Слике страница
PDF
ePub

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

Fighters, interdicters: 35 DH Vampire (ex-RCAF), Britain; 30 North American F-51D Mustang, 15 Republic F-47 Thunderbolt.

Bombers, patrollers: North American B-25 Mitchell, DH Mosquito 6, Britain; Convair PBY-5A Catalina.

Transports:

Curtiss C-46 Commando, Beech C-45 Expediter, Aero L-26 Commander, DHC L-20 Beaver.

Helicopters: Few Bell 47.

Trainers, support: Beech T-11 Kansan, Vultee BT-13A Valiant, Boeing PT-17 Kaydet, North American T-6 Texan.

Other types: Cessna 170, Boeing B-17 Fortress (ASR), Bristol Beaufighter 10, Canada.

ECUADOR (AND GALAPAGOS ISLAND)

Fighter, interdicters: 16 Gloster Meteor PR-9, Britain Republican F-4.

Bombers, patrollers: six English Electric Canberra B-6, Britain.

Transports: Douglas C-47 Dakota, Beech C-45 Expediter.

Trainers, support: Fairchild PT-19 Cornell, North American AT-6 Texan.

[blocks in formation]

Fighters, interdicters: 34 DH Vampire 52, 6 Republic F-47D Thunderbolt, Canada. Bombers, patrollers: two Douglas A-24 Dauntless, North American B-25 Mitchell.

Transports: Beech C-45 Expediter, Douglas C-47 Dakota, few Helio Courier, two Fokker F-27 (VIP), Netherlands.

Trainers, support: 30 Lockheed T-33, Beech AT-11 Kansan, Beech AT-7-F2, Fairchild PT-19, Stearman PT-17, Vultee BT-13A Valiant, 15 North American AT-6 Texan, 2 DH Vampire T-55, Canada; 30 North American T-28A, few Beech T-34.

Helicopters: one Hiller E4 (VIP), three Hiller 12E.

[blocks in formation]

Fighters, interdicters: one squadron Lockheed F-80, few North American F-51D. Bombers, patrollers: one squadron North American B-25J Mitchell.

Transports: Few Douglas C-47, six Curtiss C-46, one DH (C) L-20 Beaver, Canada. Trainers, support: 6 Lockheed T-33Q, 12 DH Chipmunk, Fairchild PT-26 Cornell, Beech T-11B Kansan, North American T-6 Texan.

Navy planes

Fighters, strike: six Grumman F6F-5 Hell

cat.

Bombers, patrollers: eight Grumman TBM1C Avenger, few Martin PBM-5.

Transports, support: Chance-Vought OS2U-3 Kingfisher, Australia; North American SNJ-4, Fairchild PT-23A, Fairchild PT26-A, Grumman J4F-1.

VENEZUELA

Fighters, interdicters: 22 North American F-86F Sabre, Republic F-47 Thunderbolt, 22 DH Venom F-4, 20 DH Vampire FB3/5. Bombers, patrollers: North American B25J Mitchell; six English Electric Canberra B24, Britain; eight English Electric Canberra B8, Britain.

Transports: Douglas C-47 Dakota, 9 Beech D18s, Vickers Sea Otter, Britain; Douglas C54; few Helio Courier, 18 Fairchild C-123B Provider.

Trainers, support: Beech T-11 Kansan, 1 DH Vampire T-55, North American T-6 Texan, 14 Beech T-34 Mentor, 2 English Electric Canberra T-4, Britain; on order-5 Vampire T-55.

Other types: Grumman SA-16 Albatross, one MS Paris.

Helicopters: Sikorsky S-61, two Bell 47G,

one Sud Alouette II, France; on order-six Sikorsky S-56.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, in connection with the takeover of the Dominican Republic, I call attention to an interesting article entitled "Dominican Republic Bans Public Meetings," which is a special dispatch from Reuters, published in the Washington Post of today. The article, originating at Santo Domingo, reads:

The Dominican Republic

"Republic" is a euphemism; it should be "the Dominican military junta"today suspended all public meetings, demonBombers, patrollers: Convair PBY-5A strations, and picketing for 30 days. Catalina.

Navy planes

Transports, support, other types: Stinson L-5E, Sikorsky VS20-1 Kingfisher (reconnaissance), Grumman J2F-6.

