Republic (East Germany), Estonia, Hungarian Peoples Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, North Korean Peoples Republic, North Vietnam, Outer Mongolia, Mongolian Peoples Republic, Polish Peoples Republic, Rumanian Peoples Republic, Tibet, Federal Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia, Cuba, and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

In the administration of this section, the President has declared that the Republic of Yugoslavia and the Polish People's Republic fall within the category of exceptions under which aid may be allowed. Under this section, the President could declare tomorrow that the Hungarian People's Republic is entitled to be excepted from the prohibition granting aid. If he saw fit to do so, he could say that Albania, Lithuania, and the other nations which I enumerated are entitled to be excepted from the provisions of the act.

I point out to the Senator from Oklahoma that under this section not one of the specifically designated Communist countries is entitled to any type of aid under the act, including medicines and hospitals. Famine food would be excluded, because it is covered under a different act.

A very interesting question arises. Can we conclude that assistance to Yugoslavia is vital to the security of the United States, and that Yugoslavia is not controlled by the international Communist conspiracy; and that aid to Yugoslavia will further promote the independence of the Yugoslav country from international communism?

The President has put Yugoslavia into the category of an exception. Franklyand I repeat what I said a year ago-in my judgment, no Communist government anywhere in the world can be reconciled as being helpful to the future life of the United States. The Communist philosophy contemplates the destruction of our country. Giving aid to a Communist government means giving aid to the enemy. Aid to a Communist government means helping that government to stay in power and lulling its people into the belief that the people of the United States have sympathy with the Communist government of Yugoslavia. I do not believe that the people of the United States are of the opinion that at a crucial time, if it should ever happen, Tito and his government would come to the aid of the United States. He would be on the side where the Communists were standing and making the fight, and on the side opposite to the one where American boys might be making the fight.

This subject has deep importance with me. My progenitors came from Yugoslavia. I know those people. I know them intimately. I know their poetry, and I sing their songs. I know what they think of basically. They believe in freedom. They believe in God. They do not believe in the philosophy of communism advocated either by Tito or by Khrushchev.

But over and above everything else, I want my country to live. I do not want it to give aid to an enemy, and I am afraid that that is exactly what we are doing and what we did when we con

tinued to provide military equipment and other types of aid to the Tito government.

It has been argued that the people of Yugoslavia are contented, but that is not a fact. a fact. Within the past month "there was a handicraft exhibit in Vienna, and Yugoslavs were allowed to go to Vienna to visit that exhibit of craftsmanship; 83 of them refused to return to Yugoslavia. Refugees from Yugoslavia are scattered throughout the world-fugitives from the tyranny of the man who now is in charge of Yugoslavia. Also 10,000 Slovenes who at the time of the end of the war were in Austria, as military men, were taken back to Yugoslavia; but before they reached their destination, they were seized, and finally destination, they were seized, and finally were decimated.

Tragically, also, daily from Yugoslavia, Croatians, Serbians, and Slovenians are in flight. They have gone into Italy, Austria, and Germany. But, in my opinion, because of the action of our Government, those nations have labeled them, not fugitives from Communist tyranny, but volunteers seeking improved economic conditions in other nations. The result has been that daily they are being forced back into the involuntary servitude that is being promoted and enforced in Yugoslavia.

It has been argued on the floor of the Senate that in Yugoslavia there is freedom of agriculture. Truly there was a rebellion of the Yugoslav farmers, and, on the surface, collectivized farming has been eliminated there. But, in fact, the supposed free farmer of Yugoslavia is being taxed and excised from his products, to the point where, in effect, there is a collectivized farming system. There is no freedom in Yugoslavia. The opportunity for freedom came to an end on the infamous day when-partly subscribed to by Great Britain and the United States-Tito subjected Mihailovich to trial. At that trial, Tito produced his own witnesses, used his own judge, and, finally, used his own executioner. I am not sure, but I think that tioner. I am not sure, but I think that in 1 day the trial was begun, the witnesses were heard, and the judgment was rendered; and on the following day the hero Mihailovich was put to death.

