The second school consists of those who say we are not engaged in war, that Red Russia has become mellowed and callowed, and that it wants to live with us. Therefore they urge that we give help to them in various forms.

I

I do not belong to the latter school. am of the belief that when we give aid to an enemy, whatever the source may be, we perpetuate the wrong and make possible, in the long run, an aggravation of it.

From the standpoint of American youth, by giving aid to the enemy we may cause the loss of many more lives in the future than would take place if we had brought to an end those governments that are hostile to our concept of what goodness is in the world.

I now yield to the Senator from New York.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I shall answer briefly. The United Nations does supply such aid under its charter. This is similar to a proposal I have made, with the aid of the American Cyanamid Co., Pan-American Airways, and the Lily-Tulip Cup Co. All of these programs are in operation, but none of them is of the nature of the two programs referred to.

As the Senator from Ohio has mentioned, there are two schools of thought on this question. I am of the opinion that it is a war, but it is a war that can be fought not merely with blunt weapons, but with armies of which these two programs are important in terms of being able to win the war without dropping an atom bomb.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, in 21⁄2 years the Peace Corps has demonstrated the value of sending highly qualified, well-trained Americans to serve in other countries as volunteers. In recent weeks these Peace Corps volunteers have received several distinguished awards for their work. These awards were made, Mr. President, by the people of the foreign countries. Eleven countries in Asia, for example, presented the Ramon Magsaysay Award to the 1,400 volunteers serving there. This award has sometimes been called Asia's Nobel Prize. The volunteers were the first group of nonAsians to receive it.

The point I want to make, Mr. President, is that Peace Corps volunteers are working with people. I do not thinkand I do not believe the Senate intendsthat these volunteers should be affected by section 620(e) of the bill we are now considering. Also, the Peace Corps should not be understood as included in the Gruening amendment No. 231. In this respect the situation is quite different from AID, Public Law 480, the Export-Import Bank, or any other program where we are primarily dealing with commodities. The Peace Corps is dealing with people, not things. And ..people can accomplish objectives that things cannot. This is why I do not believe it is in the best interest of the United States to remove the Peace Corps from any country except under the most

extreme circumstances. It should be extreme circumstances. It should be made clear, therefore, that the committee amendment to section 620 (e) of this act does not apply to the Peace Corps and the Gruening amendment.

Mr. BURDICK. Mr. President, the Secretary of State has said:

The Peace Corps is not an instrument of foreign policy because to make it SO would rob it of its contribution to ** The Peace Corps is an foreign policy * opportunity for the nations of the world to learn what America is all about. This is one of the most important things our country can do in the world today. Outside of the shadows and struggles of the cold war, outside of the military rivalries which heighten dangers all over the world, outside of the constant sense of national advantage which pervades diplomacy, if the Peace Corps can let other peoples find out what this country is all about, we shall be surprised to discover how many allies America has all over the world.

I do not know how more eloquently could be expressed the purpose of the Peace Corps and the hopes of those of Peace Corps and the hopes of those of us who sponsored it.

These purposes do not encompass assistance and foreign aid as we have come to think of them and as we are discussing them today. They go far beyond and above, if indeed they could be called assistance at all.

I am happy to join my colleagues to make clear that the Senate does not regard the language of the pending bill, gard the language of the pending bill, which refers to "assistance under any other act," as applying to the Peace Corps. To apply it to Peace Corps volunteers would inevitably tend to make the Peace Corps an instrument of foreign policy. This, as Secretary Rusk has said, "would rob it of its contribution to foreign policy."

Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about section 620 (e) and the amendment offered by the Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING], amendment No. 231, which would apply to page 51 of the bill. I do not think we should start setting a precedent under which the Peace Corps would be pulled out or sent into foreign countries on the basis of every friendly or unfriendly action taken by the governments of these countries. The Peace Corps is a people-to-people program. It can operate in the effective interest of the United ate in the effective interest of the United States in a country where that government may be doing certain things of which our Government quite properly which our Government quite properly disapproves.

I think the point has already been demonstrated in the case of Peru. As Senators will recall, in June 1962 a military junta refused to allow the constitary junta refused to allow the constitutionally elected President to take office and instead took over the Government and instead took over the Government itself.

There followed a crisis in our relations with Peru. But during the year relations with Peru. But during the year in which the junta held power, over 200 Peace Corps volunteers entered into service in Peru and put into operation what has become one of the most effective Peace Corps programs in the world. These Americans were not identified by the Peruvian people with the government in power nor was their presence considered by the Peruvian people to reflect U.S. support for or sympathy with that

government. That is amply demonstrated by the several awards which have been presented to the Peace Corps in Peru by the Peruvian people this past

summer.

