position to the bill, I have another parliamentary inquiry to address to the Chair. Suppose the Holland amendment is adopted, and suppose I then offer a substitute for the paragraph of the Mansfield amendments in lines 4 to 9 on page 1, and suppose the substitute were to read:

On page 1, lines 7 through 9 of the Mansfield amendments, strike out "$975,000,000 for the fiscal year 1964, and $1,500,000,000 for each of the next two succeeding fiscal years" and insert in lieu thereof: "$900,000,000 for the fiscal year 1964."

Would that substitute language be sufficient substantial change in the language of the paragraph on page 1, lines 4 to 9, to meet the previous ruling of the Chair that if I offered substitute language for this paragraph, and if my substitute were agreed to, the agreed to, the whole paragraph, including the Holland amendment, would come out?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would rule that such an amendment would be in order-even after the Holland amendment was agreed to-as being a sufficient substantial change.

Mr. MORSE. Yes; the amendment would be in order. But if the amendment were adopted, would that wipe out the Holland amendment, with the result that then we would finally have an authorization only for 1964, and it would also automatically amend the Mansfield amendments by wiping out any authorization of $1,500 million for 1965 and 1966?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Oregon have a copy of the proposed amendment to submit to the Chair for the Chair's considera

tion?

Mr. MORSE. Yes, Mr. President; and at this time I send it to the desk.

Before the Chair rules, let me restate my objective, because I want the Senate to know-in spite of any other views which may be held-what my parliamentary objective is: I want to get myself and my colleagues in a position where we can move expeditiously, amendment by amendment, to deal with the amendments now at the desk, without first being required to hurdle any parliamentary barrier, for the consideration of these amendments moneywise and policywise, in connection with our attempts to modify or amend this bill.

Many of the amendments will be adopted. We believe they should all be adopted. But let us assume, hypothetically, that they are not. Senators should know the risk that those of us who are opposed to the bill are willing to run. Assuming that we lost on our amendments, the proponents of the Mansfield amendments might decide not to offer any amendment and try to win on the bill as is, which is their right. We believe it would be a great mistake for the country, but they would be in a position to act in that manner.

They could say, "We do not like the position which the Senator from Oregon has taken as to why he thinks the amendment was offered." Forget for a moment about the motivation of the

amendment. The effect of the amendment is to put those of us in opposition to the bill at a parliamentary disadvantage. That will not hasten the final consideration of the bill, because we have got to have time to figure out as best we can how we can at least reduce that disadvantage.

ganize the foreign aid program should cause them to go forward and do so.

The majority of the committee, with whom I disagree on many parts of the bill, have so recommended in the committee report. I am trying to accommodate them by eliminating the authorization for 1965-66. I wish to know

Mr. MORSE. I should like to finish my explanation, and then I shall be glad to yield.

We have suggested to the leadership that they lay aside for the time being the Mansfield amendments and give the opposition an even break in the race, if opposition an even break in the race, if we might use that figure of speech. At least they should not put us under a handicap. Let us try our amendments and let the Senate work its will on them. If we lose, we lose. We do not think we If we lose, we lose. We do not think we will lose on a good many of them. I am very frank to say that I do not want to be in a position of delaying action on the bill.

A few minutes ago I talked to the whip. I do not see him present at the moment. I am not going to agree to a unanimous consent request to limit debate and fix a time to vote on the bill. This is one major piece of legislation that will go through the Senate in keeping with what I think the procedure of ing with what I think the procedure of the Senate ought to be on all major legislation. Debate will run its course, and we shall vote without any limitations upon the debate. Senators will not like it, but that is just too bad, so far as I am concerned. That is the way it is going to be. That will guarantee to the American people full and adequate debate on the bill. They are entitled to it. I believe that they will approve of that procedure.

Time would be saved if the Mansfield amendments were temporarily laid aside, to see how we get along with our amendments. I do not know whether that course will be agreed to or not; the proponents have not told me that they will I intend to make my next speech on the or that they will not agree. Therefore, I intend to make my next speech on the I want a ruling on the parliamentary bill. But before beginning that speech, question. If the leadership refuses to lay aside the Mansfield amendments, and lay aside the Mansfield amendments, and the Holland amendment is adopted, the Holland amendment would reduce the authorization for 1965-66 to $975 million. I would congratulate the Senator. That would be wonderful. The only thing wrong with it is that it would not thing wrong with it is that it would not go far enough. But the result is better than the proposed $1.5 billion. What I wish to do is to get rid of the authorization of 1965 and 1966 entirely. In effect, what I wish to do is to offer an amendment that would amend the entire foreign aid program so that the authorization would be only for 1964. Then we would return next year and decide what to authorize for 1965 and 1966.

