me.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy in hearing

Mr. FRASER. Thank you very much, Congressman Sikes.

Let me indicate that we have had a slight change in our scheduling. Congressman Crane had to go to the Ways and Means Committee. Ambassador Goldberg will testify ahead of Mr. Crane, who will be back later.

Mr. Fascell?

Mr. FASCELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am very pleased to welcome the dean of the Florida delegation to this subcommittee. As usual he has been very candid, cogent, and realistic.

I am not prepared to say that I agree or disagree with the formula laid down in the proposed resolution, Mr. Sikes, but I must agree with you, even though the timing may seem inappropriate to some people for a realistic appraisal or facing up-or "emphasis on" is what I believe you said in your statement-the financial crisis that confronts the U.N. and the role that the United States is playing in the U.N. I could not agree with you more, and perhaps this whole China question is the thing that brought it to a head. But it has been around a long time.

The financial crisis has plagued the Department of State. I know that from my own experience at the U.N. It is a tough issue and it is not going to go away. I think the quicker we get to it, the better off we will be.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Gross?

Mr. GROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Sikes, I want to compliment you on an excellent, incisive statement. What has happened recently in the United Nations points up to the people of this country what an exercise in futility it has been. It is worse than an exercise in futility because we are deeply and heavily involved.

I support your bill, but I would go a step further and withdraw from this perfidious outfit.

I thank you for your statement.

Mr. SIKES. Thank you, sir.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Rosenthal?

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, want to welcome our distinguished colleague from Florida and tell him of the great respect we have for him.

I have two general questions.

You have not mentioned the question of the adjustment in the voting structure in the United Nations. That seems to me one way to develop a little more equity, at least in the General Assembly. Have you given any thought to the question of adjustment in the voting pattern?

Mr. SIKES. I have been concerned with the fact that Russia has three votes, everyone else has one. I have assumed that it would be extremely difficult to arrive at any sharing of votes in a different way. I have heard of no effort to change the present unrealistic system.

I don't know how you would get the U.N. to agree to any change in the voting structure. It should follow the "one man-one vote" principle

and be a "one nation-one vote" principle or it should be based on population or contribution.

No effort is being made to change the present system.

I presume our delegates to the U.N. do not want to get into an endless problem, into endless discussion, with little prospect of change for the better.

I would welcome any comments the distinguished gentleman has as to how some different formula might be arrived at.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. I am sure either Ambassador Goldberg or Mr. DePalma may offer some suggestions. I have been concerned in the General Assembly situations where very small nations have equal vote with other nations. In other words, "one nation-one vote" may not be a realistic appraisal of the world responsibilities and the contributions. Mr. SIKES. I don't have a formula to suggest.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Is it your thought that the nations of Asia and Africa, and indeed the entire world, should contribute financially to the U.N. solely according to population?

Mr. SIKES. Yes.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. With no other criterion such as gross national product or economic viability?

Mr. SIKES. I think if you bring in too many different types of formulas you find yourself right back where we are now, so let us base it simply on population. Gross national product can be a very misleading

term.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. In your opinion, would the nations of Africa or South America be able to live by this formula?

Mr. SIKES. You would have to cut the cost of the U.N. to more realistic figures. I suspect they have been living rather high since money from the United States has been available generally for the asking. I think you would have to cut the costs of the U.N. and its operations and its agency operations to a figure commensurate with willingness to contribute.

I think if you do that you will find that most nations, if they really want to participate in the organizations, could pay a pro rata share. Mr. ROSENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Frelinghuysen?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, have been interested in Congressman Sikes' testimony. I must say I find it very unpersuasive. I would think the clearer course would be as Mr. Gross advocates, and that is simply to withdraw from the United Nations, if we are not getting our money's worth, as you say. You seem to be recognizing the U.N. has some value, but it is not worth the amount we have been putting into it.

How do you determine what is worthwhile for the U.S. taxpayers, Mr. Sikes?

Mr. SIKES. I am taking a literal view of the situation and assume that it is going to be the policy of whatever administration we have that we remain in the United Nations and that there will be no positive effort to take us out of the U.N. organization. That being the case, I am supporting a proposal to reduce our contributions.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The devil's advocate, so to speak. You don't really believe in the U.N. but you believe it should be supported because others do?

Mr. SIKES. No, not necessarily. I think if we are going to stay in it we should pay a lesser part, a more proportionate part, not the lion's share. I see no justification to continue to carry so much of the load. As I said before, we do not have the money to continue to carry such a disproportionate share of the costs. We are paying with blank checks. We are paying with borrowed money. That does not make sense to me. The U.N. is not that essential to any world activity of which I am apprized. It is a discussion body. It has been years since I have seen anything come out of it that indicates any particular reason for the United States to pay a major part of its costs.

If you want to stay in the forum, all right, but don't pay with borrowed money much more than a reasonable share just to participate in a discussion body.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Of course we are paying our share as presently determined appropriate. You are suggesting a different formula. Your language seems to be so loose, Mr. Sikes. You said just now there is no justification for us to continue to carry the whole load. Even in your statement you don't suggest we are carrying the whole load.

You suggest something else which is inaccurate. You say we can't afford to pick up half the bill for U.N. operations. We don't pick up half the bill for U.N. operations. Your statement indicates we have been putting up less than 40 percent

Perhaps we could pinpoint what this load is and what relief it would be to the taxpayers if we should reduce our contributions.

Mr. SIKES. I will take your statement of 40 percent. I said "half"; that is a general term. I will take your statement of 40 percent. It is still an unrealistic and unjustifiable figure.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I did not make that statement, Mr. Sikes. I was referring to your statement, on page 2. You suggested that it was about 38 percent of the cost.

