AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090020-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 21, 2014
• Sequence Number: 20
• Publication Date: August 10, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090020-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
McGovern Pastore
McIntyre Pell
McNamara Prouty
Metcalf Proxmire
Monroney Randolph
Muskie Ribicoff
Nelson Salinger
Neuberger Saltonstall
NOT VOTING-18
Anderson
Byrd, Va.
Cannon ?
Clark
Edmondson
Goldwater
Smathers
Smith
Sparkman
Stennis
Symington
Walters
, Yarborough
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 is already an order for the Sen-
ate to meet at 10 o'clock tomorrow morn-
ing.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT
OF 1964?UNANIMOUS-CONSENT
AGREEMENT
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, at
this time, after conferring with the dis-
tinguished minority leader and other in-
terested individuals, I ask unanimous
consent 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 OFFICER. 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.
ORDER 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 consent 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 OleFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Montana? The Chair hears none,
and it is so ordered.
AMENDMENT OF FOREfi ASS T-
ANCE ACT OF 1961
The Senate resumed the considera-
tion of the bill (HR. 11380) to amend
further the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, as amended, and for -other pur-
poses.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, 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 OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered; and the
amendment will be printed in the RECORD
at this point.
The ainendment (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:
"'Sm. 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 goverrunent 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
npclassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090020-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090020-9
18244 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
any country if, following a determination
by the President that the withholding of
such assistance would be contrary to the
national interest, the two Houses of Con-
gress adopt a concurrent resolution approv-
ing the continuance of such assistance.'"
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I
should like to inquire of the Senator from
Oregon whether he proposes to offer any
more amendments tonight after the yea
and nay votes on the one the Senator
now has pending?
Mr. MORSE. I do not plan to offer
any more amendments' tonight.
I shall offer more if Senators wish to
stay and vote.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, if it
offers no offense to Senators, I wonder
if we can obtain some indication of how
many amendments still remain to be of-
fered on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if
the Senator from Oregon will yield for
me to make a point on that, I have a
rough figure. As I check around, it ap-
pears that there will be approximately
24) amendment to be offered?including
the one now pending?on the part of all
Senators;
I should say that the Senator is mak-
ing very good progress today, and I am
highly pleased.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, while so
many Senators are present, I ask unani-
mous consent?and I am sure it will be
drafted for insertion before the Senate
takes a recess tonight?to have printed
in the RECORD a blanket amendment that
would cut the authorization to not more
than $3 billion. That calls for a good
Many technical changes in the bill. I
have legiSlative counsel working this
afternoon on this amendment. _
I ask unanimous consent that I may
send that amendment to the desk, that
it be printed so as to be available to Sen-
ators tomorrow, and that it lie on the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the amendment will be re-
ceived and printed, and will lie on the
desk as requested.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I shall
read from the pending amendment and
comment on it as I proceed. The amend-
ment provides:
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
any country if, following a determination
by the President that the withholding of such
assistance would be contrary to the national
interest, the two Houses of Congress adopt
a concurrent resolution approving the con-
tinuance of such assistance.'"
I tried to place every possible safeguard
in the amendment to protect our na-
tional security. This is a position that
the senior Senator from Oregon, as
chairman of the Subcommittee on Latin
American Affairs, has taken for the past
several years?not alone, either. Al-
though we have a little difficulty getting
the votes on the floor of the Senate for
assistance, I will say that on the basis
of my conferences in the past several
years with my associates on the Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations, a consider-
able number of them say, "You are
right." And I think I am right.
Taking a hypothetical country. The
amendment provides that if a country
has a government that has been demo-
cratically elected?or, as we speak of it,
a constitutional form of government?
and that government is overthrown by
force, be it a Communist force, a military
force, or a military junta?we stop the
aid.
The amendment does not read "until
It restores the government it overthrew."
It does not require this, although one
would hope that the facts in a given situ-
ation would justify that. It does provide
that we will not give them aid if they
overthrow a democratic form of -govern-
ment. It means that they must return
to constitutionalism. We ought to square
our practices with our representations
about trying to support freedom around
the world. We ought to stop encourag-
ing outlaws and military juntas around
the world from destroying constitutional
government, believing that if they do it,
they have nothing to lose. They believe
that after a little while the United States
will come along, pour millions of dollars
into their country, and help them en-
trench themselves in a position of domi-
nation over their people and thus keep
down freedom.
