes of this committee session were not recorded and do not exist in the archives of the Institute's headquarters. I have spoken by telephone with Mrs. Erma Lea Orr de Salinas, who served as interpreter at the committee meetings in question. She has confirmed that the abstract presented below, which was taken from my instructions, was read in both English and Spanish to the committee, and that full debate of the question left no doubt regarding the inability of the United States to support the two resolutions relating to the new quota system: The U.S. Representative should explain that U.S. contributions to all international organizations are subject to Congressional approval and draw attention to the fact that the Congress has set a limit of $50,000 upon the U.S. contribution to the PAIGH. Irrespective of the action taken on the new scale, an enlargement of the U.S. contribution under that scale (beyond the $50,000 limit) is subject to Congressional approval. The U.S. Representative may observe that the Congress, in considering whether to grant such approval, presumably would take into account such factors as contributions arrears.' "1 Sincerely, ARCH C. GERLACH, Chairman, U.S. National Section, PAIGH. ABSTRACT AND TRANSLATION OF MINUTES OF FINAL SESSION OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF ASSEMBLY OF THE PAN AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY HELD 26 JULY 1963 RELATING TO VOTING ON RES. No. 1, NEW QUOTA SYSTEM AND No. 2, QUOTA SCALE CHAIRMAN. Are the Delegates ready to vote on Resolution No. 1? (New Quota System) Those in favor 10 votes; against two votes; abstentions, 2. (Note: No record of how each country voted was kept; however, as reconstructed by PAIGH personnel present, Costa Rica supported the United States in casting a negative vote; while Panama and El Salvador abstained.) You will remember that all decisions concerning quotas requires the approval of two-thirds, consequently this resolution has not been approved. BOLIVIA. Let there be a roll call vote. CHAIRMAN. If the Delegate so requests, we shall thus proceed. In accordance with the system of drawing lots we already have here the names of all the countries accredited, provided to the Chairman by the Secretariat. Consequently, I would ask the Delegate from Panama to choose the country to begin the voting: (Results of drawing): 1. Panama. 2. El Salvador. 3. Guatemala. 4. Dominican Republic. 5. Peru. 6. Argentina. 7. Uruguay. 8. Colombia. 9. Nicaragua. 10. Canada. 11. Chile. 12. Costa Rica. 13. Brazil. 14. Honduras. 15. Bolivia. 16. Mexico. 17. United States. 18. Venezuela. Thank you. VENEZUELA. I would like to ask a question. The Delegate from Uruguay has not attended any of the debates, has taken absolutely no part in this meeting. Does he have the right to vote? General VICTOR H. J. HOSKING. (President of PAIGH). No. CHAIRMAN. I think, Mr. Chairman of the Committee on Credentials, that we should consider two aspects in this matter: 1. Is it a Member State? Yes. 2. Has it been accredited to the Assembly? Yes. Under these conditions if he is present, he has the right to vote. We shall proceed with the first roll call vote Subsequent to the receipt of this letter the State Department advised that this sentence refers to ar rearages on the part of other member states since the United States at the time the instructions were given, was current in its payments. on the first resolution. I would ask the Secretary to call each country by name and in accordance with that we shall recount the votes. (Fourteen in favor. Two absent. One against and one abstention.) (Note: No record kept of how each country voted, however, as reconstructed, the United States voted against the resolution and Panama abstained.) Chairman. I ask the Secretary General if this proposal has obtained the two thirds [stipulated] in Article 3. Secretary General PAIGH. I agree with what I stated in the Report. There are 22 American States including Cuba. I counted them thus because in the documents I receive from the Secretary General of the OAS, Cuba appears with her quota as if she continued being a Member State, except that Cuba is suspended, the present Government of Cuba, while the present conditions last, is suspended from participating in the OAS. Therefore, I had put 21 active members, you discussed it and deleted the word 'active'. CHAIRMAN. I am going to ask the Representative of the OAS to clarify whether there are precedents on this point in the PAU. REPRESENTATIVE (OAS). I was trying to locate precisely that point and before expressing an