The pump comes from the Johnson Pump Co. in California. Mr. JAVITS. What does the State Department say as to the political justification for this size program in Pakistan, and what are the alternatives?

As I understand it, from Mr. Andrews, if we do not have economic aid then technical assistance is cut down 50 percent and is not very consequential.

If we are going to have this program, what is the alternative that faces us if we do not put up the money for both economic and technical assistance?

Mr. WOOD. I am glad you asked that question. It seems to me that a far better answer was given to that yesterday by Secretary Dulles and Mr. Stassen than I could give. I could recapitulate it very briefly. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Javits is an excellent witness himself." Mr. Wood. Mr. Dulles, I think quite eloquently and yet in a very down-to-earth way, pointed out yesterday this great border facing on the Soviet Union.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. WOOD. They finally came to the conclusion that there were two rather strong points in the area on this 5,000 mile border of this area with the Soviet Union and its satellites, one of them on the west, Turkey and the other on east, Pakistan. And there was the strategic and political basis for our interest in Pakistan or Turkey or any of these other areas.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. WOOD. Would you like me to do that now or at some later time? Chairman CHIPERFIELD. We have heard much about the instability of the Near East. Yet we are asked to give military aid to that area. I doubt if that will be done.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, General Stewart did cover that point. I think perhaps it was not made entirely clear that this is asked as an availability for use in any of these countries if we do succeed in developing somewhat greater stability

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. I wonder if there is a chance.

Mr. Wood. It may not be used but again it seems to me, as I said to Mr. Smith in response to a question that he asked the other day, that it would be most desirable if we could develop a situation where it would be useful to further increase the security forces in these areas to prevent subversion, to maintain public order, and to start on the course of developing an ability to resist aggression. Under these circumstances, I believe that we would be derelict in our duty to be watchful of the interests of the security of the United States, if we failed to recommend the inclusion of funds that might be used to further such an end. We ought to recommend to the Congress and let it decide whether it wishes a program for this purpose to be carried out. Unless it was in the security interests of this country and unless our military, our State Department, and our Central Intelligence Agency people felt that the use of this fund for this purpose in these countries would be desirable and safe, it would not be so used.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. I am sorry I got off the subject.
Mr. WOOD. Let me get back to the question.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. I heard Secretary Dulles and Mr. Stassen yesterday cover the subject after an on-the-spot examination, I heard them tell us that it was not possible.

Mr. WOOD. If it is not possible it will not be done.

Mr. MERROW. Turning to technical assistance, as I understand it, there are only three countries, India, Pakistan, and Iran, who are to have special developmental aid.

Mr. GARDINER. We have asked for additional funds for the Arab States and Israel.

Mr. MERROW. $140 million outside of technical aid.

This special developmental economic aid I thought was applied to these three countries. You said developmental assistance-someone made the statement here that India, Pakistan, and Iran were involved.

Mr. GARDINER. I think yesterday it dramatically was expressed the interest we have in the southern border of Russia. There is 5,000 miles of border and there is a common thread that runs through there of interest to us. As Mr. Stassen pointed out, sir, in a sense India and Pakistan are in competition with a different form of government in China. They feel that it is necessary to help the Indian Government, which is a free government, develop its resources more speedily than they can be developed with funds and other elements available to India and Pakistan. They have the same feeling and in the Arab States and in Israel, In Israel and the Arab States, as you know, there is an additional element there. We are cleaning up, if you like, the aftermath of war or conflict. We have great pressures of population who are penniless and who cannot hope to survive unless they are helped with outside skills.

My understanding of the testimony of the Secretary and Mr. Stassen was-I was present in the room yesterday-that they supported this program in the sums that it be presented for economic aid.

Now, there is special reference to these sums, Mr. Merrow: Page 11 of the basic data book indicates a request for the Arab States, Israel, and Iran, of $140 million, of which we have illustrated in the TCA presentation, $10 million to supplement technical assistance to Iran. The balance of the funds would be available to Israel and the Arab States.

