consider the amendment, other than this afternoon, after he mentioned it.

Mr. MILLER. I thank the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for his comments and for his gracious consent to take the amendment to conference.

The Committee on Foreign Relations had no opportunity to consider this problem, because it has been only in the past few days that the proposed budget of the Food and Agriculture Organization for the next biennium has been published. It was not until that happened that the problem of what to do about the dollar limitation was presented. That is the purpose of my amendment. I trust there will be no difficulty with the amendment in conference.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. INOUYE in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Iowa to the committee amendment, as amended, in the nature of a substitute.

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I offer one last amendment and ask that it be read.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. amendment will be stated.

The

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 48, line 3, it is proposed to strike out the word "located."

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, if Senators will turn to page 48 of the bill, I shall discuss the purpose of the amendment.

It will be recalled that the purpose of subsection (j), on page 47 of the committee amendment, as amended, was to prevent the giving of our aid for projects owned or controlled by the national governments of the recipient nations in cases in which such goods or services could be provided by private businesses. I understand that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE] had a great deal to do with the inclusion of this provision in the committee amendment.

However, at this time the committee amendment, as amended, provides, on pages 47 and 48 that such assistance shall not be furnished "except where it clearly appears that goods or services of the same general class are not or cannot be adequately provided by private businesses located within such country or area."

I suggest that the word "located," as used at that point in the committee amendment, would improperly tie the hands of the administrator of the program, because it would literally mean that such business must be located there at that time. But if the word "located" were deleted, the committee amendment would allow the administrator to have the discretion of deciding whether such a business is operating in that country or whether such a business may within a reasonable time come into being there and provide such goods or services. am sure that was the intention of the drafters of this provision, including the Senator from Ohio.

I

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, the provision of the committee amendment to which the amendment of the Senator from Iowa relates had its origin in the provision of our aid for the establishment of a steel plant in India. It was

the purpose of our Government to make a loan for the establishment of a governmentally owned steel plant in that country at a time when privately owned enterprise was operating at below capacity in the production of steel. My amendment provided that no assistance shall be granted by the U.S. Government to a recipient country for the purpose of establishing a socialistically operated industry to compete with private industry in that country.

I say, with the greatest emphasis, that I have an implicit and unyielding belief in the correctness of the principle that we are making a grievous mistake by lending and granting money to establish socialistically operated industries within the boundaries of the countries we benefit.

After the argument in the Foreign Relations Committee, I accepted a modification of my proposal. It was argued that if private industry there is not doing an adequate job, we should not deny the beneficiaries of our bounty the opportunity to establish a socialistic government operated enterprise; and when I use that word, I drop my voice, to indicate how I feel.

The Senator from Iowa has proposed the elimination from this provision of the word "located." His argument is that he wishes to make sure that private

industry now located there or willing to locate there in the near future will have an opportunity to provide goods or services when requested to do so by a socialistically operated government.

The amendment of the Senator from Iowa to this portion of the committee amendment-in other words, to my amendment, which is incorporated at this point in the committee amendment-should be accepted, because it covers not only the present situation, but also a situation in which an industry is willing to establish itself in the immediate future. Thus, it seems to me there is no controversy over this question.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I have discussed this subject with the Senator from Iowa. I do not believe the proposed amendment would make any substantial difference, as compared with the provision now contained in the committee amendment, as amended. But inasmuch as the author of this part of the committee amendment sees no reason to object to the amendment, I shall not object to it.

However, I wish to make very clear that I do not interpret the provision as thus amended, and I do not think it can reasonably be interpreted to mean that any prospective business which might in the unknown or unlimited future supply such goods or services could be considered as meeting this requirement of the committee amendment, as thus amended. Under this amendment, I think such businesses would be limited to those which would be proposing to supply such goods or services at the time when the consideration was being given.

However, I do not believe the amendment would make any difference; and, for that reason, I am willing to accept it.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I wish to make clear that in connection with this amendment to the committee amend

ment there is no purpose to permit an administrator to look far into the future to find a private business which might some day provide such goods or services. The purpose of the amendment is as follows: If there is a reasonable assurance that a private business will within a reasonable time provide such goods or services, the Administrator may then provide assistance.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. INOUYE). Does the Senator from Iowa yield to the Senator from Connecticut. Mr. MILLER. I yield.

