Fiscal year 1967 (10 round trips equals $200 times 7 times 10) - Fiscal year 1967 (7 round trips equals $200 times 3 times 7)---- Committee members (7): Computation of per diem $14,000 4,200 4,200 4,200 12,000 7,000 Fiscal year 1967 (10 2-day meetings equals $100 times 7 times 20). $14,000 Fiscal year 1968 (3 2-day meetings equals $100 times 7 times 6).. Fiscal year 1969 (3 2-day meetings equals $100 times 7 times 6). Consultants (3 to 5): ---- 4,200 4,200 6,000 15,000 10,000 Fiscal year 1967 (20 days equals $100 times 3 times 20). Fiscal year 1968 (30 days equals $100 times 5 times 30). Fiscal year 1969 (20 days equals $100 times 5 times 20). Mr. POPPER. For purposes of comparison, let me mention the U.S. Commission on the Status of Puerto Rico, a somewhat analogous commission. This Commission has just issued its final report. It worked over a comparable period and was authorized to spend not more than $250,000 for 1965 and $200,000 for 1966. The work of this committee was limited to making a study and presenting a report. Since the bill before you provides for a committee with somewhat more extensive functions, $300,000 seems a reasonable figure. The Puerto Rico Commission was established under Public Law 88-271-H.R. 5945-February 20, 1964. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Gross. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Popper, are you with the State Department? Mr. POPPER. Yes, sir; I am Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs. Mr. GROSS. What is your connection with the United Nations? Any? Mr. POPPER. The Bureau in which I serve is the Bureau which is responsible for the formulation of our policies with respect to the United Nations and I have frequently spent time in New York serving for short periods with our permanent delegation to the United Nations. Mr. GROSS. And you tell the chairman that this committee cannot be eliminated, that you can't staff this thing out of the State Department? Mr. POPPER. What I purported to say, or tried to say, sir, was that I did not think that, on the scale envisaged in this legislation, the Department of State or any one agency of the Federal Government could do the job which is envisaged here. Of course we could do something, but in my opinion we could not do nearly as much, or do it nearly as well. Mr. GROSS. Where would you go to get the employees to staff this committee? Mr. POPPER. We would look, I should imagine, to the executive staff and to personnel, both inside and outside the Government, who had some established reputation as experts in this field, or in the case of an executive secretary, someone who was familiar with the operations of committees of this kind-how you go about preparing a report, holding the necessary meetings and studies, getting the information published, and then arranging for a program of observance for such an undertaking. There are such people available. Some of them were concerned with the celebration of International Cooperation Year, which as you recall culminated in a White House Conference last fall. Mr. GROSS. What did we get out of that? Mr. POPPER. We got out of that, sir, a series of reports on various aspects of international cooperation, worked out by citizens' committees in quite close collaboration with Government officials who worked in those fields. These reports included a large number of recommendations as to what the Federal Government might do in the foreign affairs field ranging from agriculture to youth. The executive branch has received and studied these reports with great profit, and it was only the other day that the White House announced that a White House committee had been appointed to insure that those recommendations not already either carried out or discarded would be pressed forward in the U.S. Government to the extent feasible. In other words, we got broad citizen participation in an enterprise which resulted in a fairly large number of specific recommendations. as to what the United States might usefully do to increase the scope of international cooperation in a profitable and appropriate way in the interest of the United States. Mr. GROSS. Are those reports available? Mr. POPPER. Yes, sir. Mr. GROSS. Would you think it would be worthwhile for my poor old eyes to read them? Mr. POPPER. We would be delighted to furnish you with a set. Mr. GROSS. I would like to have them. I don't know whether I can find the time to read them midst all these conventions that you promote over there. You keep us pretty busy with the sort of thing you have here today. The truth of the matter is that if it was the job of the people inhouse to run this, there wouldn't be jobs for others, would there? You wouldn't be able to add to the payroll if you staffed this thing with your employees? Mr. POPPER. I frankly would say, Congressman, that it would be only with the greatest difficulty that this could be staffed from withinhouse. I am not at all sure that the personnel envisaged here would all be available in our department. I can't really speak for others. It is not excluded. I may say, of course, that present employees of the United States might serve either as members of the commission or on its staff. Mr. GROSS. I don't know where you will go to find these experts unless you get people who have had experience in the State Department or the United Nations. I don't know where would you get them. Mr. POFPER. There are other resources- go to Mr. POPPER. More or less. I think we want specialists in human rights as well as in international organization affairs. Mr. GROSS. Where do you get people who are specialists in human rights? Mr. POPPER. You have the whole academic community, the universities, the people who work in this area in foundations. Mr. GROSS. I guess there are all kinds of specialists, including Martin Luther King. I don't know. I am surprised you still insist on coming to this committee with open-end requests for funds. You say you will probably require something in excess of $300,000. How much in excess of $300,000? Mr. POPPER. The reason I said that, Congressman, is that the total figures in the table which we have submitted add up to something like $328,000 or $329,000. I should add that these figures were quite hastily prepared and have not been checked with the Bureau of the Budget. They are, as I said, order-of-magnitude figures. Mr. GROSS. You have a conference cost. What do you mean by a "conference"? Is this the culmination of the Human Rights Year. or whatever it is? Is this the culmination or what is the conference cost of $25,000, just taking one item? Mr. POPPER. This item represents our estimate of the cost of a White House Conference on Human Rights which could be held if the committee so recommended, and it was so decided, around the end of Human Rights Year-let us say in December 1968, which would be the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Mr. GROSS. Why would you want to rent space for 3 days for this conference with all