Слике страница
PDF
ePub

a view to establishing two points: First, whether this assembly was lawfully convoked and therefore legal; second, whether the aforementioned decisions of the holy assembly of bishops and the holy synod are constitutional and legal in the light of the legal status of our diocese and the provisions of its constitution, respectively.

With regard to these matters, this National Church Assembly affirms the following unchallengeable facts: (a) The status of the Serbian Orthodox diocese for the United States and Canada rests on autonomy, embodied in its constitution of 1927 and the amendments to this constitution, the last of which was approved by the holy synod in 1939, in accordance with the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox patriarchate of 1931. Our diocese's specific legal status and relationship toward the patriarchate is completely different from the status and relationship of other dioceses in Yugoslav territory. This conclusion is clearly demonstrable from the fact that the provisions of article 13 of the said constitution deal expressly wtih this diocese while article 12 deals with the status of others.

(b) Imbued with the Serbian spirit and the traditions of St. Sava, the Serbian pioneers on this continent established their places of worship in this country with the twofold desire to preserve the unity of the mother church while simultaneously safeguarding their rights to govern themselves and to enact indigenous rules and regulations, essential for the normal life and development of their religious institutions. To this end, their representatives met in the National Church Assembly of 1927, sovereignly and with all the rights of a constitutional assembly, to adopt the constitution of our diocese, which they thereafter submitted to the Holy Assembly of Bishops and the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox patriarchate in Belgrade for sanction. In this way, a two-sided legal act came into being, according to article 15 of which the National Church Assembly not only became the highest legislative and regulatory body, but also the only one authorized to enact and adopt changes and amendments to the constitution of the diocese regarding its territorial jurisdiction and internal organization. Therefore, with respect to the legal process through which the constitution of our diocese came into being, any attempt to change the territorial jurisdiction or legal status which has not been adopted by the National Church Assembly as the legislative and governing body of the diocese represents not only a violation of its autonomy and indivisibility but also constitutes an indirect revocation of the entire constitution.

(c) The Serbian Orthodox diocese for the United States and Canada conformed its above-described legal status and relationship to the patriarchate in accordance with the provisions of the law on the Serbian Orthodox Church of 1930, and the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox patriarchate of 1931, respectively. Consequently, the only such constitutional provisions in church legislation enacted by the Kingdom of Yugoslavia which are obligatory to our church are those enacted before April 6, 1941, under the condition that they do not contradict the constitutional and statutory provisions of the United States of America and Canada, respectively. Furthermore, any provisions enacted by the present regime in Yugoslavia cannot be binding regardless of the fact that they may be obligatory for the Serbian Orthodox Church in the old country. For one cannot overlook the fact, as the holy assembly of bishops and the synod usually do, that the overwhelming majority of the faithful of this diocese consist of free citizens of the United States of America and Canada for whom the provisions of their

own constitutions and statutes are obligatory, in the first place.

(d) By the provision of article 20 of the constitution of the diocese, it has been provided that the diocesan bishop convoke the national church assemblies "*** into session each third year in the month of September, on the day which the bishop determines." Thus, with respect to this 10th National Church Assembly, there is the incontestable fact that His Grace, Bishop Dionisije, in accordance with the decision of the diocesan council of February 7, and the diocesan administrative board of February 17, 1963, by his decree No. 178, dated April 17, 1963, convoking this national church assembly to be held on the days of October 15, 16, and 17, 1963. What this signifies is that this assembly was convoked before the decisions of the holy assembly of bishops and the holy synod were issued. Therefore, even if their decisions were constitutional and lawful the validity of the convocation of the national church assembly cannot be questioned.

However, because of the emergency situation created by the said decisions of the holy assembly of bishops and the holy synod and in order to avoid the grave consequences to

the interests and welfare of the diocese inherent in these decisions-our diocesan council, by its decision of June 6, 1963, acted to advance the date on which the assembly was to be held. It is clear, therefore, that this decision of the plenary session of our diocesan council did not serve to convoke a new national church assembly, but simply changed the time of the previously lawfully convoked National Church Assembly.

For these reasons, this 10th national church assembly has unanimously established that it has been lawfully convoked and that it is completely legal according to the constitution of this diocese.

