FOREIGN AID AUTHORIZATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 96
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 9, 2005
• Sequence Number: 24
• Publication Date: December 9, 1974
• Content Type: OPEN

191-J,1
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE FI11459
December 9, 1974
Mazzoli
Miller
Mitchell, N.Y.
3/Iollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead,
Calif.
Murphy,
Murtha
Natcher
Nichols
O'Brien
Parris
Pettis
Peyser
Pike
Randall
Rose
Roush
ROusselot
Runnels
Satterfield
Scherle
Shoup
Shuster
Sikes
Skubitz
Slack
Snyder
Spence
Staggers
Steed
Steele
Steiger, Ariz.
Roberts Stubblefield
Robinson, Va. Stuckey
Roe Sullivan
NOT VOTING-101
Symms
Taylor, N.C.
Traxler
Veysey
Waggonner
Walsh
Wampler
White
Whitehurst
Whitten
Wilson,
Charles H.,
Calif.
Wolff
Wylie
Yatron
Young, Fla,,
Young, S.C.
Alexander Green, Oreg.
Andrews, N.C. Griffiths
Arends Grover
Ashbrook? Hanna
Badillo Hansen, Wash.
Beard Hawkins
Bell Hays
Blatnik Hebert
Boggs Heckler, Mass.
Boland Heinz
Brasco Helstoski
Broomfield Hillis
Brotzman Holifield
Brown, Calif. Horton
Brown, Ohio Howard
Broyhill, Va. Jones,N.C.
Byron King
Carey, N.Y. Kuykendall
Chappell Landrum
Chisholm Luken
Clancy McFall
Clark McKinney
Clawson, Del McSpadden -
Cohen Macdonald
Cotter . Maraziti
Cronin Martin, Nebr.
Donohue Martin, N.C.
Dorn Mathias, Calif.
Eshleman Meeds
Evans, Colo. Mills
Evins, Tenn. Minshall, Ohio
Fisher Mizell
Gialmo Mosher
Grasso Murphy, N.Y.
Nix
O'Hara
Passman
Podell
Powell, Ohio
Price, Tex.
Railsback
Rangel
Rarick
Rodino
Rogers
Roncal to, Wyo.
Roncallo, N.Y.
Rooney, N.Y.
Rostenkowski
Ruppe
Ryan
Sandman
Schneebeli
Schroeder
Shipley
Sisk
Taylor, Mo.
Teague
Thornton
Towell, Nev.
Ullman
Vander Jagt
Wyatt
Wyman
Young, Alaska
Zion
Zwach
So the bill Was passed.
The Clerk announced the following
pair?:*
, On this vote:
\ Mrs. Boggs for, with Mr. Shipley against.
\ Mr. Rostenkowski for, with Mr. Rogers
against.
Mr. McFall for, with Mr. Hebert against.
Mr. Cotter for, with Mr. Passman against.
Mrs. Chisholm for, with Mr. Rarick
ainst.
? Mr. Horton for, with Mr. Byron against.
r. Hawkins for, with Mr. Clark against.
tylr. Badillo for, with Mr. Fisher against.
tr. Boland for, with Mr. Landrum against.
r. Macdonald for, with Mr. Chappell
list.
Murphy of New York for, with Mr.
against.
e . Vander Jagt for, with Mr. Jones of
Carolina against.
d Teague for, with Mr. Taylor of Missouri
,11 t.
Mosher for,. with Mr. Clancy against.
Rodino for, with Mr. King against.
Giaimo for, with Mr. Powell of Ohio
;.
Ilshlemari for, with Mr. Price of Texas
v
ronin for, with Mr. Broyhill of Vir-
tainst.
Broomfield for, with Del Clawson
Heckler of Massachusetts for, with Mr.
?It against.
a 1)40-Kinney for, with Mr. Martin of
,ska against.
Arends for, with Mr. Nix asainst.
'11.0pz for, with Mr. -.1173rnranickii-T5t7---
.r. Meeds for, with Mr. Zion against.
'Mr. Sisk for, with Mr. Mare,ziti against.
a-
n-
Mr. Rangel for, with Mr. Roncallo of New
York against.
Mr. Howard for, with Mr. Evins of Tennes-
see against.
Mr. Hillis for, with Mr. Ashbrook against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Alexander with Mrs. Grasso.
Mr. Andrews of North Carolina with Mr.
Rooney of New York.
Mr. Helstoski with Mr. Carey of New York.
Mr. Bell with Mr. Beard.
Mr. Brown of California with Mr. Blatnik.
Mr. Brown of Ohio with Mr. Brotzman.
Mr. Cohen with Mr. Donohue.
Mr., Evans of Colorado with Mrs. Green of
Oregon.
Mr. Kuykendall with Mrs. Griffiths.
Mrs. Hansen of Washington with Mr.
Hanna.
Mr. Martin of North Carolina with Mr.
Hays.
Mr. Mills with Mr. Holifield.
Mr. O'Hara with Mr. Luken.
Mr. Minshall with Mr. Mathias of Cali-
fornia.
Mr. Railsback with Mr. Mizell.
Mr. Roncallo of Wyoming with Mr. Ruppe.
Mr. Ryan with Mrs. Schroeder.
Mr. Schneebeli with Mr. Towell of Nevada.
Mr. Thornton with Mr. Ullman.
Mr. Sandman with Mr. Wyatt.
Mr. Zwach with Mr. Young of
The result of the vote was a ounced
as above recorded. A motion ? recon-
sider was laid on the table.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speak:, I ask
unanimous consent that all embers
may have 5 legislative days in hich to
revise and extend their remarks and in-
clude extraneous matter, an th bill lust
passed.
The SPEAKER., Is there obj tion to
the request of the gentlem from
Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speak , I ask
unanimous consent to take f ?m the
Speaker's table the Senate bill r.. 2193)
to provide for increased partici tion by
the United States in the Asian velop-
ment Bank, and ask for its i edlate
consideration.
The Clerk read the.title of th Senate
bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there obi
the request of the gentlem
Texas?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bil as fol-
lows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and ouse of
Representatives of the United ates of
America in Congress assembled, at the
Asian Development Bank Act, as ended
(22 U.S.C. 285-285p) , is further am ded by
adding at the end thereof the folio mg new
sections:
"SEC. 20. (a) The United States overnor
of the Bank is authorized to sub ribe on
behalf of the United States to thi y thou-
sand additional shares of the capi al stock
of the Bank in accordance with an4 subject
to the terms and conditions of Resolution
Numbered 46 adopted by the Bank's Board
of Governors on November 30, 1971.
"(b) In order to pay for the increase In
the United States subscription to the Bank
provided for in this section, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated without fiscal
year limitation $361,901,726 for payment by
,t1AQ Secretary of the Treasury. ,
"SEC, 21. (a) -The United States Governor
of the Bank is hereby authorized to agree
to contribute on behalf of the United States
tion to
from
$50,000,000 to the special funds of the Bank.
This contribution shall be made available to
the Bank pursuant to the provisions of article
19 of the articles of agreement of the Bank.
"(b) In order to pay for the United States
contribution to the special ,funds, there is
hereby authorized to be appropriated with-
out fiscal year limitation 350.000,000 for pay-
ment by the Secretary of the Treasury.".
The Senate bill was ordered to be read
a third time, was read the third time, and
passed, and a motion to reconsider was
laid on the table.
A similar House bill (H.R. 11666) was
laid on the table.
AUTHORIZING CLERK TO RECEIVE
MESSAGES FROM THE SENATE
AND SPEAKER TO SIGN ENROLLED
BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS,
NOTWITHSTANDING ADJOURN-
MENT
Mr. C)'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous consent that, notwithstanding the
adjournment of the House until tomor-
row, the Clerk be authorized to receive
messages from the Senate, and the
Speaker be authorized to sign any en-
d bills and joint resolutions duly
pass sM?the two Houses and found truly
enrolled.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mas-
sachusetts?
There was no objection.
FOREIGN AID AUTHORIZATION
(Mr. BRADEMAS asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute, to revise and extend his remarks
and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Speaker, the
House is scheduled tomorrow to begin
consideration of Ha. 17234, the foreign
aid authorization bill.
I hope that Members of the House of
Representatives will write into perma-
nent law legislation to continue the sus-
pension of U.S. military aid to Turkey
until the President can certify that Tur-
key is in compliance with U.S. laws and
until substantial progress is made by the
principals on an agreement regarding
military forces in Cyprus.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to insert in the REC-
oRn the text of an editorial entitled
"Arms for Turkey," published yesterday,
December 8, 1974, in the highly respected
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, urging that the
House reject any extension of the sus-
pension of aid and vote an immediate
cutoff of aid to Turkey.
? The editorial follows:
ARMS FOR TURKEY
When the United States Senate threatened
In October to cut military aid to Turkey, the
White House pleaded for more time and even-
tually managed to win two compromises. The
termination date was postponed until Dec. 10
and President Ford was authorized to con-
tinue military assistance after that date pro-
vided he found "substantial progress" had
been made on the Cyprus issue. Not only has
there been no progress, but it does not seem
to be forthcoming. Turkey remains as ada-
mant as ever about the maintenance of its
occupation force on Cyprus.
Incredibly, the senate voted Thursday in
favor of yet another extension of the deadline,
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
II 11460
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE December 9, 1974
to Feb. 15. The extension, if sustained by the
House, would mean that Congress had failed
on significant questions of principle and pol-
icy. The laws of this country stipulate that
military assistance can be used by the recipi-
ent only for purposes of national defense. If
there is a violation, as there certainly was in
the instance of Turkey's invasion of a foreign
country, then the White House should be
bound to uphold the law and, at the very
least, terminate military assistance. Secre-
tary of State Kissinger has all but acknowl-
edged that the law was violated yet he contin-
ues to insist that the principle of upholding
the law should be overlooked in the national
Interest.
As for the question of policy, there is no
virtue in rewarding an aggressor and in see-
ing the other ally in this conflict?Greece--
driven further away from the Western alli-
ance. It has now been confirmed not only that
U.S. military aid to Turkey continued after
the invasion of Cyprus, but also that it in-
creased sharply. Missouri's two senators voted
wisely to reject extension of the deadline on
the assumption that if the Senate backed
down again, the government of Turkey would
no longer pay serious attention to warnings
from Capitol Hill. If the House fails to elimi-
nate the extension amendment from the for-
eign aid bill, then it too will have played the
sorry role of actually postponing a solution
to the conflict on Cyprus.
ACTIONS OF JOINT CHIEF OF STAFF
AND SECRETARY OF AGRICUL
TUBE WARRANT INSISTING U
RESIGNATIONS
(Mr. WOLFF asked and was en
permission to address the Ho or 1
minute and to revise and ext his re-
marks and include extrane matter.)
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Spea on Novem-
ber 20 I introduced a ? ution of in-
quiry, directed to the cretary of De-
fense, requesting all tual information
which formed the is of Gen. George
S. Brown's rema and allegations at
Duke University had intended today to
bring up a motiOn to discharge the com-
mittee in order for the House to consider
this resolution. Since the introduction
of my resolution, however, General
Brown has made certain statements
which clearly indicate that the backup
facts which I am seeking simply do not
exist. To pursue my resolution of inquiry,
therefore, would serve no useful purpose.
General Brown told his Duke Uni-
versity audience that the Jews in the
United States control the banking in-
dustry, the newspapers and the Con-
gress. It was, in the General's own words,
an "unthinking" remark which deeply
offended a large segment of the Amer-
ican population. In a graver sense, how-
ever, General Brown's "unthinking"
comments threw into serious question his
fitness for the position he holds as Chair-
man of our Joint Chiefs of Staff. In a
statement made after his appearance at
Duke Uniersity, General Brown ad-
mitted that he had "provided an un-
thinking shorthand answer," had "used
Inaccurate words," had since "learned a
good deal about the corporate structure
of banks and newspapers, and in addi-
tion, learned how little (he) previously
knew about that subject."
By his own admission, Gep,eral Bream
has indicated that his remarks at Duke
were unfounded and irresponsible, I ask
if we can continue to allow a man with
.5o little judgment and solid information
to act as the leader of our defense effort.
The General's remarks go beyond their
-vulgar, disgraceful ethnic slur; they war-
rant more than official wristslapping. I
believe, based on the General's own ad-
missions, that his comments evidence a
lack of judgment and responsibility
which should require his removal from
the position he holds. In the interests of
national security, we cannot permit a
man who has evidenced such error in
judgment to serve as the Nation's second
ranking military officer. I have conveyed
this belief to the President and hope that
he will recognize the gravity of this inci-
dent by insisting upon General Brown's
resigna ion.
Mr. peaker, unfortunately, General
Etrown is not the only high ranking ad-
r?inist official who has- been mak-
ing c bus, unthinking remarks. In an
"off e record" comment to the press,
Sec ry of Agriculture Butz managed
to ridicule the person of Pope Paul
VI id offend millions of Roman Catho-
lic throughout the world and many
It an Americans. Mr. Butz' vulgar
" ke"? made at the expense of a large
gment of the American people and the
piritual leader of 600 million individuals
throughout the world, has no place in a
responsible and concerned Government.
The Roman Catholic Church has, for
close to 2,000 years, embraced the cause
of the poor, the hungry and the down-
trodden. For a high ranking U.S. official
tO impugn its record of charity and con-
cern for humanity is an outrage and a
disgrace to the Government he repre-
sents.
I have called for Secretary Butz' re-
moval from office before for his irrespon-
sible actions and handling of American
food 'policy. His recent slanderous re-
marks reinforce my feeling that this man
does not belong in a position of responsi-
bility and trust.
The incidents involving General Brown
and Secretary Butz leave an impression
of bigotry at the highest levels of our
Government that is repugnant to the
American and international communi-
ties. Even beyond that, they show a lack
of judgment which we should question as
Injurious to our Nation and its security.
For the President to clear the air, to re-
store a sense of decency and responsibil-
ity to his administration, he must insist
upon the resignations of both officials in
question.
TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE
H. R. GROSS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
DINGELL) . Under a previous order of
the House, the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. SCIIERLE) is recognized for 60 min-
utes.
Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Speaker,, one score
and 6 years ago, the people of Iowa
brought forth upon this great Congress a
watchdog to help control the appetite
of ,big spenders, H. R. Gaoss,, Today my
colleagues and I from the Iowa delega-
tion and Mr. BAUMAN from Maryland
have requested this special order to com-
memorate the gentleman from Iowa's 26
memorable years of service to the House
of Representatives and we are proud that
so many Members have taken the time
to express their personal sentiment to
our beloved friend.
H. R. is a man of many notable quali-
ties which Members who know him only
on the House floor, might never have had
the chance to experience. He is a man
who builds warm and steady friendships,
who puts guests at ease as quickly and
calmly as he undermines his opponents'
arguments. It may seem impossible to
those who try to keep up with him dur-
ing debates, but he is as dedicated a
family man as he is a legislator. With his
wife, Hazel, who rivals him in being well-
informed, H. R. thoroughly reads and
reviews every schednled bill and confer-
ence report?a practice which usually
absorbs his evenings and often his week-
ends. Despite the press of his duties and
the rigors of over 13 campaigns, however,
he is always tremendously thoughtful
and considerate.
H. R. is a man devoted to traditional
principles which form the bedrock of
this country's greatness. He is best known
as a champion of fiscal responsibility.
This sometimes lonesome occupation has
gained him a national constituency of
taxpayers who know him only through
his immutable attention to his work and
his amazing ability to accurately prophe-
sy the true cost of Federal projects and
programs. His role as the "taxpayers
guardian" has made him a thorn in the
side of waste and extravagance but it
has also earned him the respect and ad-
miration of Members on both sides of
the aisle.
Today we pay tribute not only to H. R.
GROSS, but to his principles as well. Some
may suggest that a plaque or a statue
be erected in his honor, but it would be
far better if we all resolved to continue
the same high standard of personal in-
tegrity that H. R. has always maintained.
H. R., we will all miss you, but .your
courage to back your convictions will al-
ways remain with us.
One final word to our friends in the
media?earlier this year H. R. and his
lovely wife, Hazel, were blessed with theh
second grandson, H. R. Gross, Jr. So past
the word to your children, that by tin
year 2000 there will* be another H. It
GROSS in the House, requesting a quorun
call to keep that Congress on its toes.
Mr. GROSS, Mr. Speaker, before yield
ing to the gentleman from Iowa, will th
gentleman yield to me?
Mr. SCHERLE. I will be glad to yiel
to my colleague, the gentleman froi
Iowa (Mr. Gaoss)
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I have
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The ge
tleman will state his parliamentary i
quiry.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, we have n,
a long day. It is now 7:20 in the evenin
and I am reminded that under clause A
of the rules a Member is prohibite
from making a quorum call. I wonder
the _Chair would be good enough to hei).
me put a stop to this by granting me
unanimous consent to waive clause Vi.
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Wednesday, December 4, 1974
Daily Digest
HIGHLIGHTS
Senate passed foreign aid authorizations bill.
House cleared supplemental appropriations conference report and passed
budget rescissions bill.
House committee ordered reported Emergency Jobs Act.
Sen ate
Chamber Action
Routine Proceedings, pages S20449?S2051 7
Bills Introduced: Nine bills and three resolutions re
introduced, as follows: S. 4205-4213; S.J. Res. 262; d
S. Res. 441 and 442. Pages S 20453?S 20454, S 2
Bills Reported: Reports were made as follows:
Conference report on H.R. 11929, to provide t
expenditures by the Tennessee Valley Authority
certified pollution control equipment be credi
against required payments to the Treasury (S. Rept.
1305). Filed during adjournment of the Senate.
H.R. 17026, relating to former Speakers of the Ho e
of Representatives (S. Rept. 93-1306).
S.J. Res. 262, authorizing the architect of the Cap 1
to permit certain work on the Capitol grounds in c
necdon with the erection of an addition to a build
on adjacent private property (S. Rept. 93-1307).
H.R. 6925, authorizing the Forest Service to excha
two sections of land within the Cibola National Fo t,
N. Mex., for two sections of land held in trust by
United States for the Pueblo of Acoma of New Me
(S. Rept. 93-1308). ?
S. Res. 441, requesting an additional $30,000 for
expenses of Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
(without written report, referred to Committee on Rules
and Administration).
H.R.,8824, authorizing the conveyance of certain land
in Wisconsin to Mrs. Harriet La Pointe Vanderventer
(S. Rept. 93-1309). Pages 520453, S 20471
Bills Referred; Sundry House-passed bills were re-
ferred to appropriate Senate committees. Page S 20453
Messages From the House: Senate received four mes-
sages from the House today. Pages S 20452?S 20453
Amendments Submitted for Printing:
Pages $20471?S 20472
Bills Passed:
Foreign aid authorizations: By 46 yeas to 45 nays,
Senate passed S. 3394, authorizing funds for foreign aid
programs for fiscal year 1975, after taking action on
additional amendments proposed thereto, as follows:
Adopted:
( i) Nelson amendment No. 2002, requiring quarterly
Presidential report to the Congress on sales to one coun-
try of $25 million or more, or cumulative sales of $50
million or more in I year; Page S 20525
(2) Sparkman amendment extending from June 30,
1975 to June 30, 1976 military assistance programs for
South Vietnam; Page 520530
(3) Eagleton amendment No. 2004, as amended,
suspending military assistance to Turkey unless the
President determines that that country is in compliance
with the Foreign Assistance and Military Sales Acts;
Page S 20530
(4) By 55 yeas to 36 nays, Humphrey amendment
(to Eagleton amendment No. 2004) making such sus-
pension effective only until 30 days after convening of
the 94th Congress and authorizing the President to
suspend its provisions under certain circumstances;
Page 5 20535
(5) Inouye amendment to delete section 20 ( a), which
authorizes use of the balance of repayments on foreign
assistance loans for fiscal year 1975 to be used for eco-
nomic development programs, and reconstruction in
drought-stricken nations of Africa, relief in Bangladesh,
and Cyprus, and in certain other cases; Page S 20537
(6) By 65 yeas to 27 nays, modified Harry F. Byrd, Jr.
amendment No. 2001, establishing a ceiling of $165
million on contributions authorized for the U.N. or,
any segment thereof (approximate $21 million reduc-
tion) ; Page S20549
D1323
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A00010002002472
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
I) 1324 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? DAILY DIGEST
(7) Church amendment providing for deposit in the
Treasury as miscellaneous receipts those receipts from
foreign assistance loans; Page S 20580
(8) Kennedy amendment authorizing $9 million
and bo million for grants and loans, respectively, for
assistance to Portugal and Portuguese colonies in Africa
gaining independence;
Page S 20583
(9) Percy amendment calling for integration of
women into international organizations; and
Page S 20586
(ro) Humphrey amendment expressing policy of the
Congress with respect to countries most seriously
affected by food shortages. Page S 20587
Rejected:
(r) By 39 yeas to 93 nays, Church amendment, as
modified by Bayh amendment, setting a ceiling of $4.3
billion on fiscal year 1979 expenditures for foreign as-
sistance programs (would provide approximate $1.3
billion reduction); and Pages S 20552, S 20553
(2) By 43 yeas to 48 nays, Church amendment setting
a ceiling of $9 billion on fiscal year 1979 expenditures
for foreign assistance programs (would provide approxi-
mate $600 million reduction) ; and Page S 2055'7
(3) By 44 yeas to 47 nays, McGovern amendment
reducing from $990 million to boo million funds for
military assistance program, and from $617 million to
$967 million funds for postwar reconstruction in
Indochina. Page S 20581
Pages S 20524?S 20613
Robert L. Rausch: Senate took from calendar,
passed without amendment, and sent to the House
S. 2931, authorizing Robert L. Rausch to accept an office
or position in a university maintained by the . Govern-
ment of Canada. Page S 20620
U.S. coinage: Senate took from calendar, passed
without amendment, and sent to the House S. 4204,
authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to continue
through December 31, 1979, the minting of dollars, half-
dollars, and quarter-dollars bearing the current design
and coinage date. Page S 2,0620
Export-Import Bank: Senate continued to debate con-
ference report on H.R. 19977, to extend for 4 years the
life of the Export-Import Bank, and to provide increases
in its overall commitment authority, and, by 48 yeas to
44 nays, two-thirds of the Senators present and voting
not having voted in the affirmative, Senate failed to
agree to motion to close further debate thereon.
By 84 yeas to 8 nays, Senate agreed to motion to table
this conference report, further insisted on its amend-
merits, requested a conference with the House, and ap-
pointed as conferees Senators Sparkman, Williams,
Proxmire, Cranston, Stevenson, McIntyre, Biden, Hath-
away, Tower, Brooke, Packwood, Brock, Bennett, and
Weicker. Pages S 20517-5 20524
December 4.'1914
Tennessee Valley Authority: Senate agreed to the
conference report on H.R. 11929, to provide that expendi-
tures by the Tennessee Valley Authority for certified
pollution control equipment be credited against required
payments to the Treasury, thus clearing the measure for
action of the House. Pages S 20613-5 20614
San Carlos Mineral Strip: Senate agreed to the House
amendment to the Senate amendment with an amend-
ment to H.R. 7730, authorizing purchase of property
located within the San Carlos Ariz., mineral strip, thus
clearing the measure for further action of the House.
Page S 20556
Presidential Message: Senate received a message from
the President transmitting proposal for 37 new addi-
tions to the Wilderness System?referred to Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs. Pages S 20450?S 20452
AEC Authorizations: By unanimous consent, it was
agreed that when Senate takes up S. 4033, authorizing
supplemental funds for the Atomic Energy Commission
for fiscal year 1979, debate thereon be limited toi hour,
with 3o minutes on any amendments. Page S 20557
Senate Meeting Time: Leadership announced that
beginning on Tuesday, December to, and for the re-
mainder of this session of the Senate, Senate will meet
at 9 a.m. daily. Page 5 20614
Joint Referral of Nominations: By unanimous con-
sent, the nomination of Robert C. Seamans, Jr., of
Massachusetts, to be Administrator of Energy Research
and Development, and the nomination of a Deputy Ad-
ministrator (when received by the Senate) were jointly
referred to Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
and Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, with certain
stipulated understandings. Page S 20619
Confirmation: Senate confirmed the nomination of
Paul H. O'Neill, of Virginia, to be Deputy Director of
the Office of Management and Budget. Page 5 20620
Nominations: Senate received the nomination of Dixy
Lee Ray, of Washington, to be an Assistant Secretary of
State for Oceans and International Environmental and
Scientific Affairs.
Also, Senate received the withdrawal and resubmittal
of the nomination of William A. Anders, of Virginia, to
be a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Page S 20620
Quorum Call: One quorum call was taken today.
Page 5 20523
Record Votes: Eight record votes were taken today.
(Tcital--496.)
Pages S 20523, S 20524, S 20537, S 20551-5 20552,
20556, S 20580, S 20589, S 20604
Program for Thursday: Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and
adjourned.at 6:47 p.m. until ro a.m. on Thursday, De-
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20524
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A00010002002'
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE December 4, 1974
then, the Bank has operated on four
continuing resolutions, the last one of
which expired on Saturday.
Now, it serves no one's purpose to con-
tinue the Bank in this limbo and the time
is running out in this session of the Con-
gress. If the Congress is to act at all in
this session, it must act soon and that re-
quires another conference - with the
House and another chance to prepare a
conference report which is acceptable to
the Senate and more in line with the
Senate-passed bill.
So, Mr. President, to seek one more
chance to resolve the issues which are
before us, and in this session of the
Congress, I suggest a new conference
with the House and to that end move to
table the conference report.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I re-
luctantly rise in opposition to the con-
ference report on H.R. 15977, the Export-
Import Bank Act Amendment. I have
supported the Export-Import Bank in
the past, and I hope I will be able to do
so in the future, for I recognize the im-
portance of Eximbank to the economy
of the United States. Exports result in a
more favorable balance of trade and add
to our economic stability. Export sales
supported by Eximbank mean jobs for
American workers, revenues for the Fed-
eral Government as well as State and
local governments, and foreign currency
earnings to offset imports of needed
goods and raw materials. During fiscal
year 1974, Eximbank participated in
nearly $13 billion of United States ex-
port sales which sustained nearly 800,000
full-time U.S. jobs.
? In addition, Eximbank does not re-
ceive annual appropriations, but rather
finances its operations by borrowing from
private capital markets and by making
loans out of retained earnings. Eximbank
is a unique Government agency in that
it has been able to operate at a profit
over the years while at the same time
accomplishing its objective of stimulat-
ing exports.
Mr. President, I must, however, oppose
this conference report. The Senate
adopted an amendment requiring affirm-
ative congressional approval of Exim-
bank financing of equipment and exper-
tise for the exploration and production
of fossil fuel energy resources in Com-
munist countries. The conference com-
mittee deleted this amendment. I con-
sider retention of this amendment neces-
sary because the major constraint on
rapid development of domestic oil and
gas resources is a severe shortage of
equipment and technical personnel. The
Congress should be able to consider the
question of subsidizing the transfer to
the Soviet Union of capital and equip-
ment which is needed here at home for
Project Independence. We should not
allow the attraction of increased exports
to overshadow the danger of providing
the Communist countries with aid at the
expense of our citizens.
Mr. President, the Senate also adopted
an amendment placing an overall ceiling
of $300 million on loans and guarantees
to the Soviet Union. This provision was
modified in conference to allow the Pres-
ident to raise this ceiling if he finds that
it is in the National interest to do so.
While I respect the authority of the
executive branch in matters dealing with
foreign affairs, I am convinced that con-
gressional approval should be obtained
prior to the $300-million level being
raised.
Mr. President, I hope this report will
be sent back to conference and returned
to the Senate in a form acceptable to a
majority of the Members.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on the motion to table the con-
ference report. The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
called the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
EASTLAND) , the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Esvm) , the Senator from
Colorado (Mr. HASKELL) , the Senator
from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON),
and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
PULBRIGHT) are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. TAI,MADGE) , is absent be-
cause of illness.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from Washing-
ton (Mr. MAGNUSON) , would vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLmoisr)
Is necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. PERCY) is absent on official
business.
The result was announced?yeas 84,
nays 8, as follows:
[No. 516 Leg.]
YEAS-84
Aloourezk Eagleton
Aiken Fannin
Allen Goldwater
Baker Gravel
Bartlett Griffin
Bayh Gurney
Beall Hansen
Bentsen Hart
Bible Hartke
Eiden Hatfield
Brock .Helms
Brooke Hollings
Buckley Hruska
Burdick Huddleston
Byrd, Hughes
Harry P., Jr. Humphrey
Byrd, Robert C. Inouye
Jackson
Johnston
Kennedy
Long
Mansfield
Mathias
McClellan
McClure
McGee
McGovern
McIntyre
Metcalf
NAYS-8
Cannon
Case
Chiles
Church
Clark
Cook
Cotton
Cranston
Curtis
Dole
Domenici
Dominick
Bennett
Fong -
Hathaway
Henna=
Eastland
Ervin
Javits
Packwood Willi
Taft
NOT VOTING-8
Fulbright Pere
Haskell Tal
Magnuson
Metzenbaum
Mondale
Montoya
Moss
Muskie
Nelson
Nunn
Pastore
Pearson
Pell
Proxmire
Rand01 h
Ri
Ro
Sc
Sco
Sco
w.
Sp
Sta
Sten
Stev
Stev
Symi
Thur
Tun
Weic
You
Tow
ker
Hugh
m L.
an
on
on
? nd
dge
So the motion to lay on the able was
agreed to. ,
Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. P sident, I
move that the Senate further 1st upon
its amendment and reques a further
conference with the House o epresent-
atives on the disagreeing vo of the two
Houses thereon: and that the Chair be
authorized to appoint the conferees on
the part of the Senate.
The PRESIDING 0.rviCER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I have a
motion at the desk which I would like
stated.
The PRESIDING OrriCER. The mo-
tion will be stated.
'The legislative clerk read as follows:
move that the Senate conferees on H.R.
15977, Export-Import Bank Act, be instructed
to insist on the Senate amendments to the
House bill.
The PRESIDING Or I. iCER (Mr. NEL-
soN) . The question is on agreeing to the
motion of the Senator from Alabama.
Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. President, what
is the motion?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The in-
structions of the Senator from Alabama
to the conferees.
The question is on agreeing to the mo-
tion.
The motion was agreed to, and the
Presiding Officer (Mr. NELsoN) appointed
Mr. SPARKMAN, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. PROX-
MIRE, Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. STEVENSON, Mr.
MCINTYRE, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. HATHAWAY,
Mr. TOWER, Mr. BROOKE, Mr. PACKWOOD,
Mr. BROCK, Mr. BENNETT, and Mr.
WEICKER conferees on the part of the
Senate.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. Mr. President, I
commend the distinguished Senator from
Illinois for moving to recommit the con-
ference report. I was one of the strong
opponents of this conference report. I
think that the last vote on cloture, a
nearly-even vote, plus the overwhelming
vote to recommit the bill to conference,
indicates that those of us who feel
strongly against the conference report
hope that the conferees will look closely
at the 13 points on which we felt the
Senate gave in to the House position,
particularly the four key points, about
which a number of us who are opposed
to the conference report wrote a letter
our coll s. I hope we can stand
nate position on these key
points..
I commend the distinguished Senator
from Illinois for his action in recommit-
ting this report.
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT
OF 1974
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Asomtem) . Under the previous order,
the Senate will now resume considera-
tion of S. 3394, which will be stated by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3394) to amend the Foreign As-
sistance Act of 1961, and for other purposes.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, on
October 2, the Senate recommitted the
Foreign Assistance Act. Since that date,
several members of the committee have
been working with the administration on
a compromise bill which we are offering
here today.
This compromise Is a reasonable one.
It represents a workable solution to the
impasse of October 2,1 believe this leg-
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16: CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE S20523
unanimous consent that Eleanor Bach-
rach be granted the privileges of the
floor during te consideration of the
conference repo on the Export-Import
Bank amendment.
The PRESIDIN tetseCER. Without
objection, it is so orde
Mr. STEVENSON. President, the
issue before the Senate ot the merit
of the conference report the Exim-
bank amendment of 1974. issue is
whether the Senate will now fforded
an opportunity to vote on the its of
the conference report.
The subject of the Eximbank is
conference report has been fully deb
It was debated when the Senate pas
Its version of the Export-Import amen
ment of 1974. The issue has been dis-
cussed in connection with four continu-
ing resolutions which have been ap-
proved by the Senate in order to keep
the Eximbank in business. The subject
has been fully debated.
It serves no good purpose to continue
the bank in its present state of limbo.
The time has come to resolve the issue
one way or the other by voting on the
conference report, and by closing off
debate.
For those reasons, Mr. President, I
urge my colleagues to vote in support of
the cloture motion.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING Oteesieeere Without
objection, it is so ordered.
IN?. 514 Leg.]
Alleo Gurney
Brock Hatfield
Byrd, Hathaway
Harry F., Jr. Jackson
Byrd, Robert C. Mansfield
careen McIntyre
Chiles Moss
Pastore
Ribicoff
Schweiker
Stennis
Stevenson
Symington
The PRF'-]DING OFFICER (Mr.
HATHAWAY). A quorum is not present.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr.. President,
I Move that the Sergeant at Arms be di-
rected to request the presence of absent
Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the motion of the
Senator from West Virginia.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Ser-
k, it at Arms will execute the order of
Senate.
ter some delay, the following Sena-
tor tered the Chamber and answered
to t names:
About' Fong - Mondale
Aiken Goldwater Montoya
Baker Gravel Muskie
13artlett Griffin Nelson
BfVzh [arisen Nunn
Been Packwood
Belinett tire Pearson
Bentsen I s Pell
Bible H Proxmire
Bitten Hr Randolph
Brooke Hud on Roth
But?kley Ilughe Scott, Hugh
Burdick Hump Scott,
Ca.$-m Inouye William L.
Church Jayits Sparkman
Clark Johnston Stafford
Cook Kennedy tevens
Cotton Long ft
Cranston Mathias urrnond
Curtis McClellan er
Dole McClure T ET
Domenici McGee r
Doininick McGovern
Ew4latoll Metcalf
Fr' inn 1VIetzenbaum
CLOTURE MOTION
The PRESIDING ?Plea:eat. The time
for debate on the unanimous-consent
agreement having expired, pursuant to
rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Sen-
ate the pending cloture motion, which
the clerk will state.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
CLOTURE MOTTON
We, the undersigned Senators, in accord-
ance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move
to bring to a close the debate upon the
adoption Of the conference report on H.R.
15977, the Export-Import Bank Act Amend-
ment.
Bob Packwood, Robert P. Griffin, Lee Met-
calf, Mike IVIansfleld, Hugh Scott, J. Glenn
Beall, Jr., Joseph M. Montoya, Howard if.
Baker, Jr., Frank E. Moss, Wallace F. Ben-
nett, Robert T. Stafford, Edmund S. Muskie,
John Tower, Thomas J. McIntyre, Lowell P.
Weicker, Jr., Harold E. Hughes, Bill Brock.
CALL OF THE ROLL
The PRESIDING OrriCER. Pursuant
to rule XXII, the Chair now directs
the clerk to call the roll to ascertain the
presence of a quorum.
The second assistant legislative clerk
called the roll, and the following Sen-
ators answered to their names:
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I ann ce
that the Senator from Mississippi
EASTLAND) ,, the Senator from North C
olina (Mr. Eimer) , the Senator from Ar
kansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT) , the Senator
from Colorado (Mr. HASKELL), and the
Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNU-
S( in), are necessarily absent.
1 also announce that the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. TALMADGE) is absent be-
cause of illness.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON)
is necesarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. PERCY) is absent on official
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum
I s present.
VOTE
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Beenewey). The question is, is it the
sense of the Senate that debate on the
conference report on the bill H.R.
35977) to amend the Export-Import
Bank Act of 1945, and for other purposes,
shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory
under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the. roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
EASTLAND) , the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Eimer) , the Senator from
Arkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT) , the Senator
from Colorado (Mr. HASKELL) , and the
Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNU-
SON) are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. TALMADGE) is absent be-
cause of illness.
1 further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from Washing-
ton (Mr. MAGNUSON) would vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BesemoN)
is necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. PERCY) is absent on official
business.
- The yeas
nays 44, as
and nays resulted?yeas 48,
follows:
[No. 515 Leg.]
YEAS---48
Aiken
Baker
Beall
Bennett
Biden
Brock
Brooke
Byrd, Robert C.
Clark
Cook
Curtis
Dole
Domenici
Fannin
Fong
Griffin
Hart
Hatfield
Hathaway
Hollings
Huddleston
Hughes
Humphrey
Inouye
Javits
Kennedy
Mansfield
Mathias
McGee
McGovern
Metzenbaum
Mondale
NAYS-44
Abourezk Dominick
Allen Eagleton
Bartlett Goldwater
Bayh Gravel
Bentsen Gurney
Bible Hansen
Buckley Hartke
Burdick Helms
Byrd, Hruska
Harry P., Jr. Jackson
Cannon Johnston
Case Long
Chiles McClellan
hurch McClure
tton McIntyre
sten Metcalf
NOT VOTING-6
Bell
Eastl
Ervin
Montoya
Moss
Muskie
Packwood
Pastore
Pearson
Pell
Scott, Hugh
Stafford
Stevens
Stevenson
Taft
Tower
Tunney
Weicker
Williams
Nelson
Nunn
Proxmire
Randolph
Ribicoff
Roth
Schvvelker
Scott,
William L.
Sparkman
Stennis
Symington
Thurmond
Young
Fulbright
Haskell
Magnuson
Percy
Talmadge
The SIDING Ore ICER. On this
vote ther. re 48 yeas and 44 nays. Two-
thirds of Senators present and vot-
ing not ha voted in the affirmative,
the cloture ion is not agreed to.
MT. STEV ON. Mr. President,
Members may nt to remain in the
Chamber becau t is likely there will
be another mika within a matter of
minutes. I intend, a few minutes, to
move to table the co rence report.
The purpose of thi otion Is not to
kill Eximbank legislati in this session
of the Congress, but in ad to save it
and to improve it.
The only way to do tha to go back
to conference with the 0th.: body, and
the only way that we can go ck to con-
ference with the House is, in e present
circumstances, to table this c ference
report and then move for *a w con-
ference, which is what I now Mend
to do.
The Bank's permanent authorizing
legislation expired on June 30. Since
Approved For Release 2005/06/16: CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20526
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE December
Congress after the date on which the state-
ment is transmitted, Congress adopts a con-
current resolution disapproving the sale,
credit sale, or guaranty with respect to which
the statement is made.
"'(3) For purposes of paragraph (2) of this
subsection?
(A) the continuity of a session is broken
only by an adjournment of the Congress
sine die; and
"'(B) the days on which either House is
not in session because of an adjournment of
more than three days to a day certain are
excluded in the computation of the thirty-
day period.
"(c) The provisions of paragraph (2) of
subsection (b) of this section shall not apply
if the President transmits to the Speaker of
the House of Representatives and the Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate
a statement of waiver in he national se-
curity interests of the United States.
"'(d) Subsections (e) through (m) of this
section are enacted by Congress?
"'(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking
power of the Senate and the House of Repre-
sentatives, respectively, and as such they are
deemed a part of the rules of each House,
respectively, but applicable only with respect
to the procedure to be followed in the House
in the case of resolutions described by this
section; and they supersede other rules only
to the extent that they are inconsistent
therewith; ? and
" '(2) with full recognition of the con-
stitutional right of either House to change
the rules (so far as, relating to the proce-
dure of that House) at any time, in the same
manner, and to the same extent as in the
case of any other rule of that House.
"'(e) For purposes of susbections (d)
through (m) of this section, "resolution"
means only a concurrent resolution, the mat-
ter after the resolving clause of which is as
follows: "That the Congress does not ap-
prove the (agreement, contract) for
and-explained in the statement trans-
mitted to Congress by the President on
19 .", the appropriate word
within the, parentheses being selected, the
first blank space therein being filled with
the name of the foreign country on whose
behalf the sale, credit sale, or guaranty is
made, and the other blank space therein
being appropriately filled with the date of
the transmittal of the statement; but does
not include a resolution specifying more than
one sale, credit sale, or guaranty.
"'(f) If the committee, to which has been
referred a resolution disapproving a sale,
credit sale, or guaranty, has not reported the
resolution at the end of ten calendar days
after its introduction, It is in order to move
either to discharge the committee from fur-
ther consideration 'of the resolution or to
discharge the committee from further con-
sideration of any other resolution with re-
spect to the same sale, credit sale, or guar-
anty which has been referred to the
committee.
'"(g) A motion to discharge may be made
only by an individual favoring the resolu-
tion, is highly privileged (except that It may
not be made after the committee has re-
ported a resolution with respect to the same
sale, credit sale, or guaranty) , and debate
thereon is limited to not more than one
hour, to be divided equally between those
favoring and those opposing the resolution.
An amendment to the motion is not in order,
and it is not in order to move to reconsider
the vote by which the motion is agreed to or
disagreed to.
''(h) If the motion to discharge is agreed
to, or disagreed to, the motion may not be
renewed, nor may another motion to dis-
charge the committee be made with respect
to any other resolution with respect to the
same sale, credit sale, or guaranty.
"'(I) When the committee has reported, or
has been discharged from further considera-
tion of, a resolution with respect to a sale,
credit sale, or guaranty, it is at any time
thereafter in order (even though a previous
motion to the same effect has been disagreed
to) to move to proceed to the consideration
of the resolution. The motion is highly privi-
leged and is not debatable. An amendment to
the motion is not in order, and it is not in
order to move to reconsider the vote by which
the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
" ' (j) Debate on the resolution is limited to
not more than two hours, to be divided
equally between those favoring and those
opposing the resolution. A motion further to
limit debate is not debatable. An amend-
ment to, or motion to recommit, the resolu-
tion is not in order, and it is not in order to
move to reconsider the vote by which the res-
olution is agreed to or disagreed to.
"'(k) Motions to postpone, made with re-
spect to the discharge from committee, or
the consideration of, a resolution with re-
spect to a sale, credit sale, or guaranty, and
motions to proceed to the consideration of
Other business, are decided without debate.
"'(1) Appeals from the decisions of the
Chair relating to the application of the rules
of the Senate or the House of Representa-
tives, as the case may be, to the procedure
relating to a resolution with respect to a sale,
credit sale, or guaranty are decided without
debate.
"'(in) If, prior to the passage by one House
of a concurrent resolution of that House, that
House receives from the other House a con-
current resolution of such other House,
then?
"'(1) the procedure with respect to the
concurrent resolution of the first House shall
be the same as if no concurrent resolution
from the other House had been received;
but
"'(2) on any vote on final passage of the
concurrent resolution of the first House the
concurrent resolution from the other House
shall be automatically substituted.'
"(8) Section 35(b) of such Act is re-
pealed.".
On page 62, line 6, strike out "(7) " and
insert in lieu thereof "(3)".
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, this
amendment has twice passed the Sen-
ate on October 2, 1974 and June 25,
1973. It provides that whenever there is
a military sale by the Government of the
United States of $25- million or more, or
whenever there are cumulative sales to
one country in 1 year of $50 million or
more, the President must submit to Con-
gress a statement of his plan to make
such sales. By concurrent resolution of
both ouses, the President's planned sale
could then be vetoed.
Not only has the Senate twice voted
for this amendment. The House Foreign
Affairs Committee this year also reported
its own version of the Foreign Assistance
Act which includes language requiring
reports on major arms transfers and
providing for a congressional veto by
concurrent resolution of both Houses.
Each time this provision has been of-
fered, the Senate has endorsed it. The
latest Senate action made the amend-
ment?No. 1929?part of S. 3394, the
.Foreign Assistance Act, which was re-
committed . to the Foreign Relations
Committee. However, last week the com-
mittee reported out a new version of S.
3394 without amendment No. 1929.
Failure to include this provision, in
my opinion, was a grave mistake and a
4, 1974
serious oversight of clearly expressed
and twice indicated Senate direction.
I am asking the Senate today to indi-
cate once again its desire for this legis-
lation. This legislation now known as
amendment No. 2002 is vital if we are
to move this country closer to respon-
sible, public deliberation of one of the
most vital areas of Arherican foreign
policy making?arms transfers overseas.
Congress has come a long way in righting
an imbalance whereby, the executive
branch of this Nation can and does in-
volve the United States in military situa-
tions overseas without congressional and
public debate, discussion, or deliberation.
A great deal still remains to be done to
correct this imbalance however. This is
the reason for this amendment.
Huge sales of military hardware have
a significant impact on foreign policy.
In fact, the circumstances which war-
ranted the amendment's consideration
and Senate passage last year have grown
even more serious in the interval.
When I offered my amendment last
June 25, 1973, I said that:
It is difficult these days to open the news-
paper without coming across unexpected re-
ports of another U.S. multi-million dollar
arms deal with another small nation some-
where.
Ironically this year, not only have the
sums, which were already vast, grown
astronomically but the, newspaper ac-
counts now relate State Department and
Defense Department internal criticism of
the policy of pushing arms sales over-
seas. Our foreign policy experts have
come to question the wisdom of some of
these massive deals. Had this amend-
ment become public law, Congress and
the public would have had a role in re-
viewing the highly significant foreign
policy implications of these sales bef ore
the sales were finalized and before the
potential damage had been precipitated.
Clearly foreign military sales has be-
come a major instrument of U.S. foreign
policy. The executive branch of this Na-
tion involves the United States in mili--
tary situations throughout the world
without congressional and public debate,
discussions, or deliberation.
The bare statistics and figures for the
FMS?foreign military sales?program
tell much of the story. By DOD's account,
the United States has sold over $21 billion
worth of military goods in the years
between 1950 and 1973.
Last year when I offered this amend-
ment, available data showed that the
FMS program was estimated to rise from
$3.5 billion in 1972 to $3.8 billion in 1973.
Fiscal year 1974 sales had been estimated
to be in the neighborhood of $3.9 billion.
The latest figures now aavilable, how-
ever, reveal that the forecasts of all the
experts in and out of the Government
were frightfully off. The United States in
fiscal year 1974, in fact, sold $5.9 billion
in arms?a huge increase over the pre-
vious fiscal year and much more than
had been anticipated. When credit sales
and guarantees are added in, the FMS
program in fact totals a phenomenal
$8.6 billion.
This is practically double the arms
sales for the previous year and almost
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16: CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4,1974' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 20525
islation fairly reflects the sentiment of
the Foreign Relations Committee and of
the Senate as a whole that this body
regain greater control over the expendi-
ture of billions of dollars of taxpayers'
money devoted to the foreign assistance
budget.
This bill represents a significant and
substantial reduction in the amount re-
quested by the executive branch. The
President originally requested $3.25 bil-
lion for the programs included in this
legislation. The committee has cut that
request by 18 percent or $579 million.
The committee was mindful of our
domestic economic situation. The legis-
lation before us recognizes the condition
of the American economy ae well as our
responsibility to aid those in need. The
bill was approved by a vote of 12 to 0 in
the Foreign Relations Committee, with
one member voting "present."
Now, Mr. President, let me briefly re-
view the major spending reductions
made in the bill:
The administration requested $985
million for worldwide military assist-
ance. The committee cut that amount
by $435 million and now recommends
$550 million. The committee also elimi-
nated the "drawdown authority," which
in the past provided the President with
the ability to supply a nation with up to
$250 million worth of military supplies.
The Foreign Relations Committee re-
duced economic assistance to Indochina
from the proposed level of $940 million
to a level of $617 million. This represents
a cut of 34 percent.
The committee also included in the
Indochina section very detailed spend-
ing limitations and policy guidance as
to how the money shall be spent.
In the Middle East, the committee
provided the President with his requested
$100 million special requirements fund.
We also added to that provision a
method by which the Congress would
have right to veto proposed uses of this
money. Cognizant of the dire economic
straits of the Israeli economy, the For-
eign Relations Committee increased eco-
nomic aid to Israel by $89.5 million,
bringing the total in supporting assist-
ance funds for Israel to $339.5 million.
There is also $300 million worth of mili-
tary credit sales to Israel, of which $100
million shall be in grant assistance. The
committee also provided $250 million in
economic assistance to Egypt.
As a result of the World Food Con-
ference, and the commitment of the ad-
ministration to development assistance
Projects which will increase agricultural
production in the developing world, the
committee proposes that $230 million
worth of new obligational authority be
added to last year's food and nutrition
account in the 2-year authorization. I
need not remind my colleagues how ini-
portant greater 'agricultural self-suffi-
ciency is for nations of the developing
world.
In summary, this bill demonstrates
bah restraint and responsibility on the
part of the Foreign .Relations Commit-
tee. I urge its passage in the name of a
modest but responsible world role for the
United States.
In security supporting assistance the
bill contains a $339.5 million program for
Israel. The committee had earlier voted
an additional $200 million above the
amount requested but in view of Israel's
weakening foreign exchange position, the
committee believed that an additional
$289.5 million was justified.
it must be emphasized that this aid
program is designed to assist Israel in
purchasing U.S. goods and services and
the expansion of the program is not in-
tended to preclude or replace the tradi-
tional U.S. asssitance for Israel in pur-
chasing essential agricultural ceminodie
ties under Public Law 480 or any other?
ongoing U.S. assistance program. Despite
19 years of mutual cooperation under
Public Law 480, regrettably the adminis-
tration plans a program for Israel total-
ing only $8 million this year and there
has been no Commitment to date* for
1975. It is hoped that a decision will soon
be made to provide Israel with the
amounts of Public Law 480 assistance
commensurate with her current .needs
Rod proportionate to quantities allocated
in the past.
Since 1972? Congress has approved $50
million annually in supporting assistance
for Israel to facilitate a commodity im-
port program under AID regulations.
Supporting assistance is used to purchase
mainly electronic equipment, tractors,
and to finance shipping of U.S.-flag ves-
eels. Under current AID regulations,
however, it is not possible to expand the
commodity import program to encompass
the increased supporting assistance in
this bill. Thus, it is essential that a sub-
stantial proportion of this aid be allocated
to Israel as cash budgetary assistance.
This is justified by both logic and prec-
edent. Because AID requires copious doc-
umentation on each item purchased un-
der the commodity import plan, it would
be impossible for the Government of Is-
rael to fully document the purchases un-
der an expanded program.
? The task alone would require the es-
tablishment of a complex bureaucracy
and would be coenterprodUctive to the
constructive aims of this assistance pro-
gram designed to help Israel meet her
Dresent financial burdens. It must be
noted that much of Israel's purchases
are made via small importers with thou-
sands of orders.
Supporting assistance allocated as a
cash budgetary grant would unquestion-
ably be utilized to purchase goods exclu-
sively in the United States since today
Israel already imports more than $700
million annually of American nonmili-
tary items.
This would not be the first time that
our Government has found it most prac-
tical to supply supporting assistance in
the form of cash budgetary aid in the
Middle East. In fact Jordan has received
most of its supporting assistance in this
way.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask
unanimous consent that the time not be
charged to either side.,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll. .
Mr. NELSON.. Mr. .President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded. -
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
AMENDMENT NO. -2002
Mr. NELSON.- Mr. President, I call up
my amendment No. 2002.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will report.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. The Senator
from Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON), for him-
self and others, proposes amendment
No. 2002.
The amendment is as .follows:
On page 62, between lines 5 and 6, insert
the following new paragraph:
"(7) (A) At the end of chapter 1 add the
following new section:
" 'SEG. 25. QUARTERLY REPORTS; CONGRES-
SIONAL APPROVAL.?(a) Not later than fifteen
days after the end of each quarter, the Pres-
ident shall transmit to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report
setting forth the total amount of cash sales
from stock under section 21, contracts for
the procurement of defense articles or de-
fense services under section 22, credit sales
under section 23 of this Act, and guaranties
under section 24 of this Act made during
the preceding quarter, and the country or in-
ternational organization to which such sale,
credit sale, or guaranty is made or expected
to be made.
" '(b) (1) The President shall transmit to
the Speaker a the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Foreign Relations
of the Senate on the same day a written
statement giving a complete explanation
with respect to any agreement or contract to
sell or to extend credit or guaranties if?
''(A) the amount of such sale, credit. sale,
or guaranty exceeds $25,000,000; or
"'(B) the amount of such sale, credit sale,
or guaranty, when added to the amount of
all the sales, credit sales, and guaranties
made to that country or international or-
ganization in that fiscal year (including the
amount of any sale, credit sale, and guar-
anty made to that country or international
organization under a statement of waiver in
accordance with subsection (c) of this sec-
tion), causes the total amount of sales,
credit sales, and guaranties made to that
country in that year to exceed 650,000,000
for the first time.
Each such statement shall include an ex-
planation relating to only one agreement or
contract to sell or to extend credit or guar-
anties, and shall set forth?
"'(i) the country or international or-
ganization to which the tale, credit sale, or
guaranty is made;
"'(ii) the amount of the sale, credit sale,
or guaranty;
" in the case of a sale, a description
of the defense article or service provided;
'(1v) the department, agency, or branch
of the United States Armed Perces entering
into such contract or agreement; and
" '(v) the date of such agreement or con-
tract.
"'(2) (A) No sale, credit sale, or guaranty
may be made under such agreement or con-
tract until the end of the first period of
thirty calendar days of continuous session of
Congress after the date on which the state-.
ment is transmitted.
"'(B) The President may make such sale,
credit sale, or guaranty thirty days after the.
statement .has been so transmitted unless,
before the end of the first period of thirty
calendar days of continuous session of
Approved For Release 2005/06/16: CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD? SENATE S 20527
$2 billion more than all the arms sold or
given away by all nations 3 years ago. In
4 short years, the program has grown
sixfold. Fifty-eight nations participate
in the FMS government-to-government
sales program.
Clearly we are in need of a review
Process to keep up with the galloping
growth of this program. Congress must
have the necessary information on and
oversight authority over proposed for-
eign military sales to exercise its re-
sponsibility in this crucial area. Legisla-
tion which the Senate has twice
perceived a need for is even more cru-
cial today.
Foreign military sales constitute ma-
jor foreign policy decisions involving the
United States in military activities with-
out sufficient deliberation. This has got-
ten us into trouble in the past and could
easily do so again.
DesPite the serious policy issues raised
by this tremendous increase in Govern-
ment arms sales, these transactions are
made with little regard for congressional
or public opinion. The Department of
Defense is consulted. The manufactur-
ers of weapons and the providers of mili-
tary services are consulted. The foreign
purchasers are involved. But Congress is
hardly informed of these transactions,
much less consulted as to their propri-
ety. As it stands now, the executive
branch of the Government simply pre-
sents Congress and the public with the
accomplished facts.
The lack of required reporting to Con-
gress, coupled with the traditional se-
crecy surrounding international arms
transactions, frequently results in Con-
gress learning about arms sales only as
a result of the diligent efforts of the
press. Thus, ironically, the American
public learned of the 1973 sales to Per-
sian Gulf countries only after the Ameri-
can media picked up an Agence France-
Presse report and pressed the State
Department spokesman to officially con-
firm the fact that we had an agreement
in principle to sell Phantoms to Saudi
Arabia and that we were negotiating a
giant deal for arms to Kuwait.
So, too, the American public learned
about negotiations for the sale of jets to
Brazil last year from a report originat-
ing in Brazil. And this summer the
Washington Past correspondent in
Quito, Ecuador?not Capitol Hill, Wash-
ington?reported U.S. intentions to re-
sume military sales to Ecuador after a
3-year ban. Ecuador, which has been
involved in the so-called tuna war with
the United States, resulting in seizure
of U.S. tuna boats and expulsion of U.S.
military mission to Quito, reportedly
had a long shopping list including 12
T-33 trainer jets, basic infantry equip-
ment, and large quantities of engineer-
ing equipment.
Congressional reliance on the press
for hard data on U.S. Government arms
sales abroad, however, is not the most
serious deficiency in the decisionmaking
system governing such sales. At this
time there is no formal procedure by
which Congress can participate in de-
termining the merits of these arms deals
before they are finalized. Nor is there any
way for Congress to exert effective over-
sight authority and monitor the impact
of these deals after they are negotiated.
When this amendment was first in-
troduced, I pointed out the press re-
ports of burgeoning U.S. arms sales to
the Persian Gulf nations, including
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran, and to
Latin America. Apparently those sales
were only the tip of the iceberg.
PERSIAN GULP
An article in the Christian Science
Monitor based on interviews with offi-
cials of the State and Defense Depart-
ments estimated that the size of arms
sales to Persian Gulf countries in fiscal
year 1975 alone could total $4 to $5 bil-
lion. These prospective sales deserve
particular attention in the light of heavy
U.S. sales in the past 2 years.
IRAN
In fiscal year 1973 Iran contracted to
buy $2 billion worth of 'U.S. military
equipment. In the past year, according
to the Wall Street Journal, the Shah's
"purchases totaled a staggering $3.5 bil-
lion, several times the amounts of 2
years 'before." And the New York Times
on September 19 reported a possible
$10 billion sale to Iran of communica-
tions equipment, including satellites.
Wall Street Journal staff reporter
Richard J. Levine stated in an August
29, 1974, dispatch that Defense Depart-
ment officials have:
Allowed and even encouraged (the Shah)
to purchase some of the most sophisticated
weapons in U.S. arsenals, including Grum-
man's swing-wing F14 fighter (the Navy's
newest warplane) McDonnell Douglas' 1l'4
fighter, Lockheed's 0130 transport and
Hughes Aircraft's TOW antitank missile. In
the case of Bell's AH12 attack helicopter,
the Shah is getting a whirlybird more ad-
vanced than any used by the American Army.
His future purchases are likely to include
Litton's DD983 destroyer and a lightweight
fighter still under development.
More significantly, the usually reliable
and generally unhysterical Wall Street
Journal rePorts that:
It is increasingly uncertain whether U.S.
policy has promoted stability and U.S. ac-
cess to Mideast Oil, or, rather, has fueled a
Persian Gulf Arms race that is heightening -
regional tensions and spurring the oil-pro-
ducing states to raise oil prices' to pay for
expensive weapons.
It reveals that some experts in Govern-
ment consider our policy "at least self-
defeating and at most highly dangerous."
One top State Department official wor-
ried publicly that weapons sales to Iran
"achieved a magnitude people didn't
anticipate without benefit of considera-
tion of the long-term consequences."
Selling to Iran means more than just a
fast buck for U.S. defense contractors
or a shot in the arm for 'U.S. trade bal-
ance. It means we are deeply involving
U.S. policy in the military future of
Iran?a nation to which under a 1959
agreement, the United States is commit-
ted to "take such appropriate action, in-
cluding the use of armed forces, as may
be mutually agreed upon." We are pour-
ing rivers of sophisticated arms, into a
nation whose dubious nailftary adven-
tures include the occupation in 1971 of
three small strategically located islands
at the entrance to the Persian Gulf,
which the Arabs in the area also claim.
THE ARAB NATIONS IN THE PERSIAN GULP
Moreover, in an incredible policy
which attempts to be "even-handed"
in the Middle East but which boggles
the mind for its shortsightedness, the
same policymakers in our Government
who approve sales to Iran are also push-
ing sales to the Arab powers in the Per-
sian Gulf region?Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait?thus fueling an arms race.
SAUDI ARABIA
Saudi Arabia, which last year ordered
a total of between 150 to 200 F-5 fight-
ers, signed a $355 million agreement in
April for the modernization of the Saudi
National Guard. The agreement includes
the purchase of American armored ve-
hicles, antitank weapons, ani artillery
batteries. In the year ending June 30,
Saudi purchases totaled a little over half
a billion dollars.
Recently, two high ranking military
experts visited Saudi Arabia in a move
that the New York Times says illustrates
growing United States military involve-
ment which stops "just short of a mutual
defense pact, which would oblige the
United States to resist a foreign attack
on the country."
In the words of one U.S. military of-
ficial:
I do not know of anything that is non-
nuclear that we would mot give the Saudis.
On September 11, 1974, New York
Times listed examples of these massive
sales:
Raytheon Corp.?Hawk missiles, a
$265 million purchase program for ad-
vanced Hawk ground-to-air missile bat-
teries for the Saudi air defense system,
and the stationing of 450 Raytheon tech-
nicians to service the missiles:
The Northrup Corp.?F-5E jet fight-
ers, pilot training and development of
personnel and facilities;
Lockheed Corp.?C-130 cargo planes
with pilot training and ground person-
nel;
Bendix.?track and armored vehicles
for the Saudi Army;
The United States has entered into a
$250 million arms and training contract
with the National Guard, the Saudi in-
ternal security force;
- The United .States maintains a train-
ing mission for the Saudi army, air force
and navy;
The Corps of Engineers has super-
vised the construction of the two big
army bases at Tofuk, near the northwest
border with Jordan, and at Khamis
Mushait, in the 'South near Yemen and
Southern Yemen; and
The United States is also involved in a
10-year program to improve the Saudi
navy by selling patrol craft and building
bases.
These deals, reports a September 19,
1974 New York Times article, are ar-
ranged by means of newly established
joint commissions with Iran and Saudi
Arabia, Secretary of State Kissinger re-
gards these arrangements as "less than
a formal alliance and more than bilater-
al talks," thus "sideteping congressional
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20528
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE December 4, 1974
concerns about treaty commitments" an
making it possible to give permanence
to negotiations."
The magnitude of the sales and the
means by which they are instrumented
should, it seems to me, be a source of
alarm to every single Member of Con-
gress. Unless Congress acts soon, its will
shall continue to erode as the adminis-
tration continues to concoct hybrids such
as joint commissions. The amendment
which I am offering today is an appro-
priate form of congressional oversight.
Congress failure to act now would serve
as a sign of further abdication of power
to the executive branch.
ICFTWATT
Saudi Arabia is not the only Arab
country in the Persian Gulf taking part
in this massive arms race fueled by prod-
ucts made in the United States. Kuwait.
according to a September 18 Washington
Post dispatch from Beirut, is about to
sign a contract worth $450 million for
American arms and equipment including
advanced design Hawk surface-to-air
missiles. It will shortly open final negoti-
ations for American fighter bombers. The
Post reports:
The Kuwaiti purchases and large-scale
buying of aircraft by Saudi Arabia form part
of a heated arms-buying campaign that V-.
turning the Persian Gulf into a gigantic
armory. Strong reaction from Israel and its.
supporters in Washington can be expected
It the Arab desires (for more sophisticated
fighters with greater range and firepower)
are met. And there are American hints that
a large arms package deal would imply a
strengthening of American-Kuwaiti defensc
Lies and a willingness to offer large aircraft ,
The Post also reports:
American planes under discussion are the
McDonnell-Douglas Phantom P-4, one of the
mainstays of the Israeli air force, and tho
more recent longer-range Ling-Temco-
\fought A-7 Corsair. The Corsair, a U.S. Navy
light attack bomber, is capable of reaching
the borders of Israel from Kuwait.
Kuwait has reportedly opted for a defens"
plan that will have its air force scattered
at four or five locations in Kuwait and in
neighboring Arab states.
This indicates to me, at least, that a
massive sale to Kuwait will not only
imply strengthening ties between the
United States and Kuwait. It may also
have the direct effect of arming other
Arab nations more directly involved in
the Arab-Israeli conflict.
CON CERN EXPRESSED
Both the regional and East-West im-
plications of these large weapons sales n
beginning to worry some Government ol?
ficials and recognized experts in the field.
Former Secretary of ? Defense Melva
Laird has publicly echoed this concern in.
the introduction to an American Eriter-
prise Institute study titled "Arms in the
Persian Gulf." Mr. Laird suggests that
while providing armaments to third
world countries might be a positive short.
term measure, it should be accompanied
by diplomatic activity so that weapons
sales do not become a standard long-term
U.S. policy. He also raises important
questions about the implications of such
sales for future peace and accommode -
ton in the region.
In another forum, Laird recently
stated in a Forbes Magazine interview:
To me the most important agreement that
can be worked out in the next four or five
years is to involve the Soviet Union, the
United States, and all other arms-producing
countries to limit the sale and delivery of
conventional military equipment into the
Middle East, Southeast Asia, Latin America,
and Africa.
These' are serious issues--issues that
deserve to be debated by both the Con-
gress and the executive branch. Without
this amendment offered today, Congress
will be totally ill equipped to debate
them. It will not have adequate informa-
tion. Nor will it have the necessary for-
mal procedure to make its voice heard.
LATIN AMERICA
Similar questions concerning sales in
the Persian Gulf might well be raised
about recent and potential sales of jet
aircraft to Latin American countries. In
1973 the administration authorized sales
of 17-5E international fighters to Argen-
tina, Brazil, Chile; Colombia, and Vene-
zuela, ending in .one sweep a 3-year ban
on the sale of sophisticated military
equipment to underdeveloped countries.
As of December 1973, Brazil had ordered
42 aircraft. Potential orders from Chile,
Peru, and Venezuela could total 90 air-
craft. At a cost of $2.5 million per plane,
jet aircraft sales to Latin America could
amount to $300 to $400 million over the
next few years. And, as previously noted,
the United States plans to sell arras to
Ecuador as a result of the truce in the
3-year tuna war with the United States.
Perhaps these transactions?in the
Persian Gulf, in Latin America, any-
where?have merit. Perhaps they do not.
Without debating the merits of these
sales, it seems to me that they repre-
sent such a qualitative change in our
involvement in the Persian Gulf area.
and such a significant turn in our Latin
American relations, that Congress must
be afforded the opportunity to deliberate
on these matters as well as on all other
significant sales agreements entered into
by the U.S. Government.
INADEQUACY OP PRESENT REPORTING
REQU IREMENT
This amendment fills a vacuum in in-
formation, available to the Congress.
There is no statutory requirement to in-
sure that Congress receives up-to-date
information on U.S. Governntient foreign
military sales. The various required re-
ports either provide information on last
year's sales or provide detailed infor-
mation on only a small part of total
American arms sales abroad. Thus, the
report required by 657(a) (1) of the For-
eign Assistance Act lists only the total
amount c)! U.S. Government sales by
country for the past fiscal year. The re-
port contains information on the dollar
value of U.S. Government arms grants
and sales to each foreign country. It pro-
vides no specific information on the type
or quantity of weapons ordered. More im-
-portantly the report, which covers the
preceding fiscal year, is issued 6 to 9
months after the end of that fiscal year.
Thus the commitment to transfer weap-
ons could have been made up to 18
months before the release of the report.
Government-to-government arms sales
do not require export licenses. Therefore,
the portion of the section 657 report
titled "Export of Arms, Ammunition, and
Implements of War," providing past fis-
cal year data only on commercial sales,
which are approximately one-eighth of
total American arms sales abroad is of
little use. Moreover, since the informa-
tion when it is reported, deals with arms
deliveries during the preceding fiscal
year, it is released up to 18 months after
the delivery of equipment identified in
the report.
The 657(a) (4) report on "Exports of
Significant Defense Articles on the U.S.
Munitions List" was formerly required
by section 36 of the Foreign Military
Sales Act. That requirement was made a
part of the section 657 report in 1973.
To date no reports have been issued pur-
suant to section 657(a) (4). The report
will cover all categories of arms trans-
fers, but by definition it will not provide
information on all weapons transfers
abroad. Again, the report will probably
be released approximately 9 months
after the end of the fiscal year and con-
tain data on exports made up to 18
months previously.
Similarly, the more current reports on
munition lists exports totaling more than
$100,000, required under another com-
mercial sales reporting provision spon-
sored last year by Senator HATHAWAY.
contain no data on the majority of U.S.
arms sales?the government-to-govern-
ment sales in which the U.S. acts as an
intermediary between an American mu-
nitions firm and a foreign country.
Section 35(b) of the Foreign Military
Sales Act calls for semiannual reports on
a country-by-country basis of "forecasts
of sales and of guarantees and credit ap-
plications and anticipated guaranty and
credit extensions to economically less-
developed countries for the current fiscal
year." However, since the approval of the
Foreign Military Sales Act in October
1968, the House Foreign Affairs Corrunit-
tee Calendar lists only three reports sub-
mitted pursuant to the section 35(b) re-
quirement whereas approximately 12 re-
ports should have been received to date.
And as the report title describes, the
reports only contain data on sales to less-
developed countries?thus leaving out
highly relevant information concerning
sales made elsewhere. The three reports
thus far filed were issued in April, Janu-
ary, and February respectively. The an-
nual presentation document, which the
Defense Department claims contains
data submitted in lieu of a second semi-
annual report, is also transmitted to the
Congress sometime during March or
April. In effect, therefore, Congress is re-
ceiving what are supposed to be two
different reports at approximately the
same time.
As for the presentation material, a
detailed justification of the administra-
tion's military aid program, it contains
an estimate on a country-by-country
basis of the dollar value of cash, credit,
and guaranty weapons sales. In recent
years, however, actual sales have far ex-
ceeded the original DOD estimates. An
example which bears repeating is the
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
7 Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
original DOD estimate for cash sales in
fiscal year 1974?$3.678 billion. Actual
cash sales during fiscal year 1974 on the
other hand totaled $5.9 billion.
In summary, two facts should be kept
in mind about the information currently
submitted to Congress. First, a great deal
of the information is on arms transfer
that have already taken place. Second,
none of these reports contain procedures
by which Congress may reject arms sales
which it does not feel are in the national
interest.'
The purpose of this amendment is to
correct this situation and to 'give Con-
gress the opportunity to consider?and if
necessary?reject foreign military sales
according to prescribed conditions.
ADMINISTERING THE AMENDMENT
The enactment of this provision
should place no significant administra-
tive burden on the executive branch.
Neither Congress nor the executive
branch will be inundated in paperwork
as a result of the adoption of this amend-
ment. The total number of statements
that would have been submitted for
congressional consideration in fiscal year
1973 had the Nelson amendment been in
effect is approximately 30.
Nor should the 30-day congressional
review period prior to consummation of
sale provide any serious interference
with normal procedures. Under normal
circumstances the negotiation of a sales
agreement can , take months and the
delivery period for such purchases may
extend over a period of several years.
Moreover, once an offer of sale ;is ac-
cepted by a foreign country there is a
second period of negotiations on a pro-
duction contract. Only then Is a final
price agreed to.
The negotiation of a production con-
tract pursuant to the offer and accept-
ance takes anywhere from 3 weeks to 9
months. This timelag is in addition to
the timelag of from 90 to 120 days, which
a foreign country is given to accept or
reject a letter of offer. Even when the
acceptance simply involves material or-
dered from U.S. defense stocks, there is
still bound to be a bureaucratic timelag
before the implementation of the accept-
ance.
The contract?forrh 1513 of the DOD?
allows for delays, changes in conditions,
or even cancellation by both the seller
and purchaser. Thus the fact that the
acceptance is considered legally binding
on both parties does not prevent either
the United States or the foreign govern-
ment from canceling the agreement.
Section A(6) of the explanatory "Condi-
tions" accompanying the letter of offer?
form 1513?specifically reserves the right
of the U.S. Government to cancel the
order "under unusual and compelling cir-
cumstances when the best interests of the
United States require it." Similarly, a
foreign government may at any time
terminate the acceptance. If the order is
canceled before the final negotiation of a
prodiiction contract?which can take
from 3 weeks to 9 months after the sign-
ing of the acceptance?it does so at no
cost to itself.
Mr. President, one last point should
be made concerning the administration
of this proposal. A purchasing county's
decision to buy U.S.-produced military
equipment is made primarily on the basis
of the high technical quality of American
weapons and only secondarily on the
basis of the price and delivery sched-
ule. Iran, for example, negotiated the
purchase of F-14's for more than a year
and reportedly paid more than double
the price that the U.S. Navy paid for the
same plane. Their delivery is not ex-
pected to be completed before 1977. A
30-day congressional review period,
therefore, would not cause any eig-
nifica.nt delay nor lose the sale,
EMERGENCY WAIVER
In an emergency situation, the amend-
ment provides a special waiver to cover
circumstances such as occurred during
the *October conflict in the Middle East.
There are an increasing number of
precedents for the legislative approach
employed in the amendment?congres-
sional veto of proposed actions by the
executive branch. Some of them are:
War Power Act?Public Law 93-148?
concurrent resolution can terminate
commftment of U.S. Forces to hostilities
abroad.
Rail Reorganization Act?Public Law
03-236?final reorganization plan for
Nation's railroads will be accepted unless
either House or Senate passes a resolu-
tion rejecting it.
Budget and Impoundment Control
Act?Public Law 93-344?either House of
Congress can disapprove Presidential
proposal to defer expenditure of funds;
both Houses must approve any proposed
rescission of appropriated funds within
45 days.
District of Columbia Self Government
Act?Public Law 93-198?either House of
Congress can di,sapprove acts of the D.C.
City Council within 30 days.
More significantly, the Committee on
Foreign Relations has adopted a provi-
sion in the bill we are presently debating
requiting that Congress be told in ad-
vance how the President proposes to use
funds under section 903, the special re-
quirements fund. Congress is then al-
lowed a period of 30 days within which it
could by passage of a concurrent resolu-
tion, disapprove the proposal.
Mr. President, the Congressional Re-
search Service prepared a study on the
constitutionality of the so-called legisla-
tive veto, embodied in the original Nelson
amendment. That study finds that the
proposed amendment is constitutional.
It closely parallels the analogous provi-
sions of the Executive Reorganization
Act, the constitutionality of which has
not been challenged by the executive
branch. Moreover, the amendment
would serve a useful function in assuring
that the congressional policy origina-
tion power is not abdicated to the execu-
tive branch.
Mr. President, there is no question
that if the one House veto is constitu-
tional then the concurrent resolution, or
two House veto, would be subject to even
less question.
THE REVISED AMENDMENT
To repeat, the revised provision would
require that the President report to Con-
gress whenever he intends to finalize an
S 205gD
agreement to sell or extend credits or
guarantees for the sale of U.S. military
geQds and services for $25 million. The
amendment further requires a report
whenever sales, credits, or guarantees ex-
tended to one country in 1 year amount
to $50 million. If, after Congress has
examined these sales plans for 30 days
and both Houses of Congress have not
voted disapproval in the form of a con-
current resolution, the President's sales
plans may be finalized.
The provision has been slightly revised
from last year's amendment to meet
some procedural and administrative dif-
ficulties which the Department of De-
fense found with the amendment. And
the amendment which I am asking the
Senate to reapprove today also has been
revised to meet the legitimate procedural
problems which the Foreign Relations
Committee perceived when it first con-
sidered S. 3394 in October 1974.
The revisions will:
Cut down on the number of statements
which must be submitted to Congress;
Grant the President a waiver on any
single report whenever the President
certifies to Congress that there was an
emergency affecting the interest of the
United States;
Clarify a semantic issue which trou-
bled the Department of Defense. The
term "proposed sale" has been changed
in this amendment to the term "agree-
ment or contract to sell," thus making it
clear that Congress shall receive state-
ments on U.S. offers to sell that have
been accepted, by foreign governments;
and
Employ a concurrent resolution in-
stead of a one-House veto.
In closing, let me reemphasize the im-
portance of these foreign military sales
by citing a Washington Post article by
Andrew Hamilton, a former National
Security Council assistant to Henry
Kissinger, who discussed five major as-
pect; of the burgeoning arms sales pro-
gram of the United States:
(1), Much of the new wealth of developing
nations is paying for non-productive military
equipment at inflated prices' at a time when
more than a billion people face starvation
because of inadequate food supply and
distribution.
(2) The sales have created new regional
arms races, thus boosting demand for more
arms and contributing to the risks of war?
and of great power confrontation?in un-
stable areas like the Persian Gulf.
(3) For the first time, the United States is
selling its most advanced, most expensive,
and most highly classified conventional
weaponry and electronics technology.
(4) The danger exists that the buyers, to
pay for 'U.S. and other modern weapons, will
be tempted to further increase raw material
prices, which in the long run could wipe out
any advantage from arms sales and intersify
worldwide inflation,
(5) Despite the diplomatid and economic
Asks involved, the key decisions behind the
new rise in U.S. arms exports were made by
President Nixon without consulting or even
informing Congress.
I am pleased to note that the Defense.
Appropriations Subcommittee has also
expressed its concern abont burgeoning
U.S. arms sales. Incorporated in its re-
port passed by the Senate, is language
closely paralleling my amendment which
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20530
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE December .4, 1974
requires prior notice to the Defense Sub-
committee of certain future cash sales
of military equipment to foreign govern-
ments,. The distinguished chairman of
the committee and I had a colloquy on
this subjdct in which he stated that:
The committee does not in any way mean
to preclude his (the Nelson) amendment
to the Foreign Military Sales Act.
Mr. President, in closing, let me re-
peat my firm belief that this Govern-
ment-including both Congress and the
executive branch-have the responsibil-
ity to its own citizens and to the in-
ternational community to give very care-
ful consideration to weapons sales of
such magnitude. This amendment would
provide both the essential information
and the necessary procedure for con-
gressional review.
Mr. President, all this amendment
does, as I stated previously, is require
the President to submit to both Houses
of Congress for approval or disapproval
under the Reorganization Act, sales of
$25 million or more, or cumulative sales
in 1 year to one country of $50 million
or more. Therefore, Congress will have
the opportunity to debate the wisdom of
making the sale and its impact on for-
eign policy. It will have an opportunity
to vote approval or disapproval.
There is one additional provision. That
is a provision that, in case of emergency
such as the Middle East situation a year
ago, the President does not need to sub-
mit the sale to Congress for its approval
or disapproval, but he must report in
writing to Congress why he is waiving
the congressional veto requirement. He
must delineate and explain the sale and
what the emergency is.
That covers the amendment.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. NELSON. I yield.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, this
amendment has been before the Senate
on two other occasions. It is an amend-
ment which has been overwhelmingly
approved by the Senate.
I have spoken to the distinguished
Senator from Wisconsin about it. I see
no reason not to accept this amend-
ment even though I feel this bill should
not be amended appreciably, because it
has been worked on very hard by people
of both political parties in the admin-
istration, and between the Senate and
the administration. This particular
amendment, I think, does no injustice to
the purposes of the bill and, if the Sen-
ator is prepared, I am prepared to yield
back my time and accept the amend-
ment.
Mr. NELSON. Mr, President, I thank
the distinguished Senator from Minne-
sota. As the Senator knows, in this cur-
rent bill, as a matter of fact, the Middle
East funds are controlled under exactly
the same device by concurrent resolu-
tion.
Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I yield
back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I
send to the desk an amendment and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
Will state the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 17, line 3, strike out "June 30,
1975," and insert In lieu thereof "JUne 30,
1976."
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President,
would the Senator explain that amend-
ment?
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, the
amendment simply extends by 1 year
the funding of military assistance to
Vietnam through the Defense Depart-
ment budget.
Let me say that this is done at the re-
quest of the President. He invited me to
come down yesterday afternoon t,p talk
with him and this is what we did.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
should say that I have also spoken to
the ranking minority member, and my
colleagues on the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations, Senator CASE and
Senator JAvrrs, about this.
While I have to make note clothe fact
that the Senate has, in the past, insisted
on the Committee on Foreign Relations
taking over the jurisdiction on this pro-
gram, I shall take this amendment, but
I wish to say to the Senator that I think
we ought to discuss it, after having taken
it, when we go to the conference with
the distinguished chairman of the Com-
mittee on Armed Services (Mr. STENNIS) .
Mr. SPARKMAN. I say to the Senator
that I have discussed this particular
amendment with Mr. STEmas. He will
support it. .
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. :President, we
are ready for a vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OrieiCER (Mr. NEL-
SON). Do both Senators yield back their
time?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield back my
time, Mr. President.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
is yielded back. The question is on
agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
TIME LIMITATION OF 30 MirroTEs ON
AMENDMENTS
Mr. ROBERT C. BYR,D. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that time on
any amendment, excepting the Eadleton
amendment, be limited to 30 minutes
rather than 1 hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, Without
Objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I take
it that there is a 1-hour time limit on
this amendment?
Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER., The bill
is open to further amendment.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I have
an amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will state the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 27, between lines 8 and 9, inHert
the following new section:
"SUSPENSION OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO
TURKEY
"SEC. 18. Section 620 of the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1961 is amended by adding at the-
end thereof the following new subsection:
(x) All military assistance, an sales of
defense articles and services (whether for
cash or by credit, guarantee, or any other
means), and all licenses with respect to the
transportation of arms, ammunitions, and
implements of war (including technical data
relating thereto) to the Government of Tur-
key shall be suspended on the date of enact-
ment of this subsection unless and until the
President determines and certifies to the
Congress that the Government of Turkey is
in compliance with the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, the Foreign Military Sales Act,
and any agreement entered into under such
Acts, and that substantial progress toward
agreement has been made regarding military
forces in Cyprus.'"
On page 27, line 10, strike out "Sac. 18" and
insert in lieu thereof "SEc. 19".
On page 27, line 13, strike out "Sac. 19"
and insert in lieu thereof "SEc. 20".
On page 27, line 23, strike out "Sac. 20"
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 21".
On page 30, line 4, strike out "Sac. 21" and
insert in lieu thereof "SEc. 22".
On page 30, line 25, strike out "Sac. 22" and
insert In lieu thereof "SEC. 23".
On page 31, line 1, strike out "section 21
(a)" and insert in lieu thereof "section
22 (a) ".
On page 32, line 6, strike out "Sac. 23" and
insert in lieu thereof "SEC. 24".
On page 32, line 7, strike out "sections 21
(a) and 22" and insert in lieu thereof "sec-
tions 22(a) and 23".
On page 33, line 24, strike out "Sac. 25" and
insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 26".
On page 36, line 4, strike out "SEc. 26" and
insert in lieu thereof "SEc. 27".
On page 38, line 2, strike out "Sac. 27" and
insert in lieu thereof "SEc. 28".
On page 39, line 6, strike out "Sac. 28" and
Insert in lieu thereof "Sim. 29".
On page 39, line 18, strike out "SEC. 29"
and insert in lieu thereof "SEc. 30".
On page 45, line 19, strike out "Sac. 30" and
insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 31".
On page 45, line 20, strike out "section 29"
and insert in lieu thereof "section 30".
On page 49, line 20, strike out "SEc. 31" and
insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 32".
On page 49, line 21, strike out "sections 29
and 30(a) " and insert in lieu thereof "sec-
tions 30 and 31(a)".
On page 52, line 16, strike out "SEc. 32"
and insert in lieu thereof "SEc. 33".
On page 52, line 17, strike out "sections 29,
30(a) , and 31" and insert in lieu thereof
"sections 30, 31(a), and 32".
On page 53, line 5, strike out "SEC. 33"
and insert in lieu thereof "SEc. 34".
On page 53, line 6, strike out "sections 29.
30(a) , 31 and 32" and insert in lieu thereof
"sections 30, 31(a). 32, and 33".
On page 53, line 19, strike out "Sac. 34" and
insert in lieu thereof "SEc. 35".
On page 59, line 10, strike out "Sac. 35"
and insert in lieu thereof "SEc. 36".
On page 63, line 11, strike out "SEc. 36"
and insert in lieu thereof "SEc. 37".
On page 63, line 19, strike out "Sac. 37"
and insert in lieu thereof "SEc. 38".
On page 64, line 3, strike out "Sac. 38" and
insert in lieu thereof "SEc. 39".
On page 64, line 25, strike out "Sac. 39"
and Insert in lieu thereof "SEC. 40".
On page 65, line 22, strike out "SEc. 40"
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 41".
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
"
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE
On page 68, line 16, strike out "Sac. 41" and
insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 42".
On page 69, line 16, strike out "Sac. 42"
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 43".
On page 70, line 13, strike out "Sac. 43" and
insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 44".
AID TO TURKEY SHOULD RE CUT OFF
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, the
amendment I offer today has been be-
fore the Senate in one form or another
on at least eight occasions. It was neces-
sitated by the refusal of the State De-
partment to acknowledge the legal re-
quirement to terminate the shipment of
American arms to Turkey after that na-
tion used our weapons to invade and oc-
cupy Cyprus.
After a number of votes by both
Houses calling for an immediate cutoff,
a, compromise was worked out whereby
the provisions of the Foreign Assistance
and Foreign Military Sales Acts were
waived until December 10. As part of
that compromise, no American "imple-
ments of war" could be transshipped
from Turkey to Cyprus.
It is important to emphasize that the
laws governing our military aid and the
sale of arms to foreign nations require
that recipient nations violating our
terms are to become "immediately in-
eligible" for further assistance. When
the administration refused to terminate
aid, Congress sought to effect the imme-
diate cutoff required by law. but because
the President chose to veto the legisla-
tion requiring him to live up to his legal
obligation, an impasse was reached. I
feel that the resultant compromise went
a long way toward preserving the integ-
rity of the controls we have placed over
the export of American arms. But it is
now necessary to make that principle
part of permanent law.
The General Accounting Office, in an
excellent legal opinion on this question,
strongly admonished the State Depart-
ment for its failure to make the required
determination on Turkey's eligibility.
GAO made the following observation:
. . . section 505(d) of the Foreign Assist-
ance Act and section 3(c) of the Foreign
Military Sales Act?in view of their express
terms (particularly the references to 'imme-
diate' ineligibility) . . . place a specific duty
upon cognizaht officials to expeditiously con-
sider, and make appropriate determinations
concerning the applicability of such provi-
sions in circumstances which clearly suggest
potential substantial violations.
What action is being taken by "cog-
nizant officials" at the State Department
to assure that legal responsibilities are
met? The answer to that question came
to me recently in a November 22 letter
from the State. Department explaining
the administration's failure to act:
. . . The Administration decided that it
was impossible publicly to express a legal
conclusion on the issue of Turkey's eligibil-
ity for further assistance and sales without
undermining our foreign policy objective of
persuading Turkey and Greece to enter into
direct negotiations for a solution to the
Cyprus problem.
Mr. President, not long ago the White
House used the phrase "national secu-
rity," now it Is "foreign policy objective."
But the meaning is the same?that the
personal concePiu of men in power can,
especially in crisis situations, replace the
dictates of law. That is a dangerous
proposition.
Now the administration apparently
wants to give yet another meaning to the
word "immediate." The right conditions
for meaningful negotiations have not
come about, it is argued. More time is
needed to work out a settlement. Now,
after the administration has ignored the
law for over 4 months to facilitate its
brand of diplomacy, December 10 is
thought to be too "immediate."
Mr. President, it is true that there is
only a caretaker government in Turkey.
But we must ask whether the ultimate
goal of the Turkish people is a Cypriot
solution to the problems of Cyprus, or a
Turkish solution.
If Turkey is truly concerned about the
Turkish Cypriot minority, then it will al-
low the leader of that minority, Mr.
Denktash, freely to negotiate a settle-
ment. Surely Mr. Denktash is in the best
possible position to understand the prob-
lems of his people on Cyprus.
To say, therefore, that a resolution of
the Cyprus problem is not possible until
there is a strong Turkish government is
to say that the ultimate solution has lit-
tle to do with the fate of the Turkish
Cypriot minority.
The reality is that as each day passes
the possibility of a final solution on Cy-
prus becomes more remote. Each day
Turkey becomes more entrenched. Tur-
kish citizens are taken from the main-
land to run Cypriot businesses. Defense
fortifications are being built. A political
infrastructure with strong ties to the
mainland is being formed. A special
Turkish postage stamp has even been
issued. .
By simply following our law and stop-
ping the shipment 'of any additional U.S.
arms we can transmit a message of ur-
gency to Turkey that the entrenchment
process must be reversed. We can express
in clearly comprehensible terms the at-
titude of the United States that the sta-
tus quo on Cyprus is unacceptable.
The stakes are high, Mr. President. If
Turkey's occupation of Cyprus becomes
so intractable that a meaningful diplo-
matic solution is impossible, NATO will
be worth nothing in the Eastern Medi-
terranean. Greece and Turkey will be
permanent antagonists and Cyprus will
be a battlefield for the guerrilla warfare
that has characterized other artificially
partitioned nations. We must make Tur-
key recognize that while the United
States values her friendship and appre-
ciates her importance to NATO, we can-
not tolerate the status quo as it pertains
to Cyprus 'today.
Certainly, there are risks in whatover
course we persue, but none are greater
than those inherent in the status quo. It
it not a time to ignore our laws in favor
of what has been an obsequious posture
toward Turkey. Our past failure to exert
tangible pressure bought us only the in-
vasion of Cyprus and the eventual take-
over of 40 per cent of that island. And if
we fail now to exert meaningful pressure,
we will be buying a permanent condi-
tion of instability on NATO's southern
flank.
S 20531
Mr. President, while we can safely as-
sume that a cutoff of arms will enter the
Turkish Government's decisionmaking
process, we cannot be sure that it alone
will lead ultimately to a settlement. It
would be wrong to claim that a single
action, no matter how significant, will
help our diplomats work miracles. But
whether or not the cutoff provides Tur-
key with an important incentive to nego-
tiate as I believe it will, at least it will
terminate indirect U.S. participation in
the occupation of Cyprus. It cannot be
In our national interest to actively en-
gage in the deterioration of an important
part of NATO by providing the arms to
make that deterioration complete.
Finally, Mr. President, Congress' in-
volvement in the Cyprus matter-,--the
State Department would call it inter-
ference?has thus far had one very ben-
eficial effect. The Greek election results
on November 17 reflected only a min-
imum of anti-Americanism. This con-
trasted greatly to the situation in the
slimmer when adverse public reaction to
our Cyprus policy threatened to push
Greek leaders toward closing U.S. home
port facilities. That process has now been
reversed.
Mr. President, our Government's pol-
icy has been to urge the parties to the
Cyprus conflict to begin negotiations to-
ward a meaningful settlement. We have
publicly acknowledged that no settle-
ment is possible unless Turkey agrees to
major concessions including the removal
of its forces from Cyprus. The United
States recently joined with the Soviet
- Union in the Vladivostok communique in
urging the parties to resolve their differ-
ences and in stating "firm support for
the Independence, sovereignty and ter-
ritorial integrity of Cyprus." The United
States joined other members of the
United Nations Security Council in
adopting two U.N. Resolutions demand-
ing "an immediate end to foreign mili-
tary intervention in the Republic of Cy-
prus" and recording the formal disap-
proval of the U.N. "of the unilateral mili-
tary actions undertaken against the Re-
public of Cyprus."
It is time now to add tangible mean-
ing to our policy pronouncements on this
critical problem. If we fail to do all in
our power to provide incentive to the
parties to negotiate, then we risk the pos-
sibility that the southern flank of NATO
will be permanently crippled. I urge my
colleagues to vote to support the laws
which require an immediate cutoff of
military sales and assistance to Turkey.
Such action is not only sound law, it is
sound diplomacy in a difficult situation.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder
of my time.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the .
Senator from Missouri yield time to the
Senator from Massachusetts?
Mr. EAGLETON. Does the Senator in-
tend to speak in support of the amend-
ment? How much time does the Senator
require?
Mr. BROOKE. Just 7 minutes. I have
seven pages.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I am happy to yield
10 minutes to the distingushed Senator
Approved For'Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20532
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE December 4, 192
from Massachusetts out of the time on
this amendment.
Mr. BROOKE. Do I correctly under-
stand there is an hour on the amend-
ment?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes; 30 minutes OD
each side. I have yielded 10 minutes to
the Senator.
Mr. BROOKE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President. on December 10, 1974,
the temporary suspension of the various
Jaws requiring a cutoff of U.S. military
assistance to Turkey because of that
country's military actions on Cyprus will
terminate. If significant progress is not
achieved in the next week toward an
agreement that will lead to the im-
mediate withdrawal of Turkish armed
forces from the island, an extremely
unlikely possibility, the United States
must suspend all military aid to Turkey
until such progress occurs.
In October of this year various Mem-
bers of the Senate, including myself,
believed that a cutoff of military aid to
Turkey should be avoided for a time in
order to enhance the chances for mean-
ingful negotiations. It was not unjus-
tified at that time to hope that such
negotiations were imminent. Nor was it
untenable or unwise to believe that every
effort should be made to avoid the dan-
ger of provoking Turkish intransigence
through a precipitous cutoff of military
assistance so long as the possibility of
an immediate agreement on the with-
drawal of Turkish forces from the island
existed. Hence, the compromise finally
agreed to, suspending the effect of the
various legal provisions conditioning the
giving of military aid, was a prudent
course of action.
Unfortunately, the hopes that mo-
tivated that action have yet to be ful-
filled. Meaningful negotiations have not
occurred.
Turkey has not exhibited, in any
marked degree, a willingness to with-
draw its forces from Cyprus in the near
future. Indeed, there are disturbing indi-
cations that Turkey is buttressing its
military positions in such a way as to
permit It the option to partition Cyprus
permanently if it chooses to do so. More-
over, some observers have noted that
Turkey seems intent on insisting that
the Turkish Cypriots receive far more
of the productive land in any settlement
than their percentage of total popula-
tion would justify. In addition, the lack
of a stable government in Turkey in-
creases the likelihood that such tend-
encies will not be altered in the imme-
diate future. In light of these develop-
ments, a continued suspension of the
legal requirements after December 10,
1974, would be unjustified.
