« ПретходнаНастави »
His argument was later supported by There is specific language in section Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I George Meany, AFL-CIO president, the prin- 616 of the act which reads:
accept the amendment. cipal speaker of the occasion.
Except as otherwise provided in the Act,
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Meany noted that the chronic above-5
funds shall be available to carry out the percent unemployment rate, the educational
Senator yield for some additional ques
tions? provisions of this Act as authorized and lag among those having lost jobs to machines, the inability of the economy to
appropriated to the President each fiscal Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield. .
year. provide the abundant life for far too many
Mr. MORSE. There are some of us citizens living in areas like Appalachia, and It is not easily apparent what the real who, for the purpose of legislative histhe too low national economic growth rate effect is. It is merely a strong hope, I
It is merely a strong hope, I tory, would like to obtain a statement in aren't indicators of health or prosperity. suppose, as to what would be accom
the RECORD as to what, in the opinion Landing a man on the moon, no doubt plished. It was hoped, in 1961, at least, of the chairman of the committee, the would enhance U.S. prestige, but is this accomplishment more to be desired than that this authorization would give the effect of the Holland amendment would
be. maintaining a decent standard of living for agency some feeling of continuity and all Americans? that it would improve its planning and
I understand the Senator from ArkanThe imperatives of a strong national de administration.
sas is willing to take the Holland amendfense, which is costly and necessitates cer Generally, the really serious criticism ment to conference. There are those of tain sacrifices to sustain, are facts of life in the committee has nearly always been
us who believe that there should be the Nation must accept-probably for gen
about the efficiency of administration. no authorizations for 1965 and 1966. erations. Nevertheless, what good is any de
Back in 1958 or 1959, the Senate ap- The answer is that there already are in fense, if the overall economy is flabby and malnourished? proved the proposal for continuing au
the act authorizations for 1965 and 1966. If, as is generally contended, this Nation thority to use a public debt transaction,
thority to use a public debt transaction, Our answer to that is that there is nothis in a struggle to the finish with the Soviet a method of financing which has been ing to prevent us from stopping such auUnion to determine whose ideology is su used successfully in many other cases
thorizations as are in the act. That is perior, aren't the imperatives of a self- by other agencies of Government.
by other agencies of Government. But what we propose to do, if the parliamensufficient society equally as vital as an un at that time the House of Representa
tary situation will permit us to do it, assailable military position?
tives rejected it; particularly, the House before consideration of the Holland The Randolph-Meany view
Committee on Appropriations opposed it. amendment is concluded. simple, very precise: Unless the United
The later action, in 1961, was, in a
My first question is this: Assuming States can retain its democratic principles while providing for its citizens the indissense, an outgrowth of the previous ac
that the Holland amendment is agreed pensable criteria associated with a mean tion. The main motive was to try to give to by the Senate, and assuming it goes to ingful and rewarding civilization, the Na to the agency a more efficient adminis- conference and is accepted in conference. tion's defense capabilitity and an American tration.
would it be necessary for a foreign aid astronaut on the moon with flag will count Nevertheless, in spite of that fact, I do bill, with this authorization for 1965 and for nothing in the pages of history. not wish to have a controversy over this
1966, to come before the Congress again As a nation, the needs of our citizens question at this time, and I am disposed
next year? must be met. Otherwise, as a nation, we will have failed ourselves and our destiny. from Florida. I think the reauthorizato accept the amendment of the Senator
Mr. FULBRIGHT. It will be necesfrom Florida. I think the reauthoriza- sary for a bill to come, but, so far as the tion should not have been in the amend- authorization as to amount is concerned,
ment. However, I shall be glad to take it would be the same as this year. If AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSIST the amendment to conference and sup
there were no effort to change it in any ANCE ACT OF 1961 port it in conference. As I have said, respect, it would not be a matter of ac
tion. But it would be if any effort were The Senate resumed the consideration each Congress has full authority to of the bill (H.R. 7885) to amend further change these authorizations each year
change these authorizations each year made—which has been done in this the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as the question arises.
case—to make a change in the existing amended, and for other purposes.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will
ment, but by the proposed Mansfield Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I ask the Senator yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
amendments and the fact that the reunanimous consent that the order for the
Mr. HOLLAND. If the amendment quest of the administration for approyeas and nays heretofore ordered on my amendment be now vacated. were to be adopted, however, the Con- priation was only $1,060 million.
