"The United States and United States ships at sea will receive a more constant flow of reliable epidemiological information of use in quarantine procedures and valuable to commerce.

"The hazard of importation of disease and disease vectors by air carriers will be reduced, or eliminated, through improved controls at foreign origins of flights.

"Unsound and unecessary foreign quarantine impediments to United States commerce and interference with free movement of United States air carriers will be eliminated by the establishment of common international regulations, conforming at all times with technical developments and the progressive removal of health hazards."

In the spirit of, and in fulfillment of the purposes outlined above, the WHO undertook to develop a single set of international quarantine or sanitary regulations to replace the existing international sanitary conventions. The international sanitary regulations were in preparation over a period of 5 years. During that time, not only were the regulations considered at periodic and open meetings of the constituent bodies of the Organization, in which the United States participated officially, but each member government was invited to make known its views concerning the regulations during different stages of their development. For example, the original draft regulations, as prepared by the WHO Expert Committee on Epidemiology and Quarantine, were received by the Department of State and the United States Public Health Service in April 1950. They were studied by an interdepartmental committee called together by the Department of State, on which nine different Government departments and agencies were represented. As a consequence of this study, several changes in the draft regulations were recommended in the communication which the Department of State on September 6, 1950, sent to the WHO as the observations of the United States Government. Revised draft regulations were similarly circulated and studied in advance of a meeting of a special committee which was convened in Geneva in April 1951 to prepare a final draft. Private aviation and shipping companies were at this stage given an opportunity to study and make recommendations concerning the draft regulations. The United States was officially represented at this meeting, and at the Fourth World Health Assembly, which on May 25, 1951, adopted the regulations.

After the adoption of the regulations by the Health Assembly by a unanimous vote of the representatives of the state members of the WHO on May 25, 1951, each government had an opportunity during a period of 9 months to review the regulations for the purpose of determining their acceptability to that government of the United States on June 15, 1951, and were reviewed by all the Government departments and agencies concerned, as well as by private shipping and aviation interests with a view to deciding whether any reservations should be made. The WHO was notified by the Secretary of State on behalf of this Government on March 10, 1952, that the United States would make no reservations. On October 1, 1952, the regulations came into force for 55 countries which had made no reservations and for 5 countries which had made certain reservations. It might be pointed out that these reservations were all aimed at allowing these countries to apply stricter quarantine measures, in one field or another, than are permitted by the regulations.

It can thus be seen that the WHO, in adopting the new regulations, did exactly what it was authorized to do by its constitution and what it was expected to do by the United States Government. On the basis of the above record it should be quite clear that at no stage of the development, consideration, or acceptance of these regulations was there any bypassing of the Government of the United States or of the interested agencies thereof. Also, in view of the numerous reviews which these regulations received from the interested government and commercial groups, any inference that these regulations were sprung on an unsuspecting government by the WHO, with the connivance of the Public Health Service, is completely unwarranted.

It might also be pointed out that during this period the United States delegations to the meetings of the Health Assembly, at which progress in the development of the regulations was discussed, included Members of Congress (in 1948. Congressman Fenton; in 1949 Senator Ellender and Congressman Pfeifer; in 1950, Congressman Judd; and in 1951 (when the regulations were adopted), Senators Lehman and Nixon and Congressman Morgan and Angell).

In adopting the regulations under discussion, the state members of the WHO hoped to give to each country observing the regulations the maximum security against the international transmission of epidemic disease with the minimum

