the United States was in the neighborhood of 70 percent, for the amount of economic aid is much less than the amount of military aid. When we consider the total program for Greece and Turkey-both military aid and economic aid-it is clear that I am quite correct when I say that the United States has paid so much that, when we consider the other NATO countries as a whole, their payments have been only token payments. When we consider West Germany's contributions aside from those from the rest of the European NATO countries, we find that West Germany has paid-but only for a small part of the time-in the neighborhood of 30 percent. However, let us not forget this testimony by Mr. Bell, which is to be found on page 639 of the hearings:

I would say 90 percent of military aid has been paid by the United States.

I read further from that hearing: Senator MORSE. I think one of the trouble spots you are faced with on this bill, which, I think, faces a strenuous drive for reduction, is this European field. Among others that I can mention is this last country I am going to ask about because you have been very patient, the chairman has been very patient, and I will submit the rest of my questions in writing.

Then I proceeded to discuss Pakistan. I shall refer to that at a later time, when I take up an amendment dealing with Pakistan, because here, too, a very large cut in our aid needs to be made.

Mr. President, at this time I have concluded my speech on the NATO issue, and I have just had a whispered conversation with my very good friend, the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND]. During the remainder of the afternoon, I plan to discuss procedure, if that arrangement meets with the pleasure of the Senate; and in a moment I shall proceed to do so.

At this point I wish to add to the speech I have just concluded a further reference to the "secret" document I hold in my hand. I shall return it immediately to the staff of the Foreign Relations Committee. I requested it from Mr. Marcy. His memorandum reads as

follows:

Attached is information supplied by the Department of Defense in response to inquiries which we initiated in your behalf in regard to NATO costs. Please note that this is classified "secret," and return to the Committee on Foreign Relations when you have finished with it.

I have told Senators that it is available to them in the Foreign Relations Committee. I deplore the fact that its contents are marked "secret." The American people are entitled to know the contents of this document; and if they did know them, I am satisfied there would be some major revisions in this foreign aid bill-as I have said before, because what this classified report shows is that we have no right to hope for any better treatment in the future from our NATO allies than the treatment we are receiving now.

I have referred to this item, section (b) of this classified document. I shall not read into the RECORD any of its contents; but this is the item which deals

with M-day, and these are the data which deal with Mobilization Day; these are the data which show the commitments of our alleged allies and what they are willing to do when the shooting is about to start. Mr. President, you will be shocked to read this document. Under the heading "Forces in Being, December 31, 1962," we find the country-by-country plans for M-day, the NATO program for M-day, the requirements up to the end of 1966. All I wish to say by way of generalization is that we find deficiency after deficiency on the part of ally after ally. We do not even have from them commitments that they will agree to live up to the requirements of M-day. So I do not understand why we should be asked in this foreign aid bill to aid them further.

If Mr. Holt, of the Foreign Relations Committee, will now come to my desk, I shall place this classified document in his possession. I now return it to him. I brought it to the floor of the Senate in the hope that I could elicit some interest on the part of Senators in informing themselves-before they vote, some days from now-on the question of further U.S. aid to NATO countries, for, in my judgment, this document is dramatic evidence that we should vote to cut it; and I shall offer amendments that will give the Senate an opportunity to vote to

cut it.

I cannot tell the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY] how pleased I am to have him on the floor while I make some suggestions or proposals in regard to the further handling of this bill. I to the further handling of this bill. I wish the RECORD to show, first of all, that the Senator from Minnesota has made perfectly clear to me, over and over again, that he does not agree with me on many of the stands I take on the foreign aid bill.

Mr. President, our discussions at least show that the Senator from Minnesota does not consider the Senator from Oregon an ogre or obstructionist, or one who is suffering great internal and introspective pains on the floor of the Senate that causes an empathy reaction on the part of others. I am only presenting my case. I am perfectly willing to let the jury cast the verdict, but the jury will not be here. The jury will be the people of America.

I wish to get on with the bill. We are setting forth our general case against the bill. We must make our specific cases now, amendment by amendment.

I

Earlier this afternoon I had hoped that we could remove what we find to be a very difficult parliamentary barrier that the Mansfield amendments have thrown in our way. We are at work and are making some progress in finding ways of mollifying somewhat the parliamentary effects of the Mansfield amendments. do not know whether we can succeed in accomplishing our objective, but we will continue to try. We need a little time for that. The Holland amendment to the Mansfield amendments is before the Senate. If we have to live with the bill as it is, the Holland amendment is a great contribution to its improvement. If we cannot do better than the Holland amendment, I intend to vote for the Holland amendment. But we are going

to try parliamentarily to remove 1965 and 1966 authorizations from the bill and have an authorization for no year but 1964. We need a little time tonight to put our parliamentary case in shape for a plea for such action tomorrow.