I think the case of Peru demonstrates that the success of the Peace Corps has in great part been due to the fact that. its influence works outside the ordinary channels of politics and diplomacy. If we extend section 620 (e) to include the Peace Corps, we may be forced to remove that influence when we need it most. I cannot believe we want to do that.

It is my hope that the proposed legislation will make it clear that that section does not extend to the Peace Corps.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I understand that the bill would amend the Foreign Assistance Act in a way which might require suspension not only of aid, as the act now requires, but of Peace Corps programs in countries which have expropriated American property.

I understand why aid should not be given to a country which takes American property without compensation. But I fail to see that it is also in the U.S. interest to suspend a humanitarian, people-to-people program like the Peace Corps.

The Peace Corps has been tremendously successful in getting down to the grassroots. The volunteers are promoting mutual understanding and a sense of identity of purpose and spirit between the American people and the peoples of the underdeveloped world. These achievements do not constitute aid or assistance programs as we are discussing them in regard to this amendment.

I know my sentiments are shared by many of my colleagues.

I doubt that an amendment to the committee amendment is necessary to make clear that the Senate does not regard assistance under any other act as it is used in the bill as covering the Peace Corps.

Mr. YARBOROUGH.

Mr. President,

I would like to join in what my colleagues have stated with respect to the Peace Corps and the cutting off of foreign aid when American property has been expropriated.

Peace Corps volunteers are hard at work in 46 countries today. They are helping people, not governments. For the Peace Corps is a humanitarian operation. This effort has redounded greatly to the benefit of the United States in many ways, but let us not lose sight of the humanitarian principles that underlie it: Service and sacrifice. The Peace Corps is not giving away goods or dollars; they are giving something far more valuable: Their lives, their spirit, their humanitarianism, their great good will, and their high hopes for humanity. They give themselves, not the taxpayers' dollars.

In this light the Peace Corps is quite different from foreign aid or assistance, and should not be considered as covered by section 620 (e) or any other section of this act that provides for the suspension of aid to a foreign country.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, when Congress authorized the Peace Corps it set forth three purposes for it: First, to

help the peoples of developing countries meet their needs for trained manpower; second, to help promote a better understanding of the American people on the

part of the peoples served; and third, to help promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of the American people.

I point out the repeated emphasis in those purposes that is placed on the word "people." The Peace Corps was created as a people-to-people program. Two of its three purposes relate to understanding, not assistance as we usually think of it. I believe Congress intends for the Peace Corps to adhere to the original conception of it and not be turned into a political weapon to be used for or against foreign governments. Any such use of the Peace Corps would impair if not destroy the effectiveness of the fine organization which Congress helped to create.

I consider it important, therefore, that section 620 (e) of the Foreign Assistance Act be not construed to cover the Peace Corps. I am certain that the majority of the members of the Foreign Relations Committee did not intend for this amendment to embrace the Peace Corps. Certainly there was no discussion of this possibility in committee hearings or markup, and when I voted for the amendment, I did not, as I understand most of the members did not, consider that the Peace Corps was at all involved in its scope. I would like for the RECORD to show that our intention in passing this amendment did not involve the Peace Corps.

the

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will support the amendment. I would be prepared to take it, but the yeas and nays have been ordered on the amendment.

The

The PRESIDING OFFICER. question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY] for himself and the Senators from New York York [Mr. KEATING and Mr. JAVITS] to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. MCCARTHY], the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], and the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS] are absent on official business.

I also announce that the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE] is absent because of illness.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. MCCARTHY], the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], and the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE] would each vote "yea."

On this vote, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. BYRD] is paired with the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS].

If present and voting, the Senator from

West Virginia would vote "yea" and the Senator from Mississippi would vote "nay."

Mr. DIRKSEN. I announce that the

PROGRAM FOR REMAINDER OF

TODAY AND FOR TOMORROW Mr. DIRKSEN. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I should like to ask the distinguished ma

The Senator from California [Mr. KUCHEL] is detained on official business.

On this vote, the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER] is paired with the Sen

ator from California [Mr. KUCHEL].

If present and voting, the Senator from Arizona would vote "nay" and the Senator from California would vote "yea." The result was announced-yeas 75, nays 16, as follows:

So Mr. HUMPHREY'S amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.

