presently before us might be in great jeopardy, if then a $100 million amendment on a 3-year basis were offered, one could consider that the value of the real estate at the United Nations as being worth that much—you are a banker-one could get down there on the floor and make a good argument for getting $100 million to the United Nations to save it secured by real estate mortgages.

What would you think of that?

Mr. McCLOY. It is awfully hard to think what the psychological impact of an adverse decision would be. I think we would onlyChairman MORGAN. We would not want to lose the $72 million that is already pledged.

Mr. McCLOY. I think the best thing would be to go ahead if you had an adverse decision.

I am quite aware of the fact that you would have a problem on the floor of the House.

Mr. BARRY. This hasn't anything to do with the United Nations bond issue.

Algeria is having a great problem today, and France has consistently asked the United Nations to keep its hands off Algeria.

Do you know of an effort in the United Nations to do something before too much damage is done in Algeria?

Mr. LODGE. I don't know.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. One question about these future crises.

It still seems that part of the problem we face in trying to sell this particular project is how you handle future crises.

Is it your feeling, Mr. Ambassador, that there is going to be less likelihood hereafter of using the machinery of the U.N. for peacekeeping purposes, such as has been done in the Middle East and in the Congo? Future decisions to take no action would develop because of political difficulties, because of financial difficulties, or because of the difficulty of moving in promptly in what may well be delicate situations?

Mr. LODGE. If you are going to be prudent you have to assume there will be more of them.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. More problems

Mr. LODGE. If I could talk about this off the record, but I don't want to say anything more than that now.

There are very good reasons for believing that there are going to be more of them.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. There will be more problems, but will they be problems to which the United Nations will respond?

Governor Stevenson sounded so negative. I am drawing my own conclusions from his testimony.

My feeling was that we had been bitten so often we were going to be reluctant to move in on a major scale again.

Mr. LODGE. We the United States, are the United Nations. We are a good part of it. We oughtn't to talk about the United Nations as a sort of hostile foreign power. We have everything to gain by having its methods work.

In these underdeveloped countries which have just emerged from old-fashioned colonialism, there are few educated and trained people who have had experience in running a government, collecting taxes, sanitation, teaching school, all these things. Where can they turn when they have a chaotic situation?

Well, their national pride and their human nature obviously prevent them from turning back to the old colonial masters. They don't want to turn to any country, even if it wasn't a colonial country where it might give them a feeling that they were going to be dominated.

The United Nations is the only place from the standpoint of human nature, human pride, they can turn. Thank God, you have a place where they can turn. That is all I can say on the record. Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Monagan.

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. McCloy, you may or may not want to go into this at this time, but I should like to ask if it is your feeling that a permanent solution to the financial problem would come from a new method of collection or from a new attitude on the part of the members of the U.N.?

Mr. McCLOY. I think that there are some areas where I think it is a combination of both.

I think that you have got to explore the possibilities of new international fees of some sort that maybe you can build up the-so it isn't directly related to any particular incident or any particular "hot spot" in the world. This is something that ought to be a regular charge.

I said "space flights," something like that. It may even be in shipping or some

Mr. MONAGAN. The Suez Canal fees, that have been mentioned. Mr. McCLOY. Something like that. That together with a new attitude, which you refer to, which might very well result from the effect of this particular experiment.

I think the combination of both of those may carry us through.

This institution, the United Nations, is fumbling, it is awkward, it does things maladroitly. But, it is moving, and if we can keep it alive it is going to improve its techniques and there is going to be more sense applied to it.

With the horrible alternative of a thermonuclear war facing us all the time, I think we may come up in 5 or 10 years with a well-stabilized financing system.

As my colleague says, I think now is not the time to let it down. Mr. MONAGAN. I agree with that.

Mr. LODGE. Secretary Hammarskjold provided a program called Opex, which provides trained civil servants to countries that want them.

All through Africa you will find United Nations trained government officials teaching them how to collect taxes, how to do all the things you have to do to run a government, help which they will take because it doesn't threaten their sovereignty and it doesn't arouse fears that somebody is trying to take them over.

Mr. BARRY. I Would just like to say if these two gentlemen could appear on the floor of the Congress, I don't think there would be any doubt about what would happen to the United Nations bond issue. Mr. LODGE. You are going to be there. You can do it.

Chairman MORGAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador and Mr. McCloy, for a very interesting session.

The committee stands adjourned until 10:30 tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday, July 18, 1962.)

PURCHASE OF UNITED NATIONS BONDS

WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 1962

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, in room G-3, U.S. Capitol, at 10:45 a.m., Hon. Omar Burleson presiding.

Mr. BURLESON. The committee will come to order.

The committee meets this morning to continue hearings on S. 2768, authorizing the purchase of United Nations bonds and the appropriation of funds therefor.

May I say to our visitors and witnesses that I am not the chairman of this committee, but only substituting for Chairman Morgan, who, along with other senior members of the committee, both Democrats and Republicans, are in conference on the foreign aid bill.

I know that they would wish me to express to you, for both sides, their regret at being occupied at this time and unable to be here to hear your testimony. They will have occasion to read the record and I know, like those of us here, will respect what the witnesses have to say.

We expect other members to be here before very long.

In beginning, I think we will have about an hour and a half. To divide available time equally we'll give 30 minutes to each witness including questions from members. I trust this is agreeable to the committee.

