politics but of the notion in the United Nations Declaration of Rights, that a man ought to have the right to live in a place he calls home. In this case, there is no question but what those born and raised in Russia do not believe that that is their home and I think that their efforts to go home are going to be not only profound but an example of the fact that you just can't take a human being and ram a system of government down his throat which does not stand up under analysis in his judgment and expect him to like it.

The failure of this phenomenon is to me a good and significant development to hold up to the various peoples around the world of the differences between our system of government and the fact that we don't at least to our knowledge have that many people in the United States trying to go elsewhere because of the dissatisfaction with the freedoms they are accorded.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Bailey, what do you think specifically our Government and the Congress should do?

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 390 USEFUL

Mr. BAILEY. I think that the resolution, the one that I have read, 390, proposed by Congress, is an effective step and that the support of the Congress, joined with the support of the private groups, is moving the situation toward the point where success will become imminent. Any problem which is sufficiently nettlesome and won't go away and yet not of critical internal significance to a nation, is sometimes better solved by simply getting rid of it. We are very hopeful that if the Soviet Government, which we don't believe really has that great an interest in keeping these people there, there are many reasons not to keep them there, there is the problem of appearing to buckle under the force of a demand, which is certainly not the habit of that Government, but if it is perfectly apparent that there is widespread sympathy and that there will be a continuing widespread support we think that pure political reasoning may suggest that repatriation is a good idea, that resistance should be lowered rapidly, perhaps quietly but rapidly enough so that the Soviet Jews inside Russia will understand as long as their demonstrations are within certain perimeters they will be allowed on a continuing and expanding basis to go out and the other half of the barrier is, and we have seen that in the past, if the Soviet Jews go too far in the judgment of the Government to express their views in demonstrations that quotas have been trimmed down. Perhaps an actual balance will be stricken and the problem, which, although it can't be solved overnight, will dissipate.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. There are reportedly between 2 and 3 million Soviet Jews and some 7,000 have been permitted to leave this yearare we talking about thousands or tens of thousands who want to emigrate? Where do you see a resolution of this problem over a period of the next 5 years?

Mr. BAILEY. It certainly is at least a 5-year problem. If the barriers were all dropped tomorrow and all 3 million, which is unlikely, assuming all 3 million were to be repatriated immediately, that would double the population of Israel. This has occurred in the past, and a tent city was erected, and the Israel Government solved the problem in time.

EMIGRATION WILL INCREASE

I see escalation of the numbers going out. Seven thousand a year is not realistic. Most of them wanting to leave will die in Russia on that schedule. However, I don't see 10,000 a month by the first of January. I believe continuing pressure will keep the numbers rising and I think as long as they are rising on a realistic basis-not everybody that wants to get out can get out, but if large numbers can, without bloodshed or increased suffering, I think that those remaining may feel that their sacrifice is worthwhile.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Findley.

Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Bailey, rather pious expressions by the Congress are important to us and hopefully are read elsewhere, including the Soviet Union, but they don't have much real force upon the Government of the Soviet Union. Is there anything that our Government, that is, the executive branch, could consider doing to bring pressure upon the Soviets?

Mr. BAILEY. Perhaps I am playing a little bit outside my field of expertise, perhaps naive. I would solve this problem by bringing a suit in the world court establishing their right to emigrate, and presumably that would end it. I certainly believe that the interest of the executive branch in accomplishing a solution to the problem is going to be of real hope. I don't think that it will stop with mere pious expressions coming through the President. We originally felt that perhaps the Government of the United States would want to stay far away from this problem because it is ticklish, and they have their hands full of problems in negotiating and dealing with the Soviets. The fact that that is not so to me means that we might see the same kind of results that we saw when the Leningrad defendants were ordered to death. It became very clear that the outrage of the entire world, not only this country but elsewhere, very quickly produced a mitigation of those sentences. Even the Soviet Government, as intractable as it sometimes seems, can be made to respond to pressure.