For that reason, in a whispered conversation with the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND], I told him that I would try to avoid a vote on his amendment tonight. I believe that in the regular course of events there could be an early vote on his amendment tomorrow, but it will not be held under any unanimousconsent agreement to vote, for, as I said earlier this afternoon, there will never be any such agreement while the bill is before the Senate. before the Senate. We do not need it. We shall see what the lay of the land is parliamentarywise, and try to understand what obstacles the powerhouse amendments have thrown in our way. I pointed out again that they are parliamentary "powerhouse" amendments which are very effective. I commend the generalship of the proponents. After all, if they wish to be so shortsighted as to try to accomplish the objectives of their bill, their generalship is very good. But losing a battle does not lose the war, although it sometimes makes it tougher to win it.

So we will do what we can to reduce the amount in the Mansfield amendments and, if possible, eliminate the Holland amendment completely by eliminating any need for fixing the amounts for 1965 and 1966. But if we must fix an amount for 1965 and 1966, and cannot fix a lower amount than the amount proposed by the Senator from Florida, we will rally behind him and vote for it. I address myself to the Senator from Minnesota because it is now a quarter It has been a hard day. More progress has been made in the cloakrooms than the work on the floor of the Senate may show. The Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] conferred, came back, and announced that he would not withdraw the amendments. I told him that that was his right, and that we would move on from there. I think it would be a mistake for me to call for further speakers tonight. It is late enough. Those of us on the opposition have work

after five.

to do.

I should like to suggest, without my being required to call further speakers tonight-if any other Senator wishes to say anything, he can say it-that we not seek to obtain any agreements of any kind tonight, that the Senate recess, and proceed tomorrow. If we cannot obtain an agreement on the Holland amendments, I suggest that the Senate vote on the Holland amendments. Then we will offer our amendment, which will be a substitute for paragraph (b) of the Mansfield amendments. It is the amendment that I discussed earlier this afternoon, which we think would probably have the effect of eliminating authorizations for the years 1965 and 1966. If not, we will be told so by tomorrow, and we will try to reword it so that we can accomplish that end. It may be that we shall have to follow the recommendation of the Senator from Kentucky and offer a new section that would amend the For

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I should like to ask the leadership what its desires are for the remainder of the evening.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, in Mr. President, in the light of earlier discussion, now that the yeas and nays have been ordered on the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments, and the fact that the Senator from Oregon indicated that he wanted to discuss his proposal of another amendment with some of his colleagues, there is no intention, as I see it now, to attempt to force a vote. There may be some Senators who have an item or two they wish to place in the RECORD; but, as I understand, the pending business is the Holland amendment. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator from Oregon indicated that not only was there objection, but that he wanted to look into the parliamentary situation with reference to whether that amendment might be modified or amended. might be modified or amended. That seemed to be a reasonable request.

Mr. MORSE. If the Senator from Minnesota will permit me to do so, I shall be glad to make a progress report. Mr. HUMPHREY. Very well.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I send to the desk another amendment dealing with this subject. It splits the amendment I first offered and provides:

On page 1, lines 7 to 9, 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 inserting in lieu thereof "and $900,000,000 for the fiscal year 1964."

I ask that the amendment be printed. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment (No. 303) will be received and printed, and will lie on the table.

Mr. MORSE. A discussion has taken place since the discussion earlier this afternoon. We want to verify the proposal overnight and be ready to offer it tomorrow, after the vote on the Holland amendment; and we believe that it would do the job. In effect, it would amend the act, so that what is called the continuing authorization, so far as 1965 and 1966 are concerned, would be repealed. If we satisfy ourselves that that is in line with the interpretation of the Senator from Massachusetts, that will be the purport of our amendment.

Mr. President, I send to the desk, for printing, the second part of the amendprinting, the second part of the amendment I offered earlier. That will be called up separately. It really has nothing to do with the Holland amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received and printed, and will lie on the table.

Mr. MORSE. I have informed the majority whip that it is our plan to proceed without delay tomorrow with the Holland amendment and then to offer the first Morse amendment, which we think would improve the bill even beyond the Holland amendment. I shall vote for the Holland amendment because, in my judgment, it is a great improvement. We think the Morse amendment would improve the bill that much more. But there are other speakers, if it becomes there are other speakers, if it becomes necessary to speak longer tonight. However, we believe that that would be a waste of time in the long run.