We expect to hear all three witnesses who are here this morning. We would not wish you to have to return, since I understand some, if not all, are from out of town. Therefore when 30 minutes has expired we must take the next witness. We want to be sure that we hear you fully, but at the same time, that we hear all the witnesses.

Doubtless we will have a quorum call soon after 12 o'clock. The first witness is Mrs. John D. Kenderdine, member of the board of directors, League of Women Voters. If you would come up and sit here.

You may read your statement or testify from it, whichever way you wish.

STATEMENT OF MRS. JOHN D. KENDERDINE, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mrs. KENDERDINE. I will read the statement and then if you have any questions I will be glad to try and answer them.

As I am sure you are aware from previous testimony, the League of Women Voters of the United States has supported the United Ña

tions since its inception as an important means of developing procedures for international cooperation and promoting economic growth and political independence in the emerging countries. We have interpreted these U.N. goals as consistent with, indeed, vital to, the national interest of the United States.

As a matter of fact, the League's continuing support for the United Nations over the past few years has explicitly spelled out "adequate financial contributions," be it for the regular U.N. budget, special programs for economic development or, as in the present crisis, for efforts to keep the peace.

Through the 1950's we opposed percentage restrictions which have speeded the gradual cutting of U.S. contributions to the present 32 percent. I should say approximately.

In connection with our support of U.S. economic aid, now under AID, we have emphasized U.S. contributions to U.N. technical assistance, the special fund and the voluntary international programs.

At our national convention held in Minneapolis this May, the delegates by an overwhelming vote chose the United Nations as one of two major program concerns. This vote followed 3 days of debate, when delegate after delegate voiced the desire of the members she represented to give special attention to the United Nations so that, as League members, they could contribute to a greater depth of public understanding of the potentialities, and the limitations, of the United Nations.

One of the specific and critical U.N. problems which League members will study is that of financing in both its immediate and its longer range aspects.

Regrettably, the United Nations present fiscal crisis imposes an undesirable limitation on the very kind of activity which serves the interests of the United States, namely, efforts to preserve peace and the independence of new and developing nations. In our judgment, the purchase by the United States of $100 million of bonds offered by the United Nations has these advantages:

It would avert imminent U.N. bankruptcy and provide the funds necessary to carry on the emergency force and Congo operations for which the United States voted.

It would put the U.S. contribution on the basis of an interest-bearing loan which would be repaid by all members through regular U.N. budget assessments.

It would support the genuine effort of the U.N. General Assembly to face its financial difficulties.

It would be a demonstration of good faith and solidarity to those countries which have purchased many millions of these bonds.

It would make possible a breathing spell during which studies might be initiated and a more permanent solution to problems of U.N. financing might be found.

It seems to us that the basic issue is: Will the United Nations be able to carry out its peacekeeping responsibilities? In the League view, the answer must be "Yes."

We consider it a privilege and a pleasure to committee to present the views of our members. of us now, organized in 1,150 local leagues in all

appear before this There are 132,000 50 States and the

District of Columbia. For these members I want to thank you for listening today to our statement.

Mr. BURLESON. Thank you, Mrs. Kenderdine. It is a very attractive statement you have presented and in a very able manner.

If it is agreeable with the committee, we will waive the 5-minute rule and question as you wish. Are there questions for Mrs. Kenderdine?

Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I first would like to congratulate Mrs. Kenderdine on the work of the League of Women Voters. In my particular district I am well aware of the tremendous research that they do on vital subjects affecting not only our State of Michigan but the United States.

I think they do an excellent job in keeping voters more fully informed on issues. There are some questions that I would like to ask you in view of your statement.

On the first page you mention that "As a matter of fact the League's continuing support for the United Nations over the past few years has explicitly spelled out 'adequate financial contributions,' be it for the regular U.N. budget ** **

Of course, you mention that you oppose percentage restrictions which have speeded the gradual cutting of the U.S. contributions to the present 32 percent. Is it the judgment of the League of Women Voters that the United States should pay more than 32 percent to keep the operation of the U.N. going?

Mrs. KENDERDINE. We have no definite position on this. I think the feeling has been that it was too bad to have this cut too fast, that there were so many new countries coming into the United Nations for whom it was going to be very difficult to make an adequate contribution.

Mr. BROOMFIELD. Don't you believe

Mrs. KENDERDINE. That this might ease their coming in. This, as I say, is not a definite position. We just felt this was pushing it a little too fast.

Mr. BROOMFIELD. Many of us feel an organization of 104 members, if their membership is to mean anything, should not be primarily sponsored or supported by one country. I think the United Statesand I would like to make sure that you understand that I never opposed the U.N.-I think it is very vital. But I think it loses some of its effectiveness when the United States continues to try to bail out the entire financial operation of the U.N.

What disturbs me greatly is the fact that many of these countries are not paying their just share of the peacekeeping operations in the Congo. It is very disturbing to me.

I often wonder what would happen if Cuba, for example, had an internal problem and went before the General Assembly and asked for help there, whether the United States would be willing to pay their share in view of the situation in Cuba?

Mrs. KENDERDINE. It would certainly be a very difficult problem. There are comparatively few members there are some who are behind on their regular U.N. budget, but they are comparatively few and most of them are making an effort to pay this. I agree the Congo operation is the real reason for financial difficulty, and this is where one reason