FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 18
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 9, 2005
• Sequence Number: 22
• Publication Date: December 10, 1974
• Content Type: OPEN

} ~~1123t
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
December 10, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
there is hereby authorized to be appropriated
not to exceed $10,000,000.?
(3) For the purpose of carrying out the
provisions of subsection (b) of section 19,
there, is hereby authorized to be appropriated
not to exceed $500,000.
(4) For the purpose of carrying out the
provisions of subsection (b) of section 14,
there is hereby authorized to be appropriated
not to exceed $5,500,000.
(5) There is hereby authorized to be ap-
propriated annually not to exceed $500,000
for-the expenses of the Commission.
(6) There is hereby authorized to be ap-
propriated notto exceed $500,000 for the
services and expenses of the Mediator and
the assistants and. consultants retained by
him: Provided, That, any contrary provision
of law notwithstanding, until such time as
funds are appropriated and made available
pursuant to this authorization, the Director
of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service is authorized to provide for the serv-
other appropriated funds availabl to him
and to reimburse such appropriati s when
funds are appropriated pursuant t this au-
thorizatiori, such reimbursement t e cred-
ited to appropriations currently vailable
(b) The funds appropriated p>]uant to
the authorizations provided in thinct shall
SEC. 26. Section 10 of the Act e led "An
Act to promote the rehabIlitati of the
Navajo and Hopi Tribes of I~.idi and a
better utilization of the resour of the
Navajo and Hopi Indian Reserva ns, and
for other purposes", approved Apr 9, 1950
(64 Stat. 47; 25 U.S.C. 640) is repea d effec-
?tive close of business December 31, 74.
Amend the title so as to read: n Act
to provide for final settlement of e con-
flicting rights and interests of the pi and
Navajo 'Tribes to and in lands lyin within
the joint use area of the reservatio estab-
lished by the Executive ' order of ember
16, 1882, and lands lying within the nerva-
tion created by the Act of June 14, 1 4, and
Mr. MEEDS (during the reading). ? Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
further reading of the Senate amend-
ments be dispensed with and that they
be printed in the RECORD.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Wash-
ington?
There was no objection.
The Senate amendments were con-
curred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to re-
vise and extend their remarks on the
legislation just considered.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Washington?
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, and I shall not ob-
ject, will the gentleman himself extend
in the RECORD an explanation of these
amendments?
Mr. MEEDS. I will.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I with-
draw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there abjection to
the request of the gentleman from Wash-
ington?
There was no objection.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to
state that I was not allowed to record
my vote on H.R. 5385, the Surface Trans-
portation Act of 1974. I placed my card
in the appropriate box, and my name was
not recorded as voting at the time.
PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON
WAYS AND MEANS TO FILE A RE-
PORT ON H.R. 17597, EMERGENCY
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
Mr. ULLMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee
on Ways and Means may have until mid-
night tonight to file a report on the bill
H.R. 17597, to provide a program of
emergency unemployment compensa-
tion, along with any separate, dissent-
the request of the gentleman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961
Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,
by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 1468 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows:
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall he in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
1774) to-amend the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961, and for other purposes. After gen-
eral debate, which shall be confined to the
bill and shall continue not to exceed two
hours, to be equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority mem-
ber of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the
bill shall be read for amendment under the
five-minute rule by titles instead of by sec-
tions. At the conclusion of the consideration
of the bill for amendment, the Committee
shall.rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as may have been
adopted, and the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amend-
ments thereto to final passage without inter-
vening motion except one motion to re-
commit.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. MURPHY) is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,
I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. QUILLEN), pend-
ing which I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Mr. MURPHY of Illinois asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,
House Resolution 1468 provides for an
open rule with 2 hours of general debate
on H.R. 17234, a bill to amend the For-
eign Assistance Act of 1961. House Reso-
lution 1468 provides that the bill shall be
read for amendment by titles instead of
by sections.
H.R. 17234 states the sense of Con-
gress that no aid should be given to any
nation in the Middle East which denies
its citizens the right to emigrate. It ear-
marks $100 million in military grant aid
for Israel; $250 million each in security
H 11529
supporting assistance to Israel and
Egypt; and $200 million in military
credit sales to Israel.
H.R. 17234 repeals the $15.0 million
ceiling on U.S. military aid and credit
sales to Latin America, but it retains the
present $40 million ceiling for Africa
while adding Presidential authority to
waive the limitation.
H.R. 17234 also limits economic and
military assistance to India in fiscal year
1975 to $50 million. It also establishes a
prohibition on further military assist-
ance or sales to Turkey until the Presi-
dent certifies to the Congress that a
"substantial good faith effort" is being
made by Turkey toward achieving a
settlement on Cyprus.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of'
House Resolution 1468 in order that we
may discuss, debate, and pass H.R. 17234.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman
from. Tennessee (Mr. QUILLEN).
(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
The distinguished gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. MURPHY) has ably explained
the provisions of the resolution. This is
the Foreign Assistance Act. Whatever
our view on foreign aid might be, I see
no reason for not debating the bill on
the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker, and
I urge the adoption of the resolution so
we can get down to debate on the foreign
assistance bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,
I have no request for time.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous ques-
tion on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken, and the
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. HOSMER.. Mr. Speaker, I object
to the vote on the ground that a quorum
is not present and make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is
not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-
sent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were-yeas 322, nays 58,
not voting 54, as follows:
[Roll No. 667]
YEAS-322
Abdnor
Blatnik
Burton, Phillip
Abzug
Boggs
Butler
Adams
Boland
Carter
Addabbo
Bolling
Casey, Tex.
Alexander
Bowen
Cederberg
Anderson, Ill.
Brademes
Chamberlain
Andrews,
Bray
Chappell
N.Iink.
Breaux
Chisholm
Annunzio
Breckinridge
Clark
Archer
Brooks
Clausen,
Arends
Broomfield
Don H,
Armstrong
Brotzman
Clay
Ashley
Brown, Calif.
Cleveland
Aspin
Broyhill, N.C.
Cohen
Badillo
Broyhill, Va.
Collier
Baker
Buchanan
Collins, Ill.
Beard
Burgener
Conable
Bell
Burke, Calif.
Conte
Bergland
Burke, Fla.
Conyers
Biaggi
Burke, Mass.
Corman
Biester
Burleson, Tex.
Cotter
Bingham
Burlison, Mo.
Coughlin
Blackburn
Burton, John
Crane
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
 1-111530
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE December 10, 19.7/
Cronin Kazen Roncalio, Wyo.
Culver Kemp Rooney, Pa.
Daniel, Dan Ketchum Rose
Daniel, Robert King Rosenthal
W., Jr. Kluczynski Rostenkowski
Daniels, Koch Roush
Dominick V. Kyros Roy
Danielson Lagomaraino Roybal
Davis. Ga. Latta Ruppe
lie la Garza Leggett Ruth
Delaney Lehman Ryan
Dellenback , Lent St Germain
Dennis Litton Sandman
Derwinski Long, La. Sarasin
Devine Long, Md. Sarbanes
Dickinson Lujan Satterfield
Diggs McClory Scherle
Dingell McCloskey Schroeder
Donahue McCormack Sebellus
Downing McEwen Seiberling
Drinan McKay Shoup
Duncan McKinney Shriver
Eckhardt Madigan
Edwards, Ala. Mahon
Edwards, Calif. Mallary
Eilberg Mann
Erlenborn Martin, NO.
Fsch Mateunaga
'vans, Colo. Mayne
Fascell Mazzola
Findley Meeds
Fish Melcher
Flood Metcalfe
Flowers Mezvinsky
Shuster
Sikes
Sisk
Skubitz
Slack
Smith, Iowa
Smith, N.Y.
Staggers
Stanton,
J. William
Stanton,
James V.
Stark
Foley Michel Steele
Forsythe Minish Steelman
Fountain Mink Steiger, Wis.
Fraser Mitchell, Md. Stokes
Frclinghuysen Mitchell, N.Y. Stratton
Frenzel Mizell Stubblefield
Froehlich Moakley Studds
Fulton. Mollohan Sullivan
Fuqua Moorhead, Symington
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Green, Oreg.
Green, Pa.
Grover
Gubser
Girds
Guyer
Hamilton
Hammer-
Calif. Talcott
Moorhead, Pa. Taylor, N.O.
Morgan_ Teague
Mosher Thompson, N.J.
Moss Thomson, Wis.
Murphy, Ill. Towell, Nev.
Murtha Treen
Myers s Udall
Natcher Ullman
Nedzi Van Deerlin
Nelsen. Vander Veen
Nix Vanik
Obey Veysey
cchmidt O'Brien Waggonner
Hartley O'Neill Waldle
Hanrahan Owens Walsh
Hansen, Idaho Parris Wampler
Harrington Patman Ware
Hastings Patten Whalen
Hawkins Pepper White
Hechler, W. Va. Perkins Whitehur5t
Heinz Pettis Widnall
Helstoski Peyser Wiggins
Hillis Pickle Williams
Hinshaw Powell. Ohio Wilson, Bob
Hogan Price, Ill. Wilson,
Holt Price, Tex. Charles, Tex.
Holtzman Pritchard Winn
Horton Quie Wolff
Hosmer Quillen Wright
Hudnut Raileback Wyatt
Hungate Randall
Hunt Rangel
Hutchinson Rees
Ichord Regula
Johnson, Calif. Reuss
Johnson, Colo. Rhodes
Johnson, Pa. Riegle
W.ydler
Yates
Yatron
Young, Alaska
Young, Ga.
Young, Ill.
Young, S.C.
Jones, Ala. Rinaldo Young, Tex.
Jones, Okla. Roberts Zablocki
Jones, Tenn. Robinson, Vs. Zion
Jordan. Robison; N.Y. Zwe ch
Karth Rodino
Kastenmeier Roe
NAYS-58
Anderson, Dent Martin, Nebr.
Calif. Dorn 'Mathis, Ga,
Andrews, N.C. Flynt Miller
Ashbrook Frey- Montgomery
Bafalls Gayd.os Nichols
Bauman
Bennett
Bevill
Brinkley
Byron
Camp
Cochran
Collins, Tex.
Conlan
Davis, S.C.
Davis, Wis.
Denholm
Ginn Pike
Gross Poage
Gunter Ranch
Haley Rogers
Hansen, Wash. Rousselot
Harsha Runnela
Henderson Shipley
Huber Snyder
Landgrebe Spence
Land SL d
rum
Stuckey Whitten Wylie
Symms Wilson, Young, Fla.
Thone Charles H.,
Vigorito Calif.
NOT VOTING-54
Barrett Griffiths Milford
Brasco Hanna Mills
Brown, Mich. Hays Manahan, Ohio
Brown, Ohio Hebert Murphy. N.Y.
Carey, N.Y. Heckler, Mass. O'Hara
Carney, Ohio Hicks Passman
Clancy Hollfleld Podell
Clawson, Del Howard Pneyet
Dellums Jarman Reid
Dulski Jones, N.O. Roncallo, N.Y.
Eshleman Kuykendaii Rooney, N.Y.
Evans, Tenn. Luken Schneebell
Fisher McDade Taylor, Mo.
Ford McFall Thornton
Giaimo McSpadden Tiernan
Goldwater Macdonald Traxler
Grasso Maraziti Vander Jagt
Gray Mathias, Calif. Wyman
So the resolution was agreed to.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
Mr. Hays with Mr. Dulski.
Mr. Hebert with Mr. Fisher.
Mr, Murphy of New York With Mrs. Grasso,
Mr. Ford with Mrs. Griffiths.
Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Hanna,
Mr.. Giairno with Mr. Holifield.
Mr, Howard with Mr. Clancy.
Mr. Jarman with Mr, Luken.
Mr. Macdonald with Mr. Brown of Ohio.,
Mr. McFall with Mr. KuykendalL-
Mr. Evins of Tennessee with Mr. Brown.
of Michigan.
Mr. Carney of Ohio with Mr. Goldwater,.
Mr. Barrett with Mr. Del Clawson.
Mr. Dellunis with Mr. Gray.
Mr.. Passrnan with Mr. Eshleman..
Mr. Hicks with Mr. Maraziti.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina with Mr.
Mathias of California.
Mr. McDade with Mr. McSpadden.
Mr, Milford with W. Mills.
Mr. O'Hara with Mr. Minshall of- Ohio.
Mrs. Heckler of Massachusetts with Mr.
Reid.
Mr. Preyer with Mr. R,onoallo of New York.
Mr. Thornton with Mr. Schneebeli.
Mr. Traxler with Mr. Taylor of Missouri.
Mr. Vander Jagt with Mr. T1.ernan.
Mr. Carey of New York with Mr. Wyman.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
Mr. MORGAN. M:r. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 17234) to amend the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and for
other purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
MURTHA). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania.
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WBGLE
Accordingly the House resolved Itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill H.R. :L7234, with
Mr. PRICE of Illinois in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the: first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed, with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. MOR-
(;AN) will be recognized for 1. hour, and
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
FRELI)?IGHUYSEN) will be recognized for
1 hour. '
Lott
Stelger,asrls, The Chair recognizes the gentleman ommended a bill authorizing $2,643,300,-
MecouApproved For Release 2005%616~? : ( A- !~=0095i01 fU6 o lal security-mili?-
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. MORGAN asked and was given
permission to revise. and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, now
that the second session of the 93d Con-
gress is drawing to a close, we once
again turn our attention to a program
which has been an important part of
our foreign policy for the past quarter
of a century.
We all know it as the foreign aid pro-
gram.
During the past 11 months, this body
has considered more than 1,500 bills and
resolutions.
Most-nearly alI-of those measures
have dealt with our national defense and
economy-with programs important to
the security and well-being of our peo-
ple.
We have debated and voted on bills
relating to our domestic employment and
unemployment-health and education--
transportation--social security-veter-
ans benefits-and- many other subjects.
Those programs directly affect the
lives of 213 million American people.
They account for 98 percent of our
$300 billion national budget.
They deserve--and have received-
our first attention,
Now, however, the time has come to
look again beyond our borders---at the
larger world in which our country must
survive and prosper.
It is a world which Is. very troubled
today-and. which faces more difficult
problems than we Americans do.
It is a world in which peace and se-
curity are still very elusive-and in which
violence, and danger of war, are always
present.
And it is a world which is suffer-
ing from massive inflation-high unem-
ployment-and widespread starvation.
Before this year is finished, thousands
more will die of hunger-and many mil-
lions will greet the new year with empty
stomachs-and little or no hope of ever
earning a decent livelihood.
The United States is a part of that
larger world.
We exist in it-and we cannot divorce
ourselves from it.
As the oil crisis has shown, our se-
curity and our economic progress are -
affected by it.
And so is our national spirit-the
spirit which has made us a great Na-
tion-and made us try to bring peace
and better life to those who need our
help.
Mr. Chairman, the bill which we will
debate this afternoon is Important to
our relations with the world outside our
borders.
It is also important to the future of
our own country.
,Our committee has spent more than 5
months working on this bill.
We have heard many witnesses.-Prom
the Government and from the private
sector-and we have spent a long time
marking it up.
In the end, we have cut $609,400,000
from the President's request-and rec-
 Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
Iecember 10, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
tary sales-and development assistance
programs in fiscal 1975.
Briefly, the major provisions of H.R.
1,7234 are as follows:
THE MIDDLE EAST
Title I, the "Middle East peace pack-
age," is probably the most urgent portion
of the bill. Action on it is required to
support efforts being made to prevent
another Arab-Israeli conflict which
could bring about a new oil embargo and
threaten world peace.
Specifically, the Middle East package
provides $550 million for Israel; $250
million for Egypt; $202 million for Jor-
dan; and $100 million for a special re-
quirements fund.
These figures include economic aid,
military assistance, and . military sales
credits.
In recommending these amounts, our
committee modified the Executive request
-in these respects:
First, we reduced the $300 million pro-
gramed for Israel for military sales by
$100 million, and provided that same
amount in the form of grant military aid;
The committee also increased security
supporting assistance for Israel raising
the total amount of aid authorized for
that country $200 million above the
Executive request.
