Mr. President, I was about to say that a prominent high citizen of the Argentine was in my office this morning commenting upon the colloquy that the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER] and I conducted on the floor of the Senate as we laid the foundation for the legislative record on the meaning of the Hickenlooper amendment and the additions to it that are in the bill this year as the bill came from committee. In the course of that colloquy the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER] said:

It is claimed by the present Government of the Argentine that these contracts that were entered into by the predecessor government under the direction of President Frondizi are illegal because they were not approved by the Congress.

Mr. President, when I say the point was made against my amendment in the position paper of the Agency for International Development, which insisted that an American presence is desirable in new nations, I point out that it is the kind of justification made by AID that leads me to the conclusion that foreign aid has become an end in itself, and that much of it continues only because it is becoming a self-perpetuating bureaucracy.

I wish the Senate could have heard the discussions in the Foreign Relations Committee on the part of various members of the committee as to what they think about a bureaucracy that has grown up in the administration of foreign aid. I wish Senators could have

Is there any basis in fact for that argument?

He laughed, but he laughed scornfully, to think that anyone in Argentina would make such an argument. He said:

Senator, there is no basis in fact whatsoever for that claim, because the Argentinian Congress passed a law authorizing their oil agency to enter into just such contracts, and, as the oil agency, to do whatever was necessary to develop the oil industry of the Argentine, and to join in whatever arrangements must be made with foreign investors for an exploration of the oil facilities and

the oilfields.

He added:

Senator, the same kind of law applies to the operations of the railroads in Argentina and to other industries in regard to which they have special commissions for regulation and control, just as you have an Interstate Commerce Commission which is given certain powers.

I cannot cite the law, though I have asked to have it checked so that it may be before the subcommittee of which I am chairman when it next meets. The Subcommittee on Latin American Affairs does not intend to drop all interest in what is going on in Argentina in regard to oil contracts. We owe it to Senators to see that a report is made in the near future as to what the facts are in regard to what is going on there in connection with oil contracts.

We will do the same thing in regard to Chile in respect to her discriminatory tax policies.

I cite those situations only because they bear upon my argument that we have reached the point where the whole foreign aid program must be reoriented. That is why my amendment proposes to bring it to an end at the end of fiscal 1965. That would give us time to prepare the new program for foreign aid, the new guidelines, and the new conditions that would have to be fulfilled in contracts that would apply under the new foreign aid program. I know it will not be easy. It is all a question of judgment. But I believe that those of us who are fighting for the kind of foreign aid that would flow from the amendment which I have offered if the amendment were adopted are the ones who are for the strongest and best type of foreign aid that we can have in the future. That is the kind of foreign aid that we ought to have.

both sides of the table. I see the Senator from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON] chuckling. He knows whereof I speak. The rafters shook when it was pointed out and an AID administrator and an official were present-that they were overstaffed. One member of the committee and I paraphrase it accurately told about some trips he had taken in various parts of the world, and he was shocked by the oversupply of manpower that he found in place after place.

We are dealing with bureaucracy that needs to be cut down to size. That is why we need a reorientation of the entire foreign aid program, a reorientation which would include an analysis of the manpower needs of AID. I would rather have the AID money going into a project that is so economically sound that it will help the poor living within its economic shadows than I would have it going into the salaries, the per diems, and the expenses of unnecessary AID personnel.

lieve it would make his amendment stronger. What the Senator has been saying about the failure of some of the recipients of our foreign aid to adhere to the guidelines which the Clay committee laid down is quite true. I do not believe that the interest rate matter is pertinent to the argument the Senator from Oregon has made. The main thrust of his amendment has nothing to do with interest. So I wonder if the Senator from Oregon would agree with this observation and possibly consider modification of his amendment?

Mr. MORSE. I shall take the matter under advisement and consider it in a conversation with the Senator during a later quorum call.

Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator. Mr. MORSE. The United States has a "presence" anywhere that it has an embassy, or even a consulate. Economic or military aid is not a requisite to let other nations know of our existence.

My amendment would limit to 50 the number of nations that could receive aid at any one time after June 30, 1965.

