amendments. Apparently many have not read the amendments. If they will go through the pile of amendments, they will find that duplication will eliminate a good many of them. However, we shall offer a number of amendments that we feel are necessary to strengthen the bill. We shall offer them without any unanimous-consent agreement to limit the debate. The Senate is perfectly capable of working its will under the rules in any way it wishes to work its will, but it should never overlook the parliamentary rights of those of us who are opposed to the bill, if there is any attempt to deny us reasonable time for full debate on the amendments.

Returning to my comments about the President's speech of last Friday, if the only concern of the executive branch is that of getting the blame when things go wrong, let me point out that when the United States has a foreign aid program in which our people have confidence, the executive branch will get some of the credit for it, even if the changes are brought about by Congress alone, without help from our friends in the executive branch.

POSTWAR TREND TOWARD EXECUTIVE FREEDOM TO SPEND ABROAD

But the ultimate truth is that foreign aid is not one of the areas of foreign policy over which the Chief Executive and his deputies have exclusive jurisdiction. That was implied in the Secretary of State's news conference the other day. He could not be more wrong. Foreign aid requires authorization legislation by Congress. An authorization bill is a bill in which an administration asks for authority to spend money for the specific purposes set forth in the bill. It is not only the right but also the clear duty of Congress to review the purposes for which any administration asks for money. When Congress says, "We do not like this purpose, and we are not going to give you the authority to spend for that purpose," that is a congressional right. That is no interference with any authority of the President over foreign policy.

Our forefathers wisely established this system of checks. Our constitutional fathers made it perfectly clear in the Constitution that this was the authority and the duty of Congress. Contrary to the implications of the Secretary of State last Friday, the Constitution requires that "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law."

That means that Congress bears the primary responsibility for the sound or unsound expenditure of public funds, including foreign aid.

I say to the Secretary of State, "Copy that clause out of the Constitution. Put it on a plaque. Hang it on the wall in front of your desk, so that you can look at it all the time before you have your next news conference. Then admit to the news conference that you have learned it; or that, if you recalled it, you had only overlooked it at your news conference last Friday."

Mr. President, that constitutional provision has meaning. I am at a loss to

understand how, frequently in the Senate, debate proceeds without any reference to the constitutional foundations for proposals. As Senators, our approach to legislation should be constitutionally grounded. tutionally grounded. All that the opponents of the bill in its present form are saying is, "We do not propose to authorize the expenditure of money for some other purposes for which purposes for which the President is asking it in the bill; therefore, we propose to amend the bill-and we have been doing it." The amendments thus far adopted are in keeping with the constitutional authority of Congress. Nevertheless, some newspapers are accepting the same line that the President stood for in his speech of the President stood for in his speech of last Friday night. The opponents of that philosophy are those who, in my judgphilosophy are those who, in my judgment, are performing the best service for the President. We intend to hold firm to the constitutional right of Congress with respect to our authority in the with respect to our authority in the passage of a foreign aid bill.

Whenever it is intended to spend money in pursuit of an element of foreign policy, then Congress has been brought into the picture; the Executive who so proposes has gone beyond that exclusive authority over foreign policy which is inherently his. The basic authority and responsibility become those of Congress.

Suppose we had no foreign aid pro

Suppose Congress, acting well within its rights, terminated it altogether. No President could say that was an intrusion into his constitutional powers. What Congress has given, Congress can take away, or it can impose those restrictions and guidelines upon the administrators it chooses to impose.

After all, we had 150 years of this Republic without foreign aid, and I do Republic without foreign aid, and I do not recall any President complaining that its absence infringed upon his executive powers.

Certainly it is true that a large faction inside Government and in the press has come to equate foreign aid with foreign policy. Members who have served in policy. Members who have served in Congress since World War II have seen that concept develop. To a great extent it is our own fault, because we have acquiesced in it.

In 1945, I was a new Member of this body when the first postwar foreign aid measure was proposed. It was the proposal that we lend Great Britain $334 posal that we lend Great Britain $334 billion. The proposal came through the executive branch. But it was the responsibility of Congress to make the Congress to make the money available or not to make the money available.