Mr. DODD. I assume that we are trying to legislate for present purposes and present businesses; is that correct?

Mr. MILLER. We are trying to do so; we are trying to legislate for the immediately foreseeable purposes. So I would not want this amendment to be regarded as throwing open the administration of this provision to the use of unreasonable discretion in terms of the future.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Iowa to the committee amendment, as amended.

The amendment to the committee amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, to the committee amendment, as amended, I offer an amendment which I send to the desk and ask to have stated. I offer the

amendment for myself, the Senators

from New York [Mr. KEATING and Mr. JAVITS] and the Senator from Colorado [Mr. ALLOTT].

The PRESIDING

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

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. In the com

mittee amendment, as amended, on page 39, between lines 17 and 18, it is proposed to insert the following:

TITLE VII-EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS SEC. 107. Chapter 2 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, is further amended by adding at the end thereof a new title as follows:

"TITLE VII-EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS

"SEC. 261. The President shall appoint such committees as may be necessary which, except as provided in Sec. 262, shall be composed of either three or five members, a majority of whom shall be representatives of the public, to review and evaluate the eco

nomic development program of each coun

try receiving economic aid under this Act, and to report to the President and to the Congress their findings with respect to the following

"(1) whether the recipient country (a) has a practical development program which affords a reasonable expectation that the ob

jectives of such program will be attained, taking into consideration the human and natural resources and fiscal capabilities of the country, (b) is providing the maximum

amount of self-help within its capabilities, and (c) has adopted the fiscal, administrative, and social reforms necessary to the success of such program:

"(2) whether the specific projects to which United States aid is allocated will contribute materially to the fulfillment of the primary needs of the recipient country's development, and to the purpose of the United States to assist in strengthening moratic processes, the economy of the

country, and in raising the standards of ing of the people of that country; and

"(3) such other matters as in their opinion will be useful to the Congress in its consideration of legislation authorizing or appropriating funds for financing foreign aid programs for fiscal year 1965 and subsequent fiscal years.

"SEC. 262. Committees referred to in section 261 shall be appointed first to review the economic development programs of those countries receiving the largest amount of assistance and which in fiscal year 1963 collectively received one-half of the total assistance extended by the United States under its foreign assistance programs. In addition to the foregoing committees, a committee of such size as the President may find necessary, a majority of whose members shall be representatives of the public, shall be appointed to review the economic development programs of those countries included in the Alliance for Progress program in accordance with the criteria set forth in section 261, and evaluate the progress of the Alliance. All committees referred to in this section shall report their findings not later than January 1, 1965; reports of committees for other countries shall be made not later than June 1, 1965.

"SEC. 263. Legislation authorizing or appropriating funds for carrying out economic development programs for fiscal years after the fiscal year 1965 shall not be enacted until the Congress has received and considered the reports referred to in this title for the countries referred to in section 262.

"SEC. 264. Members of committees referred to in section 261, who are not otherwise employed by the Government, shall receive compensation at rates to be fixed by the President without regard to the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, and shall be entitled to reimbursement in accordance with section 5 of the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946 for travel and other expenses incurred in carrying out their functions. The compensation and expenses of members of a committee appointed to review economic development programs of any country may be paid out of any funds available for use in carrying out such programs in such country."

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the names of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. MILLER], the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS], the

Senator from Hawaii [Mr. FONG], the Senator from California [Mr. KUCHEL], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. CASE], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MORTON], the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. LONG], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

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

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, the amendment I offer is not a hastily conceived amendment. Last year I offered an amendment, similar in its substance, though not as detailed as this amendment, to the foreign aid bill. It was accepted by the acting chairman of the committee, the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN], but it was not retained

in the House-Senate conference.

Earlier this year I submitted Senate Concurrent Resolution 34 for myself, the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. CASE], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. FONG], the Senators from New York [Mr. JAVITS and Mr. KEATING], the Senator from Cali

Missouri [Mr. LONG], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. MILLER], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MORTON], the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], which embodied the substance of the amendment which I have offered this evening.

