in the matter. But this interest in discussion is such, Mr. President, that there are about 25 Senators absent today, and, may I say with regret, the great preponderance are on this side of the aisle. The leadership had to take into consideration that this bill is already months overdue and that further delays promise only increasing administrative chaos and waste in the program. It had to consider that other pieces of highly significant legislation are approaching the floor as days go by without action on this measure.

I refer to civil rights, tax proposals, health care for the aged, and appropriation bills for the next fiscal year, which will begin coming before the Congress shortly.

It had to consider, in short, what in its best judgment would move the legislative wheels and bring this matter to some resolution.

These were the factors, Mr. President, which influenced the majority leaderthe Senator from Montana, if you willto consult with the minority leader and then with the ranking members on both sides of the Committee on Foreign Relations. These men, of course, did not agree with every detail of what was proposed as a solution to the difficulty which confronts the Senate. The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT] and

others had reservations about the depth and form of the cut which is proposed. But, these men are all reasonable men with a full recognition that this body operates not at all unless it operates on the basis of mutual restraint and mutual accommodation. And so, Mr. President, we agreed as a group of Senators on how this problem, in our best common judg

ment, might possibly be resolved. That is the entire story. I then introduced yesterday, on behalf of the six of us, an amendment to the bill. We acted as any Member or Members of this body are free to act at all times, and have acted in connection with this measure at least 40 times.

And for this, Mr. President, for doing no more and considerably less than many other Members have done, we are accused of all sorts of heinous crimes, of cavalier behavior, of disrespect for the committee. I must say, Mr. President, that I resent most deeply these accusations and inferences. The leadership is doing its best, as every other Member of this body is doing. It is doing its best to bring about a resolution of this issue so that the Senate can get on to other business. To suggest that this is cavalier or highhanded is to seek to deny to the leadership the rights of every other Member of this body. Neither the minority leader nor the majority leader has any inclination in this role to assert superiority over any other Member, but I wish to make clear that in accepting this role of leadership, we did not abandon our equal rights as Senators with every other Member.

I appreciate, by and large, the courtesy which has been extended to me by Senators on both sides of the aisle.

The distinguished senior Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] has been most courteous and considerate, and has notified me ahead of time on all occasions

as to what he contemplated doing. And, by the same token, I have tried to notify him, as I would any other Member on him, as I would any other Member on any particular legislation, and as the leadership has tried to do at all times.

I wish to make it perfectly clear that, regardless of any title we may hold, by regardless of any title we may hold, by sufferance, we are still Senators from a sufferance, we are still Senators from a State, we are still Senators of the United State, we are still Senators of the United States, and we have at least as many rights as any other Members of this body.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum

understand how I and other members of the committee felt, because we were not consulted with respect to this major move, which was made by the combined leadership of the Senate.

The able Senator says that he has every right that every other Senator has. In that statement I concur. I accord him every right. He is also the majority leader; and leader; and the distinguished junior Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] the minority leader.

If we follow the lines of traditional procedure in the Senate by according to

Mr. DIRKSEN. I prefer to have a quorum. Mr.

Mr. DIRKSEN. I withhold it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DIRKSEN. No; I withdraw the request.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, the releader were the first notice I had had marks of the distinguished majority that he entertained some personal resentment at the remarks which the senior Senator from Tennessee made yesterday.

I regret that he so interpreted my remarks. I tried to make it perfectly clear-indeed, I repeated the sentiment that I directed no personal critment that I directed no personal criticism at any Member of the Senate. I expressed the view, which I reiterate, which had spent months in consideration that the Foreign Relations Committee, consulted before this major-and, to me, of the bill, might properly have been entirely surprising-amendment was of

fered.

Had the administration and the "leadership"-to use the word of the distinguished senior Senator from Montanareached the conclusion that the bill needed further modification, the Committee on Foreign Relations could have been consulted and requested to reconsider the bill and submit its recommendation to the Senate.