opinion, I request a minute to look for it. Mr. Chairman, I have here a document produced in Punta del Este at the Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, on this point in which it states that no American State that declares itself partisan to Marxism-Leninism is compatible with the American system and Point 3 of said Resolution states that this incompatibility excludes the present Government of Cuba from participating in the inter-American system. But, I should clarify in the sense that before this resolution was read in the OAS, Cuba withdrew and Cuba continues to be considered as a member of the Organization. Member she is, the present government withdrew. Upon reading this declaration in the Council Cuba was no longer present. Cuba was never sent a note of exclusion. Reference was made only to the present Government of Cuba. Then it is not in the sense of excluding Cuba the country, but the Cuban government and in this respect the Secretariat of the Institute should express its criteria. Secretary General PAIGH. I have a document from the Secretary General of the OAS of two months ago in which Cuba figures among the Member States, separating its quota. I indicated it as a Member State, but not active. CHAIRMAN. În view of these statements, in view of the fact that Cuba with her respective quota figures on the quota scale both in the PAU as well as here, it is my decision that she continue to be considered as a Member State. Consequently, two-thirds has not been obtained. Consequently this resolution has not been approved. MEXICO. I think that in view of the resolution you just made which is perfectly just, we are going to encounter a very serious problem in the adoption of any resolution. Then perhaps for this specific resolution, since it concerns one single vote, if I understand the count correctly. That is, 15 are required and there are only 14. I do not know whether this would be correct perhaps to ask some State that has not voted or that has not indicated its opinion to change its point of view to permit a majority. PANAMA. Since the Delegate of Mexico asks that of one of the Members that had abstained, I reconsider my vote so there will be no obstacle and vote in favor. CHAIRMAN. I would ask, although it is not completely according to the rules of procedure, if in view of the circumstances the Assembly would agree to accepting the reconsideration of the vote of the Representative from Panama. I ask this because only in the case that it is unanimous can I accept it. Do you accept this reconsidered vote? (Accepted unanimously.) Consequently the situation changes and all the discussion on the subject has been futile. (Note: This switch to an affirmative vote by Panama resulted in passage of Resolution No. 1 by a vote of 15 to 1, with the United States alone dissenting.) SECRETARY. Resolution #2 Quota Scale. (Text read.) CHAIRMAN. I am going to offer this resolution for your consideration. Delegates who have any comment may do so as an explanation of their vote. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC. Only to propose that in the second Whereas the expression Special General Assembly be changed to Special Meeting of Assembly to be consistent with the term adopted. CHAIRMAN. Note has been taken of this correction in style. Apart from this is there another observation? (A page of discussion on this term.) GUATEMALA. As this also requires a two-thirds vote, I request a roll call vote. 64-328--66 CHAIRMAN. We shall proceed with the roll call vote in accordance with the order established by drawing of lots. (15 votes in favor. One against.) (Note: As reconstructed, the United States cast the sole dissenting vote.) (English translation of pertinent stenographic minutes as provided by Mrs. Erma Lea Orr de Salinas of the General Secretariat, PAIGH, Mexico City. Mr. SELDEN. Am I correct in assuming that this increase in the budget will be paid for entirely by the United States? There will be no increase as far as the other members are concerned? Dr. GERLACH. No, sir; there will be increases for some of the other countries, also. There will be no substantial decreases for other countries. Mr. SELDEN. You indicated that the budget was being raised from $145,000 to $250,000. Dr. GERLACH. Yes, sir. Mr. SELDEN. And that our increase in assessments is $101,000. It does not seem that there could be any increase to amount to anything as far as the other countries are concerned. Dr. GERLACH. They are not large increases, but on a percentage basis they are noticeable. Mr. SELDEN. Percentagewise, what