the auditoriums, all the meeting rooms there are in Washington, D.C., in almost all departments and agencies, including the "Top of the Mark" over at the State Department? Why you want to spend money renting space for 3 days? would Mr. POPPER. Congressman, our experience has been with these large conferences like the International Cooperation Year Conference, that there are no Government auditoriums large enough, and with suitable equipment to provide for the electronic and physical space needs of a meeting of this scope. The largest assembly rooms in town suitable for this sort of thing happen to be in hotels. This does not mean we would not use U.S. Government facilities. Perhaps there would be a function on the top floor of the State Department, as you say. However, it has been necessary to rent space in large hotel ballrooms to carry out such conferences in the past. Mr. FASCELL. I can speak from experience, if the gentleman would yield. I attended some of the meetings of the International Cooperation Year, and it looked as if the conference took over the Shoreham Hotel. I can't conceive of any department of the Government being able to function if one of these conferences is added to its daily operations. Are there any other questions? Mr. GROSS. I have had my share of time for the present. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Fraser. Mr. FRASER. I am a little unclear as to what is anticipated to come out of this committee's work. Is this being devoted toward observances here in the United States as to the importance of human rights or are we going to be exploring international aspects? Mr. POPPER. Perhaps I can put it this way, Congressman. This is a U.S. committee which is, of course, concerned with the U.S. observance of International Human Rights Year. However, the object of its activity is to prepare for the observance of the year, and in preparing for the observance of the year it will naturally have to look into the status of international activities on human rights. What I would anticipate is that sometime-if the committee is set up-that sometime between now and next April it would issue a report which would lay out a program of activities which perhaps would culminate in a conference of the sort I have been describing at the end of 1968. And in preparation for that conference, there would be, as is indicated in the section on powers and functions of the committee, there would be studies, there would be meetings, there would be discussions, there might be one or more reports which the committee in its discretion might wish to prepare and have published. Mr. FRASER. I am going to end my questions. I am just going to comment I think this is a good idea, but I hope that the conference does not become a substitute for action with respect to U.S. policy. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. A few brief questions, Mr. Popper. One is that I suppose that if this committee is to be established that time is somewhat of the essence, if the report is to be submitted not later than April of next year. That doesn't actually allow very much time to develop formal recommendations even if it was set up tomorrow, because you would have to organize the committee, and then get it busy. Mr. POPPER. Yes, sir. I quite agree that time is very short. I assume this date was chosen because until that first report is issued, you have no guideline for what you do thereafter. One purpose of the report would be to set out the program and then you would set about the implementation. I agree time is very short. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The other question is about congressional involvement. It would seem on the face of it that a fairly substantial proportion would be congressional representatives. I wonder whether such a heavily weighted committee is needed? Why does there need to be this amount of congressional involvement in a committee? I would think even if there were no direct representation by Congress it might run afoul of criticism in Congress because of that lack of representation. Four out of eleven congressional representatives sounds quite high. Mr. POPPER. I am not clear in my own mind as to precisely why the membership was Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Perhaps you should be asking us the questions, because it is our bill. Mr. POPPER. I assume one member from each party from each House was almost a minimum. Mr. FRASER. They wanted to create a job for Mr. Gross. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. One final question involves the relationship of this Committee to the executive agencies. I notice that there are some positive directions to these agencies contained in section 5. In other words, if information or suggestions are requested, each agency shall furnish such suggestions or information to the committee. In subsection (b) the executive agency shall provide the committee with additional assistance and services. This might involve, I suppose, a very considerable drawing on the facilities of other agencies, and they yet would have no alternative but to comply with a request for assistance. In other words, might this involve the use of personnel from agencies to carry out recommendations or activities that have been decided upon, or is it something less extensive than that? Mr. POPPER. I think, Congressman, that this is normal language in legislation of this character, and that so far as my limited experience goes, provisions of this kind have been reasonably applied and have served as directives to the executive departments. I shouldn't think that there would be any problem of the kind you anticipate. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It sounds like such flatfooted language. I suppose as a practical matter this is worked out on a cooperative basis. Mr. POPPER. It has never caused any difficulty. Mr. FASCELL. I suppose it is to give some substance to a Presi dential commission, selected by the President, and to let other agencies know they have some meaning. Mr. POPPER. That is correct. Mr. FASCELL. Are there any other questions? Mr. Rosenthal. Mr. ROSENTHAL. I don't think I have any questions at this moment. Mr. GROSS. You spoke of the tremendous interest on Capitol Hill in this legislation, and without any thought of downgrading present company, the subcommittee or any other Member of Congress, believe that there are about 20 Members who have introduced bills out of 435 Members of the House. I wouldn't say there was any tremendous amount of interest in this, despite the euphonious title. Maybe there is more interest in this than I think. Have you any other things in mind, any other promotions in the State Department by way of celebrations-days, or weeks, or years? Mr. POPPER. I know of none at this time, sir. Mr. GROSS. I wondered if we were going to escape the rest of this session without another one of these promotions. Mr. POPPER. I am not aware there are any others in prospect. I |