FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1965

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 15
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 30, 2005
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: June 10, 1965
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
June 10, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading, was read the third
time, and passed.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the bill
was passed.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I wish to
express my delight and joy that the bill
has passed. When we look back in his-
toric perspective 10 or 15 years from
now, we shall realize that the proposed
legislation is one of the milestones of
these yers.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I wish to express
my deep appreciation to the distin-
guished Senator from Rhode Island [Mr.
PELL, the distinguished Senators from
New York [Mr. JAVITS and Mr. KEN-
NEDY], distinguished Senators from Cali-
fornia [Mr. KUCHEL and Mr. MURPHY],
the distinguished Senator from Alaska
[Mr. GRUENING], the distinguished Sena-
tor from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] and
all other Senators who have contributed
to the introduction and the passage of
this bill. The National Foundation on
the Arts and the Humanities is a mile-
stone and a step in right direction.
Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey. Mr.
President, I express my great pleasure at
the action of the Senate this afternoon
in passing S. 1483, the arts and humani-
ties bill. This bill has benefited from the
long-term interest and dedicated support
of Senator JAVITS. Our able colleague,
Senator PELL, introduced this year's ver-
sion of the bill, and conducted lengthy
hearings on it before his Special Sub-
committee on Arts and Humanities.
During the course of the hearings, many
constructive and useful suggestions were
made for improving the bill. Under the
imaginative leadership of Senator PELL,
and with the aid of his hard-working
staff, the subcommittee reported the ex-
cellent version of the bill which we have
passed today.
As a member of the full Committee on
Labor and Public Welfare, and as a co-
sponsor of this legislation, I was partic-
ularly gratified to see its speedy enact-
ment after final approval by our com-
mittee.
I think the bill will provide a vitally
needed stimulus for all the branches of
the arts and humanities in every locality
in the United States. Under the provi-
sions of the bill for direct grants and
loans to performing groups, as well as to
students of the various humanistic dis-
ciplines, I am convinced that we shall
see an inspiring upsurge in activity and
creativity. The passage of this bill truly
marks recognition of the central impor-
tance of the arts and humanities in our
American culture.
S. 1483 IS A LANDMARK IN THE DEVELOPING
AMERICAN CIVILIZATION
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
America has ever been the great proving
ground for the idea that the citizens of
a nation are capable of governing them-
selves, of running their own lives and of
building a humane and civilized society
in the process. There have been critics
of democracy, and of American democ-
racy in particular, who have argued that
high cultural attainment is beyond our
reach. They see Americans as a rather
boorish lot who are concerned solely with
increasing their possession of material
goods.
A significant portion of Americans has
never accepted this judgment. Sharing
Walt Whitman's vision of a great litera-
ture arising from deep within the Amer-
ican spirit, they have attempted to show
that a democracy is capable of producing
great works of art and that the whole
people of the democracy will form the
greatest audience that any society has
ever known. Indeed, as the penetrating
study of the Rockeller Panel Report on
the Performing Arts points out:
There have long been thoughtful people
among us who believe that the ultimate test
of democracy lies in the quality of the artis-
tic and intellectual life It creates and
supports.
The action which the Senate of the
United States has taken today in passing
the Arts and Humanities Foundation bill
is a sign that American culture, far from
standing still, is pressing forward toward
her appointed rendezvous with a golden
age.
This bill establishes a National Foun-
dation on the Arts and the Humanities,
consisting of a National Endowment for
the Arts and a National Endowment for
the Humanities. The National Endow-
ment for the Arts provides matching
grants to States, to nonprofit or public
groups and to individuals engaged in the
creative and performing arts. The
Humanities Endowment provides grants
and loans for research, provides fellow-
ships and grants to institutions for train-
ing, supports the publication of scholarly
works in the humanities, and fasters un-
derstanding and appreciation of the
humanities.
In the arts the influence of this pro-
gram will have, I believe it is safe to say,
a secondary influence far greater than
the primary influence of the money
which the Federal Government itself
awards. The impetus which this pro-
gram will give to private philanthropy, to
State and community effort, and to per-
sonal involvement of -persons who had
never involved themselves in the arts
before, will produce a net effect many
times greater than might be expected.
As a study of State arts councils by the
U.S. Office of Education shows:
Adequate financial stimulation of high
quality art will result in enthusiastic par-
tielpaition and enjoyment by large numbers
of people, in greater private support and box
office income, and in gradual reduction in
need for subsidies.
Equally important to the advancement
of the American civilization is adequate
support for activities in the humanities.
Indeed, if any nation should be con-
cerned about the humanities, that nation
is the United States. This Nation was
conceived in the notion that what counts
most in life is that which is most human.
This is what the humanities are con-
cerned with. The report of the Commis-
sion on the Humanities reminds us:
Throughout man's conscious past they
have played. an essential role in forming,
preserving, and transforming the social,
12643
moral, and esthetic values of every man in
every age. One cannot speak of history or
culture apart from the humanities. They
not only record our lives; our lives are the
very substance they are made of. Their sub-
ject is every man. * * * All men require that
a vision be held before them, an ideal toward
which they may strive. Americans need such
a vision toward which they may strive.
Americans need such a vision today as never
before in their history. It is both the dignity
and the duty of humanists to offer their fel-
low countrymen whatever understanding can
be attained by fallible humanity of such en-
during values as justice, freedom, virtue,
beauty, and truth. Only thus do we join our-
selves to the heritage of our Nation and our
human kind.
In today's world, when the growth of
man's understanding of technology is
greater than the growth of his under-
standing of his fellow man, it is vital that
we pay some attention to the humanities,
to that which is human and therefore
common to all men. This is every bit as
vital to our national defense as the bil-
lions of dollars we spend every year on
missiles and bombs.
PROPOSED NEW LIBRARY BUILDING
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, the Sen-
ate Public Works Subcommittee on Build-
ings and Grounds, chaired by Senator
STEPHEN YOUNG, Democrat, of Ohio, yes-
terday adopted restrictive amendments
to a Senate resolution to build a new
library building.
The amendments adopted included
taking jurisdiction over the construction
from the Office of the Architect of the
Capitol and placing it in the General
Services Administration, a requirement
for competitive bidding on construction
and equipment and restricting the au-
thorization to $500,000, rather than $72,-
500,000, as was proposed.
The people's business ought to be han-
dled in such a way as to demonstrate to
them that their interests are being fully
protected.
That is why I made the motion to up-
hold the view of our chairman, Senator
YOUNG, that the construction of any new
Library of Congress building should be
handled by the General Services Admin-
istration, which has a long and excellent
record in the field of public construction.
Further, I made the motion that all
construction and equipment contracts on
any such new building should be let only
after competitive bidding, under the same
procedures now applicable to other GSA
contracts.
I also made the motion to reject the
proposal that the bill fully authorize the
construction of the new building at a
cost of $72,500,000 and that the authori-
zation be limited to $500,000 only, for the
completion of detailed plans, design, and
cost estimates.
The subcommittee agreed with me
that we should not at this time fully
authorize the construction of the build-
ing, because it was not yet certain
whether the land adjacent to the Library
of Congress could be secured and there
had been no detailed plans, design, and
cost estimates made and filed with the
subcommittee.
By authorizing"only $500,000, as I sug-
gested, the subcommittee made it clear
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 10, 1965
that we do not intend to make any au-
thorizations in the dark and without full
knowledge of the facts; further author-
izations for the construction of the
building can be made after the full facts
have been obtained, and the people.
through the subcommittee, have an op-
portunity to know all about the project.
There is no question in my mind that
the Library of Congress needs an addi-
tional building and that the James
Madison Memorial building is a worthy
project, but I am proud that the sub-
committee made it clear that we intend
to see that the taxpayers' Interests are
safeguarded in its construction.
I intend to continue vigorously my
efforts to assure that these safeguards
are continued in this or any other au-
thorization legislation adopted for this
project by the Congress.
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1965
The PRESIDING OFFICER- The
hour of 12 o'clock having arrived, under
the unanimous-consent agreement the
Chair lays before the Senate the pending
business, which will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLER)c. A bill (S.
1837) to amend further the Foreign As-
sistance Act of 1961, as amended, and for
other purposes.
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 1837) to amend further the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended. and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under
the agreement, the Senator from Penn-
sylvania [Mr. CLARK], or somone whom
he might designate, will be recognized for
45 minutes.
Air. CLARK Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the understand-
ing may be changed, and that the Sena-
tor from Arkansas [Mr. FULSRICITTI,
chairman of the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee, and the Senator in charge of the
bill. may be substituted for me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER- Without
objection, the Senator from Arkansas
will have control of the time previously
designated for the Senator from Penn-
sylvania [Mr. CLARK].
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUEN-
ING] will have control of 45 minutes of
the time available.
Mr. GRUENING, Mr. President. I
ask unanimous consent that I may be
permitted to suggest the absence of a
quorum without the time necessary for
the quorum call being charged to the
time of either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Air. GRUENING. Mr. President, I
sue;aest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER- The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
KENNEDY of New York In the chair).
Without objection, It is so ordered.
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEM EN'r
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
send to the desk a proposed unanimous-
consent agreement and ask that. It be
given Immediate considenitlon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will read.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT I.GaE1rM N?
Ordered, That, effective 3 me 11, 1985, at
the conclusion of routine mining business.
during the further consider.tion of the bill
(S. 1837) to further amend the Foreign As-
sistance Act of 1981, as ameaded, debate on
any amendment, motion. of appeal, except
a motion to lay on the table, shall be Lim-
ited to 1 hour. to be equally divided and
controlled by the mover of any such amend-
ment or motion and the Si nator from Ar-
kansas [Mr. Fuf.alucarl : Pr )vided, That in
the event the Senator from Arkansas Is In
favor of any such amends ent or motion,
the time In opposition thereto shall he con-
trolled by the majority lead 'r or spare Sen-
ator designated by him: P-ovfded further,
That no amendment that is not germane to
the provisions of the said bill shall be re-
ceived except for two amendments to be
offered by the Senator from New Yolk [Mr.
JAVITSI.
Ordered further, That on the questlon of
the final passage of the said Din debate shall
be limited to 4 hours, to be equally divided
and controlled, respectively, by the majority
and minority leaders: Prodded. That the
said leaders, or either of ti.em, may, from
the time under their control on the passage
of the said bill, allot additional time to any
Senator during the consideration of any
amendment, motion, or appeal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the unanimous-consent
request?
Mr_ JAVITS. Mr. Press lent, reserving
the rieht to object, I have 10 objection to
the time limitation, but I may desire to
submit two amendments. One is print-
ed, one is not. One amei.dment relates
to the Peace by Investment Corporation;
the other relates to East-West trade. I
ask the majority leader t3 except those
amendments from the germaneness
rule, If there is any prob' em.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Of Course.
The PRESIDING OFFII,'ER. Is there
objection to the unanimo is-consent re-
quest? The Chair hears lone, and it is
so ordered.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, do I cor-
rectly understand that U. e two amend-
ments are excepted from the rule of ger-
maneness?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I
yield myself such time as I may require.
Subsection 205 of the present Foreign
Assistance Act provides:
If the President determines that it would
more effectively servo the G urpeses of this
title and the policy oontalnel in sect`.on 619
(pertaining to newly indepenlent countries),
he may. in accordance with the provisions of
this title, lend not to exceed 10 per centum of
the funds made available for this title to
the international Development Association
for use pursuant to the International Devel-
opment Association Act (Pu )lic Law 88--565,
74 Stat. 293) and the artlci w of agreement
of the Association.
The bill reported by the Committee on
Foreign Relations chang.is the law in
three respects:
First. It inserts the fcilowillg policy
finding by the Congress:
That the United States and other free
world nations place an increasing portion of
their assistance programs on a multilateral
basis.
Second. It Includes in the agencies to
which the President is authorized to
transfer development loan funds to two
international lending institutions-the
International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development and the International
Finance Corporation, in addition to the
International Development Association,
to which funds can be transferred under
existing law.
Third. The committee bill increases
from 10 to 20 percent the amount of
funds which the President can transfer
to these three international institutions.
My amendments-Nos. 221 and 224
combined, which are now being consid-
ered en bloc-would delete these three
committee amendments and leave the
present law undisturbed.
- My amendments do nothing more.
On page 12592 of the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD for July 9. I have inserted a
list of the loans made by the Interna-
tional Development Association. These
are soft loans. They are repayable over
the term of 50 years with an interest rate
of three-fourths of 1 percent with no
repayment of principal for the first 10
years.
