point expressed very clearly by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER] as to the Yemen. This is a different problem. I do not think it is a problem that this amendment is designed to meet. It is a different problem. I do not know what the President will do. But I think we must trust him, as we trusted President Eisenhower to carry out a policy within his own responsibility, and with the knowledge that he had to deal with a specific case.

We cannot sit here and anticipate all the contingencies that may arise. Under any circumstances, I think even my substitute amendment would be difficult to administer in a really effective way. It would be very difficult to judge who is an aggressor. Every country always contends that the other country is the aggressor; and the other country always says it is only defending itself. I do not know of any case in which a country has admitted it was an aggressor, except possibly Germany in World War I. There are few cases in which a country has made any pretense about being an aggressor. Generally speaking, 99 percent of the time a country says it is only defending itself. They may be taking preventive action. Even if they take overt action, they say it is the other nation that is committing the offense and that they are really anticipating another attack. That is what the Senator was saying about the war in 1956.

Mr. JAVITS. The Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] and I tried during the Eisenhower administration to do exactly what we are trying to do now. We sought to amend or modify the act in order to have anything done at all. Now we have a record of noncompliance by the State Department and the President, and I cannot see them changing their policy unless we change our instructions.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I do not recall what the Senators did, but since the war in 1956 there has not been any overt aggression in this area, unless it be in the Yemen affair; and I am not sure that that is overt aggression, because they were invited in, as the Senator from Iowa said.

They were invited there, just as we were invited to South Vietnam. So I do not think that could be classed as aggression.

However, for some reason there has been peace there, not overt warfare, except in a few instances, although it was predicted, year after year, that an explosion would occur there.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arkansas yield? Mr. FULBRIGHT I yield.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Was the language of the Gruening-Javits-Morse amendment contained in the bill as passed by the House of Representatives?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. It is my understanding that it is in precisely the same language, and that therefore there would be no opportunity for consultation about this matter in the conference.

Mr. DOUGLAS. In other words, it In other words, it would be adopted.

The language of the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas differs markedly. If it were adopted, would it not be in

conference; but, in addition, would it not be possible for the conferees to drop both provisions and leave the conference report completely silent on this matter, just as the bill as reported by the Senate committee is silent in regard to it?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. In my opinion, that could not be done. The conference committee would have to arrive at a reconciliation of the differences between the two versions. The principal difference lies in the giving of discretion to the President, which in my opinion is a very difficult provision to apply.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arkansas yield? Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Is it not true that this provision could not be dropped, because each House would have adopted an amendment or a provision of the bill to amendment or a provision of the bill to this general effect, and the conference committee would have to deal with them, and therefore some provision of the sort would have to be drafted?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Exactly. Furthermore, the principle of the two is practically the same. So there could be no justification for dropping the principle justification for dropping the principle in regard to an aggressor. The question is, what would be the circumstances for is, what would be the circumstances for its application? For example, let us consider the fishing amendment, which the Senate adopted earlier today. In my opinion, all of us agree on its objective, but the difficulty is that the amendment will not accomplish it.

In this case, I think the amendment is much too stringent. It leaves no discretion to the President, and it applies to any other country-which is much too broad a provision. That is my objection to it.

I believe that the Senator's fear that no such provision would eventually be included, as a result of the work of the conference committee, is a mistaken one. However, I think the President should be given authority to use his discretion. Mr. DOUGLAS. I know the situation has changed since the days of George Norris, who charged that Congress was Norris, who charged that Congress was composed of three houses-the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the conference committees. Nevertheless, I think the conference committees do have great power.

I am not as experienced in these matters as is the Senator from Arkansas; but I have known conference committees to drop clauses which were included in both the House version and the Senate version, although in different form. Certainly this provision could be emasculated still further, and yet finally be included in such form that it would merely be a statement of pious intent, with no be a statement of pious intent, with no means whatsoever for implementation.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I assure the Senator that there will be included in the conference report a provision which will adopt the principle of these two different versions, and I can pledge that I will work to have that done. However, if anyone wishes to assume that I would not carry out my pledged word, I point out that the Senate could-if the conference report did not include such a provision-reject the conference report, provision-reject the conference report, request a further conference, and pro

vide instructions to the Senate conferees.

