The countries in the area would all be better off if we made clear from the beginning how much we plan to give and what purposes and programs we favor. Here. as elsewhere in our foreign policy. we are giving the impression of empirical improvisationa daytoday operation with no clear program projected for the future. There is no reason. for example. why we should not be told whether or not the administration plans to help Israel meet the urgent economic problems which have arisen as a result of the large influx of immigration from Hungary. Poland. Egypt and other areas. In this connection I am very glad to see that the House Foreign Affairs Committeeand I wish to congratulate the membershas referred to Israels new and urgent need in its report. The committee has said: In using these funds it has anticipated that consideration will be given to the fact that our aid program to Israel has helped that country to expand its industrial and agricultural output. and to meet the cost of resettling refugees who found a haven there. In the last few years. allocations were cut from a high of $73 million in 1952 to $25 million In 195--as immigration tapered off and as the country strengthened its economy. It may be advisable to increase assistance because of the sudden upsurge of immigration in the last few months. totaling approximately 100.000. For this I believe the members of the committee deserve commendation. Many of use believe that Israel Is a consistent and dependable friend of democracy.
Keywords matched
immigration refugees