Later, on October 22, I offered an amendment to the pending bill, H.R. 7885, I spoke on the subject in the Senate on March 21 and March 28. I also testified before the Foreign Relations Committee in support of the amendment, which I have now called up for action.

The essential purpose of the amendment is to extend the work of the Clay Committee, which has had such a profound effect. As we all know, the Clay Committee evaluated the Foreign Aid program in its totality. My amendment would require an evaluation of our foreign economic aid program in each country which is a recipient of our foreign aid.

The amendment proposes the means by which the evaluation will be made. The President would be directed to appoint small committees of three or five members, a majority of whom shall be representatives of the public. If there were a committee of three, the President might appoint a member from the State Department, or whatever aid agency is in charge of the program, and two members of the public. If there were five, at least three members from the public must be included.

The amendment makes an exception with respect to the evaluation of the program of the Alliance for Progress, and the countries which are included in the Alliance. The President would determine

the size of the committee which would be appointed for the evaluation of the countries included in the Alliance for five members, but the majority of memProgress, as it might require more than bers must be representatives of the pubbers must be representatives of the public.

My reason for offering the amendment is that, frankly, I do not believe the Contion upon which to make a proper evalugress or the public has enough informaation of the foreign aid program; to determine whether it should be continued in its totality or abandoned; whether to continue the program with respect to certain specific countries; or, and I believe most important, what can be done to strengthen the program and make it more effective.

I have not heard all of the debate on the bill because I was unavoidably away part of the time, but I must say that I believe it has been one of the best debates on the foreign aid program that we have had in several years. I pay my tribute to the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE], the chairman of the committee [Mr. FULBRIGHT], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], and the other members of the Foreign Relations Committee, who have given us a great deal of information.

I have been interested in the foreign aid program for many years. As Senators know, I have supported it. I believe it to be a program in our own self-inter

est, and one which is helpful to countries struggling to advance. But in recent years I have voted to reduce appropriations, chiefly upon amendments offered by the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], because, although a supporter of the program, I did not believe that the program was as effective as it should be, either in its assistance to other countries or to the achievement of our own good purposes.

I do not see how we can determine the effectiveness of the program in each country we aid unless an objective, independent examination is made by such a committee as I propose. I contemplate the President would appoint such able men as were included in the Clay Committee. I am honored to name them: Lucius D. Clay, Robert B. Anderson, Eugene R. Black, Clifford Hardin, Robert A. Lovett, Edward S. Mason, L. F. McCullom, Herman Phleger, Howard A. Rusk, and George Meany.

I have read many times the reports of the Foreign Relations Committee, and the reports made by our foreign aid agencies. It is extremely difficult to find in these reports information about the effectiveness and the progress of the program in any specific country. I know that the General Accounting Office makes reports upon the program in specific countries. It is difficult for us to obtain that information. And, it is more probable that the reports point out the defects of the program-as is the duty of the GAO-rather than the good that may be done.

The criteria to be followed in the evaluation, which I and my cosponsors have written into the amendment, essentially follow the recommendations of the Clay Committee. These criteria would be directed toward the specific countries. The committee would determine, first, whether the country to which we advance funds has a practical development program which offers a reasonable expectation of attainment; second, whether it is providing the maximum amount of self-help; and, third, if it has adopted fiscal and social reforms necessary to the success of the program.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. will the Senator yield? Mr. COOPER. I yield.

Mr.

President,

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Is not the Senator's amendment different from the previous proposal in that the amendment would not require a separate committee for each country?

Mr. COOPER. I never contemplated that there would be a separate committee for each country. I contemplated that an examination of the program would be made in each country. My amendment states

The President shall appoint such committees as may be necessary.

One committee might evaluate the program in six or seven countries. Ten committees might be able to do the entire job. In response to the chairman's question, the purpose is the same, but I believe the language in the pending amendment is better.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. The amendment would leave the discretion in the President as to how many committees he would appoint.

Mr. COOPER. Yes, the Senator is correct. Returning to the criteria, the committees would be also required to make an evaluation of the projects to which our aid is allocated, to determine if they contribute effectively to the primary needs of the country's development and at the same time serve our purpose of assisting in strengthening the sovereignty and democratic processes, the economy, and in raising the standards of living of the people of the country.

