Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, more than half of the arrearages are due from the Soviets. Another $14 million is due from France. They do not receive any foreign aid from the United States, so that we are not in a good position to influence them to pay up. The World Court has ruled that assessments for peacekeeping operations are of the same standing as dues, so that delinquency in these assessments is delinquency for purposes of possible loss of voting powers. The U.N. has accepted this ruling. However, it will not be until next year at the earliest before sufficient delinquent status will have been acquired to place any delinquent nation in the position of losing its vote; and when that day comes, it is not known whether or not the General Assembly will invoke the rule. Meanwhile, bankruptcy faces the U.N.

With respect to those member nations which are delinquent and which are receiving foreign aid from us, there is something we can do. We can say to them that unless they clean up their obligations to the U.N., they cannot expect the American taxpayer to furnish them foreign aid.

plication to our immediate national interests.

Mr. MORSE. I have sympathy with the Senator's objective. Outside the Communist bloc-and it has been pointed out that the amendment cannot reach the Communist bloc because we do not give them aid-one of the notorious delinquents with regard to her United Nations obligations is France. I am also disturbed about the kind of military assistance France receives from us. Unless we can reach her in relation to military assistance, the Senator's amendment is not going to do much good with respect to France. She receives infrastructure money from us. She is certainly prosperous enough to pay for her own military defense costs.

I am glad I asked the question, because I have received the Senator's explanation of what he is aiming at. I wished to cover the bulk of the assistance France gets from us, but I suppose that is one of those things and we cannot cover everything. At least, Mr. President, the Senate is moving down the road toward serving notice on some of the United Nations delinquents that we are not going to continue to pay the

Mr. MILLER. I am happy to yield. Mr. MORSE. I need some information to clear up my understanding or lack of understanding on this point. Does the Senator's amendment cover merely loans, or does it cover grants also?

Mr. MILLER. No; the amendment relates to assistance under the provisions of this act other than supporting assistance, assistance from the contingency fund, and military assistance. So that the only aid that would be affected by this amendment would be development loans and grants.

Mr. MORSE. It would cover grants. Mr. MILLER. Loans and grants. Reference to military assistance, supporting assistance, and contingency fund was omitted for this reason: Those elements of our foreign aid program have a potential for being more directly tied to

our security interests than the othercertainly military assistance and supporting assistance, and, if the contingency fund is appropriately managed, that too.

Mr. MORSE. But there can be much waste in so-called supporting assistance, because we are giving supporting assistance to countries that are able to support themselves.

Mr. MILLER. I recognize that there may be abuses in certain areas of our foreign aid program. However, the Senator from Iowa does not desire to be too exact with respect to this amendment. If the Senator from Oregon will be patient, it is felt, from the information I shall present from the tables that are on each Senator's desk, that the lever which will be effective in getting the nations to pay up will be quite ample if we concentrate only on development loans and grants.

I repeat, the reason why the language was so drawn was that there is a greater potential for its having more direct ap

into the United Nations and without trying to do something about the delinquents.

Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator I thank the Senator from Oregon for his question. The Senator will recall that in committee he expressed the same misgivings, not particularly about the amendment, but the failure of the amendment to cover France. He may recall that I responded by saying that I wished there were some way of gearing the amendment to cover France also, but that it was not practical to do so, if we were to concentrate on development loans in France. If the amendment is adopted, I believe we shall find that by the time we are talking about

the next foreign aid bill, the slate will be

clean not only with reference to these nations, but also with respect to France, because once France realizes that, outside the Soviet bloc, she is the only nation which has not played fair with the United Nations, my guess is that France will get on board with the rest of the countries.

Mr. MILLER. I yield.

Mr. GRUENING. I am sympathetic toward the purposes of the Senator's amendment. I believe it is most regrettable and shocking that so many nations have welshed on their commitments. However, I feel that the Senator's amendment would be much more effective if the loopholes, the wide openings in it, through which foreign aid can come were eliminated, leaving only the qualifying clause "unless the President determined." Why not cut out supporting assistance and military assistance, and leave the contingency fund, which is what the President would use in these cases? Otherwise the Senator will not get the result he hopes for.

