AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 16
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 21, 2014
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: August 10, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
18228 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE
YouNol , and the Senator from Pennsyl-
vania [Mr. CLARK] would each vote
"yea."
On this vote, the Senator from Wash-
ington [Mr. JACKSON] is paired with the
the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG].
If present and voting, the Senator
from Louisiana would vote "nay" and
the Senator from Washington would vote
"yea."
Mr. CARLSON. I announce that the
Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON] and
the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Scan.] are necessarily absent.
The Senator from New York ? [Mr.
JAvrrs] is absent on official business.
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLD-
WATER] is detained on official business.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER], the Sen-
ator from New York [Mr. JAvirs], the
, Senator from Kansas [Mr.-PEARSON], and
the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Scorr] would each vote "yea."
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Dnuc-
sEN] , the Senator from Iowa [Mr.
HICKENLOOpER], the Senator from Cali-
fornia [Mr. KUCHEL] , and the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL]
are detained on official business at the
White House.
The result was announced?yeas 60,
nays 18, as follows:
[No. 528 Leg.]
YEAS-60
Allott Gruening Morton
Bartlett Hart Mundt
Bayh Hartke Muskie
Beall Holland Nelson
Bennett Hruska Neuberger
Bible Humphrey Pastore
Boggs Inouye Prouty
Brewster Jordan, Idaho Proxmire
Byrd, W. Va. Keating Randolph
Carlson Lausche Ribicoff
Case Long, Mo. Salinger
Church McCarthy Stennis
Cooper McGee Symington
Cotton McGovern Talmadge
Curtis McIntyre Thurmond
Dodd McNamara Tower
Dominick Mechem Walters
Douglas Metcalf Williams, Del.
Eastland Miller Yarborough
Fong Monroney. Young, N. flak.
Aiken
Ellender
Ervin
Fulbright
Hayden
Hill
Anderson
Burdick
Byrd, Va.
Cannon
Clark
Dirk.sen
Edmondson
Goldwater
NAYS-18
Johnston
Jordan, NC.
Magnuson
Mansfield
McClellan
Morse
Pell
Russell
Simpson
Smathers
Smith
Sparkman
NOT VOTING-22
Gore Pearson
Hickenlooper Robertson
Jackson Saltonstall
Javits Scott
Kennedy Williams, N.J.
Kuchel Young, Ohio
Long, La.
Moss
So Mr. HART'S amendment was agreed
to.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move
that the vote by which the amendment
was agreed to be reconsidered.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, I move
that the motion to reconsider be laid on
the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I wish to
m'ake a statement in explanation of my
vote against the Hart amendment,
which amendment was just adopted by
the Senate. I was called from the
Chamber when the chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee [Mr. FL-
BRIGHT] made his statement in regard to
this particular amendment.'
I had planned to vote for the amend-
ment. I believe that we should do what
we can to provide appropriate care for
the graves of Polish veterans of World
War II in Italy.
Inasmuch as I was absent from the
Chamber, and did not get back until the
vote had started, I therefore could not
ask any questions.
I was advised that the chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee had said
that there are no excess funds in Italy.
I hold his statement in my hand, in
which he states, in part:
First, no testimony was presented during
the hearing phase which would have clarified
the arguments for this proposal and its
further implications; second, the foreign
currencies referred to obviously would be
Italian lire, which are not in "excess" supply.
In connection with the second point, a suc-
cessful effort to implement this authority
could take place only if dollars were ap-
propriated with which to buy lire.
While the vote was being taken, I asked
certain questions of my colleagues on
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
They said there are not any excess Ital-
ian funds, that we do not have a storage
supply of Italian so-called counterpart
funds, as we have with so many other
countries of the world. Therefore I de-
cided that I could not vote for what I
considered to be an empty gesture.
It is my own personal opinion that my
constituents are entitled to know my
reasons for the vote. I could not vote
for an amendment, although I am for
the purpose of the amendment, when at
the time of the vote I_ was voting funds
which were nonexistent.
I believe that raises false 'hopes. If
they state in the bill that they wish to
make an appropriation to pay for per-
petual care for Polish graves in a ceme-
tery in Italy, I believe I would support
that bill.
I voted against this because in my
judgment I thought it was asking me
to vote for something when, in fact, the
funds that are supposed to be used to
accomplish the purpose are nonexistent..
The Senator from Oregon does not hold
for that kind of legislation.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its
reading clerks, communicated to the
Senate the intelligence of the death of
Hon. Joins B. BENNETT, late a Represent-
ative from the State of Michigan, and
transmitted the resolutions of the House
thereon.
DEATH OF JOHN B. BENNETT, A REP-
RESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN
Mr. HART. Mr. President, we have
just been advised of the death of the
senior member of the Michigan delega-
August 10
tion, Representative JOHN* B. BENNETT.
I am sure that there will be time for
those of us who knew him well to express
more fully and adequately our deep re-
gret at his passing.
While I am 'in the Chamber, I assure
the family of Representative BENNETT
of the great sense of loss that each Sen-
ator feels. Whatever political differences
there may have been, in everything that
Representative BENNETT did, he always
sought to do that which would advance
the best interests of his country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair lays before the Senate a resolution
from the House of Representatives,
which the clerk will read.
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
Resolved, That the House has heard With
profound sorrow of the death of the Honor-
able JoHN B. BENNETT, a Representative from
the State of Michigan.
Resolved, That a committee of fifty-four
Members of the House, with such Members of
the Senate as may be joined, be appointed to
attend the funeral.
Resolved, That the Sergeant at Arms of the
House be authorized and directed to take
such steps as may be necessary for carrying
out the provisions of these resolutions and
that the necessary expenses in connection
therewith be paid out of the contingent fund
of the House.
Resolved, That the Clerk communicate
these resolutions to the Senate and transmit
a copy thereof to the family of the deceased.
Resolved, That as a further mark of re-
spect, the House do now adjourn.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I send to
the desk a resolution and ask that it be
stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the resolution submitted
by the Senator from Michigan.
The Chief Clerk read the resolution
(S. Res. 349) submitted for himself and
Mr. MCNAMARA, as follows:
Resolved, That the Senate has heard with
profound sorrow the announcement of the
death of Hon. JOHN B. Bkannrr, late a Repre-
sentative from the State of Michigan.
Resolved, That a committee of two Sena-
tors be appointed by the Presiding Officer to
join the committee appointed on the part
of the House of Representatives to attend the
funeral of the deceased Representative.
Resolved, That the Secretary communi-
cate these resolutions to the House of Rep-
resentatives and transmit an enrolled copy
thereof to the family of the deceased.
The resolution was considered by
unanimous consent, and unanimously
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair appoints the two Senators from
Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA and Mr. HART]
to accompany the committee from the
House to attend the funeral of the late
Representative BENNETT.
AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSI
ANCE ACT OF 1961
The Senate resumed the considera-
tion of the bill (H.R. 11380) to amend
further the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, as amended, and for other pur-
poses.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment No. 1207 and ask
. unanimous consent that the amendment
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
196.4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE
be not read, but printed in the RECORD at
this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered. ?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I
have Modified my amendment on page
2, line 2, following the word "affiliates,"
deleting the remaining of the language
on line 2.
? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator has the right to modify his
amendment.
The amendment, as modified, was or-
dered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
On page 10, between lines 12 and 13, insert
the following:
"(b) Amend section 604(b), which relates
to maximum prices for commodities pro-
cured under the Act, by inserting '(1)' after
the word 'than' and by striking out the peri-
od at the end thereof and inserting in lieu
thereof a comma and the following: 'or (2)
In the case of petroleum or petroleum prod-
ucts, the price generally charged by the sup-
plier in comparable export sales from the
source country at the time of purchase.
Clause (2) of the foregoihg sentence shall
not apply to the purchase price in sales under
formal competitive bid procedures. The
term "comparable export sales" as used in
such clause shall not include sales to
affiliates.'"
"(b) Amend section 604, which relates to
procurement, by adding the following new
subsection (e) : ,
"'(e) None of the funds made available
under this Act shall be used to pay any
barter agent's commission or other servicing
charges or disposal fees in any case in which
commodities or defense articles furnished to
a recipient country are procured through the
barter of other commodities or articles, and
any such commission, charge, or fee shall be
paid by the supplier of the commodities or
defense articles so furnished or the recipient
country.'"
Redesignate subsections (b) to (f) as (c)
to (g) , respectively.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, AID
is consistently paying prices for oil which
is far in excess of existing market prices.
My amendment would require AID or
recipient countries using AID funds to
purchase oil at competitive market
prices rather than artificially higher
prices.
NO QUESTION OF BUY AMERICA
These amendments do not involve the
so-called buy America policy. The
question of where products are pur-
chased, or the ownershp of the com-
panies from which products are pur-
chased, is not raised. The only purpose
of my amendments are to see that,
wherever or from whomever are bought,
we receive the maximum value for the
expenditure.
What's wrong with that? Who can
object to insuring that we get value re-
ceived for our money? Certainly not the
countries receiving aid, since they will
receive the same amount of final goods
whether high prices or low prices are
paid.
The purpose of foreign aid is not to
provide dollars but to provide physical
goods that can be actually used in the
recipient country.
In effect, they provide AID with more
real assistance at no cost to the tax-
payer since the Agency will be able to
purchase more products with the same
amount of funds. The first part of my
amendment, moreover, is based verbatim
on a proposed regulation issued by the
Agency. The reason I am proposing my
amendment is simply that AID has not
seen fit to issue the regulation in final
form and I believe a matter of this im-
portance 6hould be in law rather than
in regulation.
THE PRICES PAID BY AID
For the past decade, AID petroleum
procurements have amounted to over
$100 million a year. Virtually all of
these purchases, incidentally, have been
from oversea sources and over 50 per-
cent from foreign-owned companies.
Thus, there has been a major drain on
our balance of payments from these pur-
chases alone.
Now, at what prices was this oil pur-
chased? About 2 percent of the pur-
chases were for lubes and greases.
These were purchased from U.S. firms,
from independent producers, and at
competitive prices. All the rest-98
percent or more than $100 million?was
purchased from seven international
companies and all was purchased at
posted prices which are 20 to 35 per-
cent over world prices. That means a
$20 to $35 million of American taxpayers'
money spent wastefully.
How can such artificial prices be
established? The seven international
companies have affiliated Operations
throughout the world. The companies
can set virtually any prices they wish on
the in-the-house transactions among
their own affiliates. Their normal pol-
icy is to establish artifically high prices
in the producing countries so that profits
can be retained in these countries where
taxes are low.
To make that as clear as I can, where
taxes are low in a producing country
of one of the seven companies, the com-
pany sets artificially high prices-20, 30,
or even 40 percent higher than competi-
tive market prices. No one except AID
and the affiliates of the company will
pay those prices. The affiliate pays the
price because the profit would go into
the same overall holding company. And
if taxes are lower in the producing coun-
try the overall taxes of the corporation
would be less and profits higher. It
makes sense for the corporation to han-
dle its bookkeeping in this profitmaking
way. But it makes no sense for AID to
pay a price that is higher and- in most
cases much higher than the world price.
Aside from affiliates, virtually no one
pays these posted prices except AID or
countries receiving AID funds. In these
cases, AID essentially insists upon pur-
chases at posted prices. The result of
this policy is either that countries which
we judge require oil obtain 20 to 30 per-
cent less than they need or the U.S. tax-
payers pays 20 to 30 percent more than
is necessary so that seven international
oil companies can benefit.
What is the justification given by AID
for such a policy? The only answer is
that these are the "normal channels of
trade." Yet they obviously are not.
What private firm would pay a high price
for a product when it can be obtained at
18229
a lower price? Competitive world prices
exist and are used by private buyers.
Our own Defense Department also con-
sistently pays competitive world prices
and refuses to pay posted prices at
present and it works effectively. Clearly,
AID should indicate to countries receiv-
ing aid that they should buy at the low-
est prices available. This procedure is
exactly what my first amendment would
require.
BROKER COSTS PAID BY AID
There are other examples of how AID
purchases at excessively high prices. One
of the ways in which petroleum prod-
ucts are purchased by foreign countries
with AID funds is through barter. Thus,
funds are provided which are used to
purchase agricultural surpluses which
are in turn exchanged for other com-
modities, such as oil and gas. These
transactions still involve posted prices
and therefore a loss to the American
taxpayer. In one case alone, in 6 months,
barter arrangements with the Govern-
ment of Tunisia cost an additional $4
million because posted prices rather than
competitive prices were used.
But even more is involved. Accord-
ing to rules issued in connection with
these barter arrangements, "No barter
agent's commission may be paid by the
suppliers of petroleum products?' This
is an incredible provision for the bene-
fit of one industry. Suppliers of all prod-
ucts customarily pay the servicing
charges and disposal fees associated with
their sales. These are normal costs to a
seller of selling his products. Why
should the normal business procedures
be completely overturned by a Govern-
ment order leading to additional Fed-
eral expenditures for the benefit of one
industry?
From July 1, 1949, through March 31,
1963, over $1? billion of barter trans-
actions were consummated all without
the Commodity Credit Corporation sub-
sidizing the barter contractor in the form
of a "disposal fee" payment.
It was not until August of 1963 that
procedures of this type were set up
within the framework of the barter regu-
lations, and the general recommenda-
tions from Agriculture at that time indi-
cated that these subsidies should be paid
only if absolutely necessary.
There have only been about $200 mil-
lion worth of barter contracts from Au-
gust 1963 until now that could have been
incorporated under these new regula-
tions.
When AID finances barter transac-
tions involving oil, AID insists the oil
suppliers should not pay brokerage or
selling cost ranging from 21/2 percent to
3 percent gross. This means the tax-
payer pays the brOker's fee.
PAYMENTS OF COSTS- IN EXTREME CASES
For example, a foreign country such as
Turkey obtains AID funds for the pur-
chase of agricultural products. Turkey
trades these agricultural goods with a
foreign-owned oil company such as Royal
Dutch Shell and AID will pay the bro-
kerage fees. This has actually happened
on several occasions.
This peculiar treatment has obviously
set a precedent. Other producers will
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
18230 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
now be coming to AID and asking for the
same type of "service" that the Agency is
providing to oil companies. If we do not
stop this practice now, the first thing we
know AID may pay other operating costs
of companies?domestic and foreign?
which sell products to foreign govern-
ments. Do we really want such a policy?
I think not, the other part of my amend-
ment-simply requires that AID not pay
these business costs.
A July 1963 article in Petroleum In-
telligence Weekly report that:
Whatever pace "stability or rigidity" may
have existed in international oil is a thing
of the past.
As a result of rapidly changing con-
ditions in the last 5 years, says Howard
W. Page, Standard Oil of New Jersey
director and vice President.
