funds the total for supporting assistance in fiscal year 1963 had risen to roughly $550 million. Moreover, the request for this supporting assistance category for the forthcoming fiscal year has gone up to $435 million. The bookkeepers give and they take away in a dazzling display of paperwork.

The central question is where we are heading, and my answer is that we do not really know. To the degree that supporting assistance has declined in amounts, we have turned to the categories of development grants and loans. The latter category appears to fulfill the desire of the Congress and the American people for a program of recoverable loans. Yet all indications are that the loans in time will turn out to be grants. Meanwhile, the token interest charges-almost uniformly less than the cost of the money to us-do little to satisfy my concern over the direction the program is taking.

Mr. President, I frankly doubt that the present means of distinguishing categories in the foreign aid bill amount to very much at all. The bill reminds me of a half-inflated balloon: We squeeze one spot and another bulge appears. The time has come to apply the needle to the balloon, to collapse it, and to build a better structure with better materials.

Our experience with foreign aid makes it overwhelmingly clear that the executive branch bureaucrats will always perform marvels in evading the intent of Congress so long as they are given any latitude whatsoever. Four years have passed since the Mansfield amendment, and we still find ourselves being asked to authorize close to half a billion dollars of a kind of aid we had every right to believe would have disappeared by now. The time has come for the Congress to flex its flabby muscles and create the kind of program it believes the President should carry out.

A further reduction in this category of grant money is a necessary element in such a program.

So I close my argument on my amendment, subject to later rebuttal, by announcing again that I have modified my amendment. Lines one and two have been stricken, which dealt with development grants. This amendment is limited to support assistance alone. I ask that it be reduced from $400 to $350 million a $50 million reduction. In my judgment, it is a small one indeed in comparison with what we really could be justified in reducing it to.

I renew my suggestion to this administration, through its spokesmen in the Senate, that it ought to take a long look at the opportunity which it now has, and suggest that the $40 million reduction be added to the cut already made, which is $460 million. That will be a total of $500 million. It would greatly expedite the handling of the bill in connection with the money-cut amendments. I yield the floor.

MEDICAL CARE FOR THE AGED Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I have the great privilege of announcing to the Senate a report which I think will bring to the fore once again to the Nation the need for a health care bill for the aged.

Today we have witnessed a most extraordinary and constructive development. A task force which was formed on the basis of a suggestion which I made after the Anderson-Javits bill was defeated in this Chamber by a vote of 48 to 52 has been functioning in this field for a year.

Arthur Flemming, former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, became chairman of the task force, which was named the National Committee on Health Care of the Aged. The other members of the committee are among the most distinguished members of medical profession, hospitals, Blue Cross, insurance, and business authorities in the country concerned with the problem of medical care for the aged. Also included is Marion Folsom, a former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

perfectly It has a

Kerr-Mills law. They are content to have Kerr-Mills. place, but that place is in a welfare program for welfare clients. It is not insurance and it does not in any way perform the service which needs to be rendered for the rank and file of older people who are covered by the terms of this report.

I hope Members of the Senate will read the committee's report with the greatest care.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a press release which covers the particular report. The report itself is quite extensive, consisting of 79 typewritten pages. Copies may be obtained upon application to me or to Winslow Carlton, of New York, who has functioned as a member as well as secretary of the task force.

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

The committee issued its report this morning. This report is the rock upon which a successful measure for health care for the aging can be built.

Many of the aspects of the committee's report follow the provisions which the Senator from New Mexico

[Mr. ANDERSON] and I had the honor to establish in our bill, but the departures are significant and of the greatest moment, and lend themselves to implementing legislation of a character and quality which I think will make the quality which I think will make the difference between success and failure.

