In the course of two and a half years of work, these three organizations, working with the government that put in tremendous amounts of time and money-you must realize, much more than the international organizations did-in the course of two and a half years a very wide tract of land was cleared out of the jungle, was liberated from the mosquitoes and malaria, and people began to move in to provide the crops or to develop the crops.

The last information I had on this was that wheat is being grown in large quantities, sugarcane is being grown, and the FAO has given advice to the Government on the construction of a sugarcane mill to produce the sugar.

Now, here is an example of how the international organizations are working together. It really started out through a very small request by the Government of India to one of the specialized agencies. They saw the opportunity and saw that as they could work this thing out together with the others, that the program could go forward.

I think that there is tremendous effort not only to avoid overlapping, but also to join in helping the governments and doing the best job by

these countries.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Judd——

Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, as the one responsible for the original appropriation for this program, I naturally have been interested in it. Secondly, as one who was bitterly resentful of what the gentleman from Ohio has described as the arrogant defiance of our representatives to UNICEF of the plain intent of Congress, I want to recognize a third step and to compliment the organization for some housekeeping that has been done. The change in policies, I think largely as a result of protests from this committee, even though they did not have immediate effect, did have some long-range effect.

I myself believe that we would be foolish, from the standpoint of the well-being of our country, to reduce this appropriation in view of the amounts we are spending for other purposes and the propaganda value to the enemy of our cutting out this appropriation. It is the program where we are getting the most for the amount we are putting in, in good will and value received, of all the things we are doing, in my judgment.

I want to follow that with a specific comment or two: I am particularly pleased that the supplementary feeding has been reduced from two-thirds of the total budget as it was during the first 4 years of the program, to one-fourth for 1952. That is, the supplementary feedings have come down to one-fourth, insetad of being two-thirds of the budget.

Finally, they have been able to eliminate entirely the items for clothing, shoes, blankets, and things of that sort.

That is the direction in which it ought to go. It has been made possible partly by improved situations and partly by the change in emphasis and partly by the change in certain personnel who were not cooperative, or effective.

I would like to ask two questions. On page 1 of this schedule is an item, "Local contributions by governments receiving aid." What does that include? Does it include only dollars in their budget? What other factors go into making up, for example, the $204 million reported as contributions by them?

I do not care who answers, but how do you get that figure? What all is included?

Mr. HENDERSON. May I reply to that, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Yes.

Mr. HENDERSON. That is made up of the value of the local contribution made by governments in receipt of UNICEF aid. It is composed generally of office space, locally furnished personnel supplies that may be purchased mostly in the currency of the recipient country, local transportation, and other things of that nature.

Mr. JUDD. Does it represent actual expenditures by the governments receiving aid, or does it represent book entries or estimates of the value of a lot of voluntary services by people to which the government did not actually contribute a cent out of its budget?

Mr. HENDERSON. It represents costs to the government.

It may be in part the value of services furnished but the costs of these services are paid by the government.

Mr. JUDD. If the government gave you a freight car to bring in some goods, it would not actually pay out in dollars or lira or francs, but it would list as a contribution the cost of that transportation. Mr. HENDERSON. That is right.

Mr. JUDD. It does not include volunteers who operate an agency and help pass out the milk, and so forth?

Mr. HENDERSON. That is correct.

Dr. ELIOT. There is a great deal of that in addition.

Mr. JUDD. I know that and I wondered whether that was included in this figure.

There is a note at the bottom of that page, "Contributions from private sources."

Do you know offhand what that is? That is like the money Mary Lord's committee was raising. Do you know how much they got? From all sources, churches, bazaars, and whatever they might be.

Mr. HENDERSON. I am sorry, sir, I do not have that.

Dr. ELIOT. It was about $2.5 million, all together. There was very little from the United States, comparatively.

Mr. JUDD. It would be very useful to have that figure. "Income from investments." What is that?

Dr. ELIOT. That is the interest on the funds that accrues while they are holding them.