Page made this comment in challeng-
ing a university professor's description of
the international oil industry as on oli-
gopoly. Their remarks were made at a
meeting of the Princeton University
conference, the proceedings of which
were made public by Princeton this week-
end.
Page cited these examples of competi-
tion today: "Actual" sales prices for
Persian ,Gulf crude have fallen 45 cents
a barrel for the heaviest grades to "as
much as 65 cents" for the lightest crudes
since the 1957-58 peak. Page observed:
In considering crude oil prices, it is im-
portant to distinguish clearly between posted
prices and actual prices. Posted prices are
used to determine government revenue in
middle Europe. There is sometimes a tend-
ency to equate posted prices with the actual
market. Unfortunately, this is no longer
the case, and rigidity in posted prices should
not be taken to imply rigidity in actual prices
for crude oil and in realization from the ulti-
mate sale of products.
In a December 1963 article in Petro-
leum Intelligence, it is reported that:
The indicated discount (i.e., from posted
to actual) on the Texaco stile (to the Tuni-
sian Government) ; an eye-Opening discount
of 3'7 to 42 cents a barrel. (At the approxi-
mate time, the posted price was $1.80.) And
also that a discount to Morocco by Texaco
of 47 cents a barrel, when the posted price
was $2.17.
In these cases the buyers were other
governments. They were not using AID
funds. What did they pay? Not posted
prices; but competitive prices.
SUMMARY
Mr. President, I wish in Conclusion to
indicate exactly the types of abuses that
I am concerned about in our AID pro-
gram and the types of changes that will
be made by my amendments.
First. AID is paying rigged prices for
oil that are far above, sometimes 20 to
35 percent above, the prices that any
business would pay for the same prod-
ucts. This is because AID, and it alone,
is willing to pay prices that are set by
companies simply for their own in-the-
house transactions that have no rela-
tionship to the marketplace.
Second. The first part of -my amend-
ment would simply require AID to buy
oil at market prices established in com-
petitive markets. Such competitive
procedures Would permit independent
producers to bid on these sales and ob-
tain the type of competitive markets for
which the United States should be
known. This first amendment follows
the line of a proposed regulation by AID
which the agency has never seen 'fit to
make final.
Third. In some cases, AID is obligat-
ing our Government to pay broker's fees
for oil which sellers normally pay and
whic hare already included in the prices
charged to AID. ? .
Fourth. The second part of my amend-
ment simply makes it clear that our
Government should not pay these bro-
kerage fees. In this way, we will elim-
inate a precedent by which all sellers to
AID ?could insist upon payment of some
of their costs. At present, we are even
paying these costs in some cases where
the United States is not even a partici-
pant in the transactions.
Fifth. Mr. President, the United
States has been known for its freely
competitive marketplace. For the one
agency that deals most with foreign na-
tions, it would seem sensible that, as my
amendments provide; our Government
operates as a prudent trader in the
marketplace and pays only prices estab-
lished by competitive practices.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, this
amendment has been discussed with the
Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE],
and with the chairman of the committee
[Mr. FULBRIGHT1. It is my understand-
ing that the Senator from Arkansas ex-
pressed a willingness to accept the
amendment.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I
thank the distinguished Senator. I press
my amendment to a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. WAL-
TERS in the chair). The question is on
agreeing to the amendment, as modified,
offered by the Senator from Wisconsin
[Mr. PROXMIRE].
The amendment, as modified, was,
agreed to.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment No. 1183 and ask that
it be stated.
? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment of the Senator from Iowa
will be stated.
The CHIEF CLERK. On page 12, line
23, it is proposed to add the following
new subsection:
(g) In order to encourage preservation of
the financial solvency of the United Nations
which is being threatened by the failure of
some member nations to pay currently their
August 10
assessments and/or contributions to the
United Nations, no assistance shall be fur-
nished under the provisions of this Act, to
the government of any nation which Is more
than one year in arrears in its payment of
any assessment by the United Nations for
Its regular budget or for peace and Security
operations, unless a report is first furnished
by the President to the Committee on For-
eign Relations of the Senate and to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives set-
ting forth his determination that such as-
sistance should nevertheless be furnished,
accompanied by the reasons for such deter-
mination, including the assurance, if any,
given by the government concerned of paying
(independently of such assistance) all such
arrearages and placing its payments of such
assessments on a current basis, or an explana-
tion of the unusual and exceptional circUm-
stances which make it economically incapable
of giving such assurance.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, the cold
war demands on the world make it im-
perative that we reorient our foreign aid
policies. It should be impressed upon
various countries that they must do their
share in making this world a better place
in which to live.
The United Nations, a world organiza-
tion designed to bring the peoples of the
world closer together, has actually in
some ways, drawn us farther apart.
One reason for this is that some na-
tions treat the organization as merely
a global forum to air their interests.
They want that forum, in fact, need that
forum, but they do not concern them-
selves with maintaining it. They have
adopted as their motto?:"let Uncle Sam
do it." But they are the first to spring
to -the forefront in theatrical breast-
beating if the United States does Some-
thing which displeases them.
The United States must be put on
record that it is displeased with the at-
titude of those nations which derive the
benefits but ignore their share of the
costs of operating the United Nations.
This is the purpose of my amendment.
It would deny to those nations more than
1 year in arrears on their U.N. dues and
assessments the opportuntity to receive
our foreign aid. We would be saying to
them, "Either do your fair share to sup-
port the United Nations or that share of
our taxpayer's dollar which .was sched-
uled for you will go elsewhere to those
nations which are concerned with the
welfare of the world, as expressed
through their support the United Na-
tions."
My amendment would encourage the
preservation of the financial solvency of
the United Nations. Its very existence
is being threatened by the failure of
many nations to pay their just dues and
assessments?all scaled, I might add, on
the basis of relative ability.
Efforts have been and are being made
to submerge the degree and extent of
irresponability of these delinquent coun-
tries. Such is the result, if not the pur-
pose, behind the recent change by the
U.N. Secretariat in its method of report-
ing on arrearages. Instead of listing
delinquencies on a year-by-year basis,
they are now being lumped together. So,
unless one is willing to make a detailed
examination of previous reports?De-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
cember 31, 1963, and before?it is diffi-
cult to ascertain how long and how much
each country is in arrears for particular
years. Not too many newsmen have the
time to make a country-by-country
analysis of the arrearages.
One State Department official said,
when queried as to the reasons behind
this change, "It is a face-saving device,
making it difficult to find out who pays
precisely what."
But the financial crisis of the United
Nations cannot be hidden. One cannot
ignore the fact that total United Nations
arrearages, as of June 30, 1964, came to a
staggering total of $123 million.
And 51 nations which received assist-
ance, in one form or another, from the
United States in fiscal year 1963 cannot
avoid their responsibility for creating
this situation. Some are delinquent for
the year 1963 only, but 41 nations have
dues and assessments outstanding not
only for 1963 but for 1962, and in many
cases; before.
These 41 are the countries which would
be, and should be, affected by my amend-
ment.
These are the countries which received
more than $1,600 million in aid from the
United States in fiscal year 1963.
These are the countries which are be-
hind close to $48 million in United Na-
tions dues and assessments for all years.
These are the countries which owe
close to $38 million in unpaid dues for
the years 1962 and before.
These are the nations whose receipts
from our foreign aid in 1 year alone to-
taled many times the amount of their
delinquencies in the United Nations.
My amendment provides that no as-
sistance shall be furnished under the
provisions of this act to the government
of any nation which is more than 1 year
in arrears in its payment of aily assess-
ment of the United Nations for its regu-
lar budget or for peacekeeping and secu-
rity operations. -
However, the President is given au-
thority to make exceptions.
If he provides a report to the Commit-
tee on Foreign Relations of the Senate
and to the Speaker of the House of Rep-
resentatives, setting forth his determi-
nation that such foreign aid should nev-
ertheless be furnished?accompanied by
specific reasons?the delinquent nation
can receive our aid.
The President's report must also indi-
cate what assurances have been given by
the recipient government of paying all
its arrearages and placing its payments
on a current basis, or set forth a state-
ment of the unusual and exceptional
circumstances which make its economi-
cally incapable of giving such assurance.
I believe my amendment, if included as
a part of this bill, would result in many
countries becoming more aware of the
necessity for preserving the financial'in-
tegrity of the United Nations.
If it is necessary to give these nations
some shock treatment, it must be done.
It is only fair to our taxpayers, who are
paying for foreign aid, to do so. And
if we do not do it, we may awaken one
day and find that the peace of the world,
as reflected in the United Nations, is no
more, because the United Nations has
gone out of existence due to financial
bankruptcy.
On each Senator's desk are some sta-
tistics which I believe have a timely
bearing on this amendment. The first
table lists 52 countries to which we have
furnished assistance from fiscal year
1946 through fiscal year 1963, which are
delinquent in one or more other assess-
- ments by the United Nations.
Of these 52 countries, 51 actually re-
ceived some ,type of assistance from the
United States in fiscal year 1963. More-
over, of these 51, 41 would be affected by
my amendment, inasmuch as the 41
countries are more than 1 year delin-
quent.
The sources set forth are from the
_,--United Nations Secretariat.-
On the next chart is a breakdown of
the types of delinquency that exist in
the United Nations. For example, 26 na-
tions are delinquent in their regular
dues. Of those 26, 25 are currently re-
ceiving assistance from the United
States.
I point out that, of the 26, only Cuba,
which is delinquent in its dues account,
is not receiving financial assistance from
the United States.
Then there is the group that is de-
linquent in its assessments with respect
to the emergency budget. There are 44
of those countries. Of those 44, 43?
Cuba being the only exception?are still
receiving assistance under our foreign
aid programs.
Then there is the Congo ad hoc assess-
ment account. All 52 of the delinquent
nations have received assistance from the
United States since 1946; 51 are still re-
ceiving such assistance, here again Cuba
being the only one which is not.
Now for some examples of the delin-
quencies shown on the next chart. For
example, during 1963, Argentina received
foreign aid from the United States to-
taling $156,500,000. Nevertheless, Ar-
gentina could not bring itself to pay
$2,482,878 in back dues and assessments
to the United Nations.
I have set forth the delinquencies by
the year, not only in the regular budget,
but in the emergency force.
It may be noted that the delinquency of
Argentina with reference to the emer-
gency force goes back to 1957. I have
not attempted to show how much foreign
aid has been received from this country
during all those years. I merely point
out what Argentina received during fiscal
1963 to show the grotesque amount of
foreign aid?$156,500,000--compared to
the relatively small amount of the ar-
rearages of $2,482,878.
One wonders why Argentina could not
bring itself to pay these arrearages, par-
ticularly' in light of the great amount of
our foreign aid to her in 1 year alone.
Yugoslavia is another example.
During 1963 Yugoslavia received $113,-
500,000 in foreign aid from the United
States. Its total arrearages came to only
$301,453. Still, Yugoslavia cannot bring
18231
Itself to pay its back dues and assess-
ments to the United Nations.
There are other examples.
For example, Poland, during fiscal
year 1963, received $10,800,000 in foreign
aid from the United States. Her total
arrearages to the United Nations were
$3,665,000.
France is another example. During
1963 France received over $30 million in
foreign aid from the United States. Its
total arrearages were $16,143,000.
In fiscal year 1963, Costa Rica received
$15,500,000 in foreign aid from the
United States. Its total arrearages,
which it refuses to pay, amount to al-
most $29,000?a small fraction of the
total amount of foreign aid.
The Dominican Republic is another.
In fiscal year 1963 she received in foreign
aid $51,700,000. Yet its total arrear-
ages of $99,000 could not be paid?or;
at least, I should say, would not be paid.
There are others?Bolivia, Chile, Jor-
dan, Somalia.
All these are examples of countries
which receive a great amount of foreign
aid from the United States in 1 year
alone, compared with the relatively small
amount of U.N. dues and assessments.
They have received assistance from the
United States since 1946. Nevertheless,
they refuse to pay dues and assessments.
There are some examples of nations
which have been receiving our foreign
aid, and which, at the same time, are
practicing fiscal integrity so far as the
United States is concerned.
For example, Colombia in fiscal year
1963 received $134,900,000 from the
United States, and it is current in its
payment of dues and assessments.
Israel received $78,900,000. It, also,
is current in its payments of dues and
assessments. One wonders what Israel's
reaction is to the fact that Chile received
$99 million in foreign aid, as against Is-
rael's $78 million, but that Israel is cur-
rent in its payments and Chile is consid-
erably behind in its payments, when
Chile's arrearages amount to only a frac-
tion of the total of $6 billion aid that it
has received from this country.
" Liberia, Nigeria, Tunisia, and the Ivory
Coast are other outstanding examples of
nations which have been receiving our
foreign aid and at the same time have
been practicing fiscal responsibility by
paying their dues and assessments on
time to the United Nations.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the various charts and statis-
tics to which I have been referring be
placed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Fifty-two countries to which we have fur-
nished assistance from fiscal year 1946
through fiscal year 1963 are delinquent in
one or more of their assessments by the
United Nations.
Of these 52 countries, 51 received some
type of assistance in fiscal year 1963 from
the United States; and of these 51, there are
41 which would be affected by the Miller
amendment, inasmuch as these countries are
more than 1 calendar year delinquent:
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
18232 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Countries which would be affected by Miller amendment
August 10
Country
Total U.S. aid,
fiscal year 1963
U.N. total
arrearages
for all
years
Arrearages
for calendar
year 1962
and prior 1
Country
Total U.S. aid,
fiscal year 1963
U.N. total
arrearages
for all
years '
Arrearages
for calendar
year 1962
and prior 1
Afghanistan
Argentina
Belgium
Bolivia
Brazil
Chad
Chile
China
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador '
France
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
Iraq
Jordan
Lebanon
Mauritania
Mali
$19, 200, 000
156, 500, 000
28, 100,000
69,900, 000
172, 300, 000
1, 100, 000
99, 200, 000
212, 600, NO
15, 500, 000
51, 700, 000
23, 100, 000
30,600, 000
15,400, 000 ?