Mr. MILLER. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Alaska. Let me say again that the purpose of the amendment is not to be restrictive on the

State Department or on the President. I should like to suggest that we walk before we run, and that we give this approach a chance to work.

It will not be too easy for the President to make the determination that some of these nations do not have the economic wherewithal, because of special or unusual circumstances, to pay the amounts of the delinquencies which appear on the tables.

I know that there are some nations which are in that situation. The Senator from Alaska knows that, too. That is why we must have some type of provision to cover such a situation; also, I recognize the fact that the President might determine that such a government has given reasonable assurance of paying all its arrearages independent of our assistance.

I would suppose, if the President received that reasonable assurance, and if 1 year from now there had not been a follow through on the reasonable assurance, at that time we could tighten up the provision, by providing that no country which is in arrears shall receive this assistance. The point I wish to make is that since this is a little different approach than we have used heretofore, and is designed to help the financial situation of the United Nations, we should try this approach and give the State Department an opportunity to work within it and to be fair with it; then, if the delinquents do not come through, we can catch them in a year from now and tighten up the provision.

The Senator from Alaska has had the

same problem with respect to some of his amendments. He gave the State Department more than enough time to come through; finally, time ran out, and the Senator from Alaska had no choice except to offer the amendment which has been adopted.

I have not reached the point with re

spect to this amendment that the Sena

tor had reached with respect to his

amendment. I suggest that we try it.

If it does not work, we can make the provision tighter the next time around.

My amendment provides that no for

eign aid shall be extended to the government of any nation which is more than 1 year in arrears in its obligations to the United Nations. If the amendment were in effect now, it would require payment of all outstanding delinquencies for 1961 and prior years. Assessments for 1962 are not yet 1 year old; and assessments for 1963 are not in arrears until after the close of 1963.

My amendment leaves some discretion to the President of the United States in this matter. If he determines that such a government is unable to place its payments on a current basis because of unusual or exceptional circumstances, then our foreign aid may continue. Or if he determines that such a government has given reasonable assurance of paying its arrearages-independently of any of our foreign aid-and placing its payments on a current basis, then our foreign aid may continue.

Moreover, my amendment would not apply to military assistance, supporting assistance, or the President's contingency fund, because these are matters which

could directly and immediately affect our security interests. The amendment would affect primarily development loans and development grants. It could also affect Public Law 480 distributions of agricultural commodities.

Now I ask: Is it unreasonable for a nation which wants our foreign aid to give the President of our country assurance that it will pay its back assessments and put them on a current basis? Or, if that cannot be done, is it unreasonable to require such a nation to show that there are unusual or exceptional circumstances preventing it from doing so? I think it is unreasonable to not have such requirements. It is unreasonable to ask our taxpayers to pay for foreign aid to such a government. It is unreasonable to extend our foreign aid in the same manner and on the same basis to all nationsregardless of whether they are playing fair with the United Nations. By treating them all alike, we discourage those nations which are playing fair with the U.N. "Why pay up?" they can ask. "Uncle Sam will give us foreign aid any

how."

If it be said that my amendment would, in effect, make a collector of dues out of the United States, there are two answers: First, this is not quite accurate. The United States will collect nothing. It will be the United Nations which does the collecting, because it is the United Nations to whom the obligations are owed. Second, we are already requiring that certain standards be met before a nation receives our development loans and our development grants. These include land reform, tax reform, internal governmental reform. Should not payment of delinquent obligations have the same standing-especially when these obligations are owed an organization which we support as an avenue to international peace and security? There are some who have suggested that we are coercing other governments in the matter of land reform, tax reform, and internal governmental reform. We are not coercing anyone-any more than a banker coerces a would-be borrower by asking him to fill out a net worth statement. If the recipient does not wish to comply, he can go elsewhere for assistance,

If it be suggested that because of the economic situation in a country it cannot afford to pay the assessments, it should be made very clear that the allocation of assessments among the nations takes into account the economic situations in the various member nations. Moreover, when you compare the large amount of our foreign aid with the relatively small sums owed the United Nations, this suggestion would seem to have no merit.

