give recognition to this factor has usually taken the form of attempting to compensate for the imbalance between the several States' differing program needs and their relative financial abilities to support these functions at certain desired levels. The decision to implement or not to implement this goal has significantly affected both the apportionment and matching provisions of most grants-in-aid. Congressional reassessment of future grants-in-aid, as provided in S. 2114, must take into consideration the fiscal and policy questions raised by the formulas under which these programs are financed. Of these three problem areas, the allocation provision raises some of the more subtle challenges to test the wisdom of Congress. If the present is any guide for the future, the distribution of Federal funds for some programs will continue to be basically on an equal-share basis to each State, since 10 existing grants still employ a modified version of this formula with little recognition of differences in the size of the States or other indicators of differences in need. When Federal grant programs do provide for the allotment of varying amounts of funds to each State on the basis of some indicated need criterion, various and sometimes confusing indexes are employed to establish the formula. Frequently, a program's needs are gaged by the population of the States, the population in totals, a relevant population group, or some other service unit criterion as an index for determining the allocation of grant funds. In some cases the components of program costs are used as indicators of need. Of the 16 grant programs which at present use a financial need factor in the formula, 15 use per capita personal income as an index of the relative State fiscal capacity and the State-by-State distribution of funds is weighted accordingly, so as to offer more Federal funds to the poorer States. To make matters more difficult, and again using the present as a basis for future predictions, only two-thirds of present Federal grant programs distributed their funds in fiscal 1962 on the basis of only one allocation method. Fifteen grant programs employed two basic grant formulas; two used three methods; and three distributed their funds on the basis of four methods. In many instances these varying formulas are necessary. At the same time, they provide many a headache for State and local officials attempting to participate in these programs. Witness the following observation of a State official to the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations' question on this topic: The funds made available to [this department] *** have such complicated formulas, matching requirements, and reporting of expenditures that it is difficult for the budget analyst, the Governor and the legislature to understand the financing of these formulas. The program has not been dealt with in a satisfactory manner, and the budget office continually feels that it is at the mercy of the agency involved in the interpretation of these formulas and requirements. While many Federal grants have explicit statutory provisions spelling out in detail how the funds are to be allotted to the State and local governments, some still permit a portion or all of the funds to be disbursed at the discretion of the program Administrator. In practice, such discretionary authority has commonly been incorporated into administrative regulations which specify the formula for distributing the grant funds. Yet at present, a portion or all of the funds in eight grant programs are not distributed in accordance with a published allocation method. In discharging its mandate to periodically examine and reassess these programs, then, Congress should take a closer look at these apportionment provisions and attempt to make the excessively rigid, more flexible; the needlessly intricate, more simple; the broadly discretionary, more specific; and the indices of need, less susceptible to misinterpretation and suspicion. The matching requirement provisionor the lack thereof-in the existing grants raises almost as many questions as the allocation formulas. In itself, the fact that 13 aided programs do not require any State or local matching constitutes a fundamental reason for periodic reassessment of these programs by the pertinent legislative committees. In addition, among the grants-in-aid that do require State and local governments to share in program cost, we find that the dual method of determining cost share and requirements provides another subject for periodic congressional inquiry. Under existing arrangements there may be variable matching, whereby the proportion of total program cost borne by the State is determined on the basis of an index employed to measure relative State fiscal capacity, thus implementing the equalization objective. Alternatively, there may be a fixed ratiomatching formula whereby the State and/or local government is required to share at the same proportion of program The latter technique is employed at present in most Federal grant programs. For many, the fixed Federal share is 50 percent and for a few programs it is set at two-thirds, occasionally at three-fourths, and even at 90 percent of cost. Over 70 percent of the funds allocated in fiscal 1962 for Federal grants-in-aid were governed by a fixed ratio-matching formula. Variable matching requirements are found exclusively in only seven grant programs at present, and partially in five. While constituting a form of equalization in that they recognize the varying abilities of the States and local governments to support these aided functions, the funds distributed on a variable matching formula basis accounted for only 17 percent of the more than $7 billion that was spent for grant programs during the fiscal year 1962. There is