We studied the facts. We reviewed Britain's economic condition. We looked at her needs, and we looked at what she was doing to help herself. It will be recalled that a Labor government had been elected. It was embarking on a series of economic belt-tightening measures that came to be called austerity.

Congress was satisfied that it would be a sound expenditure, and so the loan was made by joint resolution. It was not President Truman's loan; he could have vetoed it, but he could not have enacted it.

One of my problems with the executive branch during the last administration and during this administration has been my feeling that many agency directors seem to think that the executive branch ought to have legislative power delegated to it. They want legislation to be drafted in such a way that by their exercise of discretion, as unchecked as they can keep it, they will be able to make policy decisions that ought to be made by Congress.

That philosophy runs through the entire foreign aid program. It ought to be checked. I recently referred to what I considered to be a continuing misuse of the contingency fund by the Presidency. Many millions of dollars have been taken out of the contingency fund by Presidents for purposes that the American people would never approve of if they knew about it. For a long time Congress did not know about it. The contingency fund should be limited to a U.S. national emergency, not some monetary emergency in Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, or Iran, or anywhere else in the world. If the President wants to make money available to Argentina, to Brazil, or to Indonesia for budget support, he ought to come before Congress and ask for it. He should not dip into his contingent fund for money to give to them. That is why, before the debate is over, opponents to the bill will give the Senate an opportunity to vote for an amendment that will seek to put some limitations on the use of the contingency fund.

Interfere with the President's direction of foreign aid? That is not what would be changed. It would be another manifestation of the constitutional right of Congress to tell the President the purposes for which he may spend money and for which he may not spend money. That is the check that our constitutional fathers wisely gave to the three coequal, coordinated branches of government, which we call our system of representative government.

In the succeeding years since the British loan, we have seen the world move from a shooting war into a prolonged cold war. In the name of national security, Congress has delegated to the executive branch its duties and responsibilities in connection with the expenditure of funds, until Presidents and countless of their deputies have come to regard those expenditures as their inherent right.

There has come into public life a whole generation of men who emerged from World War II with the concept that anything done in the name of international affairs was the exclusive property of executive agencies. They have moved on through 18 years of cold war, only to become hardened in this assumption; and I fear that that assumption was shown by implication in the press conference, last Friday, of the Secretary of State.

Many of these people have believed it their right to roam the world high, wide, and handsome, spending the money of the U.S. Government as they went, never considering that there was any limitation whatever, or any consideration other than their own personal judgment of what was in the best interest of the

United States. Many of these people are in defense and intelligence agencies. But many more are in the State Department and the Agency for International Development. To them, the words "in consequence of appropriations made by law" are but a half-remembered anachronism. The free hand has been theirs so long that they do not realize that it was ever any other way, or that it was intended to be any other way.

GREEK-TURKISH AID

I have already recalled for Senators the British loan. I take them back also

to the Greek-Turkish aid program known as the Truman doctrine. It was recommended by President Truman in 1947 as an 18-month program, to be undertaken because Greece was threatened by internal communism and Turkey by the Russian threat aimed at the Dardenelles. This was just a year after the Soviet Union had virtually occupied a part of Iran and was evicted only by the firm stance of both the United States and the United Nations. But it appeared that Soviet expansionism might move next toward a centuries old objective of Russia a gateway from the Black Sea to the sia-a Mediterranean.

So President Truman made the proposal. I was perhaps the first in Congress to declare my support. At least, the record will show that I was the first Member of the Senate to do so. And I do not doubt that Harry Truman will be remembered by history for the program that we believe saved Turkey and Greece from aggression. No doubt Harry Truman will have the credit, for the program bore his name; and I think he should have the credit.

But what of the intervening years? What of the Turkish aid program, about which I have said much this year, that has no relationship to the Truman doctrine? Who is responsible for an aid program to Turkey that has endured, not for 18 months, but for 16 years, that has seen us pour into that one country $300 million every year for the last 10 years? Much has been said on this floor against supporting Socialist economies with U.S. dollars. But we have done that very thing in Turkey year in and year out. The wastefulness and inefficiency of socialized enterprises were never more evident than in Turkey, and we have to a large extent made it possible with our aid funds.