I had hoped-and I shall hope in the future that a legislative committee in the Senate would be accorded this courtesy, particularly in view of the respontesy, particularly in view of the responsibility which the Senate has placed upon its respective committees.

I say to my distinguished friend from Montana, with whom I have had the honor and pleasure of serving in both Houses of Congress, that I intended no personal offense. I was sitting in my seat on the Senate floor, having supported the reporting of the bill, and was taken completely by surprise by this major reducing amendment. It may be that the bill should be reduced this much. It may be that it should be reduced further. Indeed, it was with great reluctance that I consented to support the reporting of the bill. Only the day before yesterday, Secretary Harriman called me, speaking, as he said, for the President of the United States, urging me to support the bill as it was before the Senate. I told him that I had supported its reporting.

I hope the distinguished Senator from Montana, the majority leader, will

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. GORE. I yield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I assure my distinguished colleague the senior Senator from Tennesse that, so far as he was concerned, I knew there was nothing far as the record shows, it would appear personal in what he said. However, so that the charge of being cavalier and, in a certain sense, not quite fair, had been directed against the mover of the amendment. I know the Senator will believe me when I state that I did not discuss this reduction with the administration in any way, shape, or form. looked into this subject on my own authority as an individual Senator. I believe I have a right to exercise independI have done so in the past, I did so yesent judgment, as the occasion demands. terday, and I will continue to do so in the future.

I

There is a line of demarcation between the various positions which a Senator I am, first, a Senator from the State of may hold. So far as I am concerned, Montana, and I have never lost sight of

that fact. So far as the position of majority leader is concerned and I say again that I hold it by sufferance of the Senate that is not a subtraction from my duties, but an addition to them, instead.

Therefore, I wish to repeat to my distinguished friend-and he is my friend, and has been for more than 20 years in both Houses of Congress-that I did what I did without any reference whatever to the administration. I had no consultation with them as to what I proposed to do. On the basis of talking with other Senators, I reached the conclusion that something had to be done. What I did was, in my best judgment, what I thought should be done.

courtesy, to discuss this subject with me. I asked other Senators, as a matter of They did so. There were differences of opinion, but in the end we arrived at a figure and a disposition which we thought would best serve the interests of the Senate as a whole. We may be right, or we may be wrong. However, the offering of other amendments is not precluded. The record should be made clear that I am delighted that we have had an opportunity to have this exchange of views, so that we may better understand the situation.

I repeat that I did not consult anyone in the administration in any way, shape,

or form so far as the amendment is concerned; and I accept full responsibility for it.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, as upon every other occasion, I accept fully and give the fullest possible credence to whatever statement the distinguished senior Senator from Montana makes.

Let me once again express regret that he felt personal resentment with respect to my remarks. It is my way of speaking to say what I mean in rather precise language. I respectfully suggest that if the Foreign Relations Committee had been called into consultation, this proposal might very well have had the endorsement of the full committee.

If the situation which persuaded the distinguished authors of the amendment had been laid before the committee, the committee might have been persuaded. My feeling was that the committee which had the responsibility of considering this highly important question and making recommendations to the Senate should have been consulted before the attempt to make a major alteration in the bill was made by the combined leadership.

Therefore, I am pleased to close the incident on this happy note of renewal of confidence and expression of my esteem for my friend the distinguished Senator from Montana.

Mr. MANSFIELD. There was nothing personal in my remarks. I did not judge the remarks of the Senator from Tennessee to be personal. However, I felt that the record should be made clear. Mr. GORE. I thank the Senator. I conclude by saying once again that I had not intended to support the motion to recommit. However, if the combined leadership of the Senate believes that the bill needs such major alteration as is now proposed, it is the responsibility of the Committee on Foreign Relations to consider it and to make its recommendations.

It is my view that the wisest course at this time is to recommit the bill to the committee, and let the committee consider all the amendments offered. I hope the motion to recommit would contain instructions to report back within a reasonable time. If so, I should be glad to support the amendment.

ships that have existed between us in the handling of the parliamentary matters involved in the debate. Those relationships will continue. I shall always notify the majority leader of any parliamentary move I intend to make in opposition to the bill-and there will probably be many before we are through with it.