I drew from my short experience as Ambassador to India. Valuable and effective as our program in India was, a part of our aid was channeled off into secondary projects which, while of importance, were not of essential importance to development of the country.

The question, may be raised whether the examinations would be superficial. My answer is, that if the President appoints committees with members of the type who served on the Clay Committee and I have confidence that he would do so the examinations will not be superficial.

Second, objection may be made concerning its cost. If it should cost $100,000 or $500,000, and I do not believe it would, this amendment would undoubtedly save millions of dollars. And, most important if it helped develop a program which meets the purposes of our country and the needs of the other countries, it would be worth much to the advancement of many countries throughout the world, to our security, and our best purposes in providing aid. The amendment also provides that the cost can be paid from the aid allocated to countries whose programs are evaluated.

I have argued this before several times in the Senate, and also before the Foreign Relations Committee. I intend to ask for a record vote upon the amendment because the debate of the last 3 weeks has shown several things. It has shown, first, that the Congress does not intend to abandon the foreign aid program. But the debate has also shown that Congress distrusts the foreign aid program. And, in my judgment, the debate shows that Members of the Senate, with the exception of the members of the Foreign Relations Committee-and others who have special responsibilities such as the Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING]-do not have the information upon which to make a rational judgment as to whether the aid program should be discontinued, or whether it should be continued, or how it could be strengthened. I believe it is in our interest to continue a foreign aid program of reasonable proportions, within our capabilities, if it can be truly effective. But it will not be effective, and it will not be continued, unless the Congress and the country can secure the information which I believe the amendment we offer will provide.

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

Mr. COOPER. Iyield.

Mr. PASTORE. I should like to compliment the Senator from Kentucky on his constructive suggestion. I believe one of the distressing and confusing experiences which we have had during the

As I have sat here hour after hour, I have been impressed with some of the criticisms made of some of these programs. Then those criticisms were refuted by the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Inasmuch as he is so well versed in international relationships, I have been inclined to follow him each time I voted. But, the fact remains that we are in no position to know precisely what the situation is in any one of these countries.

I believe the right approach is the approach suggested by the Senator from Kentucky, to leave it to the administration to choose a committee of interested, impartial, public-spirited people who will make a survey of these countries to determine the merits of the program and to report. I believe that is one way we can find out what the facts are.

Mr. COOPER. I thank the Senator very much. The amendment provides, further, that the reports shall be made not later than January 1, 1965, andthis is very important that in the absence of such reports, authorizations and appropriations for foreign aid for the fiscal years following 1965 shall not be made. This section provides teeth for the amendment.

I offer this amendment as a strong supporter of foreign aid throughout my service in the Congress, but with the conviction-which I have expressed for several years-that it must be made effective and within our means.

I thank my colleagues who have joined in this amendment and given it strong support.

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

Mr. COOPER. I yield.

Mr. JAVITS. I am honored to join with the Senator from Kentucky in his amendment. I believe it is constructive and can only help what should be the fundamental objectives of our Nation in respect to these programs.

I should like to testify to the Senator's sense of reasonableness and responsibility in changing section 263 of his amendment so that the prohibition would apply after the fiscal year 1965.

Mr. COOPER. I thank my colleague for his help. I thank also my colleague, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], who has given such strong support in cosponsorship of the amendment.

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

Mr. COOPER. I yield.

Mr. MORSE. On this point of legislative history, I believe we should make it clear that the Senator is not proposing a large number of committees. A large number of committees would defeat the purpose of his amendment. We must have a small number of committees to deal with this matter on a regional basis, since each area has common problems. For example, there could be a committee for NATO, a committee for a large section of Africa, a committee for the Middle East, a committee for Latin America, a committee for the Caribbean and a committee for Southeast Asia. I do not believe there should be more than seven or

are 50 or 60 committees, not only would the cost be inexclusable but also, I believe, that would defeat its purpose.

Mr. COOPER. The Senator from Oregon has interpreted my view correctly. I believe that 8 or 10 committees could do the job.