Even though the United States must
suspend military aid to Turkey until sig-
nificant progress takes place, U.S. ef-
forts to encourage moderation on both
sides should not abate. Our primary ob-
jective must be to avoid a situation
where the intrasigency of either Greece
or Turkey leads to a permanent aliena-
tion of the United States from either
country. Such alienation would do irre-
parable harm to the NATO Alliance and
thus to the vital interests of the United
States. Hence, great prudence and pa-
tience will be required as we continue
our efforts to promote a solution to the
crisis; patience that reflects a continuing
attempt to balance the need to exert
maximum influence on Ankara to aban-
don its reliance on military force to pro-
tect its interests with the opposing
requirement of avoiding unnecessary
provocations that increase Turkish in-
transigency and hence make an equitable
settlement more difficult to achieve. At
the same time, U.S. policy must recognize
and promote the just expectations of the
Greeks and Greek Cypriots regarding
their legitimate aspirations for Cyprus.
Although the lack of progress toward a
settlement and the continued obstinancy
of the Turkish government regarding the
removal of its forces from Cyprus has
seriously undermined the efforts by the
United States and others to achieve the
desired balance between these competing
objectives, the search for such a balance
should not be abandoned.
It is in our interest to promote a
Cyprus solution that is something more
than a pause between shooting wars.
While it would be presumptuous to claim
one has such a solution, several basic
objectives can be identified that must
be met if a stable situation is to evolve.
First, Cyprus must remain an independ-
ent unified State. Second, a new consti-
tutional arrangement will have to be
evolved that will insure adequate secu,
rity for the various ethnic communities
while at the same time permitting ef-
fective functioning of a central govern-
ment in areas where diffused authority is
unworkable.
Suggestions emphasizing a cantonal
arrangement on the Swiss model are
worth consideration but it must be recog-
nized that it is the ethnic groups on
Cyprus who must effect a workable ar-
rangement if further conflict is to be
avoided.
In the process of achieving the above,
several initiatives will be necessary.
Demilitarization of the island mut oc-
cur if all the involved parties are eventu-
ally to achieve the confidence in eath
other's intentions necessary for peace.
There is precedence for such demilitari-
zation in the area in the 1923 Treaty of
Lausanne which provided for the demili-
tarization of several Greek islands.
Some form of international guarantees
of the independence of Cyprus and the
right of the Cypriot communities to
equitable treatment within a unified state
will have to be evolved if Greece and
Turkey are to forego the option of inter-
vening unilaterally in the filture. Since
the prior arrangement whereby guaran-
tees were given by Turkey, Greece, and
the the TJnited Kingdom has proved in-
adequate, consideration should be given
to some form of general U.N. guarantee.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
yield another 5 minutes to the Senator
from Massachusetts.
Mr. BROOKE. I thank my distin-
guished colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator may proceed.
Mr. BROOKE. Given the broad pals
that should be the focus of American
policy that I have suggested here, what
must occur immediately if the possibility
of their achievement is to be enhanced?
First, an immediate withdrawal of Turk-
ish forces deployed on Cyprus is needed
to encourage those in Greece and on
Cyprus who believe that accommodation
Is possible and desirable. This is especially
the case in view of the overwhelming
show of support for the moderate Cara-
manlis government in the recent Greek
elections. The Greek people exhibited
wisdom in giving that government a
clear vote of confidence in its attempts
to pursue an enlightened nonbelligerent
course of action regarding Cyprus. I
believe that the present Greek govern-
ment is willing to support negotiations
which seek to meet the just demands of
all concerned parties. An immediate
withdrawal of Turkish forces from
Cyprus would be a strong indication that
Ankara is committed to a similar course
of action.
Every effort must also be made to
arrest the drift toward acceptance by
many of the present demarcation lines
as being permanent in nature. It is in-
conceivable that any just settlement can
be reached if the Turkish Cypriots and
their supporters insist on 'retaining life
most productive 36 to 40 percent of the
island under their control even though
they constitute only. 18 percent of the
population. An equitable sharing of land
and resources in some form of rough
proportion to population breakdown is
crucial to any lasting settlement of the
crisis.
Compounding the difficulties involved
In the territoral aspect of the crisis is the
fact that many Greek Cypriots were dis-
placed and their homes and lands con-
fiscated during the Turkish military
offensives. Unless some form of equitable
restitution is found for those so dis-
placed, continued strife rather than non-
violent accommodation will likely ensue
in the future.
Finally, immediate and increased at-
tention must be given to meeting the
pressing needs of the refugees who face
the prospect of a cold winter without
adequate shelter, clothing, or food. The
United States, in cooperation with
others, must provide the temporary re-
lief these people need over the next sev-
eral months if the Cyprus tragedy is not
to deepen by several magnitudes. We can
do so, not only by direct monetary con-
tributions, but also by helping the thou-
sands of concerned Americans who have
privately collected foodstuffs, clothing,
and medical supplies for Cyprus. I ex-
pect our government to do everything
possible to facilitate the delivery of these
goods.
In conclusion, the time for intelligent
decisions by all concerned parties is now.
Failure to achieve significant progress in
the areas I have outlined during the next
several months will only make more dif-
ficult the task of relieving the suffering
of the Cypriot peoples and will greatly
increase the danger that U.S. interests in
the area will be permanently damaged.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum with the
time to be charged 'equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and
the clerk will call the roll.
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I ask unani-
mous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I ask unani-
mous consent that during the considera-
tion of the bill that my assistant Stephen
Bryen be permitted the privileges of the
floor.
? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
? Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I yield
5 minutes to the distinguished Senator
from Illinois.
Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. President, on
11 occasions in recent months the Sen-
ate and House declared overwhelmingly
that the laws governing military assist-
ance must be obeyed.
It is now almost 5 months since Tur-
key violated its military assistance agree-
ments with the United States by invading
Cyprus. During that time, the United
States has unlawfully continued to ship
military equipment to Turkey. In fact,
It appears that the United States in-
creased arms shipments to Turkey after
Its invasion of Cyprus, despite the lack
of any progress in the Cyprus negotia-
tions.
I join with Senator EAGLETON in this
amendment because it is past time the
Congress insured that the laws of the
United States are observed and respected
by the executive branch and by those
foreign countries which benefit from our
laws and agree to their provisions.
This amendment makes it clear that
the Senate intends for the laws of the
United States to be obeyed. It signals
Senate disapproval of a policy which re-
wards aggressors and nations which
breach the terms upon which they ac-
cept U.S. assistance.
The folly of indiscriminately lavishing
food, arms, nuclear reactors, and cash
on nations throughout the world in the
expectation of some reciprocated good
will has been demonstrated again in the
eastern Mediterranean. The legitimate
government of President Makarios in
Cyprus has been toppled. Turkey has in-
vaded Cyprus. Greece has effectively left
NATO, leaving NATO's southern flank
exposed.
Tens of thousands of Cypriot citizens
are homeless and hungry. Our relations
with Greece have been strained. And
now the administration, the architect of
this tragedy commenced by its support
of the Greek Junta, suggests that the
Congress should have more confidence in
it and permit further transgressions
against the law and the Nation's best
principles by permitting it to rearm the
aggressor. To lavish still more arms upon
Turkey.
Secretary Kissinger contends that it is
"ineffective and counterproductive" to
cut off U.S. military aid to Turkey. He
argues that "it will have very adverse for-
eign relations consequences for an im-
portant ally."
Mr. President, it will have "adverse
foreign relations consequences" to con-
tinue support for politically repressive,
militarily aggressive regimes at the ex-
pense of popular, democratic govern-
ments and old allies, such as Greece.
Such support only isolates the United
States in the world and undermines its
security as recent history, in the east-
ern Mediterranean and in south Asia
and southeast Asia, makes painfully
obvious.
As far as the exigencies of the situa-
tion in the eastern Mediterranean are
concerned, stalling the military aid cut-
off required by law, has only encouraged
Turkish intransigence. Instead of nego-
tiating, Turkey occupied a third of
Cyprus.
The Turkish Government recently
proposed a 50-percent increase in its de-
fense budget. Under the Foreign Assist-
ance Act now pending before the Sen-
ate, Turkey is scheduled to receive $205
million in military aid from the United
States. For the United States to reward
such transparent violations of the terms
upon which its aid is accepted will only
encourage others to act with an expecta-
tion of similar rewards?and impunity.
It is time for the United States to use
Its influence to bring peace to the peo-
ple of Cyprus. And it is time for the
United States to repair its relations with
Greece. It is also time?long past time?
for the United States to aline its actions
in the world with its principles. The
place to begin is in Cyprus. And the way
to do so is simply to obey the law?to
cut off all further U.S. military assist-
ance and sales to Turkey. Such an action
Is dictated by Turkey, not by any uni-
lateral or vindictive action of the United
States.
This amendment does not undercut
the flexibility the Secretary of State
needs to help negotiate a settlement be-
tween Cyprus, Greece, and Turkey. If
the President certifies that Turkey is in
compliance with the provisions of the
Foreign Assistance and Military Sales
Act and "substantial progress" is made
toward agreement regarding military
forces in Cyprus, the United States can
resume shipping arms to Turkey.
By approving this amendment the
Senate sends a message to the people of
Cyprus, to the new government of
Greece, and to Turkey. It says that the
United States intends to act now to ob-
serve its laws and help restore peace and
independence to the citizens of Cyprus?
Turkish and Greek alike. It is a message
the United States should send to the
world. I urge the Senate to adopt the
Eagleton-Stevenson amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, what
Is my time on this amendment?
, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator has 16 minutes remaining.
?
S 20533
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield 6 minutes of that time?
Mr. EAGLETON. I yield.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the
amendment that is offered today by the
distinguished Senator from Missouri and
the distinguished Senator from Illinois
is one, of course, that has been voted
upon here in the Senate and I have
voted for it on every occasion.
As we know, it ended up in a deadlock
with the executive branch of the Govern-
ment. The President and the Secretary
of State felt this amendment would not
be helpful and, in fact, would make it
exceedingly difficult for the conduct of
our foreign policy in that part of Europe,
particularly because of the delicate poli-
tical situation in Greece.
As a result of the controversy between
the Congress and the executive branch, a
compromise was reached in the continu-
ing resolution which was adopted by the
two Houses of Congress.
That compromise stated what is the
substance of the Eagleton-Stevenson
amendment and then added the proviso
that the President is authorized to sus-
pend the provisions of this section if he
determines that such suspension will
further negotiations for a peaceful solu-
tion of the Cyprus conflict. Any such
suspension shall be effective only until
December 10, 1974, and only if during
that time Turkey shall observe the cease-
fire and shall neither increase its forces
on Cyprus nor transfer to Cyprus any
U.S. supplied implements of war.
Now, Mr. President, the December 10
date is arriving and the problem that
the President and the Secretary of State
face is that there is really no .government
with which to presently negotiate.
I take this time just to mention these
things because the whole Turkish ques-
tion today is of the utmost importance
to the Government of the United States.
There are large supplies of weapons
of all kinds and natures in Turkey. The
stability of the Turkish governmental
system itself is a matter of concern to
the United States, and to others.
I have spoken to the distinguished
Senator from Missouri. He knows that my
heart is with him. I am not sure that my
judgment should be.
As I see it, it would be more suitable
for our national security interests, and
it would be preferable, if it were possible
for the Congress to extend the time from
December 10 to a later date to give the
President and the Secretary of State
again the opportunity to engage in nego-
tiations.
Mr. MATHIAS. Will the Senator yield
for a question?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes, I yield to the
Senator from Maryland.
Mr. MATHIAS. The Senator refers to
a later date.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes.
Mr. MATHIAS. Is the Senator think-
ing in terms of days or weeks?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I was thinking in
terms of the date of March 1 or March 15,
that is, a date that would allow for the
establishment of an effective and respon-
sible government in Turkey that has the
Approved For Release 2005/06/16': CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20534
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2 ?
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE December 4, 1974
power to negotiate. The present govern-
ment does not have that power.
Mr. MATHIAS. They do not have a
fully empowered government to negoti-
ate at all.
Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. It is
an interim government, a caretaker gov-
ernment.
That is why it appears to me that it
might be better to go over to a period
like March 1 or 15.
I have discussed this matter with a
number of our colleagues on the Foreign
Relations Committee?Senator Amex,
Senator JAVITS, and Senator MUSKIE.
As the Senator will recall, we discussed
it with Senator MUSKIE and Senator
McGee, and also with Senator SPARK-
MAN, who is now in the Chamber. We
also discussed it with Senator SCOTT.
I have not yet had a chance to discuss
this with Senator CASE. The people I have
mentioned it to have indicated that they
thought that at least we should try to
find some language that would not be
quite as exacting as that of the Senator
from Missouri and the Senator from Illi-
nois, but yet would accomplish the ulti-
mate purpose.
I have to be frank with my colleagues.
I understand the feelings that are held
so sincerely by our two colleagues from
Missouri and Illinois. The Turkish repre-
sentatives have not been at all coopera-
tive in these matters. They have a politi-
cal crisis in their country. One crisis has
been resolved in Greece, which makes it
possible for the Greek Government to be
a much more forthright and effective
government for negotiation.
I am hopeful that the same thing will
prevail in Turkey.
I believe what I am saying here, and
what I am asking, is for a little more
patience, recognizing that our patience
runs pretty thin because of the tragedy
of the circumstances in Cyprus. I think
what has happened in Cyprus is an out-
rage. Needless to say, in the past I have
supported very vigorously the efforts that
have been made to bring Turkey to some
understanding of her responsibilities,
and also, more importantly, to see that
the United States did not aid and abet
what was going on in Cyprus by our
Infusion of arms into that area.
All that I am asking is to see whether
there is some meeting of the minds possi-
ble here in the Senate to extend the time
wider the continuing resolution which
was, after a long and arduous struggle,
agreed to, and to make that date some-
where very near in the future. I do not
have an ironclad time. It could be, as I
said, March 1 or March 15. I believe we
need at least that much time in the new
year.
The Senator from Maryland was dis-
cussing this with me.
Mr. MATHIAS. I am sure that the dis-
tinguished Senator has also considered
the effect of this on a subject that every
one of us is interested in, the stability of
the new democratic regime in Greece,
for which we all have high hopes, and in
which we are all very much interested.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Bream). The Senator's 6 minutes have
expired.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield myself an-
other 5 minutes.
Mr. MATHIAS. Does the Senator have
reason to believe that this extension for
a very limited period of time wovld have
any adverse effect on the new regime in
Greece? Would an extension of time pro-
mote stability in the area which would
give a greater chance for the new' Greek
Government to take over?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I must say that the
responsible officials in our Government
feel that this extension would not be
injurious at all to the Greek Government.
To the contrary, it might be welcomed.
Mr. MATHIAS. May I inquire of the
Senator as a member of the Foreign Re-
lations Committee'? It is my understand-
ing that the U.S. Ambassador to Greece
Is presently in Washington, and the same
is true of the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey.
It would be extremely helpful to us in
the Senate to have the views of these
informed representatives before we took
action on this, if we are going to vote
upon the basis of the best and fullest
information on this whole question.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I am afraid that we
will not have a chance, in the time that
we have, to receive their recommenda-
tions or their counsel. The Secretary of
State obviously does receive reports from
these Ambassadors. It has been the hope
that we could have some extension.
Let me just lay it on the line: I have
discussed this with the executive branch
of the Government in private conversa-
tions: I told them first of all, when there
was no desire to have the Eagleton
amendment brought back again:
You are Just living In a dream world. The
amendment will be back, and something will
be done about it. ,
I said this privately to the Senator
from Missouri.
It is my judgment that what the Eagle-
ton amendment seeks to do is what we
would like to do. In other words, what
the Eagleton amendment seeks to do is
to cut off aid and bring about a peaceful
resolution of the problems in Cyprus and
the withdrawal of the Turkish forces.
The continuing resolution that we
adopted just before the recess did that,
but it gave the date of December 10 as
the time frame in which, hopefully, there
could be negotiations.
The fact of the matter is that there
was a Greek election which took place
in the interim which brought dern.ocracy
back to Greece. For this action, we in
this body should express our gratifica-
tion.
The PRESIDING OteeICER. The Sen-
ator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. HUMPHREY.. I yield myself an
additional 2 minutes.
Second, during this period of time, the
government in Turkey was dismayed. So
we have the problem of trying to find a
government in Turkey with which this
country can negotiate. What I am saying
is that. the United States feels a moral
responsibility to try to bring about a
resolution of the problem in Cyprus. We
could wash Our hands of lit and say,
"Well, it is no affair of ours. After all,
why should we be worried?"
But we cannot really do that as a moral
country and as a, people who like to have
some degree of decency about us.
I would hope that we might proceed
along the lines I have suggested here.
I yield to the Senator from Alabama.
Mr. CRANSTON. Will the Senator yield
for a unanimous-consent request?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that Ellen Frost.
Everett Engstrom and Murray Flander
of my staff have the privilege of the floor
during the consideration of this matter.
The PRESIDING OreaCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senator knows
that the Secretary of State has been
with the Foreign Relations Committee all
morning and is very much concerned
about this. He wants to see a situation
that will allow him to continue nego-
tiating. He believes, and I think the
Senator will agree with me, he can nego-
tiate a satisfactory settlement to the
problem.
Mr. HUMPHREY. That is the fact. I
was not able to be there all the time.
May I say that the Secretary of State
was hopeful that we can allow some flexi-
bility in the final bill that is passed.
Mr. SPARKMAN. That is correct.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I know that the
Senate could go ahead and accept the
Eagleton amendment because, after all,
it has been adopted 3 or 4 times, and the
House could act, and there might be some
adjustments in conference. However, if
I were a member of the conference?and
after handling this bill today?I would
be pledged to support the Senate posi-
tion. I believe in keeping my word.
However, if the Senate adopts the
Eagleton amendment as prepared and
stated, and the House does the same,
then there is no maneuverability at all,
and you cannot negotiate something in
conference when there is no disagree-
ment.
Therefore, I am just asking for the
opportunity for some flexibility on our
part.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator's time has expired.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I think we have 2
more minutes.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, the
matter of negotiating the Cyprus situa-
tion is ticklish. I was in London, attend-
ing the NATO meeting, and the Turkish
Ambassador invited our entire delega-
tion to have breakfast with him, I told
him, in so many words, that I felt that
when they moved into Cyprus, they were
too aggressive and went too far. I will
not say that they admitted it; they did
not deny it. They said that they would
be willing to work out that situation.
I believe that if Secretary Kissinger is
given the time he needs, he can work this
out satisfactorily. I hope we do not im-
pede him too much in this effort.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I have
listened with great interest to the re-
marks of the distinguished Senator from
Minnesota and the exchanges between
himself and the distinguished Senator
from Maryland and the distinguished
Senator from Alabama (Mr. SPARKMAN) .
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 197.4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 20535
In a sense, we are replaying the debate
of last October. The law on this matter
is very clear, and the State Department
acknowledges that the law is clear: when
a government?in this instance, Tur-
key?uses our military assistance to com-
mit an aggressive act against a neutral
or sovereign nation, aid shall be ter-
minated immediately. So there is no dis-
pute about the law.
Back in October, this body, on several
occasions, adhered to the rule of law and
said that the law 'should be enforced and
that aid should be terminated. The House
did likewise, in a series of votes.
But an impasse was reached with re-
spect to the continuing resolution which
affected several vital agencies of govern-
ment. In order to resolve that impasse,
the December 10 cutoff date was agreed
to?reluctantly, I might add, by many in
this body and in the other body. It was
thought that during that period, negotia-
tions could go forward that would result
in a meaningful settlement, but that has
not occurred.
What is now being suggested by my
good and distinguished colleague, the
Senator from Minnesota, is that, once
again, we go the extension route, per-
haps to March 1 or March 15. He said
that his feet are not in cement as to
the specific date. Once again, if we were
to go that route, which I cannot agree to,
we would be back here early next year,
seeking a further extension.
The truth is, Mr. President, that with
the passage of each day, the Turkish
forces in Cyprus become more en-
trenched. The 40 percent of the island
that is occupied by Turkish forces be-
comes more separate, more isolated from
the ultimate future of an integrated
Cyprus. If this activity is prolonged?in-
deed, encourage it by further exten-
sions?we will reach the point in the
not-too-distant future when any mean-
ingful negotiation as to an integrated,
unified Cyprus will be impossible. That
40 percent will be so dominated by Turk-
ish forces that, for all practical' purposes,
It will have been severed from the island
of Cyprus.
The question, then, really boils down
to the requirements of our law. And by
following our law we can encourage ne-
gotiations between the respective parties.
The respective parties, I hasten to add,
include Mr. Denktash on the island of
Cyprus, who, were he given the authority
by the Turkish military could negotiate
a settlement.
In my opinion, and in the opinion of
many others who are experts in the
foreign policy area, the only way we
can convince Turkey that it is in their
interest to negotiate is to cut off military
aid. The ephemeral threat that it might
be cut off some day in the future, that
it might have been cut off on December
10, that it might be cut off on March 15,
that it might be cut off on June 15?
that rather vague threat, which the
Turkish Gvernment must realize from
recent experience the executive branch
does not wish to fulfill?is not enough
to induct the Government of Turkey to
negotiate meaningfully.
What is meaningful is that, if and
when the aid is cut off, they know that
the die is cast. I think that is an induce-
ment, a strong inducement, to achieve
some kind of rational settlement on Cy-
prus, with the interested parties in-
volved participating?especially, I has-
ten to add, those representing the Greek
Cypriot community and the Turkish
Cypriot community, the people most
deeply aggrieved and most deeply
affected.
So I think that to go ahead with a
postponement date would not be in the
interest of a meaningful resolution on
Cyprus. Quite to the contrary, I believe
it would further freeze into a position of
intransigence the Turkish occupation on
Cyprus. By March 15, or whatever date
might be suggested, the situation will
have long passed the point of no return,
in a sense that the "Turkiflcation" of
that northern portion of Cyprus would
have been so intense, so complete, and so
overwhelming that, for all practical
purposes, partition will have occurred.
The northern portion of the sovereign
nation of Cyprus will have been severed
from the main body itself.
Therefore, Mr. President, realizing the
good intentions of the Senator from
Minnesota, which are self-evident, I
cannot support such a position, because
I think it would be foredoomed to fail-
ure. It would be self-defeating insofar
as a resolution of the Cyprus question
Is concerned. It would not be an induce-
ment to a meaningful solution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, has
all time on the amendment been Used?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Minnesota has 1 minute re-
maining, and the Senater from Missouri
has 5 minutes remaining. The time has
not been yielded back.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I yield
back the remainder of my time.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield back the re-
mainder of my time, and I call up the
amendment for discussion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
having been yielded back, the clerk will
report the amendment of the Senator
from Minnesota.
The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERIC. The
Senator from Minnesota (Mr. HUM-
PHREY) , on behalf of himself and others,
proposes an amendment to the Eagleton
amendment, No. 2004, as follows:
On page 2, between lines 9 and 10, insert
the following:
Provided, That the President is authorized
to suspend the provisions of this section and
said acts if he determines that such suspen-
sion will further negotiations for a peaceful
solution of the Cyprus conflict. Any such
suspension shall be effective only until
March 15, 1975 and only if, during that time,
Turkey shall observe the ceasefire and shall
neither increase its forces on Cyprus nor
transfer to Cyprus any U.S. supplied imple-
ments of war.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, a
point of information: Do I correctly
understand that under the previous
unanimous consent agreement, this
amendment is limited to 30 minutes,
divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is
correct-30 minutes, divided equally be-
ween the Senator from Missouri and
the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum, and
ask unanimous consent that the time be
taken from the time on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
modify my amendment to read as fol-
lows:
Provided. That the President is authorized
to Suspend the provisions of this section and
said acts if he determines that such suspen-
sion will further negotiations for a peaceful
solution of the Cyprus conflict. Any such
suspension gall be effective only until 30
days after the convening of the 94th Con-
gress and only if, during that time, Turkey
shall observe the ceasefire and shall neither
increase its forces on Cyprus nor transfer to
Cyprus any U.S. supplied implements of war.
Mr. President, this modification
changes the date from what I had orig-
inally intended, March 15, to the date
specified, 30 days after the convening of
the 99th Congress.
I submit the amendment as modified
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be so modified. The clerk
will state the modification.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I ask unanimous
consent that the reading of the modifica-
tion be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HUMPHREY'S amendment, as modi-
fied, is as follows:
On page 2, between lines 9 and 10 insert
the following:
Provided, That the President is authorized
to suspend the provisions of this section and
said acts if he determines that such suspen-
sion will further negotiations for a peaceful
solution of the Cyprus conflict. Any such
suspension shall be effective only until 30
days after the convening of the 94th Con-
gress and only if, during that time, Turkey
shall observe the ceasefire and shall neither
increase its forces on Cyprus nor transfer to
Cyprus any U.S. supplied implements of war.
Mr. HUMPHREY. The whole purpose
of this amendment is to do what we
were talking about earlier during the
colloquy with the distinguished Senator
from Maryland and the distinguished
Senator from Alabama (Mr. SPARK-
MAN) --namely, to give the President and
the Secretary of State a little more time
in the hopes of being able to bring about
some constructive results in 'the negotia-
tions between the Governments of
Greece and Turkey on the issue of'
Cyprus.
The present situation has been ex-
plained. There is one ray of good hope,
and that is there is a new government in
Greece, democratically elected, and a
real omen for positive and good results.
The bad news, so to speak, is the fact
there is only a caretaker government in
'Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20536
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE December 4, 1974
Turkey. There is no government in Tur-
key at the present time that can engage
in negotiations.
Now, we have to depend upon the
President and the Secretary of State in
these matters to protect our national
security interests, with the advice and
counsel of the Congress of the United
States, and I am offering this amend-
ment, as I said, not out of a sense of
emotion and heart, because my heart
and my emotions go with the Senator
from Missouri, but my judgment tells me
that this is a sensible and reasonable
proposal, that it does not do injustice to
the moral position that has been prop-
erly and so effectively taken by the dis-
tinguished Senator from Missouri and
the distinguished Senator from Illinois.
What it does is just give a little more
time, and it still leaves in the hands of
Congress, by our action, a cutoff date.
In other words, a cutoff date would be
30 days after the convening of the 94th
Congress, and it will give the Secretary
of State, Mr. Kissinger, and the Presi-
dent of the United States time to, hope-
fully, bring about some negotiations and
a settlement in Cyprus.
I would hope that we might see the
wisdom of this moderate course. It is not
one that is entirely satisfactory, but I do
believe it is one that makes sense, and
I would hope that the Senator from
Missouri would see the concerns that the
Senator from Minnesota has. I have
talked to him privately about this
matter.
There is not much more that needs to
be said, at least on this side. I know the
Senator from Missouri may want to re-
spond. We do not need to take any more
time of the Senate. We all know how we
are -going to vote.
I yield to the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. MATHIAS) .
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator from Minnesota for yielding
a few moments to raise some questions.
I have agreed completely with the dis-
tinguished Senator from Missouri in his
approach to this problem and have voted
in support of his proposals. I think he
Is to be very strongly commended for the
tenacity and the adherence to the prin-
ciples that he has expressed so eloquently
to the whole country. He and I agree on
the view that this question and any simi-
lar question must be resolved by Con-
gress according to the process of law.
This is the Congress' constitutional
responsibility and it cannot be delegated
away. Congress has to make the decision.
The process of law must be the process
by which we resolve it. -
But the pending amendments, the
Humphrey amendment and the Eagleton
amendment, raise very fundamental
questions to which, very frankly, I do
not think the Senate has all the answers.
It does not have the facts necessary to
come to an informed decision. I do not
think we are really ready to vote intel-
ligently.
I find it very difficult to say with any
positive force that extra time will pro-
duce results, but I cannot say that more
time will have adverse effects either.
It would be helpful and, in my view,
essential to hear from the U.S. Ambas-
sadors to each country, Greece, Cyprus,
and Turkey. We should also have the
views of distinguished negotiators on
the Cyprus question like former Secre-
tary Vance. A review of those past nego-
tations would also be useful. I would hope
that the Foreign Relations Committee
would have hearings and report to the
Senate on their findings, at the earliest
opportunity. We need to know more
before we can vote with confidence.
I must say, Mr. President, that there
are echoes in this Chamber that are
most disturbing when we talk about time
extensions. We have served in this body
during the Vietnam war when it was
said by previous administrations, "Well?
a little more time, a little More time, a
little more time may buy us a solution.'"
I hear those echoes, and those echoes
are very disturbing to me. I have very
serious problems with this.
I think we have to fully support the
view of the Senator from Missouri that
the validity of the law must be recog-
nized, and that the only aid which can
go to any NATO partner is that aid
which is provided under law and by the
NATO treaty?that is for defensive pur-
poses only.
I think it is a fundamental principle
that in any consideration of time ex-
tension that, as amendment of the Sen-
ator from Minnesota has provided, that
there has to be an absolute commitment
that there be no buildup of arms, and
that there should be no transfer of arms
from Turkey into Cyprus. These things
have to be taken as fundamental and
as a matter of course.
I recognize that we are dealing here
not as in Vietnam with two nations, one
friendly and one hostile; we are dealing
with two friends, with Greece and with
Turkey. This is a very different kind of
situation. It is one in which I think we
need to know far more than we now
know. We are dealing with two friends,
and in the absence of these vital facts
the only way to give ourselves time to
know the answers is to provide the
flexibility which the Senator from
Minnesota suggests to us, and that is the
flexibility of giving the new Congress 30
days to consider the question. I believe
that is the only reasonable way to prop-
erly inform ourselves on how we should
act. I ask again that the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee hold hearings with the
Ambassadors and Such experts as Cyrus
Vance and report to the Senate on this
vital issue.
For this reason it is my view that a
short-time extension would be the wisest
course of action.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I shall
be brief. I addressed myself to this
amendment even prior to its introduc-
tion.
One of the arguments made in support
of the extended date, now to be some-
where presumably in mid-February,
would be that there is no government
with which to negotiate in Turkey. But
according to State Department prognos-
tications, the elections will not take place
in Turkey until April. So, presumably,
even between now and mid-February, if
those Prognostications are accurate,
there Would still only be an interim or
caretaker regime with which to negoti-
ate.
I point out though that there is some-
one, Mr. President, with whom there
should be negotiations. Mr. Denktash,
the leader of the Turkish Cypriot com-
munity, the man primarily concerned
with the future of his people and his na-
tion, negotiations can go forward with
him if what is sought IS a Cypriot solu-
tion.
? I repeat, Mr. President, / am very, very
fearful that if we extend this waiver of
our laws, the Turkish domination on that
northern port of the island of Cyprus
will be so complete, so embedded, so en-
meshed politically, militarily, and in
every conceivable way, that what we will
be doing here, perhaps unwittingly, will
be to permanently partition the island
nation of Cyprus. And if that occurs, the
NATO alliance will be permanently dam-
aged in the Eastern Mediterranean.
By the time February 15 comes around
the control in that area will be so com-
plete, the flight of Greek Cypriots from
that area, the introduction of the Turk-
ish citizens from Mainland Turkey into
the northern part of Cyprus will have
gone on for so long that, indeed, there
will be nothing much to negotiate about.
It will be a penultimate fait accompli
and, therefore, Mr. President, although I
recognize the sincere good motives of the
Senator from Minnesota in offering this
amendment, and the sineerity of my dis-
tinguished colleague from Maryland in
supporting it, I think that what we are
doing here today in order to "buy some
time" is foretelling the ultimate result.
We are, by prolonging the Turkish
domination of the northern part of
Cyprus, in effect, insuring that there will
be a permanent division on Cyprus; that
ultimately we will be destroying the in-
tegral sovereignty of the free nation of
Cyprus. I think that is really what is in-
volved in this reluctance to follow our
laws and act now. We may well have
crossed that point by now?who knows?
but I am persuaded that if we extend it to
mid-February we will have gone beyond
the point of no return.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, the
Senate must once again consider the
most appropriate response to the admin-
istration's continued calculated indiffer-
ence to Turkey's illegal occupation of
Cypriot territory. Since the last Senate
debate on this subject, it has become ap-
parent that the administration continues
to pursue policies which are not only
lacking in good sense, but are contrary
to provisions of American law as well.
As many of my colleagues have
pointed out, we have now learned that
American military assistance to Turkey
actually increased following the Turkish
invasion of Cyprus. We have also learned
that the State Department lawyers have
Indeed reached a conclusion as to the
legality of these arms shipments, but the
conclusion cannot be made public, the
State Department says, "without under-
mining our foreign policy objective."
This is a weak defense, indeed, of admin-
istration policy.
The fact is that the administration
has precious little to show for its acqui-
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --SENATE
escence in Turkish adventmism. But
more important, in my view, is the grim
reality of conditions on Cyprus. Perhaps
a third of the island's population now
consists of refugees. Some of the island's
most productive areas are in ruins. And,
unhappily, the future of the island will
remain bleak so long as arbitrary Turk-
ish influence on Cyprus is not restrained.
Mr. President, the adoption of Sena-
tor EAGLETON'S amendment is a pressing
necessity. It offers the best hope that
American policy in a strategically signifi-
cant part of the world can be put back
on a more sensible plane. I urge its adop-
tion by my colleagues just as I continue
to hope that the administration will
abandon its misdirected and unprinci-
pled course.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Is the Senator pre-
pared to yield back his time?
Mr. EAGLETON. Yes, I am prepared
to yield back my time.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I think the argu-
ments have been made, and there is no
necessity for using further time. I am
prepared to yield back my time.
Mr. EAGLETON. I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
is yielded back?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
gather the Senator wants the yeas and
the nays on this amendment.
Mr. IFAGLETON. Yes.
Mr. IIUMPHREY. I ask for the yeas
and the nays.
The PRESIDING OrriCER. Is there
a sufficient second?
The yeas and the nays were ordered.
Mr. HUMPHREY. This is on agreeing
te the amendment I proposed on behalf
of myself and other Senators. This is an
amendment to the Eagleton amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is
correct.
? Mr. TOWER. An amendment in the
nature of a substitute?
Mr. HUMPHREY. It is an amendment
to the Eagleton amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to Mr. HUMPHREY'S
amendment to Mr. EAGLETON'S amend-
ment. The yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
EASTLAND), the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Eavnv), the Senator from
Colorado (Mr. HASKELL1 , the Senator
from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON), and
the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Fin.-
BRIGHT), are necassarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. TAL1VIADGE), is absent be-
cause of illness.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON)
and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr.
HsusicA) , are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. PERCY), Is absent on official
business.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Illinois (Mr.
PERCY), would vote "nay."
The result was announced?yeas 55,
nays 36, as follows:
Aiken
Baker
Bartlett
BeaU
Bennett
Brock
Cannon
Case
Chiles
Church
Cook
Curtis
Domenici
Dominick
Fannin
Fong
Gravel
Griffin
Gurney
[No. 517 Leg.1
YEAS-55
Hansen
Hart
Hatfield
Hathaway
Helms
Hollings
Huddleston
Humphrey
Inouye
Javits
Johnston
Kennedy
Long
'Mansfield
Mathias
McClellan
McClure
McGee
Metcalf
NAYS-36
Metzenbaum
Mondale
Moss
Muskie
Nunn
Packwood
Pearson
Scott, Hugh
Sparkman
Stafford
Stennis
Stevens
Taft
Thurmond
Tower
Weicker
Young
Abourezk Cotton Pell
Allen Cranston Proxmire
Bayh Dole Randolph
Bentsen Eagleton Ribicoff
Bible GoldWater Roth
Biden Hartke Schweiker
Brooke Hughes Scott,
Buckley Jackson william ta.
Burdick McGovern Stevenson
Byrd McIntyre Symington,
Harry F., Jr. Montoya Tunney
Byrd, Robert C. Nelson Williams
Clark Pastore
NOT VOTING-9
Hellman Fulbright Magnuson
Eastland Haskell Percy
Ervin Hruska Talmadge
So Mr. HUMPHREY'S amendment to Mr.
EAGLETON'S amendment was agreed to.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the amend-
ment, as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
move to lay that motion on-the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question now recurs on the amendment
of the Senator from Missouri, as
amended.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I be-
lieve we can handle this by a voice vote
now. Let us just have the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Missouri, as
amended, [Putting the question.]
The amendment of the Senator from
Missouri, as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment, as amended, was
agreed to.
Mr, McGEE. Mr. President, I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have
an amendment at the desk, and I ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the
Members please take their seats?
The amendment will be stated.
The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK. The
Senator from Hawaii proposes an
amendment on behalf of himself and
the Senator from Florida (Mr. Cnnss).
The amendment is as follows:
S 20537
On page 27, line 23, beginning With "(a)
Section 203 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961", strike out through -line 3 on page 28.
On page 28, line 4, strike out "(3)- and
insert in lieu thereof "(a) ".
On page 28, line 11, strike out "(c)" and
insert in lieu thereof "(b)".
On page 29, line 6, strike out "(d)" and
insert in lieu thereof "(c)".
On page 29, line 18, strike out "(e)" and
Insert in lieu thereof "(d)".
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the name of the
Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH) be
added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
cannot hear the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators
will please take their conversations to
the cloakroom. The Senator from Ha-
waii cannot be heard by the Chair.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, over the
past 28 years the United States has
made almost $200 billion in assistance to
its friends and neighbors abroad. Over
$10.9 billion of this amount?exclusive
of Public Law 480 and local currency
loans?remains outstanding in the form
of highly concessional loans which most
often are repayable at no more than 3-
Percent interest over 40 years, with the
first 10 years of this period designated
as a grace period during which interest
Only is payable.
It is, therefore, understandable that
repayments of these loans in the early
years were relatively modest and almost
without notice were authorized and re-
appropriated?through language in the
authorization and appropriations bills.
In my opinion, this procedure has been
properly termed a "backdoor" appro-
priation because these funds were never
reflected in the bill as specific dollar
amounts or as new obligational author-
ity in the face of annual foreign assist-
ance appropriations reports.
As the years passed, these repayments
grew?even with past rollovers and re-
negotiations of tens of millions of dollars
in loans with such nations as India and
Pakistan?until this year?fiscal year
1975?when they were estimated at $394
million?over one-third of a billion dol-
lars. In fiscal year 1976, these repay-
ments subject to future renegotiations
will total $455 million; in fiscal year
1977, $140 million; in fiscal year 1978,
$573 million; and in fiscal year 1979,
$547 million. So they will continue to
grow.
In the 'past these funds have been
available for financing the Agency's
overall program. It is of course true that
the gross program was justified to the
Congress, but it is also true that these
"backdoor" funds were available for bol-
stering individual appropriations which
might have been cut by specific commit-
tee action.
As an example, last year in fiscal year
1974, we appropriated a total of $36,500,-
000 in new, obligational authority for
selected countries and organizations
development assistance. When the ad-
ministration decided, however, that the
Congress had allowed less than the ad-
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20538
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE December 4, 19;1
ministration desired for assistance to
Indochina, we found that the agency's
allocation of assistance in its official year
budget?made up 30 days after enact-
ment of an appropriation bill?a new $60
million loan was proposed for Vietnam
under the selected countries and orga-
nizations appropriation account. As was
the case with an earlier $50 million de-
velopment loan, this loan was not con-
tained in the original budget request
and indeed was $23 million more than
the amount of new obligational author-
ity appropriated for this category for the
entire world. The committee strenuously
objected to this proposed $50 million new
Vietnam loan and when additional fund,,,,
for Vietnam were forthcoming in the fis-
cal 1974 second supplemental the agency
decided against pressing the matter, and
the loan was ultimately not made. The
circumstances, however, serve to illus-
trate how congressional intent can be
circumvented when the integrity of in-
dividual appropriation accounts is not
maintained.
The Appropriations Committee first
came to grips with this problem in fiscal
year 1973 when it moved to eliminate all
such "backdoor" moneys from the bill.
ask unanimous consent that an excerpt
from page 16 of the committee's fiscal
year 1973 report be printed at this point
in the RECORD:
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
ACTION ELIMINATING 'BACKDOOR" APPROPRIA-
TION OF PR/OR YEAR LOAN REPAYMENTS, UN-
OBLIGATED BALANCES, AND RECOVERIES
The committee has carefully considered the
budget estimate of new obligational author-
ity for agencies and activities funded through
this bill. It has also reviewed the request to
continue the practice of reappropriating
prior year loan repayments and prior year
un.obligated balances. In an effort to bring
about improved controls over foreign assist-
aline and a better public understanding of it;
true dimensions, however, the committee
recommends that this practice be discon-
tinued and has proposed bill language which
would accomplish this. It would therefore
follow that the full amount of the program
proposed for future fiscal years would be re-
flected in the requests of new obligations 1
authority for that year.
This action is also consistent with the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (Sec -
tion 139(c) ) which provides the following:
No general appropriation bill or amend-
ment thereto shall be received or considered
in either House if it contains a provision
reappropriating unexpended balances of ap-
propriations. . .
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the com-
mittee thought that when the fiscal year
1973 authorization bill which included a
two-step phaseout of these repayments--
one-half of the repayments authorized to
be made available in fiscal year 1975 and
eliminated in fiscal year 1976?was en-
acted that this long and troublesome
question had been resolved. Unfortunate-
ly, the bill before us would resurrect the
entire problem.
My amendment would leave the mat-
ter as it was last year with one-half the
projected repayments?estimated at $198
million?authorized to be made available
in fiscal year 1975 and none next year.
Mr. President, I, for one, have no ob-
jection to, the authorization of $110 mil-
lion, or more if It can be justified, for
reconstruction, relief, and rehabilitation
funds for Bangladesh, the Sahel, and
Cyprus, but I do believe these items
should be brought in the frontdoor and
dealt with on their own individual merits,
in clear view, as new obligational author-
ity. In all of our discussions on this mat-
ter, no one has given a single good rea-
son why we deny the Senate an oppor-
tunity to look this $100 million plus item
full in the face.
I assure the Senate that we will con-
tinue to deal with urgent flatters on On
urgent basis; but if the Congress is to
control appropriations, we must restore
the integrity of appropriation accounts
and eliminate these "backdoor" funding
arrangements.
Mr. President, this amendment has
much attraction because it speaks of the
starving people in Bangladesh, in the
Sahel, and in Cyprus.
It is well and good to talk about the
need for assistance to Bangladesh, but
are the Member of the Senate aware that
the starving people there have not to this
good day received the full benefit of the
$300 million in emergency assistance--
$200 million in Public Law 92-242, dated
March 8, 1972, and $100 million in Pub-
lic Law 93-9, dated Marcle8, 1973?voted
by the Senate some 2 to 3 years ago, arid
that $83.3 million of this $300 million is
still unexpended?
Is the Senate aware that the starving
people of the Sahel havet yet to receive
the full benefit of $110 million appro-
priated in emergency assistance for the
Sahel last year?
Is the Senate aware that when the
Senate included an additional $15 mil-
lion availability?in the -latest extension
of the continuing resolution, Public Law
93-448, October 17, 1974?for new emer-
gency assistance for Bangladesh, the
Sahel and Cyprus, the $4.,1 million al-
located for Bangladesh was used to reim-
burse earlier Bangladesh accounts for
funds already used for Bengali assist-
ance? Not one dime of new assistance was
provided Bangladesh as a result of our
urgent action through the difficult med-
ium of an extension of, the continuing
resolution.
How will the additional Moneys set
forth in this proposal be used?
The Appropriations Committee has not
received justification for any new pro-
gram. I doubt that the Foreign Relations
Committeehas received any justification.
I would like to know the specifics of
these needs and programs for which ad-
ditional authorization is proposed.
I hope that the Senate will consider
this matter seriously. I know that all of
us are concerned about starving people,
but I hope we will remember the large
balances of the emergency funds we have
appropriated which are yet to be
expended.
Finally, I hope that the Senate will
insist Upon it's own integrity by compil-
ing all requests come through the front
door. In that way all of us will have an
opportunity to See and study each item
and each justification and vote them up
or down on their individual merit. I hope
we will put a stop to backdoor financing
once and for all.
The PRESIDING aterICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
yield time to the Senator from Massa-
chusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 30
minutes.
Mr. President, section 20 of the pend-
ing foreign assistance bill, "reconstruc-
tion, relief, and rehabilitation," results
from an amendment I offered last Octo-
ber 2?with the support of the admin-
istration?which was cosponsored by
Senators MCGEE, HUMPHREY, MATHIAS,
HASKELL, PELL, JAVITS, CRANSTON, HAT-
FIELD, and BROOKE. The amendment was
adopted by the Senate in its previous
consideration of the foreign aid bill.
And, I am pleased that the Foreign Re-
lations Committee, in its reconsidera-
tion of the foreign aid bill, saw fit to
unanimously accept this amendment in
the revised bill before us today.
Mr. President, this section simply
authorizes the use of some $110 million
that will be available from the sched-
uled loan repayments administered by
AID. These funds, 50 percent of the
scheduled loan repayments, now revert
to the Treasury. The other 50 percent
are used, under the law, for new devel-
opmental loans. As we all knew, at the
end of this fiscal year, the entire sched-
uled loan repayment authorization will
end.
MY Purpose in proposing section 20
was to find a way this year to use the
50 percent of the available loan repay-
ments to meet extraordinary humani-
tarian emergencies which have devel-
oped this year?in Cyprus, in Bangla-
desh, in Africa, in Honduras, and in
several other areas of the world. I be-
lieve these humanitarian emergencies
require us to use all avallatle funds.
Mr. President, let me stress what this
section does and does not do.
First, it does not permanently author-
ize the use of scheduled loan repayments
for the humanitarian purposes out-
lined in the section. It is not open-
ended. It will be for this fiscal year only,
because of the extraordinary humani-
tarian needs which have arisen this
year.
Second, this section is not a loss 'of
congressional control over appropriated
moneys, rather it is an exercise of con-
gressional control. There is no possibil-
ity that these funds could be used for
a purpose other than those humani-
tarian purposes specified in the section.
Third, this section simply earmarks
funds already available from an already
established procedure. This is not a pro-
posal for a new scheme of "back-door
financing," but rather to exercise con-
gressional control over a funding proce-
dure long established, and which will end
this fiscal year. I appreciate and share
the concern of many Senators over the
use of, and the congressional control
over, scheduled loan repayments, and I
support the purpose of the Church
amendment, adopted 2 years ago, which
mandated that this program end and be
reviewed after fiscal year 1975. But until
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 20539
then I see no valid reason why Congress
should not act to earmark and control
these available funds?especially to meet
urgent humanitarian needs.
Fourth, this section does not free other
resources that could be used by the ex-
ecutive branch for other purposes. They
cannot be used to fund already planned
programs or activities, since this section
earmarks funds for unforeseen problems
which have arisen long after AID sub-
mitted its program and established its
basic allocation of resources.
Finally, Mr. President, this section
continues the long record of Congress
and the American people in responding
to humanitarian emergencies. Just last
spring, Congress acted to meet famine
needs in Africa and the disaster relief
requirements in Pakistan and Nicaragua
by enacting the Foreign Disaster Assist-
ance Act. And last year, during consid-
eration of the foreign aid bill, Congress
enacted section 639B, which provided
substantial famine and disaster relief to
the African Sahel for the first time.
This section is a logical extension of
these acts by Congress, and it continues
our country's record of concern for our
fellow man. It expands existing sections
of the Foreign Assistance Act, and pro-
vides a short-term funding source for
new disaster" needs and unforseen hu-
manitarian requirements in the year
ahead.
Mr. President, we have heard some
comment that funds are already author-
ized and appropriated for some of the
humanitarian needs contained in this
section. That is,, in part, true. But I be,
lieve the record will show that most, if
not all, of these funds are already obli-
gated or programed.
But, more importantly, this section
contains a provision to met unantic-
ipated humanitarian disasters to sup-
plement the extremely inadequate con-
tingency fund. Who could have antic-
ipated this last summer, when this bill
was originally drafted, and this past
autumn when the Senate first began
debate on it, that the situation in Cyprus
would emerge as such an urgent human-
itarian crisis, for which inadequate
funding would be available?
Some $10 million has been allocated
from other sources and from the nearly
exhausted contingency fund to help meet
humanitarian needs on Cyprus?but no
\funds have been proposed or will be
readily available in the future beyond
this $10 million. And who here is pre-
pared to say the humanitarian crisis will
end by the end of this fiscal year?
In the case of Africa and Bangladesh,
existing funding programs proposed by
AID in its presentation are, I believe, in-
adequate, and fail to anticipate unfore-
seen needs. This was clearly established
in hearings before the subcommittee on
refugees, which I serve as chairman. On
August 20 we held another in a series of
hearings on the human disasters in these
areas of the world, and it was clear to
me that AID requests for funds, and the
programs they had proposed to Congress,
were inadequate in the face of the grow-
ing needs of these famine nations. This
section will provide a necessary supple-
ment to the contingency fund, and to the
already planned humanitarian programs
in these areas.
We have heard some argue that this
section should be deleted and delayed in
order to make it a separate authoriza-
tion and appropriation bill in the next
Congress. I can only ask what will we
do when the next Cyprus, or the next
Bangladesh, or the next Honduras
tragedy occurs somewhere in the world?
as it surely will?and there are inade-
quate funds available? Will children be
allowed to starve and die because we de-
leted a provision of a bill that provides
for these unforeseen humanitarian emer-
gencies, using funds already available?
Mr. President, there can be no ques-
tion today as to the need for these funds.
The current crisis in Cyprus, the hurri-
cane in Honduras, the massive flooding
and food needs in Bangladesh, and the
continuing drought and famine in Africa,
represent the latest links in the chain of
ravaged populations which have circled
the globe in recent years, and for which
AID has made inadequate requests. Such
humanitarian emergencies have always
brought forth an immediate response
from the American people?in fulfill-
ment of our Nation's longstanding lead-
ership in helping, to the extent we can,
all people in need.
That is what section 20 of this bill
does.
Mr. President, as I mentioned in my
remarks, the existing contingency fund
will virtually be exhausted with the rest
of the obligated funds for this year.
There was $30 million authorized. I un-
derstand, $15 million of which may be
appropriated. All but approximately $3
million of that will have been obligated
if this bill is enacted.
We have more than 284,000 refugees
in Cyprus alone. It is interesting to lis-
ten to the, debate that we have heard
on the floor this afternoon in the U.S.
Senate about military aid and military
assistance to Turkey and to think of the
extraordinary amounts of money that
are going to be involved in that particu-
lar undertaking, continuing at least un-
til the midpart of February, to exercise
our concern about the use of military
equipment in that part of the world;
then to have, back to back, an amend-
ment to strike a humanitarian assistance
provision which the supporters of this
section attempted to write into law, with
as careful use of the English language as
was possible, with restrictions that the
resources that would be available under
this section would be designated and
utilized solely for humanitarian pur-
poses.
I do not think that that is really an
abdication 'of congressional responsibil-
ity. I think what those who supported
this section earlier this year were trying
to indicate that there were going to be
emergency humanitarian situations
which would involve people in all parts
of the world, and for which adequate
funds would not be available. Certainly,
the record of this .past year, when we
look at Nicaragua or Honduras or Pak-
istan, aside from the incidents which
readily spring to mind, such as Bangla-
desh or the Sahel, or Cyprus, indicate
that there are going to be, as sure as we
are standing here, some important hu-
manitarian responsibilities that we are
going to be facing as a country.
The PRESIDING OrrICER (Mr.
STAFFORD). The Senator's time has
expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 4 more
minutes.
What we are attempting to do is set
those resources aside and go firmly on
record, we in the Congress of the United
States, that the value of human beings,
their survival, their ability to survive
starvation, is a matter of great conse-
quence and importance.
We are talking of approximately $110
million here. We are not talking about
the billions of dollars that we are going
to be providing in military assistance, or
the hundreds of millions of dollars that
we are going to be providing in economic
assistance. It seems to me, Mr. President,
that this attempt that was made and
later supported in the committee itself,
was a legitimate, worthwhile, useful ex-
pression of congressional intent that we
care about humanitarian problems and
crises as they spring up throughout the
world.
Finally, let me say, Mr. President, that
I do not question for a moment the deep
sense of compassion and concern of the
proponent of this amendthent. As one of
the most active and dedicated members
of the Committee on Appropriations, he
has, on every occasion that I have
spoken to him, been extremely sensitive
to these humanitarian needs and has
provided strong leadership in the Com-
mittee on Appropriations to make sure
that the United States is prepared to
meet its responsibilities.
So I want, as I make these comments,
to have it very clearly understood that
I think the distinguished Senator from
Hawaii has shown by his activities as a
member of the Appropriations Commit- ,
tee, and I think more importantly by his
constant performance in this body, that
he has a very deep sense of compassion
for needy people throughout the world.
I wonder, as one who speaks with that
sense of compassion, if he cannot bring
to this discussion and debate some ideas
on how he thinks we could meet the ob-
jectives of which he has spoken this aft-
ernoon, and also be sensitive to these
ongoing and continuing responsibilities
which we as humanitarian people must
be wanting to undertake. I wonder if he
can help to enlighten me as to what he
thinks, given the reality of the limita-
tion on appropriations which are avail-
able, and the recognition that we are not
going to have an opportunity, realistical-
ly, through any legislative vehicle, to
respond to the ongoing and unantici-
pated needs that we are going to be
facing in Cyprus and other parts of the
world, what he thinks we can do.
We are hopeful, as we have seen in
the course of the recent debate, that
, there will be some political settlement in
Cyprus so that Turkey and perhaps some
day even Greece can be brought back
into the alliance.
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20540
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2 -
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE December 4, 1924
Obviously, a part of that settlement
will require the rehabilitation of human
beings, the thousands of Turkish refu-
gees as well as the thousands of Greek
refugees, and it seems to me that by
accepting?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator's time has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. May I have 3 more
minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair
would inform the Senator that there Is
only 1 minute remaining on the amend-
ment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield
me 3 or 4 minutes on the bill?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes, I yield the Sen-
ator 5 minutes on the bill.
The PRESIDING OreaCER. The Chair
must inform the Senator that there is
only 4 minutes remaining on the bill.
Mr. HUMPHREY. On the what?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the
bill.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I thought there
were 2 hours, under the agreement yes-
terday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair
is informed by the Parliamentarian that
most of it was used yesterday.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Well, that is very
good news.
Mr. KENNEDY. Could we use the Sen-
ator's time?
Mr. INOUYE. I yield the Senator 2
minutes.
Mr. HUIVIPHREY. The Senator from
Hawaii is a most generous man. He is
prepared to yield some of his time. We
will save the 4 minutes on the bill for
words of profundity and wisdom later.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator knows
the question I am interested in. I wonder
what he would do.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator from Massachusetts for his
generous words.
I would like to make four points. First,
as to the world "accountability," I think
it is very important. The foreign aid bill
has been, I think, well defined by one of
our colleagues as the biggest can of
worms in the U.S. Congress.
It has been a can of worms because
we have not been able to explain the
foreign aid picture to the people of the
United States, and we will never be able
to explain it properly if we insist upon
providing funds through the "back door."
Point No. 2: Under the leadership of
the distinguished Senator from Massa-
chusetts, this Senate and this Congress
have been very sensitive, extremely sen-
sitive, to the humanitarian needs of
those who are starving throughout the
world. In every instance we have
responded, whether it be Nicaragua, the
Sahel, Bangladesh, or Cyprus.
As I pointed out in my opening re-
marks, at this moment we still have
funds which are unexpended. In Bang-
ladesh, over $89 million of the
emergency funds we appropriated some
2 to 3 years ago have not been expended
and, therefore, have not come to grips
with the problem to which they were
enacted.
Third, I think it would be well to note
that there was good reason for the Ap-
propriations Committee and the Senate
of the United States to insist upon. re-
ducing the contingency account from $30
million to $10 million. If my ,colleagues
will recall, the intent of the law creating
this fund is pretty clear indicating that
this fund will be used only for urgent
and unforeseen matters, such as humani-
tarian needs arising from hurricanes,
floods, et cetera. In the last 2 years, we
have had at least two large items under
the contingency fund which cotild not be
justified as emergency, unforeseen or
humanitarian in nature.
First, $10 million was approved by AID
for use in the Bahamas to assist. that na-
tion in starting a beef industry I do not
see any urgent or emergency humanitari-
an need there. Second, earlier this year
the former President of the United States
on his visit to Egypt, decided that he
would like to make a gift, and so he pre-
sented to President Anwar Sadat a Pre-
sidential helicopter.
That helicopter should have been
funded by the Department of Defense Or
the Department of State. Since both
DOD and State put up their hands and
refused to ? touch the matter, where do
you think it went? AID picked it up in
the contingency fund?the "Disposall,"
the garbage pile.
And so we find an act which is sup-
posed to be used for hurricane victims
and flood victims being used to pay for
Presidential gifts of helicopters on long-
term cattle development programs.
This is why I am afraid to give the
agency too much of a blank check in the
contingency fund for millions of dollars
and have them administer it for humani-
tarian purposes. If the helicopter can be
a humanitarian purpose, if spending $10
million to start a beef industry in the
Bahamas. can qualify for humanitarian
purposes, there is, indeed, no limit.
In closing, as my fourth point, let me
with all sincerity assure the Senator
from Massachusetts that when the
agency comes before the committee, pre-
sents its case, and justifies a request for
Bangladesh, the Sahel, Cyprus, or any
other humanitarian need we will respond
immediately to the limit of our ability.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, we
have 4 minutes remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair
is advised that there are 4. minutes re-
maining on the bill.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield the Senator
from Massachusetts 1 minute.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Pres' ident, what I
would like to do is to express my hope
that the amendment of the Senator from
Hawaii will be accepted, and that it will
be understood that I intend to introduce
as separate legislation this section of the
bill, with the idea of being able to draft
language as clear and precrse as the
English language is capable of, so that
the funds are provided in this section
will be only for humanitarian purposes.
Then I would hope that the manager of
the bill, who is a member of that corn-
mittee, and perhaps the ranking minority
member--I know they cannot: commit
themselves in advance as tO the action
that will be taken by the committee, but
they are two of the. important figures
on the committee?could give us some
assurance of expeditious consideration of
such separate legislation.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I as-
sure the Senator from Massachusetts
that that will be done. I will be happy to
join with him in that effort, and hope
Congress will readily agree to a decision
on an amount that has been justified by
testimony. The Senator has my assurance
of that.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may, I
assure my colleague from Massachusetts
that if he should author an amendment
to this bill to authorize the sum a $110
million in new obligational authority for
use in Bangladesh, Cyprus, and the
Sahel, he can include me as a cosponsor.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Sen-
ator yield to me the half minute he has
left?
Mr. INOUYE. Yes.
Mr. CASE. I want to join my colleague
in the assurances which have been given
to the Senator from Massachusetts.
As a member of the Committee on For-
eign Relations, I will support such au-
thorizations as I do, in substance, the
purpose of which this one is sought for.
As a member of the Appropriations Com-
mittee I shall support the Senator from
Hawaii in supporting the appropriation
based on such an authorization.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, let me
say finally, this approach seems to me to
make the most sense, rather than get a
vote on something which may very well
be interpreted as being a lack of sensi-
tivity to real humanitarian needs. I want
to indicate that I have every intention of
introducing that legislation, either
today or tomorrow, and to press for early
enactment of it, hopefully before
Congress adjourns.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
on the amendment has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Hawaii.
[Putting the question].
The amendment was agreed to
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to further amendment.
The Senator from California.
AMENDMENT NO. 2003
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment No. 2003, and ask that
it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will state the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Amendment No. 2003 proposed by Mr.
CRANSTON.
Insert at the appropriate place 14 the bill
the following new section:
"TERMINATION OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND
SUBSIDIZED SALES TO MILITARY DICTATORSHIPS
AND REPRESSIVE GOVERNMENTS
"SEC. . Chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, is further amended
by adding at the end thereof the following
new section:
" 'SEC. .TErimilfaxiox OF MILITARY ASSIST-
ANCE AND SALES TO REPRESSIVE GOVERN-
MENTS.? ( a) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law (except subsections (b) and
(c) of this section)?
" (1) the amount of military assistance
(including the value of any excess defense
articles furnished) provided to any country
under this chapter, credits (including partic-
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDF'79-00957A000100020024-2
, -
s December 4, 197:4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE S 2041
ipation in credits) extended to any country
under the Foreign Military Sales Act, and
guarantees made to any country under such
Act shall not exceed?
(A) during the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 1974, an amount equal to 66% per
centum; and
"'(B) during the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 1975, an amount equal to 33% per
centum;
of the amount of such assistance provided,
such credits extended, and such guaranties
made, to such country during the fiscal year
beginning July 1, 1973; and
" (2) on and after October 1, 1976, no such
assistance may be provided under this chap-
ter, and no such credits may be extended or
such guaranties made under such Act, with
respect to any country.
" `(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of
this section shall not apply with respect to
a country for a fiscal year if?
'(1) upon the recommendation of the
Secretary of State, the President transmits
to the Speaker of the House of Representa-
tives and the Committee on Foreign Rela-
tions of the Senate a certification that he
proposes to provide such assistance, extend
such credits, or make such guaranties to that
country during that fiscal year, and that
country is not, at the time such certification
is transmitted, governed by a government
which is a government which has recently
engaged in a pattern of gross violations of
internationally recognized human rights (in-
cluding torture or cruel, inhuman, or de-
grading treatment or punishment), pro-
longed detention without charges, or other
flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty,
or the security of the person; and
"'(2) that certification is not disapproved
in accordance with subsection (e) of this
section.
" ( c) The 'provisions of subsections (a)
and (b) of this section shall not apply with
respect to a country for a fiscal year if, upon
the recommendation of the Secretary of
State, the President transmits to the Speaker
of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Sen-
ate a statement that, with respect to that
country for that fiscal year?
"'(1) he cannot make a certification pur-
suant to subsection (b) of this section;
"'(2) such assistance, credits, or guaran-
ties are essential to the security and defense
of the United States;
"'(3) Buell country is in a state of war
and that hostilities on a significant scale
have occurred in or involved such country
within the two years immediately proceding
the transmittal of such statement;
'"(4) a clear and present danger exists
that such hostilities will be resumed or es-
calated; and
"'(5) such assistance, credits, or guaran-
ties are essential to avoid substantial jeop-
ardy to continuing peace negotiations to
which such country is a principal party.
The President is not required to include in a
statement, transmitted after the transmittal
of a certification with respect to that coun-
try for that fiscal year, the matter set forth
in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
"'(d) Any certification transmitted under
subsection (b) of this section or statement
transmitted under subsection (c) of this
section shall contain a full and complete
statement of the reasons therefor and shall
be published (except with respect to any
portion classified pursuant to applicable law
and regulation) in the Federal Register.
" ?(e) (1) The President may provide such
assistance, extend such credits, or make such
guaranties, pursuant to a certification made
under subsection (b) of this section, ninety
calendar days after the certification has been
transmitted to Congress or any day after
such ninetieth day during the fiscal year
with respect to which the certification up-
plies, unless, before the end of the first
period of ninety calendar days of continuous
session of Congress after such date on which
such certification is transmitted, Congress
adopts a concurrent resolution disapproving
the assistance, credit, or guaranty with re-
spect to which the certification is made.
"'(2) For purposes of paragraph (1) of
this subsection?
"'(A) the continuity of a session is broken
only by an adjournment of the Congress
sine die; and
"'(B) the days on which either House is
not in session because of an adjournment of
more than three days to a day certain are
excluded in the computation of the ninety-
day period.
"'(3) Paragraphs (4) through (12) of this
subsection are enacted by Congress?
"'(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking
power of the Senate and the House of Repre-
sentatives, ? respectively, and as such they
are 'deemed a part of the rules of each House,
respectively, but applicable only with respect
to the procedure to be followed in the House
in the case of resolutions described by this
section; and they supersede other rules only
to the extent that they are inconsistent
therewith; and
"'(B) with full recognition of the con-
stitutional right of either House to change
the rules (so far as relating to the procedure
of that House) at any time, in the same
manner, and to the same extent as in the case
of any other rule of that House.
"'(4) For purposes of this subsection, "re-
solution". means only a concurrent resolu-
-tion, the matter after the resolving clause of
which is as follows: "That the Congress does
not approve the (assistance, credits, guar-
anties) for ? for fiscal year ? and
explained in the certification transmitted to
Congress by the President on ?, 19?.".
the appropriate word within the parentheses
being selected, the first blank space therein
being filled with the name of the country
on whose behalf the assistance is provided,
credits are extended, or guaranties are made,
the second blank space therein being filled
with the appropriate fiscal year, and the
other blank space therein being appropriately
filled with the date of the transmittal of the
certification; but does not include a resolu-
tion specifying more than any one of the fol-
lowing for more than the fiscal year for which
the certification is made of assistance, credit
sales, or guaranties.
"'(5) If the committee, to which has been
referred a resolution of disapproval, has
not reported the resolution at the end of ten
calendar days after its introduction, it is in
order to move either to discharge the com-
mittee from further consideration of the re-
solution or to discharge the committee from
further consideration of any other resolu-
tion with respect to the same assistance,
credits, or guaranties which has been referred
to the committee.
"'(8) A motion to dischage may be made
only by an individual favoring the resolu-
tion, is highly privileged (except that it may
not be made after the committee has report-
ed a resolution with respect to the same as-
sistance, credits, or guaranties) and debate
thereon is limited to not more than one hour,
to be divided equally between those favor-
ing and those opposing the resolution. An
amendment to the motion is not in order,
and it is not in order to move to reconsider
the vote by which the motion is agreed to
or disagreed to.
"'(7) If the motion to discharge is agreed
to or disagreed to the motion may not be
renewed, nor may another motion to dis-
charge the committee be made wtilti respect
to any other resolution with respect to the
same assistance, credits, or guaranties.
"'(8) When the committee has reported,
Or has been discharged from further consid-
eration of, a resolution with respect to a
sale, credit sale, or guaranty, it is at any
time thereafter in order (even though a
previous motion to the same effect has been
disagreed to) to move to proceed to the con-
sideration of the resolution. The motion is
highly privileged and is not debatable. An
amendment to the motion is not in order,
and it is not in order to move to reconsider
the vote by which the motion is agreed to or
disagreed to.
" ' (9) Debate on the resolution is limited
to not more than two hours, to be divided
equally between those favoring and those
opposing the resolution. A motion further
to limit debate is not debatable. An amend-
ment to, or motion to recommit, the resolu-
tion is not in order, and it Is not in order
to move to reconsider the vote by which the
resolution is agreed to or disagreed to.
"'(10) Motions to postpone, made with
respect to the discharge from committee, or
the consideration of, a resolution of disap-
proval, and motions to proceed to the con-
sideration of other business, are decided with-
out debate.
"'(1:1) Appeals from the decisions of the
Chair relating to the application of the rules
of the Senate or the House of Representa-
tives, us the case may be to the procedure
relating to a resolution of disapproval are
decided without debate.
" ' (12) If, prior to the passage by one House
of a concurrent resolution of that House, that
House receives from the other House a con-
current resolution of such other House,
then?
"'(A) the procedure with respect to the
concurrent resolution of the first House shall
be the same as if no concurrent resolution
from the other House had been received; but
"'(B) on any vote on final-passage of the
concurrent resolution of the first Rouse the
concurrent resolution from the other House
shall be automatically substituted.'."
Renumber all sections and references
thereto as appropriate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, earlier
today President Ford submitted a re-
quest for a supplemental appropriation
of $813.7 million to cover the additional
cost cif the GI educational bill, which
was passed again yesterday over a Presi-
dential veto.
Instead of spending more money, if
we made cuts along the lines I have
suggested, we would have money to meet
_ the needs of our veterans and have
money left over.
Mr. President, -on October 2 I sub-
mitted an amendment to the foreign aid
bill which would have phased out, by the
end of fiscal year 1976, all military as-
sistance?incltding military sales and
loans--to military dictatorships and gov-
ernments which engage in gross viola-
tions of human rights.
Today I am proposing a similar
amendment. I have changed certain
phrases to satisfy the objections raised
by several Senators during my earlier
effort.
But the main target remains the same:
Governments which have, and I quote:
Recently engaged in a pattern of gross
violations of internationally recognized hu-
man rights (including torture or cruel, in-
human, or degrading treatment or punish-
ment), Prolonged detention without charges,
or other flagrant denials of the right to life,
liberty and the security of the person."
This language is identical to a "sense
of the Congress" provision contained in
the House foreign aid bill. My amend-
ment, however, adds teeth.
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20542 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --SENATE December 4, 1974
Under the terms of my amendment,
all forms of military aid to repressive
governments would be reduced by one-
third in fiscal year 1975 and by another
one-third in fiscal year 1976 before being
terminated completely in fiscal year 19'17.
'This would include long-term, low-in-
terest loans; credit sales; and sales of
excess defense articles as well as outriglit
military grants. It would thus, eliminate
any military aid that puts a burden on
the American taxpayer.
Before any government could qualify
for military assistance, the President
would have to transmit to the Speaker of
the House of Representatives and to the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate, a certification that the country
in question has not recently engaged in a
pattern of gross violations of basic hu-
man rights.
A congressional veto would be in order
If Congress disagreed with the Presi-
dent's certification. Within 90 days, Con-
gress could invalidate the certification by
passing a concurrent resolution, and
thereby removing a country in question
from eligibility for military assistance.
I realize that there may be extraordi-
nary circumstances which would require
that .a particular government be exempt-
ed from such ineligibility.
My amendment, therefore, provides for
an exception designed to accommodate
the basic conduct of foreign policy by the
executive branch.
An exception could be made for any
country in a state of war where there
have been hostilities on a significant
scale in the last 2 years; where there is
a clear and present danger of resumed
hostilities; and where such an exception
Is essential to the security and defense
of the United States.
The President would provide for such
an exception by submitting a full and
complete statement of his reasons to the
Speaker of the House and the Committee
on Foreign Relations. The statement
would be published in the Federal Reg-
ister, and would not be subject to con-
gressional veto.
Mr. President, I propose this amend-
ment out of a strong conviction that
American foreign policy must reflect
greater concern for basic human rights,
Furthermore, I believe we must move
beyond a "sense of the Congress" ap-
proach. All too often, the sense of the
Congress has been ignored. We must be-
gin to implement our beliefs with strong-
er provisions of law.
Together with 103 other Members or
Congress, I recently signed a letter writ-
ten by Congressman DONALD FRASER to
Secretary Kissinger. That letter said in
part:
Unless U.S. foreign aid policies--especially
military assistance policies?more accurately
reflect the tradtional commitment of the
American people to promote human rights,
we will find it increasingly difficult to justify
support for foreign aid legislation to our con-
stituents. We cannot, in good conscience,
associate ourselves with policies which lack-
active concern about the fate of people living
under oppressive governments. While it may
be beyond our power to alleviate the plight
of those people, we can refuse to be identi-
fied with their oppressors.
Mr. President, those who oppose the
kind of amendment I am offering seem
to imply that you can not judge other
governments. They seem to view this
approach as "playing God," or at least as
forcing other governments to conform to
American _standards.
To these people, Mr. Preside:nt, I reply
that the amendment does not dictate
to other people what kind of government
they should have. Clearly, repressive gov-
ernments will continue to exist. It is not
up to us to rush around the world trying
to form other governments in our image.
Mr. President, I do not advocate that
Congress eviscerate the entire foreign
aid program..
But
But with a $474 billion national debt,
with 25 budget deficits in 26 years, and
with double-digit inflation and deepen-
ing recession wracking our economy? I
do maintain that it is long past time
that we get the Federal budget into some
sense of balance, reduce worthwhile but
nonessential expenditures, and eliminate
unnecessary, wasteful expenditures
altogether.
I have grave reservations over the fact
that in the record-busting $305.4 billion
Federal budget proposed for fiscal 1975,
most of the $5.1 billion in military and
economic aid is slated to go to repres-
sive, authoritarian regimes abroad.
I favor foreign aid for humanitarian
purposes, but much of the $47 billion in
economic aid we have already given these
countries since 1945 has ended up in the
banks of the bureaucrats and the affluent
Instead of in. the hands of the poverty
stricken. I know that some of it has
reached hungry, needy people?but too
much has gone elsewhere.
Such aid should be closely supervised
and given in cooperation with other na-
tioris?rather than direct handouts from
Uncle Sam.
I favor military aid to help peace-lov-
ing nations defend themselves against
aggression. But much of the $81 billion
we have already given these repressive
governments has been used instead to
terrorize and subjugate their own people.
Such governments are unreliable, un-
steady foundations on which to base our
security and the security of our allies.
A recent study indicates that through-
out history, no wars have been fought be-
tween freely elected governments. De-
mocracy, in other words, is essential not
only to world progress?it is an impor-
tant ingredient in the struggle for world
peace.
We who are fortunate enough to be
free must help those who still only as-
pire to be free. Instead we are, through
our foreign aid program, helping their
oppressors.
I do not propose to dictate to other
countries: the form of government they
should have. But if theirs is an oppres-
sive, authoritarian government, I say it
must not be supported with American
money.
I believe it is a perversion of American
wealth and good will for billions of dol-
lars in tax money from workers and busi-
nesses in the United States?u free so-
ciety?to be used to help finance the
suppression of democracy overseas. This
is a form of moral blindness and eco-
nomic insanity that weakens, not
strengthens, our Nation's economy and
our national security.
While people may continue to suffer
under authoritarian regimes abroad, we
do not have to subsidize their oppression.
We do not have to pay for other peo-
ples' dictatorships.
We do not have to identify ourselves
with repression and torture. We do not
have to arm everyone from generals to
jailers.
We do not have to pay for other coun-
tries' bad political habits.
We cannot realistically expect all goy-
ertunents to achieve the full observance
of full political rights as we know them in
our own country?but we can at least
demand that the governments to which
we give military aid observe basic, fun-
damental human rights?including free-
dom from torture, arbitrary arrest and
detention, and arbitrary curtailment of
existing political rights.
Military power is directly associated
with the exercise of governmental con-
trol over a civilian population.
By giving military aid to repressive
governments we aid in and facilitate re-
pression. We link the Government and
people of America with the repression of
people around the globe.
It seems to me that is an outrageous
thing for us to do. How is the long-term
U.S. foreign policy interest served by
linking our Government with repressive
governments? What do we gain by do-
Ing so?
Perhaps, as Secretary Kissinger or the
Pentagon might answer, we do gain a
short-term advantage, but I say that
Is not enough. There are no lasting mili-
tary or political advantages to be gained
by supporting governments which must
rely on torture and imprisonment of
their own citizens to stay in power.
Support for such governments is a
complete perversion of thp original in-
tent of military assistance?to help free
governments protect themselves from
outside aggression?by authoritarian
regimes.
I believe we must move to reform
dramatically and fully our vast, far-
flung program of military assistance.
Under the leadership of the distin-
guished members of the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee, we have begun to do
that.
The present bill goes a long way in the
right direction: By phasing out the grant
military assistance program, by phasing
out all forms of military assistance to
Korea, by prohibiting military assistance
to Chile, and by establishing other im-
portant provisions.
I am concerned, however, that our in-
terest in human rights not focus solely
on those few countries which merit the
continued attention of the world's press.
The basic human rights of peoples in
other less publicized situations should
also be our concern.
Mr. President, I intend to vote for this
foreign aid bill. It is an improvement
over a continuing resolution, and de-
mands the support of the Senate.
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 20543
But we have a long way to go. We must
develop a logical and consistent format
for our aid proposals. We must separate
economic assistance from military assist-
ance so that each can be consistent on
its own merits.
And we must not relent in our efforts
to humanize American foreign policy?
and to insure that American tax dollars
do not facilitate the repression of human
rights around the globe.
Much has been accomplished. But
much more remains to be done. It is in
that spirit that I introduce my amend-
ment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that certain tables and articles il-
lustrating the purpose of the amendment
be printed in the RECORD following my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
? Mr. CRANSTON. I have included a
chart listing some 31 governments orig-
inally scheduled to receive some $2.5 bil-
lion in U.S. military aid in fiscal year
1975. All have exerted various degrees
of repression in restricting the liberties
of their people. The list includes 16 gov-
ernments which the State Department
Itself classifies as military dictatorships,
and 15 others which have been persis-
tently identified with gross violations of
human rights and political freedom.
My amendment does not name these
countries, and the final determination
would be subject to the procedures which
It describes. No country on this particular
list would be automatically ineligible for
military aid. The list is for illustrative
purposes only, showing possible cuts that
would be imposed by implementation of
my amendment.
EXHIBIT 1
[From the Washington Post, May 17, 19741
AIDING POLITICAL PRISONERS
(By Colman McCarthy)
News reports in recent weeks have told
about the release o political prisoners in
Portugal and Mozambique. In Lisbon, days
after a 'half-century of dictatorship was
ended by a coup, 99 political prisoners were
released from jail, with thousands of rela-
tives and friends joyously greeting them. In
Laurenco Marques, 550 political prisoners,
mostly blacks, were freed. One news story
told of a man who "had been in Machava
(prison) for 10 years for political activity.
He could scarcely believe he was free."
As encouraging as these scenese are, they
are exceptions to a harsh rule that still pre-
vails elsewhere among nations of five con-
tinents. Political imprisonment and torture
are still relied on by large numbers of world
governments as a prime way of silencing dis-
sent. Unlike other criminals, political pris-
oners often may not be jailed for what they
actually do but simply for what they think.
The list of nonviolent political "crime" in-
cludes advocating national or cultural auton-
omy, practicing a minority religion, attempt-
ing to organize a political party in opposition
to the one in power, performing actions the
government or army considers insulting, re-
fusing military service on grounds of con-
science, organizing peaceful public rallies di-
rected a changing governmental policy. In
the United States, it is generally acknowl-
edged that such government lawlessness
exists in Russia and China, but in fact it
persists, in one or another form, in all parts
of the globe: 'The Communist world is not
free, for sure, but jails in "the free world"
can be just as brutal. Freedom to dissent?
to think as one chooses?exists only in a
few countries; when human rights collide
with entrenched power, power seldom loses.
Aside from occasional moments of joy, as
witnessed in Portugal and Mozambique, the
work of releasing political prisoners is slow
and demanding. But it is not entirely hope-
less. Since May 1961, one group has persis-
tently been at work: Amnesty International.
With 4ts influence and stature growing, Am-
nesty International recently received the
unanimous support of the United Nations for?
its resolution to abolish torture. Realistically,
it is unlikely that this new U.N. resolution
will mean a sudden end to torture by means
of tiger cages, electroshock, flogging, starva-
tion or whatever. Such resolutions have been
approved before and hailed by the jailers,
and then totally ignored. But with this rec-
ognition from the U.N., Amnesty Interna-
tional is now less able to be dismissed by
those governments which resent or resist its
persistence.
To many of the governments that detain
and torture citizens for what they say or
think, Amnesty's methods must seem fig-
fling: polite letters to authorities, picketing
embassies, letters-to-the-editor, informal
visits of inquiry or persuasion by lawyers,
publicity or news stories. Yet, Amnesty's rec-
ord of peaceful picklocking is impressive.
During 1972, 842 prisoners were released and
the causes of 1,680 new prisoners were taken
up, respective increases of 15 percent and
25 percent over 1971. In the past two years,
about $200,000 were dispensed to aid prison-
ers and their families. In the United States,
some 70 groups are now at work on behalf of
200 prisoners in 37 countries; worldwide,
more than 32,000 Al members are at work in
62 countries. Despite the indifference they
would feign, oppressing governments are
fully aware of the organization's work,
though in comically different ways. State
newspapers in Brazil AT reports, have called
its officials "instruments of Communist ter-
rorism," while a Soviet pamphleteer said
the "Amnesty International organization was
founded in the first place to carry out anti-
Soviet propaganda ..." (Amnesty Interna-
tional's headquarters in this country is: 200
West 72d St., New York, N.Y. 10023).,
The work of releasing prisoners is ongoing.
One group in Portugal is released and then
somewhere else in the world another group
is jailed. Recent reports from South Korea
stated that students, clergymen and intel-
lectuals are being imprisoned for peacefully
challenging President Park Chung Hee.
In January, he announced an "emergency
measure" outlawing criticism of the consti-
tution; the press was forbidden to discuss it.
As for those he is jailing Park eloquently
expressed the classic thought of oppressors
(quoted in the New York Times, Feb. 14,
? 1974) : "It is self-evident what they are aim-
ing at by agitating the people with talk of
democracy and freedoms."
Because many Americans are active in Am-
nesty International, it was encouraging that
last year in the foreign aid bill all American
"public safety advisers" (a term used by
the Agency for International Development)
to other governments were called home; pre-
viously it was an obvious conflict for the
United States to condemn torture abroad
while continuing to give aid and advice to
foreign police forces that were engaged in
torture. For now this conflict appears to be
resolved, although it is only the minimum
of what should be done.
In a March report from the subcommittee
on International Organization and Move-
ments of the House Foreign Affairs Com-
mittee, the dismal record of the U.S. govern-
ment was noted. "The human rights factor
Is not accorded the high priority it deservea
In our country's foreign policy . . . Unfor-
tunately, the prevailing attitude has the U.S.
embracing governments which practice tor-
ture and unabashedly violate almost every
human rights guarantee pronounced by the
world community. Through foreign aid and
occasional intervention?both covert and
overt?the U.S. supports those governments.
Our relations with the present governments
of South Vietnam, Spain, Portugal, the Soviet
Union, Brazil, Indonesia, Greece, the Philip-
pines and Chile exemplify how we have dis-
regarded human rights for the sake of other
assumed. interests." In blunter language,
what the report means is that when it comes
to making a choice in terms of lining up
"power politics" and our supposed larger
"security interests" we all too often find our-
selves on the side of the world's tyrants at
the expense of their victims. If official policy
occasionally is strained by the brutality of
another country, considerations of the in-
vestments of American corporations within
that land is often enough to keep U.S. sup-
port intact. "International incidents" are to
be avoided.
The work of releasing prisoners is one of
unknowns: no one knows for certain how
many there are, what the conditions of the
prisons may be or how the sentences are set.
The only certainty is that the work of
Amnesty International has a meaning. A
Statement of a prisoner released from Chi
Hoa national prison in Saigon in December
1972 offers a powerful testament: "We could
always tell when international protests were
taking place. The food rations increased and
the beatings inside the prison got less. Let-
ters from abroad were translated and passed
around from cell to cell, but when the letters
stopped, the dirty food and the repression
started again."
[From the Los Angeles Times, Nov. 27, 19741
THE GREEKS GET A DEMOCRACY AND THE
UNITED STATES GETS TOUGH
(By Georgie Anne Geyer)
ATHENS.?If you don't care much for
"Alice in Wonderland," please don't go
ahead to read what the new U.S. policy is
toward Greece.
For the last seven years of the Greek
military dictatorship, Washington angrily
defended its nourishing of the Greek junta
on the ground that we must?absolutely
must?have our bases in Greece.
The colonels were never even gently ad-
monished for their often-cruel and always-
inefficient ways. People like then Vice Presi-
dent Agnew got cramps in their shoulders
from embracing the colonels in pictures that
deeply embittered Greeks against Americans,
whom they had considered their closest
friends. And Americans who protested the
situation were told they just did not under-
stand all the tough real-politik about over-
flights and underbellies.
And now that there is a democratic gov-
ernment in Greece? Well, now the line from
Washington is that we don't really need
those bases at all. Indeed, the line is that we
are doing the Greeks a favor by staying here.
Greek officials are just beginning to be-
come aware of the new policy line?which
is that it is they who need the bases because
they are so "exposed"?crouching, as they
do, on the peripheries of Eastern Europe
(forever destined to be the underbelly).
The Greeks are being treated correctly,
but harshly. Washington seems to have
some principle at work, at best elusive, to
the effect that dictatorships should be cod-
dled but that democratic governments
should be dealt with "toughly."
What, precisely, is going on? The most
charitable explanation?and probably the
major one?is that the new stance is mere-
ly a maximalist bargaining position de-
signed to break down the Caramanlis gov-
ernment's will on the question of whether
Greece will return to the North Atlantic
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20544
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE December 4., 1974
Treaty Organization, whose military arm
she abandoned in anger last July after is
members did not prevent the Turkish inva-
sion of Cyprus.
But the men around newly elected Prime
Minister Caramanlis already have made it
clear in private that nothing will be done
about NATO until the United States gives
some gesture of goodwill in helping to re-
solve the Cyprus question.
But the "bargaining position" explanation
Is somehow not all of it. There is something
curious, now as before, about the American
attitude toward Greece. Washington really
Is not all that enthusiastic about a demo fl.
erotic government here, even though it is
by all standards a strong and moderate one
of mostly exemplary men.
The new Greek government's greatest
weakness, which may eventually be a fatal
one, is the fact that Secretary of State Henry
A. Kissinger and his men really do not lira
to deal with parliaments and all that messy
business; they prefer to deal with strongmen.
As one new member of parliament put It
this week, "Now they cannot deal with one
or two men under the table. Now they have
to deal with a democracy, and everything
will come out.
"Nor will Garamanlis be endlessly reason-
able. He can get tough, too. And he has
cards to play."
The biggest card is the huge U.S. Souda
Bay airfield on Crete. What Is little known
Is that the agreement governing that base
expired eight months ago?a fact that gives
the new government tremendous leverage
over a highly important military installation.
The United States has made a miserable
botch of its attempts to get along with the
nations of the developing world. We keep
mistaking the temporary "order" of strong-
men for the genuine lasting inner order of
societies constituted in some representative
manner.
In Greece, we have a chance to start over.
What's more, Greece, with its enormous
historic store of goodwill toward the United
Stott, needs only small gestures and acts of
appreciation for its new democratic status
in order to be thoroughly behind the United
States again.
Why, then, our cynical new policy at such
a pregnant moment? Why then, our "tough"
act, unless it fulfills some strange inner need
of our own?
!Trona the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 1, 1974
CONFUSION, FEAR REIGN IN ETHIOPIA
(By Dial Torgerson)
"They are watching my house," said the
colonel. "They Probably followed me here,
They may arrest me at any time. So why
should I bother to take medicine for ray
cold?"
His brother was one of the 60 men who
died by gunfire Nov. 23 at the orders of
Ethiopia's military rulers. There are rumors
of more executions yet to come.
So the colonel doesn't bother with cold
tablets. He drinks strong tea, and waits, and
wonders: Will he survive his cold?
ADDIS Asaaa.?The United States is pro-
viding powerful new weapons to boaster a
military government whose ruthlessness has
shocked the world.
American officials admit they don't know
who runs Ethiopia, or what the government-
intends to do with the modern weapons the
United States is shipping here.
At Assab, on the Red Sea, a U.S. freighter
is unloading a long row of armored per-
sonnel carriers. A consignment of M-60 tanks,
America's best, has started to arrive.
Sixty-nine U.S. military men are assigned
here, helping equip Ethiopia's 34,000-man
army with the new hardware. U.S. military
aid to Ethiopia has doubled in the past
year, to 822.3 zraillion.
The reason: Ethiopia is the United States'
.? friend on the Red Sea?an area of immense
strategic importance because of the Arab
oil lands, the Suez Canal and routes to the
Indian Ocean.
.On Nov. 23 the world got a sudden insight
into the kind of men who had risen to the
top in Ethiopia's nine-month military coup.
The military council which controls the
army, executed without trial about 60 men
who had been prominent in the overthrown
government of Haile Selassie, prominent in
the army, or in earlier versions of the
ccaincil itself.
It was an orgy of bloodletting unseen in
recent history. Machine guns fired for six
hours as the men on the death list were
brought to Addis Ababa's civil prison to die.
A general brought on a stretcher from a
hospital, in coma from diabetic shock, died
before he could be killed. Another man died
of a heart attack on his way to the wall.
One of theslain was Endalkacbew Makon-
nen, former prime minister and ambassador
to the United Nations, who at one time
was a leading candidate for secretary gen-
eral of the United Nations. Another was
Eskinder Desta, Haile Selassie's grandson. It
is widely believed here that the soldiers made
the 82-year-old ex-emperor watch Eskinder
die.
The men who now dominate the Provisional
Military Administrative Council?called
dirgue, for junta, in Amharic?are believed
to be mostly up-from-the-ranks officers or
noncoms. It was intellectuals and aristocrats
they killed.
One died with a weapon in his hand: Gen.
Aman Mikael Andom, 81, one of Ethiopia's
most distinguished soldiers, who fell from
favor with the dirgue and resisted arrest
when its troops came for him.
Gen. /amen had been chairman, of the
military council and Ethiopia's head of state.
His _presence had reassured U.S. officials
directing millions of dollars in hardware into
Ethiopian hands.
He had opposed continuing the decade-long
battle against the Eritrean Liberation Front
in the northernmost province of Eritrea. Only
a In:laical settlement amid end the guerrilla
warfare there, he said.
He also opposed executing the dirgue's
prisoners.. He lost, and became the first to
die.
The dirgue is now sending the imperial
bodyguard, the Ethiopian let Division, to
Eritrea, and a new outbreak of fighting is
expected in an area largely pacified by Aman's
efforts. The ELF is threatening to cut Ethi-
opia off from the Red Sea, if fighting resumes.
If U.S. authorities here are worried about
the dirgue's leadership or direction, they
declined to say so. The U.S. Embassy declared
as erroneous a report that the United States
was halting aid for Ethiopia,.
"The embassy has received no information
regarding a cutoff in aid to Ethiopia," a
spokesman said. A State Department official
In Washington said that "no major decision
Weld be made" on Ethiopian aid "pending
a better understanding of the situation
there."
Such a better understanding may be hard
to come by. Diplomats who have been dealing
with the dirgue by phone for months still
do not know the name or rank of the man
they Contact. Said one diplomatic source:
"We are studying shadows through frosted
glass."
The military council has a new chairman,
Brig. Gen. Teferi Benti, 83, a slim, quiet-
spoken man who wears starched fatigues
and eats lunch alone in an out-of-the-way
Addis Ababa hotel restaurant. He is an ex-
enlisted man whose. education is totally mili-
tary.
, He is believed to be a front man for other
forces on the dirgue.
The uncertainties of government spread
the past week into the lives of the close to
1 million residents of Addis Ababa.
Tanks rumble through the streets at night.
Reavily guarded prisoners are seen being
moved from one place of detention to an-
other; among them are 150 ex-officials and
the ex-emperor himself.
Street crime is increasing. Mugger gangs
have appeared in downtown squares once
considered safe after dark. Knots of students
try to halt cars on side roads to harangue
occupants for money.
One big American firm is sending depend-
ents from Ethiopia to Nairobi, in neighbor-
ing Kenya. Tourism, usually big in the gold-
en, cloudless days of Ethiopia's fall, is down
to near zero.
Few observers here hold out much hope
for the success of the dirgue as now consti-
tuted.
"As a man who believes the camel Is a
horse designed by a committee, I can't see
much hope for this government to make it
all work," said an international banker, head-
ing home with a negative report on Ethiopia's
Investment potential.
"It looks like collective leadership with a
sergeant's mentality," said a diplomatic
source. "They rule by expediency," said an
official. "By improvisation," said another.
But on the streets, where tank guns survey
traffic from what were once imperial lawns,
It is clear how the dirgue rules: by force
of arms, arms from the United States.
IFrorn the Saturday Review, June 15, 19741
THE GEOGRAPHY OP DISGRACE?A WORLD
SURVEY OF POLITICAL PRISONERS
(By Robert Shelton)
LoNnoN.?One of the ugliest aspects of
modern life is the fact that between one
and two million people are at this moment
In jail solely because of their political
beliefs.
This political imprisonment, takes various
forms: internal exile?a kind of "house ar-
rest" within the borders of a country; ban-
ishment to remote penal islands; and being
looked up in concentration camps, city jails,
national prisons, and other kinds of deten-
tion centers.
Conditions in these prison; are, needless
to say, usually sub-human and insupport-
able: Torture, painful shackling, perennial
semi-starvation, and carefully calculated
breakdown of prisoner morale are the very
grammar and rhetoric of political detention.
No matter that very few of these political
prisoners are terrorists, guerrillas, bomb-
throwers, or even philosophical advocates of
violent change. The fact that their outlooks
have in some way irritated the authorities is
enough to brand them as "illegals," as dan-
gerous, disruptive "elements."
To many readers of this article, the fore-
going may seem Ef bit strong. Is it really true,
you may well ask, that an Indonesian novel-
ist has been shipped off to a malarial island
and told he will never write again, never be
free again? Is it true that a black Rhodesian,
nationalist has been in jail for ten years
without trial? That a Yugoslav educator has
been sentenced to five years' hard labor
solely for corresponding with an American
professor? That South Korean college stu-
dents face death penalties for any protest
activity? The answer, sad to say, is yes.
Most amazingly, the ninety countries
known to hold political prisoners rim across
all sociopolitical lines. There is nearly as
much use for the jailer of ideas in the "free
world" as there is in the Communist bloc.
The supposedly idealistic emergent group of
Third World nations is not only not immune
to the jailing fever but also is in fact heavily
into the business of locking up dissenters.
In many such nations, to paraphrase the
German military theoretician Karl von
Clausewitz, the imprisonment of dissenters
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 20545
is simply the continuation of state policy
by other means.