I am perfectly willing to talk about
specific cases. If my amendment had
been the law of the land at the time of
the junta in the Dominican Republic,
under the Bosch regime, we would not
only have stopped aid?and we stopped
It for awhile?but we would have stopped
it until constitutionalisni was returned to
the Dominican Republic.
My amendment would not require the
reinstatement of Mr. Bosch. After the
junta, he left the country. It is true
that he was taken out of the country.
He went to Puerto Rico. But, Mr. Presi-
-- dent, the country had a constitution.
The constitution called for succession.
The constitution called for the exercise
of rights and prerogative on the part of
the parliament. The constitution called
for self-government on the part of the
people. That was what was destroyed.
The junta not only overthrew a president
by force, but destroyed constitutionalism
in the Dominican Republic. Do not be
fooled by the facade they set up. They
set up a so-called civilian council or com-
mission under the complete domination
and control of the military.
I hold ,no brief for Bosch. I am not
qualified to pass judgment on whether
he was a good President or a bad Presi-
dent. That is an internal governmental
problem for the people of the Dominican
Republic who live under an alleged sys-
August 10
tern of self-government. I do hold a
brief for our supporting the application
of the constitutional system, and oppos-
ing the overthrow of a constitutional
system.
Their constitutional system was like
ours. It provides for various checks,
various rights in the people to determine
what their own form of government
should be. That was destroyed. People
became victimized by a junta.
The facade that was set up, the so-
called civilian council not having U.S.
recognition, continued to cause embar-
rassment. It produced an interesting
set of facts prior to final recognition by
the United States of the military junta.
We were told in the Cabinet Room by
the then Acting Secretary of State, Mr.
Ball?and there are men that are within
the sound of my voice who heard it?
that the State Department had decided
that we ought to recognize the tyran-
nical military junta of the Dominican
Republic, because that junta was about
to stage a second coup and was going to
stage the second coup out of resentment
over the fact that the civilian council
had not been able to deliver U.S. recog-
nition, and that the second coup would
be bloodier than the first.
I was shocked. In my judgment, we
should have continued to refuse to rec-
ognize the military junta of the Domin-
ican Republic until it established
constitutionalism in the Dominican Re-
public. By recognizing it we have given
encouragement to outlaw forces in Latin
America that will not forget that prece-
dent.
At the time I received some criticism
when I made the statement to the effect
that recognition of the Dominican Re-
public means that when the chips are
down the United States cannot be
counted upon to support freedom in Latin
America. So we cannot, Our record
shows time and time again that we can-
not be counted upon.
Mr. President, in my judgment the
record of the United States in Latin
America on this point is deplorable, and
to our shame. We ought to take the
position, and stand by it, that if a mili-
tary junta overthrows a freely elected
constitutional government, we will not
support that military junta.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MORSE. I am delighted.
Mr. LAUSCHE. If the a,mendment of
the Senator from Oregon were adopted,
would it deny us the right to give aid to
Brazil, which threw out Goulart because
of the suspicion and the supporting evi-
dence, that he was tolerating the sug-
gestion and was likely to convert the
Brazilian Government into a Communist
form of government?
Mr. MORSE. The answer is "No"; and
I shall cover Brazil before I finish my
remarks.
Mr. LAUSCHE. However, the amend-,
ment would cover the Dominican Repub-
lic, where Bosch was eliminated?
Mr. MORSE. If the Senator will per-
mit me to finish my statement, I shall
cover both the Dominican Republic and
Honduras.
Mr. LAUSCHE. And Ecuador?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090020-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090020-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Ur. MORSE. The amendment would
have covered Ecuador at the time, but
the amendment would not be retroactive.
I wish we could make it such, but I do
not think it would be fair and proper to
make it retroactive. The amendment
would establish the policy from now on.
Mr. LAUSCHE. That policy would be
such that although the incumbent gov-
ernment might have all of the attributes
of wanting to aline itself with Red Rus-
sia and against the United States, if a
military coup were achieved which would
change the course of that government,
W3 would not give aid to the substituted
government.
Mr. MORSE. I still believe in the
rights of the people. I believe in the
rights of the people. That is for the
people to determine under constitutional
government. There is nothing in my
amendment that requires us to give aid
to a constitutional government just be-
cause it is constitutional. The best way
to deal with the type of problem which
the Senator from Ohio has in mind is to
stop supporting military dictatorships.
