MUTUAL SECURITY ACT OF 1953

(H.R. 5710, 83d Cong., 1st Sess.)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1953

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 10:20 a.m., Hon. Robert B. Chiperfield (chairman) presiding.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. I believe we are down to section 404 on "Special Economic Assistance for India and Pakistan."

I am very sorry that Dr. Judd is not here. He explained why he could not be here today.

Do you think it is necessary to read it, or not? We have all read the bill. I think in some of the other sections we might need to have them read.

Mr. CRAWFORD [Boyd Crawford, committee staff administrator]. Each member has before him a working committee print No. 1 which has all of the tentative changes adopted by the committee yesterday. If the bill were to be read, the reading would start on page 6 of this print, line 20.

ECONOMIC AND TECHNICAL AID FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Are there suggestions or amendments as far as section 404 is concerned?

Mr. SMITH. I wonder if we could have that explained a bit more. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Would you like a breakdown? Mr. Bentley, you showed that to me. Do you have a breakdown on that? Perhaps the staff has it.

Mr. BENTLEY. There is $79,900,000 for India and $14 million military for Pakistan.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. That is in addition to the technical assistance.

Mr. BENTLEY. India is $30,100,000; Pakistan, $13 million.

Mr. VORYS. We can save time if you will all keep this secret document in mind.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. I do not want to take advantage of the fact that I am chairman, but these items on special economic aid in India and Pakistan seem to me to be too large. I pointed out to Joe Dodge that in the budget this year there is not included a single dollar for a new flood-control program. You cannot get one. There has been a Presidential Executive order that unless you can show it

1 Joseph M. Dodge at the time was Director of the Bureau of the Budget and a member of the Joint Committee on the Reduction of Non-Essential Federal Expenditures.

is in the security of the United States or part of our national defense, you cannot get a new program. I have programs authorized in my district, which have been authorized since 1948, fighting to get $26,000 for a little preliminary study. Then we come up with $109 million for India. That is all I want to say.

Mr. FULTON. My suggestion would be to ask the staff to apply the same criteria to this aid as would be applied to our own local continental U.S. projects.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Does anyone have any suggestions as to amendments on section 404?

Mr. BENTLEY. I have an amendment to take out 404.

Mr. JAVITS. My suggestion is that the defect in this paper is that M-8 has everything classified. I would like to see our staff go through M-8 and asterisk what is not classified.

Then, when we get through with it, I would like to see India and Pakistan separated. In Pakistan, we are facing famine. We are facing a country which, as Mr. Dulles says, is one of the toughest allies we have. I would like to see Pakistan get the $14 million, if it is going to help that situation. However, in India, we face essentially a political situation with competition from Communist Russia and China. I think we will have to do something to help them with their plans. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Merrow, you were in India and Pakistan. Let us have your ideas on it.

Mr. MERROW. I just want to say a word about this section. I am glad it is put in this way so you can get a decision as to whether or not you want to give an economic aid outside of the technical assistance. This figure of $79 million, as I understand it, for India, has been the third revision. I think in the first place they were asking about $200 million. When we were out there, the figure they had presented to us was about $104 million. There has been a third revision, and it is down to $79 million.

They gave the subcommittee out there the list of projects that they had proposed to expend the special economic assistance on.2 Those are the projects outside of TCA. It is supplemental aid, and purely economic aid.

In Pakistan, it is $13 million. They were asking about $20 million. We made the point that there was going to be $1 million left over on technical assistance this year. Then, when we got to the third figure, it was cut down from $20 million to $14 million. They had $12 million for technical assistance this year-$1 million was unexpended at the end of this year, and so there is an addition of $4 million more there.

I have made the point that it seems to me that Pakistan could get along with a little less. In view of the fact that we will probably give some wheat assistance, as the testimony developed here in the committee, they did not want to cut Pakistan unless they cut India. Frankly, this $79 million is to implement the technical assistance and the 5-year program in India. I just wanted to explain this is the third figure. If the committee is interested, we have here the list of projects that they gave us that they are going to work on with this $79 million.

Mr. Merrow is here referring to a special study mission which he headed which visited the Middle East and Southeast Asia in April 1953.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Westphal [Albert C. F. Westphal, committee staff consultant] wants to make an observation.

[General discussion off the record.]

POLICY EFFECTS OF REDUCING AID TO INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Mr. FULTON. My amendment on the India business would be to cut down the special economic aid by the same criteria we apply to the projects in our own country. It would give India $59 million. I would like to leave Pakistan alone. I would not touch them in relation to the $13 million for technical assistance. In addition, I would be for the loan to Pakistan for the $90 million for the grain needed to prevent famine.

Mr. VORYS. I would like to comment on Mr. Javits' idea that this be divided. I would suggest that it should not be divided for the very reason that we are not showing allocations in the Near East. This is political money. This is area political money.

I pick on Mr. Javits because he understands the situation so well. For India and Pakistan, if we got a situation where there is a war that is smoldering, merely held from the shooting stage by the influence in the U.N. [United Nations], where both sides are wasting their substance, arming and using economic measures, whatever we do in this area is politics, power politics, dollar diplomacy.

I would hope that our decision on both areas in this committee would be based on this simple proposition, "Are we going to give our diplomats and the President, the new crowd, a chance to experiment for the first time in some dollar diplomacy in these two highly explosive and extremely critical and extremely exasperating areas?" It seems our committee should bear this in mind, and on the floor, that we are not the Appropriations Committee. We have demanded this year of the Department [of State] a detailed explanation of what they are going to do with every dollar they have not spent, whether it has been authorized, appropriated, or not. They have come up with that. We know generally the results that they have gotten or failed to get with what they have done.