Imprisonment is not the only way of silenc-
ing dissent. Amnesty International, an orga-
nization that monitors the political-prisoner
situation, recently reported that torture of
such prisoners is rampant in sixty countries.
"Torture," the organization states, "is as un-
thinkable as slavery," but it is practiced
widely. Amnesty International's blistering
224-page Report on Torture found that pain-
inflicting techniques, 'the ultimate corrup-
tion," have virtually "become a worldwide
phenomenon" practiced "in an effort to retain
political power."
Still another form of repression is the
"extra-judicial persecution" that denies pro-
fessional people and artists the right to pur-
sue their occupations. This ploy has been
developed to a high degree in Czechoslovakia,
where countless scientists, historians, and
writers have been reduced to doing menial
labor?that is, they are serving life sentences
outside jail.
Americans tend to take the "yule of law"
for granted and to believe that the wheels of
justice will, however slowly, ultimately free
the innocent and imprison the guilty. But
just what law is meant, when dictatorships
of the Right, the Left, or of the nationalist
center tailor the law to suit expediency? And
of what value is even a facade of law in
Guatemala or Brazil, where para-govern-
mental death squads preempt the judicial
? process? A recent report to the Guardian
stated: "There are no political prisoners in
Guatemala. They are shot before there is time
to register them in that category. The current
estimate Is that ten thousand have 'dis-
appeared' since . . . 1970."
Although less prevalent than imprison-
ment, death and banishment for political
-"crimes" are still practiced. Iraq, Indonesia,
Yemen, and Uganda still execute opponents
of the regime. The number of executions in
Iran has risen to 198 in the last three years.
Banishment to remote parts of the Soviet
Union, Rhodesia, and South Africa continues.
Perhaps worse than banishment is the Soviet
practice of sending dissenters to lunatic
asylums. In such a climate, who is sane and
who is really insane?
Political dissent has grown since the begin-
ning of the century. Rising economic, social,
and political expectations have led to more
questioning and agitation for change. One
might expect more repression in unstable
regimes, but continuing clampdowns in the.
Soviet Union and South Africa belie that.
Minority-ruled nations like Rhodesia and
South Africa keep the black majority in
check through rigorous imprisonment. One-
party states, such as Spain, Libya, and Haiti,
make punishment of oppositionists a staple
of the governing system. When governments
fall into the hands of the military, the officers,
knowing little but orders and discipline, run
their regimes by tribunals and decrees. The
military tends to regard the democratic proc-
ess as slow and inefficient. (One hopes that
Portugal's April 26 takeover by avowedly pro-
democratic military men will, over the long
run, prove an exception to this rule.)
National patterns of political imprison-
ment differ, especially in regard to the jail-
er's role. Some repressive hands are bludg-
eons, while others work with a sophisti-
cated cunning. Perforce, this survey touches
on only a small number of the countries
where political imprisonment flourishes.
{Thanks to the writings of Solzhenitsyn,
the Soviet Union has been omitted as ob-
vious.)
The story of any given prisoner is a tale
of personal and family tragedy that would
? constitute a lengthy drama or documentary
by itself. Multiply each case by at least one
million, and the scope of the problem can
be envisaged. Numerical estimates of pris-
oners are a constant problem. Often, pris-
oners are not tried, their families are not no-
tified, and the prisoner is virtually buried
alive. In other cases, in which trials are
held, transcripts are not avaliable. For ex-
ample, in China the whole picture of politi-
cal imprisonment, before, during, and after
the Cultural Revolution, is virtually un-
-known to the outside world. The interested
reader might, however, consult with profit
the recently issued, widely noted Prisoner
of Mao, by Bao Ruo-wang (Jean Pasqualini)
and Rudolph Chelminski, a work described
by the publisher as "an eyewitness account
of China's Forced Labor Camp System, by
one of its few survivors [Bao Ruo-wang]."
A twelve-page excerpt from this book ap-
peared in the August 28, 1973, issue of this
magazine.
The situation of the political prisoners in
post-Allende Chile, so recently in the head-
lines, also Is not easy to determine exactly.
The junta has admitted that 3500 deaths
have occurred during the 1973 overthrow of
the pro-Marxist government. Hard figures
are not easily come by, but the former Swed-
ish ambassador to Chile has offered these
startling figures: 10,000 to 15,000 kille5:1; 30,-
000 children orphaned; . . . and 200,000
people who have lost their jobs for political
reasons. Add to this some 8000 refugees, and
we are talking less of a coup d'etat than of
a holocaust!
Somewhat more is known, fortunately,
about the outlook in that most youthful of
the world's nations, Bangladesh. In 1972
the government issued a retroactive omni-
bus-powers decree aimed at citizens thought
to have collaborated with the forces of West
Pakistan during Bangladesh's 1971 war of
independence. Between 40,000 and 50,000
persons were sentenced to jail under the
decree; and though Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
has declared amnesty for 30,000 of the pris-
oners, only 12,000 have so far been released.
Some hope glimmers also in Turkey, after
a three-year military repression that may
have detained a total of 15,000 political pris-
oners. There, a broad amnesty bill affecting
50,000 criminal and political prisoners has
been debated for some time and may or may
not be passed this year. These political
maneuverings are, of course, cold comfort to
political prisoners long since caught up in
police dragnets and thrown into jail.
No glancing account of the political-police
mind in action can convey in its full reach
the terror and despair that such regimes in-
spire. The following sketches of life under
seven representative police regimes may,
however, prove Indicative:
BRAZIL: "ORDER AND PROGRESS"
The ten-year-old military government
that seized power from the reformer Joao
Goulart flies the banner of "Order and
Progress' and amazes the world with its story
of Brazil's "economic miracle." Order and
progress have been achieved by Draconian
methods. The benefits of the country's rapid
development go to the few, while poverty
proliferates. The repression, jailing, torture,
and censorship spew blood and dishonor on
whatever gains have been achieved for
Brazil's 100 million people.
The lest fixed estimate of political prison-
ers, in 1972, was 12,000, but currently it may
be anywhere from 500 to 5000. Reuters esti-
mates the number of victims killed by Bra-
zil's notorious death squads at 1300. At least
210 political prisoners and suspects are
known to have died in police custody, mostly
under mysterious circumstances. The docu-
mentation of torture and censorship can
only evoke memories of the Nazis.
The army has long played a crucial role
In Brazilian history, helping to end slavery
In 1888 and to depose Emperor Pedro II the
following year. But the tight military control
that began in 1964 and was further intensi-
fied in late 1968 is without parallel in the
country's history. Countering the repression
has been one major force, the Roman Cath-
olic church, which is increasingly at odds
with the regime, and a broad range of other
oppositionists of varying political hues. -
In a horrifying document, "Report on Al-
legations of Torture in Brazil," Amnesty
International detailed the findings of a 1972
inquiry. Names of 1081 reported victims and
their 472 torturers are listed. Eyewitness ac-
counts are given. Details of physical, psycho-
logical, and electronic torture are stated.
Brazilian authorities replied by banning
from the press all Amnesty International
statements on Brazil. (Index magazine, pub-
lished by Writers and Scholars International,
has also documented the staggering facts of
censorship and press control in Brazil.)
Political prisoners in Brazil are mainly
trade unionists, peasant leaders, university
staff and students, journalists, progressive
clergy, and politicians or military men who
had supported the democratic regime, which
was overthrown in 1964. It has been charged
that the clergy, after radical students, have
been the major target of oppression and tor-
ture. Priests have been expelled or refused
re-entry after foreign trips. Others have been
jailed. Some Catholic publications and radio
stations have been closed down.
An inspirational symbol of church resist-
ance to the regime is Dom Helder Camara,
archbishop of Olinda and Recife, several
times a Nobel Prize nominee. The Archbishop
is not permitted to speak publicly, and the
press cannot report his activities. An assist-
ant of his was killed, apparently by rightist
vigilantes, in 1969. Last year a number of lay
workers associated with Dom Helder were
jailed and tortured.
A few of Brazil's political prisoners:
Manuel de Conceicao, thirty-seven-year-
old peasants' leader who opposed government
policies and was shot five times in the legs
in 1968 before he was jailed. Released four
days later, he had to have one leg amputated.
During an army crackdown in 1969, he fled to
the jungle but was captured in 1972, tortured
at length (his fingernails were ripped out),
and jailed for an unknown period. He has
been hospitalized six times since 1972.
Vera Silva Araujo Magalhaes, a twenty-
four-year-old Rio student, was arrested in
1970 for "distributing leaflets." She was sub-
jected to brutal physical and psychological
tortures, suspended helpless for seven hours,
given electric shocks, beaten, and whipped.
Her legs were left paralyzed. She was tried
and released three months later and lives in
exile.
Father Francois Jentel is a French-born
priest who has been in Brazil twenty years,
working in the Mato Grosso with Indians and
peasants. He helped his village parish resist
incursions of large landholders. When there
was a shooting incident between his peasants
and armed government men, Father Jentel,
who was not involved, was held culpable on
a dozen charges?including arming peasants
and inciting them?which were palpably
false. He is serving a ten-year sentence.
Last January Maria Nilde Mascellani, an
educator and Catholic activist who had
worked for Father Jentel's release, was ar-
rested. A founder of vocational education in
Brazil? Miss Mascellani was arrested one
night, and her house and library were seized.
She was released in mid-March.
INDONESIA: 55,000 "TAPOLS"
The dire human-rights situation in this
archipelago is both chronic and tragic. Indo-
nesia has a hard-core political-prisoner popu-
lation of about 55,000. Few of these have
been tried, and most of the jailings date back
to detentions in the mid-Sixties.
In the autumn of 1965, an abortive left-
wing army coup resulted in the assassina.tiOn
of six rightist generals. This led to a mass
reign of terror against Communists, leftists,
and suspected leftists that has been called
"the most ruthless massacre since the days
of Hitler." Estimates of the number killed
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S. 20546
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESS EONAL RECORD SENATE December 4, 1974
run from three hundred thousand to five
hundred thousand, and of those jailed, to
a quarter of a million. In the aftermath of
the coup that failed, twenty-six massive orga-
fixations and twenty-three educational insti -
tutions were smashed.
Who are the 55,000 Tapols (for tahanan
po/itik?"political prisoners") ? A Dutch
Amnesty International leader, writing in that
organization's coruscating "Indonesia Spe-
cial" report a year ago, stated: "Officially, all
are described as commited Marxists and
prominent members of the Communist move-
ment . . . but [many] are prisoners of acci
dent or victims of cirueumatance. . . ." For
most of the 55,000, there have been no law-
yers, no habeas-corpus protection, and no
defense, because no case has been made.
Torture of political prisoners has been used
as a matter of "routine" and is admitted by
the Indonesian Grand Commissioner el
Police. Two years ago a letter written by 800
Tapols eomplained that "we have been
pushed into self-dug pits covered at the
bottom with glass splinters. We have been
given electric shocks, and cigarettes have
been used to burn us. . . . Some among us
have been shot through the mouth. . . .
Staggering to the imagination is one iso-
lation colony for politicals, Buru Island, a
hot, fetid, and malarial piece of land in what.
used to be known as the Spice Islands, some
2000 miles from Djakarta. Here, 10,000 Taw's
languish, forced to raise their own food
Medicines and clothes are also few, loneliness
is extreme, and the sense of isolation is per -
ending. There is talk of bringing in prisoners'
iamilies and thereby raising Burns popula-
Lion to 50,000.
Stark as it is, Burn is only one of scores
of resettlement areas, military prisons, labor
camps, and interrogation centers throughout
r ndonesia.
The plight of three long-term Indonesian
prisoners hints at the spectrum: Suglyab
was a thirteen-year-old schoolgirl when she
happened to be found at the site where the
generals were slain .in 1965. An apolitical
child, she has now spent more than one-third
of her life in detention. Sitor Situmorang Is
fifty-four-old writer who has been in
Salemba Prison, Djakarta, since 1967. Charge:
possessing writings "critical of the New
Order." Siti Suratih, a nurse, forty-six, V111,4
arrested in 1966. presumably because her
husband was a Communist. He has since
died, but she was recently reclassified as a
"dangerous" prisoner, apparently because
the jailers want to keep her services as a
nurse.
TANZANIA: THIRD-WORLD DILEMMAS
Africa may be flowering with emerging
eaten's, but human rights lie parched in
the hot glare of expediency, power struggles,
and racism--arhite and black. Considerina
the inequities that allow white minorities to
suppress black majorities in South Africa
and Rhodesia, it may seem strange to focus
on Tanzania, which is in many ways a mode!.
judicious African self-rule.
President Julius Nyerere is, after all, a
world statesman who has inspired his 11
million countrymen and others with his
ideals of social justice. But even in his coun-
try, the existence of several hundred pont:t-
ail detainees indicates the human-rights
dilemmas of emerging nations born in rev -
it Litton and hardened by the struggle for na-
tional identity.
It must be made clear, however, that the
locus of the problem here is not the large
mainland mass that was Tanganyika, but
rather the small islands that comprise
Zanzibar, where only 350,000 live. Most vic-
tims are presumed to be opponents of the
afro-Shirazi party, which came to power by
violent revolution in 1964. The Amnesty In -
ternational torture report of 1973 states:
'The torturers are the Zanzibari police and
secret police, and some allegations have
stated that they are trained by police from
the German Democratic Republic." In deal-
ing with Zanzibar since Tanzania was united
with it in 1964, Nyerere has made errors that
resulted in tragedies. In 1969, when he sent
two former Zanzibar Cabinet ministers back
from the mainland under the promise of good
treatment, . they were executed in Zanzibar.
Tanzanian political prisoners fall into sev-
eral well-defined categories. A ,Preventive
Detention Act has, since 1962, been used to
hold large numbers without trial., These in-
cluded three from the revolution of 1964.
Others are involved in mainland political
squabbles, such as that of the Kambona
family described below. Other prisoners in-
clude perhaps as many as 300 refugees from
Mozambique, some of whom quit the Frelimo
movement and are held in "preventive de-
tention." Occasionally, there ? are arrests of
Europeans or Asians suspected of spying or
of economic crimes, which may border on
political offenses. Two specimen canes:
All Muhsin Barwani was one of three for-
mer Zanzibar Cabinet ministers who fled to
Tanzania in January 1964. Barwani and the
two others had been detained for ten years
without charge or trial. This fifty-five-year-
old detainee hasn't seen his wife or six chil-
dren since his arrest. In a 1971 communica-
tion with his Amnesty International adop-
tion group in Norway. Barwani said his needs
were: "Books, magazines, proteins. vitamins,
and, above all, freedom." Bement., the two
other ex-ministers, and twenty-six additional
detainees were released in late April.
The family of Oscar Kambona has suffered
from the protracted enmity between the
former Foreign Minister and President'
Nyerere. Kambona split with his leader in
1967 and went into voluntary exile. But
many of lais family and friends were jailed
for treason. Some material witnesses for the
trial were detained four years. Otini Kam-
bona was a student leader, a national assem-
blyman, and a publisher who editorialized
against detentions without trial. A month
later, in December 1967, he himself was de-
tained under the act. He and his brother
Mattiya were released in February 1712 but
were secretly re-detained in June 1972. De-
spite ill health, Otini Karebona had been
held in a tiny cell in Ukonga Prison with
three other prisoners. He is now in Butimba
Prison in northern Tanzania. '
SOUTH VIETNAM: CIVILIAN PRISONERS
Despite American withdrawal from the
Vietnam war, the killing and suffering drag
on. For ten years, TV and the press have
dra:matically documented the travail of Viet-
namese civilians. Yet all too little is known
of the widespread deteetion of civilians in
South Vietnam for palitical reasons. The
civilian prisoners are estimated to number
upward oil 100,000.
The Paris Ceasefire and. Peace Agreement
of January 1973 considered the Civilian pris-
oner problem only cursorily. If anything, the
focus on the military accords and the sub-
sequent exchanges of prisoners of war have
drawn attention away from the plight of
the civilian detainees. In brief, thoukinds
of men and women who supported neither
warring sale are still imprisoned, often under
deplorable conditions and with the wide-
spread use of torture.
Civilian prisoners held by Saigon (The
Government of the Republic of Vietnam) in
forty main detention centers and 600 lesser
places fall into four general categories: (1)
members of the National Liberation Front
'Infrastructure"; (2) those suspeeted of in-
volvement with the NLF at a low level, in-
cluding peasants, traders, and children; (3)
non-Communist opponents of Saigon, 'which
includes some two hundred leading non-
Communist students and more than one
thousand Buddhists; (4) those convicted of
common criminal offenses. Saigon's practice
of reclassifying many political prisoners as
criminals has made the top three groupings
merge into the fourth.
Condition a at such main jails as Chi Hoa
are abysmally bad, with lack of sanitation.
overcrowding, and a diet of food that rots
the skin and the teeth. The worst hellhole
of all for civilians is the prison on Con Son
Island, whose human "tiger cages" were de-
nounced in 1970. After the attendant inter-
national outcry, the island commandant, Col.
Nguyen Van Ve, was relieved but then re-
appointed in 1973! The shackling of Con
Son prisoners has left them deformed para-
lytics.
Documentary evidence of all forms of tor-
ture of civilian prisoners held by Saigon is
among the grisliest in the world. The Phoenix
Program for uprooting the NFL infrastruc-
ture in South Vietnam claims 20,000 dead. It
makes no claim to the number that were tor-
tured, but the well-known practice of forcing
confessions in a helicopter after one suspect
has been dropped overboard is typical. A com-
mon expression among South Vietnam police
and jailers is: "If you are not a Vietcong, we
will beat you until you admit you are; and if
you admit you are, we will beat you until
you no longer dare to be one." No amount of
proof of the bestiality of the Vietcong and the
North Vietnamese can counter-balance the
savagery of America's South Vietnamese
allies.
A celebrated civilian prisoner of Saigon is
Huynh Tan Mam, a student leade.r who has
been a courageous critic of South Vietnam.
His latest arrest, in 1972, seems to stem di-
rectly from his opposition to American policy
in Indochina. He has been brutally beaten,
given injections, and is said to be disabled,
with paralyzed legs. Main and his supporters
say that they are part of a third political
force, but Saigon insists he was a Communist.
When the government tried to turn him
over to the Vietcong in a prisoner exchange,
Mam declined and remained in prison.
SPAIN: CHURCH VERSTIS STATE
"Do you think Spain is still a Fascist coun-
try?" Peter Ustinov, the urbane writer-actor,
says he is often asked that, and he replies:
"Only in the winter, when the hotel rooms
are empty." His mordant gibe reflects the fact
that Franco's Spain is still the repressive
state that the dictator set up in the Thirties
during the civil war, at the cost of 1 million
lives.
As reported in Saturday Review/World
[March 9, 19741, Spain remains a nation
where all political parties but the National
Movement of Franco are banned by law, a na-
tion where independent labor unions are il-
legal and where the jailers silence free
expression.
The floating population of political pris-
oners may, at any given moment, be as many
as 1,000, with many more awaiting trial. The
prisoners include Socialists, Communists,
anarchists, Basque and Catalan nationalists,
priests, lawyers, students, professors, and
writers. More than two hundred conscientious
objectors- are in jail, including many Jeho-
vah's Witnesses, but a new law seems to be
improving the situation for this group.
In the wake of the assassination last De-
cember 20 of the premier, Adm. Luis Cidaero
Blanco, there has been a flurry of crackdowns
on Basque nationalists and leftists. But even
before this episode, police brutality, censor-
ship, torture, and general maltreatment of
political prisoners have been endemic.
Perhaps the most fascinating development
In Spain's benighted human-rights picture
' is the emergence of a split between the Ro-
man Catholic Church Rad the regime. The
church was once a pillar of Franco's au-
thoritarianism, but now there is a fresh wind
of progressivism sweeping the clergy. One
leading clerical figure is the outspoken
Bishop of Bilbao, whose espousal of Basque
individuality led to his house arrest. There
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE S 20547
are countless young "rebel" priests whose
defense of labor and civil rights often out-
rages the right wing. A common practice is
for Spanish secret police to join church con-
gregations-and audiences and college class-
rooms-to spy on speakers. The list of priests
fined and jailed for "offensive" sermons is
growing daily.
A Spanish prisoner typical of the repres-
sions of underground workers' leaders is fifty-
seven-year-old Marcelino Carnacho. Although
lie had already served five years for clandes-
tine tradeunion activity, he was tried again
for the same offenses and sentenced in De-
cember 197$ to twenty years. With nine other
alleged leaders of the illegal workers' com-
missions, Camacho is now held in Cara-
banchel Prison.
Narcisco Julian Sanz, who was released in
October 1972, had spent twenty-five of his
sixty years in jail. A railway worker who
fought for the republic in the civil war, he
was sentenced to death but won a commuta-
tion. In 1946 he was released under a partial
amnesty. Seven years later he was re-arrested
on charges relating to his political and trade-
union activities as a Communist. At his first
trial he got twenty-one years, and at his
third trial, in 1956, another twenty years.
Various general pardons led to his release,
but not before he had suffered from spinal
arthritis and ulcers.
Ramon Mores Lopez was sentenced to
thirty years in September 1972 for activities,
including alleged bombings, on behalf of a
Catalan separatist organization. To get his
"confession," the authorities subjected him
to continual beatings and death threats. The
beatings left him unable to walk without the
support of his guards. A prison doctor pre-
scribed vitamins and sleeping pills for his
condition.
[From the New York Times, Aug. 4, 1974]
TORTURE, AN OFFICIAL WAY OF LITE IN 30
COUNTRIES
(By Jean-Pierre Clavel)
Torture has now become a state institution
in snore than 30 countries, a rule of pain car-
ried out by technicians, scientists, paramili-
tary officials, judges and cabinet ministers.
Documentation comes from the respected
human rights agency Amnesty International,
a private London-based group that seeks
freedom for political prisoners and has offices
in 82 nations. As the 25th anniversary of the
United Nations' Universal Declaration of Hu-
man Rights approaches, Amnesty's London
headquarters described in a 224-page report
allegations and evidence of torture in 64
countries in the last 10 years.
Most of what the agency calls a "cancer-
ous'i growth in torture has occurred in Latin
America, spreading to 22 nations there in the
10-year period. Portugal and Northern Ire-
land are among the 10 European countries
? named, as are 14 nations in Africa, 7 in Asia
and 8 in the Middle East.
The vast number of victims in urban areas
are members of legitimate political organiza-
tions, trade unions and youth movements,
professors, women's leaders, religious figures,
lawyers and journalists. In rural situations,
it is unarmed peasants, villagers and even
children who are caught in the torture net.
Contends Amnesty International, "it is
apparent today that much of state torture
is carried out by the military forces, usually
Clite or special units, who displace the civil
police in matters of political security. Their
military training and their exposure to post-
World War II theories about 'unconventional
war' make them particularly apt for the
practice and enable them to apply the con-
cept of 'war' to any situation of civil conflict
no matter how mild."
In Latin America, it is possible to pinpoint
the arrival of torture in nations such as
Uruguay, Bolivia and Chile and to demon-
strate the pattern in which torture has
Spread across the continent. Niall Ma,cDer-
mot, Secretary-General of the International
Commission of Jurists, reported at the
United Nations this June after a fact-finding
mission that between 8,500 and 4,000 persons
had been interrogated In Uruguay alone since
July 1972, in an effort to stamp out the
Tupamaros. Of these, at least 50 per cent
are believed to have been tortured.
Secret steps were taken in Brazil in the
early nineteen-sixties by a group of senior
military and police officials to create a coor-
dinated, autonomous torture and "death
squad" network to crush political opposition.
To train personnel, illustrated lectures and
live demonstrations of torture were con-
ducted. using political prisoners as guinea
pigs, by Operacao Bandeirantes, once de-
scribed as "a type of advanced school of tor-
ture." Subsequently, trained Brazilian tor-
turers traveled to military academies in
neighboring nations to conduct courses in
what is euphemistically called "interroga-
tion."
"Refinements" have resulted from techni-
cal and medical research designed to develop
techniques of intensifying pain without caus-
ing death or irreversible damage. In North-
ern Ireland in 1071, security forces put "zen-
sory deprivation" into action against Irish
Republican Army suspects, using white noise,
tactile obliteration, fatigue and starvation
to force nervous systems to "torture them-
selves." Dr. Timothy Shallice of London's
National Hospital has traced these methods to
a blear line of private and government-spon-
sored research that began in the nineteen-
fifties and intensified after the Korean War.
"Torture which was once a craft," says Dr.
Shallice, "has become a technology."
Further evidence of this trend was un-
earthed after the "liberation" of the DGS
(political police) headquarters in Lisbon fol-
lowing the May coup in Portugal. Inside were
found anatomy charts and films used to in-
struct novices in torture and detailed medi-
cal reports indicating that torture had be-
come a medical science conducted under the
supervision of doctors.
In the Soviet Union the abuse of psychiatry
has led to the long-term incarceration of
dissidents such as Grigorenko and Plyusch
in execrable conditions inside special psychi-
atric hospitals on the ground that they had
committed political offenses "while of un-
sound mind."
Amnesty has produced a unique portrait
of a world which, like a Bosch phantasm, is
panoramic, almost aloof, chronicling the or-
deals and wasted lives of men and women
trapped in the breakdown of the rule of
law. It speaks for the countless victims sent
to labor camps in the barren regions of the
Soviet Union, for the fate of the 55,000 po-
litical detainees still held without charge or
trial in the camps of Indonesia, for defen-
dants sent to the torture cells beheath the
courtrooms in central Lisbon, for the crippled
Vietnamese inmates of the Tiger Cages of
Con Son and their dead countrymen thrown
from -United States helicopters during the
years of overt American military involve-
ment In Indochina, for the unknown indi-
viduals who faced certain of the Red Guard
factions in the violent street trials of the
Cultural Revolution and for the personal
victims of South Africa's Brigadier Swane-
poel, Brazil's Sergio Fleury and Greece's
Colonel Theophyloyannakos.
What distinguishes the present wave of tor-
ture from others is that where formerly it
presented itself as a series of national crises
(such as the unleashing of torture during
the Algerian War beginning on Algerian- pa-
triots and eventually spreading to metro-
politan France), today we confront an inter-
national network of Torture States exchang-
ing expertise and equipment.
TOTAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND MILITARY CREDIT SALES TO SELECTED COUNTRIES
Country
Afganistan
Bolivia
Brazil
Cambodia
Chile
Ghana
Giratemala
Haiti
Honduras
Indonesia
Jordan
Korea
Liberia
Mali
Morocco
Sepal
Iticaragua
Proposed
1975
Actual
1974
Cranston amendment
(est.)
1975
1976
200
200
133
66
6, 500
8,345
5, 564
2,782
60, 800
56, 480
37, 654
18, 826
363, 750
335, 367
223, 578
111,789
21, 300
16, 487
10,992
5,496
70
40
27
13
2, 350
' 3,599
2,398
1, 199
200
0
4,650
I, 752
1, 168
584
28, 900
25, 717
17, 144
8,572
149,243
160,180
70,786
35,393
234,300
161,850
107,900
53,950
600
508
338
169
50
40
27
13
14.860
13,246
8,030
4,415
35
2517
8
4, 450
2,799
1,866
933
ea,
1Thimsands of dollars]
Total,
Proposed
Actual
1974
Cranston amendment
Total,
1977
1945-73
1975
1976
1977
Country
1975
(est.)
1945-73
4, 600
Pakistan
280
345
230
115
0
695, 900
35, 500
930, 200
Panama
Paraguay
550
2,350
1 011
2: 733
674
1,822
337
911
0
0
6,400
16,900
608, 700
184, 400
Peru
Philippines
21,300
25, 400
16, 037
28, 559
111,692
19,040
,-34i
9, 520
0
0
142,900
709,700
300
Saudi Arabia
3,557
3, 188
2, 126
1,06T
0
294,700
30,300
4, 100
Senegal
South Vietnam
25
I, 450, 000
20
1, 100, 000
13
733, 534
7
366,767
0
2,800
14,618,700
10, 300
Spain
1,600
29,743
159, 600
Sudan
50
0
2,200
0 237, 400
Taiwan
80,400
91,624
68,082
30, 541
o
a, 404, 400
6, 041, 600
Tunisia
3,900
I,046
2,698
1, 349
0
46,800
11600
Uruguay
4, 700
6, 261
4,174
2,087
0
59,800
3', !too
Zaire
3,800
4, 247
2,832
1,416
0
49,700
112, 400
2,480, 170
2, 02(1, 448
1, 327, 339
663,667
0
27, 943, 800
0,900
Total
16,600
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Included: Grants, credit sales, and transfers from excess stocks.
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20548
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2 .
CONGRESSIONAL RECO RD ? SENATE December 4, 1974
Mr. BAYH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CRANSTON. I am delighted to
yield to the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, in the Sen-
ator's opinion would the definition in the
measure proposed by my distinguished
colleague from California cover the pres-
ent situation that existsin the Philip-
pines?
Mr. CRANSTON. The amendment does
not specifically name any dictatorship,
it leaves the decision: to the process
spelled out in the amendment. But
(,:learly the Marcos dictatorship would be
a prime candidate, since it seems to fall
in the class of repressive governments
at which the amendment is aimed.
Mr. BAYH. Will the Senator yield 1 or
2 moments?
Mr. CRANSTON. Certainly.
Mr. BAYH. Several of us in the Senate,
including the distinguished Senator from
California, the floor manager of this bill,
and others, have taken the opportunity
m a very quiet way to express their deep
concern about what has been going on
over a period of time in the Philippines.
I had prepared to make a rather ex-
tensive speech expressing my concern
an this subject.
I feel that because of what I thought
was a very positive conversation I had
with the Philippine Ambassador yester-
day, as well as some other information
that has come to my attention, that per-
haps President Marcos over this coming
weekend is going to make an announce-
ment that he recognizes some of the
problems he has. Thus the Philippine
Government may begin to take the ini-
tiative in meeting' these problems and
not be in the position of the United
States telling them what to do.
I therefore felt it would be better for
the Senator from Indiana not to initiate
any direct attack on that problem at the
moment, but I must say to mY friend
from California, I think the time has
come for us to look directly at the ques-
tion of repression which he discusses
very eloquently here.
I feel a very strong sense of friendship
with the Philippines. I would like for
them to lead the way and show that
they, as a Nation that has been very close
to the United States and has had a very
strong history of democracy, can recog-
nize the shortcomings of what has been
going on. I hope they will do this of their
own volition and not have to respond to
some initiative from the United States.
I appreciate the courtesy of my friend
from California.
Mr. CRANSTON. I fully share the Sen-
ator's concern. If reforms do not occur in
the Philippines, I will join with the Sen-
ator in an effort to end military aid to
that government. Our aid should not be
esed to repress the Filipino people.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, how
much time is left on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator has 15 minutes. The Senator from
California has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the
amendment that has been offered here
today by the able Senator from Cali-
fornia is one that we had before our
committee.
Might I say that this proposed amend-
ment has had very singular effect. The
Senator testified before the Foreign Re-
lations Committee in a very eloquent and
persuasive manner.
For example, in this bill no military
assistance is provided at all for Chile. In
this bill we have cut out the ttrawdown
authority of the Department of Defense.
We have reduced the overall military as-
sistance by 45 percent.
Might I say that the Senator from
California did a good deal toward seeing
that accomplished? along with some of
his colleagues who were associated with
his effort here today.
So to the Senator of California let me
say that much of what the Senator seeks
to do in this amendment is underway,
and I want the Senator to know that we
are going to exercise a much more care-
ful oversight from a committee point of
view on the whole foreign aid program
than we have in the past.
We have started this in the past year
and we had staff members of our com-
mittee go abroad who then came back
with reports.
Those reports were acted upon by the
committee, which tightened up on for-
eign aid by requiring better accounting,
by preventing transfers. I think there is
a more direct accountability than we
have ever had before.
I would hope that the Senator might
not press his amendment today because
the purpose that he seeks is the purpose
that the manager of the bill here fully
subscribes to, as does the distinguished
ranking member here of the minority,
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Case).
We are in full sympathy with what the
Senator is seeking to do a:nd we believe
we can better do it by our hearings and
testimony, such as the Senator from
California gave to us, by a very precise
oversight operation on the aid program,
and by looking at the program country
by country to see what kind of funding
goes on and what kind of programs are
developed.
I, therefore, would urge upon the Sen-
ator, knowing of his deep commitment to
this amendment, that he give us the
chance' to produce some results for him
in the coming year and not press the
amendment here to a vote.
Mr. CASE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. :HUMPHREY. Yes; I ani happy to
give time to the Senator from New
Jersey,
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I want to
express my appreciation to the Senator
from California for raising this issue arid
then to join my colleague from Minne-
sota in the hope that the Senator will
find it appropriate on this occasion not
to press it on this bill.
We in the committee are engaged in
what I think is the first operation with
the chance of success, getting a hold on
this program. One of the requirements
for doing that is to pass an authorlea-
tion bill, not to have the matter go on
as it did in the past on a continuing res-
olution.
We have in this bill, as I am sure the
Senator appreciates, a rather consider-
able advance on earlier programs in the
matter of controls, of oversight, of more
sound provisions for budgeting, and as
the Senator from Minnesota has pointed
out, a reduction of the loose authority
for transfers.
I think it is very important to stick
close to the committee bill, as close as
we can, because. we have received the
assurance we have not had before, that
the administration will support us in
these important matters that we are try-
ing to accomplish.
I hope, therefore, the Senator will find
it in his heart and in his mind to with-
draw his amendment at this juncture. .
with the assurance that his objective is
the same as ours, and he can produce it
at any time in the future when he thinks
it is useful.
- Mr. CRANSTON. Will the Senator
from Minnesota yield?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.
Mr. CRANSTON. I thank the two man-
agers of the bill for their statement about
my efforts. I am delighted that what I
have done up to now has contributed
to the cuts in military assistance, of
which so much goes to repressive gov-
ernments. I am delighted that there is a
general agreement that we must go much
further. I recognized the importance of
getting away from a continuing resolu-
tion and on to an authorizing bill.
I know that there are many fine pro-
visions in the pending authorization bill,
including the phaseout of grant military
assistance over a 3-year period.
I hope we can go further in cutting
back all forms of military aid to dicta-
torial regimes, and that we will do so
soon.
If the Senator can assure me that the
oversight planned by the committee can
and will include hearings on the specific
issue of military aid to repressive gov-
ernments, and can assure me that such
hearings can be held by April, and will
provide me a full opportunity to consult
with the committee on those hearings
and to suggest certain witnesses, I would
be delighted to agree to his suggested
approach.
I recognize that the amendment I have
introduced is very complicated. It may
not be the very best way to achieve the
goals that we share. If it can be submitted
to a full examination by the committee,
I would accede to the request of the two
managers of the bill.
Mr. HUMPHREY. May I respond to the
Senator by saying that this request that
he makes is entirely in line with our
thinking.
As the Senator knows. I have spoken
to Senator Mcgee, who handled this bill
yesterday. We are in full agreement. I
am sure I speak for the Senator from
New Jersey on this.
We will have hearings on the foreign
aid bill. We will take up the Senator's
amendment. The Senator will be invited
as a witness to present testimony and to
invite other witnesses.
The proposal advanced by the Sen-
ator is so significant and is so complex.
The formula is very complex. I think that
it does require, may I say respectfully,
Approved For Release 2005/06/16,: CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- SENATE S 20549
very thoughtful consideration and a good
deal of testimony.
If the Senator will accept our commit-
ment as a word of honor, he can rest as-
sured that we will proceed forthwith
along the lines that he has indicated.
'Mr. CRANSTON. Does that commit-
ment include hearings on the specific
subject of military aid to repressive gov-
ernments, together with legislative pro-
posals along the lines I have suggested?
Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Ab-
solutely. The Senator, I would hope,
would want to introduce his amendment
again in the 94th Congress so that we
can have a specific piece of legislative
language to relate the testimony to and
on which to base our questions and in-
vestigation.
Mr. CRANSTON. And we can get to
these hearings by April at the latest? -
Mr. HUMPHREY. I am sure we can.
The Senator said April at the latest.
Let me put it this way: We will get into
it in the April and May period. The Sen-
ator knows how things go here in the
Senate in the January, February, and
March period. We often do not get down
to our detailed annual legislative busi-
ness until some time in the April-May
period. I want to be precise and honest
with the Senator.
Mr. CRANSTON. I would like to point
out that we have to move faster next year
because of the new budget process.
? Mr. HUMPHREY. I hope we shall. We
will do our best.
Mr. CRANSTON. I thank the two Sen-
ators very much.
With that understanding, I withdraw
my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment is withdrawn. The bill is
open to further amendment.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi-
dent, I call up my amendment No. 2001,
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill add a new section as
follows:
Notwithstanding any other provisions of
this Act, total contributions authorized here-
in to the United Nations or to any segment or
? subdivision of this world organization shall
not exceed $156,148,000.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi-
dent, under the foreign aid bill as it
now stands before the Senate, it pro-
vides for a 24 percent increase in U.S.
contributions to the United Nations. My
amendment, Mr. President, would elim-
inate the increase and authorize the same
amount as current estimates for 1974,
namely, $156,148,000.
, If the amendment is adopted, the Sen-
ate would be voting to save the taxpayers
$37,552,000.
Mr. President, this Senate has been on
record a number of times expressing the
view that U.S. contributions to the
United Nations should be brought Clown
to 25 percent. It is well above that now.
This amendment, while it would not
bring it down to 25 percent, would bring
it down toward that figure.
Mr. President, the United States has
been providing very substantial sums to
the United Nations. Through the years,
I have been a supporter of the United
Nations. I think it is desirable to have a
world organization. But I think that the
Senate and the Congress could help
create some sense of responsibility In
that world organization if it would take
a harder stand on the amount of contri-
butions 'which the American people put
up.
Of the 138 members of the United Na-
tions, 92 have an outstanding debt of
$204 million in back dues.
The Soviet Union and its two member
republics owe $110 million.
Mr. President, besides having a good
effect, in my judgment, on the United
Nations, in that it should bring about a
greater sense of responsibility on the part
of the other member nations, it would
save the American taxpayers $37,552,000.
Frankly, I do not see how Congress can
justify increasing its contribution to the
United Nations for this one program
alone by 24 percent.
We are in a period of high inflation.
We are supposed to be in a period when
the President and the Congress have said
that we need to put some brakes on
spending.
Here is an opportunity to do that.
I do not propose that the United
Nations be cut below what it previously
had received. I just propose that the
increase advocated by the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee be eliminated so that
the figure would be that figure which is
the current level for the 1974 funding.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
have just one or two quick observations
on the amendment of the Senator from
Virginia.
The amount, of course, as he has indi-
cated, is equivalent to what was made
available in fiscal" 1974.
I think we should note, however, that
since fiscal 1974 there has been a con-
siderable amount of inflation, and the
value of that money has depreciated
greatly, much to the sorrow of all of us.
Inflation has taken its toll on all of our
resources.
The point that I believe should be
made is that this is not money, as such,
for the operation of the General Assem-
bly or the Security Council of the United
Nations. Actually, what you have here
are funds made available by the United
States to agencies of the United Nations
which, in the main, have had a rather
good record.
The United Nations development pro-
gram is a good program. It is one that
has gained the support and the com-
mendation of not only our country but
other countries as well.
One of the finest programs they have
in the United Nations is the Children's
Fund. It has great popular support all
through the United States. How many
times have we seen little children going
door to door, raising money for the Chil-
dren's Fund? It not only has funds of the
treasury but a great deal of voluntary
funds as well. There is an increase, I
believe, of $3 million provided for the
children's Fund. -
A major amount of money that was ap-
proired by the committee was at the ini-
trative of our distinguished colleague,
Senator McGsz, who has been very active
in the United Nations work relating to
the U.N. development program. The rea-
son for that increase was the changing
of the bookkeeping, so to speak. We are
going on a calendar year basis, I believe,
for the U.N. contribtuion which picks up
part of one fiscal year and then puts it
in another, so to speak. In other words,
we are trying to get the American con-
tribution to the United Nations develop-
ment program on a calendar year basis.
So while the figure looks rather large?
it is $20 million?it really is not that
amount in terms of increased funding.
The U.N. Relief and Works Agency has
the sum of $10 million. I would like to
refer this matter to our expert on United
Nations activities, the Senator from
Wyoming. I yield to the Senator from
Wyoming for his defense of what I think
was a very legitimate request before the
committee.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I hate to
have to take the time to repeat this, be-
cause the Senator from Virginia and I
have been over this matter many times;
and I had great applause for the Senator
from Virginia when we were able, while
I was at the U.N. to reduce the American
contribution to 25 percent in the basic
budget of the U.N. It had been running
at 33 perdent, 35 percent, and 40 percent
over the years. The intent was to get it
down to 25 percent. But in getting it
down to 25 percent, as we rounded up
votes among the developing areas?the
Africians and the South Asians and the
like--we also had to make clear that we
were not cutting back our support of the
United Nations in that process.
There ttre two budgets?the basic
budget of the U.N. and the voluntary
programs of the U.N. Therefore, when
we ended with a continuing resolution in
Congress at the end of that year, we had
to revert not to the commitment that
had been requested in the new budget?
namely, the $90 million figure for the
UNDP?but to the preceding year budget
figure of $70 million because of the rules
by which we carry out a continuing res-
olution process, as the Senator knows.
Thus, it became necessary to draw down
from the next budget that $20 million
difference, because it was already com-
mitted and it was an integral part of the
whole agreement at the time we were
able to cut back the American basic per-
centage of a contribution to 25 percent.
It was a matter of commitment, a
matter of credibility, a matter of the in-
tegrity of our Government at a time we
got a major breakthrough in the struc-
turing of the basic budget of the United
Nations.
It seems to me that it does not hang
together very well for the Senator from
Virginia to applaud Wass for getting
the 25 percent when a part of the reason
we could succeed in that, when everyone
said we could not do it, was to assure
that, so far as possible, we would live up
to our commitments in the voluntary
areas of the U.N., particularly the UNDP.
They are not the same budget, but they
were cut from the same cloth, when-one
tries to make headway on the politics
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20550
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --SENATE December 4, 1974
that takes place in the United Nations or
in the Senate of the United States.
The Senator from Virginia is one of
those who know best of all the impor-
tance of integrity of commitments, and
that is the key to the integrity in that
particular commitment. That is the rea-
son why I hope that the Senator will
consider withdrawing his amendment.
We are never going to catch up to that
unless we face it. It is a split-year con-
tribution because of that carryover of
the continuing resolution in 1973. We are
trying to correct that phenomenon. It
was not our doing, except that we did
have a continuing resolution rather than
the new bill. For that reason, we are
caught in that bind. This is the only way
in which we can face up to it.
hope that the distinguished Senator
will consider a reconsideration of that
measure. I know how deeply he feels
about the entire matter; and because of
the success we experienced in cutting
our basic contribution percentage, I am
asking, in the same spirit of understand-
ing, that he accommodate with respect to
the need for picking up that difference
on the first year.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi-
dent, I yield myself 3 minutes.
In talking earlier today with the dis-
tinguished chairman of the Subcommit-
tee on Appropriations, which committee
handles the United Nations funding, I
expressed the view that the United
States probably was putting up 31 per-
cent. He said:
No, that is low. It is closer to 35 percent.
The Senator from Wyoming mentioned
the need to work with the other United
Nations members and to be on good terms
with them?the politics of it?and that is
certainly an important point. But I can-
not help note three important votes in
the past month.
One vote was on the motion to oust
South Africa; a clearly illegal action. The
United States strongly opposed it, and
we were able to muster 22 votes against
91 affirmative votes.
With respect to the resolution to per-
mit the terrorist Arafat to address the
United Nations?that is not illegal; it is
perfectly proper if the organization
wants to invite a terrorist to address it
the United States strongly opposed it,
and we were able to obtain three allies.
On the third vote, to give official ob-
server status to the Arafat group, the
United States was defeated by a vote
of 95 to 17.
So I am in strong basic disagreement
with the report of the Committee on
Foreign Relations which contains this
sentence:
The level of our support for the UNDP is
seen by the developing nations as a measur-
ing stick for the seriousness of our partici-
pation in the United Nations organization.
I say that the developing nations?
and all the other nations, for that mat-
ter?who are members of the United
Nations would have a lot more respect
for the United States if Congress would
stop continually pouring in more and
more funds, upping it every year. I think
we wotild be better off, and it would bring
a greater sense of responsibility to that
organization.
Frankly, I am unwilling, in the month
of December of 1974, to vote to reward
the United Nations for the actions it took
in November. I am not saying funding
should be reduced. I do not favor reduc-
ing below the level of previous funding,
but I do feel that we should not increase
the funding.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Presi-
dent, that the following Senators be list-
ed as cosponsors: The Senator from Ne-
vada (Mr. CANNON) ,, the Senator from
New Mexico (Mr. MONTOYA), the Sen-
ator from Delaware (Mr. Roris), and the
Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. PROXMIRE).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dont-
:resew . Without objection, it is so or-
dered.
The Senator's time has expired.
Who yields time?
Mr. HU1VIPHREY.. Mr. President, I
yield time to the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr? McGEE. Mr. President, I hesitate
to say more in this colloquy with my be-
loved colleague from Virginia, but I
think that the whole program at the
United Nations requires that at least
we . keep something straight for the
record.
In any political situation, whether it
be here or up there or anywhere else,
we try to cross one bridge at a time, and
we build on those bridges. I agree with
the Senator: I think there was a danger-
ous precedent set when they threw South
Africa out of the United Nations. That is
not what the United Nations was cre-
ated for: That is not the way we try to
establish the integrity of that body, or
to enrich it.
I agree, likewise, that there was a se-
rious flaw :in the tactical decision to ad-
mit the PLO up there, to have their
hearing. But the thing that it says to
all of us is that it is still an open body
in which we make our case and we have
to win our vote. And we lost. But we still
have the power of veto in the Security
Count% which is the ultimate deter-
mining factor.
I was there the very week that these
two votes occurred. I must say that the
shock effect of them was rather consid-
erable, and that we wre already begin-
ning to get a regrouping of the United
Nations to reconsider all that had been
done.- That is a large factor in explain-
ing why they failed to do the same thing
to the Cambodian Government of Lon
Nol. These are the kinds of things that
do make a difference.
We cannot take our blocks and go,
home because we get mad or because we
lose a vote. We are much stronger in
protecting our interest in the direction
that We go by being there than by run-
ning back to the haven of the U.S. Sen-
ate and sticking out our tongues at the
rest of the world.
I remind my colleague from Virginia
that at the very time we were cutting the
percentage of the American contribution
to 25 percent, the Soviet Union delegate
arose on the floor before those nations
and said, "If the Americans win this
vote, we are going arbitrarily to cut our:,
from the Soviet Union." They were go-
ing to cut it as an arbitrary action.
The response from the U.N. nations
was dramatic. The United States was
proposing to exercise its decision through
the machinery of the U.N. honoring that
process. The Soviet Union was going to
defy the U.N. and slice its own. They were
laughed out of the General Assembly
that afternoon.
If we work at it, we have our best
chance in this international forum that
has done ridiculously stupid things
sometimes, but that, likewise, has pro-
duced very rewarding and positive ac-
tions at other times.
The world is not going to dance to a
tune just because we snap our fingers
or because we orate on the floor of the
Senate. It demands a give and a take.
That is why we cannot be running the
United Nations from the floor of the
Senate. That is the reason we have to
balance it all off in terms of the gains
that we really can make underneath.
Where we have them there, where we
can talk to them behind scenes, the real
decisions are being made: the decisions
that brought the Soviets and the Amer-
icans together for the first time in the
cease-fire in the Middle East. For the first
time that was finally agreed to. It was
only possible there, in those halls. The
same thing can recur every time we have
a great world crisis.
I hope that the Senator, in his proper
sense of pique over what they did to the
Union of South Africa?because they are
entitled to be members of the United Na -
tions, too, as the Soviets are, and as
Franco in Spain is, as dictators all over
the world are. It is not a little collection
of democratic states. It is not a league
of the Americas. This is a United Nations
of all the world, with all of the differ-
ences that are reflected in that spectrum.
We very well have to work at selling
our case, and using what we believe to be
our sense of direction as one of the great
arguments for restraint in the world
body. With all of the discouragements,
submit to the Senator that it is all we
have, and it offers us the one chance be-
yond holing up here, as a rock to our-
selves, in order to try to protect our na-
tional interest.
Our national interest is best protected,
Mr. President, in the light of the cross
currents of different policies and differ-
ent views in the United Nations. It is dif-
ficult, it is frustrating, but it has to be
worth our effort.
The PRESIDING OlaietCER. Who
yields time?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President,
hope that the Senator from Virginia
will, in his commendable fashion, give les
a little extra consideration here in the
light of what I believe is a legitimate
administration request; namely, that be-
cause of the increased cost of all the serv-
ices that are undertaken today, the sum
for last year is not adequate and it has to
be modified to soine degree.
We have the $20 million for the United
Nations development program, which is,
as has been explained by the Senator
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
? Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
from Wyoming, basically getting the
fiscal calendar and the annual calendar
into synchronization. It is an account-
ing figure.
That is really what it boils down to.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. If the Sen-
ator will yield at that point?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes; I, yield.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I point out
that the administration itself did not
ask that that be done. The administra-
tion itself only asked for $10 million in
regard to that, according to the commit-
tee report. I am guided by the committee
report.
Mr. HUMPHREY. The administration,
I should say, does support this figure
now. The Senator is correct, however, it
asked for $10 million.
Did not the administration ask for the
$10 million on the United Nations Relief
and Works Agency?
May I make this suggestion to the
Senator, in the light of his argument?
Why not take the $10 million that was
asked for by the administration and add
that to his figure?
-
Also, because there has been a con-
siderable increase in the cost of items,
we might increase somewhat the Chil-
dren's Fund.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I point out
that if the Senate will approve the
amendment which is before us, the Com-
mittee on Appropriations then can fund
any of these to whatever extent the Com-
mittee on Appropriations deems desira-
ble?the children's fund 100 percent,
some other fund not 100 percent.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I understand the
Senator, but the real problem is that
unless we take into consideration what
has been at least suggested here by the
administration, we are just going to find
ourselves with inadequate resources in
the authorization.
I say again that it all comes before
the Committee on Appropriations. If
they cannot make a good case there, they
are not going to get the money.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. If the
Senator will yield at that point, since he
mentioned the administration?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes, I yield.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. The com-
mittee report says that the President
requested $153,900,000. The committee
approved that request and authorized
an additional $30 million over and above
what the administration requested.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GUR-
NEY). The time of the Senator from
Minnesota has expired.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi-
dent, what time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OrriCER. The Sen-
ator from Virginia has 6 minutes re-
maining.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I yield 2
minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the
Senator's amendment reads in the sum
of $156,148,000. I respectfully request
that the Senator make the amendment
read $165 million.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR, $165 mil-
lion?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes.
Mr. HARRY P. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi-
dent, the Senator from Minnesota is
such a congenial, wonderful person, such
a wonderful Senator, that I am somewhat
persuaded to accept his suggestion, al-
though I do not like the idea at this
particular time of going above the 1974
figure.
Mr. President, I modify my amendment
to change the figure to $165 million on
assurance of support from the manager
of the bill, the Senator from Minnesota.
The amendment, as modified, is as
follows:
At the end of the bill add a new section
as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provisions of
this Act, total contributions authorized here-
in to the United Nations or to any segment
or subdivision of this world organization shall
not exceed $165,000,000.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, could
we just do that, to save time, on a voice
vote and pass it?
Mt. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi-
dent, I think it would be well to have
the Senate of the United States?
Mr. HUMPHREY. May I assure the
Senator that we are for him, $165 mil-
lion. We shall save ourselves some time.
We have to be through With this bill, ac-
cording to the unanimous consent re-
quest, by not later than 6 p.m.
We have nine amendments to go yet.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I have
gone?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Oh, you are a good
man, Senator.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Let me
have a rollcall, because I think it is im-
portant.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I yield.
Mr. GOLDWATER. If we are going to
have the yeas and nays, why not go for
the whole amount?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I would
prefer that, but?
Mr. HUMPHREY. We are going to go
for the $165 million, but we are going
to go light a Christin.as tree, just as the
Senator said.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I think the tree
would be much brighter if we have some-
thing to vote on..I do not want a reduc-
tion.
Mr. HUMPHREY. This is not a reduc-
tion.
Mr. CASE. It is a $30-odd million re-
duction.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Then it is not a
reduction?
Mr. CHURCH. There will be another
opportunity for the Senator to vote on
the reduction on the overall ceiling.
Mr. PELL. It will be a $28 million re-
duction from what the committee
brought in.
Mr. GOLDWATER. The Senator can
do better than that, can he not?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I feel cer-
tain?
Mr. GOLDWATER. My point is, if we
S 20551
are. going to vote, if we agree with the
manager of the bill that we not have a
,vote and save time, we can go for the
lesser amount. If we are going to vote.
I would rather vote something meaning-
ful.
Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator wants
to increase it?
Mr. GOLDWATER. No, I do not want
to increase it. I want to take his original
figure.
Mr. HUMPHREY. The amendment is
for the $165 million that the Senator
from Virginia has asked for, and if the
Senator insists upon a rollcall, we will
have to, of course, accommodate him;
but I would hope he might be willing to
accept his victory, which is in hand.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Will the Senator
agree that we have a 10-minute roll-
call?
-
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Absolutely.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I ask unanimous
consent that we have a 10-minute roll-
call.
The PRESIDING OreaCER (Mr.
GURNEY) . Without objection, it is so
ordered. Do Senators yield back the re--
mainder of their time?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
GURNEY). All remaining time having
been yield-ed back, the question is on
agreeing to the amendment of the Sen-
ator from Virginia (MT. HARRY F. BYRD,
Jr.) , as modified. On this question, the
yeas and nays have been ordered, and
the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from North Carolina
(Mr. EeviN) , the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. FULBRIGHT) , the Senator from Col-
orado (Mr. HASKELL) , the Senator from
Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON) , and the
Senator from Indiana (Mr. HARTKE) ,
are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. TALMADGE) is absent be-
cause of illness.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON)
and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr.
HRUSKA) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced?yeas 65,
nays 27, as follows:
?
Allen
Bartlett
Hayti
Beall
Bennett
Bentsen
Bible
Biden
Brock
Buckley
Burdick
Byrd,
Harry F., Jr.
Byrd, Robert C.
Cannon
Chiles
Church
Cotton
Curtis
Dole
[No. 518 Leg.]
YEAS-65
Dornenici
Dominick
Eagleton
Eastland
Fannin
Fong
Goldwater
Gravel
Griffin
Gurney
Hansen
Helms
Hollings
Huddleston
Hughes
Humphrey
Inouye
Jackson
Johnston
Long
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Mansfield
McClellan
McClure
McGovern
McIntyre
Metzenbaum
Mondale
Montoya
Nunn
Packwood
Pastore
Pearson
Proxmire
Randolph
Ribicoff
Roth
Scott, Hugh
Scott,
William L.
Stennis
S 20552
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE December 4, 1974
.Symington Tower Young
Taft Tunney
Thurmond Weicker
NAYS-27
Abourezk Hatfield Nelson
Aiken Hathaway Pen
Baker Javits Percy
Brooke Kennedy Schweilcer
Case Mathias Sparkman
Clark McGee Stafford
Cook Metcalf Stevens
Cranston Moss Stevenson
Bari Muskie Williams
NOT VOTING-8
Belimon Hartke Magnuson
Ervin Haskell Talmadge
Fulbright Hruska
SO Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR.'S amend-
ment, as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi-
dent, I move to reconsider the vote by
which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senator from West Virginia (Mr. ROB-
ERT C. BYRD) be listed as a cosponsor of
the amendment which has just been
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
May we have order?
The PRESIDING OteieiCER (Mr.
Domzencr). The Senator from West Vir-
ginia has the floor. May we have order?
TIME LIMITATION AGREEMENT
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the time
on any remaining amendments today be
limited?
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, may we
have order, please?
The PRESIDING OiateiCER. Will the
Senator suspend? May we have order in
the Chamber, please?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the time
on any remaining amendment today be
limited to 15 minutes, with the time to
be equally divided between the manager
of the bill and the mover of the amend-
ment, with the exception of an amend-
ment by Mr. CHURCH on which there be
a limitation of?
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, if the
Senator will change his request to two
amendments by Mr. CHURCH, I would
hope to have a half hour. There is an
amendment that relates to these two to
be offered by the Senator from Indiana
4M r. BAYH).
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I do not
wish the same courtesy as the Senator
from Idaho, but there is another original
amendment of my own which I am cer-
tain will take about 30 minutes.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. With the ex-
ception of an amendment by Mr. BAYH
and two amendments by Mr. CHURCH.
The PRESIDING OFFICER,. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and it
is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent on each rollcall
remaining today that there be only 10
minutes allocated with warning bells to
be sounded after the first 21/2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Are these
back-to-back votes?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD, No.
Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT, Then I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ob-
jection is heard.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I rend an
unnumbered amendment to the desk and
ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING 011010ER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
At the end of the bill add the following
new section:
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE CEILING
SEC. 44. Notwithstanding any cfther provi-
Mon of law, the total amount which may be
obligated during fiscal year 1975 under the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Foreign
Military Sales Act, the Agricultural Trade De-
velopment and Assistance Act of 1954, the
Peace Corps Act, and section 401 of Public
Law 89-367 providing military, assistance to
South Vietnam, may not exceed $4,300,000,-
000.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, about a
Jacinth ago when the foreign aid bill was
before the Senate for its consideration, I
offered an amendment.
Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President, may we
have order?
The PRESIDING C)FFICEEt. Will the
Senator suspend? May we have order in
the Senate, please?
The Senator may resume.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, when
the foreign aid bill was before the Senate
;shortly before the election, I proposed an
amendment which placed a $5 billion
ceiling on :fiscal year 1975 foreign aid
obligationt, not including U.S. contribu-
tions to the international financial in-
stitutions.
The purpose was to establish an over-
all ceiling of $5 billion for all of the bi-
lateral aid programs, both economic and
military.
That amendment was approved by a
vote of 62 to, 21.
Other cuts were made in the bill by
the Senate at that time and then, as the
Senators will remember, the bill was
recommitted to the Senate Foreign Rela-
tions Committee.
I had thought in view of the action
that had been taken by the whole Senate
that the committee would be cognizant of
a desire that then existed to cut back on
foreign aid or, at least, to hold the line
and prevent the program from growing
even more expensive, particularly in
view of the Federal deficit,. the inability
of the Congress to control spending, the
worsening economte conditions in the
country, and an inflation that had gone
out of control.
Instead, the committee moved in the
opposite direction, raising the foreign aid
program levels and opening new spend-
ing loopholes that will make available an
additional $350 million.
Now I want to make it clear, the new
committee bill is a third of iv billion
dollars larger than the earlier bill as it
was originally proposed to the Senate a
month or so ago.
I have a table, Mr. President, that
shows the various increases that the
committee added, which come to $347
million above the previous level. I ask
unanimous consent that the table be
printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the table was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
Increases in S. 3394 made in committee after
recommittal
I. Changes in authorizations:
Economic aid to Indo-
china
Food and nutrition
+$67, 000, 000
+39,000,000
Middle East (Israel)
+89, 500, 000
Total additions
195,
500,
000
Military credit sales
?50,
000,
000
Net addition
+145,
500,
000
II. Other additions:
Use of loan reaawa for
disaster aid
+110,
000,
000
Additional military aid
funds as a result of de-
lay in effective date for
charging costs of military
missions
457,
000,
000
Additional military aid
from changes in excess
defense articles provision
(estimate)
4-35,
000,
000
Total additional for-
eign aid in revised
version of S. 3394_
+ 347,
000,
000
Mr. CHURCH. I regret the commit-
tee's action, Mr. President, all the more
because in the weeks since my ceiling
amendment was passed, it has become
ever more clear that our national econ-
omy is in a dire condition.
More than ever, the responsibility of
Congress is to exercise fiscal restraint, to
bring the Federal budget under some ef-
fective control.
I should think that necessity would be
all the more 'obvious to Senators in view
of the fact that we have been overriding
Presidential vetoes. I, myself, have been
voting to override these vetoes knowing
that it would cost a considerable amount
of additional money and yet feeling the
programs in these cases justified the in-
creased cost, as long as we found other
places to cut the budget in the exercise
of some semblance of fiscal responsibil-
ity.
I am, therefore, again proposing to
amend S. 3394, the pending bill, by plac-
ing a ceiling on fiscal year 1975 foreign
aid obligations, excepting U.S. contribu-
tions to the international financial in-
stitutions.
I am now, however, proposing a lower
ceiling than previously, an overall ceil-
ing of $4.3 billion.
This ceiling has been calculated to al-
low expenditures at the rate provided
for in the continuing resolution now op-
erating. In other words, if the Senate
were to adopt this amendment, we would
simply hold the line on the Senate pro-
gram at the present level of spending,
as authorized in the continuing resolu-
tion which now governs that program.
In other words, the rate of foreign
aid spending pertinent during the first
half of the fiscal year would be allowed
to continue during the second half of the
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
yew, but under a regular authorization
rather than a continuing resolution.
I ask unanimous consent that there
be printed in the RECORD at this point a
table which displays expenditures under
the continuing resolution, expenditures
as they took place in fiscal year 1974,
and fiscal year 1975 expenditures as they
would be allowed by this bill if the ceil-
ing were not imposed.
There being no objection, the table was
ordered to be printed in the RECO'RD, as
follows:
FOREIGN AID PROGRAM LEVELS (EXCEPT U.S. CONTRIBU-
TIONS TO THE MULTILATERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS)
fin millions of dollars]
Fiscal year
1975 at
continuing
resolution
rate
Fiscal year
1974
(actual)
Fiscal year
1975
provided
by S. 3394
(new
version)
Economic aid:
AID
1,677
1,929
2,890
Public Law 480_ .
996
1, 152
996
Peace Corps
82
77
82
Military:
Grants
1,250
11,678
1,289
Credit sales
325
325
405
Total
4,330
5,161
5,662
1 Does not include 2 expenditures of 1-time nature: emer-
gency aid to Israel and emergency drawdown for Cambodia.
Mr. CHURCH. I should point out, Mr.
President, that the creation of a $4.3
billion ceiling would not require expendi-
tures to be made in the same categories
as delineated in the continuing resolu-
tion.
The administration would have au-
thorizations under the various bills,
meaning the foreign aid bill now before
us, Public Law 480, Peace Corps, the
other bills relating to bilateral foreign
aid.
The administration, combining these
bills together, would have authorization
totaling $5.6 billion and would be allowed
the flexibility to fund fully thdse pro-
grams it deems essential and to trim
those it deems marginal.
While I normally would not approve
allowing the executive branch such dis-
cretion, I believe in this case such dis-
cretionary authority would force the ad-
ministration to come face to face with
some tough decisions on priorities, con-
trary to its usual practice of attempting
to perpetuate all programs at full fund-
ing levels.
There is little more that needs to be
said, Mr. President. The confused and
misguided purpose of much of our vast
and largely outdated foreign aid program
Is now manifest. The sad state of Ameri-
can economy is clear for everyone to see.
The only question which remains is
whether Congress, which holds the
pursestrings of Federal spending, has the
will to take corrective action.
I believe that my amendment, by plac-
ing a responsible limit on foreign aid
expenditures, constitutes such action and
I urge its adoption by the Senate today.
But if the Senate by its vote indicates
that it is unwilfing to hold foreign aid
spending at its- present level, as author-
ized by the continuing resolution, I shall
then propose a second amendment set-
ting a ceiling of $5 billion- as was ap-
proved by the Senate before the bill was
recommitted.
This $5 billion ceiling, as is shown on
the table which I have placed in the REC-
ORD, would hold fiscal year 1975 spend-
ing to a level roughly equal to that of
fiscal 1974, and would thus stand, at
least, as a clear statement that the Sen-
ate does not want to see the foreign aid
program increased beyond the level of
last year's spending.
I hope that the Senate will approve
the lower ceiling, the $4.3 billion ceiling.
However, the establishment of a ceiling
at either level, whether it is $4.3 billion
or $5 billion, would be a significant step
toward bringing the foreign aid program
and our Federal budget in line with the
grim realities facing our national econ-
omy:
So for those reasons, Mr. President, I
do hope the Senate will approve the
amendment that I have offered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
to add the name of the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. Rom) as a cosponsor of
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I send to the
desk an amendment, and ask for its im-
mediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair
is informed that until the time expires
on this amendment, no further amend-
ments are in order.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that this amendment
be considered in connection with the
pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
Mr. CASE. Reserving the right to ob-
ject, and I will not object, I just want
to understand what it is before we agree.
Mr. BAYH. If the Senator will yield
about 1 or 2 minutes?
Mr. CASE. On my reservation, I yield
to the Senator.
Mr. BATH. The amendment of the
Senator from Indiana would add, I be-
lieve, a few significant words at the end
of the amendment of the Senator from
Idaho which would except from the
President's discretion to apply the cuts
necessary under the amendment of the
Senator from Idaho that funding which
Is presently going to the State of Israel.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the unanimous consent re-
quest? The Chair hears none. It is so
ordered. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
At the end of the amendment proposed
by Mr. Church add the following:
"This limitation notwithstanding, all
funds appropriated for Israel shall be obli-
gated for that purpose."
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I appreci-
ate the courtesy of my colleagues, the
distinguished Senator from Idaho and
the distinguished Senator from New
Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the
Senator will tell the Chair, is this the
amendment on which the Senator re-
quested a half-hour?
Mr. BAYH. No, sir, it is not.
S 20553
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair
thanks the Senator.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I yield
to the Senator, if that is necessary, such
part of my time as he may require.
Mr. BAYH. Is the Senator operating
on his own time, the 15 minutes, the
71/2 minutes? It shall not take that long.
Very frankly, the Senator from In-
diana finds a great deal of merit in the
proposal of the distinguished Senator
from Idaho. One of the reservations /
have about it is the discretion which is
permitted the President as to where the
cuts mandated by the Senator from
Idaho should be made.
I understand the great sensitivity that
exists in the Middle East area as it ap-
plies to this bill. I know there has been
a great deal of consideration as to how
this measure can be applied without
rocking the boat as far as executive ne-
gotiations are concerned. But I feel that
what we are about to embark upon in
this foreign aid bill is to find ourselves
involved in significant financing of both
sides of a very difficult political and
military contest.
As I see it, it is imperative for us to
maintain the balance in that part of
the world as far as the State of Israel is
concerned, because their adversaries are
getting such a tremendous investment
from the Soviet Union. For that reason
I feel that the amount that is in this bill
as far as maintaining that balance for
the State of Israel is absolutely indis-
pensable to the security of the State of
Israel, and I would hate to see the Presi-
dent cut below that figure.
I would like to see us find some way
to guarantee that we could deescalate on
both sides. But until we get some per-
manent agreement, which is not likely to
be forthcoming in the near future, I do
not see how we can permit this kind of
open-ended discretion to be given to the
President.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, what is the
situation as far as those opposing these
amendments is concerned, time-wise?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair is informed that the time for the
opposition is controlled by the Senator
from Minnesota. Does the Senator from
Minnesota yield?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes, I yield.
Mr. CASE. Just for an inquiry as to
time.
I understand that, but is there 15
minutes on the amendment to the
amendment, and then 15 minutes on the
amendment, itself, as far as the opposi-
tion goes?
Mr. CHURCH. Thirty minutes on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair is informed that the original
amendment had one-half hour, of which
11 minutes have been used. This amend-
ment has 15 minutes, of which 3 minutes
have been used.
Mr. CASE. Three minutes have been
used by the proponents and none by the
opponents?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is
correct.
Mr. CASE. Who is in charge of the
time in opposition?
The PRESIDING OFFICE4. The Sen-
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20554
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE December 4, 1974'
ator from Minnesota controls the time
for the opposition.
Mr. CASE. To both amendments?
The PRESIDING OveaCER. The Sen -
ator is correct.
Mr. CASE. Thank you very much. I ask
that the time spent in this interesting
colloquy not be taken out of either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
abjection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the
Senator from Indiana has, in a sense,
modified the amendment of the Senator
from Idaho. I do not have any objection
to what the Senator from Indiana is ask-
ing. I see no reason to have two votes on
these matters.
Mr. CHURCH. I would say to the Sena-
tor from Minnesota that I am in full
agreement with the object so well stated
by the Senator from Indiana. I am
willing to accept the amendment that he
has offered modifying my amendment.
I would hope that this could be done on
a voice vote.
However, I will ask for a rollcall vote
on the amendment, as modified.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Why do we not just
yield back the remaining time on the
Bayh amendment, if the Senator from
Idaho will yield back the remainder of
his time, and we will get that into the
full amendment of the Senator from
Idaho (Mr. Curracn) . We still have time
to debate the remainder of the time on
the Church amendment, as modified.
Mr. CHURCH. That is perfectly all
right.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield back the re-
mainder of my time on the Bayh amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
has been yielded back. The question is
on agreeing to the amendment of the
Senator from Indiana. [Putting the
question.]
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Now, Mr. President.
I understand that what we have here is
approximately 4 minutes time that re-
mains on the amendment of the Senator
from Idaho, and approximately 14 min-
utes that we would have in opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen
minutes.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
have just a comment in reference to the
.amendment which has been offered by
the Senator from Idaho.
A number of us in the Senate com-
mittee?Senator GRIFFIN, Senator
;SPARKMAN, Senator MCGEE, Senator CASE,
And Senator JAVITS?sent to our col'
leagues a letter on December 2, pointing
out what we thought were some of the
harmful reactions which would come
from the Church amendment. I just want
ko call to the attention of the Senate
some of those comments.
First of all, the bill that is before us,
with the authorizations that are in the
bill, is the work of a number of members
of the Senate Foreign Relations Com -
coffee, in cooperation with the admin-
istration, to try to work out a sensible
foreign assistance program that would
bring in some new controls and restraints
noon the foreign aid administration.
This legislation, as proposed and as be-
fore us, will slash the President's request
by :18 percent. It is over a $600 million re-
duction in what the administration asked
for in foreign assistance for fiscal 1975.
This is the largest percentage cut of
any authorization bill considered by
Congress this year. We believe that we
have acted responsibly. The committee
has also reduced military grant assist-
ance activities by $400 million, foreign
military credit sales by $150 million, and
Indochina postwar reconstruction by
$322,800,000.
The total military and economic as-
sistance request for Indochina has been
slashed by $1 billion. That is no small
amount reduction and saving by the ap-
propriate committee of the Senate.
I might add that the amendment be-
fore the Senate, sponsored by the Senator
from Idaho, would preempt the role of
the authorizing and the appropriating
committees. The Committee on Foreign
Relations, the Committee on Armed
Services, the Committee on Agriculture
and Forestry, the Appropriations Com-
mittees have all made or will make care-
ful and deliberate decisions as to where
and for what purposes and in what
amounts U.S. foreign assistance funds
are to be spent. Each of these com-
mittees has a responsibility to this
body. These committees, making their
recommendations to the Senate, and
the Senate acting on those recom-
mendations, have already made deci-
sions. A ceiling on all these proposals
ignores these decisions, decisions made
by the Members of the Senate, and com-
pels the President to impound funds for
which Congress has already expressed
its support.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.
Mr. CASE. I think this is enormously
Important, and I hope that all Senators
who hear this statement will pay great
attention to it.
Carrying just one step further the
point that the Senator from Minnesota
has made, what we are doing is giving
the President the authority to write a
foreign aid bill.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Exactly. The Sena-
tor is correct.
The Senate has been complaining for
?the past 2 or 3 years that the Executive
has taken over all our responsibilities.
Honestly, we handed them over to him.
In this amendment, what we are doing
is saying this to the President., after we
have put authorizations in this bill, after
the Committee on Agriculture and Fo:r-
estry and the Senate in support of that
committee has put authorizations on
Public Law 480, and after the Armed
Services Committee has acted and Con-
gress has supported or modified the
Armed Services Committee decision:
Mr. President, we have gone through this
charade. We have shown the folks back home
that we are responsible legislators. But we
didn't really mean it. You go ahead and cut
what you want to cut, except don't out
Israel.
No one in this body has a better stand-
ing with respect to support for Israel
than the junior Senator from Minne-
sota. Most of the amendments relating to
Israel in the bill before the Senate were
either sponsored or cosponsored by me.
But now we are going to say that we can
have a ceiling but it will not affect Israel.
What is really being said is that the
slashes or cuts that are to be made will
have to be made out of other programs.
What are some of these other programs?
Well, Public Law 480 grant programs.
That is a program used to alleviate hun-
ger in the world: the food production
program in this Foreign Assistance Act,
programs designed to increase food pro-
duction in developing countries, espe-
cially those facing major food shortages;
drought relief and rehabilitation assist-
ance to countries that are the victims of
natural disasters such as we have had in
the Sahel and in some of the other coun-
tries of the world.
It also means reduced economic assist-
ance to Egypt and Jordan, which would
jeopardize U.S. efforts in moderating
peace in the Middle East. It will defi-
nitely mean that we will have to cut fur-
ther the U.S. contributions to interna-
tional organizations. We have already
made one cut here today on,that.
It would also come out of the disaster
relief efforts for other parts of the world,
such as Cyprus, Bangladesh, and the
Honduras?countries that have been re-
ceiving our cooperation.
? This would further mean that we
would make a cut in population pro-
grams. In other words, a ceiling amend-
ment would substantially reduce U.S.
efforts directed at alleviating the causes
for economic instability in the world.
I think we should understand that this
ceiling amendment does not apply only
to this particular bill. This is not a way
to change the authorizations only in this
" bill. It would change authorizations in
every piece of legislation, with the ex-
ception of aid to Israel, of all the foreign
assistance law we have. I think this has
to be given the most thoughtful consid-
eration, and I hope it will receive firm
rejection.
We are saying to the President:
Mr. President, we didn't quite know what
to do. We went up the hill and down the hill.
We authorized a certain amount for Indo-
china. We authorized a certain amount for
food assistance. We authorized a certain
amount for food assistance. We authorized
certain, specific amounts for population and
family planning. We authorized a certain
amount for education and health. We author-
ized a certain amount of money for disaster
relief. We authorized a certain amount of
money for food assistance. After we got all
through with it, we said we didn't mean it at
all. We just wanted to prove that we knew
how to do it; but now we are going to tell you,
Mr. President, that after we have done it, you
go ahead and make the cuts wherever you
want to make them, of $1.3 billion.
I submit that if that is the way we are
going to legislate, we are violating what
was done in Congress in the Budget Con-
trol Act, when we said to the President of
the United States, "You have to quit im-
pounding money."
What we are really saying here is that
we want the President to do our work
for us, that we are willing to give him
sort of blanket authority, sort of general
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
authority, to just tamper with and alter
the appropriations or the authorizations
within the limits we set, and those limits
are rather large.
So, Mr. President, I hope that this
amendment, which cuts to the heart of
our whole foreign assistance program,
will be rejected.
. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the
Senator from Minnesota makes a very
beguiling argument. He says that the
adoption of this amendment would mean
that the Senate would be abdicating its
own responsibility by turning the matter
of cutting foreign aid spending over to
the President to decide and that we
should do our job here. I have no argu-
ment about that. I thought we had done
our job here.
A few weeks ago, we brought a bill to
the floor, and the Senate expressed its
will overwhelmingly to cut the bill. Then
the Foreign Relations Committee got the
bill recommitted. Instead of paying the
slightest attention to the_ vote of the
Senate, which had indicated a desire to
hold down foreign aid, to establish a ceil-
ing that at least conformed with the level
of spending in fiscal year 1974, a Senate
which had made it evident that it did
not want to see the pragram enlarged
gets back a bill from the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee that ignores the Senate
entirely and adds a third of a billion
dollars more to the bill than had been
originally presented for the consideration
of this body.
IS this body sovereign or is it the Sen-
ate Foreign Relations Committee? I have
the highest regard for its members. I
have served on it for many years. But I
had thought the Senate, as a whole, ex-
ercised the sovereign right to decide how
large the foreign aid bill should be. The
Senate has been repudiated by the com-
mittee, ignored by the committee, within
a few weeks of the time it cast its vote
so overwhelmingly.
? What am I asking? I am not asking
that this program be cut. I am asking
that it be maintained at its present level,
as authorized by the continuing resolu-
tion of Congress. Is that such a drastic
request?
In view of the fact that Congress is
not holding the line on any other form
of spending that we are overriding Presi-
dential budgets and adding billions to
the overall cost of the Government,
where are we going to find the place to
cut? Here, I suggest, is at least an ap-
propriate place to hold the line. The
adoption of this amendment would hold
the line at the present level of spending
and thus avoid the additional amounts
of money that the committee now recom-
mends we add to this bill.
For these reasons, Mr. President, since
It is the only way we can accomplish
any limitations on spending, I have no
apologies to make for the form this
amendment takes. If we were doing our
job properly, it would not be necessary to
offer this amendment, in my judgment,
but, in view of the record, it is necessary.
Because I think we need to hold the line
on spending, at least prevent this pro-
gram from growing larger than it pres-
ently is, I do hope that the Senate will
reaffirm the position it took so emphat-
ically a few weeks ago and adopt the
amendment.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, may
I just say that there is a $700 million
difference between this amendment and
the one we looked at 6 weeks ago. That
was a $5 billion ceiling; this is a $4.3
billion ceiling.
Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the
Senator from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I wish to
direct my attention to two points. One,
we have fought here for years to assert
the authority of Congress to determine
what shall be the national priorities and
what shall be the national dispositions.
An amendment like this negates com-
pletely that concept. We have it within
our power to reduce any and every item
specifically, passing on its merits. An
across-the-board cut like this simply
transfers the very authority for which
we have fought so hard to the President.
The other thing I wish to point out,
and that is very serious, is that the
adoption of Senator BAYH'S amendment
by Senator CHURCH does not save the
matter. Certainly, in extremes, consider-
ing the terrible trouble Israel Is in, we
hope that she will get the aid which Con-
gress intends she should get. But the
idea that, well, Israel is bailed out, so let
us cut it in this way, is, I hope, not one
that should be swallowed by those who
have a profound consideration for the
total foreign policy of a country. Israel,
as well as every other country in the
world, will be much better served with
an intelligent, balanced, substantively
justified foreign aid program, including
its own, rather than being saved out as
an exception.
Much as I understand and am deeply
involved with and sympathetic to the
exigency which s sought to be met in
that regard, I think it would be a great
fault on my part if I did not point out
that that should not save this amend-
ment. I hope it will not, and that the
amendment will be rejected.
The PRESIDING 0.F.ViCER. Who
yields time?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
New Jersey.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, may I ask
how much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OrleiCER. Four
minutes remain.
Mr. CASE. The points have really all
been made, I think. I should like to sum
them up from a little different viewpoint.
I wish to stress that what we are voting
on now may very well determine whether
we get an authorization bill or not. As
the Senator from Minnesota has pointed
out, after the failure of the last bill,
those of us who were especially con-
cerned about it in the committee?got
together with the administration and
worked out legislation which has received
the promise of administration approval.
Now, we are not subservient to the ad-
ministration, but we are practical people
here, and we know that a foreign aid
bill cannot pass this body unless admin-
istration supporters support it. We have
to have that. This bill will do it. With
the bill that the committee has proposed
and such amendments as we have ac-
S 20555
cepted so far, we are going to get a
foreign aid bill. If we get something less
than that, we shall not get it, because
the administration would rather have, in
many ways, a continuing resolution,
which we do not want.
We want this bill because of its own
substance, and because it contains strong
provisions for congressional oversight
and approval and much in the way of
improvement of accounting procedures,
which everybody in this country wants,
and certainly this Congress should in-
sist upon getting in order to maintain
its control, and; indeed, to reestablish its
control over this sprawling program.
I hope very much that this amendment
will not succeed. The Senator from New
York made a point that I should like to
underscore. We all support the Bayh
amendment as such. We do not need it in
the committee bill. We do need it with
Senator CHURCH'S amendment. Other-
wise, aid to Israel will be drastically cut.
This just points out that what we are
doing with Senator Ciroacn's amend-
ment Is to say, across the board, that
the President can do anything he pleases
In order to cut this bill by a further $1.3
billion, roughly, which is a drastic cut.
Its effects have already been underscored
by the Senator from Minnesota. I hope
very much that this amendment will
fail.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, how
much time remains?
The PRESIDING OITICER. There is
1 minute remaining.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I be-
lieve the case has been made. The Sena-
tor from New Jersey stated it very suc-
cinctly again. We have worked to perfect
a piece of legislation that is better than
what we have had; not as good as we
would like, but the best we can get with
any cooperation on a bipartisan basis
and between the Senate and the execu-
tive branch. That is no small order, and
this has been accomplished.
Mr. President, if this bill is not passed,
if, for some reason or another, we amend
it to a point where the President feels he
has to veto it, we shall go right back to
a continuing resolution. Then all the re-
forms we worked so hard to put in this
legislation, where we are phasing out
military assistance, where we put on
country ceilings, where we prevent the
kind of transfer of funds that has been
taking place over the years?all of that
will go down the drain.
So, in the name of trying to cut an
authorization, we literally cut the heart
out of the reform that we sought in this
legislation.
I regret that we? do not have more
Senators here to listen to this, because
if they were here, there is not any doubt
In my mind that they would reject this
amendment. I hope and pray that they
will, because what we are up against
now is whether we want a better for-
eign assistance bill or whether we want
to go back to what it used to be.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, how
much time remains?
The PRESIDING OrvICER. There is
no time remaining. The question is on
agreeing to the amendment as amended.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I believe that we
have had the yeas and nays ordered.
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20556
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020Q24-2 "
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- SENATE December .4, 1974
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas
and nays have not been ordered.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING CateeICER. Is there
a sufficient second? There is a sufficient
second.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Before we vote, may
may I ask the indulgence of my col-
leagues? The distinguished Senator
from Arizona (Mr. FANNIN) has a mes-
sage he wishes to call up out of order.
I ask the parliamentarian if we may
do that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will have to ask unanimous con-
sent, because the time is under control,
Mr. HUMPHREY. I ask unanimous
consent that the Senator from Arizona
have no more than 5 minutes, with the
time not counted on either side.
I do not think there is any time to
count against us.
SAN CARLOS MINERAL STRIP
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, I ask the
Chair to lay before the Senate a message
from the House of Representatives on
H.R. '7730.
The PRESIDING 010.101,CER laid be-
for the Seriate the amendment of the
House of Representatives to the bill
(H.R. 773(') to authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to purchase property lo-
cated within the San Carlos Minere I
Strip, as follows:
On page 2, line 13 of the Senate engrossed
amendment, after "Provided,", insert: That
in no event shall any person receive total
compensation under this Act in excess ol
$150,000: Provided further,
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, in the
bill as amended by the House, there ap-
pears the language?
Provided. That in no event shall any per-
son receive tow compensation under this
Act in excess of $150,000.
It is clear from the investigation by
the Senate Interior Committee of the
facts which gave rise to this bill, that
:he may be claims which exceed $150,-
000. Since it is obviously inequitable to
compensate those whose claims are laes
than $150,000 in full while only compen-
sating one whose claim might exceed
$150,000 to the extent of that amount,
the bill should be amended to provide
full compensation for all affected per-
sons. For this reason, I am offering an
amendment changing the dollar limita-
tion from $150,000 to $300,000. The
amount of any claim of course, must be
proven in accordance with the usual
governmental practice.
It is my understanding that since the
House passed the bill as it is now before
the Senate, those interested in the bill
In the House have informally agreed to
accept the amendment which I now
o ffer.
The PRESIDING OrasICER. The clerk
will state the amendment.
The legislative clerk read the amend-
ment as follows:
Strike "8150,000" and insert in tell
thereof, 8300,000".
Mr. FANNIN. Mr, President, I move
that the Senate concur in the amend-
ment of the House with the amendment
which I have proposed.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. FANNIN. I shall be very pleased
to yield. .
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Has this,
amendment been cleared with the ap-
propriate parties on this side of the
aisle?
Mr. FANNIN. It has been ieleared with
the appropriate parties on that aide of
the aisle, and also with those on this
side of the aisle.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the
Senator.
Mr. FANNIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I move that the Senate
concur in the amendment of the House
with the amendment of the, Senate.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. FANNIN. I thank the Senator from
Minnesota and the Senator from New
Jersey for yielding to me.
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1974
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration a the bill (S. 3394) to amend
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and
for other purposes.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I be-
lieve a rollcall is in order on the amend-
ment as amended.
The PRESIDING OleriCER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the Church
amendment as amended. The yeas and
nays have been ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from North Carolina
(Mr. Eavier), the Senator from Arkan-
sas (Mr. FuteateHr), the Senator from
Indiana (Mr. HARIXE) , the Senator from
Colorado (Mr. HesieeeL) , and the Sen-
ator from Washington Mr. MaeNusoN)
are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. TALMADGE) is absent be-
cause of illness.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Smator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON)
and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr.
Himmel%) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced?yeas 39,
nays 53, as follows:
Abourezk
Allen
Bay h
Bentsen
Bible
Biden
[No. 519 Leg.]
YEAS-39
Dole
Eagleton
Gravel
Gurney
Hollings
Huddleston
Brock Hughes
Burdick Johnston
Byrd, Long ,
Harry F, Jr. Mansfield,
Byrd, Robert C. McClure
Cannon Metcalf
Chiles Montoya
Church Nelson.
NAYS--53
Curtis
Domenici
Dominick
Eastland .
Fannin
? Fong
Goldwater
Griffin
Hansen
Hart
, Hatfield
Hathaway
Aiken
Baker
Bartlett
Beall
Bennett
Brooke
Buckley
Case
Clark
Coot
Cotton.
Cranston
Nona
Packwood
Pastore
Proxmire
Rs ndolph
Ribicoff
Roth
Schweiker
Scott,
William
85, nnington
Welcker
Young
Helms
Humphrey
Inouye
Jackson.
Javits
Kennedy
Mathias
McClellan
McGee ?
McGovern
McIntyre
Metzenbatun
Mondale
Moss
Muskie
Pearson
Pell
Percy
Scott, Hugh
Sparkman
Stafford
Stennis
Stevens
Stevenson,
NOT VOTING-8
Ervin Bellmon Magnuson
Fulbright Hartke Talmadge
Hruska Haskell
So Mr. CHURCH'S amendment was re-
jected.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was rejected.
Mr. CASE. I move to lay that, motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I was dis-
tressed and dismayed to learn that the
Foreign Relations Committee has recom-
mended very minimal ceilings on all
military assistance to the Republic of
Korea over the 1975 to 1977--
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Hants). The Senator will suspend. Who
yields time?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I do
not believe there is any time to be yielded
unless an amendment is offered. I believe
the time on the
bill?
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I offer an
amendment to the bill. I ask that the
words "and for other purposes" be
stricken.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
may we have order in the Senate?
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I move to
strike the words "and for other pur-
poses".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair is advised that pro forma amend-
ments are not in order.
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, 1 move to
strike section 15 on page 25 relating to
termination of military assistance to
South Korea.
Mr. President, I was distressed and
dismayed to learn that the Senate For-
eign Relations Committee has recom-
mended very minimal ceilings on all
military assistance to the Republic of
Korea over the 1975 through 1977 fiscal
years, with a complete phaseout after
fiscal year 1977.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
may we have order in the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Do-
sumer). May we have order in the
Senate.
The Senator will continue.
Mr. FONG. This would mean that
after fiscal year 1977, no military aid in
the form of grants and no military aid
in the form of credit sales, which the
Republic of Korea would pay back in
both principal and interest, could be ex-
tended by the U.S. Government to that
country.
Meantime, the committee bill would
fail to permit the Republic of Korea to
fulfill its modernization needs to defend
itself.
.1 most vigorously protest this action of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
I believe the committee recommenda-
tion, if retained in the final version of
this bill!' would not be conducive to the
cause of peace in that area.
I believe it would without a doubt in-
Taft
Thurmond
Tower
Tunney
Williams
Approved For Release 2005/06/16: CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 20557
crease the danger Of war against the
Republic of Korea.
Although the committee report states
that the committee 'took this action? to
phase out military aid to the Republic
of Korea "because of its serious concern
about the increasingly repressive meas-
ures of the South Korean Government,"
I point out that the effect of the amend-
ment would be not only to endanger the
Incumbent administration in South Ko-
rea, but it would endanger as well the
dissidents in South Korea whom the
committee views as being repressed.
For, if war is waged against South
Korea, it will be waged not only against
the incumbent administration. It will be
waged against all the people of South
Korea, including the students, the clergy,
and the others who disagree with the
Incumbent administration in the Repub-
lic of Korea.
I say this, Mr. President, based on
my observations during my visit to South
Korea in October. During my visit, which
was part of my official Far East journey
to look into U.S. defense posture in the
Pacific, I conferred with our State De-
partment representatives in the Republic
of Korea. I conferred with our U.S. mili-
tary people stationed in Korea. I met
with many different officials of the Re-
public of Korea, and with many others.
The question of dissent and the dissi-
dents came up in many of these conver-
sations. Without exception, I was told
that, although the dissidents disagree on
some issues with the incumbent admin-
istration of South Korea, the dissidents
are equally as adamant in their opposi-
tion to conquest by North Korea. They
vigorously oppose attempts by the Com-
munist North to take control of govern-
ment in the South.
I would like to interject here that,
when I was in South Korea, I witnessed
one of the most democratic practices
that can be found anywhere. The South
Korean Prime Minister and his Cabinet
were undergoing two weeks of intensive,
public, face-to-face, sometimes abrasive
questioning by members of the opposi-
tion in the South Korea Legislation.
To me, this is evidence of considerable
democratic progress in a nation- which
became independent in this century only
after the end of World War II, a period
of less than 30 years. -
I fear what the committee proposal
would be, however, is to give a signal to
the regime in the North?the People's
Republic of Korea?that the United
States is abandoning the people of the
South, of the Republic of Korea. With
such a signal, the People's Republic may
well be tempted to wage war against the
Republic of Korea.
After all, the North Korean Commu-
nist regime directed the recent assassi-
nation attempt against the President of
South Korea which resulted in the mur-
der of his wife instead. The assassin ad-
mitted he was an agent of the North.
In addition, the North Korean regime
had a tunnel dug through the demili-
tarized zone, which was discovered just
before President Ford visited South
Korea last month. this was patently an
effort to infiltrate into South Korea
without detection. My colleagues will re-
call that our U.S. forces under the
United Nations command In the demili-
tarized, zone suffered some casualties as
did the South Korean forces.
Mr. President, to deny the Republic of
Korea the opportunity to modernize its
defenses through U.S. military aid-would
be to renege on the assurances our Gov-
ernment gave the people of South Korea
when we withdrew so many of our
American troops from South Korea. We
told them we would sharply reduce our
manpower forces in South Korea but to
offset that, we would help them modern-
ize their forces.
This modernization is for the protec-
tion of all the people of South Korea?
the incumbent administration, the dis-
sidents, the entire population of South,
Korea?who have fought and struggled
so long and so hard to remain outside the
yoke of communism.
Mr. President, 15 years ago when I was
In Korea it was still a war-devastated
land. I was amazed to see the progress
that has been made by the people of
South Korea in those 15 years. This is
now a progressive, modern nation which
Is making a prodigious effort to become
self-reliant and to retain independence
for its people.
Let us not now?after all the effort
and sacrifice and hardship on the part of
the people of South Korea and after all
the effort and sacrifice and hardship on
the part of the American people to help
them?deny the people of South Korea
the assistance which we promised so they
can modernize their forces and thereby
deter war, if possible, or to defend them-
selves, if necessary.
Mr. President, I realize the difficulty
of attempting to alter the provisions of
the pending bill under the severe time
restraints governing debate on this meas-
ure. Therefore, I have made this state-
ment to urge that the conference com-
mittee adjust the onerous and ill-advised
provisions of this bill when they write the
final version to come before both Houses
of Congress by adjournment this month.
I have spoken to the distinguished
manager of this bill, Senator HUMPHREY,
who is expected to lead the Senate con-
ferees. Senator HUMPHREY assured me he
would do his best to have the conference
committee ameliorate the harshness of
the Senate provisions on Korea.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, while I
fully support the compromise worked out
with the administration on S. 3394, I
cannot help but share the same concerns
expressed by my distinguished colleague,
the senior Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
FoNa) .
The Republic of Korea remains vital
to our security interests in Asia. Our in-
terests involve maintaining stability and
security on the Korean peninsula.
It is important the Republic of Korea
maintain its strong defense capability in
order to contribute to the movement to-
ward detente in East Asia.
And ffnally, I believe we must assist
the Republic 'of Korea military forces
achieve self-reliant defense capability.
Therefore, I join with my distinguished
colleague (Mr. Form) in expressing my
concern over these cuts.
I regret deeply that the Senate of the
United States has chosen to cut back
funds for Korea. We need to strengthen
that beleaguered land as it seeks to hold
the line?in truth our line?against ag-
gression in the world.
- Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I withdraw
my amendment.
Mr. HATriELD. Mr. President?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
think the Senator from Idaho wishes to
be recognized.
The PRESIDING OteriCER (Mr.
Dommici). The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I send an
amendment to the desk and ask that it
be stated.
The PRESIDING OforiCER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill add the following
new section:
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE CEILING
SEC. 44. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law, the total amount which may
be obligated during fiscal year 1975 under
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the For-
eign Military Sales Act, the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of
1954, the Peace Corps Act, and section 401
of Public Law 89-367 providing military as-
sistance to South Vietnam, may not exceed
$5,000,000,000. This limitation notwithstand-
ing, all funds appropriated for assistance to
Israel shall be obligated for that purpose.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the dis-
' tinguished Senator from West Virginia
has asked me for 1 minute, and I am
happy to yield to him.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank' the
Senator.
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREE-
MENT?S. 4033
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent, this re-
quest having been cleared on both sides
of the aisle, that at such time as S. 4033,
a bill to increase the authorization for
appropriations to the AEC, is called up
and made the pending business before
the Senate, there be a time limitation
thereon of 1 hour, with the time to be
equally divided between the distinguished
majority leader and the distinguished
minority leader, or their designees,
that there be a time limitation on any
amendment thereto of 30 minutes, a time
limitation on any debatable motion or
appeal of 20 minutes, and that the agree-
ment be in the usual form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the
Senator.
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF
1974
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (S. 3394) to amend
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and
for other purposes.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, this
amendment is the same amendment that
the Senate adopted by a vote of 62 to 21
a few weeks ago.
At that time, the election was loom-
ing. Now the election is over. Other than
that, I know of no significant change in
the situation except a worsening of our
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S .20558
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE December 4, 1974
own economic conditions at home, a fur-
ther weakening of the stockmarket which
has now fallen below 600 on the Dow
readings, and an inflation that grows
daily more serious.
Therefore, one would suppose that
there is an obligation on this body to try
and hold the line on that kind of spend-
ing which has inflationary effect, and
foreign spending has just such con-
soquences. Even the economists are
agreed on this.
The ceiling I now propose is $700 mil-
lion above the present level of spending
for foreign aid. But the committee asks
us to approve $1,300,000,000 more than
the present level of spending for all
forms of bilateral foreign aid.
The Senate has already rejected my
argument that we hold the line at the
present level of spending. Apparently.
the desire here, based on some kind of
agreement that has been worked out by
certain Members of the Senate and cer-
tain spokesmen for the administration,
is to increase foreign aid spending.
That decision has been made. But if
the Senate would adopt this amendment,
we would at least keep the general level
a foreign aid spending for our various
bilateral programs in line with spending
last year.
We would increase it above the pres-
ent level as authorized by the continu-
ing resolution, but we would at least -
avoid expanding it beyond the level that
obtained during fiscal year 1974. Five
billion dollars is enough.
The committee has not only gone above
last year's spending level, but it has add-
ed an additional third of a billion dollar3
to this bill since the Senate considered
it just a few weeks ago.
I can see no possible justification for
this action. It seems to me a clear, if not
contemptuous, disregard of the previous
vote of the Senate which approved, by
62 to 21 this $5 billion ceiling.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Will the Senator
yield?'
Mr. CHURCH. I will be happy to yield
to the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, to
say I was astonished and distressed that
the previous amendment of the able Sen
ator from Idaho was defeated is an un-
derstatement. I am a delegate to the
United Nations. On one vote, out of 138
members, the position of the United
States, presented in very able fashion by
our able Ambassador, received four votes
counting our own.
I just looked at the ticker. General
Motors sales last month, in November.
were down 34 percent. / would recom-
mend to those apparently interested in
the problems of the people of other lands
more than they are in the problems of
this country that they read the first of
two articles in the New Yorker magazine
this week, called "Global Reach," an
article which explains why jobs are going
out of my State.
They mention a country, for example,
where the cost over here was $3.50 an
hour. In the foreign country to which
they moved they make a deal where the
price, as I remember, was 30 cents an
hour.
When we vote this type and Character
of money we are voting against the
American people, the banks? and the in-
dustries of this country, as well as, of
course, labor.
Bankers in New York whom I have
known for many years tell me they feel
nobody in Washington has any real idea
how serious, the financial situation is in
this country today.
If the banks go, the system Res.
Under those co:nditions, for us to
heavily raise foreign aid to these coun-
tries is beyond my comprehension.
Senators should read those fine recent
articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer, a
series written by people who went out to
get the facts.
You can see by these articles what is
happening with :the money we are put-
ting up, year after year,. now at the ex-
pense of our own people, as our unem-
ployment rate grows by thousands upon
thousands, every week.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I could
not agree more with the Senator from
Missouri.
The particular articles to which he re-
fers ought to be official reports of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, if
it were ,doing a proper oversight job on
this aid program.
I ask unanimous consent to have the
articles to which I have referred, printed
in the REccote.
There being no objection, the articles
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[Prom the Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 24,
19741
FOREIGN' : THE FLAWED DEMME
[By Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele)
Each year Americans spend $9 billion on
foreign aid on the assumption that it allevi-
ates poverty and extends a helping hand to
the suffering peoples of the world.
But does it?
The Inquirer investigative reporting team
of Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele
spent seven months seeking an answer to
where your foreign aid/dollars go. They found
aid bypassing the peer in country after coun-
try and going instead to subsidize housing
for the well-to-do, luxury hotels for the rich,
and sweatshop factories owned by the
powerful.
They found, in short, that somewhere be-
tween promise and reality, the U.S. foreign
aid program?the most massive relief effort
in the history of man?has gone terribly
awry.
This is the first in their six-part report.
The swollen United States foreign aid pro-
gram?designed and sold to the American
public on humanitarian grounds-4s causing
disillusionment around the world by enrich-
ing the rich and impoverishing the poor.
The program, whose costs since World War
II have exceeded $172 billion?or more than
$800 for each man, woman and child in
America--was billed just last spring by Sec-
retary of State Henry A. Kissinger as "a faith-
ful expression of our moral values," rooted
in the nation's "most basic beliefs" and re-
flecting "the humanitarian dimension of the
American character."
But a seven-month, round-the-world In-
quirer investigation of the nation's foreign
aid program shows that it falls far short of
those ideals. It is, in fact, punctuated by de-
- ception, profiteering, waste and corruption,
and it gives every indication of running out
of control.
True, American foreign aid has provided
food for the hungry and medical assistance
for the ill.
It has built highways and power plants.
hospitals and schools, dams and factories.
And it has financed college or technical-
school educations in the United States for
thousands of citizens of less developed
countries.
It has done all of that.
But the Inquirer's investigation, which
reached trona Bogota, Colombia, to Bangkok,
Thailand, shows that American foreign aid
also has:
Aggravated the world food shortage by
discouraging agricultural production in cer-
tain less developed countries when it -was
meant to alleviate hunger.
Subsidized such sweatshop factories as
textile mills in South Korea who pay em-
ployes from 10 cents to 30 cents an hour and
work them seven days a week when it was
meant to lift the standards of living.
Entrenched those in power in foreign
countries by funneling aid through busi-
nesses they own or control widening the gap
worldwide between the rich and poor. when
it was meant to do the opposite.
Generated. continuing windfalls for se-
lected business and the finance industry at-
home and abroad when it was meant to serve
the needy.
Led to the building of such program as a
gaming lodge in Kenya and a luxury hotel
with $150-a-day rooms in Haiti, a country
where the average weekly income is about $1,
when it was meant to encourage private in-
vestment that would trickle down to the
poor.
Come full circle to the point that may ba
a perpetual-motion machine, foreign recipi-
ent countries must continue borrowing from
the United States money to pay off past for-
eign aid loans when coming due.
Swollen to proportions upwards of a bil-
lion a year in both military and economic
aid, nearly triple the official amount passed
out to Congress.
Created a powerful, behind-the-scenes
foreign aid lobby that benefits greatly from
the dispensing of foreign aid--a lobby that
includes financial institutions, colleges and
universities, consulting firms, select congress-
men and a hard core of giant American
corporations.
Resulted in the loss of tens of thousands
of jobs in a variety of businesses in the
United States?from the textile and wearing
apparel industry to the food processing
industry.
To keep much of the above secret. the
State Department has refused to release
documents that are meant to be public and
has classified as "secret" other documents
that might be embarrassing.
In the years since World War II, the nation
has split roughly into two camps on the mat-
ter of foreign aid: its vociferous critics con-
tend that the whole concept of providing aid
to needy and less developed nations is wrong;
Its vociferous supporters complain only that
not nearly enough is being done.
The findings of The Inquirer's investiga-
tion lend little support to either of those
partisan views.
Rather, they indicate that somewhere be-
lween the stated purposes of the foreign aid
program and the realities of that program,
something has gone awry; that much aid
goes to line the coffers of the comfortable
and fails to touch the lives of the suffering;
that vast portions of the foreign aid program
has been mismanaged by the State Depart-
ment, and that Congress has failed in its
duty to monitor the program.
The Inquirer investigation purposely ex-
cluded countries such as South Vietnam and
Cambodia, where even the most ardent sup-
porters of the State Department's policies
acknowledge?at least privately, if not al-
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1914 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 20559
ways publicly?the existence of widespread
corruption and waste.
*Instead, the newspaper focused its investi-
gation on specific projects and countries
most often cited by the State Department
as foreign aid success stories.
Sen. J. William Fulbright (D., Ark.),
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, summarized at least part of the
problem with the foreign aid program in
the summer of 1973, when he told his Senate
colleagues:
"The foreign aid program has promised
far more than it could deliver. The prospec-
tive benefits of foreign aid have been? over-
sold to Congress, to the public, and, most un-
fortunate of all, to the people of the recipient
countries."
SPRING RITUAL
It is the business of overselling?perhaps
more accurately labeled as deception?which
has become a kind of annual spring ritual in
Washington.
Each year the secretary of state, whether
Republican or Democrat, dutifully tells Con-
gress the reasons why his proposed foreign
aid program for the coming fiscal year must
be enacted intact.
Last spring, it was Secretary of State Kis-
singer's turn. -
"Our people could not be fulfilled by a
foreign policy devoid of concern for the
survival of the 800 million people who must
exist on less than 30 cents a day."
In fact, very little American foreign aid
flows to countries where people "must exist
on less than 30 cents a day."
Over the years, for example, per capita
assistance to the Republic of Mali in Africa?
where people do indeed live on less than
$0 cents a day?has amounted to $6.
By way of contrast, American foreign aid
of several hundred dollars per capita flows
to countries far wealthier than Mali---More
often for military, economic or diplomatic
reasons' than for humanitarian purposes.
, Another part of the spring ritual is the
State Department's formal presentation of
Its proposed foreign aid program for the
coming fiscal year.
It is called the Congressional Presentation,
and like the State Department speeches that
accompany it; the presentation is riddled
with deception.
The presentation contains outlines of
planned foreign aid projects for which initial
appropriations are needed, reports on con-
tinuing projects for which additional funds
are requested, and summaries of how foreign
aid programs are working in individual
countries.
The language in the presentations is strik-
ingly similar from one year to the next.
So, too, is the theme running through
those presentations, which might best be de-
scribed as persistent optimism concerning
the successes of ongoing foreign aid projects
and assessments for the future.
In discussing American foreign aid goals
for India, the State Department told Con-
gress in the spring of 1969:
"The United States is seeking to help India
achieve self-sufficiency in food grain produc-
tion in the early 1970s ... The Indians' stress
on agriculture can bring a sustained rate of
growth of agricultural production of 5 per-
cent a year, nearly double the rate of the
last decade."
Even before the price of oil tripled last
year?creating fertilizer shortages in less de-
veloped countries?agricultural production
in India was in trouble, and it had little to
do with the weather.
Food grain production in India during the
three crop years from 1968-69 to 1970-71
averaged 100.6 million metric tons a year.
In. the succeeding three crop years begin-
ning in 1971-72?after the State Department
issued its rosy prediction for the future?
food grain production averaged 101.1 million
metric tons a year.
That represents an increase of less than
two-tenths of one percent a year?far short.
of the 5 'percent growth figure tossed out by
the State Department.
? RHETORIC UNREALISTIC
While there may be valid reasons why a
particular foreign aid program or project
falls short of announced goals, the fact is
that in program after program, project after
project, State Department rhetoric fails to
match reality.
In case after case examined by The In-
quirer, the State Department approved or
pursued foreign aid projects that it knew?
or might reasonably have been expected to
know?had no chance of meeting their stated
goals.
The following examples are not the most
flagrant; they are just typical:
The State Department said in 1968: The
objective of aid to a South Korean agricul-
tural project "is to help bring major im-
provements to one million acres of existing
farmland and bring a half-million acres of
new land into use to attain self-sufficiency
in food grain production by 1971."
The situation today: Korea failed to at-
tain self-sufficiency in food grain production
in 1971. In fact, the country is no closer to
that goal now than it was a decade ago. In-
stead of increasing food production?as it
has the capability to do?the Korean gov-
ernment has relied on subsidized agricul-
tural imports from the United States.
Statistics maintained by the Korean gov-
ernment's Ministry of Agriculture and Fish-
eries show that land under cultivation actu-
ally declined from 5,576,000 acres in 1965 to
5,541,000 acres in 1972?the period during
which the State Department planned a half-
million acre increase.
The State Department said in 1968: An aid
project dealing with administration of tax
and customs laws in Colombia "will continue
to emphasize improving administration and
enforcement and achieving a rapid increase
in public revenue."
The situation today: The increases in tax
collections in other Latin American coun-
tries?which did not receive the same kind
of concentrated foreign aid from the United
States?are running far ahead of increases
in tax collections in Colombia.
The State Department said in 1973: The
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
(OPIC), a government-owned company set
up to spur private investment abroad, has
been "perhaps the keystone in. bringing about
some private investments in some developing
countries which might well not have oc-
curred otherwise."
Those projects, the State Department said,
have been "useful to the United States pol-
icy . . . useful to the country concerned and
. . satisfactory for the company. Therefore,
everybody was reasonably happy. That has
been the record with respect to most of the
business that OPIC has done."
The situation today: OPIC projects around
the world include a luxury hotel in Port-au-
Prince, Haiti; a Chase Manhattan Bank
(Nelson and David Rockefeller) gaming lodge
in Kenya, Africa; a short-term finance com-
pany in South Korea run by a descendant of
Calvin Coolidge, and actor William Holden's
game ranch in Kenya.
The owners of Habitation Leclerc, the
Haitian hotel, promote their 15-acre resort as
offering "elegant, exotic, erotic privacy within
a lush, exciting garden of pleasure." There are
12 swimming pools, 44 villas and eight de-
luxe suites. Two maids and a butler are
assigned to each suite or villa. For enter-
tainment, there is Hippopotamus /, "the
original New York discotheque."
The State Department said in 1968: "Ac-
cording to self-help plans developed by the
Indian government, India plans to expand
fertilizer use from 600,000 nutrient tons in
1964-65 and 1.3 million tons in 1966-67 to
four million tons in 1970-71.
"To help meet these targets, AID (State
Department's Agency for International De-
velopment) plans to make agricultural pro-
duction loans to finance the import chiefly of
fertilizer, but also of pesticides and other
agricultural inputs of $110 million in fiscal
year 1968 and $220 million in fiscal year
1969."
The situation today: Even before the surge
in oil prices, which has affected the produc-
tion of fertilizer in less developed countries,
there was little likelihood that India would
use four million tons of fertilizer anytime
before the late 1970s, and quite probably the
1980s.
In 1970-71, the crop year India was to use
four million tons of fertilizer?according to
State Department calculations?usage totaled
just 2.2 million tons. In the 1973-74 crop
year, the figure was 2.4 million tons. It is ex-
pected to be about the same this coming
year.
Gaps like those between promise and real-
ity have dismayed the citizens of every coun-
try that The Inquirer's reporters visited.
From a woman minister in South Korea to
houSeholders in Thailand to government offi-
cials in Peru, the combination of raised ex-
pectations followed by dashed' hopes has
produced sorrow and bitterness.
But perhaps the most subtle deception, of
all in the American foreign aid program over
the years involves State Department em-
phasis on rapid growth in the gross national
product of less developed countries.
These are the statistics most often cited
by State Department officials to show that
all is going well with the United States' $172
billion foreign aid program.
The State Department's stress on growth
in the gross national product?one of the
few statistical indicators it can single out as
representing some measureable success of
foreign aid?is based on the theory that bene-
fits of swift economic expansion will trickle
down to the poor.
DISMAL FAILURE
In. fact, after the expenditure of tens of
billions of tax dollars to demonstrate that
the theory- works, it is widely conceded?,
more often privately than publicly?that the
trickle-down concept has been a dismal
failure.
Strangely though, the State Department
continues to gear foreign aid expenditures to
the concept, emphasizing the growth in gross
national products.
On Sept. 28, 1966, then Secretary of State
Dean Rusk told a Senate Appropriations
Committee hearing:
"One of the most encouraging firsthand
impressions I gained in the Far East in the
past year was of Korea's sustained economic
progress and effectiveness use of our aid."
In the spring of 1968, in its program pre-
sentation to Congress, the State Department
said:
"Overall growth (gross national. product)
average a solid 8.5 percent a year in real
terms over the five year period from 1961
to 1966, with an extraordinary 13.4 percent
In 1966 . . . Industrial production nearly
doubled from 1961 to 1966. In 1966, it rose 18
percent over the previous year."
And on Feb. 25, 1971, a press release dis-
tributed by the State Department's Agency
for International Development (AID), which
administers the foreign aid program, said:
"Significant economic indicators in the
developing countries show rising standards'
of income, nutrition, health, housing, food
production and general well being," assist-
ant administrator Bert Tollefson, Jr. of AID
said today.
"The AID assistant administrator, who is
in charge of legislative and public affairs,
placed Korea at the top of the list, with an
annual increase' in gross national product of
12.5 percent in recent years."
All those figures appear to be true. But
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20560
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE December 4, 1974
even an AID internal memorandum, dated
May 15, 1974, carries an implicit acknowl-
edgement that such figures are deceptive.
The memo states in part:
"The problem is that successful efforts to
increase gross national product growth are
frequently accompanied by a widening of
the gap between the affluent and the poor,
including small farmers and landless rural
workers.
"Past AID assistance to the agricultural
sector has often exacerbated the problem
since well-to-do farmers tend to gain most
of the initial benefits, and the expected
'filter down' of benefits to the less affluent
rural population does not often occur."
SOUTH KOREA erreo
South Korea, where most of the popula-
tion is still waiting for the expected filter
down, is the country most often singled out
by the State Department as one of the eco-
nomic growth success stories of foreign aid.
In its 1973 fiscal year program presenta-
tion to Congress, the State Department said:
- "Korea has made significant economic
advances in the past decade. In real terms,
per capita gross national product has in-
creased an ?average of 6.5 percent over the
decade. More spectacular has been Korea's
performance on increasing its exports. . . .
"Merchandise exports increased at a com-
pounded annual rate of 35 percent from 1961
to 1971."
In terms of growth in gross national prod-
uct and exports, then, Korea is doing very
well?at least on paper. But there is a prob-
lem with the raw figures.
A senior staff assistant foe a Senate com-
mittee dealing with foreign aid programa
puts it this way:
"The Korean government, encouraged by
the United States, made a conscious de-
cision to turn Korea into a low-wage haven.
They must import all the raw materials
they use to manufacture goods for export,
so they are at the mercy of world markets.
"The only way they can survive now is to
be a low-wage haven. They have a permanent
development plan which is very unhealthy."
Last year, workers in the Korean textile
and clothing industry?which accounted for
slightly more than one-quarter of Korea's
total exports of $3.225 billion?earned an
average of about 20 cents an hour. The aver-
age wage for all mining and manufacturing
industries was 28 cents an hour.
To complicate matters. the United States
and Japan, which helped to build up the
textile industry, have since moved to place
tight restrictions on the growth of imports
of the cheaper Korean textile products and
wearing apparel.
The importance of this action may be
summed up in a single set of statistics: Of
Korea's total exports of $3.225 billion last
year, goods valued at $2.263 billion?or 70
percent?were shipped to the United States
and Japan.
As a reault of the low-wage policy, the
financial rewards of rapid economic growth
have flowed to a very small group of burl-
anuses, government officials and military
leaders who control Korea and its economy.
LITTLE MEANING
And since the entire system depends on
keeping wages down, the sharp increases in
gross national product carry little meaning
for the average Korean, a situation reflected,
in part, on unemployment statistics.
? A senior government minister told the
Inquirer that the official, publicly listed, un-
employment rate is placed somewhere be-
tween seven and erght percent.
But I am not a diplomat," he said.'
"I will tell you the figure is far higher than
officially stated." How much higher, he de-
clined to say.
.Urban affairs educators andlabor relations
specialists at Korean universities put the un-
employment figure around 25 percent, with
the unemployment rate running higher
among men than women.
But the observations of an American min-
ister in Seoul and the experiences of a 20-
year-old farm boy from the Inchon area may
describe the state of South Korea's economic
progress better than any statistics. ,
Said the minister, who has lived in the
area nearly 20 years:
- "There is a relatively small number of busi-
nesses and persons here who are raking off
fantastic profits and there are high govern-.
ment officials who are putting away large
sums of money outside of Korea."
The farm boy, who is crippled, returned
to his family's home a few months ago after
living and working in Seoul for several years.
This is his story:
For three years, he worked in a private
home making camera cases. He received room
and board, but no pay: When he began his
fourth year on the job he was paid $10 a
month. Because of his disability, he was
fearful of not being able to obtain other
employment and was simply grateful for the
job.
Yet somehow, the notion persists in Amer-
ica that a sharp rise in the gross national
product---spurred on by American foreign aid
and American investments guaranteed
through foreign programs?will translate
into benefits for the average Korean or the
average Thai or the average Kenyan-
1974 ASSESSMENT
In a report on the fiscal year 1974 foreign
aid program, the State Department's Agency
for International Development (AM) gave
thiS assessment of progress in developing
countries over the last decade:.
The development process gathered. pressive
momentum. The developed countries achieved
an annual increase of 5.6 percent in ernes na-
tional product. A number of nations experi-
enced growth rates considerably above this
average. Growth is taking place."
Three years earlier, AID issued a press re--
lease outlining a speech delivered by the
agency's administrator, emphasing the need
for private American investment to stimu-
late economic ? growth in developing coun-
tries. The release stated:
"Economic growth at the rate declared by
developing countries appears attainable soon
only through greater private investment, the
head of the United States foreign aid pro-
gram declared tonight (March 9, 1970).
"Dr. John A. Hannah, administrator of the
Agency for International Development, also
said that foreign manufacturing investment
is actually a good deal cheaper in terms of
foreign 'exchange for less developed countries
than even government-to-government foreign
aid loans on easy terms."
It was fitting that Dr. Hannah, the former
president of Michigan State University who
guided the foreign aid -program from 1969
to 1973, delivered his address at a dinner
honoring United States Sen. Jacob K. Javits
For Javits is a member a a sinall group of
senators who have been. Congress' most hearty
advocates of using the foreign aid program
as a vehicle to encourage American business
investment abroad?keystone of the trickle-
down theory.
It was Javits who sponsored legislation in
1968 creating the Overseas Private Invest-
ment Corporation (OPIC) to insure Ameri-
can business investments abroad ? and make
loans to businesses operating in develop-
ing countries.
In defending OPIC's operations?it was
OPIC, remember, which is responsible for
the luxury hotel in Haiti?Javits told a
House Foreign Affairs subcommittee in May
1973:
"We have turned increasingly toward pri-
vate investment because private foreign In-
vestment produces both capital and also a
transfer of training and technology as far
as the host country is concerned.
"We have given emphasis to the private
side because the factor of marrying capital
to technology is a resourceful one and one
which gives more cost-benefit ratio for the
dollar."
Javits, though, simply reflects the senti-
ments of some of his New York con-
stituents?people like Nelson Rockefeller, the
vice president-designate, and his brother,
David Rockefeller, chairman of the hoard of
the Chase Manhattan Bank. (See accom-
panying story.)
FAR FROM ALONE
The Rockefellers are far from alone in their
support of a foreign aid program linked" to
private investment. There is a hard core of
multi-national corporations that has made
extensive use of the American foreign aid
program.
That core includes such companies as In-
ternational Telephone and Telegraph Co.,
which was deeply involved in the internal
politics of Chile, and Cargill, Inc., the grain
dealer involved in the massive 1972 Russian
wheat deal.
There are companies like Dow Chemical
Co. and E. R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., and Gillette
Co. and General Electric Co. and Mobil Oil
Corp. and the Bank of America and the Del
Monte Corp., the world's largest canner of
fruits and vegetables.
In talking about OPIC's interrelationships
with the State Department, Philip Birn-
baum, assistant administrator for program
and policy in the Agency for International
Development, told a House Foreign Affairs
subcommittee in June 1973:
"In Kenya, a pineapple plantation project
by Del Monte (insured by OPIC) is going for-
ward which will employ about '7,000 people.
Here is another interrelationship between
AID and OPIC.
"The Kenya government has been talking
with us about financing some roads that will
be necessary and housing, under a United
States guaranty program, for the workers."
What Birnbaum failed to tell the House
committee,, though, is typical of another
kind of deception in foreign aid?that is,
the effect of the program within the United
States.
In its 1973 report to stockholders, Del
Monte made this brief, cryptic annownc.e-
ment on Page 21:
"During the year the corporation discon-
tinued packing operations at two of its
older plants and announced the phaseout.
over a two-and-a-half-year period, of one a
its two Hawaiian pineapple plantations."
One year earlier, in its 1972 annual report
to stockholders, Castle Se Cooke Inc. (Dole
Pineapple), announced:
"As reported in the letter to stockholders,
pineapple production will be phased out on
Molokai (Hawaii) . . a The Wahiawa plan-
tation on Oahu is being reduced in size and
will become primarily a source for growing
fresh pineapple requirements."
The report went on to mention:
"The new majority-owned Dole Thailand.
Ltd., facility is progressing on schedule with
its planting program. Thailand government
approval has been granted for building of a
new cannery at the plantation, and construc-
tion is expected to begin shortly."
LOSS OF 'MS. JOBS
What Dole did not mention in the report
was that its new Thailand pineapple can-
ning facility?the cannery went into opera-
tion earlier this year?also was insured under
the OPIC program.
The net result, then, is that a foreign aid
program did indeed spur business growth in
two developing countries?Kenya and Thai-
land?and at the same time it will result in
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
becember 4 A_pproved For Release 2005/06/16 ? CIA-RJ0P79-09641000100020024-2'
, 19 S 20561
74 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENA
a loss of several thousand jobs for American
workers in Hawaii.
The Castle & Cooke 1972 report phrases it
more delicately:
The company is sensitive to the economic
and social impact created by the phasing out
of these Hawaiian production areas. We are
!working with public bodies and others to
help them develop new employment bases in
these lbcations."
Officials of the International Longshore-
men's and WareHousemen's Union (ILWU),
which represents the pineapple workers, say
the major pineapple companies have decided
to pull all of their canning operations out
of Hawaii and move them to low-wage coun-
tries such as Thailand, the Philippines and
Kenya.
Eventually, the ILW13 says, the imove will
result in the loss of 6,000 jobs in the Ha-
waiian pineapple industry.
I-low is it that after all the waste and fraud
and deception, after the loss of tens of thou-
sands of jobs, after the expenditure of tens
of billions of dollars, the United States for-
eign aid program continues unchecked?
The reason appears to be that the program
has become so complex?with amendment
piled on amendment, new programs grafted
on to old programs?that Congress is unable
to effectively monitor aid projects. In short,
foreign aid is running out of control.
One measure of the complexity is the
amount of money said to be spent on foreign
aid, military as well as economic. On March 1,
1973, in a story on foreign aid appropriations
for fiscal year 1973, the New York Times re-
ported:
"The House and Senate passed and sent to
the White House today a resolution extend-
ing temporary financing until June 30 for
foreign aid. . . Under the extension, spend-
ing would continue through the end of this
fiscal year at an annual rate of $3.6 billion."
A study prepared by the Senate Appro-
priations Committee late last year placed the
actual foreign aid expenditures for fiscal year
1973 at $9.5 billion?or nearly three times the
$3.6 billion figure supposedly authorized.
If loans made by the Export-Import Bank
of the United States are added to the Senate
Committee estimates?Exim Bank loans often
are included as part of an overall foreign
aid package?then total foreign aid expendi-
tures in 1973 were $13,860 billion, or nearly
quadruple the publicly stated figures.
UP TO $200 BILLION
Indeed, if Exim Bank loans are added to
overall foreign aid expenditures sink World
War II, the total foreign aid commitment of
the United States runs upwards of $200 bil-
lion.
The difference between the Senate and
State Department figures is that the State
Department's annual foreign aid program
presentation largely covers only those ex-
penditures by the Agency for International
Development.
The Senate Appropriations Committee
study took all foreign aid programs?defining
foreign assistance as the transfer of resources
from the United States to another country?
and came up with an annual figure of
$13.860 billion.
It is this playing with numbers that rep-
resents another foreign aid deception, for the
State Department likes to talk of declining
foreign aid expenditures.
And it is true that, foreign aid spending
by the Agency for International Development
(AID) is going down. But spending for other
foreign aid projects and the taxpayer's ulti-
mate liability in still other foreign aid pro-
grams are going up.
The annual foreign aid bill presented by
the State Department does not include such
things as contributions to the International
Development Association or the Inter-Ameri-
can Development Bank or the Asian Develop-
ment Bank. Over the years, such contribu-
tions have run into, billions of dollars.
Nor does the bill the State Department
presents to Congress include billions of dol-
lars in private investment abroad that is now
guaranteed by the government?or, more
properly, the American tivfitpayer.
Thus it is that the total dollars in Ameri-
can foreign aid that flow out across the world
each year are, literally, uncounted.
A key administrative aide on the staff of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
puts it succinctly:
"If Congress had to vote on a foreign aid
bill of $9 billion or $13 billion, it wouldn't
go through."
[From the Philadelphia Inquirer,
Nov. 24, 1974]
TWENTY-NINE YEARS OF AID: $172 BILLION FOR
130 COUNTRIES
Since the end of World War II, the United
States has allocated about $172 billion in
foreign aid money to more than 130 coun-
tries around the world.
From July 1, 1945 to June 30, 1973, the
latest period for which figures are available,
the State Department reported total foreign
aid commitments of $163.7 billion, excluding
loans made by the United States Export-
Import Bank (Exim Bank).
Foreign aid authorizations in fiscal year
1974 were at about the same level at the,pre-
ceding year, when they amounted to $8.4
billion. This would bring total foreign aid
commitments from 1945 to 1974 to about
$172 billion.
The $163.7 billion grows to $185.1 billion
when adding in miscellaneous foreign assist-
ance loans and the Exim Bank loans, which
often are made as part of an overall foreign
aid package to a particular country.
Here is a statistical breakdown of the
$163.7 billion:
A total of $125.7 billion, or 77 percent, in-
volved outright grants which do not have to
be repaid. The remaining $38 billion, or 23
percent, involved loans, usually for extended
terms and at nominal interest rates.
Economic assistance accounted for $101.5
billion, or 62 percent of the total. Military
assistance amounted to $62.2 billion, or 38
percent.
A total of $118.5 billion, or 72 percent, has
been committed to countries classed as less
developed. The remaining $45.2 billion, or 28
percent, has gone to developed countries.
Well over half of that $45.2 billion went
into four countries in the years following
World War II?France, the United Kingdom,
Germany and Italy.
A substantial portion of that assistance
was distributed under the Marshall Plan, one
of the very few genuine American foreign
aid success stories.
Of the $118.6 billion that has gone to the
less developed countries, $32.5 billion?or 27
percent?has been channeled to just two
countries: South Vietnam has received $20.9
billion, South Korea, $11.6 billion.
While the State Department publishes a
country-by-country breakdown of American
foreign aid commitments, the figures do not
reflect the total amount of United States aid
that a country receives. --
For example, the State Department puts
total economic and military aid to India at
$8.9 billion through fiscal year 1973.
Yet India also has received $2.8 billion in
grants from the International Development
Association (IDA), an affiliate of the Inter-
national Bank for Reconstruction and De_
velopment (World Bank).
The United States, in turn, through the
foreign aid program is the single largest con-
tributor to the IDA, providing one-third of
that organization's funds.
The United States has made multi-billion-
dollar contributions to a variety of such or-
ganizations, including the Inter-American
Development Bank, the Asia Development
Bank and the United Nations Development
Program.
[From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 24,
1974]
WHAT'S, BEHIND SERIES?
The American State DePartment each year
commits billions of dollars in tax money to
the United States foreign aid program, a pro-
gram that goes largely unaudited.
From time to time, the General Accouting
Office (GAO), a government watchdog
agency, looks into specific foreign aid proj-
ects in certain countries.
Within the State Department there is an
office of Inspector General for Foreign As-
sistance which monitors, on a limited scale,
some foreign aid expenditures.
And occasionally a congressional commit-
tee takes a hard look at a particular for-
eign aid project. By and large though, the
overall foreign aid program goes unchecked.
It was against this background that The
Inquirer set out last May to assess the United
States foreign aid program, to measure how
the State Department says the program is
working against what is really happening
around the world.
The Inquirer's national award-winning in-
vestigative reporting team of James B. Steele
and Donald L. Barlett began the project by
sifting through thousands of pages of State
Department reports to Congress and the
American public over the last decade, de-
scribing the results of ongoing foreign aid
projects and forecasting future accomplish-
ments.
With that data in hand, The Inquirer
reporting team selected a variety of foreign
aid projects, and four countries which have
received some of the State Department's
most glowing reports, to determine just how
State Department rhetoric squared with real-
ity.
In all, Steele and Barlett traveled more
than 25,000 miles, interviewing scores of
persons, businessmen in Bangkok, Thailand,
to government officials in Lima, Peru, and
collecting statistics and examining records
maintained by government agencies in Seoul,
Korea, and Bogota, Colombia.
[From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 24,
1974]
UNITED STATES PROTECTS ROCKEFELLER
INVESTMENTS
Each year, when State Department offi-
cials trudge up to Capitol Hill in Washing-
ton to justify proposed foreign aid spendings
before congressional committees, they carry
with them the support of a diverse and pres-
tigious lobby.
Trailing along behind the State Depart-
ment men are professors from the nation's
leading universities, officials of the coun-
try's large multi-national corporations, la-
bor union representatives, bank presidents
and spokesmen for charitable foundations.
All of these people, who either testify be-
fore Congress in support of foreign aid ex-
penditures or travel around the country de-
livering speeches on behalf of the foreign
aid program, have one thing in common:
A VESTED INTEREST
They have a vested interest in the United
States' $172 billion foreign aid program and
they, or the organizations they represent,
are benefiting financially, either directly or
indirectly, from that program.
Two especially interested supporters are
the Rockefeller brothers, David Rockefeller,
chairman of the board of the Chase Manhat-
tan Bank, and Nelson Rockefeller, the vice
president-designate.
In a speech to the Council on Foreign Re-
lations in Chicago in April 1967, David
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20562
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE December .4, 1974
Rockefeller, ticking off the accomplishments
of foreign aid, observed:
"Not the least of -the lessons we have
learned in 20 years of dispensing foreign aid
is the need for relying more extensively on
the private sector?and this is new being
done.
"The Agency for International Develop-
ment (the State Department agency which
administers foreign aid) has set up an Office
of Private Resources specifically to help
United States investors interested in the less
developed countries.
"It has also 'worked out a variety of in-
struments designed to -encourage and sup-
port increased private investment."
Indeed it has. So much so that if you look
at the foreign aid program in just about any
part of the world, you will find a connection
with a Rockefeller financial interest. For ex-
ample:
The Chase International Investment Corp.
is a subsidiary of the Chase Manhattan
Bank, of which David Rockefeller is chair-
man of the board and the Rockefeller fam-
ily is a substantial stockholder.
Chase International has used the foreign
aid program to insure investments in a poul-
try farm and synthetic fiber plant in Costa
Rica, gaming lodges in Kenya, an agricul-
tural production and marketing operation in
Iran, and a ceramic tile and bath accessory
plant in South Korea.
These projects are insured by the Over-
seas Private Investment Corp. (OPIC),
wholly owned government corporation whose
operations are supervised by the State De-
partment.
INSURANCE, TOO
OPIC acts as an insurance company, guar-
anteeing loans and insuring private invest-
ments in foreign countries against expropri-
tlon, inconvertibility of local cUrrency, and
war, revolution or insurrection. The agency
also makes direct loans to spur development
In less developed countries.
While businesses pay a premium for the
insurance, the OPIC program carries the
backing of the United States government.
This means that if losses should exceed the
corporation's reserves, the American tax-
payer will pick up the bill.
In addition, OPIC offers private corpora-
tions a more subtle, indirect benefit?the
weight and leverage of the United States
government in a company's day-to-day
business dealings in less developed countries.
The Chase Manhattan Bank has used OPIC
to protect its banking or lending operations
in the Dominican Republic, South Vietnam.
South Korea, India, Guyana and Brazil.
The bank has collected $346,000 in con-
nection with losses suffered by its businesses
in the Dominican Republic and South Viet-
nam.
Arbor Acres Farm, Inc., a poultry breed-
ing and supplying firm, has used OPIC to in-
sure poultry farms in Thailand, the Repub-
lic of China, Pakistan and the Philippines.
BASED IN NEW YORK
Arbor Acres is a division of the Interna-
tional Basic Economy Corp. (IBEC), a New
York-based development company. Rodman
C. Rockefeller, a son of Nelson Rockefeller.
is the $75,000-a-year president of the com-
pany.
Nelson Rockefeller, Rodman C. Rockefeller
and Steven C. Rockefeller, another son, to-
gether own directly or as trustees about 37
percent of the stock in IBEC.
According to an annual report of the com-
pany, -IBEC was founded in 1947 in the con-
viction that the American system of private
enterprise, working within the framework of
the profit motive, had a key role to play in
the developing countries."
Through another guaranty plan of the for-
eign aid program, the housing guaranty pro -
gram, IBEC was involved in the construction
of two housing projects in Peru valued at
$3 million. Under this program, the govern-
ment guarantees a builder or mortgage
lender's investment.
Development and Resources Corporation, a
NeW York and Sacramento-based consulting
organization, has just Completed a $229,000
contract with the State Department to assist
the government of Nepal in a management
Improvement and training project.
Development and Resources Corporation
is another subsidiary of the International
Basic Economy Corporation and its president
is David E. Lilienthal, former chairman of
the Tennessee Valley Authority and the
Atomic Energy Commission.
Dr. J. George Harms, retired president of
the Rockefeller Foundation and Rodman C.
Rockefeller both serve on the board of di-
rectors of Development and Resources.
CONTRACT AWARD
In April 1970, about a year before Devel-
opment and Resources became affiliated with
Rockefeller's International Basic Economy
Corp., the company was awarded ,a $2.5 mil-
lion. contract by the State Department.
The terms of the contract provided that
the company was to assist the government of
South Vietnam in a planning effort directed
toward reconstruction and development of
Vietnam.
Through another part of the foreign aid
.program, the Agriculture Trade Development
and Assistance Act, the Chase Manhattan
Bank was authorized in September 1970 to
borrow about $2.2 million in South Korean
currency.
Treasury Department records show the
purpose of the loan was to promote business
development and as of Dec. 31, 1972, the
latest period for which figures are available,
about $1.6 million of the loan then Was out-
standing.
Through yet another foreign aid guaranty
plan called the Private Export Funding Cor-
poration (PEFC0), Chase Manhattan Bank
In 1971 and 1972 arranged two loans totaling
$13.1 million for a nuclear power plant proj-
ect in Italy.
ORGANIZED IN 1970
PEFC0 was organized in 1970 to supple-
ment the lending operations of' the United
States Export-Import Bank (Exim Bank).
The Exim Bank has provided a revolving line
of credit for PEECO, and all its loans are
fully guaranteed by the government.
While none of these guaranty plans under
the foreign aid program involve direct ex-
penditures of American tax money, at least
at present, there is both a.hidden cost to the
taxpayer and a potential liability for the
future.
If losses under the plans should exceed
the reserves set aside?and claims filed, but
not settled, have been running ahead of re-
serves?then the taxpayer is liable.
In addition, critics of the guaranty plans
argue that they unnecessarily involve the
United States government in what should
be private business dealings by private cor-
porations.
As for hidden costs, a University of Michi-
gan economics professor told a House Foreign
Affairs subcommittee last year:
GOES TO PUBLIC
"To the extent that OPIC is supported by
present or possible future congressional ap-
propriations?which might well be necessary
to pay claim settlements in excess of avail-
able reserves?part of the political risk or the
cost, of insurance that would otherwise have
tobe borne by private investors is transferred
to the United States taxpaying public.
"This transfer of private business coats
amounts to a public subsidy of the particular
subgroup of United States businesses that
have invested or intend to invest the poor
countries.
"All that OPIC can do is transfer some of
the costs of the risk from private investors to
the public, thereby increasing the profit-
ability of the foreign investment for the pri-
vate investor, but not for the United States
as a whole."
Supporters of the guaranty plans, of
course, argue that they are necessary to spur
economic expansion in the developing coun-
tries.
FIRMLY WEDDED
For his part, Secretary of State Henry A.
Kissinger, who served as a foreign affairs ad-
viser to Nelson Rockefeller before joining the
Nixon administration in 1969?and who was
one of the recipients of a Rockefeller finan-
cial gift ($50,000)?remains firmly wedded to
the OPIC concept.
When there were unsuccessful attempts in
Congress earlier this year to kill the OPIC
plan, Kissinger came to the agency's defense,
saying that "it would not be in the national
interest to terminate OPIC programs at this
time."
Kissinger maintained that planned private
American investments in less developed
countries "might not go forward In the ab-
sence of OPIC programs, which provide the
kinds of insurance and financing that can-
not be undertaken by private insurance and
credit markets."
[From the Philadelphia Inquirer. Nov. 25,
19741
How U.S. AID HOUSES THE RICH, Nov THE POOR
(By Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele)
In a report issued last summer, the State
Department's Office of Housing had glowing
things to say about its Housing Investment
Guaranty program, designed to provide de-
cent housing for slum dwellers around the
world.
Curious, an Inquirer reporter in the midst
of a seven-month investigation of the U.S.
foreign aid program, flew to Bogota,
Colombia, to vist La Esmeralda, a housing
deveploment built under the program.
There, not far from Bogota's famed squalid
hillside slums, he found a pleasant cluster
of brown brick homes behind white stucco
walls.
He also found they were owned and in-
habited nOt by the poor, but by Colombian
lawyers and doctors, civil servants and
professors.
So goes the U. S. foreign aid housing pro-
gram.
So it has gone since the summer of 1961.
when Congress, amid fears that Castro-style
revoliations might sweep all of Latin America,
enacted the little-known foreign aid program
that it called the Housing Investment Guar-
anty (RIG).
Like dozens of other foreign aid programs,
the housing, guaranty program was supposed
to help the poor. In this ease, the idea was to
provide decent housing for Latin American
slum dwellers through a mortgage guaranty
program similar to FHA in the United States.
But the program, which has since expanded
to cover projects in Asia and Africa as well,
and has grown from a modest $10 million to
a nearly $1-billion program, has not worked
out the way Congress intended.
It has, in fact, housed the well-to-do
abroad arid proved lucrative investment for
the well-to-do at home.
An Inquirer investigation of the program,
part of the newspaper's probe of the nation's
foreign aid program, has disclosed that the
housing guaranty nrogram has:
Consistently guaranteed housing for mid-
dle- and upper-income persons such as doc-
tors, lawyers, army officers and other profes-
sionals?families least in need of aid in de-
veloping countries?rather than for low-in-
come families for whom the program was
intended.
Become a bonanza for the U.S. savings
and loan industry, which now supplies most
of the program's mortgage money. These
housing guaranty mortgages are fully guar-
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
4, 19frroved For Release 2005/06/16 ?
DecemberCIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-
DecemberCONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 20563
anteed by the U.S. government and pay their
holders up to 1 percent more interest than
do FHA mortgages in this country.
AWarded millions of dollars in technical
service contracts to a savings and loan trade
association, the same group that lobbies be-
fore Congress on banking legislation and
whose members profit on housing guaranty
mortgages.
Handed out thousands of dollars in ex-
pense-paid trips to savings and loan execu-
tives for housing-related trips around the
world.
Been subjeCted to political influence from
the start as congressmen and senators have
steered friends to housing guaranty projects,
applied pressure on government officials to
cut red tape or sponsored legislation indi-
rectly benefiting family or friends.
Been riddled with conflicts of interest and
Inter-locking government-industry relation-
ships. One former director of the guaranty
program served as president of a private
savings and loan association during his ten-
ure as head of the government office. He is
now under federal indictment on another
matter: embezzling $44,000 from the loan
association.
Never been effectively monitored by the
federal, government, depsite cases of private
profiteering and possible fraud in the ad-
ministration of guaranty projects in Asia.
Continued to build middle- to upper-in-
come housing in developing countries with
money supplied by American savings and
loan associations at precisely the same time
that industry has drastically cut back on the
number of mortgages authorized in this
country.
Actually hurt America's image in nations
where U.S. builders have failed to complete
housing developments as planned, to the dis-
satisfaction of local residents.
Siphoned off money from poor nations that
are already short on capital. In addition to
repaying the principal, homeowners in de-
veloping countries must pay about 10 per-
cent in interest and fees to the U.S. mortgage
holders and federal agencies.
Created a Washington bureaucracy fi-
nanced by homeowners in Africa, Asia and
Latin America. In addition to interest, own-
ers must pay a fee to the guaranty program
to cover its administrative costs. Last year,
fee income amounted to $2.8 million.
SCALE MODEST
'Like many federal programs, the housing
guaranty program began on a modest scale.
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 gave
the program authority to guaranty only $10
million in housing loans worldwide. At the
same time, Congress gave the State Depart-
ment's Agency for International Development
(AID) authority to administer it.
The act clearly stipulated that the poor
were to be the major beneficiaries of this
ambitious U.S.-led housing offensive; guar-
antees were authorized "for housing projects
in. Latin America for low income families
and persons."
There was a good deal of senatorial opti-
mism about the guaranty program's potential
for doing good. Former Sen. George Smathers
of Florida told fellow senators on Aug. 16,
1961:
"Second to providing food for the impov-
erished people of the hemisphere, the most
direct, the most beneficial, and surely the
most-to-be-appreciated form of assistance
lies in giving the people of Latin America
an 9pportunity to improve their standard
of living by making it possible for them to
rid themselves of inadequate housing and
to own homes of their own."
Still, Smathers and his Senate colleagues
saw advantages to the program beyond just
helping the poor.
Smathers said the guaranty program, which
he was instrumental in. creating, would be
a vital tool of American foreign policy by
providing an outlet for U.S. private invest-
ment in the foreign aid program and by
encouraging free, enterprise in the Americas.
Sen. Hubert Humphrey (D., Minn.) saw
both political and economic advantages.
Housing guarantees for the poor would blunt
the appeal of Fidel Castro outside of Cuba
and open up new markets for American
building materials.
Congress envisioned that the vehicle for
building much of this housing in the unde-
veloped world would be the American home
builder with his intimate, thorough knowl-
edge of modern home building.
Sure enough, it was not long before the
housing guaranty program office in Wash-
ington was swamped with applications from
American developers proposing suburban-
style housing developments from Peru to
Thailand.
GRAIN DEALER
One was a millionaire grain dealer from
Kansas; another a former FHA insuring office
director from Puerto Rico; another a Rocke-
feller family-controlled company that owned
numerous Latin American supermarkets and
poultry farms.
Applications for projects and inquiries
about others came in at a rate far exceeding
the housing guaranty program's congres-
sional authorization as builders sought to
avail themselves of the inviting foreign aid
program with its loans fully backed by the
U.S. government and its interest rate one
percent higher than the going FHA rate.
"We consider our guaranty better than
FHA," a former director of the program once
proudly told a congressional committee.
The housing guaranty program operates
much as the FHA does. It does not loan
money. It guarantees mortgages made by
U.S. investors on foreign housing projects.
What that means is that if there were
massive mortgage defaults by homeowners
in guaranty projects, the U.S. taxpayer
would be liable for paying the bill.
Also like the FHA, the guaranty program
charges a fee for its services?in this case
It is one-half of one percent a year on the
unpaid principal. And, as in FHA loans, in-
vestors pass that charge onto the homebuy-
ers.
The homebuyers themselves best illustrate
how the program has gone awry.
They are largely middle to upper class.
They are not poor. ?
MADE A PROFIT
Not only do most of them not need U.S.
assistance to buy housing, but many have
made a profit as a result of the guaranty
program.
TInquirer investigation disclosed that
many families buy through the program,
then resell their homes at a tidy profit or
rent them to others at monthly rates many
times greater than their mortgage payment.
The two Latin American nations which
have received the most guaranty money so
far are Venezuela and Argentina, the two
countries with by far the highest standard
of living in Latin America. Per capita in-
come in each country exceeds $1,000. That
is double the aterage for all of Latin
America.
Typical of the middle-income develop-
ment built under the program is La Esme-
ralda in Bogota, Colombia, one of several in
four different countries visited by an In-
quirer reporter.
Located adjacent to a major administra-
tive center of the Colombian government
and not far from the wretched hillside slums
of Bogota, La Esmeralda has been a magnet
for government officials, college professors
and other professionals.
Most houses have four bedrooms, two
baths, living room, dining room, maid's
room and front and rear yards. Many fami-
lies have at least one live-in maid.
Luis and Nelly Duran are typical.
Luis, a geology professor at the National
University in Bogota, and his wife have five
children, three of whom still live at home. A
maid also lives at the home.
They live on a quiet street of well-kept
attached houses, faced with light brown brick
and secure behind white stucco walls. It
looks similar to many American subdivisions
except for the walls and the towering pres-
ence of the Andes Mountains rising in the
background.
Since buying the house seven years ago,
the Durans have added a bedroom, bathroom
and study. Mrs. Duran said she likes the
neighborhood and the house. They pay only
1,450 pesos a month, or about $57, and close
by are many friends who also teach at the
university.
SIMILAR ONES
At two Lima, Peru, guaranty projects in-
spected by The Inquirer?the Salamanca and
th,e VIPSE?the occupations of residents
were similar to those found at La Esmeralda.
Salamanca was built by a subsidiary of the
International Basic Economy Corp. (IBEC),
which was founded by Nelson Rockefeller in
1947. Rockefeller still owns outright or in
trust 422,150 IBEC shares valued at $950,000.
Car Los Mayorga, an elementary school
teacher, bought his Salamanca home eight
years ago. He likes it because there is more
sun there than in some Lima neighborhoods,
and the family is close to shops such as the
Rockefeller-owned TODOS market, an Amer-
ican-style supermarket chain that caters to
middle-class Peruvians.
At the nearby VIPSE development, the
Torrejon family is representative of another
trend increasingly found in guaranty devel-
opments.
On the surface, they seem much like any
other family found in one of these American-
sponsored projects.
They are middle income. Mr. Ton'ejon is .a
civil engineer who owns his own firm. The
family has two live-in maids to help with
household chores.
They spend part of the damp, cloudy Lima
winter vacationing in the sunny Andean re-
sort of Chosica about 30 miles east of Lima
and travel south to the beautiful beaches of
the Pacific for their summer vacation.
Unlike some neighbors, the Torrejons rent
their VIPSE home. The original owner, who
purchased the home under the U.S.-spon-
sored program, has moved elsewhere :and is
renting the house for a handsome profit.
That, of course, Le contrary to the intent
of the housing guaranty legislation, which
was to encourage home ownership in Latin
America.
But renters are not unusual in these proj-
ects. :Both VIPSE and Salamanca have siz-
able rental populations. In Salamanca alone,
residents estimated that as much as 25 per-
cent of the houses may be, rented.
Even though the program is obviously not
benefiting those most in need of help, its
supporters consistently defend it as a vital
service to poor nations.
On May 4, 1971, for example, Bryce Curry,
president of the Federal Home Loan Bank of
New York, wrote his uncle, Sen. John Spark-
man (D., Ala.), on the success of the guar-
anty program.
"The amendment which originated in your
committee . . . has been . . . most helpful
in providing low-cost housing."
Curry added that the program "is the en-
lightened self-interest of the United States
in the conduct of its foreign relations."
And Peter Ki./11M, the current director of
the guaranty program, in a 1971 speech, told
savings and loan executives:
IN NO WAY
"My view is that there is no way in which
we can refuse to help in the development
of the poorer nations," he said, "without the
grimmest consequences for all of us, rich and
poor alike."
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20564
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE December .4, 1974
But the guaranty program, by reaching
only families that already have a stake in
developing countries, fails to Make an impact
on the squalid living conditions of the poor--
conditions that have always been a potent
force behind revolution and political insta-
bility in poor nations.
Although the guaranty program has op-
erated with remarkable freedom over the
years, it came under growing criticism from
others in AID and officials of other govern-
ment agencies.
In December 1971, for example, when the
housing office proposed a $3-million guar-
anty for Thailand, AID's Bureau for Pro-
gram and Policy Coordination was critical of
the plan.
The bureau said such a project would only
provide Thailand with "high-cost U.S. capi-
tal," would aggravate Thailand's balance of
payments problem, and was unnecessary be'
cause Thailand had ample money of its OWE,
for housing.
The strongest criticism was that low- and
middle-income Thais would be unable to
purchase any of the proposed houses because
prices would be so high that only the upper
ariven percent of Thai society could afford to
buy them.
Similar questions were raised earlier this
year by the Treasury Department's Inter-
national Division over a proposed $20 mil-
lion guaranty for South Korea. The division
called it a "poorly conceived plan." The guar-
anty office summarized Treasury's objections:
"It is for middle-class housing and this
has no priority under normal circum-
stances . . . Use of foreign exchange for the
project . . . will place pressure on the
Korean economy to generate U.S. dollars.
could make them retrench and this would
not be helpful in the development process.
Korea does not have a national housing
policy . . . even though (having such a
policy) Is a condition of the authorization
of the loan."
Dale Barnes, a former director of the In-
ternational Affairs Office of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, was even
more blunt in criticizing the program.
"I am satisfied, in my own mind," he told
a Senate subcommittee in May 1972, "that
the HIG program is making money, and that
It will probably make mere, but I do not
think it is an answer to the real housing
needs of the developing world.
"I have a feeling that we are sitting here
looking for ways to make money rather than
helping in meeting a desperate need. I think
it is wrong. It is out of balance."
One of the few lawmakers to question the
program has been Sen. William Proxmire
(D., Wis.), who, in the same Senate subcom-
mittee hearings in 1972, noted:
"The justification for our foreign aid pro-
gram is not that we are helping people who
are as well off as they are in this country,
but helping people who are pathetically, mis-
erably, grindingly, cruelly poor, and we Can-
not reach them in housing."
GROWS LARGER
The housing guaranty program has more
than managed to withstand such attacks. /t
is, in fact, growing larger each fiscal year.
"This program has a constituency unlike
a lot of foreign aid," says Peter Kimm, the
program director. "It is self-sufficient. It
doesn't hit the budget. The savings and loan
industry is very proud of its role in the pro-
gram. When they have to, they call up their
congressmen about it."
"It's one of the sacred cows in the State
Department," says one high senatorial staff
member. "I have heard some AID people say
it's not doing much of a job. But no one has
been able to touch it."
Consequently, the program has kept right
on guaranteeing middle- to upper-income
housing. The Banpo project in Seoul, Korea,
complete with swimming pools, parks and
shops, is an example.
In March 1973, a $10 million housing guar-
anty was issued to the Korea, Housing Corp.
(MHO), the government's national housing
agency, for the 1,490-unit Banpo develop-
ment.
Banpo is a huge development of 34 build-
ings of five stories each. Each unit has three
bedrooms, living room, bath, kitchen and. a
balcony.
The project is served, by primary, middle
and high schools and has its own swimming
pools, green spaces and shopping center.
With a monthly mortgage payment of $51
and an additional $20 required for utilities
and maintenance, Banpo would be hard put
to attract the poor in a city where average
monthly incomes of wage and salary earners
range from $100 to $125.
Figures compiled by the housing program's
staff showed the monthly income of the
following Seoul professionals early this year:
architects--$20,3; civil engineers--$197 and
accountants-4139.
Even an internal memo of the guaranty
office admitted that Banpo was high-priced
housing:
"It is obvious that families earning sub-
stantially less than $200 (a month) cannot
afford to purchase apartments in the guar-
anty project."
That, of course, would be upwards of
90 percent of Korea's population. but there's
some consolation for the poor. Consider the
quality of housing available In the Barns?
apartments for the upper-income family that
can afford it:
For $9,000, the apartment buyer get unfin-
ished concrete walls, unfinished concrete
floors and unfinished insulation board
The apartment buyer must purchase and
apply his own wallpaper and floor covering
and ceiling. He must also supply his own
kitchen sink and cabinets and stove and
lighting fixtures.
In short, the $9,000 buys bare walls and
floors and ceilings and no fixtures or appli-
ances whatsoever.
The apartments do contain what a Korea
Housing Corp. official describes as "a very
big thing even in Seoul"--a bathroom.
The apartments also contain what he
described as two other innovations in Korean
housing?central heating and gas for
cooking.
AIMED AT POOR
Still, the impression was conveyed in Seoul
that the U.S.-aided project was really aimed
at helping the poor. A March 22, 1973 story
in the Korea Herald announcing the guar-
anty, said:
"The project will be completed by Sep-
tember of this year and the apartments will
be rented to homeless citizens."
When the Korea Housing Corp. began
taking applications, 8,300 persons applied for
Banpos 1,490 apartments. Because the
response was so great, the IOW decided to
hold a lottery on the apartments.
A university professor, who declined to be
identified (South Koreans who criticize the
government of President Park Chung Hee
face prison terms), said the lottery was a
fraud because many families obtained mdre
than one lottery ticket:
"One rich person got many tickets. He
gets a ticket for brother, wife and mother.
Many rich men were involved in this lot-
tery. So poor people didn't go. So they (poor
people) don't thank AID."
Of those who applied, 60 percent were
members of the armed forces, the backbone
of President Park's autocratic rule. Almost
all of the remainder were employed by other
government agencies.
That means that the Banpo apartments,
suppesedly an expression of the United
States' interest in helping the people of the
undeveloped World, were really rewards
handed out to the bureaucrats who, in one
way or another, enforce Park's anti-demo-
cratic rule.
In addition, The Inquirer investigation
turned up evidence indicating there has
been substantial profiteering in the project.
Even the housing guaranty office in Wash-
ington raised questions about the cost esti-
mates submitted by the Korean Housing
Corp.
KHC submitted a breakdown of the esti-
mated cost of each $9,000 unit. Included in
the cost breakdown per unit were the follow-
ing figures: $247?"builder's profit"; $578 for
"total one-time payment"; $247 for "build-
er's general overhead."
A March 7, 1972 memo from one baffled
housing guaranty control officer declared the
figures "unreal and merely a resolution of
the $9,000 sales price." He added, "The
strangest number is the $578 listed as a one-
time payment. This number was apparently
picked to make the $9,000 figure."
Over the years, the Korean government's
housing program has been riddled with cor-
ruption that has produced both inflated con-
struction costs and poorly-built apartments.
Some buildings have collapsed or been
torn down because of faulty workmanship.
The collapse of one apartment building sev-
eral years ago killed dozens of Koreans.
CRUDELY FLNISHED
At housing guaranty-sponsored projects
inspected by an Inquirer reporter in Korea.
apartments were often crudely finished.
There were gaps between sections of the dry-
wall on the ceiling; and floors were not level
and walls were out of line.
University professors, who are familiar
with Korean construction industry practices,
explained how the industry functions:
Company A receives a government contract
to build apartment buildings. Company A
then takes a "commission" and assigns the
actual work to Company B, which in turn
takes a "commission" and assigns the work
to yet another company. None of the com-
panies bothers to supervise the construction,
the professors said, and that is what leads to
faulty work.
One memo from within the housing guar-
anty office indicates, however, that the Banpo
project, extensive subcontracting was sup-
posedly necessary because there was in Seoul
no general contractor "capable of undertak-
ing the entire project."
After Baripo was completed, the housing
guaranty office of ALD approved another $20
million guaranty for housing in Seoul and
five other South Korean cities. Now there is
talk of yet another multi-million-dollar deal.
Transactions such as those have boosted
the guaranty program's annual authoriza-
tions to $60 to $70 million a year--with al-
most all the money now coming from federal
savings and loan associations that choose to
participate in the program.
There is a final Irony.
The American savings and loan industry
that is putting up the money to help house
President Park's army is the same industry
that has reduced the amount of mortgages
available to middle-income homebuyers in
the United States.
At a time that the guaranty program, with
its insured mortgages, its high interest rate
and its expense-paid trips for savings execu-
tives, is rolling in mortgage money for its
projects abroad, the amount of mortgage
money available for Americans from the same
savings and loan associations has shrunk by
$7 billion in two years.
[From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 25,
1974]
PROGRAM DEVELOPS MANY FRIENDS
(By Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele)
From the start, the Housing Investment
Guaranty program ? has been supported by
a loyal constituency both In and outside of
Congress,
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-005y000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?
The SENAT
members of this constituency are a
varied lot. There is the government official
who becomes a financier; the financier who
becomes a government official; the relative
of a congressman who runs a bank; the ins
dieted banker who ran an aid program; and
the elusive developer with a friend in
Congress.
And there are the key congressmen and
senators who have supported the program
consistently over the years.
But perhaps the program's most influen-
tial backer has been Sen. John Sparkman
(D., Ala.).
As chairman of the powerful Senate Bank-
ing, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee,
Sparkman has long been in close contact
with the leaders of the nation's financial
community which has a heavy stake in the
U.S. foreign aid program.
When the housing program was enacted in
1961, his nephew, Bryce Curry, was general
counsel for the National League of Insured
Savings Associations, one of the two national
trade associations of the savings and loan
industry.
EVEN GOT BETTER
Since the 1950's, the league's members had
been the chief 'recipients of State Depart-
ment-awarded free trips promoting the for-
mation of savings and loan associations in
many Latin American countries,
Things got even better for the league after
that.
In 1965, Congress amended the Home
Owners Loan Act to permit federal savings
and loan associations to invest up to 1 per-
cent of their assets in guaranty projects.
A year later, the industry's role in the
program was further expanded.
The State Department awarded the league
a contract to do feasibility studies on pro-
posed housing projects. Since then, the
league has received more than $4 million in
such contracts.
Congress amended the program again in
1968 to further enhance the savings and loan
industry's position. The result: the industry
obtained almost monopolistic access to hous-
ing guaranty mortgages.
One section of the 1968 bill, which was in
part a product of Sen. Sparkman's commit-
tee, authorized the Federal Home Loan Bank
Board to bid against private financial insti-
tutions to purchase AID-guaranteed "hous-
ing loans and to sell participations to any
member bank."
Shortly thereafter, the Federal Home Loan
Bank Board designated its two member
boards in New York and Boston to repre-
sent the entire FHLB system in bidding for
the overseas housing loans.
By this time, Bryce Curry, Sparkman's
nephew, had moved on from his post with
the savings industry league. He was now
president of the Federal Home Loan Bank
of New York.
REASONS GIVEN
Since then, the Federal Home Loan. Banks
of New York and Boston have been selected
in nearly every case?even in some cases
when they were not the low bidder?to sell
participating shares in the guaranteed mort-
gages to savings and loan associations.
Last year, the Korea Housing Corp. (KHC),
the government-controlled national housing
corporation of South Korea, asked interested
U.S. investors to submit offers to finance
mortgages for a new $10 million housing
project near Seoul. The announcement was
made in the Federal Register.
Seven proposals wde submitted. The two
best offers came from the Federal Home Loan
Bank of New York and F. S. Smithers & Co.
Inc., New York stockbrokers.
Their proposals were similar, except that
Smithers offered an interest rate of 7.45 per-
cent a year compared to 7.50 percent from
the New York bank. ,
In a Feb. 5, 1973, letter to the housing
guaranty office, Duncan H. Cameron, a Wash-
ington lawyer representing the Korea Hous-
ing Corp., said his client had selected the
FHLB as investor.
"Because of its need for speed, the Korea
Housing Corp. preferred an investor who was
experienced in the program," he wrote.
"Since the financial conditions and terms
of F. S. Smithers and the Federal Home Loan
Bank were nearly identical, the Korea Hous-
ing Corp. has selected the Federal Home Loan
Bank because of its experience and proven
capacity to deliver."
An internal housing office memo from Ed-
ward Palash and Stanley Kay to program
director Peter Kimns estimated that Korean
home buyers would pay an additional $98,000
for the selection of FHLB.
Still, the housing guaranty office, which
must approve a host country's choice of an
investor, decided to go along with the choice
of Bryce Curry's bank in New York. Reasoned
Palash and Kay:
"The (FHLB) has negotiated and executed
numerous agreements under the Housing
Guaranty Program and its standard docu-
ments are well-known (to H1G).
"Without attempting to doubt the good
faith of Smithers, or the professional capa-
bility of the legal counsel retained by Smith-
ers, Korea Housing Corp. chose not to run
the risk of negotiating documents with
Smithers Which could conceivably take long-
er to finalize and execute in view of their
having no prior experience under the Guar-
anty Program."
In a telephone interview with The In-
quirer, Senator Sparkman said periodic re-
ports he receives on the housing program in-
dicate it is working "quite well."
"I believe it is a good program," he said.
"We (Congress) have pushed international
housing for a good number of years and the
savings and loans wanted a piece of it. And
we gave them the right to invest just a
very small percentage of their assets in it."
As for the Federal Home Loan Bank desig-
nating the New York bank headed by his
nephew, Bryce Curry, as one of two banks to
sell participating shares in housing guar-
anty mortgages to savings and loan associa-
tions, Sparkman said:
"I didn't have anything to do with that. I
didn't know the Federal Home Loan Bank
Board designated two particular banks to
handle it. But I concede that they do it."
The Inquirer investigation also disclosed
that Rep. Wayne Hays (D., 0.), long an ar-
dent foe of waste in foreign aid programs,
has exerted his own pressure on State De-
partment officials in connection with a hous-
ing guaranty project in Bogota, Colombia.
The development, called La Esmeralda, a
$12 million project of 1,268 townhouses for
middle-income families, was proposed in 1984
by a Colombian company headed by Harold
Lockheimer, a U.S. citizen with residences in
North Bergen, N.J., and San Juan, Puerto
Rico.
A former State Department official says
Lockheimer, the developer, was once director
of the FHA office in San Juan.
The U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development in Puerto Rico says a
Harold Lockheimer was indeed director of
the FHA office there in -the late 1950s and
early 1960s.
Over a period of several months, repeated
attempts by Inquirer reporters to interview
Lockheimer were unsuccessful. Phone mes-
sages left with his answering service in
Puerto Rico brought no response. Telephone
calls to the family's North Bergen home
went unanswered.
Coincidentally, it was the FHA that evalu-
ated Lockheimer's ability to undertake the
Bogota project. The FHA determined that
his company WAS "fully capable financially
S20565
and technically to carry out the proposed
project to a successful conclusion."
The FHA also estimated the profit on La
Esmeralda at $963,183.
Like other projects studied by The In-
quirer, La Esmeralda was plagued by delays
before and after construction began in 1966.
Often the cause was a dispute between Lock-
heimer and the guaranty office or Lock-
heimer and the Colombian government or
between 'U.S. or Colombian agencies.
Once the dispute came over a Lockheimer
request to increase the price of the houses.
Another time it was over who was respon-
sible for a $10,000 discrepancy in a closing
account related to the project.
MANZ PILES
Housing guaranty files on La Esmeralda
in Bogota and Washington, D.C., filled with
correspondence from various U.S. and Colom-
bian government officials trying to resolve
all arguments that arose during the project.
One such disagreement was over a pro-
posed escrow agreement that Washington
officials wanted Lockheimer to sign regard-
ing maintenance on the housing develop-
ment.
In a Sept. 17, 1967, letter to Charles N.
Goldman, assistant general counsel of the
State Department's Agency for International
Development (AID), Lockheimer objected
to the proposed agreement listing these
reasons:
"Latin Americans . . . in all walks of life,
are most meticulous about their personal
self, but are very neglectful and downright
careless about the maintenance of anything
from an automobile to an electric iron. There
is never any prudent upkeep, everything is
let rundown and when it falls apart, they
buy a new item."
Lockheimer further said Latins were
"wasteful, make claims on anything, and
many times in a devious manner, are with-
out a sense of good value except when the
other fellow pays the bill" and "are prone to
take advantage of the gringo."
RED TAPE CITED
It was on Lockheirner's behalf that Hays,
who once predicted that an audit of foreign
aid would "reveal shenanigans that will make
Ali Baba and his 40 thieves look honest,"
called high-level officials in AID.
"Everyone around the office always knew
when Hays had called," said one former
State Department official who used to be
close to the program. "He (Hays) would
always use the strongest language and no
eXpletives were deleted in demanding that
the Lockheimer project get moving."
When the first phase was finally completed
in early 1968, Congressman Hays was in
Bogota to help dedicate the Lockheimer
project.
In a telephone interview, Hays acknowl-
edged that he had indeed called State De-
partment officials numerous times on the
Lockheimer project and several others as
well.
"I just found the whole thing bogged down
in red tape," he said. "It looked like one of
the programs in AID that wouldn't cost tax-
payers anything, and I got the feeling that
the bureaucrats didn't want to do this one
because it was an independent thing and
they sort of lost control of it."
Hays said Lockheimer was introduced to
him by another Congressman from New Jer-
sey, whose name Hays could not recall, but
whom Hays said had sought his help in
trying to get the Colombia project moving.
A combination of a lack of public scrutiny
and general congressional disinterest in the
housing program over the years also helped
make possible the case of Stanley Baruch.
Baruch, long involved in promoting Latin
American housing for various U.S. and inter-
national lending agencies, was an evangelis-
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20566
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE December 4; 1974
tic exponent of the housing guaranty pro-
gram, and was in no small part responsible
for its steady growth.
CLOSE CONTACT
As the State Department's housing direc-
tor, Baruch was in close contact with the
savings and loan industry in discussing pro-
posed investments on handing out expense-
paid trips to Africa, Asia or Latin America
for savings and loan executives.
M the same time he served in his
$a6,000-a-year State Department job, Baruch
was also the president of a federal savings
and loan association in nearby Maryland.
Baruch helped organize the Lincoln Fed-
eral Savings & Loan Association of Hyatts-
ville in 1962 and served as its president dur-
ing the period he was with the State De-
partment.
The department, however, was apparently
unconcerned about Baruch's dual position.
"Baruch never tried to conceal the fact
he was both a government employee and
president of the savings and loan associa-
tion," one State Department employee told
The Inquirer.
"Every administrator of AID (Agency for
International Development) knew it, and I
know people in the Senate who followed this
program knew about it too."
Baruch suddenly resigned from the State
Department in January 1973.
In May 1974, Baruch was indicted by a
federal grand jury in Baltimore for em-
bezzling more than $44,000 from the Lincoln
Federal Savings & Loan Association from
1968 through 1972.
In a 35-count indictment, he was charged
with billing his loan association for thou-
sands of dollars in trips around the world
which he made as officer of the State Depart-
ment.
The government also contended that
Baruch was part owner of a Maryland men-
Seal building that was acquired as a result
of a loan by his savings association. Such
ownership is barred by federal law.
Baruch has since resigned from Lincoln
Federal, which has merged with Vermont
Federal Savings & Loan while awaiting trial
on federal charges. Dec. 9 in Baltimore.
UNITED STATES AIDED THAI HOMES PLOP:
SILENCE, EVASION GREET QUERIES OF PROS-
ECT
(By Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele)
When Roger Ernst was asked where in
Bangkok a $5-million State Department-
sponsored housing development called
Friendship Village was located, he said: "I
do not know. I have not seen any record
of it."
Roger Ernest is the director of the State
Department's foreign aid program in Thai-
land,.
When William Ackerman was asked to pro-
vide the address of Friendship Village, he
said he wasn't sure lithe files on the project
included an address.
William Ackerman is a special assistant for
the State Department's foreign aid program
in Thailand.
When William E. Miller was asked by an
Inquirer reporter to discuss Friendship Vil-
lage, he said: "I wouldn't be interested in
talking to you. Newspaper people are only
looking to screw things up."
William E. Miller is the American developer
who built Friendship Village.
And when Kobchai Sosothikul was asked
about Friendship Village, he answered: "I am
very busy. I cannot talk to you."
Kobchai alosothikul Is William E. Miller's
Thai partner in the project.
Why are all these people so reluctant to
talk about Friendship Village, a dander
of 674 two- and three-bedroom homes on the
outskirts of Bangkok that was supposed to be
a shining example of the American foreign
aid program?
Maybe it is because Thai Rath, a leading
Thai language newspaper in Bangkok, called
Friendship Village a "swindle."
Maybe it is because residents and the
builder are still fighting, after four years,
over the way the development was com-
pleted.
Or maybe it is because Friendship Village,
a collection of concrete and cement-block
houses on small lots, is not a shining example
of foreign aid, but is instead an uncomfort-
able, lasting reminder of how aid can do
more harm than good.
Whatever the explanation, it is clear from
a seven-month Inquirer investigation of the
American foreign aid program, that Friend-
ship Village is just one of many sorry chap-
ters in the history of the $172 billion pro-
gram.
Its middle-class homeowners sire unhappy
with their State Department-sponsored sub-
division. The projeot itself has been a costly
and arduous administrative nightmare. The
whole affair has been embarrassing to the
United States.
The Inquirer investigation of the nation's
$172 billion foreign aid program turned up
failures in agricultural projects in Colombia,
eeonomic development programs in Korea
and iarban redevelopment efforts in many
poor countries.
The failure of the Friendship Village proj-
ect in Thailand is not unique. It is just
typical. Here is its story:
Friendship Village was financed under a
little-known American foreign all plan
called the Rousing .Investment Guaranty
(RIG), which is administered by the State
Department's Agency for International De-
velopment (AID).
Under the program, which Congress en-
acted in 1961 to -help provide low-income
housing around the world, U.S. investors
supply the mortgage money to actually build
the housing projects in developing countries.
GUARANTEED
In turn, the mortgage is fully guaranteed
by the U.S. government and pays interest to
the U.S. Investor at a rate up to one percent
higher than the going PHA rate.
As The Inquirer disclosed Monday, the
housing guaranty program has been far more
successful in making money for U.S. build-
ers and investors than it has been in build-
ing housing for the world's poor.
It has consistently financed housing for
middle- to upper-income families in poor
countries?the income groups least In need
of help from the United States--rather than
housing for low-income families as in-
tended by Congress.
The Inquirer also disclosed that in the .
process the program has become an extreme-
ly attractive investment for the American
savings and loan industry, which now sup-
plies most of the money for guaranty proj-
ects.
The industry also benefits in millions of
dollars in technical-service contracts and ex-
pense-paid trips that are awarded by the
State Department relating to housing proj-
ects.
Conceived in the early 1960s, Friendship
Village was the product of the first phase of
the guaranty program, during which Amer-
ican builders erected housing from Latin
America to Asia.
The Friendship Village site, amid a watery
remote region of rice fields on the fringe of
Bangkok, far from the bustle of the Thai
capital, would seem an unlikely catalyst to
produce the partnership it did.
aftumazaraT IONA=
One partner was Willard Garvey, a multi-
millionaire grain dealer from Wichita, Kan.,
whose World Homes, Inc., had previously
built housing in Latin America under the
Food for Peace program.
Another was William E. Miller, a civil
engineer Irom Kansas City, Mo., who manu-
factured and sold two-way radio systems
throughout Southeast Asia in the early 1960s.
The third partner was Charles W. Hess Sr.,
a Kansas City attorney who specialized in
real estate development and law.
Together, they chartered a Missouri com-
pany called Intercontinental Housing, Inc.,
with Garvey owning 50 percent of the com-
mon stock, Miller owning 87141 percent and
Hess owning 121/2 percent.
When they announced the Bangkok de-
velopment of 915 houses in August 1964, the
developers stressed that Friendship Village
would cater to the Thai affluent?largely
merchants, supervisory and technical per-
sonnel employed by local industry, civil ser-
vants, school teachers, military officers and
high-echelon office employes of banking and
other commercial institutions."
The company made that statement even as
It announced it would seek a State Depart-
ment housing guaranty under a program
originally enacted by Congress to aid the
poor.
The company had no doubt it could mar-
ket the houses with selling prices ranging
from $5,610 to $9,400 and emphasized that it
planned to promote the U.S. government's
involvement in the project to help sell them.
"Proper public relations, identifying the
project with the Agency for International
Development," Intercontinental announced,
"will be available through press releases,
news sources, television, billboards and
brochures."
Although William Miller was to be the
general superintendent of the project, the
actual construction would be done by the
Southeast Asia Construction Company of
Bangkok, owned by Kobchai Sosothikul, a
member of an influential, wealthy Bangkok
family.
An internal memo of the U.S. embassy in
Bangkok dated March 11, 1964, noted that
Kobchai had close connections with the Thai
government.
The memo said his father, a leader in
Bangkok's Chinese community, Is a "close
friend of Prime Minister Kittikachom,"
Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn ruled Thai-
land with the backing of the army until last
year, when a revolution toppled his govern-
ment and sent him into exile. He has been
living in the United States,
The American Embassy in Bangkok mis-
takenly thought Friendship Village was to
house low-income families.
Another internal memo, this one dated
April 20, 1964, said Kobchai and an American
firm were about "to undertake a private wel-
fare housing project," in referring to Friend-
ship Village.
When the developers formally applied for
the housing guaranty, Intercontinental was
joined by a Thai partner?Slant Housing
Company, Ltd., of Bangkok.
That company, which was listed in the
proposal as owning the land where Friend-
ship Village would be built, had, as its major
stockholder, Kolachal Sosothikul.
SCALED DOWN
When the develobers submitted their for-
mal proposal to the housing guaranty office
in 1966, they had scaled down the plans for
Friendship Village slightly from 915 to 817
homes, with two or three bedrooms each,
each selling at prices ranging from $5,347 to
$7,022.
Their proposal also said that ia addition
to the houses, "adjoining areas" would be
"reserved for cain:unercial purposes, sports,
greenbelt and private school." A $4.8 million
guaranty was issued in 1966.
But when Friendship Village officially
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
? Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE S .20567
opened in May 1969, it did not quite turn
out the way everyone had planned.
? There were 674 houses, not 817 as planned,
And the prices did not range from $5,347 to
$7,022 as planned, but from $7,293 to $9,782.
"It turned out (to be) for high income
people," said Somport Bodhisomphorn, an
assistant vice president of the Bangkok Bank.
There is much in what Somport says. In
January, for example, the minimum wage in
Bangkok will rise to 16 cents an hour.
Intercontinental failed to build public
recreation areas, the school and all the shops
originally proposed to the State Department.
Access roads were narrower than planned.
When two cars meet on the streets of Friend-
ship Village, one must pull off to let the
other pass.
On the land where Intercontinental said
it intended to build the park and other pub-
lic facilitieS to serve all residents of the vil-
lage, homeowners claim, Miller instead built
85 additional houses?all privately financed,
without U.S. assistance.
In the new section, the houses are larger,
better constructed, more attractive and more
expensive than in the U.S. sponsored section.
And the streets are wide enough for two cars.
But lastly, Miller declined to turn over to
Friendship Village home owners additional
shares of stock that he held in their own
home owners association.
ANGER ERUPTS
All of this exploded into angry denuncia-
tions of both Miller and the United States
in the summer of 1970.
In June 1970, a letter signed by 343
Friendship Village homeowners was sent to
the Bangkok Bank, which received all home-
owners' monthly mortgage payments, charg-
ing that the project was improperly carried
out.
Then in July, homeowners gathered at the
bank and flatly asked officials of the State
Department's AID if the United States could
help.
But AID pretended that the United States
was not directly involved in the dispute, and
cabled the following message to Washington:
"(AID's) position was that homeowners
and Miller should meet and discuss problems
and attempt to determine (a) substance of
complaints, (b) legal responsibilities, and
(c) how to solve problems."
Interestingly, the State Department adopts
an opposite approach in cases where the
property or assets of American corporations
are involved in a dispute with a foreign
government.
When that happens, the Department rots'
tinely registers a strong protest to the gov-
ernment involved and tries to exert various
forms of international pressure on that na-
tion to resolve the differences.
But The Inquirer found that in cases such
as Friendship Village, where there is dis-
satisfaction with the performance of an
American corporation in a foreign nation, the
Department adopts a hands-off stance and
pretends that it is a matter to be resolved
by the company and the heat country.
In an Aug. 1 story in the Bangkok Post,
an embassy spokesman was quoted as saying
the United States' only interest in Friend-
ship Village was "paternal."
"The U.S. does not have any control over
Intercontinental Housing since it is a private
company," the story quoted the spokesman
as saying. "But the U.S.-sponsored the ori-
ginal project and still feels it is a sound idea."
But as an article in Thai Rath, another
newspaper, made clear on Aug. 3, many buy-
ers were drawn to the project precisely be-
cause of U.S. sponsorship through the hous-
ing guaranty program. The article said:
"The homebuyers further complained that
most of them interested in this project when
they first learned, from the broorure, that
the project was supported by AID and the
Bangkok Bank."
They also contended that the sewer sys-
tem was not properly constructed and that
Friendship Village's streets were in disrepair.
Owners were particularly irritated about
the streets because they had been damaged
by Miller's construction trucks during the
building of the 85 additional houses on the
land they said was once earmarked for their
park and recreation area.
In short, Friendship Village was hardly
the idyllic American-style suburb that own-
ers had been promised.
Although the State Department's AID of-
fice in Bangkok was under great pressure
from home owners to take a more active role
in settling the dispute, AID steadfastly tried
to play the role of a third party.
CONSENSUS CITED
"The consensus here," said one internal
memo, "is that primary responsibility for
resdlution must remain with Miller and the
homeowners association."
Indeed, AID complained that the fact the
homeowners were looking to the agency for
help complicated settling the matter.
"The difficulty which we think emerged
with this project," AID wrote to a General
Accounting Office (GAO) auditor, "is that
the homeowners, rightfully or wrongfully,
asserting that since the United States Gov-
ernment was involved in the financing it was
the United States Government to whom they
should look for follow-up to assume the de-
veloper's literal compliance with their under-
standing of the project."
As old problems remained unsolved, new
problems began to rise because of them. A
sharp increase in the number of delinquen-
cies began to plague the project in 1970,
when it was still less than two years old.
The State Department's AID office in
Washington warned the AID office in Bang-
kok of the gravity of the development:
"We suspect that the increase in delin-
quencies is not unrelated to the current dif-
ficulties between the home owners associa-
tion and the sponsor . . . We must caution
that delinquencies threaten jeof3ardy to the
very institutions we are trying to strengthen."
Still, AID was unwilling or unable to apply
the pressure to resolve differences between
the developer and Friendship Village home-
owners. The builder did repair the streets,
but most of the other problems remained.
In the meantime, Friendship- Village was
costing American taxpayers tens of thousands
of dollars a year, although supporters of the
program have always contended that it costs
taxpayers nothing.
It is true that the housing guaranty pro-
gram's funds come from fees it charges to
institutions which use the program. And it
is true the salaries and expenses of the pro-
gram are paid from the funds?not - tax
monies of Americans.
WORK FOR UNITED STATES
But in cases such as Friendship Village,
where the housing project goes awry, other
State Department personnel who are paid
from tax funds, find themselves drawn into
the process of trying to resolve difficulties
that arises under the program.
The files of the Friendship Village project
are filled with letters and memos from AID
officials who spent countless hours at tax-
payers' expense answering letters, writing
reports or offering opinions about how to
resolve problems.
Now, four years after the problems boiled
the surface, they are still mostly unsolved.
Delinquencies continue to be a problem.
The Bangkok Bank has instituted foreclosure
actions against some homeowners in the last
year, evicting some and forcing others to
make up their delinquent mortgage pay-
ments.
Maintenance in Friendship Village is
spotty; some yards are well kept while others
are overgrown with bushes or weeds. There is
at? least one abandoned house in the
development.
There was one other potential problem
Miller created for homeowners in the way
he carried out the project.
When he formed the homeowners associa-
tion, he used Thailand commercial code by-
laws instead of bylaws previously approved
by AID.
An AID-financed management review of
the project said the association's bylaws,
contrary to original guidelines approved by
AID, do not require an outside audit of the
homeowners associations' accounts.
At the time of the review, the association
had $40,000 in its treasury, and the manage-
ment review pointed out potential areas for
abuse:
- "Considering the large amount of money
involved, not only now, but especially in
the future, there is no protection against
misuse of funds to the future without this
requirement."
How could so many problems arise in the
execution of one foreign aid project?
ACTION DENIED
"There is little government intervention
or surveillance of this program, Roger Ernst,
director of the State Department's foreign
aid program of Thailand, told an Inquirer
reporter.
As The Inquirer investigation disclosed,
the State Department has failed to effectively
monitor the foreign aid program around the
world? and no where is that failure more
evident than in the housing guaranty pro-
gram.
A General Accounting Office (GAO) audit
of Friendship Village in 1973 concluded that
the State Department AID office in Thailand
had failed to establish even minimal guide-
lines for overseeing the project.
"No procedures were established to assure
that the provisions of the mortgage contract
were followed," the auditor wrote in a letter
to the AID office. "We also found that ade-
quate controls were not developed to assure
the builder's compliance with the project
agreement."
The Inquirer attempted to interview Miller
about the project recently at Bangkok, but
the developer declined, saying:
"Newspaper people are only looking to
screw things up. The stuff gets screwed up
so much in the press that I don't talk to
newspaper people. Why don't you talk to the
people at AID?"
But AID's Bangkok office, it should be
recalled, did not want to talk about Friend-
ship Village either and even contended that
it had no address for the project.
And Ernst, the foreign aid director in
Thailand refused to allow an Inquirer re-
porter to examine the files on the project.
But Garvey Enterprises in Wichita, Kan.,
whose owner, Willard Garvey, held 50 percent
of the stock in Intercontinental Housing,
was willing to discuss the project.
'Let's put it this way," said Terence Mc-
Donald, president of Garvey International,
"our project was successful."
McDonald said there were major delays
due to excessive paperwork required by
Washington and due to ignorance of Bangkok
housing conditions by the FHA, which sur-
veyed the construction site.
"FHA-Washington does't know anything
about housing requirements in Bangkok,"
he explained. "One delay was an FHA require-
ment that the development be hooked up to
the Bangkok sewage system. Well, there ain't
such a thing."
Asked in what way he considered Friend-
ship Village a success, McDonald said it was
profitable, attractive and "started people
thinking in terms of long-term money for
housing." He added that the company would
like to build more housing overseas if the
housing program were streamlined and .
opened to U.S. builders again.
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20568
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE December 4, 1974
"Frankly we feel that each person, if he
becomes a homeowner, is a responsible citi-
zen," he said. "You might say it's our mis-
sionary outlook, if you could call it that.
Then we'd like to try, you know, to make a
little money out of it."
THE HISTORY OF A NIuRICY MONEY Dees
(By Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele)
For three years now, the State Department
has been quietly putting together a deal to
provide millions of dollars in mortgage
money to build a housing development in
Bangkok, Thailand.
It is a deal that is entangled in precisely
the sort of murky alliances and financial in-
trigues that have so often diverted the Ameri-
can foreign aid program from its original
goal?helping the poor.
It is also a deal in which one arm of the
U.S. foreign aid program lends money to a
private company that in turn invests the
money in a profit-making project arranged
by a second arm of the U.S. foreign aid pro-
gram.
It all began in 1971 when a State Depart-
ment survey concluded that there was "a
substantial housing shortage" in Thailand.
Shortly thereafter, an official of a British
housing corporation and a friendly State De-
partment official began laying the ground-
work to use the U.S. foreign aid program to
finance the British company's own profit-
making venture.
In three years, the project has mush-
roomed. Its investors now include two
wealthy Thai families and an Asian develop-
ment company whose stockholders include
some of the largest corporations in the United
States.
It was in 1971 that Peter M. Kimm, then
deputy director of the State Department's
Office of Housing?now director?passed a
copy of the housing survey on to Jack Bur-
gess, an official of the Commonwealth Hous-
ing Corporation in London.
Burgess was delighted.
In a letter dated Nov. 16, 1971, beginning
"Dear Peter," Burgess replied to Kimm:
"I have been touring the Caribbean re-
cently so have not been able to write to you.
"I would like to say how much I appre-
ciated your letting me bee a draft of the
report on Bangkok. This corporation (Com-
monwealth Housing Corporation) is now
sending a mission to Bangkok, and the in-
formation contained in your report will be
most useful."
PROSPECTS SOUGHT
Burgess then asked Kimm "what pros-
pects would / have," if he formed a mort-
gage-lending operation in Bangkok, "of per-
suading you (the State Department's hous-
ing office) to invest in such a company?"
The groundwork for the answer to that
request had been laid one month earlier
when Kimm, in an internal memorandum
summing up a meeting with Burgess, wrote:
"We concluded that we should keep each
other fully informed about our programs,
and that we should look for opportunities
for future collaboration, particularly in the
form of joint investments. Botswana and
Tolland both offer possibilities."
Over the next 12 to 18 months, Burgess'
company began mapping plans for the con-
struction of a new town? on 1,800 acres of
land about 30 miles north of Bangkok, to be
called Nava Nakorn. A private company was
set up in Thailand called Nava Nakorn Co.,
Ltd.
According to a June 1974 corporation re-
port, 100,000 shares of stock were issued in
the company, with 65,000 shares going to
two wealthy Thai families. The rest of the
stock was divided this way:
Commonwealth Development Corp., the
parent company of Commonwealth Housing
Corp., 10,000 shares; Thailand's National
Housing Authority, 10,000 shades; Industrial
Ehtates Authority, 5,000 shares,. and the Pri-
vate Investment Co. for Asia, 10,000 shares.
The Private Inveztment Co. for Asia
(PICA) is a Tokyo-based company whose
stockholders include nearly four dozen of
the United States major corporations?from
Exxon Corp. to Time, Inc., to RCA Corp.
PICA has borrowed $2 million . from the
Overseas Private Investment Corp., an
that makes loans and insures buelness in-
vestments in less developed countries
through the foreign aid program.
In a kind of progress report on their joint
Nava Nakorn project, Kimm, the State De-
partment official, wro le to Burgess, the cor-
poration executive, a letter dated Sept. 6,
1973.
He suggested that the best vehicle for
possible State Department financing for the
Nava Nakorn project would be the Thai Na-
tional Housing Authority.
Ostensibly at least, one of the require-
ments of the American foreign. aid program
is that the country receiving the assistance
really wants it. But in this case, Kinun
sought out officials of the Thai National
Housing Authority, who were not actively
pursuing assistance under the State Depart-
ment's housing guaranty program, and
urged them. to do so.
Two months after his letter to Burgess,
Kimm write to Roger Ernest, the director
of the State Department's foreign aid pro-
gram in Thailand, suggesting to Ernst that
". . . it is thne to focus your attention on
housing matters."
In the following months, there were more
meetings and more discussions, and finally
last summer the talks centered on a specific
amount of American foreign aid.
PROGRESS IS ClEfED
In a letter dated July 16, 1974, Burgess
wrote to Kimm following a meeting with the
State Department's Ernst in Thailand:
"We are making considerable progress with
the planning of Nava Nelsen). New Town and
expect to start development works early in
January 1975.
"My main concern Is the provision of long-
term mortgage finance for the middle-
income-group house purchasers . . I think
I would need an initial assurance of some-
thing in the region of $20 million spread over
a period of time."
Ernst wrote to Kimm two weeks later,
asking about the availability of funds, and
said: "As you are aware, (Burgess) is in-
volved in the Nava Nakorn New Town devel-
oprnent and envisions the United States
housing guaranty for coverage of the middle-
income component of the total project.
"He would like to shepherd through the
Thai structure a request from them to AIX)
(Agency for International Development) to
bring the housing investment guaranty into
play for this project"
What Ernst was saying is this:;
Burgess, representing a profit-making
British company, would guide the paperwork
through which the Thais would request an.
American foreign any guaranty through the
Thai government bureaucracy to the State
Department.
Kimm, in a letter dated Sept. 3, 1973 ad-
vised Ernst that money would be available
for the new town project.
GOOD PROGRAM
Wrote Kimm: "Let me assure you ... that
were we to put together a good program in
Thailand, we could carve out a piece of our
available authority.
Despite the fact that there was at the time
a depressed mortgage market in the United
States, Kimm assured Ernst that there would
be no trouble raising the money for the Thai
project. Actual mortgage money under the
housing guaranty program is largely pro-
vided by American savings and loan asso-
ciations, with their investment guaranteed
by the government.
