Слике страница
PDF
ePub

to use only the recommendations that were made through the State Department. It seems to me that that is arrant nonsense, so far as the State Department is concerned. We are trying to improve the quality of the personnel who will be called upon to handle these programs, rather than to diminish it. We are trying to enhance the prestige of the State Department, throughout the country, which prestige, frankly, in my opinion, could not be any lower than it is now. We must take some steps to establish a Freedom Academy; and if there is anything I can do to support the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, I shall be glad to do it.

Mr. MUNDT. I appreciate the Senator's statement, and I appreciate even more his assurances of support, because I know that his support on any project or program is something of real substance and significance.

I recall the Senator's brilliant testimony before the committee. We were dealing with the general subject of improving personnel and providing expanded training facilities for those who

serve this country overseas.

I share with the Senator from Colo

rado the regret that nothing along that line has occurred. It is much more important that we convince the State Department that it cannot win the cold war without such trained personnel, whether we appropriate $3 billion or $30 billion, more or less, in the foreign aid program for the future.

As I said earlier, I speak as one who has voted for far more foreign aid than I have opposed, starting with the point IV program. But I shall vote against the current authorization bill, when the final rollcall vote is taken. I shall vote against it because I know of no other way in which I can express an effective and clearcut opposition to continuing a program of spending billions of dollars overseas for programs which have not been synthesized or targeted together or coordinated, and for the administration of which we have entirely failed to meet the challenge of providing an updated, coordinated, completely adequate training facility so those who serve us overseas can be equipped with the proper tools and skills.

I may vote in favor of the foreign aid appropriation bill, when it comes before the Senate, for I am not opposed to the foreign aid concept, if by that time we can get from the State Department instead of having it sulk in its marble tepee-an understandable and acceptable king-sized training program. In that case, I may vote, and may try to influence other Senators on our Appropriations Committee to vote, in favor of appropriate foreign aid funds.

But I shall vote against the pending authorization bill, because I know of no other way by which to demonstrate my determination not to have the United States continue to throw away such large sums of the money of the American people, particularly when that program frequently renders us a disservice, rather than a service.

Mr. President, let me make my position crystal clear. What this country

badly needs is a Freedom Academy in which our oversea Government personnel, private citizens, and, on occasion, freedom-supporting people from other lands can be trained in depth and in detail about the whole concept of cold war strategy and how to defeat communism by means short of war.

Communist Russia operates six wellestablished training institutes to train its own nationals and many visitors from other lands in the techniques the Communists employ in undermining and in weakening freedom wherever it prevails. Here in the United States we have totally failed to develop and utilize a single institute or training facility to provide those on our side of this cold war with equal competence and knowhow and with compensatory training in the best techniques for defeating the Communist thrusts against freedom and in making some positive moves of our own.

We have our splendid service academies for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. Surely nobody advocates clos

ing up the training facilities provided at West Point, Annapolis, and Colorado Springs. We have our War College to train and equip our military leaders and to keep them current on the needed know-how. But in our effort to win the cold war, I repeat Mr. President, we have failed completely to tool up our training facilities to meet the modern, peacetime challenges of communism.

We need such a training facility as the Freedom Academy. We have needed it for years. We desperately need it now. We cannot win our cold war against communism with dollars alone. This Senate and this Congress should insist that the State Department and the White House recognize the realities of the world in which we live and help develop the training facilities which we so badly need.

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

Mr. GRUENING. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. DOMINICK. I point out that a recent item on the news ticker states that the Secretary of State has severely criticized the Senate for its action in connection with the foreign aid authorization bill, particularly for the restrictions it has placed on aid to Indonesia and Yugoslavia.

The question is, What will the Senate do to determine the kind of foreign policy the United States should have? It seems It seems to me there could not be a better forum than this in which to express the irritation of the Senate and of the American people in general about giving U.S. aid to countries which in many cases are not in favor of the United States and are in favor of our enemy. I believe this is the best place in which to express our opinion on that score.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I am much interested in that news ticker item, because it is clear evidence that the State Department is now forewarned of our intent.

