given special rights to royalties, that the United Nations be authorized to regulate and tax resources and transportation routes in the polar regions" and so on.

I ask you if you don't think this is a tendency toward world government, which is something that the United Nations presumably was not going to be?

In other words, the United Nations is peacemaking machinery, not an organization to divide powers that presumably have never been delegated to it.

Dr. ATWATER. It represents a mild strengthening of the United Nations by giving it access to revenues that are not wholly dependent upon the year-to-year decisions of national governments.

Mr. BARRY. It would require a surrender of sovereignty by these nations for these provisions to become operative.

Dr. ATWATER. No more than any international treaty involves the surrender of sovereignty. Obviously the U.N. couldn't go to the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and collect royalties. But by international agreement or treaty it could do this provided enough countries ratified it.

Mr. BURLESON. The time of the gentleman has expired. Are there other questions?

Mr. Nix.

Mr. Nix. Mr. Chairman. Dr. Atwater, I read the briefs submitted by the United States, by the United Kingdom, by the Netherlands to the International Court of Justice in support of the proposal made to the Court. It seems to me that there is precedent for what is being done in the Congo.

I get the impression that the same thing was done in the Gaza strip. I would like to know whether or not the funds being used in the Congo operation come from a different source than the funds that were used and are being used in the other operation?

Dr. ATWATER. The United Nations has several accounts. There is the regular budget. There is also the budget for the Middle East operation, and still another budget for the Congo operation. Special amounts are appropriated by the Assembly for these different operations, and then assessments are made against member states for each of the three budgets. Member states then pay into each of the separate accounts as indicated.

I don't know whether that answers your question or not.

Mr. Nix. I merely wish to emphasize the fact that there is precedent for the operation in the Congo. That has been set forth in the briefs presented to the International Court of Justice by each of the countries who advocate the continuance of this Congo operation. I mention it merely to say that there is every reason to believe that the decision of the Court will be a favorable one.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURLESON. Thank you, Mr. Nix.

Mr. PILCHER. Just one question.

You have mentioned the easing of tension in the Middle East between the Israelis and the Arabs. Do you believe that solution is any nearer settlement than it was 10 years ago?

Dr. ATWATER. I didn't mean to give the impression that the basic problem was solved or was perhaps even near solution. What I

meant to imply was that in a situation where there was acute danger of conflict a device had been discovered for keeping border incidents to a minimum and reducing the danger of explosions.

Hundreds of border incidents, most of them not in the papers, used to take place prior to 1956. Many were innocent violations by farmers who wandered across the lines. But they sometimes exploded into serious conflict.

The U.N. Force has reduced these to negligible proportions along the Israel-United Arab Republic frontiers.

Mr. PILCHER. I believe the tension is just as bad. For instance, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Lebanon, where we had Marines in 1958, told this committee--a subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee no later than last November, at a banquet, that the U.S. Government was responsible for all the trouble in the Middle East, that it started when Israel was created, and that there never would be any peace in that section of the country until Israel was destroyed.

You take today. If a Member of Congress has one ounce of Jewish blood in him, or you had a plane where there was a technician or pilot, you can't land. We had to show them in Hong Kong that we didn't have a Jewish Member of Congress on our plane. They won't even let them land in that country.

Dr. ATWATER. Could I just make the point, Mr. Chairman, that I think the U.N., in a situation like that, represents a kind of holding operation. It keeps the situation from getting worse while time is allowed to heal the wounds and provide the opportunity for negotiation which is, after all, the only way this ever can be resolved. Mr. BURLESON. Are there other questions for Dr. Atwater? Mr. WHALLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Professor Atwater, do you have any idea how much money could be raised on passports or airline tickets?

Dr. ATWATER. There were some 850,000 passports and over 1,200,000 immigrant and nonimmigrant visas issued last year by the United States. The figure varies, of course, from year to year, but I believe 2 million would be a reasonable figure to use for the number of U.S. passports and visas issued in an average year.