"Incidentally," he wrote, "the availability
of investment funds in the United States has
no bearing on a 'reservation' of funds for
Thailand.
"Actually, funds have always been avail-
able. The question is, at what interest rate.
"We would like to pursue the possibility of
further discussions with you on possible par-
ticipation in the Nava Nakorn project."
If the State Department ultimately issues
the guaranty?which all the department's
correspondence indicates it plans to do?it
will mean simply this:
At a time when million of Americans can-
not get mortgage loans, money from the
American savings and loan industry, in-
sured by American taxpayers, will provide
cash for a British corporation to build hous-
ing at a profit for middle- and upper-income
families in a Thai new town.
[From the Philadelphia Inquirer,
Nov. 27, 19741
WOMAN PREACHER IS JAILED?SHE DARED
CHALLENGE II-S.-AIDED INDUSTRY
(By Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele)
This is a story about the U.S. foreign aid
program and a woman minister in South
Korea who was arrested and held in solitary
confinement nearly three months for deliv-
ering a sermon.
It was after she preached on the impor-
tance of seeking "the kingdom of God and his
righteousness' (Matthew 6:33), that the Rev.
Cho Wha Soon, a 40-year-old Methodist min-
ister in Inchon, South Korea, was arrested
by agents of the Korean Central Intelligence
Agency (KCIA).
That was last May 15. The slight, soft-
spoken Rev. Cho, who stands about 5 feet,
4 inches and weighs little more than 100
pounds, was whisked away from her home
at 6 A.M. by KCIA agents, She was questioned
for six days and then taken to West Gate
Prison, where she spent the next 76 days In
solitary confinement before her release. No
formal charges were lodged against her.
As is the case with most all persons ar-
reeted in South Korea?touted by the U.S.
State Department as a shining example of
this country's successful foreign aid pro-
gram?Rev. Cho was not permitted to con-
tact her family, friends or a lawyer.
It was shortly after her release from prison
that an Inquirer reporter interviewed Rev.
Cho in Seoul in connection with the news-
paper's investigation into the administration
of the $172 billion U.S. foreign aid program.
What does Rev. Cho have to do with Amer-
ican foreign aid?
Rev. Cho's arrest grew out of a sermon
she delivered to workers of a textile plant
whose operations--like those of many other
Korean textile mills?have been subsidized
through the United States foreign aid pro-
gram.
For several years, Rev. Cho has been at-
tempting to improve the lot of workers at
factories and textile mills described by one
American labor union official as having "some
of the worst working conditions in all of
Asia." Those same plants have received Amer-
ican foreign aid both directly and indirectly.
For its part, the State Department remains
blissfully stoic about such things. As far as
the State Department is concerned, the Ko-
rean people are doing very nicely, at least
statistically.
As Arthur W. Hummel Jr., then deputy as-
sistant secretary of state for East Asian and
Pacific affairs, told a Senate Appropriations
Committee hearing In May 1972:
"Korea is an excellent example of increased
strength and self-reliance. Its record of eco-
nomic growth in the last decade is nothing
short of remarkable."
What Hummel and other State Depart-
ment officials neglect to mention are the op-
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 LCIA-RDP/9-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 20569
pressive working conditions and an indus-
trial base heavily dependent on cheap fe-
male labor and private profiteering and cor-
ruption that are so pervasive in Korea that
businesses budget for their bribery pay-
ments.
Nor do they talk about the major bene-
ficiaries of American foreign aid: A select
group of government officials; private busi-
nesses controlled by wealthy Korean fami-
lies; companies run by onetime government
leaders or ex-Army generals, and joint en-
terprises managed by Koreans in partner-
ship with Japanese and American companies.
Nor do they talk about the major condi-
tions in those plants where the starting wage
often is less than 15 cents an hour?some-
times less than 10 cents; where the tradi-
tional work week is seven days; where man-
agement dictates to employes whom they
may, or may not, associate with, and whom
they should vote for in electone.
NO MINIMUM WAGE
Nor do they talk about the fact that the
unions are controlled by the Korean Central
Intelligence Agency; that there is no mini-
mum wage; that there is no collective bar-,
gaining; that if a company fails to pay its
employes, they must continue working be-
cause there is an absolute ban against
strikes.
Nor do they talk about the autocratic ad-
ministration of President Park Chung Use,
who has junked Korea's democratic consti-
tution, eliminated personal freedoms, made
criticism of his government a capital offense,
outlawed strikes and maintained an eco-
nomic policy based on what one Korean edu-
cator calls a "minimum, minimum wage."
None of this seems to bother the State De-
partment much. It continues to pour foreign
aid money into Korea seemingly on the basis
that the only really important thing is a
steadily rising gross national product.
Since the end of World War IT, the State
Department has pumped nearly $12 billion
into South Korea through the foreign aid
program.
That figure does not include hundreds of
millions of dollars spent to maintain Ameri-
can armed forces in the country, or loans
from the United States Export-Imnort Bank,
or guaranties on American private invest-
ments or assistance furnished by interna-
tional organizations to which the United
States is the major contributor.
There is no sign that the flow of foreign
aid money to South Korea will stop. An offi-
cial in the American Embassy in Seoul ticks
off a list of ongoing and upcoming projects
financed with foreign aid development loans.
AGRICULTURAL PROJECT
There is a $5 million agricultural project
and a $2.5 million elementary and middle
school project and a $10.7 million power com-
pany project and a $2 million feasibility study
relating to future foreign aid projects.
Officials of the Korean government have
their own list for the future. They want more
housing projects and more military hardware
and more agricultural products; all to be
financed through the foreign aid program.
Much of American foreign aid to Korean
businesses involves raw materials and manu-
facturing equipment purchased from the
United States through long-term, low-inter-
est loans.
The loans often run for 40 years, with a
10-year grace period, meaning that no pay-
ments on the principal are made during the
first 10 years. Interest rates generally are a
nominal two to three percent.
These kinds of loans and American foreign
aid investments generally in private busi-
nesses are not unique to South Korea. Neither
are the results of those investments.
The State Department has made the same
kinds of grants and loans and loan guaranties
in everything from the electronics industry to
the food-processing business in less developed
countries around the world.
As The Inquirer reported Sunday, the State
Department has funneled billions of dollars
into these foreign aid projects to spur growth
in gross national products in the belief that
the benefits would trickle down to the poor.
Instead of aiding the poor, the foreign aid
money has helped the rich to become richer,
further entrenched those already in power
and subsidized low-wage industries from the
Philippines to Botswana and Jamaica.
Since the mid-1960s, the State Department
has invested about $400 million in the Korean
textile industry, with the bulk of the money
going to supply American cotton for the mills.
Here is the story of one such mill, the
Dong-ll Textile Company. It is better than
some Korean textile plants, worse than
others:
Dong-Il Textile manufacturers and exports
cotton and man-made fabrics, yarns and
threads. The company has two plants, one
at the port city of Inchon, another at An-
yang.
Bahk Zhin Woong, an official in the cora-
panys export section, says that Dong-I1
employs about 100 persons at its corporate
offices in Seoul and another 2,500 workers at
its two plants.
Bahk said the company imports much of
its cotton from the United States and, in
turn, exports the finished products back to
the United States.
During the last five years, Dong-Ins sales
have soared 211. percent, climbing to $33.6
million last year from'$10.8 million In 1969,
In that same period, the company's ee-
ports jumped 680 percent, going from no
million in 1969 to $23.4 million last year,
with a large share of that volume coming
to the United States,
At Dong-Il's main faetory complex at In-
chon, there are 919 looms and 62,496 spindles
turning out a variety of products, including
cotton fabrics, cotton poplin, cotton yarn
and blended yarn.
Of the 1,400 workers at the plant, Woo-
Young Yoon, a plant manager, estimates
that 1,200 are women, mostly in their teens
and early 205.
About 830 of the woman live in a dormi-
tory provided by the company. Woo said
there is no charge for living in the dormi-
tory. He said that the company provides one
free meal each day for all workers and that
girls living in the dormitory must pay for
two of their meals.
SEVEN-DAY WORK WEEK
Generally, the girls work an eight-hour
day, seven days a week, with one day off?
called a "holiday"?each month. The plant
operates round the clock, and each week
the girls rotate shifts.
Because of the slowdown in the economy,
however, the plant now is on a six-day week.
Throughout the factory there are signs
suspended from the ceiling and stenciled on
steel girders imploring the girls to work
harder. Roughly translated, they read:
"Whether you are diligent or lazy shows
clearly at the work place."
"Increase production."
"I won't put off my work for today. I will
complete all of it."
And outside the plant, the company motto:
"Do your work well, think well, cooperate
with one another."
It was near the end of last April when
about 40 girls, from the Dong-II plant at-
tended a picnic outside of Suwon, a town 20
miles south of Seoul. There were some 60
girls there, too, from another textile mill.
Rev. Cho, the Methodist minister, remem-
bers the day well.
"I was speaking on Matthew 6:33," she re-
calls. "It says, 'Seek ye first the kingdom of
God and his righteousness; and all these
things shall be added unto you.'
"To explain righteousness, I was talking
about the present situation in Korea. I said
in today's society, of you try to live a right-
eous life, you are liable to go to prison for
10 years
"I used as an example two Christian pro-
fessors arrested a few days earlier and I said
it may be even that I will have to spend 15
years in prison for talking about such things.
but that's the price a righteous person will
have to pay."
It was a little more than two weeks after
the picnic that Rev. Cho was arrested by
agents of the Korean Central Intelligence
Agency, an organization whose functions
are about the same as those of the Gestapo
in Germany during the 1930s.
One of the things that most upsets the
KCIA and the Park government is the in-
dustrial mission program being carried out
in Korean textile mills and other factories
by Protestan clergy like Rev. Cho, and more
recently their Catholic counterparts.
Through the industrial missions, the
church leaders meet with factory workers to
hold religious services, visit them if they are
sick or injured, conduct labor education pro-
grams and assist the workers if they want to
organize: or improve an existing union.
TOLD HOW TO VOTE
Rev. Cho first began working in the in-
dustrial mission in 1966, the year she was
ordained a Methodist minister. And for a
time, she even worked at the Dong-ll plant,
The company carries on its own educa-
tional programs, Rev. Cho says, telling the
girls what is best for them and the com-
pany. There are anti-Communist indoctrina-
tion programs and at election time, the com-
pany tells the girls whom to vote for. She
continued:
"The whole factory is regimented tightly.
It's regulated so that everybody works at
their maximum at all times. For example, if '
you go to the bathroom, you must go and
come back In a two-minute period, or you're
liable for a demerit.
"There is a very strict system of demerits.
If someone breaks a rule, they have to write
a letter admitting they have done such a
thing. If they write three of these letters;
they are automatically dismissed.
"There is also a letter of apology. If you've
done something like a trespass of etiquette
or not followed the company policy, you
must write a letter apologizing."
Among those employes required to write
such letters are girls who associate with
Rev. Cho.
The starting wage at the Dong-II plant,
where girls work two to three years and then
quit, Rev. Cho said, is about 10 cents an
hour?before deductions.
The average wage, again according to Rev.
Cho, is around 16 cents an hour. A Dong-II
executive maintains that the average wage
is close to 30 cents an hour. The government
says the average for the textile industry is
23 cents.
Whatever the ease, it is agreed that there
are many other manufacturing plants and
textile mills in South Korea that pay 10 cents
an hour or less.
For some measure of what that 10 cents,
or even 30 cents, an hour will buy:
One pound of beef costs $1.60; a black and
white 19-inch television set sells for $254, an
apartment-size refrigerator sells for $594.
The best measure of all perhaps, is the
price of sport shirts in a downtown Seoul
department store, which ranges from $6.25
to $20.
LOW WAGES EMPHASIZED
Thus, the textile plant employes who pro-
duce the cloth to make the shirts, even if
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S. 20570
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE December 4, 1974
they earn 30 cents an hour, must work 21 to
67 hours to earn enough to buy one shirt.
Obviously, the average Korean worker
cannot afford to buy his clothing in a Seoul
department store. He cannot afford to buy a
television set, or a refrigerator, ? or a pound
of beef.
It is precisely the low wages that President
Park emphasizes in his effort to attract new
industry to South Korea, along with a guar-
antee to employers that there will be no
strikes.
The 1974 "Guide to Investment in Korea,"
published by the government's Economic
Planning Board, phrases the no-strike law
more delicately:
"Foreign investors are given special pro-
tection from unwanted labor disputes."
Even before President Park's emergency
decree outlawing strikes, says an American
professor at a Seoul university, "one of the
things the Korean government promised an
investor was there would be no strikes.
"One of the ways they did this was to
make sure they controlled who ran the
unions. So the Korean government has be-
come highly incensed that religious figures
are meddling in labor affairs."
So it is, then, that except for the work
being done by church leaders, there is no
effective union movement in South Korea.
This is especially curious, for since 1968
the U.S. State Department has awarded $5.4
million in contracts to the Asian-American
Free Labor Institute, Inc., in Washington,
ostensibly to develop a trade-union move-
ment in South Korea and other Asian coun-
tries.
Listen to the descriptions of some of those
contracts contained in State Department
files:
Feb. 8, 1968?Provide advice and assistance
in the development and administration of
trade union programs and labor related en-
deavors.
April 7, 1970?Develop_programs and train-
ing projects in trade union organization,
leadership and administrative training for
selected participants from Asian and Neer
East areas.
March 31, 1974?Feasibility study to dc-
termine labor needs and personnel capabili-
ties in the less developed countries of Asia.
How are the institute's programs?which
are financed by the American taxpayer--
coming along in a country where strikes are
banned, collective bargaining is non-existee t
and wages are deliberately held down by gov-
ernment policy; while corporate profits go
unchecked?
A profesor at a Seoul university who spe-
cializes in labor relations offers this assew?
ment:
"The Asian-American Free Labor Institute
. . . doesn't deal with the basic rights of
workers, and nothing is said about social
goals and policies of labor.
"What they are doing is teaching the
workers to be passive and supporting the
present government and the Korean Central
Intelligence Agency."
The institute, the professor explained, car-
ries out its program under a contract with
the Federation of Korean Trade Union;
(FICTU), which supposedly is the AFL-CIO
of Korea.
"In fact," he said. "it is an organization
controlled 100 percent by the Korean gov-
ernment and more particularly by the
Korean Central Intelligence Agency."
There are a couple of final ironies to the
United States foreign aid program in South
Korea?a program that calls for the develop
inent of a free trade-union movement in n
country that will not tolerate free trade
unions and that at the same time provides
long-term, low-interest loans to improve the
profitability of sweatshop factories.
The same American foreign aid program
that has provided? textile mill jobs for
Koreans at 10 cents to 30 cents an hour has
resulted in the loss of jobs for textile work-
ers in this country.
"We know our industry has been hurt,"
says Howard D. Samuel, an official of the
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.
"They have the lowest wages scales, and con-
ditions in Korean textile plants are -hor-
rendous."
Since the late 1960's, the Korean com-
panies have hooded the United States with
their cheaper textile products and wearing
apparel.
IMPORTS RESTRICTED
Indeed,- the volume of textile products and
wearing apparel flowing to America: climbed
so rapidly that the U.S. government placed
restrictions on the annual growth in imports.
From 1969 to 1973, according to Depart-
ment of Commerce figures, imports of Korean
textiles and wearing apparel rose from $101
million to $250 million?a jump of 148
percent.
The Korean government reported total
textile and wearing apparel exports last year
of $837 million, indicating that nearly one-
third of all Korean textile ex-ports came to
the United States.
In interviews with an Inquirer reporter,
officials of Korean textile companies, trade
associations and the government expressed
their dismay over the import controls
clamped on by the United States,
Kim Hyun, managing director of the Korea
Chamber of Commerce and Industry, termed
the U.S. import controls "quite unfair." Said
he:
"Like a golf game, there should be a handi-
cap for developing nations like Korea. Give
Us a handicap, that's what we are calling
Said an official in the government's Min-
istry of Commerce and Industry:
"At the time (of the quota negotiations) ,
I blamed the United States government for
forcing us to limit our exports. it was un-
fair and incorrect."
A representative of a Korean business and
industry trade association, though, is opti-
mistic about the future, saying he believes
the !report restrictions will be lifted as soon
as the overall economic situation improves
in the United States.
"We are anxiously looking forward to re-
covery of United States business boom," he
said.
Even exports of American c:otton to Korea
were halted temporarily this year to allow
the money previously allocated for cotton
shipments under the foreign aid program to
be used for food distribution in famine-
stricken areas Of Africa.
With Korean textile workers earning 10
cents to 30 cents an hour, and United States
textile workers losing their jobs because of
the flood of cheap products into this coun-
try, who, exactly, is benefiting from the
American foreign aid program?
In Washington, an official of the American
Textile Manufacturing Institute, the textile
industry's trade organization, offers this
answer:
The owners of Korean textile mills.
? He says: "The labor cost is so low that
the Koreans could have bought the cotton
on the open market (without the subsidy
paid by the American taxpayer) and still
have undersold our mills.
"'rhat might: have affected the profits of
whoever Is getting those profits in Korea.
But to find out who, you would have to visit
the back alleys of Seoul."
There is yet one final irony, -
Rev. Cho, the Methodist minister, may very
well be arrested shortly after you. read this
story.
In agreeing to be interviewed and quoted
by name--talking about a Company that has
benefited from the United States foreign aid
program, a program Sold on. the basis of
humanitarianism?Rev. Cho has violated
any number of the arbitrary decrees handed
down by President Park.
Observes an American minister who is a
long-time friend of Rev. Cho:
"The korean church leaders have made a
commitment to this country and if it means
going to jail, then they are willing to go to
Jail."
MAZE MASKS BENEFICIARY?PRIVATE MONEY-
LENDER USES U.S. FUNDS
(By Donald L. Barlett and
James B. Steele)
U.S. foreign aid money is parceled out
through so many different programs, and so
many different organizations that it is diffi-
cult to determine where the money really is
going or who benefits from it.
This is a case study of one such foreign
aid maze:
The Korea Investment and Finance Corp.
(KIFC) opened its doors in downtown Seoul
on March 10, 1972, the first short-term fi-
nance company in South Korea.
On the surface, there is no connection
whatsoever between the U.S. foreign aid pro-
gram and MFG, the private money-lender.
EARNED $734,000
In its first full year of operations last year.
the company did very nicely, earning $734,-
000 on total revenue of $4.1 million. Net in-
come per share was $5.84.
The company's financial fortunes were
aided by two seemingly fortuitous events in
South Korea, a country then and now ruled
arbitrarily through decrees by President
Park Chung Hee.
Five months after KIFC went into busi-
ness, the National Assembly--which is con-
trolled by President Park?enacted legisla-
tion regulating short-term finance compa-
nies.
Coincidentally, KIFC was the only com-
pany that met all the requirements.
About the same time that the National
Assembly passed Law No. 2339 on short-term
financing, President Park issued a decree
outlawing the long-term private money mar-
ket, which had been the traditional source
of short-term loans.
The practical effect of the two actions was
that potential borrowers, who for one rea-
son or another did not want to deal with
commercial banks, had only one source of
money: KIFC.
Of the outstanding stock in the Korea
Investment and Finance Corp., 60 percent is
held by Korean business and individuals, 40
percent by foreigners. The foreign-owned
stocks break down this way:
The International Finance Corp. (IFC),
an affiliate of the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (World
Bank) set up to encourage private enter-
prise through direct investments, holds
20 percent of the stock.
Four companies each own 5 percent of the
stock: Goldman Sachs & Company, the New
York brokerage house; Nomura Securities
Company, Ltd., of Tokyo, a Japanese broker-
age house; Bankers International Corp., a
subsidiary of Bankers Trust Co. of New York,
and the Private Investment Co. of Asia, a
Tokyo-based investment concern.
The Korean Development Finance Corp. is
the single laregst stockholder, with 22 per-
cent. The remaining 38 percent of the stock
Is owned by a variety of banks, businesses
and individuals in Korea.
There is, in short, no sign of American
foreign aid. But consider the following.
Korea Investment and Finance Corp. was
set up by the Korea Development Finance
Corp., a development institution that invests
in, and makes loans to, Korean businesses
and industries.
SUPPORT OF AID
Both companies were organized with the
assistance and support of the State Depart-
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
? Approved For Release 2005/06/16 ? CIA-RDP/R-DMIA000100020024-2
December 4,1974 CONGRESSIONAL REWRD ? SEN S 20571
ment's Agency for InternatiOnal Develop-
ment (AID).
As of Dec. 31, 1973, the Korea Development
Finance Corp. had received a $2.9 million
loan through the United States foreign aid
program, to be repaid over 40 years, with a
10-year grace period and an annual interest
rate of 2.5 percent.
The World Bank has made loans totaling
$41.1 million to the Korea Development
Finance Corp., and has authorized additional
loans of $53.6 million.
Through the foreign aid program, the
United States accounts for 26 percent of
the paid-in capital of the World Bank.
The Korea Development Bank, another
Institution which makes loans to, and in-
vests in, Korean businesses and industries,
has lent $5.1 million to the Korea Develop-
ment and Finance Corp.
The Korea Development Bank, in turn,
has received $27.4 million in three long-term
low-interest loans through the United
States foreign aid program.
$15.3 MILLION LOAN
The Korea Development Bank also has
outstanding a $15.3 million loan from the
Asian Development Bank. Through the for-
eign aid program, the United States accounts
for 16 percent of the paid-in capital of the
Asian Development Bank.
The International Finance Corp., which
has invested $1 million in the Korea In-
vestment and Finance Corp., also has loaned
$1.1 million to the Korea Development Fi-
nance Corp., the company that, you may
recall, organized KIFC.
Through the foreign aid program, the
United States accounts for 33 percent of the
total subscriptions to the International
Finance Corp.
In addition, the International Finance
Corp. relies largely on the World Bank as a
prineipal source of funds, and through the
foreign aid program, the United States is the
single largest contributor to the World
Bank Group.
Finally, the Private Investment Co. of
Asia, which has a 5 percent interest (a $163,-
000 investment) in Korea Investment and
Finance Corporation, is operating with a
$2 million loan from the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC).
The Overseas Private Investment Corpora-
tion is a semi-autonomous organization that
insures American business investments in
developing countries through the foreign
aid program.
BILLIONS SPENT TO EASE HUNGER?AND THE
EFFORT BAC.KFIRES
(By Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele)
The United States foreign aid program has
spent 30 years and billions and billions of
dollars on agricultural programs designed to
alleviate hunger in poor countries around the
world.
That effort has largely failed.
In many instances, it has worse than
failed; it has backfired, actually holding
down food produetion in foreign countries
and increasing their reliance on shiploads of
U.S. food and dollars.
Consequently, many of those same coun-
tries are now faced with mass starvation, the
prospect of certain and recurring food short-
ages for the foreseeable future and a continu-
ing inability to grow enough food to feed
themselves.
U.S. agricultural aid, like the entire $172
billion foreign aid program, has been under-
taken with the best of intentions. And, also
like the entire foreign aid program, it is an
example of funds misspent, misdirected and,
ultimately, wasted.
Poor, hungry people in developing coun-
tries are still poor and hungry and More
dependent than ever on the outside world for
food to stay alive.
The Inquirer's probe of agricultural as-
sistance?part- of a seven-month investiga-
tion of the flawed U.S. foreign aid program?
found that:
The United States has mistakenly tried to
transplant primitive societies farming tech-
niques perfected in this country, on the as-
sumption that what works in Iowa and In-
diana will -work in India and Indonesia. It
won't, and for the subsistence farmers in far
away places, the results have been catastro-
phic.
Programs such as Food for Peace, moti-
vated by humanitarian impulses, have
actually caused many poor countries to fail
to even try to increase their own agricultural
production?because it is cheaper and easier
for them to obtain food from the United
States than to grow it at home.
All too often, aid is spent on expensive,
show-case projects that benefit only a hand-
ful of farmers and make no contribution to
the country's overall agricultural needs.
Even in established projects, aid, instead
of flowing to needy small farmers, often bene-
fits large farmers or pays the salaries of edu-
cated, elite bureaucracies in the developing
countries that have grown up to administer
aid programs.
Agrieultural assistance has also had the
Ironic effect of postponing or delaying in-
definitely necessary, painful reforms in many
nations that, if taken, would substantially
increase food production and relieve misery.
? In country after country, The Inquirer in-
vestigation established, if there is one les-
son to be learned after the expenditure of
more than $172 billion in American foreign
aid, it is this: ?
? Unless the government receiving the as-
sistance has enacted sound policies of its
own, no amount of foreign aid will do the
least bit of good.
This is especially true in less developed
countries, where corruption is systematic
and in countries where governments have
failed to institute even the most basic self-
help measures.
Says a senior staff assistant for the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee:
"External assistance is of minimal value
unless the internal society is straightened
out. India is a good example of an internal
society that has not been straightened out."
Says a State Department official, privately
echoing the same sentiments after years of
overseas duty:
'There are some countries where assistance
is a complete waste. India is a good example.
Every dollar we put into India is a dollar
down the drain."
Their observations relate to foreign aid
in general. But in no other facet of the for-
eign aid program are their assessments more
painfully applicable than in the area of
agricultural assistance.
Over the years, the United States foreign
aid program has provided a staggering
amount of agricultural assistance to the rest
of the world in the form of direct food aid
or assistance in agricultural planning.
Since the food for peace program was en-
acted by Congress in 1954, the nation has
shipped agricultural products valued at $22.4
billion to more than 100 countries.
NEW METHODS TAUGHT
Agricultural experts from American col-
leges and universities have studied exotic
tropical diseases and worked closely with
poor farmers to teach them new farming
.methods.
Billions of dollars have been poured into
large-scale projects in irrigation, coloniza-
tion, farm resettlement and tropical agri-
cultural research.
It is true that the United States' foreign
aid program has done all of that. Yet whether
the vehicle of the aid program has been di-
rect non-repayable U.S. grants, or insur-
ance guarantees to price le companies en-
gaged in farming, or agricultural loans from
international organizations such as the World
Bank, there has also been one failure after
another.
In South Korea, the government has im-
plemented a patchwork agricultural policy
over the last decade, with the backing of
the State Department, which has adversely
affected food supplies. Korean farmers ex-
plained to The Inquirer what has happened:
Severgi years ago, the government told
farmers to raise chickens. Everyone built
chicken coops. Then, the price of chicken
feed went up 500 percent due to soaring de-
mand and the price of eggs went up only 20
percent.
Everyone stopped raising chickens.
Then they were told to raise pigs. Then,
le was tobacco. Another year, it was 'angora
rabbits (for the fur) . Another year, it was
cows. All these enterprises had the same
predictable result: A farmer would buy a calf
for $150, feed it for six months and then
be able to sell it for only $125.
This year, the Korean government is push-
ing sunflowers.
In West Africa, a $1.4 million Stats De-
partment project to raise chickens for do-
mestic consumption in the three food-short
nations of Mali, Mauritania and Senegal
failed because U.S. planners did not take into
account the fact that those nations did not
have enough grain to feed both their popu-
lations and support a poultry industry.
In Thailand, the State Department en-
thusiastically supported a private American
company's plan to increase corn production
by guaranteeing the project 100 percent.
The idea, according to a State Department
release, was to transplant to rural Thailand
"the familiar county-agent concept of U.S.
agriculture in providing farmers advice on
the use of fertilizers, seed selection, cultiva-
tion and other aspects of successful farming."
But the project failed because it was un-
dercapitalized from the start by the Ameri-
can company. 'It ended up costing the Amer-
ican foreign aid program $6.7 million to cover
staggering operating losses.
In India, the United States poured in more
than 42 million metric' tons of wheat during
the 1960s under the foreign aid program.
"By giving her so much food, we gave
India a crutch," says a senior aide to the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "As a
result she had postponed all the hard, tough
political and economic decisions that must
be made."
Those decisions include whether India will
continue to pour millions of dollars into her
growing military program or divert some of
that money to provide food for her hungry'
masses.
Now, as starvation marches across vast
reaches of Africa and. Asia, many undevel-
oped countries have sought to blame their
plight on developed nations, especially the
United States, and are demanding more help.
But during all of the discussion about
famine and its causes and its possible cures,
there is one subject that goes unmentioned:
The failure of developing countries to in-
stitute necessary self-help measures to in-
crease agricultural production?a failure
that no amount of American foreign aid can
ever overcome.
There is, in short, great potential for in-
creasing agricultural production in many un-
developed countries.
But' for one reason or another?all re-
lated to the failure of internal government
policies or an inability to face certain hard
political realities these governments have re-
fused to come to grips with their problems,
and agricultural production has suffered.
Take the case of Colombia, one of the na-
tions visited and studied in detail by In-
quirer reporters as part of the newspaper's
foreign aid investigation.
Long a focal point for American aid in
Latin America, Colombia has received $1.4
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20572
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE December 4, 1974
billion in loans and grants directly from the
United States since 1916.
In addition, Colombia has received loans
of $1.1 billion from the World Bank and 6819
million from the Inter-American Develop-
/nent Bank. Both lending agencies depend
heavily on the United States for financial
support.
MANY-FACETED PLAN
Of the total aid amount, several hundred
million dollars have gone into agricultural
programs, ranging from the colonizing of
Colombia's vast, sparsely populated eastern
plains to the upgrading of national agricul-
tural planning.
It has been poured into a variety of differ-
ent agencies administering a variety of dif-
ferent programs?all aimed at making Col -
ombia's 23 million inhabitants less depend-
ent on the outside world for certain foods.
But perhaps the story of just one agency
which has been a leading recipient of Amer-
ican aid?the Colombia agrarian reform in-
stitute (INCORA)?explains why per capita
agricultural production in Colombia is just;
barely keeping pace with population growth.
INCORA, a government agency, was cre-
ated in 1962 to carry out the provisions of
a newly-passed agrarian reform law. The pur-
pose was ostensibly to change the maldis-
tribution of land in Colombia.
As in many developing nations, Colombia's
good agricultural land is held by only a few
families. They are wealthy aristocrats, for
the most part, who can trace their lineage
well Into the nation's Spanish past.
Colombia is a mountainous country domi-
nated by three separate ranges of the Andes.
The best land is In the level, fertile valleys
between the ranges. It is there that Co-
lombia's elite have held sway for centuries.
With all the good land taken, small farm-
ers settled for smaller holdings on the sides
of the mountains where farming conditions
are more difficult and soils are poorer than
in the valleys below.
The 1960 census showed the extent of this
pattern. Large farms of 247 acres or more
made up only 3.5 percent of Colombia's total
farms. But small farms of 12.4 or fewer acres
comprised 62.5 percent of the nation's farms.
Even though Colombia is rich in soils and
climates, and capable of producing a wide
variety of crops, productivity has always
been low.
One reason is that land taxes are very low,
thus encouraging underuse of the good land,
and the Colombian government has never
applied pressure on large landholders to
force them to use their land more efficiently.
Thus in Colombia, the problems of agri-
culture are largely political and a World
Bank study of 1970 summed it up this way:
"The soil and climate endowment of much
of this land is good . . . What is needed is
well-directed pressure to bring the land into
greater productivity."
In its own way, INCORA was supposed to
exert "well-directed pressure," but the
agency was probably doomed to fail from
the start.
There never has been, broad-based support
for true agrarian reform from either of Co-
lombia's two major political parties which
have governed the country in recent years.
Both the liberal and conservative parties
contain members who are large, wealthy
landowners and whose interests would be
directly affected by any ambitious program
of radical reform.
NO MAJOR CHANGES
Consequently, in the 13 years since the
agrarian reform act was passed, there has
been no fundamental change in the way land
is owned in Colombia.
At the same time, there has also been a
genuine difference of opinion in Colombia,
as elsewhere, over whether radical redistribu-
tion of land by expropriation or other force-
ful means would help or hurt agricultural
production;
Whatever one believes, the problem is that
Colombia has been, unable to decide on
whether to institute true 'agrarian reform or
drop the program altogether.
"If anything; agrarian reform has been an
impediment to agricultural production in
Colembia," believes one U.S. official who
spent yeani observing Colombian agriculture.
"It has created uncertainty."
On one hand, INCORA has been unable to
make any fundamental change in the coun-
try's maldistribution of land. .
But on the other, every Colombian govern-
ment usually pays at least lip service to the
agrarian reform idea, which in -turn creates
some unwillingness on the part of major
farmers to invest heavily in agriculture for
fear their land might one day be .eXpropriated.
None of Colombia's indecision, however, has
deterred the United States foreign aid pro-
gram from consistently pouring money into
iNcortA, even when it was obvious that the
agency was making no strides toward land
reform at all.
'Even when INCORA's performance is criti-
cized by other U.S. agencies, such as the Gen-
eral Accounting Office (GAO) , the State De-
partment speedily rushes to INCORA's
defense.
A 1967 GAO audit, for example, concluded
that INCORA, even with heavy U.S. support,
had been unable to achieve "any appreciable
success in effectively transforming the mal-
distribution of land in Colombia."
The State Department's AID office in Bo-
gota prepared a seven-page answer to the
GAO criticism that was, in short, an endorse-
ment of LaCORA policies, saying the agency's
main objective "was to continue its steady
progress" in solving Colombia's old-age rural
problems.
"Even more significant," read the AID
memo, "is INCORA's recognition both of the
magnitude of the problems which face over-
all agrarian reform in Colombia, and the fact
that it is adopting what we consider to be
reasonable solutions to these problems. . ."
Seven years later, INCORA is no closer to
achieving agrarian reform than it was in 1967.
INCORA has been such an obvious flop
that now even AID's Bogota OffiCe is saying,
at least privately, what eritics of INCORA
have been saying for years.
"I don't think the performance of INCORA
has been very effective," one high AID offt-'
cial told The Inquirer.
Colombia's National Planning Department
was unable to provide The Inquirer with up-
to-date statistics showing current land own-
ership patterns, but one high department
official said there has been virtually io
change.
"Big interests stood in the way of land
reform," he said, "so there has been' little
change at all. And it is not a high priority
with this government either."
Although Colombia has achieved some suc-
cess in producing more export commodities
such as cotton and beef, per capita food pro-
duction has just kept pace with population
growth the last decade.
LITTLE CREDIT GIVEN
An American agriculturist who has spent
years observing Colombian agriculture told
The Inquirer that U.S. aid to Colombian agri-
culture has played little, if any, role In the
increase.
"The crops that show the increase are
exports such as coffee, cotton or beef," he
said. "And these .are produced mostly by
commercial farmers using modern technol-
ogy."
The aid money has not helped the small,
subsistence farmers who comprise the back-
bone of Colombia's rural society, as evidenced
in part by the continuing exodus Of the rural
poor to Colombia's big cities.
Bogota, the capital, was a city of 664,000
in 1951. By 1964, the population was LB mil-
lion. Today, the population is estimated at
,
2.7 million.
In fact, it may be much higher. No one
has any scientific way of counting the thou-
sands of poor -farmers who yearly stream into
Bogota and other large cities to escape the
desperate poverty of the countryside.
"We have just operated an international
social welfare program in agriculture," says
one disillusioned American of the Colombian
program. "The money that has gone to
INCORA has not prepared anyone for the
future or to become a productive member
of Colombian society."
Colombians are still debating over who
benefited from the millions that INCORA
has spent since 1962?since there are so few
visible signs of agricultural progress.
There have been repeated charges in the
Colombian legislature of corruption in
INCORA. Lawmakers have charged that in
cases where INCORA has actually purchased
land from wealthy owners for redistribution
to needy peasants, the agency paid excessive
prices.
INEPT PLANNING
But in most projects examined by The In-
quirer in Colombia, there was another pos-
sible explanation for INCORA's poor per-
formance?polities and inept planning.
In 1968, for example, the Inter-American
Development Bank (IDB) loaned INCORA
$35.9 million for a major colonization project
on Colombia's vast, largely unpopulated east-
ern plains.
The bank, which is largely supported by
the United States, put up the funds to build
access roads, schools, hospitals and other
community facilities to encourage the coloni-
zation of potentially productive agrarian
land.
,For its part, INCORA was to provide teach-
ers, hospital beds, educational facilities and
other assistance as part of the total develop-
ment package.
The scools, hospitals and roads were built
largely with U.S.-supplied funds. But the Co-
lombian government then failed to provide
the teachers or the other facilities because
the national government decided to de-em-
phasize agrarian reform in 1970.
"We built the hospitals, but they did not
provide the beds," said Nestor Sanchez, as-
sistant director of the IDB in Bogota. "You
go into some of those areas today and you
find empty schools.
"The idea was to aid the spontaneous set-
tlement of those areas that was already un-
derway. People have been going there, but
conditions are bad and getting worse all the
time."
While Colombia has been unable to make
toligh political decisions that conceivably
might greatly spur food production, South
Korea hair aggressively adopted policies in the
last decade that have actually retarded agri-
cultural production.
A few statistics on imports and prices per-
haps best underscore the dismal failure of
President Park Chung Hee's autocratic ad-
ministration in dealing With the problem of
food. ,
Rice has long been the staple of the Korean
diet. In the years following the Korean War,
the United States' exported rice to Korea,
but by 1960 those exports were no longer
needed.
In 1961, then-Gen. Park came to power in a
military coup. Shortly thereafter he
launched what was called a "New Life Cam-
paign," dispatching his army troops to the
countryside to fight poverty.
News accounts at the time reported that
troops explained to the rural folk that Korean
farmers were "lazy and suffer from feudal-
istic thinking" and only through a massive
recOnstruction effort would there be "jobs
and rice for all."
By 1970?after nine years and millions of
dollars in American foreign aid money
plowed into Korea's agricultural sector to in-
crease production and organize 4-H .Clubs?
the Korean government had managed to:
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
19APproved Fz&R6fttE0119NRI/1kE,Ofilf)D_E_'7410)ZRA000100020024-2,
December 4, S 20573
Drive tens of thousands of farmers from
their land; hold down the living conditions
of those farmers who remained behind; and
make Korea dependent on American rice and
other food products once again. Indeed,
Korea's increases in rice production have
failed to keep pace with the country's popu-
lation growth.
From 1970 to 1973, the United States had to
export 1,553 million metric tons of rice to
Korea?or nearly four times as much rice
as was shipped during the 10-year period
from 1950 to 1959, when the country was in
the midst of, and recovering from, the war.
LOW-INTEREST LOANS
Much of the rice, along with a substantial
volume of wheat, that was shipped to Korea
the last few years, was sold through low-
interest, long-term loans, running up to 40
years, under the American foreign aid pro-
gram.
At the same time President Park has been
increasing rice imports from the United
States, he has been urging Koreans to eat
less rice. Restaurants are not permitted to
serve rice two days a week and barley is
blended in with the rice that is served, a
combination many Koreans find distasteful.
For the Park administration, the rice im-
ports have served several purposes.
They have enabled the government to avoid
dealing seriously with the agricultural econ-
omy, so that all its energies could be focused
on building an industrial base and increas-
ing exports.
As The Inquirer disclosed earlier this week,
that industrial base is built on low wages
and poor working conditions and is heavily
dependent on cheap female labor.
The government also has used the cheap
American rice to hold down the price of rice
in Seoul, undercutting the price of rice
grown by Korean farmers.
Last July, the retail price of a bag of rice
sold in Seoul was $3.51. In the provincial
city of Kwangju, the price was $3.76. In the
port city of Inchon, it was $4.26. Red beans
that sold for $3.38 in Seoul went for $3.51 in
Kwangju and $4.01 in Inchon.
By keeping food prices down in Seoul,
long-time American residents in Korea say,
President Park has reduced the chances for
large-scale demonstrations against his other
policies and decrees which curtail individual
freedoms and liberties.
SEOUL MIGRATION
With the government's disastrous agri-
cultural policies and the emphasis in non-
farm jobs and cheap food, rural folk, as
might be expected, have flocked to Seoul.
The city now holds nearly one-fifth of
Korea's entire 32 million population, and
is one of the world's most densely populated
cities.
The resulting urban sprawal has aggra-
vated the country's food problem in an-
other way:
Apartment compleXes, factories, squatters'
huts, houses and expressways continue to
push out from Seoul, taking more and more
of what once was some of Korea's best rice
growing land.
As for the farmers, the more things
change, the more they remain the same.
Like the government's experimental agri-
cultural policies and the government's agri-
cultural cooperatives, all backed and often
financially supported by the American State
Department.
The names of the farmers are not impor-
tant, only what they have to say. They re-
main anonymous because Koreans who
speak with an American reporter are risk-
ing arrest, And Koreans who speak critically
of their government are risking long prison
sentences.
It is sufficient to say that their ages
range from the 303 to the 608 and that they
live on Yong Jong Island, located a slow, 20
minute boat ride from Inchon.
There are, on the island, about 14,000
Koreans a Catholic church that has been
there some 70 years, an American priest who
has been in residence since the mid-1960s,
one doctor who has treated more than 7,800
patients in the last eight years, and hun-
dreds of mud-brick and concrete block
houses with thatched roofs that do not have
amenities like floors or running water or
electricity.
CO-OPS CRITICIZED
One farmer is talking about the agricul-
tural cooperative.
"You have to belong to the co-op to buy
fertilizer so there is no real love for it. The
orders to join come from above (the govern-
ment). If you don't belong to the co-op,
you can't get any fertilizer. It is a threat
they hold over the farmer's head."
As a requirement for membership in the
co-op, the farmer says he must donate
about 65 pounds of rice each year to the
organization.
In return, he can buy co-op fertilizer at
the same price he could buy it on the open
market and he can shop in the co-op store, a
kind of general store where prices are higher
than in Inchon. So, he says, "there is no use
to co-op."
What happens to the rice the farmer turns
over to the co-op?
"The co-op sells the rice to the govern-
ment. The money they get from the govern-
ment goes to pay the salaries of the co-op
people. There are no benefits to the farmer,"
he says.
The farmers say they have gone through
all this before, with other cooperatives. Each
time the cooperatives failed for the same
reason?corruption.
GAMBLING PHILOSOPHY
The farmers complain, too, about the low
price for rice?which is deliberately held
down by the government?and a variety of
other government policies that allow some
prices to rise while others are controlled.
In other countries, observes a longtime
American resident of Korea who has worked
closely with the rural people, the farmers
say "the weather is a gamble. Here they say
tomorrow's government decision is a gamble.
Curiously, the American State Depart-
ment?undaunted by the Park, government's
13-year string of agricultural failures?con-
tinues to pour money into the agricultural
sector, pretending that modern technology
somehow can overcome disastrous govern-
ment policies.
A State Department official says, talking of
plans for the future:
"We're going to bring in United Slates
scientists to work on research breakthroughs
in all grains?rice, wheat and barley."
WORLD BANK BAILS PROJECT BUT LACKS
SUPPORTING DATA
"As far as the bank is concerned, the proj-
ect is successful," said Carlos N. Quijano, the
World Bank's representative in Bogota, Co-
lombia.
Quijano was talking about the multimil-
lion-dollar Atlantico irrigation, flood control
and farm settlement project largely financed
by the World Bank near the port of Barran-
quilla in northern Colombia.
Pressed to pinpoint Atlantico's successes,
Quijano referred an Inquirer reporter to the
bank's public relations department in Wash-
ington.
But the bank's public relations depart-
ment was unwilling to give The Inquirer a
1972 bank study evaluating Atlantico.
"That paper was produced for internal
use," said Jorge Bravo, a bank official. "It is
not a public paper. When we do an evalua-
tion, it is for the information of some people
in the bank."
Although the World Bank is generally re-
luctant to provide information evaluating
specific projects, The Inquirer investigation
found that there may be special reasons why
the Atlantico project is one that bank offi-
cials are not particularly eager to discuss.
Named for the northern Colombia state
where the project is located, Atlantico called
for extensive irrigation and flood-control
projects to open up more than 20,000 acres
for small farmers and farm workers.
Two World Bank loans in 1967 and 1972
totaling $14 million have provided most of
the financing for the project, which is ad-
ministered by the Colombian agrarian reform
institute (INCORA), an agency of the na-
tional government.
The bank had high hopes for Atlantico. A
June 28, 1967, press release said the project
would "create employment and provide valu-
able experience in the production and export
of fruit and vegetables."
The release went on to say, "The irrigated
area will be extensively cultivated mainly
with high value crops for export ... oranges,
pineapples, tomatoes, guavas, papaya, tobac-
co, peanuts, beans and grain sorghum."
To do all this, the bank said, "modern
agricultural methods" would be introduced
In Atlantico to help improve crop yields.
About 1,800 farmers and workers would be
resettled. ?
In short, Atlantico's goal was to grow crops
for export, presumably to the United States.
That in turn would earn valuable foreign ex-
change earnings for Colombia and raise the
living standards of Atlantico's poor farmers.
There was one major flaw.
"The whole project was based on a false
assumption," says one U.S. official who has
observed Colombian agriculture but asked
not to be quoted by name.
"The marketing was the largest failure.
There was no way to market the products
they wanted to-produce. The idea was to ex-
port the citrus to the States. But they could
never come into the U.S. market because of
regulations on insects and diseases.
"Then they switched to tomatoes and vege-
tables. But what are they going to do with
tomatoes? They can't export them to the
States, either. And the nearest major markets
in Colombia are very far away."
Another American officials of an interna-
tional lending agency who was familiar with
Atlantis? added:
"Some very fundamental things that you
would have thought would have been covered
in the feasibility study were not covered at
all by anyone. You would think an institu-
tion such as the World Bank would have
been more cognizant of this, but it wasn't."
Since Atlantico was a sophisticated project
from the start, using modern machinery and
methods, including intricate irrigation sys-
tems, the farmers quickly found themselves
heavily dependent on INCORA to run their
farms.
The official of the International agency ex-
plained what happened;
"They took people who used to harvest rice
by hand and put them down on -land where
ithe rice is now harvested by huge self-pro-
pelled machines like you would see harvest-
ing wheat in Kansas.
"But the worst thing is the psychological
Impact it's having on the campesinos. They
don't associate the produ,ction on their farms.
with their own effort.
"INCORA makes all the decisions?when to
plant, when to harvest, when to fumigate the
fields. The farmers are totally dependent on
INCORA, and it's hard to see the day when
INCORA will ever be able to turn this over to
them.
"The farmers don't feel like they are work-
ing their own lend. They feel like they are
workers for INCORA, and that the whole
area is just one big INCORA plantation."
The Atlantico project has also run up ex-
traordinarily high unit costs.
In an interview in Barranquilla with an
Inquirer reporter, Jose Vicente Ulnas re-
gional INCORA director, said that so far 1,300
farmers had been settled in the project,
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20574
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE December 4, 1974
which had cost about 500 million pesos ($20
million) .
That works out to roughly $15,000 per
farmer, in a nation where per capita gauss
ckmiestie product is about $375 a year.
eflerren STATES PAYS FOR BUNGLING THAT
PA PEE COMPANY
(By Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele)
The man speaking is an executive of the
Siam Kraft Paper Company Ltd. of Bangkok,
Thailand, a company that was organized
under the auspices of the American State
Department.
He is explaining why hundreds of Thai
citizens today find themselves holding stock
in Siam Kraft--stock that is worth little
more than the paper it is printed on:
"It looked like IBM on the local stock
market. A big United States firm with offics s
all over the world was going to handle all
the technical work.
"A former assistant secretary in the United
States Department of Commerce was pro-
moting it. The State Department and the
*United States Export-Import Bank (Extra
Bank) were supporing it. Hell, I would have
bought stock myself."
Now, the former assistant commerce sec-
retary has long since bailed out, the Exim
Bank has had to reschedule loans to Siam
Kraft because the company was unable to
meet its payments and the big United States
company which provide the technical assist-
ance has been sued for fraud.
And Siam Kraft, a company that em-
ploys about 800 Thais in the manufacture
of industrial grade paper?its chief product
is used for making corrugated boxes?is
operating from month to month, its long-
term future at best uncertain.
An American businessman in Bangkok,
who has been involved in Exim Bank and
Foreign aid projects for a number of year'
and who has made a study of the Siam Kraft
Paper Co 's operations, told The Inquirer:
"I have never seen the agency for Inter-
national Development (the State Depart-
ment agency which administers the foreign
aid program) and the Elam Bank so eager
to give away money as they were in this proj-
ect.
"On the basis of the available informa-
tion, this project never should have been
undertaken."
But it was, and so were dozens of other
projects like it?all undertaken with the
backing of the American State Department
In less-developed countries around the world
and all with similar or equally disastrous
consequences.
The State Department's involvement in
these international business deals was docu -
niented during a seven-month Inquirer in-
vestigation into the administration of the
nation's $172 billion foreign aid program.
For years, the State Department has been
encouraging American business development
abroad, supposedly to help the needy in less-
developed countries, arguing that such in-
vestments are essential in order to raise liv-
ing standards.
But as The Inquirer disclosed earlier this
week, the foreign aid program often has had
the opposite effect?providing subsidies to
sweatshop textile mills, holding wages down
to subsistence levels in poor countries and
resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of
jobs in the United States.
That same State Department foreign aid
program, though, has proved to be a source
of very profitable deals for a select group of
businessmen, government officials and
wealthy families in less-developed countriee,
11,:3 well as a select group of busineesmen and
investors in the United States.
In the background of many of these deals
Is the politically well-connected American
businessman who often uses the foreign aid
program while moving easily between jobs in
private industry and jobs in the federal gov-
ernment.
COVET RECORDS
This is the story of one such deal and the
interlocking business arrangements behind
it. The story was pieced together by The In-
quirer from court records in Washington and
New York, and from legal documents and in-
terviews in Bangkok. It involves:
Henry Kearns, the former president of the
Exim Bank who received a half-million dol-
lars in a stock deal that involved one com-
pany he helped start under the foreign aid
program and a second company that bene-
fited from multi-million-dollar loans guar-
anteed by the Exim Bank while he was its
president.
Parsons and Whittemore, Inc., a New
York-based construction company that has
been involved in several controversial foreign
aid projects. The company says it "could not
have achieved success without the support"
of such institutions as the State Department
and the Exim Bank.
The StateClepartraent, which has awarded
millions of dollars in contracts to Parsons
and Whittemore for a variety of services un-
der the foreign aid program, but now claims
it really is unable to say just 'how many such
contracts there were, or the total value of
those contracts.
The Exim Bank, an arm of the U.S. gov-
ernment, which has subsidized the sale of
everything from equipment for low-wage fac-
tories in South Korea to airplanes for Saudi
Arabia, a country that tripled Its oil prices
last year. The bank makes loans at interest
rates below the prevailing market rate and
also guarantees loans made by commercial
banks.
Siam Kraft Paper Co., a paper mill in
Bangkok that charges, in lawsuits filed in
Washington, New York and Bangkok, that it
was defrauded by Parsons and Whittemore
and by Henry Kearns. The company now is
operating almost entirely on borrowed capi-
tal,
It all started in 1982 when, Kearns says,
got the idea for a paper mill after talks with
officials of the Thai government's Board of
Investment.
At the time, Kearns?a onetime Los Ange-
les car dealer and assistant secretary of com-
merce for international affairs during the
Eisenhower Administration--was president of
Kearns International Business Development
Corp., a private company engaged in pro-
moting business investments in less-devel-
oped countries.
IDEA PROMOTED
Kearns then approached Parsons and
Whittemore with his idea, and both he and
the construction company proceeded to sell
the proposal to the State Department's
Agency for International Development
(AID).
AID agreed to guarantee loans that would
be necessary if a feasibility study determined
that a paper mill would be a successful ven-
ture, or to pay 50 percent of the cost of the
feasibility study if it showed that such a mill
would not be practical.
In the months that followed, officials of
Parsons and Whittemore and Kearns pre-
pared and revised feasibility studies and
lined up financial support for the planned
project from the State Department and the
Exerts Bank.
Throughout 1983 and 1964, Kearns said
the Bangkok offices of two of his companies,
Kearns International and American Capital
Corp. "maintained regular contacts with of-
'otals of the Thai government, the (Thai)
Board of Investment . . . the American Em-
bassy and potential investors . . . in an ef-
fort to keep their interest in the Kraft paper
project alive, to obtain favorable decisions'
from all who might have, an effect upon the
success of the project, and to achieve under-
standing and support for the project."
He said' that he "persuaded five leading.
Thai banks to make a general offer (of Siam
Kraft stock) to their depositors- and that
this resulted in about 1,200 Thai individuals
and companies 'Investing sums of $10 or
more" in Slam Kraft.
He stated that he "also played a large part
In securing commitments from the Exam
Bank, AID (the State Department's Agency
for International Development), and a num-
ber of private United States banks to pro-
vide adidtional loan financing which was
necessary."
But Parsons and Whittemore was no
stranger, itself, to the State Department.
The privately owned company, which re-
ported gross revenue of $230 million in its
last fiscal year, has been involved in several
controversial foreign aid projecte.
There were disputes over a pulp and paper
mill the company built in Ethiopia, and
extended litigate-in over a pulp mill in Chile.
Court records show that Parsons and
Whittemore has entered into at least 11
agreements with the State Department,
which guaranteed the company's invest-
ments abroad, and that nine of those agree-
ments were still in effect this year.
In addition, court records show that since
Jan. 1, 1970, Parsons and Whittemore has
submitted 21 applications to the State De-
partment to sell equipment to mills in vari-
ous developing countries under the foreign
aid program.
NOT LOCATED
Curiously, the State Department told The
Inquirer that it was unable to locate any
of the contracts or agreements with Parsons
and Whittemore, or to determine the total
value of the contracts.
In July 1965, Kearns, operating through
his American Capital Corp.?a company he
incorporated in Panama?formally organ-
ized the Siam Kraft Paper Co. In Thailand.
In a contract entered into that same month
between Siam Kraft and subsidiaries of Par-
sons and Whittemore, the New York con-
struction company agreed to build and man-
age the paper mill.
Of the project's estimated $28 million cost,
the Perim Bank agreed to provide half, or
$14 million. Loans of $4 million from other
sources were guaranteed under another for-
eign aid program.
The other major investment groups in the
project were Thai individuals and compa-
nies, who put up $4.5 million, and Parsons
and Whittemore and other investors in the
United States, who put up $1.5 million.
By late 1966, a revised feasibility study
prepared by a consultant retained by Kearns
concluded that:
"This Project appears to be technically
and economically feasible. .. Earnings fore-
casts indicate that by 1969 the company
will have an indicated operating profit of
35 percent on sales."
Those profits never materialized, though.
And by the end of 1970, little more than a
year after Siam Kraft had started opera-
tions, the interest in the struggling firm
previonsly held by Parsons and Whittemore
had been sold to Thai investors, who re-
cruited a new management team from the
United States to replace the Parsons and
Whittemore executives who had been run-
Ing the min.
Then in 1973, Siam Kraft halted payments
on loans from Parsons and Whittemore. The
New York construction company filed a law-
suit against the paper mill in Bangkok.
The new management of Siam Kraft
promptly filed a counter-claim In Bangkok
and brought legal actions against both
Kearns and Parsons and Whittemore in the
U.S. district courts in Washington and New
York. The lawsuits allege, among other
things, that:
The new management of Siam Kraft also
charged that the project proposals for the
mill were false, citing a number of examples
such as. the following:
Expensive and unnecessary equipment was
installed by Parsons and Whittemore at the
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 20575
paper mill, although it was not called for in
the original contract; other equipment that
was listed in the contract was not provided;
cost overruns were concealed, and the mill
was accepted "even though (it) was incom-
plete and, in several respects, inoperative."
"The revised project proposal projected
sales of wrapping paper during the first 15
months of approximately 11,500 tons, with
revenues of approximately $4 million; sales
of mniti-wall bags of approximately 3,800
tons, with revenues of $1,300,000, and sales
of grocery bags of 1,500 tons with revenues
of approximately $600,000.
"In fact, no wrapping paper, multi-wall
bags, or grocery bags were sold. The fact that
there was almost no market for said prod-
ucts was undisclosed and misrepresented in
the revised project proposal."
By 1970, when it was clear that all was not
going well at Siam Kraft, Henry Kearns al-
ready had moved on to become president
and chairman of the Exim Bank, taking with
him the 100,000 shares of stock in Siam Kraft
that he had received for his efforts in setting
up the company.
When worried senators had asked Kearns
about his stockholdings at Senate:confirma-
tion hearings in 1969, the former president
of the national Junior Chamber of Com-
merce pledged that he would place all his
stock in trust.
Here is in fact what Kearns had done prior
to 1969 and what he did thereafter:
From 1963 until he became president of
the Exim Bank in 1969, Kearns worked closely
with officials of Mitsui & Co. Ltd., a leading
Japanese trading company, on a number of
projects and discussed Siam Kraft with those
officials.
During his Senate confirmation hearings
in 1969, Kearns balked at suggestions he sell
his Siam Kraft stock?it was virtually worth-
less at the time?although he agreed to place
the stock in a blind trust to be adminis-
tered by the Bank of America.
At the same time, Kearns did sell his stock
Interest in another Thai business venture, a
Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. project. The
buyer of the stock was Mitsui & Co. Ltd.
Early in the summer of 1970, when Kearns
VMS president of the Exim Bank, the State
Department and the bank jointly sent a con-
sultant to Thailand to determine what had
gone wrong with Siam Kraft operations.
Later in 1970, the Exim Bank, with Kearns
as president, rescheduled Siam Kraft's $14
million loan. Under the terms of the original
agreement, the company was to repay the
loan in 12 equal semiannual installments
beginning Dec. 1, 1970.
The new loan agreement postponed the
first payment until Dec. 1, 1973, and ex-
tended from 12 to 40 the number of semi-
annual installments, with the final payment
not falling due until June 1, 1993.
At the same time, the State Department
arranged a similar rescheduling of $4 million
in private loans to Siam Kraft that had been
guaranteed under the foreign aid program.
After the debt reschedulings, the Exim
Bank guaranteed a variety of loans, running
into the millions of dollars, which benefited
Mitsui & Co. Ltd., the Japanese trading com-
pany that Kearns did business with before
becoming president of the Exim Bank.
In about June 1972, representatives of
Mitsui & CO. Ltd. expressed an interest in
Kearrss' stock in Siam Kraft. Kearns referred
them to the Bank of America.
In December 1972, Mitsui & Co. Ltd. pur-
chased Kearns' 100,000 shares of stock in
Siam Kraft for $5 a share?or a half-million
dollars?when the stock was selling in Thai-
land for a reported $1.75.a share.
For his part, Kearns maintains that he
was unaware that Mitsui & Co. Ltd. had
bought his Siam Kraft stock until five
months after the transaction was completed,
He also maintains that he played no part
in the Exim Bank's rescheduling of the $14
million Siam Kraft loan, that those negotia-
tions were carried out by another Exim Bank
executive specially named by the bank's
board of directors.
Indeed, Walter C. Sauer, first vice president
and vice chairman of the Exim Bank, told
the Senate Appropriations committee last
year that he had handled all the Rxim
Bank dealings with Siam Kraft.
Interestingly, though, court records show
there are a number of transactions and deal-
ings involving Siam Kraft and the Exim
Bank which Kearns prefers not to discuss.
He objected to, and did not answer, a
series of questions posed by attorneys for
Siam Kraft during pre-trial proceedings. For
example, he declined to answer:
"Identify any individuals whom you rec-
ommended be employed by the Export-Im-
port Bank. State in each case whether such
individual was ultimately employed by the
Export-Import Bank. State whether each of
these individuals played any role whatso-
ever in the (Siam Kraft) project either be-
fore or after his employment by the Export-
Import Bank, describing the said role and
stating the time period in which it took
place."
PART OF ANSWER
Here is a part of answer to thdse queries:
One of Kearns' business associates, Don
Bostwick, who was a vice president of Kearns
International from 1961 to 1965, became
executive vice president of the Exim Bank
after Kearns was named president of the
bank.
During the mid-1960s, when Siam Kraft
was being organized, Bostwick assisted in
preparing a prospectus in the new com-
pany?for potential Thai investors.
Kearns also objected to answering specific
questions about Bostwick. He refused to re-
spond to:
"State when Mr. Bostwick became em-
ployed by the Export-Import Bank and give
each position he held with the said bank and
the dates applicable to his tenure in each
position;
"State whether Mr. Bostwick's access to
files of the Export-Import Bank related to
the (Siam Kraft) project were restricted in
any way and, if so, describe the applicable.
restrictions."
Kearns did say, however, that he never
discussed the Siam Kraft project with Bost-
wick while he was employed at the bank.
While Kearns insists that he played no
part in the Exim Bank and State Depart-
ment decisions to reschedule the $18 million
in Siam Kraft loans, the results of those
decisions clearly benefitted Kearns finan-
cially.
For it is generally agreed in Bangkok that
without the loan reschedulings, Siam Kraft
would have gone into bankruptcy. Now there
is even cautious optimism over the com-
pany's future.
"The last two years we made a small prof-
it," says a Siam Kraft official who asked not
to be identified. "We're having difficulty noW
because of a general sales decline.
"We're operating a company 100 percent
on borrowed money. When the market de-
clines, as it has?been, we have no strength
at all.
"The balance sheet is a complete disaster.
The entire equity of the company was lost
in its first year of operation. Back in college
they used to talk about debt ratios, but I
don't think they had in mind a debt ratio of
100 percent."
Both Kearns and Parsons and Whittemore
have denied the charges in the Siam Kraft
lawsuit, which is not expected to go to trial
for some months.
In fact, Kearns has filed a counterclaim
seeking $500,000 from Siam Kraft, contend-
ing that if the paper mill "had been capable
of operating efficiently and in accordance
with the performance specifications of the
contract," his stock would have been worth
$10 a share instead of the $5 a share he re-
ceived from Mitsui & Co. Ltd.
It is worth noting that the State Depart-
ment, Kearns and the Exim Bank all were
involved in another business venture in
Thailand.
That one ended early this year with the
scrapping of plans for a $100 million-plus
airport after Kearns stepped down as pres-
ident of the Exim Bank to return to his
Kearns International offices in San Fran-
cisThcthe project began with a proposal in 1971
by the Northrop Corp., the California aero-
space company, to build and operate a new
airport in Thailand under a long-term
franchise agreement.
SERIES CITED
A year later, the Exim Bank's Kearns
was in Bangkok endorsing the project, say-
ing that the bank would provide much of
the financing.
And shortly thereafter, Thailand's then
ruling military government gave its approval
to plans to build the airport in a swamp on
the outskirts of Bangkok.
To help guide the project through its
formative stages, Northrop hired Jack P.
Bailhe, who had worked as the private enter-
prise officer in the Bangkok office of the State
Department Agency for International De-
velopment.
Bangkok businessmen interviewed by The
Inquirer said it was generally understood
that the Exim Bank had made a firm commit-
ment to finance the airport.
But in 1973, that firm commitment became
Shaky when Kearns began insisting that the
Thai government would have to make certain
guarantees assuring the financial success of
the project.
On March 11, 1973, the Bangkok World
quoted Kearns as saying that Northrop also
"must convince the bank that there are suf-
ficient safeguards to prevent loss in case
the government changes its attitude toward
the project."
In the months that followed, there was
a series of inter-related events and of which
contributed to the cancellation of the air-
port project.
Opposition, began to grow among some
Thai government officials and citizens groups,
who argued that profit from an international
airport in Bangkok should go to the Thai
government rather than a multinational
American corporation.
In August 1973, Kearns confirmed that he
intended to resign from the Exim Bank. In
October, Thailand's ruling military regime
headed by Field Marshal Thanom Kittika-
chorn, which had given the go-ahead to the
airport?was forced from power.
That same month, a Far East economics
magazine published a detailed account of
the proposed airport, labeling it "Bangkok's
Watergate."
During its planning stages, the airport
project had received the approval of the
State Department.
By the end of last year, however, with
Thailand's military government ousted, and
sensing that the airport could become a
public embarrassment to the United States,
the State Department applied pressure on
the Exim Bank to withdraw its loan offer.
Commenting last January on the decision
to drop the project, a Northrop Corp. ex-
ecutive was quoted by a Thai newspaper as
saying:
"The reason we could not carry out the
deal was because of the present political
'situation here and also because we couldn't
get enough financial support from the Exim
Bank,"
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20576
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE December 4, 1974
"BRIM" BANK MAY BE GOING OVERBOARD
ON ITS LOANS
(By Donald L. Bartlett and James B. Steele)
Like the steadily growing $172 billion
American foreign aid program that it helps
support the United States Export-Import
Bank (Exim Bank) appears to be running
out of control.
In the five fiscal years in which Henry
Kearns served as president and chairman of
the Exim Bank, the bank's authorizations -
loans, guarantees and insurance?exceeded
its total authorizations for the previous 36
years.
From 1970 to 1974, Exim Bank authoriza-
tions amounted to $34.2 billion?or $a.3 bil-
lion more than the $30.9 billion in author-,
izations dating'from the day the bank went
into business in 1931 until Kearns took over
in 1969.
The figure includes direct loans fik well 8.9
Exim Bank guarantees and insurance cov-
erieg loans by other institutions.
Long an enthusiastic supporter of for-
eign trade subsidies, Kearns, addressing a
World Trade Week luncheon in San Fran-
cisco back in 1960, recommended the crea-
tion or:
"More favorable and responsive credit
term!' (for export loans) preferably by the
financial community, but if not forthcom-
ing from this source, by the federal govern-
ment."
Nine years after delivering that speech-
he was assistant secretary of commerce for
international affairs at the time?Kearns
assumed the top post at the Exim Bank.
The bank's authorizations soared.
Lending money at interest rates below the
prevailing market rate, Kearns' Exim Bank:
Subsidized the sale of American aircraft
to airlines around the world?from the
Dutch KLM to Germany's Lufthansa to
Japan Air Lines?at the expense of compet-
ing U.S. airlines.
Subsidized the sale of equipment for
the enlargement of oil refineries in Iran and.
Indonesia and the expansion of oil fields
in Nigeria?three countries that tripled the
price of their oil exports to the United
States last year.
Subsidized the sale of machinery and
equipment to a variety of low-wage plants
in countries like South Korea, the Philip-
pines, Thailand and the Republic of China?
including textile plants that in turn have
exported finished products back to the
United States, undercutting the prices of
American manufactured products.
While Exim Bank officials traditionally'
have maintained that the bank's chief
purpose is to support the sale and export
of American manufactured goods, the fact
is that bank loans quite often are included
as part of an overall foreign aid package to
a particular country.
Thus, when the State Department was ar-
ranging foreign assistance funds for the Na-
tional Police force In Colombia, the Extra
Bank agreed to provide the money for the
purchase of police vehicles and spare parts.
And when Henry Kearns helped set up the
Siam Kraft Paper Company Ltd. in Thai-
land--again with the support of the State
Department's foreign aid program?it Was the
Exim Bank that provided half the money for
the project.
The close working relation between the
Exim Bank and State Department?which.
passed on bank loans?was attested to last
year by Sidney Weintraub, deputy assistant
secretary for the international finance and
development.
Weintraub told a subcommittee of the
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and
Urban Affairs:
"Since the Export-Import Bank support,:
transactions in a variety of countries and in
constantly changing political and econom-
ic conditions, mechanisms have been eetali-
lished to Insure that there is appropriate
coordination between the bank and the De-
partment of State.
"State has provided the bank with detailed
analyses of country conditions when the
bank was considering new programs or when
problems seemed to be developing."
While Balm Bank officials and its support-
ers say the bank is necessary to support
American exports, there's a growing belief
that the bank's loans in many cases have
harmed businesses in the United States and
resulted in a loss of jobs.
And as expenditures by the banks continue
to spiral, there also is mounting skepticism
as to whether the government Should sub-
sidize exporting industries at the expense
of non-exporting industries.
William H, Branson, professor of economics
and international affairs at Princeton Uni-
versity, put it this way when he testified
before the Senate banking subcommittee
last year:
"Exports aren't a good in themselves. Ex-
ports are national output that U.S. con-
sumers don't get to consume."
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, two of
the best reporters from the Philadelphia
Inquirer who wrote these articles
reached the conclusion that, as presently
constituted, the foreign aid program has
become a subsidy for the rich and the
powerful in foreign countries, and a
gravy train for the American companies
which have learned how to use its diverse
opportunities.
Foreign aid money subsidizes luxury
housing, builds luxury hotels, puts
machines in sweatshops owned by the
powerful. The money has co:me in in-
creasing amounts through a series of
backdoor guarantees and loan programs
holding the bag when the debts go bad.
Because the programs cut across the
committee jurisdictions in Congress, and
appeal to diverse constituencies, few
people appreciate the full scope of the
commitment which has been made in
the name of the American people.
Mr. President, if the beneficiaries were
the poor and the hungry of the world,
I would be less concerned with what we
have done. But when scarce American
resources are taken to finance luxury
hotels and to supply airlines competing
with American companies with cheaper
interest rates, I must protest.
This program no longer serves the in-
terests of the United States. It ought to
be scrapped. We cannot even get it cut.
We have already increased it $700 mil-
lion above the present level, despite the
worsening economic conditions in our
own country.
For those who say, "But here and
there it has enlarged the gross national
product" of some foreign countries, let
me point, out that in those few cases
careful analysis has shown that it has
simply increased the gap between the
rich and the poor.
It is not a reform program. It is not
designed for the people who really need
help. At least, we should hold to the
level of spending of last year, which was
approximately $5 billion, which the Sen-
ate approved, by a vote of 62 to 21, just a
few weeks ago.
I hope the Senate will reaffirm that
position.
Mr. BAYII. Mr. President, may I pose
a unanimous-consent request?
For the sake of clarity in debate, may
I ask unanimous consent that the Sen-
ate accept a similar amendment--
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, in re-
sponse to the statement that the dis-
tinguished Senator from Indiana is
about to make, may I say that the
amendment to which he refers has al-
ready been incorporated in this amend-
ment, holding safe the amount of
money that has been stipulated for
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, will the Sen-
ator yield for 1 minute so that I might
thank him for that courtesy? I think I
expressed when discussing the earlier
amendment, and will not repeat it now,
why the special problem in the Middle
East requires us to balance the forces
there. I think the amount in the bill is
the bare minimum to balance the kind
of resources that are being brought into
that area by the Soviet Union. Thus, if
the Senator succeeds, as I hope he will,
this will deny the President the opportu-
nity otherwise available to cut below the
balance necessary.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr, President, I ask
unanimous consent that, at the request
of the distinguished Senator from Dela-
ware (Mr. Rom), his name be added as
a cosponsor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, did
I understand that the Senator from In-
diana to ask unanimous consent that his
amendment be added to this one?
Mr. CHURCH. It was already added.
I had already put it in.
Mr. HUMPHREY. How much time re-
mains on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OssoiCER, The Sen-
ator from Minnesota has 15 minutes.
The Senator from Idaho has 5 minutes.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, we
are arguing pretty much the same thing
as we did on the previous amendment.
There is a difference, of course, in the
amounts. The actual foreign aid level for
programs last year was $5,161,000,000,
exclusive of Israel. That is for all kinds,
including the Peace Corps and contribu-
tions to the United Nations. That in-
cludes Public Law 480 food assistance
programs. It includes military assistance,
economic assistance, and humanitarian
assistance.
The simple fact is that if we authorize
the President in this amendment to cut,
I believe it is, approximately $700 mil-
lion, I think we have a right to ask,
"Where do you think that cut will be
made?"
I do not think it will be made in the
Indochina program, which we have out-
lined in this bill, in which we have al-
ready cut $600 million, and $1 billion in
military assistance. They are very sub-
stantial cuts below the administration's
request in this foreign assistance bill.
There is an 18-percent reduction in
the authorization request, exclusive of
military assistance to Vietnam.
I believe the committee report indi-
cates that there was something like a
$1 billion reduction in that military
assistance.
This bill has reduced the administra-
tion's request for military assistance to
Indochina by over. $300 million.
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE
It has reduced the military assistance
in other parts of the world by about
45 percent.
There is an overall reduction in Indo-
china of 35 percent.
What we are really saying here is that
we want to have the ceiling levels of all
programs for the coming fiscal year at
$5 billion, even though last year it was
$5,161,000,000.
On top of that you would have to have
what we all know in this country is a
very serious rate of inflation.
Mr. President, last year we did not
have funds in here for Egypt. I want to
say that while I have not been very
happy with those funds, I think Secre-
tary Kissinger has done more to ease
tensions in the Middle East than all the
Senate put together.
I believe if he comes here and suggests
that that is necessary, in light of the fact
that it is substantially less than 1 day
of war in the Middle East, possibly we
ought to give him the benefit of the
doubt.
If there are cuts to be made by the
President under the Church amendment,
those cuts will most likely have to be
made in food assistance, in disaster re-
lief, in the United Nations programs
such as UNICEF, and the United Nations
development programs.
You know and I know that the Presi-
dent is not going to further reduce mili-
tary aid. ThiS is what our struggle has
been about.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Why does the Sen-
ator say that?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Why do I say that?
Mr. SYMINGTON. Yes.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Because every bit of
argument we have had with the ad-
ministration is for them to get the mili-
tary assistance up.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Does the able Sen-
ator have inside information the Presi-
dent does not plan to reduce military
aid? ,
Mr. HUMPHREY. I know that the
President supports the bill we have here
and that after weeks of tough nego-
tiating, this is the best we could do. In
fact, the administration wants substan-
tially more military assistance than is in
this bill.
I do not believe that anybody who has
had anything to do with the State De-
partment or the military establishment
is of the mind that the President is going
to reduce the military aid under the
Church amendment.
What is going to happen is that food
aid will be reduced. There will be a re-
duction in the economic aid to certain
parts of the world?family planning,
education, health, and that will be turned
over to the President. If Senators want
to do that, amendments will be offered
here which will enable the authorizations
to be cut individually.
I do not know any reason why we
should give a blanket authority, after all
the up-the-hill and down-the-hill prob-
lems we have had with the executive
branch as to whether the Senate had
anything to say about foreign policy.
I recognize that the amendment that
has been offered by the distinguished
Senator from Idaho has a great deal of
sex appeal. There is no joy in standing
here trying to defend foreign aid. Many
times we have to make investments and
expenditures which at the moment do
not seem to be desirable, but were they
not to be made, the results might be very
difficult for us to take.
W e could stand here today and say,
"Let's not give assistance to Korea, no
assistance to Vietnam." We could wash
our hands of the whole thing and not give
any assistance to anybody, and then see
what happens. We would have nothing
but chaos.
We are a part of a world. I would like
to have less funds authorized in this bill
in many areas, but I would rather have
a bill that has a little more authorization
in it with some tight controls than to
have a continuing resolution.
I warn the Senate that it is not a
choice between whether we have a for-
eign assitance bill, as before us, or no
bill, because the Senate will authorize a
continuing resolution. We have done it
ever year, and we are going to do it; and
in authorizing the continuing resolution,
we had nowhere near the controls on
foreign aid that are' in the measure now
before the Senate. This measure has a
phaseout on military aid. This measure
has no drawdown authority in the
Department of Defense. This measure
puts severe restrictions upon transfer of
funds. There is much in this bill that is a
decided improvement over any bill we
have ever had.
We are apt to throw it all down the
river in an argument' over $700 million
of authorization on ceilings, which does
not affect this bill particularly.
As a matter of fact, under the Church
amendment, this foreign aid bill could be
left intact, without one dollar being hit,
and that all could be taken out of Public
Law 480, all of it. The Peace Corps
could be abolished under the Church
amendment. I do not think it would be,
but it could be done. You cOuld take a
half-billion dollars out of Public Law 480.
There are other things that you can
reach in and grab and do away with and
leave everything intact in this foreign
aid bill, because this is a blanket amend-
ment, an Overall reduction on all forms of
assistance?assistance that is authorized
under the jurisdiction of the Armed
Services Committee, assistance au-
thorized under the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
Anyone who wants to change Public Law
480 should come and testify before the
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,
We have some jurisdiction in this matter.
I will venture to say that Congress
does not have the guts to cut it, in the
face of the public outrage about famine
in the world. But we are perfectly will-
ing to shove it over to the President and
say, "Mr. President, you cut it," so that
we can go home and appear before the
Methodist Church and say, "In the name
of the Lord, I voted for food aid." Then
we say, "President Ford, that penny-
pincher in the White House, cut it out."
When the President cuts out some food
stamp money, we raise Cain around here.
S 20577
We say, "Look what he did." We author-
ized all, this money for food stamps, and
right away Senator MCGOVERN and Sen-
ator HUMPHREY issue a statement blast-
ing him when he cuts out $300 million.
Mr. CASE. And Senator CASE joined.
Mr. HUMPHREY. And Senator CASE
joined. [Laughter.]
What are we going to do? We are go-
ing to say, "You know what we did
around here? We voted all kinds of
money to save the poor starving folks
in the Sahel. We voted all kinds of money
to save the poor folks in India. We voted
all kinds of money for the suffering folks
in Pakistan." We go home to the church
folks and the PTA and stand up there
and say, "Look at us, what we did. But
look at that President, that mean, nasty
man." We put a ceiling on, and when he
cuts, we are going to say we did not ex-
pect him to cut that; we expected him to
cut it out of Indochina.
Wake up. He is not going to cut it out
of Indochina, and we know it. The only
way he will reduce money for Indochina
is if we authorize it. In this bill we cut
more out of Indochina, in this one for-
eign assistance act, than all the Indo-
china cuts put together prior to this.
I think we have a pretty good case. I
grant that it does not make me very
happy to say that we ought to help other
people while there are many people at
home to help. I think this country is big
enough to do a little better at home and
a reasonable amount abroad.
I say to the Senator from Missouri
that I am concerned about what the mul-
tinational corporation does. We have a
trade bill coming up, and we will deal
with that. I do not think foreign aid has
been a phenomenal success, but with the
exception of Coca-Cola, much has not,
been a success. There have been many
failures. I guarantee that without some
foreign aid, the world would have been
a whole lot different from the way it is
today. We have made mistakes in for-
eign aid. We have made mistakes in wars.
We have made some mistakes in our
country. We have made mistakes in tak-
ing care of our environment. But I am
not about ready to say, "Get off the
world," because we are in it.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mn HUMPHREY. I will have to with-
hold on my time.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Idaho yield me 2 min-
utes?
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, how
much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
ABOUREZK). The Senator from Idaho has
5 minutes remaining.
Mr. CHURCH. I yield 1 minute to the
Senator from Missouri.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
have known my able and beloved friend,
the Senator from Minnesota, for 30 years,
and have been hearing the same speech
every year. [Laughter]. I heard it when
this country had all the gold and the
bomb and nobody else had them; and.
when there were a lot of countries in
deep trouble.
As a delegate from this body to the
United Nations, I can say there are few
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20578 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE December 4, /974
countries today in worse shape econom-
ically than we are.
For many years, I voted for foreign
aid. For many years I have voted against
it.
Under present conditions, with this
economy approaching a depression--a
recession is when your friends lose their
jobs, and a depression is when you lose
your own-with thousands of Americans
a week losing their jobs, we would now
be voting to spend billions upon billions
of dollars abroad in support of these
other countries. I just cannot see it.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, the series
of articles written by Bartlett and Steele,
alluded to by the distinguished senior
Senator from Missouri (Mr. SYMINGTOV),
are filled with many myths and misstate-
ments of fact.
Their first assertion is that worldwide
disillusionment has set in about foreign
aid. However, most people would agree
that the aided countries-and the
world-are better off than they would
have been without foreign assistance.
Current and recent events have dra-
matically illustrated the interdependence
of nations has underlined the need for
International cooperation among all
countries.
Every President and every Congress
since World War II has supported foreign
aid. A recent public opinion poll showed
68 percent of the people think the United
States should help the poor nations. In
1971, when the Senate rejected and then
revived a foreign aid bill, 83 percent of
newspaper editorials supported restora-
tion of the program.
The 24 developed nations making up
the Organization for Economic Coopera-
tion and Development say of the poor
nations that "all of their governments
recognize that without aid they would
have reduced prospects for achieving
even moderate rates of improvement in
their situation."
Barlett and Steele say the U.S. pro-
gram is "swollen." In fact, it is growing
leaner, and has been for several years.
In 1949, at the beginning of the Mar-
shall Plan, foreign economic assistance
took 11.5 percent of the Federal budget.
In 1949, economic aid represented 2.78
percent of our gross national product,
and has moved downward ever since.
By 1973, the figure had fallen to 0.23
percent.
It is morally right that the world's
richest nation should share some of its
know-how and some of its wealth with
those less fortunate. Barlett and Steele
seem to deplore the cost of our economic
and military assistance to other nations
since 1946.
About everything we have done in the
field of foreign policy since World War II
has been to prevent World War III, and
so far it has been successful.
Barlett and Steele say economic and
military aid comes to $9 billion a year,
which is nearly true, having been $8.6
billion in 1974. This figure includes the
Peace Corps, the Food for Peace pro-
gram, and the international financial
institutions.
Then, amazingly, they say this is
"nearly triple the official stated amount
passed out to Congress, the news media,
and the American people." This is un-
adulterated falsehood, for these figures
are regularly published by AID and are
available to all. We made them available
to Barlett and Steele.
For most projects, AID does not send
money overseas. It sends paid for,
American-made tools to do a develop-
ment job; that is, trucks, tractors, pipes,
pumps, electric motors, till plate, and
steel rods. American manufatturers make
a normal profit on these sales. This is
not "profiteering"--it is profitmaking-
fortunately, still legal in this country.
Let me deal with a few of the mislead-
ing accusations made by the Messrs.
Barlett and Steele.
Barlett and Steele score Indian food
production for increasing only two-tenths
of 1 percent, far below the increase
projected in the spring of 1969. They
illustrate this point by selectively choos-
ing two periods of 3 years each.
If instead the period of 3 years before
the spring of 1969 were compared with
the 3 following years the record shows an
average production of 87.7 million tons
of food grains before and 104.2 million
tons afterward, an increase of 18.8 per-
cent, or 6.2 percent a year, not 0.2
percent.
The article states that the change in
production had "little to do with
weather." This is flatly wrong. That fact,
and the- danger of wrong conclusions
from selecting certain statistics only is
confirmed by looking at a longer series
of years as follows:
India Food Grain Production
[In million tons]
Year:
1965 85
1966 72
1967 74
1968 95
1969 94
1970 99
1971 108
1972 104
1973 95
1974 107
The truly bad years--bad weather
years--and the moderately bad years
are clearly shown but the overall trend
is solidly upward.
India still has a food problem because
population growth continues and places
a constant pressure on the rising food
supply.
The article also faults AID's projec-
tions of expanded fertilizer use by India.
Fertilizer use has not risen as high as
projected, partly for the very reason
given in the article-global shortage of
fertilizer, and partly for a reason not
given-a trebling of world. fertilizer
prices. Despite these problems, fertilizer
use in India has risen from 1.8 million
tons in 1969 to 2.6 million tons in 1974.
These facts are a more accurate assess- ?
ment of the situation.
Again, on the Korean economy, all the
facts tell a more accurate story. Barlett
and Steele says a decision by the Korean
government and U.S. Government turned
Korea into a "low-wage haven."
Wages are low in Korea, but so are
wage scales in all developing countries
when compared to those paid in the
United States.
Because the technology involved in the
textile industry is relatively simple, and
the industry is labor-intensive, Korea
had and still has a comparative advan-
tage. But Korean wages are rising-par-
ticularly in the textile industry, and
Korea is slowly losing that comparative
advantage.
MONTHLY WAGES-KOREA
Average Textile Manufacturing
Per- Per- Per-
Amount cent Amount cent Amount cent
1971 _ _ _
$46.26
$35.59
$57.28
1972_ _ __
50.26
8.
6
40. 97
15.
1
62.64
9.3
1973_ _ __
55.82
11.
0
47. 85
16.
8
68. 74
9. 7
From the above table it can be seen
that although textile wages are still be-
low the average, the rate of increase in
the textile industry is greater than the
rate of increase in other sectors. There-
fore, the statement that "the entire sys-
tem depends on keeping wages down" is
fallacious, since wages have kept pace
with increases in the gross national prod-
uct.
In regard to unemployment, the fol-
lowing table shows the percentages of
Koreans unemployed among the econom-
ically active population:
Active
population
Year (thousands)
Unemploy-
ment Percentage
1969
9.888
474
4.79
1970
10. 199
454
445
1971
10. 542
476
4.91
1972
11. 058
499
4. 51
1973
11.600
461
3.97
1974 (3 mo)__ _
11. 835
636
5.37
Since Korea is still a developing corm-
try, with a per capita GNP of $375, it is
fallacious to compare U.S. standards
with Korean standards, particularly
since U.S. per capita GNP is over $4,000,
or more than 10 times the Korean GNP.
It is true that the United States and
Japan "have since moved to place tight
restrictions on the growth of imports of
the cheaper Korean textile products and
wearing apparel."
As a result of bilateral negotiations in
the 1960's and in 1971, the Government of
Korea agreed to limit exports of textiles
and textile products to the United States.
However, the level of permitted exports
increases each year by a mutually
agreed-upon percentage.
Korea has not been singled out in this
case, as the United States has similar
bilateral agreements with 28 other na-
tions such as Japan, Hong Kong, Singa-
pore, Taiwan, the Philippines, and
Mexico.
Barlett and Steele wind up with the
rhetorical question:
How is it that after all the waste and fraud
and deception, after the loss of tens of thou-
sands of jobs, after the expenditure of tens
of billions of dollars, the United States for-
eign aid program continues unchecked?
The answer, of course, is that if the
foreign aid program were in fact respon-
sible for such calamities; there would be
no foreign aid program.
The Congress, which is far more dili-
gent in its annual scrutiny of AID than
Barlett and Steele give them credit for,
would see to that.
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
By any standards of accountability,
and despite the problems of operating in
foreign environments, AID's stewardship
_a these large amounts of public funds
has been highly creditable. It is inevita-
ble that some mistakes have been made
over the years, in both project planning
and execution. In most cases it is AID's
own audits that have discovered these
deficiencies and AID has been rigorous
in correcting them:
As further assurance of sound business
management, there are few programs of
the U.S. Government under closer and
more continuous scrutiny. From initial
planning through final completion, AID
programs are under constant review by
AID's own professional audit staffs, as
well as by other U.S. Government over-
sight and audit groups. .Through on-site
inspections, AID supervisors stationed
abroad make sure that AID-financed
goods and services are used as intended.
In addition to these internal controls,
AID operations are again reviewed by
the Inspector General of Foreign Assist-
ance and by the auditors of the General
Accounting Office, the audit agency of
the U.S. Congress.
The Congress also maintains close sur-
veillance of AID programs through fre-
quent investigations and studies con-
ducted by the several congressional over-
sight and substantive committees of
jurisdiction.
In the last 2 years AID's programing
emphasis has been more and more on
"people-to-people" help. But the sugges-
tion that change producing assistance
can be provided outside a country's in-
stitutional framework, and the idea that
it can somehow be delivered directly to
the poor, like a sack of groceries, and
still make any lasting improvement in
their lives, is not realistic.
The ancient saying is, "give a man a
fish and he can eat for a day; teach him
how to fish and he can eat for the rest
of his life."
The fact is, nations must grow eco-
nomically if they are to provide for their
poor. Jobs must be created, education
advanced, effective demand mobilized,
and so on. On a national scale this is a
complex process, and early perceptions
of the time required for it were badly
underestimated.
The solution is not an easy one. The
development process that worked with
such success in the United States and
Europe must accommodate to new real-
ities?inordinate rates of population
growth, for example, greater sensitivities
to social justice, and widening partici-
pation by the middle and lower economic
classes in political decision.
The challenge of development, and it
is one recognized by donors and recip-
ients alike, is to make the benefits flow
faster and deeper. The AID program
helps the poor countries meet this chal-
lenge by focusing on structural and insti-
tutional changes and technical break-
throughs that facilitate a more equitable
distribution of the benefits of economic
growth. To this end, it gives priority
emphasis to such people-oriented prob-
lems as income distribution, food pro-
duction, land reform, education, family
planning, and health.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, how
much time do we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Minnesota has 3 minutes re-
maining, and the Senator from Idaho
has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I listened
to the apocalyptic remarks of my good
friend from Minnesota. I was struck by
the fact that, although his eloquence was
overwhelming, its relevance to my
amendment was minimal. He spoke of
the terrible things that might happen if
we gave to the President the discretion
to make a few cuts. He said whole pro-
grams might be swept away: The Peace
Corps might go clown the drain; Public
Law 480 might be devastated, depriving
millions of people of food in famine-
stricken areas of the world. One would
have thought that I was proposing to gut
this bill in the most unconscionable
manner and that chaos would ensue if
this amendment were to be passed.
What am I proposing? I am almost
ashamed to admit the modesty of this
amendment. I am proposing an overall
ceiling of $5 billion. Last year, for the
same programs, the Government spent
$5,160,000,000.
I am proposing a cut of $160 million,
while leaving the Government authority
to spend another $5 billion.
Now, do we really think that this can
be done, even if it is left to the discre-
tion of the President, without such cata-
strophic and devastating impact upon all
the established programs to which the
Senator from Minnesota has referred?
Of course, it can be done. It could be
squeezed out of miscellaneous cash and
no one would know the difference.
Somewhere, somehow, this Senate has
to take a stand against the further ex-
pansion of spending in view of the fiscal
conditions in our own country, and in
view of the whole new era that has been
ushered in by the decision of the OPEC
governments to increase the price of
crude oil by 500 percent.
The Senator from Minnesota talks
about a world that no longer exists. It is
the same speech that I heard when I first
came to the Senate in 1957. But the
world has changed. Unless we change
with it, the last failure of all of those
failures to which the Senator referred
will be the failure of the economy of this
country and the devastating conse-
quences that will inflict upon the Amer-
ican people and those beyond our shores.
In the name of commonsense, let us
reassert the position we took a few weeks
ago, by a vote of 62 to 21, and simply
assert that we shall not spend more than
$5 billion this year on bilateral aid pro-
grams, which is approximately what we
spent last year. I assure you the Republic
will not crumble; the foundations will
not collapse beneath this Capitol.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Minnesota yield to me?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield 1 minute to
the Senator from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the argu-
ment made by Senator CHURCH runs ex-
actly on itself. If all we are saving is $160
million?and we know that the Commit-
tee on Appropriations is going to be after
this authorization, too?and we are giv-
S 20579
ing up the prerogatives of Congress to
give the priorities on where this money
goes and how it goes, the answer must be
decidedly no.
We lawyers have a doctrine called de
minimis. If there was ever anything
called de minimis, this is it. I think this
is precisely the reason for rejecting this
amendment.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, this
is not the same old speech. This is not
the same old bill. When I Was here in
earlier days, we were talking about $5
billion for foreign assistance alone in
one bill, exclusive of Public Law 480, ex-
clusive of all of these other things. We
are talking today about foreign assist-
ance at 30 percent of the level we used to
talk about it, despite?may I say, Mr.
President, the value of the dollar. That
dollar does not buy what it used to buy,
No. 1.
No. 2, this bill has cut $1 billion from
the administration's request for Indo-
china, for economic and military assist-
ance in Indochina alone. It is not as if
we have not been careful of the public's
money.
Third, may I say that there are re-
forms in this bill that are vital. I have
the feeling that if we tamper with it too
much, we are going to have a veto, and if
we have a veto, we shall have a continu-
ing resolution. If we have a continuing
resolution, we shall have the continua-
tion of what the distinguished Senator
from Idaho has talked about for a long
time.
Mr. President, I just remind my col-
leagues of a couple of things. There is
in this bill food assistance. There are in
this bill funds for the Middle East, over
and beyond Israel, that are necessary for
the peace that we hope to get there.
There is in this bill some additional
funding for some of the valuable work
of the United Nations agencies?not the
United Nations Assembly. I do not think
that Members of this body are ready to
get up and condemn the children's fund.
I do not think that' they are ready to
condemn the World Health Organiza-
tion.
I am not saying, Mr. President, that
President Ford will eliminate a program.
I simply say it is within the realm of
possibility.
I see the gentleman here who is the
chairman of our Committee on the
Budget, the Senator from Maine (Mr.
MusmE). We have tried to get hold of
this budget, and we have tried to get
hold of authorizations. One of the things
we have tried to do is deny the President
the impoundment power, and here we are
legislating impoundment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired. All time has
expired.
Mr. HUMPHREY. The yeas and nays
have been ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
has expired. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Idaho.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from North Carolina
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2'
S 20580
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE December 4, 1974
(Mr. EaviN) , the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. FULBRIGHT) , the Senator from In-
diana (Mr. HARTKE) , the Senator from
Colorado (Mr. HASKELL) , and the Sena-
tor from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON)
are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. TALIVIADGE) is absent be-
cause of illness.
Mr. GallokoIN. I announce that the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON) ,
the Senator from New York (Mr. BUCK-
ray), and the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. HRUSKA) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced-yeas 43,
nays 48, as follows:
[No. 520 Leg.]
YEAS -43
Abourezk Eagleton Muskie
Allen Gravel Nelson
Bayh Gurney Nunn
Bentsen Hollings Packwood
Bible Huddleston Pastore
Eiden Hughes Pell
Brock Jackson Proxmire
Burdick Johnston Randolph
Byrd, Long Ribicoff
Harry F., Jr. Mansfield Roth
Byrd, Robert C. McClellan Schweiker
Cannon McClure Scott,
Chiles McGovern William L.