Psychologically, it would be one of the greatest things for the country, and it would be clear notice to the present administration that the recommendation in the Foreign Relations Committee report that the administration ought to reor

have sent to the desk for a parliamentary ruling would, first, be in order after the Holland amendment was adopted; and, second, if it would be in order after the Holland amendment had been adopted, would it, in effect, if agreed to, eliminate all authorizations for 1965-66? That is, would it eliminate the $1.5 billion continuing authorization now in the law? That is my objective.

Will the Senator from California accept by apology? I wanted to get that point clear before I yielded.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, though the authors of the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments are not present, I should like to ask the following question: Is it not true that if at any time a Senator obtained an order for a yea-and-nay vote on the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments, Senators would be powerless to withdraw the amendment in the absence of a unanimous-consent agreement?

Mr. MORSE. Certainly. For that reason the order for a yea-and-nay vote has been withdrawn, so that there may be a period of negotiations. But it only illustrates again why-although I hurt feelings apparently-I referred to the amendments last Friday as "powerhouse amendments."

That is exactly what they are. I know of no more apt description of them. They are a parliamentary powerhouse. They put those of us in opposition to the bill at a great parliamentary disadvantage. Those who have proposed the amendments are perfectly within their rights. I do not question their right. The question is whether or not it is wise to create this kind of parliamentary jam in in the Senate. it—but Partly as a result of it but that is only one of the causes-there will be no unanimous-consent agreement to limit de

bate.

The amendment would be in order. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MORSE. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. I call attention to the fact that the Senator's question was predicated on the adoption of the Holland amendment beforehand, which itself would have eliminated the $1,500 million figure and substituted for that figure, "$975 million."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is correct. If the amendment were agreed to, line 7 of the Mansfield amendment would read as follows: "the fiscal year 1963, $900,000,000 for the fiscal year 1964." The remainder of lines 8 and 9 would be stricken out.

Mr. MORSE. My question is this: If the Senate adopted the amendment, would that automatically amend the existing law, which presently contains an authorization of $1.5 billion for 1965-66?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is in no position to interpret what the laws are today as they are on the books.

Mr. MORSE. The Presiding Officer is in a position, is he not, to advise the Senate as to whether adoption of the amendment would automatically amend existing law in respect to 1965-66?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has no authority to interpret the legal affect of an amendment.

Mr. MORSE. What I am seeking to do is to eliminate from the Foreign Aid Act as it is now on the books any and all authorization of funds for the years 1965 and 1966. I want to know if the passage of the Holland amendment will prevent me from offering an amendment aimed at accomplishing such an end. Such an amendment would defeat the purpose of the Senator from Florida-which is also my purpose, although I would go further. The situation that we would then face if I cannot eliminate the $1.5 billion for 1965-66 would be to seem to support a continuation of a huge authorization beyond the year 1964.

the Senate, if it votes on the amendment, the Senate, if it votes on the amendment, would be whether to eliminate all authorizations for every year after the year 1964.

Mr. MORSE. That is what I am trying to do. I am trying to find out if I can succeed, and the Presiding Officer has told me he cannot advise me.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has no authority to interpret the legal affect of an amendment, but his amendment could only change the law which is referred to in the amendment.

Mr. MORSE. I drafted this amendment because I was advised it would accomplish the objective. That is why I wanted to get the matter on record. I will draft another amendment to try to accomplish the same end.

I repeat, what I am trying to do is to eliminate 1965-66 entirely. If I cannot eliminate it entirely, I should like to reduce the amount to the House figure$900 $900 million. I prefer the Holland amendment to the allowance of $1.5 billion. I like the figure of $900 million better.