Mr. President, I call attention to the table that I have placed on the desk of every Senator. Let us consider, first, the column headed "Total United Nations Arrearages as of September 30, 1963." Senators should understand that the total arrearage of $103,830,000 is made up of the regular budget, Emergency Force, and the Congo ad hoc account. It will be noted that in the regular budget there are nine countries which still have not

paid their 1961 dues. Incidentally, this is one area in which the Soviet Union has actually been paying promptly the annual, regular dues. But there are nine nations which have not yet paid the 1961 dues; yet all of them have received economic assistance from the United States, and are still receiving such assistance.

In the case of the Emergency Force, which is to protect the Gaza strip in the Middle East, it will be observed that 44 countries have not yet paid their 1961 assessments. Thirty-six have not paid their 1960 assessments. Thirty have not paid their 1959 assessments. In fact, 25 countries have not paid their assessments from 1957 on.

Of the 44 countries which have not paid their assessments for 1961 or prior years, 37 are still receiving economic assistance from the United States, and have received it since 1946.

In the case of the Congo ad hoc account, we note that 51 countries still owe for the period January 1 to October 31, 1961. Of those 51 countries, 42 have payments due extending back for all periods involved. Of those 42 countries, 39 are still receiving assistance from the United States.

Referring to the next table, there are 46 countries to which we have furnished more than $22 billion in economic assistance from the fiscal year 1946 through fiscal year 1963, and which are delinquent in one or more of their assessments to the United Nations. These arrearages amount to more than $42 million. They include the regular budget, $4.4 million; Emergency Force, $9 million; and Congo ad hoc account, $29.2 lion; and Congo ad hoc account, $29.2 million.

But note that the grand total comes to $42 million, against a total of $22 billion in economic assistance which we have extended to those countries through the

years.

Of these 46 countries, 44 received some type of economic assistance during fiscal year 1963 from the United States. Of those 44, 35 would have been affected by my amendment, had it been adopted last year, inasmuch as these countries have received grants and development loans covered by my amendment.

I invite the attention of Senators to the list of 35 countries. Consider, for example, Afghanistan. During the fiscal example, Afghanistan. During the fiscal year 1963, that country received $17,700,000 in grants and loans. Yet arrearages for the calendar year 1961 and prior thereto amounted to only $66,000. One wonders why Afghanistan $66,000. One wonders why Afghanistan could not see fit to take care of the assessments for 1961 and prior years, assessments for 1961 and prior years, when she was receiving $17,700,000 in aid from us.

Iran is in about the same position. She received $21,200,000 in grants and loans during the fiscal year 1963. Yet Iran owes $75,413 to the United Nations.

Jordan is in a similar situation. We provided Jordan $7 million in loans and grants during fiscal 1963. Jordan owes only $62,267 to the United Nations for 1961 and prior years.

The United Arab Republic, concerning which considerable debate has been raging during the past few days, received ing during the past few days, received from the United States $38,600,000 in

grants and loans, but still could not see their way clear to pay $529,000 in back assessments for 1961 and prior years. I point out that in addition to the $38,600,000 in loans and grants of the United States, the United Arab Republic received $140 million in Public Law 480 distributions of surplus commodities.

Argentina received $109 million as aid in the form of grants and loans. At the same time, Argentina has not been able to pay $1,432,000 in back assessments to the United Nations.

And so on down the list.

I call attention to the fact that Poland, the third country from the bottom of the list, received $2,800,000 from us in grants and loans during fiscal 1963, and $8 million in Public Law 480 shipments; still Poland is delinquent to the extent of $2,677,000 to the United Nations.

