ment, and could make a case for it when Congress returned, the Congress would sustain him. That is his risk.

An hour or so ago I placed in the RECORD Communications from the President of Costa Rica, the former President to Guatemala, and Senators of the Dominican Republic, among others, in which they all expressed the fear that is so well known in the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate.

I went downtown and I talked with administration leaders. I wish to make clear that they prefer to have no check upon the President. It is true that the President himself would prefer to have no check upon his exercise of discretion. It is also true that the Department of State-yes, even the President-must be reminded from time to time that our Government is a constitutional representative government based upon checks, including the power of the Congress to check the President. This is one place in which we must maintain a check. No matter what course of action the Congress may take in regard to the subject before the Senate, if it is unwilling to impose a check, millions of American people will make clear to this administration that they want a check.

Many American people are disturbed about unchecked Presidential power.

After my conferences downtown, the Department of State on behalf of the Secretary of State, and acting through the Assistant Secretary of State, Mr. Dutton, brought up the language which I am now offering. They said they would accept that language. As the chairman of the committee said in conversation with me a few moments ago, it is true that they would prefer no check at all. There is no doubt about it. But I wish the Senate to understand that the language I am offering is the identical language which the State Department advised the senior Senator from Oregon it would accept. I read it again:

(a) The provision of this section shall not require the withholding of assistance to any country if the President determines and promptly reports to the Congress that withholding of such assistance would be contrary to the national interest and if the two Houses of Congress do not adopt a concurrent resolution disapproving the continuance of such assistance within 30 days after the President notifies the two Houses of his determination.

The question might properly be raised-and that is why I suggested some additional language-What if the Congress is not in session?

In my judgment, if the state of affairs should be such-although I cannot imagine such a hypothetical state of factsthat during a recess of Congress the situation should become so serious that the President would think that some aid

If he cannot make a case, and if he gives aid that proves to be unjustifiable, the President will have to answer for either giving the aid or for his failure to do so. If the situation were so serious that a special session of Congress was warranted, he could call a special was warranted, he could call a special session of Congress. But that is a hypothetical situation which bears very little thetical situation which bears very little resemblance to reality, for I do not believe that any President would act in bad faith. I do not believe that any President would seek to take advantage of a Congress when it was out of session. Furthermore, the amendment would not Furthermore, the amendment would not in any way interfere with the diplomatic in any way interfere with the diplomatic recognition power of the President of the United States, and I would not support an amendment that did, for I am too firm a believer in our separation-ofpowers doctrine to interfere with what is, in fact, the Executive power of the President.

But it is not within the Executive power of the President under our Constitution to spend taxpayers money without authorization and without authorization and authority from the Congress. That is the great from the Congress. That is the great difference. In the debate on another amendment a few moments ago, we again heard the statement that some of our amendments seek to interfere with the foreign-policymaking powers of the President. That is pure nonsense.

The Congress has the constitutional duty to decide what taxpayers' money shall be spent for. It has the duty to pass on the details of an authorization bill. The Constitution itself provides that money may not be spent except in accordance with appropriation by law. That is the principle that the Senator from Oregon is standing for from the standpoint of the constitutional right of the Congress. I do not intend to weaken that duty and responsibility.

I emphasize again that the amendment would not interfere with the right of the President to recognize the government, but it does provide that he may not spend taxpayers' money in aiding any government that has overthrown a democratic, constitutionally elected government in the Western Hemisphere, unless Congress is given 30 days to review the reasons for seeking to give that country economic aid.

Listening to some Senators in private conversation discussing the subject, one might think that 30 days is 30 years, and that the proposed period of time would be unreasonable. It is the period of time that the Department of State itself wrote into the language that it sent to me. I believe that it ought to have been 60 days. When I suggested to the State Department representatives that it ought to be 60 days, they said they would be willing to accept 60 days. After converwilling to accept 60 days. After conversations with the chairman of the committee, the majority leader, and the mamittee, the majority leader, and the majority whip, I said I would offer the jority whip, I said I would offer the amendment and leave it at 30 days withamendment and leave it at 30 days without changing a single word of the language that the Department of State sent up.

