India was able to provide 2 million tons of food to Bangladesh and stop concessional food grain imports by tragically misinterpreting five years of good crop weather (from 1967 to 1971) as evidence that the Green Revolution had succeeded. India announced that it would soon be self-sufficient in food grains and in 1970 our U.S. AID also announced its goal in India was one of achieving that self-sufficiency in the early 1970s. Today, of course, the situation is drastically different and talk of self-sufficiency is no longer heard (no AID witness mentioned it at either the House or Senate Hearings this year). Dr. Sen conveniently failed to mention that India has recently made her largest grain purchase in history (2 million tons of wheat and sorghum). India now enters a new crop year with low grain reserves, little cash to buy grain on the world market and with world grain supplies at a drastically low figure. Thus, there is little help available to her next year if the monsoon again fails. If I were an Indian, I would take little comfort in the situation.

In short, Dr. Sen has shown no contradiction.

Question 4. As I understand it, our USDA estimates are that, using 1961 to 1965 as a base, agricultural production in less developed countries increased from 44 percent between 1965 and 1972.

(1) How does that compare with the rate of production increase in the U.S. in the same period?

(2) What do you think the world would have been like if this increase, or a major part of it, would not have taken place?

Answer. The 44 percent figure is incorrect.

From 1965 to 1972 the less developed countries increased their total agricultural production about 19 percent. This might look good, but a much better way of looking at the problem is with the question: "How much did these countries increase their per capita agricultural production"?

Answer: zero

(1) The United States increased its per capita production during this period by about 7 percent. But the U.S. had a policy of restraining production during this period and comparison with the less Developed Countries is thus meaningless.

(2) From 1965 to 1972, if the agricultural production had not kept up with population growth in the developing world, there would obviously have been more starvation than there was. It is conceivable that if this had not happened, there would be today more being spent by the developing world on their problems of population control and agricultural production. If that had occurred then, ultimately these countries would have a better future than what they are now likely to have.

Question 5. As I understand your thesis, Mr. Paddock, you appear to believe that foreign aid is actually counterproductive, and that many developing countries need to be shocked, by famine for instance, into tackling their own development problems more aggressively. If we and other donors were to abandon our aid, and massive famine were to strike some poor countries, do you really believe that the American public would remain passive and refuse to help?

Answer. I once asked Dr. Herman Kahn this same question. He said, as I recall, that American people will help as long as they themselves are not inconvenienced. Thus, as long as we have surplus food which we can neither use nor sell, we will probably always ship it overseas in emergencies. But if we do not have such food, we will not significantly tighten our belts to help others. He added that we might "declare a meatless day a month" and ship, with much fan-fare, a few extra tons of food but this would be mostly for window dressing to the world rather than as an effective means of providing the hungry of the world with more food. I would tend to agree with Dr. Kahn.

Of course, a better question to ask is: when massive famines strike, what can the United States really do? All agree that, even in the best crop years, we cannot make up the world's food deficit. And now we have entered a period when we have no surpluses because the wealthy nations of the world are buying all we can produce.

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m. the committee recessed to reconvene at 2:30 p.m.]

AFTERNOON SESSION

The CHAIRMAN. I apologize. We have had two votes, one right after the other. I think we have at least 30 minutes, maybe an hour, before the next vote. We are voting on the committee amendments, and, as you know, the President vetoed the supplemental and it has thrown everything out. So we will proceed in any case.

We are very pleased to have you. I think I have seen you before.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. DRAPER, JR., HONORARY CHAIRMAN, POPULATION CRISIS COMMITTEE

Mr. DRAPER. Once or twice.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure you have a new aspect.

Are you still for population control, I guess?

Mr. DRAPER. I do not call it control; we have not reached that point yet.

The CHAIRMAN. Family planning, if you prefer.

We will proceed.

Mr. DRAPER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. If you can, why don't you put your statement in the record and summarize it for us and give whatever new aspects. We are very familiar with your problem and, as you know, this committee, I think, was the first committee to take a definite and positive step toward this goal in international relations.

COMMENDATION OF EARMARKING OF FUNDS FOR POPULATION

Mr. DRAPER. That is true. The first part of my written statement, which I won't read, was to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of the Foreign Relations Committee on the very fact that a good many years ago your committee saw and understood and recognized the problem and started the earmarking of funds for population as part of the foreign aid legislation. By and large that legislation has been the greatest stimulant worldwide to action on this problem.

The legislation started with $35 million earmarked. Now the figure is $125 million. And I see that the bill that you have introduced includes for next year an earmarking of $150 million, and for the year after that $175 million, which continues this progress. I hope this will be approved by your committee and by the Senate and by the Congress. The very fact that the United States over the last 7 or 8 years has been helping in this problem has made it possible for both the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, the two international organizations that are active in this field, to greatly expand not only their own work but also their contributions from private sources and

(295)

other governments. This way they are building up resources to help many developing countries.

Perhaps it will surprise you to know that more than 60 countries, 60 governments, have now contributed voluntarily to the Fund for Population Activities in the United Nations.