evidence that the present grant formulas do not properly represent differences in the current national interest in the different programs, and understandably so. The programs were enacted at different times within a different climate of opinion, without in each instance due regard being given for the grant provisions of other, existing programs. Those State and local officials responding to the subcommittee questionnaire strongly favored congressional legislation which would make these formulas somewhat more uniform and standardize definitions used therein. In light of these varying requirements, and this reaction from questionnaire respondents, Congress must probe more deeply into the entire question of matching provisions. Are the interests of the more well-to-do States protected when more than 12 percent of the funds allocated in 1962 were disbursed under grant programs with no matching requirements? Is equity achieved when more than 70 percent of these funds were distributed under a formula which provided for fixed ratio matching? These are questions of equal justice; they are questions of national policy. They are premised upon existing facts, but they will be with us in the future. Periodic review of future grants-in-aid could not ignore these issues, and the enactment of S. 2114 would help to guarantee their careful consideration. Many of the difficulties that I have discussed in connection with apportionment and matching formulas relate to the broader problem of equalization. In some instances, this factor has been incorporated into programs that do not require it; in others, it has been inserted in a way that fails to accomplish the objectives of Congress. In still other programs, it has been ignored where changing conditions indicate a pressing need for its recognition. Of the Federal grants-in-aid now on the books, only about a third contain what might be termed explicit fiscal equalization provisions. This means that the distribution of the moneys or the proportion of Federal-State sharing of program cost in these programs is governed in some measure by a recognition of the differences among the States' relative abilities to support the aided activities. Detailed statistical analysis of these programs by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and others indicates that, though these programs are presumably geared to giving greater recognition to the difficulties that less well-to-do States have in financing them, these States have not always profited under them to the extent bluntly, Congress intent here with rethat some imagine. To put it more spect to ironing out some of the inequalities in the program levels among the States has not always been fully realized. On the other hand, with respect to certain other grants, there is strong evidence that the equalization factor should not always be extended to programs of basically planning, demonstration, stimulation, or emergency nature. This differentiation is not always made at present, and future congressional reassessment of Federal grant-in-aid programs should carefully weigh the arguments developed by the Advisory Commission on this subject. Congress in recent years has increasingly turned to categorical grant programs as a way of national participation in the provision of vital public services. The greater the number of the segments of public services which are aided through these categorical aids, the more urgent becomes the coordination of the grant programs and of assuring through periodic review that the provisions are in harmony with one another and that the objectives of the Congress in providing Federal aid are carried out in a consistent way from category to category. Where equalization is appropriate, however, greater consideration should be given to more detailed analysis of the various indexes of program need and of the States' relative ability to support grant programs. Per capita personal income, for example, has some limitations as an accurate index of the relative capability of State and local governments to raise revenues. This and other indicators which have been used to implement the equalization ideal should be carefully reexamined by the Congressnot with the view that perfect justice or complete uniformity can be attained, but in full recognition of the fact that the present inequities and existing lack of meaningful standards need correction. We must not permit future grants to be so characterized. Mr. President, these are but a few of the fiscal problems that confront us in this area of Federal governmental activity which accounts for more than $10 billion in this fiscal year, which includes at least 60 programs, and which gives every sign of expansion as we move into the final third of this century. Consistency, uniformity, and equity-these should be our immediate goals in this difficult area of congressional oversight. Enactment of S. 2114 would go far toward achieving these objectives. In attempting to determine whether future grant programs will be modified, redirected, terminated, or continued, congressional committees under this legislation, of necessity, would have to cope with some of these fiscal problems. All of us then would be compelled to focus our attention more regularly on the many dollars-and-cents difficulties that have arisen as a consequence of the sporadic and undirected development of these grant programs. If we continue to ignore the trouble spots that have emerged in this field, the enemies of the grant-in-aid device will increase in number; their arguments will become more forceful; and the cooperative Federal ideal will be seriously impaired. I agree with those scholars who claim that this very practical device has been one of the major forces preserving our traditional system of American federalism. If