was good enough to make at the outset of the hearings on the subject. If I recall correctly, he maintained that adoption and implementation of this bill would not be unlawful because of the fact that there is now a law on the books which instructs representatives of the United States not to vote for contributions in excess of a percentage of an assessment, and his view was that if they could not vote for more than 33 percent, or whatever that provision is, equally, they could be required not to vote for more than 6 percent and that, therefore, there was nothing illegal about his proposal and that which his distinguished colleagues make.

May I respectfully say that I disagree with that legal conclusion. Enactment of a law which instructs U.S. representatives or which invites the Executive to instruct U. S. representatives not to vote for a measure does not impair the authority of an international organization to adopt a measure.

There seems to be a confusion between what American representatives vote for and what is binding on the Government of the United States. The United Nations, at this current session of the General Assembly and any other, can adopt a budget, the United States may vote against the budget, nevertheless it is adopted and binding.

My impression is, in fact, that last year at the General Assembly, the United States did not vote in favor of the budget because it had certain increases that the United States judged were unmerited. Nevertheless, we have been bound to pay our assessments under that budget. If American representatives never voted for an assessment of more than 6 percent and the assessments were 31 or 25 percent we would still be bound by law to pay the 31 or 25.

In sum, my argument is that that law now on the books and any other such law would simply be irrelevant to the United States' legal obligation; it does not for a moment prove that enactment of this proposed law would lead to a legal situation. On the contrary, in fact, I think it must lead to an illegal situation in view of the fact that it cannot be expected that the U.N. or other international organizations would assess us on a level proportionate to our population.

Mr. FRASER. Well, I am glad to have that point developed, because it does seem to me that there is a significant difference between the law and the wording of the proposed bill.

Thank you again very much.

Mr. SCHWEBEL. Thank you.

Mr. FRASER. The subcommittee stands adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m. the subcommittee adjourned.)

STATEMENTS AND MEMORANDA SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

STATEMENT OF HON. W. M. ABBITT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity of testifying in support of H.R. 11518 of which I am a co-sponsor. This bill would provide for United States financial contributions to the UN and related agencies to be based on the ratio of this country's population to the population of all member states.

Since the inception of the United Nations in 1945, the United States has borne the major responsibility for the financial support of the UN. In the beginning, we did this in order to get the organization started and as time went on, we assumed more and more by way of responsibility for various aspects of the operation.

While this procedure may have had some merit in the beginning when the organization was getting on its feet, it is totally unrealistic today when the UN membership is much larger. Today we are furnishing approximately 36% of the UN budget whereas under the provisions of H.R. 11518 this would be lowered to approximately 6%.

Such action is long overdue not only from the standpoint of reducing the United States burden of responsibility but also in making the other members of the UN more responsible for its upkeep. We face the situation in the UN today which is vastly different from that which welcomed UN members at the organization in 1945. Not only is the membership greatly enlarged but our own position within the UN has changed substantially. Many of our people are greatly concerned about the fact that our influence within the UN has substantially lessened while we continue to pay the lion's share of its support. In addition to this, the fact is that many nations which are financially able to assume their responsibility are in arrears on their dues and little or nothing is done about this. It is high time that the UN come to grips with this matter and the only way that I know to bring this about is to make it abundantly clear that the United States does not intend to forever carry the major portion of the load, especially in view of the attitude of other members in regard to their obligation.

I trust that the subcommittee will give serious consideration to this proposal and that the Congress will be given the opportunity of expressing itself on this issue.

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM BEVILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my position on pending legislation to limit United States financial contributions to the United Nations.

The recent vote by the General Assembly of the United Nations to seat Red China and expel Taiwan has, at long last, made the leaders of this nation stop and take a good, hard look at this organization and the value of our particiption in it.

While we have continued to pour money into the U.N. for the last 25 years, many other member nations have refused to pay their share and in fact have laughed at and mocked our naive generosity.

I know that I speak for a majority of the people of Alabama when I say the time has come for the United States to stop playing Santa Claus to the

world, pay only its fair share, and insist that every other member nation do likewise.

Over the years the United States has been the backbone of the United Nations, contributing about six times as much as the Soviet Union or the United Kingdom, the two next highest contributors.

We all know this money is desperately needed to meet some of our pressing domestic problems.

Mr. Chairman, I am co-sponsor of H.R. 11518, a bill which would provide for U.S. financial contributions to the United Nations and related agencies to be based on the ratio of U.S, population to the population of all member nations. It is my understanding that if this legislation becomes law, it would lower the United States' contribution from is present 36 percent to 5.9 percent, for a savings to the U.S, taxpayers of more than $250,000,000.

I believe that if we decide to stay in the U,N., we should immediately reduce our financial assistance to this amount. If this organization is to constitute a force for world peace, all nations must contribute their fair share.

We must stop pouring money into an organization which provides our enemies an open forum to denounce us.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge approval of this legislation,
Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON, HAROLD R. COLLIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate having this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements in behalf of H.R. 11480. This bill, of which I am a cosponsor, was introduced on October 28th, soon after the United Nations organization had voted to expel the legitimate government of China from membership.