In other words, it does not take long for the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom of press,

which existed under Juan Bosch, to be suspended. Now note the second sentence:

A government announcement said the measures were taken to prevent Communists from subverting public order.

Always, the usurpers claim they come in to fight communism; but within the past few days other dispatches told how on taking over the junta had jailed Communists, expelled them, and driven them from the Dominican Republic, so that presumably, that country was free of Communists. Yet now the Government of the Dominican Republic has suspended freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, in order allegedly to prevent Communists from subverting public order. The truth, of course, is that it was done to prevent the people from voicing their opposition to the military takeover and its brutal tactics of violence, imprisonment, and suppression.

This is what we can expect in every such military takeover. Such takeovers lead to oppression and to the suppression of all freedoms. They are not governments that the United States, under any circumstances, should recognize.

I notice that yesterday Great Britain recognized the Dominican Republic, and that such recognition was followed by recognition by other countries. That should not cause us to weaken. I think it is probably because of the fact that we recognized Yemen almost simultaneously with Nasser's invasion. Nasser has kept his troops in Yemen for 14 months, at a total cost of $170 million, in a war of aggression which we are, in effect, subsidizing with AID funds.

The British have not recognized the Government of Yemen, a government which would not last for a moment if Nasser were to withdraw his troops. Yemen and that area are very important to Britain, because of its interests in the adjoining country of Aden, a British protectorate, and for other reasons.

The British are probably repaying us for our prompt recognition of the new Yemen regime in a part of the world where our interest is not so great as Britain's.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD an editorial entitled "Failure in Yemen," published in this morning's Washington Post. It properly challenges our support of Nasser and his aggressions.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

FAILURE IN YEMEN

President Kennedy showed restraint in discussing the tangled affairs of the republic (or the kingdom) of Yemen. He is still hopeful that Egypt and Saudi Arabia can bilaterally agree to end intervention in the internal affairs of a country in the midst of a civil war. What he didn't say is that this country's policy in Yemen has failed, and that the chief reason for the failure has been Egypt's refusal to honor its promise to pull out 28,000 troops.

Secretary General U Thant was franker. On November 4, the United Nations will remove its 200-man observer mission, leaving only a token civilian presence in Yemen. Significantly, Mr. Thant's brief report states that during the time the U.N. observer team

was in Yemen "there were no signs of Saudi Arabian military assistance or heavy weapons in royalist areas visited by the observers."

This confirms the suspicion that Egypt will not pull out, no matter what the United States or the United Nations may do or feel. Mr. Nasser is evidently determined to continue propping up the republican regime,

though the financial drain on Egypt is formidable. At the same time, Mr. Nasser has come to the help of President Ben Bella in Algeria's border dispute with Morocco. Certainly Egypt is entitled to wage an aggressive, expansionist campaign. But should the United States continue to provide the economic aid that helps in this campaign? It is time to take a hard look at our wishful policy of giving Mr. Nasser the benefit of every doubt.

Mr. GRUENING. The situations in the Dominican Republic and the Middle East are not unrelated. In both cases, they have witnessed the rise of military dictatorships. In the case of the Middle East, the United States has been responsible for repeatedly saving Nasser, first from an overthrow which would have taken place 6 years ago if we had not intervened. We saved him from extinction and put him back into power. We have helped him ever since. The United States is not without responsibility in the aggressive war that he is now waging and has waged for 14 months in Yemen at a cost of about $170 million, while we have been pouring into Egypt a somewhat larger number of dollars. He has broken his promises to us to withdraw his troops. He is now sending his troops to

Algeria.

In

Today the Government of Morocco is severing relations with the United Arab Republic, which is Nasser's Egypt, because he has also sent troops to Algeria to help the Algerians fight Morocco. other words, Nasser is making war in several countries, threatening it in others, keeping the Middle East in a ferment, and is able to do so because we continue to send him several hundreds of millions of dollars every year which, though intended to help Egypt's economy, in effect helps finance his military ventures. We do not send our money there for that purpose, of course, but rather to help Egypt's ill-nourished, ill-housed, and illclothed population. Nevertheless, Nasser takes that money and spends an almost equivalent amount on making war in other countries.