Its other objective is to set forth the standards that recipients of future aid must meet. In my opinion, these objectives should be met before aid is extended to other countries for any reason. I do not propose to differentiate between military and economic aid in laying down criteria for its extension.

The "position paper" of AID opposes that principle. that principle. It declares that some nations are of military importance to the United States and should receive aid for that reason alone.

These are the areas in which we have, over a period of years, allowed ourselves almost literally to be blackmailed into endless and fruitless foreign aid. Any

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. RIBICOFF in the chair). Does the Senator from Oregon yield to the Senator from Iowa?

Mr. MORSE. I yield.

Mr. MILLER. I agree with a great deal of what the Senator from Oregon has said. However, in looking over the amendment by the Senator from Oregon, I note that at the bottom of page 2 there is a provision relating to the amount of interest which shall be charged. We have considered amendments relating to interest rates on at least two occasions during the course of the consideration of this bill. I know there are arguments for the interest rate provisions which the Senator has in the amendment, but these arguments have been made before in the course of consideration of the amendments specifically relating to the interest rate.

I am persuaded that the reasons against those amendments are stronger than the reasons for-namely, that we are in a competitive situation, in some cases, so far as our prestige is concerned, vis-a-vis the Soviet Union in the matter of charging interest; and, second, that we are trying to get out of the grant area and more into the loan area.

I wonder if the Senator from Oregon would consider dropping the interest dropping the interest provision from his amendment. I be

military reasons has far more to lose than the United States if Communist aggression occurs, against it, or threatens it internally. Why should not that nation meet the self-help standards met by any other nation?

Furthermore, we should not forget that many of the nations into which we are pouring aid far in excess of the military requirements and what the nation's economy can support, would be a liability if we got into a war with Russia, assuming we might use troops, anyway, which I seriously doubt, because the next war will be a nucelar war and one of a relatively few hours' duration. In addition to our own war effort, we would have to subsidize their troops and their entire war effort, in addition to our own. It would be much better to spend the money we are now spending on the bloated military organizations in these countries for economic expansion of the country, to help the economic well-being of the people. ing of the people. As that program expands, in a few years they should be able to support an adequate military defense program of their own.

In fact, if we do not set self-help standards for them, they are more likely to be lost to us than if we do.

That is why my amendment would require each applicant for any kind of future aid to show us that it is engaged in continuous self-help measures; that it

has taken appropriate steps to assure that its own private capital resources are being utilized at home; that it will encourage local free enterprise; that it has taken appropriate steps to bring about reform in such fields as tax and land reform, to enable its people to share in the fruits of development; that the project for which economic aid is requested will contribute to the economic or social development of the country; that it is promoting personal freedom and self-government; and, finally, that it is maintaining only those military forces needed to maintain an elected government in office, or to deter threatened external Communist aggression.

These standards would, of course, exclude some nations already dealt with by the Senate, such as Indonesia and Egypt.

A most important objective of my amendment is very difficult to achieve. It is to put aid on the basis of other nations seeking it from us, instead of our forcing it on other nations.

The general conclusion that can be drawn from all the reports by the Comptroller General-I shall talk about those momentarily is that the waste and inefficiencies he has uncovered are due to aid programs too large and too complex for recipient nations to absorb and handle properly. I wish to repeat that sentence, Mr. President, because it is a vital sentence. It deals with the huge stack of Comptroller General reports that I have on my desk, finding one kind of inefficiency, waste, mismanagement and mishandling of aid after another, in country after country.

The general conclusion that can be drawn from all the reports by the Comptroller General is that the waste and inefficiencies he has uncovered are due to aid programs too large and too complex for recipient nations to absorb and handle properly. This is especially true of his reports on military aid and supporting assistance. A reading of these reports leaves the clear impression that much of the aid in these categories is the result of what Americans want them to have, not what they are able to use effectively. And the inquiries undertaken by the Comptroller General are purely of the "spot check" nature. They are by no means a complete or thorough review of economic or military aid.