With the United States borrowing the
money to turn over to the International
Development Association at more than
Sala percent interest, this means a con-
cealed grant is going to each borrower
from the International Development As-
sociation of at least 5 percent interest.
For example, the loan made to India
by the International Development Asso-
ciation of $300 million contains a con-
cealed grant to India from the United
States of $15 million per year. It is con-
cealed because, while the taxpayers of
the United States are paying this $15
million annually, it is treated by the In-
ternational Development Association and
the people of India as a loan, rather than
a grant.
If the people of the United States and
their elected representatives want to
make grants, let them do it openly and
knowingly.
The effect of the committee amend-
ments continues a trend to obviate the
restrictions placed on the Development
Loan Fund by the Congress over the
years.
The committee amendments would
free an additional 10 percent of the De-
velopment Loan Funds from the follow-
ing restrictions:
First. The Hickenlooper amendment,
a great deterrent to expropriations of
U.S.-owned property abroad.
That would go down the drain if my
amendments were rejected.
Second. The safeguards for the use
of Development Loan Funds for pur-
chases in the United States provided a
restriction of great assistance to our bal-
ance-of-payments problem.
That would go down the drain if my
amendments were rejected.
Third. The requirement for detailed
plans and cost estimates on public works
projects is a safeguard.
These safeguards would also disappear
if my amendments were rejected.
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
June 10, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Fourth. The requirement for the
shipment of a certain percentage of pur-
chases in American bottoms is a safe-
guard.
All purchases made through the pro-
ceeds of these loans, including the addi-
tional 10 percent through the interna-
tional corporations, would have no pro-
tection for American shipping.
Fifth. The restrictions on aid to Cuba,
Poland, Yugoslavia, and other Commu-
nist countries are safeguards.
The international bankers lend this
money wherever they see fit.
Sixth. The restriction on aid to coun-
tries shipping goods to Cuba is a safe-
guard.
That, too, would disappear.
Seventh. The restriction on aiding
businesses abroad that will ship goods
into the United States in competition
with our own businesses is a safeguard.
They would ship goods into America
in competition with our own businesses.
The following are safeguards:
Eighth. The restriction against aid to
countries preparing for aggression
against their neighbors;
Ninth. The restriction against aid to
Indonesia;
Tenth. The restriction against aid to
countries having no investment guaran-
tees;
Eleventh. The restriction against aid
to economically developed countries.
Rather than increasing the amount of
U.S. taxpayers' dollars we permit to
escape from the control of.the Congress,
we should reverse the trend and seek
ways and means of bringing more and
more of the foreign aid program in all
its aspects under the close and con-
tinued scrutiny of the Congress.
Mr. President, these are conservative
and mild amendments. They would only
tend to retain the. commitments already
given. They would not seek to reverse
the commitments of a previous Congress.
If I were introducing the bill, I would
scrap this section entirely and have no
further waste such as occurs when this
money goes to international organiza-
tions and Congress loses complete con-
trol of our taxpayers' money.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and
nays on my amendments.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I
yield the floor.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Arkansas is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, be-
fore commenting directly with regard to
this matter, I wish to observe that, with
regard to the alleged great waste of the
taxpayers' money which has been men-
tioned by the Senator from Alaska-
which he calls the 10-percent provision
in the existing law, it has not been very
wasteful. It has never been implemented
because of the restrictions put on it in
the appropriations act. The Senator does
not know whether it would be wasted or
not. It has not been done. That is an
inoperative provision.
One may ask why I want this provision
for 20 percent in the committee bill. This
is a matter of principle. This is the way
the foreign aid program should be ad-
ministered, even though it is not now so
administered.
I believe it is significant that the prin-
cipal sponsors of the amendment are
people who, generally speaking, have al-
ways opposed foreign aid in its entirety.
It is not a question of whether they are
interested in passing a bill. I believe that
the Senator from Alaska, if -my memory
serves me correctly, has voted against
the aid bill for several years. Is that
correct?
Mr. GRUENING. No; that is incor-
rect. I have at times opposed a foreign
aid bill when I felt it was a bad bill. But
I have sought to improve all foreign aid
bills by amendment. And when they
were improved I voted for them. Other-
wise not.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I thought the Sen-
ator always voted against it.
Mr. GRUENING. That shows how
misinformed the chairman of the com-
mittee is.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. If the Senator has
not voted against the bill, he has voted
against certain provisions of it.
Mr. GRUENING. The Senator is
correct. I have voted in favor of
amendments that would improve the for-
eign aid bills, stop wasting the taxpay-
ers' money, and stop sending money to
ruthless dictators who are aggressors,
who burn our libraries, permit attacks on
our Embassies, and denounce us. That
has been the purpose of my amend-
ments. Some of the amendments I have
sponsored and were enacted have suc-
ceeded in improving the foreign aid bill.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I say
goodnaturedly that I am a little surprised
that the lack of knowledge of the King's
English possessed by my good friend the
Senator from Arkansas, led him to make
a mistake and think of us as being op-
posed to foreign aid.
I have voted against the bill. However,
I have said that I would vote for more
money for foreign aid if we could really
have a decent foreign aid bill that would
eliminate waste, inefficiency, and the
cause of corruption in the administra-
tion of foreign aid in so many parts of
the world.
I am greatly indebted to the Senator
from Arkansas for giving support in the
committee to the Morse amendment that
is in the present bill. My amendments
seek to carry out that objective with a
study that would seek to outline an im-
proved foreign aid program for us in the
future.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President,
the impression was given to the uniniti-
ated from the discussions of the bill last
year and the year before that the Sen-
ator from Oregon was opposed to for-
eign aid. He interprets that to mean
that he is opposed to this bill.
I do not recall that the Senator has
ever offered a complete substitute
or an entirely new or different kind
of bill.
Mr. MORSE. I know that the
Senator wants to be fair.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Perhaps that will
come out of this study. I hope that it
will.
Mr. MORSE. I know that the
Senator from Arkansas wants to be fair.
We would have had a Morse foreign
aid bill if the Senator from Arkansas
and other Senators had been willing to
adopt the long list of amendments that
I have offered here on the floor of the
Senate now for the past 3 years, which
amounted to a rewriting of the foreign
aid program. That is the kind of for-
eign aid I am for.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield for a
question.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I would rather have
the Senator yield for an observation.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield for an ob-
servation.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I
pointed out last night that there are 92
countries in the international develop-
ment program. A country must be a
member of the World Bank in order to
be a member of the Association. So 10
countries are not members of the Asso-
ciation.
Mr. Henderson's figures indicate to me
that we have now committed $632 million
of U.S. funds. Once that money goes into
the "kitty," they can evade the Hicken-
looper amendment. They can evade
shipping instructions. There is no ap-
propriation control. We are at sea with-
out a paddle. That is what it amounts
to.
I do not mind being generous about
this. However, I do not want to go whole
hog and commit the U.S. Treasury to the
keeping of people who have an interest in
getting money out. That has not been
our interest there.' There ought to be
some restraint in fairness to the tax-
payers of the country.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator from
Illinois, of course, has every right to his
own opinion, but we differ very greatly
as to what is designed to improve the
efficiency of this program. The interna-
tional agencies have a far better reputa-
tion in the eyes of 99 percent than does
AID when it comes to efficient admini-
stration of their funds.
The amendment of the Senator from
Alaska raises fundamental policy ques-
tion involved in the program. As I stated
before, the 10-percent provision has
never been operative because of the lim-
itation put on it by the Appropriations
Committee of the House. So we are deal-
ing here, as we often find ourselves doing
in the foreign aid bill, with a kind of
windmill. We argue at great length and
acrimoniously about various provisions,
only to find in the long run that the
arguments have been largely futile, just
as is this point. I am not at all sanguine,
even if the 20-percent provision stays in,
because under the 10-percent provision,
not one nickel has been spent for this
purpose, although the provision did es-
tablish a good policy.
The justification for foreign aid must
ultimately stand or fall on a political
base. Whether we are killing mosquitoes
in Africa, or building dams in Latin
America, or supplying weapons in Asia,
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 10, 1965
we are doing it for essentially political
purposes. We are doing it because we
hope that, if we are successful, there will
emerge in the affected countries a politi-
cal order which is not incompatible with
U.S. interests. This does not have any-
thing to do with trying to buy friends;
it has to do with the much more subtle
and complex task of trying to influence
the course of events toward the devel-
opment of situations more nearly in our
interest than the situations which now
exist.
This, of course, is the general and
continuing objective of our foreign policy
in all its aspects. The foreign aid pro-
gram is only one of a number of instru-
ments available to us to achieve this
objective. The other instruments in-
clude old-fashioned diplomacy,theover-
seas information program, the activities
of the Central Intelligence Age y, our
Armed Forces, our commercial and trade
policies, and our exchange-of-persons
programs, among others. None of these
is an end in itself, but rather a means
to a broader end.
It should be clear that what we are
talking about in this amendment Is not
the foreign aid program as a whole, but
the particular segment of it which is
called development loans and which con-
sists of dollar-repayable loans to un-
derdeveloped countries other than those
of Latin America. Further, we are talk-
ing about a relatively small percentage-
whether it be 10 or 20--of the funds
available under that program. These
funds, if the administration gets the full
appropriation requested, will total $780,-
250,000 in fiscal year 1966.
Now, these funds-which are only a
little more than the Senate recently ap-
proved with a whoop and a holler for war
in Vietnam-are aimed directly and ex-
clusively at economic development In
Africa and Asia. But even economic de-
velopment is not an end in itself; It is a
means to the end of political stability
and compatibility with U.S. national
interests.
I hope no one any longer deludes him-
self that economic development Is a suffi-
cient condition for political development.
It is probably a necessary condition. At
any rate. it can be a helpful contributing
factor-if it is not offset by international
political irritants.
The real issue involved In this amend-
ment is whether development loans can
contribute more effectively to the long-
term, broad political purposes of the
United States if they are administered
bilaterally or multilaterally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
MONTOYA in the chair). The time of the
Senator has expired.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield myself an
additional 5 minutes.
Deeply involved in this issue are the
feelings and attitudes of the people of
most of the countries of Africa and Asia.
These feelings and attitudes are best de-
scribed as being intensely nationalistic
and independent. From the comfort
and security of an established world
power and an affluent society, this na-
tionalism frequently appears perverse
and irrational; but we fail at our peril to
try to understand it and to take account
of it.
Africans and Asians know t ley need
development assistance, and at the same
time they resent their need for t. They
consequently sometimes try to rational-
ize it as their just due. They are very
sensitive about it-and espe:laliy so
when they hear themselves d snounced
periodically in the United Stl.tes gen-
erally, and particularly in the Senate,
as incompetent or worse.
When development lending I: done on
a bilateral basis, all of the manil estations
of this nationalism are compounded.
When aid is extended on a me ltilateral
basis, these manifestations are muted
and diluted.
The question here is, What Is the Sen-
ate trying to do? If it is trying to pro-
mote economic development Ir selected
countries of Asia and Africa, without a
constant irritant in our own relations
with those countries, then a modest flex-
ibility should be provided the President
to channel some of these torn funds
through the International Bank and its
affiliates. But if the Senate is simply
trying to assert Its own brand c f nation-
alism, then this flexibility should be de-
nied the President and the program
should be surrounded with still more
restrictions and conditions, w h ch seems
to me to be its purpose.
Much has been said by the pi oponents
of this amendment about how lie use of
the World Bank will take all the strings
off aid and enable a group of Inter-
national bureaucrats to scatter Ameri-
can largesse throughout the world. Do
Senators think the World Bark has no
standards of feasibility, no requirements
for economic performance, no compe-
tence In administration and manage-
ment? Why do Senators think the
World Bank refused to make Gny loans
to Brazil for several years prfo to 1964?
Because the Bank was not sati. Bled with
the economic record of the Brazilian
Government. Why do Senators think
the World Bank has refused to nake any
loans to Greece? Because G ?eece has
been in default on an international loan
contracted In 1929.
That is a matter which has lust been
considered by our commit' ee. The
Greeks have gone to great effo ts to ar-
rive at an international agreement set-
tling that particular loan and clearing
up their back debt In order to I.e eligible
for International Bank loans.
These are rather higher tandards
than AID-or the U.S. Congress, for that
matter-has applied.
We hear a great deal in tl a Senate
about GAO reports on maladmi* listration
of our own aid program. Hass ny Sena-
tor ever heard of an auditor 's report
which questioned in the slighte;t the ad-
ministration of the World Bank?