Whose responsibility is it that our $3 billion has been so wastefully spent that last spring a European-American economic development committee reported that Turkey is no better off now than it was 10 years ago.

If the President thinks AID is working such economic wonders, let him answer the report made last spring, in regard to Turkey, by the European-American Development Committee. Is anyone going to say it is the fault of Harry Truman, or Dwight Eisenhower, or of the half dozen Secretaries of State, or of the numberless aid administrators who have come and gone in those years?

No. To be frank, it is the fault of Congress. Congress started the program, but failed to exercise sufficient control over it.

These days, we hear much about the necessity for reforms in Congress; and surely they are needed. One great need is for the development of staffs, commitis for the development of staffs, committee by committee, sufficient in size and in expertness to to enable us to follow through on the use made of the funds we vote. the funds we vote. We are very derelict about that matter. One of the great reforms needed is for Congress in keeping with our authority, given us by the constitutional fathers, to check on the executive branch of the Government-to implement that check by the adoption of committee budgets and committee staff budgets sufficient in size so that the executive agencies will know that at all times we keep a watchdog eye over them in connection with the expenditure of the funds Congress votes. If we had done that a long time ago, there would have been some changes in the Turkish aid program.

People report to me the common view of the Turkish people that the Menderes government of Turkey was overthrown in 1960 because of the American aid program, which was so loosely administered by the Americans and forced so much by the Americans and forced so much money upon Turkish officials that corruption could not help but flourish. Is ruption could not help but flourish. Is anyone going to hold President Eisenhower responsible for that, and blame him for the coup that occurred in 1960? Of course not; and no one should do so. To the extent that the U.S. aid program was involved, it it was the fault of Congress.

ALLIANCE FOR PROGRESS

I refer Senators to the Alliance for Progress. In 1961, an expert in Latin Progress. In 1961, an expert in Latin American affairs wrote in the Foreign Service Journal that the Alliance for Service Journal that the Alliance for Progress is one of the few international programs that has been originated by Congress. The writer mentioned the reports made by Senator AIKEN, of Vermont, and by me after our respective trips to South America and Central America in 1959. in 1959. It was out of those reports, which were supplements to the special studies by the Latin American Affairs Subcommittee, that the Alliance for Progress was born. The then Senator from Massachusetts, now the President of the United States, was a member of that subcommittee. It was given its name by administrators, but it was originated by Congress. Yet there are men downtown, now working in the Alliance program, who regard it as their own private property, and consider any change in their estimates of cost or any guidelines added by Congress as unwarranted interference in their domain.

I have pending three amendments that vitally affect the Alliance.

tended to make it a more effective means of thwarting Communist inroads in Latin of thwarting Communist inroads in Latin America. All impose guidelines upon administrators in the expenditure of money.

Without a doubt, all will be opposed in position papers from the State Dein position papers from the State Department as instrusions upon executive prerogatives and as alleged interferences with the renowned flexibility which every employee of a Federal agency insists he employee of a Federal agency insists he must have.

Their purpose is to make the Alliance more effective by curtailing aid to the

military factions which has encouraged resistance to the objectives of the Alliance, and to close loopholes through which countries obtain funds from us without going through the procedures of the Alliance.

The President has expressed to me concern that my so-called juntas amendment would interfere with his right to extend diplomatic recognition to a given government. I explained to him that he was quite wrong in his assumption. But it is interesting to see how close has become the connection between the extending of recognition and the extending of foreign aid. To a great many people downtown, the two have become synonymous. We know that Congress could not, even if it wanted to, tie the hands of the President in the matter of recognition of a foreign government, and I would not think of attempting to do so. Even if that were in my amendment, it would have no effect upon the Chief Executive. I will fight as hard to protect the the rights of the Presidency under separation-of-powers doctrine as I will to preserve the congressional rights and to insist that they be respected by the Secretary of State and others in the executive agency and be preserved. The amendments we are offering to the foreign aid bill seek to carry out the checking authority of Congress in connection with its authorizations of the expenditure of funds for specific purposes requested by the administration.