I think the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN], the ranking Democrat on the committee, will agree that the conference report would not omit any such amendment or provision of this sort. I am sure he will speak for himself as to that.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes, Mr. President; I strongly believe that under the rules and precedents and procedures in regard to conference committees, the conference report would have to include the essence of this amendment, because it is included not only in this amendment but also in the substitute; and on the assumption that I will be one of the conferees, I can certainly give assurance, for my part, that it will be included in the conference report.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I appreciate the statements made by these two eminent and highly honorable Senators. I am sure they make their statements in good faith-although I know they will be importuned by representatives of the State Department, perhaps with the result that, if the essence of the amendment comes back to us in the conference report, I am afraid it will be, as Lincoln once said, like soup made from the shadow of a crow which had starved to death.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. But I point out that not only will the Senate conferees be responsible to the Senate; the House conferees will be responsible to the House, also.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas is very charitable; and of course the Senate conferees will have their responsibilities, too. The Senator from Arkansas is most persuasive, too.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois is very complimentary, but I do not know where he obtains any justification for his statement that I am most persuasive. In view of the recent developments in this Chamber, certainly I am not persuasive in the Senate.

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

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I believe presidential discretion should be provided. provides:

The Gruening amendment

No assistance shall be provided under this or any other Act, *** to any country which the President determines is engaging in or preparing for aggressive military efforts.

So that discretion would rest with the President. But I point out that the discretion would be very limited, under this language; for example, the opening words of the substitute are as follows:

No assistance shall be provided under this Act to any country which the President determines is either engaging in aggressive military efforts or is primarily engaged in an aggressive military buildup preparatory to aggressive military efforts directed against(1) the United States, or

(2) any other free country, until the President determines and reports to the Congress that such military efforts or preparations have ceased.

The difference between the Gruening amendment and the chairman's amendment is the elimination of the words "under this Act."

In regard to the giving of discretionary power to the President, I ask Senators to consider how much discretion the President would have under the chairman's amendment, as follows:

The President may waive this section only: (a) if he is unable to determine from all of the facts coming to his knowledge whether or not an aggression has occurred or may

occur

Well, Mr. President, we would expect the President then to make a decision that he did not know what all of the facts were or that he was unable to make a judgment on the basis of those facts; we would expect that under either the amendment or under the chairman's substitute.

The chairman's substitute then provides:

or (b) if an aggressive act is reviewed and the facts determined by an appropriate international body

In other words, if the United Nations determined that there was no aggression in a specific instance, the President would be permitted, under this proposal, to waive the application of the act. The chairman's substitute does not say he would have to; it says he would be per

mitted to.

Then it says, as to the President's authority to waive this section:

or (c) if he determines that the national security of the United States would be affected adversely by a determination under this section.

Would any Senator expect the President to apply any act of Congress if he thought the national security of the United States would be adversely affected?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. In relation to the last point, suppose a conflict should break out between India and Pakistan. There would be an instance of the problem. The President would have to take into consideration the geographical sit

uation.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Exactly. I do not feel that the language of the substitute amendment would violate any principle of our determination to resist aggression, to inhibit aggression, or to deny aid to aggressors or would-be aggressors. What the chairman has really done through his substitute is merely to provide language which would state that if the President does not have the facts and if he cannot ascertain what the facts are, he ought not to make a judgment. I support this amendment, but if it fails I will vote for the Gruening amendment because I believe that some amendment dealing with the situation presented by the Government of the United Arab Republic is necessary.

Second, if an international organization to which we belong, such as the United Nations, should determine that there is no aggression in an instance in which the President thinks there may be aggression, the President would not be obligated under the act to apply the substance of the act. He still could.

Finally, the President's discretion would be as follows: If the security of the United States should be adversely affected, he would not have to apply the purposes of the act.

I yield.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. KEATING. I wish to ask the Senator about some specific language in his amendment. The proposal of the Senator would permit the continuation

Mr. HUMPHREY. I conclude by saying that I join in the statements of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN] and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT]. I do not see why Senators think that the conferees will be unmindful of the determination of those of us in this body to effect the substance of the amendments agreed to.

I have been a conferee on foreign aid bills for several years. I do not like to be told that I am going to sell out, or that I am going to be unmindful of my obligations, or that the State Department is going to tell me what to do.

I have stood on the floor of the Senate and fought against other Senators on the principle of aid to Poland and aid to Yugoslavia-Communist countries. In one instance, Poland, which is a member of the Warsaw Pact, was

involved. The Warsaw Pact causes our

country to spend billions of dollars every

year.