Communism makes more progress under
those regimes than it does under con-
stitutional regimes, as we should have
learned from Cuba.
I believe that we made a great mistake
in the Dominican Republic. But I wish
to stress the fact that my amendment
would not be retroactive.
We have recognized the Dominican
Republic. I hope that democratic forces
in the Dominican Republic will- be
able to persuade that junta that in the
long pull, it is in the interest of the
Dominican Republic to have elections
and to return to a constitutional form of
government.
Some may be surprised to hear me
make this statement. There are a few
leaders in the Dominican Republic who
have been caught up in this mess, lead-
ers who would that they were out of it,
but feel that their best service to the
Dominican Republic is to continue to do
what they can to bring about a day when
constitutionalism can be reestablished.
These men are democrats at heart, men
who believe in self-government, men who
are willing to make great sacrifices and
did make great sacrifices economically,
and were willing to sacrifices their lives,
if necessary, to overthrow Trujillo. I
have great admiration for them. They
are working within the junta govern-
ment now. I have great hopes that in
the not too distant future-2 or 3
years from now, and I hope sooner?
through their influence and that of
many others in the Dominican Republic
there would be a return to constitution-
alism in the Dominican Republic. But
I could not say tonight that there is any
reason to have assurance of it or any
reason to finance the junta in the mean-
time.
The hands of those men would have
been greatly strengthened if my amend-
ment had been the law of the land at
the time of the revolt, for I know what
they say Privately. Bosch never would
have been returned. The Senate did not
find the Senator from Oregon taking the
position that he should be returned. The
Senate found the Senator from Oregon
taking the position that the next in line
under that Constitution should be vested
with the powers of the President to move
on from them. I took the position that
it was up to the people of the Dominican
Republic to determine whether or not he
should be returned.
An attempt was made at the time to
get me to take the position that Bosch
must be returned. I said constitutional-
ism should be returned. And so it
should. I do not believe we should have
been a party to giving support to the
junta.
In the Dominican Republic the issue
was that the military in that country
should be brought under the control of
the civilian government. What is so
bad about that? We like to say that
that is one of the safeguards of Ameri-
can freedom. We like to tell the world
that in the United States the civilian
government is in control of the military,
and the military takes its orders from
the civilian government. Bosch was
proposing a policy of the Dominican
Government whereby the military gov-
ernment would be brought under con-
trol of the executive and the congress.
The military saw the handwriting on the
wall. I am not saying on the floor of
the Senate tonight that that was the
only issue, but I would say that it was
one of the most dominant issues that led
to the overthrow of constitutionalism in
the Dominican Republic.
The military would have none of it.
Rather -than have any of it, they tore
down the citadel of constitutionalism
and desecrated self-government in the
Dominican Republic. And we supported
it with subsequent recognition, and now
with a resumption of aid. That is it.
All we can do now is wait for the people
of the Dominican Republic ultimately
to make the final decision: I hope it can
be done peacefully. I hope it can be
done by recognition on the part of all,
including the type of leaders I have re-
ferred to, who were caught up in this
situation, who found themselves very
much in opposition to some of the exec-
utive policies of Bosch, of the need to
reestablish constitutionalism and self-
government there.
Now a word about Honduras. The
amendment would apply to countries in
the future that made the same type of
mistake in overthrowing constitutional-
ism as in Honduras. Of course, it would
not be retroactive. The Honduras sit-
uation, I think, is to our national shame,
so far as recognition is concerned. It
was only a short time before a presiden-
tial election in Honduras. The campaign
was on.
The briefing 'before my committee?
and I know of no one who challenges this
statement?was to the effect that there
was a rather close race for the Presi-
dency. The candidate for the Presidency,
who, it was taken for granted, was going
to win, also took the position that the
military should be subject to the control
of the civilian government, and favored
a constitutional amendment to that,
effect. That was unacceptable to the
military, and it overthrew the Govern-
ment, and we recognized it. We recog-
nized it the same day we recognized the
18245
Dominican Republic. It shocked many
of our friends in Latin America. We
ought to stop this.
The same would have applied years ago
to Ecuador. It would have applied to
Peru, although, in fact, we did not re-
sume aid to Peru until the junta restored
the country to constitutionalism. It
would have applied to every area where
constitutional government was over-
thrown by military force.