Mr. HOLLAND. Assuming that the The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there gress would be without authority to ap
propriate for the Development Loan Holland amendment is written into law objection? Without objection, it is so
Fund, except under that authorization this year, there is nothing that will stop ordered. as a ceiling for 1965 and 1966, unless an
the Congress next year from striking the Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I increased authorization were voted
authorization of $975 million? have been in consultation with the Sen- meantime by Congress itself.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. No; I do not see ator from Florida (Mr. HOLLAND] about
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator is
The Senator is that there is anything to stop it. this amendment. The addition of the quite correct. Congress has every right
Mr. MORSE. Why, therefore, in the reauthorization of what is already authorized was inadvertent. We had in the appropriation, in the coming year.
to change the authorization, as well as opinion of the Senator from Arkansas, is
the appropriation, in the coming year. it desirable that the bill this year conmind dealing only with this year's $975
As the Senator knows, I have recom tain a figure of $975 million as an aumillion. The law already carries the au
mended to the administration, as has the thorization? thorization for $1,500 million, and the committee, that it reevaluate the entire Mr. FULBRIGHT. As I said a moclerk of the committee inserted it by re
program and seek a new approach to it. ment ago, having the figure after 1964 iterating the full language of section
I am thoroughly in accord with that was an inadvertence on our part; and 202(b). recommendation.
was no need to reiterate the authorizaI have no strong feeling about the
I do not think the Senator and I dis- tion, because it is already in the law. overall limitation of authorization. We
agree on that aspect of the problem. Since it was done, I was agreeing to take have had the authorization for develop- We may disagree as to our estimates of the Senator's amendment to conference. ment lending since 1961. In 1961, Con- what importance it has had in the past So far as I can see, it does not do too gress, in an effort to give the program and what a great contribution it has much harm.
much harm. I am perfectly willing to continuity and, it was thought, some effi- made, in spite of faults in its adminis take it to conference. ciency, authorized it in the act for 5 tration.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I hope years. We have never appropriated the
Be that as it may, I am reluctant to the Senator will bear with me. This may full amount. The administration has
oppose the Senator's amendment. I be clear to the Senator, but it may not be never requested it. This year the admin
think it does not drastically change mat clear to many people who are unfamiliar istration requested $1,060 million.
ters, because next year Congress can with Senate procedure; and I believe I think it has no real effect on Con either increase or decrease the authori that for their sake I must be guilty of gress. Congress can always change it, zation, as the Senator so well stated. some repetition. Even though the bill is as Congress did in the appropriation for Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator passed this year-assuming a hypothetithis year.
very much for accepting the amendment. cal situation-containing either the
$1,500 million on line 8 of the Mansfield improvement in the administration of preferment to the Development Loan amendment, or the figure of $975 million the program. I hold to the point of view Fund. in the Holland amendmert, as a substi- that there has not been, but, instead, Therefore it seems to me that in the tute therefor, the adoption of either fig- that it has worsened.
circumstances we would not be justified ure does not in any way bind Congress Perhaps on this particular question, in taking as drastic action as that sugfor fiscal 1965 and 1966 to authorize the difference between the Senator from gested by the Senator from Oregon. either figure, depending on which figure Arkansas and the Senator from Oregon I am hopeful that the Senator from is adopted.
is perhaps a difference of definition, or Arkansas, in accepting the amendment, Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is my under- perhaps a matter of semantics. The will be followed by the Senate, for this standing.
senior Senator from Oregon has never is the first and only opportunity we have Mr. MORSE. There is a desire on the taken the position that this program had to show that we want a substantial part of some of us to strike any figure should end. The position of the Sena- reduction in the program and that we for 1965 and 1966; in other words, to tor from Oregon is that it should con are working toward ending of the proamend the existing act by striking what tinue, but under an entirely different gram at such reasonable time as the end is already in the act for 1965 and 1966, program; that we should announce to can be reached. This is an excellent because if Congress is not bound by it the world that we are ending it in its opportunity to show that intention by anyway, we see no harm in taking it out, present form, but that we are imme- the adoption of the amendment. I apand we see some advantage, because the diately starting a new foreign aid pro- preciate the willingness of the Senator committee in its own report is urging the gram. On the basis of terms and con from Arkansas to accept the amendment. administration to make a careful ditions, reservations, and guidelines Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will review of the entire aid program; and we mentioned in my amendment, it would the Senator yield? would at least provide a psychological in- be a better foreign aid program.
Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. centive to accomplish that end if we There is merit in what the Senator
Mr. GRUENING. I am much intertook action this year to strike the lan- from Arkansas says; that, in a sense, ested in what the Senator from Florida guage which is already in the act repre- this is an ending and new beginning. I has said, and heartily approve of it. senting an authorization for 1965 and also stress the fact that I propose to But I wish to raise a question which 1966.
start over. I do not propose the ending will arise in the form of an amendment. Does the Senator from Arkansas see of all foreign aid. Perhaps it should be Does the Senator from Florida consider anything particularly wrong with that put this way: I propose to end the pro- that the so-called loans we are making proposal?
gram and immediately substitute for it a at three-quarters of 1 percent interest Mr. FULBRIGHT. Yes; I do not be new foreign aid program.
with a 10-year grace period are really lieve it is realistic to assume, as the Sen That perhaps represents the differ- loans? The change from grants to loans ator does, that the program, though it ence between us. Eliminating the au was in response to the feeling of the may be lacking in some virtues, is to be thorization for the Development Loan Senate that this money should not be ended. I know the Senator expressed Fund for 1965 and 1966 will make per- given away, but that those who receive that view in committee. I do not agree fectly clear to the administration that it should be asked to repay it. It seems with him. Much as I would like to end when they come before us with their au to me that to call money advanced unit, I do not believe it is realistic to expect thorization requests next year, they will der those terms a loan is really a decepto end it altogether.
have to come prepared to take into ac tion and a fraud upon the American What I believe the committee did is count the recommendations which the people, for it is not a loan at all. It is to take a new approach. We are propos Senator's committee report makes to obvious that our Government must boring a better way to reduce its scope, par
the State Department. I believe that row money from the American people at ticularly with respect to the military pro- puts us in a stronger position. I am not higher rates of interest, and that we are visions of the bill.
sure from the parliamentary standpoint actually making a grant when we make I do not believe it is realistic to expect that this can be done. I shall ask a a so-called loan, as well as a loan. this kind of activity to be ended com- series of parliamentary questions of the Mr. HOLLAND. I thoroughly agree pletely. I hope that some method of ad- Chair after I obtain the floor in my own with the Senator from Alaska. The ministration superior to what we now right.
terms of the loans, in many instances, have will be developed by the adminis
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, it have been much too liberal. This is not tration, together with Congress. That seems to me that a specific benefit would fair to the taxpaying public. Unfortuis as far as I can go at the moment. It be accomplished by the adoption of the nately, we cannot hit that part of the is my hope that we can find a better way amendment; namely, a reduction of $525 program at this point; but, as I have to discharge the function of trying to million for 1965 of the ceiling on the already said, we now have a golden opmaintain the integrity of the free world. appropriation for the Development Loan portunity to say that we want the proThat is one of the major purposes, at Fund, and a similar reduction in the gram reduced substantially and brought least, to help new countries develop as independent countries, rather than to Is the Senator in accord with that? ceiling of the authorization for 1966. to an end as quickly as possible.
Mr. GRUENING. I was somewhat become satellites of the Communist
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator's in distressed when the President apparently world. terpretation is correct.
indicated that he was opposed to the I am sure we shall be called upon to do something. How much, I do not
Mr. HOLLAND. It seems to the Sen- half billion dollar cut made in the House. know. The pending bill clearly reduces ator from Florida that without any more In some remarks I made on the floor last
Tuesday, I showed, country by country, the amount. That is about all I know information before us, about all we can about it. If the Senator is suggesting do is to show by our vote that we do how I believe the aid program could be that we delete the amount for the next not expect the program to be bigger, improved by stopping aid to certain
countries which either no longer need it, fiscal years altogether, there again I do or the Development Loan Fund to be en
or should not have it for other valid not know that that would be disastrous, larged, in the 2 succeeding years, and but I would not support such a proposal. therefore we are not abandoning the po- reasons. We are continuing aid to
countries like Japan, West Germany, If I am not mistaken, in 1961, when the sition the Senate has repeatedly takenquestion was before the Senate, the Sen- and I wish to call the particular atten- and France which are prospering and ator supported it, just as I did, to give tion of the Senator from Oregon to this no longer need it. Our aid to those some continuity to the administration of point—that we prefer the loan program countries should be stopped. Aid to the aid program. to the grant program.