interference with world traffic. With respect to misconceptions in the Monitor story and editorial about the regulations conferring new powers on the United States Public Health Service which might be used to require vaccination or to compel individuals to submit to medical treatment, it should be noted that the Public Health Service does not acquire any power which it did not formerly possess in this respect. The regulations which were adopted stipulate that persons who come from areas where smallpox is prevalent may be held in quarantine unless they can produce a valid vaccination certificate. These provisions are not mandatory but permissive. Undoubtedly, health authorities of this and other countries who are of the opinion that vaccination is the only effective protection against the spread of smallpox, hope that the preferential position thus enjoyed by persons who carry valid vaccination certificates will cause many people to be vaccinated. Nevertheless, the purpose of the provisions in the regulations which relate to the measures which can be taken with respect to persons on an international voyage, is definitely to limit the action which national health officers may take as authorized by their own law, and not to confer additional authority. Such provisions, for example, limit the duration of the period which a traveler who is without a vaccination certificate and refuses to be vaccinated, may be held in quarantine. It is noteworthy that the states which have accepted the new regulations have agreed that vaccination against plague or typhus cannot be required as a condition of admission to a country. Actually, therefore, in many respects the demands on travelers will be reduced as a result of the provisions of the new regulations.

The statements in the article referring to the bypassing of the Department of State and to the direct communication between the WHO and the Public Health Service may have been based upon a misunderstanding of the provision in the regulations which states that "any notication [of the outbreak of a epidemic disease] or information sent by the Organization to the health administration shall be considered as having been sent to the state." This provision, however, relates to the reporting of outbreaks of disease and has nothing whatever to do with the procedure for the adoption of regulations. According to this procedure, the governments are notified through the channels which WHO has been instructed to use. In the case of the United States, all communications from the WHO are sent both to the Department of State and to the Public Health Service.

The regulations use the expression “health administration" in order to use a term which will be uniform for all states. It is for each government to decide what authority or authorities in the government constitute the health administration. Under Executive Order 10399 of September 27, 1952, the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service is designated as the "health administration" of the United States for the purpose of performing the duties prescribed in the international sanitary regulations.

CRITIQUE OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM, "THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE WHO INTERNATIONAL SANITARY REGULATIONS

"The Nature and Purpose of the WHO International Sanitary Regulations" is a State Department memorandum prepared in the fall of 1952 and widely circulated as a criticism of the article and editorial in the Christian Science Monitor of September 26, 1952, which sharply questioned the World Health Organization's procedures and results.

This memorandum opens with three general allegations against the article Pattern for Compulsory Medication and the editorial Stop, Look, and Question. It charges that:

(1) They misunderstand the nature and purpose of the international sanitary regulations.

(2) They misunderstand the procedures under which these regulations were adopted.

(3) They fail to relate the provisions of these regulations to quarantine practice in which the United States and other states have been engaged for many years.

At the outset the issues are apparent. The State Deparmtent's "corrective" memorandum doesn't refute the threat to religious and individual freedom seen by the Monitor but rather defends the legality of the procedural arrangements now in force. Since Pattern for Compulsory Medication was based on the study of the dangers to this country, it is not surprising that the writer did not

make the comparisons so earnestly desired in point 3 above. Mr. Frye's purpose was to point up the dangers in existing United Nations procedures and results. The State Department, on the other hand, appears anxious only to discuss the desirability of WHO regulations No. 2 (international sanitary regulations). Consequently the allegations about misunderstandings made above are based on differences in purpose and interpretation. They are subjective points and do not constitute a coherent rebuttal of Mr. Frye's main thesis.

After making these general charges, the memorandum "interprets" the story and the editorial by alleging that the reader is told in effect that:

(1) WHO in adopting the international sanitary regulations usurped the power of sovereign states.

(2) WHO purposely bypassed normal channels of communication between World Health Organization and other governments.

(3) WHO conferred wide discretionary power directly upon the health administrations of national governments which could readily be used to infringe upon individual liberty.

Then it attempts to support these “interpretations" with the following quotations from the story itself:

(1) "The U. N. World Health Organization, acting largely at the instance of the United States, has launched what one official calls a terriffic drive' for worldwide smallpox vaccination of travelers."

(2) "Considerable new power also falls into the hands of national health authorities such as the United States Public Health Service."

(3) "In an extreme case, if Congress were not alert, the present powers assumed by WHO and the national health authorities could be stretched to cover the enactment of compulsory national health programs or the imposition of mass medication in a form which the Congress might disapprove if presented in the normal way-as a bill to be acted upon."

(4) "No governments, let alone legislatures, were notified directly that the 'sanitary regulations' had been enacted in their behalf."