When it comes to going through this foreign policy package, it is just a package of different policies that do not fit very well together in many parts of the world, are not terribly concise, but there they are. That is the U.S. baby. I would hope in this committee we would not make reductions in amounts unless it is a policy adjustment, an adjustment where we want to explain that there is a certain line of policy we do not want to have followed any more. If the Congress follows us up, when we reduce, we are cutting the ceilings. We are not giving them a dime by this bill. We have put in amounts and are saying that beyond this is something you do not get. I would hope we would bear that in mind.

[General discussion off the record.]

Mr. VORYS. As far as I understand the Far East, these other fellows can tell us about that. What is our problem in India? The answer is we have allowed these people to believe they were going to get from $750 million to $1 billion from the United States. The Ambassador should not have said that. I am speaking of Chester

3

Bowles. He should not have said it. It was dreadful for him to have said it. It was disavowed when he said it, but he did. It had its influence out there. That is just one of the facts of life that we have. As far as I can see, we are not going to underwrite the $600 million. That is the figure that comes up every time.

Mr. CARNAHAN. I want to agree with John on his policy statement, but I do not agree with him on his statement regarding the Ambassador. I might say in defense of the Ambassador, he has done the finest piece of work which has been done in that area since we have been giving much attention to the area.

I do believe we should consider the area as a unit, and I think the two countries, India and Pakistan, should be considered together, because we want to encourage unity and not division among them.

I also want to raise the question as to whether or not it is the intention of the committee to give Pakistan any help with their wheat, that if we should not consider getting it into this bill, because, as John says, the bill has about everything in it already, and a little wheat for Pakistan is not going to further complicate the bill.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Carnahan, the wheat bill has been sent to the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. CARNAHAN. That would help some, that the Agriculture Committee would bring it down on the floor of the House, rather than our committee.

Mr. MORANO. I want to agree with his statement. I think the ambassador went too far in making promises. In order to get good will, I think you can say a lot of things.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Merrow is trying to get in a statement, and Mr. Zablocki, and then we will continue with the bill.

Mr. MERROW. This will only take a moment. When we were in the field, we asked for a breakdown of technical assistance and developmental aids. They gave us a complete breakdown of technical assistance, which added up to $35 million. In the second column, "developmental aid," for various projects which are listed here, $104 million which has been cut to $79.9 million. I am sorry there are no copies of this. I just want to call the attention of the committee to it so that everyone can see it. I will propose to pass along what we spend that for.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I was just as excited as the rest of the members on the other side of the table when we heard what was supposedly promised India. While we were there, we inquired of Mr. Bowles what he had promised. He said it was his observation that India. needs that amount to assist the 5-year plan, but made no promise on the part of the United States that they will be getting that kind of money. There were no promises made.

Mr. VORYS. I heard his speech. It was put in the Congressional Record.

Hon. Chester Bowles served as U.S. Ambassador to India and Nepal in the period 1951-53.

In a farewell speech, Hon. Chester Bowles. U.S. Ambassador to India and Nepal in the period 1951-53, expressed the hope that the United States would provide $600-$700 million to India to help finance its 5-year plan. An article about this speech was written by Robert Turnbull and was published in the New York Times on Mar. 23, 1953. The article was entitled "Bowles Leaving his Mark on India" and was inserted into the Congressional Record, vol. 99, part 10, 83d Cong., 1st sess., p. A1506.

Mr. JAVITS. We ought to get away from Chester Bowles. He was an engaging traveler; that might be good or bad.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. I agree. I am trying to get away from that. Mr. JAVITS. I agree with John. I wanted to star what was classified in these papers. I have tried to analyze what there is in this, and I want to give you the benefit of my findings of fact.

[General discussion off the record.]

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. I think we have covered this section pretty well. I wonder if we could not go on to chapter V.

AMENDMENTS TO RESTRUCTURE THE TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE PORTIONS OF THE BILL

Mr. VORYS. There is a little item on organization of the bill. I thought I had suggested yesterday that on page 5, right at the top, Chapter IV, "Mutual Development and Technical Progress," that that simply be called "Technical Assistance," and that we start at the top of page 6 and call that, "Special Economic Assistance," and have two parts, Near East and Africa. That is of no world-shaking importance, but it is to get away from the mutual development and technical progress. There is no exchange of persons involved. It is just a structural change to make it handier to find. I so move.

Mrs. BOLTON. Chapter IV will be "Technical Assistance"?

Mr. VORYS. Yes. That is the label we find. That is something we understand. The next one would be called "Special Economic Assistance." On that, our legislative counsel would probably want to number them 503 and 504.

Mrs. BOLTON. You mean 404.

Mr. VORYS. It would change.

Mr. SKINNER [George Skinner, Office of the Legislative Counsel]. It would be 501 and 502, actually.

Mr. VORYS. There is no purpose in changing amounts except to show the various classes of things that we are dealing with.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. If there is no further discussion, without objection it is ordered.

Mr. FULTON. While we are changing titles, could I make a motion on section 403? Delete the word "economic," delete from the title, "Special Economic Assistance in the Near East and Africa," and insert the word "regional" so that the title will read, "Special Regional Assistance in the Near East and Africa."

Mr. VORYS. The administration has requested these two areas be set out and called, "Special Economic Assistance."

Mr. FULTON. That is what I am doing.

[General discussion off the record.]

Mr. JAVITS. Could we put the word "regional" in, in addition to the word "economic," saying, "Special Regional Economic Assistance"?

Mr. VORYS. That is all right.

Mr. JAVITS. I move that before the word "economic" there be added the word "regional" in the heading of chapter V, and that section 501 be headed simply "Near East and Africa."

Mr. VORYS. Title IV.