Слике страница
PDF
ePub

With every good wish, I remain affectionately yours.

MIGUEL YDIGORAS FUENTES, Constitutional President of Guatemala. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a letter I received from Luis Tovar, a senator of Venezuela, under date of October 17, 1963, in support of the position I have taken on the military issue.

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

[Translation]

(NOTE. This letter was written in "telegraph style" the tie-ins were provided by this translator.-E.H.)

REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA,

SENATE,

Caracas, October 17, 1963. [DEAR SENATOR:] Your noble fight in the U.S. Senate against military coups in Latin America has earned the gratitude of the Venezuelan workers and people. You are now showing the best domocratic traditions of the American people.

I feel I interpret the democratic feelings of the Venezuelan people by congratulating you upon your affirmation of understanding and friendship. Simultaneously I implore you to continue your interest in the development and stability of democracy in Latin America, which is the only road leading to the sure defeat of communism's international conspiracy and of the remaining native oligarchies.

Cordially yours,

LOUIS TOVAR,

Senator and President of Fedepetrol. Translated by Elizabeth Hanunian, October 24, 1963.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a cablegram I received from Luis Muñoz-Marín, of Puerto Rico, who is a great friend of the United States. Governor Muñoz-Marín shares the fears and the concern I have expressed concerning juntas in connection with our military aid program. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Hon. WAYNE MORSE,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.:

I have just sent the following cable to President Kennedy regarding Santo Domingo situation: The United States faces a problem, a challenge, and an opportunity. As a citizen and as a neighbor of the Dominican people I feel it my duty to make my views known to you.

I unreservedly favor taking a hard line toward the usurping government of Santo Domingo. No recognition, no economic aid. A soft line would result as I see it in the following:

1. A further demonstration of the powerlessness of the United States to support the democratic governments in the hemisphere;

2. A chain reaction of military coups in Latin America (Honduras is now said to be on the verge);

3. A shot in the arm for communism as the Batista dictatorship in Cuba turned out to be;

4. Deprive Alliance for Progress of a number of democratic partners compelling United States to deal with the oligarchies that oppose the reforms that are the basis of the Alliance;

5. Depend on military usurpation to combat communism instead of depending on democracy;

6. Allowing to lapse the opportunity of using the Santo Domingo situation for a

stronger policy orientation under very favorable psychological circumstances.

A strong line would refuse to recognize the stability of infamy as "stable government" and demand thorough respect for the freedom of the Dominican people to have their own democratically chosen government. I believe that such steadfast position on the part of the United States would strengthen democracy in Latin America immeasurably and that the puppet government and its military masters would crumble and open the way to action both viable and honorable in Santo Domingo.

Respectfully,

LUIS MUÑOZ-MARÍN.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a letter from a former Senator of the Dominican Republic, Dr. Anibal Campagna, from the province of Santiago. It was sent to a newspaper in the Dominican Republic with the request that it be published. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[Translation]

SEPTEMBER 28, 1963.

Mr. RAFAEL HERRERA, Director of Listin Diario Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. DISTINGUISHED FRIEND: I am writing to ask you to be so kind as to publish this letter in the honest newspaper which is being managed by you with great dignity. I shall explain myself:

It so happens that on September 26 of this year I called in person at the offices of El Caribe and made some statements to Victor Marmol, a reporter, with the request that they be published immediately, and he promised that I would be accommodated without fail. Yesterday morning, when I saw that my statements had not come out in El Caribe, I telephoned that same reporter to ask him for an explanation. Mr. Victor Marmol told me, in effect, that he could not explain to himself what had happened.

The statements which I made to the news

paper El Caribe were more or less the following: On September 25, at about 9 o'clock in the morning, when I wanted to enter the building of the National Congress, to take my place as Senator with which office the Province of Santiago had honored me, several members of the National Police arrested

me and took me to Fortaleza Osana where I was detained, together with other Members of Congress, until 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon. Ir those statements I had expressed my indignation not only because of the fact of my arrest, but especially because of the act of insurrection which they had just consummated, destroying that freedom for which I had been fighting for such a long time. I ended my statements by calling on the Dominican people not to lose their faith in the future and their confidence in democracy, because though freedom might have momentary setbacks, it would never perish.

