If that is the condition, if that is the situation on the 1st of July, we request the authority of Congress to help the preparatory commission of the IRO operate the displaced persons problem, until the 15 nations do get parliamentary approval for joining, whether that be the 15th of July, the 1st of August. We think it will be a very short period. That needs special authority for us to pay each month, a twelfth of our contribution to that organization, the preparatory commission of the IRO, instead of to the IRO. Mrs. BOLTON. It is the same money? Mr. HILLDRING. There is no difference in the amount of money. We, as I say, are not sure that the IRO will not be in existence. We are not entirely sure, on the other hand, that we will have the 15 nations by July 1. Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you very much. Mr. HILLDRING. Thank you, Madame Chairman, for your courtesy. Mrs. BOLTON. The committee will stand adjourned. (Whereupon, at 11: 15 a. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.) Hon. JOHN M. VORYS, APPENDIX DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on IRO, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. VORYS: Your subcommittee has inquired as to plans for the operation of the prospective International Refugee Organization. It is a matter in It is essential that this first largewhich this Department feels a deep concern. scale operating function of the UN should be performed with integrity, efficiency, and practicality. It must command the respect of the Congress of this country and of the other countries to which it must look for continued support. For You will appreciate that the selection of the Director-General of the IRO and of its other operating personnel must necessarily wait until the International Refugee Organization has come into being and its council set up. Meanwhile some interim steps have been necessary. In March the Preparatory Commission of the IRO, provided for by the UN, was able to secure the services of Arthur Altmeyer, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, as its executive secretary, but only on our firm commitment to him that he should not be asked It had been expected that the It now appears to be a member of the IRO when it was set up. work of this Preparatory Commission would terminate on July 1. likely that the IRO cannot actually begin to function until after that date. that reason it would appear necessary for the Preparatory Commission to perform the interim operations of supply and administration of the displaced-persons centers-a contingency provided for by the UN. Both UNRRA and the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees, which have been respectively performing certain necessary services in the administration of the hundreds of assembly center communities in Germany, Austria, and Italy and in the resettlement of substantial numbers of displaced persons in new homes in western Europe and South America, will go out of operation on June 30 and Army appropriations for supply also terminate at that time. The Preparatory Commission cannot, of course, select the personnel or determine the administrative set-up for the IRO. During the last year the UNRRA personnel engaged in work in the displaced-persons camps has been more than cut in half and notice of termination of the services of the remainder is being given. During the interim period, it is our hope that the Preparatory Commission will be able to select from this and other experienced personnel a staff which will be willing to continue the administration of these assembly centers until the IRO comes into being and is prepared to select its own personnel to carry out its functions. The United States, if its membership in the IRO is authorized by Congress, will have membership in the General Council of the Organization and, it is anticipated, on its Executive Council. The task of our representative in participating in the selection of a Director General and in the determination of the set-up and personnel of the Organization would be of vital importance and his voice should carry weight. In view of the importance of the matters to be determined at the initial session of the Council, it would be our intention to ask Ambassador Douglas to represent the United States. The selection by the new organization of a Director General must be left for the Council. There does not seem to be any personnel in the existing organizations, which have been dealing with this matter, who would be available for that office. Every effort would be made to secure a man of outstanding ability who would command the confidence of Congress. Faithfully yours, G. C. MARSHALL. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, Hon. JOHN M. VORYS, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. VORYS: You have inquired as to why the present International Refugee Organization budget for the first fiscal year is fixed at $160,000,000 and whether this will be adequate to do the complete job of care and maintenance, repatriation and resettlement. I will not burden the committee with a long history of the development of the present figure, but I would like to summarize briefly the major points involved. The Committee on IRO Finances of the Economic and Social Council working in July 1946, arrived at an estimate of $258,754,000 for the first financial year of the IRO. This estimate was presented to the Economic and Social Council meeting at Lake Success in September 1946. I can now reveal that às a result of a number of informal conferences it developed that the major countries interested in formation of the IRO-United States and United Kingdom-thought that it would be impossible to raise the sum of $258,754,000 for the IRO from among the members of the United Nations. As a result of these discussions and based on a realistic approach to the problem, it was decided that a substantial decrease could be effected without materially deviating from the objectives of the Organization. This decision was made informally by representatives of the afore-mentioned countries, and was later reflected by a decision of the Finance Committee of the Economic and Social Council. As a result, the Economic and Social Council recommended to the General Assembly a budget in the amount of $160,000,000. The largest cut in the budget was in funds for largescale resettlement ($60,000,000), and was justified by the negative results of surveys of previous optimistic estimates of large-scale resettlement projects, particularly in Brazil. The other large cut in the budget was the reduction from $158,000,000 to $103,000,000 for care and maintenance. This cut resulted pri marily from new estimates which reduced the average daily cost of maintenance per person from 67 to 45 cents. The budget approved by the General Assembly was based on the assumption that approximately 300,000 displaced persons would be voluntarily repatriated during the first year of the IRO. Accordingly, an item of $9,450,000 was included to pay for 90-day rations for each of the repatriates. The total estimate for repatriation was $16,460,000, including movement of displaced persons from the Middle and Far East. This estimate of 300,000 was, of course, only a best guess; it reflected the high rate of repatriation at that time. The budget also contained an estimate of the number of displaced persons who might be resettled or reestablished. It was estimated that 25,000 displaced persons would be settled in countries of western Europe at $8 per person ($200,000); 25,000 would be reestablished in adjacent countries at $16 per person ($400,000) ; that 75,000 would be resettled overseas at $200 per person ($15,000,000) and that 75,000 would be reestablished overseas at $25 per person ($1,875,000). The total for emigration and reestablishment of family units and individuals was $17,475,000. Together with the voluntary contributions of $5,000,000 for large-scale resettlement, the total was about $22,000,000. The budget for care and maintenance totaled $103,025,500. For the committee's information, I am attaching a copy of the budget as adopted by the General Assembly. In the light of developments since the end of 1946, the Preparatory Commission has just made a tentative revision of the budget. The significant changes made and the comments of the American representative on the Preparatory Commission are set forth in the following cable dated May 21 to the Department of State from our representative: "Preparatory Commission, May 20, revised estimated numbers to be repatriated, resettled, and maintained, and pertinent budget items on basis changed conditions since December 1946. Numbers to be repatriated reduced from 300,000 to 150,000, resettlement western European countries increased from 25,000 to 70,000, resettlement overseas reduced from 75,00) to 30,000, and those to be resettled locally increased from 2,500 to 50,000. Net result these changes is to reduce required man-days of maintenance by 5,285,500. "Consequent reduction budget items as follows: Repatriation from $16,460,000 to $11,135,000, care, maintenance from $103,025,425 to $100,650,000, emigration and reestablishment from $17,975,000 to $8,430,000, contingency reserve increased from $5,000,000 to $18,845,500. "Increase in contingency reserve is intended to provide additional funds for care, maintenance, emigration, and reestablishment. 'American delegation convinced basis reports received this meeting that repatriation figure of 150,000 still too high and figure 70,000 for resettlement western Europe and 30,000 resettlement overseas too low. United Kingdom is planning to accept 15,000 monthly; Belgium has made agreement with British zone, Germany, to take 15,000 worker units totaling 60,000 persons; Netherlands has agreed to take 8,000 units, 32,000 persons; Canada is constantly increasing quotas. Emigration to Argentina and other countries like Australia will be higher than previously expected. American delegation agrees with IGC estimate of total 150,000 to western Europe first fiscal year. Emigration movement clearly snowballing in light labor shortages developing in western Europe. "Resettlement United Kingdom and all countries western Europe other than France can be accomplished with comparatively small expense to IRO as no cash allowances to DPS required. Resettlement in France may call for incidental and resettlement allowances provided original budget. Resettlement western Europe will therefore result in budget savings compared repatriations which involves 90-day food allowance ($8 for resettlement as compared to $30 for 90day food allowance for repatriation). Based on foregoing, American delegation believes that in spite necessity reducing current budget to 75 percent on basis present adherences, sufficient funds will