Mr. JUDD. Over on the last page there is "Supplies for MCW centers, $4,625,000." That is the single biggest item."

I gather from your statement, Dr. Eliot, that that is primarily permanent material, such as equipment of the centers, scales, and thermometers or incubators, possibly including pasteurizing machines for milk and other items.

Dr. ELIOT. This particular item does not include that.

There is another item that may include the pasteurizing.
Mr. JUDD. Like the milk-conservation program?

Dr. ELIOT. That is right. This would include scales, midwife kits to give to the local midwives, nurses' materials, nurses' bags and so on. It includes occasionally a refrigerator in which you may keep vaccines. It includes equipment to sterilize instruments. It includes materials such as drugs, soap, sometimes fish liver oil for these maternal and child welfare centers.

33064-53-75

Mr. JUDD. That gives the record the information we ought to have on that point.

I have one other question: Do you have in some countries, or in how many countries in connection with your maternal welfare centers, birth control information and education?

Dr. ELIOT. I could not answer that specifically, Mr. Congressman, but I would say that by and large that is not in the picture at this time. Mr. JUDD. Do you not think it ought to be?

Dr. ELIOT. I think in many countries that want to develop that program.

Mr. JUDD. Of course, we should not urge it on people who are against it, but surely that is part of maternal care, because it is not good that these women have babies as often as the biological processes will permit. Many are 65 years old biologically when they are 35, chronologically.

Dr. ELIOT. That is a policy for the country itself to determine. Mr. JUDD. Would you be adverse to assisting them in such programs if the countries themselves favored it?

Dr. ELIOT. So far as I know, no policy has been taken on that as yet, by UNICEF.

Mr. JUDD. I think it would be one of the things which UNICEF might press a little bit as a part of its care for mothers and children. Such overpopulation and such rapid births are bad both for the mothers and the children.

Thank you.

Mr. WOOD. Could we put into the record the answer to Mr. Vorys' question about the United States Army, Department of Defense expenditure for economic assistance for disease and unrest in Korea?

Mr. Halaby is prepared to answer the question which Mr. Vorys asked earlier.

STATEMENT OF HON. N. E. HALABY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS

Mr. HALABY. I am not familiar with the testimony this morning, Mr. Chairman, but I understand that you want to have for the record, and for your own information, what the Army has administered, what the Defense Department has administered, there.

There are several types of assistance that have been provided and I will go right down the list and give you the dollar amount of each. In the fall of 1950, ECA transferred to Army for administration, $21 million worth of ECA funds. Later ECA transferred about $5 million worth of ECA supplies. The Army has transferred out of its stock, $55 million, and out of surplus Army stocks, $35 million. There have been private donations which the Army has administered, of about $38 million.

Now, all of that is separated from Army appropriations. The Army appropriations for fiscal year 1951, and fiscal year 1952, were $275 million. That totals $430 million worth of supplies and appropriations. Of that amount, all of the ECA money has been spent. All of the supplies, the Army supply funds, have been used. The private donation money has been spent, and there remains unspent out of the Army appropriations of $275 million, about $106 million, on April 30, 1953.

Of that $106 million unexpended Army appropriations, which by the way were made available on June 30, 1953, even though appropriated in fiscal year 1952, $50 million, approximately, is fully obligated and $56 million is not technically obligated, but is committed for supplies.

Now the current rate of expenditures for these relief supplies is $15 million a month. That means that in the last 2 months of this fiscal year they will have reduced their unexpended balance from $106 million to approximately $75 million. $75 million is therefore a pipeline of about 5 months' worth of civilian relief supplies for Korea. That was taken into account and integrated with the request for UNKRA.

Mr. VORYS. Now, I tried to get the figure of what the Army had spent there. Not from 1950, but what they had spent in Korea since 1945, for civilian relief in Korea.

Will you get that, please?

Mr. HALABY. Yes, sir. This is the postwar picture. This starts in June 1950 and will go forward from there.

Mr. VORYS. I wanted a picture to show postwar expenditures in Korea to compare the load of postwar expenditures that the United States itself has made with the possible postwar expenditures that the United Nations might make under UNKRA.