16,000, 000
6, 200, 000
14, 400, 000
1,000. 000
63. 600, 000
300, 000
200,000
4, 600, 000
$76, 228. 00
2,482, 878. 97
3,271, 651.00
118, 990. 40
930, 749. 50
9, 516. 23
510, 303. 00
14, 426, 448. 00
28, 950. 59
99, 624. 25
15, 927.00
16, 143, 083. 00
119, 909. 00
17, 064. 00
125, 227. 50
60,179. 50
172, 246. 00
82. 817.00
23, 434.02
62, 230. 26
18. 208. 86
2,
2,
9,
14,
$65, 161.00
042, 328. 97
876, 284. 00
80, 019. 40
327, 996. 50
777.00
252, 049. 00
791, 580. 03
20, 105. 69
52, 384.00
7,082. 00
186, 016. 00
69, 332. 00
8, 210.00
85, 581 50
32, 385. 50
152, 342. 00
67, 772. 00
12, 691. 00
21, 314. 26
11, 619. 86
Mexico
Morocco
Nicaragua
Niger
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Pcland
Portugal
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Somali
Spain
Syria
Togo
United Arab Republic
Upper Volta
Uruguay_
Yemen
Yugoslavia
$50, 900, 000
75, mg), 000
6,000, 000
1, 400, 000
10, 000, 000
10, 200, 000
31, 000, 000
10, 800, 000
18, 900, 000
(1)
5,200, 000
9,200, 000
61, 000, 000
400, 000
1,300, 000
198, 700, 000
1, 000, 000
24, 600, 000
4, 000,000
113, 500, 000
$1, 293, 009. 00
148, 784. 00
62, 661. 50
29, 214. 50
43, 335. 50
126, 490. 50
195, 752. 50
3, 665, OM. 00
188, 277. 00
122, 885. 00
30, 014. 00
28, 583, 32
1, 828, 833. 00
91, 001.00
34, 810. 50
354, 716.37
47, 541.00
263, 259.00
135, 467. 50
301, 453. 00
$1,129, 359. 00
117. 823. 00
26, 205. 00
20;369. 50
34, 490. 50
85, 680. 50
158, 745 50
3. 121. 919. 00
161, 919. 00
107, 404. 00
8, 965. 00
7, 507.07
1,638, 647.00
38, 622. 00
28,369. 00
284, 742. 00
12, 952. 00
155, 970. 00
94, 657. 50
238, 853.00
1 Under Miller amendment, withholding of economic assistance would only occur
In the case of those nations over 1 year delinquent.
2 Military data classified.
United Nations arrearages as of June 30, 1964
Total
$123,
120,
345.08
Regular budget
10,
032,
567. 73
Emergency force
29,
687,
477. 22
Congo ad hoc
82,
948,
912. 13
Summary of payments due United Nations
and number of countries in each category
REGULAR BUDGET
Calendar year 1963 (36 coun-
tries)
$8,
'705,
582. 76
Calendar year 1962 (8 coun-
tries)
1,
107,
867. 00
Calendar year 1961 (6 coun-
tries) -
219,
117.97
All of the following countries delinquent
in their regular budget dues have received
assistance from the United States and 25 are
still receiving assistance: Argentina, Bolivia,
Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba; Do-
minican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti,
Honduras, Jordan, Laos, Mauritania, Nica-
ragua, Paraguay, Peru, Senegal, Somalia,
Syria, Togo, United Arab Republic, Upper
Volta, Uruguay, and Ye/nen.
EMERGENCY BUDGET
Calendar year 1963 (44 coun-
tries) $2, 759, 045. 88
Calendar year 1962 (35 coun-
tries) 2, 251, 824. 00
Calendar year 1961 (31 coun-
tries) 4, 741, 805. 25
Calendar year 1960 (27 coun-
tries) 4. 678, 493. 09
Calendar year 1959 (20 coun-
tries) 4, 289, 511. 00
Calendar year 1958 (17 coun-
tries) 7, 148, 481. 00
Calendar year 1957 (14 coun-
tries) 3, 818, 317. 00
Forty-four of the following countries delin-
quent in their emergency fund accounts have
received assistance from the, United States
since 1946 and 43 are still receiving assist-
ance: Afghanistan, Argentina, Bolivia, Chad,
Chile, China, Congo (Brazzaville) , Costa
Rica, Cuba,1 Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
El Salvador. Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guinea,
Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Leba-
non, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua,
Niger, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Saudi
Arabia, Senegal, Somalia. Spain, Sudan,
Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab
Republic, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Yemen, and
Mauritania.
1 Not currently receiving assistance.
Sources: United Nations Secretariat, "Statement on the Collection of Contribu-
tions as at Dec. 31, 1963, and June 30, 1964"; "U.S. Aid to Foreign Assistance Act
Countries, By Region and Country, Obligations and Loan Authorizations, Fiscal
Year 1963"-Preliminary, Statistics and Reports Division, Agency for International
Development.
Summary of payments due United Nations
and number of countries in each category?
Continued
CONGO AD HOC
Calendar year 1963 (52
countries)
Calendar year 1962 (38
countries)
Calendar year 1961
countries)
Calendar year 1960
countries)
$12, 138, 474.30
24,065, 432. 00
(37
29, 563, 877. 93
(29

16, 181, 127. 90
Source: United Nations Secretariat. State-
ment on the Collection of Contributions as
of Dec. 31, 1963, and June 30, 1964, AID
All 52 of the countries delinquent in this
account have received assistance from the
United States since 1946 and 51 are still re-
ceiving assistance: Afghanistan, Argentina,
Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Central African Re-
public, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo
(Brazzaville) , Costa Rica, Cuba; Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia,
France, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras,
Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Mali, Mauri-
tania, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua,
Niger, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Po-
land, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somali,
Spain, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Upper
Volta, Uruguay, Yemen, Yugoslavia, and
United Arab Republic.
Examples of delinquencies
ARGENT/NA
Fiscal year 1963 aid
Fiscal year 1946-63
$156,500,
773, 000,
000.00
000. 00
Total arrearages
2,482,878.97
Regular budget:
Calendar year 1963
782,
949. 00
Calendar year 1962
611,
362. 00
Calendar year 1961
175,
217. 97
Emergency force:
Calendar year 1963
56,
974. 00
Calendar year 1962
18,442. 00
Calendar year 1961
103,
291. 00
Calendar year 1960
109,
594.00
Calendar year 1959
168,
180.00
Calendar year 1958
285,
000. 00
Calendar year 1957
171,
869. 00
Congo ad hoc:
Calendar year 1963
166,
384. 00
Calendar year 1962
160,
664.00
Calendar year 1961
219,
911.00
Calendar year 1960
18,
797.00
1 Not currently receiving assistance.
Examples of delinquencies?Continued
YUGOSLAVIA
Fiscal year 1963 aid $113,
Fiscal year 1946-63 2,
500,
510, 000,
000. 00
000. 00
Total arrearages
301,
453. 00
Congo ad hoc:
Calendar year 1963
Calendar year 1962
Calendar year 1961
Calendar year 1960
62,
60,
69,
109,
600. 00
505. 00
341. 00
007.00
CHINA
Fiscal year 1963 aid
212, 600,
000. 00
Fiscal year 1946-63 4,
524, 000,
000. 00
Total arrearages
14, 426,
448. 00
Regular budget:
Calendar year 1963
3, 624,
229. 00
Emergency force:
Calendar year 1963
257,
793, 00
Calendar year 1962
217,
133.00
Calendar year 1961
466,
207. 50
Calendar year 1960
989,
797. 00
Calendar year 1959
739,
151. 00
Calendar year 1958
1,252,
500. 00
Calendar year 1957
405,
048. 00
Congo ad hoc:
Calendar year 1963
'752,
846. 00
Calendar year 1962
1, 823,
774. 00
Calendar year 1961
2, 481,
426. 00
Calendar year 1960
1, 396,
543. 50
POLAND
Fiscal year 1963 aid
10, 800,
000. 00
Fiscal year 1946-63
533, 000,
000. 00
Total arrearages
3, 665,
000. 00
Emergency force:
Calendar year 1963
121,
406. 00
Calendar year 1962
60,
854. 00
Calendar year 1961
256,
343. 00
Calendar year 1960
135,
134. 00
Calendar year 1959
207,
514.00
Calendar year 1958
380,
000. 00
Calendar year 1957
229,
159. 00
Congo ad hoc:
Calendar year 1963
421,
726. 00
Calendar year 1.962
510,
845. 00
Calendar year 1961
678,
553. 00
Calendar year 1960
663,
517. 00
FRANCE
Fiscal year 1963 aid
30, 600,
000. 00
Fiscal year. 1946-63 9,
445, 000,
000. 00
Total arrearages_ _
16, 143,
083. 00
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Examples of delinquencies?Continued
Congo ad hoc:
Calendar year 1963 $1, 957, 068. 00
Calendar year 1962 4, 746, 601.00
Calendar year 1961 6, 339, 772.00
Calendar year 1960 2, 823, 432. 00
COSTA RICA
Fiscal year 1963 aid
15,
500, 000. 00
Fiscal year 1946-63
105,
000, 000. 00
Total arrearages
28, 950. 59
Emergency force:
?
Calendar year 1963
2, 256. 00
Calendar year 1962
735. 00
Calendar year 1961
3, 722. 00
Calendar year 1960
3, 171.09
Congo ad hoc:
Calendar year 1963
6, 589. 00
Calendar year 1962
6, 366. 00
Calendar year 1961
7, 611.50
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Fiscal year 1963 aid
51,
700, 000. 00-
Fiscal year 1946-63
100,
000, 000. 00
Total arrearages
99,624.25
Regular budget:
Calendar year 1963
36,211.25
Emergency force:
Calendar year 1963
2, 821. 00
Calendar year 1962
919.00
Calendar year 1961
9, 356. 00
Congo ad hoc:
Calendar year 1963
8, 238. 00
Calendar year 1962
7, 958. 00
Calendar year 1961
9, 905. 00
Calendar year 1960
24, 216.00
BOLIVIA
Fiscal year 1963 aid
69,
900, 000. 00
Fiscal year 1946-63
334,
000, 000. 00
Total arrearages
118, 990. 40
Regular budget:
Calendar year 1963
30, 126.00
Calendar year 1962
24, 274. 00
Calendar year 1961
136.00
Emergency force:
Calendar year 1963
2, 256. 00
Calendar year 1962
735. 00
Calendar year 1961
' 7, 484. 00
Calendar year 1960
3, 939. 00
Calendar year 1959
6, 056. 00
Calendar year 1958
12, 500.00
Congo ad hoc:
Calendar year 1963
6, 584. 00
Calendar year 1962
6,066. 00
Calendar year 1961____
7, 925.00
Calendar year 1960____
10, 604.00
CHILE
Fiscal year 1963 aid
99,
200, 000.00
Fiscal year 1946-63
840,
000, 000. 00
Total arrearages
510, 303. 00
Regular budget:
Calendar year 1963
200, '759.00
Emergency force:
Calendar year 1963
14,667. 00
Calendar year 1962
4, 765. 00
Calendar year 1961
25, 125.00
Calendar year 1960
26, 643. 00
Calendar year 1959
35, 269. 00
Congo ad hoc:
Calendar year 1963
42, 831. 00
Calendar year 1962
41, 372. 00
Calendar year 1961
63, 492. 00
Calendar year 1960
65, 383. 00
JORDAN
Fiscal year 1963 aid
63,
600, 000. 00
Fiscal year 1948-63
414,
000, 000. 00
Total arrearages
82,617. 00
Examples of delinquencies?Continued
Regular budget:
Calendar year 1963 $6, 000. 00
Emergency force:
Calendar year 1963 2, 256. 00
Calendar year 1962 735.00
Calendar year 1961 7,484. 00
Calendar year 1960
3,
951. 00
Calendar year 1959
6,
062. 00
Calendar year 1958
10,
000. 00
Calendar year 1957
5,
876. 00
Congo ad hoc:
Calendar year 1963
6,
589.00
Calendar year 1962
6,
366. 00
Calendar year 1961
7,
925. 00
Calendar year 1960
19,
373.00
SOMALI
Fiscal year 1963 aid 9,
200,
000.00
Fiscal year 1946-63 38,
000,
000. 00
Total arrearages
28,583.32
Regular budget:
Calendar year 1963
2,
231. 00
Emergency force:
Calendar year 1963
2,
266.,00
Congo ad hoc:
Calendar year 1963
6,
589. 00
Calendar year 1962
6,396. 00
Calendar year 1961
1, 111. 07
Examples of nations not
in arrears
Country
Fiscal year
1963 aid
Fiscal year
1946-63 aid
Colombia
$134, 900,000
$547, 000, 000
Israel_
78,900, 000
962, 000, 000
Liberia
60, 800,000
179, 000, 000
Nigeria
36, 600, 000
81,000, 000
Tunisia
71, 900, 000
364, 000, 000
Ivory Coast
7, 900, 000
13, 900,000
ARREARAGES, AS OF JUNE 130,
1964
Regular budget
$2,
145,
051.30
Emergency force
15,
638,
166. 00
Congo ad hoc
36,
984,
971.00
Total
54,
768,
188. 30
Source: U.N. Secretariat, Statement on the
Collection of Contributions, as at June 30,
1964.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
- Mr. MILLER,. I yield.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Under the column
entitled "Total U.S, Aid, Fiscal Year
1963" I note the listing of Belgium. The
Senator shows that Belgium received
from the United States in foreign aid
$28,100,000. What items does the listing
embrace. Does it cover Public Law 480
sales, or does it cover only what we
genuinely know as foreign aid?
Mr. MILLka. It would, cover any
type of foreign aid?Public Law 480, De-
velopment Loans, Development Grants,
and Military Assistance. The idea be-
hind these figures is to show the total
amount of foreign aid, whether it comes
from one source or ahother, which that
country received, as compared with the
relatively small amount which it can-
not quite bring itself to pay to the
United Nations to keep it current, as the
result of which the United Nations is
facing bankruptcy.
Mr. LAUSCHE. U.S. aid means direct
U.S. aid to these nations, and not aid
which is received from international
associations, made up of many countries.
Is that correct?
Mr. MILLER. The Senator is correct.
I appreciate the Senator's bringing out
18233
that point. I should have done it before.
The point is that, quite apart from the
amounts shown here of our foreign aid
to these countries, some of these coun-
tries are recipients of other types of aid
through United Nations subsidiary or-
ganizations and through international
organizations, such as the Inter-Ameri-
can Development Loan Fund. Of course
such amounts could be added to the total
of worldwide assistance which these
countries receive.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MILLER. I point out that to the
argument that some of these nations
cannot afford to pay their back dues and
assessments, there are two answers. The
first answer is that the dues and assess-
ments are scaled by a committee in the
United Nations, composed of representa-
tives of various countries, both large and
small, both relatively well off and rela-
tively poor. These countries have scaled
clues and assessments, with an eye to the
relative ability to pay their dues. If ad-
verse economic developments make it
impossible for these nations to pay their
back dues and assessments to the United
Nations, the President of the United
States may report that fact in his deter=
mination that they should nevertheless
receive such foreign aid, and make that
report to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and to the Senate Corn-
mittee on Foreign Relations.