Somalia, which last year received $7,800,000 in loans and grants from us, has not been able to pick up the tab for $2,713 for 1961 and prior years.

lished in the Washington Post of today, I invite attention to an article pubNovember 12, entitled "Somalia Spurns Arms From West for Russia's." The article states:

Somalia has informed the United States it will accept a Soviet arms offer and has no use for military hardware from the West.

Perhaps there is some reason for this, but it indicates to me that Somalia is not so friendly to the United States as it might be. Even more important, at this point, Somalia has not been able to clean up the $2,713 in back dues to the United Nations. Yet we saw fit last year to extend $7,800,000 in grants and loans to her.

Mr. President, I offered a similar amendment 2 years ago. I suggest that if the amendment had been adopted, the slate would be clean; that the dismal figures that have been presented here would not appear; and that the last column on the table, "arrearages for calendar 1961 and prior," would be gone. It is high time that the nations that are recipients of the taxpayers' economic loans and development grants be assured that so long as support of the United Nations is a part of our policy, we will do our utmost to see to it that the United Nations does not go bankrupt as the result of the failure of nations receiving our assistance to pay their back dues.

Mr. President, I invite attention to the escape hatch that I discussed earlier with the Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING]. This is not a harsh amendment at all; it is a reasonable amendment. I hope it will be adopted.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I shall take a little time to discuss the Senator's amendment; then the chairman of the committee, I am sure, will want to express his point of view concerning this rather far reaching proposal.

The amendment needs to be clearly understood as to what it does and does not do. The first thing it does is to require the United States to be a collection agency for the United Nations. It puts us in that position.

It has also as one of its purposesand this, I think, is commendable-the strengthening of the financial position of the United Nations. This, I believe, is in our national interest.

I have supported measures in Congress to improve the financial condition of the United Nations. I believe that the United Nations has a heavy responsibility to keep its financial house in order. It is my view that the United Nations should have a position equivalent to that of Secretary of the Treasury; at least, that there should be a financial consultant to the U.N., working continuously to bring into the Treasury of the United Nations the dues that are the obligations of member nations, both their regular membership fees and the requirements or assessments for the peace keeping activities. But the United Nations is an institution in its own right. Although we are a charter member, we are not the whole United Nations. The United Nations must take unto itself through the Security Council, the Secretariat, and the General Assembly-the basic responsibility for keeping its financial house in order. Of course we, as a member of the United Nations, have an interest in that. That is why a year or so ago Congress passed the United Nations bond issue bill, and that is why Congress attempted to use whatever influence it has among the membership of the United Nations to obtain payment of the dues and of the cost of the peace keeping operations of the United Nations. I believe we have a vital stake in the United Nations, and I believe the peace keeping operations of the United Nations are in the interest of peace and law and order in the world. Therefore, I have supported the peacekeeping operations of the United Nations and the maintenance of the United Nations as an instrumentality for peace, law, and order.

But let us consider what the amendment would do. It would place the United States in a special position as a collector for United Nations dues. It would do this indirectly, by providing that

(k) In order to encourage preservation of the financial solvency of the United Nations which is being threatened by the failure of some member nations to pay currently their assessments and/or contributions to the United Nations, no assistance shall be furnished under the provisions of this Act (other than supporting assistance under chapter 4 of part I, assistance from the contingency fund established under chapter 5 of part I, and military assistance under chapter 2 of part II), or any other law authorizing assistance to foreign countries (other than military assistance, supporting assistance, or assistance from the President's contingency fund), to the government of any nation which is more than one year in arrears in its payment of any assessment by the United Nations for its regular budget or for peace and security operations, unless the President determines that such government has given reasonable assurance of paying (independently of such assistance) all such arrearages and placing its payments of

such assessments on a current basis, or determines that such government, by reason of unusual and exceptional circumstances, is economically unable to give such assurance." Of course that proviso would permit the President to make a finding that CIX- -1360

many countries are economically incapable of making their payments to the United Nations; or, under the amendment, such loans could be made to countries which had a program of getting their dues payments on a current basis.