Regarding the above-cited decisions of the holy assembly of bishops and the holy synod, this National Church Assembly has established that, through these decisions, the constitution of this diocese was abrogated in its entirety; that they annul all the rights of the faithful of this diocese; and that they have caused the faithful of this diocese to experience the greatest offense and disgrace that can be inflicted on free men. Particularly, each Serb in the free world knows that His Grace, Bishop Dionisije, has indebted the Serbian people to him by laboring indefatigably for 23 years to advance and strengthen the Serbian Orthodox Church in the free world, by working ceaselessly for Serbian unity, and by his uncompromising struggle against communism and the bloodthirsty Ustaskis. These are the particularly compelling reasons why the holy assembly of bishops and the holy synod must assure His Grace, Bishop Dionisije, the right to an unrestricted defense against the alleged accusations, according to the spirit and the letter of the provisions of the Constitution and Church Criminal Procedure.

Taking all the above said into consideration-the 10th Diocesan National Church Assembly of the Serbian Orthodox Diocese for the United States and Canada, attended by 193 fully pledged delegates, 25 of whom are the presidents of their church and school communities and 26 of whom are clergymen, jointly representing the entire membership of 44 church and school communities from this diocese; in the presence of representatives of a great number of national, political, cultural, and charitable organizations, as well as the minority membership representatives of three additional church and school communities and representatives of the total membership of church and school communities in Europe, Africa, and South America, who attended as guests;

Desirous of preserving the unity and strength of the only Serbian Orthodox Diocese in the free world;

Convinced that the autonomous foundations of this diocese, its church and school communities and other religious institutions, which have been built up by the endeavors of delegates participating in previous national church assemblies, are indispensable to the future work and normal development of this diocese;

Fully aware of the fact that, upon the participants of this assembly, rests the difficult task of preserving the freedom, democratic institutions and rights of our fellow church members, as well as their national traditions and customs so that those beliefs and values that godless communism has sought to destroy may be brought back to the family hearth;

Considering that, in the best interests of the continued existence and undisturbed development of our diocese as a whole, and of our church and school communities as its parts, a determined struggle must be waged as a sine qua non condition, to make the Communist infiltration of our diocese impossible; and considering that this would also be in harmony with the welfare of the United States and Canada, the following resolution is unanimously adopted:

1. The assembly considers as unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void, and refuses to recognize the decisions of the holy assembly of bishops and the holy synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church, communicated to this 10th National Church Assembly, regarding the three-way division of the Serbian Orthodox diocese for the United States and Canada; the suspension and interdiction from sacerdotal duties of His Grace, the Right Reverend Bishop Dionisije, as the diocesan bishop for the United States and Canada; the nomination of three new bishops-the Very Reverend Stevan Lastavica, the Reverend Archimandrite Dr. Firmilijan Ocokoljich, the Reverend Archimandrite Gregory Udicki;

and

2. The assembly emphatically demands that the holy assembly of bishops and the holy synod revoke all the above-mentioned decisions concerning our diocese, the Right Reverend Bishop Dionisije, and the appointment of the above-mentioned clergy to the newly designed bishoprics, and it further demands that the same three Bishops be withdrawn from the territory of this diocese.

3. The assembly adopts the rule that the future relationship of this Serbian Orthodox diocese for the United States of America and Canada toward the Serbian Orthodox mother church in Yugoslavia shall be broadly autonomous, in which it shall be united spiritually and liturgically but not subject to any canonical-hierarchal relationship. Such unity should connect this diocese to the mother church until full freedom of conduct and decision is restored to the Serbian Orthodox Church in Yugoslavia, which state of affairs can be expected only after liberation from the Communist yoke.

4. The assembly requests that His Holiness, Patriarch German, the assembly of bishops and the holy synod do not take any disciplinary measures against the clergymen attending this National Church Assembly who, in accordance with this assembly, do not recognize the aforementioned decisions of the holy assembly of bishops and the holy synod, since such disciplinary measures will cause further tensions and division among the faithful of this continent.

5. The assembly resolves that for the present, until the relationship between this diocese and the mother church will not be regulated, no decrees, decisions, or orders of the holy assembly of bishops and the holy synod will be accepted, since these shall not be recognized as binding for this diocese and its organs.