Mr. HUMPHREY. As the Senator from Oregon looks ahead, Is it his proposal that the Senate vote on the Holland amendment, or any substitute therefor, tomorrow?

Mr. MORSE. I assumed that that would be the order of business when the Senate convened tomorrow. If any Senator wished to talk about the Holland amendment, he would make his remarks; OFFICER. The then the Senate The then the Senate would vote on the amendment. There is no intention to force a vote on that amendment tonight.

The
Senator is correct.

PRESIDING

Mr. HUMPHREY.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Is there any objection to voting on the Holland amendment tonight?

Mr. MORSE. Yes.

Following the disposition of the Holland amendment, I propose to offer my amendment, or a modification of it, if a conference on the parliamentary situation causes us to believe that that is necessary to accomplish what we are seeking to do.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Then, the Senator would take only a reasonable time tomorrow?

Mr. MORSE. That is all I ever take.

Mr. HUMPHREY. That means that tomorrow there will be some votes. I feel that with the assurances we have had from the distinguished Senator from Oregon, tomorrow will be a very fruitful, productive day.

Mr. MORSE. Today has been a very fruitful day.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I am sure it was; but tomorrow will be even more fruitful. The fruit will be riper.

Mr. MORSE. That depends on one's interpretation.

Mr. HUMPHREY. So the plan will be to have the Senate convene tomorrow at 12 o'clock noon and proceed to the pending amendment, which is the Holland amendment, and also look forward to having a number of votes. All Senators should be on notice.

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

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Does that mean that there will be no votes tonight?

Mr. HUMPHREY. There will be no votes tonight.

ALLIANCE FOR PROGRESS

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, in our discussions of the foreign aid bill this week, many of the defects of this program are being pointed out. Although I have criticized parts of this program, I do believe that the Alliance for Progress warrants and needs our continued support. I ask unanimous consent to insert at this point in the RECORD two articles pertaining to the Alliance for Progress authorization which were published in the October 22 issue of the Journal of Commerce and the October 4 issue of the Catholic Standard.

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Journal of Commerce, Oct. 22, 1963]

FORMER COLOMBIAN CHIEF HOPEFUL ON LATIN РАСТ

LONDON, October 21.-Ex-President of Co

lombia, Dr. Alberto Lleras Camargo, said today he was very optimistic about the future of the Alliance for Progress and hoped Britain and other European countries could use it as the framework for stepping up their aid to Latin America.

Mr. Lleras Camargo told a press conference he hoped that his trip to Britain at the invitation of the British Council would help increase British interest in Latin America.

He said that in the past 20 or 30 years British influence and interest in Latin America had declined, but that the trend could be reversed through such practical measures as increased technical assistance, and increased trade.

ALLIANCE FUTURE DISCUSSED

Mr. Lleras Camargo spoke at length about the Alliance for Progress and its future. He said he was very optimistic about its future and considered that in its first 2 years it had made tremendous steps forward.

He told the newsmen that the Alliance should not be seen as a purely U.S. venture but as a project of all Latin American States. Answering questions he said he thought it would be possible for European nations to

help more, and that it would be a good thing if this were done through the framework of the Alliance.

Mr. Lleras Camargo emphasized on several occasions that no one could expect the Alliance to work perfectly in 2 years. He said that the beginning was bound to be difficult, because in Latin America more was needed than money-the human resources had to be developed, and technicians formed.

FIVE-YEAR VISTA

He said he was certain that in 5 to 10 years it would accomplish what it was aiming to do.

On the issue of the role of military elements in Latin America, he said when military coups did occur they were a setback for the democratic process in Latin America and not for the Alliance for Progress. He said the Alliance as such was not designed to protect democratic regimes but to help them develop.

Mr. Lleras Camargo also spoke of Colombia's difficulties over coffee. He said the Latin American States had shared the taxfree U.S. market with African producers, and in this way were helping African states.

He said that at the same time as coffee prices had dropped the cost of imported machinery and manufactured goods had increased, so that Colombia was also supporting the high cost of living in the United States.

[From the Washington (D.C.) Catholic Standard, Oct. 4, 1963]

THE SENATE AND THE ALLIANCE Among the many problems to come before the Senate is the question of foreign aid. The House has voted to slash $998 million off President Kennedy's foreign aid request, a figure far beyond the recommendations of General Clay's special committee. This aid cut, if the Senate allows it to stand, will force a change in our aid policy. In particular, the proposed cut in aid for Latin America endangers the continued existence of the Alliance for Progress.