But what would the amendment permit the U.S. Government to do? This permission is rather generous. First, the amendment would not place any limitation on the United States, insofar as supporting assistance is concerned, under chapter 4 of part I. Supporting assistance is a grant, and generally is given to countries which receive military assistance. Supporting assistance is a large item in the foreign aid bill. So even if a country were 5 or 10 years behind in the payment of some of its obligations to the United Nations, supporting assistance-outright grants of money from the U.S. Treasury, which do not have to be repaid, but are simply gifts-could be given to such a country which was in arrears in the payment of its obligations and assessments or commitments to the United Nations.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield for a question?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. MILLER. The Senator Senator from Minnesota has made the point that supporting assistance could be given, under the amendment; but I am sure he understands that the object of supporting assistance is to take care of nations which are hard put in their military programs, so we shall not have to increase our own national defense program.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the Senator from Iowa for that statement.

Mr. MILLER. So it seems to me that if we are to try to direct this amendment along reasonable lines, and not have a harsh approach to this matter, if there are to be exceptions, certainly we should make them in the case of military assistance and supporting assistance, which I understand are ordinarily directly tied into our national defense pro

gram, anyway.

Mr. HUMPHREY. But, for example, we give supporting assistance and military assistance to Iran; but without development loan assistance to Iran, there would be no use giving her military assistance, because in that case she would collapse. If the Senator from Iowa does not understand that, he has missed the point of the foreign aid program.

But this amendment provides, in effect, "You can continue to have all the free rides, and you can violate your pledges to the United Nations, and you can receive military assistance and supporting assistance and generous assistance from the President's contingency fund, none of which have to be paid back, and you can still get all this help from the United States, without being in any way chastised or disciplined because of your failure to keep up with your responsibilities to the United Nations."

But, Mr. President, if a country which receives a development loan which it must pay back with dollars and with interest happened to be more than 1 year in arrears in the payment of its dues to the United Nations or in the payment of

its United Nations commitments, that alone would not be permitted. Such a policy seems to me very shortsighted, because one of the reasons for development loans is to enable countries to pay their bills. So I am surprised to find thinking to the contrary in the Senate. Ours is a credit country; it is financed on credit. Men go to banks and obtain credit so they can pay their bills and can engage in business or in agriculture or one of the professions. They borrow money; in other words, they obtain development loans with which to make the payments on their bills, on which they may be in arrears.

But the amendment goes far beyond just cutting off development loans, for the amendment also provides-and this is another important provision:

(k) In order to encourage preservation of the financial solvency of the United Nations which is being threatened by the failure of some member nations to pay currently their assessments and/or contributions to the United Nations, no assistance shall be furnished under the provisions of this Act (other than supporting assistance under chapter 4 of part I, assistance from the contingency fund established under chapter 5 of part I, and military assistance under chapter 2 of part II), or any other law authorizing assistance to foreign countries (other than military assistance, supporting assistance, or assistance from the President's contingency fund).

For example, that means that if there were a famine in a country, any U.S. assistance from its food stocks to that country would be prohibited if the country were more than 1 year behind in the payment of its dues to the United Nations.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, at this point will the Senator from Minnesota yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.

Mr. MILLER. I am sure the Senator from Minnesota has the best of intentions in connection with his criticism of the amendment; but I believe I should point out to him that what he has stated just now could not happen, in view of the provision in the amendment on page 2namely, that if the President finds that because of "unusual and exceptional circumstances," a country is "economically unable to give such assurance"-and so forth. It seems to me that a country which was undergoing a famine certainly would come within that category; and it would be most unfortunate if the President could not make that determination.

Mr. HUMPHREY. But the Senator from Iowa cannot have it both ways; he cannot say that his amendment would make those countries pay their dues to the United Nations, but that the President could say the circumstances were unusual, so they could obtain our loans and our help anyway. That would be playing both sides of the street.