It is my judgment that if the Comptroller General had not engaged in a "spot check" investigation of foreign aid, but had conducted, instead, a thorough investigation of foreign aid everywhere in the world, all of the four desks in front of me would be piled high with reports showing the shocking waste, inefficiency, and mishandling of foreign aid.

Let the RECORD show that this pile of reports of the Comptroller General is 2 feet high. This is not all of them.

I know it is difficult to write into the law a requirement that all aid requests be initiated by the recipient, and not by

us.

Administrators tell us now that all requests come from the recipient. But there are endless ways whereby our AID and military people tell them what to ask for. We tell them what to want, in effect, and they ask for it.

Nonetheless, I believe that future aid should only be considered when it is

applied for in bona fide fashion, and when the applicant can show us that he is meeting the prescribed standards.

I am discussing this amendment because if the administration does take seriously what has been said and done on this floor in the last 3 weeks, these are some of the principles that it should embody in a new foreign aid program.

The Comptroller General of the United States is our agent. The Office of the Comptroller General of the United States gets its authority from the Congress to serve the Congress. The Comptroller General of the United States is the congressional watchdog of expenditures of supposedly appropriated funds.

I pay high tribute to the Comptroller General of the United States. He is one of the most courageous, one of the most able, one of the most dedicated public servants in all our Government. The Comptroller General, Mr. Campbell, deserves a vote of gratitude from every American taxpayer.

I have on my desk a pile of the Comptroller General's spot check reports on the administration of the AID program around the world. around the world. They are not pleasant reading, for I engage in no understatement when I say that any jury that read them could not bring back any other verdict than that the reports of the Comptroller General of the United States show that hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of the American taxpayers' money have been wasted over the years on the foreign aid program.

The administration does not like to hear anyone criticize the foreign aid program for waste. It is easy to say, as many apologists for the program have been heard to say, "You cannot have a program involving billions of dollars that the foreign aid program involves without a considerable amount of waste." But we do not have to have that kind of waste. We do not have to have waste to that degree.

A good many of these reports are classified, but Members of this body can obtain any one of them in the Foreign Relations Committee room, and read it. Senators at least should sample them before they vote against my amendment, for I offer this pile of Comptroller General's reports dealing with the shocking waste in the administration of foreign aid over the years, both economic and military, as the best argument for the adoption of my amendment.

Wipe the slate clean at the end of fiscal 1965. Start it all over under terms, conditions, restrictions, and application requirements that will give the American taxpayers the assurance that what the Comptroller General has found over and over and over again in countries all over the world will not be likely to happen again.

Mr. President, the Comptroller General's letters of transmittal read, in instance after instance, as follows, and I shall have to delete, for classification purposes, anything that is classified. This is a letter he wrote on January 8 1963. I can go through this file and read similar letters as he filed report after report:

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed for the use of your committee are 20 copies of our report

to the Congress on review of the local currency, military budget support program for country X.

Our review disclosed weaknesses in controls by U.S. agencies over military budget support funds, together with deficiencies in the administration of these funds by country X and as a consequence funds provided by the United States to country X were not effectively utilized.

At the completion of our review, we brought the deficiencies disclosed to the attention of the Secretary of Defense, together with our proposal that the U.S. control the expenditure of military budget support funds by releasing such funds to country X for individual projects which had been mutually agreed upon by country X and the United States rather than by releasing funds in support of a total budget. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs informed us, in reply to our proposal, that specific project support would be impractical because of the increased administrative workload and other considerations.

The identification of all funds contributed to country X on a specific project basis could entail an increase in the volume of administrative work. However, we believe that the more important military projects warrant specific identification to insure that functions and items essential to the maintenance, readiness, and support of costly U.S.-furnished facilities and equipment are performed or provided. We also believe that such identification of projects would increase U.S. control of military budget support funds.

We are, therefore, recommending to the Secretary of Defense that efforts be made to identify the more important projects essential to the overall MAP objectives in country X and that appropriate portions of the budget estimates and military budget support fund releases be based on such projects. plementation be subject to careful surveilWe are also recommending that project imlance and that involved portions of U.S. funds be withdrawn when evidence exists that either agreed-upon projects are not being undertaken or earmarked funds are being used for nonapproved purposes.