I recall sitting as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee-whether in open session or in executive session makes no difference, in this respect at

a time when I said to Secretary Rusk, "You had better get busy training some personnel and leadership and establishing an overall training organization in depth or you will have trouble when the bill comes up on the floor of the Senate.” I remember that the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Missouri said the same thing. However, the State Department officials decided to "bull it through"; their attitude was, "Why change? We have spent $100 billion of the money of the American people, up to now; and surely we can get another $3 or $4 billion at this time." But, Mr. President, they cannot do it that easily any more. Congress is beginning to live up to its responsibility.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield? Mr. MUNDT. I yield.

Mr. GRUENING. In connection with the comment about criticism by Secretary Rusk, he does not realize that before the Marshall plan was established, it was understood that the function of the Senate in connection with foreign affairs was merely to give its advice and consent to treaties and to the nominations of Foreign Service personnel, and nothing else; but today Congress also has a definite responsibility to decide how the foreign aid funds are to be spent. It is both our legislative duty and our constitutional obligation to debate these matters, and the Secretary of State should realize

that.

[blocks in formation]

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

Mr. GRUENING. I yield.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I do not believe the personnel in our Foreign Service are untrained. The Foreign Service personnel I have met are exceedingly well trained, better trained than some of their critics. I do not believe we shall provide for a better Foreign Service by establishing a Foreign Service Academy.

I have long protested, in connection with the Foreign Service, what we call the Ivy League clique. It seems to me it would be a good idea to have in the Foreign Service people from all parts of the country who have a genuine appreciation of American life and its many facets and different cultures.

For example, I believe that the American University, in the Nation's Capital, with its school of international relations, prepares people very well for the Foreign Service. Likewise, I do not believe that all the good generals graduated from West Point. Many of them came from VMI or Texas A. & M. or from colleges with ROTC units. I believe that the Georgetown Georgetown University Foreign Service School is one of the great foreign service schools in the world; and I believe that Leland Stanford University graduates some fine people who are trained for the field of foreign service.

So I do not believe we do our country any service by alleging that those who work in the State Department are incompetent and incapable of doing their jobs. They are extremely competent. Some of them may not be as competent as we would like them to be, but certainly the same may be said of any office which any one of us manages or of any business in which any of us may be engaged.

I would support a program for the establishment of an academy for training in Foreign Service. I have said so many times. But I do not believe it would answer all our problems-not by a long shot.

Furthermore, I do not believe that in connection with requesting the establishment of an academy for training in Foreign Service, Service, Senators need to "downgrade" those who are now in the Foreign Service. There are many good people in our Foreign Service, and I do not believe it is a good idea to spread across the world statements to the effect that the State Department wastes billions of dollars because of incompetent personnel.

In the Foreign Service there are men who have given their lives and also the lives of their families to their country. In fact, when the Government hires a Foreign Service officer, it generally gets two for one-both the Foreign Service officer and his wife; and the wives of our Foreign Service officers lead voluntary organizations and do excellent jobs in carrying the philosophy of this country to many parts of the world.

I know what is happening to the foreign aid authorization bill. We can cut it or we can defeat it; and apparently there is among the Members of this body a passion to do something to the foreign aid authorization bill to change it drastically. Some think the foreign aid program should not even be permitted to continue.

Be that as it may, Mr. President, I do not believe that in the process of amending the bill we are required to "run down" the Foreign Service public servants. If I were a Foreign Service officer, I would deeply resent such an attack. Some of the Foreign Service officers go to parts of the world where a Senator would not be willing to go, even if he were paid 10 times his present salary. The Foreign Service officers go to their posts like soldiers; and I am not going to remain silent when attempts are made to rip the Foreign Service to pieces-to downgrade and attack and criticize it unfairly.

I want Senators who criticize it to name the Foreign Service officer who is charged with wasting money. I ask the Senator from South Dakota to give me a bill of particulars. What Foreign Service officer is wasting money? Is the Senator from South Dakota talking about Secretary of State Acheson or Secretary of State Dulles or Secretary of State Herter or Secretary of State Rusk? About whom is the Senator from South Dakota talking? What Foreign Service officer does he mean?

