wheat and grain is that those are the only products on which the Export-Import Bank has agreed to extend credit.

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Tomorrow it may extend credit for the purchase of fertilizer or machinery.

Mr. MUNDT. If so I will resist it. As of this time, grain is the only product involved.

- Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Dakota yield to me?

Mr. CARLSON. I agree with the Senator from North Dakota. This amendment applies only to grain. Why not cotton? Why not tobacco? Why not jet airplanes? Let us make it across the board, and I shall support it. I do not see why we should pick out grain alone.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Dakota yield?

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I yield to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. AIKEN. I would like to repeat what I said before. The President said if this deal works out he intends to extend the same principle to other products. This amendment does not apply to fruits and vegetables produced in Florida. It does not apply to machinery produced in Connecticut. It does not apply to minerals produced in the Rocky Mountain States. It does not apply to a darn thing except grains and its products.

If the Senator from South Dakota will include any other material, mineral, or commodity, and provide that it includes all exports to Communist states, I shall be glad to support the amendment; but I will not support any amendment which is aimed directly at the Midwest grain producers, flour millers, and no one else. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Dakota yield?

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I say to the Senator from South Dakota, the Senator from Florida, the Senator from Minnesota, and the Senator from North Dakota, we are going to consider on Monday next, in the Appropriations Committee, the Export-Import Bank appropriation. The matter that the Senator from South Dakota has brought up is a proper matter for consideration during the hearing on the Export-Import Bank appropriation. We can provide limitations as to what the Bank can or cannot do with the money. I think the matter should be discussed fully when we consider the Export-Import Bank appropriation, but not at this time.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Dakota yield?

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I yield to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. MANSFIELD. We are getting down to practicalities, and not emotions. Wheat is singled out. There is no question that this proposal is aimed at the wheat deal now being negotiated between this country and the Soviet Union.

age. They talk about the prices maintained by subsidies to the wheat growers, $2 a bushel this year, with the prospect next year of $1.15 to $1.25 a bushel.

should

In this amendment the farmer is singled out again. Someone speak for the farmer. Like the Senator speak for the farmer. Like the Senator from North Dakota, the Senator from Kansas, and other Senators, I come from a wheat State. I know what the farmers are up against. This is one way to reduce, not on an aid basis, but on a trade basis, the surpluses in wheat. This is one way to be paid, in gold, and in dollars, on a wheat transaction amounting to something on the order of $250 million for something on the order of 4 lion for something on the order of 4 million metric tons of wheat.

People talk about our European allies. West Germany has been mentioned. West Germany, which finds fault with us because we are considering an agreement of this kind, has had a trade with the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries and with Communist China in the neighborhood of $4 billion last year. This country has had no trade with China; but with the Eastern-bloc countries and with the Soviet Union our total trade amounted, if I recall correctly, to less than $500 million.

If the wheat is not sold by us directly, it will be bought by the Germans, as they have bought it before, and also by the French, the Italians, and other countries. There it will be milled into flour, and the flour will find its way into the satellites and the Soviet Union, as has been the case in the past, and will continue to be. What are we to do? We can either enter into an honest trade agreement or be hypocrites and work through middlemen. The answer is up

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

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I yield. Mr. JAVITS. I wish to join the Senator from North Dakota in voting against the amendment, even though we in New York raise no wheat to speak of, but for the reason which has been mentioned by the majority leader.

A great nation neither bluffs nor vacil

lates in the wind like a weather vane.

By national consensus we have agreed to make the wheat deal. The terms for it have been discussed on normal commercial terms. The Export-Import Bank would act as any other bank would act, as a lender, and would not extend credit unless it thought it was a good loan.

Mr. President, we will make ourselves ridiculous if by this backhanded, backdoor way we kill the deal. It would be

much better to face the situation frontally and ask the President of the United States, as a national decision, not to go into it. However, to kill it in this fashion would be demeaning to the United States.

We will not pull down communism by selling them or not selling them this wheat, or pull down communism by commercial trade or lack of commercial trade. Many more monumental things must be done for that. We would confuse our Western Allies by following a policy that others have not pursued, and we would deprive our people of some markets with them. In the interest of our national dignity and standing as a great state, let us deal with this problem frontally, not in this backhanded way.

Mr. BURDICK. Mr. President, I agree with what my colleague from North Dakota has said, and I desire to associate myself with his remarks.