NOT MAJOR U.S.-SOVIET ISSUE

I might say we have enough deals on the fire at all times with Russia so perhaps this is not one of the biggest problems and could be solved as an indication of good faith. I think the Soviet Government may want to show some good faith. I think that it may feel that it is unpopular in the world perspective to continue to effectively imprison these people. If given a decent way out of it where they will not say, "We e were beaten down by the opinion of the executive branch of the United States and a bunch of private groups, and we had to eat some crow." I think that they may continue to, let us say, lower their resistance.

Mr. FINDLEY. You mentioned the world court. The International Court of Justice has nothing to do at the present time so far as I know. We have taken very few initiatives on our own as a member of the United Nations to bring matters before the court. Can you tell us if our Government to your knowledge has attempted to get an advisory opinion from the world court or to place the matter there for adjudication?

Mr. BAILEY. So far as I know, no such action has ever been instituted. My limited contact with international law concluded with a course on that subject in law school which convinced me there is no such phenomenon. There is a board of arbitration to which people may submit and if they agree with its judgment they may abide by it. But we have no world court in the sense that we have a real supreme court in this country. Whether or not there would be a jurisdictional premise for such a suit, I think is dubious because I think that the Soviet Government would simply say we are not going to be there and any action you take is meaningless. I do not say it is not worth exploring and perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I in the Hague should be asked to look into it.

Mr. FINDLEY. As I understand the court system, the General Assembly or Security Council can initiate requests to the world court for advisory opinions.

Mr. BAILEY. Yes.

Mr. FINDLEY. One possibility that this subcommittee could consider would be passing a resolution expressing our wish that one or both of these bodies request such an advisory opinion.

Do you feel that this is a course worth pursuing?

TRY EVERY APPROACH

Mr. BAILEY. Yes, I do. I think that every prestigious group, committee, people, or organization that will go on record in any form and say with the degree of unanimity that we saw when those very harsh sentences were passed down, this is not right, it is not the way human beings should be treated, does nothing but enhance the chances of a solution. I do not, by expressing doubts about the probable jurisdiction, which is really outside my field, of the International Court, suggest in any way that it would not be worth a try. I perhaps migrate toward hopeless cases but I find leaving any stone unturned is usually a mistake. You are never sure what it is going to do. Everything is worth exploring.

Just the fact that the effort is being made is a bigger reason to expect solution than an expectation that any individual act will accomplish the total result.

Mr. FINDLEY. I have one more question, Mr. Chairman.

If, as you indicate, there are 2 to 3 million Jews in the Soviet Union, most of whom if not all of whom are deeply religious and unified in their religious attitudes and desiring to leave the country and the source of a considerable amount of agitation, can you speculate as to why the Soviet Union would want to retain within its borders a group like that, given the antireligious character of the Soviet Union? Primarily, perhaps the concern of the Soviet Union is opposition to seeing the size and therefore potential influence of Israel expanded in the Middle East?

EDUCATIONAL REIMBURSEMENT

Mr. BAILEY. I think that has a great deal to do with the problem. I think in addition to that that the failure of the Soviet system to impress people that were never exposed to anything else is certainly a matter of international embarrassment. I can tell you that the Soviet

Government's articulated position is that they have a great investment in these citizens. They are well educated by international standards and highly trained, have a great contribution to make to Soviet industry and technology, and in some cases recently, in order to repatriate those who have been given permission, have had to pay back for their education. I think that the going rate is around $950 set by the Soviet Government. This is not a problem that I see as a serious one because I am confident from the track record of the Jewish people that they can raise as many millions of dollars as is necessary to ransom out their own.

But the Soviet I think has many reasons besides this supposed economic loss. I can only speculate that one of those is that the population, not only the population but the industrial might of Israel, would be vastly increased if all these people transferred. I must say that I asked Mr. Villa Lujinsky, a very impressive man, about 40, and who has seen most Soviet jails from the inside and nevertheless continued undaunted; "Just assuming speculatively that you did not have to file an application in Russia, Russia just dropped the Iron Curtain for a period of 2 weeks, how many Soviet Jews would go out of the 3 million?" He said, "Three million; and also 20 million Russians." So perhaps that is not the only problem they have.

