AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090019-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 21, 2014
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: August 8, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090019-1
18156 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE August 8
I am writing to thank you for your pub-
lic announcements on South Vietnam. .
Sincerely yours,
Mrs. NaNcar D. SPAULDING.
New Kamm, N.J.,
August 5, 1964.
Hon. WAYNt MORS!,
Senate Office Building,.
Washington, D.O.
DEAR Snt: I congratulate you on your Arm
stand with regard to Vietnam. '
Apparently our administration has not
heard the plea of the 5.000 educators who
signed a petition urging an end to the war
in Vietnam and a move toward neutrailzatitm.
Word has just come through that the
obinese?oovernment (Red) will not stand
by while "aggression" taken place in North
Vietnam.
Your warnings regarding our complete and
utter disregard of the 1954 Geneva Treaty
have gone unheeded.
It is incomprehensible to me and prob-
ably to yourself how a country like the
United States could allow itself to be
caught in such a meat grinder.
I suggest that you immediately take to
the mass media and tell the American peo-
ple what 18 happening.
We are now reaching a point where we
are trying to save face and where the endless
bloodletting leads nowhere.
Again I congratulate you for such in-
tegrity in an area where your colleagues gen-
erally will go along without seemingly to
know the consequences.
Cordially yours.
ROBERT GARRITY.
Arrctrar 6.1964.
DEAR Sinverosi Moses: Permit me to say
thank you for your courageous vote against
American policy in southeast Asia.
It Is painful to admit to oneself that one's
own country can be so wrong in a matter of
foreign policy. Yet, it must be said.
I hope that more people will support your
stand In the interests of peace and justice.
Respectfully.
. CHARLES Emserier.
?
WHISMANAaNIITL4c
ATTOD.HRTS ST LAW,
'Chicago. In., August 8,1984.
HON. WAYNi Molar,
U.S. Senate, Senate Office
' Washington; D.C. ?
DrAa Eimisroalioasz: I read in this morn-
ing's Newvork Times your remarks concern-
ing the new'crisis in the "McNamara war." I
want to congratulate you on your forthright-
ness and the fact that it least one Senator
Is willing to stand up tobe counted and fight
:for smear foreign -policy that is ?needed.
'It it were not for the newsworthiness of
your, statements. I doubt if any newspaper or
? person' could ever,,realise that there is
tuaother,lide to the question. The 'adminis-
? ? tration, Defense Department. military lead-
ers: and the newspapers all present only one
?,side;.of ant:1'144s refreshing to And.
Yourremarka.
laniwrely yenta. ?
'1A;sna!Lip ? t
Tsoltsa..Liocrasik,
F.st, SOYA= AralMSURANGR:
Sellakty, ',eights, NJ., Au9ust,60 15064,
? Hon. Warm Moses,
Sen4te Officellund.ing;
Washington; D.C.'
Disa.fissesra, Moisii:.1 Would-like to coin=
mend, strongly the schen you .took toe* in
.the Senate Iff regard to President Johnson's
reetaution, Which 'you -aptly termed. "a pre..
dated.deelaration.Of War." This actIon'keeps
pica with the greitiAnid-honest-aervice you
have always rentleied*r country.'
I feel as you do, that a new approach is
needed M our growing involvement In south-
east Asia. We seem to be prisoners Of a
bankrupt policy, whose Inevitable end is war.
In the words of Negro ministeri Walking
the streets of Jersey City during the meant
rioting, now is the time to "tOollt."? "
If ever there is anything I :cawdo for you
In the nature of. support in your,, future
political career, please call en nut. ,
Very truly yo
Einsw.
AMEND., OP FOREIGN ASSIST-
ANCE ACT OP 1961
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 11380 to amend further ?
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1981. as
amended, and for other purposes. - ?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. 'The bill
Is open to amendment.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I call up
my amendment No. 1180.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment offered by the Senator from
Oregon will be stated.
The legislative clerk read the amend-
ment. as follows:
On page 6. between lines 6 and 7. Insert
the following:
'CHAPTER 7?WILITABY RESPEMDTTURES Or
RITCIPHOTT COUNTRICS
"Sac. 108. Part I of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 19431, as amended, Is amended by add-
ing a new chapter as follows:
*CYLAPTES 7?MILITARY EXPIENDITIMESI Or
SICIPTCNT COUNTRY= ?