I trust that the amendment which I submitted yesterday, together with several cosponsors, the purpose of which is to deny any assistance to those who wage aggressive warfare, as is Nasser, will be adopted when it is called up in the Senate.

Mr. MORSE. I join with the Senator in his amendment. I again commend him for the able fight he is making against this most unfortunate bill. I hope that in due course of time the amendment of the Senator from Alaska will be adopted by the Senate.

Mr. GRUENING. There are several There are several amendments.

Mr. MORSE. I refer to the one about which the Senator has just spoken.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD the article to

which I referred, entitled "Dominican Republic Bans Public Meetings." There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC BANS PUBLIC MEETINGS

ican Republic today suspended all public meetings, demonstrations, and picketing for 30 days.

SANTO DOMINGO, October 31.-The Domin

A Government announcement said the from subverting public order. measures were taken to prevent Communists

Police said a conspiracy was discovered aimed at the overthrow of the 3-man junta set up when President Juan Bosch was overthrown by a military coup last month.

Details of the conspiracy were said to have been revealed by air force officer Lt. Col. Danilo Simo. He was arrested, with another air force officer, Col. Guarien Cabrera, industrialist Soto Bermudez, and the former Santiago prosecutor, Ambiorix Diaz.

Police were also seeking former Gen. Pedro Rafel Santiago Rodriguez Echavarria.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield to the distinguished junior Senator from Colorado.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I have some information which I think would be of interest to the Senate. It has come directly from Indonesia.

Before speaking about the information, I ask unanimous consent that my amendent submitted by the Senator from name be added as a cosponsor of the Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE], which would eliminate all aid to the Republic of Indonesia.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, in order to present to the Senate the reasons for my action in this regard, perhaps the Senate would be interested to know of a letter I have received from Djakarta, Indonesia, dated October 13, 1963. It was written by an employee of the AID Administration. Because I have not been able to communicate with the writer of the letter, I shall not give his name in this speech. name in this speech. However, I have written to him and asked permission to place the entire letter in the RECORD at a later date. later date. At this time, I believe it is pertinent to read excerpts from the letter, to give an idea of what is happening to our AID program in the eyes of an AID agent who was working on the spot and knows what is taking place in that country. He writes:

DJAKARTA, INDONESIA,

October 13, 1963. DEAR SIR: I am writing this as a U.S. taxpayer and, if it were not for the fact that the regulations covering absentee ballots in the State of Colorado preclude my doing so, a voter. The following are a few comments I would like to make concerning the foreign policy of the United States in general and this policy as it pertains in particular to Indonesia. I am a U.S. AID technician working in the Indonesian malaria eradication program. I have lived in south-central Java for 31⁄2 years.

The Indonesian Government is "run" by a group of juveniles who are not in the least bit concerned about the welfare of the people which they supposedly represent. I have

seen a steadily declining standard of living to the present level where, for the average person, a month's salary is enough for 5 days. This Government is continuously trying to find a scapegoat in order to keep the peo

ple's mind off of their starving condition. The only thing this "President"

about President SukarnoThe writer of the letter is talking

is concerned about is himself, his concubines, and in making world trips. How many world trips has "President" Sukarno taken? Who has paid for the expenses of these trips? Recently this country received two large "loans." One was to stabilize the Indonesian economy (what happened to this money?) and one to purchase spare parts and raw materials which this country sorely needed. Two days after receiving the last loan, "President" Sukarno ordered two Convairs from the United States and then departed on another world tour.

Let me tell you about the program of which I am a part. The director of the national malaria eradication program is a military colonel

Again, the writer of the letter is talking about the Indonesian dictator— who has vowed "not to die a poor man” and believe me he certainly won't. There have been approximately 16 U.S. purchased vehicles which have been sold by Indonesians (without approval of AID). Supplies and other vehicles have been moved to the outer islands. The U.S. Government is not obli

gated to purchase supplies and vehicles for the outer islands. A dollar claim has been presented to the Indonesian Government for these items but, as far as I know, nothing has been paid to the U.S. Government. At the end of calendar year 1962, 6 million tab