(5) "WHO did not even trouble to notify the State Department or Congress." Although the first two paragraphs of the memorandum are devoted to the "misunderstandings," interpretations, and quotations noted above, the remainder is not devoted to a point-by-point rebuttal, but rather to a statement of the advanages of the international sanitary regulations and a description of the way in which they are drafted, reviewed, and adopted.

Far from constituting a devastating refutation of the dangers set forth in the Monitor article and editorial, the development of the memorandum may serve to point up that fact that the dangers of the international legislation are inadequately appreciated.

It is interesting to note that although the Monitor article had a somewhat crusading tone, the "corrective" memorandum could pick up only one point that was not completely valid, and that a minor one. To strengthen is case, the memorandum quoted this minor inaccuracy twice. However, the question as to whether the State Department was informed or not is not the issue. The point is that Congress was not informed.

Those who understand and appreciate the dangers of procedures by which international legislation becomes law in our country without congressional control are not content with assurances that a governmental department or two does receive notification.

Referring again to the quotations taken from the article Pattern for Compulsory Medication, it is significant that the three others mentioned are not proven inaccurate. In fact, the very mention of the first one about the United States Public Health Service's terrific drive for worldwide smallpox vaccination, presented as it is, as a "misunderstanding" of the true facts, works against the rebuttal. This drive is a well-established fact referred to with pride by public-health officials such as Dr. Leonard A. Scheele and Dr. Knud Stowman. Therefore, to cite it as an example of Mr. Frye's failure to come to grip with the facts is an outstanding weakness of the State Department criticism.

A major weakness in the use of the word "Government" as though it is synonymous with the executive branch of the Government. The entire "rebuttal" is based upon the assumption that it is sufficient for the executive branch to pass upon WHO regulations, and if satisfied with them, permit them to become law. This, of course, is exactly the development the Monitor artıcle and editorial deplores.

This weakness is especially obvious in the discussion of the WHO's alleged invasion of national sovereignty. An effort is made to show that Congress approved such minor invasion as has occurred and that adequate safeguards exist to prevent major invasion in the future.

The fact that Congress was bypassed in the present instance and could be again is never challenged. The State Department memorandum does make the very weak contention (p. 2) that a "suggestion" had been made in the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee that "some way" be found to delegate authority over "specialized technical matters" and that the WHO constitution was drafted with this in mind. The purpose, it is asserted, was to "create a mechanism in the international field which would permit rapid general application of new scientific techniques in the international control of the spread of disease." This very statement of purpose serves to confirm the misgivings of those who see dangers in the WHO program. Is it wise to place such an area of activity in the hands of the administrative branch of the Government, out of the effective supervision of Congress?

A stronger contention is that Congress was aware of the delegation of power it made to WHO in 1948 when the WHO constitution was approved. As evidence, a report by Senator Vandenberg on behalf of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is cited (p. 3). However, if the quoted excerpt is an accurate reflection of its contents, the report can well serve to prove the opposite; that Congress was not adequately alerted to the decision it was making.

The report as quoted minimizes the wide range of WHO authority and suggests that a mere streamlining of treatymaking procedure is involved. It says, dealing with a highly important point:

"Each government will be free to reject such regulations and standards and their consent is not necessary to bring them into effect for governments which have not rejected or made reservations to them."

It would have presented the actual situation much more clearly had it said, "Each government will be free to reject such regulations and standards, but their assent is not necessary to bring them into effect. **** The report appears less than candid at some points and actually misleading. At best it was clumsily drafted.

To cite another example, the following statement from the report evidently is unsound:

"This power is similar to that which has been granted to other international organizations in technical fields, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization."

At least it has beɛn refuted by the office of the Assistant Secretary General for Legal Affairs who reports that no specialized agency of the United Nations except the World Health Organization has this power.