Second, we earmarked $6 million of the
special requirements funds for the U.N.
Relief and Works Agency which cares
for the Palestinian refugees, to help off-
set a part of its deficit;
Third, we prohibited the use of the
fund for the financing of any nuclear
plants for Egypt or Israel;
And, finally, we reaffirmed the sense
of the Congress about withholding aid
from countries which do not allow their
citizens the right of emigration.
Mr. Chairman, in the opinion of the
President and of the Secretary of State,
this "Middle East peace package" Is
necessary to keep some measure of sta-
bility in that area, and to get the parties
concerned moving on reconstruction
projects.
I want to add that there is no program
under this title for any assistance to
Arab oil exporters.
INDOCHINA AID
For the countries of Indochina, the
committee recommends $573,400,000 for
fiscal year 1975-a cut of $366,400,000 in
the administration's request.
The committee has given this part of
the foreign aid program very close atten-
tion and recommended a sharp reduction
of nearly 40 percent below the Executive
request.
While we believe that the Executive's
request was too high, the committee
agreed that a reasonable level of aid was
justified.
The funds authorized here will help
reconstruction efforts and refugee pro-
grams in South Vietnam, Laos and-
hopefully-enable Cambodia to survive
until it can work out a peace settlement.
In the past, Congress has been critical
of the President's authority to transfer
foreign aid funds from one program to
another.
Our bill limits aid to South Vietnam,
Laos, and Cambodia to the authority
provided in title U.
The President would be permitted to
use other foreign aid funds in Indochina
only by using a waiver which would be
subject to a concurrent resolution veto
by Congress.
The committee also approved an
amendment which would shift military
aid to South Vietnam from the DOD
budget to the foreign aid authorization
for fiscal year 1976.
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
The bill also provides $226,700,000 for
development assistance and other inter-
national economic aid programs-a re-
duction from the administration's re-
quest of about $63 million.
As Members may recall, last year's for-
eign aid bill contained a fundamental re-
form in the U.S. aid program.
The purpose of that reform was to stop
aid programs which could be better
handled by the private sector and inter-
national institutions-and to direct U.S.
development assistance toward the poor
majority in the developing countries.
As the World Food Conference in Rome
recently underlined, the most desperate
need in this area is for food aid.
Therefore, the committee recommends
that the bulk of the development assist-
ance funds-over $180 million-be used
to help the poorest countries to increase
their food production.
In a related area, the committee cut
the contingency fund by $25 million and
prohibited the use of-those funds to pay
for gifts to foregin government officials;
$15 million of the $25 million cut from
the contingency fund is earmarked for
emergency famine and disaster relief.
WORLDWIDE SECUEITY ASSISTANCE
In the area of worldwide security as-
sistance-other than the funds pro-
gramed for the Middle East and Indo-
china-the bill provides $427 million for
grant military aid, $175 million for mili-
tary sales, and $7.5 million for support-
ing assistance.
The committee cut these categories of
aid by $190 million.
This part of the bill also places ceil-
ings on military aid to Korea and to
Chile and prohibits military aid to Tur-
key until that country makes a "good
faith" effort to reach a peaceful settle-
ment on Cyprus.
OTHER PROVISIONS
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the committee
approved several provisions which
.strengthen congressional control over
foreign aid spending and give Congress
improved oversight of our foreign policy
in general.
Among those are arrr8ndments which:
Give the Congress veto power-by con-
current resolution-over any transfer of
development funds to military aid;
Limit economic and military assistance,
to India to $50 million in fiscal year 1975;
and
For the first time, put strong restric-
tions on the use of the Central Intelli-
gence Agency for operations in foreign
countries which go beyond collection of
Intelligence.
These are the major provisions of the
bill before you. The Foreign Affairs Com-
mittee approved this legislation by a
voice vote and the Individual provisions
H 11531
which were voted in were passed by bi-
partisan majorities.
Mr. Chairman, as the first speaker on
this bill, I will be the first to admit that
the bill is not perfect-and that it in-
volves a large outlay of money.
At the same time, I would like my
colleagues to remember that most of this
money will be spent right here in the
United States-creating jobs-and pay-
ing for the products of our factories and
of our farmers.
I would also urge my colleagues to con-
sider these three points:
First, that peace is a lot cheaper than
war.
This applies especially to the Middle
East package which accounts for more
than 40 percent of the funds in this bill.
Second, that while we are still provid-
ing a lot of aid to Asia, our expenditures
in that region have gone down by more
than 90 percent in recent years-and will
go down even further if peace prevails
in Indochina.
And, finally, that most of the develop-
ment money in this bill will go to fight
starvation and hunger-by helping the
less developed countries Increase their
production of food, and manage their
population growth.
I cannot see how we-the strongest
and the largest consuming nation in the
world--can deny them this help.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that. our do-
mestic: situation puts many of us under
heavy pressure to vote against this bill.
I hope, however, that we will not do
this.
I hope that, instead, the House will
take a long-range view of what is really
in the interest of our Nation and sup-
port this legislation.
With all of its Imperfections-and the
bill certainly does not satisfy everyone
here-this is the best bill that our com-
mittee could produce this year.
And it is clearly in our national inter-
est.
I urge that the bill be approved.
Mr. BENITEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MORGAN. I yield to the Delegate
from Puerto Rico.
Mr. BENITEZ. I thank the gentleman
from yielding.
I wish to refer to section 34 of the bill
entitled "Involvement of Puerto Rico In
the Caribbean Development Bank." I
should. like to say to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania, as I
understand it, the purpose of this section
Is. threefold:
First, to clear up all possible questions
concerning the propriety of the Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico if it so chooses
to apply for and become in its own right
a member of the Caribbean Development
Bank. This objective is covered by the
authorizing language in section A.
Second, the bill intends to make it per-
fectly clear that whatever commitments
Puerto Rico makes are to be made and
to be accepted on the basis of Puerto
Rico's own responsibility and will not In-
volve in any way any legal or other re-
sponsibility on the part of the U.S. Gov-
ernment. This is covered In section B.
Third, the bill also wishes to makO
clear that the United States is not at-
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
 11 11532
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD'=HOUSE December 10, 1974
tempting to use Puerto Rico as a sort of
left-handed way of withdrawing funds
contributed by U.S. banks. Section C
endeavors to make this objective clear.
The government of Puerto Rico agrees
fully with these reservations and has no
interest whatsoever in taking advantage
in any way of its special and fruitful re-
lationship with the United States in deal-
ing with its neighbors in the Caribbean
region.
Given the overall purpose as well as
the basic coincidence of views as to the
desirability of participation, it would in-
deed be unfortunate if the language used
to provide safeguards and to clarify pur-
poses were to be misinterpreted and
twisted around so as to negate those
very objectives we jointly wish to
achieve. For instance, some of this lan-
guage and some of the committee report
language might be misread to imply that
Puerto Rico is to be precluded from par-
ticipating in policymaking discussions
when moneys which contain, in whole or
in part, U.S. funds are involved, and
since moneys coming from the United
States would not be kept in separate ac-
counts, but would form part of a general
fund, such interpretation might result in
negating any participation on fiscal mat-
ters. Under such terms, Puerto Rico
would be handicapped to such an extent
as to make it useless to participate in
such enterprises.
Now, therefore, I wish to ask the dis-
tinguished floor manager of this bill what
is the correct interpretation to be at-
tached to these provisions.
Mr. MORGAN. I am glad to clarify the
issues raised. Our intention is to facili-
tate Puerto Rico's participation in the
activities of the Caribbean Development
Bank. We think such participation will
be good for the Bank, good for Puerto
Rico, and good for the United States. We
think there must be a full understanding
between Puerto Rico and the State De-
partment. We appreciate that once there
is such general understanding with the
State Department, and once Puerto Rico
enters the Caribbean Development
Bank, then Puerto Rico must operate on
its own. It is not to be regarded by any-
one as an agent of the United States but
exclusively as its own agent. Further-
more, we think it is to everybody's ad-
vantage that no scintilla of suspicion
exists anywhere as to the intention of
Puerto Rico or of the United States that
Federal funds are not to be diverted to-
ward Puerto Rico via the Caribbean De-
velopment Bank. We wish Puerto Rico
the best of success.
Does this answer the gentleman's ques-
tion?
Mr. BENITEZ. Yes it does, thank you
very much. Given these clarifications, I
wish to state that we fully support tho
Proposed section 34.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MORGAN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, the gen-
tleman thinks this is not a perfect bill
and I find myself in solemn agreement
with him on that score. But I wonder
why we do not have something at least
approaching a perfect bill. Today is De-
cember 10, and I believe we convened on
January :20 of this year. Is it because
there has been a great deal of foot drag-
ging and in-and-out consideration of this
bill for the reason that it bestows an-
other $2.6 billion or $2.7 billion on as-
sorted foreigners around the world? Or
has the administration not been sure
that the votes are available to pass this
bill? What is the reason that we get it at
this late date?
Mr. MORGAN. The gentleman is a
very distinguished member of the Com-
mittee on Foreign Affairs. He works hard
and he attended the hearings. Of course,
he knows the bill did not come up from
downtown until the middle of May. Since
then we have had recesses in the sum-
mer, in August, also over Memorial Day
and the Fourth of July. We had long
hearings and we were 5 weeks in the
markup. Now that we have moved Into
open sessions on the markups, they are
much longer, as the gentleman knows,
because the Members like to perform in
front of an audience, so the markup took
a longer time. We finally finished the
markup and got the bill out of the com-
mittee by a voice vote just 2 days before
we went home for, the election recess.
Then, of course, we came back and I
went to the Rules Committee and we
got a rule. It was not a matter of delib-
erate delays but hard work of the coma-
mittee and the many complex issues
which arose during the past 6 months.
The gentleman knows that as a, member
of the committee.
Mr. GROSS. Is it here now because we
are approaching the Christmas season
and this Government would like to tell
the rest of the world that it has a nice
$2.6 billion or $2.7 billion Christmas
present for them?
Mr. MORGAN. They might have that
feeling. It has never been my purpose to
give out Christmas presents around
Christmas with other than my own
money. I like to spend my own money
when I give Christmas presents.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORGAN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Colorado.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr.
Chairman, what is the rationale behind
giving India any military money?
Mr. MORGAN. It is not military
money. This is economic aid solely. There
is no military money for India.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. The limi-
tation is set at $50 million for economic
and military aidIs the gentleman tell-
ing us there is no military aid?
Mr. MORGAN. It is all economic aid.
The President requested $75 million and
there were some amendments offered in
the committee to eliminate it all, but it
finally was reduced to $50 million, but it
is economic aid.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado.. I thank
the gentleman for that assurance.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. MORGAN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa,,
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, the dis-
cussion in the committee centered
around fertilizer; did it not?
Mr. MORGAN. Not for India but for
South Vietnam,
Mr. GROSS. No, for India.
Mr. MORGAN. As far as I know I do
not think there is any fertilizer for India.
But there could be some since the $50
million is intended primarily to help
them increase food production.
Mr. GROSS. I thought that was $75
million, reduced to $50 million now in
the bill, for fertilizer for India?
Mr. MORGAN. I think it is mostly for
grain and other food production.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. MORGAN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Colorado.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Chair-
man, would the gentleman explain how
much increase the committee voted for
Israel over what the administration re-
quested and why?
Mr. MORGAN. I am not the author
of the Israel aid amendments. I am not
sure any of the Members present in the
Chamber were.
Israel never received any military
grant in assistance except at the end of
last year, after the Yom Kippur war,
when the Congress provided $2.2 billion
in military aid-part of it on grant
basis at the discretion of the President.
The fiscal year 1975 program called for
$300 million in military sales and $50
million in supporting assistance. Many
Members felt they should have some
grant assistance and that is the reason
the $100 million in sales was changed to
$100 million in grant assistance. Other
Members thought the supporting assist-
ance for Israel was too small and they
wanted some balance in the allocations
between Israel, Jordan, and Egypt-and
there was. an amendment offered to in-
crease the supporting assistance au-
thorization.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Did that
total about $2.2 billion?
Mr. MORGAN. $250 million. The $2.2
billion was approved last year, right after
the Yom Kippur war, to preserve some
balance in the Middle East.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. On page
24 there is $3.28 billion. Does that mean
they are behind in that amount?
Mr. MORGAN. No. I think they are
pretty well up on their payments.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. What does
that current account deficit mean?
Mr. MORGAN. What page is that on?
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. The top
of page 24, Israel's current account
deficit. It says it is expected to exceed
$3.28 billion by the end of 1974.
Mr. MORGAN. That is their trade-
export and import account for the year.
That is the country's current deficit.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MORGAN. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. WOLFF. That is the result of the
$2.2 billion that was given to Israel in
the supplementary appropriation and,
as I understand, It is not the current
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
 Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
Beeember 10, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL, RECORD -HOUSE
amount, but it is the amount flowing
from the United States overall.
Mr.. JOHNSON of Colorado. That is
not in arrears, that is just the total
deficit they owe.
Mr. WOLFF. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. We are
talking about the humanitarian aid in
this bill. It Is a $2.2 billion bill and the
way I add it up we get only $250 million
for humanitarian aid and the rest goes
for military sales; is that it?
Mr. MORGAN. There is $1,486 million
in the bill for various types of economic
assistance, $405 million for military sales,
and $745 million for military aid. Large
part of the economic aid-disaster aid,
refugee aid, postwar reconstruction in
Indochina and the Middle East, and food
aid--can be classified as humanitarian
aid.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the
Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania (Mr. MORGAN)
has already indicated why this bill (H.R.
17234) is important. I agree whole-
heartedly with what he said. At the out-
set of my own remarks, I should like to
pay tribute to the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania (Mr. MORGAN). He- has been a
good chairman and he has guided us
through many difficult situations with
considerable skill. .
After 22 years of participation in the
deliberations of this body, I would like to
pay tribute to a man who have taken re-
sponsibility and handled It well. I would
like to rise here today also-for the last
time-in defense of foreign aid and in
support of this bill (H.R. 17234).
In that connection, I should like to
read a letter which I received from the
President of the United States yesterday.
I shall ask permission when we go into
the House to have the entire letter in-
serted. It begins as follows:
Tim WHrrz HOUSE,
Washington, December 9, 1974.
Hon. PETER H. B. FRELINGHUYSEN,
U.S, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.G.
PEAR PETER: Recently,. I completed my first
visit abroad as President of the United
States. In my talks with the leaders of each
country visited, I was again impressed with
the vital responsibility which the United
States carries- for building peace in the
world and with the need for a strong, active
American diplomacy to achieve this objec-
tive. It is clear that the continuity and
strength of our political, economic, and social
policies depends upon our purposeful and
wise involvement in the international com-
munity. More than that, it is clear to me that
we must fashion a role of leadership-in our
own interest and that of others=If the po-
sibilities for conflict between nations are not
to preempt the possibilities of cooperation.
In dealing with the urgent needs of our
world-security needs, economic needs,
emergency relief, development needs-we
have a proven and highly flexible tool,
namely foreign assistance. More than any
other device, it can help to shape peaceful
relationships in a world still plagued by
hostilities, social unrest, critical shortages
and turmoil. United states assistance is iden-
tified with humanitarian goals, with oom-
monality of security interests and with the
moral obligation of our democracy to support
the political and economic interests of many
of the world's peoples.
Foreign assistance can be a means of as-
suring not only stability but also progress.
In both cases it can help assure peace. We
risk much in reducing or restricting foreign
assistance. We risk the moderation of our
adversaries and the self-reliance of our
friends. We risk a world which others shape
to their own liking and to the possible detri-
ment of our interests. .
Two areas illustrate our dilemma and our
opportunity very clearly: the Middle East
and Southeast Asia. .
In both areas our assistance programs sup-
port our peacemaking role.- In both our aid
will help keep alive the hope for negotiation.