lets of chloroquine (a malaria drug) were missing. It is assumed that these tablets were sold (or given) to the army for their invasion of west New Guinea. The United States was forced to fly emergency drugs into Indonesia from Manila. Although we (AID) insist that the vehicles which were purchased for the malaria program are to be used only for official business they are, in fact, used at least as much for unofficial business. Although our agreement with the Indonesian Government is that the United States will furnish the vehicles and the Indonesian Government will furnish replacement tires, the United States immediately shipped in new tires when the Indonesian Government failed to live up to their side of this bargain. Recently there is a shortage of 6,000 tons of DDT (at 35 cents a pound=$4.2 million). The U.S. Government has purchased enough jeep spare parts to fill a large warehouse in Djakarta. Now the Indonesians refuse to allow the U.S. AID vehicle maintenance specialist into this warehouse (no doubt they are selling these spare parts also). Jeep station wagons were imported for all U.S. AID field technicians. To date only four technicians have received their stationwagon-the Indonesians refuse to turn over the remaining two vehicles to AID. Three Chevy II's were ordered for the chief AID malaria representative and two of his subordinates. The military colonel took two of the vehicles and released only one to AID. When U.S. AID finally got a chief malaria representative who would at least try to control the corrupt colonel, the colonel told the U.S. mission director that he could not work with such a man-consequently the American was removed. This, of course, gives the colonel the green light for anything he wishes to do. This colonel made a speech that, since the malaria eradication program was a command of the president, it was a part of the military and therefore all foreigners working in this program were spies. Since this speech our working relationships with the Indonesians have steadily worsened.

The letter continues. As I have said, as soon as I obtain permission, I shall have the entire letter printed in the RECORD.

Mr. President, in view of such direct statements from people who are active in the aid program in Indonesia about the fact that the program not only is not doing any good within the context of what we are trying to do in the process of giving aid, but, in fact, is doing nothing but increasing the power and tyranny of Sukarno-who, incidentally, was given the royal treatment when he was in Washington within the last year-it seems to me that we are not fulfilling the philosophy or the purpose of the aid program.

I believe it is time for some of those countries to learn that the United States is not a bag full of honey, into which all they have to do is poke a stick and suck out as much of the honey as they want, and use it in any way they wish. They must learn that we send our missions to them for specific purposes; and that unless they aid in the fulfillment of those purposes, we will cut off our aid.

Therefore, I believe the Proxmire amendment, which specifically would cut off our aid to Indonesia, should be agreed to.

Again I thank the Senator from Oregon for yielding to me.

Mr. MORSE. I thank the Senator from Colorado. He has contributed in a valuable way to the record being made with respect to the shocking inefficiencies

and waste in connection with the foreign aid program and the necessity for the adoption of amendment after amendment before the bill is passed. While the Foreign Relations Committee was considering the bill I proposed a 25-percent reduction in the funds designated for Indonesia. That was before the recent aggressiveness displayed by Indonesia toward Malaysia and before the relations of that country's purchases of jet airlines. I think now that aid to Indonesia should be cut far more than 25 percent.

Mr. President, before I proceed to discuss my motion to recommit the bill, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an article entitled "Great Debate on Foreign Aid-Dixie Backing of MORSE Move Viewed as Part of AntiCivil-Rights Drive." The article was written by Joseph Kraft.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

GREAT DEBATE ON FOREIGN AID-DIXIE BACKING OF MORSE MOVE VIEWED AS PART OF ANTI-CIVIL RIGHTS DRIVE

(By Joseph Kraft)

The Senate is now giving a convincing demonstration of the proposition that searching discussion of basic issues is entertained only as a screen to cover up foul purposes. The current debate on foreign aid may seem to promise a thorough exploration of a difficult matter. But in fact, it can endure only as a stalking horse for the southern position on civil rights.

To be sure, the aid discussion has all the earmarks of being the real thing—a great debate in the grand tradition. The chief protagonist is no nitpicking PASSMAN,

swollen with trivial details of obscure transactions arising from unheard-of projects in unknown countries. On the contrary, the present attack on the aid program comes from WAYNE MORSE, a Senate veteran of 19 years, equipped with the gift of tongue, noted for doughty fights on behalf of lonely causes, and serious with a vengeance. "We are starting," he said in launching his attack this week, "one of the most historic debates in the history of my time in the Senate."