While this would supply only $2 million, I would assume that several other governments would also be willing to levy such a charge on the passports and visas they issue. If 30 or 40 governments agreed to do this, it could produce a significant amount of additional revenue for the U.N.

I don't have any exact statistics on air or sea tickets, but this would probably be somewhat larger than the figure for passports and visas since some individuals would be traveling on passport renewals, and some might not have to obtain visas. If countries which supply major international sea and air transport services, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, and the Scandinavian powers, participated in the plan I have suggested, it would assure an additional significant amount of revenue for the United Nations. While the revenues from these services might not be sufficient to clear up the entire U.N. deficit, this would nonetheless be a start in the direction of finding additional sources of independent income.

Mr. WHALLEY. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BURLESON. Any other questions?

Thank you very much, Dr. Atwater. It is a pleasure to have you. Our remaining witness is Col. Curtis B. Dall, chairman of the Policy Board of Liberty Lobby.

You may proceed as you desire in your direct testimony.

STATEMENT OF COL. CURTIS B. DALL, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF POLICY OF THE LIBERTY LOBBY, INC.

Colonel DALL. Mr. Chairman and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my name is Curtis B. Dall, of Philadelphia, Pa., and I am chairman of the board of policy of the Liberty Lobby, Inc., of Washington, D.C. The Liberty Lobby is a bipartisan, political-action association designed to assist in keeping the American public currently informed as to vital legislative matters before Congress and designed to encourage American citizens to take an active interest in the affairs of government.

Our membership now exceeds 25,000 subscribers in each of the 50 States and in every congressional district therein.

Actually our points of contact with the various units I would estimate to be in excess of a quarter of a million.

I am authorized by our board of policy to appear before you today concerning S. 2768, the proposed $100 million loan to the United Nations.

The Liberty Lobby is strongly opposed to this bill now being considered and we wish to register our opposition to it, as being inimical to the best interests of this Nation.

In December of 1961, when the United Nations voted to float a $200 million bond issue, almost one-half of the U.N. members apparently didn't approve. Although the United States supported this proposal, the vote was 58 for, and 13 against, with the other 33 member-nations either abstaining or absenting.

Therefore, from the beginning, it lacked the popular support and/or approval of almost one-half of the membership. Should not the United Nations operate on a sound financial basis, with all the members paying their share of expenses? We are definitely opposed to the investment of a single penny of American taxpayers' money in this so-called loan, unless all other member nations pay what they owe.

proper

It is incredible to us that American taxpayers, whom you represent in Congress and who have already paid for far more than their share, should be asked to pay for the international delinquencies of such nations as Cuba, the Soviet Union, and even some of our friends, such as France.

Why should our Government, a fully paid-up member, make up for the bad debts of deadbeat countries?

We all know too well that for many years we have been paying much more than our share of the operating expenses of the United Nations, and until the delinquent nations pay their just debts, it is unthinkable that Congress would consider granting the President the authority to sink another vast sum of public money in this organization, at this time.

Should such authority be given, it would obviously encourage other nations to continue to refuse to meet their financial obligations as

required under the United Nation's Charter. Certainly if the member nations see that the United States intends to support the United Nations, almost singlehandedly, they will duck their just obligations ever more readily in the future than they have in the past.

Article 19 of the United Nations Charter clearly states:

A member of the U.N., which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceeding 2 full years.

Certainly the time to enforce this article is at this very minute. To quote Senator George Aiken, in a statement made early last year:

If we start on this course, we will find that not only Russia, but possibly other countries will refuse to meet assessments, secure in the knowledge that the United States will make up the deficit.

According to a U.N. report, contributions due the U.N. as of December 31, 1961, totaled $93,915,569.45. The last figures available show that some 72 member nations have failed to pay their assessments for the U.N. Emergency Force in the Holy Land, and 74 nations have not paid their assessments for the Congo operations.