Those were more or less my statements that day; but now I want to say a few additional words:

All the Dominican people know with what enthusiasm and energy I was performing my senatorial duties while I held that office of which I was very proud because it had been conferred on me, in free elections, by the people and not by the force of machineguns. I fought in that Congress, to the point of exhaustion, defending the Constitution and law and order on many occasions, when I felt that the majority party which was in power was violating the Constitution and the freedom (of the people). I will never be able to support the men who have destroyed the legal state of this country's law and order.

That is precisely why, in March of this year, I declared myself Independent, leaving the ranks of the National Civic Union, my party of origin. I did so in conjunction with some other members of that party, because I became convinced at that time that the tendency of their principal leaders was procoup d'etat, and I was for freedom and for law and order. The events which have just saddened our poor country have proved that I was right. Finally, the leaders of the procoup parties have attained by force, what they would not be able to attain by law: to enter the palace.

There is no hatred or bitterness in my heart; it is filled only with sadness and pain, but with much pain, not only for the sake of the Dominican people but also for those men who managed the insurrection and who now continue to give it moral and material support.

I read with great interest the editorials which you have been writing on the political situation of the country and on the latest events; I can only congratulate you and tell you that the real, honest, and disinterested Dominicans understand and applaud you. May history be the judge.

Therefore, I humbly reiterate to you my request for the favor of publishing for me this letter, responsibly signed by me, in Listin Diario, because it states my political position and I want to put it on record for the future. Your friend, Dr. ANIBAL CAMPAGNA, Ex-Senator for the Province of Santiago. Translated by Elizabeth Hanunian, October 16, 1963.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I have visited Latin America a number of times. I have spoken with many persons in many parts of Latin America, including many officials. I spoke with numerous members of various delegations, not only from Latin America, but also from many other parts of the world, at the time I visited Peru, earlier this year, to attend the inauguration of the new President. One of the strong impressions I carried away from that inauguration was the almost unanimous opinion that delegates from embassies and delegates specially appointed by the heads of their governments expressed to me an opposition to the type of military aid that we have been giving to Latin America.

Also, they expressed deep concern about the fact that in the minds of many, the U.S. Government is linked with the support of military juntas. Later this afternoon, I shall offer my amendment on military juntas.

I close my argument now by asking the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations to hear me through on the purpose of the amendment that is now pending.

The committee amendment authorizes an additional appropriation under Public Law 86-735 of $175 million. This amount compares with the request of the administration for $200 million. The authorization is on a no-year basis and is intended to supplement the initial authorization, now exhausted, of $500

million.

Most of this $175 million is intended to replenish the Social Progress Trust Fund of the Inter-American Development Bank, with a small amount to support development programs run by the OAS.

The SPTF is used to foster improvements in housing, land reform, sanita

tion, water supply, education, and tax reform. As of December 31, 1962, the SPTF had made 53 loans totaling $320,562,000. These loans are intended to support social reform efforts undertaken by the Latin American countries themselves.

This is dealt with on page 38 of the report, where we find that the committee advises the Senate that the trust fund was created under a trust agreement between the United States and the InterAmerican Bank. Under the trust agreement, the SPTF is commissioned to support the social reform efforts of Latin American countries which are prepared to initiate or expand effective institutional improvements and to employ their own resources prudently and efficiently. Countries participating in the Alliance for Progress are represented in the SPTF under a system of weighted voting. Then the report states:

If this amendment is adopted, so far as I am concerned, it will be the last of my attempts to offer money amendments, because it and my other amendments will make a total saving in this bill, as compared with the bill as reported from the committee, of an even $500 million.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I have considered the Senator's amendment, and I am perfectly willing to have the Senate vote on it now.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Oregon to the committee amendment, as amended, in the nature of a substitute.