other countries, such as Israel, Greece, Mr. MORSE. The Senator is ab The loan program is here because of and Lebanon, is practically finished for solutely correct. However, this is 1963, the Senate's demand that it be here. the same reasons. We should cease our and not 1961.
The Senator from Florida, both in the aid to a country like Taiwan. We have Mr. FULBRIGHT. I agree.
consideration of the authorization bills already poured over $3 billion into that Mr. MORSE. The conditions in 1963 and in the consideration of appropria- little island.
little island. It should be self-sufficient are different than they were in 1961. We tion bills, with respect to which he has by now. I think it is time for aid to were hopeful that there might be some also had some responsibility, has given such countries to be brought to an end.
Countries, like Egypt, which are en is our duty to do it. I am sure we are not Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from gaged in aggression or Indonesia which interested solely in the appropriation to Iowa is talking about the authorization threatens war on Malaysia should have be made this year, but that we are think- for 1964. My amendment relates to the their aid stopped until we make sure the ing in terms of reduction and of the authorizations for the 2 succeeding years. money is not being used for military elimination, finally, of the program.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. This amount is ventures but for the purposes intended Mr. MILLER. I thoroughly agree with the amount that was actually approprinamely, to build up the economy and that approach; but my question is: If
that approach; but my question is: If ated for this year, 1963, by the Commithelp their people.
the House saw fit to reduce the amount tees on Appropriations of both Houses, If we were to consider the situation to $900 million-I understand from the That is the reason. country by country, we could decide in Senator from Arkansas that that is what Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the which countries the program should con happened—what justification is there for Senator from Florida yield further, so tinue or be discontinued. By this ap- increasing the amount to $975 million? that I may ask another question? proach we could make a substantial cut Why not make it $900 million, just as Mr. HOLLAND. I am glad to yield. in the total amount, and not only not the House did, so that the conference Mr. MILLER. The response of the impair the program but improve it. We committee would have one less item with Senator from Arkansas is that the apcould decide whether this country, that which to concern itself?
propriation for this year was $975 milcountry, or the other country should or Mr. HOLLAND. My answer is that if lion. However, I invite attention to the should not have more money right now.
the Senator from Iowa feels that way, fact that the House, notwithstanding In my opinion, that is the way to ap
he should offer an amendment to the the fact that the appropriation was $975 proach the situation, rather than by a appropriation authorized for this year, million, saw fit to reduce the authorizablanket, meat-ax cut of a
certain which, under the amendment of the lead tion to $900 million. So the Senator amount, which might be too much or ership, would be fixed at $975 million. from Iowa is still intrigued by the jusmight not be enough. That is the way The proposals I am offering would be in tification the Senate has now found to we should focus attention on the bill. conference. I feel quite certain that the increase the House amount in the auThat is what we should do in this de conference would return with a single thorization bill from $900 to $975 bate. To cut substantial sums without answer, rather than to have the authori million. specifying where and why is not desir- zation for this year differ from the au Mr. HOLLAND. I wish I could reable. While I consider there was ample thorizations for 1965 and 1966. The spond to the distinguished Senator from justification for the House cut, I would House has not had an opportunity to Iowa; but not having sat in the comprefer a country-by-country or project- consider the authorizations for 1965 and mittee, I do not know what the reason
was. 1966 in connection with this bill.