This procedure takes time. I am acting in good faith. Those opposed to the bill are entitled to have time-and I shall see to it that they get the time-to see if we can perfect the bill so that our objective, at least, will be brought before the Senate for a vote.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. MORSE. I yield.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. If the amendment of the Senator from Oregon is not what I tried to state, but would leave in 1964-65, would it not become an amendment in the third degree after the Mansfield amendments and the Holland amendment? In other words, is it necessary to eliminate 1964 or 1965 before the Senator can offer his amendment at the Senator can offer his amendment at this time?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the amendment deals only with the matter contained in the amendment of the Senator from Florida, and would be in order. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MORSE. I yield.

Mr. MORSE. I yield.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I have read the amendment of the Senator. It would authorize $900 million for fiscal year 1964 and eliminate the law that Congress passed last year or the year before to carry on through 1965-66; so that if we wanted any aid to be provided next year for the same purpose we would have to pass a completely new authorization.

Mr. MORSE. I believe so. That is what I wish to do. However, I cannot obtain a ruling that says I would accomplish that end. Until I get such a ruling that I would accomplish that end, I must take the time to find some other way to get around the Mansfield amendments so that I can accomplish that objective.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I have read the amendment and talked with the Parliamentarian. That is what the Senator would accomplish. So the issue before

ator from Oregon has predicated his position upon the premise that the socalled Holland amendment would first called Holland amendment would first be adopted and written into the so-called Mansfield amendment.

Mr. MORSE. That is correct.

Mr. HOLLAND. In that case, there could be no objection arising of the nature suggested by the Senator from Massachusetts, to the effect that the amendment would be an amendment in the third degree.

Mr. MORSE. We have these rulings. The staff members of the Foreign Relations Committee who have been assigned tions Committee who have been assigned to me, and my own staff and others who share my opposition to the bill, can take note. I respectfully request that they I respectfully request that they get the help of legislative counsel and proceed with the work of drafting an amendment-which I can submit latër this afternoon for a series of other parliamentary rulings-so that we can

finally get one that will be in order, and that will accomplish the objective I have in mind.

What we are trying to do is to offer an amendment to reduce the authorization for 1964 to the House figure of $900 million. We are trying to perfect an amendment that would eliminate the $1.5 billion authorization for 1965 and 1966 so that the only authorization that then would be left in the law would be $900 million for 1964, with nothing for 1965 and 1966.

This would mean that the administration would have to take a look at the program from the standpoint of the committee's recommendations that the administration should consider reorganizing the foreign aid program. That is sorely needed.

Such a course would leave no doubt that we should be in a better position next year, when the Foreign Relations Committee considers foreign aid legislation again, to consider a much smaller authorization for 1965 and 1966. I believe that by that time the reaction in the country will be such that the Congress will be more prone to cut down the number of countries we are now aiding, from somewhere in the neighborhood of 90. We are having difficulty obtaining the official figure-as to whether it is 90 or 107, or some figure in between-but I believe by next year the temper of the country will be such that the people will want that number of countries cut down to at least the figure in one of the amendments I shall offer-which would limit foreign aid to 50 countries. I believe that about 50 countries which are getting aid do not need it and should not be getting it. That would be a great saving to the taxpayers. If that should be true, we do not need anything in the neighborhood of a $975 million authorization, to say nothing of $1.5 billion.

If my assistants will check with the Parliamentarian and proceed to draft an amendment to accomplish that end, I will hold the floor until it is drafted. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MORSE. I yield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I have met with the Senators who joined me in the offering of the amendments, and I am sorry to report back to the Senator from Oregon that there is no possibility for change in the initial procedure.

Mr. MORSE. That is perfectly all right. I understand. The Senators are well within their rights.

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

Mr. MORSE. I yield.

Mr. MORTON. If there is any question about the amendment as the Senaator from Oregon submitted it, and assuming it is adopted after the Holland amendment is considered and adopted, would it not be made perfectly clear, if the Senator's amendment remained just as it is, and a new section were inserted which specifically repealed those sections of the act referred to?

Mr. MORSE. Yes. The ruling of the Chair was interesting. It was a perfectly proper ruling, but if the Chair supports me, my amendment will be in

order, and I am of the opinion that it would accomplish exactly what I have in mind, for the Chair has not told me what effect my amendment will have, because the Parliamentarian apparently follows

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will indulge an interruption by the Chair, it is the Chair's understanding that the Chair cannot interpret the legal effect of any measure passed by this body. That is not within the province of the Chair. The Chair was fearful the remarks he made might be misinterpreted. All the Chair said was that lines 8 and 9 of the Mansfield amendments would no longer be in the bill and that the final line then would read: "the fiscal year 1963, $975,000,000 for the fiscal year 1964"-period

The Chair does not have the right to interpret the effect this amendment would have on existing law.