6. The assembly repeats the request, made in the resolutions of the National Church Assemblies of 1956 and 1960 in accordance

with the ancient customs of the Serbian Orthodox Church, that, in case of the death or incapacity of the diocesan bishop, or in case of need, it shall be authorized to elect

three candidates, one of whom the holy assembly will acknowledge as diocesan bishop or auxiliary to the diocesan bishop.

7. The assembly decided to wait 60 days from the time that a copy of this resolution shall be posted by registered mail, return receipt requested, in an envelope addressed to His Holiness, for His Holiness, the Holy Assembly of Bishops, and the holy synod to accept requests 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this resolu

tion.

If His Holiness, the Patriarch, the holy assembly of bishops, and the holy synod do not accept these requests within the said period of time, then this National Church Assembly shall look to other solutions for all questions which concern the future conduct of affairs of this Serbian Orthodox diocese

for the United States and Canada.

For this purpose, today's session of the National Church Assembly is adjourned and shall continue its work on November 12, 13, and 14, 1963, at the St. Sava Monastery at Libertyville, Ill., with the same delegates and presidency. However, in case of emergency, the presidency of this National Church Assembly shall be obligated to advance the date of continuation of this National Church Assembly. In any event, the diocesan bishop, the Right Reverend Dionisije, in all the rights of his See, shall continue the unrestricted conduct of the affairs of his diocese in association with all other diocesan authorities and organs.

8. The assembly shall take due cognizance of the repeated statements of His Grace, Bishop Dionisije, that he is prepared to defend himself against any accusation which has been submitted or shall be submitted against him dealing with alleged violations in the conduct of his duties as diocesan bishop.

9. The assembly declares that it will not recognize as legal any other National Church Assembly or any diocesan authority, which shall be held or shall act on the territory of this diocese, if it has been established by the three new bishops forcibly imposed on the faithful of certain parts of this diocese.

10. The assembly pledges itself to God, to St. Sava, and to mother church and

the Serbian people, that it shall do everything in its best conscience and knowledge to defend the freedom, interests, and welfare of its Serbian Orthodox diocese for the United States and Canada and through it, the welfare of the mother church, the Serbian Orthodox Church in our native country. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana [Mr.

ELLENDER] to the amendments offered by

the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD], for himself and other Senators, to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.

The

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered? The PRESIDING OFFICER. yeas and nays have been ordered. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER.

clerk will call the roll.

The

[blocks in formation]

The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. RIBICOFF (after having voted in the affirmative). Mr. President, on this vote I have a live pair with the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE]. If he were present and voting, he would vote "nay"; if I were at liberty to vote, I would vote "yea." I therefore with- Fulbright draw my vote.

Cooper Dirksen

Dodd Douglas

Gore

Cotton Eastland Edmondson

Mr. MAGNUSON (after having voted in the affirmative). Mr. President, I Bennett have a live pair with the Senator from Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA]. If he were present and voting, he would vote "nay"; if I were at liberty to vote, I would vote "yea." I therefore withdraw my vote.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMONDSON], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. MCGEE], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], and the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. WALTERS] are absent on official business.

I also announce that the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE] is absent because of illness.

On this vote, the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMONDSON] is paired with the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. McGEE]. If present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma would vote "yea," and the Senator from Wyoming would vote "nay."

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS] would each vote "yea."

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. PROUTY] is absent on official business.

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. JORDAN], and the Senator from Texas [Mr. TOWER] are necessarily absent.

The Senator from Utah [Mr. BEN

NETT] and the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] are absent on official busi

If present and voting, the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. JORDAN], and the Senator from Texas [Mr. TOWER] Would each vote "yea."

Engle Goldwater

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

So Mr. ELLENDER'S amendment to the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

I

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, move to lay that motion on the table. Mr. ELLENDER. On the motion to table I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator will state it.

The

Mr. DOUGLAS. Will the Presiding Officer state the motion that is now before the Senate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the motion to reconsider the vote by which the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] was rejected.

On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. RIBICOFF. On this vote I have a live pair with the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE]. If he were present and voting, he would vote "yea"; if I were at liberty to vote, I would vote "nay." I withhold my vote.

Mr. BREWSTER. On this vote I have

a live pair with the Senator from Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA]. If he were here, he would vote "yea"; if I were at liberty to vote, I would vote "nay." I withhold my vote.