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

Mr. COOPER. I yield.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. With regard to section 263 of the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, do I understand correctly that in Latin American and other countries the report would not affect the appropriations for fiscal year 1965?

Mr. COOPER. That is correct.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. It would affect fiscal year 1966?

Mr. COOPER. After fiscal year 1965. I propose that, because there does not appear to be time enough to make the evaluations before that time.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Regarding section 262, why would the Senator from Kentucky confine the committee's study to countries collectively receiving onehalf of total assistance?

Mr. COOPER. Because I thought it would be more practicable. I understand there are about 15 countries that receive one-half the aid. If those countries which receive half our foreign aid— I understand about 15-were examined and evaluated as the first order of business, the most important part of the work would be done first. The others could follow. Mr. SALTONSTALL. So the reports would come in the next calendar year but would not apply until after fiscal year 1965?

Mr. COOPER. That is correct. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I thank the Senator.

I yield.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. COOPER. Mr. AIKEN. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, let me say that the bill which is now before us, in my opinion, is as good a bill as we could report with the information and the knowledge that we had on hand.

I freely confess that we did not have all the knowledge we should have had, to report a better bill. I believe the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky would be very helpful.

It has been perfectly obvious from the debate which has taken place in both Houses of Congress, and from the lack of communications received from the country-which is in sharp contrast to the urgings to support a foreign aid bill that deluged us in previous years-that the foreign aid program, as we now know it and as it is now being administered, has only another year or two at most to go.

We do not wish to break it off abruptly. When the time comes, if it comes, that unsatisfactory administration results, it is quite evident we are likely to cut it off and leave nothing but possible chaos in our relationships with many countries with whom we should have good relationships. So I believe that the proposal of the Senator from Kentucky is a good proposal, and I shall support it.

Mr. COOPER. I thank the Senator I thank the Senator very much.

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

Mr. COOPER. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd].

Mr. DODD. I am very much in favor of the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky. I wish, however, that he would repose the authority to appoint committees in the Congress. I have grave doubts that any administration will appoint a committee which it believes will work against what it specifically desires.

I believe we would do better-and I say this with the highest respect for the Senator-if, in his amendment, the authority to appoint committees to study these countries were reposed in the Congress. This is an "old saw" of mine. I believe we have been constantly whittling away our constitutional power and responsibility in the legislative branch.

I

I am sure the Senator from Kentucky was not thinking of that, but I wonder if he would not agree that it would be better if Congress appointed the committees.

Mr. COOPER. I understand the suggestion of the Senator from Connecticut. I believe, though, that the responsibility for administering the program should rest with the executive branch. The President did appoint a good committee in the Clay Committee, and I believe future committees will carry out the mandate of the President. I prefer to leave it as it is.

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

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, nothing, in nearly 3 weeks of debate, has more clearly illustrated the kind of bear we have by the tail than this amendment offered by a consistent friend of the foreign aid program. I pointed out a few days ago that when we started the Marshall plan it was to end in 1951-11

years ago.

Last year we appropriated $3,900 million. This year the President asked for $4,900 million, which was twice what we

appropriated at the height of the need in 1949 for the foreign aid program.

Now we have a distinguished Member of the Senate-if he voted for a single cut in this program, I do not recall it saying, "I know there is going to be waste, but I do not know how much."

No Member of Congress knows how much we are going to waste. The General Accounting Office, which checks all the figures, cannot tell us how much we are going to waste.

We are going to spend $4 billion, more or less-and I hope it will be less before we finish with the appropriation bill-in 107 foreign nations. But the Senator wants to set up two or three committees to tell us where the waste is and what to do next time.

In 3 weeks of debate there has not been a more eloquent plea made to cut this program down to size, and then end it. He knows, and we all know, that the taxpayers' money is being wasted. This

amendment admits it and calls on us to set up a committee to check into nearly $4 billion of expenditures all over the world-an impossible task. The entire force of the General Accounting Office could not give us an accounting on expenditures of that size.

I feel very happy over the votes I have cast to cut down this program, and I shall feel still more happy over the vote I shall cast against passage of the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER], for himself and tucky [Mr. COOPER], for himself and other Senators, to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I shall support the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky. I feel obliged to state that the Senator from Kentucky has that the Senator from Kentucky has voted for cuts in the foreign aid program. He voted for the Mansfield-Dirksen amendment, and he voted for other cuts.