The amendment to the committee amendment, as amended, was agreed to. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I move that the vote by which this amendment to the committee amendment, as amended, was agreed to be reconsidered. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I which the Inter-American Development Bank move to lay on the table the motion to

In signing the trust agreement under

was vested with the responsibility for administering the Social Progress Trust Fund, it was the intent of the United States, and of the Bank, that the Fund would be used to encourage maximum self-help efforts on the

part of the participating countries, and that

the countries themselves would reform exist

ing institutions and practices which impede economic and social progress, especially in cation and training, health and housing, taxation and other aspects of the mobilization of domestic resources. It is clear, further, from the agreement that the performance of the borrowing countries is intended to be a primary criterion for the making of loans.

the fields of ownership and use of land, edu

In view of the disappointing performance of many Latin American countries in the area of reform and self-help, it cannot be said that they have, on the whole, fulfilled the requirements of the trust agreement.

For this reason, I do not believe that the amount authorized for the SPTF by the bill as reported from the committee for Public Law 86-735 can be justified. I urge, therefore, that the proposed authorization be reduced by $20 million-from $175 million to $155 million.

I point out that because of the lapse of time that has already occurred and because of the additional lapse of time before the final appropriation will be made, this authorization amount can be safely reduced.

When these countries do a better job of self-help, if they do, there will be no difficulty with me in enlarging the fund commensurate with the self-help programs which these countries develop in connection with the authorization bill of next year. After all, this being November, that is not very many months away.

So I urge the Senator from Arkansas

to accept this amendment, which calls for a $20-million cut. No program will be damaged by the amendment; no loan in the offing will be prevented by the making of this cut.

In addition, I think this is the kind of warning and lesson we should send to our Latin American neighbors, so as again to make clear that the determination of Congress is that the United States will help with the Alliance for Progress when there is a little more self-help by them.

reconsider.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee very much for his cooperation. As he knows, this has not been a happy situation for me-in finding myself in opposition, in connection with some amendments, to my good friend, the Senator from Arkansas.

AMENDMENT NO. 297

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I have a number of amendments which I hope the chairman of the committee will agree to accept.

First, I offer to the committee amendment, as amended, my amendment No. 297.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Alaska to the committee amendment, as amended, will be stated.

as

man of the committee will see fit to accept it.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. As the Senator from Alaska has said, the substance of this amendment is now included in the House version of the bill, and I believe the principle of the amendment has been lived up to. Therefore, I believe the amendment is unnecessary.

I hope the Senator from Alaska will not insist on having the Senate adopt this amendment to the committee amendment, because if this amendment is not adopted, this subject matter will be in conference, and that is desirable.

The Senator from Alaska has offered a number of amendments which propose the inclusion of language already in the House version of the bill. I do not believe these countries have refrained from agreeing to the making of such audits of the accounts. In one case that of the Diem government, I believe there was such a refusal; but that is about the only instance of which I know. In that case there was a very tense relationship, really during a state of warfare, in which that government failed to abide by these requirements. But I believe to, and it is the policy of the existing adthat today this requirement is lived up ministration to do so.

from Alaska will not press for a vote by I hope, therefore, that the Senator the Senate on his amendment. If the amendment is withdrawn, this subject matter will be in conference.

Section 506 of the existing law provides, among other things, that—

(3) It will, as the President may require, permit continuous observation and review by, and furnish necessary information to, representatives of the U.S. Government with regard to the use of such articles; and

(4) Unless the President consents to other disposition, it will return to the U.S. Government for such use or disposition as the President considers in the best interest

of the United States, such articles which are no longer needed for the purposes for which furnished.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 51 of the committee amendment, In the existing law there are several amended, between lines 13 and 14, it is provisions which I believe add up to the proposed to insert the following:

[blocks in formation]

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, this amendment was requested by the Comptroller General, and has already been included in the bill as passed by the House of Representatives. It is merely a provision that "no assistance shall be furnished under section 201, 211, or 251 of this act to the government of any country which does not agree to permit such reviews, inspections, and audits by the United States as the President may require for the purpose of ascertaining whether such assistance is being administered within the recipient country to istered within the recipient country to carry out the purposes for which it was furnished."