Church McIntyre Symington
Dole Montoya Weicker
NAYS--48
Fong Mondale
Goldwater Moss
Griffin Pearson
Hansen Percy
Hart Scott, Hugh
Hatfield Sparkman.
Hathaway Stafford
Helms Stennis
Humphrey Stevens
Inouye Stevenson
Javits Taft
Kennedy Thurmond
Mathias Tower
McGee Tunney
Metcalf Williams
Metzenbaum Young
NOT VOTING-9
Fulbright ' Hruska
Hartke Magnuson
Haskell Talmadge
Aiken
Baker
Bartlett
Beall
" Bennett
Brooke
Case
Clark
. Cook
Cotton
Cranston.
Curtis
Domenici
Dominick
Eastland
Fannin
Bellmon
Buckley
Ervin
So Mr. CHURCH'S amendment was re-
jected.
Mr. CASE. Mr.. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the amend-
ment was rejected.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I send an
amendment to the desk, which will take
very little time because the distinguished
floor manager is acquainted with it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk proceed-
ed to read the amendment.
Mr. CHURCH. I ask unanimous con-
sent that further reading of the amend-
ment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 12, between lines 2 and 3, insert
the following new section:
DISPOSITION OF LOAN RECEIPTS
SEC. 5. Section 203 of the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1961 is amended to read as fol-
lows:
"Sac. 203. FISCAL PROVISIONS.-On and after
July 1, 1975, none of the dollar receipts
scheduled to be paid during any fiscal year
from loans made pursuant to this part or
from loans made under predecessor foreign
assistance legislation are authorized to be
made available during any fiscal year for
use for purposes of making loans under
chapter 1 of this part. All such receipts shall
be deposited in the Treasury as miscellane-
ous receipts."
On page 12, line 4, strike out "Sac. 5." and
insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 6.".
On page 12, line 11, strike i)ut "Sac. B."
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 7."..
On page 16, line 7, strike out "Sac. 7." and
insert in lieu thereof "SEC, 8,".
On. page 16, line 12, strike out "Sao. 8." and
insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 9.".
On page is, line 17, strike out "Sac. 9." and
insert in lieu thereof "SEC. 10.".
On page 16, line 21, strike out 'SEC. 10."
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 11.".
On page 17, line 9, strike out "sac. 11." and
insert in lieu thereof "SEC. 12,".
On page 19, line 10, strike out ''SEc. 12."
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 13.".
On page 20, line 21, strike out "Sac. 13."
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 14.".
On page 21, line 14, strike out 'SEM 14."
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 15.".
On page 25, line 6, strike out -SEC. 15." and
insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 16.".
On page 26, line 11, strike out "Sac. 16."
And insert in lieu thereof "SEc. 17.".
On page 26, line 17, strike out "Sac. 17."
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 18.".
On page 27, line if, strike out "Sac. 18."
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 19.".
On page 27, line 13, strike out "Sac. 19."
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 20.".
On page 27, line 23, strike out "Sac. 20."
and insert in lieu thereof "SEC. 21.".
On page 30, line 4, strike out "Sac. 21." and
insert in lieu thereof "SEC. 22.".
On page 30, line 25, strike out "Sac. 22."
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 23.".
On page 32, line 6, strike out "Sac_ 23." and
insert in. lieu thereof "Sac. 24."
On page 33, line 10, strike out "Sac. 24."
and insert in lieu thereof "SEc. 25.".
On page 33, line 24, strike out "SEc. 25"
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 26".
On page 36, line 4, strike out "Sac. 26"
and insert in lAeu thereof "SEc. 27",.
On page 38, line 2, -.strike out "Sac. 27"
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 28".
On page 39, line 6, strike out "SEC. 28"
and insert in lieu thereof "SEC. 29".
On page 39, line 18, strike out 'ac. 29".
and insert in lieu thereof "SEC. 30".
On page 45, line 19, strike out "Sac. 30"
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 31".
On page 45, line 20, strike out "section 29"
and insert in lieu thereof "section 30".
On page 49, line 20, strike out "Sac. 31"
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 32".
On page 49, line 21, strike .out "sections 29
and 30 (a)" and insert in lieu thereof "sec-
tions 30 and 31 (a) ".
On page 52, line 16, strike out "Sac. 32"
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 33".
On page 52, line 17, strike out "sections
29, 50(a), and 31" and insert in lieu there-
of "sections 50, 31(a), and 32".
On page 5.3, line 5, strike out "SEc. 33" and
insert in lieu thereof 'SEC. 31".
On page 53, line 6, strike out "sections 29,
30(a), 31, and 32" and insert in lieu thereof
"sections 30, 31(a), 32, and 33".
On page 53, line 19, strike out "Sac. 34"
and insert in lieu thereof 'Sac. 35".
On page 59, line 10, strike out "Sac. 35"
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 36".
On page 63, line 11, strike out "Sac. 36"
and insert in lieu thereof "SEc. 37".
On page 63, line 19, strike out "Sac. 37"
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 38".
On page 64, line 3, strike out "Sac. 38"
and insert Ia lieu thereof "Sac. :39".
On page 64, line 25, strike out "Sac. 39"
and insert in lieu thereof "SEc. 40".
On page 65, line 2:2, strike out "Sac. 40"
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 41".
On page 68, line 16, strike out "SEc. 41"
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 42".
On page 69, line 16, strike out "Sac. 42"
and insert in lieu thereof "Sac. 43".
On page 70, line 13, strike out "SEC. 43"
and insert in lieu thereof "SEc. 44".
On page 19, line 11, strike out "section
11" and insert in lieu thereof "section 12".
On page 20, line 22, strike out "sections 11
(a) and 12" and insert in lieu thereof "sec-
tions 12(a) and 13".
On page 21, line 14, Strike out "sections
11, 12, and 13" and insert in lieu thereof
"sections 12, 13, and 14".
On page 25, lines 7 and 8, strike out "sec-
tions 11(a), 12, 13, and 11(a)" and insert in
lieu thereof "sections 12(a), 13, 14, and
15(a)".
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I will
explain its purpose very briefly.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, this
is a very important amendment and may
we have the attention of the Senators.
By the way, the amendment is one we
have agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I will ask
the Senate Chamber to come to order
before anyone proceeds. The Senate will
come to order.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, last
year-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the
Senators suspend until the Senate comes
to order, please. Will the Senate come
to order. Would those Members and staff
members conversing please remove those
conversations from the floor of the Sen-
ate.
The Senator may proceed.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, last year,
through an amendment which I pro-
posed, the Congress added a new pro-
vision to the Foreign Assistance Act con-
cerning the use of loan repayments.
Theretofore, repayments from past loans
had been available to AID for use in
funding new programs every year with-
out any new authorization by the Con-
gress. Averaging over $200 million a year,
these repayments had constituted a kind
of revolving fund. allowing AID a signifi-
cantly higher program level than was
apparent in the annual authorization bill.
The provision enacted last year was
directed toward bringing this practice to
an end. By the terms of that provision,
only one-half of the loan reflows in fiscal
years 1974 and 1975 would be available
for use as new loans. This was intended
as a phaseout period after which all loan
refiows every year would revert to the
Treasury.
In order to make this policy explicit
In the law, I now propose an amendment
which states in unambiguous language
that beginning in fiscal year 1976 no re-
flows from past loans will be available
for use as loans or grants-in other
words, that all such refiows will revert
to the Treasury.
This amendment simply states what
was implicit in last year's bill, and what
was declared expressly in the statement
of managers after the House-Senate con-
ference on last year's bill: that fiscal
year 1975 will be the final year in which
any loan reflows will be available for ex-
penditure. Beginning in fiscal year 1976
all program money will have to be pro-
vided explicitly through the annual au-
thorization bill.
Mr. President, this is a simple and, I
believe, uncontroversial amendment
which will serve the cause of clear legis-
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 20581
lative procedure and improved congres-
sional budgetary oversight. I urge its
adoption.
Mr. HUMPHREY. This is an extremely
Important amendment and a distinct
contribution to this legislation. I do be-
lieve that Congress should have control
over the recycling of the funds, and I
believe that the Committee on Appro-
priations should have theamthority and
the power to decide the amount of the
funds to be appropriated. It ought not
to be just backdoor financing.
Therefore, as the manager of the bill,
and having consulted with our colleagues
here on the other side of the aisle, we
are more than pleased to accept it, and I
want to thank the Senator from Idaho
for his amendment.
Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator
very much.
iMr. STENNIS. Mr. President, just one
question. Give us the definition of what
recycling is. What is the recycling of the
funds illustrated.
Mr. HUMPHREY. What happens is, let
us say, for example, a country had de-
velopment loans made to it, a country in
Latin America, for example. Under its
repayment schedule it pays back after
the grace period a certain amount each
year in interest and principal that, under
present law, has gone right back into the
Administration without any control by
the Committee on Appropriations or the
legislative committee.
This would put an end to it, and is
what the Senator from Idaho is seeking.
I yield back my time.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. CHURCH. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
having been yielded back, the question
Is on agreeing to the amendment of the
Senator. from Idaho (putting the ques-
tion).
The amendment was agreed to.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from South Dakota.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, a parlia-
mentary inquiry, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator will state it.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I would like
to know what disposition will be made
of some of our amendments that are at
the desk. Some of us have been sitting
here all afternoon trying to permit
other Senators to work their will when
the hour of 6 o'clock comes, and the Sen-
ator from Indiana has been here. I in-
tended to call up my amendment prior
to that of the Senator from Idaho. I
waited until afterward, and now I find
I am somewhere down on the pecking
order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
agreement is that the vote on final pas-
sage shall occur no later than 6 o'clock,
which means that any amendments of-
fered cannot have any debate on them
after 6 o'clock.
Mr. BAYH. A further parliamentary
inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator will state it.
Mr. BAYH. What about some of us
who, after discussing them with the floor
manager of the bill, thought that the
national interest might be better served
if we did not pursue to a rollcall vote
the amendment which we had previously
intended to pursue to a rollcall vote, but
felt that a record should be made so that
certain action on appropriation bills, on
the concurrent resolution under one of
the sections, might be taken advantage
of by some of us at a later date?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I wonder if the
senior Senator from South Dakota would
yield to the Senator from Indiana, who
has waited so long.
Mr. McGOVERN. Under the circum-
stances, I will yield. I wonder how much
time the Senator wished.
Mr. BAYH. Under the circumstances,
let the Senator have 4 or 5 minutes. I
will call up my amendment to get the
time. I understand that is required.
Will the Senator yield just for a mo-
ment?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I
think we have 15 minutes.
Mr. HUMPHREY. We only have 71/2
minutes on each side, so might I suggest
if I might yield to the Senator from In-
diana to call up his amendment and
make a quick presentation of what he
has in mind, and then we will go back
to the regular order.
Mr. McGOVERN. Perhaps the Senator
will yield equal time.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes, I will be
happy to yield when the Senator calls
up his amendment.
Let us do it this way: I would be happy
to yield 21/2 minutes of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator from South Dakota wish to call
up any amendment?
Mr. McGOVERN. I wish to call up my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 16, line 14, strike out "2550,000,"
and insert in lieu thereof "$500,000,-".
On page 38, line 10, strike out "2617,000,-
000" and insert in lieu thereof "2567,000,-
000".
-
On page 38, line 12, strike out "2440,900,-
000" and insert in lieu thereof "2411,900,-
000".
On page 38, line 15, strike out "2100,000,-
000" and insert in lieu thereof "294,000,-
000".
On page 38, line 18, strike out "240,000,-
000" and insert in lieu thereof "234,000,-
000".
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
a sufficient second?
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McGOVERN. Now I will yield 2
minutes to the Senator from Indiana,
with the understanding that the man-
ager of the bill will also yield.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I will also yield
whatever time the Senator needs.
Mr. BAYH. I appreciate the courtesy
of my colleagues. I hate to bring this up
at this time. I think it is important to
have on the record the concern that I
have and, I think, shared by others, rel-
ative to section 903, the special require-
ments fund, which is sort of a catchall
$100 million provision in this bill.
It seems to me that this is most un-
fortunate: We do not specify how this
money is going to be used and, thus, we
really are, I think, derogating our re-
sponsibility as Members of the Senate.
Second, I am concerned with the ref-
erence in this measure, there is indica-
tion in this bill that some or all of this
$100 million may be used to benefit
Syria. In light of all funds that have
gone into that area, specifically to Syria
from the Soviet Union, as one Member of
this body I see no reason for the United
States to be prepared to ladle out $100
million.
I think Syria needs to be rebuilt. It
seems to me some other Syrian neigh-
bors, because of the oil situation, are in
a much better position.
I just wanted to make a record here to
suggest that I am going to be watching
this very carefully. I will not put it to a
vote here tonight. We are about to run
out of time. We do not have sufficient
time to debate it adequately, but when
that matter comes before the Appropria-
tions Committee, that is something all
of us should look at.
Plus, in my judgment, speaking as one
Senator, if there are efforts made to use
some of this $100 million, provide that
assistance to Syria, I intend to take ad-
vantage of the provision in the bill to
introduce a concurrent resolution to try
to move Congress in the opposite direc-
tion.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Will the Senator
yield and may I take a moment to
respond?
The Senator has touched on a. subject
I brought up in the committee. I have
not been at all happy with this so-called
special fund. That is why there is lan-
guage in the bill that required, before
there can be any funds obligated in ex-
cess of $1 million, the President has to
submit a written report to the Foreign
- Affairs Committee of the House, Foreign
Relations Committee of the Senate, and
the President must make such obligation
30 days after the problem has been
transmitted.
Let me say this further, in going be-
fore the Appropriations Committee I am
sure the Appropriations Committee is
going to demand specific detail as to how
this money is going to be used.
We also, by the way, have a veto over
the funds, as the Senator knows, by con-
current resolution, which is not too easy,
as the Senator recognizes.
Mr. BAYH. As I discussed with my col-
league, I think the Senator would be in
a position to take advantage of that. I
can look at this more closely in the Ap-
propriations Committee.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Right.
Mr. BAYH. I think much development
Is needed, but we are in the process now
of developing both sides of the contro-
versy. At the same time, we have to face
reality.
There are other neighbors and areas
In much better financial position today
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20582
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --SENATE December 4, 1974
to provide that assistance to Syria and
some other nations.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I assure the Senator,
he will have my help on this item, I am
as unhappy as the Senator is.
Mr. BAYH. I thank my colleague.
Mr. HU'MPHREY. Mr. President, if the
Senator from South Dakota will let me
yield 2 minutes of my time on his amend-
ment to the Senator from Oregon, we can
clear up another matter here, but we will
not use any more time.
Mr. CASE. Except for Senator PERCY.
Mr. HArrIELD. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. President, I address myself to the
Public Law 480 section of the bill and I
would like to call up my amendment, I
ask it be in order to call up my amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OtariCER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
the amendment.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OlosaCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 39 lines 24 and 25 and page 42 line
19 delete "$1,274,900,000" and insert in lieu
thereof "$1,189,900,000.";
On page 40 line 8 delete "$125,000,000" and
Insert in lieu thereof "$40,000,000."
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, my
amendment would reduce the level of
$125 million presently in the bill of the
Public Law 480 program for South Viet-
nam to a $40 million level.
Basically, for the purpose of recogniz-
ing that we have this time projected only
$19.5 million for the first 6 months of the
fiscal year, that would then be fol-
lowed through for the $40 million level
for the lull year.
This last August and September, the
production of rice was up 100,000 metric
tons over the last year in South Vietnam
and, therefore, is the basic reason why
the level has been reduced.
This would also free the $85 million for
other use of foodstuffs for the 32 coun-
tries listed by the United Nations as the
most seriously affected by the global eco-
nomic condition.
This would not affect the economic aid
level in the bill, which is $50 million over
last year.
Mr. President, during recent months
the Congress has become increasingly
aware of the prostitution and political-
ization of the "food-for-peace" program.
Specifically, almost half of the modest
and shrinking surplus commodities un-
der this program were diverted last fiscal
year to support the war economies of
South Vietnam and Cambodia, in heart-
less insensitivity to the threat of famine
which grips much of the world. Further,
those actions constituted a blatant at-
tempt by the executive branch to nullify
congressional action which placed limits
ori appropriations to the governments of
those countries.
Last year, the Congress appropriated
$450 million for "Indochina reconstruc-
tion assistance." The administration had
requested $632 million; the Senate, fol-
lowing the recommendation of the For-
eign Operations Subcommittee of the
Appropriations Committee, appropriated
$400 million, and the House appropriated
$500 million, $450 million was the con-
ference figure. Food-for-peace funds are
appropriated separately, through the
agriculture budget, and were not .;ubject
to this limitation on the Foreign Opera-
tions Appropriation bill.
There has been nearly total flexibility
on the part of the administration to
change and divert theses funds to differ-
ent countries as they see fit. Thus, while
the administration proposed in fiscal
year 1974 that $176 million would be
made available in agricultural commod-
ities for South Vietnam, and $30 million
for Cambodia, by the year's end, they
had allocated $235 million in loans to
South Vietnam fiar the purchase of Pub-
lic Law -480 comModities, and $168 mil-
lion to Cambodia, Thus, those two coun-
tries attually received $197 million more
than was originally projected. So while
it was the intent 'of Congress to cut ap-
propriations for Indochina reconstruc-
tion by $182 million, from a proposed
$632 million to $450 million, the execu-
tive branch more than recompensated
that reduction by this $197 million in-
crease in "'Food for Peace."
As a member of the Foreign Opera-
tions Subcommittee of the Senate Ap-
propriations Cominiittee, this is particu-
larly distressing to me, for we struggled
dilligently to set certain limits to Indo-
china reconstruction assistance, only
to see them totally nullified by this ac-
tion of the administration.
This action becomes particularly tra-
gic when we realize how the countries of
Indochina came to nearly monopolize
our food for peace program. Title I
food peace funds were diverted in such
added massive Mounts to Indochina
not primarily to meet the needs of its
hungry people, but rather to generate
an added source of revenue for the
South Vietnamese Government to pay
for its budget. The same holds true for
Cambodia.
Consider these ' facts. While more than
$400 million in food-for-peace funds was
allocated to Indochina in fiscal year 1974,
the Sahel region of Africa, where a quar-
ter of a million have died of starvation
and millions more suffer from severe
malnutrition and are struggling to live,
received only about $61.5 million under
the food-for-peace program. Pakistan re-
ceived only $37.5 million. Bangladesh re-
ceived a mere $20.1 million, despite the
severe malnutrition that continues to
afflict millions of its young. And India,
which alone has 20 times the pepulation
of South Vietnain and Cambodia, and
which is faced with the threat of famine,
received only $67,1 million.
In fact, the two continents of Africa
and Latin America together, with a
population of 550;million people, received
an estimated total of $190.5 million under
food-for-peace allocations, almost the
same as that given to the one country of
Cambodia. with a population of 7 million.
The priorities governing the food-for-
peace program are clear: They are to
support economies geared to war, rather
than relieve famine and starvation.,A1-
most half of last year's food-for-peace
allocations turned out, in fact, to be food
for war.
The budget presentation for fiscal year
1975 showed the same criteria at work.
Of the original world program of $891.7
million the following projected alloca-
tions are clearly political and strategic in
nature: Cambodia, $77 million; Vietnam,
$160.6 million; Indonesia, $120.9 million;
Korea, $155 million; Philippines, $26
million; and Chile, $37.1 million. These
countries account for more than 60 per-
cent of the total program.
When we examine the quantities under
title I of Public Law 480 approved for
programing through December 31 of this
year, as opposed to the original budget
projections, we continue to see how the
political motivations overwhelm humani-
tarian ones in the allocation of our food
aid. For instance, $78.8 million has been
approved for Cambodia, $27.1 million for
Chile, $60.6 million for Egypt, $21.6 mil-
lion for Korea, $22.5 million for Syria,
$19.5 million for Vietnam, $3.3 million for
Jordan, $900,000 for Thailand, $5.8 mil-
lion for Indonesia, $200,000 for the
Philippines, and $1.5 million for Jamaica.
By contrast, $75.5 million has been ap-
proved for programing to Bangladesh for
the first half of this fiscal year, but only
$200,000 to Pakistan, and $800,000 to the
Sudan. About $50 million has been ap-
proved for India, although this figure is
not yet certain.
It will be argued as to when food aid
Is political and when it is humanitarian.
However, the United Nations, acting in
response to a resolution adopted by the
General Assembly last May 1, has
adopted a list of the nations most seri-
ously affected by the global economic
crisis. This list was set forth on Sep-
tember 24 of this year, and done in co-
operation with the World Bank, the FAO,
and other international organizations.
I ask unanimous consent that this list
appear in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the list was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
Bangladesh.
Central African Republic.
Chad.
Dahomey.
Democratic Yemen.
El Salvador.
Ethiopia.
Ghana.
Guinea.
Guyana.
Haiti.
Honduras.
India.
Ivory Coast.
Khmer Republic.
Kenya.
Laos.
Lesotho.
Madagascar.
Mauritania.
Niger.
Pakistan.
Senegal.
Sierra Leone.
Somalia.
Sri Lanka.
Sudan.
United Republic of Cameroon.
United Republic of Tanzania.
Upper Volta.
Yemen.
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 20583
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, if we
examine the trends in our title I Public
Law 480 program for the? first half of
this fiscal year in light of this list of
most serious affected nations, it Js clearly
seen how political objectives continue to
play a large part in the allocation of
our food aid. Of those nations I previ-
ously cited as receiving major portions
of our title I food aid this fiscal year for
political purposes, only Cambodia ap-
pears on the list of most serious affected
nations prepared by the U.N.
There is one very encouraging note in
this picture, however. Title I food for
peace to South Vietnam projected
through the first half of this fiscal year
equals only $19.5 million. Only $7.2 mil-
lion has actually been Sent so far this
fiscal year. Thus, we have substantially
reduced the amount of our overall lim-
ited food for peace commodities which
are going to South Vietnam. This trend
Is most encouraging, and I applaud the
administration for it. It should be noted
that last year, when South Vietnam was
receiving major amounts of our food for
peace program, it rendered a 50,000-ton
"loan" of rice to Cambodia. Further, sev-
eral times that amount was privately
smuggled out of South Vietnam. There
have been reports of peasants in cen-
tral South Vietnam who died of starva-
tion. But that was due not to the lack of
foodstuffs in the country, but rather be-
cause of amounts smuggled out of the
country as well as speculators who cre-
ated deliberate shortages for personal
gain.
This year, the harvest in South Viet-
nam has increased over last year sub-
stantially. Vietnam Economic Data for
July through September, published by
the Agency for International Develop-
ment, showed that the end month stock
of rice for August and September of this
year were 263,000 metric tons and 243,-
000 metric tons, respectively. This com-
pared with 123,000 metric tons for Au-
gust of last year, and 159,000 metric tons
of stacks last September. Thus, the har-
vest in South Vietnam has substantially
improved this year, lessening the neeci
for our imports, and especially our food
aid. This is particularly true in light of
the dire needs of nations throughout the
world whose citizens face starvation, and
who are in desperate need of immediate
food relief?relief which may not be
forthcoming.
This bill puts a ceiling on food-for-
peace funds to South Vietnam of $125,-
000,000. But in light of their improved
harvest, and reduced levels being sent
for this first half of fiscal year 1975, there
is no likelihood that this limit will be
reached. Further, in light of dire world
need, it would be utterly unconscionable
to send such a vast amount of our lim-
ited food aid to the one country of South
Vietnam?a country not even listed as
being one of the 32 nations most seri-
ously affected by global economic con-
ditions.
My amendment reduces this limit from
$125 million to $40 million. That allows
the present rate of food aid to South
Vietnam for the first half of this fiscal
year to continue. It will allow for $20
million more food aid to o to this nation
for political purposes during the second
half of this fiscal year. Moreover, it will
insure that the commendable trend dur-
ing the first half of this fiscal year in
reducing food aid to South Vietnam will
continue through the rest of fiscal year
1975.
Let me be candid in conclusion. There
Is no problem faced by this world more
likely to breed instability, and conflict,
and increase the magnitude of man-
kind's suffering in the years directly
ahead of us, than the shortage of food.
International politics, relationships be-
tween the "superpowers" and the poor
countries, the durability of political re-
gimes, and the political character of na-
tions, including our own, will be shaped
by the growing scarcity of the world's
basic resources, and especially food, more
than by any of the other factors that
have monopolized our attention.
The people of America have demon-
strated that they will give out of their
generosity to those who are in need. But
what has disillusioned the Nation about
our foreign aid program are the instances
of compromise and manipulation which
can eventually destroy the original ideals
and purposes of these efforts. The his-
tory of our food for peace programs, and
its domination by political motives, is a
prime cause of why Americans have been
losing their belief in foreign aid.
In addition, there are thousands of
people, both working for our Govern-
ment and with voluntary agencies
throughout the world, who have a sin-
cere and total commitment to meeting
human need. But the policies and deci-
sions made at levels totally beyond their
control can undermine and erode the
equality of such individual humani-
tarianism. Corrupting the purposes of
the food for peace program has its costs
both in human lives throughout the world
and in the equally incalculable cost of
mocking and destroying the force of hu-
manitarianism and love.
This amendment is one small step in
trying to restore integrity and humani-
tarianism to our food for peace pro-
gram.
Mr. President, I ask the manager of
the bill to respond to the proposal of re-
ducing this level as I have indicated in
my amendment.
Mr. HUMPHREY. May I say to the
distinguished Senator that I agree with
him that the level of $125 million is ex-
cessive, as I see it, and in light of all I
have heard from the AID administra-
tion, it is more ceiling than we need, and
in the conference with our Members from
the other body, I am sure we can make
a very substantial reduction in that and
still not in any way cripple the program.
I understand what the Senator is driv-
ing at. I spoke about it, I talked to the
AID administration people about it. I see
no reason that we cannot handle this in
a manner to the satisfaction of the ad-
ministration and the Senator from Ore-
gon and myself.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, on the
pledge from the leader of the bill that he
has just made, I withdraw my amend-
ment and I express my appreciation for
his understanding and look to his good
leadership for reducing this level in the
conference committee.
Mr. :EIUMPHREY. I thank the Senator
very much.
Now, Mr. President, if the Senator
from South Dakota will permit it, I be-
lieve I still have a little time left, do I
not?
The PRESIDING OF.toiCER. Three
minutes.
Mr. 'HUMPHREY. I yield a minute to
the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with
the understanding that the distinguished
Senator from South Dakota will not lose
his right to the floor, I ask unanimous
consent to set aside the amendment of
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
McGovEm) , to take up an amendment I
am introducing for myself, Mr. HUM-
PHREY, Mr. MATHIAS, Mr. FELL, Mr. MC-
GEE, Mr. MONDALE, Mr. HART, and Mr.
JAVITS. I call the amendment up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will state the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further reading.
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill add the following
new section:
SEC. 41. Part I of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following:
Chapter X. ASSISTANCE TO PORTUGAL
AND PORTUGUESE COLONIES IN
AFRICA GAINING INDEPENDENCE
SEC. 496. (a) There are authorized to be
appropriated to the President for the fiscal
year 1975, in addition to funds otherwise
available for such purposes, not to exceed?
(1) $5,000,000 to make grants; and
(2) $80,000,000 to make loans;
to remain available until expended, for use
by the President in providing economic as-
sistance, on such terms and conditions as he
may determine, for Portugal and the coun-
tries and colonies in Africa which were, prior
to April 25, 1974, colonies of Portugal. Of
such assistance, not more than 60 per centum
shall be furnished to Portugal.
(b) It is the sense of the Congress that the
new government in Portugal should be com-
mended for its commitment to independence
for Portuguese African colonies. The Congress
declares it to be the policy of the United
States to support the democratic experiment
in Portugal, and the independent develop-
ment of the nations emerging in Africa.
Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. President, I have
had a chance to talk with the floor man-
ager of the bill, as well as the distin-
guished minority manager. The State
Department and the administration also
support this amendment.
Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I visited
.Portugal, ap part of a trip to nine Euro-
pean countries and the Middle East. I
went at the invitation of the Portuguese
Foreign Minister, on behalf of the Gov-
ernment, and met with a number of
leading Portuguese officials, journalists,
and ordinary citizens.
I have been deeply impressed by two
things: first, the actions taken by the
Armed Forces Movement last April 25,
in overturning without bloodshed the
repressive government that had ruled
Portugal for 48 years; second, the deci-
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20584 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE December 4, 1974
sion of the Portuguese Government to
end 500 years of colonial rule in Africa.
Guinea-Bissau is now independent and
a member of the United Nations. Mo-
za,mbique will be independent next sum-
mer; agreement has been reached on
the independence of Sao Tome. A refer-
endum on independence for the Cape
Verde Islands has been proposed. Only
in Angola, where opposition to Portu-
guese rule has been divided among three
contending liberation organizations, is
there as yet no clear means for bringing
about independence.
What Portugal has done in the past 7
months accords with the hopes expressed
over many years by many Members of
the Senate. We opposed the tyranny in
Lisbon; we opposed continuing colonial-
ism. For this reason alone?that Portugal
has now taken actions we long sup-
ported?I believe that it deserves our
support.
But there is a more immediate reason
for our concern. At the moment, Portu-
gal is struggling to create democratic
institutions that will lead it out of nearly
five decades of repressive government.
This will be a difficult process for a coun-
try without a tradition of a free press,
free unions, free universities, and free
elections.
Yet I am encouraged that there are
democratic forces at work in Portugal,
seeking to bring their country into the
mainstream of West European political
democracy, while rejecting political ex-
tremes of either the right or the left.
Whether or not they will succeed will be
largely determiend during the next few
months?in particular, between now and
elections for a constituent assembly now
scheduled for March 1975. Thus it is
important that we act now, while the
issue hangs in the balance.
Mr. President, I believe that the
United States should support efforts by
Portuguese democrats to forge popular
institutions in their country. Let it not
be said that this experiment was jeopar-
dized because we turned a blind eye to
what is happening in Portugal; because
we failed to demonstrate our concern for
what these people are trying to do.
At the same time, there are critical
needs in each of the new nations emerg-
ing in Africa. Only Angola, among the
five, has important economic resources.
For the rest, progress towards independ-
ence is complicated by poverty, illiter-
acy, and disease. And the Cape Verde
Islands face a particularly difficult time,
because of a 7-year drought that has els?
laid waste to their near neighbors in the
Sahelian region of the African continent.
Finally, I believe that showing our
concern for Portugal now?at this crit-
ical time in its history?will also increase
the chances that Portugal will continue
its close association with the Western Al-
liance. In particular, I believe that a
positive demonstration of concern for
Portugal's democratic experiment?and
for its economic development?will help
in negotiations on the Azores base, which
has new value because of the situation
in the Middle East.
Mr. President, for all these reasons--
and especially because of the democratic
experiment in Portugal?I am today pro,-
posing a special authorization of eco-
nomic assistance to Portugal and to
those new nations now emerging in Af-
rica. The authorization is for $50 million
in economic loans and $5 million in tech-
nical assistance grants. Half would go to
Portugal; half would go to the African
States that were colonies when the Caet-
ano regime Was overthrown.
I appreciate that the United States
has not provided aid to Portugal before,
and that POrtugal has actually been a
member of the Development Assistance
Committee of the OECD. Yet those facts
must be set against a recognition that
the previous regime brought Portugal to
the point of being the poorest country in
Europe. Indeed, the Governraent in Lis-
bon has now dropped out of the Devel-
opment Assistance Committee, and is ac-
tively seeking economic support from
abroad. Furthermore, I believe that real
and tangible economic support from the
United States today will give encourage-
ment to those people in Portugal who are
seeking to develop their country and
decolonize?and do so firmly within a
democratic framework.
There are other things that the United
States could do to support Portuguese
democracy, particularly in the field of
education. There are 15,000 university
students without adequate classrooms;
and there is a great lack of books and
libraries after three generations in which
liberal education was discouraged.
We could provide portable classrooms
for student nse;
We could expand teacher training op-
portunities here in the United States for
Portuguese teachers;
We could increase the number of Ful-
bright students and lecturers at Por-
tuguese universities;
We could insure that language train-
ing for State Department and other offi-
cials would emphasize continental as
well as Brazilian Portuguese.
We would urge American publishers to
make available American books?espe-
cially paperback books?to a country
and people for so long starved of these
important tools of education;
And we could support the establish-
ment and operation of an American
bookstore in Lisbon, and emphasize the
translation of books from one language
to the other.
These are modest steps. But they illus-
trate both the practical details of help-
ing to build the institutions of a demo-
cratic society, and the wide range of ways
in which we in the United States can
express our concern.
At the same time, I believe we can
begin providing vitally needed assistance
to the people in Portugal's African terri-
tories now gaining independence.
We could bring African students to
America for training in our colleges and
universities.
We would provide aid to the families
that have suffered from the ravages of
the wars of liberation.
And we could determine the need for
food and health assistance throughout
those African countries, and particularly
In the Cape Verde Islands.
These are some of the measures that
I believe would be useful in responding
directly to the problems of transition for
the citizens of Angola, Mozambique,
Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, and Sao
Tome,
Finally, I believe it is important that
the United States refrain from interfer-
ing in Portugal's political process. As
members of the Senate will be aware,
there have been widespread charges in
Portugal that the CIA is actively inter-
fering in politics, there.
In part, these fears are a natural out-
growth of the CIA's tragic involvement
in Chile; and I was repeatedly questioned
on this subject both in Portugal and in
some other countries I visited on my re-
cent trip to Europe and the Middle East.
I therefore welcome the statement by
the new U.S. Ambassador, Mr. Frank
Carlucci, that the CIA is not interfering
in Portuguese politics. I sincerely hope
that this is so.
Mr. President, I urge the Senate to
support our amendment to ?the Foreign
Assistance Act, providing economic as-
sistance for Portugal and the African
states emerging from Portuguese rule.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I feel
we ought to accept that. There is no ob-
jection on this side.
Mr. CASE. There is no objection. The
Senator from Massachusetts is correct
that the State Department supports this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFeaCER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from, Massachusetts (Mr.
KENNEDY) .
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, how
much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven-
and-a-half minutes.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I think there was 5.
The PRESIDING Otee'ICER. Five-and-
a-half minutes and the Senator from
Minnesota has 1 minute.
Mr. McGOVERN, Mr. President, this
amendment is a very simple one and
each Senator has a synopisis of it on his
desk.
The amendment makes two modest re-
ductions in the bill now before us.
There was considerable objection
raised to the ceiling reduction offered by
the senior Senator from Idaho (Mr.
CHURCH) and I think there was some
logic in that objection.
The objection was that it would deny
Congress the right to decide where these
reductions should occur and would give
the administration complete freedom to
make cuts wherever it saw fit without
regard to the wishes of Congress.
That is the great strength in the
amendment I now offer in that it pin-
points where the reductions should be
made.
It reduces, first of all, by $50 million
the worldwide military assistance pro-
gram and, secondly, it reduces, again by
$50 million, the so-called Indochina post-
war reconstruction program.
I would like to emphasize, Mr. Presi-
dent, that even with these reductions,
the bill would still allow more money in
both of those categories than was allowed
in the original bill as reported by the
Foreign Relations Committee after many
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, .1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE S 20585
days of study and hearings and evalua-
tion.
Mr. President, I regret that I cannot
comply with the request of the distin-
guished floor manager to refrain from
proposing amendments to this bill. I was
prepared to support the bill as it was
previously reported by the Foreign Re-
lations Committee, but I regret to say
that, in this new version, I believe the
committee has conceded too much to the
executive branch and its continuing in-
cantations that the United States can
buy foreign allegiances and international
tranquility with huge expenditures on
military aid.
I could support the original version of
this bill, Mr. President, because the com-
mittee had provided generous funding
in areas of legitimate and pressing need,
while at the same time making justifiable
cuts in program areas which repre-
sented simply the fruitless perpetuation
of obsolete activities. Specifically, the
committee had granted essentially the
full administration request for worldwide
development assistance and for Middle
East assistance?two areas in which a
clear and compelling case can be made
for American aid. But the committee had
made cuts in worldwide military aid and
In the deceptively labeled "Indochina
Postwar Reconstruction" program?two
areas in which expenditures would be
made simply to continue misguided and
wasteful programs that should in fact
be brought quickly to a close.
The bill now before the Senate, Mr.
President, contains considerably more
money than the bill previously reported
by the Foreign Relations Committee, I
ask unanimous consent that there ap-
pear in the RECORD at this point a table
which shows where these increases have
been made.
There being no objection, the table
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Increases in S. 3394 made in committee after
recommittal
(In thousands)
I. Changes in Authorizations:
Economic aid to Indochina +867, 000
Food and nutrition +39, 000
Middle East (Israel) +89, 500
Total Additions
Military Credit sales
195,500
?30,000
Net addition +145, 500
II. Other additions:
Use of loan refiows for disaster
aid ?110,000
Additional military aid funds as
a result of delay in effective
date for charging costs of mili-
tary missions + 57, 000
Additional military aid from
changes in excess defense ar-
ticles provision (estimate) +35,000
Total additional foreign
aid in revised version of
S. 3394 ?347,000
Mr. McGOVERN. These increases,
Mr. President, total approximately $350
million. In addition, if the discussion in
the committee is any indication, there
seem to be some plans afoot to recede
in conference to the House on the ques-
tion of the $150 million drawdown au-
thority. If so, that would mean that the
committee has now given us a bill allow-
ing $500 million more than the bill pre-
viously reported.
To use an automotive analogy, Mr.
President, what we originally had before
us was the "compact car" version of S.
3394. It had the essentials, but was eco-
nomical and tightly structured. It con-
tained few ornaments and allowed lit-
tle waste. What the committee has now
given us, in an attempt to appease a
gluttonous bureaucracy pursuing out-
dated policies, is the "Fishtail-8" ver-
sion of S. 3394. It is large, extravagant,
heavy with excess and unnecessary ex-
pense, altogether too costly at a time
when budget austerity is a necessity.
Beyond this it is a glaring example of
misguided priorities.
I am therefore now offering an amend-
ment, Mr. President, which would help
to bring this bill back in the direction of '
the tightly structured version originally
reported by the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee. My amendment makes two mod-
est reductions: a. It reduces by $50 mil-
lion the worldwide military assistance
program, and b. it reduces by $50 million
the so-called Indochina Postwar Recon-
struction program. I should emphasize,
Mr. President, that even with these re-
ductions the bill would still allow More
money in both categories than was al-
lowed in S. 3394 when it was previously
reported by the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee, In the new version of S. 3394, an
additional $57 million has been made
available for the military assistance pro-
gram by the removal of a provision con-
tained in the original bill which charged
all military mission costs against mili-
tary aid funds. And $67 million has been
added to the Indochina program. My
amendment would simply reduce those
increases. Even with my amendment,
there would still be $7 million more
available for the military assistance
program than the committee originally
allowed, and $17 million more in the
Indochina program than the committee
originally allowed. Thus we would have
made some small move in the direction
of the executive branch's desires?but
without giving the whole game away.
In the new version of the bill which is
now before us, an additional $57 million
has been made available to the military
assistance program, and $600 million
more has been added to the Indochina
program. This amendment would simply
reduce those increases.
Even with this amendment, there
would still be $7 million more available
for the military assistance program than
the committee originally allowed, and
$17 million more in the Indochina pro-
gram than the committee originally
allowed.
Even if the amendment is adopted, we
are still moving in a modest direction
toward the executive branch's desire
without giving away the whole game.
Mr. President, I supported the orig-
inal version of the bill because the com-
mittee had Provided adequate funding in
the areas of most pressing and legiti-
mate need, while at the same time mak-
ing modest cutbacks in areas that I
think do not serve the national interest.
Specifically, the committee had granted
essentially the full administration re-
quest for worldwide development assist-
ance and the Middle East assistance, to
areas in which we have a clear and com-
pelling case for American assistance. But
the committee had made prudent cuts
in worldwide military assistance, and in
what I believe is erroneously labeled as
the Indochina postwar construction pro-
gram. Those are two programs that have
contained a great deal of waste, that
have been misguided and should, in fact,
be reduced.
Mr. STENNIS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the Sen-
ator from Mississippi.
Mr. STENNIS. Will the Senator review
briefly just what items with reference
to the military program he would reduce?
I did not have an opportunity to hear his
remarks.
Mr. McGOVERN. I will say to the Sen-
ator from Mississippi that in the bill now
before us there is some $550 million for
military assistance purposes worldwide,
except for Vietnam for which military
assistance is provided through the De-
fense Department budget.
Mr. STENNIS. I know the time of the
Senator is short. May I direct his atten-
tion to South Vietnam? I am concerned
because there is evidence of new pressure
on them in the last few days.
Mr. McGOVERN. I will say to the Sen-
ator that it would result in a $38 million
cut in the so-called Vietnam postwar
reconstruction program.
Mr. STENNIS. Is that the military
part or the economic part?
Mr. McGOVERN. That is the economic
part.
Mr. STENNIS. But this would not re-
duce anything that is in Vietnam in-
volved in the current fiscal year?
- Mr. McGOVERN. Not in the military
program.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.
Mr McGOVERN. Mr. President, this
amendment does what the Congress
ought to do. That is to concentrate its
attention, its concern, on those areas
where we can make prudent reductions
without hurting development assistance,
without in any way reducing our com-
mitment to fostering a Middle East
peace. I hope that these modest reduc-
tions will be accepted.
We turned down the Senator from
Idaho on the ceiling that he attempted
to put on foreign assistance spending,
largely on the ground that his amend-
ment did not earmark where those cuts
should be made. Here is an amendment
that gives us a chance now to show our
concern about priorities, our concern
about waste. I hope very much the
amendment will be adopted.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder
?of my time.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, how
much time do we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Minnesota has 1 minute, and
the Senator from South Carolina has no
time-remaining.
Mr. HUMPHREY. In the 1 minute,
Mr. President, I want my colleagues to
know that in this bill we now have an
agreement between the administration
and a majority bipartisan group in the
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20586
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE December 4, 1974
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on
the levels in this bill. We have cut Indo-
china grant aid from $985 million to
$555 million, a reduction of 45 percent
from the administration's request.
We have cut economic aid to Indochina
from $939,800,000 to $617 million, a re-
duction of 34 percent.
We have cut military assistance funds
for Indochina from $1,450,000,000 to
$700 million in the Armed Services
Committee.
So you have had reductions of 45 per-
cent, 34 percent, and 50 percent. I think
that is a pretty good record.
Obviously, you can always get up and
say we should reduce it some more. But
I think once we have tried to tie some-
thing down, we should stick with it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator's time has expired. The yeas and
nays have been ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask that the Senator from Illinois be
recognized for not. to exceed 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I send an
amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
the amendment.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I ask fur-
ther reading of the amendment. be dis-
pensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill add the following
new section.:
INTEGRATION' OF WO MEN
Sc. 33. Chapter 3 of part III of the For-
eign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended by
adding at the end thereof the following new
section:
"Sec. 305. INTEGRATION OF WOMEN .?The
President is requested to instruct each rep-
resentative of the United States to each in-
ternational organization of which the United.
States is a member (including but not lim-
ited to the International Bank for Recon-
struction and Development, the Asian Devel-
opment Bank, the Inter-American Develop-
ment Bank, the International Monetary
Funds, the United Nations, and the Organiza-
tion for Economic Cooperation and Develop.
ment) to carry out their duties with respect
to such organizations In such a manner as to
encourage and promote the integration of
women into the national economies of mem-
ber and recipient countries and into profes-
sional and policy-making positiOns within
such organizations, thereby improving the
status of womenJ"
Mr. p:eacy. Mr. President, this
amendment would direct our represent-
atives in those, international organiza-
tions of which we are a member to carry
out their duties so as to encourage and
promote the integration of women into
the national economies of member and
recipient countries and into Professional
and policymaking positions within those
organizations.
Mr. President, last year during con-
sideration of the foreign aid bill the
Senate passed an unpretentious piece of
now known as the Percy
amendment. In:one sentence the amend-
ment directed the Agency for Interna-
tional Development to administer our
foreign a-id effort in such a way as to
promote the integration of women into
the national ,economies of recipient
countries, thus improving the status of
women and assisting the total develop-
ment effort.. ,
This aniendnient, although simple, has
reaped highly significant results. In
September of this year AID issued the
Percy amendment policy :implementa-
tion plan directing all agency develop-.
merit assistance plans to contain clear
statements as to how women in develop-
ing countries will be involved In the de-
velopment process and how the plan Or
proposal will benefit women and use
their capabilities. More important, in the
approval of all development plans and
projects, strong preference will be given
to those which provide for the effective
utilization of women. International and
voluntary organizations working with
AID will also be encouraged to give spe-
cific attention to the role of women in
development. Moreover, AID Washing-
ton bureaus and missions overseas have
been instructed to collect information
pertinent to the understanding of the
role, status, and contribution of women
in developing countries. Finally, our
missions overseas will be required to re-
port on the general progress of integrat-
ing women in the development process,
highlighting effective projects.
The Percy amendment, however, is
incomplete as it stands, for it affects only
our bilateral aid programs. The United
States also participates in and makes
substantial contributions to multilateral
aid programs such as those supported by
organizations like the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund, and the
United Nations, to name but a few. I am,
therefore, introducing an amendment
today to reinforce the Percy amendment
and make U.S. policy where women's
equality is concerned consistent regard-
less of whether we are dealing with bi-
lateral or multilateral aid programs. As
I stated earlier, this amendment would
direct our representatives in those in-
ternational organizations of which we
are a member to carry out their duties
so as to encourage and promote the in-
tegration of women into the national
economies of member and recipient
countries and into professional and pol-
icymaking positions within those orga-
nizations.
Mr. President, I offer the amendment
for the consideration of my colleagues.
The integration of women into the na-
tional economies of countries around
the world deserves serious consideration.
Equity and equal opportunity should be
basic to the economic and social devel-
opment process of all countries.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD at
this point a tabulation showing the num-
ber of women on the staff of the United
Nations and related agencies.
There being no objection, the table
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
TABLE 19.?NUM1IER OF WOMEN ON THE STAFF OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND RELATED AGENCIES
Organization ASG
United Nations 1
UNICEF
UNDP
UNHCP__
110 _______ .._.
FAO
UNESCO
WHO
I BRD "
IMF 2
ICAO
UPU
I TU
WMO
I MCO
GATT
IAEA
Total
3-2
3-1
P-5
P-4
? P-3
P-2
P-1
Total
Total staff
Percentage of
female staff
2
6
36
105
213
188
48
599
3,015
19. 87
2
2
8
15
2
30
227
13.22
1
1
7
9
17
30
3
68
194
11. 45
1
3
4
8
1
17
105
16. 19
2
3
19
39
25
31
119
735
if,. 19
6
48
rf 2
61
33
200
3, 508
5. 70
3
13
44
St
60
17
188
794
22.88
3
9
75
297
94
21
409
1, 885
21. 70
165
3, 652
9. 99
127
743
12.09
2
3
9
1
20
237
fi. 44
4
6
54
11.11
11
2
20
172
11.63
3
5
12
100
12. 00
2
4
8
124
6. 45
3
9
3
21
96
21. 88
1
G12
15
10
44
332
13. 25
1
3
15
78
318
830
531
185
2,053
14,373
14. 28
1 Includes IDA and IFC.
As the grades of IBRD and IMF differ from those of the
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I have dis-
cussed this amendment with both man-
agers of the bill, and I understand it is
acceptable.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I am
pleased that the Senator has brought up
lied Nations .conunon system, only the total figure is given.
this amendment. I agree with the amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment of
the Senator from Illinois. (Putting the
question.)
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
have an amendment that I want to sub-
mit, if I may, out of order. I ask for 1
minute to do so.
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will
require unanimous consent to do so.
Mr. HIIMPHREY. I ask unanimous
consent that I be permitted to offer the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
? At the end of the bill insert the following
new section:
POLICY WITH RESPECT TO COUNTRIES MOST
SERIOUSLY AFFECTED BY FOOD SHORTAGES
"SEC. 44. (a) The Congress finds that tight
food availabilities throughout the world
threatens the citizens of many countries
with serious hunger and malnutrition. While
in the past foreign policy considerations -
have represented a significant factor in the
allocation of available food and fertilizer
assistance, the current food emergency re-
quires an immediate reordering of priorities
under which such assistance is distributed
worldwide. The United Nations has desig-
nated 32 countries as "most seriously af-
fected" by the current economic crisis. These
are countries without the internal food pro-
duction capability nor the foreign exchange
availability to secure food to meet their im-
mediate food requirements. The Congress
calls upon the President and Secretary of
State to take immediately the following ac-
tions designed to mobilize all appropriate
resources to meet the food emergency.
(1) Immediately review and make appro-
priate adjustments in the level of program-
ming of our food and fertilizer assistance
programs to make the maximum feasible
volume of food and fertilizer available to
those countries most seriously affected by
current food shortages.
(2) Call upon all traditional and potential
new donors of food, fertilizer, or the means
of financing these commodities to imme-
diately increase their participation in efforts
to address the emergency food needs of the
developing world.
(3) Make available to these most seriously
affected countries the maximum feasible
volume of food commodities, within appro-
priate regard to the current domestic price
and supply situations.
(4) Maintain regular and full consulta-
tion with the appropriate committees of the
Congress and report to the Congress and the
Nation on steps which are being taken to
meet this food emergency. In accordance
with this provision, the President shall report
to the Congress on the following:
(A) a gkobal assessment by country of food
needs for Fiscal Year 1975, Specifying ex-
pected food grain deficits by country and cur-
rent arrangements for meeting such deficits,
(B) currently planned programming of com-
modities under Public Law 480 by country
and within such country, by volume and
commodity and, (C) steps which are being
taken to encourage other countries to in-
crease their participation in food assistance
or the financing of food assistance. Such
report should reach the Congress within 30
days of enactment of this Act and should
be supplemented quarterly for the remainder
of Fiscal Year 1975.
(6) The Congress calls upon the President
to proceed immediately with the implementa-
tion of resolutions and recommendations
adopted by the World Food Conference. The
Congress firmly believes that it Is incum-
bent upon the United States to take a lead-
ing role in assisting in the development of
a viable and coherent world food policy which
would begin the task of alleviating wide-
spread hunger and suffering prevalent in
famine-stricken nations. The President shall
report to the Congress within ninety days of
enactment of this Act on the implementa-
tion of the resolutions and the extent to
which the united States is participating in
the implementation of resolutions adopted
at the World Food Conference.
(5) Not withstanding any other provision
of law, no funds authorized to be appropri-
ated by this or any other law may be obli-
gated in any amount in excess of $250 million
during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975,
for the purpose of providing concessional
food aid assistance, or in excess of $90 mil-
lion for the purpose of providing fertilizer
under our foreign assistance programs, un-
less such funds are used to purchase corn-
? modities for countries "Most Seriously Af-
fected" by the economic crisis as designated
by the United Nations, or unless the Presi-
dent demonstrates to the appropriate Com-
mittees of the Congress that the use of such
funds to purchase food assistance is solely
for humanitarian food purposes.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, Mr.
S. A. Marei, secretary general of the
World Food Conference, stated at its
conclusion:
Despite our resolutions, a large number of
people face starvation.
Just how large that number is and will
be depends directly on what actions the
food-rich nations, and especially the
United States, take in the weeks ahead.
Unfortunately, the callous indecisiveness
to date of our Government in responding
to the scourge of hunger offers little sol-
ace to the world's starving millions.
Bangladesh's former food minister
told the conferees at Rome that 1 million
people will die. in the next 6 weeks in his
country if additional food assistance is
not received. India is confronting a
famine which many predict will be the
worst in a quarter century. And experts
In Rome estimated that in the next 8
months half a billion people throughout
the world are faced with starvation or
malnutrition unless additional relief
reaches them.
Last week the major grain exporting
and importing nations met in Rome to
consider the food emergency and what
/night be done to deal with it. This group,
which included the United States, agreed
that 7.5 million tons must be provided by
next July and that such amount could
pbleiemsade available in light of current stip-
Presently, the United States is pro-
viding or planning to provide about 1
million tons of the 7.5 million ton total.
At the same time, we are planning to
commit more than twice that amount
for political uses.
Of the nearly $1 billion in food aid
projected in fiscal year 1975, between
$250 to $300 million will go to Cambodia
and South Vietnam,
Roughly between $120 to $140 million
Is projected to go for political purposes
to nations in the Middle East, and Chile
has already received $35 million worth
of food aid, with more likely to come.
By comparison, even under the higliest
option for food aid before the President,
India and Bangladesh combined would
receive less than $150 million, and Pakis-
tan would receive less than $50 mil-
lion. Those three nations, all faced with
mass starvation, will together receive
less food from the United States than
the total which we will send direct to
Southeast Asia. The extent of the pres-
ent crisis requires all nations to take
whatever steps necessary to mobilize
S 20587
food and funds to purchase food in order
to meet immediate humanitarian needs.
Is it morally defensible that, in view
of the current food emergency, such a
large proportion of our food assistance
goes not to where the most people are
starving, but where we want to support
a friendly political regime or exert our
diplomatic leverage?
A decision to allocate more of our
surplus food according to the needs of
the world's hungry could result in hun-
dreds of thousands more tons available
to prevent famine.
It is time that the Congress demon-
strate our humanitarian concern
through positive legislative action. We
are therefore offering specific amend-
ments to do the following:
Call for an immediate review and ad-
justment of our food and fertilizer as-
sistance priorities to make food avail-
able to those who need it the most;
Request that the United States take
steps to secure greater participation of
other countries in meeting the emergency
food and fertilizer needs of the develop-
ing world;
Request that the administration re-
consider the current domestic supply and
price situation to see if any new food
resources might be made available to
countries most seriously affected by food
shortages;
Provide for regular reports to the Con-
gress on the current food situation and
actions which are being taken to deal
with it;
Limit to $250 million funds which can
be used to purchase food and $90 million
to purchase fertilizer under our assist-
ance programs for other than humani-
tarian purposes for fiseal year 1975 only;
and
Call upon the President to take im-
mecbate steps to implement the resolu-
tions and recommendation's of the
World Food Conference and to report to
the Congress on such initiatives.
As the world watches starvation take
its toll this fall and winter, many will
ask whether there is food, somewhere,
for those who are dying. There is. The
United States can still decide to combat
global famine; fortunately, the issue is
not yet whether we have the food, but
whether we have the humanitarian will.
The prospects for freedom from the
scourge of hunger in years and decades
ahead depend upon scores of actions
which the poor nations, as well as the
rich, must undertake. The agenda for
these actions was identified, at least in
part, by the World Food Conference. But
without a resolute commitment to elim-
inate the immediate prospect of starva-
tion for millions, words and plans about
long-term actions have a hollow ring, and
are mocked by the deaths of thousands
each daY who have no food.
This is a policy statement with respect
to food assistance which results from the
resolutions adopted with the support of
the U.S. delegation at the Rome Food
Conference. It is a policy statement, and
I hope that it would be readily accepted.
I have cleared it with the distinguished
leadership of the Republican Party (Mr.
AIKEN) and with Senator CASE, of New
Jersey, and others.
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20588
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL_ RECORD SENATE December 4, 1974
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, can we
have a short explanation of the policy?
Mr. HUMPHREY. The resolutions
which were supported and adopted by
the U.S. delegation to the World Food
Conference.
Mr. PASTORE. Relating to what?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Relating to the as-
sistance by food ?on the international
scene. There is no new money in it at all.
It does not commit money.
Mr. PASTORE. I am talking about
policy.
Mr. HUMPHREY. It is what our Gov-
ernment supported at the World Food
Conference.
Mr. PASTORE. Now I know what I am
voting on.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am
pleased to join the distinguished Senator
from Minnesota (Mr. HUMPHREY) , in
sponsoring this amendment to the pend-
ing Foreign Assistance Act relating to
the role which the United States will play
in meeting humanitarian food needs
abroad.
Just over 3 weeks ago?at the World
Food Conference in Rome?Secretary of
State Kissinger committed the maximum
available resources of the United States
toward an international effort aimed at
alleviating hunger and malnutrition in
famine-stricken nations. Our active par-
ticipation at the World Food Conference
hopefully marked the beginning of a new
era of international food assistance co-
operation.
Now that the speeches have come to
an end in Rome, we must encourage
through deed what had been recom-
mended in word. The American pledge
In Rome not only promised greater par-
ticipation in international efforts to end
world-wide hunger?it also committed
the United States to a new policy in the
shipment of humanitarian American
food abroad.
Since the passage of Public Law 480?
the food for peace program?nearly 20
years ago, it has been the intention of
Congress that this program have a hu-
manitarian dimension?to provide food
assistance to nations in need. The legacy
of America's generous contributions
under the food-for-peace program can be
seen in the millions of lives saved from
the ravages of hunger and famine around
the world.
Unfortunately, for those Americans
who travel abroad today?particularly to
Africa and Asia?one can only find wide-
spread hunger, deprivation, and disease,
afflicting millions of people who simply
cannot find enough food.
Thousands have already perished from
starvation, and millions more have little
hope left as famine casts its dark sha-
dow over the globe. While no one can ex-
pect the United States to arrest world
hunger alone, we can do more to help
minimize the suffering so prevalent in
hungry nations today.
All too often nations no longer have
the resources to grow their own food, nor
purchase humanitarian food abroad. The
world-wide cost of food grains is not
only growing prohibitively high?but in
order to meet this burden, foreign ex-
change reserves are being diverted from
essential develop t o
chase food. If we are to stop this drift
toward greater 'international famine,
steps will have to, be taken now to mini-
mize the suffering abroad.
For food is the ,most fundamental
commodity needed to sustain human
life?more so than oil, or gas, or other
energy commodities that 'so occupy our
attention today. Obviously, the threat of
world shortages of food is Menacing, not
only to the physical and mental health
of the people inVolved, but also to the
social and monoxide order of individual
countries including our own. We have
the choice today' of uncontrolled com-
petition for scarce resources, or co-
operating in neW ways for their more
equitable distribution,
Over the past few years, the humani-
tarian dimension of Public Law 480 has
been neglected in favor of security objec-
tives. We have seen food for peace be-
come "food for Cash", and in too many
instances that cash has been used for
military, rather than peaceful purposes.
Despite the assumption of the American
people and the intent of Congress that
the PUblic Law 480 program should re-
flect the humanitarian concern of the
American people, in recent years our
Government has distorted this objective
and tilted the program toward defense
purposes?to the, neglect of starving mil-
lions around the globe.
That is why ate can no longer export
the bulk of commodities purchased under
Public Law 480 for purposes other than
those of vital hurnanitarian concern. We
have given our pledge to increase Amer-
ica's international food commitment?
this amendment provides our Govern-
ment with the means to do it.
Our ame:ndment imposes a $350 million
ceiling upon Public Law 480 food exports
and a $90 million ceiling on fertilizer
exports under title I which do not meet
the criteria established by the United
Nations as set ?id in the amendment or
which have not been designated by the
President solely for humanitarian food
needs. The administration has claimed
that it is impoesible to increase Amer-
ica's humanitarian food exports under
Public Law 480. The fact is that such
humanitarian food exports are possible?
so long as the bulk of our shipments
abroad are not Co nations which do not
meet the humanitarian criteria estates
lished by this arnendment.
Also, the amendment cells upon our
Government to review and undertake ap-
propriate adjustments in the level of
programing of American food and
fertilizer programs so as to make the
maximum feasible volume of food and
fertilizer available to those countries
most seriously effected by current eco-
nomic problems and food shortages.
Second, our amendment calls upon the
international community to actively
contribute toward this humanitarian
goal of arresting world hunger. While it
cannot be expected that all food export-
ing nations will be able to match our
food tontributidins abroad, what is avail-
able to starvinv, nations should become
the primary objective of international
food export policies. Additionally, many
oil-producing nations have the available
funds to help finance this international
rescue effort, and I am hopeful that the
Secretary of State will do whatever he
can to promote greater participation of
these nations in this effort.
Third, this amendment calls upon the
President and appropriate officials of the
executive branch to keep Congress in-
formed of our efforts to meet this grow-
ing food emergency. The amendment
calls upon the President to provide Con-
gress with a global assessment of food
needs for this coming fiscal year, and
the progress of commodity export pro-
grams under Public Law 480.
Mr. President, I urge adoption of this
amendment to reassert the humanitar-
ian purposes of the Public Law 480 Pro-
gram, and to establish the precedent that
greater fiscal controls and limitations on
the use of Public Law 480 food must be
tied to humanitarian criteria of need.
The overriding objective of the food-
for-peace program must be to provide
food to those who need it the most. We
must begin to establish the point that
food for the "common defense" Is, and
must be, food for those who face starva-
tion and pervasive poverty. We must be-
gin to understand that threats to the
Peace require more than military assist-
ance. Famine can lee a threat to the
peace. Poverty, and the widening gap be-
tween the rich nations and hungry na-
tions, spawn conflict and instability. Un-
controlled competition for food and
other resources threatens peaceful rela-
tions around the world. And disaster,
such as the drought in the Sahel, and
hunger in Asia, have produced human
tragedy as great as any war.
Our food must no longer be used to
feed armies or support military pro-
grams. It is too scarce a commodity
for such purposes. Our foreign assistance
program?especially the food-for-peace
program?can no longer be blind to the
real and growing threat to the peace and
security of the world?which is famine,
poverty, disease, and dwindling resources.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, the time
that we have left to address the emer-
gency food needs of those countries cur-
rently afflicted with famine and hunger
is drawing to a close.
The major grain exporting and im-
porting countries agreed that we must
immediately find '7.5 million tons of
foodgrains to meet the emergency be-
tween now and next July.
We have recently returned from the
World Food Conference where the need
was extensively elaborated upon.
The problem, then, has been recog-
nized. Now comes the time for action.
The United States has the capability
of making substantial increases in our
contribution to the immediate needs
without even raising the question of
availability. We have already plans to
program millions of tons of food for
political purposes under our food assist-
ance programs during the second half of
this fiscal year.
Simply by altering our priorities under
the food for peace program we can make
a substantial contribution to meeting
these emergency food needs.
We can no longer delay action on food
aid to those most seriously affected
countries.
I call upon my colleagues to join with
us today on this amendment which rep-
rn/rPpli-roNUngcii. glelease 2005/06/16: CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
resents positive action to deal with the
food crisis.
What we are calling for is a review and
reallocation of the food assistance re-
sources we have already provided for.
No additional expenditures are entailed.
There still would be flexibility in the
allocation of food assistance resources
for political purposes. In fact, more than
a third of our food for peace program
could be used to augment our foreign
policy objectives. We are only saying in
this amendment that in view of the food
emergency facing the poorest countries
of the world that all appropriate re-
sources should be mobilized to meet this
need.
I believe the Anvican people possess
a basic humanitarian spirit to help if
they could be. assured that the food made
available through our food assistance
programs was going to feed hungry peo-
ple. I ask my colleagues to join us in a
meaningful effort to help those most
severely affected by the food crisis.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment of
the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the two
managers of the bill may have the re-
maining time before the vote occurs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HUMPHREY. May we have a vote
?on my amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Minnesota. (Putting
the question.)
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from New Jersey.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, first, I want
to express the most extraordinary ad-
miration for the job the Senator from
Minnesota did in handling this bill. This
applies not only to the work on the floor,
which was superb, but includes his mag-
nificent remarks in regard to many, many
important matters.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the
Senator suspend until the Chamber
comes to order. The Chair cannot hear
the speaker. Will the Senators and staff
members who are conversing either stop
conversing or go to the cloakroom.
please?
Mr. CASE. /n addition to expressing
my appreciation to the Senator from
Minnesota, I want to express apprecia-
tion to the members of the committee
who worked so hard to make this a good
bill, and to the people in the State De-
partment, AID, and the Defense Depart-
ment, who worked with us to that end.
This is quite an accomplishment, Mr.
President, and I think it is going to cause
a very great improvement in the handling
of foreign aid from now on.
I am thoroughly in sympathy with the
objectives of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. INOUYE).
Mr. President, we will accomplish a
great deal when we pass this bill.
I want to call attention to one amend-
ment which the committee accepted that
I had offered. It applies, of course, to the
funds for UNESCO.
The bill, as the committee approved it,
as the Senate will vote on it, provides
that no funds authorized to be appro-
priated under this or any other law may
be available to UNESCO until the Secre-
tary of State certifies that each resolu-
tion passed by such organization, not of
an educational, scientific, or cultural
character, has been repealed. The pur-
pose of that is to prevent the misuse of
the agencies of the United Nations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour
of o'clock having arrived, there can be
no further debate.
The question now is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from South
Dakota,
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that we have 1 addi-
tional minute, so that I can finish a
sentence.
Mr. HUMPHREY. And 1 minute for
Senator' MCGOVERN to state his case.
The PRESIDING OteriCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASE. I think that this action by
this body and by Congress as a whole
will be a very wise and salutary warning
to stop, look, and listen before we get
too far down the path of misusing the
organizations of the United Nations for
political purposes. There is one United
Nations organization, the General As-
sembly, which is a political organization.
The others are not supposed to be that.
I hope that people there will come to
their senses before these useful and val-
uable agencies, having been misused,
are destroyed.
Mr. ABOUREZK. The Senator from
South Dakota has 1 minute.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I will
conclude by saying that this is a very
prudent and modest amendment, involv-
ing two programs on which we should
be scaling back. One is the worldwide
military assistance program, which the
amendment would reduce by $50 million.
It still would leave a half billion dollars
for that program. The other is a reduc-
tion of an equal sum, $50 million, in the
so-called Indochina postwar reconstruc-
tion effort.
Even if the amendment is adopted, it
would still leave both these programs
with more money than the Committee on
Foreign Relations originally allowed in
the bill that was reported to the floor
shortly before recess.
So I am hopeful that the amendment
will be overwhelmingly adopted and then
accepted in the House-Senate confer-
ence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
for debate has expired.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I should like to ask this question: Will
any other amendments be offered?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I believe they all
have been called up.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask for the yeas and nays on
passage of the bill.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the sec-
ond rollcall vote, which will be on pass-
age of the bill, be limited to 10 minutes.
S20589
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from South
Dakota. On this question the yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from North Carolina
(Mr. ERvix) , the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. FuLsaionr) , the Senator from
Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON) , the Sen-
ator from Colorado (Mr. HASKELL) and
the Senator from Indiana (Mr. HARTKE)
are necessarily, absent. -
I also announce that the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. TALMADGE) is absent be-
cause of illness.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mt. BELLMON) ,
the Senator from New York (Mr.
BUCKLEY) , and the Senator from Ne-
braska (Mr. HRUSKA) are necessarily ab-
sent.
The result was announced?yeas 44,
nays 47, as follows:
Abourezk
Allen
Bayh
Bible
Biden
[No. 521 Leg.]
YEAS 14
Huddleston
Hughes
Jackson
Kennedy
Mansfield
Burdick Mathias
Byrd, McClellan
Harry F., Jr. McClure
Byrd, Robert C. McGovern
Cannon McIntyre
Church Metcalf
Clark Metzenbaum
Cranston
Eagleton
Hart
Hatfield
Aiken
Baker
Bartlett
Bean.
Bennett
Bentsen
Brock
Brooke
Case
Chiles
Cook
Cotton
Curtis
Dole
Dornenici
Dominick
Bellmon
Buckley
Ervin
Mondale
Montoya
Muckle
Nelson
NAYS-47
Eastland
Fannin
Fong
Goldwater
Gravel
Griffin
Gurney
Hansen
Hathaway
Helms
Hollings
Humphrey
Inouye
' Javits
Johnston
Long
NOT VOTING-9
Fulbright Hruska
Hartke Magnuson
Haskell Talmadge
Packwood
Pastore
Pell
Proxmire
Randolph
Ribicoff
Roth
Schweiker
Scott,
William L.
Stevenson
Symington
Tunney
Weicker
McGee
Moss
Nunn
Pearson
Percy
Scott, Hugh
Sparkman
Stafford
Stennis
Stevens
Taft
Thurmond
Tower
Williams
Young
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which that
amendment was rejected.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HUD-
DLESTON) . The question is on the en-
grossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading, and was read the
third time.
Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, I rise to
support the amendment of the distin-
guished Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
CASE) which was accepted by the Corn- j
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20590
? Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE December 4, 1974
mittee on Foreign Relations during its
consideration of this legislation.
The Senator has, with the support 4,f
other members of the Committee on For-
eign Relations, had the courage to take
the first step to put a halt to the immoral
act of the new gangsters of world politics,
by requiring that no funds be paid to
UNESCO under this authorization until
resolutions not of an educational, scien-
tific, or cultural nature have been re -
pealed.
Not since the gangland terror tactics
of the early rise of Hitler has truth
been so distorted, reports so maliciously
slanted, and human right? so wantonly
trampled. The action taken by UNESCO
in adopting a resolution "inviting the
Director General of UNESCO" to with-
hold assistance from Israel is deplorable.
The joining of the Arab-Communist
bloc to vote to exclude Israel from
further participation in UNESCO affairs
should be rebuffed by refusal of the
American public to pay the bill to these
new shakedown artists.
The report of the so-called Special
Committee on which UNESCO members
based their passage of these distortions
of the truth is replete with distortions
and fabrications. A recent article in the
magazine Times of Israel reports that
every neutral nation approached to serve
on the Special Committee had refused.
The reason why is not hard to find. The
very resolution, No. 2443, passed to bring
the Special Committee into existence had
already judged the results before the
evidence had been collected or intro-
duced.
Further, during the life of the Special
Committee, testimony was consistently
ignored, including that of its own Direc-
tor General, which acknowledged the
care taken by Israel in preserving historic
sites. Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, president
of the American Jewish Congress, con-
veyed the truth of Israel's contribution
to protecting holy sites when he con-
trasted Arab and Israel stewardship in
saying:
When Jordan, during its occupation of
Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967, used the head-
stones of ancient Jewish cemeteries for
paving blocks, desecrated Jewish holy places
and barred Jews from worshipping there.
UNESCO was silent. Now that Israel has been
meticulous in restoring and protecting all
religious places, UNESCO suddenly manifests
an exquisite concern for the archeological
character of the city.
I find myself in complete agreement
with Rabbi Hertzberg that the UNESCO
resolution is nothing more than an act Of
naked political repriasal imposed on that
body by the Arab countries that have
clearly intimidated other member states
by their Arab oil blackmail. It is without
a doubt an expression of fear, not of
reason.
The statement of our Ambassador to
UNESCO, Mr. William B. Jones, con-
firms this act of political reprisal ca
only be answered by our country's show
of strength and resolve. This can be done
by denying further misuse of U.S. tax
dollars in this tragically abused organi-
zation until the wrong is corrected.
Soon this Congress must accept its
own responsibility to lay bare the true
nature of some. states, how they live to
terrorize Jewish minorities, how they
have herded them together and impris-
oned Jews in Arab lands, holding them
hostage to the fate of Israel, to die if
Israel lives, to die if Israel dies. This
should have been the investigation of
the U.N. It truly reveals an attempt at
religious and cultural genocide.
I wish once more to commend the dis-
tinguished Senator from New Jersey on
this act of statesmanship.
I ask unanimous consent to have
printed ? in the RECORD the text of the
full Times of Israel article, Ambassador
Jones' speech, and Rabbi Hertzberg's re-
marks be appended to my own, as well
as an article on this subject published
in the Memphis Hebrew Watchman.
There being no objection, the material
is ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Hebrew Watchman, Nov. 28, 19741
UNESCO VorES To BAR ISRAEL FROM ITS
EUROPEAN GROUPING
Paars.--The 'United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization, in its
second anti-Israel action this week, voted to
reject Israel's bid for membership in
UNESCO's EurOpean regional group, one of
five regional groupings in the UNESCO struc-
ture. Israel is not a member of the other four
groupings.
The vote, engineered by the same Arab-
Communist bloc which voted- the previous
day to condemn Israel and withhold UNESCO
aid on the ground that Israel "persisted in
altering the historical features" of Jerusalem
by excavations, was 48 against Israel and 33
for, including the United States, Canada, 14
West European countries and 12 Latin Ameri-
can nations. France was one of the 31 dele-
gations which abstained.
The UNESCO General Conference meeting
in Paris also adopted a resolution by a vote
of 61-27 which 26 abstentions calling on the
UNESCO Director General to withhold aid
from Israel in the fields of culture, science
and education, and to stop cooperating with
Israel. '
The Arab-Communist bloc inspired resolu-
tion, which had earlier been approved in
commission, said such aid would be stopped
until Israel abides by UNESCO resolution
calling for a halt to archaeological diggings
in Jerusalem.
The resolution charged that Israel's "per-
sistence in altering the historical features"
of Jerusalem Constitutes a "danger to its
monuments."
The resolutiOn had been approved No-
vember 7 in UNESCO's cultural committee
by a vote of 54.-21 with 25 abstentibns. In
the vote this week the U.S. and all nine Euro-
pean Common ! Market countries, including
France, Italy and Ireland, were among those
nations voting against the resolution. (In
Washington, D.C., the U.S. government re-
gretted the adeption of the resolution be-
cause it puts one of the United Nations'
principal boclieS in a dangerous path.)
The former director general of UNESCO,
Rene Maheu, condemned the organization's
anti-Israel decisions "as inappropriate" and
called for a continued UNESCO presence in
Israel and the occupied territories.
[Front Times of Israel)
UN ATROCIOUS ATROCITY REPORT
To Algeria, i has done its work seriously
and eoriscienticiusly.
To Kuwait, it has acted with integrity and
impartiality.
To Egypt, it produces excellent reports.
To Israel, it is "a body tainted with po-
litical bias and ?procedural irregularity" that
"since its inception . .. has merely served as
a tool of Arab propaganda."
"It" is the United Nations General Assem-
bly's Special Committee to Investigate Israeli
Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the
Population of the Occupied Territories.
The unit was spawned by Assembly Resolu-
tion 2143 of December 19th, 1968, which de-
clared the organization's desire for data
about Israeli activities in the areas captured
in the 1967 war, asked the Assembly Presi-
dent to appoint members to a Special Com-
mittee, and asked Israel to "receive the Spe-
cial Committee, cooperate with it and facili-
tate its work." The measure was passed on
the strength of Arab and pro-Arab votes that
fell short of 60 per cent of the membership.
Nine months later, on September 12th,
1069, Ceylon, Somalia and Yugoslavia were
named to the unit. Every neutral nation ap-
proached to serve had refused. None of the
three who agreed maintains diplomatic rela-
tions with Israel, arid all have taken pro-
Arab stances on Mideast issues. (Yugoslavia
has 7,000 Jews in a population of 20.8 mil-
lion; Ceylon, now Sri Lanka, has a handful
of Jewish women of European origin in a
population of 13 million; Somalia has about
as many Jews as the Knights of Columbus).
The Special Committee defined "Israeli
practices" in the Territories as "those actions
which, irrespective of whether or not they are
in implementation of a policy, reflect a pat-
tern of behavior on the part of the Israeli
authorities towards the Arab population" of
the Golan Heights, the West Bank (including
Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip and the Sinai
Peninsula. Lebanon pledged "fullest cooper-
ation," Egypt and Jordan "full cooperation"
and Syria "all necessary cooperation."
Israel. in a letter dated January 6th, 1970,
rejected the Special Committee's appeal.
Resolution 2443, Jerusalem asserted, had "at-
tempted blatantly to prejudge the very alle-
gations, the Special Committee was supposed
to investigate and . . . evaded altogether the
genuine humanitarian plight of the Jewish
communities in certain Arab countries . . .
whose human rights were being viciously
trampled upon." It was "clear," Israel said,
that the resolution "lacked all moral validity,
was a purely propaganda exercise and did not
represent the views of the responsible and
impartial majority."
GUARANTEED BIAS
Furthermore, Israel protested, the Special
Committee appointments were not made, as
required, by an Assembly president?the in-
cumbent had died?but by a representative
chosen at a meeting of former Assembly vice
presidents convened by then Secretary Gen-
eral U Thant--a move "wholly without prece-
dent (and) without any legal basis whatso-
ever." The meeting's choice, a Peruvian, had
proceeded, in Israelis view, to appoint "a com-
mittee whose composition automatically
guaranteed its anti-Israel bias." Israel con-
cluded tersely that she was "not prepared to
extend cooperation or facilities to the Special
Committee."
This did not stop the Special Committee. It
proceeded to gather evidence in the form of
in-person testimony, articles, published
statements by "responsive representatives of
the occupying Power," various reports and
surveys, and "graphic evidence in the form of
films." Although barred from Israel proper
and the Territories and denied Israel Govern-
ment cooperation, the Committee derived
what it called "sufficient evidence . . . from
outside (the occupied) territories to justify
certain clear findings and conclusions."
Some witnesses praised Israel's adminis-
tration of the territories, but the bulk of
what the Committee heard made Golda Meir
look like Pancho Villa. The Israeli authorities
allegedly:
Compromised the inhabitants' rights;
Deported some inhabitants, including com-
munity leaders, or forced them to move from
one territory to another;
Pressured other inhabitants to leave
through use of harassment and intimidation
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE
tactics ranging from unnecessarily repressive
security measures to indiscriminate collective
punishment;
Manipulated the Territories' economy to
goad inhabitants into fleeing;
Intended to annex the Golan Heights;
Carried out summary executions and other
killings; bulldozed, dynamited, looted, con-
fiscated and expropriated private property,
and infringed on the legal rights of detainees;
Subjected detainees to cruel and inhuman
treatment?torturing for up to 42 days, beat-
ing, subjecting to dogs, blinding, driving to
insanity, hanging by the feet and one arfn,
burning with cigarettes, using as targets for
thrown garbage, forcing homosexual acts, ex-
tracting fingernails, subjecting obscenely to
a serpent, subjecting to dripping water on
the head, eye-gouging, burying up to the
neck, and forcing the drinking of urine 48
hours after forcing the eating of salted fish
without water.
CHARGE OF DISTORTION
In the Special Committee's debate on the
report of its investigative committee, Israeli
Ambassador Netanel Lorch charged the latter
with compiling dated and refuted Arab prop-
aganda allegations, ignoring evidence favor-
able to Israel, disdaining the genuine plight
of Jews in certain Arab lands, stressing Is-
raeli withdrawal while disregarding secure
and recognized borders and a just and perma-
nent peace, and otherwise distorting and
falsifying. Citing testimony that one Israeli
officer was declared insane and a second freed
in the shooting death of two young Arabs.
Lorch stated that in fact, a month after
the shooting, both Israelis were sentenced
to life imPrisonment for premeditated mur-
der.
The investigative committee, he continued,
had failed to acknowledge that Ahmed
Khalifa, d witness whose objectivity it had
praised, had been a political officer of the
terrorist Popular Front for the Liberation
of Palestine. Furthermore, he said, all damage
to property in The Territories was compen-
sated for, there was strict punishment of
Israelis in the rare cases of looting or rape
and every detainee had the right to a local
Israeli lawyer. At the height of King Hus-
sein's suppression of the terrorists in Amman,
Lorch noted, the wife of a leader of the
Palestine Liberation Organization had found'
it safer to cross into the Israeli-held West
Bank with two children than to remain in
Jordan.
On November 13th, 1970, permanent Israeli
representative Yosef Tekoah maintained in
a letter to U Thant that most of the investi-
gative committee's witnesses had been "sup-
plied by the Arab governments and organi-
Ea-norm" and that "the long list of pre-
selected, coached and rehearsed witnesses ...
produced lurid and often pathological tales
of alleged ill-treatment and atrocity."
Israel had documented proof, he added,
that a man who claimed to have been forci-
bly castrated by an Israeli doctor in Haifa
after the 1967 war had actually undergone
medically necessary operations by Arab sur-
geons in the Gaza Strip in 1965 and 1966.
This, the ambassador said, "clearly demon-
strates how human misfortune is exploited
for cheap propaganda" and how the Special
Committee lacked the competence "to eval-
uate any evidence, to expose fabrications or
to punish perjury."
JUDGMENTS AND ALLEGATIONS
An independent study of the reports makes
this obvious. They are filled with such care-
ful judgments as "the allegations . . . lead
the Special Committee to believe that the
occupying Power is pursuing a conscious and
deliberate policy calculated to depopulate..
or "the Special Committee has little reason
to doubt that the Government of Israel
hoped to enervate the community . . ." or
"Mr. Ahmed Khalifa's evidence was particu-
larly impressive because . . . he seemed to
have retained his objectivity."
Such "objectivity" can become ludicrous.
A Beersheva tailor testified he had been
assaulted by an Israeli soldier with a meat
axe, losing his left eye. The Special Com-
mittee, in a remarkable display of evenhand-
edneSs, noted that the witness was minus
his right eye and cautioned that "the evi-
dence is circumstantial and the allegations
can be substantiated only by reference to
hospital records and other witnesses." Yet,
while admitting that it was "not in a posi-
tion to verify . . . allegations," it agreed that
"he had been assaulted by the Israeli soldier
with the meat axe."
The Committee also put its foot into its
mouth in claiming that an investigation by
Amnesty International "corroborates in de-
tail the accounts of ill-treatment described"
by witnesses. In Amnesty International's
own conclusion, handily quoted in the Spe-
cial Committee report, the former said it
had received "very extensive material to sup-
port the assumption that torture does in fact
occur" but had "never claimed that the alle-
gations about torture had been proved" (em-
cliasis added).
!Nearly a year later, on October 5th, 1971,
the Committee advised the Secretary Gen-
eral "with regret" in Report A/8389 that
Israel "continues to ignore" appeals for co-
operation. That report charged that Israeli
policy was "designed to effect radical changes
in the physical character and demographic
composition of several areas . . . by the pro-
gressive and systematic elimination of every
vestige of Palestinian presence in these
areas . . . obliterating Arab culture and the
Arab way of life in the area and, contrary
to international law . ? . transforming it
Into a Jewish state , ." The "most effective
way" to ? safeguard the inhabitants' human
rights, the Committee reiterated, was to "end
the occupation of these territories."
On October 26th, 1970, in Report A/8089,
the Committee concluded that Israel "is
pursuing In the occupied territories policies
and practices which are in violation of the
human rights of the population of those ter-
ritories." It said the ideal way to end these
alleged violations was by termination of "the
occupation itself," but that until then, Israel
had "both a legal and a moral obligation" to
implement the Geneva Conventions. This,
the report commented, included restoration
of Jerusalem and its judicial system to pre-
Six-Day War status.
VIOLATIONS?REAL AND IMAGINARY
Israeli Ambassador Shamal Cabana said
the report played on humanitarin concerns
to promote?in the UN's name?the Arab
campaign of agitation and hostility. The real
violations, he said, were the murder and
maiming of innocents by Arab terrorists
backed by Arab governments.
In Report A/8828, on October 9, 1972, the
Special Committee advised the Secretary
General "with regret again this year" that
Israel "continues to ignore this appeal." It
concluded that "there is a deliberate policy
of annexation and Settlement of the occupied
territories" and that this policy "is in con-
travention of the human rights of the
population . . ." It added that although it
had not been able to conduct "a free in-
vestigation," this was "not an indispensable
requirement for the substantiation of other
types of allegations," and therefore it would
rely on the "compelling" evidence and con-
clude that "general prison conditions . . .
still leave much to be desired (and) inter-
rogation procedures very frequently involve
physical violence."
Israeli Ambassador Jacob Doron replied
that the facts were that the inhabitants'
human rights were fully respected and pro-
tected and that they enjoyed a free, open,
tranquil society with constantly improving
housing, educational facilities, public health
and other social services.
S 205fa
1
In October 1973 the committee submitted
its most recent report, A/9148, sighing that
it "must again observe, with regret, that the
Government of Israel has persisted in its
refusal to cooperate . ." In so doing, it
continued, Israel "continues to keep the
inhabitants of the occupied territories . . .
from returning to their homes." Such meas-
ures, it concluded, "are not only a grave
Infringement of the(ir) rights . . . but
present the most formidable obstacle to
peaceful negotiation and to a just settlement
of the Middle East problem."
UNBALANCED VIEWS
Doron objected that the report had relied
on the conjectures of Dr. Israel Shahak,
whom he called a man of strange and un-
balanced views. He said the Israeli League
for Human and Civil Rights had been sus-
pended from the International League for
the Rights of Man after members protested
Shahak's unilateral assumption of the chair-
manship of that organization.
Doron also contended that the Territories
were being populated by Israelis for defen-
sive, not annexationist reasons, and that as
of November 1973, Israelis totaled 3,150 of
the Territories' million-plus population.
Barring the unforeseen?such as the sud-
den disappearance of Sri Lanka, Somalia
and Yugoslavia?the Special Committee will
produce another, similar report at the end
of this year. It should provide sufficient con-
troversy and opportunity for headline-mak-
ing, but will perform no more of a construc-
tive service than its predecessors until the
Mideast territorial deadlock is broken?at
which time there will be no need for addi-
tional reports. Call it Catch-2443.
APPENDIX A
STATEMENT BY U.S. PERMANENT REPRESENTA-
TIVE TO 'UNESCO, WILLIAM B. JONES, ON
NOVEMBER 7, 1974
The United States has consistently sup-
ported, and indeed has provided substantial
material assistance to, the goals of preserv-
ing and restoring cultural monuments
throughout the world.
However, Mr. Chairman, the United States
voted against this Resolution and opposes it
totally because, in our firm view, the essen-
tial objective of this Resolution is not?I
repeat: is not?the preservation or protection
of historical sites and monuments, what-
ever the claimed intentions of those who
sponsored it might be. The Resolution in fact
imposes a completely unjustified sanction
upon a member State of this Organization for
reasons that seem to us to be largely moti-
vated by political considerations.
As such, ths Resolution marks a fateful?
and possibly, for this Organization, a tragic??
departure in the direction of turning
UNESCO into a purely political arena and
away from its intended function as a forum
for exchange of ideas and knowledge, as well
as a medium of assistance in. the fields of
education, culture, science and other disci-
plines to member States. In a word, Mr.
Chairman, this resolution severely damages
UNESCO as a place of dialogue and debate
and the beginning of UNESCO's transforma-
tion into a place of bitter and vindictive con-
.frontation.
We therefore wholly deplore the passage of
this unjust Resolution and oppose entirely its
implementation. This Resolution will not
contribute constructively either to the pro-
tection of cultural property in Jerusalem or
to the very fragile negotiation process among
the parties involved in the Middle Eastern
dispute.
[From the American Jewish Congress,
Nov. 27, 1974]
NEWS RELEASE
The American Jewish Congress called on
the Vatican today (Friday, Nov. 22) to "re-
consider" and "withhold" the granting of its
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
ci Li
20592
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE December 4, 1974
annual Pope John XXIII International
Peace Prize to the United Nations Educa-
toinal, -Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Citing the UNESCO vote on Friday ex-
cluding Israel from its European regional
group, Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, president of
the Congress, declared:
"Nothing could be more incongruous or
incompatible with the memory of Pope John
XXIII than the announcement of the Vati-
can of an award in his name to UNESCO. It
Is astonishing that a prize- for international
peace _activities should be given to a spe-
cialized agency of the UN which has gone
out of its way to abanden its concerns with
education, science and culture in order to
engage in extraneous acts of political coer-
cion and duress.
"The General Conference of UNESCO has
voted to withhold assistance to Israel and
bar her from membership in its European
regional group because Israel has allegedly
imperiled monumental and historical sites
in Jerusalem.
"This action, fomented by the Arab states,
was taken despite the fact that personal
representatives of UNESCO's own Director
General, including Prof. Lemaire of the
(Catholic) University of Louvain, have fa-
vorably reported on the painstaking steps
Laken by Israeli authorities to insure against
disturbing historical places while opening
the city to modernization; and despite the
fact that every study commission that has
ever looked into the matter has verified that
within past centuries no prior custodian of
that sacred city has ever exercised such scru-
pulous concern in preserving the religious
and historical features of Jerusalem, in safe-
guarding the integrity of sacred places and
in opening access to worshippers of all faiths.
"When Jordan, during its occupation QC
Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967, used the head-
stones of ancient Jewish cemeteries for pav-
ing blocks, desecrated Jewish holy places and
barred Jews from worshipping there, UNESCO
was silent. Now that Israel has been me-
, ticulous in restoring and protecting all re-
ligious places and in protecting the rights
, of all worshippers, UNESCO suddenly mani-
fests an exquisite concern for the archeologi-
cal character of the city.
''The UNESCO resolution is an act of naked
political reprisal imposed on that body by
the Arab countries that have clearly
dated other member states by their oil black-
mail. It is an expression of fear, not of rea-
son. It is a deplorable intrusion of political
considerations into the deliberations of an
agency mandated to restrict itself to educa-
tional, scientific and cultural concerns. It
demeans and corrupts the work of UNESCO.
"For this very UNESCO to be the recipient
of a major international peace prize awarded
, by the Vatican is simply incredible. The spirit
of Pope John connotes an eagerness for peace
and reconciliation. The actions of UNESCO
militate in precisely the opposite direction.
We therefore respectfully urge the appro-
priate authorities in the Vatican to reconsider
their decision and to withhold the granting
of this award until UNESCO demonstrably re-
establishes itself as an agency divorced frotn
political power plays and genuinely dedicated
to the advancement of science, culture and
education.
"The award to UNESCO is a travesty of the
memory of a religious figure whom men of all
traditions -claim and cherish as an exemplar
of generosity, peace and compassion." -
'UNITED STATES OPPOSED UNESCO VOTE
The action Friday followed by one day a
vote by the UNESCO general conference of
64 to 27, with 26 abstentions, to deny assist-
ance to Israel because of what it called her
"persistence in altering the historical fea-
tures" of Jerusalem "by undertaking excava-
tions which constitute a danger to its monu-
ments."
The United States -and most Western Euro-
pean countries, including France, voted
against the UNESCO resolution condemning
Israel and in support of a motion by Israel
to be part of the European regional group.
The Arab nations, the Communist bloc
and a number of third-world countries
voted against Israel.
The award of the Pope John XXIII Inter-
national Peace Prize to UNESCO was an-
nounced on Not'. 14 by the Vatican. It is
a money award, but Vatican officials would
not immediately reveal how much had been
granted to uNnsco.
The award was established by the Vati-
can using funs provided by the Balzan
Peace Prize, which had been awarded to
Pope John XXIII shortly before his death
in 1963.
Mr. CASE. T want to thank the Sena-
tor from Tennessee for supporting the
UNESCO cutoff amendment I intro-
duced. Senator Baocx quite rightly calls
attention to a Problem that has received
less than adequate notice, the plight of
Jewish people living in Arab countries.
I thank the Senator both for his support
and for the service he is performing on
behalf of oppressed people.
Mr. THURMON:D. Mr. President, it is
unfortunate that the foreign assistance
bill in its present form eliminates all
forms of military assistance to Chile.
It is worth noting that U.S. military
relations with Chile span many decades
and many governments. These relations
have been built around a great deal more
than the mere providing of material.
They have entailed the physical pres-
ence of a small but dedicated body of
American military attaches and advisers,
exchange visits, and limited U.S. military
training for seiected Chilean officers.
Threugh the course of face-to-face
contacts between .American and Chilean
military men, personal friendships have
developed and an inestimable amount of
influence--sorne of it too subtle to be
readily appreeiated?has accrued to the
benefit of- our political relations. It is
therefore a precipitous and potentially
unwise act to sever military relations
through overreaction to an alleged set
of events which may be of a transitory
nature. Once severed, our hard-won good
will among various echelons of the Chile-
an Armed Forces will be diiMcult to main-
tain. No one can predict the future of
the present government. However, it is
reasonable to assume that some junior
or middle-level officers who today have
.developed respect and admiration for the
' United State S through our cooperative
military assistance programs and sin-
cere interest in their country's welfare
may someday rise to positions of influ-
ence within the Chilean Government.
Even under President Allende, an ad-
mitted Comniunist, we continued modest
military and economic aid.
Mr. President, I also would like to
make a secOnd point: the precipitous
cutting off of Chilean military aid will
not necessarily deprive the present re-
gime of weapons, training, or military
advice. While there has been some ad-
verse reactien to the present Chilean
Government in Europe and in the United
States, there is no reason to assume that
one or more European governments
would not seek to fill the vacuum created
by the abdication of our role as tradi-
tional supplier to the Chilean Armed
Forces. As I have already indicated, the
supplier role goes hand in hand with an
advisory one, and the latter produces in-
valuable influence with an influential
stratum of Chilean society. If the present
government is able to obtain the arms
and training that it needs elsewhere,
the severing of U.S. military relations
will go almost unnoticed, and the only
long-term loser will be the United States.
Whatever differences some may have
with the present regime, we do not wish
to see Chile weakened by further disloca-
tions. Neither do we wish to see its de-
fenses weakened to the point that further
domestic chaos will result.
It would seem that the best course for
the United States is to continue a selec-
tive assistance program in both the de-
velopment and military spheres.
