be resolved through peaceful means, if United Nations troops would leave the Congo, there would be a civil war that would plunge the Congo, including the Katanga, into the most sanguinary situation over a period of time. A chaos would result which would attract the intervention of the big powers, that one or the other of the contending parties would be calling on the Soviet Union for help, that they would be sending help in, that they would use that as a basis for establishing a base in the heart of Africa, and we couldn't sit by and see it happen. Mrs. BOLTON. We can understand the reason behind that. But I hope we are making exceedingly sure that the people of Katanga know what it is all about, and are ready to play their part in it, before we go in with troops, because we have this money. Their fear is when this money becomes available to the U.N. they will not hesitate.

Mr. BALL. I would hope, I think we have a real responsibility to see to it through the U.N. that this matter is resolved in a peaceful way in the interest of the Katanga people as well as the interest of the other people of the Congo.

We hold no brief for one group as against another. What we want is peace and stability.

Mrs. BOLTON. I am sure of that.

May I have another question?

Chairman MORGAN. Mrs. Bolton.

Mrs. BOLTON. Do we propose to wait, and why don't we wait until after the Court hands down a decision? Will you make that clear?

Mr. BALL. I spoke to that a few moments ago.

Mrs. BOLTON. I am sorry.

Mr. BALL. There were really three reasons why: First of all, because the United Nations has a very real and urgent need for the funds. Second, because of the fact that if we were to move now the chances of getting contributions from other countries, many of whom follow our lead, would be greatly enhanced. And, third, because even if the Court were to hand down an adverse decision we couldn't avoid the real problem here, which is, that this financing has got to be provided in some way. In our judgment this is the best way from the U.S. interest to see it provided.

Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you. I have continued my upholding of the idea of the United Nations right along. I can't imagine us without it. I am not speaking against it in any way.

Mr. BALL. I know you have always supported it.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Murphy.

Mr. MURPHY. No questions.

Chairman MORGAN. Dr. Judd.

Mr. JUDD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, will the advisory opinion cover only expenditures for the operations in the Middle East and Congo, or will it cover whatever special expenditures may be hereafter voted, for whatever purpose, by the General Assembly? I am not clear from your statement on page 11.

Mr. BALL. May I ask Mr. Chayes, who is our legal adviser, who argued the case in the Court.

STATEMENT OF ABRAM CHAYES, LEGAL ADVISER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. CHAYES. The resolution put to the Court in asking for an advisory opinion asks only for the Court's advice on the effect of the financing resolutions for the Congo and UNEF forces.

Technically the result of the decision will only apply to those expenditures. On the other hand, as you know, Dr. Judd, decisions have a certain force on account of their reasoning and so on, so that arguments as to the scope of the decision will probably be available after it comes out. You can't actually tell what they will be until you see the decision itself.

Mr. JUDD. That requires me to go ahead with the question that I asked yesterday and was not fully satisfied by the response. Perhaps the question wasn't fully understood.

It is a question in the minds of many people. They are perfectly willing to go along in financing these two operations. But with one vote in the General Assembly out of 104, it is conceivable, although, as I said yesterday, I don't think it is likely if we are skillful, that they could vote operations for almost anything under the sun. And anything that the General Assembly votes, under a favorable ruling, it will become binding upon all the members, including ourselves, to support with funds.

One can conceive of situations where those operations or expenditures voted might be such that we could not in our own national interest help finance them; they might be against ourselves.

What are we going to do in such a situation? Let's get it out in the

open.

Mr. BALL. I think it is an important question. Let me say first, as you know, if a question is an important question it requires a twothirds vote. Appropriations or resolutions calling for special expenditures or special expeditions or special intervention

Mr. JUDD. This was the case in both the UNEF and the Congo? Mr. BALL. I am told that the UNEF, the Middle East, was a General Assembly resolution by a two-thirds vote; that the other was action primarily by the Security Council.

Of course, in the Security Council, we have a veto, and under the charter budgetary resolutions require a two-thirds vote automatically. So what we are faced with is not a problem of a simple majority. What we are faced with is a situation where if action were to be taken which would be in our judgment adverse to our interests or which we disapproved of, all we would have to do is mobilize the blocking third, which is a much easier task.

