all the energy and charity that the emergency of the civil war has called forth, among Americans and peoples throughout the world.

And so today, as an individual concerned about the dignity and preservation of the ultimate resources on our planet, I appeal to the leaders of Pakistan, to the leaders of other countries, and to our own Government to support immediately a mercy mission and airlift into areas of need. And, hopefully, the appeal of the Indian Government for assistance to meet refugee needs within her borders will also receive the sympathetic response of all concerned.

We are conditioned in this world we have created to accept suffering and injustice-especially in our time when violent conflict and oppression are active in so many areas. But the newer world we seek will not evolve if we ignore these challenges to leadership, and take comfortable refuge in the mundane patterns and attitudes of the past.

In the case of East Pakistan-in the effort to help a people caught in the clutches of natural disaster and the passion of conflict-I cannot believe that governments stand paralyzed in the face of great tragedy. The situation must not be ignored. At stake are human lives innocent lives-Pakistani lives-thousands, even millions of lives-whose destruction will burden the conscience of all mankind unless something is done to save them.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, summarizing some of the thoughts that I have on this situation. I am extremely hopeful-as we look at the problem in India and Pakistan, and think back to the Nigerian-Biafran situation, to the other kinds of disasters which have taken place in Chile, Indochina, Tunisia, and so forth-that we consider the development of a Bureau of Social and Humanitarian Service in the State Department.

This was recommended in a report by our subcommittee back in 1969. Hopefully, a bureau of this kind would be able to focus in a more meaningful way on humanitarian concerns within the Department of State, and give some visibility, as well as responsible authority, at a high level of government, to matters of great concern to the American people. I don't really think that we have got any such office within the Department.

I would also be hopeful that we might be able to do more in developing a U.N. Emergency Relief Service, which I first recommended in 1969. Encouraging progress, as I understand, was made in terms of this idea last December, when the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution creating an Office of Inter-Agency Affairs under the Secretary General.

The purpose of this office is to organize international relief efforts in disaster areas. To expand and support this new office deserves high priority in the councils of Government. And I would hope, once again, that the kind of situation presented in India and Pakistan would add new impetus for our own Government at least. I think that concludes my comment.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you very much, Senator, for your very concise and knowledgeable statement and for giving this subcommittee the benefit of information about the factual situation that your subcommittee has developed in connection with the humanitarian aspects of the tragedy that is now occurring in Pakistan.

I believe that your suggestion for a bureau focusing on humanitarian aspects in the Department of State is certainly worthy of consideration by the full committee here in the House.

63-112-71- -2

I understand that you do have to return to the Senate rather promptly to take up a matter which I have been rather personally interested in: a national commitment to cure cancer in this decade. It is not our intention to detain you.

I would wonder, however, Senator, whether if fighting does break out, has your subcommittee considered or have you considered what additional steps, if any, the others should take?

Senator KENNEDY. Well, we haven't. We really haven't gotten into it. As I understand, there is continued conflict within East Pakistan. It is my further understanding that the Government has control of the more urban areas. In many of the communications centers, it does have control.

There is a need for transport facilities to move food. We've checked into this and found that air transportation could be used to a greater extent. There ought to be more direction in terms of even the equipment that has been provided to the area, and not utilized, in response to the cyclone needs last fall.

But you know, if there were increased armed conflict, obviously, this would present very extensive additional kinds of problems. However, I think even then, looking at past experiences in Biafra and even Vietnam, there are various relief groups that might be able to operate.

I am thinking of the Quakers, for example, in Quang Ngai, who have operated a small clinical hospital fitting prosthetic devices, and so forth-which has existed there untouched over a long period of time. It is risky, it is dangerous, and it is threatening to do this. But I think that there are individuals motivated in these various voluntary agencies that would be prepared, if they were given the kind of support that I think should be given to them-be prepared to assume those risks, if they thought they could make a meaningful humanitarian contribution in the conflict

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. du Pont.

Mr. DU PONT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator, I appreciate you spending your time with us today to bring us up to date on your thoughts on the problem.