Latin American countries have not hidden their displeasure at the House's aid cut vote. Latin American papers, even those friendly to the United States, have noted that the U.S. aid to the entire Latin American area will be only slightly higher than the Soviet aid to Cuba alone.

The House's aid slash is opening up a distrust for the United States at a time when the Alliance for Progress needs strong backing. The work in Chile has shown that the combined effort and determination of government and private groups can bring a nation to the beginnings of true freedom and economic prosperity.

But the Alliance needs the help of U.S. dollars, too, especially now when it is in its infant stages. The cut in aid to Latin America demands careful thinking. At stake is the future of Latin America. It is up to the Senate to make this future possible by restoring that aid cut and thus continuing the work of the Alliance for Progress.

J.M.O'C.

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DURING SENATE SESSION ON WEDNESDAY

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Manpower and Labor of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare may be permitted to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 6.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. out objection, it is so ordered.

SENATOR BARTLETT ADDRESSES

LOCAL SERVICE AIRLINES

Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a speech by Senator E. L. BARTLETT, an able and distinguished colleague of mine on the Aviation Subcommittee, delivered at the fall quarterly regional meeting of the Association of Local Transport Airlines in Honolulu, Hawaii, on November 1, 1963. His remarks concern the publicly announced plans of the Civil Aeronautics Board to reduce drastically the subsidy paid to local service airlines.

I concur wholeheartedly in his views. They deserve careful and thoughtful study by all the Members of the Senate.

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

THE BIRD IS BORN TO FLY (Address by Senator E. L. BARTLETT, of Alaska) Since the last quarterly meeting of the Association of Local Transport Airlines, something has transpired. Something has happened that has caused comment, concern, and searching for cause and effect in and out of the aviation circles. I do not refer to the announced decision of Mr. Khrushchev not to race us to the moon. I make no allusion to what happened to the New York Yankees. I am not here to call to your attention my views on the 1964 Republican presidential nomination-although that doubtless would be of great interest to youand I could add a dividend by revealing to you the name of the man who, in my judgment, will cop the Democratic nomination.

No. It is none of these things. It is the paper written for the Civil Aeronautics Board, duly approved by the Board, published, filed, but not forgotten, relating to the local service airlines.

You will have heard of it. In an uncertain world, this is one thing of which I am certain. Indeed, I suspect every member of this element of the industry has parsed or sought to parse every sentence in the report and could, blindfolded, insert every comma and period in its proper place if such were to be erased-and I have reason to believe some might like to erase the entire report

with no power of recall, absolute or partial, left to anyone anywhere.

As a member of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee's Aviation Subcommittee, I have for the last couple of weeks, among other things, been in fairly regular attendance at the hearings called by my friend, Chairman MIKE MONRONEY, on the proposed supersonic transport airplane. During this time I have learned much of which I was ignorant before. Among the things I have learned is that the minimum skin temperatures on this vehicle when it is way up yonder will be in the neighborhood of 450° F. It is my suggestion now that this temperature does not exceed, and in fact may be lower than, certain temperatures which came into being immediately after publication of the CAB report.

My appearance before you today is in plural capacity. Because the people of Alaska-thank goodness-have so ordered it, I am here as a U.S. Senator and, more specifically, as a member of the Aviation Subcommittee. Perhaps when the records are searched it will indeed be proved that I am a charter or early member of ALTA. Finally,

for the purposes of this discussion, I am

one who has had an interest in aviation originating long ago and who for a variety With- of reasons frequently uses the local transport

airlines.

Although it is my intention to speak about the Civil Aeronautics Board report and the segment of the industry which is reported upon, it will not in my opinion serve any useful purpose to stand here and seek to attain a high popularity rating with you by denouncing the Civil Aeronautics Board and its works. During my years in Washington I have found the members of the CAB to be in the main reasonable men, informed men, men desirous of encouraging this great transportation system which is even yet so relatively new. These years in Washington have passed for me with supersonic speed; almost one-fifth of a century has gone by since I first took the oath of office in the U.S. House of Representatives as Delegate from the then territory of Alaska. This was at a time when the DC-3 was still predominant in the domestic commercial skies. Many things have changed since then. During that time there have been many changes in the membership of the Civil Aeronautics Board. And, since for the moment we are talking of men rather than things, let me publicly record the fact, namely, that airlines in the category in which yours are found have never had a better friend, a more understanding and effective advocate than in the days when your executive director and general counsel, Gen. Joseph P. Adams, was a member of the CAB.

What would you have done had you been a member of the Civil Aeronautics Board and were confronted by this passage from the President's transportation message to the Congress, dated April 5, 1962:

"I am asking the Board to develop by June 30, 1963, a step-by-step program with specific annual targets to assure sharp reductions of subsidies * operating within periods to be established by the Board for each type of service or carrier?”

