Mr. JUDD. I personally think the 90 days is too short. I think it should be at least 6 months, but I think the committee ought to accept the Senate figure. I do not think it will ever become necessary to withdraw but it makes it easier to pass the resolution.

Dr. PARRAN. I am terribly impressed by the urgency of favorable action at this session of the Congress, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. BOLTON. Which is going to be exceedingly difficult.

Mr. JUDD. The fact that it has passed the Senate will help us somewhat. If we could get a resolution out by the middle of next week, and passed by our own full committee, I think we will get it through. Dr. PARRAN. I would be very glad if the committee agrees on a financial limitation, and I hope it will be not less than $3,000,000.

Mrs. BOLTON. Have you something, Mr. Jackson?

Mr. JACKSON. I cannot see the analogy as between Public Health Service appropriation and this appropriation.

After all, the Congress has every confidence in the United States Public Health Service. It has done a fine job. We have not the complexities to face with the Public Health Service that we have with an organization of this kind, in view of the world condition, and in view of the temper of the Congress.

I think that it would be fatal to take to the floor of the House a measure requesting $3,000,000 when the budget is set up for $1,900,000.

Mr. JUDD. The budget would still be $1,900,000 for this year, but this would merely say that in future years, it cannot go beyond $3,000,000 without coming back to this committee. Every other year they would have to justify it before the Appropriations Committee.

Mrs. BOLTON. I do not think we had a clear understanding of that and what it meant. The point of that was that the budget is just as it is.

Mr. JUDD. The President sent the amount down in his budget, did he not?

Mrs. BOLTON. The point was, in ordinary circumstances, if we did not put such a clause in, this committee would never see it again.

Mr. JACKSON. You mean where we now have $2,000,000 it should be $3,000,000?

Mrs. BOLTON. Yes.

Dr. PARRAN. Which is precisely the point I make, Madam Chairman. Mrs. BOLTON. It does not affect the annual budget at all, but it says when it gets to $3,000,000, it has to come back for further approval. Mr. JUDD. They still have to make their justification each year before the Appropriations Committee, but the Appropriations Committee, no matter how good a case was made out, could not authorize over $3,000,000, without the matter first coming back to this committee. Mr. JACKSON. What figure goes into this legislation?

Mrs. BOLTON. Would you please explain that again, Mr. Judd.
Mr. JUDD. There is no figure in the legislation as is.

Mr. JACKSON. There is an amendment, which states that the sum is not to exceed $2,000,000.

Mr. JUDD. Which Dr. Parran suggests be changed to $3,000,000. Mr. JACKSON. Now back to my original point, this budget breakdown, of which 40 percent is to be assumed by the United States, as closely as can be estimated, is $1,900,000.

Mrs. BOLTON. That is right, for this year; the first year.

Mr. JACKSON. That is right. If "not to exceed $3,000,000" is placed in the bill.

Mr. JUDD. For any future budget. That does not change this year's limitation.

Mr. JACKSON. Does the amendment not place it at $2,000,000, Mr. Petty?

Mr. PETTY. The subcommittee decided it preferred the $2,000,000 figure to a $2,500,000 figure.

Mr. JUDD. That $2,000,000 figure or whatever the figure may be, does not change this budget for this year. It merely says any future budget cannot go beyond that figure, without that figure being approved by this committee.

Mrs. BOLTON. They cannot stop with the Appropriations Committee. Mr. JACKSON. I understand that. In the legislation we are now considering, House joint resolution 161, is it contemplated to insert a figure that cannot be exceeded for this next year?

Mr. JUDD. Or for any future year?

Mr. JACKSON. For the next year?

Mr. JUDD. I think not.

Mr. JACKSON. Then I misunderstand the purpose of the amendment we have had under discussion which limits the expenditure to $2,000,000 without additional authorization.

Mr. PETTY. There is another question involved here where Mr. Mundt suggested inserting the word "annual" and the term "for 1 year," in the amendment we previously drafted. That would make it apply to the next year only.

Mr. JACKSON. What is the figure?

Mr. PETTY. We had not yet settled on any given figure.