'Svc. 471. MILITARY ILYPENITITURR3 or na-
crptrmr Cot: Nrittlr3.?In furnishing asislstance
tuader this part. the President shall give
special consideration to a country's alloca-
tion of its own resources as between military
and developmental purposes. Priority 'in
furnishing assistance shall be given,to, those
countries whose military budgets do not ex-
ceed their legitimate and reasonable beech; for'
internal security,. and; self-defense and. for
'meeting -their ' obligitioneunder.-the Charter
.of the United Nations or under any 'regional
defense organisation.' "
- Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask fur
the yeas and nays on my amendment:
The yeas and nays were"ordere&
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the,
pending amendment, which' adds a net,
concluding section to the economic as-
sistance portion of. the foreign aid act,
. may seem a modest one at fit*, sight. It ,
merely asks that' ? more; Consideration.
should be given to the .provision of eco-
nomic assistance to those countries Which'
do not burden their own peOple. and, our
taxpayers with the support, of an un-
necessarily large military eitablilannept:
On the other hand: if?theP011eY guidance
provided by this amendment is taken.
seriously and. folloiiede comicientiOtislY.
this provision cciuld have a highly, Mau,.
tarY imPact;-not onlyintersini of Our aid
program but, on. the, develcannent, of. the
indenendent nations of the free. world.
After-more- than a dozen years at ex,.
'Perience With a swollen and mismanaged
aidprograinjil scarcely need cite chapter
and verse.tocillustratothe fact that year
after year 'we-have - Poured MolleiY Into
countries which seduce us withthe argu-
ment that. they have 'to be plated in a
"Posture: to. rend threatened Comaumist
expansion:' BUt every'tin:mum we lock,
at the record we find that swollen mili-
tary establishments in less developed
countries are of little or no use against'
v the kinds of threats which are posed by
Russian or . Chinese imperialism. The
Utility of ':such' establishments. on 'the
contrary,. seems mainly in the field of
permitting authoritarian regimes to con-
trol their countries more tightly at the
expense of making sound progress toward
economic development. Yet, at keit: in
theory, the United States proclaims. that
such development is the best, defense
against communism available to any of
the less developed countries. If .-we are
to be consistent and truthful- about the
aims of our flreign aid program we
should- forthrightly pursue a policy, of
giving milrity to those countries which
concentrate on the welfare rather thin
the regimentation of their people. '
The plain fact is that, in case after
case, we find ourselves directly or in-
directly supnorting unduly large mi11%.
tary establishments in countries which
could not retard a Communist attack for
even 1 day without our military as-
sistance. For example, surely no one.
can be under any illusion that the huge
South Korean army could successfully'
? withstand invasion from the north with:.
out immediate I.Y.S. military help.
But I need not take the time of the
Senate to cite each of the many cases
In this category. Who, for instance, can.
take seriously the through that Taiwan
could either attack or defend Itself'
against mainland China in a full-scale.
action without massive American mili-
tary .support?
In these circumstances, I do not, see
that anyone can marshal a successful
argument against the amendment I elli2
Proposing here. The only rational &Au,-
ment.against it is that it may not prim
much ,more:'Aininr?Of pious ?exhortation
after its a-mingled -in the act, but
- of. any policy guidance which Is
given by the Congress to the executive
branch. .
The foreign aid bill needs . many
'amendments by way of policy guide,
lines for. Its ?adminittration. ff. we :really
want to clean up the foreign aid PrO?
gram.
If the policy guidelines which we ? set
forth are deliberately ignored by the
.Chief Executive, then we have 'a duty
either to make suchpolicies more clear),
ly- mandatory or to refuse to level Alia
administration .the. funds it seeke , front
Obviously vie,tannot know, whether
the . policy ; guidanee Provided by this.
ain'L endment satisfactOrili.imple
;Opted, until it is tried. If It is.tritaland
proves In we .cap then under-
take' to Provide inOre, atringint guide-
ante. But it isno argnmentto
the iimendritent eannot be effective' be-
fore ? we have even ' tried tO?put, it into
effect: . ?
Mr. President, I urge Senators tO, ac-
**Pt' this new seCtiOn.in the bird= aid,
legislation As .s potetitiallY vital; econtril-
bution to the; Improvement of our for- ?
eign. aidprogram.
My amendment Liets.,fortti the: polity
that we AO- freciPcntly.- pn*cess. We Want
to develop in;foreign aid. We are say.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090019-1
! 1964
ing that we want to develop the economic
strength of underdeveloped countries.
We shall never develop the economic
strength of underdeveloped countries if
we continue to pour millions of dollars
of aid money into them for the blinding
of strong, colossal military machines,
that so frequently get in to the hands
of military oligarchies, which in turn
use the military power to suppress free-
dom, not to develop it.