we accept the proposition that this is 1 nation composed of 50 States-not 50 States joined in loose confederation or a single State subdivided into 50 administrative units-then the grant-in-aid must be strengthened. Others may help us. The executive agencies can advise and conduct their own reassessment of grants-in-aid. The States and local governments can recom mend improvements in various programs. In the final analysis, however, Congress alone has the task of legislative oversight and the power of the purse. sight and the power of the purse. We alone possess the proper instrumentalities, the authority, and, what is even more important, the requisite attitudesince we represent the States and local districts, but serve as U.S. Senators and Representatives. Enactment of this legislation would be a significant and highly desirable step toward strengthening both the Congress and the Federal system and toward reasserting our traditional role of umpire among the 50 States. In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to announce that hearings on S. 2114 will begin on December 3 at 10 a.m. Any Senator or other person wishing to testify at the hearing should notify the subcommittee, room 357, Senate Office Building, extension 4718, in order that he might be scheduled as a witness. TRANSPORTATION ON THE GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY Mr. HART. Mr. President, the Legislature of the State of Michigan recently adopted a resolution memorializing the Congress concerning the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Senators from the Great Lakes States this past summer have organized a conference of Great Lakes Senators to review the problem arising from the very type of concern expressed by the State legislature in their October resolution. Yesterday, Mr. President, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce announced the formation of a Special Subcommittee To Study Transportation on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway. The chairman acted, after a number of us on the Committee on Commerce had called to his attention the concern we feel for the investigation of the development and progress of transportation and shipping in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway region. It is my hope that in the weeks immediately ahead, this subcommittee will come to Michigan, and hold hearings in our port cities. For Michigan has been long a proponent of the seaway and I am confident hearings from witnesses in our State will produce testimony of significant value to the Committee on Com In addition, Mr. President, I would call to the attention of the Senate the action of six of the Senators representing areas in the upper Great Lakes region that has some bearing on this same problem. A few days ago, I joined with my five colleagues in urging the President to form an Upper Great Lakes Commission for Great Lakes Economic Development. The text of our proposal is contained in a letter to the President. I ask unanimous consent that this letter and statement by the six Senators, together with the announcement from the Senate Committee on Commerce and the resolution of the Michigan State Legislature be reprinted in the RECORD at this point in my remarks. There being no objection, the letter, statement, announcement, and resolution were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: SENATORS PROPOSE REGIONAL COMMISSION FOR GREAT LAKES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Six U.S. Senators have urged President Kennedy to create a Federal-State regional commission to coordinate and implement economic development in the northern areas of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. In a letter to the President, the Senators asked him to initiate such a program by calling a White House meeting of Cabinet members and agency heads administering economic development programs, together with the Governors and the Senators from the three States. Senators making the proposal were HuBERT H. HUMPHREY and EUGENE J. MCCARTHY, Democrats of Minnesota; PAT MCNAMARA and PHILIP A. HART, Democrats of Michigan, and WILLIAM PROXMIRE and GAYLORD NELSON, Democrats, of Wisconsin. The Senators noted that the northern areas of their States have suffered persistent and substantial unemployment, with the jobless rate usually about twice the national average. "This situation has continued despite valiant efforts by the Federal Government, State agencies and local communities," the Senators said in a statement. "We have suggested to the President that we believe these efforts could be strengthened and improved through better coordination and cooperation. "Since the northern areas of our States have much in common in the way of economic and physical characteristics, our proposal calls for attacking the problems on a regional basis. "We are not interested in just another study of the problems. What we want, and what we think the regional approach will provide, is the development of a comprehensive action plan for the entire region." The Senators praised the President and his administration for the assistance already given such economically distressed areas and his willingness to devote continued attention to them. "President Kennedy long ago recognized that there is a national responsibility in helping these areas join in, and contribute to, national prosperity," the Senators said. "The Federal Government has made a significant contribution through enactment of such programs as the Area Redevelopment Administration, accelerated public works, manpower retraining, rural areas manpower development. and "Further, the States through their development agencies, and local communities and private organizations have devoted great effort to these problems. "Coordination on a