I haven't tried to categorize what percentage the United States is contributing. I am saying you are inaccurate in saying that we are bearing the whole load or 50 percent of it. Your own statement indicates we are not providing that amount of money.

Mr. SIKES. I am saying that we should not pay more than our pro rata share based on population in the United States. Is that clear enough, sir?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That is about the only thing that is clear. What I am saying is that you are saying we are carrying the whole load. Then you say, "That is not what I mean." You say we are putting up 50 percent, and then you say, "That is not what I mean."

I cannot follow your reasoning.

Mr. SIKES. Let me assure the distinguished gentleman I sometimes have difficulty following his reasoning too.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We could pay this out of our back pocket if it were in our interest, and a lot of us think the U.N. is in our interest. It is not a question of "Can we support substantial domestic programs and also support the U.N.?"

Even under your own formula there would only be a reduction of about $250 million that we are now providing the U.N., so that is not

going to provide a new source of funds. There would be no major relief for taxpayers if we should follow your suggestions, which I hope we will not.

How do you say we can't afford it?

Mr. SIKES. "Only $250 million" is a rather substantial sum to a country that is as much in the hole financially as we are. Our deficit is $25 billion a year. The taxpayers will think a reduction of $250 million is a help. Whether you think so or not, the taxpayer will appreciate such a saving.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The taxpayer will be naive if he looks at the total debt of this Government and thinks $250 million will do much to resolve the financial problems we face. It is easy to demagog on that issue. I think what we need to do is to say: "Is this in our interest?" Mr. SIKES. I think there is demagoguery on both sides at this point. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would not argue that point.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Sikes, I just wanted to ask about one statement you made. You said that the 3313-percent limitation is not being observed.

Mr. SIKES. We are paying more than that.

Mr. FRASER. Do we pay more on the assessed contribution?

Mr. SIKES. I assume this refers to all of our contributions. It is true that we are paying more than 3313 percent. That is the limit if I understand the treaty.

Mr. FRASER. My understanding was that this applied to those activities for which the General Assembly makes an assessment. I think in that case if I understand correctly-that we pay less than that

amount.

Mr. SIKES. Well, whatever it is, Mr. Chairman, I am saying this is a limitation on expenditures. We are paying more than that. My point is that we should pay less. I am assuming we won't pay less under the present formula so I ask for a change in the law.

Mr. FRASER. Let me also call attention to the difference in the language of that limitation. It says that no U.S. representatives shall make a commitment requiring an appropriation in excess of 333. The bill that you are sponsoring says that the United States shall not pay, in effect, in excess of what a population apportionment would provide. Mr. SIKES. That is correct.

Mr. FRASER. I take it there may be some difference under the treaty to which we are signatory. The treaty provides that the expense of the organization shall be borne by the members as apportioned by the General Asembly. I take it if the General Assembly makes an apportionment, we are bound by treaty to pay.

Mr. SIKES. I feel that the Congress has the authority to make the necessary changes and not pay more than our pro rata share.

Mr. FRASER. Would you accept my view, though, that enactment of this law would be a withdrawal or a modification of that treaty obligation?

Mr. SIKES. Not necessarily. I think the fact that we have a law on the statute books limiting our payment indicates that we can pass other laws limiting our payments.

Mr. FRASER. I am making the point that the other law says that our representative shall not make a commitment. But that does not seem

to be an effort to actually change the treaty language. In other words, even if our representative did not make a commitment, the General Assembly might still make an apportionment of expenses, let us say, to put our costs higher than they are today, at 35 percent. I assume we would be bound under the treaty.

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we can be required to pay a disproportionate sum. I feel that the Congress in its wisdom can work its will on this problem and that is what I am proposing.

Mr. FRASER. In any event, I think your point is that the measure of contributions, however arrived at, should be based on a population apportionment.

Mr. SIKES. That is correct.

Mr. FRASER. Would you regard the Cyprus peacekeeping effort as a useful U.N. effort?

Mr. SIKES. Yes, I think it has been a useful effort. There have been other useful actions. I don't decry all that the United Nations has done.

Mr. FRASER. I was thinking of what value to the United States is the U.N.

Mr. SIKES. The things of value have, I fear, been few and far between. I don't think that the total cost to us has been justified by the good that has come out of the U.N. I think we are paying too much. I don't think we can afford it.

Mr. FRASER. Had the U.N. not been able to send in forces to maintain peace in Cyprus, I think there is a very high probability that Greece and Turkey would have gone to war with each other. I don't know what kind of value you would attach to it. We don't know, but clearly the risk would have been higher. I wonder how one can put a dollar measure on that sort of thing.

Mr. SIKES. I think that the world powers, had they attempted to be as persuasive as they have been in more recent activities, for instance, with Israel and the Arab countries, that it might not have been necessary to send peacekeeping forces to Cyprus. We don't know whether war would have broken out or not, without peacekeeping forces.

I

agree it was worth the effort in order to avoid the risk.

And there will be other instances where these things should be done, but they can be done with every nation bearing its fair share of the costs. What we have been doing is contributing much more than our share to activities of this sort when other nations refuse to pay. I don't think that is fair or necessary.

They take it for granted that the United States is going to pay, and we pay. If they know we are not going to do so, I think other nations would pay their fair part of the burden.

Mr. FRASER. Is it fair to ask if you would accept the idea that Florida should pay its proportion of the Federal budget according to population and abandon the income tax?

Mr. SIKES. We are paying a bigger part of the Nation's taxes than the average State. We are not asking that the system be discontinued. In this case, we think we get our money's worth.

Mr. FRASER. In our system, we operate on the concept of ability to pay as embodied in the Federal income tax. Would you favor abandoning that and favor the per capita extraction? I am trying to see how far you would carry the principle.