« ПретходнаНастави »
U.S. aid to Foreign Assistance Act countries, by region and country-Obligations and loan authorizations, fiscal year 1963, preliminary-Con.
[In millions of dollars]
1 Represents Peace Corps.
7 Represents $73,000,000 war damage claims in the Philippines and $7,100,000 for the 2 Includes proration of multiyear agreements.
Peace Corps. 3 Military data classifled and included in regional totals.
8 Includes aid to Australia and New Zealand. 4 Less than $50,000.
• Represents $13,000,000 for the Peace Corps; and $1,000,000 in Libya for special pur6 Represents $60,000,000 subscription to inter-American Development Bank; $15,- pose funds. 200,000 for Peace Corps; and $2,400,000 for Rama Road.
10 For Krakow Research Hospital. 6 Excludes reflnancings of $72,000,000.
11 Includes $61,700,000 subscription to the international Development Association and $72,100,000 for Ú.N. bonds.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I am a seems to rationalize its way out of any- and then interferes directly with his cosponsor with the Senator from thing we have done and, I predict, will Egyptian troops in the Yemen war. He Alaska [Mr. GRUENING] of the amend- rationalize its way out of the amend- receives our aid and keeps the whole Near ment. I know that Senators are ready ment even if we adopt it, if we permit it. East in turmoil and ferment, including to vote on the amendment. I am anx The whole point or idea—and we have conspiracies against established governious to have the Senate vote.
had a couple of clues to it on the floor of ments there. He receives our aid and We have two problems. I should like the Senate-is that we are going to do threatens every day—and he means itto talk for 5 minutes on those two prob- some business with Nasser so that he will to drive the Israelis into the sea and to lems.
not completely depend on the Commu- eliminate Israel. First, we must copper rivet that pro- nists, and so that we may have some We have heard some intimations about vision in the bill, which we are now do- effect with him.
the aid that Israel receives by way of ing. I compliment my colleague for the The great fallacy in that argument is voluntary contributions. Who is comwit to see that we cannot change any that it is exacly what Nasser wants. pelling the arms race in the Near East part of the amendment if we are to do That is exactly what we would place into which is so terribly costly to the tiny that first job.
his hands. He cannot, and he dare not, country of Israel to which we give no Second, when we have the opportunity depend exclusively upon the Communists military aid? to do so, which is now, to impress the and still retain his power in his own So far we have only let them have the State Department with the invalidity of country. The very thing that is keeping privilege of paying in cash for some Hawk the arguments and the rationale which him in power in Egypt is that he passes missiles purchased from the United it has used to continue a policy which is as the consummately clever Near East- States. contrary to the interests of the United ern ruler to his people to play off the The man fomenting that Near East States, we should do so. We are consid- Communists against the United States arms race is none other than Nasser. As ering a policy of continuing to give aid and receive aid from both.
my colleague from Alaska has properly to Nasser notwithstanding aggression summate cleverness which he demon- pointed out, there is nothing the Isnot merely preparation to aggress—but strates in the eyes of his own people is raelis can do except to escalate their aggression in the Yemen, against Saudi one of the main elements which keeps arms preparations to keep pace with him. Arabia, by infiltration and fomenting him in power. President Nasser in Otherwise, they are sitting ducks. revolution in other Near East countries, Egypt could not get away with sole de He is getting jetplanes of the latest including threats to assassinate rulers, pendence on the Soviet Union even if he design, and he is getting his pilots trained and now direct interference in the Al- wanted to, and even if the Soviet Union in Czechoslovakia and other parts of the gerian-Moroccan conflict. Incidentally, would help him to the extent that would Communist bloc to operate the planes. though it has not been mentioned, it is be required.