Mr. MORSE. I understand. I am not criticizing the ruling of the Chair. I am trying to explain to the Senator from Kentucky, and through him to the Senate, what my interpretation of the ruling of the Chair is. I shall give study

to it.

My interpretation is that when the Chair rules my amendment to be in order, the effect of this amendment will be to eliminate from the existing law $1,500 million of the authorization for 1965-66. That is my judgment. We apparently shall have to wait until my amendment is adopted, and if it is adopted, then obtain a ruling.

I want legislative counsel to take note of the suggestion of the Senator from Kentucky: We can also add an additional section, that proposes to leave no room for doubt, by repealing the authorization for 1965 and 1966.

While my assistant and legislative counsel are giving further consideration to this question, I turn to another discussion of some of my objections to the

bill.

One of the amendments I have offered calls for a 25-percent cut from anticipated 1964 aid levels for Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Turkey. These countries are included in one amendment because our aid programs for all are assumed to promote the defenses of Europe.

Ignoring for a moment the question of whether they do promote the defense of Europe, it is still no more our obligation to aid these countries than it is the obligation of all our partners in European defense. Three of the four are NATO members. One of these, Portugal, receives military aid from us in payment for use of her Azore Islands as an air base.

Since Portugal contributes no manpower and very little seapower to NATO defenses, one might reasonably ask why she should not offer the use of the Azores to the Alliance as her contribution. She does not; she gets military aid from us in payment for it. That aid is not to build up Portuguese NATO forces because there are virtually none.

Why should the United States alone pay the cost for this base? Why, if Portugal must be paid, does not each NATO member help pay the bill?

We have already extended $498 million in aid to Portugal. Currently, her aid is entirely in military grants-not loans, but grants, out-and-out gifts by the American taxpayer.

My amendment calls for a military aid program 25 percent below what is planned for fiscal 1964. Unless other Unless other NATO members make up whatever difference Portugal requires to make her NATO memberships worth her while, I believe the United States should abandon use of the Azores and cease all aid to Portugal.

Mr. President, I do not like to be held up; I do not like to be told by Portugal, "You pay, or else." That is the position of Portugal. I say, go around her.

Mr. President, do not tell me that we must have the Azores as a base. It is true that we must have the Azores as a base if we want to use certain types of planes, but those planes are already semiobsolescent, and there are other air lanes we can use without going to the

Azores.

It is about time that Congress stood up in opposition to what I call a form of international blackmail; for, if it is a case of Portugal saying to us, "Pay, or else,” I am for taking the "else."

It is about time for us to make very clear to Portugal that, as a NATO member, she has obligations, too, and that no longer should she be on the receiving end. She must also be on the paying end.

I say to my colleagues in the Senateand I quote no one that we would greatly strengthen the hand of this administration, in connection with European diplomacy, if we took a long, hard look at what this bill contains by way of payments for Europe, and cut them drastically.

In my opinion, if that were done, this administration would be put in the position where it could say, in the diplomatic organizations in Europe, "Congress made very clear the limit and the checks that are placed upon us."

In my judgment, if we adopted the amendment of the Senator from Oregon and those who joined with him, we would almost automatically, overnight, change the relationships between Europe and the United States. They would stop spitting in our face. They would stop insulting us with their anti-American nationalism. They would start realizing that the people of the United States, through their elected representatives, had had enough, and that they would either have to fulfill their NATO obligations or we would withdraw.

The fact is that our NATO Allies have not fulfilled their NATO obligations. I challenge any member of the Foreign Relations Committee to stand up and show that there is any NATO ally that has lived up to her NATO commitmentsnot even West Germany.

What the senior Senator from Oregon is pleading for, in behalf of the taxpayers of this country, is that we stop paying more than our share in respect to Europe, for we have done our duty to Europe. We have rehabilitated Europe. The greatest steel mills in the world are no greatest steel mills in the world are no longer in the United States.