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I think there is considerable merit to the argument of the Senator from South Dakota, but I do not believe it should be brought up in connection with the pending bill. I do not believe grain should be singled out. The bill before us has been "loused up" enough during the past month. I intend to vote against it in its present form. I think we have done enough harm to it already.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, first of all, I believe we are arguing about a nonexistent issue. The Export-Import Bank just never has proposed extending credit to the Communist bloc for any other previous purpose than the present grain sales. However, if it will make my colleagues in the Senate happier to have all products included, instead of only wheat and grain, I would have no objection to doing so. I certainly am desirous of closing the credit door to Communists for all purposes insofar as American public credit is concerned.

I point out that I included grain because that is the only type of transaction for which the Export-Import Bank has ever agreed to provide credit to the Russians or to Hungary's Communist dictatorship in the lifetime of the Bank. The Bank has steadfastly refused to do so in the past. It has very commendably refused to do it. It was never contemplated in the wheat deal that such a transaction should be had. I am trying to get the wheat deal back to where it was or where our people thought it was, namely, a sale for gold, a sale for cash. We can still hear the ringing words that will make this wheat deal to improve our were spoken from high places that we balance of payments to help our dwindling American supply of gold. We do

not improve our balance of payments by having the taxpayers of this country underwrite the credits that the Communists are seeking to purchase the supplies they need in order to continue to threaten our peace and the people of the free world.

I ask unanimous consent, if it will help

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I object.
Mr. CLARK. I object.

So the motion to table was rejected. Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I move that the vote by which the motion to lay the amendment on the table was rejected be reconsidered.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider was agreed to.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, in order that the Senate may now work its will on the question of whether it wishes to have this amendment include all productsbecause three Senators indicated that they would not vote for my amendment if it included only grain, but that they would vote for it if it included all products; and certainly the only reason why all products were not included in the amendment originally was that the Export-Import Bank has not heretofore extended credit to permit the sale and shipment of any other product to these Communist countries-I now restate my amendment as follows: In line 8, after the words "purchase of", strike out the words "grain or" and in the same line, after the word "product", strike out the word "thereof". As thus amended, my amendment to the committee amendment then would read, beginning at the end of line 7: "in connection with the purchase of any product by such country, agency, or national."

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

this

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, amendment as now proposed to be amended will then be fair to all products. Certainly we do not want the amendment to be known only as an antigrain amendment. Therefore, I ask the Senator from South Dakota if it is correct to state that as he now proposes to amend his amendment, it would apply to all manufactured and semimanufactured items, all raw materials, and all farm commodities and their products.

Mr. MUNDT. It will, if the ExportImport Bank or any other Government agency proposes to extend or guarantee credit to the Communists in that connection.

Mr. AIKEN. I ask this question for the reason that the President has said he

wishes to have all commodities shipped.

Mr. MUNDT. Yes; and I point out that my purpose in offering this amendment to my amendment is to enable the Senate to decide by its solemn vote whether it wishes to open up the program-for the first time-so that under the program, aid will be given by the United States to Communist countries so they can engage in foreign trade with our American credit underwriting their obligations and guaranteeing that they will pay their debts.

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

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I disagree most strongly with the statement of the Senator from South Dakota that this will open up a program of aid to Communist countries. I would say that, instead, this is opening up a channel of trade, which up to this time has been taken over-to a large extent with American goods manufactured in the United States-by our Western European allies. I have already told the Senate that Germany alone in trade with Eastern Europe, with the Soviet Union, and with the so-called People's Republic of China, last year had trade which exceeded $5 billion, while the trade of the United States with the eastern satellite states and the Soviet Union amounted to approximately $300 million.

If this amendment to the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota is adopted, we can anticipate an extension of what has been going on for years, by means of which American manufacturers means of which American manufacturers and producers of agricultural commodities have sold their products to our friends and our allies in Western Europe, friends and our allies in Western Europe, who make very little in the way of contributions to the aid program; and these products will in many instances proceed from this country, by means of a middleman process and at a profit, and will find their way into the satellite states, into the Soviet Union, and into Communist China.

So Senators had better face the facts of the situation and realize what they will be doing if they vote in favor of this amendment to the Mundt amendment. This amendment to the Mundt amend

ment does not deal with aid; it deals with trade.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield to me?

Mr. MUNDT. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. Neither do I agree categorically with the statement of the Senator from South Dakota as to what the amendment would mean. I think his amendment runs to the question of whether public credit shall be used to support this private trade. This has been announced as the approval of private trade and the issuance of the proper or required export licenses.