He now has battle-tried troops who have entirely documented and boasted about So the whole idea out of which the been through a Yemenite war. He has by the leading newspaper in Egypt, Al- State Department is rationalizing its submarines and rockets made very Ahram, that Nasser has proudly an- Nasser policy is wrong. It has been dem- largely by ex-German Nazi technicians nounced that Egyptian warships and onstrated to be wrong, because Nasser with material supplied from the Comaircraft have gone to Algeria.
continues to do everything he possibly munist bloc. He has the latest tanks This is the time and place to explain can contrary to the interests of the and the latest arms which the Commuwhy we take a very different attitude United States. He proceeds against us nists are capable of giving him. They from that of the State Department, be- with the greatest arrogance and the boast about it. Yet we absolutely shut cause apparently the State Department greatest impunity. He receives our aid our eyes to what is creating the most
dangerous situation of conflagration in only one of the conferees. I know we Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, my the Near East, which is the escalating cannot make any advance pledges as to concern with the amendment is not its arms race. the result of the conference.
target or its primary objective. I acWhat is critically important is one My concern with the amendment is cept its primary objective of refusing to fundamental point: There can be no the broadness of its scope, and the fact aid a government, namely, the United rationalization out of a ruler—and that that it might very well necessitate inter Arab Republic, which has consistently is what Nasser is-who proceeds with the nationally embarrassing decisions for threatened one of our best friends, the greatest arrogance to defy the American our Government. Possibly, it would not. State of Israel. My concern is about policy at the same time that he receives I have been reading the language on saying, “No assistance shall be provided its aid and makes that one of the prin page 1. I read, starting with line 3: under this or any other act.” For examciple props of his regime. The fact is No assistance shall be provided under this ple, it would knock out the Peace Corps, that his people consider him to be con or any other Act, and no sales shall be made which I believe should not be involved summately clever because he is receiving under the Agricultural Trade Development in some of these tough diplomatic deaid both from the Communist bloc and and Assistance Act of 1954—
cisions. It would surely knock out the the United States as well. He cannot
Would the Senator agree that lan- Export-Import Bank transactions, which persist in any such ridiculous attitude.
guage would not deny the right of the relate to our own economic well-being. Yet that is precisely what the State DeGovernment to engage in famine relief?
I regret that there is such a fear over partment is doing. We must demon
Mr. JAVITS. I agree.
the conference. I repeat, in the comstrate beyond peradventure that we will
Mr. HUMPHREY. I wished to clarify mittee I offered this particular amendhave none of it. that part of the amendment.
ment, and I voted for it in the committee. Mr. President, I value the opinion of
Mr. JAVITS. The Senator knows I After we discussed the amendment, I the Senator from Minnesota. I feel that he has much heart in the idea of pre
agree with him that when it comes to found that there were serious limitations,
direct relief of starving people, aid could which have deeply disturbed me. I wish venting this charade by President Nasser
be given even to the Red Chinese, or to to goodness we could, with one or two as any of us. I believe he is mistaken on anybody.
modifications, remove the doubts. But one point, and that is in his effort to
Mr. HUMPHREY. Exactly. I con
I gather the Senators feel that if we do, have the particular language to which tinue to read:
in conference the State Department will we have referred eliminated from the
work on us to the point that we will amendment, which would only imperil to any country which the President deter
recede to their request or to their the whole amendment. At the same time
mines is engaging in or preparing for aghe omits the fact that we entrust the
gressive military efforts directed against advice.
The House of Representatives passed President of the United States with far
this language, and wants it in the bill. I more weighty decisions than this.
I wish to get the interpretation of the If the President of the United States Senator from Alaska. As I understand, hope that we can pass this language with believed that Khrushchev was preparing under that language the initiative with one or two things modified, such as refor aggression, if he made a value judg- respect to ascertaining the facts would
respect to ascertaining the facts would moving “any other act” from the
. ment that Khrushchev was preparing for rest with the President.
amendment, which would not basically
change the substance or the thrust of the aggression against the United States with
Mr. GRUENING. That is correct. the atom bomb, I would expect him to
Mr. HUMPHREY. He might or might amendment. We know what the thrust put his finger on the red button. That is not, under his own discretion, view the of the amendment is. a great deal more important than wheth situation as involving preparation for
It is to prevent the Government of the
United States from giving aid to couner to give aid to Nasser or not. Yet aggression. under the way our Government is or
Mr. GRUENING. That is correct. He tries committing either direct or indirect ganized we are giving the President that could.