Therefore, my amendment dealing with juntas would not cover the constitutional right of the President to recognize governments; it only seeks to restrict his power to spend money on military juntas. It would be meaningless verbiage, because that area is outside the jurisdiction of Congress and what we may say about it, even in legislation, cannot carry the force of law.

Congress might pass all the legislation we desired about recognizing a government. However, the President has the constitutional right to recognize a government if he thinks it should be recog

nized.

ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY RESTS WITH CONGRESS

But when it comes to the spending of money, that can only be done in pursuance of law. It becomes the responsibility of Congress. I remind Members, and the administrators in the agencies downtown that are engaged in international affairs, that the Alliance for Progress is a long-term program. It will still be going on after this adminstration has come and gone, and after countless AID officials have gone on to other pursuits.

If, after 10 years, and the expenditure of what will probably amount to more than $10 billion, the Alliance is a failure, that is going to be the responsibility of Congress. To the degree that it is a success or a failure, it will be so because Congress either succeeded or failed in laying down the proper conditions for its management.

If the Secretary of State is so worried that the President receive the blame if things go wrong, I remind him that the current President will no longer be in office when the results come in on the

Alliance for Progress. More than likely, his successor will also have left office.

Foreign aid is no longer a policy tool used by a given executive for a given objective in a given country. It has become a vast machinery of the executive branch, which one President inherits from his predecessor and which he seems determined to pass on to his successor in a bigger form than when he took over. It almost takes on the characteristics of passing on the baton in a relay race. It has come to serve as a source of jobs, perhaps more than any other agency of Government.

After the 5 years of the Truman administration, 8 years of the Eisenhower administration, and 2 years of the Kennedy administration, foreign aid has become "locked in" the executive branch, almost as though it were part of the Armed Forces. Through those three administrations, there has been less use of aid as a tool of foreign policy, and more use of it as one more program which the executive branch has the right to run as it pleases as it does the foreign policy and defense agencies.

If there is to be a consistent purpose and specific objective to foreign aid, it is going to have to be supplied by Congress. The people know that. The people of Oregon know that it is WAYNE MORSE and MAURINE NEUBERGER and four Oregon men and women in the other body, who have been responsible for the continuation of an endless and almost shapeless foreign aid program.

They know that the Constitution gives to us the responsibility for Federal expenditures. They know that the Constitution did not set up the Senate just so 100 men and women could go down to the White House and have their pictures

taken with the President.

In the years that I have served in Congress, I have helped initiate the British loan, the Marshall plan, Greek-Turkish aid, and the Alliance for Progress, in addition to foreign aid as such. But I cannot now turn over the responsibility for all those programs to men downtown, many of who were graduating from college, or even high school, when the programs were begun.

I am worried about how some of these programs are going. Some of them are not accomplishing what they were supposed to accomplish. Most important, it appears that the general foreign aid program has become self-perpetuating. The people who hold the thousands of jobs administering it intend that it be self-perpetuating. That is why I say that unless Congress takes a firm hand, there will never be any genuine revision of the foreign aid program.

PRESIDENT'S SPEECH

President Kennedy's speech of Friday night demonstrates how self-perpetuating foreign aid has become. It was couched in the generalities and homilies that have been used to justify foreign aid ever since 1945. His speech could have been made by any of the last three Presidents, and if things continue without change, Members of Congress will be hearing the same speech from the next three Presidents.

The obvious question raised by his speech is: Why is it that if all the progress cited has been made, this administration still came in with an original foreign aid request of nearly $5 billion, the largest since the peak of the Marshall plan? The answer is that the reasons advanced for it by the President account for only a very small fraction of the foreign aid program.

Every advocate of foreign aid likes to talk about malaria eradication. Malaria and other diseases are emphasized in foreign aid debates until one would think that we are spending $3 to $4 billion every year for it. Education is another favorite talking point. But foreign aid expenditures for health and education are only a drop in the bucket of this foreign aid bill.

The President's speech deals, too, with the well-known gulf between the rich nations and the poor nations, a gulf that was strikingly brought home to Americans at the close of World War II. But what has foreign aid done to bridge the gulf, and indeed-and that is even more important-what can foreign aid do to bridge the gulf? Those are the questions that every foreign aid advocate ignores and which must be answered by Con

gress.