In both our aid will contribute to the secu-
rity of countries whose needs are great and
friendship firm. In both our past commit-
ments are being tested in the eyes of a world
which is gauging our reliability for the fu-
ture. In both we are looking not just for a
temporary truce but for reassuring social
and economic progress.
In a broader context, nothing has demon-
strated our interdependence with other
countries and their reliance on American
leadership and cooperation more than the
shortages we are facing in food and energy.
For many countries, without the help of our
foreign assistance programs, there would be
starvation and sickness.
We must not neglect the needs of the very
poor. We must not ignore the victims of
famine and disasters. We must not slow the
building of institutions of development in
which cooperation-rather than rivalry-can
spur planning and development.
This does not mean that we can be ex-
travagant; quite the opposite is true. We
must measure the resources which we apply
-to the attainment of foreign policy and na-
tional security objectives with the greatest
care. We mzast not be generous at the expense
of our own economy, or our critical domestic
programs. But we must have legislation
which will provide adequate resources to in-
sure that United States interests abroad are
protected, and which will also provide the
President with sufficient flexibility to use
those resources to the best advantage for
America. To tie the hands of the President
in countering unforeseen circumstances or in
dealing with emergencies would thwart the
Constitution we are all sworn to uphold.
I believe a continuing battle between the
Executive and the Legislative Branches over
the direction of our efforts in foreign policy
and national security would be very detri-
mental to the national good. We must again
look at our role as Americans, and work
together to solve the problems that threaten
our interests throughout the world and at
home.
I know we share a deep concern for the
protection of our national interests and our
national security, and working closely to-
gether we can provide the tools in the For-
eign Assistance Act to meet the challenges
we face throughout the world.
I wanted you to have these thoughts as you
prepare to consider this year's foreign add
authorization.
I hope that I can count on your support
and that of your colleagues in moving toward
early enactment of this most vital piece of
legislation.
Sincerely,
JERRY FORD.
This is an important bill, indeed, In
my opinion an essential one.
I agree with the chairman of our com-
mittee that H.R. 17234 is by no means
a perfect bill; it contains many provisions
and -restrictions which I personally feel
are objectionable and unwise. Many of
them. I - opposed during the committee
debate, but in many instances, by views
did not prevail. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. MORGAN) has clearly
H 11533
explained what is in this bill and its
Importance, and I shall not attempt to
cover that ground again. Nor do I in-
tend to emphasize my own reservations.
about the drastic cuts- which have been
approved by the committee in- its collec-
tive wisdom.
Instead, Mr. Chairman, I should like
to contribute to this debate a positive
note. My intention is to point out what
I believe is essential in the bill, and why
I earnestly believe it should be passed
in its present imperfect form. As I look
back on more than two decades of con-
troversy on this issue, I feel it is especially
Important to consider past, present, and
future alternatives. What, we must ask
ourselves, might the world be like to- -
day-even in its delicate state of 1974-
if the United States had repudiated its
international responsibilities following
World War II? What would Europe be
like today without the Marshall plan?
Or the developing nations without Point
Four and its successor programs of tech-
nical cooperation and development as-
sistance? These programs, I need not re-
mind my colleagues, have been supported
by both major- political parties in the
Congress under the leadership of six
presidents over a period of more than 25
years.
The cost of these programs, as many
of our colleagues are quick to point out,
has been considerable. Some, unfortu-
nately, have been characterized by waste
and mismanagement. But cost must be
measured not only in terms of results
but also against the probable cost of in-
action. Inaction by the Western democ-
racies; in the thirties led to the costliest
and most destructive war in the "history
of human conflict." And the cost of turn-
ing our backs on the developing world -
today could have equally damaging con-
sequences.
Let us consider the results of our for-
eign aid programs: From my vantage
point since 1961 as a member of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee,.help-
ing to oversee foreign aid authorizations
during a decade characterized as the
"decade of development," I can say un-
equivocally that the less developed na-
tions, despite the greatest obstacles-
drought, floods, natural calamities, civil
strife, and turmoil-have achieved more
than even the most optimistic among us
had thought possible- when I took my
seat in Congress in 1953. -
Despite allegations to the contrary,
Mr. Chairman, the international de-
velopment effort is working. In the last
decade-the 1960's-the less developed
economies as a whole grew at an average
rate of 5.6 percent. This exceeds-I re-
peat, exceeds-the rate of growth in the
industrialized countries during compar-
able periods in their history.
On the agricultural front, the intro-
duction of high-yield varieties of wheat,
corn and rice, and the massive quanti-
ties of commercial fertilizer through the
U.S. foreign aid program has increased
food production in the less developed
countries by an encouraging 36 percent.
Andlet us always remember, Mr. Chair-
man, that an increase in local food pro-
duction Is always cheaper in the long
run than is the shipment of emergency
food supplies directly from the United
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
 11 11534
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE December 10, 1974
States. Again, we must consider the cost
of failing to do what is necessary.
In industrial terms, manufacturing
)utput in the developing countries has
crown an astonishing 92 percent. As a
notable example, the rapid growth of in-
dustry in Korea boosted that country's
;rocs national production to a record 9-.
percent average for the decade-almost
aouhle the growth of the 1950's. Taiwan
s another example of what a vigorous
elf--help effort can accomplish-when
supplemented by outside assistance.
mere are many other impressive ex-
smples of this trend-too numerous to
mention and analyze at this time.
But let me turn from the past record
of accomplishment to the present busi-
ness at hand-and the challenges which
he ahead. We all recognize, I believe, the
precarious nature of the world's economy.
We are increasingly conscious of the sig--
xnificance of the major shifts of assets
from the industrialized to the oil-produc-
ing nations. We cannot help but be aware
e>f the dangers inherent in the tenuous
balance still being preserved in the Mid-
dle East. If we are truly concerned about
ost, let us consider for a moment the
Bost to the United States alone-not to
mention our NATO allies-which re?-
:,ulted from last year's Yom Kippur war
and the subsequently imposed Arab oil.
boycott. Even more Important, let us con-
;ider also the possible effects of another,
disastrous conflagration.
I do not for a moment contend that we
e;an "buy" peace in the Middle East
through the simple expedient of a gener-
ous commitment to foreign assistance. At
this somber stage-when lines appear to
he hardening on both sides, particularly
over the Palestinian question-it is diffi-
cult even to predict whether another out-
break of hostilities can be avoided at all.
'What can be stated with assurance, how-
ever, is .that every possible effort must be
made to avoid such a calamity. In this
connection I commend President Ford
and Secretary Kissinger for their de-
termination to walk the last mile down
the road in search of a peaceful and
equitable solution. It is absolutely essen-
tial that such efforts be continued and
encouraged despite the obvious obstacles
that lie ahead.
The bill before us today contains a
highly significant Middle East "pack-
age." This package, however, I repeat
will not, by and of itself, secure peace in
that part of the world. It does, however,
provide our Government -and our policy-
makers with a most useful negotiating
tool which could strengthen the case for
a peaceful option. This is a balanced
package. I should add, which offers $250
:trillion in security supporting assistance
to Egypt and Israel alike. It also provides
for a Middle East Special Requirements
Fund, which can be used as circum-
stances require to make negotiations a
more attractive prospect for potential
belligerents. Israel, moreover, is author-
iaed $100 million in MAP assistance and
$200 million in FMS credit sales. These
amounts will contribute to Israel's own
defense at a time when her position is.
critical-indeed, many believe, seriously
threatened.
This investment in a peaceful resolu-
tion of differences-which I repeat may
or may not be attainable--is a modest
one indeed, if we consider some of the
alternatives. The potential cost of re-
newed hostilities, involving the risk of
renewed boycotts and economic retalia-
tion by the oil-producing Arab nations,
renewed demands for Israel's resupply
and the dangers of great power involve-
ment, is astronomic. Again, the economic
risks of passing this authorization bill
are miniscule when compared to the
risks of doing nothing.
This br.11 also attempts to alleviate, to
some small degree, the most compelling
problems of food shortage and famine
and excessive population growth. Again,
I think, we must ask ourselves how long
we can afford to ignore the basic needs
of the economically disadvantaged two-
thirds of the world who by the year 2000
will make up three-quarters of the global
population. And what will be the conse-
quences of inaction for ourselves?
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say a
few words about security assistance,
which is a key element of this legislation.
Military spending; I recognize, is under
mounting attack these days and is be-
coming an. increasingly popular target
for severe cuts. Many, in fact, view se-
curity assistance in the same vein, but
the analogy is inaccurate and in'isleading.
On the contrary, there is no better way
to add to the burdens and the costs of
maintaining a large defense establish-
ment than to curtail severely our invest-
ment in international security assistance,
which is the cornerstone of our strategic
defense policy. That policy has been
based on the long-held, and I believe
reasonable, assumption that by assisting
other countries of strategic importance
to us-countries which are seriously.
committed to their own defense and in-
dependence-we are protecting our own
interests in the area. And this can be
done at far less cost than would be the
case if we were obliged to carry this bur-
den directly.
I recognize, of course, that the defini-
tion of what constitutes "strategic im.-
portance" has been called into question
in recent years. Some critics have argued
that the ultimate tragedy of Vietnam has
been the overcommitment of U.S. forces
and resources to one limited area of the
world. The charge is not without sub-
stance. With the benefit of hindsight, I
am personally convinced that the direct
takeover of all military operittions in
Vietnam by U.S. forces was an error of
judgment. As I stated last March on the
floor of this Chamber, I bear some re-
sponsibility for that decision on the
basis of my voting record.
The point is, however, that the tremen-
dous sacrifice of U.S. lives and treasure
have been made-for better or worse.
Now that U.S. troops have been with-
drawn and a deescalation of the fighting
has been brought about, it would be the
height of folly to cut off supplies of
needed equipment and ammunition at a
time when the Vietnamese, not the
Americans, are carrying the major de-
fense burden. For let it be clearly under-
stood that if we do less than is required,
we shall be contributing not to peace In
Vietnam, but to the likelihood of renewed
and protracted conflict.
In global terms, moreover, another
reality must be understood : there is a
vast area, extending roughly from the
Persian Gulf and Indian ocean to the
far reaches of the Pacific, which is highly
unstable politically and potentially ex-
plosive. A recourse to arms is always a
possibility to be reckoned with--as is the
sudden eruption. of local or regional con-
flicts into worldwide crises in which the
U.S. interest could be seriously and ad-
versely affected.
For this reason, I have long felt it to
be dangerous in the extreme for Congress
to attempt to legislate, on a country-by-
country basis, the level of assistance to be
provided. It Is risky to tinker with our
existing global defense posture without
devising a substitute overall coordinated
plan which will not disrupt the tenuous
balance which still prevails. This is a risk
which the Congress has not yet been
willing or equipped to undertake.
Nevertheless, the argument is made by
a number of our colleagues that the se-
curity assistance program to often has
had the effect of subsidizing authori-
tarian and repressive regimes around the
world to America's detriment.
It is, of course, inevitable that as a
world power, with worldwide responsi-
bilities, we shall at times find ourselves,
in the process of defending oxr own in-
terests, assisting some authoritarian
governments. Unfortunately, if we look
at the state of the world today-as it
exists rather than as we might wish it
existed-we find only a handful of real
"democracies," as Americans would de-
fine that term. Outside of the Western
Hemisphere and Western Europe,
democratic governments are at a pre-
mium. That is true in most of the Near
East and South Asia, in Africa, the Par
East, and Latin America. There are some
obvious and impressive exceptions to this
general rule, which are easily identifiable
for being just that-exceptions.
This leads me to some final comments
about the Thieu government in South
Vietnam, which has been the focus of
much exaggerated and, in my opinion,
unwarranted criticism in recent months.
No one argues that the Republic of Viet-
nam is a perfect, unblemished democ-
racy-which provides its citizens with all
of the constitutional protections which
we are fortunate enough to enjoy. How-
ever, if we look at the total, worldwide
picture-in which authoritarian govern-
ments predominate-I believe the South
Vietnamese do not compare unfavor-
ably-especially for a people which has
no tradition of parliamentary rule and
which has been massively engaged in
domestic conflict for over two decades.
If the GVN is as "repressive" as has
been alleged, the question arises as to
why there is so much evidence of dissent,
which has been covered in such pain-
staking detail by the international news
media. Why do we hear of large demon-
strations, of petitions, and of stormy,
free-swinging parliamentary sessions?
Are these, we might ask, manifestations
of a totalitarian dictatorship? We might
also ask ourselves why, since the de facto
partition of Vietnam In. 1954-55, some
800,000 inhabitants of the North fled to
the South? And why even today are con-
tinuing defections occurring from the
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
 Approved For Release 2005/06/16 CIA=RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
December 16, 1974 CONGR:ESSIYTTAT: ` RIEOffs ` - IbU E
Communist side-with only a trickle
moving in the other direction?
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that the con-
temporary mood is one of disillusionment
and frustration-frustration over past
military involvements and over present
inflation and recession. It is, however, a
dangerous illusion to suppose that we can
have economic recovery at home amid
chaos and instability abroad.
Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by
appealing to all Members, whether or'not
they have supported this type of legisla-
tion in the past-and I extend that ap-
peal to my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle-to consider the overriding issues
at stake, rather than the imperfections
of the bill before us. And I ask them to
ponder also the available alternatives.
For the United States shares one in-
tractable problem with every other na-
tion on this planet: We cannot "stop the
world and get off." History has taught us
that major responsibilities may be post-
poned for a time, but they can never be
completely avoided. The question re-
mains: Postponement for how long-
and at what cost? This is the question
which I leave future Congresses to
answer. And I wish for future Members
the patience of Job, the vision of Moses,
and the wisdom of Solomon.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of
H.R. 17234.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. ALEXANDER).
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise
today during debate on the foreign aid
bill to announce that I shall offer an
amendment on page 30, after line 12,
when we proceed under the 5-minute
rule, for the purpose of establishing the
sense of Congress that the President
shall enter into negotiations with each
country receiving assistance under the
Foreign Aid Act of 1961 which is in de-
fault for more than 90 days prior to the
enactment of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the
Committee on Government Operations,
my Subcommittee on Foreign Operations
has for-4 years conducted hearings on
the status of the repayment of delin-
quent foreign debts. Although some
progress has been made, Mr. Chairman,
it is my considered opinion, which Is
shared by many Members of this body,
that the Department of State lacks the
necessary determination and. dedication
to properly represent the best interests
of the taxpayers of America.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that more is
needed and that my amendment will
take the next step toward the collection
of delinquent foreign debts by express-
ing the sense of Congress that the Pres-
ident shall enter into negotiations with
each country which is. delinquent in the
payment of its debts for more than 90
days.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, will the The gentleman, as most of us, know; them to other countries. Also, funds
gentleman yield2 measures up, in the highest and fullest which had been authorized for economic
Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield to the gen- degree, to his distinguished family name development have been transferred to
tleman from New.York. and tradition. He has given signal lead- military uses.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, I wish to ership in this House and on the Com- There are four amendments in this
congratulate the gentleman on his pro- mittee on Foreign Affairs. It has been a area. One would limit to a 10-percent de-
posed amendment. The gentleman knows rich privilege to work with him and to viatiorL from the backup request the
that for a long time I have attempted to
collect foreign debts owed this Nation
and I have circulated a House resolution
that has more than 235 cosponsors.
One point that I note, however, is that
in the gentleman's amendment, he ex-
cludes the debts owed to us as a result
of World -War I. Those debts are still
legal and binding, and they amount to
well over $12 billion. That money would
come in mighty handy today here at
home.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the
gentleman would include in his amend-
ment World War I debts as well.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, but
for the possibility of a point of order on
this amendment, they would have been
included. I think the gentleman will have
an opportunity later to cross that bridge.
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Michigan.
(Mr. BROOMFIELD asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
also wish to join in paying tribute to
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. ALEX-
ANDER) for his excellent work in this
field on the Committee on Government
Operations.