I think this is a desirable housekeeping amendment, and I hope the chairing amendment, and I hope the chair

same thing as the Senator's amendment, which merely provides that our representatives shall oversee the use made of the aid furnished to the respective countries.

A situation such as that existing in South Vietnam-during a very difficult Warfare in which there were considerable differences between the Government and our Government-is unusual; but I bethe developments in South Vietnam lieve the experience in connection with should be a warning to anyone who would not be inclined to agree to follow these provisions.

So I hope the Senator from Alaska will not press for action by the Senate on his amendment, although I agree with the sentiments he has expressed.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, in view of the opinion of the chairman of the committee that withdrawal of the amendment will enable him to have greater latitude in the conference, I now withdraw the amendment.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I thank the Senator from Alaska.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Alaska

[blocks in formation]

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I now call up my amendment No. 296, and offer it to the committee amendment, as amended.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

amendment of the Senator from Alaska to the committee amendment, as amended, will be stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 51 of the committee amendment, as amended, between lines 13 and 14, it is proposed to insert the following:

(f) No assistance shall be furnished under this Act for the construction or operation of any productive enterprise in any country unless the President determines that similar productive enterprises within the United States are operating at a substantial portion of their capacity and that such assistance will not result in depriving such United States enterprises of their reasonable share of world markets. The President shall keep the Foreign Relations Committee and the Appropriations Committee of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives fully and currently informed of assistance furnished under this Act for the construction or operation of productive enterprises in all countries, including specifically the numbers of such enterprises, the types of such enterprises, and the locations of such enterprises.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, this amendment is designed to eliminate the destructive competition which may exist between concerns in the United States and those in other countries as a result of our aid program. We have spent a great deal of money in financing the construction of steel mills all over the world, and they operate in competition with the U.S. steel industry, which now ⚫ is operating far below capacity.

The same thing has been done in the textile industry. We have created paper mills, rubber plants, chemical plants, aluminum plants, and much else. Those dollars actually cause such industries to compete seriously with ours at a time when we have considerable unemployment.

The amendment is a moderate one. It also repeats the language of the House bill. In view of the fact that there could be no objection to the principle of the amendment, I hope the chairman will see fit to accept it.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I believe this amendment is in a quite different category from the other one. First, the principle as applied in relation to the amendment is unworkable. Fur

thermore, one of the main purposes of the program in the past has been to help various countries develop their own private enterprise to the point at which they could be made self-sufficient. For all practical purposes, I believe the amendment would completely nullify a major part of the Development Loan Fund. It would be better to abolish the Development Loan Fund. I do not see how we can apply the principle, because practically every industry that is developed in any country is, to some degree, competitive with our own industry.

I do not believe the Senator really means that we ought to assist only in the growing of coffee, bananas, or a few

products of that kind which we do not produce. Such a limitation would nullify the whole objective of our program.

The amendment is objectionable on its merits. The previous amendment offered by the Senator from Alaska was not objectionable on its merits. I think it was unnecessary. There would be no objection to it, for we are abiding by its principle. But in the amendment now offered by the Senator, the following language appears:

(f) No assistance shall be furnished under this Act for the construction or operation of any productive enterprise in any country unless the President determines that similar productive enterprises within the United States are operating at a substantial portion of their capacity.

Our industries go up and down in their activity. I am glad to say that most industries, with some exceptions, are operating at a substantially high proportion of their capacity. But next year, hypothetically, there may be a recession, and their production may decline. Their volume of business is a factor that varies from year to year and almost from month to month.

Furthermore, I believe that the objective of the amendment is wrong. We must compete with plants that we have helped to create. We believe in competition. At least we say we do. Our great task is to modernize our own industry in order to be competitive. I believe we can be competitive. In most fields I believe we are competitive. Here and there we observe cases in which modern mills, for a temporary period, may be more efficient than ours, but that is a continually changing situation, both in our country and abroad.