But, Mr. President, Mihailovich is not dead; he still lives; and from the mountains of Montenegro and Serbia his voice speaks to the Yugoslav people, "Await the day of liberation. It will come." Mr. President, it will come, inevitably. For more than a thousand years these people have been exploited; but the exploiters died, and the people lived on. In my opinion, the same situation will be the end of the present regime in Yugoslavia.

I cannot reconcile myself to the belief-as I have already said—that aid to any Communist country is aid to the United States. The giving of help to governments who are avowed in their purpose to destroy free governments throughout the world is the giving of throughout the world is the giving of help to the enemy, and I do not contemplate supporting that program.

Mr. DOMINICK. I am a cosponsor of the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin. It seems to me that if, on further review of the act, we adopt that amendment, we really will be saying that under no circumstances can our aid be provided to Yugoslavia, even though under some circumstances our aid could be provided to East Germany or any of the other countries listed in subsection (f).

Mr. LAUSCHE. I believe that is correct.

Mr. DOMINICK. Can the chairman of the committee clarify this point for me? Has any of our aid-under the contingency fund or otherwise-been given to any of these countries since the 1961 act and since the inclusion of subsection (f)?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. No, and no aid is now scheduled for Yugoslavia. distinguishing that from Public Law 480 aid, because Poland has received some Public Law 480 aid-but under a different act.

There is in this bill an authorization for a small amount of aid for a specific purpose-a children's hospital-in Poland.

Mr. DOMINICK. That is excepted under section 214(b), I believe.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is correct. It is a special project in which we have been interested.

Mr. DOMINICK. I was told by a reliable source that early this year the President used the contingency fund or some other fund to provide $2 million worth of aircraft parts to Yugoslavia, and that Congress was notified about that, but it was then marked secret and not to be disclosed, but subsequently that classification was withdrawn, although no publicity was then given.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Those aircraft parts were sold; and there is nothing secret about that transaction, and no law or policy prohibits such a sale for cash.

Mr. DOMINICK. I thank the Senator from Arkansas for the explanation.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I may explain that they were spare parts, which which were bought.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I do not think the Senator from Arkansas has answered the original question of the Senator from Colorado. If the Proxmire amendment were adopted and if the law otherwise remained as it is, it would be within the power of the President-if he found certain conditions to exist-to

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BREWSTER in the chair). Does the

Mr. DOMINICK. Except Yugoslavia.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Except Yugoslavia. Does the chairman agree with me? Mr. FULBRIGHT. I believe the Senator's interpretation is correct.

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

Mr. LAUSCHE. I yield to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. DOMINICK.

The other day I offered an amendment which would take care of the very difficult situation in the Development Loan Fund. At the present time all receipts from the Develop

ment Loan Fund come back into the fund and then can be spent in any way that is desired by the AID personnel, without any review by Congress, either in the way of authorization or appropriation. I have offered an amendment designed to try to take care of that situation and provide that it shall be subject to annual appropriations.

Upon further review of the act I find that the same situation is true in respect to the Alliance for Progress fund. There are certain provisions in the act which provide that receipts coming back from loans under the Alliance for Progress can also be spent by the administrators of the Alliance for Progress without any congressional review and without annual appropriation or authorization.

I send to the desk for printing an amendment which would take care of that situation in respect to the Alliance for Progress fund in the same way that I have tried to take care of it in respect to the Development Loan Fund.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received and printed, and will lie on the desk.

at

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, this point I should like to make inquiry about a parliamentary situation that might develop. The Senator from Wisconsin has an amendment which would deal solely with Yugoslavia under the provisions of subparagraph (f) of section 620. My inquiry is regarding the validity of a subsequent amendment in the event the Proxmire amendment is adopted. The subsequent amendment would strike from subparagraph (f) the language dealing with conditions which, if found by the President to exist, would warrant the granting of aid. The language that I would ask to strike would leave the section reading to the following effect:

No aid shall be granted to any Communist country except under section 214(b).