This morning the task force reported that there is need for a basic Federal law based upon social security financing which would give fundamental hospital and nursing home care to those over 65. That will include all persons over 65, That will include all persons over 65, whether or not they are social security whether or not they are social security beneficiaries. However, once that is done, once that basis is laid, the report recommends a tremendous program of insurance for the risks of health care above the basic minimum hospital and above the basic minimum hospital and nursing home care. It is estimated that hospital care cost is about one-third of the total of the annual medical bill; that the total of the annual medical bill; that one-third is attributable to physicians, one-third is attributable to physicians, surgery and similar emergency care; and that the other one-third if made up of numerous other, but generally less urgent, types of medical care.

This proposal deals with two-thirds of the medical care needed, one-third of the medical care needed, one-third being hospital and nursing home care and the other one-third being emergency health and surgical services; the first third to be on a Government plan based third to be on a Government plan based on social security financing, the second third to be covered by private insurance, but on a nonprofit, tax-exempt pooled basis, very much like the plan now being so successfully carried out in Connecticut and New York, which is known as cut and New York, which is known as the

65 extended health insurance program.

There is no desire or design on the part of the task force to invalidate the part of the task force to invalidate the

SURANCE FOR THE AGED PROPOSED IN POLICY STATEMENT ISSUED BY NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE OF THE AGED-MAJOR ROLE SEEN FOR PRIVATE INSURANCE WASHINGTON, November 13-A major policy statement on financing health care of the aged through governmental and private insurance plans was issued here today by the National Committee on Health Care of the

Aged.

The committee is an ad hoc group of leaders from medicine, education, industry, and insurance. The report of its work, entitled "Financing Health Care of the Aged-Guiding Principles for a National Program of Complementary Public and Private Action," is intended to help shape public policy on what has become the perennial domestic issue of the decade.

needs of the aged can be financed best The report's basic thesis is that the health through complementary but separate Government and private insurance plans. The proposed Government plan would be limited to covering the costs of hospitalization and skilled nursing home care under an insurance plan financed independently by an increase in the social security tax. The aged population, relieved of the burden of major hospital bills, would then be better enabled to purchase private insurance policies for other large medical expenses. The commit

advocates congressional action that would permit private insurance organizations to develop tax-free, low-cost special insurance plans to complement the publicly financed coverage. Legislation would be required to allow private insurers to join in concerted efforts for selling and risk pooling, and certain advantages would accrue to plans that meet regulatory standards.

Citing the abnormal health care burden of the aged as a group, caused by greater usage and higher costs of services while receiving lower incomes, the committee urges a shift in emphasis in Government action

from relief measures to social insurance. The committee sees insurance as a key measure to prevent dependency and points out that current public assistance programs are designed to deal with dependency after it occurs rather than preventing loss of independence due to illness.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Officers of the National Committee on Health Care of the Aged are Arthur S. Flemming, its chairman, the University of Oregon president who served as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare during the Eisenhower Administration; Russell A. Nelson, M.D., vice chairman, who is also director of

Johns Hopkins Hospital; and Winslow Carlton, its secretary, who is chairman of the board of Group Health Insurance, Inc., of New York. The members of the committee are James P. Dixon, M.D., president of Antioch College; Marion B. Folsom, also a former HEW Secretary and currently a director of the Eastman-Kodak Corp.; Russel V. Lee, M.D., director of the Palo Alto Clinic; John C. Leslie, chairman of the Committee on Aging, Community Service Society; Vernon W. Lippard, M.D., dean of the Yale Medical School; Dickinson W. Richards, M.D., nobel luareate in medicine from Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons; Thomas M. Tierney, director of Colorado Hospital Service (Blue Cross); Hubert W. Yount, former senior vice president of the Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., and Arthur Larson, director of World Rule of Law Center, Duke University, and former Under Secretary of Labor.