The issues Senator MORSE has raised in the

something approaching genius, he has aid debate are as lofty as his rhetoric. With dredged up all the underlying uncertainties, ambiguities, and inconsistencies implicit in the aid program, and traditionally dear to makers of great debates.

He has, for example, pointed out that foreign aid has fostered "antifreedom forces" and "permitted oligarchies to dig in." That

tremely ignorant, but, in addition, he is the type of journalist who uses malicious motivations to malign the Senate and deceive the American people, because his article is a chain of falsifications and distortions. Apparently Mr. Kraft thinks the foreign aid bill is not important enough to warrant more than 3 hours' debate. He seems to believe that Senators should not fulfill their responsibilities to present the facts concerning it and the amendments which are for the purpose of correcting the waste, abuse, and inefficiency. He makes pretty clear his opinion that any Senator who seeks to do so can only be a dupe of someone else.

Long ago I became accustomed to the

poses the question of how aid can be shaped writings of yellow journalists; and I

to achieve desirable political results. And that is a nice question.

He has pointed out that the aid program is spread too thinly over too many countries. That raises the question of how to cut off going projects in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East without provoking an outburst of anti-American feeling. That, too, is a nice question.

He has pointed out that more aid should be expended and administered on a multilateral basis. That raises the question of how to induce the Europeans to pony up a larger share. That, too, is a nice question.

He has asserted that Congress must not vote large sums on the basis of “an act of faith" in the Executive. That raises the question of how a hundred men, with varying degrees of information and little staff assistance, can draw up complex and detailed programs of great magnitude and im

portance. And that, too, is a nice question. But how is it that the country is so fortunate, so late in the Senate session, to have such a searching probe of such fundamental questions? Why is it not simple to override the two-score amendments Senator MORSE has put forward in order to rewrite the aid bill on the Senate floor? Why does not the aid bill go through the Senate as the defense bill went through-in a matter of

3 hours?

The answers lie with the Southern DemoLast week, in a secret caucus, they decided to support Senator MORSE's effort to rewrite the foreign aid bill on the floor of the Senate. And why? Not because they love Senator MORSE; but because they see in him a possible dupe.

Plainly, the southerners are now delaying everything in the Senate, the better to wage war on the coming civil rights legislation. Their hope is that by slowing down all business, by prolonging all debate, they will put off the civil rights issue to the point where the North and the Negroes, tired and frustrated, lose heart. Or failing that, the southerners hope to arrange matters so that foreign aid and the tax bill collide with civil rights on the Senate floor-thus creating the conditions for an orgy of trading in which anything could happen.

In these circumstances, the right thing to do is clear. In the interests of civil rights, the debate on aid ought to be abandoned. And the lesson it teaches ought not to be forgotten. What look like great debates are at all times to be regarded with great suspicion. When the Senate allows its time to be taken up with hard and interesting questions, it is not in the hope of finding answers. It is in the hope of stimulating alarms and excursions around conundrums

which have no answers.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, a reading of the articles will show that not only is the writer of the article ex

suppose I should thank them, because their techniques bring me thousands of votes in my State, for the people know there is no basis for the falsifications in the press generally in regard to me.

I rise to the defense of the southern Members of the Senate, for I know that neither the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN nor the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT]-both southerners-is against foreign aid. On the contrary, they are ardent supporters of the bill, and it is not true that I have been assured that any agreement of that sort has been entered into by southern Senators.

However, the ignorant writer of this article did not check the previous voting records on the foreign aid bill. He has unjustifiably maligned southern Senators, because among them there are two definite points of view-as there are among all groups of Senators: some favor foreign aid, and some oppose foreign aid. Southern Senators, like the rest of us, have been split in the past, and will be split, again, this year on the subject of foreign aid; some of them will vote for the foreign aid bill and some of them will vote against it.

But, Mr. President, shocking yellow journalism of this type fails to live up to the responsibilities of a free press, for a free press has the obligation to print the truth, not lies; and to inform the American people, However, I think this record of journalAmerican people, not deceive them. istic malfeasance should be put today into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD; and that is why I have done so. I say from the floor to Mr. Kraft that I cannot imagine anything about which I would care less than to have his views about me or, for that matter, about anything at all.