Jlist before I entered the Chamber,
one Senator said to me that he had read
my amendment and would like to have
me, in my explanation of it, cite a few
countries that I thought the amendment
ought to be applied to as a matter of
policy. I have already mentioned Tai-
wan and South Korea. I suppose the
country to which the amendment ought
to be applied by way of 'a new policy,
as much as any other country to which
111 we are giving huge sums of military aid,
if not more so, is Turkey. We are not
building up the economic power of
Turkey.
In my major speech against the bill
the other day, and without repeating it,
except to recapitulate this part in capsule
form, I said that what we were doing
in Turkey by way of military aid?and
the interesting thing is that we have been
alibiing for it throughout the years?
was supplying great sums for military
assistance in Turkey because, sup-
posedly, it would be of help to them in
defending themselves against commu-
nism and to help them to defend us
against communism in case a war broke
out over there.
Nonsense. If war broke out with Rus-
sia in that part of the world, all the mili-
tary aid we have poured into Turkey
would be absolutely useless, because
that war would quickly?almost imme-
diately?involve an exchange of nuclear
bombs. We would help Turkey defend
herself against communism much more
effectively if we developed some economic
strength and economic freedom in Tur-
key down to the level of the mass of the
Turkish people. But that is not what
we have done in Turkey. Turkey has a
totalitarian government. The Turkish
Government operates a large percentage
of Turkey's industry as government in-
dustry. It uses that industry as a form
of employment. The reports of the
Comptroller General and the reports of
independent investigators who have
gone to Turkey are all consistent con-
cerning the kind of existing socialism
in industry, which ought to be private
industry, that the American taxpayers
are supporting in Turkey. Turkey's in-
dustry is not producing. It is character-
ized by inefficiency, waste, and corrup-
tion. That kind of aid is a good example
of what I am pointing out when I say
that our aid program has become honey-
combed with corruption abroad. Turkey
? is a good example.
What I seek to do is to help the Turk-
ish people. I want to help the Turkish
people by providing a better and re-
formed economic aid program. We
ought to change our policy. That is
why I advocate in my amendment a
guideline policy chang,e if we are to give
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090019-1
CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD ? SENATE
preferential treatment to countries that
seek foreign aid in respect to meeting
their economic needs.
If they are maintaining military estab-
lishments that they could not maintain
alone, their economies cannot be main-
tained alone. I am not an "overnighter"
in proposing this change. I do not pro-
pose that the change be made all at
once. That would also produce economic
disruptures and disjointures. But we
ought to start now to cut back on mili-
tary aid for Turkey as one example and
do more for Turkey on the economic
level. We should do more on the eco-
nomic level to sow the seeds of economic
freedom and not the seeds of economic
socialism.
There are some areas of economic
activity as to which I do not question
that much can be said for some govern-
ment programs, although as a general
rule I am against government operation
of industries that can operate on a pri-
vate enterprise basis. Someone may
ask, "What about power?" I have al-
ways supported a program under which
a major part of the power development
in this country would be by private power
industries; but I have also maintained
that when it comes to multiple-purpose
dams built by the money of the tax-
payers, those power resources ought to
be owned by all the taxpayers of the
country, and used only as a competitive
public power yardstick to hold private
utilities in line and to prevent them from
gouging the American taxpayers by way
of profiteering, which they would do if
there were not a public power yardstick
that could be used as a competitive
standard.
But that is not what we are doing in
Turkey. What is being done with Amer-
ican , taxpayers' dollars in Turkey is to
develop a Government-owned and con-
trolled industry in segment after seg-
ment. In my judgment, that cannot be
reconciled with our professed belief in
economic freedom, for that is not bring-
ing economic freedom to Turkey.
Mr. President, I am almost through.
For the benefit of the Senator who asked
me to cite a few more examples, I cite
Pakistan. The Pakistanian economy
could not possibly support its military
establishment alone. I cite India.
The Indian economy could not possibly
support its military establishment. The
United States is supporting those estab-
lishments. The American taxpayers are
supporting those establishments. The
paradox is that we are preparing Pakis-
tan and India to be in a position so that
they can make war against each other.
If they Make war against each other,
they will make war against each other
fully equipped on each side with Ameri-
can military equipment.
What kind of morality is that?
If we start, to talk about morality in
connection with the foreign aid pro-
gram, people believe that we are a
little "queer." Apparently, we are sup-
posed to keep separate the principles of
morality from the administration of a
foreign aid program. Let us be frank
about it. Those who would have us do
that are trying to sell the American peO-
18157
pie a shocking program of political ex-
pediency which is basically immoral.
Mr. President (Mr. SALINGER in the
chair), we cannot compromise American
ideals. We cannot sacrifice them at the
altar of political expediency in interna-
tional politics and keep faith with our
professings about our moral standards.