Europe. The

That is having a tremendous effect on the American economy. It is having a tremendous effect on American labor, too. That is so even though much of American labor has been misled into believing that paying more than our share is having a longtime benefit on American labor. I am at a loss to understand the position of some American labor leaders on the question of foreign aid. If they think it is in the longtime best interest of American labor, they could not be more wrong. In order to continue to pay more than our share, we must continue to export more and more jobs from the United States. It is about time that we paid some attention to seeing to it that we provide job opportunities for our own people.

GREECE AND TURKEY

In my earlier remarks on the bill, I have dealt in great detail with what I consider to be the failure of our huge aid program in Turkey. During the committee hearings, I asked AID Director Bell for a report on what our NATO partners are doing to help Turkey and Greece, both of which make available large numbers of troops to NATO. The answer was that some economic aid goes to them, chiefly from Germany, but virtually all their military aid comes from the United States.

Mr. President, Turkish aid has already totaled over $4 billion. For the last 10 years, it has averaged over $300 million per year, and the fiscal 1964 plans are for a sum in considerable excess of $300 million.

If anyone believes that Turkey is a showcase for democracy, he has never been to Turkey, or has never studied the existing system in Turkey. Turkey is anything but a democracy. Is it any wonder, then, why millions of people in the world suspect us of being hypocritical? We are. The sordid fact is that we are a hypocritical Nation with respect to many phases of American foreign policy. We are hypocritical when we say we seek to establish freedom around the world by encouraging governments which have guaranteed to their people self-government based upon the American doctrine that the people should be the masters and not the servants of the state. Yet we pour $4 billion into Turkey, and she is in a worse state now than she was in 1947. What was a trend toward freedom in Turkey has disappeared. Only by a stretch of semantics could one say he has found anything resembling democratic government Turkey.

in

I do not know why we should carry the burden alone. Except for some token payment that West Germany makes, we are doing it practically alone.

To Greece we have already given $3.5 billion. The yearly amount in 1961 was $86.2 million and in 1962 it was $82.8 million. But unless some reduction is made this year by Congress, Greek aid will get up far over the $100 million mark once again.

Why? I ask that I be given some reasons. Where is the brief of the administration which justifies $100 million of American taxpayer money for Greece? I want to see the facts. I want to see the

brief, I want to proclaim it, so that the American people can criticize it. They will.

The administration cannot sell to the American people $100 million of aid to Greece. The American people will make their opposition known. The American people will say to Congress "Unless the other NATO allies want to come in and help with Greece and Turkey, you must cut down to a reasonable amount American aid to Greece and Turkey."

That is my thesis. I would like to have the administration's answer. I would like to see the administration's justification for $100 million in aid to Greece, without our NATO allies giving

a fair share toward that aid.

I do not see any reason why the subsidizing of Greek-Turkish NATO forces should continue to be an American function. If those forces are important to the alliance, their financing should be the function of every member.

SPAIN

Spain is in very much the same position as Portugal, except that she is not a NATO member, even though we treat her as though she were. The U.S. bases in Spain are essentially for the defense of Europe. In payment for those bases, the United States has, through fiscal 1962, extended $1.173 billion in economic aid to Spain, and $524 million in military aid.

She is down for tens of millions more in military aid next year.

A few weeks ago, it was announced that a new agreement extending our leases had been reached. What is in that agreement is still unknown to the American people and to most of Con

gress.

It is known to call for an undisclosed amount of military aid to Spain. More recently, it has also become known that the agreement does not permit the United States to use the naval base at Rota for our Polaris submarines that are assigned to NATO forces in the Mediterranean. Since the Strategic Air Command bases in Spain are steadily decreasing in importance, it is very difficult for me to see what purpose has been served by this agreement, except another lush handout to Spain.

More important, it is a disservice to the people and to Congress that the terms of this executive agreement and its price tag are kept secret.

Imagine the hue and cry that would go up in this country if an executive agreement of this kind were worked out in secret and held in secrecy-with Indonesia, or British Guiana, or Algeria, or some other totalitarian government But little is said about a of the left. secret agreement with a totalitarian government of the right, such as how much it is going to cost the American people and whether we are getting our money's

worth.

Let it be remembered that there is no executive agreement that cannot be overridden by an act of Congress. The Executive cannot appropriate the money for Spain-only Congress can do that.

