Mr. SIKES. This is a question involving the United Nations not the States. I think our Nation is paying too much to the United Nations. Mr. FRASER. Let me ask about some other things as to what value you place on them. One of the more dramatic successes in the international sphere has come through the eradication of smallpox through the efforts of the WHO worldwide effort. It has been estimated that if the United States abandoned vaccinations it would save in excess of $100 million a year just from not having to vaccinate every schoolchild. It might well have been that the World Health Organization could not have undertaken this if the contributions had been limited to the kind of assessment you are speaking of. They could not have generated enough resources.

Mr. SIKES. Smallpox has not been a threat to the United States for a very long time. Smallpox vaccine has been available throughout most of the world for a long time, to anybody who wanted it, in nations whose governments would make the effort to make it available to their people.

Of course it is a very fine thing, and I don't decry the point that the U.N. has contributed in helping to spread the work of control of smallpox. What I am saying is that I don't think that the World Health Organization is necessarily responsible for the fact that smallpox has been substantially brought under control. I do think it is a good thing.

I have said in my statement that I am impressed by the child and health programs. This is one of the things that I consider important. I think this type of support is more important than for us to be the biggest contributor to the General Assembly and its semantics.

I would rather see us pay money to useful U.N. world agencies such as health and child programs. I know that refugee problems are very serious. Nevertheless, we are not solving refugee problems by continuing to contribute money. The problems go on and on.

I think one of these days we are going to have to face up to finding methods of solving the refugee problem other than with contributions to continue the present very sad state of the refugees.

But there are things being done by the U.Ñ. that I recognize as good. I would rather contribute to those than to continue to pay disproportionately as we are paying to the U.N. Assembly and its activi

ties.

Mr. FRASER. As I understand it, the only mandatory assessments that we are bound by treaty to pay, are running about $56 million a year. The balance of our contributions we make on a voluntary basis. each year in the foreign assistance legislation. So we are free to change that.

For example, this year if we decide we do not want to make a voluntary contribution to the World Health Organization or the Children's Fund or the refugee programs in the Middle East, we could do so; we could cut back. On our mandatory assessment I think we are down to 312 percent. That is the central financing for the U.N. and its administrative operations and so on.

You would favor more support for these other activities, I gather— the Children's Fund and the World Health Organization.

Mr. SIKES. Yes, I would.

Mr. BINGHAM. I certainly read H.R. 11386 differently. It says: "The aggregate amount of assessed and voluntary contributions by the

United States to the United Nations and its affiliated agencies *** shall not exceed," and so forth.

I understand Mr. Sikes to be proposing that total contribution, both assessed and voluntary, "shall not exceed"

Mr. SIKES. I think this is a good starting point. I know about as well as you do, Mr. Bingham, that this bill is not going to be reported by this committee. But I think we need a starting point.

There is room for adjustment to get a better basis for payments than we now have. Congress must accept the responsibility or we will never accomplish a change.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If the chairman will yield?

That does not get around Mr. Bingham's point that your own proposal would prohibit

Mr. SIKES. I stand on my proposal as being realistic.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You just suggested that there should not be an automatic limitation on voluntary contributions because Congress on an annual basis could and does review what it wants to give for refugee relief. Your proposal would oblige a mandatory ceiling on such contributions.

Mr. SIKES. I introduced the bill and I support the bill. There is a need for change. The United States is paying too much to the U.N. Only Congress can change this.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Do you understand the significance of your proposal?

Mr. SIKES. I support the bill I introduced. It is a fair and realistic proposal.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Do you understand that it would provide a ceiling on voluntary contributions?

Mr. SIKES. Yes.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I did not understand that from your answer to Mr. Fraser's question.

Mr. SIKES. I support the bill I introduced. I was discussing the situation as I see it to exist. I am trying to be realistic about what may come out of this committee and about what is happening in the world.

I said there are United Nations' agencies which are doing more good than the U.N. General Assembly, and I would rather see our money go there if there are to be payments beyond a pro rata share. I am not convinced that either is necessary.

Mr. FRASER. Thank you very much, Mr. Sikes. I think this exchange has helped identify some of the issues that we are faced with. Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, could I not ask some questions? Mr. FRASER. I am sorry. I inadvertantly failed to call on you. Mr. BINGHAM. I am glad to welcome the dean of the Florida delegation before this subcommittee. It is a rather unexpected honor.

Mr. Sikes, do I understand from your testimony and from your statement that you believe your proposal would be an equitable proposal; that is, this would be in the interest of fairness to make this a population measure for contributions?

Mr. SIKES. Yes; I think that is a fair way to determine how much we should pay.

Mr. BINGHAM. You don't think ability to pay should come into the picture?

Mr. SIKES. I do not feel we have the ability to pay what we are now paying. That is part of my statement. I think that we do not have the ability to continue to pay at the level at which we have been paying. We don't have the money. We are borrowing the money. We are broke. We are going deeper in debt every year. Our dollar is in trouble at home and abroad. The balance of payments presents a worse picture than it ever has. We don't have the money.

Mr. BINGHAM. Do you have an estimate of what the ratio of our gross national product is to the gross national product of the world? Mr. SIKES. I am looking at our debt, our taxes

Mr. BINGHAM. Could you answer the question, please?

Mr. SIKES. No, I don't.

Mr. BINGHAM. It is of the order of one-half, isn't it?

Mr. SIKES. I don't know. I don't think it is a measure of ability to pay.

Mr. BINGHAM. If it is of the order of one-half, do you think it is a fair proposition that we should be limited to 8 percent or thereabouts in contributions?

Mr. SIKES. If we were a wealthy Nation with plenty of money, with our budget in the black, without a staggering debt, with a sound dollar that isn't dropping in value compared to other currencies, with a favorable balance of trade, this would indicate that we are a rich Nation which could afford to pay more than our share to world organizations, then the story would be entirely different from the present. That is not the case.