I have already stated for the RECORD that I have gone to considerable effort to try to explain this matter in a way that would be acceptable to my own people back home. But instead of providing for purely private trade, I point out that this is something by which we would engage in trade and would make available to it Federal Government credit which belongs to all the people of the United States. That is the problem that bothers me, and that is why I believe the Senator's amendment is meritorious.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I wonder whether we may have the yeas and nays ordered on the question of agreeing to this amendment to my amendment.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, let me ask whether the Senator from South Dakota intends to yield the floor. I ask this question because we intend to discuss this amendment, and it is obvious that the vote on this amendment will not come at a very early hour.

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

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I wish to have the pending amendment to this amendment stated.

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

Mr. MUNDT. I yield.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I am not too happy with this amendment to the Mundt amendment; but make this brief observation: The matter of this proposed sale of wheat was presented to us as being a sale of excess wheat for gold. But now that has been changed. The proposed arrangement calls for a 25-percent gold downpayment, and then the rest on credit. But not private credit; instead, it would be public credit, Government guarantee.

I respectfully take issue with the leadership when it says this would be a normal business transaction, typical of the way business transactions are normally carried out.

Regardless of what the Germans or any other country does, that has nothing to do with whether or not this is the deal we were told it would be. Not one American industrialist or banker but what would prefer to have a Government guarantee of any deal, at any time. But a Government guarantee is not part of an ordinary private business transaction. Instead, it is an extraordinary arrange

ment; and in any case it is different from what we were told the deal would be.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I could not agree more completely with the Senator from Missouri. All of us should keep in mind, and the country should keep in mind, the point, that by adding this amendment to my amendment, we shall not be changing one iota the situation realistically confronting the United States and its taxpayers. We shall merely be setting up a barrier against some future contingency whereby the ExportImport Bank might decide, in violation of its 15-year-old precedent, to extend Government credit to Communist countries for the purchase of our supplies or perhaps even the supplies of others. Both in our program of foreign aid and foreign trade I submit we should not force American taxpayers to finance the capacity of the Communists to threaten our own destruction.

Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. MUNDT. Have the yeas and nays been ordered on the amendment to the amendment?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered. Several Senators addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I did not discuss the merits or demerits of the amendment proposed by the Senator from South Dakota. I do not believe we are here to legislate for industrialists, farmers, or any particular group.

All I am insisting upon is that all the economic groups of this country be treated alike. For that reason I asked for the yeas and nays. I understand they have now been ordered on the amendment which would include in the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota all manufactured items, semimanufactured items, raw materials, and all agricultural commodities and their products.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I know that Senators would like to vote. For many days I have wanted to vote. But, without a doubt, the proposed amendment is the most important amendment that has been offered to the bill. I am rather surprised that Senators who are members of the Committee on Banking and Currency, which committee has jurisdiction over the operations of the Export-Import Bank, are willing to have major policy questions decided on the floor of the Senate at 10 minutes after 10 p.m., after 32 weeks of exhausting debate, discussion, and time-consuming activities in this body. I shall not let the Senate, if I can help it, vote on the issue immediately, because it seems to me that if we needed time to discuss some minor amendments to the aid bill, we need plenty of time to discuss the present situation. We are not talking merely about an amendment to the

aid bill; we are talking about a general policy decision relating to trade that may very well determine the future course of history.

We must live in this world. It is the only one that we have. It is a world that has many troublesome problems. Some people feel that the best way to deal with Communists is to continue to hate them, to continue to despise them, and hope that they will fade away.

Let us make it crystal clear. The Soviet Union will not collapse because it does not get wheat from the United States. I am not at all sure that the wheat deal will go through anyway.

Furthermore, all the President of the United States has done is to say that our Government is willing to issue export licenses to American commercial firms if such commercial firms could make business arrangements with so-called eastern Communist-bloc countries, including the Soviet Union, provided that those firms fulfill certain criteria and conditions. We have not had any deal with Russia, and I am a little tired of having the RECORD appear as though the President of the United States sat down and made a deal with Russia. The only people that have been talking to the Russians are some private American businessmen. They are capable of taking care of themselves in the negotiations with the Russians. All the President has said is that it is the policy of our Government, insofar as the executive branch is concerned, that licenses be issued to commercial firms in the United States to do business with eastern Socialist-Communist-bloc countries in the field of wheat and certain other cereals and feed grains.

Certain companies have come in. One of them has made a business transaction with Hungary. That company has been doing business in Canada through its Canadian subsidiary for years.

