Слике страница
PDF
ePub

least at this stage, there are tentative plans, country by country and project by project, sufficient to justify a $650 million authorization.

Certain Senators will vote for an increased authorization for aid to Latin America, not because they are sentimental about that subject, but because they believe-as I think I can say in my responsibility as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee-this is one area of the world for which we have a plan and a program on which we have made a reasonably good effort.

Without reaching a final judgment about this matter-although I have spoken about it to the Senator from Oregon and to the majority leader and to the minority leader-I say that I do not feel that any magic figure is involved. For example, I do not believe that the action taken yesterday by the Senate destroyed the foreign aid program, even though there have appeared in the press some unfavorable comments about that vote. Yesterday, I voted against the Morse amendment; but after the amendment was adopted, I did not go to a wailing wall and bump my head, gnash my teeth, and cry out, "The world is coming to an end." Not at all. I think we shall be able to operate the program under that amendment; and I think it will require the administrators of the program and the President and the Secretary of State to do a complete rethinking job in regard to foreign aid for next year-which, by the way, we have recommended, in our report.

Mr. MORSE. Yes.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I believe we would do very well to take a careful look at the Alliance for Progress Fund.

In this amendment, I call for an authorization of $650 million, because the committee recommended it; and I wish to return to the committee's recommendation on it, and also to the committee's recommendation in regard to the contingency fund. I thought we had given considerable consideration to this facet of foreign aid. I believe I make a fair statement when I say that more than 50 percent of the time spent on this measure by the Foreign Relations Committee was spent on the Alliance for Progress phase. So surely this particular facet of the foreign aid bill received its fair share of committee consideration.

It may very well be that if we wish to make a little further adjustment in this authorization, because of our concern over the fiscal situation, an authorization of $625 million or of $650 million might be adequate. Last night, I talked to the AID people, and I believe they could get by with an authorization if the Senate stands firmly behind the Alliance in its negotiation with the House, in that amount. After all, it will be necessary to hold a conference about this item. The reason why I fought for the full amount was that I knew that ultimately we could not expect to achieve it in the conference, even if the Senate voted for it; and, therefore, I wished to have a chance to arrive, finally, at a reasonable amount. If I could be sure the conference would arrive at a $550 million or $600 million authorization, I would not

mind having the Senate vote now for a $600 million authorization, rather than a $650 million authorization as the maximum.

So I feel that no magic figure is involved; but of all the parts of the bill about which Senators should manifest their interest in foreign aid, so that their action could not be interpreted as a repudiation of foreign aid, I believe the most important is the Alliance for Progress part of the bill, because the Alliance for Progress program is one program that is dealt with in careful detail in the voluminous hearings on foreign assistance, and it is the one part of our foreign aid for which we have a program and about which we have laid down, in law and in international agreements, law and in international agreements, criteria and qualifications for participacriteria and qualifications for participation, and for which we have demanded fiscal and political reform in the countries to which we give such aid. And the tries to which we give such aid. And the Alliance for Progress is the basis of our policy in Latin America, the "most critical area in the world," according to President Kennedy.

That is why I have taken exception to the making of a sharp cut in the Alliance for Progress authorization. In connection with the one program in which we are now doing everything that which we are now doing everything that many of us have urged for 15 years that our country do, an effort is made to reduce the authorization substantially— from $650 to $525 million, or a cut of approximately one-fourth. I do not believe that is the way we should honor a program that has been the subject of careful study, consultation, and consideration, not only by ourselves, but also by many friendly countries and many friendly statesmen. We should now proceed to back up the panel of nine-and let me say that I know why some of the Latin American countries do not want it backed up; the Senator from Oregon is correct about that. The reason is that they do not want to be cut off if they get out of line-with our programs of fiscal, monetary, and agrarian reform. If we back up the Alliance authorities those countries will obtain from the program what they should obtain according to the standards laid down. The way to make sure that the program helps Latin America is to adhere to the standards which have been established.

I thank the Senator from Oregon for the statement he has made. During the debate we have argued from time to time; but I have not felt that either the Senator from Oregon or other Senators who have been resisting what some of us want done have performed a disservice. I want the RECORD to show clearly, so that the Senator from Oregon may know of this, that I believe we need careful debate on the foreign the foreign aid program. After all, it involves some $3 or $4 billion of the money of the American taxpayers, and that deserves some time and attention.