acts of aggression, contrary to the interpower. He is the only one in our coun
Mr. HUMPHREY. The only obvious ests of the United States and to the obtry—and we all know it—who can direct point is if there were actual military jectives of our foreign policy. This is when the country shall react against an aggression, the President would not have a very good purpose, which I wish to aggressor preparing for aggression in much discretion. We would not want support. such a way that we cannot allow such him to have it.
Mr. JAVITS. It is of significance that aggression to occur against us before we
Mr. GRUENING rose.
in this whole debate no word is heard react. We are laying bare one of the
Mr. JAVITS. I shall be glad to yield from the State Department. After all, most trying and difficult responsibilities to the Senator who is the author of the there has been a general declaration in and duties which the President has. It amendment whenever he wishes.
the law that we shall not aid one who is is almost beyond human comprehension, The President will have discretion, an aggressor, and so forth. This is covendurance or will.
even as to whether aggression is under- ered in the "sense” resolution to which And I lay it bare only to answer the way. This is often a qualitative judg- the Senator from Alaska (Mr. GRUEargument. This is far less in magnitude, ment, too. Troops might be marshaled
ment, too. Troops might be marshaled NING) properly referred. Every effort to in terms of decision on the part of the at the border-perhaps a shot has not obtain an interpretation of that lanPresident, than the decision with which yet been fired, but the border has been
yet been fired, but the border has been guage by the Senator from Alaska (Mr. we entrust him now in the greatest thea crossed. That would be aggression.
GRUENING), by me, and by my colleague ter of life and death ever known to all There might be a situation in which from New York [Mr. KEATING] has almankind.
ways been frustrated by the rationalizaplanes were in the air but had not acThe President of the United States tually broken the barrier of the other tion by the State Department away from can very well make this qualitative judg
the position we thought we were adoptcountry. That might be aggression. ment as to whether, under the amend This is a value judgment that the
ing. ment, Nasser or any other ruler in the President must make. President must make. He makes much
I say to the Senator, with all respect, world is actually preparing for aggres
that his more serious decisions than this.
situation would be much sive warfare or has engaged in aggres I should say, as a part of the legis- stronger with all of us if we had a decsion.
laration from the State Department as lative history, that one of the reasons Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, why the Senator from Alaska says the to what would be its policy, even under will the Senator yield? amendment is not as strong as it should
this amendment. We cannot even know Mr. JAVITS. I yield.
be—and as a lawyer I agree with him that.. How can anyone be blamed for Mr. HUMPHREY. I realize the con is precisely this reason. I feel we are
wanting to be sure, at least, that we shall cern of the Senator from Alaska and right about the fact that if we build the
right about the fact that if we build the have this point to emphasize. About all the concern of the Senators from New record strongly, as we are trying to do, we have is a license to "holler.” York and other Senators about losing with facts and figures to copper-rivet
Mr. HUMPHREY. I do not blame the the substance of the amendment in con- the amendment as it stands in the bill, Senator at all. I could bring down from ference. I wish I could say that it would so that it cannot be played around with my office some correspondence between not be lost in conference. If I were a in conference, on balance we will ac the State Department and me on cerconferee, I could give my word of honor complish more than if we try to toughen tain matters—Yemen and others—which that we would not lose it, but I would be it at this point.