This is something that I think we have
not really paid much attention to. I think
that if we take Into account what the
gentleman from New York (Mr. WoLr')
has mentioned, as far as World War I
debts are concerned, we are talking about
possibly something in excess of $60 bil-
lion owed to the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I pay tribute to the
gentleman. I support the gentleman's
amendment, and I hope the House will
support the gentleman when he offers
his amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. BvcHANAN)
(Mr. BUCHANAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of this legislation. I be-
lieve the programs herein authorized to
be funded to be in the national interest
of the United States, and, therefore, in
the interest of the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to identify
myself with the remarks of the distin-
guished ranking minority member of the
:a 11535
recognize that leadership.. The Congress
and the country will be poorer by the
gentleman's retirement from the House
at the end of this current session of Con-
gress.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would salute the
distinguished ranking minority member
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and
express my gratitude for. his leadership
in the Congress.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I yield 10 minutes to the gentle-
man from Ohio (Mr. WHALEN).
(Mr. WHALEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WHALEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of H.R. 17234, the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1974.
Mr. Chairman, the measure which we
are considering today bears no resem=
blance to the foreign assistance request
which was introduced in June of this
year and assigned to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs. The committee made ex-
tensive changes in the bill. Actually there
were 65 amendments proposed during the
committee's deliberations; 51 of these
were adopted.
These amendments fall into three dis-
tinct categories. The first category
changes the authorized spending limita-
tions from those proposed in the original
bill. These fall into seven areas.
First, the authorization of last year
for development assistance was reduced
by $75 million. Second, last year's au-
thorization for population planning and
health was increased by the committee
by $20 million in view of the very serious
concerns in this area. Third, last year's
authorization for the United Nations'
Relief and Works Agency was.increased
by $6 million. Fourth, Mr. Chairman,
the funds for postwar Indochina recon-
strucion were reduced from $939 million
to $573 million, or a cut of $366 million.
Fifth, security supporting assistance
was increased by $200 million, from $385
million to $585 million.
I would point out that this $200 million
increase, all of it is earmarked for Israel.
Sixth, the military assistance program
was 'reduced by $240 million, from the
$985 million originally requested to $745
million. Also, of this $745 million, $100
million is earmarked for Israel.
Seventh, foreign military sales are re-
duced by $150 million, from $555 million
to $405 million. .
Mr. Chairman, this represents a re-
Committee on Foreign Affairs, the gen- duction of $609 million from the $3.2
tleman from New Jersey (Mr. FRELING- , billion originally requested by the ad-
HtnrsEN).? I think the statesmanship of ministration.
his remarks spoke well enough for all of The second category of amendments
us and gave us the reasons why we ought imposes restrictions upon the ability of
to pass this bill. the executive branch, to transfer funds
I ought not let this occasion pass with- from one category to another.
out saying a word of appreciation for the A word of explanation here is in order.
leadership of the gentleman himself on In past years the administration often
the Committee on Foreign Affairs and has taken funds which have been re-
in the Congress of the United States. quested for one country and assigned
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA.RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
 Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE December 10, 1974-
amount of funds authorized for any
particular country.
The second amendment prohibits, as
the Chairman pointed out, the transfer
of economic development funds for mili-
tary use.
Third, the President, under the pro-
visions of this bill, is required to report
all military sales involving a total of $25
million or more for any specific item of
equipment.
Fourth, as the Chairman also pointed
out, this bill prohibits the transfer of
nuclear reactors as a part of the assist-
ance provided to the Middle East under
title I of the bill.
The third category of amendments
deals with human rights. A general
statement concerning human rights was
adopted by the committee, and I refer my
colleagues to page 14 of this bill for the
text of this amendment. Also, two specific
human rights amendments were adopted,
one limiting aid to Chile, the other im-
posing restrictions upon military assist-
ance provided to Korea.
Mr. Chairman, I think the bill that
emerged from the Committee on Foreign
Affairs is a substantial improvement
upon the measure that was originally
introduced in June of this year.
I urge the Members of this body to ap-
prove H.R. 17234, and I do so for four
reasons:
First, this bill certainly contributes to
the foreign policy initiatives undertaken
by the executive branch, particularly so
in the case of the Middle East peace-
keeping effort which took place after the
October war.
Second, H.R. 17234 lives up to the ad-
monition of President Ford who urged
Congress to "bite the bullet."
It does represent a substantial reduc-
tion in the authorization requested
which, as I pointed out, was cut from $3.2
billion to $2.6 billion.
Third, this bill gives Congress much
greater control over foreign aid expend-
itures than in the past. As I have indi-
cated, the Congress now has control over
transfer of funds from one country to
another, over the transfer of funds from
economic development,to military pur-
poses.
The fourth reason that I support this
measure, and urge my colleagues to do
likewise, is that it takes a very strong
position in the field of human rights.
We have heard some comments this
afternoon about a "perfect" bill. I sup-
pose for the gentleman from Iowa, a
"perfect" bill would be no bill at all.
Certainly I find some imperfections
In the bill myself, and I know that other
members of the committee do, also. Let
me point out that the administration
fought many of the amendents which
were adopted by the committee, but the
administration has indicated that they
want a bill, and they have urged that
this body approve the bill adopted by
the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. Chairman, again, I urge all of my
colleagues to support the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1974.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield,
Mr. WHALEN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Colorado.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank the gentleman from Ohio
for yielding to me, and I would like to
have a comment from someone on this,
which is one of the things that disturbs
me, and I guess I am the only one that
it disturbs, and that is that we seem
to be sending arms to both sides to be
used in the next conflict in the Middle
East. The committee has increased by
$200 million, as the chairman stated, the
administration's request for funds avail-
able to Israel. I really have not heard
the justification for this increase. I would
like to hear somebody discuss this from
the point of view of providing arms in a
volatile situation to both sides, because
it seems to be that if things should go
wrong they could be used against each
other, and that we are providing aid to
our friends on both sides to kill our
friends on both sides.
Mr. MOIIGAN. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield, let me say that we
are giving no direct military arms, this
is $250 million in reconstruction financ-
ing.
Mr. WHALEN. This also involves a
discussion of our Middle East policy, and.
certainly this issue cannot be discussed
in the time remaining to me. I think we
would all agree that it would be ex-?
trem.ely desirable If there were no fric-
tions in the Middle East, that there were
no war there in the past, and that all
countries in the Middle East agreed to
a very minimum level of arms. But the
unfortunate.situation is that Russia has
supplied the Arab States with arms, and
we have responded by supplying not only
Israel, but certain other Arab States
which we count among our friermis. I dis-
like this myself, but I think that we
must keep a balance of arms in the Mid-?
dle East. Unfortunately, we are respond-?
ing to a fact of life over which at this
point we have no control.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. If the
gentleman. will yield further, it is also
true, as the chairman of the committee
has pointed out, that some of the $250
million in aid is going to Egypt, and some
of it is going to Jordan, and. is nonmili-
tary, but let me point out that this Is
significant economic assistance which
will free other resources for providing
arms for those countries. We''are provid-
ing arms to Jordan and to Saudi Arabia.
I really believe that there has to be some
better alternative than that of arming
both sides in these possible conflicts.
I do not know whether anyone else
agrees with me on that or not.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield, would the gentle-
man in the well agree that this ?aid par-
ticularly the aid to Egypt and the other
aid to other Arab States, is all part and
parcel of the efforts that the adminis-
tration has been making and, which were
extraordinarily successful last January,
and later on, in achieving some motion
toward peace in the Middle East?
This is all part of that effort, and an
integral part of that effort, as Secretary
of State Kissinger has made clear, and
one that he feels would contribute to his
efforts to bring peace to that area.
Mr. WHALEN. I would certainly agree,
and the chairman of the committee in
his presentation brought that out also.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I yield 1 additional minute to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. WHAT EN. I thank the gentleman
for yielding me the additional time, and
I again yield to the gentleman from
Colorado.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Chair-
man, I keep asking this question, and
this concerns me also, but I do not seem
to receive an answer to it: and that is if
this bill is supposedly in support of the
administration'* position, why did the
committee increase the amount of arms
aid to Israel by $200 million?
Mr. WHALEN. I believe the chairman
answered that question.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHALEN. I yield to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, there is
also increased aid from the Soviet Union
that has gone to Syria. Even greater now
than even has been given Egypt in the
past. The Soviet Union up to the present
time has put some $10 billion of military
assistance into that area. Since the war,
they had completely resupplied not only
Egypt but Syria to such an extent that
Syria today is a much more formidable
military machine than they were prior
to the war.
Mr. WHALEN. There is one other
point, also. The administration requested
$100 million in military credit sales for
Israel. We switched that out of that
category into the military assistance pro-
gram. This was, as pointed out by the
chairman, the first time, really, that Is-
rael has received an outright grant of
military equipment. They purchased it in
the past, but in view of the October War
which so depleted their resources, it was
the feeling of the committee that we
should forego military credit sales in
favor of the grant. A commensurate re-
duction was then made in the total mili-
tary credit sales.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
1 additional minute to the gentleman
from Ohio.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHALEN. I yield to the gentleman
from Indiana.
Mr. HAMILTON. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
The major reason for the increase over
the executive request is that the original
executive request came prior to the Octo-
ber war, and the committee considered
thebill after the October war. The orig-
inal executive request of $50 million was
actually made up prior to that war.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHALEN. I yield to the gentleman
from Colorado.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
That cannot be right. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. MoRGAN) said
it came up in May of this year; the war
was last year.
Mr. HAMILTON.. If the gentleman
from Ohio will yield further, the original
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
 Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
December 10, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE II 11537
executive request was set before that war,
and it was not changed, and it came to
the Congress with expectation that the
Congress would increase it. The Execu-
tive accepted the increase.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. If the
gentleman will yield further, 6 months
behind is a normal matter of routine?
If the war was fought in September 1973,
the request came up in May of this year?
The request was prepared in October of
the year before?
Mr. HAMILTON. It is correct the bill
was not submitted to us until June, but
the Executive, in anticipation of the in-
crease by Congress, lust left the security
supporting assistance. amount at $50 mil-
lion, which was the figure that they had
initially set prior to the October war.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. BINGHAM).
(Mr. BINGHAM asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, first
I should like to Join in complimenting
the chairman of the committee. It has
been truly a pleasure to work with him
in the long process of bringing this bill
to the floor. I should like to join, too, in
complimenting the ranking member of
the Committee on Foreign Affairs; the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. FaE-
LINGHUYSEN). He will be missed in the
committee and in the House. Also, I want
to say that many of us are very grate-
ful to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
WHALEN) for the work that he did in
bringing together a group again and
again to try to agree on certain amend-
ments that would improve the bill.
I should like to direct my remarks at
this point to those Members who may
feel tempted to vote against H.R. 17234
because they feel this bill authorizes too
much military assistance to repressive
regimes.
I will say to those Members that I will
Join with them in efforts to cut that as-
sistance or to restrict it in some way. I
did so in the committee, and I will do so
again here on the floor.
But I would urge them, if any of those
efforts fail, not to vote against the bill,
because if this bill is defeated, the alter-
native would be a continuing resolution
and if we have such a continuing resolu-
tion, we will fail to benefit from the many
salutary changes in the aid programs
that are achieved in this legislation.
Some of these have been mentioned by
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. WHALEN).
For example, if we defeat this bill, we
will lose the opportunity to increase -by
more than 60 percent the developmental
assistance for agriculture that is au-
thorized in this bill, and there is nothing
we need more in this world today than
greater agricultural production:
We face a worldwide food crisis. We
are going to be called upon to respond
to that crisis in terms of assistance in the
form of grain, and we will no doubt do
so. But this is the most inefficient way
to respond to the crisis. A far better way
is to respond by helping other nations to
grow more food, and this bill will pro-
vide the authority to increase that
program.
Also this bill will provide for an in-
crease in our population control assist-
ance programs, which are also needed in
the food crisis as part of the equation.
And this is something else we would not
be able to do if we had to operate under
a continuing resolution.
Then, too, we have in this bill increases
for assistance to Israel, which have been
mentioned and which are essential in
the light of Israel's economic situation
today. If we are ever to have peace in
the Middle East, and I pray that we will,
we have got to make it perfectly clear
that the United States is going to give
Israel the wherewithal to survive eco-
nomically and militarily. Otherwise there
is no incentive for the Arabs to make an
agreement.
There are also in this bill certain re-
strictions on aid which will be lost if we
defeat this bill and go on a continuing
resolution. One is that for the first time
Congress will have some control over the
military cash sales program, which has
grown enormously in recent years. This
bill provides us with a handle on that
type of assistance which we have not had
before.
The bill also provides some restraint
on the operations'of the CIA, and there
are other valuable restrictions in the
bill.
As a result of the excellent work done
in the committee by the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. HAMILTON), the bill also
prohibits the kinds of transfers of funds
that the administration has used in the
past to divert from the purposes the
Congress wanted pursued to other pur-
poses; that practice will be restrained
under this legislation. This too would be
lost if H.R. 17234 is defeated.
As I have said, I agree with those
Members who feel there is too much
money in this bill for military assistance
to repressive regimes. But, having done
what we can to reduce that assistance, I
would plead with them then to help pass
a bill that the world needs and which is
in the interest of the United States.
Let me now go over some of these
points in greater detaiP.
The principal purpose of H.R. 17234
is to authorize appropriations totaling
$2,643.3 million for fiscal 1975 for in-
ternational security assistance, economic
assistance, and military credit sales
programs. The bill, while not perfect, is
responsible and responsive. It provides
the administration with funds to execute
our aid programs in a manner consistent
with our national security. But it also
makes clear to the administration the
conviction of the Congress and the
American people that the American for-
eign aid program must reflect the tradi-
tional American commitment to human
rights and improving the well-being of
the world's poor and must not be used to
prop up repressive regimes.
The American people expect the Con-
gress to legislate new directions to our
international assistance programs. To
fail to pass this aid bill would be to fall
in this task.
If A.R. 17234 were to be defeated, we
would then no doubt pass a continuing
resolution, which would permit a contin-
uatioia of the administration's present
aid policies. In contrast, H.R. 17234
would. modify important aspects of the
administration's general policies and re-
vise funding levels of programs to reflect
a belief that America should increase
developmental and humanitarian aid
and place limits on military aid.
The Congress faces two alternatives-
we can pass this bill or we can rely on a
continuing resolution to fund our aid
programs. The latter, a continuing res-
olution, is by far less desirable.
A continuing resolution would not per-
mit us to be responsive to the legitimate
needs of our friends and allies for in-
creased development assistance and eco-
nomic aid.
First, it would not permit an increase of
over ;50 percent in the authorization for
agriculture, rural development and nu-
trition for fiscal year 1975. The foreign
aid bill would increase the authoriza-
tion for this purpose from $291 million
to $471.3 million, an increase of $180.3
million.
Agriculture and rural development
constitute an area of the highest prior-
ity. The less developed world's need for
aid for agricultural production is.now
more urgent than ever. Many of the less
developed nations have been severely af-
fected by the sudden and drastic in-
creases in prices for fertilizer, fuel, food,
and other commodities. Some face the
prospect of massive starvation deaths
because of food shortfalls. There is no
doubt that these nations will need food
aid, nor that we will provide it. How-
ever, if we can, without neglecting our
own agricultural production, contribute
to increased food production abroad, we
are helping ourselves in the process.
There is also convincing evidence that
increases in food production in the de-
veloping countries are less costly to
achieve than they are here.
It, therefore,. makes humanitarian and
economic sense for-Congress to do all it
can to increase the food producing capac-
ity of the hungry nations so that they
can better meet their own needs in the
future.