The Cargill Co. is not a local firm. It has worldwide connections and subsidiaries. The Cargill Co. applies in the United States for an export license to do business with Hungary because the President of the United States said that it was permissible and legal to make such application, and because the Department of Commerce, under an Executive order, is now willing to accept that application. That application is for an export license, which has been granted, that permits that particular company to seek out some business with customers.

What are we talking about now in connection with the Mundt amendment? We are talking about an insurance program on credits. Every Senator knows that every sale that is made involves credits. It is either 30 days, 60 days, 6 months, or 18 months. The Canadian deal with Communist Chinese involved credits that extended as long as 3 years. Those commitments by the Communist Chinese-Communist China aid-have been paid and are being paid.

In the recent Canadian wheat deal with the Soviet Union in which Canada sold substantial quantities of wheat to Russia, the deal was 25 percent down in cash and the balance in 18 months,

with payments of one-third each 6 months.

What did the Soviet Union do? Instead of taking advantage of the 18 months' credit, they paid 80 percent down in cash because they did not want to pay the interest charges.

I point out, first, that there is no deal with the Russians now. The only application that we have before us is the one to sell a certain amount of feed grains to Hungary.

The Soviet Union has not consummated a single contract. Whether they will or not depends upon what their needs are, what their shipping rates may be, the price, and other conditions.

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

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mention has been made that the deal would be a public trade. Mention has also been made about the use of taxpayers' funds. Would any taxpayers' funds or Government funds be used in the transaction?

Mr. HUMPHREY. No.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Would not the transaction be very similar to that which a purchaser of a house using FHA insurance would pursue?

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is absolutely correct.

Mr. SPARKMAN. In other words, the money would be furnished by a private concern.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The money is furnished through an insurance premium.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Insurance is collected which builds up a reserve.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is correct.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I wish the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK] were present in the Chamber, for he is chairman of the subcommittee that handles questions pertaining to the Export-Import Bank. Is it not true that there is an ample reserve in the hands of the Export-Import Bank to handle the guarantees which it handles all over the world?

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is absolutely correct. The Export-Import Bank now has a balance of $746,700,000 of undivided profits that have been placed in reserve and that did not come from the taxpayers.

Mr. SPARKMAN. That is principally a reserve built up by the collection of insurance for those guarantees.

I should like to ask whether it is not true that a dealer who might desire to handle the sale of grain to any country would go to his bank-it might be in Minneapolis, New York, or St. Louisand he would apply to that bank for a loan. The bank would then go to the Export-Import Bank and apply for insurance. If that insurance were allowed, a premium would be paid in order to support the loan. to support the loan. Is that not the procedure which is followed?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Exactly. It is a business procedure which is not only characteristic of the Export-Import Bank Insurance program, which I shall read into the RECORD, because we have it here from the actual report, but it

is a business procedure that is followed in every single industrial country in the world.

Mr. SPARKMAN. From the time the Export-Import Bank started its operations to the present time its losses have been practically nil, and, so far as insurance is concerned, it has made a profit of several hundred million dollars. Is that not correct?

I am pleased that it now looks as if the final amount to be authorized will be a reduction from last year's figure; we will succeed in cutting back on foreign aid. At most some $3.7 billion will be authorized for 1964, a substantial rollback from the last 3 years.

We have succeeded in curbing the tendency of this program to grow and tendency of this program to grow and grow. But, even with this curb, the foreign aid program will be at eign aid program will be at a level, for fiscal 1964, roughly $1 billion above the expenditures for fiscal 1956, only 8 years

ago.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have said to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, and I say to the majority leader, I believe this is a good debate.

I dislike to say "I", but I submitted a resolution to provide that it was the sense of the Senate that the President give us until February to discuss this question and to look into it.

Why are we here tonight, ad hoc, trying to decide?

Because the President did not give us an opportunity to do it in any other

way.

I believe we should have had the opportunity, because the country is upset about this.

I am sure I am right. But I believe we should hammer this out and discuss it fully.

The Senator from Minnesota has made valuable contributions.

I believe we should work hard on this problem.

I believe it is indeed a most critical and crucial question before us.

I do not believe we should be hurried. I wish we had more time, because I believe we can prove we are right.

If the President had given us more time we could have heard witnesses and weathered this together and I do not say this critically of the President. But I wish he had given us time to refer this to a committee-the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, or the Foreign Relations Committee, or some other committee. Then we would have a committee report, one way or another, for guidance. But we are trying to legislate, ad hoc, and we are not getting very far. I suggest that all we can do now is to intercept a fait accompli at the 11th hour.

I hope the majority leader will put this vote over until tomorrow and give us all some time to think this problem out, to talk about it, and to make our arguments pro and con tonight.