* *

Would you have failed to heed that instruction? Of course not. You would have honored it, just as the CAB did. The report was made. It suggested subsidy reductions over a 5-year period. In sending the report to the President, Chairman Alan S. Boyd stated: "The Board intends to proceed with implementation of its program as soon as practicable, and subject to such revisions as may be indicated after consideration of your views and the views of Congress."

Logically, realistically, and at the same time with appropriate consideration of the made by the subsidy program, I desire to demands upon the Public Treasury being suggest here that "implementation" will not be "practicable" within the foreseeable future. I speak as an individual Senator. I speak as one who is not affronted or affrighted when the word "subsidy" is uttered. Admittedly, this statement is not true insofar as many others in and out of Government are concerned. They look upon subsidy of whatever nature as an evil not to be tolerated. But history reveals that every nation at whatever time has had to employ this device, not only for the benefit of the immediate recipients, but for the benefit of the many, or all. Subsidy payments of one kind or another have been made since the early days of this Republic. They are being made now. They will be made in the future. They will be tolerable and justified and defensible so long as the public interest is served. I maintain and will hold the view against all comers that the subsidy program for the local service air industry is not only justified but is imperatively necessary. There is not one of you who would not prefer to be in the position of my friend Bob Reeve-that is, off subsidy, rather than on. You are working to that end. That is your goal. You will reach it. But you cannot do so within a 5-year period. If there were to be "implementation" of the CAB report, starting now, my prediction is that sheer chaos would result.

Before coming over here, I had a long talk with myself and told myself that my speech must not have undue concentration placed upon Alaska, tempting as the subject is. But Alaska, and Hawaii no less, offer a perfect example of what would happen with such an abrupt withdrawal of Uncle Sam's financially helpful hand. It is a truism that Alaska has only about 5,000 miles of roads even though it is two and a quarter times as big as Texas. It is a truism that there is no American-flag carrier of the maritime service except insofar as that service is provided by

State-owned ferries in southeastern Alaska. It is a truism that more often than not in Alaska if you don't fly, you don't travel. It is a truism that not a single Alaska local carrier now on subsidy could survive for a year or even perhaps a month without subsidy. Without it, the airlines would fold and people who want to travel and need to travel couldn't. Certainly, the same situation exists in Hawaii, where the only connection for people from one island to another is by air. To a lesser extent, but to a very considerable extent, this same statement applies all across the Nation. Railroad passenger trains are removed from service just about as rapidly as the railroads can arrange it. Between points now served by the local carriers, it is generally possible to travel by bus or by private car, even though the compass heading must be changed many times on many journeys. But the fact remains that this air service is essential, no less, in the first 48 States as it is in the two newest. I simply cannot believe that the Appropriation Committees of the Congress or a substantial number of Members of Congress would be deaf and unresponsive to the outraged cries which would arise border to border, from ocean to ocean, if the recommendations in the CAB report were to become effective now. It cannot be. Logic and need dictate otherwise.

As Senator MONRONEY put it, "It is hardly our will to support any move which will strike a severe blow to the small- and middlesize communities of America and jeopardize the future of the local service airline." ator MONRONEY speaks with the voice of knowledge and the voice of authority.

Sen

After all, the basic purpose of the local service airlines is to serve to serve the public, to provide efficient, and convenient transportation, and to create a demand where no demand existed before, making new passengers for themselves and feeding now passengers to the trunklines.

The primary purpose of our Federal subsidy program is to help the local service carriers in these tasks.

The initial goal of the CAB should not be the reduction of subsidies but rather the strengthening of the local service carriers. Strengthened local carriers will provide improved service to the public and in time will require less subsidy from the Government. CAB thinking as reflected in its recent report to the President seems to get the thing backward. As I read the report, the underlying, undoubted principle adopted seems to be nothing more than a determination to

meat ax the subsidies.

A couple of "public service" ribbons are tied around the meat ax but the blade remains as sharp.

It is the CAB's hope-and this is a nice thought that the coming year's local service subsidies can be reduced as new revenues increase. These revenues, says the Board, will exceed new costs by 100 percent. They never have in the past, but the CAB thinks they will in the future. It is a nice thought but it is one upon which it is difficult to build a nationwide policy.

At this point, I take especial pleasure in presenting to you an especial greeting from an especially knowledgeable man. I have

referred to him before. He is Senator MONRONEY. Unable to come here himself in response to your invitation, and knowing I had been asked in his stead, he wrote out and requested me to read this message:

"Congratulations on another dynamic and successful year of service to the smaller communities of this Nation-a year which has shown substantial gains in revenue passengers, mail, express, and freight ton-miles.