I object to the amendment on its merits. I could not agree to it. We shall have to oppose it.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, un

der those circumstances, and in view of the arguments of the distinguished chairman of the committee, I believe I would prefer to leave him to wrestle with the conferees on the part of the House, which has adopted the amendment. I

have pointed out the perils of our subsidizing foreign competition with our dollars against our industries. The subject will come up again when the next bill is have a considered. We shall then chance to reevaluate it. Therefore, I ask that my amendment be withdrawn.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Alaska is withdrawn.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I call

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, it seems to me that when our country provides funds for the importation of goods into a foreign country, that country should not levy a duty on them. I believe that my proposal is reasonable. I should like to have the reaction of the chairman to the amendment.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. The amendment was submitted to and considered by the committee. The committee rejected it. The amendment would be an attempt to interfere in a most unacceptable way in the internal affairs of all the various countries involved. When we make a loan to a country for the purpose of the development of that country and they wish to buy something from our country, I do not see how that country could be expected to make special regulations because of the particular article purchased. It would also have the effect of inducing countries, wherever possible-unless the country were required to purchase the article from the United States-to buy from some other country.

The amendment is an attempt to interfere with what we generally believe to be the sovereign rights of every country to fix its own duties and import taxes. I believe that it would be resented by other countries, and would make it very difficult to operate the program. For all practical purposes, questions of taxes, and so on, are unrelated to the foreign aid program. Those questions should properly come under the reciprocal trade program and under tax treaties which we enter into with other countries.

If discriminatory taxes are imposed, of course, we should resent them. But we should try to solve that problem in the usual manner-through diplomatic negotiations and trade treaties.

For example, if a loan is made to a private enterprise in another countrywhich the act tries to encourage-for in

many places it professes its devotion to private enterprise-that particular company would then receive a competitive advantage because of tax-free imports. We would get into some very strange situations. Suppose in a foreign country factory A did not receive a U.S. loan; it

would have to pay taxes on materials it

bought. Suppose it should import textile machinery, on which it would pay a tax. On the other hand, suppose that company B, which received a loan from us, should buy the same machinery from a manufacturer in this country under the terms of the amendment. Company B obviously would obtain a competitive

up my amendment No. 233 and ask that advantage, which would cause great comit be stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

plaint in that country.

The amendment would be far-reaching in its effect and would intervene in

amendment of the Senator from Alaska the tax programs of the various counwill be stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 51, between lines 13 and 14, it is proposed to insert the following new subsection:

(f) No loan or grant shall be made under any provision of this Act to any country, or to any recipient therein, unless such country shall have agreed to exempt from all customs duties or other import taxes levied by such country any articles procured in the United States or any of its territories with the proceeds of such loan or grant, including any amounts thereof loaned by the original recipient to borrowers within such country.

tries involved. I honestly do not see how we could administer it. If we should attempt to administer and apply it, we would only create great resentment and make the administration of the program much more difficult than it is now.

One of the reasons why the program has run into difficulty in the past is the multiple restrictions placed by Congress upon the administration of the program. Those restrictions have made the program subject to criticism and resentment

on the part of the countries receiving help.

Any undue discriminatory taxes imposed by recipient countries ought to be protested. They ought to be fought by our country in the regular way. If the taxes are too discriminatory, I agree that we ought not to give that country aid. But to apply the requirement, as the amendment of the Senator from Alaska would do, as a condition of any loan, would go much too far and would not be workable.

Mr. GRUENING. I hope the RECORD will show that in the case of the amendment now before the Senate and the previous amendment dealing with competition, the AID administration will take these problems under serious consideration, and that when the Foreign Relations Committee draws up the foreign aid authorization bill for the next session of the Congress, it will take those questions under advisement, and take appropriate action.

In view of the chairman's views on the subject, and the making of the record, I withdraw the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Alaska is withdrawn.

Mr. President, I ofMr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I offer an amendment which I send to the desk and ask to have stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

What happened? He created so much chaos that the British withdrew their proposal to give independence to British Guiana. It is still a colony. It is still in chaos.