Our financial situation and our ability to pay is not reflected in gross national product. We don't have the money. We are broke.

Mr. BINGHAM. If I recall correctly, Mr. Sikes, you voted against, I believe, spoke against an amendment I proposed on the floor 2 days ago to eliminate $800 million from our proposed budget for the purpose of 48 controversial fighter planes, the F-14. Is that correct? Mr. SIKES. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. BINGHAM. Do you think we can afford that but we can't afford what we are paying to the U.N?

Mr. SIKES. I don't think we have any choice but to try to maintain defenses adequate for our own security. We don't have a really firstline fighter plane in our inventory that is less than 15 years old. The Russians have developed a number of advanced aircraft since we brought one out.

They have these modern aircraft flying around Israel. Their Fox Bat is much more modern than anything we have. It is the most advanced plane in the world. I know that the F-14 will not do some of the things that the Fox Bat will do, but it will do much more than the F-4 will do. Its weaponry will make it equal to the Fox Bat in perform

ance.

So I think that we have to look to the security of this country. If you are going in debt for anything, you should go in debt to stay strong enough to stay alive.

71-942-72- -3

I don't think we live in a kind of world where we can neglect our defenses. I voted for the F-14. I was happy to vote yesterday for the defense of the country.

I don't know how the distinguished gentleman voted, and that is his business, but I voted for the defense of our country. I think it is essential if we are to survive. I don't like the cost, either. It is frightening. I don't think we have a choice. I do think we have a choice on whether to continue to pay more than our share to the U.N. That doesn't have to do with the survival of the United States.

Mr. BINGHAM. Does it not come to the question of what the gentleman thinks is important and vital, and not the question of what we can afford?

Mr. SIKES. I don't accept that at all.

Mr. BINGHAM. Thank you.

Mr. GROSS. Nowhere in Mr. Sikes' statement did I see any reference to the gross national product. I thought he was dealing with net national income. With all the fictions built into the gross national product, I am sure the gentleman would not use that as any measure of economic well-being. What I really wanted to suggest was that the gentleman from Florida is trying to do the city of New York a favor. The people there have been protesting the mayor's pledge of $25 million to construct more buildings for this polyglot outfit in their city. What the gentleman is trying to do, as are some of the rest of us, is to save them from embarrassment in New York City.

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clear up one point, since the F-14 and the cost of that has been put on the record.

Am I correct, Mr. Sikes, that it would cost more to cancel out the contract for the F-14 than it would be to go ahead with the procurement; that there was $800 million in the bill for procurement of the F-14, but to cancel the contract would cost the U.S. Government $1.1 billion? And that is without regard to the merits or demerits of the aircraft, or the national security of the United States. It is sheer economics.

Mr. SIKES. That is correct. But an even more overriding consideration is the need for an advanced aircraft. We must get one as soon as we can if we are to avoid showdowns where we would have to back down.

Mr. FASCELL. We can't wait for the ultimate weapon if we need I agree with you, it is too bad we need weapons, but we have to

one.

have them.

You of course are aware of the fact that the U.S. Government has been maintaining a consistent effort in the U.N. on the reduction of its share of the assessment; that is, the regular assessment. It has been a long and difficult struggle.

I don't know what the exact rate is now, I think our chairman said

it is 31.5.

Mr. FRASER. Based on information I have been furnished, for 1972 it is 31.5.

Mr. FASCELL. The reduction obtained is testament to the sheer skill and diplomacy of the U.S. representatives in the U.N. But it has taken many years. And of course the U.N. financial problem still persists.

So there is something to be said for a realistic appraisal of the financial situation at the U.N., Mr. Sikes. Maybe this gives us an opportunity to meet it squarely in the eye.

Mr. SIKES. We are trying to help.

Mr. FRASER. Thank you very much, Mr. Sikes. We have had a very good discussion.

Mr. SIKES. Thank you, sir.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Crane has returned, but has graciously consented to let Ambassador Goldberg go ahead.

Will you come up, Mr. Ambassador?

Mr. Ambassador, we want to welcome you back before this subcommittee. You are so well known for your record of public service that we won't try to reiterate your impressive biography, but we are delighted to have you here.

Why don't you proceed in whatever manner you like. You can either go with your prepared statement or submit it for the record. whatever you like.

STATEMENT OF HON, ARTHUR J. GOLDBERG, FORMER PERMANENT U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS

Mr. GOLDBERG. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, and thank you for not outlining my biography. After having heard it a thousand times at various meetings, one is inclined to be bored with himself.

I shall read briefly from the statement and then be glad to answer questions.

Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the opportunity to appear before this distinguished subcommittee to discuss the U.S. participation in the United Nations.

Today I appear before you not in my official capacity but as a concerned citizen of our country. I want to talk particularly about our financial support of the U.N. and what does constitute our fair share. This indeed is a very legitimate question, but it is obvious that one cannot speak of finances in isolation.

The essential question, which I believe is reflected by the questions which have been asked pro and con on this resolution is to measure our national interest in an effective United Nations.

I served 3 years as American Ambassador. This gave me an ample opportunity to observe its accomplishments and its shortcomings. More than once I took strong exception to the ill-considered resolutions of the General Assembly.

Perhaps it is not well known to Congress, but on one occasion I got up in the General Assembly and I told the General Assembly that the resolution they had adopted was unconstitutional and the United States would not comply with it.

Mr. GROSS. Let me interrupt you just with this observation, that I don't believe I said anything about the "effective United Nations." Mr. GOLDBERG. No; you expressed yourself that it is not in the national interest of the United States to be in the United Nations. I think whether it is or not in the national interest is really the issue.