I publicly express my appreciation to him, as I have in private, for the unfailing courtesy and kindness he has extended to me at all times. Certainly there is nothing in my mind that is subject to the slightest implication that I would deny to him, because he is the majority leader, his right as a Senator from Montana to offer any amendment he wishes to offer at any time. Not only has he that right; he has the duty to offer an amendment as a Senator. He has a right to offer this amendment.

But this amendment is not merely an amendment. It involves some important parliamenatry and policy matters of the Senate, because while it is offered, it is true, by the Senator from Montana, he is, nevertheless, the majority leader. The amendment is cosponsored by the distinguished junior Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], the minority leader. It is cosponsored by the distinguished senior Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER], the ranking Republican member of the Committee on Foreign Relations and chairman of the Republican policy committee. The amendment is cosponsored by the distinguished junior Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN], the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Foreign Relations, next to the distinguished junior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], the able chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, who is also a cosponsor of the amendment. The amendment is also cosponsored by the distinguished senior Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], a Republican member of the Committee on Foreign Relations and really the dean of the Republican side of the aisle.

What is before the Senate is really a powerhouse amendment that would have great effect in connection with the parliamentary policy that is to be followed from now on in connection with the bill. We have checked-we will not talk about it now, but we will later, when we begin

Mr. GORE. I yield.

Mr. MORSE. The motion provides that the committee shall report back on or before November 8. So the committee could report the bill back tomorrow, if it decided to do so, or it could report it back by November 8.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Tennessee yield for a parliamentary inquiry and a brief comment?

Mr. GORE. I yield.

Mr. MORSE. First, while a large number of Senators are in the Chamber, I should like to ask for the yeas and nays on my motion to recommit.

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I wish to make these comments about the statement of the majority leader: What he says is true with regard to the relation

checked the parlimentary situation that is created by the amendment. The amendment would have great parliamentary effect on the future course of the bill. The amendment, if adopted, would have an effect on the standing of future amendments. That does not mean we would not be able to offer other amendments; but it means, as I have been advised by the Parliamentarian, that we would not be able to offer some amendments.

So what is before the Senate, in my opinion, is a powerhouse amendment that seeks to exercise great effect not only on the substance of the bill, but great effect on the parliamentary procedure that would be available to Senators who are opposed to the bill.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the Mr. President, will the Senator from Oregon yield?

Mr.MORSE. Iyield.

Mr. CURTIS. Would the Senator mind telling the Senate what amendments would be foreclosed from being offered if the amendment he refers to as a powerhouse amendment were adopted?

Mr. MORSE. As I am advised by the Parliamentarian, we would have to proceed to amend the Mansfield amendment in figure amounts in connection with economic aid and military aid. If we want less, we had better offer amendments to the Mansfield amendment itself. The Mansfield amendment is really an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill before the Senate.

That situation could very well raise serious parliamentary questions as to whether some of the proposed amendments in money amounts would be out of order if the Mansfield amendment were adopted and became a part of the bill.

We think that these questions ought to be discussed in the Committee on Foreign Relations. We think the committee ought to discuss them and obtain a parliamentary ruling on them. We should discuss what the effects of the Mansfield amendment woud be on the parliamentary procedures to be followed in amending the bill.

Mr. CURTIS. Is it the
Is it the Senator's

were

opinion that if the so-called powerhouse amendment adopted without change, there could be no further amendment changing the figures?

Mr. MORSE. I think amendments could be offered which would affect the figures for specific countries and that those amendments would be in order. If we adopt the Mansfield amendment, so far as its being a general amendment concerning money amounts, we have "fixed" it. That does not mean that

when we finished with the total amendment, if the total were less than the Mansfied amendment, such amendments would not be in order. That is my understanding of the advice we have received, although we have not had time to consider it in detail. It is our under

standing that such amendments would still be in order. The Mansfield amendment would not in any way prevent the with basic policy questions, amendments offering of other amendments that dealt such as the Gruening-Javits nonaggression amendment, such as my junta amendment, and such as amendments that seek to impose some restrictions on the use of military aid in Latin America and elsewhere. Such amendments would still be in order.