If a Senator is going to criticize, instead of criticizing a whole class of Government employees, he should name the

ones to whom he refers. However, I do not think Senators can name very many responsible Foreign Service officers who have "sold out" this country or have been guilty of mismanagement or misconduct or are incompetent.

In the last few years we have done a great deal to elevate the Foreign Service and to improve and raise the standards. I have a son who hopes to enter the Foreign Service. At this time he is studying for the Foreign Service; and I resent having the Foreign Service criticized in such fashion. I do not believe that is the way to recruit good people for the Foreign Service. the Foreign Service. I do not want my son to read, in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, charges that the Foreign Service is incompetent and wastes millions of dollars.

I demand a bill of particulars. When the Senator can show me the names of the individuals, and show me the people who have been guilty of the colossal waste charged because they were incompetent or stupid or untrained, I shall be willing to buy the argument. Until then I resent it. I think it is an unfair argument.

AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSIST

ANCE ACT OF 1961

The Senate resumed the consideration the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as of the bill (H.R. 7885) to amend further amended, and for other purposes. the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 232.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NELSON in the chair). The amendment of the Senator from Alaska has been offered and stated, and is now pending before the Senate.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I think I still have the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Alaska yield further to the Senator from South Dakota?

glad to yield to the Senator from South Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I am glad to yield to the Senator from South Dakota. I hope his remarks will be brief. parliamentary inquiry. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President,

a

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator will state it.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Who has the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Alaska has the floor.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. By what right does
the Senator yield?

Mr. GRUENING. By unanimous consent I yielded to the Senator from South Dakota.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there Is there objection to the Senator from Alaska yielding further to the Senator from South Dakota?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I object.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, the objection comes about an hour too late. jection comes about an hour too late. By unanimous consent the Senate has already agreed that the Senator from already agreed that the Senator from Alaska would yield to me so that I could present my position, and after I had concluded, the floor was to revert to the Senator from Alaska. I have not concluded because I wish to respond to the Senator from Minnesota. The objection of the Senator from Arkansas would have

been highly appropriate an hour ago, but not now.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Parliamentarian has advised the Chair that the Senator from Alaska has the floor. Unanimous consent is required to enable him to yield to the Senator from South Dakota. The Senator from Arkansas has objected to the request by the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. MUNDT. I should like to know by what parliamentary device the Senator from South Dakota's original understanding with the Senator from Alaska has been vitiated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Parliamentarian has advised the Chair that the Senator from Alaska reasserted his right to the floor when the Senator from South Dakota had concluded his remarks. He now has the floor. Unanimous consent is required for the Senator from Alaska to yield to any other Senator the privilege of the floor.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, the pending business before the Senate is my amendment No. 232.

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

Mr. GRUENING. I am happy to yield. Mr. MORSE, I assure the Senator from South Dakota that later he will have any time he desires.

Mr. MUNDT. I appreciate that very much. I merely wished to say to my friend, the Senator from Minnesota, that

I welcome him in the ranks of those who support the Freedom Academy approach, even though he damned it with faint praise, and even though understandably he opposes some of the arguments which I have presented.

I regret that the Senator from Minnesota was not present during the entire discourse I made on the subject. Quite obviously he has based some of his observations on a misapprehension. First, I have never said that the State Department people are not trained. They are not trained in the appropriate tactics and techniques of the cold war. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Who has the floor? Mr. MUNDT. I think the Senator from South Dakota has the floor.

Mr. GRUENING. The Senator from Alaska has not yielded the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. MUNDT. I will be back. Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator will state it.

Mr. GRUENING. Is there a rule that prohibits a Senator from yielding the floor to another Senator without his giving up his right to the floor? If a

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator calls for the regular order, the Senator may yield only for a question.

Mr. GRUENING. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Oregon for a question.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, would the Senator be willing to yield the floor temporarily, so that I can see if I can obtain

the floor in my own right to put into the RECORD Some information that the State Department has just sent me, and make a brief comment on it?