In addition to the technical assistance funds which have been requested for India and Pakistan, there is a sum of $94 million of special economic assistance for India and Pakistan and the purpose of that money is to make it possible for the governments in all these countries to move ahead more rapidly with economic development, improving the lot of their people, than they could otherwise, and we feel that the sands of time may be running against us.

Mr. MERROW. In reference to that breakdown in Pakistan, since we were talking about it, if I recall the figures correctly, $16 million is involved for this coming year for technical assistance.

Mr. ANDREWs. About 13, sir.

Twenty-seven and a half million dollars is the total Pakistan

program.

Mr. MERROW. At the end of this fiscal year there will be $1 million left over from what we have provided in technical assistance last year. Now, the TCA funds that went to Pakistan, India, and the other countries, but we will take Pakistan-some of these funds were used for economic development, apart from the pure technical assistance.

Now, since all of that was not used up this current fiscal year-and we are asking for an increase up to $13 million-we had $1 million

left over-and then $17 million more-I just question the capacity to absorb. I do not know that I question the need, but I do not think that more money ought to be given to these countries than they can absorb and I wish you would speak to that. There is a tremendous inincrease in Pakistan over anything that they had this year or the past year. In addition to that in this whole Pakistan situation, we are asked to provide $70 million more for wheat, so we are getting into $100 million in this country before we get through.

Mr. ANDREWS. In the first place, sir, I think the Congressman has a good point when you talk about the ability to absorb economic aid. I am not talking against the economic aid that has been suggested for Pakistan but in certain areas you have to build your technical knowledge, you have to build your ability to handle it, up as you go, on these particular things.

I am taking this view on it. If I am the administrator of the program next year out there we are going to use that economic aid only if it can be absorbed properly and it will be turned back to the Congress so far as I am concerned, in the next year if it is not used. (Discussion off the record.)

Mrs. BOLTON. I remember very distinctly the last time Dr. Bennett appeared before this committee. He was very much disturbed because the committee was determined to give $25 million to Iran. He said he had just gotten a program going that would absorb $6 million and it would wreck the whole situation if they had $25 million because they could not absorb it.

Mr. ANDREWS. That is a problem, sir, and I think honestly if we put the amount that is up for India-and it is undeniable that India needs that very development and it is going to have to have it to do anything like reaching the objective on it, but I think if we cut back Pakistan arbitrarily and say, "Oh, well, you can't absorb it," we would be in a terrible situation. I believe with sound management and sound effort it can be done, as far as I am concerned. Unless it is that, it is not going to be spent.

Mr. MERROW. If you cannot cut Pakistan back without cutting India, then perhaps we could make a cut in India.

Now, what is the technical assistance for India in this program this year?

Mr. ANDREWs. About $30 million.

Mr. GARDINER. It is 36, I believe.

Mr. Wood. It is $30 million for India for the regular technical progress and development program and $79.9 million for special economic aid, which totals roughly $110 million.

Mr. MERROW. That is double the assistance that we were giving India last year; is it not?

Mr. GARDINER. That is correct, sir. It is slightly more than double. Mr. MERROW. I think we ought to keep that in mind.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair

man.

There is an area all through the Near East which we are constantly being told is the focal point of world danger. When are we going to have adequate time to go into it? Today the emphasis is all on Pakistan and India again. Are we going to have any opportunity to discuss the Near East? In Africa also there are matters needing study even as

there are certain point 4 problems that we have had no opportunity to have time on.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mrs. Bolton, I do not know whether that is a parliamentary inquiry but it certainly is a pertinent one.

Mrs. BOLTON. That is the only way I could get a word in at all. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. We are willing to go into any area to give you sufficient knowledge.

Mrs. BOLTON. Lawrence Smith and I have been told at one moment that India is not in our province any more. At another that it is. We are supposed to come here for the Committee on the Near East and Africa. We have heard little about the Near East and Africa and we would like to.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Vorys asked one general question, and I think Mr. Merrow has the floor.

Mr. MERROW. I am sorry if I exceeded my time. I did not realize we were under the 5-minute rule. I was under the impression we were discussing Pakistan and India.