Why on earth should the United States continue to subsidize colonies of that character?

I hope the chairman will accept this amendment. I believe it is a proper one. I believe it will hasten the liberation of those countries that should be liberated. If they should not be liberated, then the mother country should subsidize them, not the United States.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I know of no substantial aid other than to Guiana, which is a special case to which I shall refer. With regard to British Honduras, we are not giving aid. We did at one time, but not any longer. As the Senator well knows, the British had committed themselves to make Guiana independent. The reason we had a special interest there was that the largest investments in British Guiana are American investments. Guiana is the original source of bauxite for the largest company in the country.

The hope was that, as a result of the transition, there would be a stable and viable country. But the situation has been so bad that the British have delayed or postponed the time for Guiana's complete independence, because of the

amendment of the Senator from Alaska danger of it becoming another Cuba.

will be stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 48,

The reason we put aid in there is the same reason we have a special interest

between lines 3 and 4, it is proposed to in peace in the Middle East and in other

insert the following:

(m) No grant or loan shall be made under this Act to any country or area which is a

colony of any other nation.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, that amendment has not been previously submitted. The amendment would stop the giving of aid to the colonies of nations. We have been asking the powers of the Old World, including Great Britain and France, to take a larger part in the program. Yet in a strangely contradictory and paradoxical way we subsidize their colonies while they are still colonies. How can we justify that? We have given financial aid to British Guiana, to Surinam, which is Dutch Guiana, French Guiana, Hong Kong, and the remaining British colonies in Africa, and to the not yet free French possessions. I think that is all wrong. I believe the mother country should continue to send aid so long as its colonies are still her colonies. I question also the wisdom of precipitating ourselves into the aid picture in every new nation the minute that new nation is spawned. Certainly, so long as they are still colonies, I see no justification whatever why they should receive our aid. If aid is needed, it should come from the mother country. In British Guiana, Cheddi Jagan, who is of rather doubtful character, came to the United States prior to his election and persuaded the AID administration to give him $10 million. As a result, he went back to Guiana and was elected. He was elected as a result of telling the people that he was "in solid" with the United States and had $10 million to prove it.

places-because of substantial American
investments. That is the only case I
can think of which would fall within the
restrictions sought by the Senator, in
which any substantial amount is in-
volved. We are not undertaking any
substantial aid to any other country that
I can think of.

What other countries besides Guiana
does the Senator from Alaska have in
mind?

Mr. GRUENING. They are not substantial, but I believe the principle is important. We are giving grants to the French colonial possessions and to Portuguese possessions which are still colonies of the mother country.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. But are they not purely in terms of very small technical assistance aid? Are they not an attempt by our Government to try to display its interest, looking to the time when those countries would be independent and we would have relations with them? Meanwhile, are we not largely trying to teach a few of the inhabitants to speak English, and nothing substantial in any case?

Mr. GRUENING. I believe the whole principle is improper. If technical aid is needed, why not let the mother country provide it? We have been urging mother countries to do more in their programs. They have disappointed our expectations.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I know the French have given large amounts to their former colonies, because they have expectation of continued trade, and so forth. We have gone in on the theory that we expect to have relations with them. We want them to be friendly with us.

have not spent substantial amounts in those cases that I know of.

I have asked my assistant here to look up those amounts, which he will do in a moment, unless the Senator already has them. I believe he will find that they are insignificant.

Mr. GRUENING. I believe the Peace Corps is one of the most outstandingly successful enterprises in our whole foreign aid program and I support it unqualifiedly. I believe it has done a magnificent job. In view of the exemption that has been made for the Peace Corps would not the proper procedure be, in these colonies-where the chairman says we hope to create a good atmosphere and are looking to the day of their independence, to be friendly with them and to teach our language-to use the Peace Corps, which is exempt from these provisions, and cut out all other forms of aid? I ask that as a matter of principle. I believe it is desirable.