Mr. GRUENING. I would, with the understanding that objection will not be raised and that, as a result of my courtesy in yielding to the Senator from South Dakota, I would not lose my right to the floor.

Mr. MORSE. I did not ask for that. I think we can do business in a somewhat different way. I think the Senator can obtain the floor. I suggest that we try it and see how it works.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Alaska ask unanimous consent that he may yield the floor?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, he need not ask unanimous consent to yield the floor.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from Oregon with the understanding that I do not lose my right to the floor.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I object.

Mr. GRUENING. Objection is heard. Mr. President, my amendment which is cosponsored by the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. SIMPSON], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], the Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. CANNON], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. DOMINICK], the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. BIBLE], and the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS), is designed to make a realistic loan of the so-called development loans.

Two or three years ago objection was raised and heard in Congress that we were making grants recklessly, wildly and extravagantly. It was argued that we should have loans instead, the instead, the thought being that people would then have a sense of responsibility for paying the loans.

Actually the loans turned out to be a kind of fraud on the American people. What were the terms of those loans? Usually 10 years with no payment of either principal or sometimes of interest, and then for the balance of the loan three-quarters of 1 percent.

No such loans were ever known on such a scale before. In the course of that period of generosity we loaned $1,300 million under the development loan program, the cost of which-even assuming that the loan would be repaid, which is not a certainty—was $870 million in concealed grants.

I illustrate what I am speaking about by stating a specific example. I was in Cairo last February. While I was there, I was present at the signing by the American Ambassador of a $30 million loan to Mr. Nasser to build a powerplant in west Cairo. A powerplant is a moneymaking enterprise. From the time it From the time it starts generating and delivering its power the dictator can charge his consumers-his electricity users any rate that he wishes. Yet the loan provides that for 10 years he shall make no payment whatsoever. Meanwhile we are borrowing money from the American people at about 4 percent, so that in each of those

years it is costing us $1.25 million, which is the difference between no payment on the part of Nasser and what we have to pay. So in the first 10 years, even before he starts repaying the loan, the Treasury will be out $12.5 million.

Appreciation of the fact that that procedure is all wrong and is an unsound financial practice is reflected in a couple of rather feeble efforts on the part of the committee to change the situation. The House has provided in section 105 that in no event henceforth, after the bill is enacted, shall the loan be at less than 2 percent per annum. The Senate committee did not go quite so far. The Senate version is a kind of fusion of the two methods. The Senate committee amendment provides that for the first 5 years the rate shall be three-quarters of 1 percent, and then annually thereafter it shall be 2 percent. I argue that that does not meet the situation at all. We may not be going into the hole quite as deep, but we are still going into the hole. I think it is entirely proper that the amendment, which merely provides that we shall exact the going rate, whatever that rate may be at the time the Treasury Department can inform us whether it be 334 percent or 4 percent, plus one-quarter of 1 percent as a carrying charge-henceforth those loans will be valid loans and not at usurious rates of interest.

That is exactly what it costs the American people. That would not only be sound, but it would save the Treas ury millions of dollars in the course of the next few years.

The argument will be made that some countries are so poor and conditions are so bad that they cannot afford to pay 4 percent. In those situations we should frankly decide whether or not a grant is justifiable. I would rather have a grant at any time than a phony loan which is both a grant and a loan. In the case of the powerplant there was no excuse whatsoever for making that kind of loan. It should have been a loan from the Export-Import Bank or the World Development Bank on a sound business basis.

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, earlier today I expressed concern about the ticker tape report of the press conference of the Secretary of State, and said I would discuss it later.

I have received a transcript of the Secretary of State's press conference, accompanied by a letter from a very able State Department representative whom we are all fond, the liaison officer of the Secretary with the Congress, Mr. Dutton, in which he says:

of

I understand you are interested in Secretary Rusk's comments at his press conference this morning in relation to the foreign aid bill pending before the Senate. A copy of the first 10 pages of the transcript is attached. It contains the remarks relevant to

foreign aid. The rest of the transcript will be sent to you as soon as it is mimeographed.