Mr. LONG of Missouri. On this vote I have a live pair with the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. McGEE]. If he were present, he would vote "yea"; if I were The result was announced-yeas 40, at liberty to vote, I would vote "nay." I nays 43, as follows:

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

withhold my vote.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMONDSON], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. McGEE], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], and the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. WALTERS] are absent on official business.

I also announce that the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE] is absent because of illness.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND), the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMONDSON], and the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], would each vote "nay."

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senators from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN and Mr. PROUTY] are absent on official busi

ness.

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. JORDAN], and the Senator from Texas [Mr. TowER] are necessarily absent.

The Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] and the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] are absent on official business.

If present and voting, the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT), the Senator from Idaho [Mr. JORDAN], and the Senator from Texas [Mr. TowER] would each vote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN] is paired with the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER]. If present and voting, the Senator from Vermont would vote "yea," and the Senator from Arizona would vote "nay." The result was announced-yeas 42, nays 39, as follows:

[blocks in formation]

So Mr. DIRKSEN's motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, to the Mansfield amendment, as amended, I call up my amendment No. 303. Before I ask that it be read, I wish to make two modifications in it: In line 2-in view of the adoption of the Holland amendment-the figure "$1,500,000,000" should read "$975,000,000"; in addition, on line 4, the figure "$900,000,000" should read "$950,000,000".

I ask that the amendment be modified accordingly.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be modified accordingly as requested.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I now ask that my amendment, as thus modified, be read.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The modified amendment will be stated. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 1, in lines 7 to 9 of the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments, as amended, it is proposed to strike out "$975,000,000 for the fiscal year 1964, and $975,000,000 for each of the next two succeeding fiscal years," and insert in lieu thereof "and $950,000,000 for the fiscal year 1964,".

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to this amendment to the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments, as amended, to the committee amendment.

On this question, I ask

Mr. MORSE. for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a brief statement in support of my amendment and a statement prepared by the Legislative Counsel as to the effect of the amendment, and other amendments, upon the Development Loan Fund.

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

MORSE AMENDMENT TO THE MANSFIELD AMENDMENTS-DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND

My amendment has the effect of reducing this year's authorization to $950 million, and repealing the existing authorization for the next 2 fiscal years.

Senators will recall that the report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was severely critical of the foreign aid program. It noted that it had rejected an amendment terminating all existing foreign aid programs at the close of fiscal year 1965 because it expected the administration to submit an entirely new program for fiscal year 1965.

Yet we know that there was already authorized $1.5 billion for both fiscal year 1965 and 1966. How likely is it that with an authorization of $1.5 billion already on the books, any administration would make a serious effort to revise and reduce the aid program for 1965 and 1966?

Nor would it make much difference if there were an authorization of $975 million on the books. The Senate has just made it $975 million by adopting the Holland amendment.

Leaving any authorization for 1965 and 1966 will further minimize the fainthearted appeal of the Foreign Relations Committee for submission of a foreign aid bill next year that will be as the committee put it, “revamped in major respects."

STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL

EXISTING LAW OF 1961

"SEC. 202. Authorization: (a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the President for the purposes of this title $1,200,000,000 for the fiscal year 1962 and $1,500,000,000 for each of the next four succeeding fiscal years, which sums shall remain available until expended: Provided, That any unappropriated portion of the amount authorized to be appropriated for any such fiscal year may be appropriated in any subsequent fiscal year during the above period

in addition to the amount otherwise author

ized to be appropriated for such subsequent fiscal year."

PENDING BILL (H.R. 7885)

The pending bill proposes no change in section 202.

MANSFIELD AMENDMENT

Inserts in the bill the following amendment to section 202:

"(b) Section 202 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, is amended by striking out for each of the next four succeeding fiscal years,' and inserting 'for the fiscal 1964, and $1,500,000,000 for each of the next year 1963, $975,000,000 for the fiscal year

two succeeding fiscal years,'."

The effect of this amendment would be to reduce from $1,500,000,000 to $975,000,000 the authorization for 1964, and to leave unchanged the authorization ($1,500,000,000) for 1965 and 1966.

HOLLAND AMENDMENT TO MANSFIELD
AMENDMENT

On line 8 of Mansfield amendment strike out "$1,500,000,000" and insert "$975,000,000". The effect of this amendment is to reduce the authorizations for 1965 and 1966 from $1,500,000,000 to $975,000,000.