A figure

of $1,600,000 was suggested by Mr. Fulton, on the basis of cutting out. average fund.

the

The figure of $2,000,000 was discussed, mainly to discuss the principle rather than to discuss the figure and I don't think we had gotten down to a practical meeting as yet as to what the figure should be. Mr. JACKSON. But we have prepared an amendment.

Mr. PETTY. I have been using the figure $2,000,000 since the subcommittee meeting at which the chairman and yourself expressed an opinion on it.

Mr. JUDD. Could some language with this meaning be worked out? "The appropriation for the first fiscal year shall not be in excess of $2,000,000, and in any subsequent year, in excess of $3,000,000, without authorization from this committee."

Mr. PETTY. I should think that would be practical.

Mr. JUDD. Then they could get more than $2,000,000 this year.

Mr. JACKSON. That is right. Here we have in black and white, a break-down indicating that it is anticipated that the cost of this program to the United States will not be in excess of 40 percent, or $1,920,000. If we go to the floor with any figure in excess of that, we are going right through the Voice of America again.

Mr. JUDD. I do not think that necessarily follows, because the two programs are not at all alike.

This committee report showing the break-down of $1,920,000 has the figure the Appropriations Committee will go on. It will not

give them more than that this first year. You can be dead sure of that. And we are not asking any more.

I would still prefer just the limitation that in any year hereafter it cannot go beyond $3,000,000 without renewed authorization.

Mr. JACKSON. I certainly think we strengthen our hand by writing in such a provision.

Mr. JUDD. Although I do not object to putting in that it cannot be over $2,000,000 this first year and in any subsequent year more than $3,000,000, or even $2,500,000, without this committee's authorization.

I agree with Dr. Parran that there is no use going into it at all unless we give it a chance to succeed. That requires time and a certain amount of leeway on funds. With all the malnutrition and poor sanitation around the world it will be a miracle if we do not get some epidemics around the world in the near future. How the Lord took care of us in the last 5 or 6 years, without a major epidemic, I do not know.

It will be a miracle if there is not one in the next 5 years. I do not think you ought to set this up and then hamstring it.

I think this ought to be thrashed out thoroughly.

Mr. BOLTON. How does that seem as a possibility, Dr. Parran? Dr. PARRAN. I appreciate the very valid point Mr. Jackson has made and I still adhere to the advisability of having a ceiling at $3,000,000. Therefore, I think the suggestion by Dr. Judd is an excellent one.

I would hope that language could be worked out along the lines suggested by Dr. Judd, which would place a ceiling on the appropriation for the first fiscal year, the initial appropriation of, let us say $2,000,000, and then no subsequent annual appropriation may exceed $3,000,000 without new authorization from this committee.

Mr. JACKSON. I have no desire to be niggardly. However, I still recognize the practical handicaps that we shall face because I have been through 3 weeks of practical handicaps and obstacles and I do not want to go into another fight like that if we can avoid it.

Mr. MORGAN. Madam Chairman, I think that should be worked out in executive session.

Mrs. BOLTON. What we wanted was the opinion of these gentlemen on the matter of what they saw as possible dangers to the whole matter. If we cut it too low, we wanted their frank expression, and I think we have it.

Dr. HYDE. I think we have covered my points.

Mrs. BOLTON. There were a number of questions asked in committee the other day which seemed to be more in your bailiwick, Mr. Sandifer. STATEMENT OF DURWARD V. SANDIFER, ACTING LEGISLATIVE

COUNSEL, STATE DEPARTMENT

Mr. SANDIFER. That is a question here on this list as to the provisions in the third section of the resolution, on page 3. The substance of the question, is whether it would be possible, in this language concerning travel expenses and allowances for living quarters, and cost of living allowances and so on, to use the language that has been adopted in the IRO resolution.

Now the reason for the difference in this resolution, is that the IRO resolution refers to the United Nations Participation Act and adopts

the language of the United Nations Participation Act, and there are certain technical deficiencies in the United Nations Participation Act. We have had in mind asking for an amendment of that act for this session, but for various reasons it has not yet been possible to do that. We had used this different language here, rather than referring to the Participation Act.

So that we won't have to go into this in detail here, I think that I might say that Mr. Petty discussed with Mr. Lyerly, from the Budget Office of the State Department, the question of this language before this meeting; and they are in favor of adopting the IRO language, with a little variation, so you could go to the House with the language recently adopted for the IRO.