I shall read what the ticker said. Then I shall read what the Secretary of State said at the press conference. Then I shall make comments on the two.

The UPI ticker item reads as follows: Secretary of State Dean Rusk tore into Congress today for trying to alter the course of the administration's foreign policy.

In unusually blunt terms, he said "Congress is trying to 'legislate foreign policy,'' and said the President will get the blame if things go wrong.

Rusk told a news conference that he is

"very much disturbed very much concerned" about what he said was a tendency of Congress "to try to build into law attitudes on foreign aid." He said the lawmakers are not held to blame if foreign policy goes sour and "I hope very much Congress will hold its hand."

tempts during current debate in the legisRusk particularly criticized Senate atlation, to write restrictions into the pending foreign aid bill to limit or deny assistance to countries such as Yugoslavia, Egypt, and Indonesia.

Referring to moves in the Senate to cut foreign aid outlays drastically, Rusk said, "This is no time to quit. There is too much unfinished business ahead of us."

I shall now read what the Secretary of State actually said, so that the Senate will have not only statements out of context but also statements in full context.

The first part of the press conference did not deal with foreign aid, but dealt with the wheat negotiations. Then the Secretary was asked:

Mr. Secretary, could you give us your appraisal of the situation now in Vietnam?

The Secretary discussed the Vietnam matter. After he finished discussing the Vietnam situation, the following occurred in the press conference:

Question. Could you give us your thoughts on the views in the Senate to restrict aid to Yugoslavia, Egypt, and Indonesia?

Answer. Well, I must say that I am very much concerned about the tendency in the Congress to legislate foreign policy as it might apply to specific situations or specific countries. The legislative cycle moves a year at a time. The world moves very fast. It is not possible for the Congress to anticipate in advance what the circumstances are going to be in any given situation, so I am very much concerned about the tendency to try to build into law attitudes in the use of our aid program, for example, with regard to particular countries.

These are responsibilities carried by the President of the United States. They are very heavy responsibilities. The President is the one whom the country will hold responsible if things go wrong. So I am very much concerned about the loss of flexibility, the loss of any ability to move to protect and forward the interests of the United States wherever they might be engaged anywhere in the world. So I would hope very much that the Congress would withhold its hand and not try to legislate in detail about the application of an aid program to a particular country.

Question. Mr. Secretary, on the larger view of the foreign aid situation, the Congress is in the process of tearing it to shreds; and this is only the authorization. The news is going to be a lot worse when you get to appropriations; this is quite clear.

Now how do you respond to this? You are getting a message, at least they say on the Hill, which tells you, the administration, the Congress is fed up with foreign aid, as it is now being operated.

What do you propose to do about it? hourly, contact with the Congress about this Answer. Well, we are in daily, sometimes matter. I must say that I don't understand the tendency to cut back on our foreign aid program as deeply as is now being discussed

in the Congress. The large and dangerous questions are still in front of us, whether it is Berlin, or Cuba, or Laos, or Vietnam, or whatever it may be.

There is no detente in the sense that there is a general easing of relations between the free world and the Communist world. There have been some limited and specific agreements, some of them have been important, such as the nuclear test ban treaty. There have been explorations of the possibilities of agreements on other subjects.

But this is no time to quit. There is too much unfinished business ahead of us. The United States has almost a million men outside of the continental limits of the United States, ashore and afloat. We must support those men. They are out to do a job for the free world. And I think they are entitled to have us support them by trying to get the job done without committing them to combat, if possible.

Now we spend gladly-we spend gladly about $50 billion a year in our defense budget. I don't see why we can't spend 10 percent of that, if necessary, to get the job done without war, if possible. So I am very much concerned about the general attitude that somehow we can relax, we can cut back on our foreign aid, we can become indifferent to what is happening in other parts of the world. The world is not in that shape at the present time, and effort is still crucial to getting the great job done on behalf of

freedom.

The press conference then turned to other subjects. That was all that was said in the press conference in respect to the foreign aid bill.