CHILE MILITARY AID cirrorn
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise
to discuss the provisions of the foreign
aid bill as they affect the current author-
itarian regime in Chile.
I want to commend the floor manager
and the committee for having retained
in this bill the amendment I offered to
halt all military aid to Chile. That
amendment was adopted by the Senate
on October 2 of this year. An identical
amendment I had introduced to the con-
tinuing resolution on October 1 also was
adopted by the Senate by a vote of 47 to
41. Unfortunately, that provision was
deleted in conference. I want to em-
phasize my belief that I fully expect this
amendment to be adopted by the con-
ference committee.
The committee's action should confirm
to the administration and to the Govern-
ment of Chile that the American people
will not support a government that en-
gages in the gross violation of the human
rights of its people or of American
citizens.
Since the coup, two American citizens
have been killed in Chile after being
arrested by the junta. Both of these
deaths occurred in the aftermath of the
coup itself.
But only a few weeks ago, another U.S.
citizen, Amy Conger, who was teaching
art history at the University of Chile, was
arrested, kept handcuffed for 6 hours,
kept blindfolded for long periods, held
incommunicado for 13 days, threatened
with death, subjected to obscene interro-
gations, deprived of water for lengthy
periods, forced to remain blindfolded,
and handcuffed for several hours and
once pushed down a flight of stairs.
For my colleagues' information, this
young lady has a master's degree from
the University of Iowa at Iowa City. She
has completed her course work for a
Ph. D. at Washington University in St.
Louis and has won a Fulbright Fellow-
ship, a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship and
a grant from the American Association
of University Women.
She describes her ordeal in a state-
ment which I.shall ask unanimous con-
sent to place in the RECORD along with a
copy of the summary column by Jack
Anderson and Les Whitten. (See exhibit
1.) I also want to note that I have asked
the State Department for a full expla-
nation of what action has been taken in
response to this incident and the reason
why there exists a 29-hour period from
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
the time they found out of her impris-
onment until her release. I shall ask
unanimous consent that the State De-
partment message to the Government of
'Chile be printed in the RECORD. (See
exhibit 2.)
Her story, however disturbing, still is
far from less gruesome than others?
most of them Chilean citizens?who have
been detained by the Chilean junta.
Today, in Chile, as it has since it came
to power in a bloody coup on Septem-
ber 11, 1973, the military junta contin-
ues to countenance arbitrary arrest and
prolonged detention, the total violation
of due process, torture of political pris-
oners, and the heavy handed repression
of every democratic political freedom.
Within the past week, the former pres-
ident of the Christian Democratic Party
and a former Senator; Renan Fuenteal-
ba, was expelled from the country with
barely the clothes on his back. When the
leadership of the Christian Democratic
Party, including former President Ed-
uardo Frei, protested, the following
statement was made ty the Chilean In-
terior Under Secretary, Major Enrique
Montero:
This is an authoritarian government which
will impose its authority even if it has to be
harsh and ruthless.
I shall ask unanimous consent that
these reports be printed in the RECORD.
(See exhibit 3.)
The junta has been harsh. It has been
ruthless. It has violated its pledges to
abide by the Inter-American Declaration
of Human Rights and its ,pledges to
abide by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
There have been a series of interna-
tional investigations which I will detail
for the record which have confirmed the
continued disregard for human life and
values of the junta.
This week, I obtained a report on Chile
by the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights which is being distributed
to all of the members of the Permanent
Council of the Organization of Ameri-
can States. That report of the Com-
mission, after considering numerous
complaints and documents and follow-
ing its own investigation in Chile, con-
cludes that the current regime in Chile
has engaged in "repeated violations of
the rights set forth in articles I, II, IV,
VIII, XVII, XXV, and XXVI of the
American Declaration of the Rights and
Duties of Man."
The Commission found that the right
to life was violated by the junta's ac-
tions, that torture, inhuman pressure
and treatment including the application
of electric shock, threats to relatives,
sexual attacks, blindfolding prisoners for
weeks, have occurred. They found the
violation of due process of law, the non-
existence of freedom of expression,
thought or information, suspension of
the right to meet, denial of the free-
dom of association, absence of equal
treatment before the law and the aboli-
tion of all political rights.
These were the findings of the duly
constituted Commission of the OAS. I
ask unanimous consent that they be
printed in the RECORD. (See annex 4.)
Two weeks earlier, on November 14,
the General Assembly of the United Na-
tions, following findings of its own Com-
mission of Human Rights, voted 83 to 9,
to request "the President of the General
Assembly and the Secretary General to
assist in any way they may deem appro-
priate in the reestablishment of basic
human rights and fundamental freedoms
in Chile."
The resolution "urges the Chilean au-
thorities to respect fully the principles of
the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and to take all necessary steps to
restore and safeguard' basic human
rights and fundamental freedoms, par-
ticularly those involving a threat to
human life and liberty, to release all per-
sons who have been detained without
charge or imprisoned solely for political
reasons and to continue to grant safe
conduct to those who desire it." I shall
ask unanimous consent that it be printed
in the RECORD. (See exhibit 5.)
The withholding of all military assist-
ance?and I want to emphasize that this
amendment prohibits all forms of mili-
tary assistance including but not limited
to those enumerated in the amendment?
is the minimal action that we must take.
I ask unanimous consent that section 19
of the bill be printed in the RECORD at
this point.
There being no objection, the section
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
LIMITATION UPON ASSISTANCE TO OR FOR CHILE
SEC. 19. Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of law, the total amount of assistance
that may be made available for Chile under
this or any other law during fiscal year 1975
may not exceed $55,000,000, none of which
may be made available for the purpose of
providing military assistance (including se-
curity supporting assistance, sales, credit
sales, or guaranties or the furnishing by any
means of excess defense articles or items
from stockpiles of the Department of
Defense).
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there
is no justification for military aid to the
junta unless we want to be identified
with a government that has been con-
demned internationally for its continued
violations of human rights.
I want to add that the Latin American
Studies Association, whose members are
professors of Latin American affairs, have
urged an end to military aid to Chile in
a resolution adopted 2 weeks ago. I shall
ask unanimous consent to have their
exhibit 6.
letter printed in full in the RECORD?see
The resolution states in part:
We strongly support congressional pro-
posals to cut off all military aid to Chile.
Such aid to a government which has sys-
tematically been found to be in violation of
the fundamental civil and human rights of
Its own citizens is incompatible with the
basic tenets of a humane and democratic
foreign policy.
The administration requested a near
doubling of its fiscal year 1974 budget
proposal for military assistance to Chile.
Originally, a $10 million military credit
sales program for fiscal year 1974 was
recommended, Following the coup, that
figure was increased to $15 million, a 50-
percent hike. In its budget request for
S 20593
fiscal year 1975, the administration rec7:
emmended another substantial increase,
to $20.5 million, for credit sales and
another $800,000 to support the training
of Chilean military officers." "
With a virtually unchallenged ver-
dict of respected international organiza-
tions and respected jurists and scholars
of a continuing pattern of gross viola-
tions of human rights in Chile, I believe
the proposal for military aid to Chile
to be unjustifiable and unacceptable.
It contrasts with the announcements of
Britian and France to withhold military
equipment and it signifies a disturbing
lank of Commitment to basic humin
rights on the part of the administration.
For these reasons, I submitted the
amendment, to halt all military aid to
Chile. I once again commend the com-
mittee for ratifying the previous action
of the Senate in approving this amend-
me:nt.
I want to add that if there is no sr')-
sta:ntial and compelling evidence of
change toward the protection of human
rights and some progress away from a
dictatorship, then I shall seek in subse-
quent legislation to curtail economic
assistance other than humanitarian as-
sistance. I want to emphasize that I do
not believe it appropriate that the ad-
ministration has requested the highest
total of economic assistance for Chile
of any nation in Latin America. It is
more than double the request for any
other country. Although the committee
reduced this somewhat, I believe it
should be reduced further in view of
the current character of the present
government.
I want to emphasize to my colleagues
that there still remain several thousand
political prisoners in Chile today, many
of them never tried, many of them never
charged. Others have been condemned
at military trials for acts which oc-
curred before the junta took office on
the basis of confessions obtained
through torture and without all but the
merest facade of due process. Among
those still detained are 16 former con-
gressmen and senators, whose names I
shall ask unanimous consent to place in
the RECORD?see exhibit 7.) All of these
individuals were elected to office.
Recently we have seen advertisements
paid for by the junta proclaiming their
innocence of any violation of human
rights.
Those proclamations conflict with the
findings not only of the international
organizations I already have mentioned,
but others as well, including Amnesty
International, the International Com-
mission of Jurists and a special study
team of the Senate Refugee Subcom-
mittee.
Instead of self-serving advertisements,
I would be far more impressed by the
release of all political prisoners, includ-
ing those condemned by military war
councils, an end to the state of seige and
a return to a system of constitutional
law and the re-establishment of a demo-
cratic system of government in keeping
with the traditions of the Chilean people.
For the record, I will recount some
of the details of the findings of interna-
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20594
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE Dcc;;iber 4, 1014
tional groups over the past year, of the
violation of human rights in Chile.
Shortly after the coup, the Senate
Subcommittee on Refugees held a public
hearing into the condition of refugees
and of human rights in Chile. Testi-
mony at that hearing and subsequent
reports of respected international groups
disclosed the existence in Chile of sum-
mary executions, of torture, of mass ar-
rests, of the deaths of two American citi-
zens, and of continued threats to foreign
nationals. Those reports prompted me to
introduce an amendment to halt all mili-
tary aid to Chile. That. amendment to
the fiscal year 1974 Foreign Aid Appro-
priations bill was adopted by the Senate
on December 17, 1973. However, it was
dela.ted in conference.
Unfortunately, in the months since
that action, the situation in Chile has not
seen a return to the traditional Chilean
respect for and protection of human
rights. In fact, a series of reports from
respected international organizations
such as the International Commission of
Jurists and Amnesty International as
well as private contacts that I have had
with both Chilean and third country in-
dividuals and agencies convince me that
a systematic disregard for human rights
continues today in Chile.
Amnesty International, in a letter to
General Pinochet, stated:
Contrary to some statements issued by
Chilean governmental officials abroad, there
is substantial evidence of a persistent and
gross violation of the most fundamental
human rights.
The report went on to charge con-
tinuation of summary executions and
torture, not only during their November
visit, but up to the time of their letter of
December 31, 1973.
In February, an ad hoc group of U.S.
union officials, professors, lawyers, and
church officials traveled to Chile. Their
report was presented on February 28 at
a congressional conference on the situa-
tion in Chile. It, too, disclosed thousands
of "politically motivated detentions," the
absence of effective legal process, the
continued use of torture, the use of eco-
nomic sanctions against those suspected
of being in sympathy with the previous
government and other violations of hu-
man rights.
In March, following a lengthy debate
by the COmmission on Human Rights of
the United Nations, a telegram was is-
sued by the United Nations. It stated:
The Connnission on Human Rights, while
considering the obligation of all states un-
der the Charter of the United Nations to
promote universal respect and observance
of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
has considered with deep concern numerous
reports from a wide variety of sources re-
lating to gross and massive violations of hu-
man rights in Chile in contradiction with the
universal declaration of human rights, and
other relevant international instruments
ratified by a great number of countries in-
cluding Chile.
The Commisison on Human Rights, which
has consistently deplored all violations of
human rights, calls upon your government
for the immediate cessation of any kind of
violations of human rights, committed con-
trary to the principles of the United Nations
Charter and other international instruments
including the international covenants on
human rights.
In April, the International Commis-
sion of Jurists sent a delegation to Chile
to inquire into the legal situation with
regard to human rights. Its three-man
delegation included Covey T. Oliver, for-
mer U.S. Ambassador to Colombia and
former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
for Inter-American Affairs.
In May, the preliminary report of the
delegation was released, expressing the
view that present judicial procedures
rind safeguards do not meet the mini-
mum standards which Chile is bound to
observe under article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions, 1949." The report also
stated:
We received moet convincing evidence to
support the declaration of the Catholic bish-
ops on April 24, 1974, that there are mterro-
f4ations with physical and moral pressure.
We believe that the various forms of ill-
treatment, sometimes amounting to severe
torture, are carried out systematically by
some of those responsible for interrogation
and not, as many People sought to persuade
Hs, in isolated instances at the time of
rrest.
A study mission of the Senate Refugee
Subcommittee traveled in Chile in April
as well. It included former U.S. Ambas-
sador to Chile Ralph A. Dungan, former
State Department Latin American ex-
ert John N. Plank, and Mark L. Schnei-
der of my staff.
They concluded?contrary to the con-
tinued assurances of the Chilean Gov-
ernment and its representatives?that
there existed a systematic, flagrant, and.
continuing disregard for human rights in
Chile. They found arbitrary arrest and
indeterminate detention without 'charge.
Some 6,000 persdns, according to junta
statistics, were under detention at the
Lime of their trip. Other sources cited
additional persons under detention at
less permanent detention sites -through-
out the country. It is llOW estimated that
several thousand persons are detained,
encarcerated or condemned after only
the most illusory show-of trial.
The study 'mission also noted that the
Chilean habeas Corpus protection had
been suspended. Torture and mistreat-
ment of prisoners continued. Some pris-
oners were held in.communicacto for
months. Others Were permitted to see
their families ? on a somewhat regular
basis, but briefly. Most never had a
chance to see a lawyer. Due process ao-
?eared limited in all instances: Totally
absent in some. Schools and colleges were
ander military control. Freedom of the
press did not exist. Many .thousands of
individuals were fired arbitrarily for
their political beliefs from public and
private employment. Labor unions were
barred from striking and restricted in
normal a.ctildties.
The study mission also noted that the
Congress had been closed; the Constitu-
tion abridged; political parties abolished
or suspended; and the number of Chilean
r efugees in neighboring countries was
In May,. the Inter-Amerieart Commis-
eion on Human Rights of the Organiza-
tion of American States sent a telegram
to the junta in Which it stated:
During this session, the study of the pres-
ent situation of human rights in Chile has
taken a great part of our time. On the one
hand, we have examined those individual
cases, clearly determinable, in which the vio-
lation of certain fundamental rights of one
or several specified persons has been de-
nounced. But, in addition, it has been nec-
essary to analyze separately that which we
might call a "general case," that is, the ag-
gregation of charges from different sources
according to which there is a policy in Chlle
which would imply, according to the claim-
ants, the systematic disregard of funda-
mental human rights.
After some delay, the Commission was
granted permission to visit Chile. Its in-
terim recommendations were made pub-
lic. The final report and recommenda-
tions, I have previously discussed.
In June, other observers, including the
former Attorney General of the United
States Ramsey Clark and New York City
Criminal Court Judge William Booth,
traveled to Chile. They visited the trials,
now concluded, of former Air Force of-
ficers and several civilians who had held
posts in the previous government of Sal-
vadore Allende. The sentences included
four death sentences which were later
commuted to long prison terms. Even
that action is inadequate, since the for-
mer Attorney General and Judge Booth
described the proceedings as "show
trials." They cited, along with other ob-
servers, the lack of due process in the
military court martial proceedings which
operate for military and civilian alike.
One attorney was thrown out of court
for speaking "too warmly" of Allende.
Another was reprimanded for reporting
that his clients had been tortured. Vir-
tually all defendants were prosecuted on
the basis of "statements" given by oth-
ers who were themselves under indict-
ment or under detention. And many- of
these defendants had told their families
and their visitors of the systematic tor-
ture used during interrogations to ob-
tain those "statements."
More recently, on August 30, the Cath-
olic Archibishop of Chile, the Lutheran
Bishop of Chile, the Methodist Bishop of
Chile, and the Grand Rabbi of the Chil-
ean Jewish community appealed for an
end to the continuing torture and hu-
man rights violations.
On September 7, Amnesty Interna-
tional issued its final report on Chile
stating:
Repeated assurances from the government
that human rights would be respected have
proven to be totally unfounded. Torture is
still being practiced, while military tribunals
continue to try persons charged with the
retroactive offense of cooperating with Pres-
ident Allende's constitutional government
prior to the coup.
Despite this unrefuted testimony from
numerous respected international orga-
nizations and knowledgeable individuals,
the attitude of the U.S. Government has
been one of "business as usual." Last
fall, an amendment I introduced was
passed and signed into law. It stated the
sense of Congress that:
The President should request the COvern-
ment of Chile to protect the human rights
of all individuals, Chilean end foreign, as
provided in the universal declaration of hu-
man rights, the convention and protocol re-
lating the status of refugees, and other
relevant international legal instruments
guaranteeing the granting of asylum, safe
conduct. and the humane treatment or re-
lease of prisoners.
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE S 20595
There is little evidence of forceful U.S.
Government action in support of those
human rights.
Nor has the administration chosen to
adopt a low profile policy in its relations
with the current Chilean regime.
In international agencies, particu-
larly the Inter-American Development
Bank?IDB?pressure from the United
States in support of the Chilean regime
has been evident. It was widely reported
that intervention of U.S. Government of-
ficals produced an unusual speedup in
the IDB process in order to assure a loan
announcement in Santiago at the open-
ing of the IDB meeting last spring.
The administration also has proposed
for fiscal year 1975 the first new devel-
opment loans to Chile since 1967, some
$25 million, and an increase in grant as-
sistance to more than $1 million, com-
pared to $330,000 in fiscal year 1974.
While in the last full year of the Allende
government, fiscal year 1973, the admin-
istration felt the food needs of the coun-
try required only $2.5 million in food-for-
peace assistance, it now proposes food-
for-peace grants and loans of $37 million.
In addition, a month after the coup, a
commodity credit loan of $24 million was
-extended and a month later, an addi-
tional commodity loan of $28 million was
extended.
Some of these programs are clearly
humanitarian in nature. But it is difficult
to understand why the humanitarian
rationale that the administration is put-
ting forward today, was not equally rele-
vant prior to the overthrow of the pre-
vious government, when Chile was de-
nied similar programs.
Adoption of my amendment to halt all
military aid to Chile will represent the
first glimmerings or an American foreign
policy that gives concrete support for the
protection of human rights. It is a step
which has been delayed for far too long.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD all of
the exhibits to which I have referred
? during my remarks.
There being no objection, the exhibit
were ordered to be printed in the Ric-
ORD, as follows:
EXHIBIT 1
STATEMENT BY AMY CONGER
I lived in Chile from April 19, 1972 until
October 28, 1974. I was contracted by the
University of Chile to teach History of Art in
the Departments of Fine Arts and Architec-
ture in Santiago.' I taught in the University
for more than a year before the coup of Sep-
tember 11, 1973 and for exactly 13 months
afterwards. The History of Art and Art Edu-
? cation Department was purged after the
coup arid 64 of the 72 professors Were dis-
missed. I was one of the 8 that remained.
From October 11th to October 24th I was
imprisoned in the Academia de Guerra, a
concentration camp run by the Air Force for
l? I received a M.A. in History of Art from
the University of Iowa in August 1966. In
1966-7 I taught at the University of South-
ern Illinois at Edwardsville and in February
1968 I passed my doctoral examinations at
Washington University in St. Louis. Between
1968 and 1972 I studied and did research in
Europe on 15th century fresco painting
thanks to a Woodrow Wilson Pre-Doctoral
Fellowship, a Fulbright Women Grant and
an American Association of University Wom-
en Fellowship.
political prisoners, for people who had al-
ready been condemned and others who were
suspected of having at sometime participated
in subversive activities. The latter were con-
sidered guilty until they could prove their
innocence. Everyone was incomunicado, in
isolation. I was aware of about 60 prisoners
but I knew there were more in other parts
of the building.
I was brutally arrested October 11th about
7 p.m. by fbur men in street clothes with
submachine guns. I was tightly handcuffed,
repeatedly threatened and literally thrown
in a car. I was hever shown either identifi-
cation or a detention order, contrary to the
declarations which General Pinochet had
made to the Chilean and international press.
One of the men tried to pull off my sweater
but it was impossible because I was hand-
cuffed; needless to say I felt conspicuous
passing through the city bare-breasted. They
blindfolded me and drove me to an unknown
place. Although I asked several times, they
would never let me speak to the U.S. Con-
sul. Later they categorically denied that I
had asked. While I was blindfolded, they re-
peatedly interrogated and harassed me?fre-
quently in English. Several of these Air Force
officers had studied in the United States.
Some of them were intensely anti-American:
"I hate Americans?they are egotistical, stu-
pid and selfish!" Two of them told me that,
at the expense of the U.S. Air Force they
had toured the U.S. (Las Vegas, San Fran-
cisco, Disneyland, etc.) and had trained there
(Florida, Colorado) for several months. I was
impressed by the fact that two of the offi-
cers that were interrogating me were smok-
ing U.S. cigarettes, one of them Kools, a
brand not available even in the black market
in Chile.
They threatened me with rape 2 and the
DINA (Direacion de Intelligencia Nacional: a
military group specialized in brute physical
torture, particularly electric shock, the rack,
choking or drowning in excrement and pen-
tothal). They "let me" fall down the stairs
while I was blindfolded. They tortured peo-
ple at my side while I was blindfolded. I
heard horrible, prolonged screams in the
night. I stood for hours and hours against
a wall. They gave me two cups of water each
day to drink, 900 calories of food, a perfect
starvation diet. I underwent it for only 13
days. Others have been there for more than 8
months.
The bathroom had running water for only
about 15 mintues a day to serve the needs
of about 60 prisoners, The unflushable toilets
were teeming with flies (it is Spring in San-
tiago) and brimming with great quantities
of blood and excrement. The three stalls
were calf high with newspaper which had
served as toilet paper. There were no win-
dows in the part occupied by the prisoners,
24 hours of artificial light, constant noise;
1 officer, 1 sub-officer and 6 guards?nervous-
ly playing and experimenting with their sub-
machine guns, cocking them, changing to
automatic, etc. And a casette player that re-
peated Joan Baez's "Happy Birthday".
I learned to peek around my blindfold.
I saw two officers slugging and kicking Juan
an 18 year old, ex-seminary student whose
only crime was to have been with me when
they arrested me. I heard his sharp quick
screams of No and afterwards, long cries of
No, like a dying animal. Finally he confessed
to anything they suggested. He invented
charges against his sister who is a very close
friend of mine and who had never had any-
thing to do with politics, against his mother
who had just been cleared and freed after
13 months of imprisonment.- (In the actual
moment when they went to arrest the two,
the daughter had gone to the Women's
Prison to finally accompany her mother
Ej., while they had me lying on a bed
one said: "You know it's impossible to rape
a woman if she doesn't want it".
home. Upon arriving and being told about
their "visitors" by the neighbors, they beat
it.) Juan also invented a story about a ,
doctor, a neighbor, whom consequently they
arrested. The MD was still jailed during my
last week there. They couldn't find the weap-
ons that he was supposed to have but they
came across three bottles of tranquillizers
and assumed that he had a clandestine clinic.
They questioned me about the doctor twice.
? They left Juan standing up against the
wall for entire days without food and water,
handcuffed, blindfolded. Finally one day he
fainted. They grabbed him by his handcuffs,
dragged him along the floor, stood him up
and leaned him against the wall. Since he
had not regained consciousness, he fell again.
So they repeated the same treatment three
more times until they realized that it was
hopeless and they threw him in a chair for
two hours.
Finally they sent Juan to the DINA. When
he returned his chest was covered with black
and blue marks and with inflamed red points.
His face was totally without color, as white
as plaster?it seems, anemic because of blood
loss. He had a deep cut about five inches
long, open and unbandaged on the inside
of his left arm. I never knew if this wound
was the result of torture or if he had tried
to commit suicide. At this point, it's the
same thing.
Another young man returned from his
trip to the DINA with disks broken in his
spinal cord, and another in a wheel chair
with a broken leg.
Frequently, they would seat prisoners at
a table next to me to write their "confes-
sions." They would scream and plead for
water; often they fell asleep. I remember one
that cried "Give me water! I haven't had
water in 7 days. I haven't eaten, I haven't
slept. Give me some water!" They answered
him firmly "No. Later. We'll only give you
water if you write a confession that we like."
It seems that they have found -this to be
an effective technique for extracting con-
fessions; however, it seems that they are
almost always largely false.
As I 'witnessed all of this I remembered
that only a week before General Avgosto
Pinochet Ugarta had repeated his declara-
tions about torture in Chile: that in the
first few days after the coup possibly there
had bee.n a few, isolated, accidental cases of
torture, but now, it positively did not exist.
And he promised adamantly to courtmartial
anyone involved in torture.
I was extremely fortunate. For them, I
was a foreigner, a woman and a blond. I
was offered two possibilities: signing a "con-
fession" and being expelled from the coun-
try or being sent to the DINA and afterwards
to a military caurt where I would receive
a sentence of about 30 years. The officers
knew perfectly well that my only transgres-
sion was to have known people whom they
considered to be undesirable. For a Chilean
this could have been worth a sentence of
several years, or decades, but it Is ticklish
with a foreigner since it is commonly known
that in March 1973, 44% of the country
voted for the left, and consequently, today
44% of the country is undesirable.
On the 13th day I "confessed." I remember
that the "confession" said something about
extremist friends, a press for subversive liter-
ature and being a "front" for someone. The
US Consul arrived at the same time. He
had been notified the day (30 hours) before
that I was being held by the Air Forte. On
October 12th, the day after my arrest, my
teaching assistant had gone to my house,
had been arrested, humiliated, witnessed
the wanton and sadistic mass destruction of
my apartment and had been threatened with
? possible death, sure torture and imprison-
ment if he told anyone what he had seen.
He told friends. He refused to call the US
? Consulate because he knew that he was the
only one that knew, and having heard about
the connections between the US Consulate
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20596
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE December 4, 1974
and the CIA, he assumed that the Contul
was working with the miltiary. Finally
friends in Buenos Aires found out, called my
father in Chicago and he called the Consul
in Santiago.
I was freed after 13 days, the most for-
tunate person in Chile. The nerve in my
left thumb is still disabled (due to the
tightness of the. handcuffs on the first day
and that they couldn't find a key for six
hours), I had acquired an impressive vaginal
discharge, I was somewhat black and blue,
incredibly filthy and smelling not having
changed my clothes or really washed in 13
days, badly dehydrated, 9 pounds lighter and
with protein and chloresteroi levels abnor-
mally low. All totally insignificant. I cannot
and do not want to forget the suffering of
the Chilean political prisoners and the new-
found misery of the Chilean people, all in
the name of law, order and democracy.
[From the Washington Post, Nov. 27, 1974]
U.S. WOMAN DETAILS CHILE TORTURE
(By Jack Anderson)
Without a murmur of formal protest from
the United States government, an attrac-
tive, 31-year-old American art teacher was
brutally tortured last month by Chilean air
force officers ih-i an insect-infested prison.
The young university instructor was
threatened with death, forced to ride with
breasts bared through the streets and
thrown on a bed where she was menaced
with rape. She was subjected to obscene
questioning, catapulted down stairs while
blindfolded, deprived of water, denied sleep
and forced to stand until she almost col-
lapsed.
When 13 days of this treatment failed to
draw a false confession from her, the "offi-
cers and gentlemen" of Chile's air force
told her she was being taken to an infamous
torture center where prisoners were known
to have been given electrode shocks on the
most sensitive parts of their bodies,
stretched an racks and immersed in human
excrement.
Faced with a journey from which she
might not return, she finally broke and
signed a prepared pack of lies on Oct. 24.
The Chilean junta leader, Gen. Augusto
Pinochet, has assured the world that torture
no longer exists in Chile. Yet this incredible
story of torture by a regime now seeking
$85 million a year in U.S. aid, has been
sworn to by Amy Conger, now in Chicago.
Except for a partially paralyzed thumb,
the art history teacher, whose specialty is
the gentle 15th Century painting school of
Fra Angelico, appears to be recovering.
In long talks with my associate, Les
Whitten, and in extensive affidavits, he
has spoken eloquently of her agony.
"I was brutally arrested Oct. 11 about
'7 p.m. by four men in street clothes with
submachine guns," one affidavit states. She
was told she might be killed, then was
"tightly handcuffed and literally thrown in
a car."
During the ride, one of the officers pulled
her sweater over her head. "Needless to say I
felt conspicuous passing through the city
bare-breasted," she said.
Although she was blindfolded throughout
much of her 13-day interrogation, she was
able to learn that "several of these air force
officers had studied in the United States."
She identified two of them as a "Lt. Col.
Ceballos" and a "Col. Horacio Ibaiza." Ce-
be lbs spoke excellent colloquial English, :fee
said.
Her relentless questioners sought to
wrench from her a confession that she knew
"undesirable" Chileans. This, she said, could
refer to almost any of the 44 per cent of
Chileans who had supported the late
Chilean Marxist president, Salvador Allende.
"They threatened me with rape and to
send me to the Direccion de Inteligencia, Na-
clonal, a military group specializing in brute
physical torture, particularly electric shock,
the rack, choking or drowning in excre-
ment."
At one point, she was led blindfolded to
the head of a stairs. She plunged down 10
steps and thereafter was in fear whenever
she was being led blindfolded through the
corridors of the Academia de Guerra prison.
"I stood for hours and hours against a
wall," she attepted. "They gave me two cups
of water each day to drink, 900 calories of
food, a perfect starvation diet.
"The bathroOm had running water for only
about 15 minutes a day to serve the needs of
about 60 prisoners. The unfiushed toilets
were teeming with flies and brimming with
great quantities of blood and excrement.
"The three stalls were calf high with news-
paper which had served as toilet papers," she
swore. All around her, guards were "ner-
vously playing and experimenting with sub-
machine guns, cocking them, changing to
automatic," and, ironically, "a cassette play-
er (constantly) repeated Joan Bass's "Happy
Birthday'"
Other prisoners were tortured while she
was blindfolded, she said. "I heard horrible,
prolonged serearns in the night . I learned
to peek around my blindfold ...
"I saw two officers slugging and kicking an
18-year-old . . . I heard his -sharp, quick
screams of 'No!' and afterwards, long cries of
'No', like a dying animal. Finally, he con-
fessed to anything they suggested." After-
wards, he was dragged off to the dreaded
Direccion de Inteligencia Nacional for still
more torture.
She saw the youth when he returned, "his
chest covered With black and bine marks and
with inflamed red points. His face was totally
without color; white as plaster?it seems,
anemic because of blood loss. He had a deep
cut about five inches long, open and un-
bandaged on the inside of his left arm," she
said in her affidavit.
Finally, she said, she "confessed" falsely to
knowing "subversives." At about the same
time, she said, word of her arrest reached the
American conPul in Santiago, Fred Purdy.
He began working for her freedom right
away, but it took him 30 hours before the
Chileans were willing to release her.
By that time, "the nerve in My left thumb
(was) disabled due to the tightness of hand-
cuffs . . . had acquired an impressive va-
ginal discharge, I was somewhat black and
blue, incredibly filthy . . . badly dehydrated,
nine pounds lighter and with protein and
chloresterol levels abnormally low."
Shortly thereafter, she left Chile. The
United States has yet to make a formal pro-
test, as was made in the case of American
citizen Fred Morris, who was tortured at
about the seine time in Brazil.
EXHIBIT 2
NOTE TO GOVERNMENT OF CHILE
Note submitted by the Department of
State on November 27, 1974 to the Govern-
ment of Chile (dictated to the Office of Sen-
ator Hennedy by a State Department Chile
desk officer).
"The Embassy of the United States of
America presents its compliments to the
Ministry of Foreign Relations of the Re-
public of Chile and has the honor to trans-
mit the text of an article which appeared in
the press in the United States today.
"This artiele is based upon statements
made by Mrs. Amy Congers O'Flaherty, an
American citizen, who was detained by au-
thorities of the Chilean Air Force on Octo-
ber. 11, 1974, and released into the custody
of this EmbaPsy on October 24, 1974.
"The Embassy reiterates previous expres-
sions of condern that counselor officers of
this Embassy were not informed of the de-
tention of an American citizen pursuant to
paragraph lEi of Article 36 of the Vienna
Convention on Counselor relations of
April 24, 1963.
"The Embassy requests that the Ministry
of Foreign Relations institute an urgent in-
vestigation of Mrs. O'Flaherty'e treatment
while under detention in Chile and provide
this Embassy with a report of the results of
that investigation.
"The Embassy of the United States of
America avails itself of this opportunity to
renew to the Ministry of Foreign Relations
the assurances of its highest considerations."
EXII/BIT 3
STATE DEPARTMENT TRANSCRIPT OF RADIO
BROADCASTS
CHILEAN PDC LEADER EXPELLED BY
GOVERNMENT
SANTIAGO, CH/LE, November 26.?Renan
Fuentealba, former president of the Christian
Democratic Party (PDC) and former senator,
has been expelled from the country. This
decision was announced in a communique
issued by the newly-established Interior Min-
istry Department of Public Order.
APPEAL FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
SANTIAGO, CHILE, November 26.-:-Former
president of the Christian Democratic Party
(PDC) Renan Fuentealba launched an ap-
peal here today demanding respect for hu-
man rights in Chile.
"We want full respect for human rights
In Chile as soon as possible," he told APP.
"In this respect we are highly concerned
over the fact that former PDC Deputy
Claudio Huepe has been deprived of his free-
dom without any charges being lodged
against him," he said.
Fuentealba made it clear that there was
"no similarity" between the military junta's
economic policy and his party's program.
"At this moment it is important to imple-
ment a policy for development, against in-
flation, and for economic independence, and
to redistribute income with justice and re-
spect for men," said Fuentealba, who was
Chile's ambassador to the United Nations
during the Frei government. "The poorest
should not be asked to make the biggest
sacrifice, nor the middle class dragged to
the 'lower ranks of poverty," he added.
"We are moving from the concentration of
power in the hands of the state to the con-
centration of economic and social power in
the hands of small sectors which are acting
with a spirit of revenge and without a sense
of patriotism," Fuentealba said. Fuentealba
was PDC president six times, and he was
again elected to that position in May 1973,
5 months before President Salvador Allende
was overthrown by the armed forces. The
governing military junta suspended the PDC
and all the other opposition political orga-
nizations during the Popular Unity regime.
Fuentealba stated the majority of Chileans
presently support the PDC. "I am sure that
the..majority of Chileans feel that our solu-
tion is the best for building a new democracy
and for moving toward a new society based
on justice and freedom," he asserted.
Fuentealba said that his party did not sup-
port the military movement that overthrew
President Salvador Allende in September
1973. The blindness, uncontrolled passion,
and the tremendous confusion that existed
among many political sectors led to the re-
sults with which we are all familiar," he said,
while he pointed out that the relationship
between his party and the military junta is.
one of mutual independence.
On human rights Fuentealba said: "We are
basically democrats; we believe in man, his
dignity and his rights. We do not want to
build an atheist socialist society. Instead we
want to build a society based on the basic
principles of Christianity, democracy, parti-
cipation and pluralism."
When asked by AFP if his party was willing
to form a united front with some Marxist
parties in, case of an election, Fuentealba
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 20597
? said: "True democrats of the vanguard who
want to build a new democratic society-must
unite when it is necessary."
"Partisan and personal selfishness must be
set aside, as well as the hatred and intransi-
gency which led the political system to a
crisis when the activities of the democratic
system were suspended," he concluded.
SANTIAGO, CHILE, November 29.?Interior
Under Secretary Maj. Enrique Montero re-
iterated last night over national radio and
television the government's decision "to en-
force the political recess at all costs." Mon-
tero also gave the reasons for the deporta-
tion of former senator and president of the
Christian Democratic Party [PDC] Renan
Fuentealba. Montero said: "Master Fuen-
tealba has shown an unthinkable lack of
patriotism by making declarations to a for-
eign press agency which echo the false accu-
sation that human rights are not being re-
spected in our country."
Montero added: "Mister Fuentealba's at-
titude is not surprising if one recalls that on
13 September 1973 he signed a declaration?
together with other PDC leaders, among
condemning the ousting" of what it termed
the "constitutional government" [passage
indistinct] indirectly to the declaration of
solidarity with Fuentealba that 66 PDC
leaders headed by former President Eduardo
Frei issued yesterday, Montero said: "It is
appropriate to make it clear that those pol-
iticians who use every opportunity to make
news under the belief that by creating con-
flict situations they will create an atmos-
phere favorable to political negotiations are
absolutely wrong. This is an authoritarian
government which will impose its authority
even if it has to be harsh and ruthless."
Moreover, Chief of State Gen. Augusto
Pinochet said in regard to the deportation of
former Senator Fuentealba: "[Words indiS-
tinct] was forced to deport him because he
was sowing discord."
EXHIBIT 4
REPORT ON THE STATUS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN
CHILE
. Note dated October 31, 1974, addressed to
the Chairman of the Permanent Council by
the Chairman of the Inter-American Com-
mission of Human Rights transmitting the
"Report on the Status of Human Rights in
"Chile" prepared by the Commission.
CHAPTER MI?CONCLUSIONS
After a careful analysis of background in-
formation, and particularly after having
made? on-the-spot observations during a
,brief but very intensive mission, the Com-
mission has collected information, which,
after rational analysis, it feels is sufficient to
assert that, under the regime instituted in
Chile beginning Stepmber 11, 19'73, extremely
serious violations of human rights occurred.
The Commission realizes the exceptional
circumstances which resulted in the advent
of that regime, with the employment of
force and bitter confrontation. It does not
count as violations of human rights, the
losses of life that occurred on both sides in
the first few days of this process, so that it
may entirely avoid the consideration, which
otherwise would be essential, the legality or
ellegality and the justice or injustice, of the
actions of the previous regime, a topic which
is outside its competence.
But, after having examined the events sub-
sequent to the consolidation of the new
Government, determined the content of the
measures issued by the Junta, visited the
jails and detention camps for political pris-
oners, had access to mass communication
media, interrogated hundreds of persons of
all social levels and political affiliation, re-
viewed judicial files, attended War Councils,
contacted various national and international
agencies aiding many people during those
months, and after having traveled in the
performance of its duties, to widely separate
places in the territory of Chile, the Commis-
sion has arrived at the firm conviction that
on some occasions by action of the Govern-
ment of Chile through its official measures,
and on other occasions by action of its
agents (in the latter cases it is not possible
to determine whether the actions of such
agents are in response to orders received
from their superiors) very serious violations
have been committed in Chile?by acts of
commission or omission of the present Gov-
ernment?against the following human
rights, which are set forth in international
documents signed by that country:
1. Right to life. While executions by shoot-
ing without prior trial in the application
of the so-called "law of fight", had ceased,
the right to life could not be considered ade-
quately protected in the proceedings of War
Councils, which had handed down and re-
peatedly were handing down, death penal-
ties in circurnstances that do not satisfy
the requirements of due process. The fact
that the sentences had been commuted in
most cases did not eliminate the certain
risk to the right to life implied by such
proceedings, nor was It enough to erase the
tremendous harm caused to the accused and
his family during the period of uncertainty
as to what would finally occur. (See Art. 1
of the American Declaration of the Rights
and Duties of Man).
2. Right to personal safety. This right had
been and was directly and seriously violated
by the practice of psychological and physical
abuse in the form of cruel and inhuman
treatment. This is the conclusion from coin-
ciding statements and testimony from per-
sons of the most varied social condition, of
very varied cultural levels and opposing po-
litical convictions, who were detained or
were residing in widely separated places. The
Commission has seen and heard person af-
fected as a result of such abuses and has
collected convincing statements and testi-
mony regarding cases of violation of the
right of personal safety, consisting in torture,
abuse and inhuman treatment which, be-
cause of their intensity and probable conse-
quences, also involve on occasion actual
threats to the right to life. The use of elec-
tric shock, the threat of harm to close rela-
tives, sexual attacks, covering the person
with a hood, blindfolding the person for
weeks, etc., are reasonably proven facts. (See
Arts. I and XVII of the above-mentioned
American Declaration). The Commission
does not assert that a "policy of torture" was
practiced or might have been practiced, but
it is in a position to assert that no effective
"policy against torture" had been carried
out.
It should be noted that in the Commission's
Interviews with the Ministers of the Interior
and of Defense, they stated their concern
regarding this subject and indicated it was
the firm intent of the Chilean Government
to eliminate torture, and if any cases were
found, to punish those, responsible. To that
end, they requested any assistance that the
Commission might provide.
3. Right to personal liberty. Ten months
after the events of September, around 5.600
persons remained deprived of their liberty,
according to figures supplied by some of the
ministers. Many of these persons had been
arrested without any charges brought
against them, and they continued in deten-
tion without being brought before the
courts, by virtue of the authority granted
by the Constitution to the President of the
Republic under the supervision of the Con-
gress. The situation was even more serious
due to the fact that there were also many
persons regarding whom it was not known
whether, they were free or imprisoned, or
even whether they were living or dead. (See
Arts. VIII and XV of the American Decla-
ration).
4. Remedy of amparo and habeas corpus.
The remedy of amparo had been rendered
absolutely ineffective, since the Magistrates
of the Judiciary were satisfied with replies
from the Ministries, that such and such a
person was detained "by virtue of the powers
authoriZed under a state of siege", or that
he was not detained, without investigating
the evidence provided by the petitioner. The
Magistrates did not require that the pris-
oner be brought before them to verify that
he was alive, or to determine where he was
detained, or to determine whether the con-
stitutional provision prohibiting keeping
him prisoner in jails or together with com-
mon criminals, etc., were being complied
with. (See Art. XVIII of the American
Declaration).
5. Guarantees of due process. These guar-
antees were found to be seriously affected.
In many cases, the right to be tried by a
court established by law prior to the alleged
offense, and in general the right to a reg-
ular trial had been violated and was being
violated. Retroactive application of the
"state of war" has constituted a flagrant
violation of basic rights. Statements made
by the accused, under the pressure of psy-
chological or physical torture, to the arrest-
ing official rather than to the trial judge,
have been taken as "confessions". The pro-
ceedings of War Councils have constituted
a massive violation of the guarantees of due
process. (See Art. X.XVI of the American
Declaration).
6. Freedom of expression and communica-
tion of thought and of information. None of
the mass communication media are free to
disseminate thought or inform the public.
These media operate between the extremes
of censorship and self-censorship. Official
pressure was being exerted also on publish-
ing houses. A a general rule, these media
could only publish news and ideas approved
by the authorities. (See Art. IV of the
American Declaration) .
7. Right of assembly. The right was virtually
suspended (See Article XXI of the American
Declaration).
8. Freedom of association. Political parties,
agencies, organizations and movements have
been dissolved or declared "in recess", which
means the prohibition of any kind of polit-
ical activity in the broad sense. Other or-
ganizations, like labor unions for efample,
are prevented from any effective action. (See
Art. XXII of the American Declaration).
9. Freedom of opinion and equality before
the law. The Commission found that, as a
result of Decree-Law 77, Marxism is general-
ly considered as a felony. The term "Marx-
lent" is used as though it were a label for a
crime. Consequently, any individual profess-
ing Marxist ideology is considered as a
criminal, regardless of whether he can be
shown to have actually committed eats de-
fined as crimes under criminal law. He can
therefore be punished for "what he is" or
for "what he thinks" regardless of "what he
does". The commission of the same act in the
same circumstances can give rise to different
legal consequences depending on the per-
sons who committed the act and their polit-
ical ideology, without any rule of justice or
reasonableness to justify such disparity of
treatment. (See Arts. IV, II and XVII of the
American Declaration).
10. Political rights. Such rights have been
abolished. Since, the suppression of represent-
ative bodies has been accompanied by the de-
struction of the voters' register, which, ac-
cording to the Government, it will take years
to reconstruct, no possibility is seen of a
fairly rapid return to normalcy in these in-
stitutions. (See Arts. XX and XVIII of the
American Declaration).
It can be asserted in conclusion that the
Commission's on-the-spot findings show that
under the regime instituted on September
11, 1973, in Chile, repeated violations have
Approved For Release 2905/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20598
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE December 4, 1974
occurred of the rights set forth in Articles
I, II, IV, VIII, XXVII, XXVIII, XX, X.Xf,
XXII, XXV, and XXVI of the American
Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Men.
CHAPTER XVII?RECOMMENDATIONS
1. On July 29, the Commission sent to
the Government of Chile the preliminary
recommendations resulting from the note
transcribed in Chapter XV of this report.
2. After reaching the conclusions sum-
marized in the previous chapter, the Com-
mission feels it is its duty to make the fol-
lowing recommendations to that Govern-
ment:
1. In order to safeguard the rights re-
ferred to in Article 1 of the American Dec-
laration of the Rights and Duties of Man,
and with the pomptness required by these
circumstances, an exhaustive, detailed,
speedy, and impartial investigation of the
following acts should be ordered:
(a) The imposition of cruel conditions
of living, punishment and forced labor on
certain prisoners, as occurred for example
in the case of those who were confined on
Dawson Island.
(b) The use of psychological and physical
torture in the following establishments: 38
Londres Street in Santiago; Air Force War
School in Santiago; a section of the Santi-
ago Military Hospital; Central Bureau of in-
vestigations in Santiago (a place known as
"La Patilla"); Tejas Verdes; and the Navy
ship "Esmeralda";
(c) The reception of persons arriving at
Tres' Alamos, the Santiago Central Jail and
Capuchinos, Tejas Verdes and Buen Pastor
detention centers with visible signs of hav-
ing been subjected to torture or maltreat-
ment, without the officials of those estab-
lishments having denounced such facts to
their superiors;
(d) The conduct of the officials who di-
rectly or indirectly have been indicated in
this report as performing, participating,
instigating or covering up the acts indicated
in the above points.
The Commission feels that such an in-
vestigation should be carried out so that;
a) unity of viewpoint may be ensured in
establishing and evaluating the facts, for
which purposes the persons performing this
task should be able to take action through-
out the territory of the country, and is)
any reasonable possibility of suspicion that
those responsible for the investigation do
not have the essential independence and
resources to properly carry out their Ms,
sion may be excluded a priori.
The Commission considers, finally, that
this mission must comprise the exact iden-
tification of those responsible for the facts
indicated in this recommendation, for their
subsequent trial by regular judicial officials
of Ohile in accordance with the relevant
provisions of Chilean law.
2. That, in order to safeguard the rights
referred to in Article XXV of the American
Declaration a rapid survey should be made of
the status of all persons who are still deprived
of their liberty without any charges being
brought against them, in order to release all
those who do not constitute a serious and
certain danger for the maintenance of public
peace.
3. That, in order to safeguard the rights
referred to in Article XVIII of the American
Declaration, and pursuant to the authority
exercised by the Chilean GoVernment Junta,
precise rules should be enacted to ensure
that even in "time or state of war,", when,
during the state of siege, the president of
the Republic, in exercise of the exceptional
authority granted to him by Article '72.17 of
the Constitution, orders the arrest of a per-
son, petitions of amparo and habeas corpus
on behalf of the prisoner before a civil judge,
and the intervention of that judge, shall re-
quire administrative officials to bring the
prisoner before the judge, to provide him
with a complete copy of the decree under
which the detention was ordered, to inform
him exactly where the prisoner is being de-
tained; and to inform him immediately of
an' subsequent transfer to another place of
detentio:n.
4. That, in order to safeguard the rights
referred to in Article XVI of the American
Declaration, and pursuant to the authority
exercised by the Government junta, a remedy
of review should be established to make pos-
sible a full ekamination of all of the ver-
dicts handed down by the Councils of War,
in order to verify the regularity of the pro-
ceedings and to decide on their validity, ap-
propriateness and, as the case may be, the
possibility of reducing the penalties imposed,
with particular reference to those verdicts in
width by whatever route, or by resorting to
whatever argument there has been. retro-
active applicaion Of the "state of war" or
more severe rules than those in force at the
time the allegedly unlawful acts began, or
penalties have been imposed only because
of the ideas or convictions of the accused.
6, That, in order to safeguard the rights
referred to in Articles I and XIV of the
American Declaration, the means available
to the office responsible for locating persons
detained, or whoSe whereabouts are unknown
should be expanded by requiring all officials
in charge of establishments of any kind
where persons are detained to submit, within
the brief period that may be set for thespur-
pole and under the strictest responsibility
a detailed list of such persons, indicating
the name they claim and the name on the
identification document, if the two are not
the same; date of birth; complete address at
their last residence or that of their family.
It would also be desirable to enclose a photo-
graph of the prisoner, in view of the fact
that, as the Oovernment stated, there are
often serious difficulties in identifying per-
sons because ef the fact that- there are per-
sons who have several identification docu-
ments under different names. The Central
Information Office should process all such
data, in order to be able to provide reports
requested froin them by those who claim
to be parents of persons presumed to be im-
prisoned, or by any lawyer so requesting.
The Director of the establishments to which
we have referred should be required to re-
port by telegram, within 21 hours, on any
release or new admission that occurs.
6. That, in order to safeguard the rights
referred to in Article XVIII of the American
Declaration, independent labor courts should
be speedily reestablished and the specialPro-
visions contained in Decree-Law 32 should
be eliminated.:
7. That, in order to safeguard the rights
referred to in. Article XX of the' American
Declaration, steps to effect the most rapid
reconstruction of the voters register with
the asistance of modern techniques should
be immediately adopted so that the citizens
of ,Chile will be able to exercise their political
rights without unnecessary delay.
8. That, in order to safeguard the rights
referred to in -Article IV of the American
Declaration, steps should be adopted to pro-
gressively restore freedom of -expression of
thought, both by individuals and through
the mass coMmunication media, without
prejudice to holding responsible those who
might abuse the exercise of that freedom,
pursuant to the provisions of ordinary law
on the subject.
9. That, in order to safeguatd the rights
referred to in Articles I, VIII, and XV of the
American Declaration, consideration should
be given in the future reform of the Con-
stitution to leSsening the President's author-
ity during a State of siege, by granting to
prisoners who are not charged with a crime
the right to leave the territory of the country.
Examine 5
PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN CH/LE
Resolution adopted by the General Assem-
bly Ion the report of the Third Committee].
The General Assembly,
Convinced of its responsibility under the
Charter of the United Nations to promote
and encourage respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms for all.
Recalling that, in accordance with the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
everyone has the right to life, liberty and
security of person and the right not to be
subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or
exile or to torture or cruel, inhuman or de-
grading- treatment or punishment,
Recalling also its resolution 3059 (XXVIII)
of 2 November 1973,
Taking into account the deep concern ex-
pressed by the Commission on Human Rights
about reports from a wide variety of sources
relating to gross and massive violations of
human rights in Chile, particularly those
involving a threat to human life and liberty,
Taking note of the appeal made by the
Economic and Social Council, in its resolu-
tion of 1873 (LVI) of 17 May 1974, to the
Chilean authorities to take all necesasry
steps to restore and safeguard basic human
rights and fundamental freedoms in that
country, particularly in those cases involv-
ing a threat to human life and liberty,
Noting that the Sub-Commission on Pre-
vention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities, in its resolution 8 (XXVII) of 21
August 1974," made an urgent appeal to the
Chilean authorities to respect the Universal
Declaraiton of Human Rights and to comply
with the International Convenants on Hu-
.man Rights '-signed and ratified by the Gov-
ernment of Chile,
Noting also 'that the International Labour
Conference, in its resolution X of 24 June
1974,3 urged the Chilean authorities, inter
elle., to cease violations of human rights and
trade union rights, to guarantee the life and
freedom of arrested, deported or imprisoned
workers, militant workers and trade union
leaders and members of any political party, to
put an end to the practice of torture, to close
down the concentration camps and to
abolish the special tribunals, and decided to
urge the speedy expedition to Chile of the
Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission
on Freedom of Association as well as the
setting up of a commission of inquiry,
Considering that, notwithstanding all the
appeals made by various organs of the United
Nations system, gross and massive violations
of human rights, such as arbitrary arrest,
torture and cruel, inhuman and degarding
treatment of political prisoners and de-
tainees, including former members of the
Chilean Government and Parliament, con-
tinue to be reported,
1. Expresses its deepest concern that con-
stant flagrant violations of basic human
rights and fundamental freedoms in Chile
continue to be reported;
2. Reiterates its repudiation of all forms
of torture and other cruel, inhuman or de-
grading treatment or punishment;
3. Urges the Chilean authorities to re-
spect fully the principles of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and to take
all necessary steps to restore and safeguard
basic human rights and fundamental free-
doms, particularly those involving a threat
to human life and liberty, to release all per-
sons who have been detained without charge
or imprisoned solely for political reasons and
to continue to grant safe conduct to those
who desire it;
A/9767, annex II.
2 General Assembly resolution 2200 A
(XXI), annex. 74-31304
International Labour Office, Official Bul-
letin, vol. LVII, No. 1, 1974, p. 40.
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 20599
4. Endorses the recommendation made by
the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Dis-
crimination and Protection of Minorities, in
its resolution 8 (XXVII), that the Commis-
sion on Human Rights at its thirty-first ses-
sion study the reported violations of human
rights in Chile, with particular reference to
torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment;
5. Requests the President of the twenty-
ninth session of the General Assembly and
the Secretary-General to assist in any way
they may deem appropriate in the re-estab-
lishment of basic human rights and funda-
mental .freedoms in Chile in the light of
paragraph 3 above;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to sub-
mit a report to the General Assembly at its
thirtieth session on the action taken and
progress achieved under paragraphs 3 to 5
above.
EXHIBIT 6
LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES ASSOCIP,TION,
Gainesville, Fla., November 25, 1974.
Senator EDWARD KENNEDY,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: I MIG writing to
you in your twin capacities as Chairman of
the Senate Subcommittee to Investigate
Problems Connected with Refugees and Es-
capees, and as sponsor of an amendment to
cut all military aid to the Chilean govern-
ment.
Acting under resolutions passed by the
general membership of the Latin American
Studies Association, the Executive Council
and officers of the As'sociation decided at their
last meeting to send the following message
to you:
We strongly support Congressional pro-
posals to cut off all military aid to Chile.
Such aid to a government which has system-
atically been found to be in violation of the
fundamental civil and human rights of its
own citizens is incompatible with the basic
tenets of a humane and democratic foreign
? policy.
We also urge that entry into the United
States be facilitated for those Chileans and
? other Latin Americans who have had to, or
will have to, leave Chile because of the ac-
tions of the military government. Eased
entry to the United States has been granted
in the past to Hungarians and Cubans,
among others. We believe that the same logic
applied then should now be applied to
the Chilean situation.
The officers and Executive Council of the
Latin American Studies Association stand
ready to assist you and other Senators and
Representatives in whatever way possible on
these and related matters of mutual concern.
Very truly yours,
RICHARD R. PAGEN,
Vice President and President Elect.
EXHIBIT 7
CHILEAN PARLIAMENTARIANS DETAINED
Senators: Hugo Miranda, Luis Corvalan,
Ernesto Araneda, Anoelomo Jule, Jorge
Montes, Erich Schnacke.
Deputies: Laura Allende, Amends Alta-
mirano, Claudio Huepe, Alexandro Jiliberto,
Andres Sepulveda, Ivan Quintana, Alexandro
Perez, Camilo Salvo.
Deputy Gaston Lobos was alleged to have
been killed.
IS THERE AN ECONOMICS FOR SUSTAINING
HUMANITY?
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President, at the
James H. Oliphant Forum in New York
City On November 12, Senator HATFIELD
delivered an address on international
food and development policies that most
certainly deserves our close attention,
particularly as we again consider the
Foreign Assistance Act. While willing to
sharply increase funding for traditional
programs in order to meet present emer-
gency needs, Senator HATFIELD is not
content to stick with "mare of the same"
indefinitely, and suggests how our pres-
ent polities might be changed so that-
those who are have the greatest need can
receive the most aid.
John Kenneth Galbraith, another par-
ticipant in the forum, remarked that this
was the best speech he had heard any
Senator give on the subject. Given Mr.
Galbraith's knowledge of the subject,
that is an enviable commendation. I rec-
ommend the Senator's speech to my col-
leagues' reading, and I ask unanimous
consent that it be printed at this point in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the speech
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
IS THERE AN ECONOMICS FOR SUSTAINING
HUIYIANITY
(By Senator Mark 0. Hatfield)
It is a pleasure to be with you today and
participate in this year's Oliphant Forum,
devoted to an exploration of the topic, "The
Search for a New Equilibrium?Political-
Economic Meaning in the Seventies."
Searching for a new equilibrium is by no
means an original undertaking, and all too
often it has been little more than an aca-
demic exercise. At this time it is particularly
urgent, however, that the search be genuine,
penetrating, and imaginative, and that what-
ever meaning we derive from our efforts by
humane and refreshing, and not simply an-
other rehash of the same perceptions and
philosophies that make these endeavors
continually necessary.
This is not a time when mere tinkering
will do. The world is very near the brink, in
part by virtue of the political-economic
"equilibrium" we have made for ourselves in
the last 400 years. We are in an interregnum,
between the ages of affluence and scarcity;
confused and uncertain about the past, we
have hardly begun the attempt to grasp the
future. Our political and economic institu-
tions have lost the confidence of the people,
and for good reason. Despite a most inter-
esting and promising history of two hundred
years, the bicentennial we will celebrate in
this country two years from now Will not cap
our success in eliminating poverty, hatred,
Ignorance or war and substituting peace,
justice, freedom and dignity for our citi-
zens. Rather, as Wendell Berry has put it,
"as a nation we no longer have a future that
we can imagine and desire . . . We have be-
come the worshippers and evangelists of a
technology and wealth and power which sur-
pass the comprehension of most of us, and
for which the wisest of us have failed to
conceive an aim. And we have become as a
consequence, more dangerous to ourselves
and to the world than we are yet able to
know."
Our confusion and uncertainty have driven
us into the retreat of cynicism and apoca-
lypse, both of which paralyze our imagina-
tions. Cynicism mocks all meaning, whether
it-be the truth or deception, and becomes
self-fulfilling in its low estimate of man.
Talk of apocalypse is provocative, but, as
Richard Falk has noted, insofar as it per-
suades it also immobilizes. Rekindling our
imaginations and our hopes will certainly
not be easy, and it may be that in the end we
will go only part way with Faulkner, settling
for the belief that man will simply endure.
But that would be a great failure, and a liv-
ing death for millions.
Today I am asking, "is there an economics
to sustain humanity?" because I have just
returned from the World Food Conference
and am convinced that there can be no new
"equilibrium," no political and economic
meaning for the seventies, if we are not able
to solve the intricate problems of world food.
I want to speak of those problems, suggest
some solutions and discard others, and fi-
nally issue a challenge to "re-vision" our
culture.
The present world food crisis emerged sud-
denly in 1972 with global bad weather, the
disappearance of the unassuming Peruvian
anchovy, and a variety of other factors that
caused the first decline in world food pro-
duction in 20 years as the demands of pop-
ulation and affluence continued unabated.
World production of cereals fell by 33 mil-
lion tons at a time when it should have been
growing at 25 million tons a year to meet
world demand. There was a substantial in-
crease. in output in 1973?about 4%?but
production still declined in certain areas,
such as Africa and the Far East. The 1970-
71. period marked the highest level of food
production per capita in the developing na-
tions since World War II. Since that time
per capita production has declined, and not
even the 1973 increase matched the per-
capita production levels of the 1970-71
period.
The result: import demand climbed
steeply, reserve stocks evaporated, and prices
soared. World trade in wheat increased from
52 million tons in 71-72 to 68 million tons
in 72-73. Wheat stocks of the main exporting
countries fell 40% from 49 million tons in
71-72 to 29 million tons in 72-73. By Feb-
ruary 1974, U.S. wheat for export cost nearly
four times as much as in 1972.
The high-income countries as a whole,
with about 30% of the world's population,
accounted for 51% of the total consumption
of cereals for all uses in 1969-71. The 370
million tons of grain used annually in these
countries for livestock feed alone in 1969-71
was greater than the total human consump-
tion of cereals in Chink and India com-
bined. We in the United States consume
nearly a ton of grain per capita each year,
but only about 160 pounds of it directly.
Most of the remainder is fed to animals;
some of it is used to make beer and liquor.
On the other hand, the poor people of the
world have an average of only 400 pounds
of cereal grain to eat each year, nearly all
of it consumed directly. These consumption
levels have strained production capacity to
the point that we have reserves sufficient for
only 27 days of annual food consumption,
down from 95 days in 1961. World food sup-
plies of basic foodstuffs and food grains are
perilously dependent on the harvest of a
single season, and a widespread crop failure
in any major producing area in 1974-75 could
well mean catastrophe.
The prospects for increased production, at
least those based on "more of the same,"
are not bright. The long-term average in-
crease in world food production has exceeded
population growth since the end of
World War II. However, the rate of increase
has been slowing in most major areas. While
total food production has increased at about
the same rate in the developed and devel-
oping nations, the per capita production in-
crease in the developing nations has been
much less than that in the rich countries.
In 1961-63, per capital production in the
developing countries was about one-third
that in the developed countries. Food pro-
duction per capital in the developing coun-
tries was little more than one quarter of that
in the developed countries in 1971-73. Ob-
viously, the gap between rich and poor is
widening. Some individual developing na-
tions have not done even this well; in about
40% of the developing countries, food pro-
duction ftijled to keep pace with population
growth in the period 1962-72.
Ambitious development plans are not
being fulfilled. The United Nations reports
that of 66 national development plans for
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20600 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE - December 4, 1974,
47 countries, production targets have been
met in only 17 cases. Similarly, the 4% an-
nual rate of increase in agricultural produc-
tion in developing countries proposed for
the second U.N. Development Decade has so
far not been met in any region. On the other
hand, the annual increase in the rate of ex-
tension of arable land has exceeded the 0.7%
annual rate proposed by the FAO (Food and
Agriculture Organization) for the period
1961-63 to 1985. In other words, yield
improvements have been disappointing. The
FAQ has laid great stress on yield improve-
ment, to be accomplished primarily through
more irrigation, better seeds, and increased
use of fertilizer and pesticides. Yet irriga-
ion has not increased as hoped, and the
shortage of power for pumping has further
reduced the effectiveness of already limited
facilities.
World fertilizer consumption has exceeded
production in the past few years, and while
consumption by the developing countries le
increasing faster than in the developed coun-
tries, it Ls still only 15% of the world's total
consumption. Most of their fertilizer must be
Imported. The energy shortage, lack of pro-
duction capacity, and, soaring prices all
helped create a shortfall of about 1.5 million
tons of fertilizer, about 15% of the develop-
ing countries' total supply. The loss could
mean a reduction of 12 million tons in cereal
production. In the United States alone, we
use 2 million tons of fertilizer on our lawns,
gardens, golf courses, and football fields.
Thus tountries like India, for lack of a pound
of fertilizer costing 15 cents, fail to grow 10
pounds of wheat that they must buy on the
world market for at least $1.
The "Green Revolution" is far short of an
unqualified success: the high-yield varieties
of grain require heavy inputs of water and
fertilizer, both scarce and costly; and strains
developed in one area are not necessarily
suited to another. In addition, the financial
benefits have been enjoyed primarily by the
already established, while the poor remain
poor.
And finally, improvement in the rural in-
stitutions and government services regarded
as a major stumbling block to increased food
production in the developing countries, has
been agonizingly slow and, to date, inade-
quate. Agrarian reform to eliminate the dis-
tortions and handicaps of a "dual economy"
of a few large landowners and -many poor
peasants has not been accomplished to any
significant extent. Those services that have
heen provided, like the green revolution, arc
largely directed to large-scale producing
units and not to the rural poor, who remain
marginal at best.
It is a testimony to the amorality and in-
humanity of our economics that these fig-
ures do not ordinarily move us; that we see
these things in terms of bushels, not shat-
tered human lives. The U.N. estimates that
one half of all child deaths are in some way
attributable to malnutrition; the percentage
of the population in the developing coun-
tries who must try to exist with food de-
ficiences ranges up to 30% or higher In
some areas, and amounts to over 434 fiaillion
people in total, probably more. Elie Shneour,
author of The Malnourished Mind, believes
that at least half of the world's population
has endured a period of severe nutritional.
deprivation during childhood. This is a
serious business, for malnourishment in the
early years of life causes irremedial brain
damage. A study conducted in Mexico a few
aears ago showed that children severely un-
dernourished before the age of five averaged
13 points lower in I.Q. than those receiv-
ing sufficient nutrition.
The urban poor, particularly those who
have recently been driven off the land or
fled to the city in search of a future, are
most vulnerable to malnutrition. For ex-
ample, the U.N. reports that 22% of the
urban households in northeast Brazil are
in the lowest-income group and have a
per-Capita intake of 1200-1500 calories a
day. Thirty-two percent of the rural poor
in the same area fall into the lowest-income
group, but average a per-capita intake of
1500-1800 calories a day.
The immediate effect of malnutrition is
obvious and appalling. Its long-term impact
on our world cannot be fully known yet.
But it is apparent that "we have not yet
reaped the whirlwind of the famines that
have pinched the brains of millions of peo-
ple on several ot our continents lii the past
10 years." (Dr. Richard Selzer, Harper's, June
1974.)
The foregoing is a capsule assessment of
the present situation only. Briefly, the future
world demand for food looks like this:
Between 1970 and 1985, food demand In
developed countries Is expected to rise at a,n
annual rate of 1 5%; that means a 26% in-
crease in demand in that 15 years. For the
same period, food demand is projeeted at an
anntal growth rate of 3.6% in the develop-
ing countries; an increase in total food vol-
ume of about 70% between 1970 and 1985.
Higher than expected income growth rates
could raise that figure even more, since
greater affluence means greater food demand.
To satisfy these,increases in world demand,
world agriculture in 1985 will have to pro-
vide additional annual outputs of nearly 280
million tons more of cereals for direct human
consumption than in 1970; nearly 40 million
more tons of sugar; 110 million tons more of
vegetables; 60 Million tons more of meat;
and 140 million more tons of milk. The total
requirements in terms of cereals for all pur-
poses in 1985 will be 520 million tons more
than in 1970; an increase of 43% in 15 years.
The demand increase in developing countries
will be about 63% of the total; the demand
Increase in the developed countries will be
about 29% of the total.
Extrapolating these production/demand
figures, it is possible to project a net cereal
deficit in the developing countries in 1985
of almost 85 million tons. In Africa, for ex-
ample, between 1970 and 1985 food demand
will rise by 76%, but her production by only
45%. It should also be remembered that food
demand in poor countriesmay often be less
than that necessary for adequate nutrition.
To meet the world food crisis, most pro-
posals advanced by national and interna-
tional agencies and private aid orginizations
have been based on the following concepts:
(1) An increase in government services and
support for rural development, with partic-
ular emphasis on productive investments in
the agricultural sector and technical assist-
ance for the farmer. This would include ir-
rigation, flood control, an increase in arable
land, improved 'storage and transportation
facilities, etc., all Involving the transfer of
modern technolegy from rich to poor coun-
tries.
(2) Reliance oil thehigh-yield varieties of
grain and the technologies needed to support
their production?Len the "Green Revolu-
tion."
(3) Another idea, although one offered
with substantially less enthusiasm became
of its necessarily political nature, is the sug-
gestion of income redistribution; land re-
form; and improved marketing procedures
which serve the farmer not the middleman.
(4) increasing attention is being paid
of the other half of the Malthusian equation,
population. There is growing insistence
that no response to the world food crisis
can be at all adequate if it does not propose
an effective means of controlling popula-
tion.
(5) Finally, as a defense against emer-
gency situationa created by natural disas-
ters or war, leading authorities have urged
the creation of a world food bank controlled
by an international agency, and drawn upon
In time of need.
These proposals form the core of plans to
deal with the weed food crisis that have
been offered in recent years. Yet none of
them offers anything new; they are all
traditional concepts of the conventional
wisdom, which has done nothing to help
the poor, and has in fact worsened their
plight as the gap between rich and poor
continues to widen. The traditional proposi-
tions fail to address the complex relation-
ships of a society's internal institutions,
class structure, international intentions, and
industrial progress; over which the tradi-
tionalists would simply impose their plans
for agricultural improvement, however, ill-
fitting. A recent study has identified a
constellation of 64 different factors which,
singly and in combination, can street
food production and demand. Any effort
that addresses only one of these factors
and ignores the others will fail. For ex-
ample, why extend arable land under irri-
gation if the available technology is not
appropriate for maximizing output attain-
able through irrigation? What advantages
are there to greatly increasing the land
-under cultivation if the means of getting
the fruits of this new cultivation are in-
adequate? Most importantly, what advan-
tages are there to significantly improving
yields if the benefits of these improvements
do not accrue to the growers, who need
them to pay for the necessary technological
improvements? And what if the potential
consumers of these products lack the funds
necessary to purchase them? It is this plight
of the desperately poor both in town and
country that best illustrates the failure of
traditional development proposals.
The basis of wealth in a non-industrial-
ized society is primarily land; thus in a
goodly number of developing nations the
majority of land is held by relatively few
owners. These owners have relatively easy ac-
cess to the financial and technological sys-
tems that are available to boost production
in accordance with traditional development
proposals. In turn, the financiers, technol-
ogists, and bureaucrats whose continued
prosperity depends on the success of tech-
niques requiring their eapertise, are only too
quick to lend their aid to the large land-
holders and ignore the poor who are in
greatest need of assistance, for the sake of a
better "profit." In short, technical improve-
ments such as those of the "Green Revolu-
tion" devoted exclusively to increases in pro-
duction with no attention to social reality,
exacerbate? inequality by serving those al-
ready wellestablished at the expense of the
poor worker. This is true not only within
the developing countries themselves, but also
in the relationship of the developed, Indus-
trialized nations to the developing coun-
tries.
Because of the political-economic philoso-
phies undergirding the technetronic culture
of the developed countries, their involve-
ment in the food programs of the developing
nations is limited to those types of agricul-
ture which serve their own interests, com-
mercial or otherwise. Multinational agri-busi-
ness corporations operating in the Sahel of
Africa devote their efforts to the production'
of vegetables, cotten, and cattle for foreign
markets, depriving the indigent population
of land for the production of essential cereal
grains. Direct colonialism has virtually
ended, but it has been replaced by this more
subtle and insidious form of exploitation,
which primarily rests on the monopolization
of capital by the multinational enterprises
of the rich, developed countries, be they
market economies or centrally planned.
The exploitation of the poor by the rich
Is not solely accomplished by the captains
of industry, however. As Lester Brown,
among others, has shown us, our personal
consumption patterns cad have a direct im-
pact on the quality of life in a poor country.
The aggregate of the rich countries (capi-
talist and socialist) with 36% of the world's
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
RECORD ? SENATE S 20601
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL
population consumed 51% of the world's
total grain production during the period
1969-71. Of the more than 600 million tons
of grain consumed by those countries, 370
million tons were used for animal feed. Ob-
viously, the rich countries' increasing tend-
ency to use vegetable protein for the produc-
tion of animal protein, a very inefficient con-
version process that raids the world's grain
supplies for the sake of our luxurious life-
style, has direct impact on the amount of
food available ,for the poor.
Finally, this much must be said about the
efficacy of population control as a means of
reducing world food demand. There is no
doubt that an all-out, concerted effort must
be made by all nations to curb their popula-
tion growth, and not only to reduce food
consumption. A city of tens of millions of
people is not an inviting prospect, no mat-
ter how well fed the citizens might be. But
population control alone will not suffice.
First, no population control program short
of wholesale destruction of human beings
will have any short-term effect on food con-
sumption or resource depletion. More iin-
portantly, population control policies his-
torically have been most effective when they
involve populations or portions of popula-
tions that are relatively prosperous and have
achieved minimum levels of education, nu-
trition, and health maintenance. Unless such
minimum standards are achieved through
development programs designed to benefit
the rural poor directly rather than through
the ineffective "trickle-. down" programs en-
joyed primarily by a majority of bureaucrats
and large landholders, the population of the
world's poor will continue to swell, and the
poor will be pushed farther into the abject
poverty which renders them incapable of im-
proving their food production or consump-
tion.
Having dismissed as insufficient the tradi-
tional development proposals advanced as
the way out of the world food crisis, I want
to suggest what I see to be the fundamental
approach that must be taken, and what im-
plications this will have for finding a politi-
cal-economic Meaning for the seventies, and
an economics for sustaining humanity. It
is hard to envision successful development
in the poor nations of the world if compre-
hensive land reform and income redistribu-
tion are not made the first tasks. This reform
should be aimed at eliminating sharecrop-
ping and farm operations too small to ac-
commodate the Single family living on them.
The new units created should be large
enough to allow optimum use of "interme-
diate" technology; yet small enough that
the land can be worked without the sub-
stantial inputs and expense of technology
and energy required by American methods
of agriculture. Heavy capital investments
would be financed by cooperatives serving
these small landholders, rather than by ur-
ban bureaucrats or foreign corporations. Out-
side assistance in the form of technical aid
or education, loans, credits, or grants, should
all be directed toward facilitating the opera-
tion and production of these small units and
their cooperative organizations, as much as
possible by-passing profiteering bureaucrats
and middlemen.
This emphasis on relatively small opera-
tions replacing the present mix of landhold-
ing elite and a poor majority of peasants
would accomplish several development goals
at once: First, it would help stop the flight
from rural areas tb the even worse conditions
of the urban slums prompted by the acquisi-
tion of small holdings by the elite and the
replacement of the small farmer by tech-
nology he cannot afford. In turn, rural de-
velopment in this fashion would foster rural
employment by the maximum use of labor-
intensive methods as much as possible. Rural
employment would begin to create- for the
rural poor the small measure of prosperity
that so enhances population control efforts.
Finally, marketing procedures would be sim-
plified, and distribution costs reduced,
through the operation of cooperatives, to the
benefit of rural producer and urban consumer
This last is most important, for as the U.N.
"Assessment of the World Food Situation"
puts it, "the causes of inadequate nutrition
are many and closely interrelated; including
ecological, sanitary and cultural con-
straints, but the principal cause is poverty."
To break the grip of that poverty, we must
discard traditional development policies
which in poor countries have been charac-
terized by a high degree of concentration of
power, wealth, and income in the hand of
relatively small elites of national or foreign
individuals or groups. We cannot rely on any
program which, like our P.L. 480 program in
recent years, is devoted to a "national secu-
rity" interest that may 'have little or noth-
ing to do with hunger or, for that matter,
national security.
Nor can we expect the multinational agri-
business corporations, in their present form,
to aid in a development process based on the
well-being of millions of Lilliputs rather
than a handful of Gullivers. The business of
the multinationals is to maximize profits. In
the developing nations, that is best done
through appropriation of the best land, use
of technology beyond the reach of the in-
digenous population, and whatever use of
cheap local labor seems necessary. After all,
the world's poor and starving are virtually
non-existent to the "food industry", for the
poor cannot afford to purchase the food pro-
duced, and only the consumer counts.
Nor can we bring "marginal men" into full
participation in the world community unless
the rich of the world, and particularly those
of us in the United States, abandon theit
rapacious lifestyles. The resources necessary
to accomplish the elimination of poverty in
what has now become known as the "Fourth
World" will not be available if we continue
to regard our planet as a quarry for exploita-
tion. Kenneth Boulding said years ago that
anyone who believes that man can go on
forever plundering the resources of a finite
earth must be either a madman or an econo-
mist. "Forever" is the key word of that
statement, for time is what the growth/no-
growth debate is all about. But whatever the
specific time frarhe, it is apparent now that
the 'size of the pie is limited, and, the amount
of it we consume, and the way in which we
consume it, is going to affect our ability to
transfer resources to the poor. If we share
the goal of eliminating hunger in the world
(and there are those who do not?the callous
"triage" theory has its proponents), then we
would be wise to begin the transfer now, be-
fore we regard them as exclusively "ours"
and the transfer becomes ."expropriation."
What will be required is what has always
been most difficult to accomplish without
violence: A redistribution of power, and the
wealth that brings power; an end to pre-emp-
tion of resources by the rich; and a replace-
ment for the kind of economics which di-
vides the world into potential consumers
and expendable workers for the sake of ac-
quiring more money. Developing that sort
of political economic meaning will be a tre-
mendous task, for it requires grasping a new
reality through experience, understanding,
and no small amount of sacrifice. It will take,
as Claude Levi-Strauss has said, "a spiritual
revolution as great as that which led to the
advent of Christianity. It would require that
man, who since the Renaissance has been
brought up to adore himself, acquire mod-
esty, and that we learn the lesson of all the
atrocities we have experienced for thirty or
forty years."
In the United States, the task will be par-
ticularly difficult, for we have not really
known war in our own, land, or want, or dis-
ease. In their stead we have created the most
massive aggregation, of wealth in the history
of man, the comforts of which -blind us to
its destructiveness and insulate us from the
pain 'it inflicts in its exploitation, of the
world's poor. Meanwhile, our policies for the
agricultural development of the poor coun-
tries, insofar as we have any policies at all,
tend to be copies of the American experience,
driving people off the land to make way for
tractors, chemicals, and "efficiency" without
a thought of where the people should go
from there?much leas what they might do
when they arrive.
Underpinning .this wanton disregard for
human consequences is an economics for
which no better synopsis is available than
that of Lord Keynes, who observed in 1930
s that there might come a day when we would
"value ends above means and prefer the good
to the useful." But, he continued, "the time
for all this is not yet. For at least another
hundred years we must pretend to ourselves
and to everyone else that fair is foul and
foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not.
Avarice and usury and precaution must be
our gods for a little longer still. For only they
can lead us out of the tunnel of economic
necessity into daylight." We still have 60
years to go on the Keynesian timetable, and
already his philosophy has put us in the
preposterous situation of using an extreme-
ly advanced technology to maintain nearly
4 billion people at a low average level of liv-
ing while stripping the world of its re-
sources, contaminating its water, soil, and air,
and driving most other species into extinc-
tion, parasitism, or domestication. It is time
we replaced that philosophy, that political-
economic meaning, with one that could sus-
tain humanity. Perhaps something like
Gandi's dictum that "earth provides enough
to satisfy every man's need, but not for
every man's greed" can give us a start.
For the old bromides will not Work. Our
consumption patterns, our view of the world
as a quarry for exploitation, our plans to save
the poor by creating them in our own image,
must change. These plans do not work well
in the present. They are totally inadequate
for the future. Even to speak about the pros-
pects for this particular revolution may be
foolishness. One disillusioned gentleman re-
cently observed, "anyone who has passed
through the slum districts of Washington
(and New York, for that matter) must enter-
tain fears for the effectiveness of those offi-
cials a few miles away who prescribe for the
infinitely greater ills of Bogota for Calcutta."
But I also recall William Blake's observation
that "if the fool would only persist, he would
become wise." And I find hope in words from
an older source; "Man does not live by bread
alone, but by every word of God."
THE PROSPECTS FOR FOOD FOR THE STARVING
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is my
understanding that this Thursday, there
will be a meeting_ at the highest levels
of the administration to determine the
amount of U.S. food aid for the second
half a fiscal year 1975. Literally, the fate
of millions of persons faced with starva-
tion throughout the globe will be deter-
mined by the decisions reached at this
meeting.
In this regard, let me share some of my
observations about the World Food Con-
ference, where I served as a delegate, and
the prospects and steps our nation can
take, if it has the humanitarian will, to
alleviate the suffering of those without
sufficient food.
Mr. S. A. Marei, Secretary-General of
the World Food Conference, stated at its
conclusion: "Despite our resolution, a
large number of people face starvation."
Just how large that number is and
will be depends directly on what actions
the food-rich nations, and especially the
United States, take in the. week ahead.
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20602
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE December 4, 1974
Unfortunately, the callous indecisiveness
to date of our Government in responding
to the scourge of hunger offers little sol-
ace to the world's starving millions.
Bangladesh's former Food Minister
told the conference at Rome that 1 mil-
lion people will die in the next 6 weeks
in his country if additional food assist-
ance is not received. India is confront-
ing a famine which many predict will be
the worst in a quarter century. And ex-
perts in Rome estimated that in the next
8 months half a billion people through-
out the world are faced with starvation
or malnutrition unless additional relief
reaches them.
When I first brought up the question
of immediate food aid to Secretary Earl
Butz at the initial meetings of the U.S.
delegation to the World Food Conference,
I was totally stunned by his response.
The Secretary attempted to dismiss the
issue by stating that when the Confer-
ence was planned last spring, its purpose
was to deal with longrange questions.
But the grim, desperate plight faced by
the world's starving multitudes this No-
vember was not foreseen last spring. The
fact that the World Food Conference oc-
curred when the stark proportions of
current famine had suddenly become
more evident should have been seized as
a providential opportunity to mobilize
global resources for halting the rampage
of starvation. Contending that the World
Food Conference should not have fo-
cused unduly on those who are now dying
from hunger is like urging firemen to
ignore blazing cities in favor of discus-
sions about future fire prevention.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned; at
the Food Conference, our Government
fiddled while the world starved. Our
eventual decision not to modestly in-
crease our food aid to the world's hun-
gry deepened the pangs of conscience
among millions of Americans while
worsening the pangs of hunger across the
globe.
It is true that we are the world's most
generous giver of humanitarian relief.
Yet, this generosity must be understood
in perspective, rather than used as an-
other reason for refusing to render
needed assistance to the starving.
Under Public Law 480, commonly but
often mistakenly called "food for peace."
the United States ships excess foods to
supposedly needy countries. The idea is
to take what we neither consume at home
nor trade commercially abroad, and give
it to relieve the immediate needs of hun-
ger throughout the word. This is accom-
plished either through granting highly
concessional and generous loans to coun-
tries for the value of the food, title I of
Public Law 480, or through the outright
gift of such food, title II of Public Law
480, which is usually the far smaller part
of the program.
Between 1968 and 1972 the United
States sent on the average 9 million tons
of foodstuffs abroad as such aid. But by
fiscal year 1974 our diminishing grain
surplus had reduced our Public Law 480
program to only 3.3 million tons.
When President Ford went to address
the U.N. last September, he was expected
to make some statement concerning the
U.S. commitment to meeting growing
world hunger,. An option paper prepared
for him set forth our Nation's choices. We
could send the same level of food aid as
last year-3.3 million tons?at a cost of
$891 million, or that could be increased
to about 4 million tons, costing $950 mil-
lion. The third and higher option was
to send 5.5 million tons of food aid, at the
cost of about $1.4 billion. The President
apparently made no decision other than
to review the matter each quarter. At the
U.N. he merely said that the U.S. effort
In food aid would be increased over last
fiscal year. Yet, that was later inter-
preted to mean only a certain increase in
the dollars spent for food aid, which, be-
cause of inflation, did not necessarily
mean an inctease in tons actually sent.
As Secretary Kissinger prepared his
speech to the World Food Conference, he
sent a draft to the White House includ-
ing the pledge that the United States
would increase its food aid this fiscal year
both in tonnage and dollars. But the
weekend before his Tuesday appearance,
that proposed pledge was rejected in a
round of bureaucratic infighting that
went all the Way to the President.
At Rome I joined with other congres-
sional advisers in urging a modest in--
' crease in our fOod aid commitment. Even-
tually, the entire delegation telegramed
back to Washington requesting a food aid
commitment df $4.3 million tons for fiscal
year 1975, a million-ton increase over last
fiscal year, although food. aid commit-
ments undertaken during this fiscal year
are already running somewhat above last
year's low level. Thus, the figure was ex-
ceptionally modest, in the middle range
of options before the White House, and
lower than 5.5 million tons apparently
favored in many quarters of the State
Department. 'Yet even that modest re-
quest was turned down, despite specific
pledges by Canada and Australia at the
World nod Conference to increase their
contributions of food aid to the world's
hungry.
As the world watches the proportions
of starvation take its toll this fall and
winter, many will ask whether there is
food, somewhere, for those who are dying.
There is. The United States can still
decide to give leadership in combating
global famine; fortunately the issue is
not yet whether we can find the food, but
whether we have the humanitarian will.
The United Nations estimates that the
starving nations of the world need 8 to 12
million more tons of grain in the next
8 months to avert disaster. Some of that
need is being met, but a large deficit,
which is literally the difference between
life and death for millions, remains. More
than any other nation, we are in a cru-
cial position to fill this famine-threaten-
ing gap; and (Jan do so through the fol-
lowing actions:
First. Increase U.S. food aid this fiscal
year to fully utilize all existing surpluses.
Secretary Butz stated to the U.S. dele-
gation in Rome that we had available
surpluses for a food aid budget of around
$1.4 to $1.5 billion. That would provide as
much as 5.5 million tons of food to the
starving, and is the "high option" for
food aid that has been before the Presi-
dent for consideration. Currently in this
fiscal year, we are budgeting slightly un-
der $1 billion in food aid, equaling a little
more than 4 million tons. This amount
could be significantly increased to fully
utilize available grain and other food-
stuffs, especially wheat and rice, without
any action by the Congress.
Second. Depoliticize the allocation of
our food aid.
The food our Nation gives as assist-
ance abroad goes first not to where the
most people are starving, but where we
wish to support a friendly political re-
gime or exert our diplomatic leverage.
Our food is used as a political weapon;
"food for peace" has frequently become
food for war.
Of the nearly $1 billion in food aid
projected in fiscal year 1975, between
$250 to $300 million will go to Cambodia
and South Vietnam, whose national
economies have become parasitic on U.S.
largesse. Roughly between $120 to $140
million is projected to go for political
purposes to nations in the Middle East,
and Chile has already received $35 mil-
lion worth of food aid, with more likely
to come. By comparison, even under the
highest option for food aid before the
President, India and Bangladesh would
each receive less than $100 million, and
Pakistan would receive less than $50 mil-
lion. Those three nations, all faced with
mass starvation, will together receive less
food from the United States than the
total which we will send direct to South-
east Asia. Preserving puppet regimes is
more important in our food aid policy
than preserving the lives of millions of
people.
A simple decision to allocate our sur-
plus food according to the needs of the
world's hungry would result in hundreds
of thousands more tons available to pre-
vent famine.
Third. Establishing a policy of do-
mestic food conservation.
Our meat heavy diet is enormously
wasteful of the grains needed by the
world's starving. Changes in our patterns
and our rate of food consumption can
eventually free more foodstuffs for the
hungry. A reduction in meat consump-
tion of just 5 percent would free 6 million
tons of grain, for instance.
It is true that changes in consumption
patterns may not immediately create
more grain for aid. But reducing our con-
sumption would prevent higher domestic
food prices that some argue would be
the result of increasing our food aid. And
over time, the altered patterns of con-
sumption will produce a greater surplus
for those in need.
Despite the threat of famine, our Gov-
ernment has yet to utter the first word
of any food conservation program. Such
insensitivity indicts us before millions of
our hungry neighbors.
In the aftermath of World War I, Her-
bert Hoover, under the anthority of
President Woodrow Wilson, met the
threat of impending world famine with
a food relief program made possible in
large measure by voluntary American
"self-denial." In just 14 months 5.4 mil-
lion tons of foodstuffs were shipped to
the hungry through these efforts stem-
ming from changes in domestic food con-
sumption.
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 ? CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
'December 4, 1974, CONGRESSIONAL 'RECORD ?SENATE
As in the past, millions of Americans
today will make individual sacrifices to
help save the starving of the World, if
given national leadership.
Fourth. Redirect grain from trade with
the rich to aid for the poor.
We are presently expecting to ship
about 5.6 million tons more of corn and
wheat to Western Europe than was origi-
nally targetted by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture for the 1974-75 crop. Con-
tracts for such grain trade are presently
monitored by USDA. If the will existed
to find more grain for the needy nations
of the world, the amount going to the
well-fed nations of Europe could be
quickly and quietly reduced, without re-
sorting to export controls. Finding the
8 to 12 million tons of grain to meet im-
mediate world need is not our sole re-
sponsibility, but must be done in coopera-
tion with those other rich nations which
have the money to buy our grain. Joint-
ly reexamining needs and consumption
patterns in view of a starving world can
result in diverting some grain from those
nations who have money to those who
have only hunger.
We need not consign portions of hu-
manity to starvation and death in the
months ahead under the naive belief that
there is nothing we can do. It is within
the capacity of the world's food-rich na-
tions to avert the famine which presently
stalks millions throughout the globe. The
steps outlined above would free the grain
and foodstuffs necessary to eliminate the
deficit of need in the food-poor nations.
But to date, the United States has chosen
not to make an undaunted commitment
of its resources and leadership to this
end.
? The prospects for freedom from the
scourge of hunger in years and decades
ahead depend upon scores of actions
which the poor nations, as well as the
rich, must undertake. The agenda for
these actions was identified, at least in
part, by the World Food Conference. But
without a resolute commitment to elimi-
nate the immediate prospect of starva-
tion for millions, words and plans about
long term actions have a hollow ring, and
are mocked by the deaths of thousands
each day who have no food.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Mr. President, I
would be remiss if I did not express my
serious concern over elimination of sec-
tion 506 drawdown authority from the
present bill. As my distinguished col-
leagues are fully aware, this authority
enables the President, if he determines
it is in the security interests of the
United States, to order defense articles
from the stocks of the Department of
Defense and defense services for military
assistance, subject to reimbursement
from subsequent congressional appro-
priations available for military assist-
ance. It has existed as a valuable, inte-
gral part of our foreign assistance legis-
lation since 1961. Since that time, section
506 has been available to three Presi-
dents, all of whom have faced serious
challenges in the international arena
and have had necessary reassurance that
this emergency resource could be utilized.
The Congress not only has been consist-
ent in renewing the authority from year
to year, but also in its view that $250 mil-
lion constituted a reasonable amount for
unforeseen emergency situations.
Section 506 has been an especially
valuable resource for unforeseen contin-
gencies because the authority for Presi-
dential use of Defense Department
stocks does not exist elsewhere in any
other legislation. It should be noted also
that section 506 does not allow the com-
mitment of American troops; it only per-
mits the President to help our friends
and allies meet emergency situations
which threaten not only themselves but
also important security interests of the
United States itself.
I would remind my colleagues that the
emergency drawdown authority has only
been used three times since its inception.
Each of these cases involved situations
in which clearly definable emergency
situations could not be addressed
through normal program funding. There
is no evidence whatsoever that the au-
thority has been misused; indeed, legis-
lative safeguards have existed to deter
any possible abuses. Under previous leg-
islation, each use of section 506 has re-
quired advance notification and justifica-
tion to the Congress. Clearly, it has never
posed any threat to congressional au-
thority over the shape and direction of
foreign assistance programs, since reim-
bursement from any drawdown must
come from subsequent congressional ap-
propriations for military assistance.
Mr. President, much of my concern
over deletion of this legislative feature
relates to the direct, adverse impact that
it is likely to have over the flexibility of
action which any President must have if
he is to discharge competently his enor-
mous rseponsibilities as Chief Executive
and Commander in Chief. I do not believe
that any Member of this Congress would
disagree with the proposition that un-
anticipated emergency sitaations can
arise anywhere in the world. Indeed, the
history of America's emergence as a glob-
al power illustrates that we can expect
the unexpected. No matter haw quickly
the Congress might attempt to enact spe-
cial legislation to backstop the President
in his response to such emergency situa-
tions, we cannot move our legislative ma-
chinery with sufficient speed to match
that with which modern crises develop.
Neither can we anticipate in each an-
nual debate of foreign assistance legisla-
tion where the next crisis is likely to
arise and what specific assistance will be
needed.
We have created a multibillion-dollar
Defense Establishment to insure that our
national security requirements will be
met. Part of our defense rests with our
friends and allies, since we clearly can-
not, and should not, act as policeman
for the wmild. Since national defense
and mutual security are inseparable, it
therefore makes sense to utilize a modest
portion of our own defense stocks if an
emergency threatens the security of our
allies?and thus our own security as well.
In my view, it is unnecessary as well as
unduly risky to abolish the single legisla-
tive device by which this transfer of de-
fense materiel can take place, if re-
quired. I say unnecessary because there
is no evidence that the authority ever
has been abused, and risky because tying
S 20603
the President's hands and building a leg-
islative wall around our defense stocks
could allow some future, unforeseen in-
ternational event to escalate into a di-
rect threat to our national security.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the
new foreign assistance bill would re-
sult in phasing out the military assist-
ance program within 3 years. The even-
tual demise of pure grant aid is indeed
a commendable goal, especially now that
our defense partners increasingly are
able to obtain neeed materiel and serv-
ices through credit programs. However,
I seriously question whether the impo-
sition of this relatively early deadline is
equally commendable.
It is my understanding that the De-
partments of State and Defense have
been sympathetic to the eventual phase-
out of MAP for a number of years. Their
efforts to implement this goal deserve
mention. Since fiscal year 1952, grants
have been reduced from $5.7 billion to a
little more than half a billion dollars
in fiscal yar 1973. Ten years ago, 52
countries received MAP materiel; today,
only 20 countries receive such assistance,
and, among these 11 have only token
programa.of less than $31/2 million each.
The Western European NATO -coun-
tries, commensurate with their increas-
ing prosperity, have shifted from MAP
to credit or cash purchases. The same
thing is true in the case of Japan,
Greece, Taiwan, and many African
nations. In Latin America, MAP aid
has dropped approximately 75 percent
in the past 10 years. At the present
time, our Latin American programs in-
volve mainly training.
This is of comparatively greater bene-
fit to the United States than to the re-
cipient nations in view a the resultant
influence and good will we are able to
maintain in their respective armed
forces.
