Senator will recall from his own personal experience that he has operated in that manner and has been so treated, as has every other chairman of a committee.

Mr. ANDERSON. I agree. I could not agree more completely with the Senator. However, I shall be asked to cast a vote on the amendment. I was about to vote on the Humphrey motion, Therefore I would like to be able to say to my people back home, who will question me about this matter, why I voted the way I did. I have the greatest sympathy for the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and the greatest confidence in him.

I

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I appreciate the statement of the Senator from New Mexico. We are dealing with an authorization bill, as the Senator knows. I generally favored the recommendation of the Clay Committee. After the testimony by General Clay, I thought we should report a bill calling for approximately $4 billion. However, we were confronted with a situation, not a theory, as the saying goes. It was a question of trying to save the authorization in the neighborhood of $4 billion. As a result, and viewing the difficulty of holding the authorization to that level, I entered into an agreement which has been called the "powerhouse" agreement. It is evident how powerful it has been.

After we were defeated yesterday, in spite of the "powerhouse" amendment, it became quite evident that the Senate was in no mood to resist further cuts.

Therefore, the pending amendment was arrived at between the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Oregon. It is the best we could do. I do not approve of it. I do not really approve of what the Senate has already done. We still must go to conference; and at the conference the best we can hope to do is achieve a 50-50 compromise.

Thereafter we must go to the Appropriations Committee. There the figure will be substantially lower, if the committee follows the pattern it has usually

followed.

I am not in love with this program any more than other Senators are. However, we are scaling the program down substantially; and I believe that to be unfortunate, because we are creating a very bad impression both abroad and with our own people by suddenly and drastically appearing to be retreating from the program.

I recommended, and the committee recommended, that this program should be revised before the next session. We feel that the administration must adopt a new approach to this problem. We made several suggestions along that line. I made the suggestions on my own personal authority, as I said in my opening speech, and the committee made recommendations, less specifically, but in general. We feel that this program is approaching an end in its present pattern of foreign aid, and that a new approach must be made.

I do not wish to burden the Senate by repeating the recommendations, unless the Senator wishes me to do so. However, looking down the line as to what is likely to be appropriated, I feel that a drastic cut might cause great con

sternation among our allies. As I have said, I believe that they have not carried their fair share, but I believe they are beginning to move in that direction. It is the matter of degree and timing that I object to with respect to slashing deeply at the bill before us.

For example, I believe the military ought to be taken out of the program, and the lending program ought to be taken out of the program and given to a different kind of organization. I am not different kind of organization. I am not pleased with the bill, if the Senator wants to know my opinion. I accept the amendment as the best we can do. amendment as the best we can do. We are threatened with a great deal of debate. Of the 63 amendments that have been printed, 2 were adopted yesterday. been printed, 2 were adopted yesterday. Today four new amendments were added. In other words, we are going backward In other words, we are going backward and not making any progress. Rather than continue indefinitely and have no idea where we are going, I am willing to go along with the amendment. I am not in the least enthusiastic about it. It involves a net decrease in the authorization of $50 million. The Senator from Georgia made a good point, I believe, except gia made a good point, I believe, except that we have not yet gone to conference, and I thought this was one place where we might do a little trading in conference. I am not very happy about it; however, being faced with this situation, it is the best we could do.

Mr. ANDERSON. I participated in the discussions at the White House when the Greek-Turkish plan was announced. I was in Paris, attending the meeting of the International Cereals Conference, when the Marshall plan was announced. At that time we understood that the At that time we understood that the length of the program might be 18 months or 2 years. It is the longest 18 months that I can remember. The program is still continuing. I say to the chairman, in whom I have confidence, that on the basis of his statement I am willing to vote for the Humphrey amendment.

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I believe Senators are faced with what could be a most important vote. I would have gladly supported the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER]. The administration asked for $4,429 million. The committee reported a bill calling for $4,202 million. If the pending amendment were adopted, it would reduce the authorization of the bill to $3,742 million, of which $600 million would be applied to the Alliance for Progress.