The three conditions which, if found to exist, would allow the President to provide aid, would be stricken. Would such an amendment be in order?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is of the opinion that such an amendment would be in order.

Mr. LAUSCHE. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE] to the committee amendment.

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

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 231 and ask that it be stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The The amendment of the Senator from Alaska will be stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 51, between lines 13 and 14 it is proposed to between lines 13 and 14 it is proposed to insert the following new subsection:

"(f) No assistance shall be provided under

this or any other Act, and no sales shall be made under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, to any country which the President determines is engaging in or preparing for aggressive military efforts directed against

"(1) the United States,

"(2) any country receiving assistance under this or any other Act, or

"(3) any country to which sales are made under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954,

until the President determines that such military efforts or preparations have ceased and he reports to the Congress that he has received assurances satisfactory to him that such military efforts or preparations will not be renewed. This restriction may not be waived pursuant to any authority contained in this Act."

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I am about to suggest the absence of a quorum. After the presence of a quorum has been ascertained, I shall speak briefly and then ask for a yea and nay vote on

my amendment.

a large contingent of Gamal Abdel Nasser's troops into Yemen. This troop movement coincided with the announcement of a revolt in Yemen. Since that time, Nasser has kept 28,000 troops there, making war on the people of Yemen, at a cost of $500,000 a day. This figure was vouched for by our military attaché in Cairo. To date, the cost has been $180 million, which which is approximately the amount of money that the United States, under its foreign aid program, has poured into Egypt.

In other words, while our money is designed to help the poor people of Egypt those who are undernourished, underhoused, and underclothed-the money intended for their benefit is being spent on aggressive warfare elsewhere.

This is only one of the many moves that Nasser is making to dominate the Middle East. Middle East. When we visited there, we were informed by the military attachés that their movements-those of the air attaché, the army attaché, and the Navy attaché-were severely restricted. They could move only a few blocks from the Embassy or from their location. But the Russian technicians, the Russian military, were allowed to go everywhere. Indeed, they were supplying Nasser with all his arms. So, at the same time while Nasser has Russian

equipment, Russian technicians, and exNazi technicians, we-the United States pour money into Egypt. Nasser

though we were paying for his military adventures.

Within the past week, Egyptian troops

unanimous consent that the order for the Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I ask quorum call may be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With

out objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I shall be very brief. This amendment might be called, for short, the "antiagression amendment." It is cosponsored by the distinguished Senators from New York [Mr. JAVITS and Mr. KEATING], the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], the Senators from New Jersey [Mr. CASE and Mr. WILLIAMS], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. RIBICOFF], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. YoUNG], the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS], and the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd]. I shall take 2 minutes to explain the purpose of the amendment.

This amendment would deny aid to those who wage aggressive war. The President would have the right to determine that fact. In other words, there is to be an escape clause, that no assistance would be provided to any nation until the President determined that military efforts or preparations had ceased and he reported to the Congress that he had received assurances satisfactory to him that such military efforts or preparations would not be renewed.

A year ago last September, Russian Ilyushin planes were waiting to carry

in its war on Morocco, in consequence of which the King of Morocco has severed relations with Algeria.

Last week there were riots in Lebanon; each day, some Middle East country is agitated and stirred up by Nasser. Nasser has never ceased to declare his intention to invade Israel and drive the Israelis into the sea. His broadcasts nightly, beamed over the Cairo radio, to the operation of which we unfortunately contributed, beam hatred, and preach assassination of rulers of countries Nasser

wishes to destroy. He has preached

assassination of the King of Jordan. He has preached assassination of the leaders of Lebanon. He has preached assassination of others.

I believe it is time that our aid, under those circumstances, should stop. That is the purpose of the amendment.

The amendment is not nearly so strong as I should like it to be. I believe it is unfortunate there is a discretionary clause in it, but it seems to be necessary in order to secure the passage of the amendment, which is identical with one which has been accepted by the House.