In fairness to the State Department, in fairness to AID, and in fairness to the Pentagon Building, it should be said that in many instances in which the Comptroller General has pointed out a shocking waste and inefficiency in the administration of foreign aid and has made

cedural recommendations-the recommendations-mostly proState Department and the AID officials and the Pentagon Building have cooperated. They should, of course. They are not deserving of any special credit for that. In fact, they are deserving of a good deal of criticism for the fact that they let the inefficiencies and the waste develop, and that the Comptroller General of the United States, as a watchdog, was required to go into the various countries and "show up" the State Department, and the Pentagon, and the AID organization for the waste.

I wish to read one more sample of the reports of the Comptroller General:

of your committee are 20 copies of our report to the Congress on excessive costs incurred for rehabilitating to original appearance and serviceability military equipment donated to foreign nations under the military assistance, Department of Defense.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed for the use

Our examinations disclose that the military departments spend millions of dollars each year to rehabilitate materiel, given to

foreign nations as grant aid under the military assistance program, to higher standards of serviceability and appearance than similar materiel furnished to U.S. forces overseas.

That is a devastating criticism. That That is a shocking criticism of inexcusable waste on the part of the Pentagon Building. We should not have to have a watchdog Comptroller General call attention to that waste, which ran into millions of dollars.

I continue:

criticism. What have you done to end the waste of millions of dollars? I do not intend to support your policies for foreign aid, but I do intend to support you if you will come forward with a reformed foreign aid program."

He may not know it, but he will discover that the American people want an answer to the question I have asked.

tributable to a Department of Defense memorandum issued in March 1957

Away back to 1957. This is a 1963 report. It has been going on since 1957.

The high standards set by the military departments to implement the defense policy have caused excessive work which has been very costly and, in some cases clearly uneconomical. In our opinion, there is normally no justifiable reason for expending the extra effort and substantial additional costs

to dress up otherwise serviceable materiel, ready for issue to our own forces, to look like new for the military assistance program.

We propose that, except in special circumstances, materiel given as grant aid under the military assistance program be overhauled, packed, and inspected to the same general standards of serviceability and appearance as those established for U.S. forces overseas.

Do Senators know where it ought to be done? In the United States, not overseas. If we are to do it, let us give Americans jobs. Much of this has been done overseas at expensive labor costs. All the talk about high labor costs in the United States that is heard can be answered by taking a look at some of the reports, to see how we have been paying through the nose overseas. I am grateful that we have a Comptroller General who has the courage to lay it on the line, as he has in critical report after critical report. He goes on to say:

The Department of Defense agreed that, with the exception of aircraft, the same general standards of serviceability should be applied for military assistance program recipients as for U.S. forces overseas.

Mr. President, it took them from 1957 until the Comptroller General caught up with them in 1963, to reach that remarkable conclusion.

If we do not keep a check on military aid, the military taxpayer dollars will be squandered by the millions, as the Comptroller General reports show.

No agency of Government has so little concern for the taxpayer dollar as the Pentagon. They are wastrels. They are apparently working on the theory that the more they waste the more they will get. I am glad we have a Comptroller General who dares to file with the Congress disclosures of waste and inefficiency in the foreign aid program. Yet there are many who want to do a "snow job" on it. I say respectfully that the President can make his speech in New York City and he can make his criticisms as he did in the press conference this morning, of those of us who are opposed to foreign aid, but he must be made to answer to the American people for the shocking waste in foreign aid about which he has done nothing.

I say to the President: "Give me an answer to the Comptroller General's

reforms and to meet the kind of objections that the Comptroller General of the United States has reported he has found honeycombed in foreign aid.

Thus, in this letter, the Comptroller General continued:

With respect to aircraft, the Department of the Air Force subsequently issued an instruction which significantly relaxes the unreasonably stringent criteria previously applied by the military departments in rehabilitating aircraft for the military assistance

program. The Department of Defense agreed

also that overzealous application of "like new" appearance criteria had been responsible for unwarranted costs and in December 1962 revised its policy substantially in conformance with our proposals. The military departments are now issuing implementing directives which, if properly complied with, should curtail the extra costs incurred pre

The President said: "We spent $22 billion on the atomic energy program, $5 billion on space." If he means to assume that we agree with his spending that much money, he could not be more mistaken. That includes his moon proj

ect.