I think if one looks at the voting experience of the United States that this is something which shouldn't cause us too much concern. Mr. JUDD. Is it clear that any such assessments for extraordinary operations would have to be by a two-thirds majority?

Mr. BALL. Yes. Let me read you the charter language on this, article 18:

Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. These questions shall include

and then there is a list of them, and the last one is

budgetary questions.

So those are regarded as important questions. Mr. JUDD. I am glad to have that in the record. I thought this was the situation but I wanted it spelled out.

The Senate bill, S. 2768, except in the title which is carried over from the bill originally proposed by the administration, never refers to bonds. It just says, "authorizes a loan to the United Nations.' Is it certain- we ought to have this on the record in one way or another that the loan under that bill would be in the form of purchase by the United States of the proposed U.N. bonds?

Mr. BALL. I think the intention of the Senate was to provide greater scope than would be provided by the resolution of the bill that was offered by the administration.

The practical fact is that the only form of borrowing which the General Assembly has authorized at the moment is the issuance of these bonds. The result is that if we were to try to make a loan to the United Nations other than through this bond issue, there would have to be a resolution of the General Assembly authorizing that borrowing.

I wouldn't contemplate that this will occur. I would suppose that what we would do would be to use these funds to buy, purchase bonds. I do think one of the other features which has been really brought to our attention by the Senate modification has been the question of the timing of putting the money in. I mean, originally we had contemplated using the entire $100 million to buy $100 million of bonds. I think in view of the discussion in the Senate and in view of the form of the Senate resolution, that we would contemplate some different phasing.

Mr. JUDD. Of course, one of the reasons a lot of very sincere people who are perfectly willing to provide $100 million as a loan, much as the original headquarters loan of $65 million was made, are hesitant about the bonds is because they regard the issuing of bonds as, to some extent, a prerogative of government. They ask: "Are we by purchasing bonds in fact converting the United Nations into a world government without our people having understood it and without its having been fully debated?"

They don't want to get into a situation through the purchase of bonds of the U.N. that would enable it to come back and say: "Well, you have already accepted it as a government which levies taxes or assessments, issues bonds," and so forth.

Mr. BALL. I would suppose if the United Nations resolution of the General Assembly had used the language "promissory note," people wouldn't have that concern. The fact that they are called bonds doesn't have any special significance. It is simply a borrowing by the United Nations. The issuance of a bond-a bond is merely another form of a promissory note. I wouldn't regard that as indicating anything at all as far as the status of the United Nations is concerned.

Mr. JUDD. You are prepared to say categorically that it would be your opinion and your legal counsel would agree, that the making of this money available in the form of U.N. bonds would not be regarded as a precedent or an implication, that the United States would be accepting the United Nations as already a sort of world government? Mr. BALL. I would say that quite categorically.

Mr. JUDD. Thank you. I want to ask a question about money owed to the United States by the United Nations. I see on page 8 that the United Nations now owes us $31 million, and owes other governments $40 million. Has anything been paid by the United Nations on that debt to the United States? It is up at the top of the

page.

Mr. BALL. I see it here. I will have to consult, if I may.

I am told that this is the figure as of March 31. I don't know that there have been any payments since then.

Mr. JUDD. There haven't been payments made heretofore?

Mr. BALL. There have been in the past substantial repayments of debt which has been owed to the United States at different times. Mr. JUDD. When we were out for the rollcall, I understand you discussed the repayments on the headquarters loan, which are on schedule.

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. JUDD. That is good. But this $31 million debt-I don't know for sure yet what it is for-I wonder if the U.N. has paid us anything and has it paid anything on the $40 million it owes to other governments? Perhaps my question isn't clear. Is that figure the remainder due on a debt after something has been paid? Or has nothing been paid on that debt?

Mr. BALL. That is the figure that is left after $12,621,046 has been repaid to us.

Mr. JUDD. Is it on the headquarters loan, or on this

Mr. BALL. No; this is on this particular account.

Mr. JUDD. Can the President waive any part of this sum owed to the United States?

Mr. BALL. Owed-you mean the President

Mr. JUDD. Can the President waive part or all of the repayment so the U.N. doesn't need to pay?