So if this amendment is accepted, it will not be eliminated in conference. I hope it will be adopted. It is depressing to think our policies are promoting aggressive war in the Middle East. It not only permits countries to use our aid for aggressive warfare, but it causes nations such as Jordan and Israel to fear for their lives and increase their arms. we are in effect stimulating competition in war in the Middle East. We are indeed promoting an arms race. How

So

inconsistent is the practical effect of our blind policy of financing Nasser with our professions of wanting a world of peace. Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I am one of those who have joined the distinguished junior Senator from Alaska in sponsoring the antiaggression amendment to the foreign aid bill. I would like to summarize my own reasons for urging that this country deny assistance to any nation which the President determines is engaging in or preparing for aggressive military efforts against this country or any nation receiving aid from us.

One of the fundamental aims of our foreign aid program, Mr. President, is to strengthen the capacity of other countries to maintain their independence from foreign domination, particularly against the threats posed by Communist expansionism. The capacity for maintaining independence depends upon sound and healthy economic development, as well as upon military forces adequate to contribute to the common defense. But this objective of our foreign assistance program is frustrated when nations receiving our aid engage in aggression or prepare to do so. Whatever form our assistance may take, it releases resources which can then be used to further the military effort.

When countries are preparing for aggression, the primary effect of our assistance is to promote the tensions of an armaments race. This may, of course, lead to the tragedy of armed conflict, with all its unpredictable and farreaching consequences. But, at best, the resources and energies drawn into an armaments race are diverted from healthy economic development, weakening rather than strengthening the foundations of the countries we are trying to assist, contrary to the interest of their own people.

Mr. President, I do not want our country to bear even a share of the responsibility for encouraging a dangerous arms race in the Middle East. Rather, I believe we must actively use our influence to prevent such arms races and to discourage aggression.

The present present amendment properly leaves the determination of whether a country is engaging in or preparing for aggressive military efforts to the President, who is, of course, under our Constitution, charged with the primary responsibility for the conduct of foreign affairs. But the amendment does safeguard one of the fundamental purposes of our foreign assistance program, and I strongly urge its passage.

indirectly in aggressive activities against other aid-receiving nations. Take, for instance, the actions of the United Arab Republic-although I want to make it very clear that this amendment does not, in my view, apply exclusively to that nation. Nasser's troops are heavily engaged in military activities in Yemen. On-the-spot reporters maintain that Egypt is making a massive effort in Yemen to prop up a regime that could not survive without foreign arms and troops behind it. Without U.S. assistance in the form of surplus food, it would be considerably harder for Nasser to maintain this kind of expeditionary force.

Reports also indicate that Egyptian pilots have been fighting on the Algerian side in the recent border dispute with Morocco.

The hate propaganda which emanates from the Arab Republic, I may say, incidentally, is also directed against the United States and Members of this body.

Mr. President, I believe that an amendment along the lines of the one passed by the House would be very useful in bringing U.S. pressure to bear to put an end to aid programs where the nations being assisted are not making a comparable effort themselves.

Mr. President, my only criticism of this amendment is that it does not go far enough. It calls upon the President to make an affirmative declaration that aggressive military efforts are being con

ducted.

ducted. Personally, I am dubious that such a declaration would ever be made. Whenever the Yemen situation, for instance, is called to the attention of the State Department, a concerted effort is made to deny any aggressive activities on anyone's part, and to attribute the whole situation in that country to confusion and misunderstanding on the part of those concerned.

Mr. President, I feel it would be far more effective, in the Yemen situation at least, to point the finger of blame specifically upon the culprit. The United States agreed, in a deal with Nasser, to recognize the new government in Yemen in return for Nasser's withdrawal of his troops. As might have been expected, Nasser has not withdrawn his troops, but merely rotated them. them. I would strongly favor an amendment which would simply cut off aid to Egypt, including surplus food, until such time as Egyptian troops are withdrawn from Yemen. Such action would clearly pinpoint Nasser's failure to abide by his

Mr. GRUENING. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from New York.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, I am glad to join the Senator from Alaska in sponsoring this amendment to suspend aid to nations preparing for or conducting military aggression against other nations that also receive U.S. aid.