The question really is whether we can, through our foreign aid, help build viable, free societies in other countries, able, free societies in other countries, and whether we shall thus contribute to better standards of public conduct, economic performance, and, we might say,

political ethics. I think we can do that through our foreign aid, and that is why I support it.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota very much. I completely agree with all the objectives he has set forth. Any differences I have with him are over little details which I feel sure we can iron out.

In referring to the origin of the Alliance for Progress program, I point out that we relied very heavily on reports which were made in regard to studies made in Latin America over a period of years by the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER]. We went over them with a fine-tooth comb; and it will be found that many of our final recommendations coincide with the earlier recommendations of the Senator from Louisiana.

I close by saying to the Senator from Minnesota that before he came to the floor, I said we were trying to work out an adjustment in regard to the Humphrey amendment. phrey amendment. We shall vote when we can have something to vote on which we believe sound. We are in the process of negotiating what we regard as an improvement of the program. After all, as the Senator from Minnesota has pointed out, in dealing with this program, we are dealing with $3 or $4 billion of the money of the taxpayers of the United States, and certainly in dealing with it we should take whatever time is required in order to succeed in strengthening the bill.

So, as I have said, many Senators, including myself, feel that the Humphrey amendment is sound in its objective, but we thought it should be broadened somewhat; so we are talking about broadening it in such respects as the two I mentioned. We shall continue to confer with the Senator from Minnesota about the total figure for the Alliance for Progress. We are talking in terms of approximately $600 million. We wish to cut back the contingency fund. Procedurally the other action could be taken later-though we might as well deal with the entire problem. We would like to cut $10 million from the Latin American military aid program, reducing it from $50 to $40 million. We would then add that $10 million to the Alliance for Progress figure. The $10 million would be added to the $600 million, which would give us $610 million. I am having drafted an amendment which would seek to accomplish that objective. When some sort of agreement is reached among us, we shall offer it to the Senator from Minnesota and see if there is any opportunity to obtain his agreement or his suggestions for further modification, hoping ultimately that perhaps we may persuade him to accept a modification of his amendment which would make it possible for all of us to go along.

That is where we stand as of the present moment. I shall leave the Chamber for a few minutes for negotiation purposes. I am sure the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] will protect my interest while I am gone. So far as I am concerned, I am ready to vote on the amendment.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Central American area. It is doing the Senator yield?

Mr. MORSE. I yield.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Since Senators are negotiating more or less publicly, the suggestions made by the Senator from Oregon might be referred to as diplomacy in a glass house. Mr. MORSE. rived at.

Covenants openly ar

Mr. HUMPHREY. I now find myself in support of the Senator's proposal with respect to military assistance to Latin America, as I did in the committee. So I do not walk two sides of the street. I have long been of the opinion that some of the military assistance to Latin America has not contributed to political stability, but rather has contributed to sword-swaggering, medal-carrying, smalltime colonels. I am not interested in their elevation to public office or in their enjoyment of war games at our expense. So when the Senator rounds out his suggestion in an amendment which would reduce the military assistance item from $50 million to $40 million, the proposal will have my support here, as it did in committee.

The Senator's proposal to add the $10 million which would be saved in military assistance would go very well in the economic program, because it would require at least careful programing for the use of the $10 million. I believe that Senators should recognize that none of the Alliance for Progress funds can be merely used. They must be programed. It is not merely a question of saying that in such and such a country some guns are needed, or that a few more small howitzers or some antiaircraft weapons we do not quite know what to do with are needed. The proposal relates to actual programing. I find myself without firm commitment, because I think these questions should be discussed in some detail. I find myself sympathetic toward the Senator's proposal, I hope that the Senator will discuss it with some of his associates.

a good job. For example, a regional program on road development is underway-not country by country. Regional development of electrical power is underway. Some countries have deficits of power and some have great potential hydroelectric possibilities. Regional programs for good textbooks for schools are underway. A regional program is underway for telecommunications. In that instance the Alliance for Progress is helping, and also the United Nations Special Fund. So we are attempting in that area of the world to devise a working program. I make that statement because all too often in the debate all we hear is bad news. There is a great deal of good news. There are many wonderful accomplishments. I have had the privilege of witnessing those developments. I do not believe that we ought to go on tours and travels unless we learn something. I have been in those countries. I have studied the various projects. I have gone into the hills, the mountains, and the back country. I have gone back to see the common people-the campesino-the worker. I have gone out to see what is going on in housing.