I do know that, so far as I am by-project approach. Then the administrators of the program would have the Mr. MILLER. I appreciate the Sena concerned, my amendment does not rekind of guidance they should have but tor's suggestion, but has he any sug late to the authorization for this year
at all. I take it that amendments poshave never had in the past from the gestion as to why the amount should be Congress, which has the constitutional $975 million in the authorization bill, sibly will be offered to other parts of the responsibility for authorizing expendirather than the $900 million in the bill
amendment offered by the group of distures and appropriating for them. passed by the House?
tinguished Senators. I have merely Mr. HOLLAND. I am thoroughly in
Mr. HOLLAND. The reason why I tried to reduce the authorization for the sympathy with the suggestion of the Sen- have selected the figure $975 million is 2 succeeding years by $1,050 million, ator from Alaska. I have no objection that it is in the amendment proposed by which I think is a worthwhile objective to making such an approach. I regard the leadership on both sides of the aisle toward which all of us should try to
work. this as our first opportunity to make a and by the two ranking members of the
Mr. MILLER. Again, I pledge to supsubstantial reduction in the foreign aid committee who dealt with this question, program and to bring it to an end as
and who know much more about the sit- port the Holland amendment. However, quickly as possible. uation than does the Senator from Flor
I hope that perhaps the colloquy that ida, and perhaps more than most SenaMr. GRUENING. I heartily agree.
has taken place might develop whether tors can know about it. It seems to me,
the Holland amendment may be imMr. HOLLAND. I hope that my pro
without having a greater knowledge of proved a little by reducing the amount posal will meet with the approval of the
the situation, that we would be on firmer to $900 million, which is the amount proSenate, so that we may give a clear indication to the people of our intention ground if we placed the authorization vided by the House in the bill sent to the for the 2 succeeding years at some ceil
Senate. to reduce the foreign aid program. ing that had been fixed by the group of
Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Mr. GRUENING. It will be a bit of distinguished Senators who have offered
Iowa can accomplish what he suggests encouraging news and it will improve the the amendment for this year, which pro
in another way, because my amendment program.
vides for $975 million. The Senator from relates only to 1965 and 1966. Mr. HOLLAND. It certainly should Florida knows perfectly well that Con
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will cause widespread encouragement over gress has never appropriated an amount
the Senator from Florida yield? the country. up to the ceiling authorized. Authoriza
Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the tion bills have been consistently lower
Mr. ELLENDER. I have an amendSenator yield?
than was the blanket authorization for ment that I shall propose today or toMr. HOLLAND. I yield.
1961, and appropriation bills have been morrow, if I have the opportunity to do Mr. MILLER. Do I correctly under- consistently lower than that. We are
so, to reduce the amount in the so-called stand that the amount in the bill passed not talking now about the amount that Mansfield amendments from $975 million by the House was $900 million?
will actually be appropriated. I am sim- to $900 million. As I understand, for Mr. HOLLAND. I am not familiar ply trying to offer an amendment to next year the
next year the amount of authority with the amount stated in the House bring the authorization into conformity would be reduced from $1,500 million to bill. The authorized amount for this with what is recommended by the group $975 million, and there will be ample time year, 1964, with which we are now deal of distinguished Senators as what should to reduce it from $975 million to perhaps ing, was $1,500 million. The request of be authorized for this year.
less than $900 million. the Budget-as approved by the commit Mr. MILLER. I am strongly in agree
Mr. HOLLAND. If experience inditee—the request of the administration- ment with that approach. I propose to
cates anything, there will be ample enwas $1,060 million. The amendment of- support the amendment.
ergy and ambition to move in that direcfered by the leadership on both sides
Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator tion. of the aisle and by the senior members of from Iowa.
Mr. ELLENDER. I thank the Senathe Committee on Foreign Relations Mr. MILLER. If the amount were the
tor from Florida. from both sides of the aisle would reduce same as the amount the House sent to Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator that amount to $975 million. By my the Senate, I would feel a little more from Louisiana for his comment. amendment, I call attention to the fact comfortable about it, unless perhaps the Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I think that we now have an opportunity to cut Senator from Arkansas might enlighten it very important that we take a few equally the authorizations which are al- the Senate as to the justification for the minutes at this time to try to clarify the ready law for 1965 and 1966. I think it extra $75 million.
parliamentary situation which confronts
us as regards the parliamentary effects figure $975 million would be agreed to in item of $975 million on line 7. Is that of the Mansfield amendments and the line 8; and the Parliamentarian informs true? parliamentary effects of the Holland the Chair that once the Holland amend The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is amendment. Many of us want to amend ment is agreed to, insofar as line 8 is con true. the money provisions of the bill as well as cerned, thus changing the amount to Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, if the many particulars of its policy. But we $975 million, line 7 of the Mansfield Holland amendment were adopted, and are concerned and are not too clear about amendments would still be open to the amount of $975 million were written our parliamentary rights in regard to amendment.
into line 8 in replacement of the amount money item amendments.