Second, a continuing resolution would
not permit an increase in funding for
population control programs, which are
an integral part of economic develop-
ment and social progress. Unrestrained
population growth only exacerbates the
current food scarcity crisis in many parts
of the world. H.R. 17234, by authorizing
an additional $20 million for programs
designed to control population growth,
will help us also to meet the current food
Third, and as importantly, a continu-
ing resolution would not permit the in-
creases in security supporting and grant
military assistance to Israel which the
Foreign Affairs Committee believes are
necessary to assist Israel in meeting its
financial burdens and legitimate secu-
rity needs. In contrast, the foreign aid
bill would increase the funding for secu-
rity supporting assistance to Israel from
$50 million to $250 million and transfer
$100 million from. the administration's
proposed foreign military credit sales to
Israel. to grant aid for Israel. Without
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
 Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --.HOUSE December 10, 1974
passage of the foreign aid bill, Israel
would be hard-pressed to meet its in-
creasing financial burden alone, and its
well-being and security might be im-
paired.
In addition to thwarting the will of
Congress to respond to the legitimate
needs of our friends and allies for devel-
opment and economic assistance, the
defeat of this bill and reliance on a con-
tinuing resolution would thwart the will
of Congress to set new policy directions
for American aid programs. The foreign
aid bill contains important restrictive
provisions which would not be operative
under a continuing resolution. These
include: First, restrictions on aid to na-
tions which deny free emigration or free
expression of human rights within their
borders; second, restrictions on execu-
tive branch authority to conclude large
cash sales of military equipment with-
out informing Congress; third, restric-
tions on the nature of CIA operations;
and fourth, restrictions on the transfer
of funds from productive developmental
uses such as agriculture to nonproduc-
tive uses such as political support.
The provisions related to human rights
would alert the President and foreign
countries. The American commitment to
human rights conditions our decisions on
allocation of foreign aid funds, and that
a nation's violation of its citizens' hu-
man rights, including the freedom of
emigration, may result in severe limita-
tion or denial of American aid. I think
the Foreign Affairs Committee actions
reducing the administration's request
for aid to Chile and Korea are good steps
In that direction. I would support even
further reduction in aid to Korea. They
will alert those nations and others, such
as Syria, to our active concern with hu-
man rights and to our determination to
predicate our foreign aid in large part
on their respect for their citizen's rights.
The provision requiring the President
to submit to Congress' quarterly esti-
mates of foreign military sales and to
report to Congress 20 legislative days be-
fore any foreign military sale of $25 mil-
lion or more, and providing for a con-
gressional veto of such sales would en-
able the Congress for the first time to
exercise effective oversight and control
over the amount of defense articles sold
for cash each year. This oversight and
control is important because of the im-
pact that such sales often have on our
relations with the purchasing country
and its neighbors. Present reporting pro-
cedures require only yearly estimates of
cash sales. These have proven inaccur-
ate. For example, the original Depart-
ment of Defense estimates for cash sales
in fiscal year 1974 was $3.6 billion. Ac-
tual cash sales totaled $5.9 billion. The
$2.3 difference clearly demonstrates the
need for more frequent reporting so that
Congress may monitor the sales program
more closely. The enactment of the pro-
vision requiring reports prior to large
sales will give the Congress the oppor-
tunity to study the circumstances sur-
rounding each major sale and to asses
their foreign policy impact, and if called
for, Congress would lack this authority
under a continuing resolution.
The bill would also establish policy
guidelines for our intelligence activities,
and an oversight role for the foreign af-
fairs committees of the House and Sen-
ate. It would thereby assure that our in-
telligence activities are in consonance
with both our legitimate national security
requirements and our overall foreign
policy interests. It would also Insure that
Congress is informed and consulted about
covert and other activities which may
have Important foreign policy and na-
tional security implications.
Finally, the bill would prohibit trans-
fer of development assistance funds to
any country which receives security sup-
porting assistance, Indochina aid, or as-
sistance under the Middle East peace
package or vice versa. This would
strengthen congressional control over the
use of foreign aid funds, and assure that
the will of Congress is followed. It would
preclude it repeat of such actions as the
unilateral executive branch decision in
fiscal year 1974 to give South Vietnam a
$50 million development loan for what
appeared to be political rather than de-
velopmental reasons.
In conclusion, I would urge you to sup-
port the foreign aid bill, as reported out
of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
The bill will enable us to take many
important steps toward modifying the di-
rection of our foreign aid policies and
strengthening congressional control and
oversight.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. on PoNT).
(Mr. r PONT asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re--
marks.)
Mr. or PONT. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support, of the Foreign Assistance Act.
We worked very hard in committee to
pare down the request of the adminis-
tration, but I do want to take this time
to be somewhat critical of one section of
the bill, and that is the exhorbitant
amount of aid that is in the bill for
Arab nations in the Middle East. I of..
fered an amendment in committee to try
to do something about this and It was
soundly defeated, so perhaps I should
not be taking time on the floor, but I do
think we added a tremendous amount of
money in an effort to buy something.
Perhaps we are trying to buy peace, per-
haps we are trying to buy friends, or
perhaps we are trying to avert another
war, but look at what we have done.
We have started a foreign aid program
to Egypt and to Syria, a brand new pro-
gram that was not there before. And
how have we bid into this new poker
game? We have bid in at a very high
level-$100 million in discretionary funds
and $250 million for Egypt.
The Members know as well as I do that
foreign assistance programs grow. They
do not shrink. Next year the request will.
be up. I think it is far too much money
to be spending in that area of the world.
If we look at the summary table of
this legislation we will see where the
money is being spent, and we will find
the committee did ,a very prudent job in
pruning back Indochina aid, in :pruning
back the foreign military aid, but when
it comes to security supporting assistance
last year $112 million was appropriated,
and the administration came in and
asked for $385 million, but the Foreign
Affairs Committee In a burst of generos-
ity appropriated $585 million. Most of
that excess amount is going to Jordan
and Syria and Egypt. I will be frank to
say I think we are throwing away in those
specific areas the taxpayers' money. it
is too much money.
I think that particular section of the
bill is a poor one, but aside from that
I give my wholehearted support to the
bill and I plan to vote for it on final
passage on the floor.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I yield 10 minutes to the gentle-
man from Illinois (Mr. AxnERsoN).
(Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man, in considering the foreign aid bill
we need to distinguish between two ques-
tions:
How do we meet aid needs and com-
mitments this year?
In what direction do we move over the
longer run?
On the first question, the only answer
that I can come up with is to pass the
bill now before us. There is no time to
develop a better alternative, given the
present advanced date, and to reject the
bill outright would be a tragic default on
our responsibilities, given the diverse
needs that it addresses and the modest
scale on which it proposes to meet
them-needs which have been sharply
aggravated, I may say, by the recent
large increase in oil, wheat, and fer-
tilizer prices.
But for the longer term I find the di-
rection represented by this bill unsati&-
factory. For several reasons:
It Is a bilateral aid program, and It
seems to me that the time for bilateral
aid is long since passed, given the wealth
of other potential donors;
It still reflects the thinking of the im-
mediate postwar period, in which the
distinction between donors and recipi-
ents was sharply drawn by tragic cir-
cumstances. What we need now Is not
so much hand-me-downs from rich to
poor countries, as cooperative effort by
both rich and poor countries to meet
common problems;
It is geared, in good part, to cold war
objectives that have little to do with the
economic problems that now must con-
cern us increasingly. Trying to deal with
both security and economic problems in
one program In apt to mean that neither
is effectively addressed; and
It has become so encrusted over the
years with legislative restrictions and
bureaucratic limitations as to lack the
flexibility that Is required to deal with
new emerging problems.
For these and other reasons, I believe
that we should mark 1975 as the last
year in which the Congress will try to
meet the needs for overseas capital
transfers through this type of program.
Bilateral foreign aid has served us well,
but, it is time to move on to other
means-at least as far as the nonsecurity
problems that we must meet abroad are
concerned.
In part, of course, we have done this--
in supporting the World Bank, regional
development banks, and the U.N. de-
velopment program-and I hope that
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
 s 1
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
December 10, 1974
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 1111539
this will continue. In particular, I hope
that the Congress will permit the United
States to contribute to the World Bank's
soft loan window, the International De-
velopment Association, on a scale that
will enable this businesslike operation
to go forward on the scale that other
donors favor and are ;prepared to sup-
port.
But these organizations would be.the
first to admit that what they are doing
is not enough-and cannot be enough.
We face new and mounting economic
problems overseas. They must be met.
Foreign aid of the sort that we are de-
bating today is not an effective way of
doing so. But inaction will not solve these
problems either. We need to take new
bearings,
Foreign aid rested on the concept that
rich countries should share their bounty
with the poor. The rich were in good
shape the poor were in bad shape and
transferring resources from the one to
the other would help to right the situa-
tion. But this is no longer an accurate
description of the situation. Both rich
and poor countries are now in deep trou-
ble, and because of the same problems:
food, energy, population, and environ-
ment. The way to deal with these prob-
lems. is not by handouts to help the poor
but by joint efforts to solve the problems.
Of these, the most urgent is food. It is
important to the developing countries
because they are not getting enough to
eat. It is important to the developed
countries because worldwide food short-
ages mean rising prices, which spur in-
flation. The answer to both developed
and developing countries' problems is
more production. Only increased pro-
duction will assure adequate availability
of foodstuffs and stable prices. Since the
market in food is a world market, In-
creased production anywhere will help.
But, particularly, we need more produc-
tion in the developing countries, where
the opportunities for increase are
greatest.
Enlarged food production requires cap-
ital investment-in farm machinery,
irrigation, fertilizer production, and
much else. It requires technical skills. It
requires sensible pricing and other poli-
cies. All this is. primarily the respons-
bility, of the countries in which produc-
tion takes place. But internatonal co-
operation is also required. This need was
recognized at the recent World Food
Conference, where various proposals
were made for joint effort to this end.
Particularly important was the Egyptian
proposal for a world food fund, to which
not only the traditional donor nations
but others-including the oil-exporting
countries-would contribute and whose
resources would be used to support in-
vestments to increase food production
which could not be financed through
other means. In the wake of that Con-
ference, this and other proposals for
joint action are being urgently studied.
I submit that dedicating the sums that
we have traditionally appropriated for
bilateral foreign economic aid to sup-
port an international world food effort
would be a more useful way to spend
these sums in the future. This option is
not now before us: Activating an inter-
national world food efforts would be a
more useful way to spend these sums
in the future. This option is not now be-
fore us: Activating an international food
effort will take time. Hopefully, by next
year such an effort will be sufficiently
advanced so that we could move in this
direction. In doing so, we would be help-
ing not only to avert starvation abroad
but also to meet very serious problems
at home: Unless we are to adopt export
controls, which would invite instant re-
taliation by other, our food availabili-
ties and prices will continue to be deter-
mined by the worldwide balance between
food supply and demand. By helping to
right that balance, we help ourselves.
The same principle is relevant in re-
gard to energy. Here, too, there is a
worldwide market between sellers and
buyers. Here, too, the worldwide short-
age-however artificially induced-hurts
us. Here, too, development of new energy
sources would serve our interests' and
that of others. As I understand Secre-
tary Kissinger's recent speech, it calls for
just such development, in order to im-
prove the global balance between energy
supply and demand and thus set the
stage for effective bargaining about
prices with the oil exporting countries.
While this development will be primarily
the concern of countries in which it takes
place, international cooperation will
again be required, to insure that scarce
capital and skills go where they can be
most useful. It will be in our interest to
contribute to such an effort. If our skills
and resources can be put to good use in
developing new energy sources in poor
nations, the effort will be felt tangibly
and beneficially here at home.
Population and environment are other
relevant areas. If opportunities to make
a contribution here arise, they should be
pursued. In none of thesejelds, however,
are the problems as urge 'ht and impor-
tant, or proposals and prospects for in-
ternational programs to which we and
others could contribute on, a large scale
so far advanced, as in the case of food.
I propose, therefore, that we now do
two things:
Approve this year's aid bill, to permit
an orderly phasing down of bilateral eco-
nomic aid; and
Make clear our sense that a new ap-
proach will be needed next year-an ap-
proach founded on the principle not of
charity from rich to poor but of joint
effort by all countries-rich and poor,.
alike-to meet the global food problem.
We should make clear that we favor U.S.
leadership in bringing about a world food
fund and that, if others contribute on the
scale that their resources permit, we be-
lieve that the United States should do
the same. And we should make evident
that we favor this not as an ad hoc action
but as a basic move away from the con-
cept of bilateral economic aid to that of
common International effort in meeting
common problems-a shift that may well
have relevance to the problems of energy,
population, and environment, as well as
food.
To this end, I propose that the execu-
tive and legislative branches establish
next year a joixLt commission to study
how such a shift might best be accom-
plished-how bilateral economic aid can
be phased out without disrupting pres-
ent problems and commitments, and how
the United States can take its place in
new international effort to meet the
emerging food and perhaps other prob-
lems, to which all would contribute and
from. which all would benefit. The time
has come to put relations between indus-
trial and developing countries on a new
basil, which fully integrates the efforts
of both to meet common problems and
the duty of. both to share common re-
sponsibilities.
Change is the law of life. International
economic needs and circumstances have
changed greatly in recent years. Now our
response must also change. This means
not cosmetic facelifting in the present
program, but a basic shift of goals and
philosophy. In acting on this year's bill,
we must give unmistakable evidence not
only of our willingness to meet our cur-
rent commitments but also of our de-
termination to bring that change about.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man? will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I yield to
the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man,. I would like to compliment the
gentleman for his comments, and say
that I agree with him wholeheartedly
that there is a need for far gre7.ter ef-
forts than have been made thus far, es-
pecially in the fields of food, energy, and
population. I feel there is a need for
greater international cooperation, but I
wonder whether we should be so harsh
on the value of bilateral aid; that argu-
ments that others should be doing more
can be used for an argument against bi-
lateral aid.
I see no early or easy alternative to
substantial bilateral aid as a way of`cop-
ing with the immediate problem. I see
no possibility that multilateral aid would
be developed to cope with the conse-
quences of our involvement in Southeast
Asia. I see no ready international inter-
est in providing substantial funds for the
Middle East, so in many ways I think our
bilateral aid should not be denigrated as
somehow outmoded.
I think it is very up to date, both in
the Middle East and in Southeast Asia.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man., I thank the gentleman for his re-
sponse to the proposal that I have of-
fered, and I think in offering -it in the
form that I did, namely, . suggesting a
joint commission composed of members
of both the executive and the legislative
branches, I was conceding in advance,
perhaps, a part of his argument. The kind
of shift I envisage will not be easy to
attain.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the gen-
tleman from North Carolina (Mr.
PREYER).
(Mr. PREYER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. PREYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, around the world, and
especially in the Mideast, the Soviet
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
 Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
11111540
Union and its friends are making great
gains at American expense. The most
striking sign of Soviet success has been
the blow td Secretary Kissinger's plan for
a. political settlement in the Mideast by
the acceptance of the Palestine Libera-
tion Organization as the legitimate rep-
resentative of the Palestinian cause.
At the same time, the Communists are
gaining in Europe. Except for Greece,
the countries of the northern Mediter-
ranean shore all have disciplined Com-
munist movements now knocking at the
gates of power.
The billions in oil money flowing to
the oil producing countries is threaten-
ing the world's financial structure and a
worldwide economic depression. The
Cyprus situation threatens the loss of
the southern flank of NATO: If we lose
our bases in Greece and Turkey, the Med-
iterranean could become a Russian sea,
thus `endangering our ability to supply
Israel in the event of another war there.
Is this the time when Congress will.
at last kill the foreign aid program? It is
hard to conceive of a worse moment for
such action.
The purpose of the foreign aid pro-
gram is to influence the future in other
lands. As such it is a vital instrument of
foreign policy. Its purpose is not to do
good to all mankind, nor to establish
democratic governments in every coun-
try. The benefits of foreign aid-like for-
eign policy itself-are not readily ap-
parent and are long range in effect; the
mistakes are immediately and highly
visible.