I intend to vote for the amendment. However, I take this opportunity to express one or two opinions concerning the foreign aid program. I can remember how chagrined I was to find that at Punta del Este, the Secretary of the Treasury had committed our country to a $20 billion aid program in Latin America. Later in the Appropriations Committee I have not checked into this later testimony-it was said that we were committed to only $14 billion. At the time the commitment was made, no member of the Appropriations Committee had been consulted. I do not know whether members of the Foreign Relations Committee had been consulted.

I disagree with the Senator from Minnesota about the effectiveness of the

Alliance for Progress funds. I have been told by members of the State Department recently that in connection with these aid funds they are proposing criteria which would be meaningless. Speaking from my experience in the United Nations last fall, we received very little help from some of the nations that we had helped in South America and Central America, even on such matters that I would regard as fundamental, basic principles of giving freedom to all people, and in trying to help their people to become self-supporting, in giving them an education, in giving them better medicine and a better way of life.

I will vote for the amendment, but I wish to make it perfectly clear that in voting for it I do so with the full knowledge that in the Appropriations Committee I shall have an opportunity to listen to the testimony of representatives of the State Department and other witnesses, with respect to what they have done and what they are actually doing and requiring.

The reports I have been receiving from South America, both from governments and from individual friends, indicate that we are getting anything but the results that we think we are getting from these expenditures. I believe, implicitly, that the great majority of Latin Americans feel that we are foolish to throw our money around the way we are doing without putting into effect more severe criteria on the use of our funds. I know, from talking to members of the governments of our allies in Europe and elsewhere, that many of them feel that our whole foreign aid program is foolish, and that we are foolish for pursuing it in the way we are.

This information comes even from members of parliaments and other members of governments which are now receiving aid from this country and which have in the past received substantial amounts of aid.

So while I shall vote for the amendment, I wish to make it perfectly clear that by doing so I do not in any way commit myself to the ultimate figure of $3,742 million, because I think there are places where the bill can still be cut, and in my work on the Committee on Appropriations I hope to help to bring about that result, by providing a few more definite guidelines which will make the entire program more workable.

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

Mr. ALLOTT. I yield.

Mr. MORSE. I hope the Senator from Colorado is not proceeding on the assumption that this will be the final figure.

Mr. ALLOTT. I understand that. I understand that this amount is still subject to revision in other amendments. I am completely aware of that. But it might also well be that this could be the final figure in the bill. If that should be so, I wanted to have my position clearly understood and to indicate what my position in the future will be.

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

Mr. ALLOTT. I yield.

Mr. SIMPSON. I aline myself with the statement made by the distinguished

Senator from Colorado. If I vote for the amendment-and I am not sure that I shall do so I shall do so with tongue in cheek, because from my reading of the material I have been able to obtain, it seems to me there are other areas in which cuts can be made. I am glad to have the assurance of the Senator from Oregon in this connection.

The "powerhouse" amendment, and now the subpowerhouse amendment, which is now suddenly offered in the form of a compromise, do not, in my judgment, adequately reflect the feeling of some Senators, who I hope are in the majority.

Mr. ALLOTT. In that respect, we often reach places in the legislative process where we find that none of us can have our own way. When we analyze the legislative process, we find that it is always one of compromise.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, we have had a helpful discussion of the latest proposal. Whether it be called the powerhouse or the subpowerhouse proposal, it is the best that the collective leadership and the ranking members of the committee could reach. I hope it will be adopted shortly.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I expect to support the amendment. I am aware that it represents an additional reduction of $50 million from the amount in the authorization bill.

I call attention to the fact that this marks a total reduction of $460 million from the bill as reported by the committee. The committee bill marked a reduction of $300 million below the second or reduced budget request of the President. So the Senate is clearly showing its intention to reduce this program, and rightly so. I think that is what is expected of us by the people.