I believe that under these circum-
stances my amendment is very fair. I
recognize that we have gone through this
before. Since I became a member of the
Senate, starting in 1961, each year I have
offered an amendment somewhat -along
these lines. What prompted me to do so
was the first inkling, back in 1961, when
I came to the Senate, that the United
Nations was facing a financial crisis. We
were warned in 1961 that the day of
reckoning was not far away. That day
of reckoning became so serious in the fall
of 1961, or certainly early in 1962, that
Congress was presented with a request
by the President to help stave off the day
of reckoning by approving a United Na-
tions bond issue, which we were supposed
to support to the extent of one-half.
Necessary appropriations were made by
Congress to this end.
However, I regret to say that the pay-
ment of back dues and assessments by
various member nations has not done
much to end the deficiencies of the U.N.
and, as a result, notwithstanding the
U.N. bond issue, we are told that the day
of reckoning will be at the next General
Session of the United Nations, this fall.
There is a provision in the United Na-
tions Charter that any nation which is
more than 2 years in arrears in its as-
sessments and dues shall lose its right to
vote in the General Assembly of the
United Nations. This subject was
presented to the World Court, and the
World Court found that the dues and as-
sessments, regardless of whether they
were for the regular budget or for
emergency peacekeeping activities, were
part and parcel of the dues for purposes
of interpretation of the United Nations
Charter; therefore, the Soviet Union
and several other nations which have
been deliberately refusing to pay their
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
18234 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
dues can properly be challenged at the
next meeting of the United Nations when
it comes their turn to vote.
I am pleased to say that the decision
of our representatives in the United Na-
tions is firmly to the effect that the pro-
vision of the charter is supported by the
interpretation of the World Court and
should be put into full effect at the next
meeting.
But there seems to be some question
as to whether the presiding officer, the
Secretary General, will ignore , it, be-
cause he could state that such a ruling
would be unprecedented and, since he
feels he should not rule on it, the mem-
bership should rule on the question.
That would be not unlike the manner
in which we in the Senate decide some
parliamentary procedures.
One wonders what the ruling might be
if the membership had to decide whether
those who are more than 2 years in ar-
rears should be passed over on a roll-
call, when more than half the members
of the United Nations are delinquent.
Be that as it may, I find it impossible
to understand why we should not gear
our foreign aid program to the support
of the United Nations. Our country's
policy, under both Democratic and Re-
publican administrations, has been to
support wholeheartedly the principles
of the United Nations. This does not
mean that we agree with some of the
abuses and mistakes of the United Na-
tions, but we do support the United Na-
tions in its objectives of world peace.
I venture to say that most of us do
not wish to see the United Nations go
out of existence as a result of bankrupt-
cy. We are told that if the United Na-
tions does not receive some of the assess-
ments and dues that are in arrears, it
will indeed be faced with bankruptcy.
The Soviet Union is the biggest debtor
of any member of the United Nations.
The Soviet Union does not receive any
foreign aid from the United States, so
we cannot very well use our foreign aid
program in a manner that would have a
salutary effect upon the Soviet Union's
fiscal integrity before the United Nations.
But many nations receive our foreign
aid, and it seems to me that when they
refuse to pay their commitments to the
,United Nations, while having the ability
to pay, the least we might do, if we really
mean what we say, when we say that we
support the United Nations, is to say to
them, "You had better `get right' with
the United Nations; otherwise, do -not
ask the taxpayers of the United States
to furnish you with foreign aid." That
Could be very harsh in certain circum-
stances, and that is precisely why I have
worded my amendment so as to provide
that the President can, nevertheless,
upon certain conditions, determine that
certain nations should receive our for-
eign aid. But when he makes such a
determination, he ought to come before
the Senate Committee on Foreign Rela-
tions and the House Committee on For-
eign Affairs and state why the aid should
be furnished. He should also state that
assurances have been given by? those
countries that they will pay their back
dues and assessments and put their pay-
ments on a current basis. If such as-
surances cannot be given, the President
also should state what are the economic
conditions which make it impossible for
the countries in arrears to give such as-
surances.
I believe that in this respect the
amendment is in a better form than the
amendment which was presented last
year. It provides for a reasonable es-
cape hatch; nevertheless, an escape
hatch that will provide a certain amount
of information to Congress for control.
I would envision that some of the coun-
tries which are not paying their back
dues and assessments would, neverthe-
less, be furnished foreign aid when the
President made a determination that
they should receive such aid. He would
make such a determination only after
he had received assurance from the rep-
resentatives of those governments that
they would button down and clear their
books. That would have a salutary in-
fluence on those countries.
If this is not done, just as surely as we
are sitting in the Senate, the day will not
be too far off when the United Nations
will go out of existence because of finan-
cial bankruptcy. Before that happens,
I would venture the guess that there
might be a further request that the tax-
payers of the United States support an-
other bond issue of the United Nations.
Whether such a request would be acted
on favorably, no one can say. However,
I see no reason why we should come to
that position. We have it within our
ability to gear our foreign aid program
to a policy of support of the United Na-
tions.
I have heard the arguments against
this proposal before. People have said
that we are not dues collectors, for the
United Nations. This is a rather super-
ficial approach, because nobody Is say-
ing, either in my amendment or any-
where else, that we ought to pick up the
dues from those countries. Still, it seems
to me that the least we can say to such
countries is that if they want our foreign
aid, they must pay their dues and assess-
ments to the United Nations.
Some may say that my amendment has
no place in the foreign aid program;
that the problem should be handled
through our representatives at the United
Nations. Perhaps it should be; but it
has not been, and I see nothing to indi-
cate that it will be, If our representa-
tives at the United Nations had been able
to handle this problem, my amendment
would not be before the Senate today.
This situation has continued, and it
will go on and on, if all we say is, "Let
our representatives at the United Na-
tions handle the problem."
By my amendment, we have an op-
portunity to say to the rest of the world
that we want to help those who cannot
help themselves. We want those who
can do so to help themselves, and we
are willing to help them.
We support the United Nations. The
United Nations affords the world its fore-
most opportunity for peace. But we
should say that we will not furnish our
foreign aid to nations which refuse, year
after year, to pay their dues and assess-
ments to the United Nations, unless they
can somehow show to our President that
August 10
they do not have the economic ability to
pay their dues and assessments, which,
as I have said, are scaled by.their brother
member nations, large and small, weal-
thy and poor.
I observe in the Chamber the distin-
guished chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Relations. I invite his attention
to the fact that my amendment is cast
somewhat differently from ,the amend-
ment that was considered last year. I
would hope that he might take my
amendment to conference. I shall wel-
come any comments he has on it. I have
tried to cover this proposal rather fully.
I yield the floor.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
appreciate the Senator's invitation to
comment. I cannot accept the amend-
ment. The main reason is that it would
not accomplish the purpose which the-
Senator from Iowa intends that it should
accomplish.
This amendment was brought up and
defeated in connection with last year's
foreign aid legislation, and the executive
branch continues its strong opposition
to the proposal.
In effect, the amendment tries to make
the United States become a collection
agency for the United Nations. It would
do so on the basis of regulations far more
severe than the U.N. itself imposes on its
membership. The amendment would cut
off aid to a country whose debt to the
U.N. is not sufficient to subject it to the
United Nations own sanctions. Article
.19 of the U.N. Charter denies voting
rights in the General Assembly to any
member whose total arrearages exceed
U.N. assessments over the previous 2
years. This amendment, however, would
apply to any country in arrears for more
than 1 year. The United States would be
in a peculiar position if it tried to im-
pose its own sanctions on countries
which were not even subject to the sanc-
tions ,of the U.N. Charter.
In any case, the amendment would not
accomplish its intended purpose?which
is "to encourage preservation of the
financial solvency of the United Nations."
By far the largest fiscal problem facing
the United Nations is the delinquencies
of the? Soviet bloc countries, which col-
lectively amount to about $74 million
in terms of the provisions of article 19
of the charter. This must be compared
with arrearages of less than $19 million
by this standard on the part of all coun-
tries which receive foreign aid from the
United States. Furthermore, almost
three-quarters of this amount is owed by
Nationalist China. In short, even if this
amendment were changed to conform
to the U.N.'s own definition of delin-
quency, it would only be directed against
a very minor aspect of the problem; in-
sofar as it did so, it would be an amend-
ment directed against the Nationalist
Chinese.
It should also be stressed that the
aid-recipient countries owing the re-
mainder of the_ $19 million referred to
above have all given assurances that they
will pay the amounts necessary to avoid
the sanctions of article 19 of the U.N.
Charter before the next session of the
General Assembly. Unless the United
States sets up entirely new standards,
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE
by imposing unilateral conditions on
U.N. members through acceptance of
this amendment, most of our friends in
default will have repaired their positions
before November.
Perhaps the most important objec-
tion to this amendment on an immediate
basis derives from the forthcoming
struggle to make article 19 apply to the
Soviet bloc countries at the next Gen-
eral Assembly. In order to make this
sanction effective, the United States will
have to conduct a continuous diplomatic
offensive designed to marshal support
for its position among all the free world
members of. the United Nations. If the
provisions of this amendment were en-
acted the result inevitably would be to
create strong resentment among friendly
countries. This resentment almost cer-
tainly would destroy our diplomatic ini-
tiative against the Soviet bloc countries.
So I hope that the amendment of the
Senator from Iowa will not be accepted.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in
the RECORD two articles and one editorial,
the first an article entitled "U.N. Sources
Say K. Threatens Bolt Over Dues," pub-
lished in the Washington Post of Sun-
day, August 2, 1964; an article written by
Thomas J. Hamilton entitled "Plan in
U.N. Would Allow Some in Arrears To
Vote," and published in the New York
Times July 6, 1964; and an editorial en-
titled "To Save the U.N." published in
the New York Times on August 3,1964.
There being no objection, the articles
and the editorial were ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Aug. 2, 1964]
U.N. SCRIRCES SAY K. THREATENS BOLT OVER
DUES
UtrrrEo NATIONS, N.Y., August 1.?Top
sources reported today that Premier Khru-
shchev told Secretary General U Thant that
the Soviet Union will walk out of the Gen-
eral Assembly and perhaps quit the United
Nations altogether if its vote is taken away
for nonpayment of bills.
These sources said Thant will fly to Wash-
ington Thursday to discuss this threatened
breakup of the world organization with Presi-
dent Johnson.
Thant has just returned from a trip to
Moscow where he appealed to the Kremlin
there to pay its arrears on U.N. peacekeeping
bills. He told newsmen there, after a long
talk with Khrushchev, that he saw no change
In the Soviet stand.
The U.N. Charter says that any country
2 years behind in U.N. dues "shall have no
vote" in the Assembly.
The Soviet Union has refused to pay its
assessments for Congo and Middle East
peacekeeping costs and, if these are counted
along with its regular budget assessments, it
is 2 years behind.
The United States has said these peace-
keeping costs must be counted because they
are binding on all members. The Russians
say they are not because they were not as-
sessed by the Security Council.
The Soviet Union walked out of the Se-
curity Council in 1950 to protest the con-
tinued representation of Nationalist China
there. The absence of the Kremlin's veto-
wielding delegate permitted the U.N. to set
up its Korean operation which would other-
wish have been stopped. The Soviet Union
later returned to the Council.
The United States, the next year, pushed
through a "uniting for peace" resolution
No. 155-10
which enabled the General Assembly to act
in cases of breaches of. the peace when the
Security Council did not do so.
It was under this provision that the Congo
and Middle East operations were set up and
the Soviet Union has refused to acknowl-
edge their legality. The World Court in the
Hague has ruled that they are legitimate.
A U.S. delegation source said today that
the U.S. view is unchanged?the Soviet Union
must pay up or lose its vote.
The Soviet Union is only one of 16 coun-
tries that stand to lose their votes for failure
to pay toward the U.N. Congo or Middle East
forces or both.
[From the New York Times, July 6, 1964]
PLAN IN U.N. W017LD ALLOW SOME IN
ARREARS To VOTE
(By Thomas J. Hamilton)
UNITED NATroxs, N.Y., July 5.?A group of
Latin-American delegates has suggested a
new approach to solution of the United Na-
tions financial crisis under which members
genuinely unable to pay all their assess-
ments would be allowed to retain their votes
in the General Assembly.
Under the plan, the Assembly's Standing
Committee on Contributions would divide
countries more than 2 years behind on their
assessments into 2 categories:
1. Those that plead inability to pay and
are certified by the committee as unable to
do so. Article 19 of the Charter provides
that members owing the equivalent of 2
years' contributions "shall have not vote" in
the Assembly. However, it authorizes the
Assembly to waive enforcement "if it is satis-
fied that the failure to pay is due to condi-
tions beyond the control of the member."
2. All other members subject to article
19 who have not executed what some dele-
gates say would be a "pauper's oath."
The plan has been submitted to the United
States and other Western delegations. A
U.S. spokesman said he had no comment on
it.
THE SOVIET POSITION
Reliable sources said one aim of the Latin
Americans was to isolate the Soviet Union,
which would be subject to article 19 when
the Assembly opens its 1964 session in No-
vember, from underveloped countries, that
also face loss of their votes in the Assembly.
The Soviet Union owes $36,984,971 on the
United Nations Congo force and $15,638,166
on the force in the Middle East, which are
financed from special accounts, not from the
regular United Nations budget.
The Soviet Union has hardened its posi-
tion and has also withheld $2,145,051 due
under the regular 1963 United Nations
budget for appropriations that it terms il-
legal. These include payments of interest
and principal on bonds issued by the United
Nations to help pay the costs of the Congo
and Middle East forces.
FRENCH PAYMENT DUE IN 1965
Moscow would have to pay between $8 mil-
lion and $9 million to avoid possible loss of
its Assembly votes.
Under the Latin Americans' plan France,
which will become subject to article 19 at
the 1965 session unless she pays part of the
$16,143,083 she owes on the Congo force,
also would be separated from those unable to
pay.
The Soviet Union and France base their
refusal to pay on the ground that the Se-
curity Council, not the General Assembly,
has the right to impose assessments for
peacekeeping forces. Total arrears on as-
sessments for the Congo and Middle East
forces are $123,623,742.
Some delegates believe that, following last
Thursday's withdrawal of the Congo force,
both the Soviet Union and France will pay
18235
the United Nations enough this year to avoid
application of article 10.
[From the New York Times, Aug. 3, 1964]
To SAVE THE U.N.
Premier Khrushchev has again refused to
pay Russia's debt to the United Nations and
Secretary General Thant has returned from
his dunning trip to Moscow empty handed.
As a result, this world organization, now
more than $122 million in the red, not only
continues to flounder in a financial crisis
that has brought it close to bankruptcy but
also faces a showdown on whether Russia's
refusal to pay shall deprive her of her vote
in the General AsSembly.