Mr. MORSE. Does the Chair mean to of $1,500 million, could those of us who The Senator from Louisiana has state that the Mansfield amendments think that the bill should be changed spoken about an amendment which he would still be open to amendment in further offer a complete substitute will propose, and I wish to make cer- line 7, even though the Holland amend- for section (b) of the Mansfield tain that he will be in a parliamentary ment calling for $975 million had been amendments ? position in which he can propose it. agreed to, insofar as line 8 is concerned? The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would
I have an amendment, which I have The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is be in order provided a substantial change not yet submitted in final form, which in accordance with the understanding of were made in the paragraph. would amend the text on page 1, in lines the Chair.
Mr. MORSE. I shall come to that 7 to 9 of the Mansfield amendments, by
Mr. MORSE. Assuming that in line point in a moment. Assuming that a very striking out “$975,000,000 for the fiscal 7, the figure $975 is changed to the fig- substantial change would be made in the year 1964 and $1,500,000,000 for each of ure $900 million, as called for by the bill paragraph, would we then be in a posithe next two succeeding fiscal years,"
as passed by the House, would we then tion in which we could modify the and by inserting in lieu thereof “$900,- be in a position in which we could not amount of $975 million in the Holland 000,000 for the fiscal year 1964.” That subsequently change the $975 million fig- amendment, even though the Holland would mean that we would automatically ure in line 8?
amendment were agreed to? drop any reference in the bill to 1965 and
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 1966, and we would accept the House correct; the $975 million figure in line 8 Parliamentarian states that such action figure for 1964; namely, $900 million.
would then be frozen in, and—assuming would be in order. I should like to add a further amend; adoption of the Mansfield amendments Mr. MORSE. Now we come to what a ment: On page 2 of the Mansfield could not be amended further.
substantial change would be. If we ofamendments, strike out lines 10 and 11,
Mr. MORSE. That was my under- fered an amendment to paragraph (b) and insert in lieu thereof the following: standing, and that is why I wish to make which would read:
On pages 40, line 10, strike out $175,000,000 it a matter of record, and to point out Section 202 of the Foreign Assistance Act and insert in lieu thereof $150,000,000.
again to the Senate that although some of 1961, as amended, is amended by striking That would take us back, as regards do not like my use of the phrase out "for each of the next four succeeding the contingency fund, to $150 million. "powerhouse amendments,” it is a rather years," and inserting "for each of the next If parliamentarily possible, we would apt description of the Mansfield amend- two years,” desire to handle those two matters to ments.
Would that be a substantial change? gether, although we could separate them, Before acting on it, any amendments The PRESIDING OFFICER. The and could deal with an amendment to to it, we must be perfectly certain that Chair feels that reducing the period of the contingency fund separately from there is no way at all for us to reach time from 4 to 2 years would be a subthe Mansfield amendments—and per- some meeting of the minds in regard to stantial change. haps we should, and then we could deal this bill, for I have no intention of agree Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, before separately with an amendment of $900 ing to the taking of a vote on the Hol- we might offer such a substitute for million for Development Loan Fund; land amendment at this hour until there paragraph (b), we would be in a parli$900 million is the figure voted by the has been ample cloakroom discussion in amentary position, even though the HolHouse,
regard to the parliamentary effect of the land amendment were adopted, to offer, These amendments then would leave Holland amendment as regards other for example, the amendment that many the Alliance for Progress program as it changes we wish to make later, when the of us propose to offer on the contingency now is in the Mansfield amendments. Senate may reach the conclusion that fund, leaving it at the figure of $150 milThe economic aid program to the Alli- other changes should be made.
lion? The adoption of the Holland ance for Progress program is very impor
It is a difficult position to occupy, and amendment would in no conceivable way tant. I would be willing to raise it yet it is important that it be occupied, affect our parliamentary right to amend beyond what is proposed in the Mansfield and I occupy it not alone. We want the contingency fund? amendments. If any further saving is
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Agreemade in Latin American military aid it Senators to realize the limitations that should be added to the Alliance for Prog- have been placed upon their freedom of ing to the Holland amendment would not ress economic aid program. That would parliamentary action in the Senate by affect any other part of the bill.