The buildup of the military might of
Pakistan and India, in my judgment, is
immoral and unconscionable.
In the first place, military might in
Pakistan and India would not be worth
one whit to us in the event of a war with
Russia.
Pakistan and India, too, have to rely
for their ultimate security upon Amer-
ican nuclear power. They live and move
and have their being under, the canopy
of America's milita:ry might, not their
own.
I wonder what more the Senate should
have to hear than the foreign minister
of Pakistan. At a noon luncheon before
the National Press Club, a question was
put to him as to whether Pakistan would
come in and be of any aid to the United
States in South Vietnam. The answer
was no?that they had no intention of
doing so, although they, too, are mem-
bers of SEATO. In my judgment, every
country in SEATO has an obligation in
regard to South Vietnam?not just the
United States. Pakistan does, too. We
do not find the other countries-in SEATO
sending b6ys to South Vietnam to die.
They are careful when they send any
token manpower, such as the 60 men
from Australia. The Secretary of State?
I believe to his everlasting discredit?
tried to make something of it, without
giving the American people the facts,
when he said not so long ago that Aus-
tralia was doubling its manpower con-
tribution in the SEATO crisis.
The doubling meant that they were
adding 30 additional men to the 30 al-
ready there. A checkup disclosed that
the 30 men they had there were not
going to be put in the frontline.
No, Mr. President, we are not going
to get any help from Pakistan. They
have told us so already. .1 do not know
how we believe that we are helping the
cause of peace in the world by building
up the military might of Pakistan and
India so that they can make war on each
other over Kashmir.
In 1957, as chairman of the American
delegation to the Parliamentary Confer-
ence of Commonwealth Nations in New
Delhi, with. the Prime Minister of
India, then Mr. Nehru, present, I asked
in a speech if I could raise the delicate
question, in New Delhi, about the appli-
cation of the rule of law to the settle-
ment of international disputes. At that
time, the United States was -under at-
tack because of the Formosa resolution.
The Formosa resolution was not liked by
our Asiatic friends. It was not liked
by many of the delegates at that Con-
ference from the Asiatic countries.
We pointed out what our position 'was.
I was in a position to do -that, because
I had opposed the Formosa resolution.
I stated what we should do, namely, sub-
stitute the rule of law for the 'rule of
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090019-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090019-1
18158 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
military force in the settlement of these
disputes.
There was great approval. They were
all for that.
After I made the suggestion, I said,
"Could I raise, here in New Delhi, the
most delicate question, because there is
such approval of the general principle
of substituting the rule of law for the
rule of military force in the settlement
-of disputes which threaten the peace of
the world: What about Kashmir?why
not apply it to Kashmir?"
There was enthusiastic response from
all the delegates except India. Mr.
Nehru had a sense of humor. Many
people did not seem to realize that. A
few days later, Ambassador Bunker, who
was then our Ambassador at New Delhi,
advised me that the Prime Minister of
India wished to see the two of us. We
had a conference with the Prime Min-
ister, the parliamentary conference hav-
ing adjourned. The Prime Minister
goodnaturedly said to me, "Senator, you
did a lawyer's job on me in the debate in
the conference when you asked the ques-
tion about Kashmir."
Ambassador Bunker, said "But, Mr.
Prime Minister, you did not answer it."
The Prime Minister's reply was to the
effect that of course there are some things
better not discussed. He took the posi-
tion that Kashmir was a domestic and
not an international problem.
Kashmir is an international problem,
because any problem that threatens the
peace of the world is an international
problem.
In this bill, we are providing great
sums of money once again for a military
buildup in Pakistan and in India that
could not be of the slightest value to us
in the way of a war with Russia, but
could be of value to Pakistan and India
if they went to war over Kashmir.
Mr. President, my amendment would
lay down the policy guidelines that in our
amounts of foreign aid we are going to
give preference to countries which do not
maintain a military establishment great-
er than their own economy can main-
tain.
If we did that, we would do two things,
In my judgment?if the administration
would follow it. We would lessen the
chances of a regional war. We would
lessen the chances of a war between
Pakistan and India. We would lessen
the chances of war between Turkey and
Greece. We would lessen the chances of
military coups in Latin America: I be-
lieve that too much of our military aid,
too often, is used by military groups in
various countries to entrench themselves
in power, to the detriment of the estab-
lishment of freedom. They all know
that so far as our own national sover-
eignty and territorial integrity are con-
cerned, existing mutual security pacts
give the assurance of protection against
a war with Russia.
On the last point, some will probably
argue?as they have argued with me in
committee and elsewhere?that if they
do not get protection from us, they will
get it from Russia.
We should find out, should we not?