DETAILS OF PUBLIC INSURANCE PLAN

The public segment of the proposed dual insurance program would be limited to coverage of institutional services provided in hospitals or skilled nursing homes during the acute period of an illness, but would not pay for long-term or custodial care. Although the report was not explicit in describing the number of days the plan should cover, the committee indicated that the rough national average of 70 days of hospitalization insurance among the younger population would be desirable for the aged as well, in view of the report's stated goal of offsetting "substantially the abnormal burden that results from greater use and higher cost of services required in old age." Relatively short-term hospitalization is the most frequent major health expense of the aged, most of whom have severely reduced incomes. Worry over the "shock-loss" of such costs, which cause a sizable number of aged dependency cases, frequently prevents persons from seeking medical care until a sickness is very serious, usually resulting in longer, more expensive hospitalization. By having the Government plan cover the kinds of health care that most frequently result in concentrated expense, the committee would seek to break the circle of anxiety worsened sickness and encourage private financing of other medical costs, particularly physician care.

FINANCING THROUGH SOCIAL SECURITY

The report calls for the public insurance plan to be financed by an increase in the social security tax, with the increase deposited in a separate trust fund. The amount of the increase would depend on the scope of the plan's benefits and thus was not determined by the committee. Benefit payments under the plan would be limited to receipts from the additional tax, however, to keep the plan self-financed. The public plan would protect all persons aged 65 or over, irrespective of their financial condition, without further tax payments or

means tests.

ADMINISTERING THE PUBLIC PLAN

The committee also recommends that legislation establishing the public plan place administration in the hands of the Secretary of HEW. The Secretary's responsibility would include authority to contract with existing voluntary agencies for provision of benefits or performance of administrative

services.

In addition, the administration of the plan is intended to stimulate progressive improvements in the quality of medical care purchased. High quality standards would be established at the outset, with reasonable time allowed for currently substandard facilities to meet the program's standards. CONGRESSIONAL ACTION FOR PRIVATE INSURANCE

In the committee's opinion, the Government insurance plan would pay for about

one-third of the total health care costs of the aged. An additional one-third, or an equal portion, should be financed by special private insurance plans, leaving the balance to be paid for independently, either through ordinary insurance or out of personal income or savings. The special private insurance coverage, designed to complement the public plan, is the subject of half of the committee's statement.

Calling for private insurance organizations to assume responsibility for protecting the aged against costs not covered by the public plan, the committee urges that Congress remove impediments to concerted action in the private sector. The statement advocates exemptions from State premium taxes and antitrust and anticompact laws for basic complementary policies meeting certain regulatory standards. In addition, it recommends official public endorsement of acceptable plans, including establishing a national symbol to identify them. The legislative action would result in mass enrollment op

portunities because of large-scale pooling of

risks and nationwide promotion, and in the

lowest possible premium costs by allowing high-volume operations.

STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE INSURANCE PLANS

In the view of the committee, social security coverage of hospitalization (a major insurance risk of the aged) would make it possible for private insurance companies and nonprofit health plans to develop better insurance protection. Although any insurance organization could sell aged health care policies, the tax exemptions, and legal benefits would apply only to those that meet national minimum standards. Among the standards advocated by the committee are: open enrollment of all persons in their 66th year without restrictions or penalties because of condition of health; limited administrative costs; and nonprofit operation. The committee suggests that the "State 65" consortiums, now operating in a number of States, provide the precedent for such insurance, but that the recommended principles will extend the value of concerted effort and protect the participating insurance companies from the threat of adverse risk selection, a major problem of the "State 65" plans to date.

PROCEDURE FOR PRIVATE INSURANCE PLANS

The committee recommends that private insurance organizations propose plans for intended coverage to the Secretary of HEW and the National Advisory Council on Health Insurance for the Aged. If the proposals, in the view of the Secretary and the Council, provide a sound balance of health care for the aged when combined with the public plan, and if an approximately equal share of the total health care costs would be covered, then the proposed private insurance plan would be endorsed officially and allowed to operate under the special Federal legislation. The committee's opinion is that many private insurers would compete to develop bold new insurance policies, once the burden of hospitalization coverage has been removed.