regionwide basis, leading to an action plan that can be implemented by all, can produce the kind of lasting results that these areas need." OCTOBER 24, 1963. The Honorable JOHN F. KENNEDY, The White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Last month, in your address to the Northern Great Lakes Land and People Conference in Duluth, Minn., you called public attention to the very severe economic hardships which that area of our Nation has endured for so long. In your remarks, you made this very telling point: "This northern Great Lakes region has land, water, manpower, resources, transportation and recreation facilities. It also has distress." As Senators representing the people of this region, we know only too well the extent of this distress. The substantial and persistent unemployment in the area has been a terrible personal burden for thousands of families as well as a tremendous waste of human resources and an unnecessary restraint to the achievement of a strong and growing national economy. Under your administration, a number of programs have been enacted which have, to some extent, alleviated the distress of the northern Great Lakes region. We refer, of course, to such programs as the Area Redevelopment Administration, accelerated public works, retraining, rural areas development, and defense contract set-asides. Helpful as the programs have been, there nevertheless remains much that can be done through greater coordination of efforts by the local, State, and National Governments. In your Duluth address, you emphasized the national responsibility and expressed the hope that the "attention of all will be devoted to these areas until this problem is solved." It is in this spirit that we believe the cooperative State-Federal efforts in behalf of the northern Great Lakes region could be materially strengthened and improved. As a first step, we would respectfully suggest that you call a meeting of members of your Cabinet and the heads of independent agencies administering economic development programs, together with the Governors of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and ourselves to discuss a comprehensive program of attack on the economic distress of the northern areas of these States. Such a program would include better coordination of existing efforts, pending legislative proposals and State development activities. It would be our hope that this discussion could lead to the formation of a Northern Great Lakes Regional Commission, similar perhaps to that already established for the Appalachian region. We have every reason to believe, furthermore, that the governments of our States would cooperate to the fullest extent in such an undertaking. With the demonstrated interest of your high office, the experience of the Federal agencies and the cooperation of State and local bodies, we are confident that a regional commission could implement a comprehensive action program that would effectively strengthen and enhance the economic development of the northern Great Lakes area. Your consideration of these suggestions would be most appreciated. Sincerely, WILLIAM PROXMIRE. FROM THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE A Special Subcommittee To Study Transportation on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway has been appointed by Chairman WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Democrat, of Washington, of the Senate Committee on Commerce, it was announced today. Named chairman of the special subcommittee is Senator FRANK J. LAUSCHE, Democrat, of Ohio. Serving with him will be Senators VANCE HARTKE, Democrat, of Indiana, PHILIP A. HART, Democrat, of Michigan, WINSTON L. PROUTY, Republican, of Vermont, and J. GLENN BEALL, Republican, of Maryland. MAGNUSON said the special subcommittee will study the development, progress and needs of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway. "This great seaway is, in effect, our fourth coastline, along with the Pacific, Atlantic, and gulf coasts," the chairman added. The seaway, a joint United States-Canadian venture, involves an investment of $130 million by the United States in its naviga tion features alone. This cost is to be repaid by tolls on freight tonnage. Opened to oceangoing vessels in 1959, the waterway provides direct access to the ocean for the previously landlocked Great Lakes region. Total tonnage carried on the seaway in 1962 was 25.6 million tons; its 1965 potential has been estimated at 66.2 million tons. HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 5 Concurrent resolution memorializing the U.S. Congress concerning the St. Lawrence Seaway Whereas the St. Lawrence Seaway was created at a cost of over $471 million to foster trade and commerce by ocean vessels between Great Lakes ports and the markets of the world through direct, economical, ocean shipping routes; and Whereas it was fully anticipated that the heartland of America would share in the great expansion that would accompany the development and opening of the seaway with its consequent stimulus upon the economic growth of the whole Midwest; and Whereas Great Lakes ports, with their industrial genius and capability for production with modern machinery, had a right to expect that the seaway would result in the employment of thousands of additional workers and the expenditure of millions of dollars in plant expansion, if allowed to operate under normal competition conditions; and Whereas after only 4 short years it is now becoming increasingly evident that Great Lakes ports are not receiving their fair share of foreign trade and commerce in spite of strenuous efforts to encourage maximum use of the seaway, and that Great Lakes ports are being circumvented from securing such benefits-by limitations and practices which are allowed to be