The amendment may be defeated but I assure Senators that rejecting the amendment will not end the issue in this country, for I am satisfied that the amendment is in line with the thinking of most of the people of our country. Most of the people of our country are very much concerned about supporting questionable governments around the world. Our people have come to recognize that too frequently we have been found supporting the wrong man. Too frequently we have been caught supporting dictators and tyrants, only to have them do such irreparable damage to their people that their wrongs have washed off onto us. The image of the United States has been tarnished in many places in the world because we have been found supporting dictatorships that have been guilty of atrocious conduct toward their people. I believe that any President would welcome the kind of cooperation from the Congress that my amendment calls for.

I do not believe any President wishes to give aid to any country unless Congress has had an opportunity to review his proposals and his reasons therefor. In my judgment, I shall not be doing any injury to the President of the United States by this proposal. It will be those in Congress who do not wish to vote for the check who will weaken the prestige of the President of the United States. Millions of people in this country wish to know, "What are they afraid of? What is the President afraid of?" Since when should the White House be afraid of this kind of rightful check of the Congress upon any recommendation he may make for aid to a foreign government?

Let us take a look at the kind of foreign government we are talking about. We are talking about a military, Fascist form of government. We are talking about a form of government in which a military coup has overthrown a democratic, constitutionally elected, free government in the Western Hemisphere. Throughout Latin America one democratic President after another is "trembling at his knees," figuratively speaking, because he is not sure that American military aid, used in the hands of a military junta, may not spring up to overthrow him. We have witnessed this in the two recent overthrows in the Dominican Republic and in Honduras. In Honduras a constitutionally elected government was overthrown only a few days before a presidential election in which one of the major issues had become the proposal of the leading candidate that, if elected, he would urge passage of the necessary legislation to bring the military under civilian control. The military in Honduras wanted none of that. The military in Honduras wanted to be supreme. The military in Honduras is a caste. The military in Honduras trampled freedom underfoot in that coup.

The Dominican Republic had a constitutionally elected government. I hold no brief for any shortcomings of the administration of their President, but he was serving under a constitution; and the Constitution of the Dominican Republic provided for procedures to check the President in connection with any inefficiencies or maladministration of

which he might have been guilty-if any. But, instead of following a constitutional system, a military juntatrained by American military training programs, using American military equipment-destroyed that Government.

To date, the Government has not been recognized. To date, we have withheld our aid. The question is: When should aid be resumed?

In my judgment, aid should not be resumed until a constitutionally elected government is reestablished in the Dominican Republic. The coup in the Dominican Republic and the coup in Honduras gave rise to much of the ferment in American public opinion that led to this amendment.

All I ask the Senate to do is to accept the language that the State Department itself is willing to accept, although, as I made clear to the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], they would prefer no language at all. The Department suggested this language, and I have offered it as my amendment.

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

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call

the roll.

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

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

Mr. MORSE. There is not much point in voting until a quorum is present.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I understood that the Senator from Oregon did not wish a yea-and-nay vote.

Mr. MORSE. That would be true, if we can have some understanding as to accepting the amendment; but if I am to be outvoted by a voice vote, I desire a record vote, to put Senators on record. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, there are not enough Senators present in the Chamber to order the yeas and nays. I ask unanimous consent-this is not to be considered a precedent-that the yeas and nays be ordered on this amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I wish a quorum call in any case, if there is to be a yeaand-nay vote.

its recommendation to the Senate, as if we should accept it. This is one recommendation of the State Department if it is a recommendation-with which I do not agree.

It may well be that State Department officials have told the Senator from Oregon that they could live with this language. However, it is unwise to tie the hands of the President in that way.

I call attention to section 254, on page 39 of the bill This language was offered by the Senator from Oregon, but he also offered additional language, which is not unlike, in purpose. what the Senator now offers, and which restricted the power of the President even more.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, if I may interrupt the Senator, it is all right to cite the language, but it is not the language of the Senator from Oregon. It is language that was within the amendment of the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is what I said.

The Senator from Oregon states very glibly that it requires only a few days to obtain action. We have already taken 3 weeks on a bill with which we are thoroughly familiar, which we have passed 15 times, and we are not through with it yet. I do not know how any Senator could stand up in this body and say that we would act in a few days. We do not know. We know that the power of one Senator to delay action is a great power. More than one could cause indefinite delay.