Mr. BALL. I know of no authority that he has to do that. Excuse me, I may be getting in trouble with my lawyers here.

My legal counsel advises me that he believes there is authority in the United Nations Participation Act to make contributions, and that presumably a contribution could be in the form of a waiver of indebtedness.

Mr. JUDD. From what appropriation does the President get such money?

Mr. BALL. These are appropriated funds. In the past I think something has been contributed out of the contingency fund under the mutual security legislation.

If

Mr. JUDD. We don't seem to have a list of such contributions. you will look on page 20 of the same document, in the first section it says "U.S. waiver of initial airlift, $10,317,622."

If the President can just waive repayment, whether you call it by waiver or by contributions, how do we know that he can't waive this other $31 million debt, or waive all the money that they will owe us if we make the proposed loan?

Mr. BALL. As I understand the situation with regard to that $10 million that was waived on the airlift, this was reimbursed to the Defense Department out of the contingency fund under the mutual security legislation.

The question as to whether the President can waive any additional indebtedness would depend on the appropriations under the AID legislation, and the contingency funds are under that.

Mr. JUDD. When he made the so-called waiver, the contribution doubtless was in the form of service by MATS. Where did he get the money to reimburse MATS? Is that permissible under the Department of Defense appropriation

Mr. BALL. Defense charged the Mutual Security Administration, or whatever was the agency at that time, for the expense of, payment for the expenses of MATS being used for that purpose. MATS can work for some other agency, another agency of the Government. Mr. JUDD. Yes; it works for us, on hire.

Mr. BALL. It is repaid out of the appropriate appropriation. This money came from the contingency fund.

Mr. JUDD. I wish, Mr. Secretary, you would elaborate your remarks in the record, with your legal counsel, to make clear what authority the President has or doesn't have to waive sums owed to the United States by the United Nations.

Mr. BALL. We will be happy to provide that. (The information is as follows:)

The President's authority to waive sums owed to the United States by the United Nations is contained in section 7 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as amended (22 U.S.C. sec. 287d-1). In relevant part it states:

"Sec. 7. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the President, upon the request by the United Nations for cooperative action, and to the extent that he finds that it is consistent with the national interest to comply with such request, may authorize, in support of such activities of the United Nations as are specifically directed to the peaceful settlement of disputes * * *

"(2) the furnishing of facilities, services, or other assistance and the loan of the agreed fair share of the United States of any supplies and equipment to the United Nations by the National Military Establishment, under such terms and conditions as the President shall determine;

"(3) the obligation, insofar as necessary to carry out the purposes of clauses (1) and (2) of this subsection, of any funds appropriated to the National Military Establishment or any department therein, the procurement of such personnel, supplies, equipment, facilities, services, or other assistance as may be made available in accordance with the request of the United Nations, and the replacement of such items, when necessary, where they are furnished from stocks.

"(b) Whenever personnel or assistance is made available pursuant to the authority contained in subsection (a) (1) and (2) of this section, the President shall require reimbursement from the United Nations for the expense thereby incurred by the United States: Provided, That in exceptional circumstances, or when the President finds it to be in the national interest, he may waive, in whole or in part, the requirement of such reimbursement: Provided further, That when any such reimbursement is made, it shall be credited, at the option of the appropriate department of the National Military Establishment, either to the appropriation, fund, or account utilized in incurring the obligation, or to an appropriate appropriation, fund, or account currently available for the purposes for which expenditures were made.

"(c) In addition to the authorization of appropriations to the Department of State contained in section 8 of this Act, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the National Military Establishment, or any department therein, such sums as may be necessary to reimburse such Establishment or department in the event that reimbursement from the United Nations is waived in whole or in part pursuant to authority contained in subsection (b) of this section ****

From the information supplied the committee, it will be noted that the amount waived for the Congo military operation ($10,317,622) was for the initial airlift. The airlift was provided under the authority of the United Nations Participation Act. Its cost was initially met by the Department of Defense. Subsequently, the Department of Defense was reimbursed for its outlay by funds authorized for fiscal year 1961 contingencies in the Mutual Security Act. Reimbursement