imposed upon foreign commerce from such ports which militate against full utilization and the realization of the benefits of the seaway; and Whereas inquiry discloses that some of such practices and limitations are as follows: (a) Shipping rates for commodities in foreign commerce from Great Lakes ports are set by the Atlantic coast conference of east coast ship operators, and permitted by the Maritime Commission, which sharply increase the cost of ocean freight upon cargoes originating at Great Lakes ports destined for world markets, when compared with east coast ports upon the same commodity, resulting in the inability of Great Lakes industry and agriculture to compete with such east coast ports. (b) American-flag ships have not been made available at Great Lakes ports except upon limited and rare occasions, but have insisted that they were relieved of this responsibility of providing ships at ports nearest to the source of shipping commodities by permission of certain Federal agencies under a misinterpretation and a misapplication of the so-called 50-50 law (Public Law 664, 83d Cong., 2d sess., ch. 936, 46 U.S.C. 1241), which enables such ships, located at east coast ports, to take unfair advantage of the provision that they shall have 50 percent of such tonnage "to the extent such vessels are available at fair and reasonable rates * * * by geographical area." Such vessels with the support of certain Federal agencies are allowed to bracket the Atlantic coast ports with Great Lakes ports and call it the same "geographical area," just as was done before the seaway was constructed, so that such ship operators could contend that such ships are "available" at Great Lakes ports, when they are no nearer such ports than the Atlantic coast. Such vessels thereon insist that they need not actually come into Great Lakes ports and lift cargoes in foreign commerce, but that such commodities must be transported overland from Great Lakes ports to such ships at east coast ports, thus resulting in huge additional and unnecessary transportation costs, as well as the loss of foreign trade from Great Lakes ports, thus stifling competitive bidding by Great Lakes industries and agriculture for foreign business, and particularly at a time when the Common Market is bidding for world trade; and Whereas if such a situation is allowed to continue, it will have a disastrous effect upon the economic growth and vitality of Great Lakes major industries, including automobile and general manufacturing, and related commodities, farm products, and labor, and at the same time defense business will be still further diminished: Now, therefore be it Resolved by the house of representatives (the senate concurring), That a thorough study and survey of this entire situation with respect to foreign commerce and ocean freight from the ports of Michigan should be undertaken forthwith to determine the complete facts with reference to the competitive position of Michigan industry, agriculture, labor, and all other interests that may be affected by the stifling of the advantages of the St. Lawrence Seaway as it affects Great Lakes ports; and be it further Resolved, That such study and survey should be undertaken by the Economic Welfare Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the opening of the 196th shipping season so that shipping rates as well as the frequency of service by vessels shall be determined and any discriminatory practices may be pointed out for speedy legislation or administrative correction; and be it further Resolved, That the proper interpretation and application of the so-called 50-50 law may be brought about so that the Great Lakes geographical area shall be no longer bracketed with the Atlantic coast area, nor shall vessels on the Atlantic coast be considered "available" when they are not physically available and are not willing to serve the ports of the Great Lakes themselves; and be it further Resolved, That shipping rates shall likewise be studied and a survey made of the same to cause the Federal Maritime Commission to require strict adherence to a reasonable and competitive rate structure for all concerned, and that provision be made for a reasonable rate structure in the future; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, to Senator McNamara and Senator Hart, and to each Michigan Congressman and Senators and Representatives of the States bordering on the Great Lakes, to the Secretary of Commerce, and to the Federal Maritime Commission, as well as to the Governors and to the senate and house of representatives of each of the States bordering on the Great Lakes. Adopted by the house October 9, 1963. VETERANS DAY Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, on Monday, as Veterans Day is observed the country, Americans throughout pause to honor American service veterans of all wars. On this day we recall the valor and sacrifices of the past when the liberty of our country was at stake. It is fitting that this day has been set aside so that Americans can pay tribute to those who have done so much to preserve the way of life we cherish. On Veterans Day we pay respect to those men who survived America's wars, and especially to the nearly 1 million men who made the supreme sacrifice in the name of America and freedom. Those courageous men and women are with us in spirit and it is their memory that inspires all of us to rededicate ourselves to the cause of human freedom throughout the world. Mr. President, within the memory of living American war veterans are the fierce battles of San Juan, Santiago, Chateau Thierry, the Meuse, Argonne, Guadalcanal, the Battle of the Bulge, Okinawa, Korea. These names, although causing us to recall the terror and callousness of war, remind us of the valor and courage with which our men fought