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

Mr. HUMPHREY. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

remainder of the day and also for tomorrow.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, it is hoped that with amendments and votes coming as they are, the Senate will be able to remain in session until approxmatter for the Senate to decide. The imately 10 o'clock tonight. This is a combined leadership hopes that amendments will continue to be offered and that votes will be taken. Unless some Senator desires to make an extraordinarily long speech, that will be the procedure for the remainder of the day.

ORDER FOR RECESS UNTIL NOON TOMORROW

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the business for today has been concluded, the Senate take a recess until 12 o'clock noon tomorrow.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. A similar procedure will be followed tomorrow.

CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS AS IMPORTANT AS CHOICE OF PRESIDENT

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, the State Labor News, published at 85 East Gay Street, Columbus, Ohio, contains a paragraph in its issue of October 19, 1963, under the heading "Congressional Elections as Important as Choice of President." The issue is well and succinctly put. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS AS IMPORTANT AS CHOICE OF PRESIDENT

Under our system of government, the election of a President always receives vastly more publicity than the election of a Congress.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated for the information of the Senate.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. At the end of the bill it is proposed to add the following:

PART V-MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 501. It is the sense of the Congress that any agreement hereafter entered into between the Government of the United States and the Government of Czechoslovakia relating to the settlement of claims, deter

mined by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, by nationals of the United States against the Government of Czechoslovakia for losses resulting from nationalization or other taking of property of such nationals, shall be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, I shall speak for 2 minutes on the amendment. First I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

portant than the selection of a Chief Execu

It is true that the President of the United States has great powers, more than the head of any other government except an outright dictatorship.

But in the final analysis, it is Congress, especially the House of Representatives which has the last word on national governmental policies.

If enough Congressmen feel the same way about any given issue, they can override a Presidential veto of their actions by the votes of two-thirds of their membership.

Ordinarily if a President and a Congress are of the same political faith, the President can have his program and his policies enacted into law. But this is not always true and the present Congress with its overwhelming Democratic majority proves it.

In this country, neither major political party is forced to go along with the program of the Chief Executive. Both parties are made up of individuals of widely divergent views, particularly the Democrats with their

Mrs. SMITH. Mr. President, that very distinguished political analyst of the Washington Post, Chalmers Roberts, in his column today made a serious error in his statement:

Some of her colleagues report that she is no friend personally or ideologically of GOLDWATER though there has been talk of her running on a Goldwater ticket.

Mr. Roberts is in serious error. I consider BARRY GOLDWATER to be a good personal friend of mine-and I certainly consider myself to be a friend of his.

What constitutes friendship on an ideological basis is a real puzzler. I am sure that people can have ideological differences and still be friends just as I am sure that sharing the same ideologies does not necessarily make persons

friends.

But I am not one to begrudge Mr. Roberts his literary license if it will create a little more appeal in his writing-any more than his column of September 23, 1963, in which he indicted me in advance with the speculation that should I vote against the test ban treaty it would be an attempt to curry political favor with Senator GOLDWATER. Strangely enough, he has never commented on my vote against the Goldwater reservation to the test ban treaty.

Mr. Roberts could have avoided the serious errors of his columns of September 23, 1963, and November 12, 1963, had he taken the time to check with me rather than speculate or attribute to anony

mous sources.

It is a very serious matter to charge enmity between two persons when that enmity does not exist. Lest this misrepresentation give further erroneous impressions, let me state very clearly that I consider myself to be a personal friend of BARRY GOLDWATER.

AMERICAN EDUCATION WEEK Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, as we observe American Education Week, it is appropriate to call attention to the fundamental relationship between a democratic form of government and

public education. As Woodrow Wilson put it so well, "Without popular education, no government which rests upon popular action can long endure." Certainly a comprehensive system of education is essential to our democratic system if we are to provide equality of opportunity, preserve our cultural heritage, and meet the challenges of international competition.

Because I am convinced of the importance of a sound educational system to national survival and progress, I am particularly proud of the leading role which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has held in the development of public education in this country. It was in 1642 that the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony made it mandatory that all children in the colony receive some education. Five years later the "Old Deluder Satan Act" established the principle of publicly supported elementary and secondary schools by requiring every town of 50 households to hire a teacher and every town of 100 households to establish a grammar school. Again, in 1827, Massachusetts led the Nation when it passed the first

State law encouraging the spread of the public high school. In the 7 years that followed, the public school movement was given further impetus by the enactment of laws which made support of public schools by taxation compulsory, abolished fees as a requisite for attendance at school, and declared them open without charge. In 1837 Massachusetts established the first State school board with Horace Mann, the father of the American public school, as its secretary and in 1852 the Commonwealth enacted the first compulsory school attendance law. Indeed, in the field of education Massachusetts has an impressive record of firsts. All citizens of the Bay State are proud that it has done so much to promote the establishment of free and universal education in the United States because we recognize the connection between educational opportunity and the social, political, and economic advancement of a free society.