On the resolution to expel Free China from the organization and seat Communist China in its place, 76 votes were cast in favor and 35 in opposition. There were 17 abstentions and three absences.

All but three of the nations that voted for the resolution of expulsion have been passengers on the foreign aid gravy train which the United States has been operating for more than a quarter of a century. All but three of the nations that abstained from voting have received foreign aid from the United States.

The 76 nations that voted for expulsion of our long-time ally received a total of $61,205,800,000 in foreign aid during the fiscal years from 1946 through 1971. As we had to borrow this huge sum before we could make it available to foreign nations, it becomes necessary to add interest totaling $32,904,238,000, making the true total $94,110,038,000.

The 14 foreign aid recipients that abstained on the vote received a total of $11,278,900,000 during the 26-year period, plus $6,063,538,000 for interest, or $17,342,438,000 altogether.

Out of 131 members in the United Nations organization, 76 opposed us on this crucial vote and 17 others took the easy way out by abstaining. These 93 nations have received a total of $72,484,700,000 in foreign aid from the United States since World War II. With interest totaling $38,967,776,000 added on, the grand total lavished on these ingrates comes to $111,452,476,000.

While a comparatively small amount of foreign aid can be justified, it is obvious that neither the House of Representatives nor the other body is going to keep the numerous foreign aid programs funded at the current annual level of over $132-billion. This tremendous sum will be reduced through the cutting of authorizations and appropriations in a number of different bills. At the moment, however, we are concerned with but one phase, the contributions of the United States to the United Nations organization and its affiliated agencies. Mr. Chairman, the total population of the 131 members presently represented in the organization is 3,366,768,000. The population of the United States is 204,766,000, or 6.08% of the total. Before the expulsion of Free China and the admission of Red China and five mini-states, the population of the United States was about 734 % of the total population of the 126 members.

In spite of the fact that its population was only about one-thirteenth of the total, the United States' assessment for 1969 was nearly one-third of the total

assessment. Assessments for that year totaled $143,467,267, of which our share was $45,220,264, or 31.5%. This was four times as much as it ought to have been. When we look at some of the affiliates we discover some even greater disparities. For example, the United States contributed $12,000,000 to the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund during 1969, which was 39.0% of the $30,736,605 total.

During the same year, the United States gave $71,000,000 to the United Nations Development Program, 35.8% of the $198,574,980 total.

In 1968 the United States gave $8,749,722 to the Food and Agricultural Organization, or 31.9% of the $27,420,000 total.

Also in 1968, this country gave $18,075,620 to the World Health Organization, or 31.2% of the $57,934,680 total.

During 1968 the United States gave $9,011,940 to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. This was 29.9% of the $30,100,000 total.

The United States contributed $6,209,022 to the International Labor Organization in 1968, or 25.0% of the $24,836,091 total.

Some members failed to give to one or more of the programs that I have mentioned, while several nonmembers, for example, West Germany, South Korea, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Vatican City, and South Vietnam, made contributions. The monumental absurdity of the whole United Nations fiscal setup can be eloquently demonstrated by using Qatar as an example. This nation, for the most part unknown to anyone but philatelists and members of the oil industry, is about the size of Massachusetts and has a population of 100,000. There are 150 cities in the United States with that many people, yet this tiny country, which joined the United Nations organization just in time to vote on the Chinese question, can kill the vote of the United States. By collaborating with another Johnny-come-lately member, Bahrain, which contains 250 square miles and has 207,000 population, Qatar can outvote the United States, the chief bankroller of the United Nations.

With a public debt already exceeding $400,000,000,000 and due to increase during the current fiscal year, the United States is not in a position to continue providing such grotesquely disproportionate sums of the United Nations organization and its affiliates as it has given in the past. The American taxpayers are overburdened with local, state, and federal taxes and should not be saddled with additional financial burdens that have resulted from the failure of other countries to assume and pay their fair shares.

By reducing the amount of our assessed and voluntary contributions to approximately 6%, we will decrease our expenditures for the United Nations and its affiliates by between 75% and 85%. Once the freeloaders and the deadbeats begin getting bills for larger amounts, they will take a second look at some of the programs and the accompanying pricetags. A nation that casually votes for an expensive program for which the United States will assume between one-fourth and one-third of the financial responsibility will wait a long time before voting for such a program if its own share of the cost outweighs the benefits that it receives.

As a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I am painfully aware of the serious financial crisis with which our nation is confronted. Other committees authorize expensive programs that cost billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, but it is the Committee on Ways and Means that must write legislation that will provide the wherewithal to pay for them.

If the people of the United States, acting through their duly-chosen representatives on the local, state, and national levels, want to pay for expensive governmental programs, it is difficult, if not impossible, to prevent the establishment and funding of such programs. It is a simple matter, however, to prevent foreign countries from placing heavy and disproportionate financial burdens on the aching backs of American taxpayers. Simply pass H.R. 11480 and our share of the cost will drop to about 6%.

Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for permitting me to testify in behalf of this very necessary legislation. I hope the Committee on Foreign Affairs will report this measure or a similar one to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, so that it and the other body can act on it before the Congress adjourns for the year.