And until the American people are shown that every NATO partner which

enjoys the protection of those American forces in Spain is helping to pay for their cost, I am not in favor of any such military aid program for Spain as is planned in fiscal 1964.

My proposal is extremely simple. I merely say to my administration, "Tell the American people all the facts about the executive agreement with Spain." If we have really reached the point where a President of the United States, acting through his Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, can enter into an executive agreement of this type with Spain, pledging all this money, and the elected representatives of the people cannot learn the facts about it, and the American people cannot be told the facts. I do not know how one would describe the situation; but if that is to be the policy, I call it a further step in the direction of a police state. A police state is based upon secrecy; a police state is based upon concealment from the people and the people's elected representatives such pertinent facts as I am calling for in regard to whatever agreement was entered into with Spain. I am for cutting it. I am for an amendment to the bill that will slash it. How can, in any other manner, notice be served on the administration. If the administration wants to go about the world, entering into the kind of arrangement it entered into with Spain, and is not willing to make the facts public, that administration should be cut off at the purse strings. Congress should deny the administration the money. If Congress is not willing to do that, in my judgment, it will have surrendered one of the greatest checks that our constitutional fathers wrote indelibly into the Constitution-the check upon the executive branch of the Government through the purse strings. I am not for giving one dime to Spain until at least we know the facts.

FIRM STAND NOW IMPORTANT

It was never more important for us to take a firm stand on these NATO costs than now. Unless Congress is firm now, the American people are going to find themselves saddled with the cost of yet another NATO venture, one of the most expensive and least useful of all-the Polaris-carrying surface fleet.

One would think that at a time when the American Government has been trying to persuade our NATO partners to start putting up their fair share of the conventional forces of the alliance, it would have better judgment than to propose at the same time a nuclear fleet for which we are offering to pay 40 percent of the cost.

What a sham we are making of the notion that NATO is a multilateral alliance. It is a German-American alliance, as this proposed nuclear fleet makes embarrassingly clear. It is an alliance from which France has virtually withdrawn now that the great

flow of money from the United States has ended. It is an alliance that Britain belongs to only to the extent she thinks is necessary to retain some voice in its affairs. Along with Italy, these are the great powers of Western Europe; but when it comes to the financing and manning of the military defenses of

the alliance, there are really only two members.

This is true now of its conventional forces. We, the United States, are now trying to make it true for a nuclear force as well. How do American spokesmen expect to make the case stick for the fulfilling of NATO force goals when at the same time they are urging members to let the United States pay 40 percent of the cost of a nuclear force?

Of course, one has to go to Bonn, or Paris, or London, or Rome to find out exactly what our spokesmen are urging.

We do not find it out in Washington, D.C. No Secretary of State or Defense, or Under Secretary, or even Assistant Secretary has discussed the proposed multilateral NATO fleet with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Perhaps they have with the Armed Services or Appropriations Committee—I do not know-but if so, it has been kept very quiet.

We Senators have to do our best to find out what it is all about from reading the papers, and buttonholing foreign dignitaries, and foreign newsmen to get some idea of the American objective.

We ought to slash into the NATO funds; we ought to serve notice this year-now-that NATO funds will be drastically reduced. In my judgment, that would not only strengthen the hand of the President and the Secretary of State in diplomatic negotiations; it would also serve notice in the form of a very much needed lesson in democratic self-government to our allies abroad. They need to be told that in this country the executive agreements of a President must be implemented with appropriations. Now is the time to make it clear that any agreements under NATO have run on the rocks; that NATO will not get the appropriations—that is, if the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate intend to carry out the will of the people.

In due course, I shall offer a series of amendments, country by country, if the parliamentary situation forces me to do so, calling for reductions in NATO appropriations. Let Senators stand up and be counted.

PURPOSES OF MULTILATERAL FLEET

On one central point they are all agreed: this new fleet is a political and not a military venture. Apparently it has two purposes; one, to head off a Gergive NATO something to work on while man nuclear arms drive, and second, to waiting for De Gaulle to pass from the

scene.

To take the second point first, many theory that working out infinite details Americans are great believers in the and spending large sums of money in joint projects brings nations together irrespective of the value of the project

itself. But even if that were true-I think anything but that is true-I do not believe it is worth several billion dollars to the American people.

The second reason given for pressing this fleet is that it will give to the Federal Republic of Germany a hand in a nuclear weapons system and thereby re