The Vandenberg report says: "The committee recognizes the safeguards to national sovereignty in the provisions of the constitution which confer these powers on the health assembly." The State Department memorandum spells out the safeguards (p. 3), but they are something less than reassuring. The phrase “sanitary and quarantine requirements" could be-indeed already has beeninterpreted to cover a very broad field; and "the right of any member government to reject the regulations which the health assembly may adopt" is not very persuasive if Congress is not notified when a regulation is adopted.

If the Monitor article and editorial have alerted Congress to the need of making certain it is notified, they have served a useful purpose.

The State Department memorandum repeatedly points to the close cooperation of the State Department, the Public Health Service, and WHO, as if this were a reassuring state of affairs. Actually, of course, this is precisely the state of affairs which has caused concern. The danger has been that the Public Health Service would seek to accomplish through WHO what it could not accomplish through Congress.

Of course, it is possible for men of good faith to place widely varying interpretations on the same set of facts. It is not surprising that the medical fraternity should look upon the WHO sanitary regulations as innocent and constructive It is not surprising that men in whose hands power is placed should see no danger that it will be abused.

The result in the present instance is that the State Department criticism does not constitute a successful rebuttal of the article or editorial. Actually, the very interpretations it employs in support of the desirability and legality of the WHO procedures may serve to further stress the fact that Americans should "Stop, Look, and Question."

Senator DIRKSEN. Now that we have those in the record, have you any other comment to make?

Mr. WATT. No. I have been very, very interested in the hearings. I have been able to be here throughout and I have been impressed with the testimony that has been given. We sincerely hope that from this will come a very splendid amendment to the Constitution.

Senator DIRKSEN. Thank you for your expression of interest.

Is Mr. Will Maslow, of the American Jewish Congress, here? Mr. Maslow, will you come forward?

STATEMENT OF WILL MASLOW, GENERAL COUNSEL, AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS

Senator DIRKSEN. Would you like to read your statement, Mr. Maslow, or submit it and comment upon it?

Mr. MASLOW. With your leave, sir, I would like to have it introduced in the record, and comment briefly on it.

Senator DIRKSEN. That is fine, sir. That will be done at this point. (The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS IN OPPOSITION TO THE BRICKER RESOLUTION (S. J. RES. 1) TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION SO AS TO LIMIT THE TREATY-MAKING POWERS OF THE UNITED STATES

The American Jewish Congress is a national organization representing about 500,000 American Jews. It was founded in 1918 by such American Jewish leaders as Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, Judge Mack and the late Rabbi Stephen S. Wise for the purpose of preserving Jewish values and maintaining and extending the democratic way of life.

The American Jewish Congress is vitally concerned with the proposed constitutional amendment embodied in Senate Joint Resolution 1, limiting the competency of the United States to enter into treaties and international agreements. We share its sponsors' desire to safeguard our precious democratic freedoms from encroachment by any body, foreign or domestic, national or international. However, it is our view that the Constitution of the United States provides today, as it has for 160 years, ample protection from such encroachment. We fear that the proposed constitutional amendment by disabling the United States from participating in various instrumentalities of world cooperation may well, under the guise of protecting our cherished rights, be sealing their doom. These rights cannot survive either successful armed aggression against our territorial borders or a prolonged state of military emergency in which we find ourselves a lone outpost in a world engulfed by communism. Collective defense based on treaties of international cooperation with the other nations of the free world provides, in the last analysis, the only true protection for our own precious rights.

of

Moreover, the American Jewish Congress feels that the proposed amendment, by limiting the power of our Government to enter into such agreements as the Covenant on Human Rights and the Genocide Convention designed to insure minimal standards of human rights throughout the world, will prevent us from fulfilling the obligations we have already assumed under the United Nations Charter. Articles 55 and 56 of that charter pledge all members to "take joint and separate action in cooperation with the [United Nations] for the achievement universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion." It is our firm conviction that the United States has thus assumed a moral and legal responsibility to insure that other peoples enjoy the same rights and freedoms that we have so zealously protected in our own country. We believe that we must honor this responsibility not only because failure on our part to do so will forfeit our claim to leadership of the free world but also because only in an atmosphere of "universal respect for an observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms" can our own rights and freedoms be safeguarded and