My principle has been as follows: I am not going to tell the President of the United States that he has absolutely no discretion in relation to how to deal

with these situations. The Senator from Minnesota with others who are right now standing alongside of me, has stood up under two administrations in these debates and said, "I am not going to tie the hands of President Eisenhower or President Kennedy and say that because I hate communism worse than I hate Nasserism, he can never deal with Poland or Yugoslavia."

I said, "Not on your life." If the President, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of our country, as our Chief Executive, as the chief spokesman of this country in our foreign policy, and as the only nationally elected officer of this Government, save the Vice President, feels he should have some little discretion, I shall give it to him.

I have voted time after time for that kind of policy. I have been accused of being soft on communism because I have done it. I have not been soft on communism. I have been loyal to the Constitution. The Constitution of our country places the foreign policy of the United States, its effectuation and administration in the hands of the President. I merely wish to make clear to my best friends in this body that I am not about ready to run out on a commitment that we make. I am not about ready to let the State Department tell me that we ought to be nice to would-be aggressors or aggressors. But also I am not ready to tell the President of the United States how to answer every single problem in every corner of the world on every issue. I do not think we have the information.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I wish to endorse what the Senator has said. He is entirely correct in principle.

any country that is engaging in aggression. Am I correct?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. That would be up to the President.

Mr. KEATING. The proposal of the Senator would strike out of the Gruening amendment the prohibition against sales under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 and would be limited to that act?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator is correct.

Mr. KEATING. I call the Senator's attention to the fact that my information tion is that 80 to 90 percent of the aid that we are giving to the United Arab Republic is under Public Law 480. So the adoption of the Senator's amendment as a substitute for the meaningful Gruening amendment would mean that this aid would continue to flow to an aggressor under Public Law 480.

Second, I wish to ask the Senator the

following question: The language pro

posed by the Senator states that when the President determines that a country is either engaging in aggressive military efforts or is primarily engaged in an aggressive military buildup preparatory to an aggressive military effort, he must suspend aid. How do you distinguish between a country primarily engaged in an aggressive military buildup as against one that is secondarily engaged in such a buildup? I do not understand the significance of the word "primarily," unless it is intended to give the State Department an "out" so that it can say, "The country is engaged in an aggressive military buildup, but it is not a primary engagement." What is the meaning of the word "primarily"?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I believe it clearly means "engaged." It is a question of degree. In the beginning I said the principal objection to the amendment of the Senator from Alaska-and to the present proposal, for that matter-is the question of determining the motives and purposes of a country. All countries of any consequence have armed forces. It is almost impossible to determine whether they will use those forces aggressively or defensively. All countries profess that their armed forces are for purposes of defense. The word "primarily" is intended to refer to an aggressive military buildup.

The question is difficult. I did not initiate the amendment. I would not have proposed either amendment. I merely seek to amend the amendment of the Senator from Alaska to make it halfway workable to the point where we would leave with the President his constitutional privileges and responsibilities and not try to change them.

The whole concept of determining and basing a policy upon who is an aggressor is a very difficult one to apply.

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

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.

Mr. KEATING. I find the proposed language objectionable. I find the elimination of the proposal to cut off Public Law 480 funds highly objectionable because the amendment would be made virtually meaningless except to the extent of 10 to 20 percent of the aid.

What we have heard sounds like the letters some of us have received from the Department of State under both the present administration and the previous administration. The so-called DouglasKeating sense-of-Congress resolution was applied to the foreign aid bill under the previous administration. The proposed amendments are administered as badly under one administration as under another.

If the President is unable to determine from all the facts coming to his attention whether or not an aggression has occurred or may occur, he can waive the provision.

I have read to the Senate the lan

guage of the Director of AID stating that the operation in Yemen is not aggression at all. It is something of another

nature. So can we not hear the answer to an inquiry as to how the law would be administered? We would hear, "We have not cut it off because the President is unable to determine from all the facts coming to his knowledge whether or not an aggression has occurred or may occur." That language would merely give them an "out." It is the "out" that they have sought time and again. It is an "out" that they have used under the existing language. It is in the bill now, and it is an "out" that is not in the Gruening amendment. And I believe

it should not be in the act.

I do not propose, as a Member of the Senate, to allow the question of whether our aid should be continued to a country to be determined by the United Nations. That is what would happen under the second provision, "if an aggressive act is reviewed and the facts determined by an appropriate international body." If they reach some other conclusion, we must later give our aid. That, in my judgment, is not sound legislation; and I hope very much that this 11th hour effort to emasculate the Gruening amendment by this substitute will be voted down.