INSURANCE ANNUITIES URGED

A distinguishing feature of the proposed private plan is the recommendation that the cost of private health insurance after retirement be prepaid as much as possible during working years. The committee suggests that prepayment could be accomplished through the purchase of health insurance annuities, which would be vested with the individual and would transfer during employment shifts. The annuities would be applied toward the purchase of private health insurance after age 65. The committee argues that such prefunding of private insurance during working years would bring the costs of protection within the ability of most people to pay. The statement also recommends increased continuation of group

insurance for retired members of employed groups and their dependents.

ADVISORY COUNCIL RECOMMENDED Finally, the committee recommends forming a National Advisory Council on Health Insurance for the Aged. The Council would be charged with advising the Secretary of HEW on policy for the public plan and reporting through the President to Congress on the combined public-private program to solve the aged's health-care problems. In the public plan, the Council would respond to queries from the Secretary and issue recommendations to him at its own

initiative.

NEED FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE REDUCED,

BUT NOT ELIMINATED

The committee concedes that its principles for combined action, if carried out, would not eliminate the need for public assistance measures. By covering the major causes of dependency due to illness, however, the statement declares that the load on re

lief resources would be reduced substantially.

The committee does not discuss the value of

current assistance programs, beyond pointing out that some individuals will continue to need such assistance regardless of the success of its proposals.

COMMITTEE FORMED IN 1962

A bipartisan, nonpolitical task force, the National Committee on Health Care of the Aged, was formed at the suggestion of Senator JACOB K. JAVITS, of New York, following debate of the Anderson-Javits "medicare" bill in the Senate in July of 1962, in order to get a fresh and independent review of the issue. The committee is not responsible to Senator JAVITS, nor is he bound by its recommendations.

The committee's study director is Howard L. Bost, Ph. D., a medical economist who is assistant vice president of the University of Kentucky. Dr. Bost was previously a staff member of the Committee on Financing Hospital Care.

Prof. Henry Foster of New York University Law School served as legal consultant to the committee.

The committee's work was financed by private benefactors.

Mr. JAVITS. I also ask unanimous consent to include in the RECORD a statement hailing the work of this task force, issued by Nelson H. Cruikshank, director of the Department of Social Security of the AFL-CIO.

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

COMMENTS BY NELSON H. CRUIKSHANK, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY, AFLCIO, ON THE REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON HEALTH FOR THE AGED

The report issued today by the National Committee on Health for the Aged has, in our opinion, made a real contribution to the public understanding of the problem of health care for the aged which is still very much with us. This committee, chaired by Dr. Arthur Flemming, formerly Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and made up of distinguished citizens all of whom have expert knowledge in the field of medical care and methods of financing such care has obviously made a careful and thorough study of the problem and approached its solution with imagination and courage.

We in the AFL-CIO are pleased that the report recommends the social security method for the basic institutional health care. The report also indicates how social insurance and private insurance can complement each other in meeting the problems of financing health care for the aged.

The proposals made by this distinguished committee, which was originally organized

by Senator JAVITS, of New York, merit thorough study by all those interested in this vital problem. Its recommendations should certainly be included in the proposals to be examined in the hearings on the KingAnderson bill beginning next week in the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. JAVITS. The thanks of the Nation should properly be given to the chairman and members of the National Committee on Health Care for the Aged, which was formed at my suggestion in September 1962, for their dedicated and most important work in developing and making public this report.

University's College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Thomas M. Tierney, director of Colorado Hospital Service-Blue Cross.

Hubert W. Yount, former senior vice president of the Liberty Mutual Insurance Cos.

Arthur Larson, director of the World Rule of Law Center, Duke University, and former Under Secretary of Labor. I extend the gratitude of many millions of Americans to these extraordinarily able and distinguished Americans who, I trust, will have measurably forwarded this historic proposal of providing adequate medical care for our aging citizens.