We know that our huge outpouring of money into Turkey over the longest period of any foreign aid program has had virtually no appreciable economic results. The gulf in Turkey has not been bridged by the more than $3 billion we have poured in.

South Korea is another example. is another example. That nation has cost the United States $52 billion, in addition to the tens of thousands of troops of our own we have kept there. Yet in 1963 we are told that the economy of North Korea is doing better than South Korea. If the infusion of American capital on that scale has so little result in a small country, what can be said for the chances of bridging the worldwide gulf between rich and poor with American money? To those who say that South Korea is an exception because she exists under the gun of Communist China, I point out that we have provided our own military forces for her defense.

The argument that it is cheaper to keep a South Korean, a Pakistani, a Turk, or a soldier from some other country in uniform and pay for his maintenance than it is to keep an American boy in uniform is one of the greatest "sleeper" arguments being used for years by the advocates of foreign aid. seems to be plausible, it is catching, but it is unsound.

It

I will tell Senators what protects South Korea.

It is not the large numbers of South Korean soldiers whose upkeep we pay, but the more than 50,000 American boys in uniform whom we keep in South Korea; the 7th Fleet in Pacific waters; the American air armada. These forces protect South Korea.

The President's argument Friday night with regard to aid, is in my judgment, thoroughly unsound. That is why I am taking the time to reply to his speech,

because I wish to dissociate myself from it.

Latin America is still another example. When I went down to the inauguration of a new President of Peru last spring, a primary issue was whether American aid would begin to flow. Much of the development plans of the new Peruvian administration hinged on the availability of American aid. Those of us representing the United States were too polite to ask what Peru had done with the $500 million we had already extended.

My point is simply that American capital cannot bridge the gulf between rich and poor. There is not enough wealth in the United States to bridge the great gulf between the rich and the poor. It makes fine rhetoric for the President to talk about bridging the gulf between the rich and the poor, but it must be pointed out that those countries, where the poor exist by the millions, must help themselves. We can only be of assistance, but we can be of some assistance. We can help them with technology, with training, and with loans for some projects; but the President of the United States knows we do not have the wealth with which to bridge the great chasms that now exist between the rich and the poor in the underdeveloped areas of the world.

Hence we must continue to insist that

they help themselves. We will join with them as partners in that program.

After we read the newspapers this morning, it is somewhat hard to reconcile the position of Brazil in São Paulo with the President's speech. Brazil, according to press reports this morning, does not know whether it should apply for aid at all.

One thing is perfectly obvious. Brazil does not want to submit to any effective checks that would protect the American taxpayer in respect to aid. Brazil has done fairly well in getting money out of the President's contingency fund, to the tune of a good many millions of dollars, to shore up her monetary policy. But Brazil has promised and promised that if we will only pour in a few more million dollars to stabilize her economy, Brazil will do something for herself. She has not kept her promise. Brazil's promises on the record have not been worth the paper they were written on. It is about time we provided some checks on the expenditure of the American taxpayers' money in Brazil.

That is why I shall continue to fight for some amendments dealing with aid

to Latin America.

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

Mr. MORSE. I am glad to yield. Mr. LAUSCHE. The Senator from Oregon has mentioned our relationship with Brazil. Five years ago their President came to our country. A luncheon was given in his honor by the Foreign Relations Committee. There was discussion concerning the constantly disintegrating status of their cruzeiro.

I said to the President of Brazil; "You are suffering from a very marked depreciation of your cruzeiro."

The President replied, "No; it is not so bad."

I said, "It fell 50 percent last year."

He sort of shook, and asked his economic adviser about my statement. The economic adviser said, "It was only 25 percent."

I then asked the President, "Do you have any bonded indebtedness to your own citizens, as distinguished from your indebtedness to the United States and other nations of the world?"

The President replied, "We have none." I asked "How do you finance Brasilia and the other things?"

His answer was that they print money. Yet at the same time they were seeking aid from the International Monetary Fund to stabilize their currency, and aid was given to them. The International Monetary Fund has a rule that, as a prerequisite to the right to obtain aid, a country must put into effect and commit itself to execute programs that will stabilize its currency.