But I am doubtful as to whether or not we would not be somewhat restricted in our parliamentary maneuverability on the opposition side if the Mansfield amendment were adopted post hastealthough it will not be adopted post haste. We shall have to see to it that it is not adopted post haste, in order to protect our parliamentary rights.

Mr. CURTIS. Would it be correct to say that if the amendment were adopted without change, there would be no opportunity to offer amendments changing the overall amount set forth in the bill?

Mr. MORSE. Let us raise that as a parliamentary question.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.

procedure, without having such expression of view resented. I am sorry that it was. I am happy to accept the statement of the distinguished majority

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, who leader. has the floor?

Mr. GORE. I have the floor, and I have yielded for a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RUSSELL. If this amendment If this amendment were agreed to, any amendment affecting the foreign aid program's main items, such as the Alliance for Progress total, the loan total, and the military assistance program would be buttoned up; no further amendment would be in order. Senators would be precluded from offering any amendments that would change the amounts involved in the main items of authorization.

Mr. MORSE. That is my view. That is the point on which I think the Senator from Nebraska is seeking information.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I have yielded for the submission of a parliamentary inquiry. Would the Senator wish to clarify this question by stating a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Would the Senator include whether this amendment is subject to amendment? There is nothing to restrict the Senator from Oregon from offering an amendment.

Mr. MORSE. I said that. Mr. FULBRIGHT. That was not clear from the Senator's statement.

Mr. MORSE. The Senator from Georgia said that once the Mansfield amendment were adopted, it would be buttoned up.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. But there is nothBut there is nothing to prevent any Senator-the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CURTIS] or any other Senator-from offering an amendment to this amendment to change the amount.

Mr. MORSE. We have admitted that. Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I have yielded for a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. CURTIS. I thank the Senator from Tennessee. I am not sure that I can recite all the conditions.

Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska will state it.

Mr. CURTIS. If the Senate adopts the amendment referred to by the distinguished Senator from Oregon as the powerhouse amendment, and its adoption is without change, would an amendment then be in order to change the total figures in the bill?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. RIBICOFF in the chair). Should the Senate adopt the Mansfield amendment, it being an amendment in the first degree, it would freeze any further action on the amounts agreed to in the Mansfield amendment, but it would not foreclose any other amendment of any figure not listed in the Mansfield amendment.

Mr. MORSE. That is what I said. We would have to proceed country by country and item by item.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, upon careful consideration, it seems to me that any Senator ought to be free to express his view with respect to a parliamentary

I respectfully suggest that perhaps we can profit from this occurrence; perhaps we can once again reflect upon the wisdom of the committee system of this body. It has served the Senate well.

In view of all that has transpired, and in view of the fact that the contingency fund is proposed to be increased by $125 million, without any justification therefor having been given to the Senate, and also in view of the parliamentary ruling which has been made, I am led to conclude that the part of wisdom now is to recommit the bill with an instruction that it be reported within a very brief, but reasonable, time.

chairman of the minority policy committee. Of course, he forgot to put in that I am also a member of the American Legion and the Presbyterian Church. So if he wishes to identify the amendment as a "powerhouse" amendment, he can merely look at the Congressional Directory, because I am not one of those timid and shy people who does not put all of his persuasions into his congressional biography.

But I am concerned about the bill. I earnestly hope that it will not go back to the committee.

The point was made that so many amendments have been submitted, there ought to be a further look-see by the committee, although the bill has been before the committee since the middle of June. If we are going to apply that reasoning as a precedent and every time Senate, that automatically argues that a bill must go back to the committee, we shall be in a fix from now on, because

The PRESIDING OFFICER. clerk will call the roll.