Much of the criticism of foreign aid is
justified. The program should evolve and
respond to this criticism, and I think this
is happening. Americans are uncertain
about the basic purpose of influencing
the future in other lands. There are ques-
tions about whether we have the taste
or talent for it. Furthermore, foreign aid
presents a fat political target of oppor-
tunity, especially in a period of domestic
recession. Attacking foreign aid for
"pouring money down a rathole" is a
sure-fire applause getter at any rally
back in one's district. No one in this
Chamber will gain any votes by voting for
foreign aid. Yet if we recognize that the
world is changing faster than our policy
can cope with, and that we are struggling
to adjust to it, surely we must support
the foreign aid bill at this time until
better alternatives can be developed. We
can give only two cheers for foreign aid;
the applause for it'is that of one hand-
clapping. We can recognize that we must
break away from foreign aid as a habit,
as something to be routinely approved,
and that we must continue to explore
alternatives. But with our foreign policy
losing ground to the Soviet Union, surely
this is not the time to kill foreign aid.
It is taking the easy way out to vote
against this bill and cite the perilous
state of our own economy as reason
enough to keep our money at home. It is
easy for that matter to contend that
our sufferings in Vietnam should have
taught us to back away from all "for-
eign entanglements."
The simple truth, however, is that we
are entangled on this small planet and
CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD, HOUSE December 10', 1974
our economic problems neither began
solely within this country nor will we
find the solutions by turning inward.
The familiar arguments that foreign
aid' dollars spent in the United States
help our economy and that we have a
moral responsibility to help the poor re-
main valid. Even more important today
are the questions of our own national
interests in an increasingly tense world.
The United States-Soviet detente must
not cloud our vision. In the Middle East,
in Indochina, and throughout the Third
World violence and despair are growing.
The United States has learned that there
are limits to our ability to end conflict
and correct economic ills, but we injure
our own interests if we simply turn our
backs on the problems of others.
Our enemies portray us as capitalistic
exploiters whose only goal is the maxi-
mization of profits. The misinformed
poor often accept this image and demand
that their leaders be anti-American. We
cannot "buy" the masses with foreign
assistance, nor should we attempt to do
so, but it is clear that much more of our
aid must reach the most needy, quite
aside from any desire for gratitude from
the poor. The Congress has mandated
changes in emphasis from. large capital
development programs . to people-ori-
ented assistance, and AID is well-ad-
vanced In its reorganization to achieve
these changes. The termination of the
foreign aid program at this juncture
would serve only to convince the poor
and war-weary that we are interested
only in hanging on to our present wealth
as the Western world disintegrates.
I know how difficult it is to respond to
the public. outcry against spending dol-
lars abroad when we are faced with grave
economic problems at home. I am re-
minded that when the nations of the
world were turned inward in the 1930's
with problems far worse than those we
face today, before long they were at one
anther's throats. In the much smaller
and more interdependent world of today
I fear that isolation would breed hatred
even more quickly. And the weapons we
now possess would bring total destruc-
tion.
With foreign assistance we cannot
purchase security but we cannot help but
contribute to the collapse of interna-
tional cooperation if we discontinue the
program now.
Some of us have serious reservations
about massive assistance to South Viet-
nam, South Korea, and Cambodia. While
I will support the amendment setting a
limit on funds to Cambodia, I do think
we must consider the alternatives to
elimination of this assistance.. There is
no question that the drain on our re-
sources is considerable. There is also no
question that the policies and practices
of some of these governments are open
to charges that they violate democratic
principles and even our sense of moral-
ity. Nevertheless we cannot dictate
morality and we have learned the hard
way that democracy cannot be imposed
upon a people. We must keep foremost
in any debate our own national inter-
est--dean with governments as they exist
with appropriate encouragement of
de ocracy and justice, but defend our
interests whenever and however we
must.
It is altogether correct and proper
that we debate carefully specific items in
this bill, reviewing types and amounts of
assistance to particular countries where
there is controversy. What is essential
is that we face up to our responsibilities
and opportunities by continuing the pro-
gram. I would like to see a return to bi-
partisanship in foreign affairs. There is
a great need for openness and candor on
the part of the administration in this
respect. The "style" of the Departments
of State and Defense in articulating and
defending foreign policy must be im-
proved. They must seek dialog not
only with the great powers but also with
the greatest power-the American peo-
ple and their elected representatives.
Finally I note that there is a call for
an immediate cutoff of military aid to
Turkey. I share with the proponents of
the amendment a sense of outrage that
American equipment is being used to
perpetuate the illegal military occupa-
tion of northern Cyprus. At the same
time I ask myself what the sponsors of
the cutoff hope to achieve by this meas-
ure. If they seek to simply punish the
Turks in the hope that they will refrain
from attacking additional islands, then
I believe the measure would succeed. If,
on the other hand, my respected col-
leagues hope to obtain the evacuation of
Turkish forces from the island, then I
fear the amendment is hopelessly mis-
guided. History leads me to believe that
Turkey win become even more deter-
mined to hang on to northern Cyprus-
even at the cost of denuding her north-
ern frontier with the Soviet Union. The
importance of Turkey to the NATO alli-
ance need not be recounted. I question
the wisdom of risking the alienation of a
valuable ally with a punishment that
however justifiable will do nothing to
solve the problem of Cyprus. I urge that
the Turks be given time to form a gov-
ernment that can negotiate a withdrawal
of troops.
Tensions are rising throughout the
world as food and energy become ever
scarcer. If we turn inward and reject the
idea of foreign aid it is likely that where
war now smoulders it will explode, and
where the poor are forgotten they will
turn their faces forever from us. Our
children will live to regret our short-
sightedness long after our economic
problems are back under control.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. RANGim).
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have
an amendment at the desk to strike all
economic aid to Turkey until such time
as they comply with the international
efforts to control drugs. As most of the
Members know, it has not been that
many years ago that our drug enforce-
ment administration had been able to
determine that 80 percent of the heroin
that was floated on the streets and
towns of our United States found its
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
 Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
December 10, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 1:1 11541
origin in Turkey. As a result of the un-, opium, they are going to ask us to as- toward human needs. Likewise, I feel we
conditional ban that was placed in 1972 sume the responsibility for a diversion. should allocate those resources ear-
on the growth of, opium in Turkey we Mr. Chairman, this Congress has seen marked for international purposes to-
have been able to find, not only in our fit to unanimously pass a resolution to ward programs directed at helping less
cities and States, but certainly in the cut off all assistance to Turkey until such developed nations with fundamental
drug enforcement administration, that time as they comply with our Foreign projects in agriculture, health, and edu-
there was a drastic cut in the quality and Assistance Act in controlling the inter- cation. The legislation before us does re-
quantity of the drugs that were made national trafficking in drugs. duce authorizations below what was re-
available. The President of the United States has quested by the administration for mili-
Some Members of this House, includ- not seen fit to suspend aid. The Drug En- tary assistance and foreign military cre-
ing my dear colleague from New York, forcement Administration says it is an dit sales. This amount undoubtedly would
LESTER WOLFF, heard rumor that the impossible situation for us or for the have been cut to a much lower level had
Turkish Government intended to resume Turkish Government to police, because not the U.S. commitment to the resolu-
the growth of poppies and we had reason there are some 80,000 farmers there and tion of the conflict in the Middle East
to believe that the Turkish Government these farms only grow a small percent- called for additional American economic
was concerned about the economic plight age of opium, which means they would and military support to both Israel and
of the farmers, who represent 1 percent have to cover up to 3,000 villages to police the Arab countries. There will be efforts
of the entire population of Turkey, and them in order to see whether or not they to further. reduce certain other military
it was indicated. that they were suffer- are growing illegal opium. assistance authorizations, such as those
ing such an economic loss as a result of If we have any concern about our men to South Korea, which can bring down
this ban. in the Armed Forces who were stricken our overall outlay in the military sphere
We went to Turkey and talked to the so hard by the opium crisis and if we have to an even more reasonable level. This can
experts in our Department of State and any concern about our inner cities and be accomplished while still providing
Foreign Service, and we were able to find our suburban areas, I think it is time for a military aid program adequate for de-
out it was not the farmers who were con- the U.S. Congress to show that we mean Tense purposes.
cerned about the ban but several political business, and that we are not going to cut I am pleased that the Foreign Affairs
bodies in Turkey and we found out that, off assistance for all purposes, but we will Committee saw fit to adopt an amend-
except as it relates to asking for Ameri- just cut off this assistance until the me9t-offered by Mr. BINGHAM and me
can money, the political structure in President of the United States believes increasing by $20 million funds for popu-
Turkey wanted no part of the United there is a goodfaith effort on their part lation growth and family planning pro-
States and certainly felt that the ban to comply with the international sane- grams. While I believe such an expendi-
was imposed as a result of President tions against those who grow these drugs. ture is essential if we expect to make
Nixon's influence on that military gov- Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, progress in raising living standards in
ernment. I yield such time as he may consume to the LDC's. I feel these efforts will get
It seems to me that year, after year, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. nowhere unless they are accompanied by
until it has now reached the billions of BXESTER). significant advances in health, agricul-
dollars, the Turkish Government can re- (Mr. BIESTER asked and was given tural production and increased protein
ject those parts of my argument as we permission to revise and extend his re- consumption in the poorer nations. The
ask them to assist us in preventing the marks.) authorization in this bill-of $180.3 mil-
poison from coming to the United States Mr. BIESTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in lion for food and nutrition programs
and yet they cannot understand that support of H.R. 17234, the Foreign As- along with the $291 million already au-
plight to such an extent that they might sistance Act of 1974, with a deep sense thorized for similar purposes takes us
make some small sacrifice, as this Con- of concern and urgency for the programs in the direction we need to go in ad-
gress has appropriated some $36 million authorized In this legislation, of which dressing the question of how we can
to assist them to provide some crop sub- I am a cosponsor. make more food available to those who
stitute, some type of assistance to make The major features of this bill have need :it most.
certain there would be no economic or already been touched upon. We are, When we examine the state of the
cultural heavy weight on the farmer. through the authorization of funds, at- world economy today, we can readily
But, nevertheless, notwithstanding all tempting to help stabilize- the political see how the nations of the world com-
threats to cut off aid, the Turkish Gov- and military situation in the Middle munity, have become more dependent
ernment indicated unilaterally they were East, scaling down funds to Indochina, upon one another for the resolution of
going to resume the growing of opium, emphasizing the importance of univer- mutually shared problems. The need
and now we find one of the most terrible sal human rights, restricting the un- for even more cooperation is imperative.
frauds that have been committed on the authmrized activities of the Central In- This growing interdependence has been
U.S. Congress, that they were doing this telligence Agency, and increasing the accompanied by a healthy openness in
with the United Nations lauding them emphasis on agricultural and nutritional multi.- and international relations and
for their effort because they said they assistance to the poorer nations. Fur- trade. There is no assurance, however,
would use a straw process, a process that thermore, wd are following through in that such a situation will continue and
would prevent the farmer from lancing implementing the reforms made in last progress, especially if the United States
the bulb and scraping off the opium sap, year's foreign assistance legislation falls to provide the participation and
when there is no one in our State De- which restructured the thrust of our leadership which is so essential in main-
partment and no one in the United Na- aid program to focus on basic and en- taining such a climate. At present, as we
tions, and certainly no one in Turkey, demic needs of the less developed are experiencing economic difficulties of
no one in our Goverment or their govern- countries. In total, $2.64 billion is au- such serious proportions, there is a con-
ment, who knows where they are going thorized in appropriations for fiscal siderable temptation to turn inward for
to sell the straw or whether or not the year 1975. solutions without adequate regard for
United Nations intends to police the 11- The committee bill is a carefully international factors and the interna-
legal growing of opium. They are talking worked piece of legislation based on the tional ramifications of our national
about a $1 million, $2 million, $10 million request submitted by the administration policies. Some would eliminate or dan-
alkali plant. There is no such plant in with our close attention to domestic con- gerously scale down our foreign assist-
Turkey. They are saying to the United siderations and international obligations. ance efforts in order to concentrate on
States that, once they start growing, we We have taken heed to balance the de- domestic priorities. Without slighting the
will have the financial responsibility not , mands imposed upon us by present eco- extreme importance' of formulating a
only to police the growth but to provide nomic circumstances with the respon- forceful program on the domestic front
them with the funds to get the plant. sible course we feel our Nation must fol to combat inflation and recession, oue
We are going to end up with the situ- low in its relations with other countries. thinking cannot be parochial. The eco-
ation that we are darned if we do and We have a weighty obligation here at nomic predicament in which we find
darned if we don't, because what it home. to reorder our national priorities ourselves is unlike any which ha;;
means is that once they start growing away from excessive military spending preceded It. It is a truly global problem
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
 Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
H 11.542 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE December 10, 1974
with every nation-rich and poor alike- that we are in an unusual session-I Secretary of State some necessary time to
inescapably locked in with one another. think we all recognize that--and a bill deal with a few ticklish problems with re-
The impulse must be dismissed which that is automatically explosive suffers spect to one or two governments that may
suggests that looking inward, to the the unusual possibilities of being misun- be totally incapable of adjusting to the
neglect of international relationships, derstood and misinterpreted merely be- pressures and demands of this time at
will resolve our economic difficulties. cause of theatmosphere of the day. this point, the next Congress would, of
Rather, we must follow a policy which Second, I would point out to the gen- course, exercise necessary legislative
recognizes the importance the prudent tleman who preceded me in the well, the oversight.
allocation of foreign assistance funds can gentleman, from New York (Mr. RANGEL), Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
take in helping stabilize national econ- that I was one of the original cosponsors such time as he may consume to the gen-
omies which, in turn, can bring back of the resolution calling for a cutoff of aid tleman from Indiana (Mr. HAMILTON).
a greater semblance of order to the over- to Turkey if the agreement to cut off (Mr. HAMILTON asked and was given
all world economic picture. Turkish opium production was not main- permission to revise and extend his
We have an undeniably critical stake tamed. remarks.)
in the future of the developing nations. We are now at the stage of saying to Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I
Apart from the obvious' importance of the President: "Unless the Turkish Gov- rise in support of H.R. 17234, the Foreign
their political posture in relation to the ernment proves to us and proves to your Assistance Act of 1974.
major power blocs, they are a vital eco- satisfaction that this opium-production This bill is an unusually important
nomic factor as well. Even the smallest is controlled, you may not provide them piece of legislation in several respects. In
nations possess strategic raw materials with any aid." addition to cutting the administration's
which are in short supply and high de- Mr. Chairman, the problem Is that request by over $600 million, this bill
mand by the industrialized countries, there is nothing but a caretaker Turkish tightens legislative loopholes, restricts
and the significance of all nations in Government, and under these conditions the Government's ability to use funds for
the global trading picture is becoming those of us who are familiar with parlia- purposes other than those Intended by
more and more apparent. It has been men.tary structures realize we Just can- Congress, authorizes reduced but ade-
projected that within 10 years we will not negotiate with caretaker govern- quate funds for Vietnam, reduces sub-
be dependent upon imports for 96 per- meats. The same logic, frankly, would stantially grant military aid, and pre-
cent of our aluminum, 34 percent of cop- apply to-the present Government of Italy. serves increased funds for food and
per, and 100 percent manganese and tin The Government of Turkey falls in that institution aid to help developing states
to indicate only a few of the principal category. Perhaps the new Government improve the performance of the agricul-
raw materials essential to our economy of Greece. which is just reestablishing tural sectors.
and security which we must secure from itself, falls in that category, as well as a This bill also supports several impor-
others. In 1972 the LDC's represented an number of other parliamentary demo- tant foreign policy ne objectives iv E the
almost $15 billion market for U.S. goods cracies in the world which are going Unitto e Asia es in the e Middle
the bill is and
and services, and since they buy mare through the government.
nature of They that tricattely tied to and supportive of the
from us than we from them they are initiative to try to settle
a positive contributor to our balance of structure. U.S. peace
payments. I am not making an argtlmCnt at this the Arab-Israel conflict and bring a
Experience should have been the best point for letting the Turks off the hook. lasting peace to the war-torn Middle
teacher in making clear the fact that our i am merely pointing out that we may be East. Second, the bill seeks to promote
foreign assistance program does not buy asking the impossible, and that they may development aid programs designed to
friendship abroad. There is no guarantee not have a government that can make Increase agricultural production in the
that recipients of our aid will behave as any .decision. I think it is especially im- poor and near-starvation states of South
we think they should, either internally or portant that we keep that in mind so we Asia. Third, the bill is supportive of Sev-
in their relations with others. It is wrong do not find ourselves in a position that is eral general foreign policy objectives in-
to think of aid in these terms. We can be impractical and illogical and that would eluding the Nixon doctrine and helping
hopeful it will have an influence in our cause us to miss our ultimate goal. others help and defend themselves.
favor, but we should not be surprised Mr. Chairman, my dear colleagues, the Fourth, the bill is realistic and seeks, in
when it does not. What we can hope to gentleman from Illinois (Mr. AN)ERSON) the funds made available for the states
achieve through the various assistance was suggesting, as I understand it, is that of the Middle East and South Asia, to
undertakings, embodied in this legisla- this program is in such disfavor that we supplement and complement the aid pro-
tion and other measures comprising our must turn to all sorts of multilateral pro- grams and financial support of other
aid program, is an Improved climate for grams. states rather than supplant and dupli-
working on and working out the many Well, as the gentleman-from Iowa (Mr. cate other initiatives.
complex issues which directly and in- Gross) knows, whenever a program is in MIDDLE EAST PACKAGE
directly involve and affect us all. Re- disfavor, we change the name of the The most important portion of this
straint in budgetary considerations is a agency. So I suppose if we come up with foreign aid bill as it relates to the Near
commendable characteristic when ap- a name such as "Self-Help for Hard East and South Asia region is the new
plied to foreign assistance as well as ex- Pressed American Industry Agency" or part VI, better known as the Middle East
penditures in all other Federal categories. something like that, the program will package.