Mrs. BOLTON. I think we have that language set for the committee in executive session.

Mr. SANDIFER. You have a question: "What part of the State Department controls or coordinates the United States participation in the World Health Organization?"

There are two offices in the State Department which are concerned with the World Health Organization: There is the Division of International Labor, Health, and Social Affairs. Then, in addition, there is an office called the Office of Special Political Affairs. It is really an Office of United Nations Affairs; and the Office of United Nations Affairs deals with the matters of organization and coordination of United States activities and participation in the United Nations and in the specialized agencies.

The substance, the subject matter, the day to day operating work of the World Health Organization is a matter of primary concern to the International Labor and Health Division.

Now, those two offices, between them, carry on the work of the Department and cooperate within the Department with respect to United States participation in this organization; and they work very closely together. They have cooperated very closely in carrying

this on.

Our related question to that which is asked here is, "How does it coordinate this with the United States participation in other international agencies having health activities?"

I have already answered that partly, in that it is done with the general coordination and direction of the American participation in international organizations, which is handled by the Office of Political Affairs and its divisions, so that the delegations receive instructions from a common point; and this is worked out with the other agencies of the Government that are interested. In the case of the World Health Organization, that is the United States Public Health Service, primarily. The coordination between the Public Health Service and the Department has been extremely close. People from the Public Health Service have been working with the International Labor and Health Division in the Department, during the period of the development of this organization and are working there now. Dr. Hyde is working with the Department on that basis. I think in this particular case, so far as the coordination of the interested agencies of this Government is concerned, it is unusually good in this field of public health, better than it is in some other cases. Mr. JACKSON. May I interrupt just for a question?

Mr. SANDIFER. Yes.

Mr. JACKSON. What provision is made to correlate the studentexchange activities of all these different bills, the Mundt bill, the World Health bill-in general, wherever there are fellowships and exchanges on an international scale-what steps are being taken to prevent overlapping and to generally bring these programs together! Mr. SANDIFER. That would have to be done in the Office of Political Affairs, acting as a central coordinating agency to bring together parts of the Department and other parts of the Government which are interested in this subject. For instance, in the Mundt bill there is provision for student exchanges and for some fellowships; and that is handled primarily on the substantive side, in the actual preparation of plans for carrying out provisions of that bill, by the Office of Information and Culture in the State Department. The tie-in would have to come through the Office of Special Political Affairs, in bringing together the people who are concerned with these different programs; that is, so far as this Government is concerned.

Mr. JACKSON. There would be a centralized agency whereby it would be possible to tell at any time how many American students were participating in any of the program abroad, and conversely how many foreign students were in this country on any and all the programs. Mr. SANDIFER. Yes, sir.

Mr. JACKSON. I think that is a matter of great importance.
Mr. SANDIFER. Yes, it certainly is.

Mr. JACKSON. There should be a high degree coordination in that respect.

Mr. SANDIFER. That will very definitely be taken care of. It is very important.

Mrs. BOLTON. Are there any further questions on that?

Mr. SANDIFER. There is a question here which I think Dr. Parran has already answered, as to whether a member state can withdraw from the World Health Organization. He has commented on the Senate amendment to that provision.

Mr. JUDD. Was that the only amendment put in in the Senate?

Mr. SANDIFER. Yes. I might say in passing that we are fully in agreement with Dr. Judd's views that 90 days is too short, but we are especially concerned with the point Dr. Parran made as to the need for urgent action; and we don't think this is important enough to raise a question on at this time.

Dr. PARRAN. Madam Chairman, if Mr. Sandifer will allow a supplement to that answer, I understand there is no precedent in any international agreement establishing a public international organization, of which the United States is a member, for a withdrawal period of less than 1 year. One year is a minimum period for the notice of withdrawal.

Dr. HYDE. The 90-day provision is very hard on the Organization. It doesn't give it time to adjust itself to its program for another year. It does not have time to reassess its program in the light of the withdrawal of one of its principal members.

Mr. SANDIFER. There is another question here which was raised in section 2 of the bill. The question was raised as to whether the word "such" could be struck out on page 2, line 16. The purpose of that "such" there, as I understand it, was to provide that if officers of the Government, Members of the Senate or the House or other officers