The Soviet Premier now says that Rus-
sia may walk out of the United Nations as
well as the General Assembly if her right to
vote is withdrawn. France, which- is de-
linquent to a total of $16 million for her
? share of the U.N. Congo force, is showing no
signs of yielding, either. Meanwhile, the
United States continues to push hard for
strict compliance with article 19 of the
Charter, which penalizes members when
their arrears reach a certain level.
It is beginning to lobk like a game of
brinkmanship, with the brink coming in No-
vember when the Assembly meets. If one
starts from the premise that the United Na-
tions cannot be allowed to fall apart or be
seriously weakened, nor can it abandon its
efforts to maintain peacekeeping forces, the
problem becomes one of finding "a formula."
The United Nations is an immensely val-
uable forum and power fulcrum for Mos-
cow, President de Gaulle may have nothing
but contempt for the world organization,
but this is not a feeling widely shared by his
French compatriots. The United States is
deeply committed to the strengthening, as
well as the maintenance of the U.N.
Therefore, some time between now and
November a way must be sought to bridge
the contradictory positions. The idea of
. getting Moscow and Paris to make token
payments,seems doomed since the principle,
not the amounts due, Is the real issue. The
point to be saved?along with the structure
of the United Nations, of course?is that the
U.N. can and will continue to utilize and
build up peace-keeping forces to prevent war
and suppress aggression. It is not enough
to keep the Security Council and General
Assembly simply as debating forums.
Basic contradictory positions between na-
tions are normally solved by compromises.
The two important considerations are that
the United Nations be held together and
that there be no impairment?but rather a
strengthening?of its effectiveness as a po-
liceman of peace.
An exercise in ingenuity could save the
day. Perhaps when U Thant sees President
Johnson some new ideas will be forthcoming.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I intend
to ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendment, but first I should like to sug-
gest the absence of a quorum for the
purpose of alerting Senators to that fact.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the
roll.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call may be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OloriCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. 1VIILLER. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays on my amend-
ment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I should
like to respond briefly to the statements
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
18236 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
made by the distinguished chairman of
the Foreign Relations Committee, the
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FIJI.-
BRIGHT].
My amendment provides that if a na-
tion is more than ?1 year in arrears, the
payments on foreign aid shall halt.
I deliberately made it for 1 year in-
stead of for 2 years, the period provided
in the United Nations Charter for deter-
mining whether a nation shall lose its
vote, for the reason that we do not want
this process to go to the point where a
nation will lose its vote in the United
Nations before we decide to put a limi-
tation on foreign aid. In other words, it
seems to me that after 1 year?and this
is 1 calendar year, those in arrears for
1962 and back?a nation might well be
on notice that we do not want it to get
into the category of a nonvoting mem-
ber of the United Nations. We want it
to pay its dues and assessments; and we
wish to let it know that our taxpayers
who are paying the bill on foreign aid
do not wish it to go any further in its
delinquencies. We want it to be current.
There are some who might think that
this amendment might well provide that
nations which are not current in their
payment of assessments and dues in the
United Nations should not receive our
foreign aid, instead of being allowed to
get a year behind.
I do not believe my amendment is par-
ticularly harsh in this respect. I be-
lieve that it would be most unfortunate
to provide a 2-year period and then let
a Nation become-a nonvoting member of
the United Nations, before we start to
try to exercise a salutary effect on that
Nation through withholding foreign aid.
The point was made about China be-
ing a large debtor. I am not unmindful
of that. I am quite sure that the Sena-
tor from Arkansas ?[Mr. FULBRIGHT] is
just as fully aware as I am of, why that
is so. We know that the governitent of
Nationalist China is still operating un-
der an assessment scale with respect to
the assumption that it controls all of
China, both the mainland and Taiwan.
This is most unrealistic. This would be
a perfect example of what I provide for
in amendment, which would give the
President of the United States an op-
portunity to make a determination
whether aid should be granted in situa-
tions in which there are economic con-
ditions that make a country unable to
pay its dues and assessments.
The point was made that the Com-
munist bloc nations would be respon-
sible for the United Nations going bank-
rupt, rather than the 41 nations which
have been receiving our foreign aid.
Perhaps yes; perhaps no. I suggest that
if there were merely 8 or nations in the
United Nations General Assembly?and
those all Communist bloc nations?
which were delinquent, world opinion
coming from all of the other nations
which are current in their dues and as-
sessments would be something to be con-
sidered by the Communist bloc nations.
It would be something to be considered,
particularly when the time arrives for
a vote on whether nations which are
more than 2 years delinquent, includ-
ing the Soviet Union, shall lose their
right to vote.
I would feel much more comfortable
about that vote being put to the mem-
bership of the United Nations General
Assembly if only the Communist bloc
nations were delinquent, than I would
be if the vote were put now, with the
present unfortunate situation of arrear-
ages in assessments and dues by more
than half the membership.
I believe there is a point to be said in
favor of persuading the free countries
and the independent countries which are
members of the United Nations to prac-
tice fiscal integrity before this organiza-
tion. I would guess that it could result
in bring other pressure to bear on the
Soviet Union and the other Communist
bloc nations to pay up and remain vot-
ing members of the United Nations, and
not confront us with the problem that
might arise if those nations should with-
draw from the UN. The membership, if
I properly interpret the United Nations
Charter and the World Court opinion,
would deprive themselves of their right
to vote.
Mr. President, I hope my amendment
will prevail.
The PRESIDING OtoteiCER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Iowa [Mr.
MILLER].
The yeas and nays have been ordered,
and the clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk called the roll.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BREW-
STER], the Senator from North Dakota
[Mr. BURDICK] , the Senator from Ten-
nessee [Mr. GoRt], the Senator from
Washington [Mr. JACKSON], the Senator
from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], the Senator
from Utah [Mr. Moss], the Senator from
Connecticut [Mr. RIDICOFF], the Senator
from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL] , the Senator
from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS] , and the
Senator from Mississippi [Mr. SrEmsns],
are absent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON] and the
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KEN-
NEDY] are absent because of illness.
I further announce that the Senator
from Nevada [Mr. CANNON], the Sena-
tor from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK], the
Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMOND-
SON], the Senator from Indiana [Mr.
HARTKE] , and the Senator from New
Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS] are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from New Mexico
[Mr. ANDERSON] , the Senator from Penn-
sylvania [Mr. CLARK] , the Senator from
Washington [Mr. JAcKsoic], the Senator
from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], the Sena-
tor from Connecticut [Mr. Maxon.] , the
Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS],
and the Senator from New Jersey [Mr.
WILLIAMS], would each vote "nay."
On this vote, the Senator from Mary-
land [Mr. BREWSTER] is paired with the
Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL].
If present and voting, the Senator
from Georgia would vote "yea" and the
Senator from Maryland would vote
"nay."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA] ,
the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON],
August *10
and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr.
SCOTT] are necessarily absent.
The Senator from New York [Mr.
JAVITS] is absent on official business.
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLD-
WATER] and the Senator from Iowa [Mr.
HICKENLOOPER] are detained on official
business.
If -present and voting, the Senator
from New York [Mr. JAvrrs], and the
Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON]
would each vote "nay."
On this vote, the Senator from Ne-
braska [Mr. Ihtusx.A] is paired with the
Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOTT].
If present and -voting, the Senator from
Nebraska would vote "yea" and the Sen-
atOr from Pennsylvania would vote
"nay."
The result was announced?yeas 25,
nays 52, as follows:
[No. 529 Leg.]
YEAS-25
Gruening
Johnston
Jordan, Idaho
Mechem
Miller
Morse
Mundt
Robertson
Saltonstall
NAYS-52
Beall
Bennett
Boggs
Byrd, Va.
Cooper
Cotton
Curtis
Dirksen
Dominick
Aiken
Allott
Bartlett
Bayh
Bible
Byrd, W. Va.
Carlson
Case
Church
Dodd
Douglas
Eastland
Ellender
Ervin
Fong
Fulbright
Hart
Hayden
Anderson
Brewster
Burdick
Cannon
Clark
Edmondson
Goldwater
Gore
Bill
Holland
Humphrey
Inouye
Jordan, N.C.
Keating
Kuchel
Lausche
Long, Mo.
Magnuson
Mansfield
McCarthy
McClellan
McGee
McGovern
McIntyre
McNamara
Metcalf
Simpson
Symington
Talmadge
Thurmond
Tower
Williams, Del.
Young, N. Dak.
Monroney
Morton
Muskie
Nelson
Neuberger
Pastore
Pell
Prouty
Proxmire
Randolph
Salinger
Smith
Sparkman
Walters
Yarborough
Young, Ohio
NOT VOTING-23
Hartke Pearson
Hickenlooper Ribicoff
Hruska Russell
Jackson
Javits
Kennedy
Long, La.
Moss
Scott
Smathers
Stennis
Williams, N.J.
So Mr. MILLER'S amendment was re-
jected.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was rejected.
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, in
keeping with the assurance I gave to the
majority leader, that I would move as
rapidly as possible consistent with ex-
peditious handling of my amendments, I
now call up my amendment No. 1184.
The PRESIDING Orm.CER (Mr. SAL-
INGER in the chair). The amendment
will be stated.
The Chief Clerk read the amendment,
as follows:
On page 12, between lines 22 and 23, insert
the following:
(g) Add the following new section at the
end thereof:
"SEC. 620A. (a) PROHIBITION ON FURNISH-
ING OF ASSISTANCE SUBSEQUENT TO JUNE 30,
1966.?Notwithstanding any other provision
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 18237
of this Act, no assistance shall be furnished
pursuant to this Act to any country or area
(or enterprise therein) subsequent to June
30, 1966 unless?
"(1) Such country or area has requested
such assistance and can show that it is pur-
suing the following economic, political, and
military policies:
"(A) That it (1) is seriously and continu-
ously engaged in measures of self-help, (U)
has taken appropriate steps to assure that its
own private capital resources will be utilized
within its own country or area, (iii) will
encourage the development of the private
enterprise sector of its own economy, (iv)
has taken adequate steps, where appropriate
and necessary, to bring about reforms in such
fields as land distribution and taxation to
enable its people fairly to share in the
products of its development, and to assure
that the project or program for which eco-
nomic aid is requested will contribute to the
economic or social development of the coun-
try:
"(B) That it is promoting the maximum
amount of individual freedom and is encour-
aging its people freely to choose their own
government; and
"(C) That it seeks to establish and main-
tain only such military force as may be ade-
quate to prevent the internal overthrow of
an elected government or to deter threatened
external Communist attack;
?
"(2) The furnishing of such assistance is
required by an irrevocable commitment
made, or contractual obligation incurred,
prior to the date of enactment of this sec-
tion; or s
"(3) In case of any such assistance ex-
tended in the form of loans, the interest rate
thereon is not less than the average rate
payable on obligations of the United States
of comparable maturities.
"(b) The total number of countries or
areas receiving assistance under this Act sub-
sequent to June 30, 1966, shall not exceed
fifty."
? Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I con-
sider this amendment a basic policy re-
form amendment. I shall discuss the
amendment in regard to the specific con-
ditions that it would impose.
There is much talk about the need for
major changes in the foreign aid pro-
gram. There has been much talk for
several years to the effect that we must
bring about reforms in foreign aid.
There has been a great deal of congres-
sional buck passing to the State Depart-
ment and the AID authorities in regard
to foreign aid.
I offer an amendment that would not
jeopardize sound foreign aid, but is de-
signed to guarantee sound foreign aid.
It should be supported by those who
really believe foreign aid needs an over-
hauling; and that there is need for re-
form in regard to policy, procedure, and
substance.
I would have Senators, in the next few
moments, go, with me, through the pro-
posed amendment, condition by condi-
tion, as I propose it. Starting with line 3,
it reads:
Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, no assistance shall be furnished
pursuant to this Act to any country or area
* * * subsequent to June 30, 1966, unless?
That fixes a terminal date. It gives ev-
ery country in the world due notice that
the United States will completely revise
its foreign aid program.
Mr. President, that would be very
salutary. It would anSwer the question,
once and for all, as to whether or not
all the talk in the United States in re-
cent years about meaning to revise the
foreign aid program is merely talk, or is
meant.
I cannot think of anything that would
be better for the development of a sound
foreign aid program, or better for the
internal welfare of the recipient coun-
tries, than to serve such notice.
If we say to such a country, "This is
the last time we are going to pass a for-
eign aid program based upon past prac-
tice. We want you to know that we will
continue foreign aid, but it will be a
different foreign aid program. You are
not going to receive any foreign aid on
the basis of the past pattern, because
we are fed up with it."
It is my judgment, that this is the
kind of reform the American people want.
I am satisfied that the majority of
the American people are willing to con-
tinue foreign aid, but 1 am also satisfied
that the overwhelming majority of the
American people do not want to con-
tinue foreign aid as it has been practiced
up until this hour. They believe the
time has come for a change in the whole
foreign aid pattern.
Mr. President, this is the way to do it.
We say, "We are going to end the pro-
gram, as it is now, at the eria of fiscal
1965. We will start all over. You can
have more foreign aid, provided you
meet certain qualifications."
Note that the new program I propose
is based upon application. In other
words, the recipient must come in and
make his own case.
We do not find banks trying to force
loans on us. If we want a loan, we must
go to the lending agency and show good
cause why we would be a good risk for
the _loan. We do not hear people argue,
when they go to a bank and conditions
are imposed necessary to protect the
lender, that such conditions are an in-
terference with their individual rights.
It happens to be the banker's money. If
one does not want the money as a bor-
rower, that is up to him, but if a bor-
rower wants the money he must meet
the conditions laid down by the bank.
Mr. President, we are not dealing here
with money that belongs to the Senate
of the United States. We are not deal-
ing with money that belongs to any Sen-
ator, except to the extent that he has a
pro rata interest in it, as one citizen of
180 million. We are dealing with
money that belongs to all the people of
the United States. In my judgment, we
are guilty of gross negligence in the
handling of that money in respect to the
present policies we are following in for-
eign aid.
As I said earlier when I made com-
ments expressing disagreement with the
'Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUM-
PHREY] when he, earlier today, made a
speech following the administration's
line on foreign aid?which we have had
given to us now for some years. All one
has to do is examine the critical an-
alyses by the Comptroller General of
foreign aid As it has been administered
in the past. As Senators, we know that
It is our duty to bring about reforms that
will eliminate the mismanagement, the
inefficiency, and miscalculations that
have characterized foreign aid for a
number of years past.
So we say to the applicant, "We will
consider some foreign aid for you, pro-
vided you meet certain conditions:"
1. Such country or area has requested such
assistance and can show that it is pursuing
the following economic, political, and mili-
tary policies.
One of the sad things in our record on
foreign aid in years gone by is that we
have rammed foreign aid down the
gullets of a good many nations. We
have had the idea that if we could only
persuade them to take it we would some-
how obtain a commitment from them,
and that we could rely on them; and that
If we could get them obligated to us
morally and otherwise, we could count
on them to do our bidding. ?