I believe would reflect as much anger,
concern, and dismay over that situation I do not approve of what the Egyptian amendment because there is apparently as that of any other Senator.
troops are doing in the Yemen. I am no desire on the part of the executive I am concerned, I repeat, over the quite convinced that Nasser agreed to agencies to curtail Nasser. It should scope of the amendment. I know what
I know what take his troops out of there. I happened have been done before. its purpose is. I like its purpose; and, to be not only in Egypt, but in Saudi Unless Congress acts, and acts in this therefore, I should like to see its purpose Arabia, when the negotiations were un way, it is not going to happen, because preserved. I can understand how the derway. I know what the proposals the State Department, I regret to say, Senators who sponsor the amendment were. I know what the agreement was. has many pro-Nasser people in it, and might feel that the purpose and sub It has not been carried out.
its Middle East policy seems to be to stance might not be preserved in confer But, from a technical standpoint-and build him up. ence, even though I would surely give my I am not defending or supporting him Instead of supporting the one oasis word, if I were on the conference com Mr. Nasser is in the Yemen today at the of free democratic government in the mittee—and I might be, as one of the invitation of a legally constituted Middle East, namely Israel, it has done ranking members of the committee—to ernment that we recognize.
little to encourage its existence and see to it that the substance was pre Under what other circumstances is this to discourage the efforts to boycott and served.
country in Vietnam? Under what cir- destroy it. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I believe cumstances did this country land 10,000 Now if we modify the amendment in the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKEN- troops in Jordan? At the invitation of the slightest respect, I fear the State LOOPER] desires to speak; if so, I shall a legally constituted, recognized, de jure Department will be telling the conferees yield to him. I ask unanimous consent government.
how disruptive this amendment is going that he may speak as long as he pleases I am only saying that what is sauce to be, and we will lose it. That is why and that then I may resume.
for the goose is sauce for the gander. I prefer to stand by the exact language The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- I am not supporting biased legislation. of my amendment which is identical with out objection, it is so ordered.
But I will support generalized legislation, the House-passed amendment. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Presi- and I will support
and I will support legislation that Mr. HICKENLOOPER. It is still dent, I have a personally arrived at po- strengthens the act and tries to accom the responsibility of the Members who sition on this whole situation.
plish something in Egypt that should be will constitute the conference commitdone.
tee. I hold no brief for Nasser or Egypt under the circumstances which have oc
With the House passing the resolu Regardless of whether Nasser should curred. I have been in serious corre
tion, with the Senate using suitable lan- have been in the Yemen prior to recogspondence with the State Department guage which I think can be drafted, if nition, our very act of recognizing the
government amounts to a de jure recand the Secretary of State, practically to we go into conference I think we can the point that I believe I will file, for come out with reasonable language that ognition of a duly constituted govern
ment. I was in both Saudi Arabia and whatever action the Senate may wish to will tend substantially toward the ac
complishment of the desired purpose. take, a resolution expressing the sense
Cairo when this matter was under inof the Senate that we should withdraw
Basically, I do not think this language tense discussion, and when preparations
is needed. However, I am willing to go were being made for recognition of the recognition of the State of Yemen. along with some language.
Yemen. I believe that the Egyptians have par
The President has authority to with The point is, we were given certain ticularly failed to keep their word in draw aid whenever he feels it is in the understandings. We were given cerconnection with the recognition that was
interest of the United States. He did not tain commitments. Those commitments given the Government of Yemen. I am
hesitate to withdraw it from Peru when have not been carried out. Mr. Nasnot in sympathy with them. there was a coup down there.
ser has not carried out the conditions furnishing probably 50 percent of the
Mr. GRUENING. For 2 weeks.
and promises he said he would. food that feeds the people of Egypt. We
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I do not care On the contrary, Saudi Arabia has, in could have tremendous control over the peccadillos of Mr. Nasser. So I am not He had the authority to withdraw it. purposes, carried out its share of respon
whether it was for 2 weeks or 2 minutes. great measure, and to all intents and waving any flag for Nasser or Egypt. By the same token, I am not raising from the Dominican Republic. He has He has the authority to withdraw aid sibility for withdrawing.
Mr. GRUENING. That is correct. any flag for a biased specialized act with withdrawn aid from Sukarno and In Mr. HICKENLOOPER. It could be respect to any other country. But when
donesia. It did not require an affirma said that there was a waiver of any comwe enact legislation, it should be equi- tive act of Congress to do it. He has mitment of our recognition because we table and provide a sensible means of the authority to do it if he thinks it is relied on promises which were not carapplication; and I do not believe this in the interest of the United States. ried out. Therefore, I think we should amendment would do that.