I fully concur with what the Senator from Oregon has said. I note that on two occasions they made promises, and never kept them. Today, Brazil has an indebtedness to its own people I believe it is 20 million-but the indebtedness by way of cruzeiros to the nations of the world runs into trillions. It is unbelievable.

I thank the Senator from Oregon for yielding to me.

Mr. MORSE. If the Senator from Ohio will "lend me his ears," I should like to take a moment, in view of his intervention, to let the RECORD show the position that the Senator from Ohio has taken time and time again on this economic issue, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. The voice of the Senator from Ohio has been raised in our deliberations and raised in the public hearings, too, but I am speaking about executive meetings. The public hearings of the Foreign Relations Committee are made public but not its executive meetings.

The voice of the Senator from Ohio has often been raised as he has pleaded with the committee to adopt some checks to protect the American dollar against the inflationary policies of countries like Brazil. We have the same problem with Argentina, as well.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Yes. Mr. MORSE. Those are not the only two countries, but they are probably the two most notorious.

the borrowing nation or in dollars, the specific type to be determined by the borrower.

So we loaned money to one nation American dollars which at that time, 8 years ago, had an exchange value of 350 to 1. For $1 we would receive 350 pieces of paper of the other government. The depreciated value is 800 to 1. Yet they are paying off the debt which they owe us not on the basis of 350 to 1, but on the basis of 800 to 1. It is unbelievable that such loose practices could have been followed.

Mr. MORSE. I do not think I violate any confidence when I say the Senator from Ohio discussed our policies toward Italy.

Mr. LAUSCHE. And toward Brazil. Mr. MORSE. And toward Brazil, too. The Senator cross-examined the spokesman for the administration with respect to Italy, and I think the cross-examination was devastating.

I wish to make it very clear that my point on this phase of the issue is that American capital cannot bridge the gulf between the rich and the poor in the underdeveloped areas.

Commenting on what the Senator from Ohio just said, one of the reasons we do not have a self-help program, and one of the reasons why there are not outstanding bonds of some governments owned by the people, which constitute a relationship of faith between the government and the people, is that the wealthy of those countries export their money and put it in New York and Swiss banks.

I say most respectfully to my President, "You cannot justify sending millions of dollars into Latin America until the oligarchs of Latin America are willing to invest their money in Latin America, and not put it in New York and Swiss banks."

Unless they have a self-help program, unless they have faith in their own country, why should we vote to pour millions of dollars into underdeveloped countries because the gulf between the rich and the poor is so great, as pointed out by the President of the United States in New York City last Friday night? What makes him think that pouring millions of American dollars into Latin America would bridge the gulf? The sad economic reality is that too frequently pouring American aid money into such underdeveloped countries makes the oligarchs richer and the poor poorer, and the oligarchs export the profits that they make out of American foreign aid investments.

It is an ugly fact. I know just how ugly that fact is. But it is true. It is about time that the President of the United States faced it. The American people are coming to know it is true, and

Mr. MORSE. I am glad to yield. Mr. LAUSCHE. Last Friday night I made mention of the fact that until 2 years ago, when lending American dollars, in the agreement to repay we allowed the stipulation that repayment could be made either in the currency of

written into the foreign aid bill whereby we say to the oligarchs of Brazil, the Argentine, and other Latin American countries, "Do not forget that the Act of Bogotá and the Act of Punta del Este contain a pledge by your governments that you would participate in a cooperative self-help program with the United

States in return for our cooperation for such aid as the Alliance for Progress offers."

That is the arrangement. To me, it is an offer of an international contract. One Latin American country after another has not lived up to the contractual offerings made when it put its signature to the Act of Bogotá. Only eight Latin American countries have come forward to date with a plan to implement the Alliance for Progress program. But do not jump to the conclusion that those eight plans are necessarily good, for most of them need great improvement if they are to keep their commitments.

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

Mr. MORSE. I yield.

Mr. GRUENING. I wonder whether the distinguished senior Senator from Oregon noticed the front page story in the New York Times this morning headed, "Brazil Questions Alliance's Value to Latin Economy."