I am deeply concerned over the action taken by the Senate committee in elim

impossible for the Soviets to supply Nasser with the surplus food he needs, since they require additional supplies themselves.

To date, Mr. President, the United States has given Nasser the impression that we value his supposed good will more than we value our own interests in the Middle East, more than we value our legitimate right to insist that Nasser fulfill his commitments, and apparently more than we value the millions of dol

lars which have so far been spent in an effort to win Nasser's favor.

Mr. President, I am not impressed by the argument that Nasser or anyone else will immediately turn to the Soviets for aid if we retract our own. The Soviets are not in a position at this point to extend themselves financially overseas. And Nasser, at least, has learned only too well that Soviet aid is not always what it seems to be. That argument will not stand. It does not have merit, and should not be used, in an effort to defeat this amendment.

Mr. President, if this present development is not enforced, it may be necessary specifically to cut aid to the United Arab Republic until such time as Nasser's troops are withdrawn from Yemen and until such time as Nasser gives specific evidence that he is more concerned with the economic development of his own people than he is concerned with the military conquest of his neighbors.

Mr. President, I believe the Foreign Relations Committee has acted wisely in tightening up a number of areas in this foreign aid bill, and I think it altogether appropriate and long overdue to cut out assistance to nations which divert their own resources into military and propaganda efforts directed against other nations.

Mr. President, I am proud to be the author of language in the bill which expresses this principle as the sense of Congress. However, my queries to the AID agency as to how this language has been implemented have elicited not one single example from the agency as to how this principle was applied. For that reason, although I favor the language approved by the House, I would be far more optimistic of action in the long run if the Senate explicitly recommended that aid to President Nasser be entirely suspended until Egyptian troops have ceased fighting against neighboring nations and until Nasser's hate propaganda against Israel ceases to flood the Middle East.

But, as the Senator from Alaska has indicated, half a loaf is better than none. And I think this amendment is a step in the right direction.

Mr. GRUENING. I agree with the junior Senator from New York that this amendment could be strengthened, but it is identical with the House language, and I fear that if we tinker with it, if we try to strengthen it, it may be lost in conference, as so often amendments adopted by a majority of the Senate have been lost in the past, not merely in the field of foreign relations, but in others. During the debate there could be another amendment which could be called the propaganda amendment, in line with Senator KEATING'S thinking which I would highly approve of and support; but in this case I think it would be well not to change the amendment, because it is identical with the House language, and we want to be sure to copper-rivet it into the bill.

Mr. KEATING. I see the merit of the proposal. That is the reason I have not offered a clarifying or perfecting amendment to cover the hate propaganda problem. I do not want to interfere with the Senator's plans. I agree with him com

pletely that if we change the language, it might provide some reason for dropping the amendment in conference. If we adopt this language, it cannot be dropped in conference and will stay in the bill, which, of course, is what we desire.

Later in this debate we may be able to do something about the propaganda.

Mr. GRUENING. I would find it very difficult for even the pro-Nasser men in the State Department, of which there are plenty-not to find that Nasser has been an aggressor. He has been an aggressor in Yemen, in Syria, in Lebanon, and now in the Morocco-Algerian conflict. I think it would be difficult even for his warmest apologists to find that he has not been an aggressor. We should not give him aid if it were found that he was the aggressor in Yemen or was building submarines or rockets and procuring military jet planes and all sorts of aggressive weapons.

Mr. KEATING. I shall join the Senator in his efforts to convince the State Department that Nasser has been the aggressor. Under the sense-of-Congress resolution, aid should have been stopped before this.

If this amendment does not work, I shall join the Senator in proposing even stronger language to stop this ridiculous proposition of giving lavish financial aid to a country which at this moment is engaging in aggression. It makes no

sense.

Mr. JAVITS rose.