I turn now to the pending issue. In my opinion, in fairness to the leadership of the Senate, it should have an opportunity this afternoon to vote-for the first time-on a motion to recommit the bill to the committee. I point out that, from the parliamentary standpoint, such a motion can be made on another occasion, too, although I hope it will not be necessary to make it on another occasion, because I hope the Senate has learned by now that if ever there was a bill which had reached the floor of the Senate which ought to be returned to the committee, this is it.

The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GORE], in a brilliant and eloquent speech last night, made an unanswerable case, in my judgment, in support of returning the bill to the committee, for he pointed out that the so-called compromise Mansfield amendment-and much will be said about it before it is voted on, at some time in the future-is, in itself, tacit admission that the bill should be returned to the committee, because we find that the compromise amendment deals with money figures in the bill. The amendment has been offered on the floor of the Senate without any consultation with the Foreign Relations Committee. The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GORE] described that as cavalier treatment. That is a very apt description. In my judgment, the full Foreign Relations Committee was entitled to be called into session, for consideration of the proposed compromise amendment, before it was brought to the floor of the Senate.

Here, again, Mr. President, I am completely impersonal and professional; I do not reflect on anyone in a personal way. I express great disappointment that such a meeting of the committee was not held. Before the amendment was brought to the floor of the Senate, a meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee should have been held, and at the

meeting the amendment should have

been discussed. In view of the debate which now has been in progress in the Senate for several days, I believe it unfortunate that the Foreign Relations Committee has not been called into session to consider the parliamentary situation which confronts the Senate.

Yesterday, I said to the majority leader [Mr. MANSFIELD], who is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, "I believe that Senators who are in support of the bill should move that it be recommitted. They owe that much to the administration and to the Senate. I believe that we who serve on that committee should closet ourselves again to consider this bill, but not under instructions from the Senate, other than the general instruction which my motion contains. We ought to closet ourselves together and consult not only among ourselves and with our Senate leadership, but with administration leaders downtown, too."

We owe it to the President of the United States to call before the Foreign Relations Committee, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the head of AID, and the leading administrators of the Government who are dealing with the administration of the program of foreign aid. We ought to obtain their advice.

Let us not kid ourselves-and I suggest that there be a stop order to kidding the American people-about foreign aid. The administration knows that its foreign aid bill is in serious trouble in the Senate. The Mansfield amendment is the confession and admission of it. It will be confronted with more serious trouble when it goes to conference and is finally passed. It will be confronted with additional serious trouble when the

authorization bill reaches the Appropriations Committee of both Houses. We ought to try to iron out in advance, to the maximum extent possible, the great differences of opinion that have developed in Congress over the foreign aid program.

The other day I said-and I repeat it today-that I do not question to the slightest degree the sincerity, the good faith, and the dedication of Senators who favor the bill. favor the bill. But neither is there any question about the sincerity and the dedication of those who are opposed to the bill. We believe that the bill is not in the best interests of our country.

The next point I wish to make in these brief remarks is that, in my judgment, the Mansfield amendment clearly in effect, supports a motion to recommit. If we are to consider the proposal of the Mansfield amendment, the Senate ought to have the advantage, at least, of the committee's judgment, through committee action of the Foreign Relations Committee. I do not care how it is described, in effect the Mansfield amendment is an end play around the Foreign Relations Committee. It is a bypassing of the Foreign Relations Committee.

The Senate has a standing committee called the Foreign Relations Committee to handle substantive legislation on forMansfield amendment, each Senator eign policy. Before the vote on the should wish to know what the official formal position of the Foreign Relations Committee is on the amendment.

The report which the committee made to the Senate was not a signed report. It was a report that was passed upon by members of the committee as a whole. I do not know how many members of the committee ever saw the report before it came to the floor of the Senate. I talked with many members of the committee who said that they had not seen it, and they were as surprised as I was and as was the Senator from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON], who expressed his surprise on the floor of the Senate today, when they read the committee report.

The committee report supports in meaning my motion to recommit, because the committee report sets forth many of the major objections that we are making to the foreign aid bill. Yet, in spite of those objections, the report recommends that the bill be passed. That is a peculiar way to legislate. The committee has a clear obligation, if all the weaknesses in the foreign aid program which the report sets forth exist, to report a bill that would correct the weaknesses.