Mr. MORSE. I have already commented on it, but I should be delighted to have one of the most knowledgeable men on Latin American affairs, the Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING), comment on it.

Mr. GRUENING. The statement of President Goulart seems to me to show a great lack of appreciation of the effort the United States has made to help Brazil. Here is a country into which we have poured a great amount of money, which has repeatedly failed to live up to its promises of fiscal reform. We have poured money into it in the form of budget support, to bail it out of its financial difficulties-unknown to most of the American people. Now the President of that country makes a speech attacking the Alliance for Progress and never even mentions the United States. It is not wholly surprising-we have provided the kind of situation in which that would follow. We have gone into many countries almost insisting that they take our money. We have seldom if ever taken the proper and sound position, which is to say, "We would like to help you. We do not ask you to take our money, but if you do we expect you to adopt a few reforms which will make that aid effective. We expect you to adopt an austerity program, and stop inflation, waste, and corruption." We have never taken that position or if we have stated it, we have never insisted upon its fulfillment. We have taken the position that we must thrust the money on them, regardless of whether they agree to the quid pro quo. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Last year I urged that we stop giving aid to both Brazil and Argentina. There is no stability in either. Much has been made recently of the fact that there has been an election in the Argentina. It was an election dictated by the military who deposed the previous President and permitted the new one to be elected. I thought we should at least wait a year to see whether the new Argentina was democratically inclined, responsible, stable, and whether it was going to carry out the declared objectives of the Alianza

para Progreso as subscribed to at the Punta del Este conference and repeatedly enunciated by President Kennedy.

I wonder if the Senator from Oregon also saw the column by Mr. Arthur Krock in this morning's New York Times. Mr. MORSE. No; I did not see it. Mr. GRUENING. It is very pertinent. I should like to read from it, because it displays a real understanding of the fact that those of us who are critical of the bill before us are trying to improve the foreign aid program. We are not trying to wreck foreign aid; on the contrary we are trying to save foreign aid by making it efficient, by making it a program which carries out the purposes enunciated by President Kennedy at various times.

This is what Mr. Krock says:

The Secretary of State, who is a man mild of manner and speech but-as they say in his native State of Georgia-"sot in his ways," last week supplied one of the two reasons for Congress' sharp reduction in the foreign aid budget when he said he doesn't "understand it."

sion is referred to as crippling amendment. The amendment should never have been made necessary. The State Department and the AID administration should long since have acted.

I notice that in the President's address on foreign aid before the Protestant Council in New York last Friday night, he quite properly deplored wars that were going on in various parts of the world, and he listed them as "disputes between Africans and Europeans in Angola, between North African neighbors in the Maghreb, between two Arab States over Yemen, between India and Pakistan, between Indonesia and Malaysia, Cambodia and Vietnam, Ethiopia and Somalia," and he added that there was "a long list of others."

The article continues:

the self-named liberals

I do not think they are self-namedwho are leading the fight for the budget cuts the Secretary could readily discover the first reason. It is, that the Executive proposes to give President Nasser of Egypt the aid which pays for the military force he is using to back his refusal to withdraw his troops from Yemen; and to continue to pro

vide aid to President Sukarno of Indonesia, who has sworn to destroy the new state of Malaysia, and to Brazil, where President Goulart is dissipating the aid by failing to control inflation. The second reason is that the only effective means Congress has to show disapproval of Executive policies it disapproves is through the appropriating powers that the Constitution reserves exclusively to Congress, foreign policy not excluded.

That is the very point the Senator from Oregon has made on the floor of the Senate again and again, and which I have also made that since the beginning of our foreign aid some 18 years ago, with the Marshall plan, an entirely new aspect has entered the conduct of foreign policy. Up to that time use of large sums of money as an instrument of foreign policy was unknown. The function of the Senate up to that time was merely to advise and consent to treaties and to confirm Presidential appointments in the Foreign Service. That was all.