Mr. GRUENING. I yield to the distinguished senior Senator from New York.

Mr. JAVITS. I should like to have the floor in my own right.

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

Mr. GRUENING. I yield to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. I congratulate the Senator from Alaska and the cosponsors of the amendment, the Senator from New York and the Senator from Oregon. In addition to the aggressions that have been mentioned, it is also true that Nasser has committed aggression against Jordan. There have also been aggressions, or threats of aggression, against Saudi Arabia. Much American aid has been given to both those countries. He has also committed acts of aggression against Israel. He has also interfered in the dispute between Algeria and Morocco, which has been friendly toward us. This action has extended below the Mediterranean, in Ghana, where threats have been made to take over that country. There have been threats to the Republic of Dahomey. There have been threats in the area of the Volta River.

We see what is happening around the world. A country receives aid, and when it seems to feel strong enough, it attacks a neighboring country. Then the weaker country also asks for aid in order to protect itself. We should not be giving aid to countries that build up their strength to the point where they can obliterate or seize or annex a friendly neighboring country which is not as strong as the first country.

What I have said extends to many countries on at least three different con

tinents. I commend the distinguished Senator from Alaska for his leadership in this field, to protect the nations around the world, particularly smaller or weaker nations, which, if they are to retain their independence, must receive military aid to offset the aid that is given to aggressor countries.

We must prevent such aid; otherwise, we shall be opening a Pandora's box in the two Africas. There are two Africas, the Africa south of the Sahara and the Africa north of the Sahara, in the Near Africa north of the Sahara, in the Near East.

It will happen in South America also as soon as another Castro rises in a country down there. Of course, Castro is not receiving aid, but the next country that is taken over by a Castro-type government will not admit that it has a Castro-type government, but will try to obtain foreign aid nevertheless. Our country must correct that situation. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. GRUENING. I yield.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I find a very worthy purpose in the Senator's amendment. I should like to ask him to discuss with me two or three words in the amendment which I believe might cause trouble. I am not now arguing about the strict application of the amendment. I note that the Senator has nailed down the intention in the last words of the amendment, which read:

This restriction may not be waived pursuant to any authority contained in this act. Therefore, no discretion is allowed, as is the case in respect to many other

amendments.

I should like to ask the Senator from Alaska whether he would consent to a modification in his amendment at line 7, page 1, by striking out the words "or preparing for".

The present wording would impose a very difficult decision on the President, in trying to ascertain motive, or even ascertaining the motive. Potential aggression is very hard to discover.

That would make the language read: No assistance shall be provided under this or any other act, and no sales shall be made under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 to any country which the President determines is engaging in aggressive military efforts—

And so forth.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska yield before he replies?

Mr. GRUENING. I yield.

Mr. JAVITS. Anything the Senator changes would eliminate the idea of copper riveting the amendment into the bill. I hope the Senator will remember that. If the President is to make a judgment that there is aggression, that is a quality and quantity judgment, as such as a judgment relating to preparation as a judgment relating to preparation for aggression.

For the life of me I cannot see what would be gained in terms of the President's discretion by making the change except to submit the entire section to conference.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Not long ago I read the speech of the President of Pakistan. He said that India was preparing for

aggression against Pakistan; that the Indian armies were on the borders of Pakistan for the purpose of aggression. Does that mean that under the amendment the President would have to determine that when there was a collection of troops on the borders of two countries, both sides were preparing for aggression?

The President of Pakistan says so. I do not think so. I do not believe President Kennedy thinks so, and I do not think the previous President thought so either. either. There are instances in north Africa in which two countries have substantial forces on their borders. There is now an actual struggle between Morocco and Algeria, but prior to that time there was evidence of potential aggression.

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

Mr. GRUENING. I should like to reply to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HUMPHREY. This raises some concern in my mind about the amendment. I feel very keenly about giving American aid to countries which are actually engaged in aggressive activities, or in aiding aggression. We have discussed this amendment before. It has happened in the instance of Yemen, for example.