The purpose of my speaking is to express the hope that Senators will not proceed to cut further the contingency fund. We had occasion in Florida when the Cuban refugee program arose, without there being any specific appropriation or legislation to deal with it, to learn in 2 successive years of the great value of a contingency fund to take care of such unexpected developments.

I do not have to remind Senators that if there is one thing we have learned in this modern time, it is that the world is changing so rapidly that nobody in drafting a budget or in passing legislation, can know what further changes will take place. We are aware of the trouble in the Congo, the trouble in Laos, the recent trouble in Vietnam, and the recent junta rebellions and that is what they arein the Dominican Republic and Honduras, and the others earlier in South America.

Any prudent handling of this problem will necessarily involve the placing of adequate discretion to meet such emergencies, and substantial funds to meet such emergencies, in the hands of the Executive, who serves the whole people. I hope that no further reductions in the contingency funds will be proposed.

I shall support this carefully drafted amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey. Mr. President, I want to express my full support for Senator HUMPHREY'S amend

ment which I am proud to cosponsor. I believe that it is absolutely vital to our national security that the Alliance for Progress receive the full $650 million asked by the President.

The Alliance for Progress was inaugurated in 1961 as a long-range program designed to accelerate the economic and social development of the Latin American half of our own hemisphere. At the heart of this program was the consensus that peace in this hemisphere is possible only to the extent that the people of this hemisphere are satisfied with the economic and social progress they are making. This is the final touchstone against which the validity of this program is to be measured.

The progress toward this goal is evident both in what the United States has been doing and in the "bootstrap" measures which the Latin Americans themselves are taking. Throughout Latin America the tide of reform is mounting an effective barrage against centuriesold customs and traditions of privilege and inequity. In country after country the old social order is on the defensive.

In Argentina, PRO-AGRO, a Government and producers organization, has been established to devise new policies for agricultural development and reduce burdensome taxes on agricultural production. In Peru, a hopeful beginning has been made in agrarian reform and action is now underway to carry out the program. Colombia has organized and staffed the Agrarian Reform Institute during the past year and two projects have been undertaken, at least one of which promises important results in enlarged agricultural production and rural welfare. Chile hopes to resettle 5,000 families by the end of 1963, continues the development of agricultural extension service, and has underway a 10-year livestock development plan. Various States throughout Brazil have prepared programs for land reform.

Enormous forward strides have been made in imparting a sense of urgency to the Latin American nations' efforts to educate their populations. It has become much more generally recognized throughout these countries that future economic development and political stability depend in large measure on the attainment of at least minimal standards of literacy.

And we can point to country after country where this realization has been transformed into concrete measures.

EDUCATION

In Argentina, a modernization program in agricultural education is underway.

In Chile, school construction is progressing at an accelerated rate with estimated 1963 public investment set to reach approximately $25 million. Eight reach approximately $25 million. Eight new rural schools are being completed in a pilot plan to combine self-help school construction, teacher training, and community development elements in a single program.

In Brazil, classroom construction projects, specifically in the States of Guanabara, São Paulo, Espirito Santo, Rio Grande do Norte, Pernambuco, and Minas Gerais have made substantial headway, assisted greatly through local self

help efforts under which communities contribute land sites, construction materials and labor.

In Colombia, the Ministry of Education has initiated a 4-year plan designed to raise the level of primary education.

The impressive increase in the numbers of children attending school in Peru is also illustrative of the way that separate but coordinated programs can have a multidimensional impact.

Our school lunch program in Peru under the food-for-peace law has made it possible for thousands of mountain children to obtain basic nutritional requirements for the first time in their lives.

This in turn has not only raised their level of alertness in class but has actually become a major incentive for them to make the often tortuous trip from their homes to the school.

An endless number of other examples could be cited to show that the pledges for internal reform made at Punta Del Este in 1961 are being redeemed.