When the United States started pouring in tens of millions and then hundreds of millions, and then billions of dollars into foreign aid, it became the duty of the Senate-and indeed of the House-to be vigilant with respect to how these moneys were spent. Why is great surprise now expressed and criticism voiced when Senators wish to stop an inexcusable subsidizing of aggression, which we have done in the case of Sukarno, who started with threats and mobilization in regard to New Guinea-when we yielded, I thought unjustifiably—and now threatens to overthrow the new Republic of Malaysia? In a column printed this morning, written by Warren Unna, action to stop the subsidization of aggres

Having made a careful study of this situation when I was in the Middle East, I learned that Nasser was ready almost simultaneously with the revolt of one regime against the other in Yemen to send an army there of 28,000 men, sent them in Russian planes, and has kept them time the Saudi Arabians helped the rethere ever since. It is true that for a gime that Nasser gime that Nasser was fighting with money, but that is scarcely comparable as an act of aggression. The revolt in Yemen would never Yemen would never have succeeded without the Nasser invasion and would collapse the minute his troops were withdrawn.

Similarly, I would not consider that saying there was a war between Indonesia and Malaysia would tell the whole story, since Malaysia was a peaceably newborn nation with no designs on any other nation and was threatened both before its birth and immediately after with invasion by Sukarno.

It is these acts of aggression, not acted upon effectively by the State Department, that led inevitably to action by the Senate, and I am confident that our action in this matter is completely justifiable.

The way for these rulers to reestablish themselves is to cease their aggressionfor Nasser, for instance, to pull all his troops out of Yemen, to stop the military buildup which is clearly designed to commit aggression against his neighbors, Israel and Jordan, to pull his troops out of Algeria, where he is fighting with the Algerians against Morocco, and to cease his inflammatory broadcasts which preach assassination of officials of neighboring countries. Nasser has kept his troops in Yemen for 15 months at a cost of about $185 million. While he has been spending $185 million on war, we have been pouring in $185 million and more through Public Law 480 and other aid designed to raise the economy of the Egyptian people.

In short, the Senate has finally moved to stop the aid if the President finds there

is aggression-and it is difficult to see how he can fail to find it. In the cases of the rulers of Indonesia and Egypt there have been both the declarations of aggressive purpose and the acts of aggression. It was expected that Nasser would pull his troops out of Yemen as soon as Saudi Arabia ceased helping the Imam with money. Nasser had promised to do so, but did not keep his promise. Helping with money, moreover, is not comparable to helping with troops and planes. Sending money does not make a war. Sending in troops and planes which kill is making war.

In the case of Brazil, we have another type of failure to carry out promises. And we hear President Goulart, who has been taking our generous assistance, questioning the value of the Alliance for Progress.

I hope we shall have the wisdom and the sense of propriety to reply, "We have tried to help you. We have given your country $22 billion. What is there to show for it? Why have you done nothing to stop inflation? What other steps have you taken to justify our continuing aid?" Unfortunately, there have been none.

The same thing is approximately true with respect to Argentina. I am not prepared to pass on the merits of the oil pact, but it seems that when we are trying to encourage private investment, which would certainly be helpful to the government down there, and when we find that nation trying to confiscate that investment, we ought to go slow about pouring any more money into that country without some certainty as to what its policies will be. The news reports indicate that Secretary Harriman's pleas on the subject were rebuffed.

There was a good deal of indignation when the Kuchel-Engle amendment was adopted. The Kuchel-Engle amendment provided that if the Governments of Ecuador and Peru insist on grabbing our vessels in international waters, arresting their crews, taking them to the mainland, putting them in jail, and fining them heavily, we would withhold foreign

aid from these countries.

The opposition said that this should be done by negotiation. In the RECORD was included a letter from the Under Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Mr. James Carr, who reported that negotiations had been continuing, without any result and suggested some other course of action might be desirable. How long must we be supine, and be a doormat for those governments that refuse to settle by negotiation?

The fact that the amendment was adopted-although I know that in conference every effort will be made to take it out of the bill-will I am convinced hasten negotiations and bring a better result. When a nation engages in acts of violence against our citizens, and at the same time is the recipient of our aid to the extent of millions of dollars through our foreign assistance programs, it is unthinkable that we should continue to tolerate such a condition.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article by Arthur Krock, appearing in this morning's New York Times, and the article referring to Bra