Mr. GRUENING. I regret to say that I feel that the substitute would not merely emasculate my amendment, but would scuttle it. The principal aid Nasser is getting is under Public Law 480. He has everything else. He has a powerplant, silos, housing, irrigation canals, and nearly everything else the imagination can conceive-much of which we have supplied. This substitute amendment subtly-not too subtly-would remove the Public Law 480 provision. So, what would be left?

In addition, if we turn this decision over to the United Nations, Congress might as well quit. The Senate has abdicated enough of its powers without at

I hope this last minute substitute will be defeated, because I can see no prospect of the substitute, if it is agreed to, stopping aggression either by Nasser or any other aggressor.

gaging in aggressive action or preparing to engage in aggressive action, we do not want the President to spend any aid money.

Finally, I do not trust the State Department in this field, as I do not trust

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I have listened to this debate with great interest. I find no merit in the Fulbright substitute, except that, in my judgment, it is a diversionary tactic which would result in bringing back to the Senateif anything is brought back to the Senate-an emasculated amendment that would not accomplish the purpose we have in mind.

All we need to know is that the Foreign Relations Committee did not report a bill with this principle in it. The Foreign Relations Committee has demonstrated that the majority of the committee is not friendly to the purpose of Therefore, I believe it is important to the amendment. We start with that. Therefore, I believe it is important to keep it away from them in conference. keep it away from them in conference. After all, we have our interests that must be protected, so far as the Senate is concerned.

Next, I point out that we are not interfering with a prerogative of the President of the United States, but we are protecting a prerogative of the Senate, which is to tell the President of the United States how he can spend the taxpayers' money. That happens to be our duty.

All we, as the protector of the counPresident of the United States, is that he try's purse strings are saying to the President of the United States, is that he shall not spend the money under certain fact situations. What are the fact situations? If it is determined that a country is engaging in or preparing to engage in aggressive military efforts, he cannot interfering with the President's deterspend the taxpayers' money. We are not minative power. As I said earlier in the interfering with the President's determinative power. As I said earlier in the debate, the President has several groups He has the CIA, the "intelligence" in the of intelligence agencies to advise him. He has the CIA, the "intelligence" in the in the Pentagon. State Department, and the "intelligence"

All I am saying is, "Mr. President, I want you to know that I proceed on the assumption that any President of the United States will always act in good faith in regard to his legislative responsibilities, which the Congress in the exercise of its constitutional rights has ercise of its constitutional rights has imposed upon him."

Mr. President, we are merely saying that if the President finds as a matter of fact that any country is engaging in or preparing to engage in aggressive action, he shall not spend the taxpayers' money by way of aid to that country. That is all there is to it.

Do we want to do it, or not? Do we want to continue giving unchecked power in regard to the taxpayers' money? In my judgment, the time has come when-in a dignified amendment such as we have offered-we should say

the opposition of the State Department in regard to this matter. We know of the bad-faith actions of the State Department in the past in regard to the Keating-Douglas matter and in regard to the Javits-Morse procedure. We have had nothing in this field from the proArab State Department but bad-faith conduct. They are evasive. They are tricky. They seek to see what they can do to conjure up ways of getting around Congress. It is about time that Congress held the nose of the State Department to the grindstone and made it clear that we intend to exercise our rights under the separation-of-powers doctrine, and that we are determined to see to it that this very important matter is written into law.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the argument of the Senator from Oregon. We should vote down the substitute and vote in favor of the Gruening amendment. That is the only way to do anything constructive tonight on this matter.

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

Mr. JAVITS. I am glad to yield. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, may I ask the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee whether his amendment meets with the approval of the administration?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I am not certain of that. I do not believe either amendment meets with their approval. I do not know what their attitude would be. However, I am sure, from what I know about it, that my substitute is more acceptable because it would give them more discretion in administering the act.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], in the nature of a substitute for the amendment offered by the Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING], for himself and other Senators, to the committee amendment, as amended, in the nature of a substitute. 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 Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. LONG], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. MCGEE], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL], the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. THURMOND], and

the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS] are absent on official business.

I further announce that the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE] is absent due to illness.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL], the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], would each vote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND] is paired with the Senator from Michigan [Mr. McNAMARA].

Edmondson Ellender

Miller

Morse

Morton

Goldwater

Long, Mo.

If present and voting, the Senator Fong from Mississippi would vote "nay" and the Senator from Michigan would vote "yea."