The Peace Corps can furnish the technical aid and the teaching aid and all these other things. I believe that would be the finest kind of support for these colonies, which are not entirely happy under their present status. They look forward to independence. The Peace Corps could do this interim job. But I believe that other forms of aid are objectionable on principle.

The record is being made. I hope the Peace Corps can be encouraged to provide assistance. I understand we are considering the enlarging of the appropriations for the Peace Corps. That is a people-to-people contact, of the finest kind.

I hope that this amendment will be accepted.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. My efficient assistant, Mr. Holt, tells me that he is unable to find where such is being done. If the Senator has any figures, we might make a record here and recommend that it be stopped.

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

Mr. GRUENING. I yield.

Mr. MORSE. I do not have any information other than what is in the charts. I missed some of the debate, but let me read the figures for 1963 aid to colonies.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. We are talking about 1964. We have "phased out" these colonial areas, according to Mr. Holt.

Mr. GRUENING. All the more reason why we should adopt this amendment, if we are going to follow this course anyhow.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. There are exceptional cases, the Senator would agree, such as Guiana. At least the facts there involved, really, the defense of our own security, and protecting the vast American investments. There was a great danger, which we all recognized, of having Guiana become another Cuba. All Senators-as well as the Senator from Alaska-would be very critical if that should occur.

The Senator would say we cannot give any aid to this country, which is on the verge of becoming independent, when we ourselves hoped the British would delay the time for giving them their inWe dependence, in the hope that something

could be worked out to change the situation. There is no doubt about the doubt about the danger of Jagan and his government. I believe it is wrong on another principle. When a legislative body sets down principles, if abided by they go on from year to year and tie the hands of the administration-whatever administration it might be-to meet a situation like this. I submit that the amount proposed for 1964 is de minimis and thus is not sufficient to cause concern. I do not believe the Senator would wish to tie the President's hands in a case like the Jagan government. He would not wish to expose us to the disastrous consequences of another situation like Cuba.

Mr. GRUENING. In the case of British Guiana, we were subsidizing the "Castro" of British Guiana.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. What the Senator is saying is that we have made mistakes. I cannot defend everything that has been done under this program. We have made mistakes. I do not believe, however, that we should take responsibility for Jagan. I know we certainly did not intend to allow Guiana to become a Communist foothold. Whether the situation was handled right, I do not know. I know it is a very difficult situation. The contest in Guiana between the two parties, from what I have read about it, is an extremely difficult thing to handle.

It is an extremely difficult problem to handle. I do not think we can lay down policies for the administration in dayto-day situations. Our committee staff Our committee staff chief cannot find any other colonial area to which aid is proposed to be given.

Mr. GRUENING. Unless we include the prohibition, there is no evidence that they will not resume giving aid to British Honduras.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator apparently has no confidence in the administration. I cannot accept that principle. I will accept the idea that it has made mistakes, but I cannot accept the idea that they are complete idiots and will never follow a reasonable policy. There is no proposal that we know of for any such program.

Mr. SYMINGTON. will the Senator yield?

Mr. President,

Mr. GRUENING. I yield to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I was about to make a point brought up by the Senator from Arkansas. I voted with the Senator from Alaska on amendments designed to reduce money authorization, but it seems to me this amendment goes too far into legislative prerogative, the normal functions of the executive branch. I would have more confidence in this administration than expressed by the amendment. I submit this thinking to my able colleague from Alaska.

Mr. GRUENING. I say to my friend from Missouri and my friend the chairman of the committee that I think we have accomplished a great deal in improving the bill. It is a much better bill. We have, in effect, rewritten it on the floor of the Senate. We have a good legislative record.

I say for the RECORD that for the United States to give financial aid to a colony of Great Britain, or France, or any other country, is folly. It is a princi

ple we should assert. It is late. We have spent 2 weeks on the bill. I know that many Senators have engagements. I do not intend to press the amendment at this time, but I should like to have a little further discussion of it before debate on it is concluded. A very important principle is involved.