Now let us take the situation of Brazil,
to which the Senator from Ohio [Mr.
LAIISCHE] referred. The constitutional
processes were followed in Brazil. Many
people miss this point. There was agita-
tion against Goulart. The Governor at
Sap Paulo and the Governors in some
other States were calling for great
changes in their form of government.
They became convinced, as I was con-
vinced, that Goulart was really an ally of
the Communists. A revolt took place,
but constitutional processes were never
abandoned in Brazil. Do not forget that
when Goulart fled the country, he ab-
dicated the Presidency, as provided by
Brazilian law, for he had no consent to
flee the country. In Brazil, like other
Latin American countries?Mexico being
another, I recall offhand?if a President
leaves the cpuntry without the approval
of the country's Parliament, he has ab-
dicated his office, and he is no longer
President.
What happened after Goulart abdi-
cated? The Vice President was the next
in line, under the Constitution, to take
office. The Constitution provides, in a
situation such as that, for the successor.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. LAUSCHE. How close to the tail
of Goulart was the army when he fled?
Mr. MORSE. There is no question
that a revolution was in process, but that
revolution did not mean that the consti-
tutional processes were going to come to
an end. The Senator is jumping to the
conclusion that the Brazilian situation
would have been the same as the Domin-
ican Republic situation. Not at all.
The head of the army was not for over-
throwing the Constitution. The head of
the army was pointing out, supported by
the Governors of the several states, and
the Parliament, that it had a constitu-
tional government, and that the proc-
esses under the Constitution were used
to take care of the situation.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield further?
Mr. MORSE. Certainly.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The Senator from
Oregon astonishes me with the depth of
his knowledge in these different situa-
tions. He has discussed the Dominican
Republic, Honduras, Brazil, Ecuador, and
Peru. I compliment him for his knowl-
edge.
Mr. MORSE. I thank the Senator,
but I have no depth of knowledge at all.
Mr. LAUSCHE. But I do not agree
with the principle he enunciates.
Mr. MORSE. I thank the Senator for
the compliment, but I am saddened by
his last statement, because of the bril-
liant mind the Senator from Ohio has.
Being the thinker he is, he ought to know
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090020-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090020-9
18246 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
that we cannot justify, before the eyes of
the world, supporting tyranny by over-
throwing constitutional government. I
do not believe that is really the true
thought of the Senator from Ohio, and I
believe that if he took the time to sit
down and contemplate the premise on
which he has based his conclusion, he
would agree. He is one of the soundest
constitutionalists in this body. I do not
know why he is walking out on his own
philosophy.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Nor do I subscribe to
the proposition that we should reject
governments that overthrow Communist
governments that are oriented to Moscow
and that are favorable to us.
Mr. MORSE. The Senator does not
have any faith in the people of those
countries. He assumes that all the peo-
ple are for those governments. Give
them an opportunity to work their will
under their constitutions.
Mr. LAUSCHE. If we reject their acts
in overthrowing governments that are
oriented toward Moscow, we in effect tell
those people that we are not in agree-
ment with what they have done. That is
the aspect that causes me to disagree
most vigorously with the Senator from
Oregon.
Mr. MORSE. The Senator may dis-
agree, but he should stop rejecting the
will of the people and should give the
people of the country involved an oppor-
tunity to work their will under their con-
stitution, and should not let the military
supplant the will of the people or not
give the people an opportunity to work
their will. That is what the Senator is
proposing.
The Brazil situation is interesting be-
cause in Brazil there was the applica-
tion of the popular will within the frame-
work of the constitution.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Except that Goulart
fled because, as we know, the military
were following him so closely that he did
not dare stay in Brazil. Otherwise, what
would have happened to him?
Mr. MORSE. He would clearly have
been put under impeachment and been
put away by the Congress of that country.
Read the power of the Parliament of
Brazil with regard to what we would call
in this country impeachment. He would
have been put out of office. He should
have been put out of office. When he
left the country and abdicated, the next
man in line to succeed in the Presidency
was put in office, until the next constitu-
tional step could be worked out. What
happened in Brazil is no precedent for
the very unsound doctrine the Senator
has expressed on the floor in support of
militarism against the exercise of the
will of the people because there was one
bad actor who was a Communist.
Mr. LAUSCHE. That is not what I
said.