There may be reasons for doubting whether this amendment should be adopted, but all it provides is that there be appointed impartial outsiders to make recommendations as to what the program should be. If there is any weakness in the proposal of the Senator from Kentucky, it rests in the field described by the Senator from Connecticut. Instead of the administration appointing the persons who will make the study, the Congress should be given some authority, either to appoint the entire group, or at least to appoint a number of them. Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. LAUSCHE. I yield.

Mr. DODD. I am complimented by the Senator's reference to my suggestion. I do not know why we continue to say, "The executive shall decide, in its discretion." I do not question the intent of any President of the United States, but I do not know why we do not take the responsibility. If we want committees appointed to study these matters, why not appoint them? We are the people's representatives. As between the judicial, the executive, and the legislative branches, primacy resides in the legislative branch. I wish the Senator from

Kentucky had so provided. Nevertheless, I shall support his amendment.

I have offered this amendment in good faith, as one who has supported foreign aid, in an attempt to obtain the information we need to make proper judgments about the value and effectiveness of our foreign aid program in each country we aid.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER], for himself and other Senators, to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. BIBLE], the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GORE], the Senator from Washington from Washington [Mr. JACKSON], the the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUsoN], the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. McGOVERN], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA], the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], the Senator from Oregon [Mrs. NEUBERGER], the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS), the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. WALTERS], and the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS] are absent on official business.

I further announce that the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE] is absent due to illness.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], the the Senator from Nevada [Mr. BIBLE], the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GORE], the Senator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON], the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MCGOVERN], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA], the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], the Senator from Oregon [Mrs. NEUBERGER], the Senator from Florida [Mr.

SMATHERS], the Senator from Mississippi

[Mr. STENNIS], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. WALTERS], and the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS] Would each vote "yea."

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the

I do not see anything wrong with this proposal. I think it has tremendous strength.

Finally, the Senator from Kentucky has voted for cuts. He has not subscribed to all the authorizations requested.

Mr. COOPER. As I said earlier, I have done so for several years, because I believed the program not wholly effective. This year I voted for the Holland amendment and the MansfieldDirksen amendments, reducing the program by nearly $400 million.

and Mr. HRUSKA] are absent on official business.

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MORTON] is necessarily absent.

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

The result was announced-yeas 79, nays 1, as follows:

SEC. 404. Neither the Export-Import Bank

nor any other agency of the Government shall guarantee the payment of any obligation heretofore or hereafter incurred by any Communist country (as defined in section 620 (f) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) or any agency or national thereof, or in any other way participate in the extension of credit to any such country, agency, or national, in connection with the purchase of grain or any product thereof by such country, agency, or national.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, my amendment is comparatively short. It is, however, very significant. If I may have a reasonable degree of attentiveness on the part of Senators, I shall be able to shorten my explanation.

I had not intended to offer any amendment to the bill, even though I am a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations. As Senators know, an eye problem made me unable to attend the final markup of the bill. I did not feel that I should intrude myself belatedly into the discussion by offering an amendment, and would not have done so had it not been for the fact that my attention was called to an article written by Mr. Vincent J. Burke, appearing in the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post on November 5. It appears on page 21573 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of November 12 on which date I made a preliminary discussion of this amendment, what it entails, and why I consider it imperatively necessary.

The article states, in part:

The Federal Government has decided to underwrite all of the credit risks for American banks engaged in financing the sale of $6 million worth of surplus U.S. grain to Communist Hungary. It is expected that similar credit guarantees will be extended to the pending $250 million sale of wheat to

the Soviet Union.

When I read that article, I sought confirmation of it. Therefore, I communicated with the Export-Import Bank and asked whether, in fact, we were now, in 1963, being called upon to approve an entirely new departure in the entire concept of foreign aid and trade, whereby, for the first time, for the Communist bloc, the American taxpayers will be asked to underwrite the credit of Communists for the purchases that they make in America.