On this vote, the Senator from Missouri [Mr. LONG] is paired with the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON].

If present and voting, the Senator from Missouri would vote "nay" and the Senator from Washington would vote "yea."

On this vote, the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG] is paired with the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. McGEE].

If present and voting, the Senator from Louisiana would vote "nay" and the Senator from Wyoming would vote "yea.” On this vote, the Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON] is paired with the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE].

If present and voting, the Senator from Virginia would vote "nay" and the Senator from Rhode Island would vote "yea."

On this vote, the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN] is paired with the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE].

Aiken Bennett Byrd, Va. Cooper Dirksen Eastland

Engle

Ervin

Prouty Proxmire Randolph Ribicoff

Scott

Simpson

Smith Symington Talmadge Tower Williams, Del. Yarborough Young, Ohio

NOT VOTING-22

Long, La.

Magnuson

McGee

McNamara Pastore Pearson

Robertson Russell Smathers

Stennis Thurmond Williams, N.J.

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

Mr. MORSE. 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 for a vote on my amendment No. 231. call for a vote on my amendment No. 231.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING] for himself and other Senators to the committee amendment

If present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina would vote "nay" in the nature of a substitute, as amend

and the Senator from California would vote "yea."

On this vote, the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. THURMOND] is paired with the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS].

If present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina would vote "nay" and the Senator from New Jersey would vote "yea."

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN] and the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT]

are absent on official business.

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER], and the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON] are necessarily absent.

If present and voting, the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER], and the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON] would each vote "nay."

ed.

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 Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. LONG], the Senator from Louisiana ton [Mr. MAGNUSON], the Senator from [Mr. LONG], the Senator from WashingWyoming [Mr. MCGEE], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RusSELL], the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. THURMOND], and the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS] are absent on official business.

I further announce that the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE] is absent

ator from Wyoming [Mr. McGEE]. If present and voting, the Senator from Louisiana would vote "yea," and the Senator from Wyoming would vote “nay.”

On this vote, the Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON] is paired with the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE]. If present and voting, the Senator from Virginia would vote "yea," and the Senator from Rhode Island would vote “nay.”

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL], the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS] Would each vote "yea."

On this vote, the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. THURMOND] is paired with the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS). If present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina would vote "yea," and the Senator from New Jersey would vote "nay."

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

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER] the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER], and the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON] are necessarily absent.

If present and voting, the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT), the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER], and the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON] would each vote "yea."

The result was announced-yeas 65, nays 13, as follows:

amendment to the amendment was amendment was agreed to.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

CZECHOSLOVAKIA CLAIMS

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, I have introduced and am prepared to press for Senate approval an amendment expressing the sense of the Congress that any claims agreement with Czechoslovakia be submitted to the Senate before coming into effect.

I am concerned over the fact that over $100 million in legitimate U.S. claims for property nationalized by the Czechoslovak Government may well be junked in an essentially political agreement with a Communist regime. This is not, as the State Department may wish to suggest, a one-way agreement. It is a final settlement of a complex issue. Very probably also a sizeable trade deal with the United States will be involved in the final settlement, whether formally stated or not, because that is the way the Communists like to operate.

I am also very much concerned over the manner in which State Department officials seem to give one answer to the press and another to the Congress. It lends added weight to the need for a full Senate review of a Czechoslovak claims settlement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include all of my remarks in the RECORD and the text of this correspondence with the State Department to date. There being no objection, the correspondence was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 29, 1963. DEAR SENATOR KEATING: Thank you for your letter addressed to Secretary Rusk concerning the settlement of property claims of Aemrican nationals against the Czechoslovak Government.

Since 1945 Czechoslovakia has by a series of laws and decrees nationalized or otherwise taken virtually all private property in that country, including property owned by American nationals. The Department of State and the American Embassy at Prague have made repeated efforts, beginning in 1945, to obtain compensation for Americans whose interests have been affected by the nationalization and expropriation measures. After direct negotiations between American claimants and the Czechoslovak Government failed to result in payment of compensation, that Government agreed to settle outstanding claims by means of an intergovernmental lump-sum settlement. Early in 1949, a Czechoslovak delegation came to Washington to enter into negotiations for such a settlement. Little progress was achieved, and after several weeks, the negotiations were suspended with the understanding that they would be resumed later in the year. It

was not until November 1955, however, that the Czechoslovak Government agreed to reopen negotiations. Representatives of the two Governments have been meeting since that date. While there has been considerable progress to date narrowing the positions of the two Governments, the negotiations have so far failed to produce an agreement. The Department hopes to conclude the negotiations; however, we are unable to predict

As you know, Public Law 85-604, approved August 8, 1958, authorized the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to determine claims of American nationals for the nationalization or other taking of property after January 1, 1945, by Czechoslovak authorities. The Commission concluded its determination of claims on September 15, 1962, and principal and $41,030,571 in interest. The made 2,630 awards aggregating $72,614,634 in awards are paid by the Secretary of the Treasury from a fund of approximately $8.9 million derived from the sale by the United States of a Czechoslovak steel mill and related equipment.

