text: 66. Mr. KHALEVINSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that the appropriation rec01111ended under section 19 represented an increase of some $1. 7 million, or 19 •. 3 per cent, over the appropriation for the current biennium, such an increase was unwarranted. Moreover, part of it would be used for ·activities in connection with the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, / ... A/C. 5/38/SR. 2 7 English- Page 11 (Mr. Khalevinsky, USSR) contrary to the view of the Economic and Social Council that international years should be financed from voluntary contributions. A further provision of $720,000 was for additional posts and post reclassifications. His delegation, in view of its well-known position on that subject, would have voted against the appropriation had the matter been put to a vote. 67. Mr. GIDLEY (United States of America) said that his delegation had expressed concern about the financial implications of the accion proposed at the sixth session of the Commission on Human Settlements, and was dismayed to note that the proposals just approved reflected an increase of sane 17 per cent over the appropriation for the current biennium. His delegation had opposed the creation of four posts for the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, although it now noted that the posts would be temporary. Because of the increase involved, his delegation would have abstained had a vote been taken on section 19 as a whole. 68. Mr. MURRAY (United Kingdom) said that his delegation had been prepared to approve the activities of the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless on the understanding that they would be financed by voluntary contributions. Since, however, the programme provisions for the Year were included in section 19, his delegation would have abstained in the event of a vote on that section. 
analysis: The text discusses the appropriation of funds for the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, which is related to human settlements and housing. The speakers mention the financial implications of the proposal and the increase in the appropriation, which suggests that the topic is not directly related to economic development, natural resources, or industry. The focus is on the allocation of funds for a specific international year, which is more related to humanitarian aid and relief or human settlements.