"In reviewing the accomplishments of the local service carriers I am again heartened by the fact that your dependence on subsidy is decreasing. This is a tribute to the vigor and initiative of management which continues to provide vitally needed air service to our smaller towns at less cost to the Government with some profit, although probably not enough in your opinion, to the carriers.

"While I realize you are still not out of the woods financially, the trend is encouraging. I am confident you will exhibit the same initiative in succeeding years as you have in the past, and that both profits and service will improve immensely.

"I am also confident that subsidy will be maintained at a level adequate to enable you to achieve these goals. With a continued increase in traffic and a more intense effort to obtain a new aircraft suitable for your needs, I am optimistic about your future.

"I am hopeful, too, that 1964 will be the year when a new short-haul aircraft will move from paper designs into the shop and onto the production line.

"Best wishes for another year of successful operations and improved service."

To me, one sentence above all others stands out here. It is the one which is phrased in this manner: "I am also confident that subsidy will be maintained at a level adequate to enable you to achieve these goals."

I bring you another greeting. It is from WARREN G. MAGNUSON, U.S. Senator from the State of Washington, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and aviation's good Senator MAGNUSON good friend.

keeps a vigilant and friendly eye on the aviation industry not only in his capacity as chairman of the legislative committee but also as chairman of the Senate Independent Offices Appropriations Subcommittee which doles out the money to the CAB, the FAA, and by whatever roundabout routes to the local service carriers. No one knows better how essential your segment of the industry is.

With your permission, I am going off on a brief tangent which will take us off course for a bit on a subject which to my way of thinking is closely allied with what we are talking about here today. There has been some talk about tax reductions. There has been some talk that these should not be made without an accompanying and like reduction in Federal spending. I feel very

strongly that there is a general fallacy in this line of reasoning and a specific fallacy which relates directly to you. To start with, tax reductions are being urged principally as a means whereby the economy may be thrive, and unemployment may decline. This stimulated, business may grow, industry may would be on account of the injection of dollars into the economy by taxpayers according to their own needs and desires instead of having those dollars grabbed by the Government. If tax reductions are made on the order of $11 billion, and Federal spending is to be decreased by like amount, it seems clear to me that the one would cancel out the other, that the gain made by the tax reduction would be exactly offset by the limitation on Federal spending. But I should not trouble you with my economic conclusions in this regard were it not for one matter which very specifically might affect the local service carriers.

Where does your tax dollar go? Well, 75 percent or 80 percent of every dollar you hand over to the Federal Government goes for defense, for explorations in space, for veterans' benefits, and for interest on the national debt. There is one thing of which we can be mighty sure: Should the budgetary cut amount to $11 billion or whatever, not one single dollar will come out of any of the categories mentioned above except possibly, although not probably, reductions will be made in space now that the Soviet Union has publicly bowed out of the moon race.

So where will the reductions be made? Obviously, they will have to come from the other 20 or 25 cents of your tax dollar. And, believe me, should this come to pass, subsidy payments of the kind we are so concerned with now will be among the first to be whacked. If up to this point the CAB report should have been principally an exercise in accommodation, then it likely would turn out to be a matter of brutal fact.

The Congress has determined that it is in the national interest that the local service carriers be subsidized. The subsidy program has, in my view, worked extremely well. The local carriers now provide 80 percent more service for each subsidy dollar than they did 10 years ago. Over the last 10 years the available seat-mile costs have been held constant, while unduplicated route miles have more than doubled, increasing from 28,500 to 52,000. A strong local service network benefits the communities served, the region, the trunks, the economy, and the Nation.

I want to repeat here at this stage of the proceedings that I, at least, see no point at all in picking up the cudgel and using it to thump the collective head of the CAB. That agency, in issuing the report which gave so many of us the shivers, responded to a command.

The transportation message was sent to the Congress, as mentioned, in the spring of 1962, a year and a half ago. It has been considered by the Congress. It is being considered by the Congress. The likelihood is that this examination will continue for some little time. The subject is complex, the subject is vital to our economy and to the national interest.

Chairman Boyd was careful in his letter of transmittal to the President to note that the Board would not proceed with its recommendations until after the views of the President and the "views of the Congress" had been obtained. Senator MONRONEY has given more than a hint of what his view is. Add mine to his, and you have right there a fiftieth of the U.S. Senate. There will be others. Neither the CAB report, nor the President's transportation message, can be considered as the policy of the National Government until it has been approved by all concerned. It has not.

