Mr. ATWATER. A third chart approaches this in a somewhat different way. This compares the actual technical assistance contributions with what the contributions might be if they were made according to the ratio of assessments for the regular U.N. budgets.

Now, we know the United States contributes about 32 percent of the regular U.N. budget. We are contributing 40 percent to the technical assistance program and we are actually here 20th on the list, or slightly over the index number of 100 which for us is 32 percent.

The Sudan is contributing far more proportionately to the U.N. technical assistance program or roughly 897 percent of what its regular assessed amount would be if the assessments for the regular U.N. budget were followed.

The Netherlands, Denmark, Uruguay, Norway, Brazil, Sweden, Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, and several other countries all are giving proportionately more than their ratio of assessments for the regular U.N. budget. While it is true the United States is giving quantitatively the most, in terms of its ability and capacity, it is not doing as much as some of the smaller countries are doing.

That may be helpful as we try to interpret to the country the part we should assume in these programs.

Refugee programs.-Turning now to international refugee programs, we would like to suggest more generous authorizations for the major refugee programs covered by the present mutual security bill. While our authorizations and appropriations for these programs in the past have been on the whole generous, they have not fully measured up to the magnitude of need. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for example, is making special efforts to close the refugee camps in Europe by the end of 1960. He is also endeavoring with the help of the Intergovernmental Committee on European Migration to transport and resettle the remaining 9,000 Europeans-White Russian-refugees in Hong Kong and mainland China by the end of 1961.

The administration has recommended only $1.1 million for the High Commissioner's program in fiscal 1960, as compared to the $1.2 million appropriated for fiscal 1959. Not only are we disappointed at this proposed reduction, but we feel that even the $1.2 million appropriation for 1959 has not given the High Commissioner the full financial backing which he needs.

Last November, for example, he appealed to the General Assembly for a $6 million budget for 1959, $5 million of which was to come from government contributions and $1 million from private sources. Although the United States pledged up to $1.2 million, subject to the condition that our actual contribution not exceed 3313 percent of the total, it seems very unlikely that the $5 million target for government contributions will be reached this year. If the United States, however, had pledged as much as a full third of the $5 million target, i.e., $1.67 million, it would undoubtedly have stimulated other governments to do better and would have given the High Commissioner a stronger basis for appealing to other governments for greater support. I believe that it would be more likely that the High Commissioner's program would receive the $5 million it needs in 1959 if the United States had pledged $1.67 million rather than only $1.2 million. I hope, therefore, that for 1960 this authorization will not be decreased to $1.1 million but increased to approximately $1.67 million.

We also hope that the full $25 million will be authorized for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees. The fact that I say no more about this agency does not mean we are less interested in it, for we certainly feel it is deserving of the full support which has been recommended.

World Refugee Year.-Plans are now underway, as you know, for a World Refugee Year, authorized by the U.N. General Assembly last year to begin in June 1959. The purpose of this is to focus the attention of governments and private organizations on various specific refugee needs which, with special effort, can be met and completed in the space of a year's time. We earnestly hope that the Congress and the administration will give favorable consideration in due course to special ways whereby the United States can make appropriate special efforts to carry out the purposes of the World Refugee Year. I might add here that I think this will give the churches and other groups an excellent opportunity to educate the public more to the problems which exist.

Zellerbach Commission report.-In considering refugee needs for the coming years, we hope this committee will give favorable consider

ation to the recommendations of the Zellerbach Commission for a $6 million program per year over the next 2 years, broken down roughly as follows:

Additional contribution to Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration to cover cost of increased volume of movement, $1 million.

Additional appropriation for U.S. escapee program for integration projects in Europe, $1 million.

Grants to American voluntary agencies to finance economic rehabilitation of 1,500 handicapped refugees, $1,500,000.

Additional contribution to ICEM for movement of European refugees from mainland China, $300,000.

Additional contribution to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to make possible integration programs for out-of-camp refugees on the same scale as those now planned for in-camp refugees, $2 million.