Mrs. BOLTON. We certainly have been.

Mr. MERROW. I have some other questioins but I will defer to any time that you say.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. I think we should hear about the Near East but I would like Mr. Vorys to ask one general question.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Chairman, I thought what had happened was that we were having a stop, perhaps, in the discussion of one area, to have a little information as to the general purposes of point IV and its connection with economic aid. I thought that is what we were doing, and while Pakistan was brought up as an example, we were seeking principles that would apply across the world.

Now, I have a general question and that has to do with an interesting booklet I see here, "Technical Cooperation Administration, Department of State, March 1953, Points on Point IV in Liberia and Iraq." I want to know who publishes those and where they are distributed.

Mr. ANDREWS. These two were published by TČA. They are distributed first through the normal State Department-it used to be the Office of Information, the Voice of America Channel. They have a list of people on that. They go through that.

Then, they are used to answer inquiries and letters of people, associations, Rotary Clubs, libraries, schools, and all that sort of thing, who write in to us for information about it. These are sent out as illustrative of the broad information that goes on.

Mr. VORYS. Are they paid for out of TCA funds?

Mr. ANDREW:. Yes, sir, they are.

Mr. VORYS. How do you square that with the so-called Dworshak amendment which provides section 537:

None of the funds herein—

this is from the Mutual Security Act of 1951

authorized to be appropriated nor any counterpart funds be used for any printing or other expenses of the dissemination within the United States of general propaganda in support of the Mutual Security Program

Well, let's stop right there.

It seems to me that it would be difficult to square that prohibition with the use of funds for these propaganda pamphlets very well gotten up but which I would think are prohibited by this provision of law.

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, sir, all I can say is that I asked before these were permited to be printed, for a legal ruling. I think I made the mistake of not asking maybe the Attorney General for it. I asked my own counsel, and they took the matter up with the General Counsel of MSA and I think the State Department, and handed me a ruling that this particular type of educational matter did not fall-based on the debate in the House and the explanation of Mr. Dworshak himself, that it did not fall within this purview. That is the only basis under which I authorized them to go out.

Mr. VORYS. How did they distinguish these point IV profiles, and so forth, from being general propaganda in support of the Mutual Security Program?

Mr. ANDREWS. Of course, that comes right back to the question of what is propaganda and what is educational. As I told Senator Ferguson the other day, the best way to stop this would be to forbid our printing anything and then you have no argument about whether it is propaganda or whether it is educational.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Andrews, could I just comment on this: Without attempting to set myself up as a judge of that fine line which may be drawn between propaganda and information, I would like to point out that the record was quite clear in the report of the Senate committee, and I believe, but am not sure, in the report of the House committee, and also in the debate, that this Dworshak amendment was not intended to prevent information being given to the public whose money is being used in this program, concerning the operations of this program. Whether the judgment which was made as to where the line should be drawn is correct or not, I am not going to say, because I have not looked at these particular pamphlets myself, but I am sure that the principle which was followed was this: That it was not, in a democracy where the people are to be informed about what is being done with their money and what their Government is doing, the intent of this particular amendment-and it was specifically so stated in the debate-to prevent the giving out of information on this subject. I think that was the basis for sending out these various pamphlets and other items which I understand were sent to people who had written in and requested that they be given information on these subjects.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mrs. Bolton is quite right. We should proceed with the TCA program, and naturally the emphasis will be on the Near East.

Let us proceed along those lines.

Mr. ANDREWS. I have two further remarks. I think I should say that my address this morning has been to the TCA program and to the $117 million involved, and I am winding up my overall statement on that.

This matter of economic aid is a matter that was brought up from the political side of the State Department. It was gone through in all of the budget hearings and was finally decided at the level of the National Security Council, and I feel when it gets up that high, it is clear beyond me, as to whether it is right or wrong.

If we are given the responsibility of trying to administer it, we will try to administer it to do the thing which will help these countries improve their stability and improve their own productivity so they can get out of the bread line.

33064-53 -58