to defend the liberties of our free society-liberties which we Americans highly treasure and will always defend. As we consider the contributions and sacrifices of our veterans, we are reminded of the vast amount of legislation we now have affecting veterans and their families. For America has quite properly expressed its gratitude to its veterans through various forms of compensatory legislation. It is only fitting that on this occasion we in the Senate give renewed consideration to the establishment of a Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Unless we have such a committee, we cannot be fully responsive to the need for legislation or the desirability of correcting existing law. The heavy burdens of the Finance Committee and of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare leave insufficient time for either members or staff to consider the specialized and complex legislation affecting veterans. The eventual loser is of course the public and the veterans, who especially deserve the expertise of a staff familiar with veterans affairs. In 1959, a special subcommittee to the Committee on Rules and Administration of which I was a member, after hearings and thorough consideration, recommended the creation of a Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Such a committee has the support of over 40 Members of the Senate and still no action has been taken. After the bugles have blown on Monday, and we have celebrated Veterans Day, we should move to establish a Committee on Veterans' Affairs in the Senate. Mr. President, I know I reflect the sentiment of all Americans in saluting and extending my highest praise to America's war veterans for their valiant efforts in defending and preserving freedom for America. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further morning business? If not, morning business is closed. AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7885) to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and for other purposes. THERE WILL BE NO CIVIL RIGHTS OR TAXATION LEGISLATION THIS SESSION-LET US WORK OUT A GOOD FOREIGN AID BILL Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I wish to commend most highly the able and distinguished junior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], the experienced chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, for the consummate skill with which he has been performing the arduous task of guiding the complicated foreign assistance authorization bill through this Chamber. My commendation of the Senator from Arkansas is even the greater because he Arkansas is even the greater because he has come to the floor of the Senate with a report, unanimously approved by his committee, pointing to the many shortcomings in the foreign assistance program, and noting that the committee had given serious consideration to dishad given serious consideration to discontinuing our foreign aid program and requiring the administration to come before the Congress with an entirely new approach to this problem for fiscal year 1965. That attitude did not prevail and the bill before us continues the same old approach to foreign aid. Why delay the change? A realistic appraisal of the parliamentary situation both in the Senate and in the other body will readily reveal that we have plenty of time to do what I have been urging; namely, that we take the time to review, country by country, our foreign assistance program to determine what countries are deserving of receiving our aid and which are not; which countries actually need our aid and which do not; which countries are making a serinot; which countries are making a serious and realistic effort to help themselves and which are not, and which countries are making a real contribution to strengthening the free world and which are not. Let us look at the parliamentary situation. The Senate Calendar discloses that there are only three items on it which have been placed on it since the last calendar call on November 5, 1963. There is no reason why we cannot at any time lay aside the foreign assistance bill to take up any other matter the leadership feels should be acted upon. Now there has been some inaccurate talk that our taking sufficient time to debate the foreign assistance bill thoroughly is delaying early enactment of the civil rights bill. In the first place, the Senate Commerce Committee has not even reported out a civil rights bill. It is awaiting, I understand, the arrival here of a Housepassed bill. What is that status of the House bill? I understand that the majority report will be filed shortly, and that the miwill be filed shortly, and that the minority views will be filed about 1 week later. The House bill will then be referred to the House Rules Committee. I suspect, Mr. President, from all indications, that committee will not act at once. In fact, Mr. President, I would expect considerable delay in obtaining action by that committee. Indeed, Mr. President, the delay may be so long and seem so interminable and hopeless to the supporters of civil rights legislation that they may try to go the discharge petition route. But, Mr. President, the discharge petition route is full of parliamentary foxholes. First, a discharge petition cannot be filed until the lapse of 7 legislative days after the bill has been referred to the Rules Committee. Assuming, optimistically, the report is filed today, that means that about the 27th of November a discharge petition can be filed-assuming the other body met every weekday during the interval. I am willing to concede that point, although I have some considerable doubt as to its validity. Let us now assume that through intense effort on the part of the supporters of civil rights legislation, the requisite number of signatures is obtained in a week. Now