Mr. MORSE. That is what it adds up
to.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The fact is that when
the Communists take control, the rights
of the people the Senator from Oregon
has described never are given execution
or application. Goulart and his follow-
ers in Brazil would never have given
those who argued with them the ability
to state their views.
Mr.. MORSE. That is an unsupport-
able conclusion on the part of the Sen-
ator from Ohio, because the Congress
never had a chance to work. Goulart
himself, after the revolution started, did
it. He would have been subject to what
under our constitutional procedures is
called impeachment. I do not think
there is any question about it.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Will the Senator
point out to me( one instance in the his-
tory of the past 20 years in which what
the Senator optimistically describes
would have happened has happened?
Mr. MORSE. Mexico.
Mr. LAUSCHE. That is one. What
about the other Nations? What about
Cuba? What about the other Nations in
which revolutions have taken place?
Mr. MORSE. Let me say about Cuba
that if we had not supported a Fascist
dictatorship for years in Cuba I do not
believe Castro would have come to power.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Our weakness was
that when Castro came to power we rec-
ognized him, knowing that he was a
Communist.
Mr. MORSE. I did not do so. I
raised a lone voice against Castro, when
many Senators were trying to tell the
country what a great democrat he was.
Let Senators read the RECORD. It was
perfectly obvious to me from the begin-
ning that we were dealing with another
type of dictator, who should not have had
any support from us. Castro received a
great deal of support in the United
States that he never should have had.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I knew that we were
dealing with a dictator when he decided
to hold a circus trial in a hippodrome
and put to death 500 people. I recall
that the Senator from Oregon voiced
those thoughts at that time.
Mr. MORSE. I have been completely
consistent in my position on this issue.
I shall be consistent now.
We should not follow a course of
action that gives support to the over-
throw of the will of the people. We
should make perfectly clear that our
foreign aid will go to countries which
support lawful governments, and that if
a self-governing country has been over-
thrown, irrespective of the fact that a
bad actor got into the Presidency, if the
Constitution covers that situation, we
should make clear that he must be gotten
rid of by constitutional processes, and
that we will not support a military dic-
tatorship which is the result of the over-
throw of self-government.
That is the burden of my argument.
I wish to finish what I started to say
about Brazil. In Brazil, the constitu-
tional processes were followed. If I
were a Brazilian, I would hold no brief
for the mistakes that were made in-
ternally in carrying out their policies
since they elected their new President.
However, that is their right. Tonight
no Senator can cite Brazil as an example
of a military dictatorship, because it is
not. Self-government on the part of the
Brazilian people continues to proceed.
If anyone thinks not, let him look at
what is happening in Brazil with respect
to an exchange of points of view in
Parliament, in the press, and in many-
sources and forces of public opinion.
August 10
My amendment is one of the great
protectors that can be offered to our
democratic friends in Latin America.
If Senators will talk with the leaders
of that Government, they will find that
they are enthusiastic for the position
that I have taken. I am somewhat em-
barrassed to make this personal refer-
ence, but when the recent conference of
Latin American foreign ministers was
held in the Pan American Building, the
foreign ministers of six countries talked
with me about the proposal which I am
making tonight. They told me this was
the most important thing I could do to
strengthen and support the objective of
the Alliance for Progress.
Their interest and encouragement is
the reason I am offering this amendment.
They know that too much of the Ameri-
can interest in Latin American aid stems
from fear of communism and not from
support of freedom. That knowledge
throughout Latin America is one of the
great weaknesses of the program.
The amendment would teach a great
lesson throughout the Western Hemi-
sphere, and would give great strength to
the cause of freedom and constitutional
government in Latin America. It would
certainly be a discouragement to poten-
tial military juntas, if it were made a
part of the foreign aid law.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
hope the Senate will not accept the pend-
ing amendment. It was voted on last
year and rejected by the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Ore-
gon.
The yeas and mays have been ordered,
and the clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk called the roll. -
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from Nevada [Mr. BIBLE],
the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD],
the Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH],
the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EAST-
LAND], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr.
Goszl, the Senator from Arizona [Mr.
HAYDEN], the Senator from Alabama
[Mr. HILL], the Senator from Washing-
ton [Mr. JACKSON], the Senator from
Louisiana [Mr. LONG], the Senator from
Utah [Mr. Moss], the Senator from
Maine [Mr. Musxm], the Senator from
Wisconsin [Mr. Nct.soN], the Senator
from Oregon [Mrs. NEUBERGER], the Sen-
ator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON], and
the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STEN-
NIS] are absent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
Nevada [Mr. CANNON], the Senator from
Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK], the Senator
from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMONDSON], the
Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Mc-
-GovEarr] , and the Senator from New
Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS] are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that the Senator
from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON] and
the Senator from Massachusetts Mfr.