On that argument, I say that I am not
going to vote to send a dollar of the
American taxpayers' money under - a
blackmail proposal.
That is international blackmail. If
they want to go to Russia to get their
military aid and pay the tribute that
they would have to pay, let them make
that decision.
They would not go. They know what
would happen to them if they went vol-
untarily into the Russian orbit. We have
a great chance here for world leadership
on what I consider to be a moral issue as
well as an economic issue. We have a
great opportunity to place before the
world the policy guideline that I ask to
have inserted in the bill:
The United States has decided that the
time has come to start tapering off in the
building up of these. powerful military
regimes and machines around the world.
We ought to put it in the bill. It would
be salutary in its educational effects
around the world. And it would be
sound in the objectives that it seeks to
accomplish.
I yield the floor.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the House
had passed the bill (S. 2642) to mobilize
the human and financial resources of the
Nation to combat poverty in the United
States, with an amendment, in which it
requested the concurrence of the Senate.
HEALTH CARE FOR THE AGED UN-
DER SOCIAL SECURITY SHOULD
BE ENACTED THIS SESSION
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, if an
effective program of health care for the
aged is to be established this year, the
Senate must take the lead. The House
of Representatives did not include health
care for the aged in the social security
bill which it approved on July 29, and
thus it is up to the Senate to initiate
such action. Action on the proposee ad-
ministration Hospital Insurance Act, also
known as the King-Anderson bill, has
been delayed for too long. I believe the
Senate should adopt this bill or a close
modification of it before adjournment.
WE NEED A SELF-PAID PLAN, NOT CHARITY
There is overwhelming evidence that
we need to establish a system which will
help provide for the essential health care
protections which many of our elderly
people cannot now afford. I believe that
this should be done, not by putting the
burden on the Federal Government or
on the general taxpayer, but rather by
permitting people to make small monthly
payments into a fund during their work-
ing. years, so that, in their later years,
they can have basic health insurance as
a matter of right- and not as a charity.
I believe that this can be done most
economically and dependably through a
separate account under the existing so-
cial security system.
Let me stress that this is a bill for
health care. There are no provisions in
the bill which would interfere with a
person's choice of doctor or with the
traditional doctor-patient relationship;
August 8
moreover it does not pay physicians' and
surgeons' fees. In the main it would
provide insurance only for the basic
health services of hospital care, nursing
home care, outpatient diagnostic care,
and home health benefits.
THE NEED
There are now approximately 18 mil-
lion people over age 65 in the United
States. The number of our aged and
their proportion in our population have
increased rapidly. For example, in the
last 10 years the aged population grew by
one-third. For our elderly, health care
is a prime concern. Let us Mk at the
facts.
First, people over 65 need more hospital
care than others. They require nearly
three times as much hospitalization as
those under that age. Nine out of ten of
them will need to be hospitalized at least
once, and 1 in 6 will be hospitalized in
any given year. In addition, the average
stay in a hospital is longer for an older
person inasmuch as chronic illnesses
occur with greater frequency and sever-
ity at older ages. The national health
survey indicates that 4 out of every 5
persons over 65 have one or more chronic
conditions. The average hospital stay
for a person over 65 is 15 days?twice as
long as the average period for younger
people.
In summary, the elderly are found at
the top of every index of need for hos-
pital care; they require more hospital
admissions, greater lengths of stay, more
days of care, and more aged persons are
hospitalized per given population. Older
people are simply much more likely to
be hospitalized and for much longer
Periods. We all know this.
Second, hospital costs have increased
greatly, and the drain on the resources
of the aged is in many instances an in-
surmountable burden. No other major
item of consumer expenses has under-
gone cost increases comparable to those
for hospital costs. The hospital care
that cost $26 a day in 1957 now costs $40
per day.
The average daily hospital charge has
increased 54 percent in only '7 years,
It takes only a short time in the hospital
to accumulate bills exceeding $1,000, not
including doctor bills. For the elderly,
hospital stays are much more costly than
for other age groups. The average stay
for elderly persons results in a bill of
over $500. Thus today, even those who
were fortunate enough at one time to
build up savings for their later years may
find their savings totally wiped out by
even one short stay in the hospital.
Third, the income and savings of most
people over 65 is not enough to meet the
costs of their health care. Half of the
couples over 65 earn less than $2,600.
Half of the single persons over 65 earn
under $1,100 a year. Half of the aged
have less than $1,000 in liquid savings
? which they can turn to, and even more
disturbing is the fact that when an older
person is forced to meet an emergency
by cashing in on his savings, usually
there is no opportunity for him to save
again. Most younger people, at least,
can again work and try to rebuild their
savings.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090019-1