The

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BREWSTER in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered.

and very notably the implementing appropriation bill to go with the authorization bill-that will have its full share of amendments.

By what sophism can it be argued and justified that a bill should be recommitted to a committee because a sheaf

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

Mr. DIRKSEN. I was looking for my very distinguished friend from Oregon, because I always like to have his comforting presence when I talk about him. But since the time is running

Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.

Mr. PASTORE. I would be happy to ask unanimous consent that one of the pages locate the Senator from Oregon and invite him to come into the Chamber and accept the invitation of the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DIRKSEN. I cannot quite be a monitor for all Senators, and particularly the great appeal in reading the news dispatches from Vietnam. But we have some business on the floor of the Senate and we must get about it.

Mr. President, I listened intently to the distinguished Senator from Oregon. Frankly, when he suffers great agony and pain as a result of the challenges that confront him in the bill, I suffer that confront him in the bill, I suffer right along with him. I catch those reflexes of agony, and as he puts it into a lyrical panegyric, it hurts me even more. So I should like to have him about as I discuss the motion to send the bill back to committee.

First, the amendment is called a "powerhouse" amendment. I have never heard that expression attached to an amendment before. The Senator proceeds to give it that character because of its sponsor and cosponsors, including the two leaders, the chairman and ranking member, and the next ranking member on each side of the Foreign Relations Committee. I think he even noted the fact that the distinguished Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER] was also

own illogic.

The proposal to send the bill back to the committee until the 8th of November is futile. There have been 18 markup sessions on the bill. If Senators desire to send the bill back to the committee, what do they wish the rest of the Senators to think about what has been done by the members of that committee? The distinguished Senator from Oregon is No. 4 in the majority list. list. Do Senators wish us to think that the work was not done?

The bill has been in the committee since June. The first markup came in middle July. There have been 18 mark

up sessions. If that is not enough to mark up a bill, I give up. With all the abstruse and difficult things that we have had in the Judiciary Committee, we can do a little better than that, I believe.

So the Senator from Oregon comes in poor grace to suggest that the bill go back to the committee because of his personal frustration; he does not like it and he wishes a second whack at it. What did he do the 18 other times? Was he there? I do not know, and I am not going to run the record to see. But I say that from the middle of July until the 1st of November is long enough.

I discovered that we cannot push January 3 into the future. At midnight on January 2, unless we push that clock back, the 1st session of the 88th Congress will end. By order, we can change the convening of the second session. We

can make it the 9th, the 10th, or the 20th, because the Constitution provides-unless Congress otherwise orders.

We can do it. But the present session comes to an end at midnight on the 2d of January. We can push the clock back for a while-I have seen it done since I have been a Member of this body-but the business of the country has got to be settled.

The third point I make is that there must be a bill. The agency has 67,000 people on its payroll, 27,000 of whom are natives, and 40,000 are aliens. But that money looks as good to an alien as it does to a native Yankee. Senators ought to know.

What are we going to do with that agency? Will we set up a caretaker agency? What would we substitute for it if the bill is not passed? Do Senators think that we would be helping the cause by sending the bill back to the Committee on Foreign Relations without instructions, which is what the motion provides?

Mr. Chairman, I can imagine what the first committee meeting will be like, assuming that a quorum is present the first time around. I shall have something to say on that subject, too. The chairman of the committee might say, "Members of the committee, we are here on orders of the Senate to reconsider the bill. What is your pleasure?" That is all the chairman woud have to say.

Then the business would begin. The committee would be presented with the 42 amendments that are at the desk. The committee would probably see amendments that at the moment are merely a gleam in the eye of the Senator from Oregon. There will probably be more before he gets through. Then the argument would begin.