Some needed savings should be made on behalf of the American taxpayers in connection with these programs. He again engages in the old non sequitur, that he is the one who will be blamed. He asks, "What is going to happen if the situation in Laos worsens? Are we going to blame the Senate or am I to be blamed?"

That is a complete non sequitur. What does blame have to do with it? Nothing. We will all get the blame, I say to the President, if we do not do a better job of protecting the interests of the American taxpayer by bringing to an end the shocking waste which the foot-high series of reports from the Comptroller General shows is occurring in foreign aid.

The President ought to be much less concerned about who is going to be blamed, and much more concerned about proceeding to bring about the necessary reforms in the foreign aid program that will protect the American taxpayer, than to send to Congress, as he did, a bill calling for approximately $4,500 million, without having written into it the safeguards that we have been fighting for in this historic debate, in order to bring this historic debate, in order to bring about reforms in foreign aid.

The news report also stated that the President said it is no coincidence that the three past Presidents, and their opponents in election campaigns, "All recognize the importance of this program.” ognize the importance of this program."

We all recognize the importance of the program. It is so important that it ought to be reformed. We recognize that it is so important that it ought to be changed in the interest of the taxpayer. The President leaves himself open to the charge that apparently what we ought to do is to make the same mistakes that foreign aid has been making in the past. There was more wrath than logic in the President's press conference this morning, for his attempted defense of his foreign aid bill fell flat, because it did not meet the objections which have been raised in the Senate. He did not meet a single one of them. I am sure the people will be very much interested to see what he is willing to do to bring about what he is willing to do to bring about

assistance program.

Mr. President, I cannot read the specific findings of the Comptroller General in connection with some of our NATO allies without believing that we have been guilty of great waste in the program over there. Not the least of the offenders has been France. I say most respectfully to my President: "Instead of trying to have passed a bill for $4,500 million, you would have been much better off if you had accompanied your bill with requests for legislative approval for some major changes in foreign aid policy and the administration of foreign aid."

When we were confronted with witnesses from the State Department, witnesses from the Pentagon, and witnesses from AID, with no substantial recommendations for reform of their policy, it was the old "coverup" game on the part of witness after witness. It was necessary to drag out of them by socalled cross-examining, fishing expeditions what they ought to have volunteered, if they had intended to act in good faith with the committee. We were placed in the position of being very suspicious of what they were up to.

The trouble they got into with their foreign aid bill is due to themselves, because if they and the President had sent to Congress a bill that proposed procedural changes and reforms that would have given greater protection to the American taxpayer, they would not have got into the hot water they got into-and they are not out of the bath, either. The spigot is not turned off, for they are going to get scalded even more when they reach the appropriation stage. They are going to get scalded even more when the people get through with them.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oregon yield with the understanding that he will not lose the

floor?

Mr. MORSE. I yield with that understanding.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment which, if adopted, would allow the granting of favored nation rights to the Yugoslav Government for a period of 2 years. During those 2 years, observations would be made to determine whether the Yugoslav Communist Government is willing to make any efforts to settle the claims of United States ci sizens for prop

The amendment is simple. Favored nation rights would be extended to the Yugoslav Government for 2 years. With.in that time, it would be expected that the Yugoslav Government would show a purpose to settle claims of American citizens for pensions taken away, properties confiscated, and other valuable rights denied.

I commend the Senator from Oregon for his great fight in this matter. I have not agreed with him on all issues, but his fight has been productive.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received and will lie on the table.

not effectively utilized.

Mr. President, it is a daily experience for a lawyer to invite a client to his office, after a previous interview, and to say to the client, "You know, John, I went into your case, and I found a good many things about it that you did not tell me about when we first conferred about your case."

so we can show, down the list.

I close by saying that I am glad we have a Comptroller General who is such an able watchdog; and I am glad he has the courage to point out the deficiencies and waste in our foreign aid programs.