We do not have a democratic system unless our people have the opportunity to develop fully their talents and intelligence. We live in difficult times and it is important to our progress and our future that every person be encouraged to develop maximum use of his abilities. This development is a fundamental purpose of education. Education also faces the critical challenge of preparing the next generation for its responsibilities. As James Bryant Conant, the former president of Harvard University has written:

The primary concern of American education today is to cultivate in the largest number of our citizens an appreciation both of the responsibilities and the benefits which come to them because they are American and free.

against external and internal foes. A spirit of freedom coupled with an understanding of the nature of our governmental machinery and an interest in improving this machinery is essential for the continuation of a government based on the consent of the governed.

We must also be aware of the practical reasons for a comprehensive system of public education. Among teenagers who are no longer in school the unemployment rate is 27 percent. We should remember the warning of Dr. Conant that the young, uneducated, untrained, and culturally deprived adult is "social dynamite." In addition, between now and 1975 the number of young people seeking higher education will double. We want our educational system to be prepared for them.

Thus, as we observe American Education Week, let us remember that a comprehensive system of education is essential to our democracy. Through education we must provide opportunity for individual development, we must assure the preservation of the foundations of our Government, and we must make maximum use of the abilities of our citizens. As the future of our education is dependent upon us, so our future is dependent upon education.

In calling attention in education week to the importance of our educational system we should not fail to mention the dedicated work of the schoolteachers of America to whom we entrust our children. Because of their activities our children will become more independent and self-reliant and better citizens in the days to come.

To meet its responsibility to society today, education must trigger the curiosity of students and awaken in them a desire to understand their Government and the world about them. It must help them to gain that understanding and it must stimulate and prepare them to assume an active role in community and Government activities. If it is doing its job, it will alert them to the drama, the excitement, and the satisfactions of that experience. This is an important responsibility, and one which I am confident the Nation's teachers are attempting to meet.

OTEPKA TESTIMONY

President, in yesterday's Washington Evening Star there was published an editorial entitled "Otepka Testimony."

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.

This editorial calls our attention to a situation in which high ranking State Department employees first gave false testimony to a congressional committee; then, when caught, they reversed this testimony and admitted the truth.

But the truth is even more shocking. Officials of the Government admit that they illegally tapped Mr. Otepka's tele

As events in Europe within our lifetime have all too clearly demonstrated, the greatest single need of a free society is a widespread determination among the citizens to defend the basic principles of that society

circumstances is a violation of the law, and smacks of police state tactics.

I suggest that the State Department promptly fire those responsible, and that the Attorney General of the United States bring prompt action against this

case.

This should be a matter of grave concern to the Secretary of State. Two of the three men involved have been put on an indefinite leave status, with pay. It is disturbing, however, that there has been no forthright offi

from confidential employee loyalty files. Senator THOMAS J. DODD, Democrat, of Connecticut, the subcommittee's vice chair

man, in a Senate speech Tuesday protested Otepka's dismissal as an affront to the Senate. He said then that the State Department had installed a tap on the security officer's telephone.

"Although a State Department official has denied under oath that this was done, the Subcommittee on Internal Security has proof that the tap was installed," DODD added. Statements acknowledging the rigging of Otepka's telephone were sent to EASTLAND by John F. Reilly, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Security; David I. Belisle, special assistant to Reilly, and Elmer Dewey Hill, Chief of the Division of Technical Services in the Department's Office of Security.

AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

the subcommittee.

Otto F. Otepka has been dismissed by the State Department for giving certain information, allegedly improperly, to J. G. Sourwine, counsel to the Senate's Internal Security Subcommittee. The case against Mr. Otepka was based on material found by searching his "burn bag"-a receptacle for discarded papers which are supposed to be burned. At that time instructions were given by Department officials which were construed as forbidding other State employees to give any information to the subcommittee. These instructions have been lifted.

The question now is not whether Mr. Otepka was properly dismissed. He has taken

an appeal from his dismissal and the merits

will be determined in that proceeding. Nor is the real question concerned with the right to search burn bags or-even-to tap telephones. The question is simply whether witnesses from the State Department must tell the whole truth when they testify before a committee of Congress.