Mr. WOOD. Let me take the blame for this. I understood you wanted expenditures since the start of the Korean war. I did not properly pass your message on to Mr. Halaby.

Mr. VORYS. In order that the Congress can determine whether it might be wiser to proceed through an international organization, it might be helpful to them to know what we have spent postwar. Mr. JUDD. Post-World War II?

Mr. VORYS. That is right.

Mr. JUDD. He thought you meant postoutbreak of World War III in Korea.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Henderson, did you want to add something?

Mr. HENDERSON. If I may, and I promise to be very brief, with respect to the children's welfare activities. I am told in answer to a question, that cumulative contributions from private sources to UNICEF through December 31, 1952, total $12,823,311, of which total $855,000 came from United States private organizations.

Mr. JUDD. Is that made up of money or does that include services? Mr. HENDERSON. It includes both, sir.

The other point, Mr. Chairman: The current authorization under which our payments, our contributions to UNICEF are made, prescribes that those contributions shall be limited to one-third of the total resources available to the Children's Fund, which are inclusive of these local country contributions.

I only wanted, if I may, to call the committee's attention to two facts. One is that from the data that you have before you, the local contributions are running about 212 to 1, to the contributions of governments to the central fund. Secondly, cumulatively, since the beginning of the program, United States contributions to the central fund ran about 70 percent. Our contributions to the whole, including the contributions made by recipient governments, run about 30 per

cent.

With respect to the $9 million request which is now before you, we have not proposed the continuation of the present limitation of onethird, including the local resources, for the reason that these local contributions are running so heavy.

It is our feeling, and I have been asked to put this before the committee, if I may, for your earnest consideration, that it is better for the limitation on our contribution to be in the terms of the moneys paid in to the central fund, exclusive of the local contributions, because in that way we are able to provide more of an inducement to other governments to make contributions to the central fund.

We propose, sir, that we make our contributions to the UNICEF central fund in the same manner that we now make our contributions to the U. N. technical assistance fund, namely, to limit those to 60 percent of that total. We will still be well under the third, taking into account the local recipient country contributions, but, as I mentioned, it seems to us that we are able to persuade and induce other governments to make these contributions to the central fund better this way than under the present formula.

Mr. BENTLEY. Do I understand, then, that this $9 million is to be roughly 60 percent of the entire amount contributed to the central account?

Mr. HENDERSON. It would be, sir, not more than that.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of putting the answer to Mr. Vorys' question into the record?

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. You may.

Mrs. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I am in receipt of a letter dated May 28, 1953, from Rabbi David Polish with regard to the request of the President for relief and rehabilitation of refugees and for maintaining economic and political stability in the Near East.

If there are no objections, I would like to have this printed in the

record.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Without objection, the letter referred to will be included in the record.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

BETH EMET, THE FREE SYNAGOGUE,
Evanston, Ill., May 28, 1953.

Congresswoman MARGUERITE STITT CHURCH,
House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR CONGRESSWOMAN CHURCH: I am writing to you in your capacity as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to bespeak your interest and good offices in behalf of the Mutual Security Program in the Near East. As you well know, the authorization of the $5.8 billion Mutual Security Program submitted by the President requested $194 million for economic development, for relief and rehabilitation of refugees, and for maintaining economic and political stability in the Near East. The administration also proposes to spend $469 million for military assistance to the Near East, with safeguards designed to prevent aggression within the area.

These authorizations will (1) help Israel complete its humanitarian task of settling the more than 700,000 refugees who have found sanctuary in the new state; (2) help the United Nations program to resettle a similar number of Palestinian Arab refugees in the Arab States; (3) raise living standards and improve the health of large numbers of men, women, and children in the Arab countries, and give them an incentive to join in the defense of freedom: (4) strengthen the defenses of the Near East, give concrete expression of American friendship for all the peoples of the region and stimulate peace by encouraging regional cooperation for economic development and defense.