AMENDMENT OF CERTAIN LAWS PROVIDING FOR MEMBERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION BY THE UNITED STATES IN CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

AUGUST 11, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. MORGAN, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT

(To accompany H. J. Res. 334)

The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which was referred the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 334) to amend certain laws providing for membership and participation by the United States in certain international organizations, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the joint resolution do pass.

I. THE ORIGIN OF THE LEGISLATION

The legislation here proposed grows out of a message from the Under Secretary of State to the Speaker dated February 28, 1949. The message included a draft of proposed legislation to remove the limitations on authorizations with respect to five international organizationsnamely, the American International Institute for the Protection of Childhood, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the South Pacific Commission, the World Health Organization, and the International Labor Organization.

The communication was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the chairman of which referred it for study and recommendation to a special subcommittee consisting of Representatives Thomas E. Morgan, chairman, A. S. J. Carnahan, and Walter H. Judd.

The subcommittee held hearings on the substance of the message on July 21 and 22. The following witnesses appeared before the subcommittee: Dr. L. A. Scheele, Surgeon General, United States Public Health Service; Durward Sandifer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs, George M. Ingram, Acting Chief,

1

International Administration Staff, Office of United Nations Affairs, and Robert Robbins, Acting Assistant Chief, Division of Dependent Area Affairs, Department of State; Arnold Zempel, Office of International Labor Affairs, Department of Labor; W. A. Minor, Assistant to the Secretary of Agriculture, and P. V. Cardon, Administrator. Agricultural Research Administration, Department of Agriculture.

The subcommittee then considered in a number of sessions the problems raised by the executive communication. The questions considered were the following: (a) Whether an increase in United States contributions to the organizations concerned was justified; (b) whether, in the four instances for which an elimination of the limitation on contributions was sought, the procedure should be to accede to the Executive request or to establish new limitations taking into account the need for increased contributions; (c) whether the approach should be through one piece of legislation or through five individual items of legislation.

The subcommittee resolved in favor of keeping limitations on authorizations for all the international organizations concerned and in favor of treating with the problem in one item of legislation. This decision was concurred in by the full committee and appropriate legislation was introduced on August 4 as House Joint Resolution 334. The committee acted formally on this joint resolution on August 11. In the course of its deliberations the subcommittee had considered not only the problems of the individual organizations but also some of the broader principles involved in United States participation in international organizations. These views were placed before the full committee and are now presented to the House as the committee's views.

II. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONGRESS

At the outset, it is well to set in proportion the volume of United States expenditures in the field of international organization. This can be done best by using the fiscal year 1949 as a basis. Appendix I of this report lists the amounts contributed by the United States in this field of activity in the year concerned. It will be noted that the grand total is $128,734,489 and that the United States share of all scheduled assessments of the organizations concerned was 47.23 percent. Both figures are misleadingly high, however, if one is seeking to get the problem into permanent focus. For, of the total concerned, $104,135,420 was spent on temporary operating agencies set up to meet specific exigencies resulting from international violence; and as to these activities, the United States proportionate share was 50.77 per

Temporary organizations set up for administration of specific problems residual from the war or for study of specific economic or technical problems of passing character accounted for $277,982, and the United States share in this category was 23.93 percent. With these expenditures aside. the total contribution of the United States to permanent international organizations may be set at $24,321,087 for the year concerned.

The largest portion of this amount-$22,210,257-went to the permanent organizations in the United Nations sphere. This figure represented 35.61 of their total assessed expenditures. Activities arising from this Nation's position in the American hemisphere accounted for $1,889,996, and the United States proportionate share in this cate

gory was 65.78 percent. The heading "Other international organizations" accounts for $220,834. The United States share in this category was 20.65 percent. Within this group are listed two organizations relating to what might be called imperial responsibilities. These are the Caribbean Commission and the South Pacific CommisThe United States contributed $149,602 to these. The others in the group are various agencies of a technical or legal character, accounting for $71,232.