For example, I happen to know that there have been regional housing consultations among our people who are specialists in housing, together with the people of the respective countries. So we have been making genuine progress. It is almost paradoxical that at the time the AID program has improved its administrative structure more than at any time that I can recall; at a time when, in a sense, we have gone through the entire personnel and cleared out those who were considered to be less competent, and hired new workers, who were recruited on the basis of much higher standards; at a time when we brought into our Government hundreds of key people from industry and from our great technical and educational institutions, from the medical profession, and from other walks of life; at a time when we had the best

Mr. MORSE. I thank the Senator. I administration of the AID program that am on my way to do it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] to the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments as amended, to the committee amendment, as amended.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, before the vote on the Ellender amendment, inasmuch as the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] had to leave the Chamber, I wish to say that the question has been raised during the debate as to why the Alliance for Progress programs move rather slowly. I have made my own comment on that subject, to the effect that these programs are carefully programed. They are not merely bilateral arrangements, but they relate to countrywide programs. In the instance of Central America, they relate to regional programs.

I am afraid that sometimes we forget that in the Central American area there is a regional Alliance for Progress Office at Guatemala City known as ROCAP. That regional Office coordinates all the programs in the Alliance for Progress in

we have had, we have had the hardest attack upon the program. It is really ironical and paradoxical. That has occurred at a time when we have asked for much less money than we have ever before asked for. Nevertheless the attack moves against the AID program.

The Senator from Minnesota does not happen to believe that everything that the AID administration does is without mistakes. Obviously, there are mistakes of judgment. In recruiting large numbers of people we occasionally get hold of one who does not always jog. That even happens in Congress.

The people have a way of taking care of the situation. In the Senate it requires 6 years. In the other body it requires 2 years. But occasionally we hire someone who does not do his job the way we think it ought to be done. So we are not without fault.

I submit that a careful examination of the Agency for International Development, known as AID, under the administration of Mr. David Bell, would show the quality of people who are in it and the careful attention that is given to

the duties they are called upon to perform. Such an examination would disclose an administrative organization as good as any we have ever had at any time under any foreign aid program.

Interestingly enough, there does not seem to be much evidence to disprove what I have said. Most of the complaint about the foreign aid program is a complaint about what happened several years ago.

If I have any one complaint about the AID administration it is that it is too cautious. It is frightened of Congress. Those in the administration are so worried about what we may say that they almost become paralyzed, until some of us remind them that their job is to take some risks. Their task is to make decisions, even if they have to take some heat from Congress for the decisions.

No living mortal can please 100 Senators. He would be fortunate to please even one. No living mortal has ever been hired in Government, in private life, in secular or in spiritual life has ever been able to please every Member of Congress. It is difficult even to please a majority on any one day. Even when a majority is obtained, most of the majority are not pleased.

As a result of the fiction that has been built up about AID, we may be required to reduce this program-as we undoubtedly will be. It is a fairly good program. One of the most encouraging developments-one of the most rewarding programs of all-is the Alliance for Progress. The men and women who operate it are giving their lives to make it work. The man who runs the U.S. side of the Alliance has one of the most difficult jobs in Washington. Those who work in Washington and the missions in Latin American countries are good people.

I am not talking from the standpoint of fiction. I have seen them, and I have talked with them. They work hard. They are not freeloaders. They have not made many foolish decisions. My complaint, as I have said before, is that they need to make more decisions. One of the reasons why they do not make some decisions as rapidly as I might think they should is that Congress provided a list of statutory criteria for the Alliance for Progress, and by the time they have gone through it, they have had seven political blood tests.

So much of the concern as to delay or administrative inefficiencies might well be attributed to what Congress has written into the law. Every Senator or Representative believes he knows how this program should be operated. There are some people in Minnesota who feel that they know how to operate my office, and every 6 years one of them tries to take over. I warn Senators that it will happen to them, too.