In another title of this bill, there is an
item of $44 million to be contributed to
the Indus Basin Development Fund,
which is administered by tic World
Bank. This large project has been under
way for several years, and there has not
been the slightest criticism of t. What
is wrong with trying to work out similar
projects elsewhere?
To sum up, Mr. President, the com-
mittee bill provides that the President
"after consideration of the extent of
additional participation by other coun-
tries, may make available" up to 20 per-
cent of the development loan funds to
the International Bank and its affiliates.
The existing law provides that he may
lend up to 10 percent to the Interna-
tional Development Association. The
existing law, incidentally, has been effec-
tively nullified by a prohibition in the
appropriation act; so the present au-
thority has never been used.
The committee bill represents a very
modest effort to encourage the President
to shift a small portion of development
loans from bilateral to multilateral ad-
ministration. For both political and
economic reasons, I strongly believe that
this is the direction in which economic
development programs should move, and
I hope the Senate will reject the amend-
ment of the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
Mr. CLARK. There was some criticism
on the floor of the Senate yesterday
about loans made by the International
Bank organization; that IDA had not
properly made long-term, soft loans at
appropriate interest rates.
What can the Senator tell us about
standards of IDA, an affiliate of the
World Bank, in making loans? Are they
not pretty careful about loans they make,
even though less interest is charged than
for loans under conventional terms?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. They are.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ad-
ditional time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, how
much time have I left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighteen
minutes.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield myself 5
minutes, or as much as I wish to use of
the 5 minutes.
The Senator is correct. They are
called soft loans, but such loans are
usually worked out and result from very
careful consideration by the Bank Itself,
very often with an eye to a regular loan
from the Bank. But because of the in-
ability of a particular country to service
a loan at the regular rate, and for the
short terms on which a regular rate is
based, they have to fall back on IDA. It
is a complementary organization. It has
complementary standards that comple-
ment the regular operations of the Bank.
Over the years, the Bank has developed
a highly skilled international group of
technicians in the engineering, auditing,
and economic fields. It has done a re-
markable job in administering the affairs
of the Bank. IDA is a more recent orga-
nization, which has been operating for
only a few years, but I have never run
into any serious criticism of the efficiency
of its operation.
We fail to allow them to administer
a part of our funds, but let me empha-
size one point: I believe that some of
the major troubles we are today encoun-
tering throughout the world stem from
the relationship between the patron and
the client that grows from the bilateral
loan, which is the beginning of a sour
and disillusioned relationship between
the underdeveloped countries of the
world and the United States. We, being
such a large, and to them at least, rich
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13: CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
June 10, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12647
country, they immediately become im-
patient with any kind of restriction.
The most glaring instance I heard of
was in Malaysia where, after long nego-
tiations, we raised the problem of the
regular interest rate. They staged a
great anti-American demonstration in
Kuala Lumpur because of that interest
rate-the only such demonstration I ever
heard of in Malaysia.
This poisons our relationship rather
than improves it because of the nature
that adheres to, such a relationship. It
is not because of David Bell or anyone
else in the organization. It is inherent
in this kind of program, particularly
if it is a lending program. If it is a
program for the eradication of malaria,
or a technical assistance program for
the construction of a school, it does not
result in disillusionment. It is funda-
mentally bad for us to continue this
bilateral lending program. This applies
only to the lending part of the program.
Mr. CLARK. What would the Sen-
ator's comment be with respect to the
criticism made here that, by encourag-
ing multilateral loans by world organi-
zations, Congress is losing control of the
program? Have we not a good deal to
say about the organization of the World
Bank and its affiliates as to where loans
should be made?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Technically the
criticism is correct,' because Congress
does not have a representative on the
Board. But some agency of the Govern-
ment, or the administration, which is a
legitimate part of the Government, of
course, do have representatives on the
Board. These representatives carry sub-
stantial voting weight in accordance
with the constitution of the World Bank,
so that they possess great influence.
They do not dominate the Bank, and I
do not wish them to dominate it, but
they do have a substantial vote.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Alaska yield?
Mr. GRUENING. I yield 3 minutes to
the Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. KEN-
NEDY of New York in the chair). The
Senator from Vermont is recognized for
3 minutes.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, there
have been many times when I have felt
that these programs, including the ex-
tension of credit, have been handled con-
siderably better by multilateral organi-
zations than by a bilateral arrangement.
However, if we are to take this recom-
mendation in the bill as reported by the
Committee on Foreign Relations factu-
ally and realistically, we must accept the
amendments offered by the Senator from
Alaska.
Part 4 of the bill provides that the for-
eign aid programs will terminate on July
1, 1967. It also requests the President to
submit to Congress his recommendations
for a continuation of the aid programs,
and specifies the different factors to be
considered in extending such a program.
It also provides for setting up a tem-
porary planning committee comprised of
four members to be appointed by the
President, four from the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee, and four from the Com-
mittee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives. The committee will be
required to make a final report to Con-
gress not later than January 1, 1967, or
approximately 18 months from now.
If we already knew what should be
done in revising foreign aid programs,
including lending programs, there would
not be much need to set up committees
or request the President to submit a new
program.
In view of that fact, it seems to me that
we had better let the situation remain
where it is, authorizing the transfer of
10 percent of the funds to the interna-
tional lending agency.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Vermont has
expired.
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I
yield 1 additional minute to the Senator
from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Vermont is recognized for
1 additional minute.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I believe
that we should accept the amendments
offered by the Senator from Alaska.
However, I would not vote to reduce the
10 percent, or eliminate it, as was sug-
gested yesterday on the floor of the
Senate.
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, this
is a conservative amendment. Let me
point out some of the loans which have
been made by the International Devel-
opment Corporation, which shows how
the money is being disbursed.
In Formosa, there are four loans at
three-fourths of 1 percent interest, one
for harbor dredging, another for water
development, another for municipal sup-
ply, and another for the development of
private industry.
Please note that the loan for the de-
velopment of private industry is making
our Government money available to
private industry at the interest rate of
three-fourths of 1 percent, with no re-
payment on the principal for 10 years
and then a 50-year term before the loan
is to be paid.
Going on down the line, we find loans
to be of the same character. Nowhere
does it seem that any effort is being made
to save American taxpayers' money. All
the loans are at three-fourths ,of 1 per-
cent. They are all for the same terms,
with no repayment on the principal for
10 years, and 50 years to run.
In India, there are about a dozen loans
for highway construction and Improve-
ment, irrigation, flood control, and so
forth.
It is interesting that we cannot seem
to do anything about flood control in
our own country, but we can give our
money away this liberally for flood con-
trol purposes in every country of the
world except the United States.
Only this year and last year, we wit-
nessed the terrible floods in the Midwest
and in the Northwest. The States have
come back to the Government year after
year after year for help, but do we sup-
pose that States could borrow money
from the United States at the rate of
three-fourths of 1 percent with no re-
payment on the principal for 10 years?
Of course not.
This is a double standard which I have
consistently opposed.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President will
the Senator from Alaska yield?
Mr. GRUENING. I yield.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Does the Senator
hold the view that either the AID pro-
gram or IDA is intended as a money-
making bank?
Mr. GRUENING. No; not as a money-
making bank. Neither was it intended
to be a complete giveaway, which is pret-
ty much what it is in a number of areas.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. It is not. These
loans are repayable. Formosa is one of
the few countries which is making such
great progress that this year the AID
will discontinue completely its economic
assistance to that country.
Mr. GRUENING. How about the Haiti
loan, which is now in default, which was
made by the International Development
Corporation?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I believe that ev-
erything is in default in Haiti, at the
present time.
Mr. GRUENING. I know that, but the
Senator was relating how safe the loans
made by the international organization
are.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Yes, but I did not
say that it was infallible. It has had
relatively greater success than many of
the AID programs. We have some AID
obligations in default in Haiti also, but
on balance the International Bank and
its affiliates have done an excellent Job.
Their standards of lending and their su-
pervision, I believe, have been more effi-
cient because they do not encounter na-
tionalism and resentment on the part
of the borrower.
Mr. GRUENING. Why would not the
record be an excellent record when
based on these generous terms, when we
give this money at virtually no interest
and let the borrowers have 10 years be-
fore any payment is due? Nevertheless,
already there has been some default.
Mr. President, I yield such time to the
Senator from Oregon as he may require.
Mr. MORSE. I shall not take more
than 5 minutes. I am ready to vote. I
believe that in fairness to myself and in
fairness to the Senator from Alaska I
should recapitulate the two main argu-
ments that I made in my major speech
on the subject last night.
The amendment in principle is the
amendment that the senior Senator
from Oregon proposed in committee. It
will have substantial support on the floor
of the Senate when the yea-and-nay
vote is had, as there was substantial sup-
port for it in committee. A number of
the committee members will vote for it.
My two main reasons are that I believe
the report of the committee itself, which
contains the Morse amendment that
provides for creating a special body to
make a Federal survey and analysis of
the foreign aid program with the re-
quirement of a report on its findings and
its recommendations at the beginning of
fiscal 1967, Justifies our urging that we
not adopt a policy change as important
as this policy change would be.
This is the type of policy question that
ought to go to the special committee for
consideration between now and the be-
ginning of fiscal 1967.
Therefore I do not believe that this
type of proposal should be added to the
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 10, 1965
bill this year. If, after careful analysis,
the special committee should decide that
there is merit in the proposal, I believe
we ought to consider it at that time.
The second point, which I discussed at
some length last night, is my attitude
toward our constitutional system in re-
gard to maintaining congressional
checks over the executive branch of
Government. This committee proposal,
in my judgment greatly weakens the
checking power and authority and duty
of Congress, because no matter what se-
mantics are used, when all is said and
done we transfer out of direct control by
Congress the checking authority to pass
judgment upon the policies that shall
prevail in the expenditure of taxpayer
money in the foreign aid program.
The Senator from Alaska has pointed
out the side effects of the amendment in
connection with the policy that we have
already adopted in exercising our power
of check through the Hickenlooper
amendment and the Lausche-Mundt
amendment that we have already
adopted. We cannot, in my judgment,
reconcile this proposal with the pro-
cedures under the Hickenlooper amend-
ment and the Lausche-Mundt amend-
ment in respect to the amount of money
that will be transferred to foreign finan-
cial agencies, which to a large degree will
exercise control over the expenditure of
money, without an effective congres-
sional check.
I do not believe this is the time for us
to further delegate the authority which
I believe to be so precious and that we
must have it remain inviolate.
Congress must stop building up a gov-
ernment of executive supremacy in this
country. Every time we delegate this
kind of control, this degree of checking.
we simply vest more and more power in
the executive branch of the Government.
in this instance in the State Department
and in a foreign financial agency, to
which we would give ultimate control.
Lastly, it has been pointed out by the
supporters of the amendment, both In
committee and on the floor of the Senate.
that we have a voice in this agency, that
we have a voice in the World Bank, that
we have a voice in the Inter-American
Bank, and that we have a voice In many
other international agencies.
Mr. President. I used to teach my stu-
dents that, although we are a govern-
ment of laws and not a government of
men, and that we must keep our govern-
ment of laws in order to preserve the
freedoms and liberties of the American
people. we should never forget that we
are a government of laws administered
by mere men.
Senators know something about the
human relations that develop, the cama-
raderie, the exchange of agreements, and
the compromises--in this instance the
support of someone for a compromise on
another issue that may develop on the
board.
I take judicial notice of the fact that
within the international agencies the
human factor plays a very important
part in working out arrangements and
adjustments of policies that become the
program of that agency.
We have no effective ch ck on the
American representative. It may be said,
"You can get him off the boE rd." I say,
'"Try It."
It may be said, "You can g the him In-
structlons." I say, "Try it."
The fact is that we lose cc ngressional
control.
Therefore I urge Senators this after-
noon to adopt the Gruening E mendment,
because its adoption would give us time
necessary to consider this policy by the
group which the Morse am 'ndment, a
part of the bill, envisions shal I be created
to make a thorough analysis u f the whole
foreign aid program betwee i now and
the beginning of fiscal year 1967.
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President. how
much time have I remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Alaska has 18 minutes
remaining.
Mr. GRUENING. I point cut that this
is an extremely conservative amend-
ment. It merely keeps th> situation
where it is now. As these h ans do not
require repayment for 10 years, how do
we know how good any of them are?
Not one of them will become due for its
first payment until 1970 or 1371 or 1972
or 1974 or 1975.