I have two questions. Specifically, you stated that you thought that the United States had some leverage to be applied, perhaps, to persuade the Pakistani Government to take more action to help with this serious problem. Specifically, what do you have in mind there? What would you say?

Senator KENNEDY. I am thinking of the very critical financial situation that Pakistan finds itself in. It is on the verge of bankruptcy. They have a critical financial situation.

We are continuing, of course, our economic aid to Pakistan. We have withheld military aid, and it is my understanding that will continue for a period of time.

And in the last few days, in terms of a resolution reported out by the Foreign Relations Committee-they put a condition on military aid. It would be withheld, unless we get a normalization in East Pakistan and relief efforts of significant dimensions are started in there.

I would hope that we consider that latter question independently. But as we are providing economic aid and assistance, I do think that that provides a leverage in terms of our relationships with Pakistan,

in order to dramatize and emphasize the significance of the humanitarian aspect of the present conflict. We should put a very high priority, in terms of human life, and the humanitarian efforts of individual volunteer agencies, other international agencies.

Now, as you are well aware, there are those, perhaps over on this side, in the Senate as well, that feel that we ought to cut off all economic aid to Pakistan. I am not one that would support that proposal. But we do have some leverage and we ought to use it in the interest of getting an urgently needed relief program underway. Humanitarian relief should be very high on any agenda we have for talks with Pakistan Government representatives. If we really did this, I think a great deal more could be done.

Mr. DU PONT. Well, Senator, I tend to agree that one of the most appropriate ways we could bring relief in this type of a situation is through stronger action by the United States. The President, as I am sure you are aware, in his Foreign Aid Reorganization program, has suggested that we disassociate military and economic aid, and specifically, that we put humanitarian assistance in a special category by itself. Do you feel that adoption of this kind of a proposal would be advantageous to deal with a situation such as this?

Senator KENNEDY. I certainly do. I must say, with some satisfaction, we made that recommendation, our subcommittee, over two and a half years ago. I think it is a sound one. I hope we can get support for it. I think it makes a great deal of sense. And I hope not only we do that here within our own system, but that we would set up a similar program at the United Nations, and support that strongly as well.

Mr. DU PONT. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you, Mr. du Pont.

I might say in passing, Mr. du Pont, that it was very interesting to sit here and listen to a Kennedy and a du Pont discuss the possibilities of bankruptcy.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Murphy?

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Kennedy, I, too, would like to thank you for bringing to the attention of this subcommittee this problem in East Pakistan. I am wondering, Senator, do you or any members of your staff have any idea of an appropriate amount to aid East Pakistan with or give to India to take care of these refugees?

Senator KENNEDY. No, I wouldn't be prepared now to try and give you any dollar figure. I think it is more in terms-I don't know how to evaluate a C-130 and additional kinds of helicopter support that might be made available.

Our efforts have always been in support of governmental or international agencies that have made aid requests. We have never tried to say, well, we think that there is an overall kind of a figure.

What we have tried to do is work with the various voluntary and other agencies that say we can utilize so much food or tin roofing or certain kinds of transportation. Then what I and the subcommittee have always tried to do is to see if we can get a positive response, assuming, of course, that the agencies' request is valid.

The Indian Government has made some requests. They have only gotten two and a half million dollars, from the administration.

Now, what I would say is that two and a half million dollars is not an adequate response. If you were to say, well, "would $20 million

be?" or something or the other, I would rather leave those specifics to the volunteer agencies and the Government of India.

Mr. MURPHY. Also, in your statement, Senator, I know that you make mention of the fact that U.S. arms are being used in this civil

war.

Senator KENNEDY. That is right.

Mr. MURPHY. Would you favor a cutoff of these arms?
Senator KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. MURPHY. To East Pakistan?

Senator KENNEDY. Yes, at least until we have gotten the relief agencies going. And then I really think we ought to make an in-depth review of security questions in that part of the world. That ought to be something which obviously this committee is interested in, but I wouldn't begin to make a judgment on the outcome at this point. But I do favor and have favored and urged in the early days that we have a complete halt of arms to Pakistan at this time.