KENNEDY] are absent because of illness.
On this vote, the Senator from Vir-
ginia [Mr. Byaa] is paired with the Sen-
ator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG].
If present and voting, the Senator from
Virginia would vote "yea" and the Sena-
tor from Louisiana would vote "nay."
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090020-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090020-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
On this vote the Senator from Virginia
[Mr. ROBERTSON] is paired with the Sen-
ator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON] .
If present and voting, the Senator from
Virginia would vote "yea" and the Sen-
ator from Washington would vote "nay."
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania
[Mr. CLARK] and the Senator from New
Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS] would each 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.
SCOTT] are necessarily absent.
The Senator from New York [Mr.
JAvrrsl is absent on official business.
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLD-
WATER] , the Senator from Iowa [Mr.
HICKENLOOPER] , and the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] are
detained on official business.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Nebraska [Mr. HausicA], the Sena-
tor from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTON-
STALL ], and the Senator from Pennsyl-
vania [Mr. SCOTT] would each vote
"nay."
The result was announced?yeas 12,
nays 59, as follows:
[No. 531 Leg.]
YEAS-12
Allott Ervin Morse
Bartlett Gruening Proxmire
Carlson Johnston Simpson
Cotton Jordan, N.C. Young, Ohio
NAYS-59
Aiken
Bayh
Beall
Bennett
Boggs
Brewster
Burdick
Byrd, W. Va.
Case
Cooper
Curtis
Dirksen
Dodd
Dominick
Douglas
Ellender
Fong
Fulbright
Hart
Hartke
Anderson
Bible
Byrd, Va.
Cannon
Church
Clark
Eastland
Edmondson
Goldwater
Gore
Holland
Humphrey
Inouye
Jordan, Idaho
Keating
Kuchel
Lausche
Long, Mo.
Magnuson
Mansfield
McCarthy
McClellan
McGee
McIntyre
McNamara
Mechem
.Metcalf
Miller
Monroney
Morton
NOT VOTING-29
Mundt
Pastore
Pell
Prouty.
Randolph
Ribicoff
Russell
Salinger
Smathers
Smith
Sparkman
Symington
Talmadge
Thurmond
Tower
Walters
Williams, Del.
Yarborough
Young, N. Dak.
Hayden
Hickenlooper
Hill
Hruska
Jackson
Javits
Kennedy
Long, La.
McGovern
Moss
Muskie
Nelson
Neuberger
Pearson
Robertson
Saltonstall
Scott
Stennis
Williams, N.J.
So Mr. MORSE'S amendment was re-
jected.
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, after
consultation with the majority leader, I
call up my amendments Nos. 1175 and
1138 and ask that they be made the pend-
ing business when debate is resumed on
the foreign aid bill tomorrow morning,
after the antipoverty legislation has been
disposed of.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator wish to have them considered
en bloc?
Mr. GRUENING. I have only two of
them, amendments Nos. 1175 and 1138.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendments of the Senator from Alaska
will be stated for the information of the
Senate.
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendments be dispensed with.
? The PRESIDING 01.10.1.CER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered; and the
amendments will be printed in the REC-
ORD at this point. ,
The amendments submitted by Mr.
GRUENING are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 1175
On page 1, between lines 6 and 7, insert
the following:
"TITLE I?DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND
"SEC. 101. Section 201(d) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, which
relates to the Development Loan Fund, is
amended to read as follows:
"'(d) Funds made available for this title
shall not be loaned or reloaned at rates of
interest excessive or unreasonable for the
borrower and in no event shall such funds
(except funds loaned under section 205 and
funds which, prior to the date of enactment
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1964, were
authorized or committed to be loaned upon
terms which do not meet the minimum terms
set forth herein) be loaned at a rate of in-
terest of less than the rate arrived at by
adding one-quarter of 1 per centum per an-
num to the rate which the Secretary of the
Treasury determines to be equal to the aver-
age annual interest rate on all interest-
bearing obligations of the United States then
forming a part of the public debt as com-
puted at the end of the fiscal year next pre-
ceding the date the application for the loan
Is approved and by adjusting the result so
obtained to the nearest one-eighth of 1 per
centum.'"
Redesignate the succeeding sections under
part I, accordingly.
AMENDMENT No. 1138
TITLE VIII?ACCELERATED PUBLIC WORKS
SEC. 801. Section 3(d) of the Public Works
Acceleration Act --(Public Law 87-658; 76
Stat. 542) is hereby amended to read as fol-
lows:
"(d) There is hereby authorized to be ap-
propriated not to exceed $2,400,000,000 to be
allocated by the President in accordance with
subsection (b) of this section, except that
not less than $800,000,000 shall be allocated
for public works projects in areas designated
by the Secretary of Commerce as redevelop-
ment areas under subsection (b) of section
5 of the Area Redevelopment Act. Appro-
priations made pursuant to this authoriza-
tion after the date of enactment of this
sentence shall remain available until ex-
pended."
TRIBUTE TO MRS. CLAIR ENGLE
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President,
last year, on August 14, in Doctors Hos-
pital in Washington, Mrs. Clair Engle,
my wife, and I were in attendance on our
late, great colleague, Senator Clair Engle.
He was one of the bravest and finest
men I ever knew.
He was a great athlete, an active, vig-
orous young man of 52.
That night of August 14 last year, he
was wheeled into the operating room ac-
companied by his wife Lucretia on one
side and myself on the other, where he
underwent the first of two operations for
brain surgery.
Throughout the period following that
time, I met with his wife Lucretia on
many occasions at Doctors Hospital, and
again at the Naval Hospital in Bethesda.
The Engle home is located near Capi-
18247
tol Hill, and on her way home from the
hospital in Bethesda late at night, Mrs.
Engle would frequently stop at my home.
My wife and I would insist on her re-
maining with us rather than continuing
alone to Capitol Hill.
Mr. President, Mrs. Engle is a very
great lady.
In today's Washington Evening Star
there is published an article written by
William-. S. White, entitled "A Tribute to
1Virs. Clair Engle."
I have .personal knowledge that the
statements made by this respected and
nationally, known columnist are factually
correct?as everyone knows.
I have personal knowledge of the fact
that my colleague and friend Clair Engle,
with whom I vacationed over the Christ-
mas weekend in 1962 and New Year's
weekend of 1963, was a great athlete, a
man of the utmost vigor, who could run
for 9 miles in the sand, when I would
give out at the end of a third that dis-
tance.
Yet he was stricken fatally?we who
loved him knew; but he felt that he was
going to recover. He had confidence
that he would recover and would be able
to run for reelection as a Senator from
the State of California.
While Clair Engle was in the hospital,
many nennle misunderstood the situa-
tion. This tribute to Mrs. Clair Engle
written by William S. White is factually
correct, because I can attest to every
word in every line of it, from my Personal
knowledge and I hone it will clear up
some misunderstanding.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-,
sent to have the article printed in the
roan .
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
A TRIBUTE TO MRS. CLAIR ENGLE
(By William S. White)
. The feeling that politicians are not really
people and that they can in no circumstance
deserve pity is so deeply embedded as perhaps
never to be dislodged by a more humane
view. '
The general attitude is an oversimplifica-
don of Harry Truman's wry observation: "If
you can't stand the heat, 'get out of the
kitchen." Mr. Truman did not mean that
politicians did not bleed like other men when
wounded. He only meant that those who
dish it out should be ready to take It. He
did not intend to promote the idea?though
he has done it?that in politics anything
should go; anything at all.
Even so American folklore has commonly
exempted the women and children from the
more pitiless forms of political combat; just
as we still don't believe that girls should
serve in the infantry. Not so in the case of
Mrs. Lucretia Engle, widow of Senator Clair
Engle, of California. Since nobody is sud-
denly so friendless as a man out of power?
or a widow bereft of a man who had lost
power before he died?this column is meant
to put the case for Lucretia Engle.
For many weeks her husband, Clair Engle,
lay ill in a hospital of a brain tumor and
for many months thereafter he could only
hobble about his home, barely able to speak,
before death came at last to end his agony.
For all those weeks and months he was
sustained most of all by Lucretia Engle. She
remembered that line?"? ? ? in sickness
and in health." She was the only "night
nurse" he had hi all that hopeless span of
time. She was, in the very nature of things,
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090020-9