Delays are often caused by regulations and restrictions that Congress has imposed upon the Foreign Aid Administration. The regulations are designed to guarantee that U.S. funds will not be misused. I am not complaining about the criteria. What I am saying is that the criteria exist, and the criteria are being administered and respected. We

wrote them into law. Why? Because we wanted the funds to be properly used.

I remind Senators that if we look at the Latin American area or any other place, we will find areas in which mistakes have been made; but there is not a man in public office who cannot make the same statement as to himself. If he does not, his opposition will-and will prove it.

There has never been a man who has served as a Governor, a mayor, a county commissioner, a legislator, a councilman, or a Member of Congress, or in any other position, who does not have a road full of mistakes. The question is: Can he find enough things we have done right to balance the mistakes? That is what we are really arguing for, when we come up for reelection.

I am trying to point out that while we can cite the ugly incidents of maladministration in this program, there is another side. Who gets up to tell about the sacrifices that men are making? How many speeches have there been, for example, on the floor of the Senate regarding ambassadors who have returned from foreign countries and faraway places with their families sick, with themselves broken in body, because they gave of their lives for their country at very

list of statutory criteria printed in the
RECORD.

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

Mr. HUMPHREY. I should like all Senators to look over this list. Then I should like to ask this question: "How would you like to face all that before you made a decision?" We would not get the

CHECKLIST OF STATUTORY CRITERIA (ALLIANCE first letter answered to the first constitu

FOR PROGRESS)

(Insert under each criterion a brief statement as to whether it has been or will be met and a reference to the page of the paper where it is discussed, or state that the cri

terion is inapplicable or give other explana

tion.)

1. FA section 201(d): Funds shall not be
loaned or reloaned at rates of interest exces-
sive or unreasonable for the borrower.

2. FA section 251(b)(1): Take into ac-
count the principles of the act of Bogota and
Charter of Punta del Este, and in particular
the extent to which the recipient country is
showing a responsiveness to the vital eco-
nomic, political, and social concerns of its
people and demonstrating a clear determina-
tion to take effective self-help measures.
3. FA section 251(b)(2): Take into ac-
count the economic and technical soundness
of the activity to be financed.

4. FA section 251(b)(3): Take into ac-
count the relationship of the activity to oth-
er development activities and its contribu-
tion to realizable long-range objectives.

5. FA section 251(b) (4): Take into account the possible effects upon the U.S. economy with special reference to areas of substantial labor surplus.

6. FA section 251: If loan is from funds

principal and interest in U.S. dollars, take
into account (a) whether financing is ob-
tainable from the free world sources and
(b) efforts made by recipient nations to re-
patriate capital invested in other countries
by their own citizens.

poor salaries? There are some in the city required to be used for loans payable as to
of Washington right now who have re-
turned from Latin American countries.
How many times do we hear of a mission
chief or a man in the technical assistance
division, or in the health division, who
has gone out and literally saved lives?
Does he ever receive any ribbons or
medals? No; he gets a "boot in the
breeches" if anyone finds out he ever
made a mistake.

I do not mean to uncritically pat these people on the back, but I have had just about enough of this business of attack, attack, attack. I do not believe we can produce a good foreign aid program by constantly abusing it. I do not believe we can have a good Foreign Service by constantly running it down. I do not believe it helps to make the Department of State a more effective instrumentality to point out that it is always wrong.

America is the only Nation in the world which has risen to the height of grandeur, world power, and world wealth by always being wrong. According to what we read in the press, every President makes mistakes all the time. Every Secretary of State obviously does not know what he is doing. We read day after day of the unjustifiable "bloopers" that they make. One would believe that every person who ever administered foreign aid bled the country white. Yet there will be a $600 billion gross national product next year. I have been reading the reports on incomes. There are quite a few people who do not look very white to me, in terms of being bled white. They are growing rich. Corporate profits are at an alltime high. Yet when we listen to debate in the Senate one would think the country was going bankrupt.

Interestingly enough, about the only countries that seem to be in trouble are the countries now receiving aid, not the one which is giving it. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this

7. FA section 251: Loans shall be made only upon a finding of reasonable prospects of repayment.

8. FA section 251(e): Funds in excess of $100,000 not to be set aside unless an application for such funds has been received for use in such country together with sufficient information and assurances to indicate reasonably that the funds will be used in an economically and technically sound manner. 9. FA section 204: Other criteria for loans

established by the DLC.