be available for care, maintenance to eliminate any possibility involuntary repatriation due reduced rations. Only possible case in which reduction rations may be necessary would be delay in advance contributions United States and other governments to IRO after June 15. In this event IRO might have to cut level July 1 to ration which could be provided from indigenous resources." It is also important to note that our delegation after carefully reviewing the entire situation, has reached the conclusion that, in the light of the changed situation, all eligible displaced persons would be taken care of during the first year even if only 75 percent of the budget is actually forthcoming. There is no doubt, as I have said, that the standard would be an austere one; we could do more with a larger budget. Some phases of a well-rounded program would have to be pared down or postponed. But the standard will not be one which will have the effect of compelling any displaced persons to return to eastern Europe if they do not desire to do so. Nor will the reduced budget withdraw assistance from a particular group of displaced persons who would otherwise be eligible. Our policy against forcible repatriation was recently reiterated unequivocally by Secretary Marshall following representations to him by a joint delegation concerning the current reparation program in Germany and Austria. The Secretary said: "It is the fixed policy of the United States Government to oppose any forced repatriation of displaced persons. It is also the policy of our Government to facilitate the repatriation of those displaced persons who desire of themselves to return to their homelands. This is in conformity with the principles approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations. "The current repatriation program sponsored jointly by UNRRA and the armies of occupation was approved by the United States Government prior to its initiation, based on the voluntary desire of the individual to return to his homeland. Any coercion of displaced persons under our jurisdiction would not be tolerated. No instances of coercion have been brought to our attention although one-half of the program has already been completed." I should also like to stress that not one of the 16 signatories of the IRO constitution has deviated from the firm United States policy that no displaced person should be coerced into involuntary return to his country of origin. All of the significant cuts and readjustments in the budget have been initiated for practical reasons by those countries interested in furthering the IRO and in affording maximum assistance to displaced persons. Such cuts or readjustments have not been successfully maneuvered or imposed by any countries hostile to our attitude toward displaced persons. I know that the subcommittee realizes that it is beyond the power of any one nation to alter the budget unilaterally. I can state, however, that we have found all of the other countries on the Preparatory Commission both cooperative and realistic in constantly scrutinizing the budget in the light of changing circumstances. I am confident that they will continue to do so. You will note that, in order to provide for changes in the situation during the forthcoming year, the latest revised budget has been made more flexible by increasing the allowance for contingencies from $5,000,000 to $19,000,000. As you know, consideration was given to other methods of accomplishing the same ends; such as continued operation by the United States Army, establishment of an American refugee organization, continuation of the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees with expanded funds and authorities. Each appeared to have certain advantages and disadvantages, as does the IRO. However, after a thorough analysis of all the factors involved, and after conferences with the chairmen of the Senate and House Foreign Affairs Committees, it was concluded that the most economic, effective, and humane method of achieving our purpose is along the lines established by the General Assembly of the United Nationsthrough the IRO. To adopt another method at this date would require the formulation of new and different legislative proposals, and repudiation of the plan recommended by the General Assembly of the United Nations. Sincerely yours, J. H. HILLDRING, Assistant Secretary. Budget for the first financial year of the IRO (as adopted by the General Assembly in 1946) ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET ($4,800,000) Sec. 1. General Council and Executive Committee_. Sec. 2. Headquarters__ Sec. 3. Other offices__ Sec. 4. Temporary missions__. Sec. 5. Reserve for contingencies-- Total for the administrative budget___ $100,000 840, 000 3, 460, 000 250,000 150,000 $4,890, 000 Grand total of administrative and operational budgets_____ 160, 8C0, 500 Budget for the first financial year of the IRO (as adopted by the General Assembly in 1946) ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET ($4,800,000) Sec. 1. General Council and Executive Committee: (a) Costs directly attributable to the meetings of the General (i) Space (including rent, light, heat, furnishings, and (ii) Personal services (temporary personnel of contrac- (iii) Other expenses (cars, communications, printing, in- (b) Travel and allowances for special missions of delegates__ Total $15,000 40,000 25.000 20, 000 100,000 |