It has not worked that way. Take
Pakistan, for example. We have urged
Pakistan to take millions of dollars from
us, only to find that Pakistan in many
respects has left us. Pakistan is enter-
ing into arrangements with Red China.
Pakistan, through its Foreign Minister,
has announced that she will not help
us in accordance with her obligations
under SEATO.
Mr. President, we cannot buy friends.
We cannot buy support, either. That is
why I have said in my minority views
that to a degree our foreign aid policy
in the past has been built upon the idea
that we could buy support. The trouble
is that such countries do not "stay
bought."
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. If it is in their national
interest to go to Red China, they will go
to Red China. If they think it is in their
national interest to use our military sup-
port to make war against a neighbor,
they will do so. We need only to look to
Turkey, Greece, Pakistan, and India to
prove that point.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. MILLER. I should like to ask the
Senator from Oregon about his para-
graph "C."
Mr. MORSE. I wonder if the Senator
will wait until I reach that point. I wish
to go through these points ad seriatim.
If he will wait, I shall be glad to answer
the Senator's question. I have decided
to make this speech by explaining the
amendment point by point, in order that
I may make my position clear on each
point. I shall reach that section shortly.
I hope the Senator will ask me that ques-
tion when I get to it.
Mr. MILLER. Without asking the
question, I should like to express the
hope the Senator will point out how he
would solve the problem relating to a re-
cipient's contribution to a military force
and how that might be affected by the
Senator's amendment.
Mr. MORSE. I shall come to that
point. Continuing with my present
point, this provision would stop us?and
we ought to be stopped as a country?
from seeking to force foreign aid on a
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
18238
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE August 10
country, instead of making that country
come in and voluntarily ask for it, and
prove that it is entitled to it.
I say that a country must request aid.
A country must show that it is following
certain economic, political, and military
policies:
(A) That it (1) is seriously and continu-
ously engaged in measures of self-help.
Mr. President, we cannot do the job
for other countries in developing them.
They must do something for themselves.
They must stop following the line that
all they have to do is to come, hat in
hand, to Uncle Sam and ask for funds,
or say to Uncle Sam, "If you do not give
it to us, we will get it from Russia."
Every time a country has taken that
course of action?and there have been
many such instances in the past?we
should have told that country to get to
Moscow as fast as it could get there for
help.
We should have called its bluff. In
my judgment, we have yielded to that
kind of international blackmail time and
time again. We never should have
loaned or granted so much as a dollar
under the foreign aid program on the
basis of the argument that if we did not
give it to them, Russia would. They
should have been told that if that was
the unethical principle on which they
approached us, they should be on their
way to Moscow, and fast.
We have not served the interests of
the American taxpayer by yielding to
that kind of unethical argument.
So my first condition is that they must
come in and show what they propose to
do to meet some of the economic, social,
and political problems which confront
their country. That is what is needed
in so many parts of the world on the
part of those countries.. That would be
a proper use of our foreign aid in coop-
erating with them to help them bring
about the objectives of such self-help
programs.
I have pleaded for it. We have been
making remarkable progress in connec-
tion with it in the Alliance for Progress
program. We have done better in re-
gard to this program in Latin America
than anywhere else in the world in con-
nection with our foreign aid program.
I wish to extend it.
Then the country must show that
it?
(ii) has taken appropriate steps to as-
sure that its own private capital resources
will be utilized within its own country or
area.
This point involves the problem, for
example, of the flight of capital. In
some places in the world we have been
pouring a great many American dollars
into a country while its own wealthy
have been flying their money out of their
country and investing it in New York
and Swiss banks.
We still have a very serious problem in
connection with this point in Latin
America. That is one aspect of our
Alliance for Progress which has not
worked out too well. There has been
some change of attitude on the part of
wealthy oligarchs in Latin America, but
not enough. Some of them have begun
to recognize, as President Kennedy had
warned them shortly after the Alliance
for Progress program went into effect
that they need to recognize their respon-
sibility to see to it that they are willing
to invest in their own future, if they are
to have a future, and that if they fol-
lowed the course of action of taking their
money out of their country, to the great
detriment of the mass of people, they
might lose all.
That is what I have in mind in connec-
tion with this condition. We owe the
duty to the American people to stop pour-
ing millions of dollars into a country
when the record shows that the wealthy
of the country do not have enough con-
fidence in the country's future to invest
their wealth in developing the economic
freedom of that country, but invest it in
Swiss banks and elsewhere. I do not be-
lieve we should aid a country if it follows
that course of action.
Furthermore, we need to have some
assurance from the applicant that it is
making a record of the use of private
capital by way of an investment to de-
velop their own economic freedom. I
am so convinced of the essentiality of
this as the foundation of political free-
dom that I believe the time has come to
say to certain countries. "We will not
give you millions of dollars while you
continue with a sort of economic fascism
in your country where the wealthy take
the mass and the poor get the driblets."
We seek to defeat communism any-
where in the world where it is a threat;
and it is a threat in every underdeveloped
country. It is a threat where people
have an exceedingly low standard of liv-
ing. It is a threat where the average
longevity is from 30 to 36 years?and
that includes many millions of human
beings on the face of the earth. It is a
threat in countries where poverty and
disease are rampant and where infant
mortality from 25 percent to 85 percent
Is the record of a given country or of
large segments of a given country. In
such countries our foreign aid is being
poured into the drain, unless the rul-
ing class, the government of that cowl,-
try, and the wealthy of that country are
willing to do their share by way of self-
help in improving the living conditions
of the masses, whose present living con-
ditions create the danger and threat of
a Communist takeover.
The only way to defeat communism in
any of those countries is to do something
about raising the standard of living of
the people. It will not be done by a for-
eign aid program that does not estab-
lish as a condition before the fact, re-
quirements by way of capital investment
on the part of the wealthy of that coun-
try in its own economic future. It will
not be done unless we make as a con-
dition before the fact of receiving Amer-
ican foreign aid, proof submitted by the
applicant country that it is really taking
steps to encourage the investment of its
own private capital to develop a system
of free enterprise.
I shall repeat over and over in this de-
bate that there cannot be political free-
dom for people anywhere unless the peo-
ple of the country have a system of eco-
nomic freedom represented by a free en-
terprise system. In the last analysis,
that is what our own political freedom
has depended on. I do not know why
liberals everywhere in our country do not
recognize that. I do not know why con-
servatives are not recognizing it more in
respect to the foreign aid bill. I do not
think the conservatives in the Senate can
justify casting the votes that some of
them are casting for the kind of foreign
aid program they have been supporting.
What we have been supporting in
many parts of the world is economic to-
talitarianism, state industry; and the de-
velopment of a state monopoly. As I
shall show before I finish offering my
amendments, that is true of Turkey,
which is one of the outstanding state
economic totalitarian societies , on the
face of the earth, built up by hundreds
of millions of dollars of American tax-
payers' money. The amount has al-
ready reached several billions of dol-
lars since the start of the foreign aid
program.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield to the Senator
from Nebraska.
Mr. CURTiS. The Senator from Ne-
braska is much interested in many of
the points which the Senator from-Ore-
gon has discussed. For the purpose of
information, I should like to have the
Senator elaborate a little on the legisla-
tive intent of his amendment and the
language to institute reforms in such
fields as land use and taxation, particu-
larly land distribution.
Mr. MORSE. I shall come to that sub-
ject next, if the Senator will allow me
to finish this point. As I said to the Sen-
ator from Iowa, I am discussing my
amendment point by point. However, I
shall shortly discuss the point the Sena-
tor from Nebraska has asked about. I
am finishing my discussion of item No. 2,
which relates to the condition to which
the applicant must submit. I close my
discussion of that point by saying that I
believe it is desirable to require the ap-
plicant to consult with the representa-
tives of the United States who pass judg-
ment on the application, and to give
proof as to what their country is doing
and what its program is concerning the
conditions I propose under item 1(a) of
the amendment.
I stress that that is quite consistent
with the Act of Punta del Este and in
accordance with the Alliance for Prog-
ress upon which the Act of Punta del
Este is based. Together with the Sena-
tor from Nebraska [Mr. HICKENLOOPES
I was one of the delegates to that con-
ference, just as we were the Senate dele-
gates to the Bogota conference under the
able leadership of the present Secretary
of the Treasury Dillon. We presented
what we were satisfied was a program of
(self -help.
..
We said to the countries at both Bo-
gota and Punta del Este that vie would
help them if they would help themselves;
but that unless they came forward and
showed that they were willing to con-
duct a reasonable program of self-help,
the time was coming when the American
taxpayers would rise up and say to their
own Government, "Stop this wasteful
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
-
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
giveaway 'program into which foreign aid
is rapidly turning itself."
Now I come to the third point, the
point which I think the Senator from
Nebraska had in mind.
The next condition that an applicant
country would have to meet would be to
encourage the development of the private
enterprise sector of its own economy. As
I said 2 or 3 minutes ago, we want to know
whether we are dealing with an econom-
ically free state or a socialist state, to
use a broad descriptive term. We want
to know whether we are dealing with a
state that directs the economy of the
state; whether we are dealing with a
state in which the people live as serv-
ants, not as masters of the state, so far
as the economy is concerned. If they are
the servants, not the masters of the
state, in respect to the economy of that
country, they never can be the masters of
the country politically. Whenever a gov-
ernment can control and direct the econ-
omy of a country, that country cannot
Possibly be free; it is bound to be a
country of economic fascism or commu-
nism. It is bound to be an economic
police state. No one can show me in all
history a country that was an economic
police state and at the same time a polit-
ically free state.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Oregon yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I express my con-
currence in the statement made by the
Senator from Oregon with respect to
the need to grant aid to countries that
believe in our system of private enter-
prise. In my opinion, we have erred
gravely by practically encouraging gov-
ernmental operations of all types of busi-
ness in a manner that is in complete
conflict with our concept of how free-
dom can be developed.
Place industry within the control of
government, and eventually the liberties
of the people will be shackled.
I express deep concurrence in all that
the Senator from Oregon has said on
this subject. We have erred unpardon-
ably in what we have done in the de-
velopment of sound enterprise in the
countries which we have aided. Even-
tually, out of socialism they will pass
into communism, where all will be owned
and controlled by the State, including
soul, the thinking, and the property of
the individual. Nothing will remain as
the individual domain of the citizen in
such a state.
Mr. MORSE. I thank the Senator
from Ohio. This is not the first time
the Senator from Ohio has supported
the Senator from Oregon on this issue.
The Senator from Ohio and I have
stood together in the Foreign Relations
Committee in connection with many is-
sues which underlie the principle of eco-
nomic freedom and the dependency of
political freedom upon it.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The last instance of
this was the plant in India, where the
United States was to set up a steel plant
to be-operated by the Indian Government
in competition with the private steel
plants within India. We did not accept
the arguments advanced by the admin-
istration that it would be sound, and we
opposed it. I am glad that we stopped it.
Mr. MORSE. We had a hard time
stopping it, but we finally stopped it.
There are many more countries where
we should stop it, and Turkey and Bo-
livia are two of them. But we will never
stop it by leaving it up to AID officials
any more than we stopped it that way
in India.
The State Department and AID
argument on this issue is completely
fallacious.
It adds up to the fact that we have no
right to interfere in the sovereignty of
another country.
Who seeks to interfere with the sover-
eignty of another country?
If another country wishes to go Social-
ist, if another country wishes to adopt a
system of economic fascism, that is its
business. But it happens to be our busi-
ness to determine whether we are going
to give them any money to help build up
that kind of program.
This is the taxpayers' money. We are
the trustees of the taxpayers. In my
judgment, we cannot justify using Amer-
ican taxpayers' dollars for the develop-
ment of economic fascism, Or economic
statism, or an economic police-type of
government anywhere in the world,
whether it be Turkey, Pakistan, or any
one of the junta governments in Latin
America?about which I shall have
something to say later today, or tomor-
row, in connection with another amend-
ment.
The point I wish to make now is that
we should have a condition for the grant-
ing of a single dollar of aid to any coun-
try, that we are not going to grant the
money unless that country can show that
it will encourage the development of pri-
vate enterprise in the private enterprise
sector of the economy, but that this does
not mean that we are not going to give
consideration to any program which may
be based upon some regulation, or even
some ownership of certain natural re-
sources which it is felt should be kept
under government ownership.
Even in our own country we have a
strong regulatory policy in connection
with industries that are vested with the
public interest. We also recognize that
in certain sectors of the economy, such
as, for example, power?some govern-
ment ownership is desirable.
The point is perfectly clear that when
an applicant is unable to show that it is
encouraging the development of the pri-
vate enterprise sector of the economy,
we should say, "Go elsewhere for your
money."
This is a condition which under this
situation?as the banker?we have a
right to impose. If they do not wish our
money, under that condition, let them
try to get it elsewhere.
The fourth condition under the item
is if the country?
has taken adequate steps, where appropriate
and necessary, to bring about reforms in such
fields as land distribution and taxation to
enable its people fairly to share in the
products of its development, and to assure
that the project or program for which eco-
nomic aid is requested will contribute to the
18239
economic or social development of the
country?
This is the point raised by the Senator
from Nebraska a few moments ago.
Let me cover it quickly in this way: In
many places in the world, the avoid-
ance of taxation is a national pastime.
In many places in the world, we find that
those who should pay taxes consider
taxes negotiable, both on top and be-
neath the table. A strange psychology
exists in some countries that if one really
pays fair taxes, he is a fool. That has
been one of the great problems we have
encountered in Latin America.
Last year in debate, I' told the true
story about an experience I had in
Mexico City when I was down there on
one occasion at a luncheon that was
given for me, and there was a consid-
erable amount of talk about a wonderful
huge retail outlet establishment that
Sears, Roebuck had developed in Mexico
City. I felt a little coolness to the sub-
ject on the part of some Mexican busi-
nessmen who were at the luncheon. I
wondered whether it was due to the com-
petition which Sears, Roebuck was giving
them in the retail trade.
So, I politely and respectfully directed
the luncheon conversation toward that
phase of the subject. I soon discovered
that they were not worried about Sears,
Roebuck competition in regard to the
goods involved. They were -not bothered
about that one bit. Finally, I got to what
was bothering them. One of the busi-
nessmen finally said to me, "Senator, I
wish to tell you what we are concerned
about. Do you know what Sears, Roe-
buck has done? Sears, Roebuck has paid
its taxes in full."
That was the unpardonable sin. That
is what they did not like.
Mexico is not the only place in which
there has existed a historic pattern of
evasion of taxes in one way or another,
or trying, in one way or another, to get
out of paying a fair share of taxes.