I am only sorry that this year the President sent the Congress a foreign aid bill which failed to contain reform proce

As we read these reports, we find that that is about the experience the Comptroller General seems to have had. When he catches them, they confess it, and then they assure him that they will do something about it. The apologists try

Mr. President, before I turn to the next letter from the Comptroller General, there are some amusing things in these reports. We do not want to laugh at tragedy; but the reports contain items both amusing and tragic. One of the reports shows that AID ought to have in it an agricultural adviser; or, at least, it ought to advise with the Department of Agriculture.

The AID administration sent a large number of hay balers, costing better than $2,000 apiece, to a desert country. The Comptroller General found them there 2 or 3 years later, ruined by rust, never used, because there was no hay to cut. Imagine that. It will be pretty hard for anyone to justify that action on any grounds. But it is not a singular example.

The sad part is that we have rammed down the economy of country after country hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment for which they have no use at all. That is why such practices ought to be ended, as my amendment proposed to do, at the end of fiscal 1965. A fresh start should be made, with a clean slate. I would write at the top of that slate, for everybody connected with AID to read: "Your first duty: Protect the American taxpayer." That should be the new motto of foreign aid: "Your first duty: Protect the American taxpayer." The foreign aid program as now administered does not protect the American taxpayer, but-and I repeat the naughty word at which the press takes some umbrage-it "rooks" him. It is a program to "rook" the American taxpayer.

Here is another letter:

Our reviews disclose that large quantities of equipment delivered to countries X, Y, and Z will become defective largely as a result of maintenance and supply deficiencies.

And that much of the equipment is being rebuilt by the U.S. Army logistical depots in Japan. Why not in the United States? Why not put unemployed American workers to work? But that kind of foreign aid, for the use and benefit of our own country, might be an unpardonable, unforgivable sin.

In one letter, the Comptroller General stated:

Our review disclosed weaknesses in con

trols by United States agencies over military budget support funds, together with deficiencies in the administration of these funds *** and as a consequence funds

Senator MORSE says is true, but they are doing something about it." doing something about it." However, I point out that these are only spot checks, and these reports relate only to the instances in which the Comptroller General has caught them.

I wish to make very clear, for my own protection, that when the Official Reprotection, that when the Official Reporters of Debates of the Senate examporters of Debates of the Senate examine any of these letters, to obtain any of the excerpts I have read from them, inasmuch as the documents are classiinasmuch as the documents are classified, the Official Reporters will stand in the same position as members of the committee staff, and that I shall not stand to be censured for allowing the Official Reporters to make that use of the documents. However, if I am in error as to that, I want the Official Reporters to leave the letters alone, and to rely on their notes.

Mr. President, my point is that when the Comptroller General catches these instances of waste and inefficiency, these countries then post haste, go through the formality of pretending to adopt proceformality of pretending to adopt procedures which in the future will put an end to some of the wasteful and inefficient procedures.

procedures. However, these are only

spot-check findings. What about the many places in the world where the Comptroller General has not made such spot checks? The same old waste of the money of the U.S. taxpayers and the same old inefficiency continue. In the speech which the President made last Friday night in New York City, I did not hear him urge cessation of putting the American money down such sinkholes. The President made an emotional appeal; but unless he supports necessary reforms, his arguments fall of their own weight, for they have no underpinnings.

However, when we even suggest that one or another of these countries does not deserve our aid, Senators bob up all about the Senate Chamber and plead for a continuation of our aid to that country. But they should examine the reIf port of the Comptroller General. they do, they will understand why he says U.S. military aid should be cut.

Here is a report on another one-a dictatorship country which never should have been given any aid by us, in the first place. The bases we have there are not worth that much; no military base in the world is worth enough to cause us to spend the money of the U.S. taxpayers to support fascism. There is a great deal of waste in connection with our program in that country-as is

of the inefficiencies in our foreign aid. I am sorry that the argument on behalf of its continuation is made in these precincts, and is supported by the State Department and by other administration spokesmen who want to give the President more and more unchecked power.