I have submitted an amendment that I am satisfied bothers a good many of the proponents of the foreign aid bill. They find it a little hot to handle. They find it a little difficult to go back home and explain to their constituents that they are opposed to ending all foreign aid at the end of fiscal 1965, which would give ample time to phase out existing obligations except some long-term obligations that ought to be modified, anyway, and start foreign aid all over again, but on the basis of a new program, a

set of standards, a set of guidelines, a set of restrictions, a set of conditions that will have to be met by countries that apply for foreign aid, and a limit of 50 countries that may receive aid at any

If Senators would go into the history of the foreign aid program they would be surprised to see in how many instances the United States in effect has practically forced foreign aid upon some countries. In effect, foreign aid has practically been crammed down their governmental throats. In my judgment, foreign aid ought to be granted only on the basis of an application made by an applicant country, and that country ought to be required to meet standards, conditions, and guidelines that will give the American people a better assurance of an efficient, nonwasteful, and constructive foreign aid program than the record shows the present program has revealed for a good many years.

What did the committee do? It rejected the Morse amendment.

Language is contained in the committee report that in effect tells the administration, "You had better take note. You had better recognize the situation before it is too late." In effect, the committee said to the administration, "We may not be able to hold the line next the faults that we tell you in the report year. If you do not do something about exist in the foreign aid program, we may not be able to stop a Morse amendment in another year."

They have no assurance that they will stop it this year, for judging from what many Senators have said to me and, judging from the nationwide and voluminous support that I have received for my amendment, it may very well be that before the educational debate is over, the Morse amendment will be adopted this year. If it is not, it should be.

What the committee in effect is saying to the administration is, "You had better take note of this proposal and revise the foreign aid program before the end of fiscal 1965."

If I ever saw an example of legislative buckpassing, that is it. It is the obligation of Congress, and not of the administration, to pass proposed foreign aid legislation in such form and subject to such conditions, restrictions and guidelines as to protect the American taxpayer. That is our checking duty. The situation is even much worse than the committee has set forth in its report; but even if the situation as described in the report is the full coverage of the need for reform and the justification for reform, Congress has the duty of doing it now and not saying to the executive branch of the Government. "You do our job for us."

Let us take a look at our past experience with regard to the program. This is not the first time that the administration has been warned that something should be done. The records of the Foreign Relations Committee for years are replete with warnings, supplications, and pleas with the administration, whatever the administration may have been at the time, Republican

or Democrat, to do something about foreign aid, and to do something about eliminating the waste, the inefficiencies, and the instances of corruption that have arisen in connection with the program in certain places in the world.

We have made this plea over and over again. This procedure has always supplied some with the excuse to go home and say, "We know these criticisms exist, and there is merit in many of them, but let us tell you what we did. We made it very clear to the State Department and to the Pentagon, and we poured it on AID. We sent our messages to the White House, and they had better do something about it." It is the old "wolf, wolf," cry. It is "passing the buck" by the committee, and, if the Senate supports it, by the Senate.

I refuse to believe that Senators who take the time to study the facts we are laboriously trying to put in the RECORD will do so.

I am proud to say that the material we have been putting in the RECORD has been the result of very careful research. I am grateful for the dedication of the Foreign Relations Committee staff members who have helped us, of the researchers in the Government agencies who have helped us, and also of our own senatorial staffs. The instruction they have received from us always has been, "Do not give us anything that is not factual. Do not give us anything that cannot be documented."

We have a solemn trust. We owe it to the Senate to satisfy ourselves, before we make a criticism or present an argument, that we can stand on it. I believe I believe that many Senators are so close to the heat of this debate that they do not yet fully realize what has been going into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for the past several days. I speak with some pride, although my part has been really minimal compared to the contributions that other Senators have been making to the debate. I am very proud of the record that has been put into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD in opposition to the bill and in opposition to the recommendations of the Foreign Relations Committee.

There are many more reasons that I could give which I believe amply justify my motion, but I reemphasize this reason: I believe we owe it not only to Senators, but also to the administration, to give Senators and the administration a second look at the bill.

Leaders of the administration who have consulted with me would be the first to admit that there is a great need for many reforms in the foreign aid pro

gram.

I have another conclusion. It would be helpful to the administration in diplomatic relations with other governments if we did the job of adopting amendments that would deal not only with money reductions in this bill but also with policy.