10. FA section 601: Encourage free enterprise in less developed countries and participation by private enterprise in achieving the purposes of the Foreign Assistance Act.

11. FA section 602: U.S. small business

shall, to the extent practicable, have an op-
portunity to participate equitably in the
purchasing of commodities and services fi-
nanced with foreign assistance funds.

12. FA section 604(a): Limitation of com-
modity procurement to United States ex-
cept as otherwise determined by the Presi-
dent and subject to statutory reporting re-
quirements.

13. FA section 604(b): Limitation on price of bulk commodity procurement to prices no higher than the market price prevailing in the United States at time of purchase.

14. FA section 604(d): U.S. funds shall be available for marine insurance on commodities where such insurance is placed on a competitive basis.

15. FA section 611(a)(1): If substantive

ent. We have imposed some real obligations on them.

There are others who believe that the Alliance for Progress is doing rather well. I invite attention to an editorial published in one of the leading newspapers in Santiago, Chile, The United States has not always won a popularity contest in Chile. This is an area where, in the past, we were sometimes accused of almost every crime on the books. Because of the Alliance for Progress, because of the popularity of President Kennedy, and because of the kind of effort that we have put into Chile, we are beginning to receive a favorable response from the Chilean people-from workers, farmers, and those in public office. In most of these countries people in public office used to run against the United States, not against the opposition in their own country. Sometimes the feeling is that Members of Congress run against the foreign aid program. I should like to make it clear that I do not run against the foreign aid programand yet I am elected. I may not be elected next time, but I have been standing up for foreign aid ever since I have been in Congress.

Mr. President, I come from a State where people are frugal, prudent, and relatively conservative; a State whose budget is in balance; a State which has one of the finest programs of education, health and welfare, economic and social development in the Nation; a State which takes a back seat to no other State-not even to the great State of Wisconsin, which is now so ably represented by the present Presiding Officer (Mr. NELSON in the chair).

The State of Wisconsin runs a tie with us, with a slight gradation just below.

I read now the editorial from El Mercurio, of Santiago, Chile, for October 18, 1963, which is edited by a distinguished Chilean, Augustin Edwards. I was privileged to have a long discussion with Mr. Edwards here in Washington in March 1963, and am happy to bring this editorial from his newspaper to the attention of the Senate:

JUDGMENTS ON THE ALLIANCE FOR PROGRESS

The fundamental change in inter-American political thinking signified by the Alliance for Progress is proved by its becoming, among other things, a subject of permanent controversy and interpretation in our hemisphere.

Two well-defined points of view are struggling to prevail in carrying out the Alliance: those who believe it should be the signing of agreements and assistance programs between governments; and those who propose that it

technical or financial planning is required, be a real association among peoples.

no obligation to be made until engineering,

financial and other plans necessary to carry
out the assistance and a reasonably firm
estimate of the cost of the assistance to the
United States have been provided.

16. FA section 611(a) (2): If legislative ac-
tion within recipient country is required, no
ably be anticipated to be completed in time
obligation to be made unless it may reason-
to permit orderly accomplishment of purpose

of loan.

The program had to start with governmental cooperation, since it was initiated by the Government of the United States and proposed to the representatives in Washington of the other nations of the hemisphere. This was a necessary procedure, that could not be avoided without the risk of making plans of a purely theoretical value. President Kennedy was undoubtedly aware that the Latin American governments were not all in the same position to interpret his appeal and

translate it into benefits for their people. In the year 1960, as today, there were representative democracies in the hemisphere as well as legalized dictatorships and despotic regimes. To what extent could governments so totally different really interpret and serve their people? But it was necessary to begin by utilizing government channels to bring the reform ideas to public understanding.

The Charter of Punta del Este, signed 1 year later, established some conditions for foregoing the Alliance for Progress. It specified that representative democracies should exist with rights and liberties for all, and that foreign aid demanded that internal development efforts should be given priority. It stated that the recipients of these benefits should not be restricted to government entities, but should include private ones such as savings and loan associations, cooperatives, labor unions, and university student organizations. Thus, at this stage, the Alliance began to consider popular interests, although this did not mean that these new channels were capable of supplanting the initial ones. Governments were and always will be, the basic instruments for carrying on foreign aid.

Nevertheless, in its 3 years of existence, the Alliance for Progress has brought change to concepts of representative democracy, even though it does not prevail and setbacks have been experienced as harsh as those in some Central and South American

countries. Likewise, it has brought a change in the purpose of government-to-government loans, that are now applied to development programs approved by international organizations. This means that the Alliance for

Progress has has curbed the long-standing abuses of ruling classes who formerly used the loans for their own advantage, and now determines the orderly and profitable use of these resources to reach all the people through progress of national development.

These requirements which the Alliance for Progress put into practice have been criticized for the sluggishness and shortcomings they caused. Countries requiring assistance, some with important needs, feel ignored and frustrated when they do not receive loans immediately. In the same way, some sectors of American opinion complain of what appears to be foreign intervention, but is only the systematization of economic development and the establishment of priorities to take care of the needs of each country. Without the preliminary reports of the Panel of Exports, failures and losses of capital invested without research would be frequent.

These implications of the Alliance for Progress do not prevent us from pointing out that its prestige and success are endangered by prejudices prevailing in U.S. Government and public opinion which tend to apply this same criteria to governments and countries with very different stages of development, look distrustfully on the actions of the ruling classes, and as a consequence of all this, reduce foreign aid through bills in Congress.

Latin America understands the meaning of the Alliance for Progress, but it is indispensable that public opinion in the United States try to understand the realities of those countries which, in good faith, are associated in a democratic and technical undertaking benefiting all levels of society.

I have read an editorial from a great conservative newspaper in Chile. A summation of the editorial is as follows:

The Alliance for Progress has revised many of the attitudes and policies in Latin American countries. It has thereby engendered some opposition from groups in those countries that profited from old habits and old abuses. But the Alliance for Progress is basic to the underpinning of democratic in

stitutions. I feel that the Alliance deserves our unqualified support.

We

I fear that it would be a mistake to limit the Alliance for Progress in the third year of its life. The first year was devoted entirely to becoming equipped to devoted entirely to becoming equipped to do the job. New people were required under the bill that was passed. asked the Kennedy administration, in 1961, under the foreign aid program, which was first under Mr. Labouisse, and then Mr. Fowler Hamilton, to clear out the deadwood insofar as personnel was concerned, reorganize the structure, and recruit top-grade people in the variand recruit top-grade people in the various positions.

We do not make them rich when we recruit them for these missions and send them away from the comfortable surroundings of Madison, Wis.; Minneapolis, Minn.; Little Rock, Ark.; New Orleans, La.; Chicago, Ill.; Butte or Billings, Mont., or some other place. We Billings, Mont., or some other place. We say to them, "We want you to go down where the altitude is 12,000 feet. We know you have asthma and heart trouble, but we want you to try it out. We will give you a few pills. We are not interested in your asthma or your heart trouble. You are a good administrator. You owe it to your country. Ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country. You what you can do for your country. You will not live long, but you will enjoy working for the Alliance for Progress. How much money? Seventeen or eightHow much money? Seventeen or eighteen thousand a year. Of course, you will have to maintain your house at home, because we are not sure we can keep you on the job very long. We want you to sacrifice."

So the Senator from Minnesota rises to defend the Alliance for Progress and the administration. Man for man, Man woman for woman, Congress for Congress, they cannot be beat. We do not do any better, if as well.

I would like to alert my colleagues to the opportunity before us today, as well as the mistakes in the aid program that we have heard so much about.

Mr. President, we have recently seen evidence of a massive failure on the part of the Soviet Union-the failure of the Soviet agriculture system to provide sufficient food to feed the Russian people. The Communists are clearly having basic economic difficulties. Their system simply is not working efficiently. This not only may provide opportunities for us to make better use of our great economic system; it also means that the Communists do not have the economic power necessary to implement their political objectives. Among other things, they are having trouble with their foreign aid program.

While we should not minimize the threat of Communist subversion, it is quite clear that the Communists, at least at the present time, do not have the means necessary for the foreign aid program they have been conducting in recent years. This is a development of great significance for the United States and the free world. It means that we are gaining in our contest with the Communists on the economic front, and it provides the opening for moving into the vacuum created by Communist withdrawal.