The negotiations now in progress with the Czechoslovak Government are for the pur

poses of obtaining an additional sum for pay

ment on the awards which have already been determined by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission and for any claims which have arisen subsequent to August 8, 1958. During the negotiations representatives of the Department have been doing their utmost to protect the interests of all American nationals who have valid claims against Czechoslovakia. You will appreciate that we are faced with the choice of accepting the largest amount we can get in settlement of such claims or of making no agreement. If I can be of further assistance to you in this matter, please do not hesitate to let

me know.

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: In further reference to the letter of October 29, signed by Frederick G. Dutton, concerning the settlement of property claims of American nationals against the Czechoslovakian Government, I am still very deeply concerned over the possible financial terms of the agreement which are not discussed at all. The apparent difference between Mr. Dutton's statement that no agreement has been reached and the New York Times account of October 30 quoting unnamed State Department officials to the effect that essentially agreement was reached in 1956, 1957, and 1960, has not allayed my fears.

I believe these fears are shared by a number of other Senators since a settlement along the lines I mentioned would undoubtedly influence future claims negotiations. Therefore, I strongly urge that any agreement reached on these claims be submitted to the Senate for ratification before coming into effect. The Claims Convention with Panama was submitted to the Senate and ratified on August 9, 1950, and offers a valid precedent for such action.

I would appreciate having your comments on the desirability of Senate ratification of the Czech claims agreement.

Very sincerely yours,

KENNETH B. KEATING.

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE DAY Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I should like to inquire, for the information of all Senators, what the distinguished majority leader has in mind for the remainder of the evening and perhaps for tomorrow.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, in response to the query of the distinguished acting minority leader, I must say that it is not a case of what I have in mind. If my personal inclinations were to be

followed, I would say that I would expect the Senate to remain in session until 11 or 12 o'clock tonight. If there are amendments to be voted on, we are prepared to remain until that time.

The Senate will recall that some references have been made in the press by members of the fourth estate to the effect that we have been conducting bankers' hours. I point out that one reason why we have is that we wanted some of our committees to meet in the morning, because had they tried to meet during the session of the Senate in the afternoon, objection would have been made. There must be some system of running the Senate.

The best I can say at this time is that I hope an amendment will be offered and that a vote will be taken tonight on it, and on other amendments. This is not up to the leadership; it is up to the Senate to decide as to what should be done.

I am happy to note that on this side of the aisle only six Members of the Senate were absent yesterday, and only seven Members were absent today. This is an extraordinarily good record, and I hope to keep it up.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments which the distinguished majority leader has made. I must say that the record of rollcalls on this side of the aisle is great-not merely good, but great. I wish to ask my able friend the Senator from Montana one more question.

Under the suggestion he has made, would he feel inclined to admonish our fellow Senators to remain here, in the probability that other rollcalls may ensue during the coming hours?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Only if the Senate collectively can give assurance that any amendment which is taken up will be voted on this evening.

We can

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, there is before the Senate a large stack of amendments. It is now almost 10 minutes to 9. Senators who have any plans for the evening have undoubtedly had to cancel them. It seems to me that in another hour or two, if we wish to legislate-and that is our purpose-we can take up some of these amendments. Some of them are not as controversial as others. We can act on them. either act on them or not do anything. But I would hope that we might proceed to take up some of these amendments. Senators know what Senators have amendments; and they can be called up. Many of them are good amendments. They ought to be debated. The Senate ought to remain in session. said last night, when I was privileged to speak for the leader, that the Senate would remain in session until late at night. I see no reason why it should not do so. not do so. It is comfortable here. Not only that, but we are coming to know each other a little better. It is very pleasant to meet our friends under these circumstances.

I

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, first of all, let the RECORD clearly show the statistical information that will be of interest not only to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, but also to every other Senator, and to the country as well.