I would say that time itself will solve the

problems that so earnestly and properly engage the attention of those in the administrative and legislative branches of the Government and in the industry. Time, and not precipitate action, will suffice. I honor the desire of the administration to reduce the outflow of tax dollars paid by way of subsidy. But I submit that to change the rules of the game while the game is in full play would be to inflict grievous economic losses upon the general economy far surpassing in amount the total of the subsidy payments. Time will take care of this if for no other reason than that our population is increasing so very rapidly. With 300 million people in the United States by the turn of the century, as the census experts tell us will be the case, there will be so many people flying to so many places that by then, in my judgment, history will record how useful a Government-assistance program, already ended, was in helping to establish and to maintain until the time came it

could fly on its own, a transportation facility so vitally important in so many areas.

And by then surely American ingenuity will have developed and long since will have had in service aircraft designed and built to meet every need of the local carriers. After all, this should not be beyond the capacity of the Nation which even now is preparing to launch and fly a supersonic airplane in a decade or less.

Just as the bird is born to fly, so was the airplane built to remain aloft. And just as the mother bird instructs her young how to fly, let us as a nation remember that while the glamour and the drama attach to the plane flying at Mach 2.2 or Mach 3, there are some earthlings who will always need to be taken through the sky at lower altitudes for shorter distances by none other than local service carriers.

Our friends in the CAB have performed their function. They have submitted their report. That chore has been accomplished. Now let us all sit down together, passengers, industry, and Government and, guided by realism, and necessity, join in improving this local service, in stabilizing it, in taking it off subsidy at the earliest possible time but not before then-and in the meantime performing those services which we simply cannot do without. As a fare-paying passenger, as one U.S. Senator, as one member of the Aviation Subcommittee, I assure you of my earnest desire and intention to cooperate. Let us go on from here to where we ought to go. Let us go without recrimination. Let us go without industry attacking Government or Government attacking industry or the public attacking both. Let us, especially, join in the fullest measure of cooperation. Let us keep that bird flying.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, for many years I have felt that our policy with reference to the Chinese mainland is a sterile, shortsighted approach that is against our best interests. I wonder how long we can maintain the ostrichlike position which ignores a nation embracing one-fourth of all the human beings in the world. Does such a policy advance American security?

Some of the questions that have concerned me, are raised by Mr. O. Edmund Clubb, former director of the State Department's Office of Chinese Affairs, in an article appearing in the November 1963 issue of the Progressive magazine.

I ask unanimous consent that this article entitled "Toward an Affirmative Approach to China" together with a brief reference to former President Truman's recommendation that we offer wheat to China, be printed at this point in the

RECORD.

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

TOWARD AN AFFIRMATIVE APPROACH TO CHINA

(By O. Edmund Clubb)

(NOTE.-O. Edmund Clubb, formerly Director of the Office of Chinese Affairs of the State Department, is an author and lecturer on Asian affairs at New York University and was visiting lecturer at Columbia University from 1959 to 1962. He has had 20 years of experience in East Asia, including assignments as consul general at Vladivostok and Peiping.)

The General Assembly of the United Nations has once again refused to approve membership for Communist China, thus

putting that issue on the shelf for another year. However, the subject of China may well be prominent in American discussions of foreign policy in the months ahead for there is mounting evidence that the Kennedy administration might welcome a national debate looking toward a somewhat more affirmative U.S. approach toward mainland China.

It is now more than a decade since our traditional China policy was reversed. In the 19th century, the United States fought hard to win acceptance of its envoy in Peiping, and struggled to gain access to China's market. Daniel Webster and Adm. Alfred T. Mahan alike looked upon China as offering a great potential outlet for American goods. As the century ended, Secretary of State John Hay evolved the open-door policy to further our trade aims. East Asia was viewed as the New Frontier of that era, to be opened up to absorb the surplus production of an ever-expanding American economy.

Since 1950, however, a diametrically opposite policy has been developed. The United States, which had worked for a century to break through China's Great Wall of exclusionism, now endeavored to build a barrier designed to keep China "contained." The Kennedy administration, following its predecessor's policy, does not maintain diplomatic relations with Peiping. It contends that it enjoys relations with the rightful Government of China by virtue of its alliance with Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists on Formosa. It prohibits the travel of Americans to mainland China on the facile ground that protection is not available to our citizens where diplomatic representation is lacking. Finally, Washington imposes a complete embargo on trade with China. The policy is thus one of total nonintercourse. The United States also campaigns in the world community against China's admission to the United Nations. Hoping to achieve "containment" of China, we have substituted the closed-door for the opendoor policy.