I was unhappy to hear the chairman of the committee state that I have no confidence in the administration, whereas he does. That is not precisely so. I have lacked confidence as a result of actions not of this administration, but some of the previous administrations of the aid programs, which change every year. This kind of mistaken aid has been given by some of the previous administrators. When an administrator gives $10 million to Cheddi Jagan, a Communist, a subversive individual, who has put that colony in chaos and prevented it from becoming independent, I think I am justified in saying that I do not have confidence in most of the past foreign aid administrators.

I would like to foreclose future acts of that kind. I do not think American taxpayers should be asked to pour money into any colonies. I think that is the duty of the mother country.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the amendment, who would support the amendment if it came to a vote, although I do not have the 1964 figures, I shall include in the RECORD the figures for the years up to 1963. But if I understood the chairman of the committee-and I was not present to hear all the debate-it is not contemplated that in 1964 we are going to be supporting colonies.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, many of these areas that have been getting aid have achieved their independence; they are no longer colonies. Many have become independent. Jamaica, for example, is no longer a colony. The amount provided for that purpose is very small. There are only one or two that are called colonies. They are not scheduled to get much for 1964.

Mr. GRUENING. It was folly to give such aid to them.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator will get no argument from me about that.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Arkansas a question? The figures just shown to me by Mr. Holt, of the committee staff, show that colonies that heretofore have been receiving some aid—and I shall put that amount in the RECORD shortly-will not receive any, except for one colony. Is that correct?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Looking at the worldwide chart, that is correct.

Mr. MORSE. If I may have the attention of the Senator from Alaska, who is the author of the amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, I think he has made a great record on this amendment, as he has on all his other amendments. I want to go on record as saying that the administration has made mistakes in giving support to colonies of other countries. I think we would have a hard time answering why, on principle.

I served on the fourth committee of the General Assembly of the United Na

tions, which is the committee that deals with trusteeships and non-self-governing territories in the world. I served during the famous 15th General Assembly, the Khrushchev shoe-thumping assembly. Time and time again the United States was under attack in the fourth committee because we had taken a wavering and weaving attitude with regard to the problems of colonialism around the world. That situation has improved a great deal since then.

I am glad that, under the leadership of the President of the United States, Secretary of State Rusk, and our Ambassador to the United Nations, Adlai Stevenson, we are not equivocating in our votes any more. We are not abstaining when the hot colonial issues come before the United Nations. That is to the everlasting credit of the administration. I do not mean to imply that we have gone far enough in the United Nations-because we have not-in dissociating ourselves completely from colonialism. But there has been a great improvement.

The reason why I cosponsored the amendment is that I do not believe we ought to be pouring money into any colony of any country. We never know when the people of that colony are going to take a stand for independence. It is easy to overlook the fact that we had been giving them aid for their benefit. That is the only reason we have given money to those colonies, so far as motivation is concerned. But motivation can easily be misinterpreted. The charge will be made that, after all, we supported Great Britain, France, and the Netherlands in maintaining a stranglehold over certain colonies by pouring money into them.

That principle is very important. It is why I was very happy to join the Senator from Alaska in the amendment when he first discussed it with me.

A wonderful record has been made by the Senator from Alaska and by the chairman of the committee. I shall dissent from one observation made by the chairman of the committee in a moment. First I wish to put into the RECORD figures that are not classified. The 1964 figures are classified, but the figures are small in amount and apply to only one colony. It would be extremely difficult to deny the type of aid that goes to that colony. The aid seeks to benefit the people, and not the British Government.

May I ask the chairman if he can obtain information for me as to whether some of the aid has been in the form of Public Law 480 funds?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I am sorry. I did not hear the question of the Senator.

Mr. MORSE. Some of the aid that we have given to certain colonies in the past has really been in the form of Public Law 480 aid. Is that correct?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. The chart says "worldwide." I would have to look it up. Mr. GRUENING. That refers to aid we had been giving to Hong Kong.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. That was really nothing but relief.

Mr. MORSE. I want to draw that distinction. There is a distinction. When aid goes to a colony for food pur

« ПретходнаНастави »