The figure $24,321,087 represents about six ten-thousandths of the total expenditures of this Government in the fiscal year 1949. In relation to the Government's military expenditures in the same period, it stands in the ratio of 1 to 588. It stands as about 1 to 250 in relation to the Government's expenditures for foreign assistance for the like period.

In the determination of the fiscal position of the Nation, expenditures on permanent international organizations are thus a minor factor. This is not intended, however, to waive aside the importance of these expenditures or the necessity of considering them with a most critical scrutiny. To the contrary, these expenditures should be measured in accordance with principles of strict economy-not necessarily in the sense of economy which counts as lost every dollar spent, but rather in the sense of insisting that every dollar spent must be justified by results.

A principle on which all of the members of the subcommittee, and in turn of the full committee, agreed in the consideration of this legislation is that international organization and cooperation must be evaluated not as good ends in themselves but purely in terms of the concrete good that they accomplish. Bureaucratic organizations, whether in national or international activities, must justify their existence and win support by demonstrating actual human benefits. In the American philosophy of government, we look to public authority to do only the things that are beyond the reach of individuals and private groups, and we look to the central government to do only those necessary things that cannot be done by the local units of government. A parallel principle must apply to international as distinguished from national governmental activities.

We should look to international organizations to do only those things, desirable in terms of human benefits, which are beyond the reach of nations acting alone. International organizations, if permitted to flourish merely as a means of giving reassurance to those who relish international cooperation as a good in itself or as a means of providing employment for those who seek careers in international activities, will achieve little in the course toward peace and international friendship. If held to rigid standards of utility, however, international organizations can make an increasingly convincing demonstration to all men of the hope that lies ahead in the path of international cooperation.

The committee is cognizant that international organizations cannot properly develop in a financial strait-jacket. Their areas and levels of action must be determined dynamically. It is in the nature of successful organizations that they must in a measure determine their own limits of value and action. By the very fact of their operation in one period they will tend to transform situations so as to increase the

H. Repts., 81–1, vol. 5– -107

limits of their activity in subsequent periods. Thus growth is characteristic of success. Yet such development must be kept within bounds and made responsive to some standard. In the area of international government, there is as yet no central authority to impose and enforce such a standard. This task must fall on the governments participating, and the United States Government, as a principal participant, must maintain a continual alertness to the area and quality of activities carried on by international organizations.

So far, the members of the subcommittee and the Government witnesses appearing in the hearings were in complete agreement. The differences developed only as to the methods of keeping check.

With respect to the organizations concerned in this legislation the case of the executive was in favor of eliminating entirely the ceilings on the United States contribution as set in the respective public laws concerned. The arguments in favor of this approach were in summary as follows:

(a) The elimination of ceilings would strengthen the hands of United States delegates to the organizations concerned in negotiations regard ing the size and allocation of operating budgets;

(b) Limitations on contributions are not contained in the authorizing legislation relating to the greater part of the international organizations in which the United States participates, and this circumstance has not resulted in any tendency within such organizations to impose extra financial burdens on the United States;

(c) The idea of fixed statutory ceilings on contributions runs contrary to the constitutions of many of the organizations, since the establishment of the budgets and the allocations of obligations are left to the autonomous control of the governing bodies of the organizations;

(d) The appropriation process alone provides a sufficient congressional check on the level of United States contributions to such international organizations.

These arguments are not lightly to be dismissed. Yet the subcommittee, and in turn the full committee, came to the conclusion that there were counterarguments of greater persuasiveness.

As to the first argument listed above, it should be pointed out that a ceiling allowing sufficient leeway is as comfortable to negotiate under as would be the case if the sky were the limit. The question involved in this legislation is not that of keeping international organizations in strait-jackets resulting from limitations arbitrarily imposed by the United States Congress. It is rather that the committee, and it is believed also the Congress, wish to review these organizations from the standpoint of substance at various stages of their growth. It must be kept in mind that there are questions of magnitude which are questions of quality. The difference between an organization expending relatively small sums in a particular field of endeavor and an organization expending huge sums is not simply a difference of arithmetic. It is likely to be a question of the underlying character of the organization itself.

A case in point is the World Health Organization. The statement of principles in its constitution reads:

Health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.