The committee would meet until noon. Some Senator would come into the Chamber and say, "We ask that the committee be authorized to meet notwithstanding the sessions of the Senate." The Senator from Illinois will say, "No." I made that statement to the Finance Committee. I felt that we could not meet over there and be here, too, and discharge our responsibilities on the floor of the Senate. I give my word, Mr. President, if that happens, I shall object, because there is business to be transacted. The clock on the calendar of this session of the Senate is beginning to run out.

No. 5, I said I would say something about attendance. There are five members on the committee who are also members of the Senate Finance Committee.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Six, I believe.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Five or six. One member, distressingly enough, either is in the hospital at the present time or is convalescing at home. It will be six or seven. The Senator will be lucky to start with a quorum from the day he receives instructions to take the bill into "Abraham's bosom" all over again and wrestle with it. How far does the Senator believe he will get with it?

All the while those amendments will be right there. They do not require even mothballs to retain their status. They will be there when the bill is reported

from the committee. They will be considered. I have one in the pile, and I am going to offer it, I do not care what happens in the committee. It will be heard, and I shall discuss it, notwithstanding. I believe the committee turned it down, but I do not "turn down" very easily, Mr. President, and so I shall offer it.

But looking at the attendance problem, the Senate Finance Committee as you, Mr. President (Mr. RIBICOFF in the chair), a distinguished member, know so well-meets every morning except Saturday, wrestling with a monumental tax bill. There are more than 160 registered witnesses, and still more to follow. Obviously, since that matter is of so much moment to the country, the members want to be present in the Finance Committee. But they cannot be there.

The distinguished Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GORE], who is one of the most diligent members of that committee, and one of the most articulate, and one of the smartest, has been on hand all the time. I sit there and just glory in his interrogations, because he does them so candidly and so well. I love to see the witnesses squirm when the distinguished Senator from Tennessee pushes the etymological needle into them in such a deft and agile way.

Where will one get the members to consider the bill if it is reported back to the committee? So, attendance is quite another problem. But the amendments will still be here.

We are operating as we do because the author of the motion to commit the bill told the Senate yesterday afternoon, and told the majority leader as pointedly as he could, that there would be no unanimous-consent request honored, that there would be no expedition. He is the author of the idea that this bill will not get through this Senate very soon, if he can help it. Well then, he can stew in his own juice, but let us not stew with him to the point of futility, because that is precisely what it will amount to. No instructions as it goes back. Then we wait until the 8th of November, and when the bill is reported and the bells ring and the Members call the cloakroom and ask, "What is the order of business?" it will be the foreign assistance bill. And by then there will not be 38 amendments, not 42 amendments, but 50 amendments. Do you believe you will have saved anything? You will have added only to the time, you will have added only to the agony.

Mr. President, what gives me great personal pain is that the distinguished Senator from Oregon will go down this strange trail, and on every tortuous foot of it, I have to bleed with him. That bothers me no end. I have compassion for that soul-searching pain that is his, over the fact that there is a powerhouse amendment that he characterized as an "end run" around the committee.

The members of the committee as individuals, could well appraise, by looking at the amendment pile and its diversity of subject matter, as to what was going to happen and how long it will be on the floor.

Mr. DIRKSEN. I am glad to yield. Mr. PASTORE. Does the Senator know whether there is any parliamentary prohibition against trying to amend the Mansfield amendment?

Mr. DIRKSEN. No; I shall get to that, let me say to the Senator from Rhode Island. I wish to be sure that that is specifically understood, to show that we did not deal cavalierly with anyone. one. I do not believe I am a "class B" Senator yet, unless there is something on the books which I have not seen. By your grace and sufferance you have permitted me to be your floor spokesman. But that did not divest me of my character and my perquisites, and my authority under the rule book and under the Constitution. I am just as free to offer an amendment as anyone. I am just as free to join with the majority leader in offering an amendment as anyone. one. I did not know about the meeting in the office of the majority leader yesterday, until 10:30. My secretary told me, "The majority leader would like to see you in his office." He is always so gracious about it, and when I arrived there the distinguished Senators from Vermont and Arkansas were there with the majority leader. The Senator from Iowa came later, and then I arrived and we had a general discussion. I made the suggestion that I thought we should get that very brilliant intellect, over on the Appropriations Committee, TOM SCOTT, to come over and sit with us in the afternoon because those are the people who serve so well and who know so much about this Government. We had a second conference. The Senator from Arkansas objected in part to the first suggestion I made, where I thought it should be cut. He said, "I cannot go along with you."