MORSE AMENDMENT TO MANSFIELD

AMENDMENT

000,000 for the fiscal year 1964, and $1,500,

On page 1, lines 7 to 9, strike out "$975,

fiscal years," and insert in lieu thereof “and 000,000 for each of the next two succeeding $950,000,000 for the fiscal year 1964."

The effect of this amendment would be to make the 1964 authorization $950,000,000 (instead of $975,000,000 as proposed by the Mansfield amendment), and eliminate entirely the authorizations for 1965 and 1966.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I can very quickly summarize my amendment to the Mansfield amendments: In my opinion the previous vote-which finally was decided after numerous changes, plus the perfectly proper work of the leadership in turning defeat into victory by getting pairs and vote changes-tells quite a story; it makes perfectly clear that the foreign aid program, in the form in which it is before the Senate, is not a popular program and that many people know and recognize the fact that it should be drastically modified; and in my opinion the people will see to it that it is modified.

The effect of my pending amendment to the Mansfield amendments is to cut $25 million from the $975 million and to make perfectly clear that the administration will have to come before the congressional committees in 1965 and 1966 tabula rasa. There will not be any continuation of the $975 million; Congress will deal with the problem as a new authorization in 1965 and 1966. My amendment repeals all authorization for development loans beyond fiscal 1964. I believe Congress should do so, for that would be psychologically beneficial and would say to the American people that we are willing to vote, for 1965 and 1966, whatever sound foreign aid program the administration at that time can prove is needed, but we are not going to give the administration any advantage by starting with a presumption in favor of an authorization of $975 million. Instead, we shall start with the blackboard erased clean, and will say to the administration, "Write on the blackboard the figures for foreign aid that you can justify. Come in with the new and revamped program for fiscal 1965 which the Foreign Relations Committee has asked for, and with

the sum you believe should be expended under it."

Mr. President, by means of this amendment to the Mansfield amendments, as amended, the Senate has an opportunity to save the taxpayers $25 million-by reducing the present figure of $975 million to $950 million-and also to guarantee that there will not be a continuation of the authorization for 1965 and 1966. Hence, foreign aid will be considered tabula rasa when the administration submits its proposed program for 1965 and 1966.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, the Mr. President, the pending amendment of the Senator from Oregon to the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments, as amended, would reduce the authorization which has been made by means of the Holland amendment to the Mansfield amendments. The pending Morse amendment would not necessarily result in any saving this year, because the pending bill is only an authorization bill, and the appropriation has never, to my knowledge, been in the same amount as the authorization.

In view of the Senate's vote on the Ellender amendment-which called for $50 million more than the pending Morse amendment does for this fiscal year-I think the pending amendment is an example of cheese paring. Furthermore, if we must vote on every one of the various amendments which call for changes in the amount of $25 million or $50 million or less, we shall be here all winter.

In addition, the Holland amendment to the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments was agreed to unanimously only a couple of hours ago, and I thought it was perfectly acceptable to the Senate. The pending Morse amendment would strike out the Holland amendment; it would pare down the currently applicable figure in the Mansfield amendment by $25

million.

Therefore, Mr. President, I hope the Senate will reject this amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. KENNEDY in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the Morse amendment No. 303, as modified, to the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments, as amended, to the committee amendment.

On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered; and the clerk will call the roll.

I also announce that the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE] is absent because of illness.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Arizona [Mr. HAYDEN] Would vote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND] is paired with the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. McGEE). Senator from Wyoming [Mr. MCGEE]. If present and voting, the Senator from Mississippi would vote "yea," and the Senator from Wyoming would vote “nay.”

[blocks in formation]

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Mansfield-Dirksen amendments to the committee amendment is open to fur

On this vote, the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMONDSON] is paired with the Senator from Michigan [Mr. McNAMARA]. If present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma would vote "yea," and the Senator from Michigan would and the Senator from Michigan would call up my amendment No. 301, and ask vote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS] is paired with the sissippi [Mr. STENNIS] is paired with the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE]. If present and voting, the Senator from Mississippi would vote "yea," and the Senator from Rhode Island would vote "nay."