But we should not allow our eagerness survive. It has happened enough in the This section authorizes $250 million In
to make budgetary cuts obscure the past so I: am not really being facetious. security supporting assistance for Israel
rationale of our assistance efforts, the in- The gentleman from Illinois should and Egypt and $77.5 million In security
tricacies of their operation and the far- keep in mind that multinational pro- supporting assistance for Jordan. On the
reaching value they can have. As we take grams are also under attack. U.N. agen- military side, the bill earmarks $100 mil-
care to make the right decisions during ties, which are the normal ones we might lion in military grants and $200 million
this unsettling period In our economic wish to utilize, will be under attack be- in military credits for Israel and approx-
life, we should not lose sight of the im- cause of the recent deplorable action of imately $95 million in grant military aid
portance international considerations the United Nations General Assembly for Jordan.
will play in working toward economic permitting spokesmen of the PLO to uti- Mr. Chairman, these figures are siz-
stability and an improved atmosphere of line- the General Assembly session and able because of our strong commitment
political understanding. have similar recognition in specialized to peace in the Middle East and the high
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair- United Nations agencies. degree of prestige and personal stakes
man, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman ? Sq we cannot even use the more prac- that our Government has put on the line
from Illinois (Mr. DERWINSKI). tical outlets for U.S. aid if we wanted to for the cause of a just Middle East set-
(Mr. DERWINSKI asked and was switch from a bilateral program. tlement. I remained convinced -that the
given permission to revise and extend his I think it would,be proper in the last Middle East section came out of the
remarks.) 2 weeks of a historic Congress if we would Committee on Foreign Affairs with one
Mr.. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I demonstrate diplomatic understanding. underlying theme: We commend the
would like to point out two things: First, If, we would give the President and the United States for its considerable efforts
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
 Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
'December 10, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -DOUSE
for the cause of peace in the Middle East
and we support those efforts. i hope that
this body reiterates that pledge with its
actions on this bill.
ISRAEL
The costs of the October 1973 war and
continued partial mobilization, in addi-
tion to its serious inflation, have put se-
rious economic dilemmas before the Is-
raeli Government. The request of secu-
rity supporting assistance for Israel is
designed to help directly with Israel's
budget and economic crisis and to pro-
vide that friendly government with a de-
gree of economic strength and stability
at a time when It faces important di-
lemmas in peace negotiations involving
potential risks.
. The total $300 million of military aid
support being made available to Israel
corresponds to the amount available last
year in the regular fiscal year 1974 budg-
et. Although Israel received some $2.2
billion in the Emergency Assistance Act
of .1973 following the October 1973 war,
the resupply effort and Israel's changing
defense requirements are putting new
pressures on its military establishment
and are requiring new types of defensive
equipment to , protect Israel within
changing frontiers. These funds remain
crucial to providing for Israel's strength
and to enabling Israel to participate in
peace talks without jeopardizing its se-
curity.
EGYPT
The security supporting assistance for
Egypt is also an important part of this
bill and directly related to the crucial
support the Egyptian Government has
been giving to Secretary Kissinger's dip-
lomatic initiatives in the region. Presi-
dent Sadat has been a key figure in the
Middle East in the last year and his
country is the most important Arab state
in the area. Several times in the last year
President Sadat has gone that extra dis-
tance to help us in our efforts. Several
times he has put his prestige on the line
for the cause of a lasting peace and for
causes which may have initially been
less popular in other parts of the Arab
world.
The changes In Egyptian policy dis-
played during the last year and Egyptian
support for a peaceful settlement of the
Arab-Israel conflict are encouraging
signs. Under the surface, there exists in
Egypt today an increased desire to want
to get on with economic and social de-
velopment and to find honorable ways
of reaching a lasting peace with Israel.
The Egyptian economy has been hit hard
by years of war and neglect. The cities
along the once-important Suez Canal
have been leveled by years of cycles of
hot, and then sporadic, warfare.
The economic aid being made available
for Egypt in this bill is designed to
strengthen the forces of moderation In
the Middle East and give the people of
that important country an alternative to
further conflict by showing what can be
done in a peaceful environment to im-
prove the qaulity of life and restore the
badly damaged regions of Egypt along
the Suez Canal.
We are not participating in this effort
alone. States of Europe, Japan and, more
importantly, some of the oil-rich state
of the Persian Gulf are committing bil-
lions of dollars to the rebuilding of the
Egyptian ,economy. Our efforts are de-
signed to complement these other, larger
international efforts.
The money requested in this bill will
provide American technical assistance
both for opening of the Suez Canal and
for helping restore basic utilities to the
cities along the Suez Canal so that the
civilian populations that once lived there
will return to some semblance of a nor-
mal life. This commitment is one to peace
and returning the Suez Canal region to
normalcy: It Is a fruitful way of trying
to consolidate initial steps toward peace
and Insuring that what has been accom-
plished can be preserved in the coming
months, and perhaps years, of negotia-
tions that may lie ahead.
JORDAN
U.S. assistance to and support of the
Government of Jordan and the policies
of its leader, King Hussein, are also an
important part of the Middle East pack-
age. The bill provides for some $94.2 mil-
lion in grant military aid, $30 million in
military credits, and some $77.5 million
In economic security supporting assist-
ance. Jordan has been supportive of the
United States and stood by our initiatives
and our policies in the Middle East for
many years.
Jordan has a small and efficient army
that needs some modern equipment to
defend itself against neighbors who re=
ceive substantial and sophisticated
equipment from the Soviet Union. Jor-
dan has also an economy that is moving
toward self-sufficiency. Our aid is de-
signed to improve its small army and to
Inject some money into its economy to
spur further economic development. The
Jordanian economy has come a long way
since the days of the civil war in 1970
which left that state in -a shambles. The
United States should continue to sup-
port current trends in that state.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FUND
The Middle East section of the bill also
contains a $100 million special require-
ments fund which is more closely related
to Secretary Kissinger's diplomacy for
peace and to our efforts to encourage
peaceful attitudes and development
where possible and where consistent with
the larger foreign policy goals of this
country.
Although none of the funds made
available in this section are to be used
until after Congress receives notification
and has an opportunity to disapprove
possible allocation by concurrent resolu-
tion, we do have some indication of how
this money might be used. First, we know
it will all be used for economic develop-
ment purposes. Second, Secretary Kiss-
inger has said in testimony that some
portion of it may be used in Syria to
help rebuild the Qunietra region near.the
Golan Heights. Third, up to $6 million
will be available to help supplement the
United Nations Relief and Works
Agency's regular budget which has a
huge deficit and permit it to continue-to
provide minimum levels of humanitarian
aid to needy refugees. Without supple-
mental support from the United States
H 11543
and. other countries, UNRWA will have
to curtail vital services. And, finally, the
committee ? report urges that some of the
funds might profitably be used to help
support some of the existing educational
and vocational training institutions on
the West Bank and in Gaza.
All of these uses represent important
Investments in peace and I believe that
it is important for the United States to
maintain considerable flexibility over
these funds even though we must retain
the provision stating that the State De-
partment must return to Congress to in-
dicate how these funds might be al-
located.
OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE MIDDLE EAST
In addition to more regular, annual
foreign aid sections which have tradi-
tionally helped people in the Middle East
including support of educational institu-
tions in Israel, Lebanon, and Egypt under
the American Schools and Hospitals
Abroad program and of Palestinian ref-
ugees under the UNRWA United Nations
program, this bill contains four other im-
portant and new policy statements on the
Middle East which deserve particular
mention here.
First, section 620(p) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, is
repealed. This section prohibited aid to
Egypt unless it was determined to be in
the national interest of the United States.
As a, sign of the improved relations be-
tween the United States and Egypt, this
section is no longer necessary. Such neg-
ative statements in this bill are replaced
by positive expressions that we hope.
United States-Egyptian relations will
continue to improve and that Egypt's
desire for a peaceful settlement and a
lasting peace will continue to be a corner-
stone of its foreign policies.
Second, in a statement of policy the
bill expresses the sense of the Congress
that "none of the funds authorized by
this act should be provided to any nation
which denies its citizens the right or op-
portunity to emigrate." The major im-
petus' behind the Inclusion of this
statement is the continued poor condition
of the dwindling Jewish community of
Syria. The more than 3,000 Syrian Jews'
still :living in that country lead very re-
stricted lives and seem to be denied both
gainful employment and the right to
emigrate. We must hope that within the
context of improved relations with Syria
that this community will not remain a
hopeless pawn but will be given the free
choice of leaving or remaining in Syria.
If that choice is not offered, any potential
offer of aid to Syria would be in serious
trouble. ,
Third, the bill stipulates that none of
the funds authorized can be used to fi-
nance any equipment or technology
promised pursuant to any agreement for
nuclear cooperation that might be signed
between the United States and Egypt or
Israel. With all the problems and tensions
involved in the Middle East situation, it
would seem that there are several more
constructive channels for our energies
and limited financial resources which do
not present the potential, grave risks of
the exchange of nuclear technology with
two states which have not signed the Nu-
Approved, For Release 2005/06/16: CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
 Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
H 11544 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --HOUSE December 10, 1974
clear Nonproliferation Treaty and two gion In the world. The aid funds au- Dr. MORGAN, for the able leadership he
states which have been involved in hos- thorized here are modest compared to has provided over many months in bring-
tilities so often and so recently. years and decades past, but the funds ing a foreign aid bill to the House floor.
A fourth Item In the foreign aid bill, are targeted for areas and projects His task has not been an easy one.
which conceivably might have relevance where they will bring the greatest and There were many contentious and diffi-
for the Middle East, is the new section quickest results and will help the poor, cult issues with which the committee was
659 on reimbursable development pro- Particular mention. should be made of forced to contend in marking up this
grams. This section makes available, up the $50 million in aid being .made avail- legislation.
to $2 million to assist the United States able for India. While this amount was Because of Chairman MORGAN'S ability
in working with friendly states who do limited by the committee, it does reflect at conciliation and negotiation, this bill
not receive development aid. The pur- the improved nature of United States- represents a compromise-in the very
pose of this section Is to promote Ameri- Indian relations and our desire for es- best sense of that word.
can technology and expertise in states tablishing a better dialog oil all issues Through 12 days of hearings and 15
where governments will and can pay for of mutual concern. India is the largest days of open markup session, the com-
technical assistance but where in the state in South Asia and while our aid mittee has labored hard to shape legis-
absence of small amounts of funds to programs there will likely never again lation which will meet the concerns of
"top off" salaries and expenses of Ameri- reach the high levels they once were, we a majority of the House Of Representa-
can experts, the Americans could not get do have an interest in working with In- tives.
the valuable contracts. This section will dia in trying to solve some of its serious The legislation will not, of course,
help make us more. competitive in dis- economic problems, particularly in the please everyone. There are, indeed, pro-
tant countries and facilitate open and agricultural sector. Our legitimate con- visions which I myself opposed in com-
fair access to natural resources of inter- cern over India's nuclear, program should mittee and which I wish were not in the
est to us. not .prevent us from working with that bill. Taken in its totality, however the
SOUTH ASIA state to try to solve the problems of bill is a good one and deserves the sup-
In South Asia, the foreign aid bill sup- poverty. This bill supports the idea of a port of this body.
ports very different, but nonetheless modest increase in our aid programs to Therefore, I hope my colleagues will
important, foreign policy goals. The bill India, a program which was reduced to study the bill and the committee report
authorizes close to $235 million, mostly almost nothing during the last 2 years carefully. If there is to be a foreign aid
in development loans, for the States of when relations were strained. bill this, year, it cannot be weighed down
South Asia. The bill support programs These South Asian country programs with controversial amendments? which
for-in descending order of funds made are complemented by small, ongoing either will make a conference with the
available-Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, special projects such as the Indus River Senate difficult or invite a Presidential
Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and Nepal. Basin project which is nearing comple-? veto.
There is also a small program for the tion and which will receive $14.7 million I need not caution that we are nearing
Yemen Arab Republic requested. in this bill, and regional manpower and 'the end of a particularly exhausting-
health educational programs. Some Ojf but productive-Congress. In a few short
states. Our these technical assistance efforts involve months we will begin consideration of
the asameaamountefor theseauthorized
efforts in South Asia relate primarily to CENTO countries and others involve a foreign assistance bill for the next
sending South Asia students to regional fiscal year. If Members who have amend-
and their ng their agricultural production institutions like the American University ments could withhold them until then,
and thability to feed themselves. This of Beirut for specialized training. Such I am sure they will find the Committee
ti no small task an area shortages, is , con- regional programs are replacing pro.. on Foreign Affairs receptive to working
ternately faced with food snd cyclones grams that would bring students to the -with them of implementing their ideas.
and occasionally bureaucracies and catlcan- United States. Mr. Chairman, for more than 25 years
and properly administer at can- Mr. Chairman, this Foreign Assistance I have annually worked for passage of a
not erly foreign aid bill. More than. any other
Let t m me give a one one example o of f the kind Act of 19'74 offers in several important time in my experience, passage of the aid
of thing our aid will seek to do, namely, respects, a new and challenging set of time this year is essential to the future
build up a domestic fertilizer capacity concepts in foreignn aid -and supports of American foreign policy-and
in these countries. One ton of nutrient many significant foreign policy goals of succesto wers d peace.
fertilizer, for example, will have a mul- this Nation. There were significant at- THE MIDDLE EAST PACKAGE
tiplier effect in South Asia over twice tempts made in the drafting of this bill
the effect than if that fertilizer were to show strong support for U.S. peace All of us have 'been. pleased by the
used in this country. From an economic initiatives in the Middle East, reduce diplomatic efforts of our Secretary of
viewpoint, it is far more practical to overall amounts, cut unnecessary grant State and his colleagues to begin the job
help provide the States of South Asia military aid programs t,) states which do of defusing tensions in the Middle East,
with the equipment and material neces- not face serious external threats, incor- following 'the October war of 1973.
sary to increase its domestic fertilizer porate a recognition of a growing con- Let me briefly review the situation at
production than it is to ship food from cern in Congress for the human rights of the end of that war:
the United States. We should be moving all peoples around the world, especially First, the Arab nations had become
in this direction with our aid. The poten- those in states which continue to receive convinced that the United States had
tial exists and this makes these develop- substantial U.S. aid and put greater em.- wholly sided with.Israel and that Arab
ment loans all the more important. Un- phasic on economic, aid in general and and American objectives could not be
fortunately, for the short run, most of agricultural and population aid in par- reconciled;
these states will need both economic aid ticular. Second, relations with Europe and
for the future and food aid for the I urge my colleagues *to support this Japan were strained because of the oil
present. legislation. If we shirk our responsibilty boycott and differences over reaching a
Inflation, the fourfold increase in oil on this crucial matter, we are voting "no" settlement in the Middle East;
prices and the vagaries of the weather for peace an stability in many regions Third, the Soviet Union had emerged
have added several strains in the econ- around the world where we do have as the Arab's apparent best friend and
omies of all states in South Asia. Other short- and long-term interests to pre- protector and had gained a strong politi-
aid donors are responding to these added serve and promote. cal position on the Middle East;
burdens from countries whose cumula- Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield Fourth, Israel, having suffered signifi-
tive populations represent a sizable por- 10 minutes to the gentleman from Wis- cant losses, faced an extremely uncertain
tion of humanity. It is important for the cousin (Mr. ZABLOCICI) future; and
'United States to work, as best we can (Mr. ZABLOCKI asked and was given Fifth, here at home we all were waiting
with the limited aid funds available, with Permission to revise and extend his re- in long, long lines to get gasoline.
the World Bank-led aid consortia for marks.) As a result of diplomatic initiatives In
these states and provide the material Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, at the which our Nation took a leading role,. and
and technical assistance to promote de- outset I wish to commend the chairman because of the willingness of certain Arab
velopment in, perhaps, the poorest re- of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, leaders to accept a central role of the,
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
 Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
December 1,0, 10.4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
United States in settling the dispute,
hopeful steps have been taken toward an
ultimate solution.