I quickly add that that does not cover the Morse amendment, which would bring to an end foreign aid by the end of fiscal year 1965. I consulted with no high-level authority of this administration who agrees with that. I am satisfied that the amendment is a sound

amendment and that it should be adopted. If it is agreed to, I have no doubt that the administration will move rapidly to see to it that the reforms called for by the amendment are brought about.

I believe that the amendment we are urging-and the amendments called for by implication in the criticisms of the Foreign Relations Committee report itself-would greatly strengthen the diplomatic hands of this Government in negotiations with foreign governments in respect to foreign aid.

Let us consider Europe, for example. I give my opinion, and I impute it to no one else. My opinion is that if the Senate adopts some of the amendments we shall offer in the days ahead in respect to aid to Europe, the Senate will perform one of the greatest services for the administration in the field of diplomatic negotiations that could be performed.

The administration then would be in a position to say, "After all, under our constitutional system, this is the law. As President of the United States"—or Secretary of State, or Secretary of Defense-"it happens to be my obligation to follow the law."

I hope Senators will look upon our criticism of the bill and our amendments from the standpoint of the effect that their adoption would have on strengththeir adoption would have on strengthening the hand of the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of AID, and all the others who are involved.

But be that as it may, I am satisfied that the administration in its heart is not opposed to every one of my amendments. Quite to the contrary. The administration would like some language ministration would like some language changes in them, perhaps. The State Department sent down a redraft of one of my major amendments yesterday. State Department officials wish to consult with me further in regard to it; and I shall consult with them early next week.

I cite this, Mr. President, because I am satisfied that at the other end of the avenue there would be a great relief if the Congress fulfilled its legislative responsibilities and duties in connection with the foreign aid bill. Even if that were not true, it would not relieve us of those responsibilities; because in my judgment the facts are overwhelmingly against the bill, which necessarily should be amended in the public interest.

Therefore, for the reasons I have just given, and for many other reasons I have presented during the week in speech after speech, I now move that the bill, H.R. 7885, to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and for other purposes, be recommitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations with instructions to report the bill back to the Senate no later than November 8.

All we are saying to the committee is: "Receive it once again for further discussion and consultation." We are not sending it back with instructions to do anything by way of changing the bill. We are only pleading that members of the Foreign Relations Committee apply their minds to the bill once more, that

they give consideration, in consultation with the administration, to what course of action should be followed, and that members of the committee, in formal committee meeting, be given an opportunity to discuss and suggest modifications of the Mansfield amendment.

Every member of the committee is entitled to that treatment, that privilege, and that opportunity.

I can only say-and if one wishes not to believe it, there is nothing I can do about it-that I know what my own motivation is, and I can bespeak my own motivation.

I offer this motion in a friendly, cooperative spirit, with no rancor, no personal criticism, but with a plea and prayer on my lips that the motion be adopted by the Senate, so that there will be consultations in the Committee on Foreign Relations and consultations and conferences with representatives of the administration.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, certain remarks were made on the floor of the Senate yesterday relative to the amendment offered by the Senator from Montana-and I stress the "Senator from Montana"-joined by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN], and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN].

The leadership in this body has never claimed any special rights or privileges. But it does insist that the leadership has the same rights as every other Member of the Senate; and while I hold the title of majority leader, I am also a Senator from the State of Montana and have as much right as any other Senator to introduce a resolution or offer an amendment.

There are a number of amendments at the desk introduced by Senators from various States.

About 40 amendments were introduced to this bill before the leadership uttered a word of substance in connection therewith. Each one of these amendments, in effect, differed with the majority judgment of the Committee on Foreign Relations. There were no protests against the introduction of these amendments. Each one was recognized as being fully within the rights of the Senator introducing it. Indeed, members of the Committee on Foreign Relations, themselves, introduced amendments to alter the bill as reported from committee. Was there any talk, Mr. President, of disrespect for the committee in these actions? Indeed, there was not.

The leadership waited 4 days for action to begin on consideration of these 40-odd amendments.

But aside from the distinguished Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], the distinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING], the distinguished Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS], and a very few others, litIt tle was done to get this bill moving. waited for some sign of eagerness or even willingness to begin debate. It waited for Senators to express a deep interest

« ПретходнаНастави »