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senators from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN and Mr. PROUTY] are absent on official busi

[blocks in formation]

ther amendment.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I

that it be stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

amendment of the Senator from Minne

sota will be stated.

the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments, it is The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 2, in proposed to strike out lines 2 through 11, as follows:

(1) Strike out "for use beginning in each of the fiscal years 1963 through 1966, not to exceed $600,000,000 for each such fiscal year" and insert "for use beginning in the fiscal year 1963 not to exceed $600,000,000, for use beginning in the fiscal year 1964 not to exceed $525,000,000, and for use beginning in each of the fiscal years 1965 and 1966 not to exceed $600,000,000”.

On page 38, line 13, strike out "(3) " and insert “(2)”.

On page 40, lines 9 and 10, strike out "$300,000,000' and" and "and $175,000,000', respectively".

[blocks in formation]

The result was announced-yeas 42, erhouse" amendment by $125 million. nays 40, as follows:

[blocks in formation]

The legislative clerk proceeded to call Byrd, Va.

the roll.

Mr. DOMINICK (when his name was called). On this vote I have a pair with the senior Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN]. If he were present and voting, he would vote "nay." If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote "yea." Therefore I withhold my vote.

The rollcall was concluded.

Byrd, W. Va.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMONDSON], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. HAYDEN], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. MCGEE], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE], the Hartke Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], and the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. WALTERS] are absent on official business.

Gore

Aiken

Bennett Cotton

[blocks in formation]

That fund would be restored to the Alliance for Progress.

The President's contingency fund, which was increased by $125 million, would be reduced by this amendment $125 million. Basically, in view of the recent action of the Senate in adopting the Morse amendment, the amendment would leave the reductions in the Development Loan Fund and the Military Assistance Fund as recommended by the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments as modified by the Morse amendment, which would be approximately $410 million, I believe, and it would restore the $125 million to the Alliance for Progress.

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

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.

Mr. KEATING. Would it be fair to characterize this amendment as the "little powerhouse" amendment?

Mr. HUMPHREY. It would be fair to characterize it as a fair amendment. Mr. KEATING. I wondered.

Mr. HUMPHREY. It is a reasonable amendment, that would keep our commitment under the Alliance for Progress. I repeat, it would leave intact all

of the reductions which have been voted. It would in no way modify the total aggregate sum of the reductions. It would merely take the sum of $125 million from the contingency fund, as recommended in the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments, and add that sum to the Alliance for Progress, so that the contingency fund amount and the Alliance for Progress amount would be as recommended by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Let me say to those who are strong advocates of the reduction in amounts in this program that the total amount of reduction would remain as presently voted and as pending in the MansfieldDirksen amendments as modified by the Morse amendment.

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

Mr. HUMPHREY. I am glad to yield. Mr. CHURCH. Is it not true that if the cut of $125 million for the Alliance for Progress is sustained by the Senate, that will have a crippling effect upon the Alliance for Progress for the coming year. The evidence indicates that this is the only program which we can rely upon in the hope of bringing Latin America away from its long tradition of feudalism and dictatorship?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I feel that that is correct. I believe the testimony before the committee would bear that out.

Mr. CHURCH. Would not the Senator also agree that in dealing with the problems which face us in the Western Hemisphere, there is probably no more hopeful new development in the entire field of foreign aid than the Alliance for Progress, addressed to the real problems, the real seedbeds of communism in this hemisphere? If there is one part of the program that ought not to be cut, it is the Alliance for Progress.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator from Idaho is eminently correct. To the advocates of reductions in this overall foreign aid program, I only add that the House made serious cuts in the Alliance for Progress-down to $450 millionwhich I believe really jeopardized the effort that we have already made in Latin America. Unless we restore these funds in the authorization bill, when we come from conference we will find ourselves in such a position that the investments already made in the Alliance for Progress will be jeopardized as to effectiveness.

Needless to say, we still have to go through the appropriation process, which will result in a reduced amount. I am I am very hopeful we will not alter the effort that was made in committee to assist the Alliance for Progress at a reasonable level. So far as the President's contingency fund is concerned, $175 million was the amount recommended by the committee, after careful examination. That is more than was used last year out of the President's contingency fund. There is an additional $300 million available to the President under the so-called military assistance, $300 million of emergency funds that can be taken from the Department of Defense appropriation. That is reimbursable under law. So this would not cripple the President. It would leave him a $475 million con

tingency fund. He would also have what we call flexibility with respect to a certain percentage of the total authorized and appropriated funds in each category. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. ELLENDER. I am in accord with the views expressed by the Senator from Minnesota in regard to the Alliance for Progress funds. In my judgment, the In my judgment, the amount should be left intact. amount should be left intact. My only disagreement with the Senator is that the amount of the contingency fund should be decreased to $100 million. I expect to call up my amendment No. 299, Mr. President

Mr. HUMPHREY. Does not the Senator understand that the amendment I have offered would also reduce the contingency fund to $175 million?