We took the position in the Alliance
for Progress in the beginning, at Bogota,
at Punta del Este, and in many confer-
ences that have been held with the
leaders of Latin American countries, that
they should impose fair and equitable
taxes on the wealthy. That idea has
been hard to sell. But I believe that we
can justify it morally and ethically.
I am one of those politicians who say
frankly to their constituents, "You
should be happy that you can pay taxes."
The question is whether we are keeping
those taxes fair and equitable, and
whether it is fair to discriminate on the
basis of ability to pay. But if the tax is
based on ability to pay, and it is fair,
reasonable, and equitable, I am very
frank to say to my- constituents, "Yon
should be pleased to pay taxes, because,
although the price of freedom comes
high, it is worth the price. You would
not change your position with that of
any other taxpayer in the world if, by
changing your position with any other
taxpayer in the world, you had to live
under the same circumstances."
It is not fair to the American taxpayer
to apply the sound doctrine of American
taxation to the American taxpayer and
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
18240 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENA-TE
raise millions of dollars of money to be
spent on a foreign aid program when citi-
zens of the recipient countries are not
taxed on the basis of ability to pay,
where tax escaping is the order of the
day, where the wealthy who have the
ability to pay do not pay a fair tax.
This is a condition that I would im-
pose in the amendment. The applicant
must show that it is trying to do some-
thing about reforming its tax program.
That is needed in many parts of the
world. It is easy for Americans, and,
it appears, for American legislators, to
overlook this point. We are inclined to
brush this one under the rug.
What does one think about the tax
program in Turkey? Does one think that
the wealthy Turks are taxed in accord-
ance with their ability to pay? Non-
sense. What does one think about the
tax program in Pakistan? If it is
thought that it is based upon a fair ap-
plication of the formula that taxes ought
to be levied in accordance with? the
ability to pay, that is nonsense.
One can go on down the line, naming
country after country. We have the
right, in keeping with the acts of Bogota
and Punta del gste, to prove that in those
two acts the self-help provisions are not
merely so much verbiage. We meant it.
If we are going to insist on tax reform
as a condition precedent to the granting
of a loan, at least we must prove that a
truly good faith attempt is being made at
the time in the parliaments of the recip-
ient countries. I know that we cannot
bring about tax reform overnight. We
have had a good many examples of that,
not too far in the past, in the U.S. Sen-
ate. There are still many tax disjoin-
tures that we ought to improve upon.
We have not a perfect system. It is pret-
ty hard to get tax reforms through in our
own body.
But we ought to insist that good faith
attempts at tax reform can be shown by
the responsible leaders of the govern-
ment asking for the aid. We ought to
also insist upon a document which sets
forth that they will do everything they
can to carry out their side of the com-
mitment.
I mention specifically the case of land
distribution. Using it as an example, I
wish to make it perfectly clear that this
part of the amendment is not all inclu-
sive. I am seeking to make clear that
any foreign aid program that would be
initiated under this particular amend-
ment would put the burden upon the ap-
plicant to show that it is trying to de-
velop a system of economic freedom for
the individual in the respective coun-
tries. If that can be done, we do not
have to worry about subsequent political
freedom for the individual.
Let me make perfectly clear that the
senior Senator from Oregon does not
stand for land confiscation. The Sena-
tor from Oregon stands in connection
with that problem as he would stand for
fair compensation for any land in our
own country that the Government de-
cides must be distributed in order to
strengthen the cause of development in a
society based upon economic freedom, so
that political freedom can take seed and
grow in that seed bed.
I told a story of a former President of
Colombia, President Lleras. I was down
in Colombia a few years ago and met at
luncheon, all afternoon, with the Presi-
dent and his cabinet. In the course of
that conference, when I asked the Presi-
dent for the one thing?if I were limited
to one recommendation to my country?
that he would have me recommend, the
President said:
Senator, can you go back and change
the position of your Government in respect
to land reform? Your Government has never
made available to Colombia a single dollar
of credit for land reform. Apparently you
have the idea in the United States that we are
advocating land confiscation. We are not.
We are advocating compensation for the
land that, as a matter of public policy, we
find needs to be redistributed so that we can
check communism in those areas of Colom-
bia in which the people are serfs to the sail.
And they are massive.
Mr. President, all the aid in the world
will not check communism. All the aid
in the world that we can make avail-
able under the foreign aid bill will not
check communism in any underdeveloped
area of the world unless the people cease
to be serfs to the soil.
We cannot have economic and politi-
cal freedom if we have a feudal system
of land tenure. And some of our Latin
American friends shudder a little when
we put it that bluntly, but that is the
'truth. In much of Latin America, many
people are really, in effect?if they are
working in the field of agriculture?noth-
ing but serfs to the soil.
There is no substitute for ownership
of land, or a family-sized farm that
makes it passible for the head of that
family to support his family in health
and decency.
The President of Colombia told me on
that Occasion:
Your military aid could not possibly beat
down communism in Colombia with the best
military weapons you sent us if a Commu-
nist revolt takes place in the rural areas.
And that is where Communist revolts usually
take place. Then they spread to the metro-
politan area. They do not start there in the
usual pattern. They start out where the
people are hopeless, suffering from despair.
They see no future, for all they are are serfs
to the soil.
He said:
If a revolt should start and they flee into
the mountains, you could not put down
that revolt with your military aid. But you
give me some help In establishing a land
ownership system based upon family farm
ownership and communism will not survive.
We did change the policy of the United
States. But many of these countries
have yet to come forward with a realistic
land reform program. s
My amendment says "Come in and
show us, if you wish to apply for foreign
aid, what you are doing by way of taking
adequate steps, where appropriate and
necessary, to bring about reforms in such
fields?but not limited to such fields as
land distribution and taxation to enable
its people fairly to share in the products
of its development, and to assure that the
project or program for which economic
aid is requested will contribute to the
economic or social development of the
country."
August ? 10
Reforms in a good many other fields
are necessary. What are they doing
about developing democratic processes?
What are they doing in connection with
employment? What are they doing to
stop economic discrimination?
The fields in which we would have the
right to ask for at least a good showing
before we grant aid are numerous. But
if we wish to use the aid program really
to help the people become economically
and politically free and to stem the threat.
of communism in all parts of the world
where applications for loans are sought,
we really ought to ask for those condi-
tions as a minimum.
I come now to part (B) . An applicant
would be required under that para-
graph of the amendment to show?
That it is promoting the maximum amount
of individual freedom and is encouraging
its people freely to choose their own govern-
ment; and
'\I'hat statement causes a great deal of
trouble in the State Department. They
are great ones down there to talk about
freedom. They are great ones to talk
about how we are trying to defend free-
dom around the world. But if the
slightest suggestion is made that the for-
eign aid program ought to have attached
to it, to any degree whatsoever, a con-
dition that the country seeking the funds
must pay some attention to the rights of
the individual?and that is what free-
dom is all about?they throw up their
hands, because such a condition would
mean that we would have to stop aiding
certain totalitarian governments. We
would have to stop aiding certain dicta-
tors. We would have to stop aiding some
of the most tyrannical governments that
exist in the world outside the Communist
bloc.
Why should we not stop it? I do not
know how we are going to get support
for the image of the United States that
we are trying to create when we con-
tinue to support regimes that stamp out
freedom of the individual. That is why
in all my years in the Senate I have been
protesting the support that we have been
giving to totalitarian regimes around the
world. Does any Senator believe that
such a policy is going to help to defeat
communism? Such countries would
leave us overnight if they decided that
it would be in their national self-interest
to do so. They would take our money.
They would call for the country's busi-
nesses. Then they would do what Paki-
stan did. They would enter into deals
with Red China or any other totalitarian
country that they might think could
serve their purpose in respect to some
problem.
The American people are entitled to
knows that their tax dollars are not being
used to stamp out individual freedom
anywhere in the world where our foreign
aid program is developing. So far as the
State Department and the Pentagon are
concerned, they should be repudiated on
this score.
The Pentagon takes exactly the same
position in regard to military aid.
Paragraph (C) provides?
(C) That it seeks to establish and main-
tain only such military force as may be
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
1964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP661300403R000300090001-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
adequate to prevent the internal overthrow
of an elected government or to deter threat-
ened external Communist attack;
That suggestion causes the shudders
to run up and down the spines of the
officials at the Pentagon and causes the
representatives of the State Depart-
ment almost to take to bed. I have never
been able to understand, and I have
never heard an argument in all the
briefing, as to why the United States
should be supporting a great military
establishment in another country far
beyond what the domestic economy of
that particular country itself could sup-
? port because, as I have said so many
times, each of those countries lives,
exists, and has its being under the can-
opy of American military protection
anyway. Much better ?that the great
manpower that they pour into their mili-
tary establishments should be used to
develop their own economies rather than
to develop the type of military oli-
garchies that our foreign aid money in
respect of the military establishment is
developing around the world, for those
oligarchies are not supporting freedom.
I do not believe that our foreign aid
program should go into a Country that
has an overbalanced, inflated military
program. I am for helping them with
military aid to the extent necessary to
maintain internal order, but we have
gone far beyond that in many countries.
One of my criticisms of our military
aid program to Latin America is that
we are pouring too much into too many
Latin American countries which in turn
are using that military aid to maintain
military oligarchies for the most part
composed, so far as their leadership is
concerned, of the sons of the rich. That
means that we must stop supporting
military juntas around the world, such
as those in the Dominican Republic and
Honduras. If we are to take the position
that we stand for freedom, we cannot
very well support with millions of dol-
lars of foreign aid governments that
overthrow an elected government se-
lected by the people.
Many disagree with me about this,
but I am not going to vote for foreign
aid that supports military juntas, that
supports dictators, that,supports regimes
that overthrow self-governments, or
that prevents the establishment of a
system of self-government.
So long as we do that, so long as we
accept those juntas, we encourage more
juntas. And then the Communists take
advantage of the general unrest. Take
a look at the pattern.
In my judgment, today there is no
less danger of overthrow of govern-
ments by military 'cliques that have re-
ceived a great amount of military aid
than there was 10 years ago. That is a
very sad account of the failure of Amer-
ican military aid, or foreign aid gener-
ally, for that matter.
Next, my amendment makes an ex-
ception of irrevocable commitments.
We have some irrevocable commit-
ments. One should not expect the sen-
ior Senator from Oregon to advocate
abrogating the obligation of contracts
solemnly entered into. No doubt, some
of those contracts should not have been
entered into in the first place. But one
Of the unjustifiable arguments made by
the State Department is to spread the
rumor around the precincts of the Sen-
ate Chamber that "The Morse amend-
ment would be an amendment calling
upon us to act in bad faith." "We have
made commitments," says the State De-
partment. We certainly have. I am for
keeping those commitments, bad as some
of them are.
I have clearly written into the amend-
ment?as clearly as I know how to use
the English language?the assurance
that the assistance is not going to be
affected by irrevocable commitments
that this country has already entered
into.
Subparagraph (3) of my amendment
reads:
In case of any such assistance extended
in the form of loans, the interest rate there-
on is not less than the average rate pay-
able on obligations of the United States of
comparable maturities.
What is wrong with that? We can-
not continue these interest rates of
three-quarters of 1 percent. We cannot
continue the 10-year grace period, in
which no money is to be paid at all. We
cannot continue a provision for 40 to
50 years for repayment, and then, in
many instances, in soft currencies.
The American people are becoming
more and more fed up with that kind of
shakedown. That policy is a shakedown
Of the American taxpayer, and_an un-
conscionable one. Because a few of us
have dared to discuss it, openly, frankly,
and bluntly, in the past 2 or 3 years, mil-
lions more of the American people are
becoming wise to it.
I know the kind of criticism that the
apologists for this shakedown make
against those of us who have dared to
speak out against it. They try to casti-
gate us with the false charge that we are
only a group of beginners; that we are
"go-it-aloners"; that we are not team-
workers.
All those name-calling tactics make
no dent on me, for I know that on the
facts the State Department cannot jus-
tify the present interest charges of the
AID program. The American people
are entitled to better protection of their
tax dollars than we are giving them un-
der this program.
So the amendment provides that, if
they want to apply, they may come in
with applications for loans on projects,
on which loans they are willing to pay
interest at a rate not less than the aver-
age rate payable on obligations of? the
United States of comparable maturities.
That is really a great service to each
individual country. It means that the
people of the country will develop sound
economic projects for which they will ask
money, and not boondoggle programs;
and that money they want for political
purposes, money they want for a good
many uses for which we have no right to
give them a red cent if we are to be the
trustees of the American taxpayers' dol-
lars, will have to come out of their own
resources.
I am not talking about grants. I am
not talking about money available for
18241
humanitarian causes. This provision
has nothing to do with such uses. It has
to do with loan money.
Reading from the last paragraph of my
amendment:
The total number of countries or areas
receiving assistance under this Act subse-
quent to June 30, 1966, shall not exceed fifty.
Mr. President, what in the world is
wrong with that? Anyone would have
a pretty hard time listing more than 50
countries that are entitled to foreign aid.
We must cut back. We cannot continue
to pour millions of dollars into 80 or more
countries. If one reads the record of
the Foreign Relations Committee hear-
ings, he will have a hard time knowing
just how many countries we are aiding.
It all depends on what definition one ac-
cepts, by way of major premise, to start
with.
I close my discussion of the amend-
ment by calling attention to the com-
ments which appear on page 5 of my
minority views dealing with this subject
matter. I say:
This leads to another major objection to
the character of the foreign aid program as
it now stands. It is only the beginning fig-
ure for what we spend overseas on an annual
basis. Many Members of the Congress, much
less the American public, have only the
haziest idea of how money is involved in our
contributions to a large number of interna-
tional financial and developmental organiza-
tions, and in our shipments of agricultural
surpluses.
Moreover, executive branch requests for the
same general purpose in successive years
have a tendency to disappear from one bill or
category and turn up in another. For exam-
ple, $135 million for Latin American develop-
ment (through the Inter-American Bank's
Social Progress Trust' Fund) contained in the
1964 foreign aid appropriation bill does not
recur this year. At first blush this might
appear as a reduction in our total aid. But
no, the administration has just submitted
a separate new request for $750 million over
a 3-year period for the same purpose with a
slight change in terminology. There is no
corresponding cut in this bill. Under these
circumstances it is extraordinarily difficult
to perceive the overall total of U.S. foreign
aid, and to make intelligent judgments about
the validity of its components, such as those
contained in this bill.
EXCESSIVE NUMBER OF COUNTRIES CONTINUE TO
RECEIVE BILATERAL AID -
This confusion carries over into the ques-
tion of how many countries are feeding at
the American trough. If only aid under the
Foreign Assistance Act is counted, then some
83 countries are scheduled to receive assist-
ance in fiscal year 1965. But the total rises
to over 90 countries and territories when all
forms of assistance are counted. And in-
deed they should be counted. The adminis-
tration can scarcely claim it is extending
little aid to Nasser's Egypt, for instance,
when Public Law 480 supplies are flooding
that country.