Barring unforeseen circumstances., it
Is unlikely that MAP requirements will
rim more than $200 million 'during each
of the next few years. However, to force
this process by setting an arbitrary time
limit will merely necessitate requests for
special legislation and impede planning
for a more normal" phasedown process.
Mr. President, we must remind our-
selves that the rationale for MAP assist-
ance is not to engage in meaningless
give-away programs. Its purpose is to
provide needed materiel and training for
friends and allies whose security and
defense posture impacts directly on our
own..
Obviously, we desire to accomplish this
assistance in the most economical fash-
ion, but we have to deal with the reality
of who can afford to pay for what. For-
tunately, the trend is toward increasing
credit and cash sales, but legislating an
arbitrary phaseout cannot alter the
reality of whether certain defense part-
ners can assume the entire financial bur-
den without some outside help.
The present burden falls most heavily
in the area of Southeast Asia, where we
are disengaging from more than a dec-
ade of -military involvement entailing
vast expenditures and precious American
lives.. We have extricated ourselves to a
remarkable extent, and there is still hope
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE December 4, 1974
fur negotiated final settlements on ac-
ceptable terms.
It would be folly to jeopardize this dif-
ficult process with a rigid timetable for
eliminating vital assistance. The same
loaic applies to the Middle East, where
grant assistance to Israel and Jordan is
playing an important role in sustaining
these hard-pressed friends.
The grant MAP mechanism has proved
to be a valuable one over the years. Its
continued existence within annual for-
Man assistance legislation does not mean
an automatically greater foreign aid bur-
den. It is the Congress, after all, which
determines through the authorization
mid appropriation processes what?if
any?programs shall exist. This is all the
more reason to avoid unnecessary tam-
pering with the mechanism until we are
convinced that it has outlived its use-
fulness.
It is impossible at this moment to pre-
dice whether MAP will become outmoded
in fiscal year 1977, or sooner, or later. It
is my sincere belief, however, that we
should not attempt an impossible task
of prediction by setting an arbitrary date.
When MAP needs to be dismantled, we
con perceive the need and act accord-
ingly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
having been read the third time, the
question is. Shall it pass? On this ques-
tion, the yeas and nays have been or-
dered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the roll,
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from North Carolina
(Mr. Eavnsi), the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. FULBRIGHT) , the Senator from In-
diana (Mr. Haaxxx), the Senator from
Colorado (Mr. HASKELL) , and the Sen-
ator from Washington (Mr. MaowasoN)
e necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator frbm
Georgia (Mr. TALMADGE) is absent be-
cause of illness.
I further announce that, if present
mid voting, the Senator from Washing-
ton (Mr. MAGNU.SON) would vote "nay."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON) ,
the Senator from New York (Mr.
BUCKLEY) , and the Senator from Ne-
braska (Mr. Hausica) are necessarily
absent.
The result was announced?yeas 46,
neys 45, as follows:
[No. 522 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Aiken Hart Pearson
Biker Hathaway Percy
Bull Huddleston Ribicoff
Bimnett Humphrey SchWeiker
Bntsen Inouye Scott. Hugh
Jackson Sparkman
thee Javits Stafford
Clark Kennedy Stevens
Cook Mathias Stevenson
Cotton McGee Taft
Cranston McIntyre Thurmond.
Domenici Metcalf Tower
Dominick Metzenbaum Tunney
1,,mg Mondale Williams
Gravel Moss
Muskie
NAYS-45
Abourezk. Brock
Allen Burdick Church
Bartlett Byrd. Curtis
Bsiyh Harry F., Jr. Dole
Bible Byrd, Robert C. Eagleton
Biden Cannon Eastland
Fannin
Goldwater
Gurney
Hansen
Hatfield
Helms
Mansfield Proxmire
McClellan Randolph
McClure Roth
McEiovern Scott,
Moatoya, William L.
Nelson Stennis
Nunn Symington
Packwood. Weicker
Pastore Young
Pell
NOT VOTING-9
Fulbright Ilruska
Barak? Magnuson
Haskell Tsiniadge
after July
ceipts
year from
or from
eign assistance
be made
for use for
chapter 1
shall be
cellaneous
SEC. 6.
is amended
Hollings
Hughes
Johnston
Long
Bellmon
Buckley
Ervin.
So the bill (8. 3394) was passed, as
follows:
S. 3394
An act to amend the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961, and for other purpores
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". '
FOOD AND NUTRITION
SEC. 2. Section '103 of the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1961 is amended?
(1) by inserting the subsection designa-
tion "(a)" immediately before "In";
(2) by striking , out "$291,000,000, for each
of the fiscal years ,1974 and :1975" and insert-
ing in lieu thereof "6291,000,000 for the fiscal
year 1974, and $530,000,000 for the fiscal
year 1975"; and
(3) by adding at the end 'thereof the fol-
lowing:
"(b) The Congress finds that, due to rising
world food, fertilizer, and petroleum costs,
human suffering and deprivation are grow-
ing in the poorest end most slowly developing
countries. The greatest potential for signifi-
cantly expanding world food production at
relatively low Cost lies in increasing
the productivity of small farmers who
constitute a rciajority of the nearly
one billion people living in those coun-
tries. Increasing the emphasis on rural
development and 'expanded food production
in the poorest nations of the developing
world is a matter' of social justice as well as
an important factor in slowing the rate of
Inflation in the industrialized countries. In
the allocation of ! funds under this, section.,
special attention ehould be given to increas-
ing agricultural production in the countries:
with per capita Incomes under $300 a year
and which are the most severely &fleeted by
sharp increases in worldwide commodity
prices.
"(c) Of the total amount obligated under
this Act during any fiscal year atter fiscal
year 1975 to prceiure fertilizers for, and to
provide such fertilizers to, foreign Countries.,
not more than One-third of such amount
may be obligated With respect to South Viet-
nam."
POPULATION PLANNING
SEC. 3. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
is amended as follows:
(1) In section 104, strike out "$14,5,000:000
for each of the ecal years 1974 and 1975"
and insert in lieu thereof "$145,000,000 for
the fiscal year 1974, and $165,000,000 for the
fiscal year 1975".
(2) In se-tion 292, strike out "8130,000,-
000" and insert in lieu thereof "6150,000,000".
EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMEN T
SEC. 1. Section 105 of the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1961 Is amended by striking out
"$90,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1974
and 1975" and inserting in lieu thereof "$90,-
000,000 for the flacal year 1974, and. $92,000,-
000 for the fiscal year 1975".
DISPOSITION OF LOAN RE L .r.AVTS
SEC. 5. Section 203 of the Foreign Atsist-
ance Act of 1961 is amended to read as fol-
lows:
"Sze. 203. FISCAL Paovisrows.--On and
1, 1975, none of the dollar re-
scheduled to be paid during any fiscal
loans made pursuant to this part
loans made under predecessor for-
legislation are authorized to
available during any fiscal year
purposes of making loans under
of this part. All such receipts
deposited in the Treasury as mis-
receipts."
HOUSING GUARANTIES
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
as follows:
(1) In section 221, strike out "$305,000-
000" and insert in lieu thereof "$405,000-
000".
(2) In section 223(1), strike out "June 30,
1975" and insert in lieu thereof "June 30,
1976".
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAM:;
SEC. 7. (a) Title III of chapter 2 of part I
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is
amended?
(1) by striking out the title heading
and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"TITLE III?HOUSING AND OTHER
CREDIT GUARANTY PROGRAMS";
(2) by inserting immediately after section
222 the following new section:
"See. 222A. AGRICULTURAL AND PRODUCTIVE
CREDIT AND SELF-HELP COMMUNITY DEVELOP-
MENT PROGRAMS.? ( It IS the sense of the
Congress that in order to stimulate the par-
ticipation of the private sector in the eco-
nomic development of less-developed coun-
tries in Latin America, the authority con-
ferred by this section should be used to es-
tablish pilot programs in not more than five
Latin American countries to encourage pri-
vate banks, credit institutions, similar pri-
vate lending organizations, cooperatives, and
private nonprofit development organizations
to make loans on reasonable terms to orga-
nized groups and individuals residing in a
community for the purpose of enabling such
groups and individuals to -carry out agricul-
tural credit and self-help communitv devel-
opment projects for which they are unable
to obtain financial assistance on reasonable
terms. Agricultural credit and assistance for
self-help community development projects
should include, but not be limited to, ma-
terial and such projects as wells, pumps,
farm machinery, improved seed, fertilizer,
pesticides, vocational training, food indus-
try development, nutrition projects, im-
proved breeding stock for farm animals, san-
itation facilities, and looms and other han-
dicraft aids.
(b) To carry out the purposes of subsea-
tion (a), the agency primarily responsible for
administering part I is authorized to issue
guaranties, on such terms and conditions as
it shall determine, to private lendir g Matt-
tutions, cooperatives, and private nonprofit
? development organizations in not more than
five Latin American countries assuring
against loss of not to exceed 50 per centum of
the portfolio of such loans made by any lend-
er to organized groups or individuals residing
In a community to enable such groups or in-
dividuals to carry out agricultural credit and
self-help community development projects
for which they are unable to obtain finan-
cial assistance on reasonable terms. In no
event shall the liability of the United States
exceed 75 per centmn of any one loan.
"(c) The total face amount of guaranties
issued under this section outstanding at any
one time shall not exceed s15,000,600. Not
more than 10 per centum of such sum shall
be provided for any one institution, coop-
erative, or organization. .
"(d) The Inter-American Foundation shall
be consulted in developing criteria for mak-
ing loans eligible for guaranty coverage in
Latin America under this section.
"(e) Not to exceed $3,000,000 of the guar-
anty reserve established under section 223
(b) shall be available to make such pay-
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
- Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, /974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE S 20605
ments as may be necessary to discharge lia-
bilities under guaranties issued under this
section or any guaranties previously issued
under section 240 of this Act.
"(f) Funds held by the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation pursuant to section
236 may be available for meeting necessary
administrative and operating expenses for
carrying out the provisims of this section
through June 30, 1976.
"(g) The Overseas Private Investment
Corporation shall, upon enactment of this
subseCtion, transfer to the agency primarily
responsible for administering part I all ob-
ligations, assets, and related rights and re-
sponsibilities arising out of, or related to
the predecessor program provided for in sec-
tion 240 of this Act.
"(h) The authority of this section shall
continue until December 31, 1977.
"(1) Notwithstanding the limitation in
subsection (c) of this section, foreign cur-
rencies owned by the United States and de-
termined by the Secretary of the Treasury
to be excess to the needs of the United States
may be utilized to carry out the purposes of
this section, including the discharge of lia-
bilities under this subsection. The authority
conferred by this subsection shall be in
addition to authority conferred by any other
provision of law to implement guaranty pro-
grams utilizing excess local currency.
"(j) The President shall, on or before
January 16, 1976, make a detailed report to
the Congress on the results of the program
established under this section, together with
such recommendations as he may deem
appropriate.";
(3) by striking out "section 221 or sec-
tion 222" in section 223(a) and inserting
"section 221, 222, or 222A" in lieu thereof;
(4) by striking out "this title" in section
223(b) and inserting "section 221 and sec-
tion 222" in lieu thereof; and
(5) by striking out "section 221 or sec-
tion 222" in section 223(d) and inserting
"section 221, 222, 222A, or previously under
section 240 of this Act" in lieu thereof.
(b) Title /V of chapter 2 of part I of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended
by striking out section 240.
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND
PROGRAMS
Sno. 8. Section 302(a) of the Foreign As-
sistance Act of 1961 is amended by striking'
out "for the fiscal year 1975, $150,000,000"
and inserting in lieu thereof "for the fiscal
year 1975, $186,900,000".
MILITARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 9. Section 504(a) of the Foreign As-
sistance Act of 1961 is amended by striking
out "6512,500,000 for the fiscal year 1974"
and inserting in lieu thereof "$550,000,000
for the fiscal year 1975".
SPECIAL AUTHORITY
SEC. 10. Section 506 of the Foreign As-
sistance Act of 1961 is repealed.
MILITARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR
SOUTH VIETNAM
SEC. 11. Section 513 of the Foreign As-
sistance Act of 1961 is amended as follows:
(1) Strike out "Thailand and Laos" in
the caption and insert in lieu thereof "Thai-
land, Laos, and South Vietnam".
(2) At the end thereof add the following
new subsection:
"(c) After June 30, 1976, no military assist-
-11=e shall be furnished by the United States
to South Vietnam directly or through any
other foreign country unless that assistance
is authorized under this Act or the Foreign
Military Sales Act."
EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES
SEC. 12. (a) Chapter 2 of part II of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended
by adding at the end thereof the following
new section;
"Snc. 514. LIMITATION ON THE GRANT OF
EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES?.(a) The aggregate
original acquisition cost of excess defense
articles ordered during the fiscal year 1975
under this chapter for foreign countries
and international organizations shall not ex-
ceed $150,000,000.
"(b) The value of any excess defense ar-
ticle furnished under this chapter to a for-
eign country or international organization
by any agency of the United States Govern-
ment shall be considered to be an expendi-
ture made from funds appropriated under
section 504 of this Act. Unless such agency
certifies to the Comptroller General of the
United States that the excess defense ar-
ticle it is ordering is not to be transferred
by any means to a foreign country or inter-
national organization, when an order is
placed for a defense article whose stock status
is excess at the time ordered, a sum equal
to the value thereof (less amounts to be
transferred under section 632(d) of this Act)
shall (1) be reserved and transferred to a
suspense account, (2) remain in the suspense
account until the excess defense article is
either delivered to a foreign country or in-
ternational organization or the order there-
for is canceled, and (3) be transferred from
the suspense account to (A) the general
fund of the Treasury upon delivery of such
article, or (B) the appropriation made under
section 504 of this Act for the current fiscal
year upon cancellation of the order. Such
sum shall be transferred to the appropria-
tion made under section 504 of this Act for
the current fiscal year, upon delivery of such
article, if at the time of delivery the stock
status of the article is determined in ac-
cordance with section 614(g) or (m) of this
Act to be nonexcess.
"(c) The President shall promptly and
fully inform the Speaker of the Rouse of
Representatives and the Committee on For-
eign Relations and the Committee on Ap-
propriations of the Senate of each decision
to furnish on a grant basis to any country
excess defense articles which are major weap-
ons systems to the extent such major weap-
ons system was not included in the presenta-
tion material previously submitted to the
Congress. Additionally, the President shall
also submit a quarterly report to the Con-
gress listing by country the total value of all
deliveries of excess defense articles, disclos-
ing both the aggregate original acquisition
cost and the aggregate value at the time of
delivery."
(b) Sections 8 and 11 of the Act entitled
"An Act to amend the Foreign Military Sales
Act, and for other purposes", approved Jan-
uary 12, 1971 (84 Stat. 2053), as amended,
are repealed.
STOCKPILING OF DEFENSE ARTICLES FOR
FOREIGN COUNTRIES
SEC. 13. Chapter 2 of part II of the For-
eign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended by
section 12 of this Act, is further amended
by adding at the end thereof the following
new section:
"SEC. 515. STOCKPILING OF DEFENSE ARTI-
CLES FOR FOREIGN COUNTRIES.?(a) Notwith-
standing any other provision of law, no
funds, other than funds made available
under this chapter or section 401(?of
Public Law 89-367 (80 Stat. 37), or any sub-
sequent corresponding legislation, may be
Obligated for the purpose of stockpiling any
defense article or war reserve material, in-
cluding the acquisition, storage, or main-
tenance of any war reserve equipment, sec-
ondary items, or munitions, if such article
or material is set aside, reserved, or in any
way earmarked or intended for future use by
any foreign country under this Act or such
section.
"(b) The cost of any such article or ma-
terial set aside, reserved, or in any way ear-
marked or intended by the Department of
Defense for future use by, for, or on behalf
of the country referred to in section 401
(a) (1) of Public Law 89-367 (80 Stat. 37)
shall be charged against the limitation spec-
ified in such section or any subsequent
corresponding legislation, for the fiscal year
in which such article or material is set
aside, reserved, or otherwise earmarked or
intended; and the cost of any such article
or material set aside, reserved, or in any
way earmarked or intended for future use by,
for, or on behalf of any other foreign coun-
try shall be charged against funds author-
ized under this chapter for the fiscal year in
which such article or material is set aside,
reserved, or otherwise earmarked. No such
article or material may be made available
to or for use by any foreign country unless
such article or material has been charged
against the limitation specified in such sec-
tion, or any subsequent corresponding leg-
islation, or against funds authorized under
this chapter, as appropriate."
MILITARY ASS/STANCE ADVISORY GROUPS AND
MISSIONS
SEC. 14. Chapter 2 of part II of the For-
eign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended by
sections 12(a) and 13 of this Act, is further
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new section:
"SEC. 516. MILITARY ASSISTANCE ADVISORY
GROUPS AND MissioNs.?Effective July 1,
1975, an amount equal to each sum expended
under any provision of law, other than sec-
tion 504 of this Act, with respect to any mili-
tary assistance advisory group, military mis-
sion., or other organization of the United
States performing activities similar to such
group or missioRposhall be deducted from the
funds made available under such section 504,
and (1) if reimbursement of such amount is
requested by the agency of the United States
Government making the expenditure, reim-
bursed to that agency, or (2) if no such re-
imbursement is requested, deposited in the
Treasury as miscellaneous receipts."
TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY
SEC. 15. (a) Chapter 2 of part I/ of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1981,- as amended
by sections 12, 13, and 14 of this Act, is
further amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new section:
"SEC. 517. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.?
(a) (1) The President shall gradually reduce
assistance (other than military training)
provided under this chapter so that, not
later than September 30, 1977, no assistance
(other than military training) shall be pro-
vided under this chapter.
"(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection
shall not apply to funds obligated prior to
October 1, 1977.
"(b) For each of the fiscal years 1975,
1976, and 1977, the President is authorized
to finance procurements of defense articles
and defense services (other than military
training) by any foreign country receiving
defense articles or defense services during
fiscal year 1974 under this chapter on terms
providing for payment to the United States
Government in United States dollars (1) of
the value of such articles and services which
value shall not exceed during each such fis-
cal year the value of such articles and serv-
ices (other than military training) furnished
that country in fiscal year 1974 under this
chapter, (2) at a -rate of interest of not less
than four per centum a year, and (3) within
ten years after delivery of the defense arti-
cles or rendering of the defense services.
"(c) (1) By not later than September 30,
1977, all the functions of a military assist-
ance advisory group, a military mission, or
other organization of the United States Gov-
ernment in a foreign country performing ac-
tivities similar to any such group or mis-
sion. shall be transferred to the ,Chief of
the United States Diplomatic Mission to that
country. Upon the transfer of such func-
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20606
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ---- SENATE Deee, ilfer 4, 1974
Lions, that group, mission, or organization,
as the case may be, shall cease to exist.
"(2) On and after October 1, 1917, the
total number of military attaches assigned
or detailed to the United States Diplomatic
Mission of a foreign country shall not exceed
by more than twenty-five per centum the
total number of military attaches authorized
to be assigned or detailed to that mission on
June 30. 1974.
"(3) On and after October 1, 1077, no
military assistance advisory group, military
mission, or other organization of the United
States Government in a foreign country per-
forming activities similar to any such group
or mission, shall be established or continued
unless sstich group, mission, or organization
is authorized by law specifically for that
country."
(b) Effective October 1, 1977?
(1) the heading of chapter 1 of part II of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended
to read as follows:
"CitAPTER 1?PROVIDING MILITARY TRAINING";
(2) sections 501, 502A, 514, and 516, and
subsection (g) of section 644 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 are repealed;
(2) section 502 of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 is amended by striking out the
caption "Utilization of Defense Articles and
Services" and inserting in lieu thereof "Pro-
viding Military Training", by striking out of
the text "Defense articles and defense serv-
ices" and inserting in lieu thereof "Military
training", and by striking out the last sen-
tence;
(4) the heading of chapter 2 of part If of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is
amended to read as follows:
"Cnapeaa 2?MILITARY TRAINING";
(5) chapter 2 of part It of the Foreign As-
sistance Act of 1961 is amended by striking
out section 503 through 505 and inserting
in lieu thereof the following:
"Sec. 503. GENERAL AUTHORITY .?The Presi-
dent is authorized to furnish, on such terms
and conditions consistent with this Act as
the President may determine, military train-
ing to any foreign country or international
organization. Funds for such training shall
be appropriated for each fiscal year pursuant
to authorization for that fiscal year. After
September 30, 1977, no such training shall be
conducted outside the United States except
by specific authorization of law.";
(6) section 511 of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 is amended by striking out of the-
section caption "Assistance" and inserting in
lieu thereof "Training", and by striking out
of the text "military assistance" and "such
assistance" and inserting in lieu thereof
"military training" and "such training", re-
spectively;
(7) section 636(g) (1) of the Foreign As-
sistance Act of 1961 is amended by striking
out "defense articles and defense services on
a grant or sales basis" and inserting in lieu
thereof "military training"; and
(e) section 644(m) of the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1961 is amended by striking out
subparagraph (1) and by striking out of sub-
paragraphs (2) and (3) "nonexcess" wher-
ever it appears.
ER MIN ATION OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO
SOUTH KOREA
SEC. IS. Chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended by see-
tions 12(a), 13, 14, and 15(a) of this Act, Is
further amended by adding at the end there-
of the following new section:
"Sac. 518. TERMINATION OF MILITARY ASSIST-
ANCE; TO SOUTH KOREA.? (a) The total of (1)
the amount of funds obligated under this
chapter to furnish assistance to South Korea,
and (2) the value of excess defense articles
furnished to South Korea under this chapter,
Sh Pit not exceed?
"(A) $91,500,000 during the fiscal year
1975;
"(B) 651,000,000 during the fiscal year
1376; and
"(C) $30,500,000 during fiscal year 1077.
"(b) The aggregate total of credits ex-
tended, including participations in credits,
and the principal amount of loalae guar-
anteed, under the Foreign Military Sales Act
with respect to South Korea shall not
exceed?
"(1) $42,450,000 during the fiscal year /975;
"(2) $28,330,000 during the fiscal year
1976; and
"(3) $14,150,000 during the fiscal year
1977.
"(c) On and after October :1, 1977, no
assistance shall be furnished South Korea
under this chapter, and no credits, including
participations in credits, shall be extended,
and no loans shall be guaranteed, under the
Foreign Military Sales Act with respect to
South Korea. The preceding sentence shall
not apply with respect to funds obligated
prior to such date."
SECURITY SUPPORTING ASSISTANCE
SEC. 17. Section 532 of the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1961 is amended by striking out
tor the fiscal year 1974 not to exceed $125,-
000,000, of which not less than $50,000,000
shall be available solely for Israel" and in-
serting in lieu thereof "for the fiscal year
1975 not to exceed $675,000,000". .
TRANSFER BETWEEN ACCOUNTS
SEC. 18. (a) Section 610 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a), immediately after
'any other provision of this Act", insert
(except funds made available under chapter
2 of part II of this Act) ".
(2) Add at the end thereof the following
new subsection:
"(c) Any :Cands which the President has
notified Congress pursuant to section 653
that he intends to provide in militaey assist-
ance to any country may be- transferred to,
and consolidated with, any other funds he
has notified Congress pursuant to such sec-
tion that he intends to provide to that coun-
try for development assistance purposes."
(b) Section 614 of such Act is amended by
adding at the end of subsection (a) the fol-
lowing: "The authority of this section shall
not be used to waive the limitations on
I ransfers contained in section 610(a) of this
Act.".
SUFTENSTO \I OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO
TURKEY
SEC. 19. Section 620 of the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1961 is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following new-subsec-
tion:
"(x) All military assistance, all sales of
defense articles and services (whether for
cash or by credit, guarantee, or any other
means), and all licenses with respect to the
transportation of arms, ammunitions, and
implements of war (including techni-
cal data relating thereto) to the Govern-
ment of Turkey shall be suspended on the
date of enactment of this sub,section unless
and until the President determines and cer-
lilies to the Congress that the Government of
Turkey is in compliance with the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, the Foreign.Milifary
Sales Act, and any agreement entered into
under such Acts, and that substantial prog-
ress toward agreement has bee:n made re-
garding military forces in Cyprus.":
Provided, That the President is . authorized
to suspend the provisions of this section and
said Acts if he determines that such sus-
pension will further negotiations for a peace-
ful solution of the Cyprus conflict. Any such
suspension shall be effective only until thirty
days after the convening of the ninety-fourth
Congress, and only if, during that time, Tur-
key shall observe the cease-fire and shall
neither increase its forces on Cyprus nor
transfer to Cyprus any United States sup-
plied implements of war.
ASSISTANCE TO GREECE
SEC. 20. Section 620(v) of the Foreign As-
sistance Act of 1961 is repealed.
LIMITATION UPON ASSISTANCE TO OR FOR CHILE
Sac. 21. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law, the total amount of assistance
that may be made available for Chile under
this or any other law during fiscal year 1975
may not exceed $55,000,000, none of which
may be made available for the purpose of
providing military assistance (including se-
curity supporting assistance, sales, credit
sales, or guaranties or the furnishing by any
means of excess defense articles or items
from stockpiles of the Department of
Defense).
RECONSTRUCTION, RELIEF, AND REHABILITATION
SEC. 22. (a) Section 639B of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 is amended by adding
at the end thereof the following: "Notwith-
standing any prohibitions or restrictions con-
tained in this or any other Act, the President
is authorized to furnish assistance Oct such
terms and conditions as he may determine,
for reconstruction and economic develop-
ment programs in the drought-stricken na-
tions of Africa."
(b) The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is
amended by adding after section 039B a new
section 6390 as follows:
"Sac. 63913. RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN
BANGLADESH AND CYPRUS.? (EL ) The Congress
finds that the recent flooding in the Peo-
ple's Republic of Bangladesh, and the civil
and international strife in the Republic of
Cyprus, have caused great suffering and
hardship for the peoples of the two Republics
which cannot be alleviated with their inter-
nal resources. The President shall make every
effort to develop and Implement programs
of relief and rehabilitation, in conjunction
with other nations providing assistance, the
United Nations, and other concerned inter-
national and regional organizations and
voluntary agencies, to alleviate the hard-
ships caused in these two nations.
"(b) Notwithstanding any prohibitions or
restrictions contained in this or any other
Act, the President is authorized to furnish
assistance on such terms and conditions as
he may determine, for disaster relief, reha-
bilitation, and related programs in the Peo-
ple's Republic of Bangladesh and the Repub-
lic of Cyprus."
(c) The Foreign Assistance Act of 1901 is
amended by adding after section 639C, as
added by subsection (b) of this section, the
following new section:
"Sac. 639D. DISASTER RELIEF AND RE HARM-
TATION.?Notwiths ta nding any prohibitions
or restrictions contained in this or -any other
Act, the President is authorized to furnish
assistance, on such terms and conditions as
he may determine for disaster relief, reha-
bilitation, and related programs in the case
of disasters that require large-scale relief and
rehabilitation efforts which cannot be met
adequately with the funds available for
obligation under section 451 of this Act."
(d) The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is
amended by adding after section 639D, as
added by subsection (c) of this section, the
following new section:
"Sec. 639E. INTERNATIONALIZATION OF AS..
sigma-Ca.?Assistance for the purposes set
forth in sections 639A, 6398, 6390, and 6391
shall be distributed wherever practicable
under the auspices of and by the United
s Nations and its specialized agencies, other
international organizations or arrangements,
multilateral institutions, and private volun-
tary agencies."
ACCESS TO CERTAIN MILITARY BASES ABROAD
SEC. 23. (a) Chapter 3 of part III of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended
by adding at the end thereof the following
new section:
"Sac. 659. ACCESS TO CERTAIN MILITARY
BASES Aeaciam?None of the funds authorized
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved FocrMasg2005/06/16 ? CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 KESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 20607
to be appropriated for foreign assistance (in-
cluding foreign military sales, credit sales,
and guaranties) under any law may be used
to provide any kind of assistance to any
foreign country in which a military base
is located if?
(1) such base was constructed or is being
maintained or operated with funds furnished
by the United States; and
"(2) personnel of the tfnited 8tates carry
out military operations from such base;
unless and until the President has deter-
mined that the government of such country
has; consistent with security authorized ac-
cess, on a regular basis, to bona fide news
media correspondents of the United States
to such military base."
(b) Section 29 of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1973 is repealed.
PROHIBITING POLICE TRAINING
SEC. 24. (a) Chapter 3 of part III of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended
by section (a) of this Act, is further amended
by adding at the end thereof the following
new section;
"Sac. 660'. PROHIBITING POLICE TRAINING.?
(a) None of the funds made available to
carry ou this Act, and none of the local cur-
rencies generated under this Act, sh'all be
used to provide training or advice, or pro-
vide any financial support, for police, prisons,
or other law enforcement forces for any
foreign government or any program of in-
ternal intelligence on surveillance on behalf
of any foreign government within the United
States or abroad.
`(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall
not apply?
"(1) with respect to assistance rendered
under section 515 (c) of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, or with
respect to any authority of the Drug En-
forcement Administration or the Federal
Bureau of Investigation which related to
crimes of the nature which are unlawful
under the laws of the United States; or
"(2) to any contract entered into prior to
the date of enactment of this section with
any person, organization, or agency of the
United States Government to provide per-
sonnel to conduct, or assist in conducting,
any such program.
Notwithstanding clause (2), subsection (a)
shall apply to any renewal or extension of
any contract referred to in such paragraph
entered into on or after such date of enact-
ment."
(b) Section 112 of such Act is repealed.
LIMITING INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
SEC. 26. Chapter 3 of part III of the For-
eign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended by
sections 23(a) and 24 of this Act, is further
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new section:
"Sac. 661. LIM/TATIONS UPON INTELLIGENCE
ACTIVITIES.?(a) NO funds appropriated
under the authority of this or any other
Act may be expended by or on behalf of the
Central Intelligence Agency or any other
agency of the United States Government for
the conduct of operations in foreign coun-
tries pursuant to section 102(d) (5) of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
403), other than operations intended solely
for obtaining necessary intelligence. Not-
withstanding the foregoing limitation, the
President may authorize and,direct that any
operation in a foreign country rse resumed,
or that any other operation in a foreign
country be initiated, and funds may be ex-
pended therefor, if, but not before, he (1)
finds that such operation is important to
the national security, and (2) transmits an
appropriate report of his finding, together
with an appropriate description of the
nature and scope of such operation, to the
committees of the Congress having jurisdic-
tion to monitor and review the intelligence
activities of the United States Government.
"(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of
this section shall not apply during military
operations by the United States under a
declaration of war approved by the Congress
or an exercise of powers by the President
under the War Powers Resolution."
WAIVER OF PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSISTANCE
TO COUNTRIES ENGAGING IN CERTAIN TRADE
SEC. 26. Chapter 3 of part III of the For-
eign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended by
sections 24 and 26 of this Act, is further
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new section:
"Sac. 662. WAIVER OF PROHIBITION AGAINST
ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIES ENGAGING IN CER-
TAIN Tasaa.?Any provision of this Act or the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assist-
ance Act of 1954 which prohibits assistance
to a country because that country is engag-
ing in trade with a designated country may
be waived by the President if he determines
that such waiver is in the national interest
and reports such determination to the Con-
gress."
POLICY WITH RESPECT TO INDOCHINA
SEC. 27. (a) The Congress finds that the
cease-fire provided for in the Paris Agree-
ment on Ending the War and Restoring
Peace in Vietnam has not been observed by
any of the Vietnamese parties to the con-
flict. Military operations of an offensive and
defensive nature continue throughout South
Vietnam. In Cambodia, the civil war between
insurgent forces and the Lon Nol govern-
ment has intensified, resulting in widespread
human suffering and the virtual destruction
of the Cambodian economy.
(b) The Congress further finds that con-
tinuation of the military struggles in South
Vietnam and Cambodia are not in the inter-
est of the parties directly engaged in the
conflicts, the people of Indochina, or world
peace. In order to lessen the human suffering
In Indochina and to bring about a genuine
peace there, the Congress urges and requests
the President and the Secretary, of State to
undertake immediately the following meas-
ures:
(1) to initiate negotiations with represent-
atives of the Soviet Union and the People's
Republic of China to arrange a mutually
agreed-upon and rapid de-escalation of mili-
tary assistance on the part of the three prin-
cipal suppliers of arms and material to all
Vietnamese and Cambodian parties engaged
in conflict;
(2) to urge by all available means that the
Government of the Khmer Republic enter
into negotiations with representatives of the
Khmer Government of National Union for
the purpose of arranging an immediate
ceasefire and political settlement of the con-
flict; and to use all available means to estab-
lish contact with the Khmer Government of
National Union and to urge them to partici-
pate in such negotiations. The United States
should urge all Cambodian parties to use the
good offices of the United Nations or a
respected third country for the purpose of
bringing an end to hostilities and reaching
a political settlement;
(3) to utilize any public or private forum
to negotiate directly with representatives of
the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the
Provisional Revolutionary Government, and
the Republic of Vietnam to seek a new cease-
fire in Vietnam and full compliance with the
provisions of the Paris Agreement on End-
ing the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam,
including a full accounting for Americans
missing in Indochina;
(4) to reconvene the Paris Conference to
seek full implementation of the provisions
of the Agreement of January 27, 1973, on the
part of all Vietnamese parties to the conflict;
and
(5) to maintain regular and full consulta-
tion with the appropriate cdmmittees of the
Congress and report to the Congress and the
Nation at regular intervals on the progress
toward obtaining a total cessation of hostil-
ities in Indochina and a mutual reduction
of military assistance to that area.
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING ECONOMIC AID TO
INDOCHINA
SEC. 28. (a) Congress finds that, after ex-
pending over a billion dollars in funds for
economic purposes in Indochina last year,
and vast amounts in previous years, little in
lasting economic benefit remains. A large
proportion of the funds expended have been
used for consumable items related to the
war effort. Very litle of our money has found
its way into capital investments, of a lasting
productive benefit to the people. Congress
calls upon the President and Secretary of
State to take immediately the following
actions designed to maximize the benefit of
United States economic assistance:
(1) to organize a consortiiim to include
multilateral financial institutions to help
plan for Indochina reconstruction and de-
velopment; to coordinate multilateral and
bilateral contributions to the area's economic
recovery; and to provide continuing advice
to the recipient nations on the use of their
own and outside resources;
(2) to develop, in coordination with the
recipient governments, other donors, and
the multilateral financial institutions, a
comprehensive plan for Indochina recon-
struction and economic development;
(3) to develop country-by-country recon-
struction and development plans, including
detailed plans for the development of in-
dividual economic sectors, that can be used
to identify and coordinate specific economic
development projects and programs and to
direct United States resources into areas of
maximum benefits;
(4) to shift the emphasis of United States
aid programs from consumption-oriented
expenditures to economic development;
(5) to identify possible structural eco-
nomic reforms in areas such as taxation, ex-
change rates, savings mechanisms, internal
pricing, income distribution, land tenure,
budgetary allocations and corruption, which
Should be undertaken if Indochinese eco-
nomic development is to progress;
(6) to include in Indochina economic
planning programing specific performance
criteria and standards which will enable the
Congress and the executive branch to judge
the adequacy of the recipients' efforts and to
determine whether, and what amounts of,
continued United States funding is justified;
and
(7) to provide humanitarian assistance to
Indochina wherever practicable under the
auspices of and by the United Nations and
its specialized agencies, other international
organizations or arrangements, multilateral
institutions, and private voluntary agencies
with a minimum presence and activity of
United States Government personnel.
(b) This section shall not be construed
to imply continuation of a United States
financial commitment beyond the authoriza-
tion provided for in this Act or amendments
made by this Act.
INDOCHINA POSTWAR RECONSTRUCTION
Sac. 29 Section 802 of the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1961 is amended to read as fol-
lows:'
"Sac. 302. AuTnoinzArioN.?There are au-
thorized to be appropriated to the President
to furnish assistance for the relief and recon-
struction of South Vietnam, Cambodia, and
Laos as authorized by this part, in addition
to funds otherwise available for such pur-
poses, for the fiscal year 1974 not to exceed
$504,000,000, and for the fiscal year 1975 not
to exceed $617,000,000. Of the amount appro-
priated for fiscal year 1975?
"(1) $449,900,000 shall be available only
for the relief and reconstruction of South
Vietnam in accordance with section 806 of
this Act;
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/18 CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20608 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE December 4, 1974
"(2) $100,000,000 shall be available only for
the relief and reconstruction of Cambodia in
accordance with section 807 of this Act;
"(3) $10,000,000 shall be available only for
the relief and reconstruction of Laos in ac-
cordance with section 808 of this Act;
"(4) $4,100,000 shall be available only for
the regional development program;
"(5) $16,000,000 shall be available only for
support costs for the agency primarily re-
sponsible for carrying out this part; and
"(6) $7,000,000 shall be available only for
humanitarian assistance through interna-
tional organizations. Such amounts are au-
thorized to remain available until expended."
ASSISTANCE TO SOUTH VIETNAMESE CHILDRFN
SEC. 30. Section 803 of the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1961 is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a), strike out "rights,
particularly children fathered by United
States citizens" and insert in lieu thereof
"rights".
(2) In subsection (b), immediately after
the second sentence, insert the following:
"Of the sum's made available for South
Vietnam under section 802(1) of this Act
for fiscal year 1975, $10,000,000, or its equiv-
alent in local currency, shall be available
until expended solely to carry out this sec-
tion."
LIMITATIONS WITH RESPECT TO SOUTH
VIETNAM
SEC. 31. Part V of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new section:
"Sec. 806. LIMITATIONS WITH RESPECT TO
SOUTH VIETNAM.?(a) Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, no funds authorized
to be appropriated by this or any other law
may be obligated in any amount in excess
of $1,271,900,000 during the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1975, for the purpose of carry-
? ing out directly or indirectly any economic or
military assistance, or any operation, proj-
ect, or program of any kind, or for providing
any goods, supplies, materials, equipment,
services, personnel, or advisers in, to, for,
or on behalf of South Vietnam. Of that
amount, there shall be available during such
fiscal year?
(1) $700,000,000 for military assistance;
"(2) $125,000,000 only to carry out the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assist-
ance Act of 1954; and
"(3) $449,900,000 only for economic as-
sistance, of which there shall be available?
"(A) $90,000,000 for humanitarian assist-
ance, of which there shall be available?
(I) $70,000,000 for refugee relief;
"(it) $10,000,000 for child care; and
"(di) $10,000,000 for health care;
"(B) $154,500,000 for agricultural assist-
ance, of which there shall be available?
"(I) $85,000,000 for fertilizer;
"(it) $12,000,000 for POL (for agriculture);
"(iii) $6,000,000 for insecticides and pesti-
cides;
"(iv) $10,000,000 for agricultural machin-
ery and equipment (including spare parts);
"(v) $3,500,000 for agricultural advisory
services;
"(vi) $20,000,000 for rural credit;
"(vii) $10,000,000 for canal dredging;
"(viii) $4,000,000 for low-lift pumps; and
"(ix) $4,000,0000 for fish farm develop-
ment;
"(C) $139,800,000 for industrial develop-
ment assistance, of which there shall be
available?
"(I) $124,000,000 for commodities;
"(ii) $10,000,000 for industrial credit; and
"(iii) $5,800,000 for industrial advisory
services (including feasibility studies);
"(D) $65,600,000 for miscellaneous assist-
ance, of which there shall be available?
"(i) $47,900,000 for the service sector (in-
cluding POL, machinery, equipment and
spare parts); and
"(ii) $17,700,000 for technical services and
operating expenses.
"(b) (1) No funds made available under
paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) may
be transferred to, or consolidated with, the
funds made available under any other para-
graph of such subsection, nor may more than
20 per centum of the funds made available
under subparagraph (A) , (B), (C), or (D) of
paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of this sec-
tion be transferred to, or consolidated with,
the funds made available under any other
such subparagraph.
"(2) 'Whenever the President determines it
to be necessary in carrying out this part, any
funds made available under any clause of
subparagraph (A), (B), (C), os (D) of sub-
section (a) of this section may be trans-
ferred to, and consolidated with, the funds
made available under any other clause of
that same subparagraph.
"(3) The President shall fully inform. the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Striate of each transfer he intends to make
under paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsec-
tion prior to making such transfer.
"(c) In computing the $1,274.900,000 limi-
tation on obligational authority under sub-
section (a) of this section With respect to
such fiscal year, there shall be included in
the computation the value .of any goods,
supplies, materials, equipment, services,
personnel, or advisers provided to, for, or
on' behalf of South Vietnam in such fiscal
year by gift, donation, loan., lease, or other-
wise. For the purpose of this subsection,
'value' means the fair market value of any
goods, supplies, materials, ot equipment
provided to, for, or on behalf of South
Vietnam but in no case less than 33I,/ per
centum of the amount the 'United States
paid at the time such goods, supplies, mate-
rials, or equipment were acquired by the
United States.
"(d) No funds may be obligated for any
of the purposes described in subsection (a)
of this section in, to, for, or on behalf of
South Vietnam in any fiscal year beginning
after. June 30, 1975, unless such funds have
been specifically authorized by law enacted
after the date of enactment of this section.
In no case shall funds in any amount in
excess of the amount specifically author-
ized by law for any fiscal year be obligated
for any Such purpose during such fiscal
year..
"(e) After the date of enactment of this
section, whenever any request is made to
the Congress for the appropriation of funds
for use in, to, for, or on behalf of South
Vietnam for any fiscal year, the President
shall furnish a written report to the Con-
gress explaining the purpose for which such
funds are to be used in such fiscal year.
"(f) The President shall submit to the
Congress within thirty days after the end
of each quarter of each fiscal year, begin-
ning with the fiscal year which begins July
1, 1974, a written report showing the total
amount of funds obligated in, to, for, or
on behalf of South Vietnam during the
preceding quarter by the United States
Government, and shall include in such re-
port a general breakdown of the total
amount obligated, describing the different
purposes for which such funds were obli-
gated and the total amount obligated for
such purpose.
"(g) (1) Effective six months after the date
of enactment of this section, the total num-
ber of civilian officers and employees, in-
cluding contract employees, of executive
agencies of the United States Government
who are citizens of the United States and
of members of the Armed Forces of the
United States present in South Vietnam
shall not at any one time exceed four thou-
sand, not more than two thousand five
hundred of whom shall be members of such
armed forces and direct hire an contract
employees of the Department of Defense.
Effective one year after the date of enactment
of this section, such total number shall not
exceed at any one time three thousand, not
more than one thousand five hundred of
whom shall be members of such armed
forces and direct hire and contract em-
ployees of the Department of Defense.
"(2) Effective six months after the date of
enactment of this section, the United States
shall not, at any one time, pay in whole
or in part, directly or indirectly, the com-
pensation or allowances of more than eight
hundred individuals in South Vietnam who
are citizens of countries other than South
Vietnam or the United States. Effective one
year after the date of enactment of this
section, the total number of individuals
whose compensation or allowance is so paid
shall not exceed at any one time five hundred.
"(3) For purposes of this subsection, 'ex-
ecutive agency of the United States Govern-
ment' means any agency, department, board,
wholly or partly owned corporation, instru-
mentality,' commission, or establishment
within the executive branch of the United
States Government.
"(4) This subsection shall not be construed
to apply with respect to any individual in
South Vietnam who (A) is an employee or
volunteer worker of a voluntary private, non-
profit relief organization or is an employee
or volunteer worker of the International
Committee of the Red Cross, and (13) en-
gages only in activities providing humani-
tarian assistance in South Vietnam.
"(h) This section shall not be construed
as a commitment by the United States to
South Vietnam for its defense."
LIMITATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CAMBODIA
SEC. 32. (a) Part V of the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1961, as amended by section 31
of this Act, is further amended by adding at
the end thereof the following new section:
"Sao. 807. LIMITATIONS WITH RESPECT TO
Camnorna.?(a) Notwithstanding any other
provisions of law, no funds authorized to
be appropriated by this or any other law
may be obligated in any amount in excess
of $377,000,000 during the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1975, for the purpose of carrying
out directly or indirectly any economic or
military assistance, or any operation, proj-
ect, or program of any kind, or for providing
any goods, supplies, materials, equipment,
services, personnel, or advisers in, to, for,
or on behalf of Cambodia. Of that amount
there shall be available?
" (1) $200,000,000 for military assistance;
"(2) $77,000,000 only to carry out the
Agricultural, Trade Development and Assist-
ance Act of 1954; and
"(3) $100,000,000 only for economic assist-
ance, of which there shall be available?
"(A) $20,000,000 for humanitarian assist-
ance;
"(B) $63,000,000 for commodity import as-
sistance;
"(C) $15,000,000 for multilateral stabiliza-
tion assistance; and
"(D) $2,000,000 for technical support and
participant training.
"(b) No funds made available under para-
graph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) of this
section may be transferred to, or consoli-
dated with, the funds made available under
any other paragraph of such subsection, nor
may more than 20 per centum of the funds
made available under any subparagraph of
paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of this sec-
tion be transferred to, or consolidated with,
the funds made available under any other
such subparagraph.
"(c) In computing the $377,000,000 limita-
tion on obligation authority under subsec-
tion (a) of this section with respect to such
fiscal year, there shall be included in the
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 ? CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENA
computation the value of any goods, sup-
plies, materials, equipment, services, person-
nel, or advisers provided to, for, or on behalf
of Cambodia in such fiscal year by gift, do-
nation, loan, lease or otherwise. For the pur-
pose of this subsection, 'value' means the
fair market value of any goods, supplies, ma-
terials, or equipment provided to, for, or on
behalf of Cambodia but in no case less than
331/3 per centum of the amount the United
States paid at the time such goods, supplies,
materials, or equipment were acquired by
the United States.
"(d) No funds may be obligated for any of
the purposes described in subsection (a) of
this section in, to, for, or on behalf of Cam-
bodia in any fiscal year beginning after June
30, 1975, unless such funds have been specifi-
cally authorized by law enacted after the
date of enactment of this section. In no case
shall funds in any amount in excess of the
amount specifically authorized by law for any
fiscal year be obligated for any such purpose
during such fiscal year.
"(e) After the date of enactment of this
section, whenever any request is made to
the Congress for the appropriation of funds
for use in, to, for, or on behalf of Cambodia
./for any fiscal year, the President shall fur-
nish a written report to the Congress ex-
plaining the purpose for which such funds
are to be used in such fiscal year.
"(f) The President shall submit to the
Congress within thirty days after the end of
each quarter of each fiscal year, beginning
with the fiscal year which begins July 1, 1974,
a written report showing the total amount
of funds obligated in, to, for, or on behalf
of Cambodia during the preceding quarter
by the United States Government, and shall
include,in such report a general breakdown
of the total amount obligated, describing the
different purposes for which such funds were
obligated and the total amount obligated for
such purpose.
"(g) (1) The total number of civilian offi-
cers and employees of executive agencies of
the United States Government who are citi-
zens of :the United States and of members of
the Armed Forces of the United ?States (ex-
cluding such members while actually en-
gaged in air operations in or over Cambodia
which originate outside Cambodia) present
in Cambodia at any one time shall not exceed
two hundred.
"(2) The United States shall not, at any
one time, pay in whole or in part, directly
or indirectly, the compensation or allow-
ances of more than eighty-five individuals In
Cambodia who are citizens of countries other
than Cambodia or the United States.
"(3) For purposes of this subsection, 'ex-
ecutive agency of the United States Govern-
ment' means any agency, departnient, board,
wholly or partly owned corporation, instru-
mentality, commission, or establishment
within the executive branch of the United
States Government.
"(4) This subsection shall not be con-
strued to apply with respect to any individ-
ual in Cambodia who (A) is an employee or
volunteer worker of a voluntary private, non-
profit relief organization or is an employee
or Volunteer worker of the International
Committee of the Red Cross, and (B) en-
gages only in activities providing humani-
tarian assistance in Cambodia.
"(h) This section shall not be construed
as a commitment by the United States to
Cambodia for its defense."
(b) Sections 655 and 656 of such Act are
repealed.
LIMITATIONS WITH RESPECT TO LAOS
SEC. 33, Part V of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, as amended by sections 31 and
32(a) of this Act, is further amended by add-
ing at the end thereof the following new
section:
"SEc. 808. LIMITATIONS WITH RESPECT TO
LAOS.?(a) Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of law, no funds authorized to be
appropriated by this or any other law may
be obligated in any amount in excess of
$70,000,000 during the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1975, for the purpose of carrying
out directly or indirectly any economic or
military assistance, or any operation, proj-
ect, or program of any kind, or for providing
any goods, supplies, materials, equipment,
services, personnel, or advisers in, to, for, or
on behalf of Laos. Of that amount, there
shall be available?
"(1) $30,000,000 for military assistance;
and
"(2) $40,000,000 only for economic assist-
ance, of which there shall be available?
"(A) $11,000,000 for humanitarian assist-
ance;
"(B) $6,500,000 for reconstruction and de-
velopment assistance;
"(C) $16,100,000 for stabilization assist-
ance; and
"(D) $6,400,000 for technical support.
"(b) No funds made available under para-
graph (2) of subsection (a) of this section
may be transferred to, or consolidated with,
the funds made available under paragraph
(1) of such subsection, nor may more than
20 per centum of the funds made available
under any subparagraph of paragraph (2), be
transferred to, or consolidated with, the
funds made available under any other such
subparagraph.
'(c) In computing the limitations on ob-
ligation authority under subsection (a) of
this section with respect to such fiscal year,
there shall be included in the computation
the value of any goods, supplies, materials,
equipment, services, personnel, or advisers
provided, to, for, or on behalf of Laos in
such fiscal year by gift, donwtion, loan, lease
or otherwise. For the purpose of this subsec-
tion, 'value' means the fair market value
of any goods, supplies, materials, or equip-
ment provided to, for, or an behalf of Leas
but in no case less than 331/3 per centum of
the amount the United States paid at the
time such goods, supplies, materials, or
equipment were acquired by the United
States.
"(d) No funds may be obligated for any
of the purposes described in subsection (a)
of this section in, to, for, or on behalf of
Laos in any fiscal year beginning after June
30, 1975, unless such funds have been spe-
cifically authorized by law enacted after the
date of enactment of this section. In no case
shall funds in any amount in excess of the
amount specifically authorized by law for
any fiscal year be obligated for any such pur-
pose during such fiscal year.
"(e) After the date of enactment of this
section, whenever any request is made to the
Congress for the appropriation of funds for
use in, to, for, or on behalf of Laos, for any
fiscal year, the President shall furnish a
written report to the Congress explaining
the purpose for which such funds are to be
used in such fiscal year.
"(f) The President shall submit to the
Congress within thirty days after the end
of each quarter of each fiscal year beginning
with the fiscal year which begins July 1,
1974, a written report showing the total
amount of funds obligated in, to, for, or on
behalf of Laos during the preceding quarter
by the United States Government and shall
include in such report a general breakdown
of the total amount obligated, describing
the different purposes for which such funds
were obligated and the total amount obli-
gated for such purpose.
"(g) This section shall not be construed
as a commitment by the United States to
Laos for its defense."
POPULATION, NARCOTICS, INTERNATIONAL HU-
MANITARIAN AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS
SEC. 34. Part V of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, as amended by sections 31,52(a),
and 33 of this Act, is further amended by
S 20609
adding at the end thereof the following new
section:
"SEc. 809. POPULATION, NARCOTICS, INTER-
NATIONAL HUMANITARIAN AND REGIONAL PRO-
GRAMS.?The provisions of sections 806, 807,
and 808 shall not apply to: (1) funds obli-
gated for purposes of title X of chapter 2 of
part I (programs relating to population
growth); (2) funds made available under
section 482 (programs relating to narcotics
control); (3) funds made available under
section 802 (6) (humanitarian assistance
through international organizations); or
(4) funds obligated for regional programs."
TRANSFER OF FUNDS
SEC. 35. Part V of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, as amended by sections 31, 32(a),
33, and 34 of this Act, is further amended
by adding at the end tehreof the following
new section:
"SEc. 810. TRANSFER OF PUNDS.?( a ) The
authority of section 610 of this Act shall not
apply with respect to any funds made avail-
able to South Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos.
"(b) Any funds made available under any
provision of this or any other law for the
purpose of providing military assistance for
South Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia may be
transferred to, and consolidated with, any
funds made available to that country for war
relief, reconstruction, or general economic
development."
MIDDLE EAST ASS/STANCE
SEC. 36. (a) The Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 is amended by adding at the end there-
of the following new part:
"PART VI
"SEC. 901. GENERAL AUTHORITY FOR ASSIST-
ANCE TO THE MIDDLE EAST?The President is
authorized to furnish assistance authorized
by this Act, and to provide credits and guar-
anties authorized by the Foreign Military
Sales Act. Any such assistance, credits, and
guaranties shall be provided in accordance
with all the provisions applicable to that type
of assistance under this Act and applicable
to credits and guaranties under the Foreign
Military Sales Act.
"SEc. 902. ALLOCATIONS.?(a) Of the funds
appropriated to carry out chapter 2 of part
II of this Act during the fiscal year 1975,
not to exceed $100,000,000 may be made avail-
able for military assistance in the Middle
East.
"(b) Of the funds appropriated to carry
out chapter 4 of part H of this Act during
the fiscal year 1975, not to exceed $667,500,000
may be made available for security support-
ing assistance in the Middle East.
"(c) Of the aggregate ceiling on credits
and guaranties established by section 31(b)
of the Foreign Military Sales Act during the
fiscal year 1975, not to exceed $330,000,000
shall be available for countries in the Middle
East.
"Sec. 903. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FUND.--
(a) There are authorized to be appropriated
to the President for the fiscal year 1975 not
to exceed $100,000,000 to meet special re-
quirements arising from time to time in the
Middle East for the purpose of providing any
type of assistance authorized by part I of
this Act, in addition to funds otherwise
available for such purpose. The funds au-
thorized to be appropriated by this section
shall be available for use by the President
for assistance authorized by this Act in ac-
cordance with the provisions applicable to
the furnishing of such assistance. Such funds
are authorized to remain available until ex-
pended.
"(b) The President shall keep the Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations and the Com-
mittee on Appropriations of the Senate and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives
currently informed on the programing and
obligation of funds under subsection (a).-
"(c) (1) Prior to obligating any amount
for a project in excess of $1,000,000 from
funds made available under this section, the
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S, 20610 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE December. 4, 1974
President shall transmit a written report to
the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Foreign Relations of
the Senate on the same day giving a corn-
plete explanation with respect to such pro-
posed obligation. Each report shall include
an explanation relating to only one project.
"(2) The President may make such obli-
gation thirty days after the report has been
so transmitted unless, before the end of the
first period of thirty calendar days after the
date on which the report is transmitted, a
resolution is adopted disapproving the pro-
posed obligation with respect to which the
report is made.
"(3) Paragraphs (4) through (11) of this
subsection are enacted by Congress?
"(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking
power of the Senate and the House of Repre-
sentatives, respectively, and as such they are
deemed a part of the rules of each House.
respectively, but applicable only with respect
to the procedure to be followed in the House
in the case of resolutions described by this
subsection; and they supersede other rules
only to the extent that they are inconsist-
ent therewith; and
"(B) with full recognition of the consti-
tutional right of either Hmise to change the
rules (so far as relating to the procedure
of that House) at any time, in the same
manner, and to the same extent as in the
case of any other rule of that House.
"(4) For purposes of paragraphs (2)
through (12) of this subsection, 'resolution'
means only a concurrent resolution, the mat-
ter after the resolving clause of which is as
follows: 'That the Congress does not ap-
prove the obligation for and ex-
plained in the report transmitted to Con-
gress by the President on , 19?.', the
first blank space therein being filled with
the name of the foreign country or organi-
eation on whose behalf the obligation is to
be incurred, and the other blank spaces
therein being appropriately filled with the
date of the transmittal of the report; but
does not include a resolution specifying ob-
ligations for more than one proposed project.
"(5) If the committee, to which has been
referred a resolution disapproving a proposed
obligation, has not reported the resolution
at the end of ten calendar days after its
introduction, it is in order to move either
to discharge the committee from further
consideration of the resolution or to dis-
charge the committee from further consider-
ation of any other resolution with respect
to the same obligation which has been re-
ferred to the committee.
"(6) A motion to discharge may be made
only by an individual favoring the resolu-
tion, is highly privileged (except that it may
not be made after the committee has re-
ported a resolution with respect to the same
proposed obligation), and debate thereon is
limited to not more than one hour, to be
divided equally between those favoring and
those opposing the resolution. An amend-
ment to the motion is not in order, and it
is not in order to move to reconsider the
vote by which the motion is agreed to or
disagreed to.
"(7) If the motion to discharge is agreed
to, or disagreed to, the motion may not be
renewed, nor may another motion to dis-
charge the committee be made with respect
to any other resolution with respect to the
5' 7 me obligation.
" (8) When the committee has reported,
or has been discharged from further consid-
eration of, a resolution with respect to an
obligation, it is at any time thereafter in
order (even though a previous motion to the
same effect has been disagreed to) to move
to proceed to the consideration of the reso-
lution. The motion is highly privileged and
is not debatable. An amendment to the mo-
tion is not in order, and it is not in order
to move to reconsider the vote by which the
motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
"(9) Debate on the resolution is limited
to not more than two hours, to be divided
equally between those favoring ft,nd those
opposing the resolution. A motion further
to limit debate is not debatable. An amend-
ment to, or motion to recommit, the resolu-
tion is not in order, and it is not in order
to move to reconsider the vote by which the
resolution Is agreed to or disagreed to.
"(10) Motions to postpone, made with
respect to the discharge from committee, or
the consideration of, a resolution with re-
spect to an obligation, and motions to pro-
ceed to the consideration of other business,
are decided without debate.
"(11) Appeals from the decisions of the
Chair relating to the application of the rules
of the Senate or the House of Representa-
tives, as the case may be, to the procedure
relating to a resolution with respect to a:n
obligation are decided without debate.
"(12) If, prior to the passage by one Howse
of a concurrent resolution of that House,
that House receives from the other House
a concurrent resolution of such other House,
then?
"(A) the procedure with respect to the
concurrent resolution of the first House shall
be the same as if no concurrent resolution
from the other House had been received; but
"(B) on any vote on final passage of the
concurrent resolution of the first House the
concurrent resolution from the other House
shall be automatically substituted." (b) Sec-
tion 620(p) of such Act is repealed,
FOREIGN LIMITARY SALES ACT AMUNDIVIENTS
SEC. 37. (a) the Foreign Military Sales Act
is amended ,as follows:
(1) Section 3(d) is amended to read as
follows:
"(d) A country 'shall remain ineligible in
accordance with subsection (c) of tins section
until such time as the President determine,s
that such violation has ceased, that the
country concerned has given assurances satis-
factery to the President that such violation
will not recur, and that, if such violation
involved the transfer of sophisticated weap-
ons without the consent of the President,
such weapons have been returned to the
country concerned."
(2) Section 22 is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following new subsection:
"(c) No sales of defense articles shall be
made to the government of any economically
developed country under the .provisions of
this section if such articles are generally
available for purchase by such coubtry from
commercial sources in the United States."
(3) Section 23 is amended to read as
follows:
"Sac. 23. Cefeerr SALES.?The President is
authorized to finance procurements of de-
fense articles and defense services by friendly
foreign countries and international organize,-
tions on terms requiring the payment to the
United States Government in "United States
dollars of--
"(1) the value of such articles or services
within a period not to exceed ten years after
the delivery of such articles or the iendering
of such services; and
n(2) interest on the unpaid balance of that
obligation fonpayment of the value of such
articles or services, at a rate equivalent to the
current average interest rate, as of the last
day of the month preceding the financing of
such procurement, that the United States,
Government pays on outstanding marketable
obligations of comparable maturity, unless
the President certifies to Congress that the
national interest requires a lesser rate of
interest and states in the certification the
lesser rate so required and the justification
therefor."
(4) In subsection (a) and (b) of section
34, the parenthetical phrase in each is
amended to read as follows: "(excluding
United states Government agencies 'other
than the Federal Financing Bank)".
(5) Section 24(c) is amended to read as
follows:
"(c) Funds made available to carry out
this Act shall be obligated in an amount
equal to 25 per centum of the principal
amount of contractual liability related to
any guaranty issued prior to July 1, 1974,
under this section. Funds made available
to carry out this Act shall be obligated in
an amount equal to 10 per centum of the
principal amount of contractual liability
related to any guaranty issued after June 30,
1974, under this section. All the funds so
obligated shall constitute a single reserve
for the payment of claims under such guar-
anties, and only such of the funds in the
reserve as may be in excess from time to
time of the total principal amount of con-
tractual liability related to all outstanding
guaranties under this section shall be de-
obligated and transferred to the general
fund of the Treasury. Any guaranties issued
hereunder shall be backed by the full faith
and credit of the United States."
(6) Section 24 is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following;
"(d) The President may guarantee under
this section only those payments for any de-
fense article or defense service which are due
within ten years after that defense article
is delivered or that defense service is rend-
ered, except that such guaranty may he
made for not more than twenty years if the
President certifies to Congress that the na-
tional interest requires that the period of
guaranty be longer than ten years, and
states in the certification the country or
international organization on whose behalf
the guaranty is to be made, the period of
the guaranty, and the justification for the
longer period."
(7) (A) At the end of chapter 1 ledd the
following new section:
"Sec. 25. QUARTERLY REPORTS; CONGRES-
sroNAL APPROVAL.?(a) Not later than fifteen
days after the end of each quarter, the
President shall transmit to the Speaker of
the House of Representatives and the Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate
a report setting forth the total amount of
cash sales from stock under section 21, con-
tracts for the procurementof defense articles
or defense services under section 22, credit
sales under section 23 of this Act and guar-
anties under section 24, of this Act made
during the preceding quarter, and the coun-
try or international organization to which
such sale, credit sale, or guaranty is made
or expected to be made.
"(b) (1) The President shall transmit to
the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Foreign Relations of
the Senate- on the same day a written state-
ment giving a complete explanation with
respect to any agreement or contract to sell
or to extend credit or guaranties if?
"(A) the amount of such sale, credit sale,
or guaranty exceeds $25,000,000; or
"(B) the amount of such sale, credit sale,
or guaranty, when added to the amount of
all the sales, credit sales, and guaranties
made to that country or international orga-
nization in that fiscal year (including the
amount of any sale, credit sale, and guaranty
made to that country Or international orga-
nization -under statement of waiver in ac-
cordance with subsection (c) of 'this sec-
tion), causes the total amount of sales,
credit sales, and guaranties made to that
country in that year to exceed $50,000,000 for
the first time.
Each such statement shall include an ex-
planation relating to only one agreement or
contract to sell or to extend credit or guar-
anties, and shall be set forth?
"(1) the country or international organiza-
tion to which the sale, credit sale, or guar-
anty is made;
"(ii) the amount of the sale, credit sale,
or guaranty;
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
J Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
December 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 20611
"(iii) in the case of a sale, a description
of the defense article or service provided;
"(iv) the department, agency, or branch
of the United States Armed Forces entering
into such contract or agreement; and
"(v) the date of such agreement or con-
tract.
"(2) (A) No sale, credit sale, or guaranty
may be made under such agreement or con-
tract until the end of the first period of
thirty calendar days of continuous session
of Congress after the date on which the
statement is transmitted.
"(B) The President may make such sale,
credit sale, or guaranty thirty days after
the statement has been so transmitted un-
less, before the end of the first period of
thirty calendar days of continuous session
of Congress after the date on which the state-
ment is transmitted, Congress adopts a con-
current resolution disapproving the sale,
credit sale, or guaranty, with respect to
which the statement is made.
"(3) For purposes of paragraph (2) of this
subsection?
"(A) the continuity of a session is broken
? only by an adjournment of the Congress
sine die; and
"(B) the days on which either House is
not in session because of an adjournment
of more than three days to a day certain are
excluded in the computation of the thirty-
day period.
"(C) The provisions of paragraph (2) of
subsection (b) of this section shall not apply
if the President transmits to the Speaker of
the House of Representatives and the Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate
a statement of waiver in which he certifies
that an emergency exists which requires
such waiver in the national security interests
of the United States.
"(d) Subsections (e) through (m) of this
section are enacted by Congress?
"(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power
of the Senate and the House of Representa-
tives, respectively, and as such they are
deemed a part of the rules of each House,
respectively, but applicable only with re-
spect to the procedure to be followed in the
House in the case of resolutions described
by this section; and they supersede other
rules only to the extent that they are, in-
consistent therewith; and
"(2) with full recognition of the constitu-
tional right of either House to change the
rules (so far as relating to the procedure of
that House) at any time, in the same manner,
and to the same extent as in the case of any
other rule of that House.
"(e) For purposes of subsections (d)
through (in) of this section, "resolution"
means only a concurrent resolution, the mat-
ter after the resolving clause of which is as
follows: "That the Congress does not ap-
prove the (agreement, contract) for and
explained in the statement transmitted to
Congress by the President on , 19
the appropriate word within the parentheses
being selected, the first blank space therein
filled with the name of the foreign country
on whose behalf the sale, credit sale, or
guaranty is made, and the other blank space
therein being appropriately filled with the
date of the transmittal of the statement;
but does not include a resolution specifying
more than one sale, credit sale, or guaranty.
"(f) If the committee, to which has been
referred a resolution disapproving a sale,
credit sale, or guaranty, has not reported the
resolution at the end of ten calendar days
after its introduction, it is in order to move
either to discharge the committee from
further consideration of the resolution or to
discharge the committee from further con-
sideration of any other resolution with re-
spect to the same sale, credit sale, or
guaranty which has been referred to the
conimittee.
"(g) A motion to discharge may be made
only by an individual favoring the resolu-
tion, is highly privileged (except that it may
not be made after the committee has re-
ported a resolution with respect to the same
sale, credit sale, or guaranty), and debate
thereon is limited to not more than one
hour, to be divided equally between those
favoring and those opposing the resolution.
An amendment to the motion is not in
order, and it is not in order to move to re-
consider the vote by which the motion is
agreed to or disagreed to.
"(h) If the motion to discharge is agreed
to, or disagreed to, the motion may not be
renewed, nor may another motion to dis-
charge the committee be made with respect
to any other resolution with respect to the
same sale, credit sale, or guaranty.
"(1) When the committee has reported, or
has been discharged from further consider-
ation of, a resolution with respect to a sale,
credit sale, or guaranty, it is at any time
thereafter in order (even though a previous
motion to the same effect has been disagreed
to) to move to proceed to the consideration
of the resolution. The motion is highly privi-
leged and is not debatable. An amendment
to the motion is not in order, and it is not
in order to move to reconsider the vote by
which the motion is agreed to or disagreed
to.
"(j) Debate on the resolution is limited to
not more than two hours, to be divided be-
tween those favoring and those opposing the
resolution. A motion further to limit debate
is not debatable. An amendment to, or mo-
tion to recommit, the resolution is not in
order, and it is not in order to move to
reconsider the vote by which the resolu-
tion is agreed to or disagreed to.
"(k) Motions to postpone, made with re-
spect to the discharge from committee, or
the consideration of, a resolution with re-
spect to a sale, credit sale, or guaranty, and
motions to proceed to the consideration of
other business, are decided without debate.
"(1) Appeals from the decisions of the
Chair relating to the application of the rules
of the Senate or the House of Representa-
tives, as the case may be, to the procedure
relating to a resolution with respect to a
sale, credit sale,, or guaranty are decided
without debate.
"(m) If, prior to the passage by one House
of a concurrent resolution of that House,
that House receives from the other House
a concurrent resolution of such other House,
then?
"(1) the procedure with respect to the
concurrent resolution of the first House shall
be the same as if no concurrent resolution
from the other House had been received; but
"(2) on any vote on final passage of the
concurrent resolution of the first House the
concurrent resolution from the other House
shall be automatically substituted."
(B) Section 35(b) of such Act is repealed.
(8) In section 31.?
(A) in subsection (a), strike out "$325,000,-
000 for the fiscal year 1974" and insert in
lieu thereof "$405,000,000 for the fiscal year
1975"; and
(B) in subsection (b)?
(i) strike out "$730,000,000 for the fiscal
year 1974" and insert in lieu thereof "$872,-
500,000 for the fiscal year 19/5"; and
(ii) add at the end thereof the following
new sentence: "Of the funds made available
under subsection (a) of this section, $100,-
000,000 shall first be obligated with respect
to financing the procurement of defense
articles and defense services by Israel under
section 23 of this Act, except that Israel
shall be released from contractual liability to
repay the United States Government for the
defense articles and defense services so
financed."
(b) Obligations initially charged against
appropriations made available for purposes
authorized by section 31(a) of the Foreign
Military Sales Act after June 30, 1974, and
prior to the enactment of the amendment of
that Act by paragraph (5) of subsection (a)
of this section in an amount equal to 25 per
centum of the principal amount of Con trac-
tual liability related to guaranties issued
pursuant to section 24(a) of that Act shall
be adjusted to reflect such amendment with
proper credit to the appropriations made
available in the fiscal year 1975 to carry out
that Act.
POLITICAL PRISONERS
SEC. 38. Section 32 of the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1973 is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following new sentence:
"Commencing with respect to 1974, the Presi-
dent shall submit annually to the Speaker
of the House of Representatives and the Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a
written report setting forth fully the steps
he has taken to carry out this section."
GORGAS MEMORIAL INSTITUTE
SEC. 39. The first section of the Act entitled
"An Act to authorize a permanent annual
appropriation for the maintenance and oper-
ation of the Gorgas Memorial", approved
May 7, 1928, as amended (22 U.S.C. 278), is
amended by striking out "$500,000" and in-
serting in lieu thereof "$1,000,000".
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF CONTROL AND
SUPERVISION IN VIETNAM
SEC. 40. (a) There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of State for
fiscal year 1975 not to exceed $16,526,000 for
payments by the United States to help meet
expenses of the International Commission
of Control and Supervision in Vietnam.
Funds appropriated under this subsection
are authorized to be made available for re-
imbursement to the Agency for International
Development of amounts expended by the
Agency during fiscal year 1975 as interim
United States payments to help meet ex-
penses of the International Commission
of Control and Supervision.
(b) There are authorized to be appropri-
ated to the Department of State not to ex-
ceed $11,200,000 for reimbursement to the
Agency for International Development Of
amounts expended by the Agency for Inter-
national Development to help meet expenses
of the International Commission on Control
and Supervision in fiscal year 1974.
(c) Reimbursements received by the
Agency for International Development un-
der this section may be credited to applicable
appropriations of the Agency and Shall be
available for the purposes for which such
appropriations are authorized to be used
during fiscal year 1975.
POLICY ON ASSISTANCE TO AFRICA
SEC. 41. The President is requested to re-
view the regional allocation of economic de-
velopment-assistance and to increase Africa's
share of the Agency for International Devel-
opment loads and grants. Per capita official
development assistance to the developing
countries of Africa, including both United
States bilateral assistance and United States
contributions to multilateral lending institu-
tions, should. be raised to a level at least
equal to those for Asia and Latin America.
A special effort should be made to provide
more assistance to the sixteen of the world's
twenty-five least developed countries that
are in Africa and tO the fourteen African
nations that are judged to be most seriously
affected by rising costs of flood and fuel. The
President is requested to make a report to
Congress on action taken to provide the
developing countries of Africa with, an equi-
table share of United States economic assist-
ance at the time that the Agency for Inter-
national Development's operational year
budget for fiscal year 1975 is submitted to
Congress and again with the submission to
Congress of the proposed Agency for In-
ternational Development budget for fiscal
year 1976.
POLICY ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF ANGOLA, MO-
ZAMBIQUE, AND GUINEA-BISSAU
SEC. 42. (a) (1) Congress finds that the
Government of Portugal's recognition of the
right to independence of the African terri-
tories of Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20612
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE December 4, /974
Bissau marks a significant advance toward
the goal of self-determination for all the peo-
ples of Africa, without which peace on the
continent is not secure.
(2) Congress finds that progress toward
independence for the Portuguese Govern-
ment and African leaders on the timing and
nature of progress toward independence are
being conducted with the aim of bringing
permanent peace and stability to these coun-
tries and of guaranteeing the human rights
of all their citizens.
(3) Congress finds that progress toward in-
dependence for the Portuguese African terri-
tories will have a significant impact on the
international organizations and the com-
munity of nations.
(4) Congress commends the Portuguese
Government's initiatives on these fronts as
evidence of a reaffirmation of that Govern-
ment's support for her obligations under
both the United Nations Charter and the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
(le) Therefore, Congress calls upon the
Pt esident and the Secretary of State to take
the following actions designed to make clear
United States support for a peaceful and or-
derly transition to independence in the Por-
t naueee African territories;
(1) An official statement should be issued
of United States support for the independ-
ence of Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-
Biesau, and of our desire to have good rela-
tions with the future governments of the
countries.
(2) It should be made clear to the Govern-
ment of Portugal that we view the efforts
toward a peaceful and just settlement of the
conflict in the African territories as consist-
ent with Portugal's obligations under the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization partner-
sh.p.
(3) The United States should encourage
United Nations support for a peaceful tran-
sition to independence, negotiated settle-
ment of all differences, and the protection
of human rights of all citizens of the three
territories.
(4) The United States should open a dialog
with potential leaders of Angola, Mozam-
bique, and Guinea-Bissau and assure them
of our commitment to their genuine political
and economic independence.
(5) The economic development needs of
the three territories will be immense when
independence is achieved. Therefore, it is
urged that the United States Agency for
International Development devote imme-
diate attention to assessing the economic
situation in Angola, Mozambique, and
Guinea-Bissau and be ready to cooperate
with the future governments in providing
the kind of assistance that Will help make
their independence viable. In addition, the
United States Government should take the
initiative among other donors, both bilateral
and multilateral, in seeking significant con-
tribution of development assistance for the
three terra tories.
(6) In light of the need of Angola, Mozam-
bique, and Guinea-Bissau for skilled and
educated manpower, a priority consideration
should be given to expanding immediately
current United States programs of educa-
tional assistance to the territories as a timely
and substantive contribution to their inde-
pendence.
(c) Reports should be submitted to the
Congress on the implementation of the pro-
posals set forth in subsection (b) and Con-
gress should be kept fully informed on de-
velopments in United States policy toward
the independence of the Portuguese African
territories.
(d) Since it is in the national interest of
the United States to maintain and strengthen
close relations with the independent nations
of Africa, the Congress believes the positive
initiatives should be undertaken without
delay.
CONVENTIONAL ARMS TRADE
SEC. 43. (a) It is the sense of the Congress
that the recent growth in international
transfers of conventional arms to develop-
ing nations?
(1) is a cause for grave concern for the
United States and other nations in that in
particular areas of the world it increases the
danger of potential violence among nations,
and diverts scarce world resources from more
peaceful uses; and
(2) could be controlled progressively
through negotiations and agreements among
supplier and recipient nations.
(b) Therefore, the President is urged to
propose to the Geneva Conference of the
bommittee on Disarmament that It consider
as a high priority agenda item discussions
among part.cipating nations of that Confer-
ence for the purposes of?
(1) agreeing to workable limitations on
conventional arms transfers; and
(2) establishing a mechanism through
which such limitations could be effectively
monitored.
(c) The President shall transmit to the
Congress not later than six months after
the enactment of this Act a report setting
forth the steps he has taken to carry out
this section.
CARD3D CAN DEVELOPMENT RANH
Sac. 44. (a) The President is authorized to
transmit to the Caribbean Development Bank
an instrument stating that the Common-
wealth of Puerto Rica has the authority to
conclude an agreement of accession with
such bank and to assume rights and obliga-
tions pursuant to such agreement. However,
such agreement shall be subject to the prior
approval of the President.
(b) The instrument transmitted by the
President to the Caribbean lDevelopnlent
Bank under subsection (a) shall state that
the United States shall not assume any
financial or other responsibility for the per-
formance of any obligation incurred by the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico pursuant to
much agreement of accession or pursuant to
iny other aspect of its membership or par-
ticipation in such bank.
(c) Such agreement of accession shall pro-
vide that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
may not receive from the Caribbean De-
velopment Bank any funds provided to the
bank by the United States.
OMPENSES OF UNITED STATES ME MBEISHIP IN
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC,
AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
SEC. 45. No funds authorized to be ap-
oropriated under this or any other lave may
be made available to the United Nations
1,:'ducational, Scientific, and Cultural Orga-
nization until the Secretary of State certifies
that each resolution passed by such Orga-
nization not of an educational, scienitific, or
cultural character has been repealed.
i.INITTATION nN CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED
NATIONS
SEC. 46. Notwithstanding any other pro-
visions of this Act, total contributions au-
thorized herein to the United Nations or
to any segment or subdivision of this world
organization shah not exceed $165,000,000.
ASSISTANCE TO PORTUGAL AND PORTUGUESE
COLONIES IN AFRICA GAINING rbr DEPEND -
ENCE
SEC 47, Part I of the Foreign Assistance
act of 1961 is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following:
"'CHAPTER X?ASSISTANCE TO PORTUGAL AND
PORTUGUESE COLONIES IN &ERIC/. GAIN-
ING INDEPENDENCE
"SEC. 496. ASSISTANCE TO PORTUGAL AND
PORTUGUESE COLONIES IN AFRICA GAIN/NG IN-
DEPENDENCE..--(a) There are authortzed to be
appropriated to the President for the fiscal
year 1975, in addition to funds otherwise
available for such purposes, not to exceed- -
"(1) $5,000,000 to make grants': and
"(2) $50,000,000 to make loans;
to remain available until expended, for use
by the President in providing economic as-
sistance, on such terms and conditions as he
may determine, for Portugal and the coun-
tries and colonies in Africa which were, prior
to April 25, 1974, colonies of Portugal. Of
such assistance, not more than 50 per cen-
turn shall be furnished to Portugal.
"(b) It is the sense of the Congress that
the new government in portugal should be
commended for its commitment to inde-
pendence for Portuguese African colonies.
The Congress declares it to be the policy of
the United States to support the democratic
experiment in Portugal, and the independent
development of the nations emerging in
Africa."
INTEGRATION OF WOMEN
Sac. 48. Chapter 3 of part III of the For-
eign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended by
adding at the end thereof the following new
section:
"Sac. 305. INTEGRATION OF Woman.?The
President is requested to instruct each rep-
resentative of the United States to each in-
ternational organization of which the
United States is a member (including but
not limited to the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development, the Asian
Development Bank, the Inter-American De-
velopment Bank, the International Monetary
Fund, the United Nations, and the Organi-
zation for Economic Cooperation and Devel-
opment) to carry out their duties with re-
spect to such organizations in such a man-
ner as to encourage and promote the
integration of women into the national
economies of member and recipient coun-
tries and into professional and policy-
making positions within such organizatione,
thereby improving the status of women."
POLICY WITH RESPECT TO COUNTRIES MOST
SERIOUSLY AFFECTED BY FOOD SHORTAGES
SEC. 49. (a) The Congress finds that tight
food availabilities throughout the world
threatens the citizens of many countries
with serious hunger and malnutrition. While
In the past foreign policy considerations
have represented a significant factor in the
allocation of available food and fertilizer
assistance, the current food emergency re-
quires an immediate reordering of priorities
under which such assistance is distributed
worldwide. The United Nations has desig-
nated thirty-two countries as "Most Seri-
ously Affected" by the current economic
crisis. These are countries without the in-
ternal food production capability nor the
foreign exchange availability to secure food
to meet their immediate food requirements.
The Congress calls upon the President and
Secretary of State to take immediately the
following actions designed to mobilize all
appropriate resources to meet the food
emergency:
(1) Immediately review and make appro-
priate adjustments in the level of program-
ming of our food and fertilizer assistance
programs to make the maximum feasible vol-
ume of food and fertilizer available to those
countries most seriously affected by current
food shortages.
(2) Call upon all traditional and potential
new donors of food, fertilizer, or the means
of financing these commodities to immedi-
ately increase their participation in efforts to
address the emergency food needs of the de-
veloping world.
(3) Make available to these most seriously
affected countries the maximum feasible vol-
ume of food commodities, within appropri-
ate regard to the current domestic price and
supply situations.
(4) Maintain regular and full consultation
with the appropriate committees of the Con-
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
?,,mber 4, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE
gress and report to the Congress and the Na-
tion on steps which are being taken to meet
this food emergency. In accordance with this
provision, the President shall report to the
Congress on the following: (A) a global as-
sessment by country of food needs for fiscal
year 1975, specifying expected food grain def-
icits by country and current arrangements
for meeting such deficits; (B) currently
planned programing of commodities under
Public Law 480 by country and within such
country, by volume and commodity and; (C)
steps which are being taken to encourage
other countries to increase their participa-
tion in food assistance or the financing of
food assistance. Such report should reach
the Congress within thirty days of enactment
of this Act and should be supplemented
quarterly for the remainder of fiscal year
1975.
(5) Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no funds authorized to be appro-
priated by this or any other law may be ob-
ligated in any amount in excess of
$250,000,000 during the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1975, for the purpose of providing
concessional food aid assistance, or in excess
of 690,000,000 for the purpose of providing
fertilizer under our foreign assistance pro-
grams, unless such funds are used to pur-
chase commodities for countries "Most
Seriously Affected" by the economic crisis as
designated by the United Nations, or unless
the President demonstrates to the appro-
priate committees of the Congress that the
use of such funds to purchase food assistance
is solely for humanitarian food purposes.
(6) The Congress calls upon the President
to proceed immediately with the implemen-
tation of resolutions and recommendations
adopted by the World Food Conference. The
Congress firmly believes that it is incum-
bent upon the United States to take a lead-
ing role in assisting in the development of a
viable and coherent world food policy which
would begin the task of alleviating wide-
spread hunger and suffering prevalent in
famine-stricken nations. The President shall
report to the Congress within ninety days
of enactment of this Act on the implementa-
tion of the resolutions and the extent to
which the United States is participating in
the implementation of resolutions adopted
at the World Food Conference.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which the
bill was passed.
Mr. JAVITS. I move fo lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Montana.
? Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the Sec-
retary of the Senate be authorized to
make technical corrections in the en-
grossment of S. 3394, the bill as passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The Senate will be in order.
NOMINATION OF ROBERT A. SEA-
MANS, JR., TO BE ADMINISTRA-
TOR OF ERDA, AND NOMINATION
OF DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR?
REQUEST FOR JOINT REFERRAL
TO THE COMMIITEE ON INTE-
RIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS AND
THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON
ATOMIC ENERGY
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the nomination
of Mr. Seamans to be Administrator of
ERDA, and the Deputy Administrator,
be referred jointly to the Interior Com-
mittee and the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, with the understanding
that all Members of the Senate from
other committees having jurisdictional
claims over at least a part of the respon-
sibilities to be administered by the Ad-
ministrator of ERDA?namely the Pub-
lic Works Committee, the Commerce
Committee and the Space Committee?
will be invited to participate in those
hearings; further, that the hearings be
conducted under the chairmanship of
the distinguished Senator from Wash-
ington (Mr. JACKSON) .
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, reserv-
ing the right to object?and I will not
object---
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum briefly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD/Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
withdraw the request, but I would po
out that these are nominations se
down.
S 20613
of the Senate and House conferees re-
solving the differences in H.R. 11929 as
it passed in the House of Representa-
tives last March and in the Senate on
Nove.rnber 19. While the agreement con-
tains much of the language of the
Senate-passed bill, I feel it reflects the
position Adopted in both Houses that
immediate relief must be provided to the
TVA to relieve some of the pressure of
heavy capital costs upon spiraling rates.
In that regard I would note that TVA
announced after its quarterly rate review
yesterday an increase in rates averaging
12 percent for residential power users.
That brings rate increases in the valley
announced in 1974 to 26 percent with a
fuel escalation increase of about 6 per-
cent on top of it. And this year's increase
follows on the heels of increases totaling
73 percent in rates between 1967 and
1973.
Mr. President, as I have stated in
earlier consideration of this legislation,
the TVA power consumer is the only
electrical customer in the Nation who
bears the entire cost of capital improve-
ments upon his electrical system. Cus-
tomers of private power systems have
been afforded relief from the burdens of
apacity expansion and environmental
ontrol construction programs through
creasingly generous tax writeoffs. Yet
all of TVA's capital requirements must
e generated either directly or indirectly
through charges for electricity.
There have been virtually no Federal
moneys invested in the TVA power pro-
gram over the last decade and a half.
But it has been over that same period
that most of TVA's power program has
been constructed.
The Federal Government owns TVA?
is the sole owner. Yet the Federal in-
vestment in power assets has shrunk
from over $1.2 billion in 1960 to about
$1 billion in 1974 while the total invest-
ment in power assets has increased from
$1.8 billion to almost $5 billion.
Only the TVA of all power companies
Is faced with an obligation to virtually
eliminate "equity investment" during
this time of heavy capital -needs and
tight capital.
The conference report on H.R. 11929
will not permanently solve these prob-
lems, but it will provide TVA power con-
sumers temporary relief from a portion
of the burden of environmental control
investment during a period when that in-
vestment will be particularly heavy and
the measure will afford Congress time to
review the TVA financing picture:
HISTORY OF HR. 1 i 929
Mr. President, the bill passed by the
Senate on November 19 had originally
carried the designation S. 8057. When
introduced it was identical to H.R. 11929
which passed the House in March of this
year.
Under that bill, the TVA would have
received full and direct credits for its
expenditures on pollution control equip-
ment against the annual repayments and
return payments required under the TVA
Bond Financing Act of 1959. The bill
went further to allow expenditures on
such facilities in excess of the annual re-
payment obligation to be credited
against the basic obligation. Thus, under ?
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
POLLUTION PREVENTION FACIL-
ITIES?CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I submit' a
report of the committee of conference on
H.R. 11929, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re-
port will be stated by title.
The Legislative Clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the amendment of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 11929) to amend section 15d of the
Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933
to provide that expenditures for pollu-
tion control facilities will be credited
against required power investment re-
turn payments and repayments, having
met, after full and free conference, have
agreed to recommend and do recommend
their respective Houses this report,
igned by all the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
bjection to the consideration of the
onference report?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
reserving the right to object?and I have
no intention of objecting?has this mat-
ter been cleared with the appropriate
Senator' on this side of the aisle?
Mr. BAKER. Yes; it has been cleared
with Senator RANDOLPH, chairman of the
Committee on Public Works and others
interested therein.
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report.
(The conference report is printed in
the House proceedings of the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD of December 3, 1974, at p.
H11258.)
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, the con-
ference report presently before the Sen-
ate contains the unanimous agreement
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
S 20614
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE December 4,
the House-passed bill, TVA would have
rapidly retired the entire obligation
created by the 1959 act.
While there is substantial justification
for review and modification of the finan-
cial burdens which have been placed
upon TVA, it was the wisdom of the
f:enate Public Works Committee that a
broader and more incisive analysis of
TVA's financial picture is needed before
such fundamental changes are under-
taken. Thus the bill was modified in
committee to provide temporary assist-
ance to TVA's ratepayers while this re-
view is undertaken.
S. 3057, as reported from the Senate
Public Works Committee and subse-
quently adopted in the Senate, provided
that TVA could defer the repayment or
any of fiscal years 1976 through 1980, in
which expenditures for pollution control
equipment exceed the $20 million re-
quired annual repayment. The bill fur-
ther provided that TVA could credit ad-
ditional expenditures for such equipment
against the required return payment
during any year in which the repayment
was deferred.
Under the Senate-passed bill, the
amount of any return so credited would.
have been added to the appropriation's
in.vestment
This latter provision, section 2 of the
Senate bill, became the most substantial
issue in conference on the measure. The
House conferees receded and accepted
both the Senate position with regard to
limiting the bill to a temporary period,
thus preserving the basic repayment
obligation, and the Senate redefinition
of certified pollution control facilities.
which was significantly more restrictive
than the House provision. In turn, the
Senate receded from their position on
section 2 of the bill.
The conference agreement constitutes
then a 5-year suspension of the obliga-
tions created by the 1959 act, provided
that expenditures for certifiable pollu-
tion control equipment meet projections.
At the end of the 5-year period?in fiscal
year 1981?the repayment and return
payment obligation of TVA will, barring
further congressional action, again go
into full effect.
Mr. President, it has been asserted
during the course of congressional con-
sideration of this measure that it rep
resents"special interest" legislation. I
would like to conclude with a brief
observation regarding that assertion.
The TVA is a public corporation whose
basic powers, authorities and obligations
are specified by Congress. It is the re-
sponsibility of Congress to remain aware
of the problems of the TVA and to take
steps to see that it remains a viable in-
stitution callable of fulfilling the man-
date which Congress has imposed upon
the corporation.
The approval of S. 3057 by the Senate
of this conference report on that meas-
ure will only partially acquit the Senate
of that responsibility with regard to
TVA's financial picture. Many of the is-
sues before Congress during debate on S.
:l057--H.R. 11929 will come up again dur-
ing further action in the next several
sessions. If Congress is compelled, and I
am sure that it will not be, to abdicate
this responsibility on the basis that as-
sistance to TVA is "special interest" leg-
islation, then TVA's ability to keep pace
with the electric generation industry will
be hampered.
Mr. President, many persons believe
that the TVA is a regional concern, but
the entire Nation has received benefits
from TVA since its establishment in 1933.
And, indeed, national benefits were ab.-
ticipated by those who supported the au-
thorizing legislation.
One national benefit of TVA which
may not have been anticipated by its
creators, but which is of great signif-
icance today is that the fuel selection
decisions of TVA in the past reflected
sound public policy decisions.
Because of the greater utilisation cif
electric power as an energy source with-
in the Tennessee Valley Authority's serv-
ice area, the per capita consumption of
petroleum products, such as fuel oil and
natural gas, items of short supply, is con-
siderably less in the valley than in other
sections of the Nation. An unexpected
benefit was realized during the winter
of 1973-74 when the TVA area's fuel use
patterns made it possible for homes in
every part of the Nation to be a little
warmer.
The use of alternative fuels, primarily
coal, as a source of steam for generation
of electricity means more of the scarce
fuel oil and natural gas is available to
other parts of the Nation than would be
the case if normal usage patterns were
followed in the TVA area.
Mr. President, I am pleased that the
Senate has accepted and passed the con-
ference report on H.R. 11929. This action
will greatly ease inflationary pressures
in the Tennessee Valley and will provide
an Opportunity to undertake badly
needed review of the TVA financial
picture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the confer-
ence report.
? The conference report was agreed to.
ORDER FOR ADJOURN'MENT TO
10 A.M. TOMORROW .
Mr. ROBERT C. :BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today that
it stand in adjournment until the hour
of 10 o'clock tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF SEN-
ATOR HELMS, SENATOR GRugg/4,
AND SENATOR MANSFIELD
Mr. ROBERT C. :BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that after rec-
ognition of the two leaders or their des-
ignees under the standing order, the fol-
lowing Senators be recognized, each for
not to exceed 15 minutes, and in the
order stated: Mr. HELMS, Mr. GRIFFIN,
and Mr. MANSFIELD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR THE TRANSACTION OF
ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS
TOMORROW
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that after the
orders for the recognition of Senators
have been consummated on tomorrow,
there be a period for the transaction of
routine morning business of not to ex-
ceed 15 minutes, with statements therein
limited to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR THE RECOGNITION OF
SENATOR METZENBAUM ON TUES-
DAY, DECEMBER 10, 1974
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that on Tues-
day next, after the two leaders or their
designees have been recognized under
the standing order, Mr. METZENBAUM be
recognized for not to exceed 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR SESSIONS OF THE SEN-
ATE TO COMMENCE AT 9 A.M.
AFTER MONDAY, DECEMBER 9,
1974
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that after Mon-
day next, the Senate meet daily at 9 a.m.
throughout next week, including Satur-
day, and the following week, including
Saturday.
The PRESIDING OlgoICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ISSUES IN THE ROCKEFELLER
NOMINATION?PART I
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for nearly
4 months now, the Senate has been con-
sidering the nomination of Mr. Nelson
Rockefeller to be Vice President of the
United States. This nomination is an
historic event because, for the first time,
the Nation will have both a President
and a Vice President, neither of whom
will have been approved by the voters
through the electoral process. Perhaps
the framers of the 25th amendment fore-
saw such a possibility. Certainly it is a
logical consequence of the processes laid
down in that amendment. But the theory
of the amendment is one thing, and the
practical working out of the theory is
another. It is only now that we under-
stand the practical significance of select-
ing our Vice Presidents under its terms.
The strength of the American Presi-
dency is that the President and Vice
President are selected by the mandate
of the people through the electoral sys-
tem. The 25th amendment was passed to
fill a vacancy in the office of Vice Presi-
dent in case of death, resignation, or
succession to the Presidency. I think that
in the minds of most people the latter
case was uppermost; the elected Vice
President could succeed to the Presi-
dency leaving a vacancy behind. The
chances of a Vice President selected un-
der the 25th amendment becoming
Approved For Release 2005/06/16 : CIA-RDP79-00957A000100020024-2 ?