Mr. MILLER. But is not a famine an unusual situation?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes, in some countries; but in other countries, famine is very usual. In many parts of the world, famines are much more customary than adequate food. It would be unusual for the people of some countries to have a good meal. So the Senator's amendment

Mr. MILLER. The Senator will observe that during the fiscal year 1963 Costa Rica received in grants and loans $13 million.

Mr. HUMPHREY.

Yes.

The one area which is the most important area of all in the foreign aid program is the development loan program, because it is the development loan program which is repayable. Perhaps it is not repayable at enough interest to satisfy some Senators, but the Senate voted on that question. The loans would be repayable at not less than 2-percent interest after the first 5 years on a 35year maturity basis. The loans would be repayable in dollars. The development loan program is possibly the one way that some of the countries involved would have to pay their bills.

Furthermore, the amendment would not do anything to such countries as the Soviet Union. We do not give them any assistance. It would not do anything to the Soviet bloc countries because we have already excluded any assistance from the Soviet bloc countries under previous amendments adopted by the Senate. They were the Lausche amendment and the Proxmire amendment. So our enemies would not be punished by the amendment, but only our friends.

The people who are causing us trouble in the world today-the Communistswould not be affected. We already have language in the bill providing that no assistance of any kind shall be given to them. What the amendment really provides is that if a country is neither a friend nor a nonalined country and has not been paying its dues to the U.N., it will not get any help from us, unless it is military assistance.

Frankly, the weakest part of the foreign aid program is military assistance. Some of the countries to which we give military assistance could not fight their way out of a paper bag.

Every Senator knows that the real military strength of the free world is in a half dozen countries, including the United States, Great Britain, France, Western Germany, Italy—and, yes— Italy-and, yesNATO. The strength of the free world is not in some of the little countries that are spread out over the globe. It would be better off if they never had armies. For example, one country which would be affected by the program is Costa Rica. Costa Rica does not happen to have an army, and yet it is important for the peace of our hemisphere that a nation like Costa Rica should receive development loans. The country has a high rate of population growth. It has a potential for economic growth that is significant. It pays its bills and it will pay its U.N. bills. Other countries listed are quite good friends of ours.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question in respect to Costa Rica?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.

find the wherewithal to pay $26,000 in back assessments to the United Nations?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Not at all. The Senator from Minnesota is not making that statement. The Senator from Minnesota, who is not a delegate to the U.N., will not stand in judgment on collections for the United Nations. There are those in the United Nations organization who do that. Costa Rica is an active member of the United Nations. It is one of our friends.

I hope the Senator from Iowa will not act as the stern school teacher, saying, "If you have not paid up your dues to the United Nations, you cannot receive these benefits." Why does not the Senator make ator make it a contribution to the church or to the Red Cross?

Mr. MILLER. Yet the Senator from Minnesota would say to Costa Rica, "We shall give you development loans and grants if you will enter into internal tax reforms, and if you will see to it that your people who owe taxes pay their taxes."

Mr. HUMPHREY. That question relates to the capacity of Costa Rica to repay its bills and these loans. That is a good, smart move. For example, since I heard the Senator mention a banker, I point out that a banker might well ask a borrower for a statement of his assets and liabilities. The banker might look over the statement before granting a loan. The banker might then say, "Look, my friend, before you can get this loan, you must cut down on your operating expenses at this point or somewhere else." But the banker does not say, "I understand that you have not paid your church dues. You have not contributed to the church. We will not loan you any money until you pay up your church dues."

That is not what a banker does. A banker tries to look at one's capacity to pay his bills.

What the Senator from Minnesota is saying is that when a development loan is made, sensible conditions for the repayment of the loan might be laid down. But to watch over the morals and the international conduct of every nation to which we make a loan not only is an unwise course of action, but I do not think it would be workable. I believe it would get us into trouble. I point out that the Senate rejected the amendment once before. I do not say that it will do so again.