Mr. FINDLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Congressman Buchanan.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have no questions, Mr. Bailey, but I appreciate very much your testimony which will be a valuable contribution to our hearings. Mr. BAILEY. Thank you very kindly.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Vander Jagt.

Mr. VANDER JAGT. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I would like to add my appreciation of the committee, especially having to come here from Detroit. Thank you.

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Let me ask one or two other questions. I think you suggested central European intermediaries. Were you talking of Government officials or nongovernmental officials?

CENTRAL EUROPEAN INTERMEDIARY

Mr. BAILEY. Actually, I would prefer not to identify the specific parties because I think it might inhibit what we are trying to do. In other words, I think they might be immediately eliminated if they were publicized. But they are quasi-Government officials of a minority party in a central European country that seem to have a degree of credibility at Moscow that would lend integrity to any statement we might make to negotiate in good faith and not for the purpose of international embarrassment or seeing who can get the most startling headlines but to really sit down and solve the problem in a reasonable

manner.

We think to carry that message forward as it was apparently carried forward on a prior occasion when you will recall we were able to swap Gary Powers for Colonel Abel through someone's negotiations. We think that that has a possibility of recurring, but the approach is delicate and must be made by someone who at least is listened to. We

think that this, I would say partly official group within central Europe, may be just that intermediary.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Let me ask one last question. Many people intellectually raise this question: Is the plight of the Soviet Jew so devastatingly bad that they would uproot themselves from tradition, home, leave their families, leave their friends and communities, give up what many people suggest is a high educational opportunity, is the situation so deplorable that these people would want to move into an area in the Middle East that is fraught with conflagration and difficulty and where the future is not uniformly bright?

Mr. BAILEY. I would have to answer very affirmatively yes. I put that question almost precisely as you have put it, Mr. Chairman, because it seemed to me that compared with some of the problems in the home nation, economic and other problems, that perhaps one might be leaving at least a reasonably comfortable situation for one that is going to require a lot of hard work. I do not think that the drive behind the movement is in any sense economic. I think these people coming out expect to enjoy a lower standard of living in many cases when they do come out. I think it boils down to one very simple fact. They do not believe in the way they are living. They do not believe they should suffer the deprivation of an expression of their own religious faith. They are patently determined to go home. I don't know what it is that drives a man home, but certainly it is not entirely based on logic or reason. I think that the strength is in the feeling, and that the feeling is logically to continue for a long time. The people with whom I spoke are both passionate and strong. If they are representative of those inside who are knocking at the gate, they are going to come out even if it costs them in every other sense except the right to enjoy the freedom which they consider paramount. Mr. ROSENTHAL. Thank you very, very much.

Mr. Findley.

PROPRIETY OF "REPATRIATION"

Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have one further question. You keep using the word "repatriation," which means return to the fatherland, I presume. I am sure it is a very accurate term in the minds of the Soviet Jews as well as people in this country, but is it not possible that the repeated use of that word raises hackles with the Soviet officials, and perhaps may be one of the blocks to a greater exodus of Jews from the Soviet Union? Is this one of the problems we have?

Mr. BAILEY. I don't know. It could be as applied to this situation that is a misnomer. I recall a paroled lifer telling me, "Will you stop telling me about rehabilitation in the prison because if you rehabilitate me, you bring me back to what I was, and that is not very good."

The name was taken from the title of the International Conference which first retained me to try to go to Leningrad. I asked about it, and the Chairman of the International Conference put it to me very simply. He said these people were in their judgment spiritually born in Israel, they always belonged there, and they use the word "repatriation" to keep reminding the Soviet Government as far as they are concerned, they are still citizens of Israel and not allowed to go home. Their attitude in large measure has not been one of crawling to any degree or attempting to be conciliatory to a very large degree.