Mr. MORSE. Likewise we could probe welcomed, I believe, by all our friends the introduction of the Mansfield amendin Latin America among the heads of ments. We think there should be a good pose to cut further into the military aid state of democratic governments. many money changes in the bill. I shall figures of the Mansfield amendments.
Mr. President, I should like the leadMr. President, my first parliamentary ask some parliamentary questions on that inquiry is as follows: Are we in a posi- point in a moment. We have some ave
ership of the Senate to give consideration to seek to amend the Manfield nues open that will make that possible. amendment for the time being so that
tion to a withdrawal of the Mansfield amendments by changing the figure $975 But my own judgment is that days of million, in line 7, to $900 million; or are
we will not have to do all the parliatime would be saved if the Mansfield mentary manipulating and maneuvering we now in a parliamentary positionwith the Holland amendment pending- cleared the decks, and if we started on
amendments were withdrawn, if we in strategic action that would be called in which we cannot act on the Mansfield the bill item by item, section by section, ments are before the Senate, so that
cleared the decks, and if we started on for as long as the Mansfield amendamendments until first we act on the rather than to have a cut by way of a those of us who wish to change the bill Holland amendment; and if we act first on the Holland amendment and if the general money cut on the Mansfield in respect to various provisions can go figure $975 million, which is called for by
amendments, which create serious ahead and see how much we can change. the Holland amendment, prevails, then parliamentary hurdles for those of us Then they can decide whether or not will we be foreclosed from amending it who think that the bill should be cut they wish to offer or reoffer the amendto $900 million, particularly if-as are much more than the Mansfield amend- ment. the custom and practice here-a motion ments would cut it.
We know our reasons in making that to reconsider and a motion to lay on the Mr. President, I should like to ask the proposal. I do not believe it would come table are agreed to?
following questions: If the Holland to pass, but let us hypothetically assume The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the amendment were adopted, parliamen- that we are beaten on most or all of our Holland amendment is agreed to, the tarily it would not affect in any way the amendments. Then the proponents of
the bill might decide that they do not I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, have want to cut the bill at all, not reoffer and request that it be live.
the yeas and nays already been ordered? the Mansfield amendments, and let the
PRESIDING OFFICER. The The PRESIDING OFFICER. No; they committee bill stand as it is. clerk will call the roll.
have not been ordered. We are perfectly willing to run that The legislative clerk called the roll,
AMENDMENT NO. 296 risk. But what we feel sad about is that and the following Senators answered to
FOREIGN AID BUILDS INDUSTRIES ABROAD TO COMwe have been placed in this parliamen their names:
PETE WITH U.S. INDUSTRIES tary position in which we have to con
[No. 203 Leg.]
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, one sume a great deal of time in conference Aiken
of the greater follies committed under and prevent votes from occurring here Allott
the foreign economic assistance program Anderson in the Senate until we can see the end
has been the practice of using U.S. dolof the trail parliamentarywise.
lars to establish or expand industries So far as we are concerned, all the
abroad which compete with U.S. indus-
tries. slow us up. We are cautious men, and Burdick
Since 1945 we have spent $1,735,685,we shall be exceedingly cautious, for no Byrd, Va. Johnston Robertson 782 building up steel producing capacities
Byrd, W. Va. Jordan, N.C. Russell matter who disagrees with us, we believe Cannon
in such countries as Japan, Turkey,
Keating Saltonstall we are putting up a fight here in the
France, India, Korea, Liberia, Peru, and Senate on a question so vital to the wel Case
Yugoslavia. Today our own steel mills Church fare of the American taxpayer and so
Long, La. Smathers
are operating well under their capacities. important to the welfare of our country Curtis
We have spent abroad, since 1955, $14,foreign policywise, that we are going to Dirksen
507,024 to build up foreign fishery retake all the slings and arrows that may
sources, while our own fishing resources be directed at us until we are satisfied Douglas McIntyre Tower
at home have been sorely neglected and that we can say to our constituents that Ellender Metcalf
We have given or loaned millions to
Monroney Williams, Del. not to go to sleep by swallowing any
Yarborough establish and expand textile mills in parliamentary pills that the leadership Gore
Young, N. Dak. many foreign countries while our own Gruening Moss
Young, Ohio may have stuffed into us.