Now it appears that the number of coun-
tries getting help under the Foreign Assist-
ance Act has fallen by something like the
figure of 10. It is noteworthy that there is
no commensurate cut in the administration
request for new funds. On the contrary,
the AID officials point with pride to the
growing concentration of effort in fewer
"key" countries. By that standard, no mat-
ter how many nonessential applicants are
cut off the aid payroll, the level of foreign
assistance requests Is likely to. remain un-
changed.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
18242 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
We must bring the foreign aid pro-
gram to a complete end with respect to
any country which is capable of going it
alone. When we have poured out the
largesse of our American taxpayers to the
extent of more than $100 billion since
1946, we must start tapering off. We
must start tapering off the amounts, and
we must start tapering off the number of
countries we are aiding.
If we were to lay down the terms and
conditions that I suggest in the amend-
ment, we would find that my require-
ment of 50 countries is ample. We ought
to serve notice now that we will take
applications from up to 50 countries
which can show that they are entitled to
loans, or, in some limited respects,sgrants
from us. Then we could say quite frank-
ly, "This is all we can take care of.
Countries that did not qualify within the
50 could go to Great Britain, France,
Belgium, Holland, West Germany, Nor-
way, Portugal, or Italy, countries into
whose economies we have poured a total
of more than $100 billion, to obtain loans.
The State Department continually tells
us that other countries have come to the
conclusion that they must help more.
I wish to induce them to help more. We
should limit our aid to the 50 most needy
countries in the world, vvhich at the same
time can meet the terms and conditions
of the amendment.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, an.
amendment virtually identical to this
amendment was offered last year, call-
ing for stopping the program in 1965.
It was defeated. Many of the provi-
sions in the amendment, which the
Senator from Oregon would like the ad-
ministration to adopt, already are the
policy of the administration, but they
are not put in mandatory form, as a
condition precedent. In many instances
the administration seeks to follow most
of the policy statements that the Sen-
ator sets forth. The main distinction
is that they are not made absolute pre-
conditions.
The amendment proposes to terminate
the aid program on June 30, 1966, ex-
cept for countries which meet specified
criteria of self-help, use of their own
private capital resources, encouragement
of private enterprise, and reforms in
such fields as land distribution and taxa-
tion, promotion of freedom, and confine-
ment of military forces to the minimum
level necessary to security. The amend-
ment further provides that interest rates
on loans will be no less than the average
rate payable on obligations of the United
States of comparable maturities. The
amendment further provides that the
total number of countries receiving aid
Shall not exceed 50.
Most, if not all, of the criteria spelled
out in the amendment are already in the
act and are already accepted by the ad-
ministering agency as working principles.
Spelling out of these criteria, therefore,
is not a new contribution but merely a
substantial repetition of the act as it
stands. To this extent, the amendment
is redundant and unnecessary.
While the act already sets forth most
of the criteria listed in this amendment,
It does not set them forth in such a way
that they must always and fully be met
before assistance can be provided. The
amendment suggests? that no aid will be
provided until the recipient has solved
basic problems of self-help, internal re-
form, and utilization of private capital.
The amendment would thus bar the
United States from extending predevel-
opment assistance to underdeveloped
countries. Predevelopment programs,
now being carried out in Africa and other
parts of the world, are quite inexpensive
but extremely useful. Their objective is
to prepare countries for development,
that is to say, to prepare them to ful-
fill precisely the criteria set forth in this
amendment. The effect of this amend-
ment would be to make it impossible to
assist countries until they had gone
through the most difficult stage of eco-
nomic growth, which is to say, the prep-
aration for economic development.
The amendment's requirement of an
interest rate "no less than the average
rate payable on obligations of the United
States of comparable maturities." is in-
consistent with the basic purposes of the
aid program. Our aid is provided for the
express purpose of making funds avail-
able where financing from other sources
on reasonable terms is not available.
Countries capable of paying the interest
rate proposed by the amendment are
normally capable of meeting their debt
capital requirements from other sources.
Heavy emphasis has been placed on
selectivity in the aid programs in recent
years, but the designation of a maximum
of 50 countries is arbitrary. Our _eco-
nomic and military assistance is in fact
highly concentrated. Two-thirds of all
development lending funds in fiscal year
1965 will go to seven countries which have
demonstrated their ability to make effec-
tive use of development capital: Chile,
Colombia, Nigeria, Turkey, Pakistan, In-
dia, and Tunisia. Two-thirds of all mil-
itary assistance will go to 11 countries
along the periphery of the Soviet Union
and Communist China.
To designate an arbitrary maximum of
50 recipents is to reduce the flexibility of
the program to the point of largely elim-
inating its usefulness as an instrument
of American foreign policy. It may be in
the years ahead that our national inter-
est will require us to provide aid to more
than 50 countries; it is equally possible
that we will be able to confine our aid
programs to many fewer than 50 coun-
tries. It makes no more sense to desig-
nate an arbitrary maximum of 50 aid
recipients than stt would to designate an
arbitrary maximum of 50 embassies or
50 USIA missions abroad.
I hope the Senate will not accept the
amendment. The foreign aid program is
the best that the Government is able to
do. In spite of all the criticisms that
are heaped upon the Administrator, I
believe that Mr. Bell is an outstanding
man. He was drafted to perform this
task. The Administrator is doing- the
best he can. The program is difficult. It
is easy to criticize. It is easy to criticize
practically all parts of our Government,
but it still remains the best system that
can be constructed.
Therefore I hope the Senate will not
accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Ore-
gon [Mr. MORSE]. On this question the
August 10
yeas and nays have been ordered, and the
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.'
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD],
the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Goss],
the Senator from Arizona [Mr. HAYDEN],
the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL],
the Senator from Washington [Mr. JACK-
SON] the Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss],
and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr.
LONG] are absent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator
from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON] and
the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
KENNEDY] are absent because of illness.
I further announce that the Senator
from Nevada [Mr. CANNON], the Senator
from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK], the
Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMOND-
SON] , and the Senator from New Jersey
[Mr. WILLIAMS] are necessarily absent.
On this vote, the Senator from Virginia
[Mr. BYRD] is paired with the Senator
from Washington [Mr. JACKSON].
Ifpresent and voting, the Senator from
Virginia would vote "yea" and the Sen-
ator from Washington would vote "nay."
On this vote, the Senator from Louisi-
ana [Mr. LONG] is paired with the Sen-
ator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK] .
If present and voting, the Senator
from Louisiana would vote "yea" and the
Senator from Pennsylvania would vote
"nay."
On this vote, the Senator from Georgia
[Mr. RUSSELL] is paired with the Senator
from New. Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS].
If present and voting, the Senator
from Georgia would vote "yea" and the
Senator from New Jersey would vote
"nay."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HausicA],
the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON] ,
and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Scorr] are necessarily absent.
The Senator from New. York [Mr.
JAvrrs] is absent on official business.
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Goto-
WATER] is detained on official business.
If present and voting the Senator from
Kansas [Mr. PEARSON] would vote "nay."
On this vote, the Senator from Nebras-
ka [Mr. HrtusKA] is paired with the Sen-
ator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOTT]. If
present and voting, the Senator from
Nebraska would vote "yea" and the Sen-
ator from Pennsylvania would vote
"nay."
The result was announced?yeas 29,
nays 53, as follows:
[No. 530 Leg.]
YEAS-29
Beall Gruening Mundt
Bible Hart Robertson
Burdick Johnston Simpson
Cooper Jordan, N.C. Talmadge
Cotton Jordan, Idaho Thurmond
Curtis McClellan Tower
Dodd Mechem Williams, Del.
Dominick Miller Young, N. Dak.
Ellender Morse Young, Ohio
Ervin Morton
NAYS-53
Aiken
Allott
Bartlett
Bayh
Bennett
Boggs
Brewster
Byrd, W. Va.
Carlson
Cs se
Church
Dirksen
Douglas
Eastland
Fong
Fulbright
Hartke
Hickenlooper
Hill
Holland
Humphrey
Inouye
Keating
Kuchel
Lausche
Long, Mo.
Magnuson
Mansfield
McCarthy
McGee
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0
- ? *
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
'McGovern'. Pastdre
McIntyre Pell
McNamara Prouty
Metcalf
Monroney
Muskie
Proxmire
Randolph
Ribicoff
Smathers
Smith
Sparkman
Stennis
Symington
Walters
Nelson Salinger Yarborough
Neuberger Saltonstall -
NOT VOTING-18 ,
Anderson
Byrd, Va.
Cannon
Clark
Edmondson
Goldwater
Gore
Hayden
Hruska
Jackson
Javits
Kennedy
Long, La.
Moss
Pearson
Russell
Scott
Williams, N.J.
? So Mr. MORSE'S amendment was re-
jected.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
move that the vote by which the amend-
ment was rejected be reconsidered.
Mr. MANSFIELD_ Mr. President, I
move that the motion to reconsider be
laid on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I
should like to ask the majority leader
about the program for the remainder of
the day and, insofar as he knows, what
the program will be for tomorrow and
when he proposes to convene the Sen-
ate.
Mr. MANSFIELD. It is my under-
standing that the distinguished senior
Senator from Oregon, who has been most
cooperative in offering amendments, will
offer one more amendment this eve-
ning.
It is my further understanding that
the yeas and nays may well be re-
quested.
If there are other amendments follow-
ing that?and I would hope that there
would be?though I doubt it very much?
the Senate would remain in session to
consider them in the interest of expedit-
ing the measure now before it.
There i,s already an order for the Sen-
ate to meet at 10 o'clock tomorrow morn-
ing.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT
OF 1964?U1ANIMOUS-CONSENT
AGREEMENT
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, at
this time, after conferring with the dis-
tinguished minority leader and other in-
tel.ested individuals, I ask unanimous
,,onsent that on the question of agreeing
to 'the House amendment, without
amendment, to Senate 2642, the so-called
antipoverty bill, debate beginning at
10:15 o'clock tomorrow morning be lim-
ited to 1 hour, to be equally divided be-
tween the proponents and the opponents,
with the time to be controlled by the ma-
jority and minority leaders.
The PRESIDING OrPICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Montana? The Chair hears none,
and it is so ordered. -
The unanimous-consent agreement,
subsequently reduced to writing, is as
follows:
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Ordered, That effective on Tuesday, Au-
gust 11, 1964, beginning at 10:15 a.m., the
? No. 155-11
Senate proceed to the consideration of the
House amendment, without amendment, to
S. 2642, the so-called antipoverty bill, with
all debate thereon limited to one hour, to be
equally divided between the proponents and
opponents and controlled by the majority
and minority leaders, respectively.
AUTHORIZATIONS FOR COMMIT-
TEES OF THE SENATE TO MEET
UNTIL 12 O'CLOCK MERIDIAN TO-
MORROW
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that committees
of the Senate may be permitted to meet
up until 12 o'clock meridian tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the. request of the Senator
from Montana? The Chair hears none,
and it is so ordered.
ORDMi, OF BUSINESS?MODIFICA-
TION OF UNANIMOUS-CONSENT
AGREEMENT
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
when the Senate meets tomorrow it will
discuss the House amendment to the
antipoverty bill (S. 2642) which is really
the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964.
It will then return to the foreign aid bill.
I would hope that the Senate will show
as much expedition tomorrow as it has
shown today.
? Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Montana yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.
Mr. TOWER. It was my understand-
ing that the Committee on Labor and
Public Welfare was meeting tomorrow
only to consider nominations, but I have
since been informed that it will also con-
sider proposed legislation as well.
Since the members of that committee
will be in the Chamber debating the
House amendment to the antipoverty bill,
it seems inappropriate that the Commit-
tee on Labor and Public Welfare should
meet later than 10:15 a.m., tomorrow.
Accordingly, inasmuch as unanimous
consent has already been propounded
and agreed upon, would the Senator
from Montana agree to change his re-
quest in regard to that committee?
Mr. MANSFIELD. The nurses train-
ing bill is due to be reported tomorrow,
which is a matter of prime importance.
It is a bill to which I know of no oppo-
sition. In view of the generosity of the
Senator from Texas, I agree to rescind
my previous request in regard to the
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.
Mr. TOWER. The only point I should
like to make to the majority leader is
that, of course, the antipoverty bill is
also of prime concern to the Committee
on Labor and Public Welfare, and mem-
bers of that committee would be in the
Chamber; therefore, I believe it should
not meet at the time specified by the
.Senator from Montana.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Would it be agree-
able to ask permission for the Commit-
-tee on Labor and Public Welfare?if it so
desires?to meet from 11:15 a.m. tomor-
row until 12:30 p.m.?
Mr. TOWER. I would not object to
that request.
18243
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
therefore make the request that the
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare
be permitted to meet from 11:15 a.m. to-
morrow until 12:30 Pm.
Mr. TOWER. Could that request not
be made so as to take effect after the
vote on the antipoverty bill?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous content that the Com-
mittee on Labor and Public Welfare be
permitted to meet from 11:30 a.m. to
12:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Montana?, The Chair hears none,
and it is so ordered.
COMMITTEE MEETING DURING RE-
MAINDER OF 2D SESSION OF 88TH
CONGRESS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Com-
mittee on Appropriations be authorized
to meet during the sessions of the Sen-
ate for the remainder of the 2d session
of the 88th Congress.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, reserv-
ing the right to object, I should like to
inquire of the Senator from Montana
whether this authorization applies only
to the Appropriations Committee?
Mr. MANSFIELD. This is only for the
Appropriations Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Montana? The Chair hears none,
and it is so ordered.
AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSIST-
ANCE ACT OF 1961
The Senate resumed the considera-
tion of the bill (H.R. 11380) to amend
further the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, as amended, and for other pur-
poses.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I call up
my amendment No. 1188, and ask that
it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment of the Senator from Oregon
will be stated.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING 010.141.CER. Without
objection, it is so ordered; and the
amendment will be printed in the RECORD
at this point.
The amendment (No. 1188) submitted
by Mr. MORSE iS aS follows:
On page 4, line 5, after "SEc. 104." insert
"(a)".
On page 4, between lines 13 and 14 insert
the following:
"(b) Title VI of chapter 2 of part I is
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new section:
"'SEC. 254. RESTRICTIONS ON ASSISTANCE.?
(a) None of the funds made available under
authority of this Act may be used to furnish
assistance to any country covered by this
title in which the government has come to
power through the forcible overthrow of a
prior government which has been chosen in
free and democratic elections.
"'(b) The provisions of this section shall
not require the withholding of assistance to
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090001-0