So I contend that, from a technical consider withdrawing recognition from I know the House passed the language standpoint, this language is not neces the government of Yemen, which cancontained in this amendment. That is
sary. I believe it creates conditions not sustain itself except with Nasser's the House's decision. I feel that a great which, if the President meticulously en troops, and it has gone back on its many Senators have a position that is forced the provisions of the act, would word that it would rid itself of forsympathetic toward what this amend
cause a great amount of confusion in eign troops, in exchange for the promment seeks to do, but I do not think the various parts of the world, which would ise that this country would recognize amendment will do it.
not be to the best interest of the United the newly established government. I did not hear any voices raised when States.
That is the way I feel about it. I India committed an act of naked aggres All I am suggesting is that we go into think this amendment is not a good sion against Goa, when it went into that conference, and we will come out with amendment. I think it will in many ways country suddenly, overnight, and by language that will be specifically directed embarrass us, because there are other force took away property which had be to the purpose which is sought.
ways and means of arriving at a solulonged to Portugal for centuries. I did Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I tion. We could draft an amendment not hear any voices raised against India. highly applaud the Senator's suggestion which would really be of effect in putThat seemed to be all right.
of adopting a sense-of-Congress resolu- ting the finger on where the trouble I have not heard any voices raised tion withdrawing aid from Yemen. is. against the raiding parties from the While we recognize this so-called legally Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I wish Congo who go into Angola, raid and constituted government, it was done only to yield to the Senator from California destroy and steal, and go back to the in connection with Nasser's promise to [Mr. KUCHEL). haven of the Congo. Yet it has been withdraw his troops if we did so and Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I conthe policy of this country to give aid largely, I regret to say, to propitiate ceive the American policy of mutual seto the Congo. Under any kind of inter- Nasser. It was another one of our tragic curity to be, or at any rate it ought to be, pretation, the amendment would require mistakes in foreign policy in the Middle designed to promote the cause of man's a decision to dissociate ourselves from East.
freedom, rather than to exacerbate the aiding the Congo. That is what we Now I am fearful about losing a half potential intrigues of war. That is the would have to do.
a loaf if I consent to modification of my reason why I have supported mutual se
curity in the past. That is why I propose Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I should fering from is not any real inability to again to vote in favor of it this year, like to ask the distinguished Senator one communicate our intention to the State with due regard to the amendments I or two questions. Did I correctly under- Department. I believe we are suffering shall support.
stand the Senator to say in his colloquy from the fact that the State Department I was prepared to vote, earlier in this with the Senator from Minnesota that is acting on its own, without regard to debate, had there been a yea and nay there is nothing in the amendment which our intentions. The very least we can vote on the amendment which was would prevent the obtaining of famine do—and the debate is as important as adopted without a rollcall, to approve assistance?
the amendment-is to make unmistakthe restrictive amendment with respect Mr. JAVITS. I was asked about fam- ably clear what we have in mind. That to Sukarno and Indonesia.
ine relief, which we have often given to the amendment will do. My judgment is that Senators, taking other nations and distributed through Finally, I hope even if an effort is made the position which was taken with re American agencies. I said that I did to amend the amendment, the Senate spect to that question on aid to Indo- not see how it would prevent such assist will turn it down. The great thing that nesia, indicated that a nation, having re ance. Such assistance would not be en we can gain here is agreement with the ceived $670 million, over the years, from compassed in the act.