From my preliminary review of this report, it seems to me to establish an excellent basis, in fact, for implementing legislation for health care for the aged. I shall study it further and invite our colleagues to join with me in the introduction of new legislation, and I shall also invite the prompt attention of the executive department and the appropriate congressional committees to this report.

It is my urgent hope that I may be able to join the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], our colleagues on his side of the aisle, and colleagues on my side of the aisle, in sponsoring immediately the legislation which I am now engaged in drafting.

This report brings a Federal program of health care for the aged measurably

closer to realization.

This issue, which seems to have been shoved off the boards, has been brought back to the front and center of the stage by the report.

For the information of Senators, I shall read into the RECORD the names of the distinguished gentlemen who gave of their time and attention to bring to the country a meaningful analysis of such a program:

Arthur S. Flemming, chairman, University of Oregon president, former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Russell A. Nelson, medical doctor, vice chairman, director of Johns Hopkins Hospital.

Winslow Carlton, secretary, chairman of the board of Group Health Insurance, Inc., of New York.

The members of the committee are: James P. Dixon, medical doctor, president of Antioch College.

Marion B. Folsom, former HEW Sec

ANCE ACT OF 1961

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

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. clerk will call the roll.

The

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

The

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, on my amendment I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. question is on agreeing to the modified amendment No. 316, of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I support the amendment of the Senator from Oregon. I earlier presented a similar amendment, No. 284, affecting supporting assistance, in which I sought to reduce the amount by $75 million from $400 to $325 million. I do not know of any program in the entire bill that has been more abused than the socalled supporting assistance program, which at one time was known as the defense support program. Supporting assistance is really economic grant assistance pure and simple. The funds provided under the title of supporting assistance are supposed to be used to assist countries such as Korea and South Vietnam, which have to sustain large armies.

Last year, Congress appropriated $395 million for this purpose, but the amount actually programed was $548,969,000. This increase was possible because of augmentations from the contingency fund. As I stated in a previous speech

Eastman-Kodak Corp.

Russell V. Lee, medical doctor, director of the world-famed Palo Alto Clinic.

John C. Leslie, chairman of the Committee on Aging, Community Service Society.

Dr. Vernon W. Lippard, dean of the Yale Medical School.

Dr. Dickinson W. Richards, Nobel laureate in medicine from Columbia

needed to make up the difference between the amount made available and $548,969,000 came from the contingency fund. The Foreign Relations Committee justifies the $400 million it provided for supporting assistance on page 21 of its report, which I quote:

Most of the supporting assistance funds are intended to strengthen the militaryeconomic positions in Vietnam, Korea, and Thailand. The program in Vietnam is de

signed to supply essential imports and to advance rural relief and development activities including the strategic hamlet program. Supporting assistance programs for Korea are intended to finance raw materials and capital goods imports which maintain current production and contribute to longrange economic development. In Thailand, the United States and Thai Governments have agreed to a 50-50 cost sharing project for strengthening internal security forces mobility in the threatened northeastern part and improving both military and civilian of the country.

Mr. President, the same reasons were advanced last year to justify supporting assistance, but what happened after Congress made funds available? Korea, was programed to receive $125 million last year. But under the revised program, Korea received $90 million. Vietwas programed to receive $140 million, but this amount was reduced to $120 million under the revised program.

So in order to take care of these two countries during the previous fiscal year, the sum of $210 million, was required.

It is my contention-and I am sure it is that of the distinguished Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE]-that if $350 million is provided there will be $140 million in excess of what was needed to provide the supporting assistance that is so important, according to our military leaders, in South Vietnam and South Korea.

As I previously pointed out, last year Congress appropriated $395 million, but the administrators programed $548,969,000 by taking moneys from the contingent fund and other parts of the bill in order to augment the program. should like to show how some of that money was used.

I

When the AID made its presentation for For example, let us consider Tunisia. fiscal year 1963, no funds were programed for supporting assistance to that country. But the revised program included $6,813,000. The agency stated in its fiscal 1964 presentation that this project commodities in the amount of money was necessary to provide non$6.7 million and disaster relief in the amount of $100,000. Yet we are told that this sum is to be used in order to assist countries that have huge armies to maintain.

In justifying this action, the agency states that fiscal year 1962 funds programed for Tunisia were deobligated be

cause of technicalities-because the 1963 of prior years' funds, the agency apappropriation act precluded reobligation proved the use of the 1963 contingency years' funds. Thus AID got around the fund rather than reobligate the prior letter of the law by violating the spirit of the law.

Another example may be found in the case of Egypt, where $10 million of the contingency fund was used, not directly from that fund, but through the supporting assistance fund. The amount was transferred from the contingency fund to the supporting assistance fund.

It is interesting to note that the agency reduced its supporting assistance program in only one area of the world; namely, the Far East. Yet when a plea was made by the agency for a restoration of the amount asked last year, the

reason given was that the Far East needed it. As I stated a while ago, the agency reduced that amount, but used the money in other areas.

In that connection, I point out some of the areas where it was used. The money could not have been obtained from Congress if the purposes for which it was desired to use it had been stated. In Latin America, a total of $41,535,000 was added to the amount appropriated by Congress; there was added in the Near East, a total of $9,113,000; and in Africa, $10,462,000 was added for a total increase from the original program of $17,719,000. But in the areas where it was intended to be used to the greatest extent, upon which was based the argument for an increase last year, the program was cut back. These cuts were made in South Vietnam and Korea.

Now the same arguments are being made in connection with the claim that this amount should be increased, because, it is said, it is badly needed in South Korea, in South Vietnam, and

elsewhere in southeast Asia. But I con

tend that if the authorization for this fund is cut to $350 million, South Vietnam and Korea will receive the same amounts that they received last year,

and the administrators will have a surplus of $140 million to spread around as they may desire.

Again, I point out where some of this money was used last year. While reductions were being made in the Far East, Indonesia-a country which continues to

play "footsie" with the Reds-had its supporting assistance program increased from $2,500,000 to $21,900,000-an increase of 776 percent. How can such deception be tolerated? A program is justified for countries that have the sympathy of Congress and of the American people, but the funds are used in a country which tries to play both sides against the middle. In this connection, the Clay Committee said, in its report

But, Mr. President, Indonesia has not done so. I would not be at all surprised to find that much of the supporting assistance funds in the amount of $20 million which was made available last year to Indonesia was used to grab certain islands or parts of islands which formerly belonged to our friends in Europe and in other parts of the world.

It is my judgment that an authorization in the amount of $350 million, as proposed by the Morse amendment, will be entirely sufficient to take care of the

areas which must be cared for, according to our military leaders.

So I hope the modified amendment of the Senator from Oregon to the committee amendment, as amended, will be adopted.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. EDMONDSON in the chair). The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 316, as modified, as proposed by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] to the committee amendment, as amended, in the nature of a substitute.

On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I shall say only a few words, because very little is left to be said about the amendment.

This item has already been cut severely, as have all the other items. The supporting assistance item has been decreased from $917 million, in 1961, to the requested authorization of $445 million, this year; and in the committee it was cut to $400 million.

remains to be said in this case. I do not know that anything further

I hope the Senate will not adopt the modified amendment of the Senator from Oregon to the committee amend

ment, as amended.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arkansas yield to me?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, it has always seemed to me that after we provide military assistance, we must provide some supporting assistance, because after we help a country to develop its military forces, we have to assist in their support through local agencies and local people in view of the fact that a certain number of people are thus taken away from their normal occupations. So it has always seemed to me that supporting assistance is a valuable and necessary part of military assistance.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator from Massachusetts is entirely correct. With a few exceptions, that is the major use of supporting assistance-in cases in which a major military effort is madefor example, in Turkey, which has already been referred to. There is also the critical situation in the Congo, particularly in Leopoldville, which is in desperate need of assistance for stabilizing purposes. The countries in these areas are threatened with serious problems, both external and internal. This general situation has been explored; and both the Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from Oregon have spoken extensively on what is involved in this

case.

But the amount has already been greatly reduced until it is now quite small. In pursuance of what was called the Mansfield amendment-which was adopted in 1961, I believe, and which called for a reduction of this item-the administration has followed the advice of Congress, and in my opinion has done a very good job in that connection.

So I hope the Senate will reject the pending amendment, as modified, to the committee amendment.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arkansas yield? Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.

Mr. ELLENDER. Can the Senator from Arkansas state how this fund will be used, and can he also state what countries will receive it?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. That information is classified. However, what is proposed is shown in a list which I have before me. The Senator from Louisiana can examine it if he wishes to do so. The past figures in connection with this item are not classified; but, as the Senator from Louisiana knows, there is a very good reason for classifying this material in connection with the pending bill, for after the appropriations process is engaged in, the amounts are always altered. So it is obviously undesirable to permit this information to be issued at this time, for if it were issued now, perhaps it would be bandied about by those interested in these programs. Clearly, there is always a certain amount of adjustment to be made before the appropriations are voted and are made

available.

have Senators see that statement or list.

Mr. ELLENDER. But I should like to

but it should not be printed in the RECMr. FULBRIGHT. They can do so; situation in that connection. ORD. There is nothing new about the

Mr. ELLENDER. I understand that. However, is it not true that last year, as I have pointed out, there was programed and justified for Korea not less than $125 million, but the administrators gave that country only $90 million?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. As I have said, when a certain amount is proposed, but when thereafter the amount proposed is severely cut, obviously the amount finally provided will be less than the amount originally proposed. What else could be done? The administrators say, "If you grant us x dollars, we propose to use it in this way." But if the proposed amount is cut by 20 or 30 percent, obviously they cannot spend the amount which they had proposed.

Mr. ELLENDER. As I pointed outand I should like to be corrected if I do not have the correct figures-last year $395 million was provided for supporting assistance but there $548,969,000. was programed

Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator has stated the estimate before any cuts were made.

Mr. ELLENDER. No, I have stated the amount of the program. The appropriation was only $395 million. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. ELLENDER. demanded.

Yes. That is what was

Mr. FULBRIGHT. What would the Senator expect the agency to do if the program changed and a cut were made in the amount below the program estimate? Would the Senator have it spend more than the amount which was authorized?

Mr. ELLENDER. No. If the money appropriated last year had been used for countries such as South Vietnam, Korea, and Southeast Asia that, it was said, needed the money so badly, they would have had enough money. But they increased the programs in Indonesia and

other countries that should not have received the money. That is what happened.

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

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. MORSE. I hope that Senators will announce to the latecomers that my amendment has been modified by omitting lines 1 and 2, which involved the development grants, and the amendment is now limited entirely to a proposed $50 million cut in supporting assistance. It has nothing to do with developing grants. I may offer an amendment in relation to development grants later.

The

PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] as modified, to the committee amendment, as amended. On that question, 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 Nevada [Mr. CANNON], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], 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 anounce that, if present and I further anounce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], and the Senator from Nevada [Mr. CANNON] would each vote "yea."

On this vote, the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE] is paired with the

Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG]. If present and voting, the Senator from California would vote "nay," and the Senator from Louisiana would vote "yea."

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER] is detained on official business, and if present and voting, would vote "nay." The result was announced-yeas 43, nays 52, as follows:

So Mr. MORSE's amendment, as modified, to the committee amendment, as amended, was rejected.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, since the foreign aid bill now under consideration is being debated at great length, I should like to state briefly why I shall vote against it. As the RECORD will show, I have not voted for any foreign aid spending since 1954. I do not mean by that statement to imply that I have not felt that some judicious spending might not be to our benefit. However, I concluded, about that time, that we were spending at least $2 for every $1 that was necessary to carry out our program that we had in mind and for which we envisioned a need for our assistance.

bills designed to implement the Marshall Prior to 1954 I voted for foreign aid plan, because I believed the situation was such that there was some prospect of achieving some kind of results. I was willing, and I thought it proper, and I should help rehabilitate the war devasbelieve it was well justified, that we tated countries. That we did.

Looking back, I believe most people would agree that our assistance since under the Marshall plan achieved a significant and quite satisfactory result. When it became clear that the proponents of foreign aid intended to make it of exorbitant expenditures aimed at the achievement of what I conceived to be

impossible, unrealistic, or questionable goals, I concluded that I could no longer in good conscience support the program.

I have observed that since I quit voting for the program in 1954, the number of nations receiving aid has increased, I believe, from 71 countries that were receiving aid then to approximately 111 which are now receiving our assistance.

The amount of funds appropriated increased from $2,712 million in fiscal 1956 to $3,929 million in fiscal 1963. The current request for funds maintains the trend toward ever larger authorizations and appropriations. This year the President submitted an original budget request for $4,945 million. Later he reduced his request for fiscal 1964 to $4,529 million. The House further reduced the amount to $3,502 million in the bill now before the Senate.

Since July 1, 1945, the United States has spent or committed more than $103 billion for economic and military assistance. We have made available about $45 billion to Europe; $24 billion to the Far East; $20 billion to the Near East and southern Asia; $7 billion to Latin America; $2 billion to Africa and $5 billion on a nonregional basis. Both the obligation authority and expenditures for economic assistance and military support have been steadily increasing in recent

years with no indication as to when or where this merry-go-round will slow down or come to a halt. With only about 6 percent of the world's population, the United States has attempted to conquer poverty, illiteracy, disease, and oppression throughout the world. We have aided our foes as well as our friends.

What achievements can we point to as a result of this monumental expenditure of funds? I submit the results are not too gratifying; indeed, they are extremely disappointing. It is unnecessary at this time to describe again and in any detail instances of waste and wretched adminis

tration in the foreign aid program. Through the years, Members of this body, the press, commentators, and other sources have cited countless examples of shortcomings and spectacular failures in the program. Even the friends of foreign aid apparently concede that the program has been completely unsatisfactory or, at the least, that it is most unsatis

factory in its present state of operation

and that the program must be revamped day, the Washington Post stated that or completely changed. Only the other "few can deny that the present program tration." The Committee on Foreign and occasionally by wretched adminisis beset by contradictory policy objectives Relations has indicated that it gave serious consideration to ending the program judgment, even that period of delay is as presently constituted in 1965. In my specific instances of corrupt, shortnot acceptable. A complete list of the sighted, or inefficient administration of the program would fill volumes.

The fallacies and shortcomings in our foreign aid program have been rather thoroughly exposed during the debate on this bill. Senators have presented detailed examples and many valid generali

respecting our foreign aid program. zations which reflect true conditions

ground, but will merely summarize my I shall not attempt to go over the same

own views in this area.

One of the more serious shortcomings in the program is the lack of clarity in our goals. We have often undertaken projects with no clear objective in mind. When we have pursued particular goals, they have often been either contrary to our national interest or unrealistic and impossible to achieve. In many instances, we have pursued contradictory policy objectives. While attempting to solve each problem which arises in the world, we often forget what we are trying to accomplish and why we are concerned with the problem at all. Until such time as we clarify our goals, any foreign aid program which we undertake will not be fully effective.

As the Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING] has so ably pointed out in his report to a subcommittee of the Government Operations Committee, of which I have the honor of serving as chairman, there has been far too great a tendency on the part of our administrators to proceed on the assumption that any nation in the free world not only should, but is entitled to, receive U.S. foreign economic aid.

I do not agree that all nations of the free world are entitled to or should receive economic assistance from us. An indiscriminate outpouring of aid results