Mr. GRUENING. It is still happening there.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes; and in Morocco and Algeria. As to who the aggressor is there, I have not determined, but I do know that some shooting has been going on there.

sends his Egyptian troops into Algeria to help Morocco, I do not know that there can be any question about whether he is or is not an aggressor. Of course he is. Mr. HUMPHREY. Which is the aggressor as between Algeria and Morocco?

Mr. GRUENING. When Mr. Nasser

Mr. GRUENING. That is not pertinent to this amendment. In this case we have a dictator-Nasser-sending troops to another country to help fight

a third country.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The amendment reads:

No assistance shall be provided-
I skip to-

to any country that the President determines

is

engaging in aggressive military effort.

Mr. GRUENING. The President must make that determination. Mr. HUMPHREY. It also provides: No assistance shall be provided under this or any other act.

Does the Senator mean, for example, that the Peace Corps would be eliminated in some of those countries, on the suspicion that the country might be preparing for aggression?

Mr. GRUENING. The Peace Corps has not been admitted into most Arab nations because of their anti-Semitic prejudice, and of course our Peace Corps recruits being Americans belong to all races.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Then it would be necessary to put the amendment on the basis of Arab nations. The Senator has not done that. I do not wish to labor this point. I have taken my stand on the Arab-Israel struggle. However, what

about the struggle over Kashmir? What about the struggle between India and Pakistan? What about the struggle between Chile and Bolivia? There has been some shooting there, too.

Mr. GRUENING. There is no comparison between those border incidents and the cold, calculated methods of aggression which the dictator of Egypt has been engaging in.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I do not say that there is any comparison, but the Senator's amendment would not establish qualitative standards.

Mr. GRUENING. The President is obliged to decide that question. I agree with the Senator from New York that if we change a word or two, we shall lose the amendment. This is too important an amendment to risk having it thrown out in conference, as so many have been in the past. When the bill is in conference, people from the State Department will be running to the conference, saying, "This will ruin the whole program." We have seen that happen more than once in conference, although an amendment thrown out in conference may have represented the will of the majority of both Houses.

sure, from the State Department, to emasculate and eviscerate his amendment.

Mr. GRUENING. I thank the Senator from Illinois.

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

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

Mr. MORSE. The language in the amendment on line 6, "or preparing for aggressive military efforts," is one of the most important phrases in the entire amendment.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I invite the attention of the Senator from Minnesota to what the Senator from Oregon is saying.

Mr. MORSE. That language deals with the matter of prevention. We should not have to wait until some country engages in aggression before we cut off aid. When we become satisfied that their acts show that they are preparing for aggressive military efforts, we ought to stop them then, before people start dying.

Supposedly, we have a highly efficient intelligence service, in at least three branches of the Government; namely,

Mr. GRUENING. I yield.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I commend the Senators from Alaska and New York on their amendment. It is directly aimed at the aggressive preparations and actions of the United Arab Republic. It is important to make that declaration in clear language.

I do not believe in indulging in provocative talk. The Arabs seem to exercise great fascination over at least two types of persons: maiden Englishwomen and diplomats. The number of Englishwomen, from the time of Lady Hester Stanhope down to Gertrude Bell who have fallen for the Arab line, is almost unlimited. The Arabs also have a tremendous fascination for diplomats, both British and American. I certainly do I certainly do not think these diplomats are in any sense anti-Jewish. Let me make that clear. But they are pro-Arab.

If it had not been for Harry Truman, the State Department would have prevented the United States from recognizing the Republic of Israel. President Truman had to act over the opposition of prominent officials. Virtually every step we have taken to try to help Israel since then has been over the opposition of prominent officials in the State Department. The State Department has moreover sabotaged the Douglas-Keating resolution which would have sought to prevent Egypt from closing the Suez Canal to goods destined for Israel.

Mr. GRUENING. That is true. Mr. DOUGLAS. The State Department has consistently favored Egypt and the United Arab Republic. The State Department has many real virtues, but the ability to withstand the seduction of the Arabs is not one of them.