Foreign aid to some of the nations in-
volved in the Middle East is an important
element in holding the present situation
together. It will not insure an agreement
in the Middle East, but will help greatly
to advance our diplomatic efforts.
The bill earmarks $100 million in mili-
tary grant aid for Israel; $250 million
each to Israel and Egypt for security
supporting assistance; and $200 million
in military credit sales to Israel. In addi-
tion, it creates a special requirements
fund of $100 million for Middle East use.
Should this bill be defeated and there
be no "Middle East package" of aid, the
chance for a lasting peace in that region
would be considerably jeopardized.
I need not remind my colleagues of the
potential costs of renewed fighting In the
Middle East. By providing foreign aid to
countries in that area we are helping to
insure against future outbreaks.
INDOCHINA AID
A similar peace-related situation ex-
ists with respect to Indochina aid.
In Laos-we have attained a cease-fire
and a coalition government that has
shown some indications of progress.
In Vietnam, the situation currently is
one of greatly reduced military activity
which has permitted the people of South
Vietnam to turn from war to rebuilding
their country.
In a sense, the conuict with the north
has entered a new stage: A battle for the
economy of South Vietnam. Barring in-
tensified conflict, there is reason to be
confident that the people of the south
can achieve increased economic develop-
ment.
For example, this year Vietnam will
once again be self-sufficient in rice be-
cause harvests have been good in the
Mekong Delta. area, next year Vietnam
may earn foreign exchange from rice
exports-as it did before the Indochina
war.
In order to sustain South Vietnam's
efforts at reconstruction and develop-
ment-and ultimately to win the eco-
nomic war with the north-it is iieces
nary to continue substantial amounts of
foreign aid in the form of supporting
assistance.
Nevertheless, the committee in its de-
liberations on this item already has cut
the funding request by some $340 mil-
lion-from $750 million asked by the
executive branch, to $405 million cur-
rently programed.
Any further cuts-or defeat of this
bill-would severely jeopardize chances
for an end to the conflict in Southeast
Asia. It would be an open invitation to
Hanoi to attack the south. The United
States would then be faced with the di-
lemma of making 'an appropriate re-
sponse.
SOUTH KOREA
I believe the funds in this bill are also
important to the cause of peace in Korea.
It is common knowledge that an attempt
will be made today to cut those funds
drastically.
Such a move would, in my estimation,
be tragically shortsighted.
Granted that none of us is attracted
to the government of President Park.
It has been harsh and repressive in many
instances.
But it would be folly to so reduce our
military aid to South Korea to the point
that North Korea would be emboldened
to attack or to undertake other kinds of
actions which would threaten peace in
the Korean Peninsula.
Need we remind ourselves that the
Government of North Korea is generally
'considered among the most repressive in
the world. Where would we gain by cut-
ting our aid? How would the cause of
human rights be advanced if war ensues?
This bill contains about $185 million
for military aid to Korea. The entire
amount is needed. Attempts to reduce
the figure should be turned back.
In Cambodia, of course, there is no
peace. But the cause of achieving peace
will not, I contend, be served by failing
to provide needed assistance to the Cam-
bodian people. If there is to be a nego-
tiated settlement and true peace-as op-
posed to a bloodbath and the peace of
the dead-the United States must con-
tinue to meet its responsibilities to bol-
ster the Khmer Republic through pro-
viding economic and military aid.
How ironic it would be if this body
took action prejudicial to Cambodia at
the very time that the government's
legitimacy had been reaffirmed at the
United ' Nations.
INCREASING WORLD FOOD PRODUCTION
Just as passage of this bill is important
to peace in the Middle East, Indochina,
and Korea, it is also, in the long run,
very significant in the effort to remedy
such causes of world unrest and conflict
as starvation, disease, ignorance, and
poverty.
It was my privilege last month to head
the delegation from the House which at-
tended the World Food Conference in
Rome. Although my reactions to that
event were mixed, one conclusion
emerged clearly:
There is a world food shortage which
must be addressed by all the world's na-
tions if we are to avoid a breakdown of
order in many countries--a breakdown
which could imperil international sta-
bility.
In recognition of world food shortages,
the committee has authorized $180.3 mil-
lion in additional funds for. food and nu-
trition. This amount, which is $75 mil-
lion less than the administration's re-
quest but which increases the current
authorization, provides a total of $471.3
million for food and nutrition projects
in fiscal year 1975.
The answer to starvation must be in-
creased production in the food-short
countries themselves. The United States
no longer has sufficient food supplies to
feed the world.
The funds in this bill will be used to
help the developing world increase its
own agricultural output, particularly to
bring small farmers-who are in the vast
majority-into the economic main-
stream.
In enacting .the "new directions" in
foreign aid represented by the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1973, the Congress set
I'ii545
in motion an effort to reach the poor,
rural majorities of the developing world
and to assist, them to grow more food.
That action was taken before the di-
mensions of the current world food
shortage were known. Today the wisdom
of congressional action last year is read-
ily apparent. But we must intensify our
efforts this year with additional funding,
as provided in this legislation.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, I commend this bill to
my colleagues and urge their approval.
With peace as our goal-peace in the
Middle East, peace in Indochina, world
peace-let us vote to provide the funds
necessary to conduct effective foreign as-
sistance programs in fiscal year 1975.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man., I yield 10 minutes to the gentle-
man from Indiana (Mr. DENNis).
(Mr. DENNIS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I take
this time because I am persuaded that
the issues in this bill are important and
that this is one of those occasions, al-
ways difficult for this House, when we
ought to make the effort to employ poli-
tics In the higher meaning of statecraft
rather than in its more familiar aspect
of counting noses in the precincts.
I am no great and good friend of for-
eign aid and there are aspects of the bill
now before us which fail to arouse any
great enthusiasm in me. There are Mem-
bers of this body, such as my distin-
guished friend, the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Gross), who are always and for-
ever and without exception against for-
eign aid in any amount and under any
circumstances and in all its forms. These
gentlemen have their considered reasons
for their point of view, they are con-
sistent, and I respect them and their
position.
I am not myself of this school, but
neither am I a big spender by nature or
belief at home or abroad. I consider for-
eign aid legitimate, not when employed
as a scattergun discharging alleged gen-
eral good will but when, and only when,
employed as a sharpshooter's rifle, aimed
and. targeted at some specific foreign
policy advantage for the clear benefit of
this great Nation and its great and pa-
tient common people whom we repre-
sent, and who pay the taxes and who
foot the bill.
There is another type of Member in
this body with whom I find myself in,
complete and total disagreement on this
particular subject. Unlike my friend, the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross), they
are not always opposed to foreign aid
for economic, financial, and nationalistic
American reasons. Somewhat like my-
self, although they favor aid more gen-
erally than I do, they are sometimes for
aid and sometimes opposed to aid; but
these people, to my way of thinking, are
governed in their viewpoint less by
American national interest than by their
view of the advancement of social goals
and political and economic policies as
they see them from their own some-
what doctrinaire point of view. These are
the people who do not want to buy
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
 H 11546
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?- HOUSE December 10, 1974
chrome from Rhodesia even though we
need Rhodesian chrome. They are the
people who do not want to aid Chile
or South Korea or South Vietnam or
Cambodia or the former Government of
Portugal, not on the basis of our own
national interest in these cases but be-
cause these are dictatorial governments
and, more significantly, because they are
dictatorial governments of the right.
These people, most of them, are willing
to help Israel even to the extent of de-
nuding the United States of vital military
equipment. Yet they tend to boggle at
the extension of some moderate aid to
Egypt or to Jordan or, under some cir-
cumstances, perhaps to Syria, as a neces-
sary means of maintaining a balance
which prudence would suggest is abso-
lutely essential to the maintenance of
peace. And so far as I know, these people
have made no serious effort in the last
20 years to attempt to use the leverage
which we have with Israel to try to make
a settlement of the exceedingly difficult
and now terribly and unnecessarily ex-
acerbated problem of the Palestinian
refugees.
Again some of these same people say
that Turkey is a military aggressor-
forgetting, It appears, that the crisis was
precipitated by a rightwing dictatorship
in Greece-and that, therefore, we must
second-guess the Secretary of State and
the President of the United States as to
the best method of bringing about peace
In the embattled island of Cyprus.
Mr. Chairman, despite my many reser-
vations about this bill, I am going to sup-
port it, if It is not loaded down by too
many crippling amendments, as a needed
and necessary tool of American foreign
policy; but I strongly object to the dou-
ble standard with which too many of us
approach these vital problems. I implore
my colleagues, in the name of world
peace, to give the executive branch the
necessary tools to do its constitutional
job; and I beg them not to play politics
on this floor with the fortunes and, it
may be, even with the lives, of your con-
stituents and mine.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. MILLER).
(Mr. MILLER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I want
to take just a couple minutes at this
time to inform the committee that when
we arrive at the amending process of
H.R. 17234, the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1974, that I plan to offer an amend-
ment. That amendment will do one thing.
It will allow us, the United States, to bar-
ter with nations that want our foreign
assistance. We today have our own prob-
lems within this country. We have a short
supply of many strategic metals. We are
using our natural resources and, as a
matter of fact, we are using about 35 per-
cent of the world's natural resources with
only about 7 percent of the world's popu-
lation. By the year 2000, on the basis of
the known reserves that we have today
in the United States, we will be out of
11 of our 13 major strategic metals.
The main purpose is to show that we
can barter and have something coming
toward our shores for the foreign assist-
ance that we give to the other nations.
Since 1946 we have allowed about $158
billion to flow from oui shores and it is
time we received something back in turn,
which will be the natural resources and
the strategic metals that we so badly
need In order to keep this industrialized
Nation of ours rolling beyond the year
2000.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman., I have
no,further requests for time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I have no "further requests for time.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the
rule, the Clerk will now read the bill by
titles.
The Clerk read as follows::
.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the "Foreign Assistance
Act of 1974".
TITLE I-MIDDLE EAST PEACE
ASSISTANCE TO THE M1111112 EAST
SEc. 2. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
Isamended by adding at the.end thereof the
following new part:
"PART VI
"SEC. 901. STATEMENT OF POLICY.-The Con-
gress recognizes that a peaceful and lasting
resolution of the devisive issues that have
contributed to tension. and conflict between
nations in the Middle East is essential to the
security of the United States and the cause
of world peace. The Congress declares and
finds that the United States can and should
play a constructive role in securing a just
and durable peace in the Middle East by
facilitating increased understanding between
the Arab nations and Israel, and by assisting
the nations in the area in their efforts to
achieve economic progress and political sta-
bility, which are the essential foundations
for a just and durable peace. It is the sense
of Congress that United States assistance
programs in the Middle East should be de-
signed to promote mutual respect and -seta-
rity among the nations in the area and to
foster a climate conducive to increased eco-
nomic development, thereby contributing to
a community of free, secure, and prospering
nations in the Middle East.
"It is further the sense of Congress that
none of the funds authorized. by the Act
should be provided to any nation which
denies its citizens the right or opportunity
to emigrate.
"SEC. 902. ALLOCATIONS-(a) Of the funds
appropriated to carry out chapter :2 of part
II of this Act, during the fiscal year 1975 up
to $200,000,000 may be made available for
military assistance- in the Middle East, of
which not less than $100,000,000 shall be
made available for Israel.
"(b) Of the funds appropriated to carry
out chapter 4 of part II of this Act, during
the fiscal year 1975 up to $577,500,000 may be
made available for security supporting as-
sistance, in the Middle East, of which not
less than $250,000,000 shall be made available
for Israel and not less than $250,000;,000 shall
be made available for Egypt.
"(c) Of the aggregate ceiling -on credits
and guaranties established by section 91(b)
of the Foreign Military Sales Act, during the
fiscal year 1975 up to $230,000;000 shall be
available for countries in the Middle East, of
which not less than $200,000,000 shall be
made available for Israel.
"SEC. 903. (a) SPECIAL REQUIREMEnTS FUND.
-There are authorized to be appropriated
to the President for the fiscal year 1975 not
to exceed $1.00,000,000 to furnish assistance
under part I of this Act to meet special re-
quirements arising from time to time in car..
ryingout?the purposes of this part, in ad-
dition to funds otherwise -available for such
purposes. The funds authorized to be ap-
propriated by this section shall be available
for use by the President for assistance au-
thorized by such part in accordance with the
provisions applicable to the furnishing of
such assistance. Such funds are authorized to
remain available until expended.
"(b) The President may only obligate or
expend, for each foreign country, or inter..
national organization, funds authorized un-
der this section-
"(1) after he reports to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the Committee
on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate concerning (A.)
the name of such foreign country or inter-
national organization, (B) the amount of
such funds to be made available to such
country or organization, and (C) the pur-
pose for which such funds are to be made
available to such country or .organization;
and
(2.) unless the Congress, within thirty
legislative days after receiving any report
under paragraph (1), adopts a concurrent
resolution stating In substance that it does
not favor the provisions of the report pro-
vided by clauses (A), (B), -and (C) of para-
graph (1).
"(c) Of the amount authorized under sub-
section (a), not less than $6,000,000 shall con-
stitute a contribution by the United States
toward the settlement of the deficit of the
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for
Palestine Refugees in the Middle East, if the
President determines that a reasonable num-
ber of other countries will contribute a fair
share toward the settlement of such deficit
within a -reasonable period of time After the
date of enactment of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1974. In determining such fair share,
the President shall take into consideration
the economic position of each such country.
Such $6,000,000 shall be in addition to any
other contribution to such Agency by the
United States pursuant to any other provi-
sion of law."
PROHIBITIONS AGAINST FURNISHING ASSISTANCE
SEC. 3. Section 620(p) of the Foreign As-
sistance Act-of 1961 is repealed.
:NUCLEAR POWERPLANTS
-Sec. 4. None of the funds authorized by
this Act maybe used to finance the construc-
tion of, the operation or maintenance of, or
the supply of fuel for any nuclear power-
plant in Israel or Egypt, which has been ap-
proved under an agreement for cooperation
between the United States and either such
country.
Mr. MORGAN (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that title I be considered as read, printed
in the RECORD, and open to amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I move
that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker pro tempore, Mr..MCFALL,
having assumed the chair, Mr. PRICE of
Illinois, Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee,
having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 17234) to amend the Foreign As-
sistance Act of 1961, and for other pur-
poses, had come to no resolution
THE TRADE BILL
(MT. ADDABBO asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020022-4