House. the American Treasury, and having Mr. MILLER. Through private Even though the amendment does not thereafter prepared for aggression and sources, that is.
satisfy Senators, on either side of the having committed it, ought not to be Mr. JAVITS. Yes. That is direct aid aisle, at least it is a certain expression permitted to continue to participate in which we have given even to the Soviet of our desire to the President. This is a program designed for peace and free Union.
supremely important. Therefore, I hope dom, and not by way of a coverup for Mr. MILLER. That answers one ques
that the Senate will vote down any aggression or for potential aggression. tion. The next one is this: Suppose there proposal to change the amendment and The same thing is true of the Middle is a situation in which a country is en
will vote the amendment into the bill, East. We have given $863 million to gaging in an aggressive military effort, in that way making it a part of the bill Nasser and the United Arab Republic. and the United Nations sends observ
and unchangeable in conference. Yet the record is clear not simply with ers, and then makes a finding, on the Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I respect to Yemen and Israel, but to basis of the reports of the observers, that offer a substitute for the pending amendJordan as well. Egypt has been guilty one of the parties is an aggressor. Is it ment. of continuing acts of naked aggression. the intention of the proponents of the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
I repeat what I have said before. If amendment that the President shall be amendment will be stated. the lights of freedom dim in the Middle bound by that finding?
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. After line 2 in East, if the cause of freedom in the one Mr. JAVITS. The President would amendment No. 231 it is proposed to Middle East free government, the democ not be bound by it. I again speak as a strike out language and to substitute the racy of Israel, fails, then this whole, lawyer when I say that this amendment following: troubled, historic area could lead all leaves the determination to the Presi (f) No assistance shall be provided under the globe toward an obliterating nuclear dent. The President would not be bound this Act to any country which the President conflict. Mankind cries out that our by the findings
by the findings of another agency. determines is either engaging in aggressive great America never, never, never feed These are the very clear words in the
military efforts or is primarily engaged in the appetite of hate and conflict with amendment, and they are not capable
an aggressive military buildup preparatory
to American aid which would, thereafter, of
other interpretation. The
againstbe channeled into a fanning of the amendment reads: "which the Presi
(1) the United States, or flames of potential conflict. dent determines is engaging or prepar
(2) any other free country, I raise the question: What is wrong ing for aggressive military efforts."
until the President determines and reports with a congressional statement of policy, That means that if the U.N. or any to the Congress that such military efforts which will invest the President with the other agency finds that there is aggres or preparations have ceased. The President specific responsibility of determining sion, the President may find that there may waive this section only: whether or not nations desiring the as is not.
(a) if he is unable to determine from all sistance of this country to be free and Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator.
of the facts coming to his knowledge whethto remain free are deserving; or, to the Mr. JAVITS. I should like to con
er or not an aggression has occurred or may
occur, or contrary, may be preparing for acts of clude my argument, because I want to
(b) if an aggressive act is reviewed and the aggression?_To give aid to Egypt, only vote. I see that the distinguished chair facts determined by an appropriate interto observe Egypt use her own funds to man of the Foreign Relations Commit national body, or buy instruments of war from the Com tee is preparing to speak.
(c) if he determines that the national munist bloc, makes a mockery of Ameri What is really at stake is the fact that security of the United States would be afca's national security program. we shall unmistakably incorporate in
fected adversely by a determination under
this section. It has been said in the debate that it the bill the proposition, not that we is difficult for the President of the can compel Nasser not to supply troops Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, this United States to determine when a to Yemen, but that there shall be some is a very difficult matter to deal with. country is on the verge of committing penalty, in the eyes of his people, for The question of aggression has been an aggressive act. I deny that. The throwing his weight around. That is struggled with in the United Nations for Government of the United States, under why the amendment carries the lan years, and it has never been defined acthis administration or under any other guage as to what will happen when the curately. It would be difficult for the administration, knows full well what President determines that a particular President to do so. countries may be covertly preparing for country_namely, Egypt in
Egypt in this in The substitute amendment would give the commission of an aggressive act and stance—is engaging in or preparing for the President some discretion in adminwe must not lend ourselves, directly or aggressive military efforts.
istering foreign policy. It amounts to otherwise, to any aid, of any kind, to any Other countries should know when a statement of policy. We are all agreed would-be aggressor.