I do not think it is good argument to say that action would require only a short period.

That is not the main reason why I object to the amendment. In a sense, it reflects on the integrity of any President, and intimates that he cannot be trusted in an emergency to exercise power within the restrictions that already exist in the bill, and particularly with regard to the emergency funds.

I hope the Senate will not accept the Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MORSE. I do not own the lan- amendment. guage in the bill.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I know. I was making the point that the committee thoroughly considered the amendment offered by the Senator from Oregon, and this was the part which the committee agreed upon. It rejected the further restrictive language which is now being sought to be reinserted. It is not exactly the same language, but for all practical purposes, it is.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, let me interrupt once again to say that the language I had offered in committee was language that called for a report from the President, and a concurrent resolution by both Houses, approving it. As I made clear, it would require only a matter of days to obtain action. In lieu of In lieu of it, the administration proposed the negative approach of 30 days, in which both Houses would have an opportunity to reject.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I assure the SenI assure the Senator that I was not trying to mislead the Senate. There is a difference in the language. I make the point that while the State Department may have preferred that language to the previous language, in my opinion it is not favorable to either version. Be that as it may, the principle involved is not the right or power of Congress to determine the payment of our taxpayers' money under the bill. Nobody is questioning that right. Rather, there is involved the question of the wisdom of doing it. In my opinion, it is not wise to further restrict the President's freedom of action in this

The bill before the Senate provides for a contingency fund. It always has. It is recognized that there will be emergency situations. Certainly, the overthrow of governments by force and violence-which is the case when military juntas take over governments-is an emergency situation which requires quick action by the President. He is responsible for it. That is why we have provided a contingency fund.

I think this further restriction is intended to tie the hands of the President, more than he is already restricted, in emergency cases.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.

Mr. LAUSCHE. If the amendment were a part of the law and an emergency existed such as occurred in Vietnam, would the President be able to act?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. This amendment is restricted to the Western Hemisphere. It does not affect Vietnam. However, if a similar emergency occurred within the Western Hemisphere, he could not act within 30 days if Congress were in session. If it were not in session, the President would be able to call it into session.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, of course the President could come to Congress and ask for affirmative action, and he would get it, if there were an emergency.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator knows it would be very unusual for Congress to act within a few days when a question of that gravity was involved.

Mr. MORSE. If a real emergency were involved, Congress would act in a few hours. We provided $3 billion in the Berlin situation in a very short time.

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

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I yield.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. clear that the objective of the Morse Mr. HUMPHREY. I want to make amendment is contained in section 254 of the bill, under the heading "Restrictions on Assistance." The provision reads:

None of the funds made available under authority of this Act may be used to furnish assistance to any country covered by this title in which the government has come to prior government which has been chosen in power through the forcible overthrow of a free and democratic elections unless the President determines that withholding such assistance would be contrary to the national interest.

The difference is that under the Morse amendment there would be a period of 30 days. The Senator cooperated, during the discussion on the amendment, by

reducing what he thought was the reasonable period of 60 days to 30 days.

So far as the principle of providing no money or assistance to the Latin American countries is concerned-because that is what is referred to under this title that principle is embodied in the bill before us. The difference is that the Morse amendment reads:

The provisions of this section shall not require the withholding of assistance to any country if the President determines and promptly reports to the Congress that withholding of such assistance would be contrary to the national interest and if the two Houses of Congress do not adopt a concurrent resolution disapproving the continuance of such assistance within thirty days after the President notifies the two Houses of his determination.

The difference is in the notification to the Congress and the fact that Congress could adopt a disapproving resolution.

If present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CURTIS] and the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MORTON] would each vote "nay."

The result was announced-yeas 11, nays 78, as follows:

Bayh

Cotton Dodd Ervin

Aiken
Allott
Bartlett
Beall
Bennett
Bible
Boggs
Brewster
Burdick

Byrd, Va.
Byrd, W. Va.