In view of the difficulties presently confronting the Soviet Union and the opportunity now available to us, it is most disturbing that we shrink from taking advantage of these opportunities in cer

Wars are not won by retreating when the enemy retreats, and the war which is being fought with all the tools in our foreign aid program is just as serious and as important as any of the shooting wars we have ever fought.

Mr. President, we have been able to get people to do that. We have been able to recruit some top-ranking businessmen, people in the ranks of labor and from the cooperative movement, top-tain critical areas. grade doctors, university people, and administrators. We have been able to able to induce some of them to give up their lives in the United States and go off somewhere they probably have never heard of before, where the altitude is not very conducive to their health, or where the humidity is more than they can take, or where the food is hardly palatable, or where living conditions are far from enjoyable. We send them off for $18,000 or $20,000 a year, and all they are told is, "You are doing a lousy job."

I do not know why they take it. I have often urged the administrators to come back and tell the critics off. I have said that they should go before the Congress and say, "I do not take that from anybody-Congressmen or anyone else. You can take your job, and you know what you can do with it."

This would be a good thing to do, sometimes, because many of those who take this kicking around are those who are on foreign assignments. Every once in a while one gets a good assignment.

Every once in a while someone gets a big

house. Every once in a while someone is not doing a good job. But he will not last long, because Congress is checking on him, the Inspector General's Office is checking on him, e newspapers are checking on him, and if he can hide from them all he is pretty smart, and we had better not let him go.

In fact, the foreign aid program is designed to win the struggle in the world without a shooting war.

Now is not the time to retreat in Latin America. Now is the time for launching an offensive in those areas of the world that are of greatest importance to the United States. Now is the time for mobilizing all the resources at our com

mand.

Now is the time to get on with the job, rather than worrying about what others are doing, or dwelling on minor mistakes and shortcomings. Mistakes are bound to happen. Enough mistakes were made on D-day to convince any skeptic that the mistakes and the confusion. D-day was war was lost-if all he could see were the turned into a great victory for free men because we moved ahead without stop

ping or looking back.

One of the major weaknesses of our aid program is that of attempting to do too much, and thereby it loses its sense of direction. What is often lacking is a clear set of priorities for the program and a strong resolution to implement these priorities.

This is sometimes evident among those in the executive branch and in the Congress who are declared friends of the foreign aid program. In their espousal of the foreign aid program, they must have a clear grasp of what is most important and what is less important, what is top priority, and what is of secondary importance.

This set of priorities must always be kept in mind. If it appears that the Congress will not approve of the administration's total program, then the established set of priorities will naturally be followed in distributing any cuts.

We have recently been advised in the Senate that the Foreign Relations Committee's recommendations must be reduced.

I have shared the view, after sensing the temperament of the Congress, that some agreement to reduce the committee's figures might be necessary in order for the bill to be approved in the Senate. But what concerns me most is the absence of any clearly established priorities in distributing the cuts that have been proposed.

Many parts of this foreign aid bill are important, but which part is most important? Which part has top priority? I believe that the Alliance for Progress program has top priority. I accept the President's statement that Latin America is the most critical area in the world as far as U.S. foreign policy is concerned. I accept this and believe we should act upon it.

The executive branch should act upon it. The leaders of Congress should act upon it, and yet we are informed that some believe the Alliance for Progress item recommended by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can be cut by $125 million. We hear that this is one of the categories best able to sustain a

cut.

Mr. President, I claim no superior knowledge about strategy for obtaining the best possible foreign aid bill this year. I am quite willing to follow the advice of others on this question in many respects. But I am certain on one thing: I know that a cut of $125 million from the Alliance for Progress weakens it.

I know that that cut does not carry out what was the President's judgment on the importance of the Latin America area in the struggle in which we are now engaged with world communism.

I know that this conflicts with the policy stated by the President of the United States.

Mr. President, this week there opened in São Paulo, Brazil, the annual meeting of the OAS Inter-American Economic and Social Council. At this meeting, which will be attended by most of the key Alliance officials in the hemisphere, the future of the Alliance for Progress will be discussed. Proposals to modify its structure to achieve greater Latin participation will be discussed at this meeting. At the end of next week, Under Secretary Averell Harriman will go to São Paulo to head the U.S. delegation to the OAS meeting at the ministerial level.