It has reached the point now where it is pretty difficult to get a nomination through the Senate unless the nominee has been paying his taxes. That example is much more analogous to the situation in which we are all members of the United Nations than discussions about church dues.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator's analogy has a certain amount of relevance, at least for parochial purposes, but not for the bill.

Let us consider what the Senator's amendment would do. In the long run his amendment would accomplish nothing, because it would leave an escape hatch for the President. The amendment would not apply to the Communist nations anyway, since they are excluded under the purview of the act. The nations that are listed, with few exceptions, are very poor countries. According to the amendment of the Senator from Iowa, the President must determine that

Such government has given reasonable assurance of paying (independently of such assistance) all such arrearages and placing its payments of such assessments on a current basis, or determines that such government, by reason of unusual and exceptional circumstances, is economically unable to give such assurance.

I point out that there are many countries that could make a pretty good case in explanation of why they are slow in their payments, just as many people could make a good case as to why they are slow in paying their taxes. That is not unusual. But the 1 year requirement would go further than the present requirement of the U.N. itself. The U.N. today has a requirement of 2 years. The Senator wishes to write into the bill a new provision so that if the arrearage were more than 1 year, the nation in arrears would lose the benefits of the Foreign Aid Act, if that nation should otherwise qualify under the criteria of the act.

I point out further that article 19 of the U.N. Charter now deprives any member country of its vote in the General Assembly if its arrears equal or exceed the contributions due from it for the preceding 2 years. The International Court of Justice ruled in an advisory opinion that assessed contributions for U.N. peacekeeping operations are subject to article 19. The General Assembly specifically accepted this ruling. Thus, any country substantially in arrears on its contributions either to the regular U.N. budget or to the peacekeeping budget is already subject to the severe sanction of loss of its vote in the General Assembly.

This sanction, directly attached to U.N. participation, would have a more direct effect in obtaining payment than

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.

Mr. MILLER. The Senator has used the analogy of paying dues to a church. I do not believe that that is quite apropos. The Senator from Minnesota would find that the average banker would look somewhat askance at an application for a loan if the applicant had not been paying his taxes to the Government, of which we all are members.

U.S. assistance.

The principal impact of the amendment would be upon the less developed countries which are most in need of U.S. assistance and least able to keep payment of assessments on a current basis. These countries will be in this situation, not in unusual and exceptional circumstances-for which the amendment provides an exemption-but more often than not on a fairly long term basis. They

will pay, but to expect them to do so on a current basis is not realistic. Supporting assistance is being reduced and every effort is being made to get countries off the supporting assistance list and onto the list of countries getting loans on a dollar repayable basis. The amendment is shortsighted in allowing only supporting assistance to countries in ar

rears.

Moreover, the amendment is inadvisable because it appears to tie U.S. assistance to support of the U.N. This may create the impression, already urged by the Sino-Soviet bloc, that the U.N. is a tool of the United States and other western countries.

The U.N. needs the broadest possible participation and cooperation of all its members, but the way to do it is to work within the organization, not to unilaterally impose pressure from outside.

I believe that the U.N. needs broad support. I do not contest the Senator's motives in relation to the amendment. It appears to me that the Senator's amendment is a great expression of support for the United Nations and for its peacekeeping_operations. It seems to me that the Senator feels that our own payments to the United Nations have been very desirable. I would expect from the amendment support for even bigger payments, since we are so interested in having American policy have a direct effect upon the policy of other countries relating to the U.N.