I find that that is precisely the case. I have here the material from the Export-Import Bank. I shall not read it all tonight because of the lateness of the hour, but I shall place it in the RECORD. It is in response to eight specific questions I had the clerk of the Committee on Foreign Relations propound to the Export-Import Bank. I shall read this much of the statement, because it is a part of the statement that the distinguished Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT] placed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. It will be found on page 21576 of the RECORD of November 12. I quote: The Export-Import Bank has announced terms which would be extended, if accepted, to any of the deals between American suppliers and Soviet block purchasers of com

modities.

I want Senators to know of this, because either they will subscribe to this policy or they will denounce it when they vote on this amendment tonight. We have voted I believe unanimously for the Cooper amendment, which indicates that after 15 years of foreign aid to the free world, we are a little dubious as to whether we shall continue it beyond fiscal year 1965. We want to take another look at what we are now supplying as aid to 107 foreign countries. However, unless we approve the pending amendment, we shall be supplying aid to 109 foreign countries-107 countries of the free and neutral world, and 2 countries of the Communist bloc-Russia and Hungary. That is in the record. We shall either approve it or disapprove it by our yeaand-nay votes on my amendment.

I continue to read from the statement

made by the Export-Import Bank itself, which you will find in the RECORD of November 12 when I first presented and discussed this amendment.

The Export-Import Bank stresses that there is nothing new in these arrangements— That is, extending credit.

Let me emphasize-if all Senators are not aware of it, their constituents should be-and after tonight they will be that every dime in the Export-Import Bank is American money, contributed by Americans. I am not talking about a world bank; I am not talking about some international development bank; I am talking about a bank financed solely by American taxpayers, which is now beng asked to underwrite credit to Communist Russia and Hungary for 75 percent of the $250 million transaction in wheat and corn. You can be sure if this is done, the Export Bank will later extend vast American credit guarantees to Communist countries for all sorts of other purchases. Fortunately only the wheat and corn sales to the Communists are involved in the present notice of de

parture from established American practice.

If Senators want to approve such a program, they may do so. But certainly after having discovered this information, I felt honor bound to call it to the attention of Senators and to point out where I think such a program will lead, if we allow the credit of America to be used to underwrite Communist credit.

The Export-Import Bank says-and I read it from their own material-that there is no precedent for such a transaction with a Soviet bloc country. So in the year 1963, either they will initiate a precedent and we will approve it by defeating my amendment, or they will not initiate it, and we will approve my amendment and defeat their plan.

At least, we will express the sense of the Senate on this measure, and we should send my amendment to conference, where the conferees can wrestle with the problem, and we will not be guilty of opening up a new type of foreign aid program to Communist bloc countries supported by American credit underwritten by American taxpayers.

To be perfectly fair, I should say that loans have been made by the Export-Import Bank to Yugoslavia. As Senators know, Yugoslavia has many times been considered by this body in a separate category or in a special status. We have made concessions to Yugoslavia which we have never made to the bloody Communist government of Hungary, which at gunpoint put down the effort of Hungarians to become free. We have never made such concessions to Russia. I hope we do not approve such a self-defeating move tonight.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield? Mr. MUNDT. I yield.

Mr. SYMINGTON. As I understand the Senator, he is saying that the U.S. Government proposes to support any possible sale of grain to the Soviets with its own credit.

Mr. MUNDT. That is correct; and to Hungary, too.

Mr. SYMINGTON.

In answer to

criticism from my State about this

transaction, I replied that inasmuch as Canadians were selling wheat for gold to Communist China, to the extent of some $500 million, and inasmuch as the Canadians were also selling wheat for gold to the Russians to the same extent, I felt, in order to help protect our continuing unfavorable balance of payments, that it was only fair this country, through private transactions, especially as we are now banking freedom, and these other economies of the free world are operating under the nuclear umbrella protection of the United States, would allow our Nation to sell for gold, our excess agricultural products.

However, as I understand the able Senator from South Dakota, now the grain would not be sold for gold; in fact the sale would be on terms and would be financed by the U.S. Government through the Export-Import Bank. Is that correct?

Mr. MUNDT. The Senator is absolutely correct, with one modification. The terms provide for a 25 percent payment in cash, and 75 percent as credit.