What is more reasonable gran to keep
the provision that is now n the bill,
which permits 10 percent of the money
to be loaned, instead of doubling it and
going ahead on an unchartec sea, where
there is great profligacy as 13 shown by
the loans already made? I; is absurd
for Congress to double the ante in view
of what we have been giving sway in the
past few years since this Irternational
Development Bank was created.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yielc 5 minutes
to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I associ-
ate myself with the remarks A the Sen-
ator from Arkansas in support of the
committee amendment to double the
amount of multilateral aid which can
be furnished.
I direct particular attention to his
comment about our trying to promote
economic development in sel-eted coun-
tries of Asia and Africa by n oving some
of the loans into the World Bank and
its affiliates. We have been shocked in
recent years by the spreadi-kg all over
the world of the slogan `Yankee go
home." We have been shocked by the
burning of our libraries, by the attacks
on our embassies. However, has any-
one ever said, "World Bank go home"?
Has anyone ever said, "Irternational
Development Organization f o home"?
Has anyone ever tried to burn down
the foreign offices of the World Bank
and its affiliates? This I i Itself Is
strong justification for extensing multi-
lateral aid.
Let me point out that this is not a
policy change, as the Senator from Ore-
gon has suggested. The policy of
making a certain amount Sf develop-
ment loan funds available o interna-
tional institutions was adopted by Con-
gress in section 205 of the foreign Aid
Act as long ago as 1961. We are not
changing any policy. We are merely
implementing a policy which a majority
of the members of the Committee on
Foreign Relations thought was sound.
There is another reason why I believe
the committee should be supported, and
it is very important. In my judgment,
the committee position represents a wave
of the future and the Gruentng amend-
ments represent a relic of the past. We
are in a situation in which an expanding
internationalism is becoming essential
not only to remedying the vast disparity
between the rich nations and the poor
nations, but, indeed, to preserve our
Western civilization from destruction in
a nuclear holocaust. We are moving
slowly but surely toward a limited yield-
ing of national sovereignty, a situation in
which the 13 States found themselves
unable to govern themselves under the
Articles of Confederation finally and re-
luctantly made to the Federal Govern-
ment. as result of which our country
had a great and marvelous growth.
We now have the United Nations, the
International Monetary Fund, the In-
ternational Labor Organization, the
World Health Organization, and a great
many other international organizations
to which some small part of our national
sovereignty has gradually been yielded.
Therefore, I take no credence in the sug-
gestion that the Congress ought to keep a
tight rein on every dollar which we put
into programs of international coopera-
tion. I feel, rather, that it is far wiser to
expand the growing internationalism
essential to the survival of a complex and
completely changing world. It is for
that reason, in addition to the reasons
stated by the Senator from Arkansas,
that I support the committee position.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CLARK. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. The point that dis-
turbs me in relation to the amendment
is as follows: What is wrong with the
borrower knowing that the money in-
volved is American money coming from
America? Why should it be funneled
through an international agency, with al-
legiance being, let us say, to an entity,
as against a nation that is actually mak-
ing the sacrifice to put up the money?
What is wrong with that?
Mr. CLARK. There is nothing wrong
with it.
Mr. PASTORE. America should be
generous. We should have a generous
heart. Not long ago I heard that in
the Dominican Republic, where we are
furnishing food, there was resentment
that the food bore a mark "From Amer-
ica." What is wrong with that? If
they are going to eat our food, why
should not the people know that it has
come from us? If they are-going to have
our money, why should not the people
know that the money is coming from us?
What is essentially wrong with that?
Mr. CLARK. May I answer the Sen-
ator?
'sir. PASTORE. Yes.
Mr. CLARK. There is nothing essen-
tially wrong with that. The vast ma-
pority of our funds are indicated as com-
ing from America.
I say to my friend the Senator from
Rhode Island that it Is a question of com-
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/07113 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
June 10, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
monsense. Will we get a better result
for each dollar spent if we make it pos-
sible for international institutions such
as the World Bank, IDA, and the others,
to have an expanded amount of capital
with which to make available loans to the
countries of Africa and Asia? If the
Senator should desire-and I am sure he
does not, because he is not that kind of
individual-we could point with pride
all over the world and beat our chests
about the great generosity and say,
"Look at what Uncle Sam has done for
you." I agree there is nothing wrong
with that. The only problem is wheth-
er it is not more sensible to move an ad-
ditional amount of loans into the inter-
national field, as we have done in con-
nection with the United Nations and the
other agencies I have spoken about.
There is nothing wrong with what the
Senator has stated; it is only a ques-
tion of what is wise.
Mr. PASTORE. The Senator from
Rhode Island does not mean that we
should go around beating our breasts and
pointing `with pride. I do not mean that
at all. I believe it is a fallacy to think
for one moment that we accomplish more
if people do not know where the benefits
come from. I would hope that whatever
we do, we do the thing that is right in the
long run. I do not believe that America
ought to be wearing its affluence on its
sleeve. I have never said that. I do not
1nean that. Too often I hear people say
that our way of giving is not good, that
our aid is resented by people because they
know we are giving it. If they resent it,
they need not ask for it.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
yield myself 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Arkansas is recognized for
2 minutes.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. There is nothing
wrong with giving away money as charity
or as anything else. What we are talking
about is a lending program. It has been
well acknowledged-certainly since the
days of Shakespeare-that a borrowing
relationship between friends, for exam-
ple, very often results in some resent-
ment. The lender expects to be paid. A
personal feeling goes with a loan, and
the borrower feels that he is obligated in
a way beyond mere repayment of a loan,
and the lender feels that he has done a
personal favor, which is aside from busi-
ness, to the borrower. It is difficult to
maintain a satisfactory relationship.
That is one reason why we have banks.
I know that in my private life, wise people
of my acquaintanceship have always re-
fused to lend directly to friends, but they
have helped those friends obtain money
through a bank. They do so in order to
maintain their personal relations on a
proper basis.
The attitude of which I speak enters
into our relations with a small country
such as Malaysia. Before the Senator
came into the Chamber, I believe, I cited
an instance in that country.
Mr. PASTORE. I heard the Senator
make that reference.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I do not know
why they did it, but the fact is, whether
we like it or not, for the first time to my
knowledge there was a large anti-Amer-
ican demonstration in the capital city
because we had insisted on an interest
rate on a loan that did not please them.
That factor has not entered into the re-
lationships of that country with the
Bank.
I am judging by our experience.
There is nothing wrong in what the Sen-
ator has said. I am not talking about a
moral question. It is purely a political,
practical question. The Bank has had
very satisfactory relations in a lending
program and we have had some very un-
satisfactory relationships. I know that
the record of the Bank is that there has
never been a default. Never in its his-
tory has there been a single default. I
know of instances in which countries
have rescheduled their other obligations
in order to avoid defaulting to the Bank.
They have felt that their reputation
with the Bank was at stake, and they
have gone to great pains to preserve their
reputation with the Bank.
Our own record of bilateral lending,
even by private sources to Latin Amer-
ica after World War I, is deplorable.
Practically every country down there de-
faulted. Much ill will resulted. The
very fact that we are big and rich ex-
aggerates the problem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Arkansas has
expired.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield myself 1
additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Arkansas is recognized for
1 minute.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. A psychological
problem in relation to loans is created.
I do not believe the same thing arises
with regard to gifts. They accept ma-
laria control; they accept milk for their
children; they accept teachers in their
schools. But there is not established a
relationship of borrower and lender.
This has not created any bad feeling,
but I believe that lending by the great
United States to a small country at the
kind of rates, for example, that the Sen-
ator from Alaska advocates has resulted
in ill will and the alienation of those
countries rather than a continuation of
satisfactory political relationships. It is
a fact of life; it is not a moral question.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. First, I have the high-
est respect for the integrity and the re-
sponsibility of the Foreign Relations
Committee, especially because of the fact
that it is headed by my distinguished
friend from Arkansas, But what has he
to say to the following question: Now
10 percent can be used for the stated
purpose. The committee has decided
that the percentage should be increased
from 10 percent to 20 percent without
changing the overall total figure. Would
the increase implicate us to the extent
that it would be harder for us to extri-
cate ourselves in the future from the re-
sponsibility? Would not such action
become an obligation, in a multilateral
sense, to many nations, as against deal-
ing with one person? Would the pro-
posed action mean that from now on the
percentage rises from 10 percent to 20
percent-and maybe later it may even
go above that percentage-but even if it
does not, we shall have committed our-
selves to 20 percent, and from now on
we might as well reconcile ourselves to
the fact that the program will be our
obligation from now into the future?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. There is no com-
mitment in the bill beyond the life of the
bill.
Mr. President, I yield myself 1 addi-
tional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Arkansas is recognized for
1 minute.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The 10 percent is
an expression of policy. It has never
been implemented. Not one red cent has
ever been transferred in accordance with
the authorization because the great Ap-
propriations Committee, in its greater
wisdom, has refused to appropriate the
amount necessary. Instead, it has in-
cluded a flat prohibition.
In another part of the bill, in addition
to section 205, is a statement of policy
adopted by the committee. This is not
the first one ; there have been similar
ones. Some time ago there was a state-
ment of policy which I remember spe-
cifically. As I recall, it was with regard
to Africa. It was felt that loans to new
countries should be made on a multi-
lateral basis. I was in favor of that, and
so was the committee at the time. The
purpose of the negotiation of the loans
was to prevent the alienation of those
countries.
This proposal is permissive; it provides
that the President may make funds
available. It is, in a sense, a statement
of policy. I believe-and I feel that a
majority of the committee believe-that
with respect to a lending program of de-
velopment loans-that is all the policy
applies to-it is wise to move in this di-
rection, because it involves fewer political
risks. It would be more successful in
achieving the purpose of economic de-
velopment. After all, that is what I as-
sume is the purpose in this instance.
That was the judgment of the committee.
But it is not the judgment of the Com-
mittee on Appropriations, so we have
nothing to go on. The Committee on
Appropriations has never done anything
about it, and I do not know that it will
in this instance. But the principle is
important.
It is no secret that I am dissatisfied
with the way the program has developed.
It has involved us in many places where
I do not like the conditions. It operates
in a good many countries. However, I
have tried to do the best I could with
what we have.
I support the amendment of the Sen-
ator from Oregon for a revision of the
program. I am not too hopeful that
anything can be done that will change it
much. One thing that we hope can be
done is to make greater use of the suc-
cessful international organizations work-
Ing in this field. For the most part such
organizations have been successful;
there have been few failures.
Another aspect is that it is hoped
that if the President takes advantage
of the program, he will use it as a lever
to persuade other countries to match us,
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 10, 1965
and thus make a larger total amount
available for development loans.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Alaska yield me 1 minute?
Mr. GRUENING. I yield 1 minute to
the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MORSE. I direct my remarks to
the Senator from Rhode Island. Al-
though the committee report favors this
approach, a strong minority in the com-
mittee does not share this view.
The Committee on Appropriations tied
down the flap In front of the nose. I be-
lieve this is the beginning of a program
to go beyond 20 percent. I believe that
is what is contemplated. In my judg-
ment, it would be a great mistake to do
that.
For the time being, we ought to leave
well enough alone, or bad enough alone,
and await the study that is contemplated
in connection with the program.
Mr. PASTORE. What has the Sena-
tor from Oregon to say about the ob-
servation made by the chairman of the
committee; namely, that this program
will be used as an instrument to induce
other people and other nations to match
what the United States does?
Mr. MORSE. There are nations
which, if they can succeed in having the
jackpot increased by millions of Ameri-
can dollars, will make token loans them-
selves in order to exercise control over
the expenditure of American money.
This is not a matching-money proposal.
It does not mean that if we put in 20
percent, some other country will put in
20 percent. We should look at the
amounts other countries are contribut-
ing. It is a token in comparison with
what the United States is investing in
the international program, on an inter-
national sharing basis. I do not buy that
argument at all. I reject it.
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President. I
yield myself 2 minutes. I, too, wish to
address my remarks to the Senator from
Rhode Island.
We do not know yet how these loans
will fare. No repayment will be made
for 10 years. Yet although this experi-
ment has been in operation briefly, it is
now proposed to double the amount.
Why not continue with the present 10
percent? Doubling it is what I object
to. My amendment does not provide for
its repeal. Several Senators yesterday
in debate suggested that the program
be abolished. I do not go that far.
The chairman of the committee refers
to the high interest rates I propose.
What are those high interest rates.
which occur under the direct aid pro-
gram? One percent; and after 2 years,
212 percent. That should not be dis-
astrous to any borrower, when we have
to borrow the money from the American
people at a cost of twice or three times
that amount.
All the international loans are on these
generous terms. There never seems
to be any discretion. All the loans are
made at three-quarters of 1 percent, with
no repayment of principal for 10 years,
and the life of the loans is 50 years.
Is there any flexibility In the overall
analysis of the projects for which we
make these foreign so-called loans? Ap-
parently not.
This amendment would m!rely hold
the program in status quo fo.' the next
2 years, and we would procei d on that
basis. Whir double the amo int before
we know how the program will work?
We do know that these loans are made
at negligible interest rates. Actually,
they are not loans at all; they ire grants.
Mr. President. I am prepar ld to vote.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. F ?esident, I
am prepared to yield back the remainder
of my time.
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. Pi esident, I
suggest the absence of a qt orum, the
time for the quorum call to Ile charged
to neither side.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Let the time for
the quorum call be charged t) my time.
The quorum call need only be notice that
Senators are prepared to vot.
The PRESIDING OFFI-.ER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President. I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescin led.
The PRESIDING OFFICEF. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Under the unanimous-con;ent agree-
ment, the Senate will proceed to vote on
the amendments (Nos. 221 aid 224) of
the Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUEN-
INGI. The yeas and nays ha 'e been or-
dered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proce? ded to call
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD (when hi; name was
called). On this vote I have a pair with
the distinguished minority .eader, the
Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRxSEN). If
he were present and voting he would
vote "yea." If I were at liberty to vote,
I would vote "nay." Therefore, I with-
hold my vote.
The rolicall was concluded.
Mr. MORTON (after having voted in
the negative). Mr. Presidelt, on this
vote I have a live pair with the Senator
from Colorado [Mr. ALLOTTI. If he were
present and voting he would vote "yea."
If I were at liberty to vote. I would vote
"nay." Therefore, I withdraw my vote.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I announce
that the Senator from Conn? cticut [Mr.
DODD], the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
LONG]. the Senator from Washington
[Mr. MAGNUSON], and the S?nator from
Oregon [Mrs. NEUBERGER] ar, absent on
official business.
I also announce that tie Senator
from North Dakota [Mr. BtRDIcKl, the
Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Mc-
CARTHYI, the Senator from 4faine [Mr.
MUSKIE] and the Senator from Alabama
[Mr. SPARKMAN] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator frorr North Da-
kota [Mr. BURDICK], the Senator from
Connecticut [Mr. DODD], tie Senator
from Washington [Mr. MAGr'usoN), and
the Senator from Alabama l Mr. SPARK-
MAN] would each vote "nay."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Kansas [Mr. DARLSON I is
necessarily absent.
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEAR-
SON] is absent on official bus ness and, if
present and voting, would vcte "yea."
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRK-
sKNI is detained on official business, and
his pair has been previously announced.
The Senator from Colorado [Mr.
ALLOTTI is absent on official business,
and his pair has been previously an-
nounced.
The result was announced-yeas 40,
nays 46, as follows:
[No. 114Leg.]
YEAS-40
Aiken
Gruening
Russell. Ga.
Bartlett
Hartke
Simpson
Bible
Holland
Smith
Byrd, Va.
Hruska
Stennis
Cannon
Jordan,N.C.
Symington
Cotton
Jordan, Idaho
Talmadge
Curtis
Lausche
Thurmond
Dominick
McClellan
Tower
Eastland
Morse
Williams, Del.
Eliender
Moss
Yarborough
Ervin
Mundt
Young, N. Dak.
Fannin
Murphy
Young, Ohio
Fong
Robertson
Gore
Russell, B.C.
NAYS-46
Anderson
Hickenlooper
Monroney
Bass
Hill
Montoya
Bayh
Inouye
Nelson
Bennett
Jackson
Pastore
Boggs
Javita
Pell
Brewster
Kennedy, Mass. Prouty
Byrd. W. Va.
Kennedy, N.Y.
Proxmire
Case
Kuchel
Randolph
Church
Long, La.
Ribicoff
Clark
McGee
Saltonstall
Cooper
McGovern
Scott
Douglas
McIntyre
Smathers
Fuibright
McNamara
Tydings
Harris
Metcalf
Williams, N.J.
Hart
Miller
Hayden
Mondale
NOT VOTING-14
Allott
Long. Mo.
Mwskie
Burdick
Magnuson
Neuberger
Carlson
Mansfield
Pearson
Dirksen
McCarthy
Sparkman
Dodd
Morton
So Mr. GRUENING'S amendments (Nos.
221 and 224) were rejected.
AMENDMENT NO. 240
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I call up
my amendment No. 240 and ask that it
be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment of the Senator from Oregon
will be stated for the information of the
Senate.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. The Senator
from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] proposes an
amendment to amend further the For-
eign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended,
and for other purposes; namely-
On page 11, line 13, strike out
"1.170,000.000" and insert in lieu thereof
??$l,000,000,000,'.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, this
amendment reduces the sum for military
aid to $1 billion. The hearings reveal
that military aid has increased for Viet-
nam and for one other country whose
name is deleted from the committee
hearing.
The reason is that a 5-year agreement
was reached with that country which is
still secret. It pledges U.S. military aid
in the sum of several tens of millions
each year. The Congress has not been
notified, except when the foreign aid bill
was presented with this amount in it
for the next fiscal year.
The Congress has never passed on the
advisability of this agreement. The
American people have never been told
of it. Yet when we see the foreign aid
presentation for next year, there it is.
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
June 10, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
It is a prior commitment. It was never
made by Congress nor had Congress ever
heard of it; yet we are told it is a com-
mitment on which Congress must make
good.
To digress from my brief manuscript,
I have just put my finger on one of
the greatest evils of our whole-foreign
aid program, the evil of concealment
practiced by this administration against
the best interest of Congress and to the
great detriment of the American people
insofar as their right to full disclosure of
the public business is concerned.
This administration is increasingly
guilty of concealing from the Ameri-
can people the facts that the American
people are entitled to know about if we
are to protect the precious right of free
men that in a democracy there is no
substitute for full public disclosure of the
public's business.
I am waiting "all ears" for a Member
of the Senate to tell me why the Penta-
gon, the State Department, and the
White House should be allowed to get
by with entering into a secret agreement
with a foreign country in regard to mili-
tary aid to that country for a 5-year
period that will involve many millions
of dollars.
I know that I have probably spoken to
my colleagues to the point of boredom,
time and time again, during my 20 years
in the Senate, about the precious guaran-
tee of the right of the people to know.
But during those 20 years there has been
a great acceleration of the trend toward
government by secrecy and government
by executive supremacy.
Let the American people know that
they cannot go to any library and find
a single example of any country in the
history of mankind in which the execu-
tive of that country became supreme and
the people remained free. Executive su-
premacy and freedom for the people are
irreconcilable, inconsistent concepts of
government.
Some of my colleagues In the Senate
will say we are not over the abyss yet; it
is a matter of degree, and we have not
gone that far yet. I believe we go too far
when we go a step in the direction of
government by executive supremacy.
I should like to answer another argu-
ment that we shall hear undoubtedly
before we finish with this statement. We
shall hear about Vietnam. This amend-
ment has nothing to do with Vietnam.
There is no Senator who does not know
that if the President continues to prose-
cute his shocking, illegal war of outlawry
in Asia, he will be here time and time
again for additional funds to prosecute
that war. Vietnam is used in connec-
tion with the foreign aid bill every time
they think they can make the argument
in order to justify a sum in the bill far
in excess of what Congress ought to ap-
propriate.
We are in a period of war hysteria.
All that need be done is to wave the flag
into tatters and the votes will be cast for
any waste that is advocated in connection
with the foreign aid bill.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. CLARK. I commend my friend
from Oregon and emphasize a point he
has made. This amendment to out $170
million off military aid, has nothing to
do with Vietnam. The purpose is, hope-
fully, to arrange a situation in which we
shall not give military aid to the Turks
so that they can fight the Greeks, or give
military aid to the Greeks so they can
fight the Turks, or give military aid to
Pakistan so it can fight India, or give
military aid to India, so that it can fight
Pakistan. I strongly support the Sena-
tor from Oregon.
Mr. MORSE. I appreciate the Sena-
tor's comment very much. I am grateful
indeed to the Senator for emphasizing
the major thesis of my speech. This pro-
posed cut in military aid has nothing to
do with Vietnam. One of my purposes
in offering the amendment is to try to
get the United States back inside the
framework of morality. We are a shock-
ingly immoral Nation with respect to the
policy we are following in connection
with military aid. The Senator from
Pennsylvania has alluded to one phase of
this problem. We have fully equipped
Greece and Turkey with American mili-
tary aid so that Greece and Turkey stand
as a threat to the peace of the world. The
United Nations must maintain a peace-
keeping force in Cyprus to prevent the
outbreak of a major war in that area
of the world. No one knows whether we
shall succeed in preventing a war there
even under the peacekeeping force of
the United Nations.
The United States has equipped, 100
percent, the military establishments of
Pakistan and India. When we have
done that, we have gone outside the
framework of morality. We have
equipped two nations that are threaten-
ing to make war against each other over
Kashmir. The United Nations has had
to move into Kashmir in order to give
some hope of preventing those two Amer-
ican military-equipped countries from
going to war against each other with
American equipment.
I was shocked the other day to have
colleagues in the Senate say, "But,
WAYNE they bought a great deal of this
military equipment." Imagine that.
Does that make it moral?. I say to
American labor leaders that the senior
Senator from Oregon is exceedingly dis-
turbed in connection with their stand
on American foreign policy. Too many
American labor leaders seem to think
that we can justify these millions of dol-
lars in foreign aid because 80 percent of
the money is spent in the United States
and thereby makes jobs for American
workers.
Let me say to American labor, "I do
not intend to support your program in
the advocacy of blood money." I yield
to no man in Congress or in the country
in support of the legitimate objectives of
organized labor. But if it is a make-
work program for the arms industry
which labor desires-what an immoral
premise on which to stand.
Mr. President, there are many crying
domestic needs in this country for the ex-
penditure of the savings that the senior
Senator from Oregon is at least going to
give the Senate an opportunity to vote
upon in the days immediately ahead that
would help strengthen the greatest de-
fense weapon this Republic has; namely,
our domestic economy, for if we weaken
that economy, we weaken the strength
of the Republic.
I say to American labor that it would
be much better to have American work-
ers working in connection with programs
that seek to build up the economy of this
country than arguing to retain jobs that
make it possible for potential belligerents
to fight a war against each other with
American weapons manufactured by
American labor.
I repudiate that argument on the part
of American labor leaders. By arguing
for military aid on the basis of jobs for
workers, they are performing a great
disservice to the workers of our country.
I suggest to them that they join in a
tapering-off program with regard to the
manufacture of military equipment and
join in the development of a wealth-
creating series of programs, such as the
great reclamation program across the
country, from coast to coast.
The American people must realize
that we are in danger of jeopardizing fu-
ture generations of Americans by leaving
to them a heritage of a polluted water
supply and a falling water table from
coast to coast. Go into any New York
City hotel in the very hour at which I
speak and read the sign that one will
find in every room in every hotel in which
there is a water faucet urging conserva-
tion of water because New York City is
in short supply of water already.
They are greatly concerned about the
potential danger, unless the water table
starts coming back, of water rationing
in the largest city in the land.
Come with me into the West, into
the Colorado River Basin, which we think
of as a surplus water area, and take note
of the great concern of cities in that area
in regard to an assurance that there will
be an adequate water supply 12 months
of the year.
Consider the waste of hundreds of mil-
lions of dollars in the foreign aid pro-
gram. Consider the fact that since 1946
the American taxpayers have been
fleeced out of billions of dollars of tax-
payers' money in a wasteful and ineffi-
cient foreign aid program that has
reached, according to the latest figure
that was given to me, some $111 billion
since 1946, with billions of that money
completely wasted.
Politicians may think that there is no
limit to the patience of the American
taxpayer. They may think that they
can continue to fool the American tax-
payer by waving the flag into tatters
every year when we get into a historic
debate on foreign aid.
I have more confidence in the judg-
ment of American taxpayers than have
most politicians. When at long last the
American taxpayers catch up with Mem-
bers of Congress who, year after year,
continue to waste money by hundreds of
millions of dollars, they will hold them to
an accountability at the polls. Their
first opportunity will be 1966.
I hope the people will take a toll by way
of an accountability of the Congress of
the United States at the polls in 1966, if
that is the only way we can teach
politicians.