I am also sorry about the argument the President himself engaged in— namely, that, after all, Congress is interfering in foreign policy. Congress cannot interfere in foreign policy; anyone who ever attended a high school civics class should know that. Congress cannot interfere in foreign policy-in the sense that the President and his supporters have been arguing in opposition to those of us who are asking for specific authority, item by item, for the expenditure of our foreign aid funds—so long as Congress carries out its trust and obligation responsibilities under the Constitu

tion.

If the President wants the money, he justify the uses to which he wishes to must send to Congress a bill which will put the money.

We have already made a great mistake

in giving the President as much unchecked power as we have given him in connection with the use of the contin

gency fund. The Senate made a great mistake when, once again, it surrendered its checking power over the President, and gave him some additional unchecked power to spend U.S. taxpayers' money as he sees fit in the case of a country in

which a constitutional government has been overthrown by a military, Fascist junta. The President should be required to obtain formal approval by Congress for any such authority, before the money

can be spent.

NO DISCRETION GIVEN OR ASKED ON AID CUTOFF

WHERE U.S. BUSINESS IS INFRINGED

It is a sad fact that the discretion sought by the President, and given him by Congress, to cut off aid under certain circumstances does not include the giving of our aid where there has been confiscation of the property of an American business firm or unfair treatment of an American business firm. It is a sad fact that we do not hold an elected government in a Latin American country in the same high regard in which we hold the Standard Oil Co. The President has no discretion under existing law, nor under the pending bill, to cut off our aid to a country which confiscates the property of a U.S. business firm or otherwise discriminates against a U.S. business firm. Congress has said in those cases that the President "shall" terminate aid.

The Hickenlooper amendments, which I support, do not allow any presidential discretion in such cases; instead, under those amendments and in such circumstances the President must then cut off

U.S. aid. Powerful American business lobbies were able to have that provision included, and they were entitled to it. But the lobby of the people was whipped in the Senate, in the course of this debate; the people's lobby took a beating, because when it came to protecting the interest of the U.S. taxpayers, the Senate was perfectly willing to vote to give the President unchecked discretionary power. That was a shameful mistake.

Mr. President, we are told that the preservation of constitutionalism in the countries of Latin America and elsewhere in the world must be subject to the exercise of executive discretion.

I am not speaking about an individual President. I am speaking about the Presidency. The best way to lose Latin America is to give to the President of the United States arbitrary discretion. We can judge the future only by the past. An Assistant Secretary of State, Mr. Martin, showed the hand of the present administration in the very unfortunate article which he wrote for publication in the New York Herald Tribune. In that article he indicated very clearly to those who can read that after the storm blows over, this administration will recognize and give aid to military juntas in the Dominican Republic and in Honduras in both of which countries free government was destroyed.

I wish to warn the President of the United States that when he does that and I think the plan is afoot to do it, unless the American people make clear to him that he had better not try-he will pull the diplomatic rug out from under some of our best friends in Latin America. I placed some of their statements in the RECORD earlier this afternoon. He will threaten Bolivia. He will threaten Venezuela. He will threaten Costa Rica. He will threaten one free government after another in Latin America if he does not stop recognizing and giving support to governments overthrown by military Fascist juntas and destroying free democratic governments in those countries.

I say to the American people, "Keep your eyes on the President of the United States, now that the Senate proposes to clothe him with arbitrary discretion in regard to recognizing and supporting governments that overthrow free governments in Latin America."

It is unfortunate that we follow one rule for the protection of American businesses in Latin America, and a different rule for the protection of free governments in Latin America. I wish we would have the same rules for both. I want the Kennecott Copper Co. in Chile protected. We laid the foundation in our colloquy with the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER] yesterday afternoon for protecting them. The President has no discretion in that situation. The President could do nothing to set aside the Hickenlooper amendment in regard to the protection of American businesses in Latin America, or anywhere else in the world. But in the case of Fascist juntas, we give him discretion. We can set aside the rights of freedom in Latin America in those countries where a Fascist junta has over

thrown the government of a free people. What a paradox. What irony. What inexcusable inconsistency. We are not through with it. The Senate has worked its will this afternoon. It has the right to work its will.