I do not believe the Senator from Iowa, our ranking member, concurred with me, but by dint of discussion, we finally oriented and fixed those items in the bill where we thought cuts could be made, and then one substantive proposal to require feasibility evaluation by the Army engineers. That was my own little, feeble product along with all else. It was modified a good many times, and I believe what was done can stand up. When somebody talks about the military cut, the Defense Establishment gets money from the Congress easier than any other agency in the Government. They can come asking for a deficiency, they can ask for a supplemental, they can ask for a regular appropriation; and invariably, if it is reasonably justified, they can get it and they can get it quickly.

One contention I made about the contingency fund, I said, "That is the last one I should like to see cut." I went through that agony with President Eisenhower a good many times, but the headlines, and the ticker tape, out there and the telecasts certainly support my contention that we cannot tell when the firmament of the world will be alight with revolt and fever and bloodshed, so we cannot tie the hands of the Commander in Chief.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President. will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. DIRKSEN. I am glad to yield. Mr. PASTORE. The very distinguished Secretary of State told me one day, "You can afford to cut the foreign aid bill in two if you will only make the contingency fund larger, because you are committing the money under circumstances that do not prevail at the time when a crisis arises. If the President, who is charged under the Constitution of the United States with the foreign policy of this land, had the authority to step in at the appropriate time and operate expeditiously without having his hands tied as the Congress has done from time to time, you could start tomorrow to cut the foreign aid bill right in two."

Mr. DIRKSEN. Well, I say to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, I remember when President Eisenhower sent the Marines to Lebanon. I I remember Matsu and Quemoy. We cannot tie the hands of our Commander in Chief when we do not know what is going to happen overnight. So we came to a pretty fair conclusion.

Now, because six Senators' names are on this amendment, it is said it is the powerhouse amendment. Perhaps some day we will get it in the Standing Rules of the Senate, and rule 99 may read, "There can" or cannot "be powerhouse amendments, and there cannot be powerhouses unless they have the names

of the leaders on them and the names of the ranking minority members and the names of chairmen of committees, and we will spell it all out. If it requires any other attribute, they can be put in the rule. "I am a member of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Elks Lodge, the Presbyterian Church" and what a wonderful rule we

will have.

232.

I have in my hand amendment No. Look at the list of the distinguished Senators who offered it: the distinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING], the distinguished Senator from Wyoming [Mr. SIMPSON], the distinguished Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], the distinguished Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss], the distinguished Senator from Nevada [Mr. CANNON], the distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. DOMINICK], the distinguished Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], the distinguished Senator from Texas, the largest unfrozen State in the Union [Mr. YARBOROUGH], the distinguished Senator from Nevada [Mr. BIBLE], and the distinguished Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS]. There are 10 names. If the powerhouse from Oregon and I say that with kindly affection is a member, we can put him down for 2, and that will make 11. Yet there are only six on this amendment.

I did not know that when I went on an amendment with the distinguished majority leader, plus one chairman, a ranking member, and perhaps other Senators, suddenly we gave that amendment special status and made it a powerhouse amendment. What an amazing thing and what logic.

Let us nail this down so there can be no question about it. In this amendment we reduce the committee figure to CIX-1317

bring it in line with the House figure. That makes a reduction of $300 million. Does a Senator want to change it? Ask the Parliamentarian now whether he cannot get up and be permitted to offer an amendment to make a cut of $100 million, or $200 million, or the committee figure can be increased by adding $500 million. A Senator can maul it and maim it to his heart's content under the rules, because the committee amendment is a complete substitute for the House bill. That gives it the status of original text when this amendment is pending, and it will be after the motion to recommit is disposed of.