this assumption is also subject to grave doubt, because it would then be the long Thanksgiving Day weekend. But forgetting any doubts as to the validity of my assumptions, this would mean that on December 4, the discharge petition could go on the calendar. At this point we run into another parliamentary snarl. Again, 7 legislative days must elapse before a Member who has signed the discharge petition can arise in the House on either the second or fourth Monday of the month to call up the bill. The 7 legislative days cannot elapse between the 4th of December and the 9th of December, which is the second Monday in December. The fourth Monday in December is the 23d of December. We have already been told that the Senate will recess or adjourn on December 20 until January 2, 1964. It would be most surprising if the other body did not follow suit. Thus, Mr. President, there will be no House-passed civil rights bill during this session of the Congress unless the House Rules Committee gives an almost immediate rule or if the leadership in the Senate changes its announced intention of not bringing in the Senate civil rights bill, now awaiting the filing of the report by the Senate Commerce Committee. So the debate on foreign aid is not holding up the passage of any civil rights bills. Neither is it holding up any tax legislation. I understand that with over 100 witnesses to go, it is estimated that hearings will go on until Christmas. I bring these matters up for a purpose. The Foreign Relations Committee, in its excellent report, had said that it considered seriously writing into the bill a provision for terminating the foreign assistance program in fiscal year 1964 and expecting the AID administrators to present, for fiscal year 1965, a completely new approach. Nothing was written into the bill, but the expectation of a new approach for fiscal year 1965 is written into the committee report. Mr. President, the beginning of fiscal year 1965 is not very many months away-8, to be exact. That means that within 3 or 4 months the AID administrators will be before the Foreign Relations Committee presenting the new approach, which I hope has already been worked out, since it will have to be reflected in the President's messages and budget in January. As I have shown before, long debate on our foreign aid program in the Senate is not delaying any legislation. Let us then go through the foreign assistance program now, on the Senate floor, country by country, program by program, and attempt to give the foreign aid program the new look in foreign aid which apparently everyone is convinced it must have. The time to do it is now. The program can be greatly strengthened and improved in this, the 1st session of the 88th Congress. By so doing, Congress can measurably improve its record of performance and compensate for its inability to act on civil rights and tax legislation, which perforce have to go over to the second session. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska yield? Mr. GRUENING. I yield. Mr. MORSE. I congratulate the Senator from Alaska for the speech he has just made on the floor of the Senate, under the title "There Will Be No Civil Rights or Taxation Legislation This Session-Let Us Work Out a Good Foreign Aid Bill." I shall speak at length later this afternoon on some of the procedural problems that confront the Senate in connection with the foreign aid bill. Some of my remarks will be a bit repetitious of what the Senator from Alaska has stated in his able speech. We are doing exactly what the Senator from Alaska suggested we should do. We are going through the bill section by section, trying to make Senators more fully aware of the facts concerning the foreign aid problem that confronts the country. I would that we were doing it in another way; but we offered the other choice, which was to try to do it on a committee basis again, in consultation with the administration, after it once became clear on the floor of the Senate that the bill reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations was not popular with many of us and ought to be amended. It has been amended already, and I hope it will be amended many more times in the days ahead. I still plead with my administration, as I did with certain emissaries who were sent to see me yesterday from the administration, that it is still not too late to get together, rather than to be quarreling with one another at distances of blocks. I shall have something to say this afternoon about a point of view expressed by the very able and wonderful Secretary of State at a news conference this morning-a point of view with which I am in complete and total disagreement. It must be answered on the floor of the Senate today, and it will be answered on the floor of the Senate today. But that does not mean that I have the slightest lessening of affection for this wonderful Secretary of State. I merely think he was dead wrong in his news conference this morning on the subject of the prerogatives of Congress. He is an able lawyer. I think he knows better. But I can well understand how, with the pressures under which this wonderful man is working, he finds his will thwarted, as it is being thwarted in Congress, by Congress exercising in its clear obligations to the taxpayers in respect of the foreign aid bill, he might yield to the apparent pique that the news stories, at least, indicate he labored under at the news conference this morning. That will not prevent me from cooperating with him. I would sit down with him in the next hour, talk about our differences, and try to adjust them. But that calls for an attitude of adjustability at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue as well as on Capitol Hill. The Senator from Alaska spoke eloquently and wisely in his speech