welfare services, the International Children's Fund, things of that kind. Then there is another branch that would handle human rights and cultural affairs, problems of human rights in the development of a declaration of human rights or a covenant of human rights; the treatment of people in the satellite states, and the problems involved there; the treatment of prisoners of war, things of that kind. When you consider all the separate parts of the organization, you will find that there is a very small group of people dealing with the individual, separate parts. The United States carries a very heavy burden of responsibility in meetings of these organizations. We have more interest in them, we have more at stake, and we have the competence and the technique and the personnel for developing those things. So we have to supply more of the preparatory work, the actual wheelhorse work of these conferences, than a good many other governments supply.

You would find a similar break-down if you took some of these other offices here. Take the Office of Dependent Area Affairs, which has personnel of 21. That office has primary responsibility for carrying out work in relation to the Trusteeship Council, which supervises the administration of 11 or 12 trust areas, one of them being the trust area of the Pacific, over which the United States holds a trusteeship under the United Nations. Others are in Africa and in the South Pacific. There are detailed reports made on the administration of those areas. The reports are examined in detail by the Trusteeship Council. People in the trust areas have the right to submit petitions to the United Nations, which they do in large numbers. Several hundred of them are received annually and they have to be examined by this staff. So that a part of that office devotes its time to that work. Then that work has to be handled again in the General Assembly. There is a committee, one of the general committees of the General Assembly, the fourth committee, that handles trusteeship and colonial work. Then we have the Caribbean Commission, which is a commission for the promotion of the economic and social welfare of the Caribbean There is the problem of the colonial possessions, of the dependencies of the United States, France, the Dutch, and Great Britain. We have the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. We are greatly interested in developing economic conditions in that area. Then there is the South Pacific Commission, which participates in connection with the French and the British, ourselves, the Australians, New Zealand, and the Dutch and two or three others, to carry on a study of our policy with respect to colonial areas that are not trusteeship areas. So that there would be 8 or 10 people in one part of that, including secretaries, and a dozen in the other and we have the action responsibility with respect to the actual position that we take on problems. arising in the trust territories of the Pacific and other places.

HANDLING OF FUNCTIONS PRIOR TO 1944

Mr. MARSHALL. Some of those matters that you mentioned go back as early as we began to get into international problems. But prior to 1944, how was this work handled in the Department of State?

Mr. SANDIFER. Prior to 1944 it was handled in the separate offices of the Department. In the first place, our relationship with the League of Nations was very remote. We had no active participation

in the League of Nations. So that the problem of policy with respect to the League was very simple and it was handled by a couple of people in the Office of European Affairs. But we were not members and we had no responsibility with respect to that. The International Labor Organization was the only specialized labor agency in existence at that time.

Mr. MARSHALL. It was recognized-at least it must have been felt by somebody-that the work along this line was not being properly handled, that it was scattered too much and therefore it was necessary to get some coordination into that activity. Could you tell me, in those years when you were under the Bureau of Special Political Affairs and before we got into the United Nations, about how many personnel there were in this Division?

Mr. SANDIFER. This work began, as an organization in the Department for the development of plans for postwar organization. That was an office that was part of the postwar planning work of the Department of State. That began in 1942. As a matter of fact, there was a small staff even earlier than that, but in the main, the organization began in 1942.

Mr. MARSHALL. That was similar to what took place in a number of other agencies in connection with postwar planning, was it not? Mr. SANDIFER. Yes, for other purposes than international organization.

Mr. MARSHALL. It was all a postwar planning operation?

Mr. SANDIFER. I cannot remember exactly, but at the time that the Office of Special Political Affairs was established as such, an office for the purpose of servicing or developing our program with respect to international programs as such, I think the personnel was around 140 to 150 people. I remember quite clearly at one stage the authorized personnel of that office was somewhere, between the period of 1944 to 1946, over 200 people, and that did not include the Division of International Conferences. It was a separate division under the administrative part of the Department at that time.

Mr. MARSHALL. Would you say in this branch of yours that the work of the United Nations had made it necessary to employ about 100 additional personnel?

Mr. SANDIFER. I would say this, that if you eliminate the Division. of International Conferences from this calculation, I think you will find-and we would be glad to supply a detailed statement on the development of the personnel, if you would like to have it, in this office, from the beginning you will find that we have been carrying a greatly increased load even with some decrease in personnel, because there was a time when we had a larger organization than this would be if you take into consideration 100 people that I have just mentioned. It would have brought it down to 145 or 150 people. There has not been any real increase in the personnel engaged in this particular area of work while the scope and the amount of work involved have increased by several hundred percent. The increase is due to the development of the United Nations and these other organizations.

RELATIONSHIP WITH THE POINT 4 PROGRAM

Mr. MARSHALL. What will you have to do with the point 4 program?

Mr. SANDIFER. Our function with respect to the point 4 program is to tie in the program to the work of the United Nations itself. That is, we are concerned primarily with the procedures and the development of organization and the effectiveness and the efficiency of the technical assistance program in the United Nations and the specialized agencies, as organizational problems. It is not our job to develop the substance of the program as such.

Mr. MARSHALL. You will not be expected to train personnel, or anything of that kind?

Mr. SANDIFER. No.

Mr. MARSHALL. That is all.

UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. STEFAN. I want to get back to your justification on page 168, which was referred to by the chairman when he interrogated you, and the specific language in that justification that reads:

In connection with all international organizations with which the United States is affiliated, the Bureau develops recommendations for the United States share of their financial support and works toward sound management of such international bodies.

That is one of your functions?

Mr. SANDIFER. Yes, sir.

Mr. STEFAN. In your opinion, how much of the contributions of the State Department to the United Nations could be reduced without endangering the safety of the United States?

Mr. SANDIFER. I would say, Mr. Stefan, that the contributions to the United Nations could not be reduced at the present time without endangering the policies that we are trying to follow in the United Nations, in view of the scope of the problems that have to be handled through the United Nations, and the various commissions.

Mr. STEFAN. I did not ask you to openly disagree with the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments of the Eightyfirst Congress, just recently released, and which was referred to by the chairman. I just asked you how much can the contributions be reduced; not whether they can be, but how much?

Mr. SANDIFER. My answer is that, unless there is a decrease in the work being done by the United Nations, the contributions cannot be reduced other than by a change in the percentage of contribution. Mr. STEFAN. Have you seen this report that I referred to? Mr. SANDIFER. Yes, sir.

Mr. STEFAN. Are you aware that, with the United States contributing 50 percent of the funds for certain expenditures, and with a minority vote in the matter of the budget, the United States could be assessed almost an indefinite sum that might run even into billions of dollars?

Mr. SANDIFER. I suppose you are speaking, Mr. Stefan, of the average of contributions, when you speak of 50 percent.

Mr. STEFAN. I am talking of 50 percent in some instances, with an average of 39 percent plus.

Mr. SANDIFER. The contributions that exceed 40 percent, as I recall it, are only with respect to certain emergency funds, such as the "Children's emergency fund," the International Refugee Organization. There is one exception to that, and that is the budget of the

Organization of American States, the inter-American organization, where we pay 68 or 69 percent, and that is to be reduced eventually to two-thirds.

It is true that in those organizations the budget is voted in most cases by the conference of the organization. In the case of the General Assembly it is voted by the General Assembly, and in the General Assembly we have only one vote; so that, theoretically, it is possible for the other members of the organization to vote a budget over our opposition.

The record of these organizations I think will show that there have been no unusual increases, no arbitrary increases against the opposition of the United States.

Mr. STEFAN. Could the administrative expenditures of the United Nations increase another $6 million by 1955?

Mr. SANDIFER. Perhaps I had better ask Mr. Hall to comment on that. He is more familiar with that technical sort of detail than I

am.

Mr. HALL. I think that would depend entirely on the political developments between now and 1955, because the vast majority of the United Nations expenditures go directly into maintenance or support of missions, commissions, and programs intended to safeguard the peace, and into the general economic work of the organization. I would not anticipate under the present circumstances that any such increase would be necessary. But I must say that we might have a change in the political situation which would make that essential from the standpoint of the United States.

Mr. STEFAN. It might run up another $6 million?

Mr. HALL. It might, but I would not expect that it would under the present circumstances, so far as I can see now. I do not have the ability to prognosticate what the political situation will be in 1955, which I would have to do to be able to answer that question completely.

IMPROVEMENT IN COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS

Mr. STEFAN. What steps does the State Department propose to take to improve the collection of assessments by the United Nations in financing special agencies, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization, the ILO, the ICAO, UNESCO, World Health, and so forth?

Mr. HALL. We are constantly concerned with that. We raise that question at the meetings of the organization. We have approached the governments that have not paid and asked them to pay. I would like to say, Mr. Stefan, since you are referring to the report of the Senate committee, that I believe the statement of arrearages in that report is misleading, in this sense: that they took a date on which even the United States had not paid its contribution to a substantial number of these organizations.

We have here an up-to-date statement of the situation of these organizations which I would be glad to submit for the record which indicates a situation substantially better than the record indicated in that report.

Mr. STEFAN. You say Mr. McClellan's report is erroneous?

Mr. HALL. It is out of date, Mr. Stefan, in the sense that it was made as of a particular date. I have forgotten what that exact date was. [The date was August 31, 1950.]

There is one additional point on the arrearage situation in the various agencies. Since the legislative bodies of all governments do not meet at the same time during the year to consider legislation and to appropriate funds, it is obvious that the collection of any contributions from member governments by the international organizations will be spread over a year rather than concentrated at the beginning of the year.

The United States, for example, is never able to make its contribution to the UN until 6 months of the UN financial calendar year has passed. Since the UN and other organizations have workingcapital funds for the specific purpose of financing operations until contributions are received, these late payments, as long as they are not made too late within the year, are not injurious to the work of the organization. However, it is important that the representations with respect to arrears take this fact into account. Arrearage statements which reflect a situation before the close of the financial year in question are not significant. Nevertheless, the report has noted that as of August 31, 1950, which was only slightly beyond the midpoint of the organizations' financial year, FAO had received only 58.58 percent, the ILO 55.40 percent, UNESCO, 34.58 percent, and WHỎ, 31.19 percent of their assessed contributions.

The situation as of the end of the year was substantially better. I can give you those figures.

Mr. ROONEY. Insert the figures in the record at this point. (The statistics referred to are as follows:)