Mr. ELLENDER. I understand that, but I wish to make it $100 million. I wish the Senate to listen. I wish the Senate to know that the President now has almost a billion dollars which he can transfer from one appropriation item to another, in order to take care of situations like Lebanon and other places in the world, and that of the contingency fund provided for the President last year, $100 million some odd, only $34 million was used. I have a lot of data to prove that this fund will not suffer at all if reduced to the $100 million.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Would the Senator from Louisiana withhold his amendment for just one moment? I gather, under the parliamentary situation, it would be an amendment to the amendment I have offered on behalf of myself, ment I have offered on behalf of myself, the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MCGOVERN], and the Senator from Massacuhsetts [Mr. KENNEDY).

To repeat quickly what I am attempting to do in this amendment, this would restore the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's original recommendation of $650 million for the Alliance for Progress, and $175 million for the contingency fund. It would not alter the total reducfund. It would not alter the total reduction recommended by the tion recommended by the so-called Mansfield-Dirksen amendments, as now modified by the amendment of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE]. This reduction would remain the same, at about $410 million.

The Alliance for Progress program has been repeatedly given top priority by President Kennedy who has, time after time, described this area as the most critical area in the world for U.S. foreign policy.

The restoration of the committee figure would mean a final figure for the Alliance for Progress, this year, after a conference with the House and after a conference with the House and after consideration of appropriations, about the same as the final figure for last year, the same as the final figure for last year, which was $525 million, even if we are quite optimistic in the estimate. It might even be less. The committee carefully considered the contingency fund and reduced it because $117 million of the $260 million for last year went unspent. The committee figure of $175 million is substantially higher than than the total amount of $143 million spent last year.

The committee's action supports the idea that the AID agency must use this

money for the program agreed to by Congress in the Alliance for Progress. I am hopeful that Senators will realize that we should support this proposal.

I shall let the Senator from Louisiana argue the merits of his case. I indicated that the amount spent last year was less than recommended for this year.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I should announce that many of us were not aware that the Senator's amendment was going to be considered next. It is a very important amendment.

As the Senator knows, I am entirely in sympathy with the overall objectives; but the amendment raises the question of the entire Alliance for Progress program; and the Alliance for Progress program, in its totality, needs to be discussed first, before we start voting on any amendment, because a series of amendments will be offered to the amendment if we cannot reach an agreement in the cloakrooms with regard to rewording the amendment.

One of the items we shall want to consider has just has just been mentioned, namely, military aid to Latin America; whether or not we should reduce further military aid, and add the savings to the Alliance for Progress economic aid.

Then there is the question of the contingency fund. I say most respectfully to the Senator from Minnesota that this amendment will call for such detailed discussion of so many items of the Alliance for Progress program that, if we are willing to start it now, we could not finish it tonight in time for a vote. But we will discuss it tonight, and finish discussing it tomorrow; and if we have not arrived at an adjustment of the differences with the Senator from Minnesota, we shall offer some amendments.

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

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. RUSSELL. Is there anything in the act which would prevent the President from transferring funds from the contingency fund to the Alliance for Progress?

Mr. HUMPHREY. No.

Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator has emphasized repeatedly the importance the President attaches to the Alliance for Progress program. If the President thinks that this program is so important, he can transfer funds from the contingency fund and it is not necessary to upset the amendment offered by the leadership or has the leadership abandoned this phase of their amendment?

Mr. DIRKSEN. Oh, Mr. President, if I may interrupt, the leadership has not abandoned it. The reason why Tom Scott, from the staff, sat in the conference was that we were selecting figures. Transferability is provided for. We thought this arrangement should not be disturbed.

I do not think the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota should be adopted.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the reason I offered the amendment is that it is my understanding, with respect to funds available from the contingency fund that those funds are not permitted to be used for items which had been cut

« ПретходнаНастави »