by pointing out that our task now is to proceed section by section and country by country, and let Senators decide whether they want to vote to bring to an end, in some countries, the waste, and in some particulars, corruption, that have come to characterize foreign aid in those countries-not by American administrators, but by the recipients of the aid. Mr. GRUENING. I thank the Senator from Oregon. In connection with his earlier remarks, his conversation with the Secretary of State, and the difference of opinion, the Senator from Oregon yesterday pointed out-and it is quite truethat the Senate has a duty to watch over appropriations. The use of large sums of money as an instrument of foreign policy is new in American history. It began with the Marshall plan. Up to that time, it was assumed that the President and the Secretary of State conducted foreign relaretary of State conducted foreign relations, and that the only function of the Senate was to approve treaties by a twothirds vote and to confirm the nominations of Foreign Service officers. But betions of Foreign Service officers. But beginning with the Marshall plan, an entirely new factor appeared; namely, the tirely new factor appeared; namely, the use of vast sums of money-millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, and now billions of dollars as an instrument of foreign policy. That places a new and great responsibility on Congress. Therefore, it is entirely fitting and proper that Congress should inject itself countries that are the beneficiaries of into the activities of every one of the countries that are the beneficiaries of these huge appropriations; otherwise we would be delinquent and failing in our constitutional duties. So when the opponents of the effort to fulfill our constitutional duties say that the President is in charge of foreign policy and that they are not up to date. They do not Congress has no business interfering, realize that 20 years ago an entirely new era in foreign policy was ushered in. I applaud what the Senator from Oregon said, and I echo it: We have a specific duty to watch over the appropriations and the conduct of our foreign aid in every country, because we are being asked to approve huge sums for the pursuance of the foreign aid policy in those countries. That cannot be emphasized too often. Congress now has a new tive in the whole foreign aid field. function: to cooperate with the Execu Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 232. I ask unanimous consent that there may be a quorum call without my losing the floor. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska yield, if it is agreed that he may do so without losing his right to the floor? Mr. GRUENING. Yes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, earlier today, after a conference with the majority leader, and in order that an amendment might be pending, I called up my amendment No. 306, and it was made the pending question. It is the so-called United Nations amendment. In essence it proposes that no more of our funds shall go to any United Nations country that is able to support itselfwhich means most of them. It has now been suggested to me that I cooperate by withdrawing my amendment, which I believe I have a right to do. However, Mr. President, although I believe I have the right to withdraw my amendment, I now ask whether I may now withdraw it without in any way jeopardizing my right to offer it at a later time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may do so without jeopardizing his right to offer the amendment later. Mr. MORSE. Then, Mr. President, I now withdraw my amendment, so that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING] may offer his amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Oregon is withdrawn. Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his characteristic courtesy and cooperation. Mr. President, to the committee amendment, as amended, I now offer on behalf of myself, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. ERVIN, Mr. Moss, Mr. CANNON, Mr. DOMINICK, Mr. MORSE, Mr. YARBOROUGH, Mr. BIBLE, and Mr. SMATHERS, my amendment No. 232, which is designed to establish sound fiscal practice in connection with one very important aspect of our foreign aid. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment to the committee amend ment, as amended, will be stated. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. In the committee amendment, as amended, it is proposed to delete, on page 50, lines 8 through 17, as follows: (6) in the case of loans under part I (except under section 205), shall establish terms which shall include (A) interest at a rate not lower than three-fourths of 1 per centum per annum during the five-year period following the date on which the funds are initially made available under the loan, and not lower than 2 per centum per annum thereafter, and (B) repayment on an amortized basis, beginning not later than five years after the date any funds are initially made available under the loan, and ending not later than thirty years following the end of such five-year period. And between lines 3 and 4, insert the following new section: (6) In the case of loans under part I shall establish terms under which interest shall be at a rate not less than the rate arrived at by adding one-quarter of 1 per centum per annum to the rate which the Secretary of the Treasury determines to be equal to the average annual interest rate on all interestbearing obligations of the United States then forming a part of the public debt as computed at the end of the fiscal year next preceding the date the application for the loan is approved and by adjusting the result so obtained to the nearest one-eighth of 1 per centum;. Renumber the remaining sections appropriately. |