But winds of change are blowing in the Sino-Soviet relationship, upsetting the premises on which our present China policy is based. In July, world attention turned to the meeting of Chinese and Soviet delega

tions at Moscow which was called to settle differences that had risen between the two great Communist powers. The conference broke up in a fortnight with the dispute

unresolved. In its bout with Moscow, Peiping obtained satisfaction for none of its demands.

The Soviet Union, instead of brandishing its nuclear weapons against us in the in

ternational arena and braving nuclear annihilation for itself, as proposed by Mao Tse-tung, has signed a pact with the United States and more than a hundred other countries which reduces the danger of nuclear confrontation. Instead of pouring from its none-too-copious cornucopia a wealth of goods and services for the benefit of "socialist" China, the U.S.S.R. is giving aid to

"bourgeois" India. In spite of such hereti

cal acts against Peiping doctrine, and in the face of subjection to Mao Tse-tung's worst thunderbolts and fulminations directed against him as the greatest "revisionist" of them all, Nikita Khrushchev still remains on his pedestal.

The character of the new relationship developing between China and the Soviet Union is now becoming clearer. Evidence of reappraisal and adjustments in the power strategies of the two Communist giants has been discernible ever since the summer of 1960, when the U.S.S.R. pulled its technicians and blueprints out of China and began to reduce assistance to its nominal ally. More evidence of a massive Chinese reaction to all this has become available since the breakdown of the July discussions. Peiping has denounced the test ban agreement among

the major nuclear powers-the U.S.S.R., Britain, and the United States-as a "dirty fraud" and indicated that China proposes to go ahead and develop nuclear weapons of its own. Peiping charged Soviet subversion in the Sinkiang-Uighur autonomous region, and in central Asia. China also shows signs of stepping up its own subversive activities in southeast Asia, while a clash of Sino-Soviet interests in India already has taken place. More conflicts of national interest between the two Communist powers are likely to come over such pivotal countries as Indonesia and Japan.

The Sino-Soviet quarrel has been starkly reflected in the economic field. After the calamitous economic plunge that resulted from its attempted great leap of 1958, China, through prodigious effort, succeeded by 1962 in restoring agricultural production to about what it was in 1957. But the population had increased by 60 to 75 million in the meantime, leaving China with a worse food shortage than that of 5 years earlier. Steel production dropped from a peak of an estimated 15 million metric tons in 1960 to less than 10 million tons in 1962. Not only have new starts in industrial construction been drastically curtailed, but important projects already under way, such as the Sanmen hydroelectric plant on the Yellow River, have been suspended for want of machinery which was to have come from the U.S.S.R.

China's overall foreign trade in 1962 was substantially lower than in 1960. Estranged from the Communist bloc, excepting Albania and North Korea-neither a pillar of economic strength-China is turning now to trade with countries it has hitherto execrated as imperialist-Great Britain, France, West Germany, and Japan-and our own northern neighbor, Canada.

The United States for the past decade has exerted the strongest possible pressure against its friends and allies to refrain from such trade with China. It is noteworthy that of China's big non-Communist trading partners only one, Great Britain, has recognized the Peiping regime-but all permit their citizens to visit China and all are prepared to do business with her. American pressure has consequently won only minor successes to date, at the price of arousing strong resentments and finally defiance among our allies. Now, with the breach between Moscow and Peiping forcing China to seek other sources of supply and become a more profitable customer for the trading nations, the American "Chinese Wall" policy is more futile than ever.

Various big international traders have been carefully but persistently exploring the potential of the Chinese market. China has been buying grain abroad since 1961. In the first half of the present year, China purchased 1,300,000 metric tons of wheat from France; in August it contracted for the purchase of 2 to 3 million tons from Canada for After delivery over a period of 3 years.

a break in trade relations in 1958, China and Japan began trading again in 1961. In 1962, their two-way exchange amounted to about $80 million; this year it is expected to total $150 million, and a Japanese firm has just sold China a $20 million vinyl plant. In early 1963, the British sold some Vickers prop-jet transport planes to China (after carefully removing American-made navigation equipment). This summer, three British companies opened the first British trade fair in Peiping. The British chargé d'affaires, who presided at the opening, said that a substantial increase of Sino-British trade was "both possible and desirable." And to replace oil supplies previously obtained from the U.S.S.R. at high cost, China now buys some oil from Western countries.

This all adds up to a major reorientation of China's trade. Peiping will not find the adjustment easy, or fully satisfying. Industrialized countries such as Britain and Japan