textile mills are in ever more serious I only make the plea. I cannot bring
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that trouble because they cannot compete on about a withdrawal of the Mansfield the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EAST an equal footing with the more modern amendments unless the proponents wish
LAND], the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. textile mills abroad. to withdraw them. My parliamentary EDMONDSON], the Senator from Wash
Paper mills, rubber plants, chemical question is as follows: There is nothing ington [Mr. JACKSON), the Senator from plants, and aluminum plants could also that prevents the proponents of the Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY], the Sena be cited as examples of instances in Mansfield amendments from withdraw
tor from Missouri (Mr. LONG], the Sena- which AID dollars have been used to ing the amendments, is there?
tor from Wyoming [Mr. McGEE], the build facilities abroad to compete with
Senator from Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA), U.S. industries either in the United The PRESIDING OFFICER. There
the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. States or in foreign markets. is nothing that would prevent the Mansfield amendments being postponed tem
PASTORE), the Senator from Connecti I send to the desk and ask that it be porarily or withdrawn.
cut [Mr. RIBICOFF), and the Senator printed and lie on the table, an amend
from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON] are ab- ment to H.R. 7885, the bill to amend furMr. MORSE. When the Chair states
sent on official business. "postponed temporarily,” such action
ther the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
I also announce that the Senator from would not clear the floor of the Senate
so as to lessen competition to the United California [Mr. ENGLE] is absent due to States from foreign businesses founded for other amendments? illness.
with U.S. AID funds. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the I ask unanimous consent that this proamendments can be withdrawn at the
Senator from Maryland (Mr. BEALL], the posed amendment be printed at this request of the proponents. The Senator
Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER), point in my remarks. from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] might
the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The make the request.
COTTON], the Senator from Arizona (Mr. amendment will be received and printed, Mr. MORSE. The amendments could
GOLDWATER), the Senator from Idaho and will lie on the table; and, without be reoffered at any time the proponents
[Mr. JORDAN], and the Senator from New objection, will be printed in the RECORD. of the amendment wished to reoffer
Mexico [Mr. MECHEM] are necessarily The amendment (No. 296) proposed them? absent.
to be offered by Mr. GRUENING is as The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
The Senator from Utah (Mr. BENNETT] follows: Senator is correct.
and the Senator from New York [Mr. On page 51, between lines 13 and 14, inMr. MORSE. Of course, if they were
JAVITS) are absent on official business. sert the following: withdrawn, the Senator from Florida
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
“(f) No assistance shall be furnished uncould nevertheless offer his amendment BAYH in the chair). A quorum is present.
der this Act for the construction or opera
tion of any productive enterprise in any as a separate amendment to the bill.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, what is He could not very well offer it to a
country unless the President determines that the pending question?
similar productive enterprises within the withdrawn amendment. But I would The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
United States are operating at a substanassume—I do not know that if the pending question is the amendment of
tial portion of their capacity and that such Mansfield amendments were withdrawn, the Senator from Florida (Mr. HOLLAND] assistance will not result in depriving such the Senator from Florida would probably to the amendments offered by the Sena United States enterprises of their reasonable
share of world markets. The President shall give consideration to postponing any
tor from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD], for further consideration of his amendment himself and other Senators, to the com
keep the Foreign Relations Committee and at this time. He would have to change mittee amendment.
the Appropriations Committee of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House of Representa
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, a parits form, in any event, if the Mansfield
tives fully and currently informed of assistliamentary inquiry. amendment were withdrawn.
ance furnished under this Act for the con
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The struction or operation of productive enterI have raised all the parliamentary in Senator will state it.
prises in all countries, including specifically quiries that I care to raise at this time,
Mr. DIRKSEN. Is it in order to ask the numbers of such enterprises, the types of so there can be some consultation on
for the yeas and nays on the so-called such enterprises, and the locations of such the suggestions that I am making in be Mansfield amendments?
enterprises." half of those who are opposed to the bill The PRESIDING OFFICER, It Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, this in its present form, would be in order.
provision is identical with the provision