Cannon
Carlson
Case
Church
Clark

Dirksen

Dominick Douglas

McCarthy

McClellan

McGee

Anderson Curtis Ellender

Engle

Mechem

Metcalf

Nelson
Neuberger
Pastore
Pearson

Pell
Prouty
Randolph
Ribicoff
Russell

Saltonstall
Scott
Smith

Sparkman Symington Talmadge Thurmond

Tower

Williams, N.J. Williams. Del. Yarborough Young, N. Dak.

So Mr. MORSE'S amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I move that the Senate reconsider the vote

and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], the Senator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON], the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. WALTERS], and the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON] are absent on official business.

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

I further announce that, if present and voting the Senator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON], the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. WALTERS), and the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON] would each vote "nay." On this vote, the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] is paired with the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE]. If present and voting, the Senator from Louisiana would vote "yea" and the Senator from California would vote "nay."

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CURTIS] is absent on official business.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I move to lay that

motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I send to

the desk amendment No. 129, and ask that it be read.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

On page 48, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

"(e) Add the following new section at the end thereof:

"'SEC. 620A. (a) PROHIBITION ON FURNISHING OF ASSISTANCE SUBSEQUENT TO JUNE 30, 1965. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no assistance shall be furnished pursuant to this Act to any country or area (or enterprise therein) subsequent to June 30, 1965 unless

"(1) Such country or area has requested such assistance and can show that it is pursuing the following economic, political, and military policies:

"(A) That it (i) is seriously and continuously engaged in measures of self-help, (ii) has taken appropriate steps to assure that its own private capital resources will be utilized within its own country or area, (iii) will encourage the development of the private enterprise sector of its own economy, (iv) has taken adequate steps, where appropriate and necessary, to bring about reforms in such fields as land distribution and taxation to enable its people fairly to share in the products of its development, and that the project or program for which economic aid is requested will contribute to the economic or social development of the country; "'(B) That it is promoting the maximum amount of individual freedom and is en

"(C) That it seeks to establish and maintain only such military force as may be adequate to prevent the internal overthrow of an elected government or to deter threatened external Communist attack;

"(2) The furnishing of such assistance is required by an irrevocable commitment made, or contractual obligation incurred, prior to the date of enactment of this section; or

“‘(3) In case of any such assistance extended in the form of loans, the interest rate thereon is not less than the average rate payable on obligations of the United State of comparable maturities.

"(b) The total number of countries or areas receiving assistance under this Act subsequent to June 30, 1965, shall not exceed fifty.'"

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, my amendment No. 129 was proposed, in the first instance, to Senate bill 1276 on July 18. I now offer it as an amendment to the committee amendment. It was pending in the Committee on Foreign Relations while consideration of the foreign aid bill was underway. It is now amendment No. 259. It was of this amendment that the committee said in its report:

In fact, the committee gave serious consideration to an amendment which would have terminated the program in its present form June 30, 1965, so that both the Congress and the administration could consider a major reorganization and reorientation of the program prior to that date. The committee refrained from adopting this amendment in the expectation, which it hopes will not prove unjustified, that the administration will submit a fiscal year 1965 program to Congress which has been revamped in major respects.

In the language of my amendment: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no assistance shall be furnished

pursuant to this Act to any country or area (or enterprise therein) subsequent to June 30, 1965, unless

And the amendment continues by setting forth new conditions for future aid.

We have accomplished that particular objective of amendment No. 129 by repealing the existing authorization for development loan funds.

Some progress has been made toward other objectives of the amendment for recasting the whole foreign aid program. For example, the amendment calls for all future loans to be made at interest rates that will be less than the average rate payable on obligations of the United States of comparable maturities." The House bill requires that henceforth interest rates be at least 2 percent. The Senate bill now provides that they be at least 2 percent after the first 5 years.

When the effort was made to make these interest rates the equivalent of our own cost of borrowing, and later to substitute the House rate for the committee

rate, it was argued that to do either of these would put our aid program in the form of a moneymaking one. Of course, it would do no such thing. It would only remove the interest rate subsidy from the loans.

Neither the provision in my revised foreign aid program nor the Gruening amendment would make this a moneymaking program. There is no proposal to eliminate grant aid. Grant aid would continue for projects that are vital to social and economic growth but which are not self-liquidating.