841 



the corner in 1965. In his State of the Union message in that year 

 President Johnson said : 



I will seek new ways to use our knowledge to help deal with the explosion 

 in world pop\ilation and the growing scarcity in world resources.** 



In making this statement the President was committing the 

 United States to come to grips with the population question in a 

 positive way. His words constituted an explicit declaration that the 

 United States intended to play a more active role in dealing with 

 the problem. Later that same year, in speaking to the 20th Anni- 

 versary Commemorative Session of the United Nations, he called 

 upon the members to — 



• * * face forthrightly the multiplying problems of our multiplying popu- 

 lations and seek the answers to this most profound challenge to the future of 

 all the world. Let us act on the fact that less than $5 invested in population 

 control is worth $100 invested in economic growth.** 



This last sentence aroused some negative comment, for it was taken 

 by feome to mean that aid for family planning should be substituted 

 for aid for overall economic growth. However, it appears to have 

 been the President's intention to emphasize the relatively small cost of 

 family planning assistance in comparison with other types of aid. 



With policy direction clearly set by the Chief Executive, AID was 

 encouraged to move more directly into the population field. Whereas 

 in the fiscal year 1964 the Agency had obligated no funds for f amilj 

 planning and population programs, in the fiscal year 1965 it obli- 

 gated almost $3 million for this purpose. In mid-1965 the Agency 

 issued a statement outlining its policies with respect to family plan- 

 ning and population. The gist of that statement was as follows: (1) 

 AID would not advocate any specific method of family planning. 

 (2) Assistance would go only to those countries which permitted com- 

 plete freedom of choice to the individual as to whether or not to par- 

 ticipate in any program, and complete freedom of choice as to method 

 if the individual diose to participate. (This is still U.S. policy, al- 

 though some countries, India for example, by concentrating heavily 

 on one method of contraception at a particular time, have raised a 

 question as to whether the individuals participating in the program 

 really have much freedom to choose the method.) (3) Official family 

 planning programs would not be a criterion for receiving U.S. aid. 

 (4) Assistance would be provided on request only. Guided by these 

 criteria, AID increased its obligations for population and family 

 planning programs to almost $5.5 million in the fiscal year 1966, but 

 cut back to approximately $4.3 million in the fiscal year 1967. 



Comprehensive hearings were launched in 1965 by the Subcommit- 

 tee on Foreign Aid Expenditures of the Senate Government Opera- 

 tions Committee. These hearings, which were continued in 1966, 1967, 

 and 1968, were chaired by Senator Gruening of Alaska. His bill, S. 

 1676^ proposed to create an Assistant Secretary of State for Popula- 

 tion Problems and an Assistant Secretary (in HEW) for Health, 

 Medical Services, and Population Problems. It would also have author- 

 ized the President to call a White House Conference on Population in 



"• "Public Papers of the Presidents. Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965." Vol. 1. (Washington, U.S. 

 Oovernment Printing Office, 1966), page 4. 

 "» Ibid., Vol. 2, page 705. 



97-400 O - 77 - 16 