WE ARE NOW CUTTING SOME OF THE FAT OUT OF FOREIGN AID

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, this has been a long debate, its length and heat illustrate that more and more of us in the Senate are determined to cut the fat out of foreign aid so that it can be the effective instrument of foreign policy it was intended to be.

The foreign aid appropriations figures for the years since 1956 make an interesting pattern of growth: Fiscal 1956, $2.7 billion; fiscal 1957, $3.8 billion; fiscal 1958, $2.8 billion; fiscal 1959, $3.4 billion; fiscal 1960, $3.3 billion; fiscal 1961, $4.5 billion; fiscal 1962, $3.9 billion; and fiscal 1963, $3.9 billion.

For years the American public has been waiting for an orderly cutting down of this program, a phasing out of aid to economically prosperous countries. The people's hopes have not been realized; but now we have begun.

The Senate is taking this action from a conviction that only through forcing more prudent foreign aid spending can the waste in this program be stopped. Experience has shown that we cannot buy friends with foreign aid; we must use it more selectively to help genuine friends meet genuine needs.

In the past weeks the Senate has taken action designed to cut off aid to countries whose policies are detrimental to our policies and to world peace. We have added new restrictions in answer to specific situations where our good will has been abused. Now the Senate is writing into law firm declarations that our foreign aid is not going to continue to flow no matter what.

I do not regard these actions as any particular slap at this administration. Instead I regard it as strengthening its position in allocating foreign aid. Without restrictions, it seems our administrators can never find a good reason to deny aid to any country, when a country can point to all the other nations that are on our list. Now we shall set up standards. Let us stop aid to countries preparing for aggression against their neighbors. Let us defer aid to countries unreasonably interfering with our fishing boats on the high seas. Let us stop aid to countries which continually demonstrate their unwillingness to use it wisely, and of course let us continue to tighten up our policy of no aid to Communist-dominated countries.

As nearly as anyone can determine, there are some 107 countries around the world that are receiving our foreign aid. We should cut this list by half at least. Such a move would show more clearly that no country has any right to U.S. foreign aid; that we do it to help truly friendly countries solve critical development problems and resist communism.

Of course, foreign aid has not been a complete waste. It has undoubtedly saved many countries from the threat of communism and will continue to do so in the troubled years ahead. But when a country develops a successful economy,

as the nations of Western Europe, then the aid should stop.

Funds saved this way can be channeled into the spots where help is most urgently needed, as in Central and South America. The Senate is wisely acting to continue our commitments under the Alliance for Progress, to make sure that work continues toward having a friendly, prosperous, stable continent on our southern flank. However, let us make sure that new emphasis is put on the contributions private business can make in showing Latin America how strong economies are developed.

The Senate debate on foreign aid has been a productive one. It will result in less tax dollars being wasted overseas, and in building a more effective foreign aid program. Many of us have been working for years to cut down foreign aid in hope of forcing more prudent choices in its administration; this year we have some measure of success. Since we have that measure of success, I shall vote for this measure.

ALLIANCE FOR PROGRESS

Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, there is a small child in our midst who has received some cruel and inhuman treatment. Just 2 years old, she has, in turn, been ignored, thrashed or abandoned by some of my colleagues.

The child of whom I speak is the Alliance for Progress and I want to take this opportunity to express briefly my support and my concern. My theme in substance is this: We should expect no more or no less from the Alliance than we should from a 2-year-old child.

The concept of lending a helping hand to developing nations of Latin America is a noble one and the birth of the Alliance at Punta del Este in 1961 brought with it an aura of good feeling and confidence in the future. Latin American nations agreed that they must help themselves to move ahead toward political independence, economic growth and social justice.

In the first 2 years we have seen disappointments and there are some justifications for discouragement. Imperfections in our system of distributing aid and reluctance on the part of some neighbors to initiate reforms have impeded the progress of the Alliance. Recent developments in Argentina and Brazil have hardly brought comfort or reassurance.

But there have been some remarkable strides forward. The child is two now and, while there is plenty of mischief, she is beginning to learn to walk and talk. Reforms are slow in coming, but they are arriving at a rapidly increased rate. Progress in health and education is quite noticeable.

Problems in taxation, landholdings and private investment are being resolved slowly but surely. Considering the diverse nature of our 19 neighbors to the south, their people, economies, languages, government, and terrain-the wide gulf which separates levels of development in each country, I am convinced that the Alliance is not retarded, as some claim, but quite precocious.

One grave error in our thinking is the belief by some that the Alliance is ours