That the continuation of this process is in the direct interest of the United States is hardly open to question. The point that we must decide this afternoon is whether we can cut the Alliance's funds by 20 percent and realistically expect that the program will move on to even higher levels of effectiveness.

I believe that that question must be answered in the negative.

We all recognize the great difficulties being encountered in carrying out the principles and plans embodied in the Alliance. I recited a portion of the record of gains under the Alliance not to show that it is an unqualified success but rather to emphasize that there is great hope for future success.

To pull back from our previous commitments to the Alliance at this particular point would be to undercut the many courageous efforts that are in fact being made in an increasing number of Latin American countries to implement the Alliance. To reduce tangible U.S. support from these reform efforts would be tantamount to withdrawing from the Alliance.

A cut of $125 million would mean that fewer funds would be available this year than last, even though there are more countries in a position to move forward with our help than there were a year ago.

At this moment, representatives of all the American Republics are congregated in São Paulo, Brazil, for the annual review meeting of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council. They are discussing the means required to carry forward the Alliance as a multilateral effort, including the self-help measures which are imperative for the Latin Americans.

Our delegation traveled to Brazil in part to reaffirm U.S. interests in the success of the Alliance and to reconfirm our commitment to participate significantly in providing the external resources called for in national development plans.

The announcement at this time of a substantial cut in our participation in the Alliance would, to say the least, undermine our previous efforts.

We can hardly induce the Latin Americans to undertake further reforms if we destroy their confidence by reducing

our commitment to the Alliance to a level which would not only forestall future substantial progress but reduce the effectiveness of going programs.

Allow me, Mr. President, to dwell momentarily on this latter point. I must confess that I was appalled when I had some of the specific implications of this proposed cut drawn to my attention.

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

1. Would provide authorization of $600 million for Alliance for Progress and $175 million for contingency fund.

2. The Alliance for Progress program has repeatedly been given top priority by President Kennedy, who has time after time de

[Mr. MCNAMARA], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], and the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. WALTERS] would each vote "yea."

On this vote, the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN] is paired with the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE].

If present and voting, the Senator from

into the end of our distributing surplus food to some 6 million Latin American children now in school for the first time. A $2 million cut might well force the withdrawal of U.S. support of 60 mobile medical units providing treatment to the inhabitants of over 600 Central American villages.

Ten million dollars represents agricultural credit loans-to 10,000 small farmers—which are vital to escape the bonds of small-scale subsistence farming.

If $75 million earmarked for housing construction is denied, 175,000 people will go without the new low cost homes they are expecting.

In sum, this cut of $125 million will dim the hopes for a happier life and greater opportunity in a free society for nearly 11 million of our Latin American neigh

bors.

It must be clear that such a frustration of the rising expectations throughout the region will ultimately redound on our own peace and security.

This is the time when Latin America needs us most. The struggle for economic progress and against political instability is entering a critical phase.

It would be tragic if we were to choose this time to say to Latin America that because you have not done as well as we have hoped, we are not going to give you the assistance you need.

I can think of no other single act which would do more to weaken the democratic forces in Latin America and to help the totalitarian forces of both the left and right. Failure of the Alliance can benefit only our enemies.

This point was most succinctly made in a recent Life magazine editorial on the Alliance entitled "The Latin Sky Is Brighter." The revolution occurring in Latin America, says the Life editorial, will take one of two forms: either "violent form, on the Castro pattern, or peaceful, as blueprinted in the Alliance for Progress."

We have only to look 90 miles off the Florida coast to see the fruits of our traditional ignorance of and apathy toward Latin America. Surely after having made such a hopeful start on a new road over the last 2 years, we are not about to regress.

The program whose fate I believe we will decide here this afternoon offers us the best possible chance to retrieve ground lost through decades of neglect and error.