Mr. MURPHY. What assurances, Senator, do we have? I know on Biafra, when we went to its aid, a lot of the supplies didn't reach the people in question.

Senator KENNEDY. That is right. That is very true.

Mr. MURPHY. What steps could we take, in your judgment, to assure that if we do get involved in any substantial manner the aid does reach the people?

Senator KENNEDY. This is always an enormously difficult problem. We have it in terms of Vietnam too, where in excess of a third of the piaster payments for refugees disappear between the time of allocation and the time of receipt. This is something that is very real.

Now, I think the volunteer agencies record on this generally has been enormously creditable. They have great kinds of problems, and they are accentuated at the time of mass starvation, and one can readily understand this.

But I think that the record of the volunteer agencies is creditable in this area.

So I think this is an administrative problem. I think we have to be somewhat understanding about this. And I think the nature of many humanitarian problems is sufficient to compel us to respond in a positive way.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Whalley.

Mr. WHALLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your statement, Senator Kennedy.

You say there are nearly two million refugees in India, with another 50,000 added every day. The United States bas given $2 million in assistance. What does it cost to keep 2 million refugees per week?

Senator KENNEDY. It is awfully difficult, Congressman. The Indian estimate is approximately 50 cents a day. I would think that would be high. But that is their estimate. I do feel that our $2 million contribution is woefully inadequate.

Mr. WHALLEY. Do you think these people will eventually go back to Pakistan?

Senator KENNEDY. Well, there are some very serious, as I understand, questions in the Indian Government's mind whether they will. As I understand, there is increasing relocation of West Pakistanis into

East Pakistan so as to move into the areas the refugees have left-to try and bring about settlements that will be more loyal to the central government.

There are enormous kinds of religious questions involving Moslems and Hindus, and other kinds of social questions.

I think people generally desire to return to their homes, when there is a cessation of hostilities. There has been this tradition in other problems. I would generally think that that is true here. But I wouldn't be able to add anything more to it than I have.

Mr. WHALLEY. Your statement shows that 526,000 people are in camps. How about the other million and a half refugees? Do people take them into their homes?

Senator KENNEDY. Well, there are camps that have been set up. They are emergency kinds of facilities at best. The refugees not in them are sort of setting up whatever kind of shelter that they can, focusing around feeding areas and centers, and so forth.

Camps, I suppose, is just sort of a descriptive word. I don't think it describes what one would normally think of as a refugee camp, in terms of water supply, a school, latrines-in terms of the six or seven different criteria which are normally associated with a refugee center. They are camps as in the loosest frame of the word.

Mr. WHALLEY. Is India contributing directly?

Senator KENNEDY. They are paying the whole thing, outside of the $22 million. They are supporting the whole feeding process at the present time to the extent they can. That is my understanding.

Mr. WHALLEY. Are other countries volunteering help, financially or with food?

Senator KENNEDY. Well, there has been some contribution. I understand it has been rather of a minimum nature. I would like to be able to submit that if I can find it out. I would like to be able to submit that later. I understand there is some. It hasn't been of a significant dimension, as of today.

(The information to be supplied follows:)

Contributions of other countries and international agencies to relief for Pakistani refugees in India

(Source: Department of State)

1. Australia: Australian Catholic Relief

2. Belgium: Government...

3. Canada: Food, medicine, and cash to UNHCR.

4. Germany: 1,000,000 DM to UNHCR.

5. Ireland.

6. Japan:

Milk powder (61 t.), vitamin tablets (10,000,000).
Rice..

7. Luxembourg.

8. New Zealand: CORSO.

9. The Netherlands: 100,000 guilders to ICRC and UNHCR

$5,000 11, 333 2, 000, 000 300, 000

7, 200

1, 390, 000 3, 000, 000

453 5,000 28, 000

12. Sweden: Swedish Red Cross-6.5 tons of medicines, 245 tents,

8,640 sweaters (approximate value)..

(1)

60, 000 493

128,000

2, 000, 000 10, 000, 000

1 Unknown.