Quoting two of your outstanding committee members for their recent report on the United Nations:

In this connection we think that the United States has hurt its own position, and similarly has hurt, rather than helped, the United Nations by assuming a totally disproportionate share of the expenses ** Certainly we do not believe that a further unfair financial burden should be placed on our taxpayers. Nor can we fail to consider the effect on our mounting national debt.

Our assessment in the Congo was approximately $32 million, which we have paid. In addition to this regular assessment, I have been informed that we made a voluntary cash contribution of over $15 million, in order to allow the assessments of a number of other nations to be reduced.

Among these were Soviet bloc nations, Albania, Bulgaria, and Cuba. To my knowledge, we are the only nation which has made any voluntary contribution.

No sound banker would consider making a loan to a borrower, even a small loan, if the borrower was known to be untrustworthy, such as the United Nations now stands revealed to be.

Even if such were not the case, this proposed load can only be regarded as a stopgap interim financing, a burden which is highly improper for the American taxpayer to be saddled with.

In conclusion, again referring to the report made by your able delegated members to the United Nations last year, I quote:

The pertinent questions, therefore, are these: (1) Can the United Nations without change in its present composition and present character, ever meet its original goal? (2) Do the policies and activities of the United Nations at this time further the best interests of the United States? (3) Does the U.S. policy in regard to the United Nations strengthen our position in that body and consequently in the world? Reluctantly and regretfully, our answer to all three questions is "No."

For the identical reasons, so ably stated, the Liberty Lobby strongly urges you to reject this projected piece of unsound legislation. Thank you for your consideration in allowing me to appear before you on this vital issue.

Mr. BURLESON. Thank you very much, Colonel Dall.

It would probably be more interesting to the members of this committee to hear the argument between you and the two witnesses who have just preceded you but that is not in order.

Colonel DALL. I am

Mr. BURLESON. So we will proceed to the members who wish to ask questions of you.

Ordinarily we have 5 minutes each.

We will proceed under about a 212-minute rule instead of the 5-minute rule.

Mr. Broomfield?

Mr. BROOMFIELD. Colonel Dall, are you against the U.N. as an institution?

Colonel DALL. Initially I was for it until it stands revealed as it is today.

Now I am against it without substantial revamping. You can't build a sound structure on an unsound foundation.

I don't want to detract from the point for which we came here. And that is the point of where we limit this discussion rather specifically to our opposition to S. 2768. Your question would open up very broad avenues. I think I am as idealistic as any lady or gentleman in the room, but when you see certain things, when you see the architecture where the vehicle has gone, let's say it was not supposed to go there, but the United Nations today is at a point where I think it has departed from the original concepts of a great many idealistic people.

Mr. BROOMFIELD. Let me put it a different way: If it meant the dissolving of the U.N. operation if we didn't contribute this $100 million, you would be for that?

Colonel DALL. Would you mind repeating that, sir?

Mr. BROOMFIELD. If this bill wasn't passed and it meant the U.N. would have to be dissolved, would you be for that?

Colonel DALL. Would we be for it? Yes, we would.

Mr. BROOMFIELD. That is all the questions.

Colonel DALL. We would be giving away the taxpayers' money and it is probably on an unconstitutional basis.

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Nix?

Mr. Nix. You are aware of the fact that Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge takes a different view from that of your organization?

Colonel DALL. He is an American citizen. He has that right.
Mr. Nix. I was merely asking if he took a different view.

Colonel DALL. If he took a different view? I haven't read his speech.

Mr. Nix. He does take a different view.

Colonel DALL. There are probably many people who do.

Mr. Nix. You are also aware of the fact that the present Ambassador, Mr. Stevenson, takes a contrary view of this also, aren't you? Colonel DALL. Yes.

Mr. Nix. And both of these men had an opportunity to be intimately associated with both the operations of the United Nations and the conditions in the world today. You realize that of course, don't you?