Just a few years ago the International Planned Parenthood Federation was dependent entirely on contributions from private sources, individuals, families, and foundations, but now three-quarters of the International Planned Parenthood Federation funds are coming from governments around the world. Governments are now recognizing that in the multilateral area it takes both the private sector that the International Planned Parenthood Federation represents with its family planning associations in 80 countries as well as the growing leadership of the United Nations itself through its population fund.

ACTIVITIES OF MEXICAN GOVERNMENT

Mr. Chairman, I came back 2 days ago from Mexico. Until about a year ago the Mexican Government had opposed what they call population control. Although there was a private family planning association in Mexico, a member of IPPF, that operated about 50 clinics, the Government was not cooperating and was not sympathetic. The President of Mexico about a year ago finally decided that this was wrong. As with government after government around the developing world he and the Mexican Government have now adopted and are favorable to what they call responsible parenthood. They still oppose population control as such but they support voluntary family planning for health, social, and economic reasons.

The Government of Mexico has asked for help from the United Nations in this field and received it. But they are now working on a universal countrywide family planning and population program. I hear by rumor-and this may or may not be exactly correct that there is a $40 million program being developed for which they expect to ask for some $8 million or so from the United Nations over a 5-year period. This means they are going to be putting a lot of their own funds into the program. With their present 312 percent growth rate, in as short a time as 20 years their present 50 million people would become 100 million. They have become convinced that this simply can't go on. If it does, economic development, social development, and perhaps even governmental structure itself would be threatened.

NECESSITY OF CONTINUED EXPANSION OF EFFORT

To sum up, Mr. Chairman, the earmarking that the Congress has instituted at the insistence and recommendation of this committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee has permitted the United States to act effectively in initiating the international effort that, we hope, will help stave off the chaos that in many parts of the developing world would be inevitable otherwise.

I simply would like to suggest and to hope that the amounts that you have put in your bill would be approved by your committee and by the Congress to continue the expansion of this effort. In my own

opinion without such an effort social progress and economic development will be impossible.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, General Draper.

We will put your entire statement in.

[Mr. Draper's prepared statement follows:]

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM H. DRAPER, JR., HONORARY CHAIRMAN, POPULATION CRISIS

COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman, my name is William H. Draper, Jr., and I speak for the Population Crisis Committee. I work closely with the International Planned Parenthood Federation and with the United Nations Fund for Population Activities in their worldwide activities.

I also represent our own government, as the United States member of the Population Commission of the United Nations. This Commission has the responsibility for dealing with United Nations population policies, and particularly for planning special programs for next year, World Population Year, as proclaimed by the United Nations, and for the agenda of the World Population Conference, to be held in Bucharest, Rumania in August 1974. It is hoped that the representatives of all member governments meeting there, after considering and discussing the increasing threat that too rapid population growth poses to the economic and social progress of the developing nations, will agree on a World Plan of Action which will constructively deal with and eventually solve this momentous problem.

I must pay tribute to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the members of this Committee, for the farsighted wisdom with which the Committee has recognized the need for worldwide action by specifically earmarking funds for population and family planning programs each year from fiscal year 1968, when $35 million was so earmarked, and the increasing amounts which have now reached $125 million in earmarked funds for fiscal year 1973.

It has been this earmarked funding which has made it possible for our government through its foreign aid program to encourage and to find bilateral support for population programs in many countries, and to finance needed research looking for better contraceptives. Also the earmarked funding has made it possible for AID increasingly to support the multilateral efforts of both the International Planned Parenthood Federation, under its able Secretary-General Julia Henderson, with its family planning associations in 80 countries, and of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, which is gradually assuming world leadership in dealing with this enormous problem. The Fund's Executive Director, Rafael Salas, a former Minister of the Philippine Government, has been able to respond favorably to requests for assistance in this field for more than 70 developing countries.

Paul Hoffman, of Marshall Plan fame, who for many years headed the Development Program of the United Nations, asked me some four years ago to help raise voluntary contributions for population activities from the various member governments. In carrying out this mission and in calling on prime ministers, foreign ministers, and finance ministers for support for both the United Nations' and for the International Planned Parenthood's efforts in this field. I have seen again and again just how much our own government's keen interest and its growing financial support for population programs has encouraged and stimulated other governments to follow its lead.

It may surprise you to know that more than 50 countries have now made such voluntary contributions to the United Nations Fund, and that three quarters of the International Planned Parenthood Federation's present funding, which originally depended entirely on charitable contributions from individuals and from private foundations, now comes from governments around the world.

The International Planned Parenthood Federation's budget only 8 years ago, in 1965, was less than $1,000,000-this year it is over $30 million. The United Nations population effort began in 1970 with a $15 million budget which has now risen in 1973 to more than $40 million. Neither of these worldwide multilateral population efforts could have grown so rapidly or received support from so many other governments without the active cooperation and assistance from the United States, made possible by the consistent and continuing earmarking recommendations of this Committee to the Congress.