But I tell Senators that I am sure the American people will work their will, and their will will be against the majority of the Senate. Of that I am certain, for the American people have no intention of turning their rights over to the exercise of arbitrary discretion on the part of any President, present or future, for the Office of the Presidency should never be so clothed. We are moving a long way from the system of constitutional representative Government that our forefathers set up when the Republic was born.

These basic abstract principles of freedom put into application determine whether or not we are to remain free men and women. No crisis, no claim of emergency, can justify giving to any President at any time, under any circumstances, the kind of unchecked discretionary power that a majority of the Senate gave to the President of the United States this afternoon. The American people must take note of it. They must work their will in opposition to such a trend in the American Government. I am only pleading that we limit the President in connection with the aiding of Fascist juntas in Latin America as we limit the President in connection with what he can do in respect to Standard Oil, Texaco, Kennecott Copper, and any other American corporation in Latin America. The President has no discretion under the Hickenlooper amendments, of which I am proud to be one of the most ardent supporters, when it comes to foreign aid in connection with those countries. Foreign aid stops, and the President can do nothing about it. But the Senate has one rule for Texaco, Standard Oil, Kennecott, and the rest of the American businesses in Latin America, and a different rule for the people who have elected a constitutional democratic government in a Latin American country which has been overthrown by a fascist military junta.

We let the President continue, at his discretion, to pour millions of American taxpayer dollars into a government which has murdered constitutional government.

I have seen ironies and have witnessed inconsistencies for 19 years in the Senate, but that one takes the cake. That is about the worst. Not even the President asked for it. Our President was perfectly willing to accept a check, for the language I offered came from downtown. The State Department was perfectly willing to take the check. I would have made it a stronger check. I would have made it an affirmative action by the Congress rather than an opportunity for a negative action. But at least I would have had a check under the administration's own language.

What is good enough for Standard Oil, Kennecott, Texaco, and any other American concern in Latin America, so far as I am concerned, is good enough for the people in countries that are willing to stand on the side of freedom and engage in democratic processes in the elec

tion of a constitutional government. When overthrown, they have a right to turn to the great democracy to the north and count on it not to aid the Fascist forces that overthrew their constitutionalism.

Mr. President, we have not heard the end of the issue. The issue will arise across the country in the months ahead, unless the administration makes perfectly clear that it has no intention of exercising such discretion.

What a sad message to go out to the world that we in Congress do not have as much determination to refuse aid to illegal governments and aggressor governments as we have to refuse aid to countries that discriminate against American business in Latin America. Until we do, our foreign aid will be a mockery. Until we do something about the foot-high pile of adverse reports from the Comptroller General of the United States, showing the waste of many millions of dollars in the administration of foreign aid, we cannot justify the bill that the Senate is about to vote upon. I hope that it will be voted on tonight.

I shall vote against it. I shall forever be proud that my descendants will never read that while I was in the Senate I voted for such a bill as will be brought to a final vote, I hope, tonight.

I have offered my second to last amendment. I hope the Senate will vote for it. It gives Senators an opportunity to bring to an end the present type of foreign aid at the end of fiscal year 1965. We can wipe the slate clean and start over, with a new foreign aid bill limited to 50 countries, under application requirements meeting terms and conditions that we lay down. The terms and conditions will be fair and equitable for countries to meet, in order to receive many millions of dollars from the American taxpayer.

I say to the majority leader that I am going to urge, and do all I can to obtain, a yea-and-nay vote on my amendment.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, in view of the unusual situation, I ask unanimous consent that there be a yea-andnay vote.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Montana yield to me before the yeas and nays are ordered? I should like to ask the Senator from Oregon if he will modify his amendment.

Mr. MANSFIELD. If the Senator from Iowa will allow me, in the position I hold, to make a unanimous-consent request, which is an unusual one, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be ordered on the Morse amendment.

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

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I desire to make sure that the modification on the Morse amendment will not require a further unanimous-consent request from the Senator from Montana.

I merely wish to ask the Senator from Oregon if he is willing to take out that portion of his amendment to which I have already referred.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unanimous consent is necessary to modify the amendment.