Senators can offer amendments from now until the 20th of December, but not beyond, I admonish Senators, because that is when our Christmas recess begins. So do not go beyond that date. But Senators can offer amendments to change the figure before that committee amendment is finally agreed to. So Senators have not lost any rights. Senators have not lost any rights. No one has lost any flexibility. There has been no impairment of the rule. Consequently, a Senator is as free as a bird to maim and maul this bill, amendmentpowerhouse amendwise, including

ments.

Write that in the book. It makes me feel kind of proud that at long last someone recognized my talent that, in a feeble way, I could share, in the history of this establishment, as Brother Clark would say, a powerhouse. [Laughter.]

But we want to get it as clear as crystal that no Senator has given up anything, notwithstanding the very agile argument of our distinguished friend from Oregon. And while he was in the very labyrinth of this amazing argument, I was bleeding with him every minute; I was suffering with him the deep reflexes of his soulful pain. I hope it fell on sterile ears. There was no substance to it.

Let me say to my distinguished colleague what an astounding thing it is to go from a larger forum to a smaller forum of 15. That is the number on the committee, is it not?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Seventeen.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Seventeen. There has been a gain since I last looked into it.

The whole desire, in the field of legislation, is to get a bill out of the committee, to get it here before this august body of 100 Members; but you see, Mr. President, our friend from Oregon takes an inverse look. He does not want to go from a lower to a higher body, where the ultimate disposal rests. He wants to go from the higher to the lower body, to wrestle without a single instruction from the Senate.

So when the distinguished chairman

says, "Gentlemen, what is your pleasThat is when the fun begins. And who shall say what will come back out of the room downstairs, or in the new Senate Office Building where they meet? They will be wrestling with quotas, import duties, the matter of no aid to members of the United Nations unless they pay up their arrears, interest rates-somebody will have amendments on that subject. There is an immigration amendment in there. I had

a list. I got up the other morning at 2 o'clock. Counting sheep did not do, so I began counting amendments.

The Senator from Oregon rewrites the whole bill. What a time I had with his substitute. Then there is a money amendment and the country-by-country amendment and the United Nations amendment and the self-help amendment. I cannot read my own writing. Then there is the "hunta" amendment. We ought to call those "juntas." They "junta" people out of the country.

There is an amendment for military assistance to Latin America, college contracts, import duties, aggression.

There they are. What a time members of the committee will have. I will see you Christmas.

What a mistake to send the bill back to the committee. It is in this Chamber that it must be disposed of, and with a reasonable approach, and a decent limitation of amendments, without a Member feeling that all wisdom resposes in him.

We can make progress and get this bill out of here, into conference, secure in the feeling, finally, that when one is around the Christmas tree on the morning of December 25, in red flannel pajamas, with his grandchildren, he does not have the weary, aching thought, "Tomorrow I've got to go back. We did not finish foreign aid."

Things are crowding. Do not send it back. This is where the business has to be done.

No matter what the commitee does, the bill must come back to the Senate. Then it will be susceptible to every standing rule and every amendatory process. Then we will go through this business all over again.

No; this is not the first time I have seen this done. Therefore, let us approach our responsibility and fight it

through. Let us write the score on the scoreboard when the roll is called on the motion to recommit without any instructions so that the orbit could be the limit. I say keep it here. In that way

we will make the necessary progress and we will not finally have to have the boys up there at the clock and at the other clock turn the hands back at midnight on the 2d of January; because there is a whole cave full of unfinished business. Let us vote down the motion to recommit and get on with the people's business in the Senate. Not a single right that the Senator from Oregon has is foreclosed. He can offer amendments by the stack. If he wants no time limit, we can have that too. He can bring up every argument he wishes, but let us have final disposition of it here.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. RIBI

COFF in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] to recommit the bill to the Committee on Foreign Relations. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. On this vote I have a pair with the senior Senator from Maryland [Mr. BEALL]. If he