I shall say no more, except that I heartily endorse the Gruening amendment.

I hope the Senator from Alaska and his fellow sponsors, of whom I am one, will resist the attempt, coming, I am

Pentagon. It should not be difficult for our intelligence service to advise the President that country X is preparing President that country X is preparing for aggression and satisfy him, on the basis of their intelligence reports and evidence, that such is the case. Until Until they did, the amendment would not become applicable. But when the PresiIdent has been made aware of the fact that some country is preparing for aggression, he ought to stop the aid to that country immediately. The amendment country immediately. The amendment is that simple.

We would not be placing any burden on the President. If he has a good intelligence service, he ought to be kept informed anyway, if the intelligence informed anyway, if the intelligence service is worth the appropriation we are giving it, whether or not a country is preparing for aggression.

Next, I join with the Senators from New York [Mr. JAVITS and Mr. KEATING] and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS], and other Senators, who have pointed out that if the amendment is adopted, that is it. It is identical with the House language, and an important policy question would be established. This is a vital amendment.

Mr. GRUENING. I thank the Senator. He is absolutely correct.

Mr. MORSE. I have a few facts to present on my own time, in a moment, but I desire to take this time to buttress but I desire to take this time to buttress the position of the Senator from Alaska in my colloquy with him.

Am I correct in understanding that the Senator from Alaska has already placed in the RECORD the number of troops that Nasser has in Yemen at the present time?

Mr. GRUENING. That is correct. There are 28,000. He has had them there for about 14 months.

Mr. MORSE. I was told by a certain Senator this afternoon that the AID people had advised him that aggression is a matter of definition; that it is difficult to determine whether Nasser is an aggressor.

Let us see if we can give the AID a little elementary, kindergarten, A B C lesson in what aggression obviously is.

How many troops did the Senator from Alaska say Nasser has in Yemen?

Mr. GRUENING. He has 28,000 troops in Yemen and has had them there for 14 months. He dispatched them there simultaneously with the announcement of the revolt in Yemen, knowing, of course, that it was going to happen, he being in fact, if not the instigator, then the collaborator in that revolt.

Russian planes were ready to take Nasser's first convoys of troops, and have transported them ever since. In fact, as he pulls his battle-weary troops back and sends in fresh troops, keeping the total number the same, they have been transported back and forth by Russian planes, with Russia supplying all his military equipment.

Mr. MORSE. Do the AID officials contend that that does not constitute some kind of aggression? Does the Senator have a suspicion as to what the motivation of the AID people may be in trying to defeat this amendment-namely, that they are pro-Nasser?

Mr. GRUENING. That is the inevitable conclusion, from the generous way in which Nasser has been treated by our foreign aid program. It should not have been necessary for Congress to offer an amendment of this kind. Action should have been taken by our executive department long ago.

Mr. MORSE. In support of what the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] has said, it is my opinion, based upon my experience with the State Department, that for a long time many people in that Department have been pro-Nasser and anti-Israel. It is about time for us to adopt this amendment and make it perfectly clear to the State Department that the Senate is not anti-Israel and does not favor aggression by Nasser or anyone else. It is rather sad that we even have to debate the soundness of the principle of this particular amendment. It ought to be adopted by the Senate with a unanimous vote. But let the RECORD show that some of us know that the State Department lobby is fighting the amendment. Their representatives are in the gallery at the very moment I speak. I tell them that I have no respect for their activity in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. GRUENING. While Nasser is getting a battle-trained army and has never ceased to declare his purpose to drive the Israelis to the sea, he is also building up a fantastic arsenal of other weapons, including missiles, jet planes, and submarines.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska yield once more? Mr. GRUENING. I yield.

Mr. MORSE. Does the Senator know of any contradiction of the statement of Nasser that he intends to drive Israel into the sea as soon as he is strong enough to do so?

Mr. GRUENING. he has never denied it.

On the contrary;

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

Mr. GRUENING. I yield to the Senator from New York.