Mr. President, when I think of the edu-
cational crisis in America, when I think
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 10, 1965
of what we are doing as a nation of
cheaters against the young of this coun-
try in denying to them by the tens of
thousands an opportunity to develop to
their maximum extent their intellectual
potential, I am aghast to see Senators
vote for a continuation of the waste of
hundreds of millions of dollars in a for-
eign aid program, denying to the young
people of our country adequate schools
that they need for the education to which
they are entitled as a matter of right.
One of, the paradoxes is the millions
of dollars that we spend each year for
schools under a foreign aid bill with no
restricted checks placed upon it in foreign
lands, and the difficulty we have in ob-
taining adequate financing to meet the
educational crisis in this country.
As chairman of the Senate Subcom-
mittee on Education, I say that there are
so many phases of the educational prob-
lem that pop up in my mind as I raise
the issue, that if I did not leave the issue.
I should be on It for the rest of the after-
noon and be charged with conducting a
filibuster. Yet every moment that I
might take In discussing the educational
crisis of the United States and arguing
for a substitution of millions of dollars
in the foreign aid bill for expenditures
on the schools of America would really
be time well spent.
My views are pretty well known to
Senators. Let us face it. The votes on
the bill are already cast. The lineup has
been formed. Pressure has been re-
sponded to. Politicians are surrendering
right and left to the pressure that states,
"You must not disturb the foreign aid
bill in an hour of war."
I say that In an hour of war we had
better start saving our money so that we
can use It to a much greater advantage
for the protection and security of our
country than using it in connection with
the foreign aid program, for I happen to
believe that we are on our way now to a
major war. Is it not a little amusing to
hear the alibis, the rationalizations, and
the downright misrepresentations of the
State Department in regard to trying to
qualify the announcement they made the
day before yesterday as to what would go
on with regard to American troops In
South Vietnam?
To the American people, I say: Here
is one Senator and one member of the
Committee on Foreign Relations who
does not believe the statements that have
been uttered by Dean Rusk and by the
administration in regard to what the
policy is now. It is no different from
that which was announced yesterday
in regard to the use of American troops
in the war in Vietnam.
I say to the American people : Do not
be fooled. American boys are now
pledged to battle in South Vietnam.
American boys are going to die by the
thousands in the months ahead if this
undeclared, unconstitutional, illegal war
is allowed to continue. Of course they
are committed to combat. Even Dean
Rusk becomes hung up in his own se-
mantics when he issues a statement, as
he did yesterday, that they do not sit
over there as hypnotized rabbits. Read
that statement. One can reach no other
conclusion that that Rusk, in spite of
his evasive language, is tacit] admitting
that American boys are cor unitted to
combat. I am willing to axept that
reality.
Mr. President, in this Bonne ction I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in
the RECORD at this point the devastating
answer to the Secretary of Slate, which
is contained in an editorial published
In the New York Times this morning
entitled "Ground War in Wishington."
It is also a devastating answer' to a large
part of the speech of the Se:iator from
Connecticut (Mr. DODDl.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
(From the New York Times, Juste 10, 10,351
Gsotme WAR IN WABri7No roN
The Johnson Administration's ieclsion au-
thorizing a combat role for American troops
in South Vietnam is only confr;ned by yes-
terday's White House statement; yet the
statement is carefully drafted to five the Im-
pression that the United States is not em-
barking on a radical new course
The White House admits ti at General
Westmoreland, since March, has :lad the sec-
ondary mission of providing "combat sup-
port" to South Vietnamese units in trouble.
But why did Secretary Rusk it the time
say that "ground combat personnel is not
what is needed" and that there would be "a
problem about foreign ground tr Sops under-
taking the kind of pacification effort that Is
required in South Vietnam"?
The White House denies tha- the Presi-
dent ordered the new combat role in March
"or at any other time." It is explained that
General Westmoreland's authorl v was "im-
plicit" In the assignment of ma; ines to Da-
nang. Yet, how could "implicit" authority
have been so explicitly defined all along as
was finally claimed In yesterc,ay's White
House statement? It is there lit alted to In-
stances when South Vietnamea , forces are
"faced with aggressive attack when other
effective reserves are not avallab a and when
In his f Westmoreland'sl judgment the mCI-
tary situation urgently requires It."
As recently as last Saturdai the State
Department did not mention this role when,
at the request of newsmen, it r.rdeflned the
mission of American troops in i statement
reportedly approved at the high at levels of
the Department. It admitted th it American
troops had stepped beyond an a ivisory role,
but described their function abnply as de-
fense of American inatallatioi s and pa-
trolling nearby.
The new role of "combat support," which
the State Department finally am ounced this
week, seems to be one of serving as a strategic
and tactical reserve for the South Vietnamese
Army. It presumably can take American
combat troops anywhere In the country. De-
spite an effort semantically to ',xeiude "of-
fensive" campaigns. It appears to include
aid to South Vietnamese units t sat get Into
difficulty during offensive as. well as defen-
sive operations-
A land war on the continent of Asia, which
many of the country's leading military men
long have opposed, is not undertaken lightly
or without premeditation and careful plan-
ning. The doubling of Americr n troops in
South Vietnam since March and the reports
that the 54.000 now there are bet ig Increased
to 70.000 suggest Implementation of a plan
approved in February and pre eared much
earlier.
The time has come for the :'resident to
take the country into his confidence and to
give the Congress time for a full debate
before the war is escalated any further.
Mr. MORSE. I was much interested
in the statements made on the floor of
the Senate yesterday in opposition to a
declaration of war. Several Senators
expressed their opposition to a declara-
tion of war. It is interesting, is it not?
What are they afraid of? To give my
interpretation, they are afraid of Amer-
ican public opinion. The American peo-
ple are entitled to know whether or not
this Government is going to make war,
and continue to make war, in Asia-and
we know that is its intention. If it is,
the American people are entitled to re-
ceive from the President a proposal for
a declaration of war, and they are en-
titled to receive from Congress a standup
count as to who will vote for a declara-
tion of war under article I, section 8, of
the Constitution of the United States.
Let the President bring in that pro-
posal for a declaration of war and con-
front the American people directly with
the issue. Then he will get a direct re-
sponse from the American people. It is
the opinion of the senior Senator from
Oregon that the American people are not
in support of an undeclared war in Asia.
This is contrary to the statement made
by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
DODD] on the floor of the Senate today,
as to most of which I have already an-
nounced that I am in strong disagree-
ment.
The American people are confused, and
they will continue to be confused, be-
cause of the concealment by the admin-
istration of the facts in regard to what
is taking place in Asia. The American
people are entitled to receive from the
administration a clear drawing Of the
issue. Either we should go to war
legally, under article I, section 8, or the
President should proceed to reverse his
position and take the position I took in
Madison Square Garden the night before
last. That position is my answer to the
Senator from Wyoming [Mr. MCGEEI,
who said earlier today on the floor of
the Senate that we who are opposed to
the administration's policy in South
Vietnam do not offer any alternatives.
Mr. President, we have been offering al-
ternatives for most of 2 years, only to be
met with, until recently, dead silence on
the floor of the Senate, although not in
the cloakrooms. In the cloakrooms,
there has been strong approval of the
alternatives: but only silence, until re-
cently, on the floor of the Senate.
In closing my speech in Madison
Square Garden the other night, I said I
had no right to criticize my Government
in regard to its policies In South Viet-
nam unless I were willing to offer alter-
native proposals, which I have been offer-
ing for many months.
I said, "We meet here but a few blocks
from the temple of international law
and justice-the United Nations. I now
recommend to my President that he
make use of a procedure in the United
Nations Charter which we have not made
use of yet, but which we ought to make
use of, a procedure calling for an
extraordinary session of the General As-
sembly of the United Nations. I recom-
mend that my President walk out onto
that historic platform and proceed to
make history that will shock the world,
by announcing that the United States
lays before the United Nations the threat
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
June 10, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12653
to the peace of the world as it now exists this bloodletting. They are asking ques- over the so-called economic projects that
in Asia, and that the United States tions. "What will it profit us? Where we have sought to develop in South Viet-
pledges its support to the United Na- is the end? What will it accomplish?" nam.
tions to arrive at a peaceful, honorable, I have been heard to say, during the The proposal of the President for $89
negotiated settlement through the past 18 months on the floor of the Senate million for so-called economic develop-
procedures of the United Nations, thus in speech after speech in opposition to ment in South Vietnam will be largely
bringing to an end the killing in Asia this international outlawry of my coun- wasted until we get a negotiated peace.
and the threat to the peace of the try in Asia, that we are driving millions We must stop the war. When we get
world." of people in the underdeveloped areas of that war stopped, it must be stopped on
An interesting incident happened the world into the arms of communism. an honorable basis and stopped on the
thereafter. There followed for the next We have the greatest weapon to defeat basis of an understanding that will not
hour an increasing demand on the part communism that mankind has ever permit a massacre and blood bath of the
of the leaders of that rally for a march forged. That weapon is not hydrogen South Vietnamese by the Communists,
on the United Nations Building as the bombs. That weapon is not nuclear war- and will not permit of a blood bath of
best way for that group to symbolize its fare. That weapon is not military the Vietcong by the South Vietnamese.
protest against U.S. outlawry in might. That weapon is not the substi- Let us not forget that on both sides there
Asia. It was the best way for that tution of the jungle law of military force are participants who are ignorant and
group to symbolize its protest in opposi- for the rule of law of international jus- illiterate, and are victims of military
tion to the record of the administration tire for the settlement of disputes that forces that control and direct their lives.
of open violation of article after article threaten. the peace of mankind. That I want to bring the direction of their
of the United Nations; in fact, the viola- weapon happens to be economic freedom, lives by military forces to an end. I
tion by this country, since 1954, of article which is the very strength of this Re- want an honorable, negotiated peace.
after article of the United Nations by public. That weapon happens to be the Then I want to see this great, free land
the course of action we have followed giving to the underdeveloped peoples of of ours beat communism in Asia by the
in Vietnam. the world the right to be free men eco- exportation of economic freedom to the
Without my knowing what was really nomically, because that breeds political people of that area.
taking place, because I remained on the freedom. It nourishes the development That will not take place in a year, 5
platform to hear other speakers, arrange- of political freedom. years, or 10 years. That would be a
ments were made with the New York We have no more chance of export- long, hard pull. However, I would much
City Police Department for a march on ing political freedom to Asia or to Afri- rather spend the next 25 years supporting
the United Nations. I wrote to the chief ca -or, for that matter, to any other un the exportation of economic freedom to
of police of the New York Police Depart- derdeveloped area of the world-than I Asia than spend billions of dollars of the
ment yesterday, expressing my high have of walking down to the Washing- money of the American taxpayers in try-
praise for the way the police department ton Monument and putting it on my ing to support a bogged down U.S.
handled the demonstration that fol- shoulder and walking away. military force in Asia. That force
lowed the meeting. It was announced at Mr. President, we do have a great op- will become bogged down.
11 o'clock that arrangements had been portunity to help make the people in the still waiting, may I say to Mr.