In this case it is clear that an attempt was

made to tap Mr. Otepka's telephone. It is equally clear that an attempt was made to deceive or mislead the subcommittee on this point. Secretary Dean Rusk ought to move in fast to lower the boom on this sort of thing.

AIDS ADMIT WIRETAP ON OTEPKA WASHINGTON.-Three State Department officials now have acknowledged to Senate investigators telephone wiring in Otto F. Otepka's office was rigged to permit eavesdropping on conversations in his office.

However, they said no actual interception of conversations took place, none was authorized, and the wiring was disconnected within 48 hours after a test of its feasibility proved unsuccessful.

The officials said their statements were intended to amplify and clarify earlier sworn testimony to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in which they denied knowledge of the installation of any listening devices in Otepka's office.

The subcommittee, headed by Senator JAMES O. EASTLAND, Democrat, of Mississippi, made public the statements and the earlier testimony without comment.

Otepka, a veteran State Department security officer, was notified Tuesday of his dismissal on charges of unbecoming conduct. Among other things, he was accused of sup

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator from New York yield, so that I may ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment?

Mr. KEATING. I yield for that pur

pose.

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to insure that the Senate be given the opportunity to review any agreement reached between the U.S. Government and the Government of Czechoslovakia with regard to U.S. claims before such an agreement comes into effect. The claims involved are claims for property, rights or interests therein owned by U.S. citizens taken or nationalized on or prior to January 1, 1945, by the Government of Czechoslovakia.

These claims, let me make clear, are not for war damages or injury of that type; they are compensation for deliberate seizure by the Communist Government of Czechoslovakia for which no recompense has yet been offered. They are claims that have been adjudicated and awarded by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. There are altogether a total of 2,630 cases, amounting to $113,645,205.41 in principal and interest. Some 1,346 claims were rejected by the Commission. Those it awarded represent definite, adjudicated instances in which property of U.S. nationals was seized.

Yet it is my understanding that the Department of State is presently considering an agreement to settle with the Czechoslovak Government for approximately $11 million or less than 10 cents on each dollar.

Mr. President, for the more than 2,600 persons and firms involved, such an agreement would be meaningless and would in fact amount to U.S. acceptance of nationalization without anything approaching fair compensation.

Furthermore, a settlement of the Czech claims for roughly 10 percent would constitute a very dangerous precedent. The United States has, since World War II, negotiated claims conventions with six nations. The first, with Italy, in 1947, was for 100 percent of the value of U.S. claims. The second, with Yugoslavia in 1948, was for 91 percent of the value of U.S. claims. The third, in 1950 with Panama, was for 90 percent. The fourth, in 1960 with Rumania, was for 24 percent. The fifth with Poland was for claims not yet completely processed. And the most recent, with Bulgaria, was for 40 percent. It is ironic that the two free world countries paid 100 and 90 percent of claims against them, while the Communist nations are succeeding in paying a far smaller share.

It is particularly disturbing that the number of awards on the Czech claims, 2,630, is larger than that of any other country. The two other nations with claims administered by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission that have

not yet been agreed upon through conventions, are also very large: Hungary with 1,153 adjudicated claims and the Soviet Union with 1,925 adjudicated

claims.

In other words, if an agreement of Czechoslovakia, we can expect no better roughly 10 percent is concluded with terms from Hungary or the U.S.S.R. and a total value of close to $300 million of validated U.S. claims may be simply junked.

Therefore, Mr. President, not only in the interest of the Czechoslovakia claimants, but of others for the future, I believe it is time for the Senate to look into this area and request the opportunity to offer its advice and consent to the Czechoslovakian and perhaps any succeeding claims convention that is less than 50 percent of the value of adjudicated claims. Although recent claims settlements have been called executive agreements and therefore not submitted to the Senate, there is a precedent for this action in the Panamanian settlement which was ratified by the Senate August 9, 1950. As that settlement amounted to 90 percent, it strikes me as a good precedent to follow.

Even more important, however, in my judgment, a settlement of less than 10 percent of the awarded claims is not by any stretch of the imagination mere execution of a policy laid down by the Congress. Rather, it is a deliberate and calculating act of policy. The cases of the Communist claims appear to reflect a considered effort to smooth U.S. diplomatic relations with Communist bloc nations at the expense of individual U.S. claimants. Perhaps such a move is in the national interest; perhaps it is justified; perhaps the Senate would give its advice and consent to such an agreement if the pros and cons were carefully weighed.

But in any case, U.S. agreement on only 10 percent compensation is surely not what the Congress intended in setting up the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to determine the "fair or proved value of the said property, right or interest," often after years of hearings.