The amendment is not the type of amendment that should be attached to the foreign aid bill surely not to the development loan section. If the Senator wishes to attach the amendment, he ought to include all the aspects of foreign aid. The Senator should include military assistance, supporting assistance, the contingency fund, and development loans, because they are all tied together. Perhaps the most important aspect which the amendment would tend to cripple is the development loan program. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, first, I wish to make clear to the Senator from Minnesota that I cannot share his opinion with respect to the comparison between development loans and military assistance. Earlier in my statement I pointed out that military assistance, supporting assistance, and the contingency fund, if used properly, are of much more direct and immediate impact than the long-term development loan. That is precisely why they were excluded from coverage of the amendment. Now the Senator suggests that the countries to which we are extending development loans and grants are countries we are trying to help so that they can pay their bills. If they cannot pay some of the bills I have pointed out in the table, I do

not believe they are ever going to be able

to pay.

It sounds incredible to me that the Senator from Minnesota should say, in effect, that Brazil, which received $67,200,000 in development loans and grants last year, cannot see its way clear to paying $287,990 in back dues and assess

ments to the United Nations.

I grant that there are probably some countries listed as to which the Presi

dent could make a finding that there were unusual and exceptional circumstances which would prevent them from making payments on a current basis. If they are in that situation, I believe we should provide that the President can make such a finding. I do not believe we should cut them off. We should give them development loans and grants so that they can build themselves up and reach a position where they can pay their dues and assessments.

To me, it is incredible that countries such as those I have commented on specifically cannot see their way clear to paying their dues and assessments.

The Senator from Minnesota said this would put us in the form of a collecting agency. I pointed out earlier in my comments that this would do nothing of the sort. The United States will not collect 1 cent. The United Nations will do the collecting. The analogy-if it can be called an analogy-is just as applicable to our policy with respect to the Alliance for Progress, when we say to a nation, "You will engage in internal tax reforms. You will see to it that people who owe their taxes pay their taxes." If the argument is not then made that we are dabbling in the collection business, collecting tax moneys for them, the argument should not be made in this respect, either. I do not think much of the argument.

The point is made that someone-I am sure it was not the Senator from Minnesota-"dreamed up" the argument that if the amendment were adopted it might make us suspect in the eyes of the world for using the United Nations as a tool for our policy. If there were any grounds for suspecting that the United States was using the United Nations as a tool, those grounds have long ago been laid to rest.

An amendment like this, which in effect says, "We only want to see to it that the recipients of our taxpayers' money are going to play fair with the United Nations" will not provide any more grounds than already exist.

The sum and substance of the argument I have heard against this amendment is that it is not tight enough, that we should make it more restrictive, that we should say to those countries, "You are not going to get any military assistance, or supporting assistance, or assistance from the contingency fund, or any grants or loans, if you do not pay your

dues."

harsh. I am concerned about the direct I do not believe we should be that and immediate connection between our national security and military assistance and supporting assistance. But, if Senators will look at the figures set forth in the second column on the second table, they will find plenty of leverage without getting into military assistance and supporting assistance. Those figures amount to several hundred million dollars in loans and grants. I do not believe we should bring in anything else. I believe there will be sufficient leverage so that most of the nations can "get right" with the United Nations. If they do not, our taxpayers will be asked to "shell out" more money for the support of the United

Nations, to prevent the United Nations from going bankrupt.

We have already been asked to support the bond issue. The time on that bond issue is rapidly running out. I do not know what the next step will be, but how many times are we going to have this situation brought to the attention of Members of Congress? Will I be here 2 years from now, or 3 years from now, making the same argument? The United Nations faces a fiscal crisis. It has been termed the most important crisis the United Nations has faced. Why we are supposed to do nothing about it, in connection with our foreign aid program, I do not know.

I hope this amendment will be adopted. I suggest that if it is not adopted, 1 year from now we shall be considering the problem again, and the figures in those tables will not be any better. The figures of 2 years ago are not so bad as the figures are today. The situation is becoming worse. It is not growing better. I wish to see the United Nations prosper. I do not wish to see it go bankrupt. I am not about to call upon the people of my State-the taxpayers of my State-to underwrite the United Nations, when there is such a glaring list of delinquencies on the part of its members. Let them "get straight.” Let us gear our foreign policy and our foreign aid program together.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two tables to which I have referred in my remarks may be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: