Mr. PASTORE. Because for a long time we have been appropriating funds for research work in an attempt to develop this product as a food. I realize that it has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, but I wonder what the repercussions or effect of this provision will be. First of all, this product is not in surplus; so I do not believe it will fall within the purview of this provision, to begin with. But the mere fact that we are earmarking it or "flagging" it at this point makes me wonder whether such a provision would discourage the work on the development of this product. We have already authorized funds for research in regard to the development of this product; and I wonder why a Senator who is much interested in the sale of wheat flour is going out of his way this evening to except fish flour. I am naturally suspicious; that is all.

Mr. CARLSON. Whenever this product is approved by the Food and Drug Administration, that will be different. Mr. PASTORE. Then why not say so in the amendment? If the amendment contains such a provision, I will agree to accept the amendment. But I hope the Senate will not proceed tonight, at 8 o'clock, to accept, out of order, such an amendment even though many of us have been fighting for a long time because of our view that if this product proves out, it should be used. The Government has spent many thousands of dollars on research on it; but this amendment would say all that work is

now off.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, as one who is just as much interested in fish flour and fish protein as is the Senator from Rhode Island, I would go along with the amendment of the Senator from Kansas, because I believe it is of the utmost importance that domestically produced fish products be included as part of the surplus products to be shipped abroad. I do not think there is a great deal of fish to be shipped as surplus, but I think it important to include it.

Although I am strongly in favor of the use of fish protein, so-called, instead of fish flour, I think it advisable not to have a fight in the Senate over whether fish flour should be included in the bill for the following reason:

At the present time the Federal Government has underway several projects involving fish flour and its acceptability. The FAO mission has also begun a pro

gram of acceptability testing and development of commercial production of fish flour in Peru, to which it is contributing $300,000 during the next 3 years. The National Academy of Sciences has given fish flour a clean bill of health. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries is continuing its research under funds appropriated last year.

The important point is that the Food and Drug Administration has indicated that it will not move from its position of opposing the use of fish flour in this country unless ordered to do so by the courts or by congressional action.

This amendment would make available surplus fisheries products as designated by the Secretary of the Interior for purchase by friendly nations under the food-for-peace program. Occasionally we do harvest more of a particular species than the market can handle.

I think this is a very simple step, one which could prove extremely valuable to emerging nations where bread alone cannot solve the problem of undernutrition.

Already we permit the sale of wheat, rice, eggs, poultry, butter, cheese, milk, pork, variety meats, lamb, onions, potatoes, dates, canned peaches, and beans.

We cannot sell any of these items where they will compete with products from other friendly nations; so the effect of this amendment will be limited, but it would assist our beleaguered fishing industry, and I believe that, more importantly, it could serve to alleviate malnutrition and starvation in many areas of the world.

Mr. President, there are still some ghosts which have not been laid to rest with regard to fish protein concentrate. I am afraid that many of my colleagues are frightened by the term "fish flour" which is applied to this product. It is a misleading name, applying only to its appearance, not to its use. We never could make a loaf of bread with fish flour. It is in essence only a protein It is in essence only a protein additive. Many countries of the world cannot obtain for their people a diet sufficiently high in protein. This product would answer that need by supplementing largely carbohydrate diets.

I think we would be in a bad position if we shipped such products abroad although at the present time we do not permit them to be sold to the people of

the United States, and although two research programs in regard to them are being conducted.

Therefore, I am agreeable to accepting the amendment of the Senator from Kansas to the committee amendment, as amended.

nature of a substitute, was agreed to, as follows:

On page 53, line 20, after the word "product", insert "not including fish flour until approved by the Food and Drug Administra

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, since subsection 403 (a) has been stricken out, it will be necessary to strike out, in line 17, on page 53, the letter "(b)", and to insert in lieu thereof "(a)"; and on page 54, in line one, to strike out "(c)" and to insert in lieu thereof "(b)". I ask that these modifications or corrections be made.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the necessary corrections or technical changes in the lettering of sections and subsections will be made by the Secretary of the Senate.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. In the com

mittee amendment, as amended, on page 35, beginning with the word "and" in line 18, it is proposed (amendment No. 245) to strike out through the words "as amended," in line 22.

On page 36, line 14, before the period, insert a comma and the following: "except that so much thereof as may be necessary shall be used for the immediate

redemption of any outstanding notes issued under section 111 (c) (2) of the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, as

amended, or section 413 (b) (4) (F) of the Mutual Security Act of 1948, as amended".

Mr. CARLSON. Of course I would not be in a position to oppose the sale of any product that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States. I still have questions about this product; but I shall be willing to accept that modification, in order to have the amendment taken to the conference between the House and the Senate.

Mr. PASTORE. I thank the Senator from Kansas.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the modified amendment of the Senator from Kansas. [Putting the question.]

The modified amendment to the committee amendment, as amended, in the

merely simplify the bookkeeping of the investment guarantee fund and remove from the bill a method of backdoor financing. In addition, it will help to make clear, and place emphasis on the provision included in the bill by the Foreign Relations Committee; namely, that all guarantees "shall be considered contingent obligations backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America." And finally, it will place the Investment Guaranty Fund on the same authorization-appropriation basis as the other items contained in the pending bill.

are

As of June 30, 1963, the Investment Guaranty Fund had reserves totaling $268,585,915.01. These reserves composed of the following: Borrowing authority from Treasury--

Transfers from DLF appro-
priated funds..

Fees collected____
Proceeds from sale of assets_
Fiscal year 1963 appropria-
tions

Subtotal____

$199, 071, 521.50

27, 747, 863. 42 12, 417, 917.88 16, 161. 07

30, 000, 000.00

269, 253, 463.87

I point out that the investment guarantee fund has been in operation now for 15 years. In the course of the 15 years only 2 losses have been sustained. Those losses amount amount to $667,548.86, thereby leaving in available reserves $268,585,915.

I submit, Mr. President, that since Congress has legislated to provide that the full faith and credit of the United States stands behind all investment guarantee contracts, the reserves presently set aside in this fund are far in excess of needs and should be reduced to a reasonable amount, and that backdoor financing of this fund is no longer necessary. To reduce the reserve to a reasonable amount, my amendment would amendment would rescind the amount of borrowing authority presently contained in the total reserves, an amount totaling, as previously mentioned, $199,071,521.50, and make the total reserves of the Investment Guaranty Fund $69,514,393.51. This amount should be more than adequate to take care of any losses the fund may sustain in any particular year, and if future replenishment of the fund ever becomes necessary, Congress could replenish the fund through the appropriation process.

To buttress my opinion, I would like to cite language from the Agency's own justifications which was submitted to Congress to back up its budget estimates, and which appears on page 156 of these justifications:

Since investment guarantees are obligations of the United States, there is no basis for doubting that Congress would provide the necessary moneys to discharge proper claims promptly as they fall due. The history of claims to date in the past 15 years of the program's operation indicates that the present reserves are probably more than adequate to take care of claims that could be anticipated as maturing in any given fiscal.

Mr. President, I fear that if the excess reserves are allowed to remain in the bill, it is only a question of time when either the Senate or probably the House will

desire to make use of the fund for one

reason or another.

Agency's operation of this program. This would have allowed, in addition to the management and custodial costs incurred with respect to currencies or other assets acquired under guarantees made, the payment of direct and indirect personnel, travel, communications, and other expenses involved in the processing and issuance of guarantee con

Although it rejected authority to use fee income for the employment of personnel and recognized the need for increased emthe payment of other costs, the committee phasis on the proper staffing of this important program, and believes that early attention should be given to this problem. Further, the committee believes that the necessary personnel can be provided without any change in existing law if AID gives greater attention to the processing of the investment guarantees. In the view of the committee the importance of encouraging the participation of private enterprise in our development efforts warrants the assignment of the very highest priority to meeting the needs of this program within available administrative appropriations and person

nel ceilings.

Mr. President, I repeat that repeat that the amendment would in no manner reduce the dollar amounts in the bill but would merely return to the Treasury the now unneeded borrowing authority which was put into the law many years ago.

If my amendment is adopted I repeat that there will be almost $70 million in available funds which may be necessary to pay losses that may be sustained under the investment guarantee fund.

Mr. President, I hope that the amendment will be adopted.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment, on line 8, to change the year figure from "1948" to "1954".

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it

is so ordered.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ELLENDER. I am glad to yield. Mr. DIRKSEN. The reserves are piled the distinguished Senator from Louisiup under this guarantee program. Does ana feel that they have reached the point where some of them should be covered back into the Treasury at least the Marshall plan, in the aggregate sum of amount to pay off notes under the old about $200 million?

Mr. ELLENDER. That is right; $199 million-plus.

Mr. DIRKSEN. That is the substance of the amendment?

Mr. ELLENDER. That is all it involves.

Mr. HUMPHREY. We are greatly expanding the investment guarantee program. Under this bill that is the only way we will get the private sector of the economy involved in any of these activities.

Mr. ELLENDER. I understand that and I agree the private sector should be encouraged. Last year we appropriated $30 million for that purpose. This year no request was made.

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is because there was a substantial carryover of reserves.

Mr. ELLENDER. But the situation has changed from that prevailing under the original legislation. Originally reserves of 100 percent were required. It will be recalled that a ruling was asked of the Attorney General as to whether the full faith and credit of the United States is behind the investment guarantees, and the answer was in the affirmative. Furthermore, the U.S. Government is contingently liable to the extent of approximately $746 billion on veteran's housing, FHA housing, retired military pay, veterans pensions and benefits, and other commitments. There are not any reserves to cover this large liability.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. ELLENDER. In order to make this certain, the bill contains a provision which explicity states that the full faith and credit of the United States is behind the guarantees.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I am not particularly opposed to the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana. I rise to make some legislative history on the question of the investment guarantees, which is of such importance to the private sector of the American economy that we cannot deal with it lightly.

One of the problems brought to my attention by a private firm relates to the promptness of payment. With reserves, they get the money. When the investment goes bad, and the guarantee re"full faith and credit" of the U.S. proquirement is brought into play under the vision, they are guaranteed the money but get the money rather late. That, of course, does not suffice to meet the business needs of a corporation.

and credit of the United States backs up any claims, they have always been paid.

Mr. ELLENDER. Whenever the faith

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes, I agree that they have been paid.

Mr. ELLENDER. There will be a reserve as I said, of almost $70 million for that purpose, if this amendment is adopted. If this guarantee fund should

Mr. ELLENDER. I am ready.

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Is it not true that mately $70 or $69 million? these reserves will be reduced to approxi

Mr. ELLENDER. The reserves will be reduced to $69 million, but I hasten to point out that in 15 years the losses have been only $667,000.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I merely wished to raise a warning flag on this question. I am not in any position to object. The chairman of the committee is temporarily away from the Chamber.

Since we have greatly expanded the investment guarantee program, since we have written into the bill half a dozen amendments about private enterprise

participation, and since many speeches have been made on the importance of private enterprise investing in foreign countries-particularly in South American countries, so as to aid the Alliance for Progress-considering what knowledge we have of the political and economic instability in these countries, I believe it might be a little risky to tamper in any way with what we call the guarantee program, I understand that the full faith and credit of the United

States is pledged. I understand we can always appropriate additional moneys. I also understand a little about the necessity for having reserves. The reserves are minor compared to the amount ultimately to be guaranteed.

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

Mr. ELLENDER. I am glad to yield. Mr. DIRKSEN. I believe the Senator is correct in stating that it would take Congress only a few days, either by a deficiency or a supplemental appropriation, to provide the necessary money to sustain the full faith and credit item. I respectfully suggest to the Senator that he withdraw the order for the yeas and nays and let the Senate vote.

Mr. MORSE. We should have the yeas and nays. Then in conference our position would be strengthened. It will not take long.

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

Mr. ELLENDER. I am glad to yield. Mr. SPARKMAN. As I understand this proposal, it would effect no reduction in the program, no saving. It would not worsen the Treasury position, and it would not better the Treasury position. The amendment would reduce the reserves by canceling the Treasury notes never called upon.

There are some arguments against doing that. We virtually doubled the guarantee program this year, from $1.3 to $2.5 billion. This is a new proposal. It was not submitted to the committee. I would suggest that the Senator from Louisiana obtain unanimous consent to withdraw the yeas and nays. We are willing to take the amendment to conference.

Mr. HUMPHREY. And support it.

Mr. SPARKMAN. And we will support it, subject, of course, to such additional information as we may obtain between now and then.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the yeas and nays on my amendment may be withdrawn.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection to the request for rescinding the order for the yeas and nays? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], as modified, to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.

The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

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

Mr. ELLENDER. I am glad to yield. Mr. HUMPHREY. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD

the position of the executive branch relating to the amendment.

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

ARGUMENTS AGAINST AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY SENATOR ELLENDER REQUIRED IMMEDIATE REDEMPTION OF ANY NOTES ISSUED UNDER THE ECONOMIC COOPERATION ACT OF 1948 AND THE MUTUAL SECURITY ACT OF 1954 IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTMENT GuarANTEE PROGRAM

1. No new notes can be issued to the

Treasury under the investment guarantee authority of the Foreign Assistance Act. The effect of the amendment, however, would be to deny AID the right to draw against notes already issued under prior statutes, which are now part of the reserves for the payment of claims.

faith with U.S. business firms who hold in

out

2. By depleting existing reserves, it breaks vestment guarantees. Firms taking guarantees have and will continue to rely on there being a sizable reserve available to assure prompt payment of their claims without waiting for an appropriation. While the full surance to investors that they will be paid, it is equally important to them that payment

faith and credit of the United States is as

be made promptly and that they not have to wait for appropriations. Investors have understood that the reserves will minimize or eliminate the risk of such delay. To deplete this reserve by reducing it from $268 million to $69 million would be a direct repudiation of the understanding.

avoids the appropriation requirement. No 3. This is not "backdoor financing," which

new notes can be issued to increase the reserves. In 1962 the Appropriations Committees reviewed the investment guarantee reserve in deciding how much new money to appropriate for that reserve. They took these funds into account and reduced the quested by the executive branch to $30 milappropriation from the $180 million relion to maintain a reserve level which included the $199 million.

4. The funds represented by these notes are not part of our national debt.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 287 to the committee substitute, and ask that it be stated.

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

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 38, line 22, after the word "shall" it is proposed to strike out all through the word

"Act" on line 24.

Mr. President, will

Mr. DOUGLAS. the Senator yield? Mr. ELLENDER. I am glad to yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois will state it.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, do I correctly understand that during my absence from the Chamber an amendment was added on page 53, line 20 of ment was added on page 53, line 20 of the committee amendment dealing with the use of fish under Public Law 480, and that the modified amendment added was as follows: "not including fish flour until approved by the Food and Drug Administration,".

Am I correct in stating that this was made a part of the bill?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment was adopted.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, may I ask if any motion to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to was made at that time?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. No such motion was made.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Then a motion to reconsider would be in order?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Such a motion is in order.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I wish to serve notice that at an appropriate time I shall move the reconsideration of

the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

I believe it is well known that I am deeply interested in this amendment. I was not notified of the action to be taken by anyone. It is very hard to watch the proceedings constantly, considering the multitude of things going on and the multitude of obligations under which a Senator is involved, and I knew nothing about this until a few minutes ago.

I believe this amendment is equivalent to killing the inclusion of fish flour so long as George B. Larrick is head of the Food and Drug Administration. Mr. Larrick has declared his opposition to fish flour over and over again, despite the fact that it has been approved by the National Academy of Sciences and is known to be extremely beneficial, to be 85 percent protein, with absolutely no toxic effect whatsoever. Mr. Larrick objects on the alleged esthetic ground that it is made from the whole fish, although it is subject to many washings both in water and in alcohol, and is completely pure.

As I demonstrated the other day, Mr. Larrick has this esthetic objection to fish flour, while he approves for distribution fried silkworms, chocolate covered bees and ants, rattlesnake meat a regular chamber of horrors. He has no esthetic scruples against those, but he draws the line against fish flour.

laughable incident, but it is of practical This may seem to be a somewhat importance, because in tropical areas where refrigeration is lacking, it is virtually impossible to keep milk and fish without their rapidly disintegrating and becoming contaminated. It is precisely in this area of the world where we are trying to build up the health of the people. The fish flour, with very high protein, can be produced at 14 cents a pound. And that is precisely where it is needed.

I serve notice that Mr. Larrick is not going to clamp down on the health of either the American people or people in the tropics.

At an appropriate time-and I shall have to be the judge of what the appropriate time will be I shall offer a motion to reconsider, and I shall be prepared to debate the subject, not with the ability, but with some of the persistence, customarily displayed by the distinguished Senator from Oregon.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. The Senator from Kansas, who was interested in this amendment-I am also interested in itis not present. I have sent for him. I

do not know whether he has left the building or not. My suggestion to the Senator from Illinois is that he not persist in his motion to reconsider this evening, but hold it up until the Senator from Kansas reaches the Chamber. I am personally interested in fish flour, but I am also interested in getting other fish products included.

Mr. DOUGLAS. They are not inconsistent. I shall do this at an appropriate time.

If the motion will be in order tomorrow, and there will not be a previous motion to reconsider by one of Mr. Larrick's proteges which will be defeated because of a vacuum which had developed on the floor, I shall do so. I do not want my abstention used as an excuse to get a rush vote to reconsider, which will be voted down, and which will result in anchoring this language into the bill.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. If the Senator is willing to do that, he can bring it up tomorrow. I shall try to get in touch with the Senator from Kansas and other Senators interested in the subject.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, does the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] have an amendment to offer?

Mr. ELLENDER. Yes; that is the last one.

sions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and for loans made from the Development Loan Fund under the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended. It simply provided that the repayments from these loans are availrepayments from these loans are available for relending.

Mr. President, I originally opposed the establishment of such a revolving fund because its operation would weaken the control of Congress of Federal expendi

tures in that it would permit moneys to be reloaned without congressional approval or consent. I have always felt that Congress should have the opportunity to vote on the uses to which the tunity to vote on the uses to which the taxpayers money is put, and the establishment of such a revolving fund prevented Congress from perfoming that function. Needless to function. Needless to say, notwithstanding my opposition, the revolving fund concept was written into the Foreign Assistance Act.

Be that as it may, I am hopeful that when the Foreign Relations Committee revamps the foreign aid program next year, it will not write into the foreign aid bill any provisions which would tend to circumvent congressional control. All receipts from loans should be paid into the Treasury and each year's loan program should be reviewed and approved by Congress.

Mr. ELLENDER. I understand it will be.

Mr. DIRKSEN. May I suggest to the Senator from Louisiana that he present his argument in capsule form-say 60 seconds and have the Senate act on it?

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 287 to the committee amendment, as amended.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. amendment will be stated.

The

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. It is proposed on page 38, line 22, after the word "shall" strike out all through the word "Act" on line 24, as follows: "notwithstanding the provisions of section 612 of this Act or the provisions of any other Act."

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, the bill as now drafted, authorizes and provides $25 million a year to be used by the President in lending to cooperatives. The purpose of my amendment is merely to leave the authorization in, but it provides that those who seek to borrow any of these moneys must obtain them through the appropriations process.

This, in a nutshell, is what the amendment does.

Mr. President, prior to the action taken by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on this bill, section 253 provided

that:

All receipts in United States dollars from moneys made under this title and from loans made for the benefit of countries and areas of Latin America under title I of chapter II of part I of this Act, notwithstanding section 203, shall be available for use for loans payable as to principal and interest in United States dollars in furtherance of the purposes of this title. Such receipts and other funds made available under this title for use for the purposes of this title shall remain available until expended.

This language, Mr. President, established a revolving fund for loans made under the Alliance for Progress provi

Last evening, the Senate took a step in the right direction when it adopted the amendment of the distinguished junior Senator from Colorado Colorado [Mr. DOMINICK]. His amendment provided that loan receipts could not be reloaned unless reappropriated by Congress. However, I would like to go a step further by reiterating that loan receipts of the development loan program and the Alliance for Progress program should be taken into the general receipts of the Treasury.

When the committee recently considered the Foreign Assistance Act it adopted an amendment to section 253 which would broaden the revolving fund already established by this section. I understand that the amendment the committee adopted was offered by our distinguished majority whip, Senator HUMPHREY, from Minnesota. It expanded section 253 by extending the revolving fund concept to include in addition to dollars, the foreign currencies our Nation receives from the sale of surplus commodities and from other sales. The amendment reads as follows:

All receipts in foreign currencies from loans made under this title or from nonmilitary assistance purposes under the MuAct repealed thereby, shall, notwithstanding tual Security Act of 1954, as amended, or any the provisions of section 612 of this Act or the provisions of any other Act, be available, in addition to other funds available for such purposes, for loans on such terms and conditions as the President may specify to carry out the purposes of subsection (g) of section 251 of this title, and the President may, notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act, reserve such currencies in such amounts (not to exceed $25,000,000 in any fiscal year) and for such periods as he shall determine to be necessary to provide for the programs authorized by said subsection (g).

The subsection (g) referred to in this amendment was also adopted by the Committee at the behest of our distin

guished majority whip, and it reads as follows:

In order to carry out the policies of this Act, the President shall, when appropriate, assist in promoting the organization, implementation and growth of the cooperative movement in Latin America as a fundamental measure toward the strengthening of democratic institutions and practices and economic and social development under the Alliance for Progress.

to assisting the cooperative movement in Now, Mr. President, I am not opposed Latin America, but I feel that any assistLatin America, but I feel that any assistance we may grant should only be given with the full approval and consent of the Congress functioning through the sound processes established by the Congress. We should not authorize and appropriate at the same time, yet this is done in the Humphrey amendment to section 253.

Section 612 of the Foreign Assistance Act provides that, and I quote:

Foreign currencies so received, which are in excess of the amounts so reserved and of the requirements of the United States Government in payment of its obligations outside the United States, as such requirements may be determined from time to time by the President, shall be available for the authorized purposes of part I in such amounts as may be specified from time to time in appropriation Acts.

The Foreign Assistance Act provides in section 612 that foreign currencies are authorized to be made available for any of the purposes authorized in the Foreign Assistance Act, but it also provides that these moneys must be appropriated in an act passed by Congress.

The amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act which was offered by our distinguished majority whip, and which was adopted by the committee, would waive the provisions of section 612, and thereby result in a further dilution and weakening of congressional control since it would no longer require that foreign currencies be made available in an appropriation act. In effect, we give the President a blank check and bypass the orderly appropriation process prescribed by Congress.

I submit, Mr. President, that such a weakening of congressional control of expenditures is not only not desirable, but it is unnecessary. Thus, in my amendment to the amendment of the distinguished majority whip, I have merely urged the deletion of that language that would make the provisions of section 612 inapplicable. If my amendment is adopted there would still be $25 million of foreign currencies au

thorized in any one fiscal year for assisting and promoting the organization, implementation and growth of the cooperative movement in Latin America, but before this money could actually be expended, it would be necessary for it to be appropriated in an act passed by Congress.

If my amendment is not adopted then it would mean that Congress, in this authorization bill on foreign assistance, will be both authorizing and appropriating $25 million of foreign currencies for the purposes enumerated in section 251 (g) of the act. This, I do not believe Congress wishes to do and, therefore,