It is not perfect, it faces innumerable difficulties. But let us not be responsible for shattering the real hope it does present.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I request that the following summary of my amendment be inserted into the RECORD at this point.

area in the world for U.S. foreign policy. The restoration of the committee's recommendation would mean that the final figure for the Alliance this year, after going through the House and the appropriations round, would be about the same as the final figure for last year, $525 million.

contingency fund and reduced it because 3. The committee carefully studied the $117 million out of $260 million for last year went unspent. The committee's figure of $175 million is still substantially higher than the total amount ($143 million) actually spent

last year.

supports the idea that the aid agency must 4. Supporting the Humphrey amendment

use the money for the programs agreed to by Congress. If an unnecessarily large contingency fund is approved, while sharp cuts are made in certain parts of the program, the pressure will be great to convert the contingency fund into a slush fund to make up tingency fund was designed to meet real for cuts in parts of the program. The con

emergencies, not to circumvent the will of Congress. It is an important fund, should not be cut below the committee figure. It should be sustained at the level recommended by the Foreign Relations Committee after long study and deliberation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 2, line 1, it is proposed to place a period after the numeral "12" and strike the language through line 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".

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY], as modified, to the Mansfield-Dirksen amendment, as

amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], 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 beCalifornia [Mr. ENGLE] is absent because of illness.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. MCGEE], the Senator from Michigan,

Senator from Rhode Island would vote "yea."

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senators from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN and Mr. PROUTY] and the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] are absent on official business.

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER] is necessarily absent.

If present and voting, the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT], and the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER] would each vote "yea."

The result was announced-yeas 86, nays 3, as follows:

So Mr. HUMPHREY'S modified amendment to the Mansfield-Dirksen amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I move that the vote by which the amendment was agreed to be reconsidered.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I move to lay on the table the motion to reconsider.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Dirksen-Mansfield amendments, as amended, are open to further amendment.

If there be no further amendment to be proposed to the Dirksen-Mansfield amendments, as amended, the question now is on agreeing to the Dirksen-Mansfield amendments, as amended. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered; and the clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], 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 California [Mr. ENGLE], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], 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] would each vote "yea."

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senators from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN and Mr. PROUTY] and the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] are absent on official business.

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER] is necessarily absent.

If present and voting, the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER] Would each vote "yea."

The result was announced-yeas 89, nays 0, as follows:

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 48, between lines 3 and 4, it is proposed to insert the following:

SEC. 302A. Section 620 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, which relates to prohibitions against furnishing assistance to certain countries, is amended by adding the following new subsection:

"(i) No assistance shall be furnished under this Act to any country which (1) has extended, or hereafter extends, its jurisdiction for fishing purposes over any area of the high seas beyond three miles from the coastline of such country, and (2) hereafter imposes any penalty or sanction against any United States fishing vessel on account of its fishing activities in such area. The provisions of this subsection shall not be applicable in any case in which the extension of jurisdiction is made pursuant to international agreement to which the United States is a party."

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amend ment. The vote on this amendment, I understand, will come tomorrow.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the

Senator yield?

Mr. KUCHEL. I yield.

Mr. DODD. Did I correctly understand the Senator to say that there will be a vote tomorrow on his amendment? Mr. KUCHEL. I stated that I understand the vote will come tomorrow.

Mr. DODD. Why not tonight? Mr. KUCHEL. I am prepared to vote, but I understand that the majority leadership has already indicated that it does not have in mind any further RECORD votes tonight.

Mr. DODD. I do not know why not. I think we should get on with our business. The Senate has been recessing night after night at 4, 5, and 6 o'clock. The bill is important. Why should the Senate not work until 10, 11, and 12 o'clock and dispose of its business?

I see no sense in recessing every night at a convenient hour for the benefit of Senators who wish to have dinner, go to embassies, or be entertained.

Some of us have family appointments.
I happen to be one.

I should like to get on with the bill.
Let us vote tonight on the amendment

of the Senator from California.