another country is threatening to push with the idea that we should not be giyFor all these reasons, I have risen for it into the sea, or to invade it, and that ing aid to a country which is engaged these few moments to say that the Sen this will result in a heavy penalty-in in an aggressive action. I do not believe ator from Alaska, the Senators from New this case for Nasser—and the United anyone disagrees with that statement. York, and the Senator from Oregon have States will not be with him, but against The difficulty is in applying it. offered an amendment which should be him. It is a question of discouraging I wish to reiterate the points made adopted. It is an amendment which him from throwing his weight around. by the distinguished Senator from Minthe House of Representatives adopted I appreciate very deeply the statement nesota when he described the difficulty and which, speaking for myself, I shall of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKEN between India and Pakistan. vote for with enthusiasm when the roll LOOPER). It may turn out, in my judg The amendment further has the virtue is called.
ment, that his statement may have more of giving the two bodies in Congress an Mr. JAVITS. I yield to the Senator effect than even the adoption of the opportunity to reconcile their language from Iowa.
amendment. What I believe we are suf- into a workable amendment as between
the two Houses. The point that if we Executive in the administration of for
Executive in the administration of for- foreign aid bill has been before Congress adopt the pending amendment, there can eign policy. We are not merely writing every year, and never before have I seen be no leeway and no discretion, is one of foreign policy; we are going further and such an inclination to try to administer the principal arguments against it. I seeking to tie the President's hands in the act on so many sides, some of them do not believe we should pick out any the actual administration of it. That is
the actual administration of it. That is related, and many of them unrelated. specific country. There must be some unwarrantable and could force the Presi It strikes me that Senators should not respect for the difference in functions dent into many embarrassing situations expect this bill to solve all the outstandbetween the executive branch and the that would be of great harm to our for ing difficulties that exist in the world legislative branch.
eign relations in many areas. I think and there are many of them. This is a I do not believe that all of us can some of the other actions may do that, very poor vehicle with which to seek to act as Secretary of State. We do not particularly the criticisms of friendly do that. have the ultimate responsibility for the countries which occurred in the debate This subject was discussed once besuccess of this policy, or in the applica on the fishing amendment. I dare say fore with the distinguished Senator from tion of the policy. We can determine the that many of those statements will be Illinois (Mr. DOUGLAS). I did not disbroad policy. I believe the broad policy repeated in the press of the respective
repeated in the press of the respective approve then of the feeling that we is expressed in the substitute, namely, countries referred to and be highly of should urge Nasser in every possible way that we do not wish to support aggres- fensive to those countries. When we un to open the Suez Canal; but I did not sion with our aid.
dertake in public to discuss each of those think the foreign aid bill was a proper We talk about specific acts of aggres- countries in turn and recount all of their
countries in turn and recount all of their vehicle to use in that connection. It was sion, between Israel and its neighbors, misdeeds, it is a very bad thing. But not because I had no sympathy with the and at the moment we disagree with the that is another matter.
views of the Senator from Illinois about disposition of Nasser's troops in Yemen. On this particular issue, I hope we will the advisability of opening the canal. I However, there was a time when we also not go so far as to tie the hands of the
not go so far as to tie the hands of the still think the canal ought to be open disapproved of the overt attack by Israel President without giving him an oppor and free to all. But I make the point on Egypt.
tunity to exercise a fair discretion in the now, as I made it then, that the foreign As a matter of fact, that has been the administration of the act.
aid bill should not be used to solve all most serious overt act, as among those Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the the other problems that exist. That is countries. We disapprove of that. We Senator further yield?