MI am still the Seng may of Defense, for
made with the police for a march from underdeveloped areas of the world eco- I am
Madison Square Garden to the United nomically free. However, we cannot do Mm to come forth with any rebuttal to
Nations Plaza. At 20 minutes before it until we first have a peace settlement of General
midnight, that march started. in Asia. the Bradley, aft-to the oft-repeated advice advice of
Some Senators would be a little amused We in the Senate well know my rea- General Collins, he to the oft padvi elf
to read some of the correspondence I sons for fighting the $70.0 million military GMarshall eo ate oft-
have already received from superpatriots, program that the President requested repeated General rica of rshal l Eisenhower,
because I had the high honor and the for the purpose of fighting an illegal war and to the oft-repeated Gen of Gen-
distinct privilege to join with Dr. Ben- in Asia. I fought that proposal first be- and MacArthur, all advice whom told us-
while Spook at the head of that column, cause, by his own admission, it was not- eral American military o Colds and
while more than 2,500 people out of that needed. He used the measure only as military staff leaders that they are-that
audience, at 20 minutes before midnight, a vehicle through which to obtain an- Asia is no place to bog down an American
2 by 2, walked down Broadway, other vote of confidence from the Senate army.
across 42d Street, to the Plaza of the and the House by which to continue a happen to believe
United Nations for a second rally that policy that he never should have started It nuclear till true. bombs I and atomic bomve
was held at 1 o'clock in the morning. in Asia. that is have not changed it. I call again b the
Mr. President, this administration is I voted against the measure, too, be- ha havenso Eanged it. for a rebun o
whistling by graveyards. But its whis- cause I knew that it would not result in the advice to which I have a butt
tling will not prevent filling all the graves the exportation of economic freedom. It other domestic needs
in those graveyards if it thinks that the would result only in the further exporta- There are many which save
of the
grassroots of America happen to be in tion of war to Asia. confronting
dollars I am country seeking-to g sthe
support of its killing in Asia and the of- I suggested the other day, as Senators millions
of twasteful foreign aid program
fering of no hope to the American people will recall, with regard to the $89 million out bill can id program
for years to come for an ending of those proposal of the President-which was provided the
help ie for providing this economic security of at
killings. another attempt on his part to get an-
In my judgment, if this administra- other vote of confidence in his program this country. They are well known to
tion follows its outlawry in Asia, Amer- in Asia-that we cannot build economic the Members of this body-great public
ican troops will be bogged down in Asia projects in the Mekong area of South works programs, the great urban renewal
for a quarter of a century, at the mini- Vietnam because the area is controlled program, the great need for slum clear-
mum. Then, at long last, we shall have by the Vietcong and will continue to be ante programs. Millions of dollars more
to come to a negotiated settlement that controlled by the Vietcong until there is will be needed if we are ever to have an
could not possibly be.any better than a negotiated peace. effective poverty control program.
the negotiated settlement that could be Same of my colleagues did not like Any dollar of saving we are willing to
reached now, in my judgment. that. . vote out of the.foreign aid bill will pro-
The rally that was held in New York As a member of the Committee on For- duce much more good, eventually, for the
City the night before last could be held in eign Relations, I have read too many re- world if spent to meet domestic needs
Chicago, the Twin Cities, San Francisco, ports and interviewed too many people here at home, because in that way we will
St. Louis, Los Angeles, any other major who have been involved in the adminis- strengthen our Nation at home and will
city in the country. This is not a matter tration of our so-called economic aid then be in a stronger position to be of
of New York locale. program in South Vietnam not to know assistance with sound programs involving
Mr. President, at the roots of America, that the Vietcong have succeeded in sa- the exportation of economic freedom
the American people are concerned about botaging and emasculating and taking abroad than will ever be the case if we
No. 105--6
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
12654 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORII - SENATE
continue to waste huge sums of money
under this bill.
The last remark I want to make by
way of digression from the manuscript
deals with the argument Senators will
hear over and over again in the days
ahead-that this is a very economical
foreign aid bill; that it is a barebones
bill: that it provides for only $3,380 mil-
lion.
Mr. President, that sounds good, but
even if it stood alone-and it does not
stand alone-this so-called bare-bones
bill has hulks and humps of fat upon it.
The foreign aid bill must be considered
in terms of the total foreign assistance
bill. The total foreign assistance bill
amounts to nearly $7 billion-not $3,380
million.
Mr. President, on this amendment I
am asking for a saving of $170 million.
I repeat, it does not interfere in the
slightest with Vietnam. Everyone knows
that Vietnam is now in a class by itself.
Everyone knows that so long as American
boys are being killed in Vietnam, the
administration is in a position to come
before the Congress and ask for whatever
funds it thinks necessary to supplement
its financial needs in Asia. But the $170
million I am asking to have taken out of
the military foreign aid program deals
with other countries.
The Foreign Assistance Act has been
amended to eliminate military aid to
Western Europe except for "prior com-
mitments." It contains certain restric-
tions on military aid to Latin America,
except for "prior commitments."
In many ways this is a futile exercise
because it is the Department of Defense
that enters into these commitments, not
the Congress, and because we are not told
of them in advance, they are all "prior
commitments." so far as Congress is con-
cerned.
Senators who are not members of the
Foreign Relations Committee should sit
with me on that committee and listen
to the testimony we receive from the
Defense Establishment, the State De-
partment, and the AID Agency. Talk
about making a saving in some of these
expenditures, and the representatives of
the Defense Department, the State De-
partment, or the AID Agency say, "Oh,
we have an agreement on that." Who
entered into the agreement? The Con-
gress? Of course not. For Congress to
enter into it would be unthinkable. It
would merely be carrying out the basic
principles of representative government.
It would be consistent with our demo-
cratic processes. It would be in keeping
with our professing of a government of
law, and not of men.
These commitments are made in se-
cret conferences. These commitments
are made by the executive branch of the
Government without the advance knowl-
edge of the Congress. When we ask.
"Did you not tell those countries there
was no constitutional authority to bind
this Government?" They say, "Well, we
told them it was subject to the approval
of the Congress." Then they come in
with the clincher argument. Senators
should see my colleagues, wilt before this
sophistry: "It was a hard agreement to
negotiate. It was difficult to get them
to agree. We had to work lone * and hard
to get certain concessions ou?. of them.
We do not believe you will want to turn
down an agreement that we worked so
hard to negotiate. We hope yiu will not
want to do so."
Let me say to the Congress that until
It starts turning down such agreements,
until it starts making clear to the execu-
tive branch of the Governs Sent that
Congress is entitled to give a rproval in
advance of any agreement. th ere will be
an increase, at a rapid rate. o! this gal-
lop down the road toward govt rnment of
this country by executive supromacy.
Mr. President, I am not at all moved
by the fact that the Defense DE partment,
the State Department, and tt a AID of-
ficials have entered into see- et agree-
ments, so far as prior knowled.re of Con-
gress is concerned, and the argument
that we should not reduce the military
aid program because it might interfere
with some of those agreements. Such
agreements are not binding on Congress.
Congress has the authority. if I t Is neces-
sary to make savings in th4, military
assistance aspects of the bill. to reduce
any amounts that any representatives of
the State Department, the Dc Iense De-
partment, or the AID officials have pro-
vided In the agreements they have en-
tered Into. It should be dor a for the
people. They are entitled to that pro-
tection by the Congress.
Now we have a new prior co: nmitment
on which Congress and the American
people will have to pay for 5 y ?ars. Yet
all these secret commitment, and the
military aid for Vietnam still take only
little more than half the total requested
for military aid.
In 1963, the committee head( d by Gen-
eral Clay to study the forelgr aid pro-
gram took no serious issue with the
theory of military aid-what ever that
theory may be. But it did p-otest the
number of countries receivini: military
aid, and made it clear that we should be
contemplating a military aid p -ogram of
not more than $1 billion a yea:,.
Mr. President, we had it dower to $1.055
billion last year; but under this bill it is
back up to $1.170 billion.
It will go much higher than i hat again
if Congress has not the eapac .ty to say
"no.',
One of the annual justiflci.tions of-
fered for military aid is that it makes
available millions of more r fen from
other countries, particularly from Asia,
who will be on hand to fight ;-ny Com-
munist attack or aggresison.
Well, the Communist attack Is under-
way in South Vietnam. Yet there are no
millions of Asians from Japan or South
Korea or Taiwan or the Philippines. or
Thailand, or Pakistan, or Indio, helping
American troops do the fighting. They
have our money and our milita y aid but
not to help us do any of the fighting,
except for a token force frc m South
Korea, a token force from A istralia-
about which there is great doubt as to
whether there is nay commitment for
them to go anywhere near ti a line of
battle-and a token force offs red from
the Philippines.
Our so-called Asian allies ha re walked
out on us. so far as the war in Asia is
June 10, 1965
concerned, but they are taking their mili-
tary aid from us by the millions of dol-
lars. They are perfectly willing to
spend our money to build up their own
military prestige and to keep themselves
in a position where they can threaten to
make war on their neighbors.
As I have been heard to say many
times. but in the interests of consistency
I wish to repeat, the military aid we have
supplied to any of these countries-I do
not care which one is named-India,
Pakistan, Greece, Turkey, Thailand, any
other country-will be of absolutely no
value to the United States in case of war
with Russia.
Mr. President, that is my answer to
the sophistry of Senators who each year
are heard to say, "Oh, but it is cheaper
to keep a Pakistani In uniform than an
American boy. It is cheaper to keep a
South Korean in uniform than an Ameri-
can boy. It is cheaper to keep a Turk in
uniform than an American boy."
There is no cause-to-effect relation-
ship in that kind of argument, because
It is a complete nonsequitur. If there
ever is a war between the United States
and Russia, every one of those countries
will be dependent for its protection not
upon the military aid which the United
States has supplied them, but upon the
nuclear power of the United States.
In case of war between the United
States and Russia, it will be a nuclear
war-a war which will be over quickly,
in an exceedingly short time. Out of
it will come no victors, American or Rus-
sian. Out of it will come only world
devastation.
Mr. President, the military route is not
the road to peace. The military route is
the road to continued war, ending up
eventually in a nuclear holocaust.
I would rather be condemned in my
day by the superpatriots and by those
who believe that force is the answer to
the threat to peace, by those who have
substituted their adrenal glands for their
cortexes in facing the issue of war or
peace.
Mr. President, I will not walk out on a
great ideal which has always symbolized
my country; namely, that we believe in
a peaceful approach to the threat to
peace.
It is not true that military aid to these
countries will strengthen the security
and the defense of the United States.
The ugly reality is that our military
aid to many countries in the world has
greatly increased the danger of war.
This morning or yesterday there was
reported affirmation of a matter with
respect to which I warned the Senate
about not so many days ago, that our
Government is in the process of selling
to Saudi Arabia more than $100 million
worth of weapons.
What a blot on our history.
The danger is great. No more than
Lady Macbeth will we be able to wipe
out that bloody spot. For that aid to
Saudi Arabia is aid which will increase
the warmaking power of the Arab States.
The Arab States continue to threaten to
drive into the sea, up to the moment that
I speak, the only free nation in all the
Middle East. the State of Israel.
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
June 10, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
I hold no brief for any mistakes of
Israel, but we cannot justify strength-
ening the military power of Arab coun-
tries which threaten-to destroy Israel.
As I have been heard to say, I am op-
posed to military aid to any country in
the Middle East, including Israel, for
military aid to countries in the Middle
East increase the danger of war.
I have stated earlier in my speech
that the position of my country in the
matter of military aid cannot be rec-
onciled with morality.
I say to my administration today,
"Your proposal to send $100 million in
arms and military equipment to Saudi
Arabia is shockingly immoral. History
will condemn us for it, for I am con-
vinced that if you continue to build up
such war machines as we are building
up in the Middle East, the end will be
war."
We seem to have hurt feelings when
critics abroad charge us with being a
hypocritical nation, when the ugly real-
ity is that the United States is a hypo-
critical nation. Our record in foreign
policy is a record of hypocrisy. We pro-
fess one thing and we practice another.
That is hypocrisy. We profess to be-
lieve in the rule of law, but we refuse
to resort to an application of the rule
of law under existing treaty obligations,
which really place a compelling duty
upon us to resort to the procedures of
those treaties to which we have affixed
our signature.
Are treaties signed by the United
States to be but a scrap of paper, except
when we believe that carrying out their
provisions might be, momentarily, in our
national, selfish interest? We cannot
maintain peace in the world on the basis
of any such premise or any such policy
as that.
Mr. President, we are hearing from
faint noises that suggest that troops
from Taiwan might be landed to fight in
South Vietnam. Or they might be used
as a threat against mainland China.
Who would pay for that? Why, it would
take more military aid out of Uncle
Sam's pocket.
Do not forget that for 6 or 7 years we
sent tens of millions of dollars worth of
military aid to South Vietnam on the
basis that it would enable that country to
do its own fighting and defend itself.
But when a real challenge was encount-
ered, Americans have come to do the
fighting not just in the air or on the sea,
but now on the ground.
That is what will happen in South
Korea, too, and in Taiwan if either of
them is ever put to the test. And their
troops are not going to join Americans in
South Vietnam in any but the most
token numbers. Of Indians, and Paki-
stanis, and Japanese we will see none at
all. The Indians and Pakistanis are
concentrating on fighting each Other
with American military aid.
I point out to the Senate, and to the
American people, that the war has come
to Asia, and despite the billions and bil-
lions of military aid we have given to
Asian countries since the end of World
War II, their forces have not joined us
in the battle. That is perhaps as much
our choice as theirs, because it would
cost us tens of billions more to support
both their armed forces and their na-
tional economies in any kind of a war
effort. Every one of the. 2,106 South
Koreans in Vietnam, for example, is
financed by American money. I ask
unanimous consent to have printed at
this point in the RECORD the table from
page 643 of the committee hearing show-
ing free world assistance for Vietnam.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
TYDINGS in the chair). Is there objec-
tion?