Although I disagree with some of the points of view of the Secretary, about which I shall comment momentarily, and although I disagree with the conclusions he has reached in connection with foreign aid, he expressed nothing at the press conference this morning that he has not expressed for some time. That has been his position right along, and I respect him for stating it. I do not feel that he "tore into Congress."

This great Secretary of State has a difference in point of view from those of us who do not believe the foreign aid bill will accomplish many of the desired purposes and who believe that the foreign aid bill proposes to continue waste, extravagance and inefficiency, and may promote corruption in some parts of the world.

We have known that this has been the point of view of the Secretary of State for some time. He presented his point of view at the press conference with great dignity, great sincerity, great dedication to his task as he sees his obligations.

Although I am, as the Secretary knows, in great disagreement with him in regard to the position of the State Department and the White House on certain phases of foreign policy, I have nothing but high respect for the Secretary of State's service and for the answers he gave to the press this morning in his typically objective and fair manner, though I disagree with the conclusions in some of his in some of his statements.

I shall express myself now on some of the disagreements. The Secretary of State has great responsibilities. He has obligations to the President. A multitude of problems confronts the United States in the field of foreign policy. The Secretary has a tendency to become a

little annoyed because his executive functions must be carried out within the framework of our constitutional checks. I have felt this in connection with his testimony; I have felt it in connection with his briefing before the Foreign Relations Committee; and I feel it in connection with the statement he made to the press this morning in his press conference.

It might be much easier for the executive branch of Government to proceed unchecked in the field of foreign policy if it did not have to deal with Congress. We are an annoying element, to be sure. It happens to be our duty to be annoying if we think the executive branch is following a policy that is not in the best interest of the country. We have the responsibility of viewing and reviewing policies of any executive, at any time, in connection with the question of whether or not there is a wise expenditure of the American taxpayers' dollars and an expenditure of the American taxpayers' dollars for purposes that can be justified.

At that point the Secretary of State has his greatest difficulty in adjusting to the American system of checks and balances, because there is a great tendency on the part of members of the executive branch of Government to take the position that it can have any foreign policy it desires, and that we should not annoy or restrict them or ask too many questions, at least in detail, and that we should not suggest that the public interest calls for the placing of restrictions upon foreign policy.

The interesting thing about the separation of powers doctrine is that the checking powers of Congress are limited, also. We cannot write foreign policy, in the sense that we cannot diplomatically negotiate. We cannot make treaties; we can only approve them. We cannot enter into executive agreements. But we can follow a good many checks, if executive agreements are entered into that we do not think are in the best interest of the public, by exercising our power over the purse. Executive agreements become empty agreements unless they can be implemented.

I feel, and have felt, that way; and my view has not been changed by the press conference of the Secretary this morning. He has merely set forth the differences between the Secretary and certain Members of Congress. He does not have a comprehension of what our duty is as Senators with respect to the granting of authority to implement a foreign policy function. It boils down to the fact that the administration has sent to Congress a bill for foreign aid and asks money for a great variety of purposes. We say, "We will take a look at your purposes. We are going to examine your purposes in detail and in depth, and we are not going to grant you the money unless we think your purposes are in the public interest."

That is the check. To say that the Congress of the United States has no authority in the field of foreign relations is quite unrealistic.

As the Senator from Alaska said earlier, great changes have taken place in

foreign policy, worldwide, in the last 20 years. Twenty years ago we were never in such a complex and complicated international situation as we are now in.

When billions of dollars of the American taxpayers' money are thrown around, I say, most respectfully, to those in Congress that they cannot escape their responsibility to evaluate foreign policy in respect to their duty to determine how much money to allow for the various foreign policy proposals.

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

Mr. MORSE. I yield.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Do I correctly understand that the Senator is stating that the Secretary of State has no respect for the principle of checks and balances?

Mr. MORSE. I have not said that at all. Quite to the contrary, I said that I do not think the Secretary of State shares the point of view of the Senator from Oregon as to how far the system of checks and balances goes in respect to congressional authority in the field of foreign policy.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. MORSE.