would be the U.S. increase? Dr. GERLACH. That would be a 200 percent increase in the U.S. payment over the $50,000 that we have been paying. Mr. SELDEN. I mean the percentage of the increase. What would the United States pay? Dr. GERLACH. Our increase is only $101,000. Mr. SELDEN. Yes, but the increase in the budget is $105,000. Dr. GERLACH. About 96 percent. Mr. SELDEN. There would not be any other country increased proportionately, would there? Dr. GERLACH. No, sir. Mr. SELDEN. For all practical purposes, the increase would be almost entirely the U.S. increase. Dr. GERLACH. That is true. But this increase in percentage has been brought about by the change in the quota basis from population to the PAU scale. Mr. SELDEN. You said the increase was due primarily to our pressure to bring in some work projects that would be helpful. Dr. GERLACH. That is why they need more money, but even if they did not increase the budget, the U.S. proportion would be increased and the amount of payment increased because of the change in the quota basis from population to capacity to pay. Mr. SELDEN. Are there any other agencies or institutes, either public or private, that are doing work in the same field as PAIGH? Dr. GERLACH. I cannot think of any which are doing work there except in cooperation with the PAIGH. There is an Inter-American Geodetic Survey of the U.S. Army. There is some work done by the United Nations. But these are not overlapping the functions that the PAIGH intends to carry out. Mr. SELDEN. In other words, there is no duplication of this effort by any private or public institutions? Dr. GERLACH. That is what I wish to convey; yes, sir. Mr. SELDEN. We have before us a Senate resolution which would increase this amount from $50,000 to $75.000 a year. Dr. GERLACH. Yes, sir. Mr. SELDEN. I gather from your statement that this increase would not really be helpful. It would simply pay for some additional staff but would not provide for the projects that you have anticipated. Dr. GERLACH. It would still leave us in arrears from the viewpoint of the other members of this international organization and it would not contribute very much toward the accomplishment of the projects that we want to achieve. Mr. SELDEN. I understand that the headquarters are in Mexico City. Do we have any staff here in Washington? Dr. GERLACH. We have no paid staff in Washington. Mr. SELDEN. No paid staff at all? Dr. GERLACH. No, sir. Mr. SELDEN. Is there no equipment of any kind here in Washington? All of that is in Mexico City, is that correct? Dr. GERLACH. Sir, the Institute has three Commissions with headquarters in Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico for geography, cartography, and history, respectively, and each of those Commissions has a small staff with a small budget. Then the Institute as a whole has its major operation in Mexico City, and that is where they do their publication, distribution, prepare information circulars, and usually hold their meetings. Mr. SELDEN. There is no staff whatsoever in Washington? There have been instances in the past where the Commission on Cartography was centered in the United States and we had a small staff here. Now that has moved to Argentina. Under the present statutes of the Institute the various Commissions must move every 8 years if another country that is qualified to receive them requests them. Mr. SELDEN. Are you the only representative we have? Dr. GERLACH. In the U.S. National Section, we have several members that participate in PAIGH. We have a U.S. member on the Commission on Cartography, one on the Commission on Geography, and one on the Commission on History. Mr. SELDEN. Are these positions nonpaid? Dr. GERLACH. Yes, all of us are nonpaid. But there are others than myself. That is my point. This is purely professional participation. Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Morse, I understand you have to go to another meeting. Would you like to ask any questions? Mr. MORSE. I am reading through what I presume is your statement before the Senate committee. I notice it was on May 18, is that correct? Is that what this testimony is? Dr. GERLACH. The document dated May 18 is a slight revision of one presented to the Senate committee on May 5 while I was in Europe. Mr. MORSE. I notice that you, as the U.S. delegate, voted against the new assessment system and also voted against the new budget. Dr. GERLACH. I felt it wise to do so because of our statutory limit. Mr. MORSE. I do not think you had any choice. How much cartography work is the AID doing in Latin America? |