why we have the State Department and went to the United Nations and asked Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
the Diplomatic Service. That is why the Yemen to stop that particular act of ag Mr. JAVITS.Is it not true that the President has been given the responsigression. There are recurrent instances Senator's judgment is dictated by the
Senator's judgment is dictated by the bility under the Constitution to adminisof aggression that is, of a minor na fact that the Senator feels that so far, ter foreign policy. ture-against Israel by her neighbors. knowing what we have said in the bill, Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the On one occasion, at least-perhaps as affecting the President's general pow Senator yield briefly, to enable me to others-the United Nations team in that er to cut off aid whenever he feels, the complete my point? area found that it was the fault of Israel. State Department and the President Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield. On the other hand, they found that the have behaved quite properly in respect Mr. JAVITS. I am not speaking fault was with Egypt. So there have to President Nasser? Is not the basis
to President Nasser? Is not the basis merely for the record; these are deep been recurrent conditions.
for the Senator's argument that we convictions of mine. I do not think that we in Congress should not tie the President's hands, be Mr. FULBRIGHT. I am sure they should, as a legislative matter, under cause he is doing the right thing now, are. take to tie the hands of the President in and therefore we should not tie his Mr. JAVITS. For decades, I have administering our foreign policy. I hands? If he wishes, he can continue demonstrated, both by vote and by adthink, in spirit at least, this is contrary to do the same thing?
vocacy on the floor, that when it is necto the constitutional principles we are Mr. FULBRIGHT. I think the Pres essary to lead, I am quite prepared to supposed to follow in this body. Per- ident has good reasons for the policy lead. One of the most unpopular posihaps the principal difference between he is following. I think the statement tions I ever took was in 1956, when I felt my substitute amendment and the that was made by the Senator from the forces should be withdrawn from amendment itself is that it gives the Alaska that our State Department is
Alaska that our State Department is Sinai, although there was a tremendous President some reasonable flexibility in under the predominant influence of pro wave of sympathy throughout the the application of the principle which Arabs is wholly unfounded. If the Sen world, and quite properly so, for Israel, both of them carry—that we should not ator will consider what has been done which had been at the point of destrucaid aggression against any other free for the State of Israel during the past tion, if it had not done what it did. Notcountry.
years, there is no comparison at all, be withstanding the fact that the promise Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the cause we have done infinitely more for made at that time by none other than Senator yield?
Israel than we have for the Arab coun President Eisenhower that these provoMr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
tries. But that is another subject. I cations would stop, they never did, until Mr. JAVITS. Is there not also-be- do not wish to labor that point.
United Nations forces moved into the fore I deal with the Sinai situation in We know of the sympathy that exists Gaza Strip. 1956—a difference between the Senator's in this country for Israel, particularly But laying that aside, let me ask a amendment and the pending amend- in the Senator's State of New York. I
I precise question: Will the Senator tell ment, in that the Senator confines his have great sympathy for his position. us how, if we adopt the substitute, the amendment to this act alone? Therefore He is representing his constituents, as policy of the President and the State other types of assistance would come un all of us represent our constituents. I do Department will change the relationship der other acts-for example, the one not criticize him for that. He is quite to Nasser? mentioned by the Senator from Minne- within his rights.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I cannot speak for sota, the Peace Corps. This amend On the other hand, the foreign policy the President. It is his responsibility to ment would apply exclusively to the For- of this country should not be com administer this policy in what he believes eign Aid Act, and no other.
pletely subjected to any particular in to be the best interests of the United Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is as far as it terest, no matter how worthy it may be. States. ought to go. I do not think it ought to The making of decisions of this kind I do not think a legislative body, least apply to the Peace Corps and to other should be left to the President as rep of all this one, is in a position to adacts. However, I do not believe the resentative of all the United States. We
resentative of all the United States. We minister these laws and apply them. We President would, by any means, continue must, and should, trust whatever Presi state the broad policy. We say that this even that kind of aid; but I do not think dent is in the White House. We cer is a policy which we approve. Some we should try to tie his hands.
tainly did not try to tie the hands of Senators think they have information What I object to principally with re President Eisenhower in this fashion. that aggression is about to be committed spect to a number of the amendments For 8 years the Senator from New against the State of Israel. I do not offered, and others, is that we are at York did not seek to tie down the Presi know that. We do know about the tempting to usurp the discretion of the dent of his party in this fashion. A Yemen problem. I agree with the view