UNICEF. We strongly support the U.N. Children's Fund and are happy to join with numerous other organizations in testimony to be presented by Mrs. Virginia Gray. We hope that the efforts to reduce U.S. support from 50 percent to 48 percent of the program will not result in a lessening of the total effort to aid the world's children. Ocean freight.-We hope the committee will approve the full $2,300,000 requested to pay ocean freight charges on oversea shipments of relief goods by registered nonprofit relief agencies.

We are happy to note that the mutual security bill contains a new section encouraging and supporting international cooperation in health and U.S. membership in the Colombo Plan Council for Technical Cooperation. We hope that in each case Congress will appropriate sufficient funds.

I might add here too that we are glad greater emphasis is being put on the program of malaria eradication and on the plans for the development of more adequate water supplies in the underdeveloped

areas.

In summary, we urge a much larger, long-range, nonmilitary economic assistance program to help those in the underdeveloped world help themselves to a better life.

We urge that such a program be undertaken in a spirit of sacrifical sharing, being grateful for the rich blessings with which we in our Nation have been endowed. An approach of this kind would, we believe, be in the true long-range interest of the United States and would command the admiration and respect of not only our own citizens but the rest of the world.

Chairman MORGAN. Thank you, Mr. Atwater.

Mr. Atwater, I notice your statement deals only with nonmilitary assistance.

Do you feel that we need any military assistance whatsoever in the mutual security program?

Mr. ATWATER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I believe you are acquainted with the general position which the Friends Committee on National Legislation takes. We deplore the military assistance program.

We feel that the real needs of the world today are more likely to be met through the economic aid program and, as I suggested, we hope that studies will be undertaken looking toward the discontinuance of the military aid program.

We feel that the really tough political problems which have been responsible for these military aid programs can be approached through imaginative and flexible efforts at negotiation. We look forward to the forthcoming summit meeting as an opportunity to reduce tensions through serious negotiation and we feel that this is a much more effective and basically sound long-range approach to the problems than the continued efforts to build up military aid

programs.

Chairman MORGAN. Do you feel there is abuse in the economic part of this program because we are using it as a tool of our defense program?

Mr. ATWATER. I think any bilateral economic aid program, no matter by what country it is used, becomes an instrument of that country's foreign policy and as such tends to be used to reinforce the political objectives of that policy.

Now, this is understandable as a bilateral program and this is precisely why we feel greater use should be made of the United Nations programs where you can take the misery and the economic needs of the world out of this terrible competition of cold war politics into an arena where you can consider them on the basis of their economic needs and not their political expediency.

Chairman MORGAN. Thank you, Mr. Atwater.

Mrs. Bolton.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Atwater, I wondered, are there Friends' groups working in Russia itself?

Mr. ATWATER. Not working in Russia in the sense in which you imply. There have been two or three Quaker visits, missions to Russia. There was a group of British Quakers which went first in about 1952 or 1953, I believe, and then a later British group went a year or two ago and an American Quaker mission to Russia went in 1955.

All of these went with the effort to try to understand firsthand the position of the Russian people, to try to establish contact with the Russian people, to let them know of the feeling which people in the United States have for the people in the Soviet Union and to look for ways in which cooperation between the countries can be strengthened. Mrs. BOLTON. Have you continued any of the contacts made? Mr. ATWATER. Yes. This has been done through a variety of ways. Through various international seminars and international relations institutes, efforts made to draw students from the Soviet Union.

We had one seminar last year in Vermont to which two young Russian students came, as well as students from other Eastern European countries. They met with some 30 or more students from all countries of the world for genuine give and take discussions of these problems.

We have similar contacts, of course, with government officials and one of our jobs at the United Nations, as representatives of the Quaker group there, is to be in touch with not delegates of the Soviet Union, but of our own Government and other governments to try to interpret our concern to them.

Mrs. BOLTON. Do you feel that you have gotten anywhere?

Mr. ATWATER. This is difficult to measure in terms of what have. we done in any one year.