There being no objection, the table
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Free world assistance for Vietnam
Persons
inRVN
Canada_______
China---------
Germany-----
Italy -------- _
Japan ---------
New Zealand__
Philippines ---
Thailand ------
United
Kingdom.
Netherlands
Combat advisers, aircraft and
crews medical aid, technical
aid, civic action aid, and ra-
dio stations.
Medical aid, scholarships, and
wheat.
Agricultural aid [deleted ,elec-
tric power aid.
Professors, technical experts,
credits, and 30 ambulances.
Surgical team_________________
Electric power aid, medical
aid, ambulances, and tran-
sistor radios.
Karate Instructors, mobile
Army surgical hospital, com-
bat engineers with security
forcer.
Army cnglneers, surgical team,
and educational aid.
Medical aid, psywar assist-
ance.
[Deleted] cement and roofing.
[Deleted].
Police instructions, professor
educational and technical
equipment.
Surgical team_________________
32
34
r)
I Deleted.
NOTE.-The French, though their policies in South
Vietnam differ from ours, continue to have a number of
educators, medical and technical personnel there.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the con-
tention that military aid and supporting
assistance was guaranteeing us allies and
allied manpower in the event of an Asian
war has been proved false by the war in
Vietnam. I strongly suspect that a war
anywhere else will prove it wrong in most.
parts of the world.
Of the countries shown in the chart,
we have not extended any direct mili-
tary aid to Canada, New Zealand, or Aus-
tralia, though they have received some
through channels of regional aid. But
through fiscal year 1964, China had re-
ceived $2.458 billion from us in military
aid. Germany had received $951.6 mil-
lion; Italy, $2.312 billion; the Nether-
lands, $3.242 billion; the United King-
dom, $1.035 billion; Japan, $1.057 billion;
Korea, $2.191 billion; the Philippines,
$445 million; and Thailand, $68 million
through 1963.
I do not mean to single out these coun-
tries for criticism because.they at least
have some people in South Vietnam, even
if they are not combatants. Dozens of
other recipients of U.S. military aid over
the years have no one there at all.
Nor do I believe we should continue to
increase our military aid program in
the absence of some indication of its fu-
ture objectives. Take, for example, the
constant question of obsolescence. Each
year the Foreign Relations Committee is
told that country A or B needs new tanks
to replace some we furnished them 5
years ago and which are now "obsole-
scent." Or we are told that a given army
must be reequipped because our earlier
military aid is now obsolete. That is good
for the military equipment manufac-
turers.
Who knows what the standards are for
obsolescence? And who knows how long
we plan to go on arming the world with
new material? There is never a point
at which some nation's military equip-
ment will not become obsolescent. Do we
intend to go on indefinitely replacing
existing equipment with new?
Never in the life of the military aid
program have I heard any indication
from the Defense Department of the an-
ticipated future programing for military
aid.
There is another important omission
from our projected military aid program.
That is an estimate of how much it would
cost the United States to support any one
of these countries in the event it became
involved in a major war. Some are say-
ing that the soldiers of Taiwan should
be transported to mainland China to di-
vert China away from Vietnam; or that
Taiwan troops should be moved to South
Vietnam to fight in the war against the
guerrillas. But none of these voices ever
tells us how much it would cost the
United States to support a war economy,
iIn Taiwan. Would it be enough that we
would have to arm, equip, and supply
all her soldiers? Or would our economic
aid to Taiwan also have to be expanded,
as some form of lend-lease?
Here again, we went through all this
with South Vietnam. But the cost ? of
maintaining South Vietnam on a war
footing has vastly exceeded the cost of
maintaining her even in the years im-
mediately after the French withdrawal.
I have no sympathy for the argument
that military aid to undeveloped coun-
tries gives us something for nothing, or
that it gives us cheap manpower for use
in place of American soldiers. Nothing
of the sort has happened in the one place
where a war is going on.
Yet this is the basis for our military
aid in most parts of the world. It should
be examined right down to its roots. In
the meantime, the level should not go
above $1 billion.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I send
to the desk an amendment, the essence
of which is to reduce the amount of -20
percent in the pending bill to be used in
the discretion of the administration for
multilateral aid. My amendment would
reduce that 20-percent allowance to 12
percent. In principle, it is identical with
the proposal that was voted upon at 1:30
this afternoon, the Gruening amend-
ments, to reduce the 20 percent to 10
percent. My amendment would reduce
the 20 percent to 12 percent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be received and printed,
and will lie on the table.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment offered by the Senator from
Oregon.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the vote on
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORE - SENATE June 10, 1965
the amendment be had at 5 minutes after
3. 10 minutes from now. In the mean-
time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Oregon [Mr.
MORSE]. On this question the yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I announce
that the Senator from Tennessee [Mr.
BASS], the Senator from Virginia [Mr.
BYRDI, the Senator from Arizona [Mr.
HAYDEN], the Senator from Hawaii
[Mr. INOUYE], the Senator from Missouri
[Mr. LONG], and the Senator from Wash-
ington [Mr. MAGNUSONI are absent on
official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
North Dakota [Mr. BURDICK], the Sena-
tor from Minnesota [Mr. McCARTHYi.
the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE],
the Senator from Oregon [Mrs. N?USER-
cER], the Senator from South Carolina
1 Mr. RUSSELL], and the Senator from
Alabama [ Mr. SPARKMAN I are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from North Dakota
I Mr. BURDICKI would vote "yea."
If urther announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Washington
IMr. MAGNUSON] would vote "nay."
On this vote, the Senator from Vir-
ginia [Mr. BYRD] is paired with the Sen-
ator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN). If
present and voting, the Senator from
Virginia would vote "Yea," and the Sen-
ator from Alabama would vote "nay."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON I Is
necessarily absent.
The Senator from Colorado [Mr. AL-
LOTT I and the Senator from Kansas [Mr.
PEARSON] are absent on official business
and, if present and voting, would each
vote "nay."
The result was announced--yeas 22.
nays 63, as follows:
INo. 115 Leg.]
YEAS-22
Bartlett Ervin Morse
Bible Uruening Nelson
Church Hart Pell
Clark Hartke Proxmire
Cotton Hruska Randolph
Curtis Long, La. Young, Ohio
Douglas McClellan
Ellender McGovern
NAYS--83
Aiken Dlrksen Hill
Anderson Dodd Holland
Bayh Dominick Jackson
Bennett Eastland Javlts
Boggs Fannin Jordan, NC.
Brewster Fong Jordan. Idaho
Byrd, W. Va. Fulbrlght Kennedy, Uses.
Cannon Gore Kennedy, K.Y.
Case Harris Kuchef
Cooper Hickenlooper Lausche
Mansfield Mundt Smi It
McGee Murphy Ster nis
McIntyre Pastore Sym tngton
McNamara Prouty Tall lodge
Metcalf Ribicoff Thurmond
Miller Robertson Tow er
ondaie Russell. Gs. Ted ngs
AI
Monroney Saltonstall Wit lams, N.J
Montoya Scott Wit lams, Del
Morton Simpson Yar iorough
Moss Smathers Yoc ng. N. Dak.
NOT VOTING-15
Allott Hayden 11u: kie
Maas Inouye Neuberger
Burdick f ong, Mo. Pea Bon
Byrd, Va. Magnuson Rus tell. B.C.
Carlson McCarthy Spa ?kman
So Mr. MORSE's amendmnr t was re-
iected.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. Pl esident. I
move that the Senate reconsider the
vote by which the amend nent was
iriected.
Mr. JAVITS_ I move to la! that mo-
I.ion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. PROXMIRE obtained the floor.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Preside: it, will the
Senator from Wisconsin yield to permit
me to call up an amendment?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. Pi esident, I
ask unanimous consent that, without
losing my right to the floor. ] may yield
to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment which is it the desk
and ask that it be read and made the
pending business.
The PRESIDING OFFI =. The
amendment will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. C n page 18,
after line 22. it is proposed tt insert the
following :
(31 add the following new suasectton:
"(n) No assistance shall bi furnished
under this Act, and no sales shall be made
under title I of the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Aa of 1954, as
amended, to the United Arab Ri public or to
Indonesia so long as either of eu:h countries
shall continue to oommlt aggre.ston, as the
President shall determine in accnsrdance with
section 6201 it of the Foreign Ai sistance Act
of 1961, as amended."
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Preside lot, on this
amendment I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were crdered.
Mr. PROXMIRE obtained I he floor.
Mr. PROX'MIRE. Mr. F resident, I
ask unanimous consent that 1 may yield
briefly to the Senator from 0 ?egon with-
out losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFIC] R. With-
out objection, it Is so ordered.
THE U.S. USE OF A LOF BYIST AS
INTERMEDIARY WITH it DOMINI-
CAN POLITICIAN
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I have a
statement to make as chair nan of the
Subcommittee on Latin American
Affairs.
One of the more disturbing elements
in our troubles with the Dor linican Re-
public is one that need rift have oc-
ciu'red and which certainl; i need not
have occurred and which ce:'tainly need
not continue. It is the use by the United
States of a lobbyist as Lltermedaary
with a Dominican politician
The lobbyist Is I. Irving Davidson, and
the Dominican he represents is Joaquin
Balaquer. Mr. Balaquer was President
of the Dominican Republic for a time
after the death of Trujillo.
I do not doubt that Balaquar is still
a factor in Dominican politics, and he
rightly should be considered as a possi-
bility for public office there again.
Moreover, I expect the United States to
have some contacts with him as we seek
to put together a new government down
there, pending new elections.
But to use Mr. Davidson as the inter -
mediary is completely unnecessary and
cannot help but cloud still further the
l.ood intentions of the United States.
Let us face the fact that our virtual oc-
cupation of the Dominican Republic and
our current, undisguised intention of in-
stalling a new government favorable to
the United States is not exactly enhanc-
ing our standing or our good name in
the Western Hemisphere. It is a dirty
business at best.
But we are making it dirtier by includ-
ing in our dealings a paid lobbyist who
has advertised his claimed connections
with the President by advising his cli-
ents in Central America that in 1960 he
had assurances from the "L.B.J. policy
board" that there will be a general
housecleaning of the policymakers of the
State Department for Central America,
and that the same "L.B.J. policy board"
had also promised him "first refusal for
representations-ambassadorial, mili-
tary, et al."
Mr. Davidson made these claims in a
letter to Senor Luis Somoza, of Nicara-
gua, its President, and one of his clients,
In a letter dated July 7, 1960. This let-
ter and Mr. Davidson's testimony about
it came up in the inquiry of the Foreign
Relations Committee into the activities
of agents for foreign governments. I
ask unanimous consent that portions of
the testimony of Mr. Davidson before
the committee In 1963 be printed at the
conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
4See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, Mr.
Davidson is an influence peddler.
Among his clients in 1963 were Presi-
dent Somoza of Nicaragua, Ecuadorian
sugar interests, Israel military interests,
and economic and military interests of
Indonesia. On behalf of these clients,
he seeks grants and loans under the for-
eign aid program and sugar quotas.
Today, Mr. Davidson's clients also in-
clude President Duvalier of Haiti, and a
Texas company controlled by the Mur-
chison family. Two weeks ago, the Jus-
tice Department asked Mr. Davidson t D
register as a representative of Mr. Bala-
quer as well, which he has not done on
the ground that his relations with Bala-
quer were conducted at the request of
the State Department.
One of the items that was included in
our hearing record was a letter from Mr.
Davidsonto President Somoza in 1956, in
which he told him:
The colonel is cooperating with me on sev-
eral good public relations moves, which will
be very beneficial for Nicaragua. For in-
stance. he has taken five tickets for the Eisen-
hower dinner to be held here on January 20.
These tickets, which sell for $100 each are
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600130002-0
 r~tre PO1 T I
TT
0
UNCLASSIFIED CONFIDENTIAL
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
OFFICIAL ROUTING SLIP
TO
NAME AND ADDRESS
DATE
INITIALS
I
Mr. Elder 7D5617
2
3
4
5
6
ACTION
DIRECT REPLY
PREPARE REPLY
APPROVAL
DISPATCH
RECOMMENDATION
COMMENT
FILE
RETURN
CONCURRENCE
INFORMATION
SIGNATURE
Remarks :
Your attention is called to page 12646.
FOLD HERE TO RETURN TO SENDER
FROM: NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NO.
DATE
Legislative Counsel, 6D0109
UNCLASSIFIED CO 1F AL
FORM NO. 237 Use previous editions
2-61 G I