Let us get on with the business and get through with it.

So.

The American people expect us to do

Our job is not a 12 noon to 5 p.m. job. We are supposed to be working in the interest of the United States and the free world.

We ought to get to work.

We ought to get here early and stay here late and do our jobs. The majority leader's suggestion is that Senators go home early. Our job is to stay here and do our work. I object to any unanimous-consent agreement for a vote tomorrow.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I have not asked for a unanimous-consent agreement that there be a vote tomorrow on my amendment. I am prepared to debate my amendment and to vote on it at any time. There is no agreement other than to have a yea-and-nay vote on my amendment.

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

Mr. KUCHEL. I yield.

Mr. DODD. I shall object to any adjournment tonight until the Senate proceeds with its business.

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

Mr. DODD. I yield to the majority whip.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I can well understand the views of the Senator from Connecticut. I should like to say, with a note of sadness, that for the past year I have planned to spend this weekend with my 15-year-old

son

Mr. DODD. That is enough. The Senator need say no more. My dear friend, whom I admire so much-and he knows I do-needs to tell me no more.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The only reason that there will not be a vote on the amendment now is that-foolishly or wrongly-there was some understanding and a statement made to the minority leader, who in turn told Senators on his

side of the aisle that there would be no further votes tonight.

I hope that as soon as the Senate meets tomorrow, it will vote on the Kuchel amendment. If Senators will cooperate, we can do so. The Senate will recess tonight. It does not have to do so now. There will be more speeches, and any Senator who wishes to express his point of view on any amendment will have a full opportunity to do so.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I yield first, briefly, to the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL].

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING] wishes to propound a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GRUENING. After the explanation by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, I wonder whether it would be in order for me to present an amendment at this time?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has an amend

ment pending, and it is not in order for the Senator to do so at this time.

Does the Senator from California now yield to the Senator from Massachusetts? Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I had requested the Senator from California to yield to me.

Mr. KUCHEL. I thought the Senator had concluded the comments he desired to make. I yielded first to the Senator from Minnesota. I promised I would yield briefly to the Senator from Massachusetts, which I now propose to do. Then I will yield to the Senator from Connecticut and then I will yield to the Senator from Alaska who, I am glad to say, is associated with me in this venture for our fellow citizens.

I now yield, with all the usual amenities, to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, so far as the amounts in the bill are concerned, there is open to amendment at the present time some $12 million of

difference between the House and the Senate. I hope debate on the bill will be concluded as promptly as possible.

I reached that conclusion as to amounts in this way: The development loan figure has already been agreed upon, and cannot be changed. The Alliance for Progress amounts cannot be further changed. The contingency fund also cannot be further changed. There is no difference between the House and the Senate on military assistance and that cannot be changed.

So the only amounts now open to amendment are the development grants, approximately $8 million above the House figure; the school assistance, some $11.6 million above the House figure; and supporting assistance, $20 million above the House figure. The total additional sum is $39.6 million.

The Senate committee figure is lower than that of the House for administrative expenses, by $2 million; and development for Latin America, $25 million.

So there is a net difference between the House and Senate, now open to further amendment, of $12.6 million. I hope that after this prolonged debate in which these amendments have been agreed upon, we may pass this bill as speedily as possible.

I thank the Senator from California. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. KUCHEL. I yield to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts, as a good mathematician, fails to take note of all the amendments now pending at the desk, because they will reduce the amounts below the House figures. We ought to cut below the House figures, and I believe we should have the opportunity to cut below the House.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has the floor. Mr. KUCHEL. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I have been advocating cuts in the foreign aid bill.

In my opinion, the cuts made thus far are the limit to which we can go. To cut below the amount allocated by the House would be, in my opinion, to endanger the security of our country.

This program probably should be terminated. If it is to be terminated, that cannot be done in one fell swoop. To go below the $3.7 billion to which authorization is to be brought, in my judgment, will be wrong.