Certainly.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I thoroughly disagree with what the Senator says. I think this Secretary of State has been more than responsive to the views of the committee, certainly, and has been more than willing to come at any time to consult with the committee. When the Senate begins to bring into a foreign aid bill measures to regulate in an irrelevant field, such as the fishing industry, or the Israel security problems, and to legislate on specific problems, it is going quite beyond the normal responsibilities of a legislative body and is usurping the executive functions, rather than the reverse.

Mr. MORSE. I wish to reply, goodnaturedly and respectfully, that I do not know with whom the Senator from Arkansas disagrees. I doubt, if he reads the transcript of what I said, that he disagrees with the Senator from Oregon. If he does, that is all right with me. I only repeat my thesis that, in my judgment, in his press conference this morning the Secretary of State did not give the same weight to our system of checks and balances as does the Senator from Oregon in regard to the authority and duty of the Congress in respect to appropriation of money for the implementation of foreign policy proposals of any administration.

When the administration sends to Congress a foreign aid bill, asking for the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars, Congress has the duty of looking into how the money is to be spent in relation to foreign aid programs. The Secretary said:

Well, I must state that I am very much concerned about the tendency in the Congress to legislate foreign policy as it might apply to specific situations or specific countries. The legislative cycle moves a year at a time. The world moves very fast. It is not possible for the Congress to anticipate in advance what the circumstances are going to be in any given situation, so I am very much concerned about the tendency to

try to build into law attitudes in the use of our aid program, for example, with regard to particular countries

He must face the fact that we have the duty of seeing what kind of attitude the administration seeks to build in our relations with other countries. So when So when the Secretary says, "These are responsibilities carried by the President, I quite agree, but the President of the United States is not free to adopt any policy he desires, without any check, under the doctrine of separation of powers. If that were done, there would be a dictatorship. Our Constitutional Fathers were careful to see that there was not vested in a President of the United States dictatorial power. I know of no President, including President Kennedy, who would want to exercise such power, or any Secretary of State, including Secretary Rusk. But when the Secretary says the President is the one the country will hold responsible if things go wrong, I point out that he is one whom the people will hold responsible. But I say to Members of Congress that the people will not fail to hold them responsible for their mistakes.

Having entered this new era of foreign relations which the Senator from Alaska discussed earlier today, not one of us, in either the legislative branch or the executive branch, can escape being held responsible if the American foreign policy

goes wrong. We should not be allowed

to escape it, either.

The Secretary of State continued:

So, I am very much concerned about the loss of flexibility, the loss of any ability to move to protect and forward the interests of the United States wherever they might te engaged anywhere in the world. So I would hope very much that the Congress would withhold its hand and not try to legislate in detail about the application of an aid program to a particular country.

Note that the Secretary wants to have that put on the basis of leaving more flexibility. What does he mean by "flexibility"? If he means following a course of action which we are satisfied is not in the public interest, now is the time for us to put restrictions in the bill. That is what we have been doing. That is completely in keeping with our authority to check any administration with respect to the expenditure of funds for implementing any foreign policy with which we find ourselves in disagreement. The Secretary was asked the question:

Question. Mr. Secretary, on the larger view of the foreign aid situation, the Congress, is in the process of tearing it to shreds; and this is only the authorization. The news is going to be a lot worse when you get to appropriations; this is quite clear.

Now how do you respond to this? You

are getting a message, at least they say on the Hill, which tells you, the administration, the Congress is fed up with foreign aid, as it is now being operated.

What do you propose to do about it? Answer. Well, we are in daily, sometimes hourly, contact with the Congress about this

matter.

He certainly has. I do not know how we could have a more cooperative Secre

[blocks in formation]

I consider that a complete non sequitur. What has that to do with whether or not the Senate decides that it is in the best interets of this country to adopt the amendments that have been adopted, such as the Humphrey amendment? I helped the Senator from Minnesota to draft it. It was added to the Mansfield amendment, which was finally adopted. It was a good amendment. Obviously, the Secretary of State does not like it. He has respectfully and with dignity told us that, as he has a right to do.