This proposed reduction puts Secretary Harriman in a most difficult posi

tion. The U.S. Government has been exhorting Latin American governments to do better in mobilizing their own resources, to exact the taxes and enact the reforms called for in the charter of Punta del Este. We have repeatedly pleaded with Latin American government officials to live up to their commitments under the Alliance. And yet now we indicate that the United States is to go back on its commitments. Most of the major Latin American newspapers, including those most friendly to the United States did not fail to note that the House figure approved for the entire Latin American Continent was only slightly above the total Soviet aid to Cuba alone. Our commitments under the Alliance, as well as those of our Latin American neighbors, must be honored. Nothing is more harmful to our prestige, to our national image and to our foreign policy interests than the appearance of reneging on commitments made. The recent action of the House of Representatives in drastically reducing the Alliance for Progress funds requested by the administration is interpreted in every Latin American country as precisely that.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee disagreed with the House action, and recognized the embarrassment this would cause the U.S. Government and restored the funds cut by the House.

All we are asking in this amendment is that the judgment of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee be honored. The committee examined this issue carefully. It weighed both sides before making the recommendation. We have yet to receive any explanation of why the committee's action should be overruled. We not only have not received a valid explanation; we have not received any explanation at all. This is not surprising. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted in the committee to recommend the figure contained in my amendment. He not only voted for it, he strongly supported it. The distinguished majority leader also voted for the figure contained in this amendment for the Alliance for Progress. Therefore, it is not surprising why no Senator has come forth with an adequate explanation of why this cut was distributed in this way.

I remind my colleagues that this is only the authorization. The appropriation is another matter. Everyone who has served in this body over the years knows that the appropriation figure usually is substantially less than the authorization figure.

This would mean that the Senate authorization figure for the Alliance would be $525 million. As everyone knows this figure could be reduced further by the House-Senate conference and reduced drastically by the House in the appropriations round. What we would likely have in the end is a figure approximating the $400 million which the Soviet Union now gives to one small country, Cuba. If the world's leading capitalist country cannot do any better than that, we do not have much of an argument with the Communists. Yet Latin America is the most critical area in the world, as we have been told by the leader world, as we have been told by the leader

of the greatest Nation on the face of the earth, the President of the United States.

What Mr. Harriman is likely to be asked in São Paulo, and quite rightly, what prompted us to go back on our commitment. commitment. When we committed our support, to the Alliance at Punte del Este, we expressed support for a figure of $600 million per year for 4 years. The expectation, however, was that our aid would increase after the first year. Instead it is now proposed to be cut back from the $600 million level.

I would like to touch briefly on what has been accomplished during the last 2 years under the Alliance for Progress.

Certainly one indicator of the success of the Alliance for Progress during its short period of existence is a review of its actual physical accomplishments which include 8,200 classrooms, 140,000 homes, 4 million books, 160,000 agriculture credit loans, 700 community water systems and wells, 900 hospitals and health centers, and 15 million people have been fed surplus foods.

However, one cannot measure the progress of the Alliance solely by these U.S. contributions. Our assistance is primarily marginal aid intended to lever Latin American countries into action. The true yardstick is the one of selfhelp efforts on the part of our Latin American partners. Slowly but increasingly, these countries are modifying their brittle structures to make them more responsive to the needs of their people. Reforms never come easily. Resistance to necessary change is always great. However, in many fields these changes are being made.

Tax reform: Structural tax reform on important tax administration improvement programs are underway in 12 countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, El Salvador, Mexico, Panama, Peru, and Paraguay. U.S. Internal Revenue Service technicians are already assisting in these self-help efforts in Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Panama, Peru.

Land reform: Large-scale land reform programs were carried out by Bolivia and Mexico over the years. Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, Colombia, and two states in Brazil have initiated promising programs, and Peru is about to initiate such a program. Other, more limited land reform programs are underway in Chile, Panama, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

Planning: Latin American countries which have submitted 10-year or sectoral development plans to the OAS Committee of Nine include: Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, Mexico, Panama, Venezuela, and Honduras. Brazil and Peru are expected to submit plans shortly. Several other countries are working on such plans.

Housing: 11 countries having selfhelp housing programs are: Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela. Savings and loan associations have been or are being established in nine countries: Argentina, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela.

« ПретходнаНастави »