I say that most respectfully, considering the great fight which the Senator from Oregon has made. He has achieved his objective substantially. I believe a mistake will be made if we go beyond what has been done.

will find that the amounts can be reduced substantially and the bill made a better

bill.

There are certain countries which should not have aid. One of the amendments offered in the committee provided that a prosperous country such as the countries of Western Europe and Japan, should no longer have aid. I believe it can be demonstrated that Taiwan has had sufficient aid. Other countries are not fulfilling their obligations.

If we go through the bill country by country, which we should do, and not merely say, "This is the figure," we can arrive at a much more intelligent approach to what is really needed.

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

Mr. KUCHEL. I yield once more to the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL].

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I should like to say to any Senator who is interested, but especially to the Senator from Ohio, that I agree with him 100 percent that the Senate should not cut the authorization below what has now been done. should go to conference with the House.

We

When the appropriation bill comes before the Senate, the entire question will be open, and we can consider it country by country, as we always do, and as the Senator from Alaska has said. I hope the bill will pass as it is now written, so far as the amounts are concerned.

Mr. DODD, Mr. SYMINGTON, and several other Senators addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from California yield; and, if so, to whom?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from California promised me he would yield to me after the Senator from Massachusetts had spoken.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from California yield?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from California if he did not promise that he would yield to me after the Senator from Massachusetts had spoken.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I did promise my able friend the Senator from Connecticut that I would be honored to yield to him again. I do so now.

Mr. DODD. I am willing to yield to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. KUCHEL. No, Mr. President, he cannot do that. I am not going to follow that procedure.

Mr. DODD. I am very fond of the Senator from Missouri. He knows that I am. I think he is entitled to have preference.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Not at all.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from Missouri.

and my friend the able Senator from

What worries me, as the Senate continues discussion of this bill, is the invariable emphasis on what will happen in the Appropriations Committee, even though I have the greatest respect for the Appropriations Committee.

The senior Senator from Vermont and I had a colloquy about this several days ago.

Following the thought of the distinguished Senator from Alaska, we should look into these matters as we look into all those other matters when we are talking about how to spend the people's money, or authorize that expenditure.

We ought to decide what we think is right and proper with respect to each particular major category.

Why should we bother with this bill at all until the subject is considered by the Appropriations Committee, if the agreed upon authorizations are not what we honestly believe to be right.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. PresidentMr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from California to yield to me

now.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has the floor.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, does the Senator from Connecticut wish to have me yield to him again for a brief comment?

Mr. DODD. I would appreciate it. Mr. KUCHEL. I yield to my able friend the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have an entirely different concept, upon which I wish to speak.

I have sat in this Chamber, as my colleagues have-I know patiently-day in and day out, hour after hour. We are becoming not a 12 to 5 concern, but a 2 to 4 concern. Why are we not working later?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point? Mr. DODD. I yield.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I object to having any other Senator yield. I have waited all day.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unanimous consent is required for the Senator to yield. The Senator's objection is sustained.

Mr. DODD. I wish to complete my statement, because I make it earnestly. I appreciate the fact that the Senator from California has yielded to me. shall be brief. I am not being frivolous. I have sat here with other Senators. I think we have all been patient and tolerant. There have been important discussions.

In my judgment, the Senator from Oregon has rendered the Senate a great service. I consider him to be one of the intellectual bright lights of this body. I want him to understand that I am in no way critical of what he is doing. I believe he would be the first one to say that I am right, and that the Senate should be sitting longer hours. Many times in my service in this body the Senate met at 10 in the morning and sat through until 12 midnight. Why are we not doing so tonight?

I am conscious of the fact that my statement will be construed as criticizing the leadership; and indeed, I am. I wish the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] were present. He should be leading the Senate. The Senate should be in session longer hours, and be working harder.

MIKE MANSFIELD is a gentleman, Senators, we are of one mind about that.