That in no way should justify subjecting Congress to criticism, because we do not agree with the Secretary of State. The authority vests in Congress, and the duty vests in Congress-I wish to stress both the authority and the duty-to exercise our judgment as to the amount our Government should spend for these projects.

As I said earlier, I believe the Secretary of State would like it better if he were given a free hand. He has not been given it, and he should not be given it. The Secretary continued:

There is no detente in the sense that there is a general easing of relations between the free world and the Communist world. There have been some limited and specific agreements, some of them have been important, such as the nuclear test ban treaty. There have been explorations of the possibilities of agreements on other subjects.

But this is no time to quit.

That is an interesting implication. I do not believe that it is meant or intended in any literal sense that one should say it is subject to the interpretation say it is subject to the interpretation that we are proposing to quit foreign aid. The Secretary of State knows that. If we end with a foreign aid bill anywhere we end with a foreign aid bill anywhere above $3 billion, we shall have made a vast outlay for foreign aid. If we cut vast outlay for foreign aid. If we cut the cloth of the foreign aid program to a $3 billion piece, thereby eliminating a great many countries that ought to be eliminated from the foreign aid program, it will still be a huge amount.

Those countries fall into two main classifications-first, those that are able to support themselves. They should not receive funds. Second, there are countries in which we are spending money in a completely wasteful way. It would be impossible to spend enough money to be of any assistance to them. They are complete sinkholes. We shall never be able to fill up those sinkholes; and we must recognize that we cannot spend must recognize that we cannot spend enough foreign aid money to be of any material assistance in certain areas of the world in which we are now sinking the world in which we are now sinking a great amount of Federal money.

I know how things happen in press conferences. The use of the word "quit" conferences. The use of the word "quit" might cause some to seek to give the in

terpretation that the Secretary of State thinks we are quitting foreign aid. We are not quitting foreign aid. Congress is trying to strengthen foreign aid. We disagree on how best to strengthen it. However, we have a duty to the taxpayers of the country to see that the money is spent in a manner as to give them their money's worth, which they are not now getting. They deserve a foreign aid bill that will strengthen our spending in the world and not weaken it.

The Secretary continued:

There is too much unfinished business ahead of us. The United States has almost a million men outside of the continental limits of the United States, ashore and afloat. We must support those men.

Who says we do not want to? Who says that we are not? I say again, as I said earlier in the debate, that these are the men who are saving the areas of the world which are endangered, and not the military personnel of the indigenous populations of those areas of the world. If anyone thinks that the South Korean Army is saving South Korea, that is utter nonsense. South Korea is being saved by some 50,000 boys in uniform, whom we have stationed there, by the 7th Fleet, and by the availability of the U.S. Air Force. That is what is saving South Korea.

The statement of the Secretary of meaning that we must continue to give State will be interpreted by some as all the aid that we have been giving to South Korea, because if we do not do so, we will not support the American boys overseas. That does not follow. It is an illogical conclusion to draw.

The Secretary then states:

We must support those men. They are out to do a job for the free world. And I think they are entitled to have us support them by trying to get the job done without committing them to combat, if possible.

I say to the Secretary of State: "What has that to do with our wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign aid money?" The trouble is that my good friend the Secretary of State has been reluctant to face what is the unanswerable fact; namely, that if we are to have a strong foreign aid program, we must reform the program. Some of us have been telling him that for many months. Congress has suggested that there be some consultations to revamp the foreign aid bill. We have been taking that position for months. We have been saying the same thing that the committee says in the report. The only difference between those of us who oppose the bill and the majority of the committee is that the opponents think we ought to do it now. We think this is the time to do it. Of course, if the Secretary of State's statement is subject to the interpretation-I do not believe it would be a particularly fair interpretation, although he should amplify the statement-that he ought to have it as is, that does not offer much hope for implementing the committee's recommendation for the improvement of foreign aid. If we are to reform foreign aid, it must be done in

« ПретходнаНастави »